but some planets would have it language in them that would be triggers for looking at them a little bit more closely and i think in the future, it probably would be good if we can kind of get a step ahead with those and get ahead of them as it were before it becomes a problem. but in this case, we are starting with a pretty benign permit there for siding and moving a garage door and making an existing garage. we wouldn't know. with the number of permits that are issued annually, in the 50,000 range, we don't have the resources to follow up on the little ones. i think that when we see the identifiers on something, then we should definitely be looking out for those and following up with those. >> one other thing that keeps coming up is serial permitting. do we have any safeguards in place now, that when something

starts with an innocuous permit, and then you see this chain of permits following it, does the fact of such a series of permi permits, maybe none of which individually would rise to serious review just as a cumulative effect, for smart evaluation? >> yeah, well we do ask people to get revisions when they make changes, of course. but i think, to your point, when a permit is issued park and somebody has, let's say nefarious intent that they want to go above and beyond which they have a permit for clack and they may or may not do that and come in and get a permit or they may get the permit first, at it all kind of adds up. at issuance, i don't think, you

know, these things would go to different stuff. thestaff.they wouldn't all knowe details of the combination of the permits that have gone before or the premise that have gone before. they can look it up and they will look it up. but sometimes it seems like its a necessary revision to something that is being proposed to be done. but it certainly can be looked at more closely. >> systematically, having the capability of releasing the full scope of all permitting, you are correct, things go to different specialists or we rotate someone out and everything goes back to the same person for good reason. so how do you systematically correct for it? you know, what in the system do you need to make it completely clear to anybody looking at a

new request what the scope of the preceding ones? >> they can look back and see what was issued before. and try to make a determination based on what the permit that is in place is. and beyond that, is representative of what they are looking at. it is kind of a tough one because somebody is getting a revision because they are doing work gone to their scope and they are presented with a set of documents. they will look at it, but again, i think, maybe, you know, they would look at it a little more closely if they see evidence of, you know, in it. >> i guess what i'm getting at is not so much they can, but they have to. >> yeah. yes, i mean, obviously we would be looking at, you know, when we have multiples. >> thank you so much.

>> you did mention the form eight and form three. do you need a little bit? formate are applications that are permits that are approved over-the-counter. somebody comes to d.b.i. like usually the permit is minor in nature and it goes to the fifth floor and they are generally out of the building within issued permits within i would say a couple of hours. the form three permit is a permit that is submitted and it's taking in for review. it may have planning review on it. it definitely will have plans as opposed to form eight which may or may not have clans. form three will always have to watch what sets of plans associated with it. you could expect planning revi review, maybe the department of public health if it is a restaurant to use, then you could have d.p.w. review it if you have sidewalk or scaffolding, sidewalk or curb cuts or what not. so multiagency more review, it

takes longer to get that permit, the form three permit, that is. >> thank you very much. >> mr duffy did you just want to out? >> commissioners, just a follow-up on the question, serial permitting comes up weekly with me at the board of appeals, to be honest with you. there's a lot of good customers that get, that need multiple permits. we don't want to, we need to be careful that we don't hit the people that are doing the right thing. sometimes they are in need for three or four permits on a project. or five even. but i think it's just, sometimes there is a pattern sometimes when you see the minor permit and then we are probably catching that. it will be so hard for us, though. we depend on neighbours calling in, getting the complaints out and then most importantly, we act swiftly a d.b.i. and we investigate the complaint. that, in my opinion happened on

state street. i got the call on the 19t19th of december. i remember getting e-mails from michael. the neighbour of 126 museum. planners were involved in d.p.w. were involved. there was a tree issue. we were on it within a few days. the stop work order was issued on the 24th of december. i was going home for my christmas holidays when i posted it. not what you want to be doing, but we stop that project right away. that is important on these type of cases. i mean, like i said whenever we get the complaint, we act promptly and we are usually on top of it. that stops it and then may be we have to amend it. may be it is not a problem, but if we get the complaint from the neighbours, the neighbourhood are our eyes and ears. they will tell us. in this case, with the existing conditions, our inspectors had the right. you would not know if you are a building inspector. you're taking the plants for what they are. but when the neighbour helps you out with photographs, evidence that there was something that wasn't there, it is obvious then

that there is a problem, we do we do depend on them for that. >> i understand that and, you know, as a pretty active person in my community, i always do try to do that as well. but especially when things are represented initially as form eight, there is not neighbourhood notification and form three i guess, there is many more things rise to notification. so they are aware and informed to start with to be on the lookout. so especially where things start on form eight and the community doesn't even have that advance notice, it becomes problematic for the community and, you know, just as a community member i can speak to you, you know, the frustration fact even if this one worked correctly, on being complaint driven, because the neighbours were so vigilant,

and, you know, i am prepared to accept your evaluation that it did in this case, the frustration for them is d.b.i., they are the professionals in the issue the permits. why is it upon us to issue complaints? why do we have to evaluate it and understand it? why isn't d.b.i., with all their expertise, inspecting it, evaluating it checking the permits, doing rapid follow-up to ensure that nothing is going beyond? i understand that we are primarily complaint driven, and it's one thing that i've always had some difficulty with personally. that it maybe a perspective and an orientation that undermines

public confidence and just how capable we are and how well we are doing. and what we need to do. so, you know, again, i'm not asking you to rewrite policy and suddenly not make us complaint driven, but, you know, since this is informational, and you have so many years of excellent expertise, as does mr o'riordan, today is really all about growing on your expertise in having you think, not just, did we follow the procedure and did it work? where were some breakdowns? but i invite you, even, you know, possibly some more expensive thinking as to, even if this is a rare case, how can we improve the system to ensure

it doesn't happen? and again, with the caution that you state, we don't want to make a system that is so cumbersome for everyone who is a good act actor, that they're going through a million hoops that's really unnecessary. we all want things to be user-friendly, builders to be able to build, homeowners to be able to move into their houses. we get all of that. but if there are people who misrepresent, they are the bad actors. how do we get at having systems in place that will call it out faster and more effectively create. >> that is the longest question. >> i'm sorry. [laughter] i'm always reprimanded for my lawn questions. but i do apologize. i'm sure you got the just of it. >> so you will give us the short answer?

>> i will try. >> sorry, for everything, sorry. >> as part of the legislation that we are currently working on, we are going to require a mandatory start work inspection i think in public comments you heard that. that should stop the savings scope of demolition, the over excavations because what we are looking for then is that for the project starts, we will meet with the contract, and go through that and make sure the conditions that are shown on the plans are what they going to be doing and if we foresee a problem, for example if they will undermine neighbour, if they'll excavate much, we will great that -- get that. on the foreign age that is what will be very difficult and, you know, i apologize if you're saying that we don't, you know, it is very difficult to handle every single permit when you are given 60,000 plus permits a year. that permit application is a legal document. it is supposed to be filled in accurately and applied for in an

honest matter. that is, there is a lot of trust in our game and what we do. every day of the week we meet people and we take them on their word. that word is broken, than that is a problem. the property owners, the design professionals are doing these things, they need to act in better faith, i wish i could give you an answer on the form eight. i don't know if i have it. maybe chief inspector o'riordan has. >> you why. >> commissioner lee has some comments after you and commissioner walker will be after commissioner lee. >> for me it is a little bit more tricky. and one of our plan check engineering deals with this every day, day submittals on these forms dates. he has a few comments that he would like to make in regard to the form eight application process. >> commissioner's, to answer your question, the problem with form eight is basically they go

over-the-counter and these people who submit permits sign up and random plan checkers endd up calling them so they don't know, like mr o'riordan said, they don't know the past issue with the project. but director tom hugh is pushing this program and this will transform into the plan eight. into the plan checkers going to look at the past information and records, that when they enter the project into the system, it lists all the projects, who the plan checkers are, what projects are at issue in what the scope of work is so that when we are on the counter and checking the projects we can identify what these projects are and to approved them. with it starting september 4th, that will alleviate all these serial permits for form eight. >> thank you. you know, we are all big supporters of getting it up and running. [laughter] >> a director has some comments. >> yeah, i want to comment on

the director of the department of buildings inspection. one you mentioned on this project, on this form eight, is it is far from the model, you know, that is what they applied for. that is where, you know, we issued over-the-counter. the other permit, you know, the one they submit in 2014 is a form three. it goes through, you know, the review for all of the departments. but they give, you know, all the information that we were going to, yeah. >> thank you for the clarification, director. >> commissioner lee, please. >> i understand our department wants to process permit applications as quickly as possible for our licensing. so i appreciate that it is over the counter and all the work that they do. i am just wondering, is it

possible that we need something in between over-the-counter permits and the regular form three submittals? and i'm just going straight out there and i will throughout a suggestion and say, i don't know if on this state street case if the form eight or over-the-counter permits were active when the next permits were applied for. i was thinking, if they are, we could go into the system and check to see if there is an active permit for that property back and if there is an active permit for that property, no more over-the-counter. we have to review it. take it back a day, two days. let's check them all. let's check all the permits that's on the building right now. what's going on? i mean i understand there are some projects that you require a

serial permits, or multiple permits because of the way the project is planned. we are just trying to catch the ones that are trying to sneak through doing something that they shouldn't be doing. so the people will, the projects that are ready, in planning for it, they shouldn't have a problem having them weighed a day or two days or a week. >> yet you are definitely rites. again, the problem is with our current system right now where basically individual plan checkers have to go up and researched the issue when they basically, when they have multiple plan checkers, you know, basically we don't know what the other plan checkers checking when it comes to form eight over-the-counter. so the issue is that when, you know, hopefully when it is in place, there will be a trigger that if there is an active permit, then, you know, if there's multiple active permits it will be a trigger to submit that to form three. right now with the current system, it takes that much more effort to look up the permits right now, instead of being

stopped at plantar, basically the inspection site is getting burdened with all these different permits to check. >> are you telling us that if an applicant comes up to you and says i would like to submit a permit, that plan checkers can't go into the system and find out if there's any active permits on that property? at that time? >> no. we have a system right now that can allow of that but it takes more effort for us to look up the permit issuance and records right now. i think the thing with the whole issue is to make things more transparent and once we click into the system everything is exposed. i think the staff are saying that with the new system, we will definitely -- it will definitely go a long way in protecting this policy and procedure. but back to commissioner duffy's point, when you fill these applications out you are supposed to be filling them out. there is an understanding, a professional understanding that he will filled out correctly. and, you know, to your point i do understand, but right now, to me that is the important thing.

wiley fill out an application at least with the enhanced intent to make sure that that application is exactly what you are doing or close to what you are doing? >> yeah, i like to comment on the fact that we issue thousands of tenant improvements from the office building downtown. and they are, some of them are form three. we know that there are 40 floors in the building and multiple office spaces. i don't know that we should be or need to be drilling into all the permits. if we drill into a permit for a high rise building, we get 500 permits show up if it is a large building plaque, you know. in various states of issuance or expiration or what not. but that will take the over-the-counter process that we currently have for permits and with all those permits in-house cactus applications in-house, it

would really, in my opinion, it with throw sand in the gears for issuance of permits that normally, i believe, could go forward or be given what they are. we do have to think about things like that with form three. >> commissioner walker, please. >> thank you for this. >> sorry outlet i'll let you finish their, okay commissioner walker, please. >> i'm glad, i do think that the system will give us the opportunity to have a different process around this. but i think it is to figure out what that is. i think that you should take advantage of certain types of projects that get flagged and certain types of applications within projects that flag so that we don't just have to depend on folks out in the neighbourhood telling us there's an issue, that there are certain

types of projects that might potentially be issues because of the initial application and subsequent permits. and these types of projects, i mean this is very different then a high-rise office building with multiple tenant improvements. it's residential and it's within a neighbourhood, and there is historic potential and there is a lot of, there's close to building's right next door. so i hope that we really look at our system and be proactive in figuring out what you think would flag. for someone to take an overall view it then just one permit at a time. understanding our system, you know, has many different inspectors and plan checkers and everything. so i think we need to really think about that as we look at these projects and see where we might do better to catch these. and i also, i think that there

probably is some evidence or at least reason to look at, you know, who is submitting wet. i mean there are serial offenders who allow serial permitting. i know because we deal with it. i think that we really need to catch this before this point, i mean to look at this right now and see, you know, how deep they went and i mean none of us wanted this to happen but it did. so i just, i look at the fact that so many permits were issued on top of the original application and that seems like a red flag to me on this type of project. so i just, i hope that we look at that as we go forward of using our systems to help us get ahead of these rather than respond to it. now i do have one question and that is, we have been asked or

talk to about whether it is a demolition or not a demolition and weather planning is tentative. what does that matter at this point? i want to resolve this issue. i don't want it to be a situation where people do this and then come back for a hand slap and don't do it right in the beginning, don't tell us the truth and stuff. i would like to know what we can do at this point to move this forward in a positive way. i mean we can't tell them to undo what they did at this point. i guess because it,. >> would it be okay, commissioner walker,-- >> may be it is,. >> would it be okay if we hear comments here from the commission. >> yeah, sure. i wanted to know what the difference would be in a pass forwards between it saying it is a demolition or not.

>> right. okay. i would like to leave that towards the end of the conversation. i like to get everything on the table here of what our discussions are and i could ask you to come up again. >> i guess my point is, i want us to do something as a commission that stops this now and doesn't make it easier for someone to ask for forgiveness than permission, really. at this point, it feels like someone is asking for forgiveness entities are pretty-- >> what we have here in front of us today is we have asked staff to give us, we are not voting on this. we are looking for recommendations. to your point, i don't think we can rewrite to script here today, but what we are asking, when this does go to planning, that there is a very clear roadmap as to what the staff did, what they did, when they did it, what the violations were. when these go to the planning commission, there seems to be a lot of planning confusion. rightly so, what exactly, where,

what and when happened? when this goes forward to the planning, which it looks like it will go back, that we have a very clear roadmap as to what happened. and we had a commissioner. i don't think we will be able to make the decision of what you are asking right now, okay? is there any other comments? okay. i have a few comments and i don't know if it will be mr duffy because you were out there on cite a lot, but we will give you a break. thank you it so much. if i have any structural questions. you know, i've sat on the builder's seat, okay? i get a lot of phone calls from builders complaining, worrying, trying to figure out there world out there, you know? when in doubt, you always kind of go back to the inspector and you get the advice and, you know, face your demons, as we call it in our world have construction. and i heard the testimony of mr

travis, maintenance, excuse me. i was a little bit disappointed because i really felt i was going to hear really what i needed to hear if i was in his shoes. and if i may, can you pull up, the word fabrication was used today in here a lot. and closing comments on the project sponsor, it was exceeding demolition. i want to talk about something here that was under drawn. the garage. let's talk about the garage. as i look at the garage, right, my understanding of this is you were represented on a set of plans that that was an existing garage and it was in use and they were relocating the garage, is that correct? >> that's correct. the ground floor was showing us a garage storage room and it might have even been a bathroom down there but the stairs going up to a floor above was imaginary. it was never there. all it was at the front of that building was on the right-hand side, there were two little

storage areas that had garbage cans. there was two doors but they were false. you open them up and there is a little area and maybe 4 feet by 4 feet. something typical to hold your recycling and garbage. there definitely wasn't any garage. the plans were drawn incorrectly and misrepresented. >> you know, the tree, for example,, how long was that tree there? >> according to chris from d.p.w. it was an older tree. >> it was there a long time? >> yes and there was also a driveway depicted on the plans and there was a curb cut. that was in one of the plans as well but that was never there. >> we were to believe that the tree was always in front of the driveway? >> correct. there was no driveway. >> i mean to be honest with you, i have been to this building in july on a plan to figure out how many units it was. i was involved in a process six months before this happened.

when i got the complaint and saw the plans, i said hold on a minute, i was here six months ago. this building doesn't have a ground-floor, it was pretty easy for me to get a hold of, you know, the facts pretty quickly because i'd been there before. >> sorry, you can't do that. if i need anything off you i will call you. >> we have photos there if as well add plans. >> so i'm just trying to see, can i go to the showing of the prince that is there right now? and maybe you can show that photograph their. >> they have them in the current condition. >> really? >> current or? >> this one. >> yeah. so, are they necessary now, you

said in the mitigation there were some foundation work done to stabilize and they connect to the ground and they insisted on doing that. is that correct? >> is a very good question. the building is not dependent on the cribbing, there are foundation out -- walls now with a crib he needs to stay as well just to take the centre load of the building. it is not totally dependent on crude ribbing or shoring. >> how long has cribbing been up there now? >> december 2014. >> okay. so it makes it look pretty. >> you know, it probably looks worse than it is, at the same time the cribbing does need to stay and it is regularly inspected to make sure it is not in any danger. the building itself, there are sturdy foundation walls. >> okay. all right. so right now, the time frame, so i understand this is many years, in your best estimation, that the neighbourhood has been

dealing with this. >> there has been hundreds of e-mails and multiple meetings and multiple hours of conversations with planners with the building, with the owners, with the complainants, is taking a lot of our time, it shouldn't have happened. there's nothing wrong with these people doing this project if they want about it the right way. there's a process for that. it maybe would have taken six or nine months, neighbourhood notification, you get your storing plans and you do with the right way. this project would have been finished. it makes it even more incredible that we are dealing with this in may of 2018. it has been applied on the neighbourhood. we have it written up for a vacant abandoned building. >> and they have to file for that? >> yes. >> how is being, how has that process been? that is a permit you fail every year, right? >> are you getting many complaint on that? >> we've got two or three. not that many. neighbours i used to it at this point. in answer to one of your

questions, to clarify something, planning has been over a few times before the plans got corrected. the permit that is shown now, in my opinion, and i'm sure chief o'riordan would say the same, it is the right primitives gets. it showing what they it had and what they need to do and what they need to move forward. we have quite a lot of punishment today and what you can do but our code allows us to issue fines based on the san francisco building code for us -- we have been, from an inspection point of view we would like to see a permit and some completion, whether somebody else wants to thrown a finance them or whatever, that's up to some other agency. but i can tell you at this point, the project that is before planning that has been cited, in my opinion, it should be something that moves forward at this point. i'm just saying that's from a personal point of view an inspection point if you and looking at this building for how many more years. i'm not asking -- that asking forgiveness thing, comes into provision. it's not okay to do this. we are still seeing this.

we have projects in district 18 where this is in the where we've got over excavation and over demolition. why did they do it? i don't know the answer to that. i would love to see something stopped as well where we are at a point now where we are dealing with this on a couple times a month in different districts, i don't get it and don't understand it. it is weather there are some scheming going on or whatever. we just want to get this proper and right. >> if i may, mr duffy, and mr riordan can weigh into this, what you see in plans, you are comfortable going forward that it is what should be represented on the existing jobsite out there right now? and have the neighbourhood, i guess my ghost a planning, that's when the neighbourhood where to get there kind of input again, is that correct? >> it is going through a conditional use process and it didn't get through, it involved 311 dr. >> it is a complete notification.

>> the region -- the reason the demolition came into commission in the planning department was because of the excavation. they counted the amount of excavation is demolition but we would not do that in our code. that is where they are coming from. so that is where i am speaking to planner jeff horn who is dealing with it. >> okay. where i am kind of round off here is that we now have a set of plans that we can go forward. on the time frame, if this was an illegal demolition would be looking at almost a five year suspension, i believe. that is the term. we are most four years now. this is kind of... >> when it comes at a planning it has to go through quite a bit of review as well. building has to look at it, i have permit number 7 here. it has a long way to go still. once he gets out a planning has to get your structural review at d.b.i. and d.p.w. it has to get through the building and pdc in a mechanical plan check.

it has a way to go if it does get out of plotting. >> yes, okay. that's important. if i may i'd like to, you know, i know, if i may serve, i know you have a bad leg but i need to ask you a question. yes, please. i'm sorry to do this and bring you up on your leg again. it's kind of important to me tech particularly to the last comment that mr duffy made about the timeframe -- time frame here. i'm not saying you can talk to the whole community but i am interested as you were most recently impacted as a neighbour. can somebody help the gentleman, please? i'm sorry,'s are. -- i'm sorry, sir. we've heard to the hearing, i know the history and everyone is very clear, as a neighbour at, and, you know, when we have one

of the big problems we have one projects like this, which i am seeing is they sit there as they, you know, eventually end up being light. and your other neighbours for almost three years plus, right? so i'm sure it, when we have a situation like this and we got through the motions and that we have a set of plans that is exactly reflective and we have a pact to send it back to its process and go through everything, which we would have recommendations from the department to make sure and i will go through that in a minute as part of the closing statement here, you would like, would you like to see this move forward now? >> as quickly as possible. >> okay. >> but you guys aren't seeing the big picture from the planning point of view and the future development of this lot. by the project sponsors -- what the project sponsors are trying to do is finish this house, to the max, do as much as we can without notification, and then witwhat the project is finished, the idea is to ask for

permission to build and develop on the upper portion of the lot and it involves the planning code. >> and i get that. i mean what is in front of us is what we have. to your point, you will have your opportunity because it will go through planning, you will have your chance to deal with those issues as a neighbour. what's most important to us here as commissioners, we send this back up the clear understanding to planning that we've done our job in here is what happened and it's up to the neighbourhood groups and so on going forward and watch the planners decide going forward is best for this project. >> you would like to see movement on this, you know, at this stage, right? >> yes. >> thank you. >> we are not holding up. >> i appreciate that. that's important to me to know. okay. with that, i think we've kind of

talked it through here. i don't know if there's any closing comments for any commissioners, but to the staff, i appreciate this presentation here this morning and thank you for breaking it down for us. if you recommendations, obviously, and mr o'riordan, whatever, with this project, when it comes back to you and d.b.i., obviously it will be a high profile project. i would recommend extra eyes on it and i think you understand what i mean, where we can do certain things like maybe a senior building inspector plus somebody else. do you have any thoughts on that? >> my thoughts on that would be that at the initial start of work inspections, which we will require for this project, just to get a head start on understanding what the side conditions are vis-à-vis the approved plans that maybe in place at the time, we will have

a senior inspector and a district inspector there together and along with that, i'd like to suggest that we will have a senior and field inspector at milestone inspections. in regard to pouring the foundation, cover up inspections with the rough frame, just making sure that we have at least two sets of eyes, one being a supervisor with the inspector for all of those inspections that get has to the point where the project is complete. >> okay. mr duffy, please? just before that happens though as well we obviously have our plan check. that has to get through building plan check. we'll bwe will be scrutinizing y building code issues as well before the permit is issued. >> okay. appreciate it. >> we don't know. that's when it comes to buildi building. >> i would really like one of you there at the planning commission when it doesn't meet

thadoes meetthat area just to be representing d.b.i. if this questions from the commissioners, that you can satisfy. i've asked the director of the policy going forward that this is something that when we do have these type of projects that we are setting back to planning with our detailed report that there somebody there representing the d.b.i. you can answer their questions. >> yeah, we can do that. >> yeah, okay. all right. >> i would like to reiterate, they don't have a permit yet. joe is absolutely correct. it will be looked at very closely and when they do have their permit, we will be looking at it before they commence the work and again, at the milestone. we will have great focus on this one because of, you know, all the work we've had in the past three and a half years. we don't want to go down that road again. so we just want to have our bases covered in this one.

>> yeah. when we get through these projects i wouldn't mind an understanding of the man-hours that went into prepare these reports, not right now but maybe at a later time. i think that's important, particularly i,particularly if a lot of them, okay? thank you. so with that, commissioners, i would recommend that we move to planning with the report from us outlining the chain of events with a recommendation that somebody from our staff would be there and planning when it is in front of the planning commission hearing. at that date, , i don't know but that is my recommendation. commissioner walker, please? >> i think that makes sense and i would like to reiterate that we need to find a way to have our system back, this stuff better. that that is part of yet what we still have to do as we have our

new system that we really take advantage of that. the power of that and have it flagged us. because really, again, i guess we don't necessarily have to have this type of, you know, focus on every project, but there are clearly ones that come up like they once, as you said, it seems to be more frequent. if we could, yeah. >> yes, i just want to speak. we do have our current process when we do have jobs. but we put an address restriction on the jobs so when plan reviews of th the projectst also goes to billing so they can review the job because they have more knowledge of that. when we do issue a plan on a job we put an address restriction on the job and we do scrutinize the plans. >> right. maybe there is types of plans that are prone to it that we can even know before there's problems.

>> we had to review and by building. they verify the conditions under the plans will satisfy. >> thank you. with that, next item, madam secretary. >> our next item is item eight. discussion regarding permit history and investigation of potential violations at 665 alvarado street. >> good morning again commissioners. this presentation is in regard to project updates for 655 alvarado street. the agenda includes, number 1, 655 alvarado street chronology. two permits, number 3, enforcement.

number 4 current status, number 5, next steps. as you can see from the picture on this slide, this is the current condition at the project side of 655 alvarado street. plan issues at 655 alvarado street. side permit application, was filed in december of 2,009. [please standby]

>> five complaints have been filed. we have three active notic -- ns of violation.

there was a violation referred to code enforcement for exceeding the scope of the demolition. 7 permits have been suspended at the request of planning. that happened in october of 2017. work has been stopped at the site since october 4, 2017, except for hazard mitigation, which i'll get into on the next slide. site inspection findings at 655 alvarado street, multiple site visits have occurred since august of 2017. three notices of violations were issued based on site observation for undermining of the neighboring structure, exceeding the scope of the permit and to document the suspension of the permits. the building adjacent to the east property line was issued a notice of violation for the unsafe condition created by the excavation. remediation work was necessary after permit suspensions to

mitigate hazard because of the excavation. that is, foundation had to be poured at 655 to make the adjacent buildings safe. i'm going to turn over -- turn this over to my colleague from -- an engineer who is going to give you his engineering perspective. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm an engineer with the department of building inspections. at the request of geotechnical engineers. i was brought out. this was to verify the current site conditions at the time. we agreed that the stop work order issued in the middle of the work was a potential hazard to the seattle and potential neighbors. we issued administrative permits to complete the temporary shoring and retaining wall to mitigate the hazard which was

issued in november of 2017. i performed a follow-up site recognizance to confirm the construction was limited. i believe that currently, the scene i don't remember building inspector went out this week and confirmed all the shoring, foundations retaining wall system was completed and no additional work commenced. in regards to plan review at 655 alvarado street, the scope of work was three levels of extension at the existing basement, existing first floor, existing second floor, a new basement and vertical additions. the type of construction to this building did not change. however, the number of stories increased from 2 stories plus a basement to 4 store eyes plus a basement. the occupancy use stayed the same. a full sprinkler system to the

entire building was proposed. all documents submitted for this project from site permit, addendum, excavation, shoring, and revisions was for this structure. so first, when we get the site permit, the site permit is viewed ab032. it's to ensure there are no major life safety compliance issues with the building approved by city planning. so what we do is verify the proposed building does not exceed allowable height. we make sure that all the fire protection fleets minimum standards and all the egress requirements meets minimum standards. so directly after the site permit, we reviewed the structural addendum. i'm not going to go over all the structural review and everything, but basically, what happened was the engineer designed a brand new structure

for this building. >> can you repeat that again? >> the engineer designed the structure as a brand new building. so in hindsight, we understand that this project is, you know, in extremely involved structural undertaking from the design to the review to the construction to the shoring systems into the permit building structure. definitely a lot of temporary shoring involving hand did you go piers. internal bracing, tie back bracing and it's a pretty involved building structure including the frames. you have retaining walls and slab on grade. we acknowledge there was a core owe nation oversight between existing walls shown on the site plan permit to the brand new structural system on the addendum. basically, later on, this oversight from design professional to the contractor

as the building was built as a brand new system. so currently, right now, we process structural addendums directly after site permit. what we're in talks of is we want to propose a dedicated demolition sheet floor plan introduced in the site permits so we know what walls are to stay and remain. we want to amend more proposing ab32 the way we process permits to include review of inclusion of these demolition sheets. so they can identify that these are the walls remaining and how we shore these up. however, the potential problem with these existing walls to remain is that there's going to be cocompliant issues with weather protection, fire protection and also the structural system. again, i want to emphasize that for the department building inspection, fire protection, structure 58 size and the performance which contributes to life safety of the occupants takes precedence over preservation. i'm going to turn back to pat to

talk about the next steps for this project. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. appreciate it. regarding next steps for the project, the proposed revised project will be scheduled for a hearing at the planning commission following this hearing. post planning approval dbi will review based on the submittal documents. after permit issuance, they'll be scheduled to review the permit based on site conditions. the site will be monitored to ensure compliance with all dbi requirements. thank you, and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. madam secretary,. >> the project sponsor has to come forward. >> yes. >> can you state the time frame. >> the time frame was 7 minutes. we allowed two additional minutes, if the project sponsor needs that as well.

>> okay. your presentation is 7 minutes and then you'll get a chance for rebullet al. >> i'm zack. i'm the architect of record for this project. we got involved in this project in july of 2016. we're working with a homeowner to create a family home they wanted to live in ongoing. i'm going to provide a really brief overview. the way patrick presented the permit history was actually confusing to me because we submitted two building permits. i know there was a number of sprinkler permits and everything. i want to present the way we see the permit submittal going. this shows the basic - outline f the home. i'm outlined in green the scope of work. that was that. the permit itself was the description of work was actually a revision of the previous 2009 permit.

those are the two permits we filed architecturally to describe the project. we worked very diligently to describe which areas were to be remain and which were to be demolished. we provided you a packet that outlines that very well. i can review that if you would like. ultimately, very significant portions of the side walls remain. the structure was coordinated to do that. the ply was shown on the inside of the walls were necessary. the general nature of the structural system is one in which the majority of the framing does not bear on the side wall. it bears on frames. so we worked really hard to comply with 317. we know from a mathematical standpoint we do. i think nobody engaged in this project was trying to circumnavigate. you can see the site permit submitted by another office to

our site permit application that was finally approved, you actually see an increase in the demolition that was shown on the plans trying to be very up front about areas that we thought made the most sense to increase the demolition scope. i can actually outline that. can you put this out a little bit. >> you have to adjust it. i'm not quite sure how to do that. >> so this is what was approved for the site permit. then below, you can see additional demo here. you'll see even areas that we've included that were sub terrainian that, even if you count that as demolition, we comply. i'm going to see going give they time to patrick. >> i'm patrick davis. i represent the general contractor for this project.

i'm going to comment on the ex he is demolition of the walls. we realized that there were errors in the proper notification of the removal. the additional removal consisted of the two blind walls on each side of the property that are six inches away from the neighbor's walls and were to remain intact. the explanation for the additional removal of these two blind walls is straightforward. once construction began and portions of the interior building were demolished, as approved on the plans, there was evidence of what has been -- there had been a fire between the walls years ago and there was evidence of drywall throughout the east and west walls. both presented some challenges to preserving the structural integrity of the remaining walls and the decision was made to remove the walls with the intention of replacing them in kind which we believed was allowed pursuant to section 317 section 9. section 317-9b definitions were

exterior elements of the buildings are removed and replaced for repair of paint nence 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. in this case, we believed we complied with section 317 to replace the in kind -- to replace in kind the fire damaged and dry rotted side walls since there was no additional expansion. while the project progressed under the original site permit addendum and revision, inspections were properly conducted during starting in march of 2017. during a rebar inspection in march 2017, inspector chiu asked about the walls being removed and asked to see the plans. he reviewed the plans and seemed satisfied as he made no comment that the project was out of compliance. subsequent inspections rummed in no notification there was a need for a correction notice nor

anything else was required for an in kind replacement for the site walls. when the permits were suspended in october of 2017, we heard for the first time that the suggestion of excessive demolition. we applied for all the proper permits and submitted all the proper plans. all inspections were properly made beginning in march 2017. regarding the blind walls that are in question, we were never told to commit a correction notice. none of the inspectors said a word about the project being out of compliance and it was permitted by code as it was -- as it was permitted by code to replace in kind. the walls had been removed for over six months and only after the complaint about the excavation did the inspectors cite a violation. thank you. >> thank you. >> there's public comment. each speaker has three minutes.

>> overhead. >> excuse me. can i have the overhead please? >> it's there. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is mary [indiscernible]. i own 651 alvarado street. the graphic indicates the amount gained by 655 violation of code 3307.1. getting three over-the-counter permits within a three-month span while the planning department thought the building was still there. i am requesting the building department give heavy consideration for my request to protect my air, light, and privacy and to impose a reduction in project size equivalent to or greater to the amount gained by the violation. i am requesting a setback off my property line and the

elimination of the top floor. 655 owner's actions have demonstrated his wishes to keep me out of the loop from the very beginning. here are a few examples. in november 2009, my brother and i were never notified of a neighborhood preapplication meeting. at the meeting, when my neighbor john flynn asked why my brother and i were not there, he was told we were okay with the project and we were going to do the same. that was not true. the 311 notice states the cross street as beaver and castro street. that's not true. that location is a mile away. on september 2011, at the dr hearing, the architect was not present to answer questions making the plans vague. august of 2015, my brother and i attended a neighborhood preapplication meeting. we were given a set of architectural drawings believing they were the same plans as introduced at the 2011dr

hearing, which showed unhe is calf ated and that proved to be untrue. we were told it would take nine months and that was untrue. it took over a year to completed the foundation and retaining walls. september 2016 plans were approved. three months latter, the building was gone without a demolition permit. march 2017, they violated 3307 he have calf ating adjacent to my building without notifying me exam compromising my foundation. i have been told it will take over 3 months to repair my foundation. august 2017, my property line fence was removed without me or my tenant's knowledge. at present, leaving a gap in and creating a safety hazard. also in 2017, the construction site superintendent told my team, mr. kaplan did not want adjacent properties to benefit from the construction. at the planning hearing, judith

thompson said she removed the eastern property wall due to a fire. that's not true. the fire occurred prior to the 1989 major remodel when the wall was installed. i recently learned that jonathan kaplan told my neighbor and others i requested $100,000 from him. he also told judith thompson i received money from him. that's not true. i never requested my money from jonathan kaplan or anyone affiliated with 655 alvarado street. i am aware that in building in san francisco is not an easy process. >> sorry, ma'am. >> i have to ask you to wrap up there. >> thank you, commissioners. >> thank you for your comments.