good evening and welcome to the june 19, 2013 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the officer is chris hwang and lazarus and commissioner fung and honda. hurt hurtado will be absent. the attorney will provide any legal advice today. i'm the board's executive director. we are joined by representative from the city before the board tonight. scott is here representing the planning department and the planning commission. duffy is here,

senior building inspector representing building inspection and marcos and permit bureau and i believe we'll be joined by urban forester representing the department of bureau of urban forestry and the director of san francisco entertainment commission and rebecca from the arts commission. at this time mr. pacheco if you can go over the boards meeting guidelines and conduct the swear in process. >> the board request that you turn off all phones and pagers so they will not disturb the proceeding and please carry on conversation in the hallway t board rules and presentation are as as follows.. department representative each has seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 3-7 minute periods. members of the

public not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board in accurate preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card when you come up to the podium. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction forms on the left. if you have a question about rehearing, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning t board of appeals office is located a 5050 mission street. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television sfgtv. thank you

for your attention. at this point in time we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify in any of tonight's hearing and with issue to have the board give your testimony evidentiary wage, please raise your right hand and say i do after being sworn in or affirmed. thank you. >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. thank you mr. pacheco. we have one housekeeping item this even this has to do with item no. 6. item 6: appeal no. 13-049 jacqueline harris, appellanttss vs. reondent building inspection

planning dep19, ppri13, to william wiebe, permit to alter a building remove cooking facilities [free standing gas stove/oven] to re-establish building as singlefamily dwelling as authorized by dbi; see attached floor plann. application no. 2013/04/19/5010. housekeeping item this even this has to do with item no. 6. sf 61234 that matter has been withdrawn and will not be heard this evening. >> we'll start with item no. 1. anyone would like to speak on this item? >> seeing none. we'll move to commissioners comments and questions. commissioners? okay. then item no. 3 which is the coeration and possible adoption of the boards minutes for june 5, 2013. >> i move their adoption. any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, mr. pacheco please call the roll. >> on that motion from the president to adopt the june 5, 2013 minutes. commissioner fung, honda, the vote is 4-0. the minutes are adopted. >> thank you. we'll callthe

item 4 a which is a hearing request. item 4a; rehearing request: subject property at 611 buena vista west avenue. letter from susan brandt-hawley, attorney for matthew & kristine leffers, appellants, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 12-171, decided on may 15, 2013. at that time, the board voted 3-2 to uphold the permit on condition that there be further setbacks at the front and back of the addition; four votes being required to overturn or modify any departmental action under the city charter, the permit was upheld as is with no new conditions. permit holder: martin roscheisen. project: one-story vertical addition to existing two-story residence; roof of 3rd story addition will include green roof; project will have a basement addition; bpa no. 2011/05/04/5332s.request. item 4a; rehearing request: subject property at 611 buena vista west avenue. letter from susan brandt-hawley, attorney for matthew & kristine leffers, appellants, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 12-171, decided on may 15, 2013. at that time, the board voted 3-2 to uphold the permit on condition that there be further setbacks at the front and back of the addition; four votes being required to overturn or modify any departmental action under the city charter, the permit was upheld as is with no new conditions. permit holder: martin roscheisen. project: one-story vertical addition to existing two-story residence; roof of 3rd story addition will include green roof; project will have a basement addition; bpa no. 2011/05/04/5332s. 1234request. item 4a; rehearing request: subject property at 611 buena vista west avenue. letter from susan brandt-hawley, attorney for matthew & kristine leffers, appellants, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 12-171, decided on may 15, 2013. at that time, the board voted 3-2 to uphold the permit on condition that there be further setbacks at the front and back of the addition; four votes being required to overturn or modify any departmental action under the city charter, the permit was upheld as is with no new conditions. permit holder: martin roscheisen. project: one-story vertical

addition to existing two-story residence; roof of 3rd story addition will include green roof; project will have a basement addition; bpa no. 2011/05/04/5332s. 1234 the permit holder is martin . we'll start with the requester. you have three minutes. >> good evening, president hwang and members of the commission. i'm susan rembrandt es -- i would like to request a continuance. there was a 3-2 vote on the appeal when we were last here. we have a substantial new information and believe it's very important to have a full board here which we believe we respectfully request at this time. there are members of the neighborhood who are here today to testify and we would ask they be allowed to present testimony but the appellant could defer until commissioner hurtado can be here. should i proceed with the rest of my time or do i have a response about that? >> have you spoken to the permit holder? >> no. i just found out. >> your request for continuance is raised for the first time and the responder should have an opportunity to respond. >> thank you. on behalf of the

permit holder. we don't believe there is any cause for a rehearing and certainly no cause to rehear this matter. we would object. thank you. >> the board's practice is that we would continue if it an appears based on our discussion that the commissioner that vote would have an impact on this position. so, normally we don't grant these types of requests under our normal practice. what that means is after you present your case on the merits for the rehearing request, if during our discussion it appears that the absent commissioner's vote is going to be a positive vote, we then continue. >> sure. did you under what i said? >> i believe so. that we'll proceed with the hearing tonight if in fact there is three votes tonight it will be continued for commissioner

hurtado to continue as well unless we have four votes. >> correct. if it appears that that is a possibility it will make a difference. thank you. that's our normal practice. >> ms. holy, that the commissioner will view the video so they have the benefit of hearing the entire testimony. >> thank you very much. i appreciate that accommodation. as the board will recall when i was last here with the appellant we described why the addition is particularly out of mass -- and scale with the rest of the residence. it's a very small lot. i appreciate the commissioners that agreed with us last time. there was a dispute however that was raised by the project applicant or permit holder which basically regarding what happened ten years ago when this third story

was proposed, there were 4 dr request and they were resolved by actually house that is now built. there was an agreement made. we are not claiming there was a legal contract but there was an agreement made that they would remove that third story and various other accommodations were made regarding the design and the house and the landscaping. what they told the board was that they always intend today build this next story and the neighbors were fine with it and had no objections. we presented one piece of evidence that that wasn't true, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but beyond that we had testimony of john shields, one of the dr requesters indicating it was not true. since that time, since our rehearing request there is substantial new information in that the architect, karen pay son when

the dr was requested was representing the owner at that time of the house adjacent to the permit holders house at 615 buena vista and she recalls the meeting and and agreement made made and she instructed the then owner of the property, her client, to make sure the plans were submitted to planning and were signed off as consistent with the dr settlement and we presented that last time. we feel there is an equitable issue here. we believe that this project is an appropriate for this site and what the board looked at last time, we now have people from the neighborhood all of the dr requesters that were present ten years ago will be presenting that information tonight. we also have from miss

peyton's office. she wanted to be here because there was a contact made from the permit holder to her to pressure her to hange her fidat. she can't be here. she's out of state. >> my name is samantha -- an architectural designer. she asked me to read they mail. she's out of state right now. with they mail >> is that part of our record? >> at the mail? >> i have copies of it. >> it's not part of the record. your time is up. i'm going to allow if it's a very short e-mail to read it very quickly. >> dear susan i'm completely offended by the declaration that was submitted to the permit board of appeals. did she record my conversation

without my permission. now i feel avoided by very sleazy behavior. if she would submit the recording without the edit and declaration the board would see something critical that she misleadingly left out. she discussed that the neighbors would be withdrawing because he didn't have the money to spend but he would do it as soon as he could. i made it clear to them in no way that -- if martin had said any such thing t whole point of the dr was for the third story. he hated it. finally the skills could be questioned on any event. she went on how about martin was single at the time and there she is the happy live in girlfriend in print. enough said. karen.

>> i have copies of this. would anyone like a copy? >> no; thank you. >> okay. we can hear from mission >> thank you, anna on behalf off -- of the sponsor. there must be new material that would have affected the outcome. nothing like that has been presented. the only thing that has been presented to you is an affidavit from an architect who worked ten years ago with the neighbor at 615. she does not state there was any type of finding contract. the only thing that here affidavit states is what was already before you when with -- we were last here. there is a

proposal for a large building ten years ago and the project sponsor agreed at that time not to build that building. nothing within the affidavit submitted to you from miss pay son suggest in the follow up conversations that my client had with her verify, nothing suggest that there was an agreement never to submit a proposal as one has a right to do to build something new on the property. in fact, the only new evidence that you have before you is an affidavit from the new folks who do own the building at 615 buena vista, the one that miss pay son previously worked on and those new owners have said they look forward to the project that they knew of no agreement that my clients would not be able to build and to suggest an

addition to their home in the future. and that there was no agreement that they relied upon and they welcomed the addition. that's the only new evidence before you. in fact were you to decide that some theoretical evidence of an oral covenant would mean that there were a binding permanent light air and view easement. that would stand on its head. >> there is no new information that would warrant a rehearing. i did speak to karen pay son who submitted the affidavit. i talked to her for about 23 minutes and asked if she was trying to imply that there was

a binding contract and she said no. if there was a contract i would have put it in the affidavit. martin didn't pursue her story so the neighbors were okay with the two story structures that he did propose but not that he agreed never to build. so a rehearing would be unfair. i ask you to deny it, please. >> thank you. any departmental comments? no. so we can take public comments. can i see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak under this item? okay. first person please step forward and perhaps the others can lineup on the other side of the room so we can move this along. >> okay. you have three minutes. >> someone please step forward.

>> hello, my name is tim stuart. i have a letter from john shields who is unfortunately not able to be here. he is a neighbor on masonic and he is the original dr filers ten years ago. dear president hwang. in this letter we'll show there are serious problems with inaccurate site plan and again for the current proposed remodel. we've also show proof that there was compromises between the neighbors and the sponsor. one of the compromises is the story that is now being sought. our

neighborhood group retained a licensed land is you are vaifr to conduct the building relationship survey and serious problems were identified. as you know the site plan was used in 2002 and the current project. the house was moved forward 3 feet 10 inches. the house at 615 was also moved forward will the in inches rather than feet. whether intentional or not it was moved forward. the house is now visible in front of 615 buena vista west and signature fully front of 601 buena vista west. as you know our attorney has presented transcripts to you in the condition that the new addition would beset back. during this discussion the project architect had the

faulty site plan. any estimate using those plans regarding the relationship of these two buildings would be 3 feet off the correct measurement. please review this documentation following the letter. although some paperwork there is clearly written evidence of along the negotiation with the neighbors ten years ago. evidence of architect meeting notes of october 7, 2002. the additional story has been removed by the time and cc architects show it's a 55 foot and 40 foot lots. the garage and first floor will comprise 50 percent of the elevation. the project sponsor goes on to say that the project will not have the mass presence and neighboring

buildings. these assayers as good faith point to general disregard for property. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker, if you haven't already filled out a speaker card, it would be great to do so after you come up to speak. >> good evening, my name is dan leave son. from 1999-2005, i live add buena vista avenue. from 1999-2005 i lived at buena vista avenue west. i just learned about this project. i'm no longer in the neighborhood. i was one of the dr requesters for the home at 611 buena vista avenue west when it was first

proposed in 2002. that's why i'm here today. i participated in the meetings with the project sponsor and the architects. along with the neighbors i thought we had reached and agreement about the size of the home along with the landscaping. a few years later i followed up with the architect and the landscaping was not installed as promised. i had been told that martin assured this board that they were told they would about would the story on the home in a future time when his finances permitted and we expressed no objection. i would assure that i would have never withdrawn my dr if that were the case. i recently reviewed some letters that i september a letter in 2004 after the construction was

completed to the planning department asking about the process being certain that the actual agreement was being enforced. in that letter i referenced quote, the final approval agreement with the neighbors. end quote. there was some form of agreement. i have a copy of the letter to the planning department with me. i also reference it at a time, a letter from letter project sponsors architect that i had signed. they were also drawings and to me, i'm not sure about the legal totality of it but that to me constituted what i considered an agreement. that agreement did not include a third story. as i mentioned the original agreement parts of it were not followed by the

project sponsor. in my opinion, a third story of the house was and it's incompatible with the neighborhood architecture and aesthetics. it's not in the agreement that i and the other dr requesters made in 2002. thank you. >> before you sit down, i have a question. did you say you have an e-mail between you and the permit holder that states that something is the final agreement? you have a correspondence is that reflects the final agreement? >> on my computer i have 3 documents. the first was a letter from november 9, 2004. that went to the planning department where i referenced our agreement. >> november 2004? referencing

an agreement. do you know with any specificity what agreement you are referring to? >> there were the drawings that we all signed off on. there was a letter from the architect which i included as an attachment in the letter which i no longer have a copy of. but hopefully it's in the planning department files. >> it was communicated via e-mail? >> no. it was a letter and then i have a letter january 3rd, 2005 to the project sponsor asking him about what the progress was. he wrote back to me and in january 12, 2005 i have another letter thanking him for the proceeding and i don't believe any parts of the agreements were ever fulfilled. >> i think i'm unclear here what agreement you are talking

about? >> there were final drawings >> you don't believe those were fulfilled? >> parts of it. >> that's not at issue, the landscape ? >> no. >> as someone who was part of, you were the dr requester and you withdrew based on an agreement with respect to what was going to be done with the property, right? >> correct. >> were you or in -- how many requesters were there along with you? >> i don't remember. >> were you doing this on your own? or were you represented by council? >> it was council representing the group, i believe. >> 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