replacement trees of the same trunk diameter and same canopy to be determined by the d.p.w. bwf. as determined by the dpw. on that motion vice president fung. aye. commissioner hillis. aye. commissioner hurtado. aye. the vote is 4-0. the denial is overruled. with all those conditions. thank you. >> thank you. moving on to item number five, which is appeal number 11-125, maud hallin versus the department of building inspection with planning department approval. the property is at 449-a greenwich street. protesting the issuance on october 27, 2011, to kelly kaplan of a permit to alter a building. renovation of rear yard cottage, scope includes conversion of crawlspace to

habitable space, new roof deck, lower cottage, two new bedrooms and 2 1/2 baths and family room, upper and master be room, bath, kitchen and remodel. new half bath. this is on for hearing today, i understand the parties have reached an agreement. and would like to present a settlement agreement to the board. for some modifications to the department. you can start with the appellant. >> president hwang and commissioners, i'm maud hallin, the owner of the adjoining properties on greenwich street. and i see that we are appeal number 11-125 and i must say we have spent many months and with a lot of effort and collaboration from the parties involved to reach an agreement. and so i have handed over and mrs. kaplan has also handed

over documentation to the board outlining our agreement with revisions. the new architectural drawings are dated march 21, 2012, and not as i had erroneously written here as not march 28. part of the agreement is a lot of quite a few changes. and i think that it will be a very nice cottage now. i also want to point out that other property owners at 439 greenwich, which is an 18-unit condo complex, they have also -- with mrs. kaplan and her

group about other refinements as to construction. as you know, it's a sloping hill. and issues of groundwater, rocks, etc., are of major concern to everyone living downhill. we have also groundwater continuously running. and we can't never feg out where it's coming from -- figure out where it's coming from. so any changes in foundation makes it really tough. and it's a steep slope. but i think that mrs. kaplan and her husband who are from southern california have now been well-trained in understanding the different problems on telegraph hill. and the fact that it's a very densely populated neighborhood. and there's a cool next door also.

-- a school next door also. and this is the rear cottage which is grandfathered. so with this, i wish them good luck with the project. thank you. >> thank you. >> ok. thank you. we can hear from the permit holder now. >> president hwang and members of the board, i'm steve atkinson from the law firm of mckenna, long and aldrich. my client, kelly kaplan, is here next to me. this is very simple. so we can help move your calendar along. as the appellant said, a settlement has been reached. the settlement incorporates revised plans. we've outlined and kelly -- in kelly kaplan's letters the changes. those changes are reflected under the revised plan. so what we would like this board to do is to approve the

modified plans pursuant to the settlement. and we're happy to answer any questions you may have. victor? >> have the plans been reviewed by planning? or d.b.i.? ok. any issues? >> we can have them come up to speak. mr. snyder. if you would just acknowledge your review of the plan. thanks. >> president hwang, with the planning department, in response to your question, yes, we have reviewed plans. yes, they do comply with the planning code. >> thank you. >> does the building department have anything they want to add? >> the plans are compliant. >> thank you.

>> thank you. call for public comment. is there anyone here who would like to speak on this item? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is leo. i'm the president of the 18-unit condo homeowners association that our neighbor, maud hallin, referred to. we're the upslope neighbor. and our -- we're the upslope neighbor with our slow the neighbor with our foundation in seismic wall running along that property line. it has been one of the causes of concern, that we have certain board members that have collaborated closely with the of visor's throughout this process. i must say, i am pleased that this difficult times seems to be added and the stage. we just have concerns, obviously, about any excavation

impacts along the wall. in that respect, ms. kaplan has assured us that should there be any modifications, ddi modifications, we will get copies of those. she has also promised to provide us with a time line for that excavation to have our engineers meet with them on-site prior to starting a works. we seem to have come a long way since last november and thank you for your consideration. >> i am just adding on to this. i found out that there are a lot of these agreements that the dti make changes and they will get back to the people and it does not happen. i would like if you make your opinion to be very clear to the

department of building inspection that the appellate, everybody gets a copy of the changes. >> any other public comment? unless you have other questions, the matter is yours. >> i guess the area. motion would be to grant the appeal and conditioned upon the agreement and the revised and drawing. >> dated march 21, 2012. >> be one of the date of that agreement? >> june 14. >> so moved. >> we have a motion from the vice-president to read this appeal, uphold the permit,

condition this permit with the adoption of settlement conditions as reflected in the june 1470 from the permit holder and with the adoption of revised plans stated march 21, 2012. on that motion -- thank you. the vote is 4-0. the permit is upheld on condition of the revised plans. >> we will move on to item number six, appeal 12-056, with planning department approval properties in 2853. protesting issuance of april 17, 2012.

building rooms down for future expansion. but we will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> this is more than i needed. >> this is the solution i gave them to solve the problem. it is 10 ft. 3 high, they chose not to show on the plans because you don't need a gate or a landing or a deck. there are four houses in a row,

this is the next house, they are pretty much identical homes and it does not have a gay. in this house has a gate on the front. it is causing all this problem, and this is the last house. the only one that i think needs of gay that causes them to build a gate on our side. they have chosen not to take a solution that would solve this issue. they have filed a building permit. this is the permit they have filed. i will try to go through the defects. a put a valuation of $5,000 to raise a building 36 inches and built downstairs. 750 square feet of hubble space for $5,000.

they said that the owner is going to be the contractor. if you say you're going to be an owner builder, you have to build that. they think they thought they were raising 36 inches and they made a typo. there is no horizontal addition, but they are building a deck. when you looked at the drawing, it doesn't show well here. they didn't bother to show what they are blocking. they decided it wasn't legal. i will explain their theory they did not account for the downward sloping line. it is 10 ft. 3. you have to do a notice. you take a look at the height and here it is 37 feet and on

the application is 36 feet. you can go out and measure it, higher than 10 feet. the aerial photo will never show and a pop-up. they say there is no drawing showing that this talk about was legal. this is their theory at the plan we were able to find. the only plan i can't find his the original permit. that would has not been

bootlegged yen. if you look on the outside of this, if someone's not yet at a master of this would, it is the best job i have ever seen in my life. the simple answer is that this is a window was built with the building. they're building a wall in front of the bedroom window and did not bother to show it on the plan. we asked the city to come out and they said we have an open boat. come out and luck, we have invited the inspector out. we invited them to measure the height at 10 ft. 3. we also pointed out devaluation. devaluation of using the city numbers, the estimate to do total construction is about 560. you can't do valuation between two permits. but even if you could, the other permits were only $300,000.

you can't build 700 square feet and raise a building 36 inches and remodel 5400 square feet. how their valuation is off, the planning department has not been played thousands of dollars in fees. here is a letter from the building director saying you can't transfer homeowner or permit. but not if it is a contractor's permit. the same reason applies when you do it electrical. you can't have them: electrical permit to hire somebody else. this particular case, the city has rules about how you can transfer permits. had a permit before it is issued, there is nothing about

owner transfer. the reason why is that people were getting hurt, this is the state law that talks about an owner builder. she said she is going to do it and now she is selling property. devaluation is that all the work was done in the first permit. it shows unified school fees paid under the sperm bank. they are listing 750 feet of additional space. can they do this, i would like to hire them to do this for $500,000. you can't do this. they did not show the window, they decided it was illegal.

i did not realize i have more time. they did things on the application that were different. who just delete the deck. if you want to get at it at the front, that is your business. he will put a deck and someone will look into a bedroom window. it is outrageous. >> we can hear from the permit older now. -- holder now.

>> of the conrad family owned the property for 55 years. brought it from the descendants of golden gate park. she lived in this house all this time and there was a fire two years ago that caused substantial damage to the house. she had to move out and at that time, throughout her 55 years, she wanted a ride. the work that was proposed, finally, after negotiating with the insurance company, she was able to afford a rod. we kept the permit that would have accommodated the garrote as a separate permit, reduced it to the minimum amount of work necessary to accomplish the task after all the foundations are in in the interior work was completed.

95% of the project was repairing the fire damage, upgrading the house because of the extent of the fire damage which included all the foundations and the entire house remodeled might as the cutting of the garages. this permit which the neighbor has persistently requested a d r, fought the variants which have involved the raising of the house. but it was basically moved to the end which is where we are now. i can't address the panoply of trivial comments that he has brought up, they are not relevant to the case before you which is simply that this permit was not issued in error. it was reviewed properly, the fees were paid on prior permits that were a substantial amount of work and the sperm it was simply for the listing of the house which would have already

been to complete the work under the prior department. i think that is pretty much dead. the issue of the bass sounds like they are being off the defensive that encroaches 2 inches on to my client's property. but they are very interested in the stairs being modified so they can continue to use what looks like that illegally built a with non-conforming windows. these houses are all identical, it did not exist in any of the other houses, but that is not the issue in front of the commission now. i am happy to answer questions. >> we hear a lot about the technicalities of the permit, but what is the issue? i don't think i understand what is being proposed and what a neighbor opposes. >> i have been trying to

understand why they persist. the requirement by the planning cut is that and this is open to the sky, it cannot exceed 10 feet measured to the top of the railing. we're going to build its according to code, no further than 10 feet to the railing. the owner placed in so they can see where the wall was going to be. it was placed sloppily and measures 10 ft. 3, so they are going off and building 10 ft. 3. they will build a wall 10 feet pirko. >> is there a plan you can show where there are stairs being built and where this wall is? this drawing is kind of confusing as to what we are even looking at. >> i submitted my response, three pages. >> can you put that on the

overhead and point out where it is? >> i don't know if we can blow that up. sorry, thank you. the area is the day on the -- it encroaches on to my client's property. this is the still that is open to this guy that goes through that portion of to the streets. >> i don't see that coho. the next exhibit might be more useful. >> from this vantage point, you won't see this year. it is behind this point.

the next one, that is the side view of it. >> the top of that is supposed to be -- where did that point reflect, where is the relative to the day? >> is about a foot away from the bay. >> you can see the red ink, which is the outline of windows which were shown. it is below the day. >> he is shown standing, is that where there is a door here and they scared the outside of the backyard? >> is fully under the windows. >> under these windows?

under the questionable bay windows which are non conforming by themselves anyway. >> i got lost a little bit. when i look that the permit, i see it was taken out by you as the architect. >> i think maybe i applied for it. >> i am not sure what permit the appellant is talking about in terms of taken out by the owner, the contractor. dodge and the owners and the taking it out, and but i was the applicant. >> the actual permit shows the owner? >> i did not say this, but it is in the response. miss conrad is 85 years old, she was holding up quite well despite the protestations by the neighbor, but she threw in the

towel and sold the property. a new property owner will be completing the project. >> the other thing that was a little confusing, when you read your permit application, it doesn't talk anything about stairs. >> this there was added during the review. it might be correct that it wasn't voted on the permit, possibly, but the way it worked was 750 square feet in the prior permits. they paid the san francisco district twice because the square footage was approved and what it went through again on the application being added. that is sort of not to the

point, but it was the raising of the house with the bedrooms in the back that triggered the building code which is a new requirement that all veterans have to have access to the streets. the only way to get veterans through the side yard was to add these stairs. through the plan review process, which is why it had to go back to city planning for real approval. >> i noticed the drawing that you provided that indicated that it was over the proper line and it is not aside a civil drawing. >> i am happy to show you that, but it is not relevant except that the neighbor is overreaching here, literally and figuratively. >> if you were to stand on the stairs at the landing at the

taught, how would one be able to peer into one of the bay windows? >> you keep saying it and you say is irrelevant but you say it over and over again. if you stand on the landing, are you in of place where you can view into that bay area? >> you have to turn around and look back into the corner of the bay. this there actually dropped after that window. i think this drawing is best because it shows the relationship. the first rectangular -- i think this was printed in color for you.

the first window in the corner is right across the porch which is closest to the stairs starts. and then you start dropping down. it doesn't look like it from this, but from this, it does. >> what is the purpose of these stairs? >> to allow egress where there are veterans down below. you can go up inside the house to get out, but there is an exterior way to get into the backyard.

>> thank you. >> of the evening again, by way of background as we alluded to earlier, this project was the subject of the various and discretionary review. the zoning and administrator unanimously approved the project. the appellant is the former gdr request for. we struggle of it as well with some of the issues raed