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the seller in reviewing the plans and negotiating with the sponsor, if you will the project sponsor at the time had withdrawn the objectional 3rd story.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 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 posted. we honestly believed that we did not need to respond to this letter signed in the manner prescribed in order to strengthen our case for gaining a fair and realistic timeframe given our individual and special needs of a one year eviction notice, a time frame by the way that has always been promised to buy our landlord adil shaikh. by not responding to this notice, -- who in the past had successfully assisted us with an illegal eviction from a prior landlord. after the

window timeframe for responding to the notices had expired on may 25th, we received two eviction notices signed from mr. shaik. we were told at that time that because we had not responded to the notices in time, they could not be of service to us. we feel we lost a valuable ally in this process. so it's been proven in the past to help us. why again did we not respond to the notice? the sign posted in part reads any person who deems his interest or property shall be affected by work performed. to us that phrase is crucial. we understood it to

mean the actual work itself, dust, noise, objects falling and so on. not a time frame for that work occurring. the letter sent to us in part reads, quote, no action need be taken by you, however, if you wish further info or the proposed work or to inspect plans on the building permit application, we understood this to meet the designs, the plans, the work itself, not when the work would begin. again this latter part is linked to our unique needs, not our neighbors to have to vacate the premises first before the work could be performed and yet, i say our unique needs, the wording was exactly the same. i checked our neighbors. there was no

distinguishing wording to address what is most important to us, a fair eviction. the fee of $175 posted to the sign was to the project itself, not to the timeframe when the project would begin. our eviction notice, we feel an unfair link has been with the wording and the 50 day eviction notices that has been to usher us out and the eviction in the process. at the same time this process has entailed our loss that could expedite our rights and keep us out of court. we have had terrible news. my friend, has a life threatening illness that has spread

throughout her body. i would like to spend quality time with my best friend on this planet and i don't want to be in superior court contesting something that was promised to us. i'm not saying the landlord is a bad guy ahead of this hearing. i know this is not your domain. i extended a phone call to both mr. shak and his lawyer addressed our individual needs. we are not trying to ruin your permits, we are trying to get the time you promised us. at the time, this is one week ago. mr. shak acknowledged that promise of the years eviction. i have always planned to give you and marolyn allen a year to vacate. i will be at the hearing to support you. unfortunately there was confusing news with that. my lawyer made me sign

the evictions and with that kind of confusion, i think as reliable renters, we deserve a better ending to this. by the way, talk about toying around an idea of demolition construction from 2005, is not an eviction. having inspectors come to the house for asbestos is not an eviction. what we rely on is far our eviction is different. we expect him to go with the one year eviction. the last thing i want to be in court for the rest of her life which isn't too long. thank

you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> the other microphone. >> good evening, first of all thank you for allowing, sure. my name is adil shaikh, the permit holder and next to me is my legal council. my response to what mr. church was saying is that i have acquired this property since 2000 and from that day going forward i have always indicated that what my plans and intentions were with this single family home. i have always kept them in the latest

informative information that i can give them. they were at both of the hearings. tom was at both and marilyn was at one. from that time i did absolutely nothing because in the letter i said i would wait years before i started the project and that's what i did even though the project was approved in 2011 and i stated all along that this project was not some real estate developer looking to make a quick buck, but this would buy behind be a project that i would leave for my family. this project was approved in 2011 and finally i decided to move forward in 2013. i have waited years and years and i'm just following

the protocols setforth with the guidelines with the rent board and what is is required from the city and county and the state. i have no idea how the process worked but i have been very patient. i have waited and there was historical hearings and i waited and there was preapplication meetings and i waited and finally i had to move forward and when i did i did it despite being approved in 2011 and i don't know what more i can do at this time. so i leave it at that. >> i'm david fran and we paid the moving expenses and the notice has been served fairly recently. the 60 days hasn't

expired yet. i would imagine it's still under the rent board's jurisdiction. there is no unlawful retainer filed. negotiations can incur at any time. i don't think that would be cutoff with the permit. that's all we have to say. >> thank you. >> don't leave yet. mr. adil shaikh, the pell on -- appellant or the requester said that you promised them a year. is that correct? >> my understanding is that i said in a letter that i would wait years before i actually started the project. it was at one time in a telephone phone

call that marilyn mentioned to me that when you do get ready to move forward do you know that you have to compensate us and that a year is required. i have never done a demolition in my life. i didn't know what the legal formalities were. i waited a year. if you look at the record, 2011 was when the project was approved, sir. >> the records indicate you picked up the permit in april. where are you with your construction process? do you have a contractor already on board? >> yes. i do have a contractor on board and as a matter of fact we were supposed to meet today to just go over some details and i told him can we meet tomorrow because today i'm attending a hearing. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> anything from the department, mr. sanchez? >> thank you, good evening, members of the board, scott sanchez, planning department. the permit application was submitted to the city in december of 2007. it's a demolition new construction required a mandatory hearing at the planning commission. we did our neighborhood notice in 2010. at the time the planning commission gave the sponsor advice to redesign the project and the project was revised and in april of 2011 the planning commission approved the project with revisions. it was stamped approved on the plans of may of 2012 and it was to the department of building inspection