additional comment on 10 lundys lane. who is here to speak? i see five hands. these people have not taken an oath. let me ask you this. additional public comment on 10 lundys lane, who is here to speak who is not -- who has not spoken yet. commissioner garcia: it does not matter whether you are for or against it. president peterson: whether or you are for or against it, just raise your hands. commissioner garcia: how many people are for the project? how many people that hewlnewly showed up are opposed? it looks like no one showed up late who is opposed to the project. president peterson: we would have to administer an oath. i think we have a good sense of the good character of your clients. if there were further opposition, i think we would have to have a comment. i leave the call to you. >> i think you get a sense of the support. you have a long calendar. i would defer to you and your sense that it is a long evening and go with what you want. i do not think it is necessary for each one to speak, unless one is a witness. if someone here is a witness to events,

>> jurisdiction request of the subject property at 10 lundys lane. we have a letter from john and catherine soto, request is, asking that the board take jurisdiction over building permit application number 2010/3/17/08393, which was issued on march 22, 2010. this was received in the office on october 18, 2010, and the permit holder is sam ball. president peterson: before you begin, how to make sure that everybody who needs to be here is here? is everyone okay to go forward? ok. you have three minutes. >> madam chair, members of the board, the project sponsor informed us that the preliminary planning department was code compliant and such and the scope that 311 notice was not required. they recommended an over-the- counter permit, with unofficial notification to the neighbors. there were no major errors. the extension was not legal, and the permit was revoked. also, the approved basis plans cannot agree with the matrix and have building code issues. the fire safety rescue window, like ventilation, stairs, and sidewalk encroachment. the second unit avo

it burned down and there was damage to the roof 10 lundy's lane. this is what the permit was about. it is about repairing damage done by that fire. we believe the rear 20 feet is illegal. it is not a trivial distance at all. also, in our submission, we submitted the photo showing the rear as it is now. you concede that modern lumber has been used in the construction done. i also want to say i am sorry that this appeal came in at this late date, but we were advised early on that everything would be done to code. and that there would be no illegal encroachments. and we feel this is totally wrong. also, if there are going to be two units there, that requires off-street parking. that is another thing that has never been addressed. i do not have much more to say. commissioner garcia: you said something about no illegal encroachment. is this expansion that are doing within the building envelope? is that going to be larger than what is there now, or what was there? >> certainly. there it is a building -- commissioner garcia: i understand that. but the extension that was there before would

scott sanchez has been advised. 10 lundy's lane. >> aaron goodman. i am speaking on the transit issue you spoke about, commissioner moore. i find it a very important thing throughout the city with the housing project being pushed through in all districts of the city. where are we seeing a sincere effort that major infrastructure projects in a lot of areas where we have low and middle income areas, such as the mission, along the 14 muni corridor or 19th avenue or geary boulevard -- how are we going to deal with all this housing being built throughout the city if we cannot do the transportation first? it reminds me of a story called "the biggest house in the world" where it keeps growing and growing and pushing and pushing, and eventually, it is stock because they cannot go anywhere anymore. when are we going to be a planning commission that is going to adequately address the transportation needs of a whole city? you may not be able to do it as individuals. we may not be able to do it, but we are getting there. if 19th avenue is locked up, merced is bl

appeal number 10-101, john and catherine soto, against the department of building inspection, 10 lundys lane. it is the protesting the issuance on august 27, 2010, to sam ball, a permit to alter a building -- revision to building permit application, cost savings, revise plans to show rear walls, demolished and rebuilt in kind, upon exposing structure the walls were found to be on salvageable, building permit application number 2010/8/27/9763. >> i was not a carpenter. i was a carpenter 50 years ago. president peterson: bring the microphone up. >> this involves the horizontal extension and stop work orders. notice of violation not appeal by the permit holders are revoked. planning, threats over the counter under system, approved erroneous -- through its over- the-counter system, proved erroneous plans. based on this erroneous approval, they ever honestly issued the permit based on the errors. we learned that planning had given erroneous approval for the original plans, granting what will essentially -- granting what were essentially in proper permits. we appealed the revision permit for build

scott sanchez has been advised. 10 lundy's lane. >> aaron goodman. i am speaking on the transit issue you spoke