the issue of that we face today, is that in our neighborhood, we have never had a case like this before. lots of people have remodeled and improved their homes this has never been a case that we have seen. when we last met and after the issue was appealed and there was a ceqa appeal and it ended up on september 4, 2012, we assumed that everything was settled and that the project sponsor was going to go on and just build her building and things were fine. what we discovered was something different. there was an agreement that was arbitrated by farrell and they came up with an agreement that everybody felt that they could live with, at the end of the meeting of the board of supervisors, supervisor farrell, mr. kevlin the project, sponsor's attorney,

and i, walked out and shook hands and the attorney asked, would we allow him to take and run up the agreement to the board of appeals? and he turns out that we found out, 16 months later on march fifth that he never got there. and no one knew anything about it. and so in other words, the entire agreement was never delivered. the agreement is by its own terms and i have sent you and i hoped that you have looked at the paperwork because you have seen it and it has the following distinguishing features, number one, it is one document, agreement in appendix are one document in its own terms, two, it is not severable. and three it can be modified only by a subsequent agreement and four if one provision is unenforcable and other provisions remain intact. >> five it was drafted by her lawyer. six, they both demanded that it

be signed by old neighbors t was going to be myself, my sister and my niece who are owners of the building next door and she refused to accept that as it and but required all of the neighbors around to sign it. and finally, all signatures had to approve non-miner changes. what happened and let me give you a skeleton. the lawyer never got there. the board of appeals approved it, thinking that it was before them. and everything was quiet. we did not hear anything until about february. inquiries about why isn't the procedure the building being built and he says that we are working on it and when something happens we will let you know. now we have received the freedom of information sunshine request of documents from the planning department and i thank you very much for being so prompt. dbi has not yet turned in the materials in and the reason

that we are asking you today to (inaudible) on these issues is to allow the board of supervisors and the city attorney to render an opinion in writing as to the jurisdiction as to whether this commission has jurisdiction at this time to hear this case. what happens essentially is that no one heard anything until february, but the documents show that the beginning in november, the project sponsor began to disavow the, and the plans that she got were her plans and she demanded that she had a whole different set of plans and she was working on it and none of us know anything about it. what happened is that she raised her building in february or march and we discovered that by the terms of the agreement that she is supposed to market where she raised it so that it could be verified to the 36 inches that you had required. she did not mark it and so we

hired a very respectable surveyer, and he surveyed the building and the results were given to you and in in fact, the building was raised, more than 36 inches and you have got the documentation in your file. and essentially the problem was that the... mr. sanchez made an an announced site visit and measured it from the southern most element of the property and measured 39 inches and in fact what i have pointed out is that the sblg on a slope and so it is a 3.6 slope and therefore the mid section of the curve for which you require to measure is 1.8 inches and 1 foot and 8 inches and therefore you can see that no matter where you measure the 36 inches to a slope, lower down to the middle, and the building will sit lower down in the air,

because this is just basic geometry that you know, and so they will be off about 4 inches, and in 36 and in the middle it is a lt more than that. dbi wanted to measure it and mr. duffy went out there and he wanted to measure it and he didn't and relied on the sponsor. we have an issue of measurement that we have to deal with. there was an agreement, it was never handed in in full, and there was a disavow, and then, in around february, we got a frantic call from the project pam whitehead in tears saying that you got to help me out, city planning will not let any do a thing, we all agreed that i could make the changes and the miner ones, by the requirements of the code there was no problem with and the non-miner ones, we had to have

a discussion and approval by the signatures. they will not listen to me, will you come down and take a look at what i got going. and she disclosed for the first time that she had financial considerations she bought the building for something like 1 million $750,000 and put down $50,000 and the previous owner mrs. conrad was a neighbor for 75 years, and took back the paper for three years and she had to refinance at the end of each time and she said that i am worried and i want to get the building built and i want to finish and secure my financing. my sister and i immediately then the next day on the evening of march 6th, we went down there and she showed us some plans, and she said, they would like to change the building, my sister noticed the difference, it was an elevator, where there should have been a play for a second egress for the two unit building that we mr. sanchez and i worked hard to accomplish and we did accomplish it in the agreement and it was all set to go and she says yes, i want elevator and i want to make it a home

and move here and i was a child here, and we said ta we cannot interfere between you and the city planning department if you are going to do something. >> no you got to do it, it is a terrible situation, i get more and mr. antarnes calls me and said that you got to say anything, something, just tell them that you saw it. >> they asked me to tell that you it is okay with us and there is no change in the outer envelope and it was internal and it was foreseen in the agreement and it was and had a road map and keep in mind that there a road map at each step of the way of how to proceed.

there were conversations back and forth and you guys received a lot of e-mails from me and in fact so many that one of you asked me back and said could you just please wait until the hearing and not send us e-mails any more and maybe it was mr. antonini, and i don't remember. is my time up? >> you have 30 seconds. >> well, and what happened then is what we have is a mr. sanchez writes in this and i have been here ten minutes already? >> correct. >> and i have writes in the notes that he wants a letter from mr. suresky and then mr. cabreroa said that it will be without notifying me. >> thank you. >> i will have to take it up again in rebuttal. >> thank you.

>> and other member of the public in support of the dr? >> members of the public who are opposed to the project? >> commissioners my name is don, more head and i leave ate 2715 (inaudible) street and my property runs through four properties on broderick including the subject property and the comments that i we want to make are general comments to probably all of the home owners in san francisco. and when my wife and i bought our house on filbert in 1984, we had reasonable views of the bay, and we had a backyard that the sun lit from 10:30 to 7:00 in the evening. we had a kitchen that had nice light and so on.

in the ensuing years, the neighbors across the street went up and we now have a peek at the bay if we stand on a ladder in the attic and our backyard and our deck is mildew and dry rot and there is never sun in the backyard because the house next door not only went up but went and built back into the backyard. but the current project we are considering here, is having gone out 36 inches, and took most of the light from us, and the eastern exposure and by the time that we square off this building on the first and second floors, it is going to take the light on the sides of the building, and so not only we will have a kitchen by the time that she puts up a fence in the backyard we will have a blacked out kitchen and so the consideration, legally, this ought to be called a taking

because i bought this property because it had features that i was willing to pay for. and i don't have those features any more. and my neighbors got the enhanced value on their property (inaudible) and i think that we need to consider that. not only on just on this property, but on all of the properties. and i think that has to be in the considerations that you make in determining whether or not the plans are approved. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> (inaudible) this has been one of the hardest cases that i have ever seen and the most dispickable cases that i have ever seen, and my 30 years of being here. and it equates to the i call it the academy of art issues and i never seen so many complaints

and so many buildings against scott sanchez and the department telling them not to build and they continue to build and i have seen it back and as glen said and they exist with the existing square footage, and well, in one of these expansions they tore out the backyard and expanded to include all of the stairwells and supposed to have an emergency plum and they continued to cook and fixing it passed it. and they did not measure the front right. and this has been really, a hard case. our group believes that you have the right to embellish your house, but this has been so many violations that we are saying that we support the dr requestors because of these violations. now, number two, if you decide

to build, to vote for this there will be two repercussions one of them because of all of these infractions that they have not followed, every other developer in town can use this case as a precedent case and it is going to cost the department a lot of money, because there are going to be more dr and more problems, and etc.. number two, if you decide to vote for this, i think that they should bring the back wall back to the original, and i think that they should do the correct 36 inches, and they don't need dormers on both sides because the 7:00 sun comes into the last speaker's house. and he is not going to have any. and why do they have to square off the top? just leave the roof at an angle so more light can comes into the backyards? the reason why i think that you should continue this, and find

out what your legalities are on this because it was heard in several different departments, i think that there are ways more ways to compromise on this, and i think that we can work a solution out. and the problem is, that, that the meeting and when i sat there and watched and i didn't say anything, and i saw non-operation from the architect, as well as from the developer. and i think that we should look at this case, very carefully because there are a lot of ramifications down the line that reprocus on the department. >> looking for compromise and seeing if we can find something. >> thank you. >> are there additional speakers in support of the dr? >> no. okay. project sponsor? and because there were two dr requesters, you have ten minutes. >> thank you, good evening,

president wu, and members, mr. sanchez, ilene dicks and i am here with the sponsors who are in the audience with us and i am going to start with quite frankly the bizarre request being franke that he emailed to me last evening, and he explained earlier to you, that somehow this commission has to wait for an attorney from the opinion from the city attorney's office, to vote the board of supervisors in order to take jurisdiction and it is premised on this settlement agreement that was executed with respect to the ceqa appeal and somehow he and i should add in the documents that he shared with all of us and mr. sanchez said that they are not a party and they don't belong in a pile and don't go in a file and

after i red the documents i downloaded the minutes on the determination where the settlement rather, the and the settlement was discussed as well as the transript and i would like you to have it in none of these documents does it mention ratification, adoption or depending on the settlement agreement t was simply stated in the ceqa appeal, at the time of the hearing, and by mr. zuresky and the lawyer, that they have made an agreement, the appeal is withdraw and the appeal confirmed the exemption at the time and there is no question that this commission has jurisdiction and board of appeals had jurisdiction and so i wanted to get that out of the way and i will leave it to the city family to decide the other issues that he raised. we are here for a consolidated permit, it is an unusual permit

and you have not seen this frequently because it is casting a wide net for everything that is happening on the property and the reason is that the suspension that mr. sanchez had imposed in february, and there is a history here, there is no question, and i am not going to go into he said and she said and they said, this is why we are here tonight, the project architect has put everything in accurate detail on the project plans and what has been approved and built and approved by the board appeals and what is propose and that is what is here, they are entitled to the dr request, which they filed and however, rather than seeking to really try to work with the project sponsor, what did they both ask for is to undue everything that it had been done, the request of it does does not meet the spirit of the dr because there has to be compromise and discussion, and basically undo it and all of this stems from as i am sure

that you have ascertained from my papers that this all started with the height discrepancy which was an innocent mistake, by the project architect at the time and so i want to vote that some of the time here that we have to mr. cook who was the surveyer who measured and the basis of the measurements and he has drawn the plans that we have before you tonight, thank you. >> i am gregry cook and i am a civil engineer and a land surveyers in may of 2012, we went out and we measured the property for the boundary and set backs and we also put some drill holes and some shot some elevations on points that are on the street curves and north and south side, and as well as

the walkway of this brick walk right out in front of the front door and so we had several points that we used to check as to where we came back and we could recheck those same points, because everything is relative to different, and we did not want to have one where it could be off and so we had three or four checks. and we measured the front door to be a certain distance above the or those points that we had out there. and when we came back, to check it, we found that the building was raised three feet on the floor, and then again, in and i have got, it to see this, but, it shows some of the points out in the street and the drill holes, north and south and i think that have you it and it is exhibit g, and also, when we went back out, in november of 2013, and we resurveyed the same things and we shot all of the same control points and the top of the curb and north and

south side and there was marks like i said, we put drill holes in, and that we were able to find, and that are still there, and there is also a cut l, on the south top of the curb in line with the property line and that is a part of a recorded map. and so we had good reference points that we reshot from but we did the same thing and checked all of the points and they matched up close, and they we measured the floor off of those points and we found that the floor and the building had been raised three feet. that is basically it. and we also went out and measured the roof, and because we never were asked to measure that originally, we were just asked to check did the building go up three feet and yes, it went up three feet and at this november date, we went out and measured the roof as well. >> and i think that is it, if you have any questions? >> feel free to give me a call.

>> good evening commissioners, project architect. and as you might imagine that i am very interested in seeing this project behind me. but, for the purposes of explanation, of some of the history, i would like to say that this, the project my involvement goes back before this project owner, i was hired by the original owner who owned the property for 55 years after a fire and so when i was called out to do the work, the house was and had just had the fire and there was some inaccessible space and there was limited access, and there was also this, again, the house that was lived in by them for that long by the same family and the historic brush hedges in the

front, kept access from surveying the curb, and we didn't have a survey, and i, i measured the building, and according to how it sat on the land around it. so the drawings that i did were actually with the three views of the building and just the relationship of the curb to the building that was off and so this, consolidated permit corrects that. and the ad dishes proposed were 90 percent interior and the extensions are binine and within the roof and i think that as the zoning administrator can attest to, he himself measured the building being raised three feet. and the surveyer was asked to come out and confirm it, that is all that there is to the project and i am available for

any questions. >> i just want to make sure that we are all clear that this building is within the 40 foot high limit, it does not exceed the 40 foot high limit. he has not put anything in it other than mr. ron's letter and we have put in a stamped survey from a licensed surveyer to show all that have and i want to be clear on that. >> good evening, i think that we will actually live in the house, but i grew up around the corner and i lived there 26 years until, and i bought the house from my friend's mom and i have known them since i was

four and the project became too much for them and she actually wanted the garage because she was 82 at the time. and parking was becoming a problem and i guess that the fire gave her that opportunity to make changes to the house at the same time. so, this has been a long process for us and we are exhausted. and we really hope that you do not take dr with this. thank you. >> i second the motion. >> i just. >> the emotional strain of owning this building is thinking that they are moving, oh, it will be 9 months and it will be 12 and you are saving money and to hire the builders and to do the work. and not to hire attorneys and not be back and it feels like it is one thing after the other, if it is not the height it is one thing that will pop up, it is a long road and it

would mean a lot if we could move forward. >> thank you. >> dr requestor you have a two-minute rebuttal. in the machine gun fashion, it is a habea corpus case, where is the agreement? the agreement has to be filed with the board of appeals as one document they never did. therefore what we have right now, is a parent agreement that gave rise to addendum that the agreements which fall with the original agreement, therefore, what we have here is a original permit that was used as a decoy in order to start some piece meal and then the agreement and there by come up with where we are today, and i should add to you that on march 12th, the project sponsor wrote to mr. sanchez if the plans alone cannot specify all of the conditions of the agreement regarding the neighbor issues, the agreement was part of the

over all settlement that was ultimately signed and should be on file with the board of appeals as party to the plan that the reason for the signed agreement was that to have something to follow as the plans alone cannot specify all of the conditions for our agreement regarded in the neighbor's issues. what happened was the lawyer never showed up and he gave it to mr. canteroins and at the meeting he said that he did not deliver it and gave it to the sponsor and the sponsor sequestered it and it has been delivered. >> we asked the board of appeals the file is empty, there is no agreement and it is basically a phantom hearsay agreement, but it was never delivered, so this is a very simple case of you cannot pass any judgment on something that is not before you. and any more than a judge can on an appeal can pass a lower court decision unless it is physically delivered to him. and so as far as we are

concerned and the recommendation was all along that there was an agreement, and the fa account that he interpreted it as a private agreement has never come up either the board of supervisors or anywhere else, it was one document. and therefore, the point is that and this is not before mr. sanchez to review or pass the judgment on because it was never handed in, you cannot analyze and bring into a case a document that was never put in the first place and so this is a very complicated jurisdictional issue. and of just precisely who has authority at the time, the last governmental body to have authority over this document was the board of supervisors. who had the entire agreement before them. and that is what supervisor farrell had in his hand and ratified and there was no question of splitting the two as the project sponsor says itself on march 12, to mr. sanchez. with regard to the 311 notifications i was not the only signature, mr. sanchez was

correct it never should have been issued but somehow between him and mr. cabreros they agreed to have me, bring in a letter in lieu of a 311 notification, when the notification area is the entire area not just any and the signatures to the agreement are all of the other neighbors and so there was no way of using me as the soul point, as a person who writes a letter that would justify afterwards a 311 notification. and so have you got a fundamental civil rights case, of a, informed consent, and the right to know, and the right to have, the 311 come about. and furthermore with regard to the height, we do have a repeatedly, a survey or is pointing it out and correspondence and mr. cook does not arrive until all of this has been filed out and we request to see the document and we requested to see his work paip and hers we are requested to see the work papers of the

house movers and no one wants to talk and the point is that it is over 40 feet on the north elevation. >> project sponsor, you can submit a rebuttal. >> i will be brief i know that we have had a long day, i am going to leave his arguments about habeus to the city family, other than to reiterate once again that you have jurisdiction in my view, the city attorney can advise you separately, we are here on this permit and any other permits that go forward they are validly issued. the issue around the height is taken on this shroded mystical thing and i want to kind of demystify, he was taken it out there with a vest on with the fellows who are doing the survey and the heavy equipment and mr. cook came out to do the survey, his niece was there and so this is all been out in the

open and there is nothing hidden it was all clear and again, while he claims that there is a flurry of communication from the surveyer and there is only two letters in the record, and the bottom line is that we have given you a survey and the plans document the height and mr. sanchez himself has gone out and measure ited and we need to put this behind us and so please, please, deny the dr and approve this project as proposed so this can move forward and i thank you very much. >> thank you. >> the public hearing is closed. commissioner richards? >> question for the city attorney, is there any jurisdiction issue in your opinion? >> deputy, city attorney, susan, i have taken a look at the information provided mr. zeretky and i have confered with the zoning administrator, there is a new permit and a new