found out since the big presentation, was also removed. so just remember that that wall that is shown on the east property line, the wing wall extending back from the facade of the building, should not be shown on this slide. it was also removed. so just -- just to summarize the demolition, if -- if we look at just the wall square footage, the existing walls included 3,192 square feet. the site permit approval for demolition showed an approval of removing 957 square feet, which would be 30% of those walls. the approval with the addendum showed an additional 14% removal, for 44%, and 1,417 square feet of walls, but at

stop work in october of 2017, in excess of 2800 square feet of the total of 3192 had been removed, for 88%. and again, i can't do that math right here in my head, but if we factor in adding that wing wall in the front, it's going to be above 90%, for sure. then, just moving onto the subject of what happened with the adjacent neighbors, as you can see from these pictures here, the property to the west, 661 alvarado street, was impacted by the excavation at the subject property, 655, and the -- the effect was that the -- should the foundation at 661 had to be shored, based on the compromise -- compromised condition that came about because of the excavation at 655. so here, you see -- you see the

shoring, and you see what had to be done. this was done without a building permit, and i let the -- you know, the project team speak to the notification if there was notification to the neighbor or not. but generally, we -- we like to see a building permit. we want a building permit for this. this is a safety concern, and this came to our attention after -- after the fact. we -- we were not apprised of this situation when we were going out there, and it was discovered in may, basically, upon receiving an e-mail with pictures from this impacted neighbor. so this was concealed from -- from our inspector. i won't say purpose -- purposely concealed, but we didn't see it, so -- and this is what we know happened.

notices of violation, complaint number 2018-67671, a notice of violation was issued for unsafe ex-c excavation of 665. -- caused by the undermining work performed at 665, and that referenc references back to the pictures you were just looking at. so in summary, six notices of violation were issued for three properties between august of 2017 and june of 2018, and are all currently active cases. the most notable being the exceeding the scope of demolition, which has been sent to our code enforcement

division, and it's been -- it's -- it has an order of abatement, which is the final step in our code enforcement process right now. so -- licensed professionals, a code of professional ethics applies to all projects. the architect, the engineer, the contractor, and the subcontractors have an obligation to ensure that approvals are followed. the architect submits plans based on what is reasonable to construct. the engineer then consults with the architect, and vice versa, to make sure the addenda are realistic based on the proposed project. the contractor then follows the approved permit documents, and i think it's important to say

if the contractor finds there's something that needs additional work, it's the time to say let's get an inspector out here. i don't know that that happened here. next steps, obviously, we can ignore the first line because we're already here. post planning approval. d.b.i. will review the proposed work based on the submittal documents. after permit issuance, a started work inspection will be scheduled to approve the documents batesed on current site conditions and to give information to the project team. a senior building inspector will accompany the district building inspector at a start of work framing and again at final inspections. the site is being monitored -- is being monitored and will

continue to be monitored by weekly site visits on an ongoing basis to ensure compliance with all d.b.i. requirements. thank you, and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> president hillis: thank you. we may have questions after public testimony, and the project sponsor here? yeah. so we've heard this item before, so we'll do -- you've got five minutes, and then, we'll allow for two minutes of public comment. >> good morning, everyone. i'm going to use the overhead in a second here. my name is zach madary. i'm the architect of report at 655 alvarado street. i'm here on behalf of the owners. the owners apologize for not being here. some background, the owners

have lived in noe valley since 2002, and they were thrilled when they finally received unanimous approval from the planning commission to expand and renovate their single-family home. the general contractor, thompson brooks, began construction. during the deconstruction process, thompson brooks discovered severe fire damage in the external walls of the building. unfortunately, thompson brooks removed these elements with the intent of replacing them in like kind without first seeking a permit to approve this work. this was an administrative error on their port. the conditional use permit is needed because the original permit exceeded the scope of

permit and because of the demolition limited in 317. this resulted in a notice of permit suspension. as part of the conditional use authorization, our planner jeff horn has asked the plan are commission to design the project to two units. we've made this provisions and complied with this request, and now we have support from staff. here's a photo of the site today. the project's foundations have been completed, the entire lot has been properly graded for the design, and the existing work has all been inspected and approved by the city, and the entire project is less than six months from completion. finally, thompson brooks has filed for bankruptcy and is no

longer in business. the owners respectfully request approval of the conditional use authorization for 661 alvarado. a disapproval or reapproval with significant redesign will leave the site vacant due to an honest mistake made by a now defunct general contractor. thank you for your time. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. we'll open this item up for public comment. if there is any, we have got a couple speaker cards. i imagine others would like to speak, so lineup on the screen side of the room. you'll have two minutes.

>> good afternoon, president hillis and commissioners. my name is mary veretta, and i'm the owner of 661 alvarado street. at the august hearing, three commissioners voiced their concerns for the vague drawings presented at the hearing as well as minute ma'am excavations proposed at the rear of the building. the motion was approved with the stipulation that the project sponsor be urged to continue dialogue with the d.r. requesters. i did not file a d.r. with the second 311 notice issued. i had concerns, but i trust that the project sponsor will do the right thing and abide by the rules. to date, the project sponsor has never reached out to me despite my attempts and has taken into responsibility for the damages caused. i'm requesting no permits be issued until my and 661's property damages are repaired,

and the property line sensors are replaced. to protect my light, air and privacy i'm requesting a set back of 6 feet off my property line past my building and no fifth level. i have a petition signed by 40 noe valley residents in support of my request. there will also be an increased negative impact from the result of putting a wall up that has been gone for two years. for your information, i've highlighted a couple of comments made by president mccarthy at this month's president hearing. this case is an example of a complete misuse of system to consider it anything other than a complete demolition would be fooling yourself. this case needs to be sent a signal: all penalties be enforced that conceivably can. with a project of this magnitude, you have a team of licensed professionals, and they have the responsibility

here. it is the responsibility of professionals who are submitting documents to provide accurate documents, the drawings produced by the team lack credibility. >> clerk: thank you, ma'am. your time is up now. >> president hillis: thank you. you can give it to us, too. >> clerk: yeah, you can just submit it right there. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for attending here, and once again, this has been a long, ongoing process. hopefully to conclusion. i'd like to keep this short and sweet. once again, i'd like to protect my light, air, privacy. as perthe project, i would like to have the top floor removed -- [inaudible] >> i would like the top floor removed, the second and third -- third and fourth

levels -- w >> president hillis: just pull that mic over to you. >> oh, sorry. as far as the project manager, the architect, who spoke earlier, this wall -- this wall, which states it's still standing, is no longer standing, and as for the damage sustained, as they said, prior, if you look on city records, there -- this home -- well, was a home, was rebuilt several times if you look at city records, so the nonsense about the wall not being structurally sound, i don't believe that. as far as my property sustaining damage, here's what we have. and once again, the owner never

made any effort in dealing with us or contacting us in many efforts with e-mails, just totally disregard. and this is what mr. reardon was saying that they did, they attempt to fortify the property, my property, and basically, that's it. but i'd like to say thank you for your time, and also, i'd like my damages repaired and to have my property line fence reinstalled which has been missing, which creates a hazard. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon. my name is jerry dratler. thank you for your patience. 655 alvarado is an extreme example of bad demolition code in san francisco. the property owner and their agents have engaged in repeated actions where they behavior screams the rules don't apply to me. these actions include demolition without permit, overstating a size of the existing structure 300%, proposing a sham second housing unit, and undermining foundations of neighboring homes. the overstatement of the existing structure by the property owners' agents have been called out in prior commission meetings. i don't understand why director rahaim and his staff allow bad

information to undermine the decision process. a simple process improvement like requiring a licensed architect or structural engineer to attest to square footage of the existing structure when the existing structure square footage is represented to be greater than 110% of the square footage in the planning department database would end these misrepresentations. the planning department said the building at 655 alvarado was removed without a permit and filed a complaint with the department of building inspection. someone in planning tried to do the right thing, and d.b.i. should have issued a notice of violation for demolition without permit. the broader issue before the commission today is the message the commissioners want to send to property owners who participate in the san francisco illegal construction lottery. this property owner knowingly chose to participate in the lottery and did not win the grand prize of completing their

project before they were caught. their grand prize was a structure six times greater than the existing 900 square foot structure. we are now in the lottery consolidation round where their attorney attempts to negotiate an outcome other than the prescribed legal outcome for an illegal demolition. >> clerk: your time is up. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. dratler. next speaker. >> good afternoon again. ozzie rom. i think the most compelling data we saw that was presented by mr. o'reardon, the chart that showed over 88% of the building was demolished, and as mr. o'reardon reported today, it's actually over 88%, it's actually close to 90%. there's no question this is an illegal demolition, and we're having a very simple ask from

you, to ask the -- to require the project sponsor to rebuild the building in the same state that they found it. in other words, it is not acceptable for us to see this project being built at 5,000 square feet. this is like -- this is the definition of chutzpah. you do an illegal demolition, and you come in, and you say well, i want to build to the max. and meanwhile, i am just adding another unit, so let me go. this is not acceptable. so i just want to remind you that thankfully, you did -- voted for similar projects, similar illegal demolitions in the past couple of months: 310 metcalf, and 214 states. this is a very simple thing. tell them to go back and rebuild what they demolished,

and not anything more. we were not -- we're not going to setting for 5500 square feet. this is ridiculous, and i -- you know, we really would expect them to just go back to what they started off with. that's the right thing. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. mr. warshaw. >> i'd also like to thank inspector o'reardon for getting here and providing that report on behalf of the property owner at 661, i'll continue with the statement from our president at b.i.c. with regards to the permit file in march 2017 to increase the basement 200 square feet.

-- by 200 feet, modification of window door, talk about ratings and minor improvements to window size. there was obvious deceit and misrepresentation done in these plans. in addition to this in building code 3307, it states that there is an obligation on the project team or owner to notify neighbors. i agree this is very similar to the monticello, the nutria house, the state street house, where there is a complete inability of the professionals to act in a professional manner, to try to write this off to a contractor that is now defunct is oh, they're bad, and now we have to rebuild everything is sending a message that your commission nor ours wants to send, we have it at

code enforcement and a matter of abatement, and we certainly urge you to do all remedies to the professionals and to these property owners to send as strong a message as you can. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. [inaudible] >> president hillis: yeah. all right. that's fine. next speaker, please. sir, you spoke as part of the project team. [inaudible] >> -- context regarding -- >> president hillis: no. thank you. >> clerk: we may have questions. >> president hillis: mr. buskovich. >> this is my neighbors. i know where they lives a couple hundred feet away from me. this is a situation messed up, few other adjectives. in terms of what you do here, i think you can hear that out.

lessons learned. simple lessons. you put stamps on the drawings saying what you're not supposed to do. when you get permits that you're excessive, you're living the edge, this is what happens. no one got hurt, but i see these permits all the time. there's not a way someone's going to get hurt one of these days. perplan checks on addendums, revisions, better dialogue between the building departments. i'll explain that in a second. when buildings get undermined, people's lives are going to be very hard to put back together. the real lessons, though, we've got to rewrite the building code 10356, and we've got to rewrite 317. we have to have a site visit by the building inspector before one piece of wood gets moves to verify the plans match what's there, and a dialogue of what you can't do, and what you

can't dig, if you're going to change something, you get a permit for it; a face-to-face conversation between the building inspector and the contractor, and better dialogue which is happening now between patrick o'reardon, the building department, and planning. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> hello. may i have the overhead, please. according to the p.e.n., this property, and i assume that's what they're paying their property taxes on, it's 900 square feet. that's -- i assume they're paying the property taxes on. this expansion, if there was, maybe that was never done legally. i don't know. there's been actually -- oh, thank you. there it is. see, right there, 900 square

feet. both neighbors have been damaged, 651, 661. i think what you need to do is whatever they want done. whatever they want done is what ever needs to happen. whatever's built there shouldn't be built until they're made whole, until they're repaired. until they're fixed because it's a terrible thing. i mean, the people who live there, the kaplans, they wouldn't want it done to them. that should be the standard. there's actually been ten demolitions that you've approved over the last four years. i thought it was eight. it's actually ten in the rh-2 in noe valley. this is the 11th but if you approve this, it's already gone. it's crazy. i think you need to listen to the neighbors and what they want, and it's the only fair thing to do, and it's 900 square feet, and i want to thank mr. o'reardon, and jeff

horne, because this is something no one should have to go through, least of all larry and myra. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, and everyone. my name is myra, and i'm the owner of 661 alvarado street. so what happened to our beautiful house, the subcontractor excavate beneath our foundation without telling us until, of course, we start seeing cracks around the house. but at this point, which is about eight, six months of the violation of agreement where we're going to finally hire someone to repair our foundation. i agree with mary of 651 that if any site permit is to be issued through -- through our neighbor, 655, kindly issue that after the repair of our home, of our foundations, 661 and 651. so my request is pretty simple.

it's going to be aligned with mary, as well. this is my building outline, and of course, the rest is going to be the new building. i'm requesting for set backs and also not -- no top floor, if it's possible. it's just going to be, like, 5 feet set back. this is their proposed plan, this is their original -- >> president hillis: just put that mic over toward you, please, so we can hear you. >> oh, sorry. so this is the previous access thing here. this is my -- our building, and we are requesting for set backs all the way up so that our eastern morning light is not going to be affected. and on top of that, we are also requesting for our fence to be fixed. they -- back in august last year, they remove our fence --

our shed fence, and it has been like that for the past one year. so we -- we appreciate if the project sponsor are willing to rebuild the fence that they remove without telling us. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: okay. so what i took from this was, from mr. o'reardon's presentation, work was done on the neighbor's property to shore it when they actually damaged it and hadn't told the neighbors or d.b.i. the owners hired design professionals -- can you put that slide back up, please, mr. o'reardon, what we expect from design professionals, because, you know, if i were a project sponsor, and i hired an architect and a structural engineer and a contractor, my expectation would be that they'd behave in a professional manner. and i think you summed it up here.

could you go over this again, please. thank you. oh, could you -- so code of professional ethics applies to all projects. the architect, the engineer, the contractor, and the subcontractors of which there probably were some or should be some have a duty to ensure plans are followed. architects has plans based on what is reasonable to construct. archite architect -- engineer consults with architect and vice versa, and contractor then follows approved permit documents. i think that sums it up what we should have been expecting from people on this project. mr. warshell, you're a building

inspection commissioner and building inspection commission president mccarthy was quoted by one of the neighbors. can you attest to the fact that what was actually -- how -- >> of course. that was an accurate statement. >> commissioner richards: and can you sum up what exactly the statement was about? >> we felt that basically we felt we were seeing outrageous behavior. there's no way that this can't be regarded as a total demolition, that you go from 30 to 44% approved, and suddenly it's at 88% with no notifications is an outrage. the neighbor's properties were a very, very big part of our concerns. we share the concerns voiced by the neighbors that were testifying today that their needs need to be addressed before anything else, their properties have to be secured, and we have to be certain that we're looking out for their best interests going forward.

beyond that, there was a very significant discussion about this issue of the licensed professionals, that they have responsibilities. you can't have a treacherrous lot like this and not have a drop off. you can't have your architect actively engaged in knowing what's going on and what's feasible. i don't agree that we should have presite inspection on complicated things like this. it's one thing that we're advocating for for the commission. this is clearly a case where, when you look at the plans as submitted, there's a misrepresentation, there was gross understatement of the scope of what they were going to try to do, and if this resulted in the fiasco that we've all now seen, there's ample reason to see how it came

to be. there was misrepresentation, and the professionals were not living up to their conduct, and we're very serious about this. we know you will be, as well, and i think that's why we're anxious to see it referred back to you, as well. >> commissioner richards: thank you. this was being portrayed as an honest mistake by the project sponsor's representative, but clearly, the facts were as presented by mr. o'reardon. we have an expectation of design professionals that they know what they're doing. they're licensed, they should know the code, the building code. i'm not giving legal advice here, but if there is any issue between the owners and their design professional, that belongs in a court of law where they sue each other to figure out who's responsible for what. what's before us is approval of a permit for a project, the demolishing of a single-family home in noe valley.

we've got precedent here. you know, we, in the past, on several projects, we've said, you know, we don't want the neighbors to have an empty lot or a hole in the ground for five years because, you know, we don't want to subject them to that even though the building code looks like that's what was called for. and i think as we did on 214 states on july 12, as we did on 310 montcalm, the neighbors don't have to worry about an empty lot, because we're going to require construction of a building exactly as it was before the permit was ever pulled, including repairs to the neighbor's foundation because that was an existing condition to remediate what the issue is to their properties. also, that a certificate of completion and final occupancy be issued so that the house that's being reconstructed is habitable and it's not a

ptoemkin house, and i'd like an enforcement from the project team on this having it actually achieved. >> thank you for that. so one comment to that, this is an application of permit for the subject property. we cannot condition that work be performed on other properties that are not the subject property, but i know that department of building inspection will work with the adjacent property owners to ensure that the work is done. we can try to, if any phasing needs to be done in terms of the work, as on the adjacent properties as it relates to the subject property, we can coordinate with the various departments, but otherwise, it's my understanding that we cannot require a condition that work be done on other properties that are not the subject property. >> commissioner richards: understood. one other thing i'd like to recommend that we as a commission, we send a letter to the building commission, that there is a sheet that's inserted in the set of plans

where the design professionals sign it saying that everything that's in the set of plans is true and can -- true and correct and that they're responsible for anything contained there in. as well, there should be something on roles and responsibilities or what the roles are that they should also sign that they understand it. i know this may sound like third grade, but with something like that, it's pretty air tight when people sign what they're responsible for. it's like a c.f.o. signing that the financial statements in my company are true and correct. it's the c.f.o.'s responsibility, not the c.e.o.'s. i know there's legislation forth coming from supervisor peskin on demolitions, and i don't want to get ahead of myself. i know it's been in the works now for several months, and i know if we make this decision today, and hopefully, we do, we've got three projects under our belt where we've got the same outcome, where we see

something that smells like a rat and we ask to have it put back together. i can hope that we could wait for supervisor peskin's legislation, but if not, i ask that we explore a policy when we see things like this. so i have a motion to reconstruct the house like it was and have a cfco issued. >> president hillis: do you have comments, commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: yes. i support the motion that commissioner richards presented, i believe that is the only real, honest way we have out of this dilemma since we took similar stance out of the two previous projects. i believe this to be consistent with the message. this is a time to pursue that path. i would like to ask mr. o'reardon, who i thank very much to being here if there is any repercussion with people's

licenseure, when you see people doing this. somewhere along the way, i am also asking myself, what role did the client have to play in this? sometimes as you know, clients put extraordinary pressure on their professionals, and out of sight, out of mind, small projects, large things happen without you all knowing because many of those things are complaint based, not because you were there all the time. it would not impossible to be there all the time unless you believe the professionals have acted in the parameters that you have established. what other things for the professionals? >> commissioner, we do approximately 5500 building inspections a month. these are licensed professionals. there's an expectation, and it's more than that, it's an obligation on their part to do the right thing, represent

accurately what it is they're doing. when it comes to the contractor -- and i believe this may have a lot to do with this, too, when it's beyond the scope of what they have in front of them, they have to say, let's get an inspector out here. it was stated to the commission in regards to state street that no contractor is going to do work that they think they might not get paid for. so you know there's a team effort here. there shouldn't be any pointing fingers. it's the design team, there's an architect, there's an engineer, there's a contractor. things happen and changes have to be made, but they have to be made with giving it thought -- in a thoughtful way with a revision being filed, showing the necessary approvals for what needs to happen, based on changes with structural. i mean, as mr. boskovich says,

nobody wants to see workers working underneath a wall just because the wall has -- we have to try to keep it in place for the purposes of calculations, knowing that the possibility of shoring that wall is -- is not really there. it's very difficult. so my thoughts are that it's a team, these are all professionals. we do a lot of inspections. hopefully, we catch these things, and the start of work, we're instituting a process already for the start of work. we've made a request to our m.i.s. people to provide us with a list of projects because we know these are mostly vertical additions. people are adding stories, and they have to add additional supporting walls and floors, etc. so the request is we be provided with a weekly list of the projects that include criteria that involve vertical

addition more than $350,000 worth of work so we can get out there, call up the contractor and figure out what they have on their drawings and what their intentions are in regard to the construction and what they might need to do. so we're trying to get ahead of this. >> commissioner moore: thank you. i would ultimately like to see if there are repeat cases where particular professionals act outside these walls that there is some call to state licensing that things aren't quite clear in the state license you are. with state engineers, it's a three year cycle or four year cycle. architects, i'm not sure what the cycle is, but i think it's worth noting. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner fong? >> president fong: yeah. maybe someone can help me get a little bit better understanding. i'm supportive of the motion at

the moment to put it back the way it was. i would like some assurances for the neighbors, the neighboring neighbors, that a, they either get some settlement in place that the work is actually done or the work is done before anymore construction takes place on the site. i'm not sure that's within the planning commission's purview to mandate that. i think you stated it was not, but it just would be nice that this is in tandem and sequential order. >> we share that concern as well, to make sure the neighbors are made whole through this, that their issues are resolved. however it's my understanding that we cannot condition work on other properties. there is a civil agreement between the adjacent property owners and the property owners that they need to resolve, and the adjacent property owners will need to seek and maintain permits to correct the

violations that now exist on their property because of the project sponsor here. >> president hillis: could we do an intent to approve that project but continue it with the hope until we see the site conditions on the adjacent property -- there's clearly safety issues -- >> i think if you would like to continue this item to get more information from the parties as to what the status is to inform your decision, i -- that is something that i think could be done? i don't know what the status is right now with the neighbors, but -- >> president hillis: but that to me is of tantamount importance to me, of the neighbors, the building and safety issues. >> president fong: it's a little bit of a chicken-egg because if we do that, we're not continuing any work to the neighboring properties. so i like the intent if we can, assuming that settlement discussions are -- >> president hillis: can we ask the neighbors, the two adjacent neighbors kind of what

they would prefer? >> i can read you what my -- the subcontractor -- yhe said that he got the geotech report on wednesday, and now my structural engineer can do the plans. he can do the plans in two weeks, next would be the geotech to review the plans and state that it meets the design criteria. this should only take about a week. he's a little slow, and i'll push him, so in three weeks, should have -- >> president hillis: just to cut to the chase, you're working with -- >> both the contractor -- well, the subcontractor that did the damage hired an attorney, and we did the hold harmless agreement, we did it, and we signed it, so he's going to repair the work. >> president hillis: all right. so are you confident that they're going to do that? >> i'm pretty confident. i believe in him, that he's going to do it, but he said it's going to take up to about

six months for it to be finished. >> president hillis: i think what commissioner fong is getting at, and i agree, is we want to make sure that things are repaired before new construction -- >> yeah, and i'd like to have a fence, too, because i'm really a part of his construction site. i'd like a fence here. >> president hillis: okay. let's hear from -- >> as for us, we have just signed an agreement with the subcontractor two weeks ago, so we are going to hire our own contractor to do the repair. so i would hope he'd be done within three months. >> president hillis: okay. thank you. do you have anything further on that? >> president fong: no. >> president hillis: okay. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: so i'll just share some general thoughts, and then, i just wanted to comment on this issue of making sure that the work with the neighbors happens, as well. so first, you know, upon just preparing for this, google has this nice feature of where you

can see a time lapse of buildings, and i remember thinking oh, as i saw the time lapse to this moment. i think, you know, looking at this project, i think it's easy to blame or point fingers between the owner and the professionals, but i absolutely agree that i think everybody needs to be held accountable here? you can't do work and then ask for permission, especially when it's not only clear that lots of rules were broken but a dangerous situation was provided. i think not wanting to have a vacant property or a hole in a neighborhood is no longer an excuse for approval? if you do illegal work, you're going to be held accountable for it, so i enthusiastically support putting it back to its original state. but i also just want to, you know, ask whether or not -- i mean, this will have to go back before d.b.i.

planning department will also have eyes on it, so it seems that it's within our purview to direct the department and recommend to d.b.i. that the neighbor's work happens first, before any additional permits are given to put the buildings back in place. >> president hillis: i would suggest we give an intent to approve this when we have plans before us that would show kind of how they rebuild the house. i'm not as concerned with the interior of the space that would be recreated to what it is, but the exterior volume be the same as it was, and ask them to come back before us four months from now, but in that period of time we expect work to be undertaken on the neighbor's property and to be fixed so that there's a site there that can actually accommodate that work. fences are back and things are repaired so that environment is safe enough to actually take on

this project that we all kind of want to see happen on there. >> the last thing i want is to kind of delay this and i want to give the project sponsor more ammunition. >> president hillis: i think we get it. but they're going to have to -- they're going to have to come back and draw plans for what we're directing them to do, so that's going to take sometime. we want them to continue with you in making those repairs, so that can go either way. >> that's great. thank you. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: two things. i think we should condition or approval based on the work on the neighbor's property. i think we can do that. >> i think there was a request that it be prioritized, work on the adjacent property, but we cannot require -- >> commissioner richards: okay. so let's request that it be prioritized sequentially appropriately. i think we did on 212 states

and 310 montcalm, to put it back as it was before it was sold. i'm not saying what kind of finishes we need to have. they can be high-end finishes if they want, but last thing i want to do is have a sexy, glitzy interior with a shabby exterior. the floor plan should be the same. that's what exactly the way it was means, exists what was there. we approved that on 214, we approved that on 310. i don't know why we wouldn't approve that here. just the floor plan the same. >> well, there will be one comment kind of in response to president hillis's recommendation of continuing it. i don't know that continuing it

a few months would ultimately delay the project given that at this point they have not even filed a building permit is my understanding, so they could develop those plans, they could come back with a project that they want that responds to your decision, that they could put that forward as their response. >> commissioner richards: i'm -- >> president hillis: we want to see some progress on the building. >> commissioner richards: maybe this is refining what we said, but we'd look at this is the kitchen, living room, bathroom, and we'd see an as built, and this is what your project has to be built. >> president hillis: all we're saying is i agree with you. i'm not necessarily in agreement that the interior has to look exactly the same. i don't necessarily care. i think the exterior -- it's clearly going to be a new building on the exterior. they can't bring in the old, you know -- siding and put it

on. >> commissioner richards: exactly. >> president hillis: i think the volume is what's important, and whether they adjust some walls, that's fine. it's going to take them a couple months to develop those plans. it would be good for them to come back and hear some progress. i don't see the harm in that because it's going to take sometime. we hear some progress on the neighboring -- because right now, there's agreements and nothing's happened. i think there's an incentive for them to get that work going. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: let me throw in once these people hear what the commission is saying, the delta of 5,000 square feet, what you're meaning to get and what you're getting is they're a chance they'll just sell the property. we want the massing of that building to basically replicate of what was there. what they do on the inside, i couldn't careless. >> okay. jeff warren, planning.

that comment was made earlier with the square footage. that is from our property information map system. that can purely just kind of the script that pulls it from the assessor's data. it also says you have construction from 1910. from my experience, when subsequent alterations get done to j pros -- projects, those don't carrie onto assessor's raw data. i do also want to note that conceptually, you do have what the building could look like before you. [please stand by]

>> we will not win any awards. we want to rebuild again. there could be a better living situation there given the same amount of massing that was there before.

and i am concerned seeing the damage to next-door, putting a much larger structure on that side of the hill where the geotechnical erosion there. i am supportive of commissioner more's direction of taking the massing of the existing building before house. letting them go back in design. believe it or not, we have taken steps forward. we have given direction to build within a certain mass and let them come back with something and to be representative of what was there but not identical. >> i can live with that as long as what we were constructing is legal and permitted. if someone added a thousand square feet on the back talk legally that does not count. i am cool with that. >> president hillis: let's see -- >> commissioner richards:

essentially you could make an intent where you could continue it, but the intent would be to approve the matter with condition as amended to revert to the massing back to its original form. and then continue it for whatever reason. when you can continue it and they have heard that. the intent is a little stronger. >> it is not necessarily the original form but the form when the property was purchased. >> writes. as jeff pointed out, may have been more than 900 square feet. but as long as it is legal and in its existing form at that time. >> president hillis: do the neighbors -- do you want to make a comment on this. what's that? are you representing the neighbors? [indiscernible] >> president hillis: you understand that -- [indiscernible] >> i think there is already a

plan that exists back in whatever brick preexist it, go it. >> president hillis: we want to make sure what is there gets built. >> what was their queen. >> president hillis: we want to make sure something gets built. the same massing. we want to make sure your property gets repaired. >> right. >> president hillis: we are saying, we want to see that plan that plan is not before us. we want to see that -- i get the plan of what it looked like before, or the interior, but it is not necessarily there. >> i would like you guys to make a ruling today, if at all possible. >> president hillis: i think we are getting to the same place we are trying to help and hear it again. they've got to draw plans anyway what we don't want to step to say, you heard with the planning commission said. are we saying build back the stucco frame with a tile? no, but we don't have the plants before us. that is what i support. let's see the plants of the same

massing in two months. >> commissioner richards: may be i think there is a way they could do it to approve the same square footage with the condition that the plants come back to you. >> president hillis: yeah. >> commissioner richards: you could take an action today. he would not have to differ the action. >> what about the fact that i would like it to be off my property line? >> president hillis: and then we are doing new plans and different plants. those plans we do not have before us. >> clerk: what the commission is asking it be reverted back to the building as it was before they started work. at that time, with the area in question, was it encroaching? they were doing a large expansion. >> while -- >> president hillis: these are the facts that should be worked out and they will not be worked out today. >> i will manage my motion to say the exact massing. light wells match up, the front and the backs, as long as it is legal, they can do whatever. front, inside, good. >> president hillis: we would like to see those plans. we would like an update on where they aren't fixing your building

and putting back your fence. ok. that is a motion. >> commissioner moore: i personally believe there is enough horsepower in planning as it is an d.b.i. to let this happen based on what we are instructing them. we do not half them to see the plans. there are more professionals here than we can throw a stick at. we could add more for the public >> is there a second to that motion. >> president hillis: will you restate -- restate the motion? >> commissioner richards: i make a motion to approve the demolition and put a building back in the same exact massing as a prior building, based on historical legal burning permits >> commissioner moore: emphasis on legal. >> commissioner richards: and a conditional certificate of completion and final occupancy be issued so that it is not at the thompkins house. it is a real legal house with

running water -- water and electricity. not just a massing building that we would demolish in the next project. seriously, i wanted to be somebody to live in it. and every six months, we get a memo from staff on what that will look like. every six months, we get a progress report. >> president hillis: let's just ask for one of the next meeting. >> commissioner richards: and sequenced correctly. so the neighbors can fix me when i second that motion. >> clerk: thank you commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded with conditions as has been amended. to require that the building revert to its exact massing of the previous legal building and a cf cob issued answer that memo from staff updating the progress with the new plans be submitted to the planning commission. >> president hillis: and they work with the planning staff on

the new plans. >> clerk: on that motion -- >> commissioner moore: absolutely. >> clerk: [roll call]. so it moved. that motion passes unanimously. >> president hillis: thank you meeting is adjourned.

>> all right.ourned. good morning, san francisco. [applause] >> welcome this morning. my name is miguel bustos, and i am the director for the center for social justice at glide, and we welcome you. [applause] >> before we get into our program, i just want to acknowledge some family friends that are here. we have sheriff hennessey, who's here. i saw her earlier. we have a glide board member, herby foster, who's here. we have janice mercanti, the founder of our organization. we have the reverend cecil williams, the man who started it all, and