lowered to be many in keeping with what was there in 1998. i would be happy to answer any other questions about the plan and there were issues around the foot present at the rear and it is really the roofline that would have the most impact. >> thank you very much. >> there are adiggal speakers -- are there additional speakers in favor of the d.r.? >> good afternoon, commissioners. d.r. questioner, rodney greavey. you have heard from my representatives and this is now 3 1/2 neighborhood since they identified the most recent legal addition and we have had to live with this structure the way it's been in the photographs. and especially to the may 19 meeting and being respectful to your directive, i actually engage mid own architect so we could come to a resolution here

and were able to get a better than 15-minute meeting with the yee's and their representative and have gotten no surprise from that side. and that is where we are today and didn't want to be in front of the commission today. commissioner miguel: thank you very much. project sponsor. >> gafrp, commissioners. my name is john carey, an southeastern in san francisco and i represent the sink hole concluded in late 1997 and the city agreed to restore the retaining wall that ran parallel to the house that went into the sink home and disappeared. and fixing the retaining wall or how that would leave the

property and other than the city represented that the property would be in the same condition other than the damage to the house and the lot would be a usable lot. and in reality, they informed them that 1200 square feet would not be restored to them. when the initially occurred they were given an emergency permit to stabilize the lot and as soon as the city's work on the restoration of the retaining wall they were given the permit but the settlement of the case. there is no reference to the permit or the scope of the permit or what worked with or what would or would not be done. and the concrete representations

that have popped up in recent letters to the commission. i have sent a letter to introduce myself and describing what my involvement historically has been. i have not gone through the file to find out how we got to this point in time, but the problem with proceedings like this is anybody can say anything and it is never under oath and is a he said-she said situation and the commissioners are put in a difficult position. in this instance the unions -- the yees have lost something valuable and the original reaction was to bulldoze the how into the hole to it could follow the other house out into the ocean and were able to stop you from doing that and convince them that the property could be stabilized so they could recover their home. they received compensation because it turned out the sink hole was caused by the actions

of the city but no congressmen sayings for the miss -- no compensation for the missing 1200 square feet. mr. yee wouldn't attempt to do the remodel himself and hired licensed engineers and others to represent them throughout the process. he went down to the city to get a modification for the original permit that was issued and was told that he didn't need an additional permit and the permit he had was sufficient to cover the scope of the adiggal work. and all this was dialogue between experts that he hired and the city officials saying this is fine and when the work was completed five year later, mr. gr earthquake -- mr. greavey purchased the house and it is not like mr. yee was

sneaking around in the middle of the night constructing the improvements. so there is the large category of people and some that worked for the city and some that worked for him that knew exactly what was going on and what the history has been and how tragic it was that they almost lost their house completely. and now somebody says, well, in the process of redoing this complicated and severely damaged building, there were steps that should have been followed that weren't followed and that was the information that the city was aware of and my client is told to apply retroactive so those can be filed. and there is one neighbor yo doesn't like the way the bushes are trimmed and the tree is trimmed and wants to reduce the scope of the building to something considerably smaller than what the when he bought his house. that is going to the neighbor and saying i don't like the bay

window. i want you to take that off there. well, it's been there 30 year. i don't care. i don't like it. it is not the exact same case as somebody who had a house and lived there prior to the sink hole with some interest in keeping it in the same condition. and as far as the negotiations to come to a resolution between the parties, mr. yee and his wife hired professionalses and they expected them to dialogue with the progressals. commissioner miguel: thank you. speakers in favor of the project sponsor. d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> sue hester and i want to remind the commission that the project went through extensive

hearings and they have a legal proceedings and legal council and they made findings that the work was done illegally and made an investigation about how the plan were altered because the site inspectors looked at plans that were altered from what the permit had been done and the fact he bought his house five years ago is irrelevant. there were multiple neighbors complaining about the conditions and renovations and took them a long time to sort the mess out because of the illegal construction not done pursuant to an approved permit and was done pursuant to forged drawings. we are asking you to go back to the 1998 permit that was the legal permit, the city's permit, and we are asking you to do it as a motion of intent. this is a really messy, complicated case. a and i think the city attorney's office should advise you and you should have their advice on their intention and how to

explain the intention and i do not want the commission to do something that let this is case go on forever and ever. this is an enormous burden on the neighbor. what we are asking you to do is restore the building to that which the neighbors saw on the street. and the city has a stake in it as well because currently the building looks like, pardon me, crap. thank you very much. commissioner miguel: project sponsor, two minutes. >> i am unaware of a finding that any plans were forged so i don't know what counsel is talking about. and i don't see any other neighbor here and there are no other requester and no other complaints to the city about this issue. and this is a complicated situation and the city was well aware of how it was proceeding

and this was an application to adjust the existing improvements now to make them more aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors and reject it out of hand with a series of demands. commissioner miguel: thank you. the public portion of the hearing is closed. the city attorney have any comment on the motion of intent or whatever is before us at the moment? >> an i think the main concern is that you clearly articulate the reasons for taking whatever action you take today as you usually done when you take d.r. or reject or approve a project

with conclusions i understand the commission did speak about the project at that point. and i would just urge the commission today to clearly articulate the reason for taking the actions and whatever action it takes today if the commission feels, of course, it that needs more support from staff to have have the motion of intent and you actually have in front of you a d.r. report and a draft d.r. report that staff prepared for your review so i think it is in the commission's hands to act today by motion or take a motion of intent. commissioner miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: mr. ionin and maybe i can get clarification with some comment. i guess what the action. us suggested is to legalize the

building that was done without permits but with the exception of those portions of the building that may intrude over the property line. there are some, i would assume, that are presently there? >> actually, commissioners, that was the original proposal on may 19. after hearing your comments on may 19, the recommendation today is to take modify indicating and to revert the building back to the 1998 condition with the exception to the portions that extend over the property line. and with the exception of the portion to the varyingses of the front setback area. >> thank you for clarifying. commissioner antonini: i think i have some comments on that. i have never -- i understand that there were problems with this and it's been well articulated and i often think this is a d.b.i. issue. i know it is. us and there is a reason to be before u because there was a plan brought forward to create

what sing a very well articulated and designed home by toby morris and is. me right now and is somewhat mirrors the structure to the west as far as the articulations and the size and i see no reason why that shouldn't happen and as far as what we do with the vyings and other things are something that i would suggest be taken up with whatever punitive actions the feels are necessary. and i think you have a snout nosed garage from the old building and i remember driving by there when they are heroically trying to save the thing, which they did and i was wondering if they were going to be able to and what was created after that in the extending beyond the permits that is

presented is not very attractive right now. i would agree with that. but i think we have an obligation to the project sponsorses and to the neighbor and to the city and this is a greatway to the presidio and is a visible site and mr. morris has designed what is a very attractive building and that would be my intent to bring this all the way back and what is structurally the easiest way to do it. there are pooarts that will hav to be torn down to build this and that is more of a construction project and what is most expeditious rather than specifying how much has to be removed. i would be in favor of trying to move towards a final result that is more acceptable. commissioner miguel: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: a quick question to staff. mr. morris is no longer the architect, is that right? >> that is correct. he is no longer employed by the

yees. commissioner sugaya: and to your understanding from both parties, there was no communication in the last six month or whatever. >> there was minimal communication and atechts to communicate and my understanding is the attempts failed. >> obviously nothing got worked out. >> not to my nobling knowledge or the d.r. requester's. commissioner sugaya: i would like to support the staff motion which would indicate it back five months back or whenever we heard it last to revert back to the 1998 and if that takes an intent so that we can clarify exactly what existed at the time versus what apparently was approved by d.b.i. mistakenly, i am kind of confused on that.

>> i think ms. hester is stating the inaccuracy of the plan that was submitted with the permit, the current permit and the current proposal. they are suggesting that there was a modification to be made and presented to you as the 1998 permit and we have the 1998 permit. i don't think ms. hester is suggesting that the plan on file with the department of building inspection that we have pulled from microfiche is this is something different than what she would like them to be reverted to. there are, on top of that, not to confuse matters worse, but the 1998 permit it is inaccurate. so we're doing the best we can to get it to what the 1998 permit said it should be. but we'll industrial to pull it back off the property line and the property lines were drawn inaccurately in 1998 and the permit was issued without a variance, yada, yada, yada. anyway.

i think the draft e.r. memo i provided to you covers what commission eer sugaya's intent would be. commissioner miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: that is the second on commissioner sugaya's motion. i would like to clarify for the commissioner antonini, once architect morris is no longer under contract with the yee family, his work cannot be used as the basis for approval because he will not be the architect of record. just because you paid for the initial service of the sketch does not entail a legal obligation for us because he is not the architect of record anymore. i would going to say that the number of people which was attended to assist the applicant in this case and them all having

disappeared as unnecessarily added to my level of confidence that we have really anything which we can resolve. i think the fact that we have spent considerable amount of time continuing the project and expressing support for everybody to work with each other and have incredible professionals who have done work and is one of the commissioner and have projects approved tells mes that that there is something amiss here. i am in strong support of the motion as it stands. commissioner miguel: i would be in support of the motion also. i appreciate mr. carey's orig original and present involvement in this. i was very aware and involved in some of the proceedings surrounding the sink hole incident. and was in intimate contact with many of the property owners that were affected during that incident.

and it caused a lot of problems for many property owners, without question. but this is an instance where i thought the commission was very absolute in saying either work it out or we will. and this is unfortunate in my mind that we are having to say this more often. and parties haven't had -- and the parties have had enough time to really sit down and work out any problems and they have failed to do so and we're going to have to do it. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: can i talk to project sponsor's representative for a second please? well, i am not happy with this result as nobody is probably because we still don't know what we're ending up with and will end up with a structure that might be reverting back to what it was before or under the plans that were approved which is probably going to be

unsatisfactory. would you clients be willing to work with either with mr. morris or another architect to come up with a design that would be mr. acceptable? >> mr. morris is still working with the compliants. commissioner antonini: all right. i did put in a call to him and he did call me back and i did not have time to return the call. he is still as the architect of record. >> absolutely. >> in that case i am going to make a motion to continue -- >> we have a motion -- >> to continue -- >> the motion to continue is this. this is the potential of coming back again and again and even if we were to take staff's motion because there probably will be some other project in the future or there will be something sitting there that is not attractive. and i would like to see this contin continued when we could have mr. morris here and have a definite plan for what it is. and i never had a problem and nor did the commission so much with the plan in may but rather with the procedure and with the

work done without benefit of a permit. and i don't really ever see the impact to d.r. requester and i don't see it today other than the fact it that's overgrown and there is some problems with the property. so i would move to continue. commissioner miguel: is there a second? commissioner antonini: we need a date, i guess. secretary avery: do you have a date? commissioner antonini: it would have to be then. secretary avery: and on the 19th we are proposing a joint hearing with rec park for 18 washington and downtown park fund and some other heavy items. i would not put this on the 19th. commissioner antonini: january 26. commissioner miguel: is there a second to the motion? the motion fails for lack of a second. secretary avery: commissioners -- pardon? i have going to call the question. commissioner miguel: i just want to make a comment.

and i might have supported that motion had the architect been here. but i think the fact that the project sponsor is not even bringing their architect after all this speaks volumes. >> appreciate the comment. secretary avery: the motion on the floor is to take d.r. and approve the project per the recommendation on the draft submitted by staff. commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner miguel? secretary avery: that motion passed 5-1 with commissioner antonini voting against and on the variance. >> and to close the public hearing of the item and i was not at the hearing on may 19 and kelly under was acting and i did restrew tape and was -- i did review the tape and am prepared to make a decision on that to

grant the rear yard variance to tex tent that is required for the 1998 permit and with the design for the scope beyond the 1998 permit and to wrap up about what happens next. and your decision will be final and we would ask them to submitted revised plans and they can appeal that to the board of appeals and pursue enforcement action if they fail to respond. make to make clear what will happen next. commissioner miguel: thank you very much. i appreciate putting that to the record. commissioner miguel: is there any general public comment on items that are not on the agenda? none appearing, public comment is closed. and it's 4:13. we're finished. >> amazing. >> yes.

>> we have much to discuss. i am looking forward to getting started. we are honored that the mayor of san francisco has stopped by. i am very pleased to introduce him and give him a few minutes. he said he only needed 45 or 50 minutes. [laughter] i am kidding. here is the mayor of san francisco. please join me in welcoming him.

[applause] >> good morning, everyone. welcome to san francisco. i want to thank all of you for being here. i have two more weeks to say this. let me say it clearly. welcome to the world series champion city and county of san francisco. it is a great testament for web .0 to be here for the eighth time. it is your decision to bring this back every year for the last eight years. it just goes to show and prove we're leading the world in technology. san francisco was ranked the no. 1 annual growth for high-tech jobs. this growth is not slowing at all. last week, i welcome one company

to their new headquarters on howard street. the least 90,000 square feet of space to tech companies that plan to employ over 600 employees. this is just the tip of the iceberg. according to a recent real estate report, there are 40 technology companies all currently looking for 2 million square feet of office space in san francisco. to put this in perspective, this is the equivalent of four trans- america. midst of space. tech companies employ over 20,000 employees. i am committed to ensuring that san francisco remains at the center of the tech industry. that is why i have created the central payroll tax exclusion. i signed it on stocks. i reached out to check ceo's to understand what more we can do

to help. i have also committed to a wholesale review of our tax policy to develop more equitable alternatives that do not punish job creation. we are working hard to find other ways to interact with technology. our city is the first in the nation to pass open date up legislation. san francisco has been a leader in allowing the community to create over 60 applications based on this day to. over the summer, our department of technology hosted hackathons and resulted in the creation of 23 apps in created over 10,000 hours of civic engagement. i want to present a challenge. we are a consent -- congested city. into the years, we will host america's cup, -- in two years,

we will host america's cup, one of the largest events. over 500,000 people visit the city on any given day during that time. one of the complaints i hear the most is that people get their cars towed away when their part in the wrong place. it can cost $500 and leaves them with the worst taste in their mouth. they were here to celebrate something. i want to challenge you. find me a solution. let there be some hand-held device that can warn somebody that their car is about to be towed. we can save a lot people having disappointment in their lives. we will work on the data to release it. you can go at it and help us to resolve one of the biggest problems we have, that is sparking any towaway zone.

can you help us to do that? [applause] all right. by insuring the san francisco business policies encourage job growth, and by staying at the forefront of ideas like open government, i am confident that our city will continue to be the place where entrepreneurs, innovators flock to us as a place where you want to start your business, stay, and grow. i want you to know that we want you here to start a mistake, and grow. thank you for holding the summit. we appreciate your presence. stay here and keep growing with us. [applause] >> i am really looking forward to getting a text when i am about to get a ticket. i get a lot of tickets. step back here and we can take care of that. [laughter] thank you very much.