lyft to come to san francisco. a traffic study was performed that said that would not be a problem, but the problem is the traffic study assumes no more than two weekend trips of ferries, and that's false. again, you have a false assumption under lying the traffic analysis. what we ask is that you continue this hearing for two important reasons: one, so that the people and you can see the contract documents. and number two, so that we, with the planning staff, can work together to devise solutions to problems and make sure there are no significant impacts. >> okay. thank you, mr. freedman. mayor cox, we'll hear from the project sponsor next. >> hi. good afternoon. thank you all for having us here this evening. my name is kerrie sarobin. i'm the deputy secretary of

golden gate national recreation area, and i'm here on behalf of our superintendent who's vacation this week. i want to acknowledge my colleagues both from the national parks service as well as our partners with the port and the parks conserveancy who are behind the project here. we appreciate the planning department's very thoughtful plans to this project. the national parks service supports keeping the national park service 'em brkation port where it is and we've worked several years closely with the port faf to make this a reality. -- to and from alcatraz island, pier 31 1/2, we heard earlier discussion about

experiences and that is certainly one of the highlights here. it's unfortunate that we do have this disagreement with the city of sausalito, who is a long-standing partner to the park, who we've worked with for many, many years, and this is around this proposal to send two boats from pier 31 1/2 to frisk in the future. the goal for the limited fort baker service is to provide an alternative transit option that would allow some visitors to avoid driving to fort baker. our plans and our contract documents would limit the fort baker ferries to weekend service as i mentioned and carrie no more than 40,000 visitors over the entire year. the national parks service did complete an environmental impact statement under the national environmental policy act that analyzed limited ferry service to fort baker. the project considered significant input from sausalito.

as part of that process, we also completed studies about endanger endang endangered species -- [ inaudible ] although limited ferry service to fort baker is analyzed also in the ceqa document and the park service's environmental impact statement, the park service does not have fund being to initiate the necessary updates to the fort baker pier and does not anticipate having the funds to make these upgrades for several years. in other words this service would be in the future. san francisco city planning completed a very careful reevaluation of impacts as part of the ceqa process. the summary that was just presented, and came to the same conclusion, that the project will not have any significant impacts. based on this conclusion, we ask that the commission approve the negative determination. as you take that action, we

would want you to know that the park service is committed to continuing to work with the city of sausalito to find common ground, and ideally economic rate that through a separate agreement, such as a memorandum of understanding that would really speak to our long-term cooperation and go that route, rather than through adding new mitigation measures or otherwise involving the city of san francisco and further ceqa planning and analysis. we plan to -- >> okay. thank you very much. we'll open this item up for public comment. is there any public comment? >> good evening, commissioners. i'll be brief. it's been a long day for all of you. i'm greg moor, ceo of the

national parks conserveancy. i'll begin by saying alcatraz is a pretty cool place. there been 1.6 million people that go there, and there would be more if they could fit them on the island. trip advisor ranked alcatraz as the number one visitor landmark in america just recently. the added benefits of this project of course is alcatraz is essential to the travel and tourism industry of san francisco, and alcatraz is a good community partner with the community access program that provides affordable visits for thousands of school kids and community members each year. alcatraz deserves a first-class

gateway as a national park and a national historic landmark, and very simply, that is what this project does. we encourage you to give a positive review to this significant project, a project that improves the city's waterfront, that serves millions of visitors each year to our city and provides economic benefits to the city of san francisco. thank you very much for your time in considering this. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment in considering this item? welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is vickie nichols. i'm a 35 year plus sausalito resident. i wasn't going to speak, but since proponents spoke, i thought i'd need to speak myself. i agree with the city's evaluation of this. i think that -- and i have great respect for the park service. i sat on numerous boards. we work with them all the time. i think you're hearing that they don't have the funds to do this project right away, so i don't see what it would be

delaying to get the information you need. i initially read all the documents from the first go around, the first letter, and there were some discrepancies. i would urge you to considerate least a continuation. i don't see how it's going to hurt. there's not a project that's directly pending in front of you. you've heard from the park service. they don't have the money to do this at the moment, any way, so a little more time to get this straight, i think, would be to everyone's benefit. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment and open it up to commissioners. commissioner moore? >> for clarification, i believe

what is in front of us is really the alcatraz ferry embarkation project on the embarcadero in san francisco. the aspect of the fort baker ferry is subset to potential other operational aspects of ferry service expanding into fort baker at a frequency which i believe is properly described, but it is not really the major thrust of what is in front of us. it has undergone through a large amount of work by planning staff, including the preparation of the draft mitigated negative declaration, and i am personally not concerned that any of the information that the city of sausalito, with due respect, feel that's missing, could not

be picked up with a memorandum of understanding because i do believe that the park service very clearly describes what they intend regarding fort baker and operation they are concerned. fort baker is quite a ways away from sausalito. the corridor which connects the golden gate bridge by way of fort baker to sausalito is an already difficult corridor just to start with, but i do not believe that two ferries -- two ferry rides could really significantly tip the scale of what may need to be controlled by a completely different set of other circumstances not to be discussed by us today because there's no solutions or any proposals in front of us. i am comfortable with what's in front of me. i just believe in the spirit of many of the eirs that this department does, it touches accurately and consistently on those points that we normally

examine. i do not see any deviation on its thoroughness, and i am prepared to make a motion to uphold the preliminary mitigated negative declaration, so that is a

>> to the lease agreement or the document, but that would be a future evaluation at that time. >> but the city would evaluate whether that would require additional ceqa analysis based on the new scope, if they decided to expand beyond -- what's being studied here. >> that's correct. if there's a discretionary ceqa decision, they would have to contemplate additional ceqa review. >> thank you, and we often have this case where we're not the approving body of the transaction necessarily, but we're -- we're looking at the impact from a ceqa standpoint, and i think we're comfortable -- i agree with commissioner moore, that that's

been analyzed here, to the extent that goes beyond or the project goes beyond at a later date, we'd have to do exactly what we do in other cases. i'm sure the city of sausalito is faced with this at times, they adopt a new plan that entails additional ceqa analysis, but the projects aren't necessarily before them at that time. so i'm comfortable with this, i agree with commissioner moore, and i'd support the motion. commissioner richards. >> so i'm taking a more neighborly approach. i think on a 50 year contract, asking for 30 more days is not a huge burden. it looks like they want to cooperate with us on whatever they want to cooperate much i'm not commenting on the thoroughness of the document, but to save us all the pain and heartache later on, 30 more days seems neighborly and reasonable to me rather than this go and become a bigger issue later in the future. >> commissioner fong? >> i'm going to support the motion and have great

confidence in our environmental division. as we see many of these ceqa documents come before us. i'll try not to speak to the project, but i think this is a much needed regional solution to our transit problem in the bay area, and from an emergency preparedness situation, it's a no brainer. i understand the concerns that use aleet ohaus, and i do hope you're able to work out some operational details with them, and we'd highly encourage that. >> we have to bifurcate and sausalito, you may have legitimate issues and wants to talk to the park service about it, but i think it goes beyond our scope in looking at this in the context of ceqa. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that's been seconded to uphold the preliminary mitigated declaration. shall i call that question? >> yes. >> on that motion to uphold the

preliminary mitigated declaration. [ roll call. ] >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 5-1, with commissioner richards voting against. >> all right. the commission's going to take a ten-minute break. >> okay. mics are on.

[ inaudible ] >>. [ gavel ]. >> okay. good afternoon, and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, february 22nd, 2018. i will remind members of the public to please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. commissioners, we left off on your regular calendar on item 19 for case number 2017-014841 cua 655 alvarado street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, president hillis, members of the commission. jeff horn, planning commission staff, presenting case 2017-14841 cua at 655 alvarado street. item before you is a request for conditional use authorization of a 2,737 gross square foot two story over basement single-family home, and to permit an expanded 5,096

gross square foot three story over two basement level single-family home within a residential house two family zoning district and 40-x height and bulk district. the project requires conditional use authorization because it has removed vertical and horizontal elements of the structure in an amount that exceeds the thresholds allowed in section 317 of the planning code. the property's located on the south side of alvarado street midblock between diamond and castro streets in the noe valley neighborhood. the lot is 114 feet in depth and is courage developed with an almost completely demolished single-family two story home, originally built in 1925. large amounts of excavation have occurred, and at the site new foundations and retaining walls at the propose the site have been constructed pera showing permit from dbi.

this project has a bit of a background. in december 2009, the project sponsor submitted a building permit application to construct a two story horizontal addition and one story rear addition. the project was publicly noticed in december 2010, and 234 january 2011, the neighbor at 651 alvarado street filed a discretionary review of the planning permit. the planning commission helped a hearing in september 2011, and did not issue the dr. in 2015, the project sponsor contacted the planning department to resume processing of the building permit application. due to the three year gap in time since the planning commission's decision, the zoning administrator determined that the project would need to redo public notification. the revised project was publicly noticed, approved by planning, and the building was approved by the planning department in january of 2017. in march of 2017, the project

was issued an over the counter building permit to increase the floor of the basement by 200 feet through excavation. in august of 2017, after construction of the project began, a violation was issued by dbi stating that construction and excavation work it undermined the adjacent building's foundation at 651 alvarado street. this fall, it was determined by planning that the total amount of building elements removed on the existing structure it exceeded the totals described and permitted in the project's approved plans and permits and exceeded the thresholds allowed. therefore, violations were issued by dbi and planning for work being done beyond the scope of permit, and all permits were suspended. [ please standby for captioner

switch ] -- it would meet the demolition

subsection of section 317, which asks whether or not the replacement project would match the dependency bity of the subject lot. two units would need to be designed in a manner that both meets all applicable requirements. with that said the department finds that the project with modifications to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods for the following reasons. the project would increase the number of units from one to two and maximize the underlying zoning and the scale is in keeping with the neighborhood pattern. no tenants would be displaced as a result of the project and although it is structure is more than 50 years old a valuation determined that the existing building was not an historic resource. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> project sponsor.

>> good evening, commissioner, i am here to walk you guys through the project as revised per staff comments and we've revised the project to contain two units. and i'd just like to take a quick moment to talk about my introduction to the project. you know, we were brought in by marcy and clayser and john caplin who lived on the project since 2002. when i first visited them in their home they, you know, they greeted me and their dog, zoe, greeted me as well. so they have wanted to have a project to better suit their lifestyle on this site for a long time. and as you know and the staff mentioned, planning staff mentioned, it's been a really long process. so, you know, john caplin, the c.e.o. of one of the second largest non-profits in san

francisco and marcy glazer with the j.c.c. and they're trying to represent the community, they want to live here. they have been trying to make this home more suitable for them for a long time. that said we have modified the project based on the staff's request so if we could flip to the laptop you'd walk you through it. >> there you go. >> we're going to just start on the basement level and move up. so this is the basement level. it forms the main living space for the lower unit that we've created. it has a dining area, living area, study, and the kitchen. and that was the basement level so this is the first level that has two bedrooms. the level that has the master

bedroom level as well as the garage. and the third level or main entry level, you can see that it has a common entry area that serve ised bserved by the front. there's a door that leads to the lower unit and a door that leads to the upper unit. and the upper unit has the kitchen and combined living/dining space and an outdoor space on this level as well as a master bedroom area with bath and deck on the upper most level. and unless you have any other questions this concludes my description of the project as modified per staff comments. >> okay, we may have questions, but let's take public comment first. sorry. sorry. i thought that you were done. >> hi, commissioners, i'm judith thompson, i'm the general contractor on this project.

is that better? i'm not used to public speaking so i'll just read my notes that i have prepared. i have been a contractor in the city for 30 years. i have never had a violation. we're not developers, we are not flippers, our clients are not developers. we are not trying to pull the wool over your eyes or break any rules. we were following the approved plans and the code that addresses what to do if -- if during demo that you encounter rotted or burned walls. on our project there were two blind walls on each side of the property and they were shown on the plans to remain intact. these two property line walls cannot be seen by any neighbors as they're six inches away from the neighbors' walls. we were able to see the conditions of the walls and we found dry rot and we only saw

this after the interior demo phase. we removed the damaged portions of the walls with the intention of replacing them in kind per code. code section 317, paragraph 9, says where the exterior elements of a building are removed and replaced for repair or maintenance in like materials with no increase in the extent of the element or volume of the building, such replacement shall not be considered removal for the purposes of this section. so i've encountered many, many in my years in construction, instances of dry rot, which we generally replace in kind and it's not an issue. so i thought that i was doing the right thing. we're not increasing the building envelope in any way. removal of portions of the two walls did not benefit the

project in any way. these portions of walls were removed and will be replaced as soon as we can go back to work for no other reason than they were defective. there's nothing in the code that tells us that we have to call or submit for a special permit. we did not remove the entire wall on either side and we only removed what was necessary to do the repairs. >> thank you, ma'am. your time is up. >> all right, thank you. >> we may have questions though. we'll take public comment on this item, any public comment? >> (indiscernible). >> do we have organized opposition? >> i don't recall for this particular one. did we have organized oppositi opposition? did you receive an email from us? >> (indiscernible).

>> okay. so who is the organized opposition? all right. ma'am, you're part of the organized opposition? >> (indiscernible). >> okay. we have three speakers here? all right. come on up. >> good afternoon -- good afternoon, commissioners. my name is mary bridinger and my brother and i own 651 alvarado street, adjacent to 6 55 alvarado street. this is -- can i get the overhead projector, please? thank you. this is the home -- this i this5

alvarado street before it was demolished and this is what the back looked like and you can tell that it was in great shape because it was demolished in 1993 and it was remodeled in 2000, i believe. i think that it was in 2000, 2001. i want to refer to the burn apparently that was there and that's why they removed the wall. this burn was done when the building that -- before they demolished it there was a small little home and it seemed that there was a barbecue or something because they did fix it at the bottom. so it was repaired down there. so it just -- i don't feel that there was a burn in between both of the buildings and that's why there was a wall that they removed. this is the house now.

they removed everything and it's a steep hill behind here. and this is the amount of dirt they removed. they knocked down this wall and they put like a big huge cement wall there that resembles the hoover dam. and this is an aerial view of it. this is how steep they went down. this is the corner that was affected in my building. the wall was never -- this wall was supposed to remain. it was not supposed to be removed. so, okay. now that i have shown my pictures i can move on. let's see... in -- okay, the building -- they got their permit in september of 2016.

and by december 2016 it was knocked down. let's see... this is my second attempt before the planning commission regarding this project. my home's foundation is damaged on the property line and rotated in the rear by the extensive excavation, 15 to 20 feet adjacent to my building. while the builders were fully aware of an existing crack in my foundation at the site of their excavation. no one let me know of their intention to excavate. all excavation was supposed to be done past the building that existed. it wasn't supposed to be adjacent to my building. the san francisco building department wasn't aware that the building was demolished in december 2016 and continued to issue permits. the project plans presented by their architect showed all excavation was supposed to be done past my building.

i'm requesting that the commissioner impose serious consequences for the total disregard of the san francisco planning and building process. i am opposing the building proposal and i ask the commission to consider a single family residence the same size or smaller of the building that they demolished. eliminate the fifth floor and roof deck, have the rear portion of the third and fourth floor set back off of my property line with my adjoining property wall ends. on april 17, 2017, my husband and i met with the builders on-site to discuss the crack that i had noticed in the foundation. they told me that the crack was pre-existing and i had no reason to doubt them. they told us that the -- they gave us the impression that everything was okay and that they were getting ready to pour the foundation. they told us that they'd keep us abreast of everything going on. they never disclosed they had

taken out a permit in march 23rd and they were going to excavate 20 to 50 feet at the crack site. we would have addressed the crack immediately. august 2017, five months later, i contacted my -- i was contacted by my tenants that the basement door to the rear yard could no longer lock and felt that maybe it had something to do with the building that was going on next door. i contacted my engineer and he spoke to the contractor on-site. it was discovered they did not underpin or attempt to protect my building during excavation in spite of the fact that the machinery needed was used to underpin on the side of the street. a complaint was filed and i received a violation notice of 3307.1, protection of adjoining property when, in fact, the violation was caused by 655 alva

65alvarado street. and i noted the word excavation that had been issued over-the-counter in march 2017. i emailed the planning department if any other report had been introduced at the time of the permit issue along with the attachment of photos that the building was gone. i began to question what plans were being used. my plans do not correlate with what was being done. i requested that the plans in writing from the project sponsor but he never responded to me. they had never stopped working on the site in spite the fact they received several violations. presently all plans have been suspended except for one to complete the shoring to stagize my building. -- stabilize my building. to date that has not been done. the contractor who has done the

excavation has offered to do my foundation but only if i sign a document to release him from liability. who knows what can happen in the future since so much of the hillside was either disturbed or removed. he said that it would take three months to complete repair. i trusted the system that everything would be done in a proper way but that's not the case. things did not happen that way. if the process had been followed accordingly my foundation would not have been compromised. i ask for the commission to consider a steep consequence for the deliberate disregard of the process and the negative impact that was created by the project sponsors with inconsiderate actions, thank you for your ti time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is john ferrati and i'm the co-owner at 651 alvarado

street and i grew up in this home and adjacent to the construction site of 655 alvarado street. prior to this construction the home had been reconstructe recoh extensive work twice in the past and i had attended a discretion hearing in 2011 and voiced my opinions of the plan. i'm aware that the owners had a permission for a home that does not even exist. the home was demoed in late 2016. at no time as the owner in good faith worked with myself or others in regard to the project for the repercussions of his actions. in moving forward with this property my foundation has incurred substantial damage by undermining the ground. the job site has had multiple violations that include exceeding the scope of their permit. i would like both the building and the planning departments to stop this building project and to reevaluate it. there should be consequences for disregard for homeowners, and

consequences for the building project -- excuse me -- there should be consequences for the disregard of the homeowner which has shown to others and to the city. even with his violations he never stopped working and continued to work on the job site. i would like his home to be downsized in a manner that reflects the other homes. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is john bridinger and i'll make a few points here and everybody seems to have covered quite a bit. the pre-application meeting in august of 2015, mary was given a set of drawings, a3.1 was an elvaitionz drawing which showed the -- elevation drawing which showed it close to the building. they received their building permits in september 2016.

and the building was removed by december. and they took three over-the-counter permits for the next three months that allowed them to basically to remove the hill which was a 20% downgrade lot as basically flat. i do have some pictures. can i show them? >> put them on the overhead. >> you have five seconds. >> five seconds? i'll go to what it is now then. thank you. >> all right, thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, it says 10 minutes so you don't want me to speak for 10 minutes. this fully illustrates the

problem of alterations that are really demos. this is just the most extreme example reminiscent to crown terrace. it's just not quite as bad but it's almost as bad. the staff didn't think when they saw this new version in 2015 that demo calcs were required because they had no idea that the floor plates were removed and it's not just the walls apparently but the floor plates were removed. that's not a problem in the field, i don't think, but i don't know, but it seems pretty extreme. concerns about the over-the-counter permit for the extra 200 square feet and the excavation should have been noted by the staff. can i have the overhead, please. this is in your packet and i did it on the ipad and made a screenshot and i made a sick joke to myself, shoot from ladders right there. my husband said that ladder is

probably constructed for this, they can't get a ladder like that. in your new version with the two units, the a4.1, it's the same as the 311 plans showing two family rooms. that plan has not changed. there's no appraisal and the box was checked when it turned into a demolition. and the application says that one unit would be best in terms of meeting section 303. and section 317 findings, it's got a problem because there's a code violation. well, the code violation is there because there's no compliance with section 317. in terms of to me of what is the most important issue in this is the relative affordability. and this, first of all, there's no guarantee that the second unit will hit the market. it's a big fancy one-bedroom unit. and the way that the doors are configured, you know, you have seen all of that stuff. and there's no guarantee that it

will be affordable, even if there are two units. we haven't seen that many two unit buildings. there's one on clipper that was built a few years ago and i know i believe in supply and demand but the square footage was over 4,000 square feet and both units sold for over $2 million each to the same family. so, you know, i'm not convinced. we'll have to wait and see what happens on chavez street. so that's about it. but it's really sad and i'm very sorry for miss ferratti shines filed a d.r. in 2011 and she didn't feel -- she chose to not file one again and she could have -- could have hassled them even more but she's hassled. if you think that you should file a d.r., you should file a d.r. maybe i shouldn't say that but i'll say it. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> can i have the overhead, please? 655 alvarado was a small house, 900 square feet for the planning department property information map. and the property owner demolished it without a permit. the property owner submitted documentation to the planning department claiming the existing structure was 2,700 square feet. does that look like a 2,700 square foot house to you? three times larger than what it was. as you can see the picture it was a small house in the middle of the block. the aerial photo they submitted is for a different house. so what we have here is more deception. the proposal before you is either a single or a two-unit five stories.

5100 square-foot monster house. how would you feel if you lived on the either side of a five story house and the neighboring property owner gave me this picture to show you. that's what it looks like. building code section 103a.3, addresses unpermitted demolition by reducing the economic incentives. i'm going to repeat that, reducing the economic incentives. if restricts further development of the square footage of the existing structure to the current size and the same number of residential units for five years. the planning department proposal before you legalizes the unpermitted demolition and allows the property owner to construct a new building that is almost six times larger than the existing structure. what it does is that it encourages and incentivizes

unpermitted demolition. that is the issue before the planning commission and that's what you need to decide. the citizens of san francisco want a fair demolition policy that is consistently enforced. this project represents an informal planning department policy where a fluent property owners can make a lot of money by retaining firms to negotiate demolition approvals that violate both the planning code and the building code. i am asking the planning commission to send this project back to d.v.i. because it clearly falls under 103a.3.1 and they have chosen to misclassify the project. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. miss roth. >> good evening, commissioners

and what you have here today is not an illegal tantamount to demolition, it is an illegal demolition. there's nothing tantamount about it. the whole building is gone. so what did we hear today? well, they found dry rot. this is something that we always hear. what dry rot? the building was redone in the 1990s. what else did we hear? we heard that they followed the plans. well, they didn't follow the plans that they got permitted -- permission for. the permits were not drawn for the plans that they did and so they didn't like those plans so they did their own plans by going back to the d.v.i. and getting serial permits until they got the plans that they wanted. what else did we hear? not increasing the building envelope. there's no such thing as not increasing the building envelope. when something goes from 900 square feet to 5,000 plus square feet, that is definitely increasing the building

envelope. so there needs to be a price to pay for this absolutely unacceptable behavior. if the department of building inspection, if the building department is not willing to hold the law and impose a penalty, i believe that this body is capable of doing that. as my previous speakers have asked they should go back to that 900 square feet and forget about increasing density one more unit here and 2,000 square feet there, they should not do that. these people did not act in good faith. and they should not be given a get out of jail free card. so, please, reduce the scope of this project to only 900 square feet and send it back to d.v.i. so that we could go back and deal with your colleagues in the building department. this is not acceptable. there needs to be a penalty. if the section 103 has a

penalty, five-year moratorium or going back to the same envelope that you destroyed illegally, they should do either one of them. and i -- i really would like you to pay attention to what has happened here. the people next door were victimized, it wasn't their choice to go through this, and the least we could do for them is at least get this project descoped to what it used to be and send it back to the building department. thank you. >> good evening, president and members of the commission, joe butler with the little house committee. it's another illegal demolition and the little house committee opposes the c.u.a. to make things better. real estate records must exist prior to the current owner that would show the existing

conditions either realtor descriptions or structural pest reports and the records and the planning department's records as pointed out, all which should be consulted as a way to verify what was existing. the neighbor's foundation was damage as they excavated vertically down and then poured a concrete retaining wall. no plans were shown to the neighbors before that excavation as required by state law after an additional serial permit went o.t.c. i fought when you excavated you needed environmental approval for such things but i go by the rules. this owner contractor should pay damages to the neighbor whose foundation was damaged prior to approvals. these projects when exaggerate or exceed the scope of their permits we have seen with insaad

inadvertent issues. and teserving to be sent back for a fine and to start a moratorium or both and when a future team applies let it be known that you it's not larger than the square footage they demolished. the result of your action today is either a step back from the wild west where anything goes or another eureka where illegal demolition means 5,500 square feet to follow their own rules and to damage neighboring buildings and to take the heat for it. and there's more at stake here, it's a fool's error, and while the second unit created will probably not be. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon to everyone. my name is myra tai and i'm the

own upper of 661 and 663 alvarado, which is the neighbor. so me and my husband bought a property in march 2017 and we were not aware of what is going to happen on the lot. however, here i am speaking not in support nor against, but the notice in my property, and there's multiple diagonal cracks on both walls, both stories of my buildings and i informed the contractor next door some time in november last year and they came and had a look at it and they said it's probably due to vibration. i trusted that and i'm sure now that i'm going to conduct my own investigation with my own structure engineer. but, i mean, i'm not sure what the decision is going to be made today, however, regardless i hope that the fence they took

down in august last year without notifying first me or the neighbor at 651, to be replaced and at least repaired. i understand because the permit is suspended that the fence could not go up but it's been six months. i mean, it's like i want to take this opportunity as well to say if -- if it's in any how that the building envelope could be changed so that the light streaming into my building would not be blocked that much, that would be great. >> any additional public comment on this item? >> my name is deir mcneil, mary's engineer. so there's a serious of consultants -- i'm sorry sorry -- you're the engineer for the person with the organized opposition?

>> yeah. >> then your time to speak was during that period. thank you. >> any additional public comment? seeing none we'll close public comment. commissioner richards. >> so, mr. horn, do you have in writing from d.v.i. the determination tha that this wast a demo? >> i do not have that in writing. >> i guess that i might need the city attorney here, and we had someone read the building code and it goes against what mr. horn had just indicated that their determination that it wasn't a demo because they had taken out a permit. but as i look at the permit it's an alteration permit form 3, and it clearly says alteration. however, the code says that illegal demo would actually -- is -- whenever the demolition of any building or structure containing one or more residential units takes place without the issuance of a

demolition permit. so there's no one wall, is it 50%? it's almost 99% gone. so i think that we need to send this back to the building inspection -- the building d.b.i. to look at this again and maybe with consultation with the city attorney to re reevaluate because it looks like they must have misinterpreted this section of the code. >> a summary of how the interpretation is, when the project that is set up to fall would be this unlawful demolition would be a project that the house is there and it goes away and someone comes in with a new construction building permit and then it's found out later that that building had been there, that was the impetus of -- they explained to me -- of the creation of this code. >> i'd like the city attorney's opinion, please. i mean, that doesn't make sense.

>> i'm not sure what the question on the table is. deputy attorney, i think what you're asking is whether the commission has the authority to send it back to d.b.i. for further consideration? >> we did in december and we're waiting for that to be determined and i want somebody from d.b.i. to come and to testify. i want them -- and i want it in writing. but mr. dratler is citing the same code that i have here. as i read the code the explanation doesn't fit the -- the explanation does not fit the building code. >> if i may, i think what you're saying, commissioner richards, is that the commission or in your view the commission needs further information in order to apply the three -- the -- >> yeah -- >> unconditional use characteristics? >> no, i am sorry, i don't mean to interrupt. i need to get the department staff is that before you take a

wrecking ball to a building you come and show us what pieces of the wall that you will remove and we have a hearing and we go forward or not. the d.b.i. code section from the way they determined it is that you don't -- you didn't do that, right? and you went and you took a wrecking ball to the building and you see this -- that there's nothing left except for the brick facade around the garage. that's what this portion of the d.b.i., the building inspection code is for. it's an illegal demo and they didn't get permission and it's an after the fact. so to come here to planning is like whitewashing, to me, whitewashing the record. i think that this goes back to the building inspection department and they need to make a determination on this according to their code in writing and i want them to come and testify. >> so let me rephrase my comment a moment ago, again, deputy attorney kristin jenson, i think what you're stating is that the

permit application is before you and what you're saying is that in your view that in order to make a determination on the conditional use that you require additional information and interpretation by d.b.i., is that correct? >> i think that what i'm saying is this is a d.b.i. issue and it should not be sitting here before us, that's what i'm saying. i think that d.b.i. needs to follow their own rules and if they make a determination i want somebody to come here and to tell us and i want it in writing because it doesn't comport with this section of their code and i would be happy to hand this to you and have you take a look at it if you'd like. here's the permit and here's the code section. >> yes, i'd be happy to take a look at that but i remind the commission that what is before you today is the reduce authorization. >> okay, so -- completely agree. so somebody spoke about incentivizing demolition or reducing the economic incentive to do this kind of thing.

i believe that if we approve this today that we are doing that. we are actually incentivizing demolition and i have absolutely not one si thought to approve t. i'd love to disapprove it but they only have a one-year penalty and they could come back for a new project. i want it to go back so they have a real disincentive which is the five-year moratorium. this is one of the most egregious examples of deception and lack of trust that i have in the project sponsor and their team. we're not talking about a wall and we're not talking about a fire on a wall and we're talking about the entire building this erodes public confidence in the process that it's fair and ecwittable anequitable and it ne followed up -- >> i want to follow up, so

there's a notice of violation, correct? >> correct. >> but on the demo portion. so what was the issue of violation -- >> there are several boxes on their standard forms and they always check the box exceeding scope of permit. >> right. >> so in what is there, how do they adjudicate that, so d.b.i. has a notice and they exceeded their scope of permit and they demoed and we determined that it's a demo under our rules, right? >> correct. and they technically -- i think that is going into the code and they have a much different interpretation of what a demolition is and it takes, i mean, a lot to be -- the entirety of a building. you can have remaining portions and d.b.i. will not consider it a demolition. so have they made that determination? >> there's enough of this

building left that they have not determined this to be a demolition. >> determined it to not be a demolition? so you could go into d. b.i. and apply for a permit based on what is left of the building which i think is the bottom portion? >> if a sponsor went in to continue construction on their current project it would be an alt-raitionz and a conditional permit. >> what is left of the building? >> the wall of the garage -- and a portion of the garage base. the slab of the original garage and the stairs. >> if you went in with permits, your original permits showed that is what you're going to maintain of this building -- >> d.b.i. considers that an alteration addition permit. >> is that true? >> yeah, and we would have brought to you a c.u. for cancellation of demolition so that's where the two departments do not have -- >> d.b.i. leaves us toea