adjacent neighbor. commissioner antonini: that is what it looked like to me. in fact, if you look at the planned changes to bring it in conformity with what the design team has come up with is actually very well done and the two-story element above the branch of d.r. requester is very much contextual with the two-story addition that is planned for the project sponsor. so it looks like exactly what it should be. then there was some mention of a d.r. requester to the east, but i thought to the east is the sink hole. maybe it is a different -- >> it is directly to the east. that parcel has been subdivided and there is a no owner who was actually probably first on the scene of the violation. commissioner antonini: there is nothing there now but could be in the future? >> correct. commissioner antonini: i thank

you, mr. ionin. i just don't see the impact of the d.r. requester and i -- it has been brought up by project sponsor. i think there is certainly a lot of steps taken here with the separation of 32 feet on the privacy issue. and the rear setback issue to me, whole it conceivably could have some impact, if that were an issue which i don't feel it is, it might be more significant for somebody in west clay park which is behind and less so on el camino del mar. so i don't see the circumstances that would justify taking any kind of d.r. and i did mention earlier, i think this is extremely on textual -- extremely contextual design and applaud the team working with the architect to produce something that i think is an example of how this sort of thing should be done to

create a residence that fits in beautifully with the adjacent properties. president olague: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: if the project sponsor followed the rules in the first place we wouldn't be here 13 years later. so, there were approved plans as has been noted that took place way back then and then a series of things happened. i have to agree with mrs. hester on that. i'm not here to approve something that should have been properly vetted in an entirely different way. it just seems like kind of deja vu cases that came before us, the board of appeals had similar kinds of issues. those were appeals from building permits. one series after another of

permits would be -- let me put it this way. the first notice of violation wouldn't have happened from the building department unless one of the neighbors had complained. is that correct, mr. ionin? so we have a situation where if no neighbors had complained in this situation the present condition of this house would remain. so it depended on a community to sort of figure out what was going on, that it wasn't in conformance with the original plans. from that standpoint alone i don't think that the planning commission should be in a position to approve and essentially condone a process that shouldn't have taken place in the first place. so, i'm going to move to take d.r. and deny the project. president olague: commissioner miguel. vice president miguel: a couple of questions. there was a request regarding proper notice and times of notice regarding this hearing,

this postponed hearing. could you review that? >> yes. again, nothing was easy with this case. the 311 notification was issued in december which expired in janua january. the variance was scheduled to coincide with the ending of the d.r. filing date. so that if a d.r. was filled the variance wouldn't be heard by the zoning administrator and could be heard concurrently before the planning commission and zoning administrator. a hearing was scheduled for march 17 of this year to hear the d.r. because the variance item was pulled off the calendar, it was never appropriately continued to that date and required a second notification in order to be properly noticed to be considered by the zoning administrator. coupled with the intense

schedule and closing of hearings by the planning commission, the first available hearing date was may 12. so, i asked the commission secretary to hold that date with the intention of actually having it heard sooner. so, the d.r. requester knew of the hearing date in march and knew of the imminent hearing in april or may. vice president miguel: was there notice? >> yes, there was notice as required by the code. however, i will say that should have kphu communicated better w the d.r. vice president miguel: when were you hired on t architect? >> i believe it was like september of 2009. y yes, about a year ago. vice president miguel: thank you very much.

i have some of the same misgivings that commissioner sugaya has. if there had been a competent architect and a competent engine engineer, we wouldn't be here. and possibly if the d.r. requ t requester, knowing there was a problem, had hired his electric legal consult at the time people are always told to hire their lawyers, when there is a problem, we might not be here either. i actually don't have a lot of problem with the building. the privacy issue of 30 feet doesn't get to me. i'm sorry.

that does not compute for me. i know the area well. a very good friends of mine lives directly next to the two lots of the sinkhole. i have been over to that house many times before, directly after and since. plus, i had many business clients directly in the area although not either of those particular homes. so, i don't have a lot of problem with the building. and under normal circumstances i would probably be willing to support it. but i feel that the convoluted process doesn't work for me and i cannot support it at this point. president olague: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: it is for the same reasons that commissioner sugaya and commissioner miguel summarized, the original permission you have

aft of the incident occurred is to rebuild it to the condition in which it was before. beyond that, everybody knows that you go through the process if you want to build an addition or change things about the home including adding windows or changing roof forms. i do find building inspections commission minutes rather revealing because mr. sweeney says that in 2008, quoting, the owner has admitted to changing the plans on his own after getting the plans back from the city. and it was over the permit at the time attempting to renew the expired building permit for the damage to the condition that it was originally in. and then it goes on to say mr. sweeney saying he believed the owner was a reti changed th.

and the commissioner said he would believe rightfully so somebody practicing as an engineer in the city and this type of housing falls within the purview of engineering that he would know the process. for us it puts us basically in the situation that we have had before that people that made changes to rear porches we remember them and we basically said they couldn't happen without the proper process and that unless you have a permit, you have plans which get approved in this commission. and i think this didn't happen. to that are reason, i cannot take a shortcut for the proper process on this. president olague: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i want -- the way i understand it the only thing that is before us is the d.r. if we deny the d.r. the current

project stands. so, i just want to clarify my understanding. because if you are saying that you prefer the current project as it is which is the overimproved building that is what we're doing basically. because the only thing before us is d.r. can you clarify that? >> i don't think that is exactly correct, commissioner. only because the subject property is understood violation from the department of building inspections. so, the only version that it could revert to legally today is the originally -- or previously approved permit from 1998 which would include the one story addition over the garage. denying taking the d.r. and denying the permit would put them back at square one requiring a new building permit application to revert back to the 1998 permit or some other modification a year from now th that is -- or within a year -- significantly different than

what is proposed today or a year from now. commissioner borden: the one thing that i was confused about, it sounded like the 1998 permit was questionable because of the property line issue. correct? >> the 1998 permit inaccurately demonstrated the property aligns long the east side, tkraoegt greater width -- creating greater widths than were actually there as far as i know. and -- yes. commissioner borden: so it was brought up that the 1998 permit because of the lines may or may not be valid. that is why i'm confused. >> it is not valid but we have required a survey and did a couple of site visits. to the best of our knowledge, we believe we understand where the building should be placed on the lot at this point. commissioner borden: so my point is in the process as we take d.r. and deny the project, the current permit, would there be

an addendum to the existing 1998 plan to show the correct property line and show the new building because the building is built to the property line. >> i believe the process is if this application were to be denied by this commission, then the owner would be left with the option of submitting a new building permit application with accurate property lines, with the building as it was in 1998. commissioner borden: but for the time being it stays until we resolve it. >> until the building permit application is issued to modify the building in a fashion that the department would be comfortable with. and obviously the 1998 size of the building would be smaller than it is today. commissioner borden: so, the short term is they would not have to tear down what they have right now until a new permit? i mean they wouldn't get a new notice of violation tomorrow, or would they? >> i'm not sure how the department will react.

there are three notices of violation that are active. commissioner borden: right. so does it restart the clock? >> i think it resets. well, i'm sure the project sponsor would go through the appeal process and argue their case at the board of appeals on denial of the permit. and then beyond that there is civil, you know, courts that you can pursue things. but as far as i know through the city that would be administrative process would be to file a new building permit application. commissioner borden: i completely understand where everybody is on the commission because this is frustrating because it does seem like the property owner purposefully misrepresented property lines and other things and changed their plans and we don't want to reward people for that sort of behavior. and we have seen this before. i guess it is unfortunate for the neighborhood though that the existing building would stand

for several more years until this process is worked out. i think that is really what is most unfortunate. so, i just want to, you know, figure out if there is something that we can think about that would make sense. i'm not saying we have to sit here and redesign the building today, but i just think that in the best interests of the neighborhoods is the best results for everyone involved to take d.r. and restart the clock and leave the building as it is and property in the condition that it is, or figure out a way to modify the project in some way to represent what we like. we take d.r. and modify the project. that might be a better approach. maybe we can specify to staff we want the building to represent the current property lines and scope of the 1997 permit, et cetera. i think that would be the most sense because it is something to

work with as opposed to starting over. >> commissioner if i may i want to address the larger policy issue brought up by mrs. hester. the planning department in no way is condoning people who perform work without the benefit of a permit, without the benefit of design review, without the benefit of the residential design team to review it. and we recognize the inappropriate actions taken in order to get the 1998 permit and the fact that additions were built. i believe that if the massing of the structure was different or the horizon additions to the building were in different location, i don't think the planning department and residential design team would have allowed those portions of the building to remain if we didn't feel that the new configuration and location of the massing of the building were

not sort of conveniently in this circumstances located with enough separation from the adjacent property and appropriately articulated along the side. so, i want to make that clear. the example would be if they filled in the front setback closest to the adjacent property i don't think the team would have any hesitation to require that would be removed. i just want to, for your benefit and public, make sure people understand we are not condoning this type of behavior. we are taking it through the process that the city established. they did work without the benefit of the permit. they illegally constructed it. now they are going through the process they would have gone through from the outset in order to legalize it. yes, it is after the fact. but it is the process that the city has. unfortunately, it is before you today. and also speaking to the issues brought up by the d.r. requester, if the residential design team had agreed with them

we would have made steps to mitt get those as well. commissioner borden: my point of view is given what we have, it doesn't make sense to deny the project because i don't think that is the outcome we want. i think we want them to build the building the way it was originally to be built so the best idea is we take d.r. and request that with the current what is accurate plans in line or we continue it to do further work. president olague: is there a motion on the floor -- >> she is issuing a possible continues wapbs. commissioner borden: you can make a countermotion or whatever. but everybody's interest is to have the project fixed appropriately for the neighborhood regardless of what that is. i think that denying the project as it currently is doesn't achieve that goal. and it doesn't make anybody happy. it restarts the clock on a process that has been less than satisfactory to date.

so i think the pwbest result iso continue it to figure out the work to have new plans drawn to the 1998 site lines or to say we will take d.r. and request the project be built according to the 1998 plans with the raoeigh sit lines represent and surveyor going out to make sure they are accurate. so, i'm willing to make a motion on the continuance but i want to put that out there before i do so. i will move to continue with is new plans are drawn it the 1998 building application as originally proposed. vice president miguel: i will second the motion and suggest that it happen after we come back from our break in august.

president olague: that would be september. that should give them plenty of time to redraw the plan. >> commissioners, i don't have a full commission until september 22. september 8 there is not a full commission. september 15 there is not a full commission. on september 22 -- president olague: it sounds hraoeulike 2 22 is the date. >> on motion for continuance. >> we can only speak to the continuance, i believe. i will speak against a continuance although that

certainly is better than the earlier motion. that being said i think we have gone through a lot of cost not just the project sponsor but to the city of san francisco and our department has done a great job of making a good result out of a bad situation. i think the best thing is get it over with, approve it and find whatever other punitive action the city wants to take but going through more process is painful for everyone, mostly the city. president olague: commissioner fong. commissioner fong: thank you. within our discussions they are as complex as the project itself. curious of the 10 complaints filed were they from 10 different filers or the same filer or a majority from one and

are they related to the d.r. requester? >> i'm not aware of who actually filed the complaints. commissioner fong: thank you. so, i kind of agree with mrs. hester's point about outlaws. we don't want to encourage them and don't want to reward them for their activity. but we also don't want to encourage penalizing people and stopping projects at the expense of the neighborhood and people who happen to see this special si site. i was initially in support of not taking d.r. and moving forward. it seems like i don't know if there is enough interest in t t that. the motion on the floor to continue seems to be somewhat of a middle ground. but i think the message sent to the project sponsor is that these mistakes are costly in time and money.

here we are spending more time and money. i would be willing to support the motion on and go back to the 1998 drawings. president olague: i also support the motion to continue. my main reason is that it was acknowledged that the p.r. requester didn't receive -- d.r. requester didn't receive certain types of communication. i think that is what i heard staff acknowledge. given that we need to make sure because i do hear that, i'm never sure what motivates sometimes from the d.r. requester but i think it is critical that staff communicate equally with both the project

sponsor and d.r. requester around that seems to not always happen successfully. no one can ever tell what the motivation is behind us being told that but i hear that frequently from one of those two sid sides. i think there needs to be evidence of communication to both the d.r. requester and project responser in a balanced away. that being said, that is my main reason for supporting the continuance. i don't support denying the project either. i think this allows d.r. requester to prepare adequately and that sort of thing. in the future i think it is important to make sure that that occurs in a timely way. we will hear it in september. i think it is unfortunate we can't hear before then but i

will support the date. i also want to acknowledge that we didn't hear it in march but that was not the fault of this commission. it had to do with the variance and noticing of that. then we accommodated it to the next available date, which was last week. and then we had all of these -- which is why we had that continuance. but we didn't want to manufacture ahead without -- move ahead without hearing from the d.r. requester. >> commissioners, if i may for clarity, the september hearing is to simply review the revised set of plans that would revert the structure back to the 1998 condition on a survey that shows accurate property lines. is -- am i hearing that correctly? and if i understand the d.r. requester's position that would satisfy the d.r. requester. commissioner borden: so we would

not are to hear it at all. >> i won't presume what the d.r. requester would want to do at that point but if it reverts -- commissioner borden: we don't know. it is up to the d.r. requester to pull the d.r. or not. i wouldn't want to put the d.r. requester in that position today. it is up to the d.r. requester whether they want to continue to have the item calendared or pull it. that is up to him obviously. >> ok. commissioner borden: i skwrjustd of -- you know. president olague: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i am prepared to support the continuance but what i would suggest is we ask the two parties it spend time talking to each other so a d.r. might not be necessary. spend time talkin each other so a d.r. might not be necessary. spend time talkin each other so a d.r. might not be necessary.t spend time talki each other so a d.r. might not be necessary.o spend time talkio each other so a d.r. might not be necessary. i don't care at all for the

windows over the garage but i'm not going to get into it. the other thing i would like to remind myself and perhaps all of us the reason we are here is really to look at cases and this falls way, way out of it and i think resolving this in the residential design team is inappropriate for this case. i do believe that the issues are far more grave than just adjusting a design. i think since there is a strong and somewhat confusing legal history of violations as a base, i think it will take a hell of a lot more than just sitting in design review and tweaking and pushing the building around and still coming back with a variance. i don't think that quite works. furthermore, and that is a question to you, my

understanding is the assessor's office has a lot line map which documents virtually where each building sits generally with respect to the property lines. you can also take google, et cetera. you might have to do some of the building corners remeasures if the eastern property line slid down the hill. this is -- given that we are a built up city is somewhat funny. particularly if an engineer is the owner of the property. i happen to live in a multistory condominium but i do know the metes and bounds of my property quite well. we live in a built up city. having said that, i would strongly encourage that the

building owner works with the archite architect, mr. junious, i was trying it talk to you. >> i will answer any questions that you have. what can i do for you? commissioner moore: you will be the go bash between. the building owner, your architect work together with the d.r. requester that perhaps the d.r. disappearances and the work you will be doing until september. that would be my suggestion. >> if my client is willing to work with the d.r. requester i suppose to have this option. they are very upset about there process. they are very upset about the way. d.r. requester has treated them and that may not be possible. but at this point it sounds like i do. i see a continuance coming. if that is your desire, please go ahead and do that. but i

echo of words of commissioner borden. but something has to be done. this is the city's process. for the last three years, we have been trying to deal with this issue. so to keep looking back at the wrongs that happened three years after the sinkhole incident when the yes were in extreme dire straits -- commissioner moore: i don't want to interrupt you. i know you feel that way. i truly respect your position on this. the majority as a commission decided we will continue the project and you yourself are very skilled to find the middle ground of where you will talk to each other. that's basically what you're hired to do. i look to you, with a good judgment on process to do just that. >> appreciate that, commissioner. what date are we looking at now? >> 22nd. the day available with the full committee. unless the full commission isn't