>> rick gladstone. the assessor pep record says it is 1218. i want to point out that in the old days as much as 20 years ago, or 15, the building department and the assessor's office were not always in touch with each other, so people could get permits and the assessor's office and would not know a permit to expand. something would be sent and i would not catch it. it is not unusual to know that the assessor's office may not reflect the square footage that the building department has approved. as to there being no permit, i want you to keep in mind that there were three searches of the permit records by my client's new architect. two of the three came up with different information. price, the micra push people said no permits at all. -- twice, the microphishe people said no permits at all. i believe you could make a fine it -- make a finding that there has been a permit and it has been replaced -- misplaced. the searches come out differently every time you do that. as you know, vested rights occur when someone has reasonably believed in the rightness of city action and has incurred substantial amounts of money, in this case $140,000 in eight months. they saw the notice of violation that was for the castillos' work and saw 12 items on there. what was not on there was dbi saying there was work to do a rear addition without a permit. there were reasonable to think there was no work without a permit in the rear. it would have been on that. i believe whether or not you can find that there should have been a permit, if you believe there should have been a permit and there was none, and you have trouble finding in our favor on that, i ask you to consider that i think the clients have obtained a vested right to continue. twice, planning department has issued permits on this, once when they issued a permit nov, and again when they issued a permit to do phase one. in both instances, planning could have brought up the issue. "could you provide a permit showing the rear has been done with a permit?" twice they did not. in reliance on that, my clients are here after a great deal of time and expenditure of money. i ask that you consider that as well as find there could have been a permit, given the permit records system. thank you very much. commissioner garcia: what were the novs on the property? >> one moment. we are pulling it up. it may be in your brief. commissioner garcia: i am unable to find it. >> i think it is in the brief of the appellant. and i am looking. one moment. it is in our project notes. here it is. i will put it on the overhead. would you like me to list the main features, or can you read it yourself? it includes illegal dwelling units, a subdivision of rooms without permits, rear of the building has a built in counter with a kitchen sink, the entrance has a ceiling height of only 12 ft. 8, other ceiling height problems. permit research fails to produce any valid permits that were completed to alter the building to its present use. that is used, not structure, meaning the second unit, which they found to be an illegal use. it was a single family home. notice it does not say "present structure." it goes on to say it -- commissioner garcia: that is good. that satisfies me. thank you. vice president goh: i have a related question. if the envelope is staying the same and it was called hundred 50 feet and finishing the basement with permit at 600 square feet, how did it get to 2700 square feet without an increase in the envelope? -- if the envelope is staying the same and it was 1250 feet >> if you take the footprint that were the initial -- the boeing unit is already at 1400. -- the dwelling unit is already 1400. vice president goh: there was some discussion in the briefing about an overhang. that was the upper floor, the legal floor. now the plan is to build beneath it and have -- i am sorry. i misunderstood. could you explain that? >> i have a diagram on the overhead that might help, but basically the overhang -- when we first got to the property -- vice president goh: we need the overhead. people downstairs need to react to the term overhead. >> this is showing different diagrams. the one on the left is what we found when we showed up at the property. to us, it was clear that the bottom piece there, the early 1900's footprint, which also had no permit on record -- the original part of the house had an extension done to it in blue. that-line is the first extension, -- that dashed line is the first extension. that is what we believe based on the pattern of the block and the neighboring buildings. the piece we felt was absolutely illegal and did not meet planning codes was the yellow peas at the end, the stairway and the overhang you have heard us talk about several times. i have a photograph of this if you would rather see that. vice president goh: if you could point to that, what is the overhang? >> this piece of the footprint is a stairway. it encroached on our neighbor's property, over the property line by 8 inches, and went back into even the very minimum setbacks required by the planning department. this is a stairway that came all the way up from the building. this piece was an overhang on the first floor. under it were built a water heater and a closet under the stairs. this is the piece we felt was clearly illegal. in our plan, we removed all of that and internalized the stairs so it is not in the backyard anymore. vice president goh: you are planning to build up to that dotted line, which is in the illegal area? >> we are not expanding beyond the blue at all. vice president goh: i cannot read your notes. the dotted line on the right hand side, the rear door to the line -- >> that is the 45%. that is the setback in existence in the '70s. vice president goh: are you building up to that dotted line? >> we are not. we are staying well within that. we are not changing this wall at all. we are removing the bids built under the stair and the overhang and leaving the envelope that was well within the setback of the '70s. vice president goh: you are not building to the yellow line at all? >> we are not expanding to that at all. in fact, we are reducing it. commissioner garcia: that is the encroachment that was referred to by mr. soto that is gone, and there will be no more of that in this project going forward. >> there will be no addition to the encroachment. we will leave this blue piece in place which is encroaching over the 45%. commissioner garcia: you mean encroaching what is required as rear yard space as opposed to encroaching on to another person's property. >> yes. there is no encroachment on to mr. soto's property in our proposed plans. >> there are members of the public, but it might be too late. they want to speak, but it is up to your commission. president peterson: i know our commission would like to hear from mr. kornfield. [coughing] commissioner fung: did someone have a question? commissioner garcia: i was waiting for you. vice president goh: i was waiting for you. i would like to hear about the permit history research investigation, and what other kinds of investigation one might undertake. >> laurence kornfield from the department of building inspection. there are many sources of documentation of construction in the city. the basic one that most people go to is the department of building inspection's microfilm office on the fourth floor, where we maintain records of permits going back to 1906. we have a fairly comprehensive collection of all permits, whether they were completed or expired or otherwise acted upon. it is true that occasionally we have [unintelligible] that is not common, but it does occur. there are many other sources of information which often use when either people cannot find documents or contest the determination we make of legal use or construction. one of those we find very useful is the assessor reporter's office maintains a paper copy of a file that is the result of a field inspection by an assessor sometime during the course of the history of the building. they went out and took pictures and recorded. this is a snapshot of time, recording the area, the number of rooms, the number of sinks, and so on. that is typically on file at the assessor reporter's office and is updated by them when there is a permit or some other change. there are also many other sources of information that can help us understand changes to utilities -- power companies, utility companies. in this case, where we have an addition to the back of a building, many buildings in san francisco develop these incremental additions where they start as a porch or a washroom or laundry and gradually get in close. next thing you know, you have an addition. it has been very common. it is common that you see additions being built on to those additions, in some places two or three of those things. the way we often track them is that we have block books and other sanborn maps through the years where we can look at the changes, which are basically looking bird's eye view, not necessarily photographically, of additions made to the buildings. those are extremely accurate. there were done for fire protection and insurance purposes. we and the public library have a collection of historic sanborn maps. they are more or less every 10 or 12 years. finally, there are photographic surveys, aerial surveys done. the documentation takes place through the last 50 years or so. much of that is available through aerial photographic resources, not necessarily in the city. i know there is one in hayward, somewhere in the east bay as well. there are many sources of documentation including building department records. vice president goh: you just listed many of them and it seems it would require a lot of resources to go down that list and do those. dbi does not do that in a case like this, is that right? >> we do not do that. we often have conflicts with property owners or other persons to say, "i believe i have three units." we say, "you go do the research and show to us how we are wrong. we can consider correcting our effort." we provide research information. we do not actually do that research. at the assessor of recorder pep office, only the property owner by law is allowed to get a copy of that. we are restricted in some ways. vice president goh: the fact that there is no permit on file for the rear addition suggests to you that there was no permit for that addition? >> that would be the building apartments position just like it is the planning department's position. there is no permit, therefore it is not built with a permit. it is incumbent on the property owner to go to those other sources and show us it was built at a certain time. vice president goh: let us say that the lumber was old, and it did happen that there was a port and it was in closed 40 are "years ago. there would not have been permits pulled to do that sort of work. -- was enclosed 40 or 50 years ago you do not require the property owner to take that down. >> it is a problem. just because it got done without a permit does not make it ok. we do actually have to take action. normally, things do not get taken down. they go to the permit process. they have to get a permit and either meet today's code building plan or they have to document and either come to this board or otherwise document in some reasonable way why we should apply some previous code. president peterson: i am good to interrupt you. for fire code reasons, we need folks to sit down. sorry to interrupt you. >> over the years, this board has said, "we believe this was constructed in approximately this era," and may have directed the building department to apply the codes that would have been in effect at that time. it is a difficult problem for us all, no doubt about it. commissioner garcia: in testimony, you heard him. the issue arose as to when this was built. if we were to say it had been built in 1970, it would not have required a variance, but would have required a permit. that was terrible. you touched on that now. how is that curable? >> what can we do? we have to solve the problem somehow. they can get a permit and comply with today's codes, or this board can say we believe it was built approximately in this era and therefore take some action to cure it. commissioner garcia: obviously, what ever they are going to do in the disputed area -- that would be current code in that they are doing it now? >> that is correct. commissioner fung: according to the building code. commissioner garcia: that is what i mean. >> the board requests you take your seat unless you have a medical condition that requires you to stand. president peterson: you mentioned additional members of the public came. can we have a showing by hands who has come here and who is for the project and who is against it? 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, as opposed to speaking in favor of the project, i might turn and ask that. it if there are any, they might want to speak. but i doubt there are. president peterson: i think that might be a confusing question. i think we are fine. >> thank you. commissioner fung: i think you would know if you were a witness, don't you think? >> i would probably know. not in every case, but i am doing my job. president peterson: good to hear. i am going to call mr. sanchez back up. vice president goh: i have a question for mr. soto, and then i would like to borrow the architect -- the picture you showed with the green and yellow and blue, if you do not mind. mr. soto, i would like to put on the overhead the picture we had on the overhead before and ask you some questions about that. we heard that the dotted line on the right-hand side, the footprint of line, the rear dotted line is not the exterior rear envelope, but rather it would and the new construction -- construction would end at the blue. that is your understanding as well? >> yes. vice president goh: i thought from the briefing the expectation was it would go further than that, but that is your understanding also? >> yes. vice president goh: you said earlier it extends 20 feet beyond the required rearguard open space. you are talking about the blue area behind that first dotted line. is that right? it is within the blue on this drawing? >> the original court was 6 by 14 and now it is 20 by 25. vice president goh: ok. thank you. >> can i make one comment? the sanborn maps -- commissioner garcia: i think your time is up unless someone wants to ask a question. >> i just wanted to say the sanborn maps are on file. president peterson: any questions for mr. sanchez at this point? vice president goh: i am looking for the sanborn maps. if mr. sanchez knows where they are in the brief, if he could tell me. >> i have one i can put up on the overhead. vice president goh: i was looking at that, and it looks as though the rear addition was a pop out, but the drawing the architect put up showed it going to the side property line. >> that is correct. what is currently there is the whole lot, and it extends past either wall of the neighboring properties. vice president goh: say that again? >> what we see in the plans here does show a setback from the side property line. what is currently there -- what was on the plans is a full two stories and extends past the rear wall of both of the adjacent properties. vice president goh: could you draw a line about where it is, and could you also tell me what year this sanborn map is? >> i am estimating with the lot lines approximately where that reporar wall would come out. these maps are generally considered accurate for the building footprint, but not for the lot lines. vice president goh: could you draw the lot line where it actually is? >> in this case it might be -- vice president goh: that is better. thank you. >> this is the accurate lot line. the sanborn maps -- the last there were updated for our records may be 1988. they are not updated regularly anymore. vice president goh: this is 1988? >> i would estimate the '90s. vice president goh: the line you drew is where the property is? >> that was one of the factors that led our decision to issue the stop work order, that and the permit history. vice president goh: thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is before you. both matters are before you. president peterson: it probably is worthy to consider matter ca10 first, regarding permits. commissioner garcia: go-ahea ah, frank. commissioner fung: i am sorry. there is no dispute that the rear portion of this building was in existence for a substantial length of time. the question is whether -- one question is whether it was in existence at the time of the code change. the letter from the previous owner indicates that it was. we have had some testimony that perhaps portions of that rear might have adjusted in size and type during the course of the last couple of decades. there is no question that what is being constructed is, for building code at least today -- some of that might require mitigation is with relations to sound, and a more intense use than what had been there previously. whatever we act upon, and whatever doesn't determine that this particular owner and family are going to be there forever -- therefore, what ever we determine will establish either a land use for them or send them through quite a bit more process. the question then also seems to be related to -- it occurred i guess from reading all the documentation that relates to the density of two units, the fact that there is no garage. this is a small alley, in essence, with a dead end. there is probably a number of concerns related to phase two. however, that is not before us. what is before us is based on essentially a single-family home. does it conform to the current bernal heights special use district codes? it does not. however, i could find it a modest non-conformance. the fact that the objectionable part is in the rear, in terms of what may have been a handy man or owner-initiated construction. that it has been removed, i find a acceptable, and that leads to my decision to support the legalization of this addition as a