woman's home. our sanctity is being invaded. however when questioned from the board it was clear he knew that unit was there when he moved in. the fact of that unit being there is not a surprise to him as the board illicited. i think the harm that the public speaker was claiming of is not valid because he knew what he was getting. he knew he was living above someone and to now say my goodness my privacy is being invaded. it's like moving into a multiunit apartment building. it's like saying, my god, there is people next door. of course.

you knew that when you moved in. lastly the permit issued, right above the signature there is a series of 4-5 check boxes, one is supposed to be checked regarding workers' compensation. considering the permit holders are obviously not around as admitted by the property manager. that box was not checked and there is no representation as to who is going to do the work or that workers' compensation will be provided if it's done by someone other than the homeowner personally. so i would suggest in addition that the board can look at the permit and on its face find it defective because that box is not checked. >> anything further from the

departments? no. miss salas you have another opportunity to speak if you would like. >> we have a licensed contractor who does not have employees. because it's a simple job and the planning department approved it. he is under, he is in their list of approved contractors. otherwise he wouldn't approved it. >> how long have you been taking care of the property for your relate ives? >> 2004. she was already there. >> given the current statement the tenant has made, if she's been there that long was there a previous issue with the

previous tenant that was there regarding water bills and noise? >> i hate to interrupt you. i want to make sure we are properly proceeding. i heard you state you are not in a position to speak on behalf of the permit holder. okay? you want to speak if public comment, that's different. she can't speak in public comment. sorry. the matter is submitted. >> i have a question for mr. doris skol, seems the own want to come to demolish the unit in order to rent it for higher amount. >> they want a permit to demolish the unit to evict miss miller and whether they will

demolish it who knows . >> you don't have any basis for that, other than that it's your guess. >> the factual basis is a negative. the fact that they haven't sought and nov which would force them to remove it and the fact that they attempted to demand that my client make an agreement to move out and harassed her and when she refused and obtained council, then they decide it's an illegal unit and we want her out. the pattern of the behaviors on the salas and on behalf of the landlord suggest that it does not seem to be pure. >> in the permit holders they me

laughed that -- lawsuit that you filed on behalf of your client? >> yes. i wrote to the owners copied the permit holders, got no response and gave them a deadline and i'm asking for damages and i'm asking for the court to order them to create the unit into a lawful configuration. >> thank you. >> and your client is no present this evening, correct?

>> that's correct. she wasn't able to be here tonight. >> i really don't see any basis to over turn this permit. it seems pretty straight forward to me and it's an illegal unit. it's got to be removed. there is no way to legalize it. any kind of speculation that it's an effort to get more rent out of the unit is just irrelevant and there is no factual basis for it to begin with. i would just vote to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. >> i -- concur. >> i have been warned not to involve in tenant situations. if you have a non-permitted illegal unit down, but at the same time i believe that nov should be issued on the

property as well. just to ensure the unit is actually being removed. rather than the threat of it being removed. >> well, the fact that this has been brought to the attention of the dbi might lead to scrutiny. if there is some gain ship happening here in order to wrongfully evict the appellant, the appellant, i think at least there would be some monitoring of that aspect. because that could well be the case. i wouldn't doubt it myself. i think i would agree with commissioner hurtado that we don't have a basis that that is

happening and there is no way to legalize that unit in this way. so, i would lean in that direction as well. >> okay. i will make a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that it was properly issued. >> we have a motion then from commissioner hurtado to denial the appeal uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. on that motion, commissioner s, the vote is 5-0. the vote is upheld on that basis. >> call item 10. item 10: 1324-1326 francisco street.protesting the issuance on march 05, 2013, to barbara presta, permit to alter a building site permit; rear ground floor addition to

accommodate new ground floor unit; renovation of 2nd and 3rd floor units; newir uni of don; kk. 20/03/26/6873s.12 >> this is on for hearing tonight. we'll start with the appellant for 7 minutes. >> hello, i'm the appellant. before we begin, i have a set of photos for each of the commissioners if you would like them or i can use the overhead if you prefer. >> i like visuals. i do. >> i do. >> i am protesting the owners

plans that will block 2-3 hours per day of precious sunlight into rear of my house into "the master" bedroom, second bedroom and the owner is planning a one rear extension with a deck on top that the adversely affect the value of my property. it will block sunlight into my neighbors yard. please put together the three photos i gave you of the subject property to get a sense of the enormous size of this building. in the aerial photo i ovided yo

location and how it's subjected on the property. notice the early afternoon shadows on the right side of the subject property where the shade covers half of my backyard and my neighbors yard. my guess is this photo was taken at 2 p.m.. you can see the sunlight is missing if the rear extension is built in the photo i shot. you can see the sunlight on the property as well as on the pots in my neighborhood backyard. i'm not standing on anything on this photo. the fence is shorter and i realize an appreciate the sunlight. my neighbors has a great photo of the area that will be blocked by the extension. i was naive

in being neighborly and not objecting to it. i purchased the home 14 years ago. i'm a 3rd generation city city san francisco city . i would like to show this mailing label . any other name is typed at the top. i'm not offended that they

got my name wrong. it's across all the errors and all the documents. these documents are very confusing even when the data is accurate. when there is a lot of data with errors it's very difficult to determine the plans how they might impact me. how might i plan this effectively when the data is wrong. it's very frustrating. i would expect an architectural lawfirm to at least get my name correct. the respondents say they mailed me documents, i never received them. if i had received them i would have stated them in my brief. i would have received them over the course of the year and would have noticed the roof extension well before this document. note the following discrepancy, the respondents brief to mailing me the plan and states the permit holder

was going to drop the plans off to me. did she hand deliver them or mail them. did she have a receipt for the post age. did she climb my gate and stick it through the hole. of the five letters of support that are provided with the respondents brief, they don't live anywhere near the subject property. it's 0.9 miles from the property. the 5th letters of support is from joe shot. they are very nice people. i hope they will still talk to me after this appeal. they are friends with the permit holder and kids went to the same school. diane is a part-time or full time real estate broker and sold the property. i have not yet my

next door neighbors. i'm looking forward to meeting them. i didn't know their name until 12 days ago. they moved 12 months ago. this could have been avoided if a notice of preapplication meeting which is exhibit a indicated he was planning a roof extension. as i pointed out in my appellant brief there is no check to any vertical issue on any of the notices. it states the proposal is to discuss -- there is no mention of any roof extension on this document fchl . the respondents brief claims the roof extension was drawn in the plans. if it wasn't

further more, why wasn't it indicated on the application meeting so i would have been aware of it from the start. if a roof extension was such a position in a building why didn't it come up in a meeting. finally the meeting 12 days go all they did was show me the shading which was more than one hour i estimated in my brief. i didn't know what to expect in the brief meeting. i thought it would be a goal to settling the conflict. i even asked for details on the process when i filed the appeal and at least time one time after that for miles an hour clarification. it was something i wanted to do all along. thank you. >> sir, your address is on

franklin, it runs north and south, doesn't it? >> yes it does. >> this project is east of your building. >> this is west of my building. the building is between, the setting sun is between -- the building is between the setting sun and my building. >> got it. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. chaplain? >> good evening, commissioners, john kef lynn on behalf of the

would seismically upgrade the building. i would like to have miss pres a come speak to you about the project. >> i'm the project sponsor. i have a visual as well. i just want to say first off on the 3/11 notice when you open it up this is the first image you see with a person standing on it. that image has been available for over a year every time i met with any neighbor. that image has been on the plans that i have shown. >> the captionist -- that's better. okay. >> the history is that my brother david, my sister and i jointly purchased 3624 in june of 08 from the e state of the right -- of the original

owners. while it's wonderful to get a billion -- building from right original owners. using an electric device makes it turn off. the kitchen was last remodeled in 1950. so far it's been two 1/2 bathrooms. however with the city's concern with a thousand people living in soft story buildings. we decided to take a fresh look. this is when we decided to do a remodel. i

held a preapplication meeting in march of 2012. i held full size of the plans. he spent a lot of time looking closely at the drawing. i asked if he mind ed the roof deck and he did not. ed was referring to the owners of 3123 franklin street, their rear lot is jace to our lot. i agreed to make the wall extension a green wall. i also reduced the deptof the extension. i planned a 17 foot rear yard extension and reduced

it to 12 feet. i removed the roof deck, i made all of these concessions with the neighbors because they asked for them. in december when the notice of the building permit application went out, section 311 and the 30 day review went in and no one filed a dr. that is another view of the stair covering on the roof that went out with the 311 drawings. after nobody filed a dr, i told the architecture to go ahead and file the drawings. two months later when i got the call that an appeal had been filed i was shocked. i feel i have provided significant outreach to the neighbors by meeting with them and providing architectural plans. i made modifications to

the project in beginning with the neighbors and later with the request to the planning staff. recently i met with stan, the architecture and another architect to propose a compromise. we asked him about, we told him several things we can do to the stair penthouse and he didn't want to discuss anything that still included a penthouse. he was unwilling to engage in a conversation. i wanted to provide a safe and comfortable home to my two siblings and another family. we respectfully request you deny this appeal and allow this to move forward. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners, as you can tell miss pres a has gone in the exact way that we have wanted them to go about these ways. she held a meeting

and took input from neighbors and all this was before she filed for a building permit. and as joe who owns the property who is the most affected by the property is here tonight in approval of it. she's accepted every modification that has been requested. it's been reduced and also keep in mind there is a 4 inch pit. the penthouse now is only 8 feet 5 inches. any impact that it has is modest. it's setback 3 fourths of an inch. it slopes down and falls

in the stairs and slopes again towards the front. most importantly you will see if i can get the project or, the appellant's rear yard has two large trees there which are already blocking the sun in this direction that reaches the patio or his ground floor. the other thing i want to mention very quickly is that we've looked at other ways to gain access to the roof t existing stair is not there so there is not an existing code. even if we could it would still require in that situation. the appellant proposed is not permit by the building code. our architect is here. thank you commissioners. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez

planning department. just note the building permit application, it was done on march 14th. discretionary view was done. as stated, they with respect to aware concerns until the permit was issued. they have received and performed an innovation. we find that it is in guidelines. they have noted the penthouse has been scoped down in order to provide access to the roof and so it does not overlook the appellant 's property that the deck that the appellant was referring to that overlooks the property looks to the rear and does not abut the neighbors property. there is noah appeal filed by

that property owner. we feel it come applies with the guidelines and available for any questions. thank you. >> mr. duffy? >> this is the project seems to have been reviewed by dbi plan check staff. it look to be in klein's come compliance with the codes. i'm available for any questions. >> we can take any public comment. anyone who wants to speak, please come forward. >> hello, my name is joseph shots. my wife and i own 2121 a franklin. it's a garden apartment that is in the back

of our building and it directly abuts the extension the subject of this application. we approve the project and would like to see it go forward. it's not that we are anxious to have a project that would have some affect on our property but we are mindful that in a city like san francisco that new housing is desperately needed. we think the affects of this proposal would have are very motion modest. the an applicant has very straight forward and responded to every request that i have made. and has been i think particularly sensitive to issues that i have heard talked about tonight, not just at this hearing but the other ones that

came before it. the projection of the rear unit would come out 12 feet from the back of her property. she cut that back from 17 which she had considered initially and it only rises up 10 feet. that projection is all on my property and the property between my property and the property of the protester. in other words the pop out in the back of the building doesn't affect his property line at all. so, all things considered, we feel that the need for housing could press people to make far more intrusive request on their neighbors for housing. this is a very reasonable one, it's modest. the applicant has

been cooperative in every way it's very difficult to get anything done in san francisco. i feel like she's been patient and i don't feel that it's right for us to hold up desperately needed housing to get a perfect situation. we are very happy with the way it's been handled and we are happy with the proposal. if you have any questions, i will be happy to answer them. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> commissioners thank you for giving me an at some point to speak on behalf of the sponsor. i have lived in the neighborhood for 33 years. there are several things that i'm particularly impressed with

in the process of this project. i have seen a lot of properties developed. i think what's most important is that we've seen a lot of houses or multifamily properties that have been converted to single families or reduced down. instead has been brought out already is there is an additional unit added. i think it's done in a very careful and sensitive way to the billion -- building and to the neighbors. the other thing i want to bring up is i was here during the earthquake and worked in the marina district and saw a lot of buildings affected numerous buildings affected at that time. it's a difficult area and glad to see some buildings have had some