commissioner fung: yeah. president peterson: so, commissioners, shall we call the roll on this motion in commissioner garcia: i would like to amend that if president peterson would consider that. since this board can't impose a fine, unless i misunderstood, i thought an offer had been made to accept or offer this board a payment of $1,425. i don't know if i misheard that along with the motion by professor -- professor? -- president peterson that she would accept also the imposition, the acceptance of an offer to pay the $1,425 fine. president peterson: in addition to the revocation? >> commissioner garcia: right. i don't think we put a time limit on the revocation. a year? i'm sorry, on the suspension. president peterson: that sounds fine. >> there is a regents case where there was a 60-day suspension. i found the facts were more eegregious. than the regents matter and that's why i went for full revocation. but the fine -- commissioner fung: but commissioners, you are mick -- mixing things up. what was brough

commissionter fung: in answer to that question. vice president goh: you have to come up to the microphone. >> you know, if i'm advised and if i know where to put them, sure. could i also say that by no means did i say i would never replace the sewer, but i would prefer not to and i will if it has to be done. commissioner garcia: i'm glad you're bringing that up. i'm curious about that because if i -- >> if the sewer has to be replaced, i'll replace it. commissioner garcia: if your plumber when he photographed it found root invasion, i don't know what else you would think -- >> they don't recommend you replace the sewer when they find that. that's so common. they're not going to tell you to replace your sewer. they say well, you can replace your sewer for 25,000 or $10,000 or $15,000 or we can put in a larger access thing and you can root it out. we see it every six months you call us. they don't tell you to -- commissionter fung: thank you. vice president goh: commissioners, there's a motion on the floor. i don't know we should cal

commissioner fung: i will start. i understand the need for the permit holder to get their housing in place for their family, but i am baffled how, when i look it does permit set, it is contrary to a lot of my experience with both the planning and building department in terms of scope and scale. it is also -- i am not 100% sure what the impact of what is being proposed. if you look at the intent, and it is hard to tell what has been done with permit or without a permit, the intent of the permit holder is legitimate. it is utilizing certain construction techniques to capture the attic space as a livable space, which is why the dormers are being placed in there to create the appropriate height for livable space. but it is hard to tell what happens to the ceiling, the original ceiling of the building that was below the attic space, and what framing would have been required to upgrade that to become the floor. it is clear that the existing roof in its entirety is gone. the framing plan shows entirely new framing around th

are you finished commissioner fung? president peterson: we heard the 2x4 rafters were to be replaced by 2x10 rafters, and it appeared from the drawing that would necessitate moving those rafter tails or removing those rafter tails. resource issue. >> a great point. i would like to note the existing and the proposed plans, the rafter tales are shown on their. the same detail is on both the existing and proposed additions. commissioner hwang: how do you address that issue? -- commissioner gavice presidenw the address that issue? >> did not show a change in roof pitch or height. that would be addressed during the construction process. mr. kornfield make have further -- might have further

commissioner fung: let me expand. during the course of both presentations, i was thinking about, on what basis are we going one way or another? in this particular instance, when it is fairly complicated, we are dependent upon the building department and its staff to be able to be the eyes and the arbiter of what is co- mandated. -- code-mandated. therefore, we are dependent upon them, and i think we would ask for their input into this process. which then means that it will probably be a descriptive process rather than a straight line process. because as they go through these things, other things would come up, other things that would require some type of arbiter, and that would beat the inspector. my point is i believe the department, of course, has responsibility for reviewing all construction to be in conformance. we could ask mr. kornfield to request from the district inspector to look out for those things that are not necessarily specifically stated in the item list. commissioner garcia: i guess what i am saying i

commissioner fung: mr. murray, part of the reasons why we continue this case, it was not clearly stated, at least for myself, we understood the fact that you brought ford -- that you brought forward with this particular medallion holder. what i was looking for was some type of nexus between the penalties that you have written a new statute verses what you have traditionally done in similar instances related to not only the workman's comp, but the other issues. and what you have proposed in your brief. i don't see that nexus. i have given you an opportunity, if you like to respond to that. >> >> so, i mean the way that i'm understanding the question is why were things done a certain way before and being done a certain way today? is that correct? commissioner fung: no. let me be more specific then. the statutes call for, there are some monetary penalties, up to $500 for a major infraction. i don't know how you characterize this particular -- it hasn't really been stated in your brief but i'm assuming you are

commissioner fung: regardless of whether m.t.a. was prepared to negotiate with you or not, your brief also did not provide us with any information on some type of nexus to comments up made at the previous hearing. one was that a major taxi company was only fined $500 for not having workman's comp but your brief provided us with no information on this. >> bay cab and regents cab were both given 60 days to come into compliance and i actually got both of those cases on public records request but those are cases that i believe either one or both of those had come before the board of appeals also. and so bay cab was eventually fined $1,425 for a lengthy list of violations including not carrying workers compensation, regents can -- cab was simply given 60 caze to come into compliance, which it did, and those cases are easily enough researched. again, i acquired those through a public records request. commissioner fung: were both brought into compliance in 0 days? >> yes. -- 60 days? >> yes. commissioner garcia: you have characterized you

commissioner fung: ms. galvin, can you provide to us or early -- can you provide to us orally a timeline of what you have tried to accomplish through your various applications? >> i am one of the product owners, homeowners. i want to go back real quick and then answer your question. this is nothing new with this appellant. i have a different attachment to the home, as emotional as my wife is. this is a safety issue. the building inspector deputy has been to the property 21 times. my spin on things it is our house is moving downhill. ms. wuerfel lives downhill. when we went to miss wuerfel and told her it is moving downhill and we wanted to stop this brush of nov's a caved. our house has moved 6 inches in the last 12 months. there is a mold report in the brief. we were told to move out, simple as that, move out,. mediate the mold and move out. -- immediate the mold and move out. it cost $14,000 to remove the mold. we were then told the foundation is cracked. that the foundation had been replaced before the m

commissionger fung: it was not part of our package either. commissioner garcia: the think it is sufficiently explained now what is to be done? >> i do not think so. there is this whole issue of things getting nailed to and through the walls, and dry rot and all that. i would think it does not sufficiently -- if i was a neighbor, i would say, "let us resolve all the issues." but i am not the party at issue. commissionger fung: but would you be in agreement that quite a few of those items -- if they were to be unplanned, there would be a note. >> that is right. "remove nails from wall." how're you going to show that on a drawing. "repair flashing." it is very hard to show that on plans. it is definitely a great area. thank you very much. president peterson: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we will move into -- we will move into rebuttal. >> i will be very brief. i do not very often take the opposition of mr. kornfield, but i think the issue is not where the property line is. the issue is there are things attache

on that motion, commissioner fung. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. president peterson: agye. commissioner hwang: no. the vote is four to one. the revocation of the color scheme is upheld. the revocation of the medallion is upheld for one year. president peterson: let us take a short break. president peterson: welcome back to the meeting of the board of appeals. we did not administer the oath early in the meeting. i will ask to do that again, since people may have come in since that was done. >> please stand if you were not sworn in at 5:00 and intend to testify in any further hearing. thank you. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. president peterson: thank you. please call item no. 8. >> : item eight, appeal no. 10- 042, arza trust versus the department of building inspection. it is protesting the issuance to bille cayrot trustee, permit to alter a building. president peterson: if you would like to step forward. you have seven minutes. >> pr

commissioner fung: i do not know if you can bifurcate that. commissioner garcia: then i am not going to support the continuance. i thought we had done that in the past. commissioner fung: we have allowed the protection of property against wind and rain to continue. there are certain life safety things we have allowed to continue. those can be done by the department. the authorities. commissioner garcia: unless i have that assurance, i do not intend to support a continuance. commissioner fung: well, let me continue with the motion anyway. i am going to move this continues to august 18. president peterson: call the roll on that please. >> the motion is to continue to august. that will allow the retrieval of additional documents. commissioner fung: the planning and building department. specifically, the permit history. and no additional briefings. >> on that motion to continue with those vice president goh? vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: no. president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: no. >> there is no further business before the

commissionger fung: do you want to reference that particular drawing? it is really a combination of one representing the set back, and when they made an alternative plan. that was moved inward. >> we have that motion. it is to overrule the denial and grant that department with those conditions. president peterson: it is on one condition that the project sponsor's original design for the west side be accepted but the other design issue regarding the stairs was not accepted. >> on that motion, commissioner fung? commissionger fung: aye. vice president goh: no. president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> it is overturned. president peterson: moving on to item 8. colorado that item, please. . call that timeimtem, please. >> the property is 2311 california st.. it protests the issuance on may 24, 2010 to alter a building. >> this is a representative of the appellant. >> good evening. i am here on behalf of paul wermer. i am here with the project architect. the contractor is also available to answer questions. this in my opinion is an extremely uniqu

commissioner fung: do you want me to sound like a cricket? i did want to raise a few technical points to make sure that we are fully cognizant of what the implications are. a korea it is defined as utilization of some type of material to create positive drainage, and it is usually set at different elevations. whereas, as was also mentioned by mr. kornfield, the other is a same size. this is where this provides the appropriate "-- . angle within the limits of its capabilities. but it took me a little while to figure out that this was the case. what happened is that they added all of the roof drains, and that is a long way to drape across. the roof framing -- a long way to drain across. the gable. the problem is is if you go back into the actual definition of what either party said, the appellant wants to do, and first but indicated it wanted to do 6 inches above. therefore, their appeal was incorrect initially because they're drawing reflects something different. that problem also is exacerbated by the department, because the department says i

commissioner fung: thank you. i think we have the answer. president peterson: mr. sanchez? >> thank you, skat sanchez. i will be brief. -- scott sanchez. i will be brief. i think the permit holders have done an excellent job going through all the issues the early. i would give you some of the procedural issues. there is an excellent summary of that in the permit holders brief, which has the discretionary review time line. they did the required pre- application meeting, the project was submitted to the department. initially, upon first review by the department, we did not think the light well needed to be matched. that is true. the building permit notification was sent out. during this time, the neighbors met and came toward resolution of incorporating the light well. the department supports that. it does not specifically address the design guidelines. those changes were made. the discretionary review was still filed. the item was taken to the planning commission on the discretionary review in january, i believe,the planning commissio uphold

but i agree with commissioner fung this is a modest project. it is almost a right. the project sponsor has reduced it to 60% of what it could possibly be. i think that the point that was made by commissioner fung having to do with the -- if the wall was painted white, the sun reflecting off of that will help with getting some sunlight or some light into those rooms. but while i certainly sympathize with the olivos, i feel this is a worthwhile project. i intend to uphold it. vice president goh: i think we know where this is going to land, but i want to say that something about a 100 to your old house with a strained triangular light well -- i would like to see that kind of thing protected in this city. i do not know what the answer is. i do not think the answer is a rectangular like well. i agree that probably will not help that much. it is kind of a quirky little thing. i think it deserves some attention. i do wish that the parties had come together and discuss things like potentially the skylights. maybe we would not have gotten here and it would not have been quit

commissionter fung: and the magnitude of cost for that? >> the cost goes substantially higher when you get to a 36-inch box because it usually requires either a small crane or a forklift to be planted. but the cost of the tree itself is, you know, probably several hundred dollars more. and in some cases, you can get the tree delivered with a crane so if the site is prepared you don't spend that much more because they have to use the crane to offload the tree anyway. but the 24-inch box can essentially be planted by two strong people and so it's much less expensive when it's being hired out. and then beyond 36 you get even more expensive. vice president goh: what size square were you recommending this be increased to? >> we had marked out a four-foot by nine-foot square for the existing tree. president peterson: how does it compare to the boxes you just talked about needing cranes? >> in order to plant a 36-inch box tree you would need at least a four by four foot basin in order to get the tree into the basin. vice president goh: that's the

i do not think it could solve the situation highlighted by commissioner fung. unfortunately, this is within their right. the changes are difficult. i appreciate how difficult this will be for you, but i see no legal reason not to uphold the project. i'm too -- i too would be denying the appeal. with that, i will make a motion to deny this appeal. thank everybody for staying so late. >> i am finding the project complies with the residential guidelines in the code. president peterson: thank you. call the roll, please. >> the motion is from the president to uphold the permit on the basis that the permit complies with the residential design guidelines in the code. on that motion, commission fung aye. vice president goh no. commissioner garcia aye. commissioner hwang aye. the boat is 421. president peterson: we have no further business this evening. we are adjourned. . >> forgot no. 2. silver is nothing. there is no having made it and so we beat foreman. i love the competition. . >> american made has really taken it on themselves to green american cities. >> we have

. >> commissioner fung? >> aye. >> the vote is 3-2 to grant. the rules require four votes to grant jurisdiction or jurisdiction is denied. >> thank you. president peterson: we can move on to item number five, if you'd call that item, please. >> calling item 5, bill number 10-056. elizabeth kantor versus department of public works, urban forestry, property at 835 wisconsin street. the appeal on may 10, 2010 of a tree removal permit, order 178.654. president peterson: thank you. since this is a denial we'll start with the department, ms. short, you have seven minutes. >> thank you. carla short from the department of public works, bureau of urban forestry. we received an application to remove one tree at 835 wisconsin. they accept the information provided by the applicant the tree is 26 years old with a trunk diameter 11.5 inches and an estimated height of 35 feet. the applicant's reasons given for removal were disruption to the sidewalk, sewer intrusion and overheadlines invasion. the sidewalk on wisconsin street is 15 feet wide which would allow

presiding officer is tanya pettersson and joining her is joining vice-president goh, commissioner fung and commissioner hwang. we have some representatives from city departments such as the deputy director of building inspection. also the acting zoning administrator representing the planning commission and planning department. please go over the ft meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board request that you turn off all phones and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the permit holders and respondents have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must complete their comments within the seven minute time period. members of the public for not affiliated have up to three minutes each. to assist the board, members of the public who wish to speak on a particular item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to forward -- to board staff. we also welcome your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction forms on the left part of the podium. if yo

commissionger fung: as represented by the department, i accept what can only be before us is action on the site. the stair cannot be in front of it. commissioner garcia: i think we are better off continuing it, having expressed their feelings, and having led the department determine where to go next. >> is that at the call of the chair? >> antje and dave are willing to accept the rear stair being pulled in and call it a day. we do not want to move forward and go through more torture. if the board would kindly propose that theyou

. >> this is fung she. >> i think so. and here is one built in 1958 and it is occupied as a resident and you can take a look: green street and jones. >> across from one of the old fire houses. >> you folks chip in if you want to speak. >> and it's also used as a residence. >> the fire house. we will see another one in a second and not only do we have those in san francisco. here we have a hexagon building and truly a oddity and someone should have checked it in san francisco architectural digest and recently built. what do you think? in san francisco we have other shapes and there was the triangle cafe. it's on 17th -- >> (inaudible). >> 16th and it's right near the new mission bay. now one of the things that i found interesting is the value of the building is not so much in the building but the gigantic pipe and the base of a billboard which probably brings in an enormous income and the building is supplemental. >> because i work for people that rent in the range of 30 to $40,000 a month and i will take a guess that the

. >> the motion is from commissioner fung to uphold the permit that it conforms to the vare advance. >> thank you. the vote is 5-0. the permit is upheld with that basis. thank you. >> thank you. could you call i'd nine, please? >> calling item nine, appeal number 10-048, fred herrera versus the zoning a administrator. property at 763 university street. appeal of notice and violation of penalty dateded april 19, 2010, addressed to sandra and fred herrera, regarding the b.p.a. number in violation of the planning code. >> you have seven minutes. we will start with the appellant. >> good late evening members of the commission. my name is frederick reamer. i am a lawyer from the east bay and a friend of the herrera's for over 35 years. i am doing this pro bono. i have associated a law firm to put together the papers, and it is my job to put this matter on tonight. part of the firm is with me, and she is going to be handling some of the paperwork. thank you so much. the first thing we would like to show you is a picture of the decision that was made in this case at a design review hearing

presiding president is tanya peterson, and joining her is vice-president kendall goh, commissioner fung, commissioner garcia, and commissioner hwang. i am cynthia bold scheme, the board's executive director. we have some representatives from the various departments this evening. we have laurence kornfield, scott sanchez, acting zoning administrator, representing the planning department and planning commission. and jarvis murray is here representing the san francisco department of transportation. at this time, if you could please go over the boards leading guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all funds, beepers, and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders, have seven minutes to present their cases, three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with the parties must include their comments in these times and members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have 3 minutes each to address the board but no rebuttal. to assist the board and accurate