>> including you and your interest? okay. and on the permit holder's side do you know if that person has council? >> i i don't recall. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is donna crowder. a real estate broker with san francisco and i was the listing agent at 601 buena vista west during the escrow period when the leffers were in contact with understand that go -- understanding that there was plans which impacted buena vista. i had a -- couple

land use attorney who gave the additional three story additional to the leffers and to mr. tombey, and they were satisfied and mr. tombey withdrew his dr due to an agreement that was reached to withdraw the third story addition. and my understanding at the time negotiating between the seller and the leffers, the understanding was that that attorney who was to represent the seller in reviewing the plans and negotiating with the

sponsor, if you will the project sponsor at the time had withdrawn the objectional 3rd story. that's my understanding. i do have the file. i do have the original plans. i do have them signed by micelleser myself and the leffers showing the third addition and i reviewed the file before i came. >> did you sit in those meetings? >> no. i would not have done that especially -- i should not do that as a real estate agent anyway. >> is the owner, you were representing, were you on the seller side? >> i do not know where he is? >> the current owner? >> the current owner is the leffers. 601 west. they were in contract, we were in escrow

when these plans came about, were noticed. >> got it. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is sean and i'm one of the residents of 601 buena vista west which is adjacent to the proposed building. >> are you related to the appellants, the leffers? >> yes. you are not allowed to speak under public comment. are you a family member of theirs? >> yeah. >> okay. thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm sue, i saw you at the

last meeting and spoke under public comment. i would like to read a letter on behalf of 55 year resident of buena vista west. she spent from the time she was nine years old and today and still resides there. she couldn't be here but she did write a letter. this is from isabelle wade. this was written to rodney. i am write to go -- writing to object to the proposed decision on 601 west. as a resident, i can testify to the horrendous mistakes to allow the inappropriate development on our street. mistakes the past commissioner told me would not be allowed today which is to allow two modern apartment

buildings. there is such a thing as character in the neighborhood. it is a shame that 611 would be allowed to convert to a carriage house among modern buildings. the proposed addition would further exacerbate an inappropriate character of the building at the expense of the building and frankly all of us on the park. not every home in san francisco needs to grow. smaller homes provide more affordable housing opportunities in a very expensive city. when a building in question already sticks out like a sore thumb, the planning commission should not add insult to injury. please vote against this project. thank you very much. isabelle wade. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> is there anyone else who wish es to speak on this item?

seeing none, the matter is submitted. >> i have a question for the appellant. >> susan holy. >> at this point i do not see anything that distinguishes between the term agreement used as an adverb versus a noun from the document you provided. you have anything else that relates to an actual agreement? >> no. we don't contend that there is a written agreement beyond the dr requester signing off on the plans. the reason we brought that up today is we believe the merit of the appeals relies on the lack of the merit on the project and

for the small lot as i believe you eloquently explained that when we were here last, commissioner. we felt it was important for the this board to understand that this had gone through ten years ago and there was an understanding. i'm a lawyer, so i know the contracts dealing with real property should be in writing and there were not. the lawyers are unavailable and don't have records that we have been able to find. we have looked, i assure you. but there doesn't seem to be anything. as an equitable matter what we are were hearing from the project applicant that this is only fair and we are trying to do something and we just wanted to show the equities are all within the neighborhood and that is all in good faith that has not been shown by the permit holder. that was the point that we wanted to corroborate it since there was a dispute. thank you.

>> comments? >> i too don't see a lot different from the last time, although i do believe that i voted against this project on the previous hearing. my thoughts are that there was some type of agreement that was made between the permit holder and the neighboring property holders. otherwise the dr would not have been removed that easily. i do see that there is some new information with the previous dr sponsors indicating that there was an agreement, but unfortunately nothing is in writing. i don't know if there

is enough here to rehear the case. so i'm still kind of pondering. >> the issue is whether merits of rehearing and i have not heard enough to vote to rehear it. >> i think for me, i think that the live testimony of individuals who are present as well as the affidavit that was submitted do raise issues that compel at least for me a sense of justice that isn't born out by this new development on the project. i think for those reasons, i give weight to testimony that is under that is sworn and under penalty of perjury. i see it for those

people who are present whose clients or what not relied upon particular verbal representations do carry weight in the law and in equity and for those reasons i think there is enough to move for rehearing, to approve a rehearing. >> i think the question is when they used the term agreement that they reached an agreement at that point in time related to that specific project; not necessarily an agreement that last forever. the issue here is if people arrive at a change of their plans during the course of negotiations, it applies to that specific set.

unfortunately even though i supported the appellants at the previous hearing, the threshold for rehearing is quite high and i don't see it as an overcome in this particular instance. >> isn't the owner the same that made the promises in the past? >> yes. >> if we were to take us through the statements by -- so it's the same owner. i understand your position if the property owners changed and the new owner came and said i never made that representation. we are talking to the same owner. >> that is correct. >> to me, that makes a difference. >> i think the understanding was that it was not going to be built. that's kind of where i'm at. and again like you said the

live testimony does present a different aspect because these were real people that were actually there at the time. >> it does, but i think that the more common usage of that term with respect to the negotiations that occur neighbor against neighbor on an addition or alteration in the residential area lends itself normally to that specific instance. and at that time ten years ago when they were prepared to drop the third floor and therefore get the agreement of the neighbors. i don't think that carries forth to this last one and there was an issue that was brought forth at the hearing. we looked at it and i don't see any new information in the packet.

>> i have a difference of interpretation. i would make a motion to grant the rehearing request. >> do you want to select a date? >> i'm going to see. >> mr. pacheco, could you call the roll please >> on that motion from the president to grant the rehearing request from the appellants. commissioner fung, no, hurtado is absent. lazarus? no. commissioner honda? yes. >> verdict is 2-2. this request is denied and a notice of decision and order shall be released. >> thank you. we'll move to item 4 3.

>> item 4b: jurisdiction requests: subject property at 353-355-357-359 san jose avenue. letter from marolyn allen & thomas church, requestors, asking that the board take jurisdiction over bpa nos. 2007/12/12/0282 and 2007/12/12/0285, which were both issued on april 24, 2012. the appeal periods ended on may 09, 2013, and the jurisdiction requests were filed at the board office on may 29, 2013. permit holder: adil shaikh. project, 1st permit: demolition of one-story, single-family dwelling. project, 2nd permit: construction of four-story building with four-dwelling units. >> item 4b: jurisdiction requests: subject property at 353-355-357-359 san jose avenue. letter from marolyn allen & thomas church, requestors, asking that the board take jurisdiction over bpa nos. 2007/12/12/0282 and 2007/12/12/0285, which were both issued on april 24, 2012. the appeal periods ended on may 09, 2013, and the jurisdiction requests were filed at the board office on may 29, 2013. permit holder: adil shaikh. project, 1st permit: demolition of one-story, single-family dwelling. project, 2nd permit: construction of four-story building with >> item 4b: jurisdiction requests: subject property at 353-355-357-359 san jose avenue. letter from marolyn allen & thomas church, requestors, asking that the board take jurisdiction over bpa nos. 2007/12/12/0282 and 2007/12/12/0285, which were both issued on april 24, 2012. the appeal periods ended on may 09, 2013, and the jurisdiction requests were filed at the board office on may 29, 2013. permit holder: adil shaikh. project, 1st permit: demolition of one-story, single-family dwelling. project, 2nd permit: construction of four-story

building with four-dwelling units. 1234 mr. pacheco. they say these were 2012. >> those are typos. >> was it 2012 or 2013? >> i will check the file. >> thank you. the request were filed on may 29, 2013. the first permit is demolition of one story single family dwelling and project 2, permit construction of four story building with four dwelling units. looks look -- like this were issued in 2013. >> yeah. both in 2013. >>

>> sorry for the delay. my name is tom church and along with my dear friend, marolyn allen. thank you for considering our request for reopening the permits for demolition and

construction at 353 san jose avenue. the house we have rented for 24 years. a letter from the central permit bureau was sent to us around the time it was signed. the board of appeals