action in response to the concerns was a provision in part of the code that requires the popos. i will read it. >> the commission shall consider the extent to which the open spaces serve. the open space and rexcrational needs of the diverse inhabitants. it is explicitly in your approving these projects to take them under consideration. >> thank you. thank you, staff. this is an informational so we won't be take action. i would like to take a break though. there are only four of us and people need a break. we will come back in 10 minutes.

>> we have information on 598 which includes demolition and new construction of new three mixed use office buildings with 922 gross scare feet about 5,000 square feet of child care use and 200 off street parking spaces. this represents the first of four projects you will be hearing over the next couple months relative to the central soma area plan and implementation. staff has calendared four of eight key projects for your review. we are for each of the key projects we will have an informational presentation prior to the actual adoption hearing given the level of detail in a lot of the plans we found it helpful for an extra forum to vet the issues and introduce the

projects to the commissioners. i will turn over the presentation to the project sponsor karl shannon. >> good afternoon, commissioners. it is a pleasure to be here. i have had the pleasure for 20 years of running the office here in san francisco. i am raising a family in san francisco as well. we have been working on this project since 2012. from the very beginning, we have tried to work with the city, with the staff, with the community to come together on a vision for what this block could be. what became clear very early on was the community wanted a park connected through alleys and streets. they wanted affordable housing, they wanted retail and pdr to activate the ground level including at the middle of the block. and as we develop this and can

you turn to the next slide when we get to the slides. this shows the project as a whole and this shows the open spaces. go to the next slide. as we began to work on this, the planning staff looked at lot 52, the large l shaped piece. that belongs to public utilities. let's zone for a park like south park and there is a publicly owned parcel in the middle of this block. the p.u.c. said, look, we are in the business of providing water and sewer to the city. this is important for us. we can't turn this into a park. so we as a private party stepped into that dilemma, and we went in 2004 and bought 2000 marin. this is an eight acre site and

we agreed to an even exchange between the one acre site on bryant and the eight acres onmaran giving the p.u.c. a new home. it is much more suited to needs closer to the freeway. that was approved by the board of supervisors in 2018. the project is three commercial buildings, 5,000 square feet of child care right at the ground floor, 50,000 square feet of pdr, 17,000 square feet of ground floor retail, a permanently affordable residential building with up to 85 units that we will deed to the mayor's office of housing, over half an acre of popos privately owned publicly owned space and the crowned jewel a one acre public park in the center of the block. we have been working with a

great design team, tom leader, landscape michael molton from the architecture. we will ask them to come up. i am proud of the track record we put together. we built 1700 units market rate housing, 590 units of permanently affordable housing in san francisco and we hope to bring this project and the project the creamery forward in the next couple months. i will turn it over to michael moulson to talk about architecture. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i am michael moulson, design architect for 498 brannon street project. our inspiration for the design of the buildings and public spaces come from south park context itself. we have been working to connect to the neighborhood's diverse

range of materials, textures and scales and spaces with a particular interest in the way additions to buildings create forms and the way ground levels of existing buildings h especiay in the alleys create an intimate public realm. we organized the streets, alleys and pedestrian connections. at the center is the new park very much the hub of larger city block bordered by fourth and fifth and brannon and bryan streets. the goal of creating the diverse buildings and open spaces has resulted in a design that ranges from storms of boxes with green outdoor terraces. please stand by for realtime captionin.[please stand by]

>> we were brought in to make sure the parks serve the needs of the community, of all ages, all types, all demographics. so if we can go to the next slide, wonderful. we worked over a year, close to a year and a half on intensive communityengagement and we held 29 major community meet meetingd 25 were publically noticed and

some were with youth. the kids are going to use these spaces. in addition, we have fa si facid 18 meetings with partners at rec, planning, puc, you name it. and i'll in there, too, that we've tracked, also, individuals at these different meetings to make sure we're not just hearing from the same people over and over and reached over 260 people. what we found is, perhaps, not surprising. people wants places for their dogs to go, places for their kids to play and food options, engaging spaces that feel clean, space and welcoming. public art was a big attraction as well as fitness and so, in addition to cultural heritage recognition as well. to unveil the design itself, we'll go tom leader's land architect.

>> thank you. we've been oh fish yea officiarh process. we looked at a simulation of the south park and south park is longer, divided into segments with winds through and creates a certain scale and they work for certain types of uses. this has a square configuration and there may be an opportunity for a bigger gathering, to support a bigger community, larger events and to create things that gather around that. next slide. so, of course, the looks like

currently it's buried inside. our job here, number one, to make this visible from the streets. so we have the benefit of all of these alleyways, welsh and moving north-south, that you can see in and that it is lit and you can find the place and there's an identity that's clear and obvious to people coming from the streets to find this place. it's important for safety and identity. the key to having this is an identity as well as safety and a place of community is to activate it to the largest degree possible. we've been working with the beaterman design and the community to identify, begin to identify calendar of events that happens over the course of the day, over the week or month or year. and this needs to be really filled in with activity, things that are relating to everything that people are looking and want to do here.

so this goes -- the best way to put, this is the best place to meet, a community living room. this is the diagram of that community living room, which has, basically, a multiuse center surrounded by more fixed programmes and facilities related to uses from all of the things brook mentioned from picnicking, trees and planting and in the center, we can have movies, festivals, food truck, markets, performances on a constantly rotating changing basis. next. so what is the park made of? we would propose that it's made of our environment right here in northern california and so, we look to the pallet of materials at point recollects ays or in the hills around us, oak trees,

cedars and ferns and grass and things that are familiar to us, but not so familiar in the middle of the city. also, the heritage of the place. this was a lumberyard and we're interested in the use of recycled timbers. so here is an aerial view of the park in full swing for a farmer's market. as you can see, there's a lot of gather spaces in the center for tents and activity. there's a stage, more to the south there. this is the sunniest and most protected part on the side and surrounded by a series of green planting stones and gardens that provide seeding and overlook for these same events or to be used and occupied on an individual basis for families or smaller groups. next. so there is a place for families

and this is a place for dogs and this is a place for you, when you live in this community, to get together and you can also see some of the identity. next. and it's an urban space but it's warm, really coming through the materials and the floor and the generation of activity that i think it will be key to how it feels, the character of the materials, shade and selection of trees and plantings. next. and i guess what i would add to that, these materials are one of the key aspects of the sustainable story here and there's many things we're doing but there's a microclimate that is created by the buildings lending itself to the materials we find, point ray or areas that are shadier or sunnier and we can adapt native materials to an ecosystem newly created here on the site.

that's our foal. goal. just to outline the activities in the park toward the bottom there, there is, of course, a larger scape place with a big wooden apron with a stage on top of that, overhung by a large oak tree and a zone along the affordable housing side which has a play for older kids, picnicking at the top, close to industrial building, there's a daycare that uses a tot lot out in front. then there's more picnicking and outdining space next to that and then along the building to the left, we have more of these gardens and an experience inside of that. but there's interchange back and forth in the public park because all of these are part of a

interrelated open space network to work together, not in separate ways. i'll leave it at that. >> i'll just say quickly, we're proud of this. this is a true public private partnership. we're here to answer any questions we have and we're committed to working with the committee on the refinement of the design and park long-term. we've asked supporters to come out in the meeting on june 6t june 6th, not to come today but for everybody's time but supporters from community, labor, nonprofits will be here on the 6th. we're here to answer any questions a thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. we will now take pu public commt on this item.

>> so hester, i would ask everything be provided to the public. secondarily, the hearing is going to be june 6th and that's very close to this day. i would ask that the staff report be available three weeks in advance, because what you're being asked to do is the entire project, not merely an office allocation of 920,000 square feet, which you're being asked. if the staff report comes a evening before, you are telling the public they can't participate. if it comes two weeks before, it would be right before memorial day. i'm asking you to establish

rules. when these projects come through for the first entitlement, and it's a big entitlement, there be sufficient time that people can print out and review literally hundreds of pages of documents. you should be doing that as a planning commission and this is not a one-week case by any stretch of the imagination and should not be treated as such. this should be a three-week case. this is an enormous case. and once you establish the rule, it would be established for every project that's in this whole thing. just absorbing everything that was said by people who had 30 seconds to say their peace and the landscape is truly by the length of this time, was given the most important. we need to understand what you have.

you have -- i saw you all flipping through this. i wasn't flipping through it. it's information. just clean up the act after the fact. clean up the act, the act for this project before it happens so the people can understand and can comment. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? commissioner moore? >> just for the public, what the commission has in their hands is only a print-out of what was approached oprotected on the sc. we're given that because it's hard for us to look across the room. that's the own reason. only question. i have a question and you can choose to answer this first, probably mr. shannon. is there any facin phasing stray

that underlies this plan? there are many good pieces to it. this is a final picture. how do you phase the project with five or six pieces? >> short. we've been asked by the mayor's office of economic development and planning department given the scarcity of propm allocation to forth a phasing strategy and what we'll be asking for is full approval of the entire project and a prop m allocation for the first two buildings on fifth street. that would allow the swap of the pc parcel for the morin to go forward, the informal agreement between us and the agreement, the mayor's office is that the actual construction of the park would happen in conjunction with the granting of the prop m

allocation for that third building which is our second phase. we have tried to work proactively with the city in terms of scarcity of prop m to bring the project forward in a way that makes sense, both for our own goals given the scarcity of prop m. >> thank you for answering it. perhaps i didn't ask correctly. i'm interested in the physical evolution of the project. i can understand you'll be asking for all of it and i'm sure the building of open space will happen in pieces. they're not all of a sudden coming out of the ground. have you thought about it? >> the physical construction would follow in this same two-phase structure that i talked about from an approval standpoint. we would expect to build the two buildings on fifth street and i'm not sure whether i can show it with the mouse, but this building at the corner of final

and brannen and mid-block on fifth street, those would be built together. they share a single loading dock and parking entrance off of welsh alley, so they share a common below-grade loading area and parking lot so they would be built together. the park and the third building would be built following the prop m allocation for the third building and then the housing parcel, the current expectation is that would be deeded to the mayor's office of housing and would be developed when they have the funds to do that. so i think it would happen to be fair in three phases. >> it would be interesting for the rest of the public on june 6th to see a couple of diagrams which, indeed, physically demonstrate how you're doing it. what spaces are you creating? is this a project which looks under construction when the first phase is done or is your first setting in itself complete and a place in its own but you

can anticipate what it will be, but the other pieces kind of independently lock in and then create the whole. >> sure. >> i'm interested not to have any project looks like it's under construction for x number of years but create a sense of completion. that's extremely important to me. >> it goes without saying if this commission wanted to grant the proposal locatio prop alloce happy to do that. [ laughter ] >> i like what i'm seeing today. i still look at 160 fullsome and it's going up and they're riding the line of simplicity, com lexx

architecture, but they've been correcting to the sk the skylinr decades. they use the old chronicle parking lot to train laid off chariot drivers to hopefully bring them into operator roles in the future and i think a lot of people are overlooking that and i think to, you know, kind of respond to miss hester's comments. i like what i see today. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner hillis? >> just echoing my fellow commissioner's comments, the site plan here is great and i like the lay-out. it's you unfortunate we won't get to park, potentially, for years. mr. shannon, how will you deal with that? i mean, as you build out the

first phase, you have parts of those that there's open space. >> yes. the popo space that is part of the first two buildings willing constructed with the first two buildings. connection of free lawn alley all the way to fifth street which provides an important bicycle and pedestrian connection through to fifth street, you'll remember that the new central subway station is located essentially at the east end of free lawn on fourth street. so we see free lawn as a very important pedestrian connection not only from our buildings but from the office population in the kilroy project and down to the new central subway station. we're in the business of running professional projects and we'll

make sure this is as finished as it possibly can before the construction of the third building. >> you've got a significant amount of retail or pdr on the ground floor and a lot of it interacts with the park. >> yes. part of the feeling here is to try to create an environment not just on the outside streets, which even with the bike lanes remain fairly fast-traffic streets in soma, but to activate free lawn and welsh and the faces facing on the park. so there's a whole ferocity to this plan and a whole vision, both with retail and pdr to really make the middle of this block feel like an inviting

place to be as a pedestrian. >> what types of pdr do you envision? >> well, we're -- >> because it's important, on a ground floor, adjacent to a park and you've spent a lot of time thinking about the ground level and how it reacts with the park? >> i think the trick is to find the right local production facilities that have a retail feeling to them, whether that's copy roasting or, you know, make leather bags, things that you have to genuine san francisco handmade element to them but retail in their orientation so that they activate the ground floor of the space. >> ok, thank you. i mean, i think it's a great design, especially the attention to the ground floor and how the streets and alleys interact here. the open space is ambitious, putting a lot of programming into a relatively small space, which is great, but obviously, you've a lot of attention and

detail which you'll need because there's dog parks and community space, the ability to do events and it's a lot no one acre and i think it's great for the neighborhood and appreciate the design. thank you. >> commissiocommissioner fung. >> why is the park not part of the first phase? >> initially we envisioned this as one project with one phase with one prop m allocation and the city asked us, please, to split the project into pieces. and so the park is linked with the second phase and that second prop m allocation. >> i think by you, it was not linked -- >> it was a negotiation with the mayor's office and trying to find a way forward. some of our colleague's competitors said they can only build their project no one

single phase and we've come to the table with what we think is an appropriate phasing strategy and we also want there to be an incentive for thety t the city e forward with that remaining prop m allocation, which is at your discretion. >> thanks for the reminder. [ laughter ] >> go ahead. >> can you remind us how much office is abou in the first two building versus the third? >> 710 feet of large cap allocation in the first two buildings and 212 in the third building. >> two-thirds in the first phase? >> that's correct. the first two buildings share a common loading dock and common garage. >> ok. >> that's internet. >> if there's nothing further,

commissioners, we can move on. items 15a and b were continued to june 6, placing us on your discretionary review calendar for item 16a and b for case 28 28-001591 drp and 3847 through 3849 19th street and you will consider the discretionary review and the zoning administrator will consider the request for variance. >> good afternoon. i'm here with david winslow and before you is a request for discretionary review and variance at a property at 3847 and 3849 18th street.

the department received a request of a building permit application to legalize work that has already occurred and to legalize and remedy andabate a case to the project of a series of permits at the property. the site is a 25 by 114 rectangular shape lot with existing as built four-story garage with 6,490 square foot, two-family residence that was altered with a date of 1907. the proposed scope of work has been provided in the case report to highlight some of the larger features, the project proposing to enclose existing light wells, proposing to legalize a two-horizonal rear addition at the rear of the property and a

bay window at the front of the property, in front of the basement and the combining of what had been except dorm rooms into one single dormer. to move forward the front garage door, approximately five feet toward the front property line and to legalize retapin legalizs and 880 cubic feet. the current building based on comments received by residential design team and preservation staff. these changes would be to replace the front gable window to a reduced size to the proportion of the worship windod wood paneling to the front entranceway and to ensure all windows at the front facade are hung with logs.

the description of the project as built would proposed the violateses and modifications would be a 6,490 square foot four-story garage, two-family dwelling, including 4,021 upper unit and 1,624 square foot lower unit with an 848 square foot garage. it was three stories over basement and contain two units in the basement. to summarize the permitting, enforcement history of the site, as of the department of inspection, basedden complaint t for an illegal unit in the basement level. in september of 2014, they submitted a building permit to remove the illegal unit and abate the notice of violates.

violation. eight other permits were submitted. to summarize the larger scopes of the work, the first in 2014 to remove the illegal dwelling unit and to create a storage an extra excavation happened under this permit and later in dos december of 2014, a permit was applied to convert this newly proposed and created storage into a garage and this garage was built further to the property line than the plans had been -- as had been approved by the planning department. in 2015, there was a large interior remol permit and part of the scope of work was to relocate the second lower unit, down one floor to the now expanded area where the illegal unit had been located.

additionally, in total, since construction started, seven dbi complaints were received after construction began from july of 2016 to february of this year, of 2018. on february 12, 2018, planning opened an enforcement case and on may 3, 2018, sent a notice of violation to the project sponsor preventing detail performed at the property. this letter has been included in the case report. to correct all complaints, violations and enforcement actions, the project sponsored an application on june 22 of 2018. a review of the submitted plans by the department staff resulted in a determination that some of the features were located within the required front setback and required rear yard. they will be seeking a variance within a variance filed on january 24, 2019. on may 7 of 2018, earlier this

week, dbi issued a violates vion stated work of scope which is of the previous issues. i wanted to add to the record. the project completed section 311 on this permit to legalize the materials from january 9, 2019 to february 8 of 2019 and discretionary review application request was filed on february 7, 2019 of this year. in response to the dr request, the zoning administrator continued a variance hearing that was scheduled for february agenda to today's date and today's joint hearing. the dr was filed by malcolm chang with no provided address and no core spon correspondencey

an email was provided giving kevin chang permission. the information filed in the application were in regard to two major concerns, the project should be considered ta tantamo. they should deny the permit application and the project sponsorship to return to the original application. the residential design advisory team reviewed the project and found the legalization to generally be in compliance with the design guidelines and noted a consistent pattern of full lots with the immediate vicinity of the project. the preservation did provide design alteration requests on the facade which i described in the project description and

they're making proposed changes. in regard to the demolition, the sponsor submitted section 317 calculations with their plan that determined the amount of removal does not exceed thresholds to be considered as tantamount to demolition and staff acknowledges because the construction has been completed and the series of plans submitted contains inaccuracy it is hard to say that the quantities meet these requirements. the project received a new environmental review in response to this building permit and based on the proposed change to the facade, the preservation planner signed an exemption as altered in compliance with isn't sequa. it was done without a geotechnical report or arrange

archeological review and you reviewed the day of so they consider this as the existing condition. the department received six comments in support of the project from adjacent and immediate neighbors. the project also seeks a variance to the front setback of the planning code. within the front rear yard, on the eastern property line there's an 11-foot, 4-inch side wall at the maximum height that -- sorry, front property side walls have a maximum of three feet to be solid for the planning code and there's a 4-foot, 8-inch privacy screen that would need a veer yep vari. in the rear yard, the last 22-inches, there's also an aerial crossway, walkway that previously was thought to be

under permitted obstruction but because of the variance needed on the rear yard addition, that, too, needs a variance to be approved. in a repea recent review, theres potential need for a variance pending further review on the approval of the first floor's living room. this is a below-grade structure, but staff needs to analyze whether the entirety is below the grade or meets the definition of this underground space for planning code 136c-25. staff also needs additional details on the height of the side walls built at the rear of the property. in 2014, the project filed a permit to remove an illegal unit to abate an nov.

removing the units over the counter was the policy for planning at this time. in 2015, section 317 was amended to require a conditional use authorization to remove illegal units and in 2015, a permit at this project was filed to relocate the lower unit to the basement level where the illegal unit had been. this would not be consistent with the commission's current flat relocation policy and der would be required under today's requirement. with that considered, and with the proposed facade alteration, the department recommends the yard not be taken on this project. this concludes the press and i and david winslow are available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the dr request. requester.

>> my name is kevin chang. much has been mate about the spectacular represent poe vacation at 3847 and 384,918t 3. like the great gatsby, this is about how a hit-and-run occurred and what is to be done. that is hit-and-run is not in doubt. daisy ran over myrtle in a rolls royce. possible tantamount to demolition. it states series of plans contained inaccuracies but with construction completed, difficult to verify the quantities of removal provided by project sponsor. the staff report provides the

equivalent of -- does not prove but does not exonerate. tenants with residents appear. seven bedrooms at 2700 square feet to four bedrooms at 6400 square feet. affordable rentals estimated at $35,000 a month mortgage. $1.5 million to 11.9 or $9.4 million property value. back then it was the guilded age between the haves and have notes. it wawas a hit-and-run an accid? neighbors were witnesses but wanted to save the rolls royce. there was no intense and par ink with different contractors caused the accident.

accidents cap. mia culpa. they state simply, we are san francisco's premiere design build general contractors. provided in-house architectural services. hit-and-run is not an accident, despite whistle blower complaints, violations would not have been caught. many enforcements were missed. building department overlooked complaints about permitting envelope. the planning department initially determined no violation existed. and then identified 13 counts of violates. satellite photos which we have show deliberate premedicated planned construction programme. look at the clear route of excavation from the back to the front. the regimented sectional lines,

over 30 feet of retaining walls, over 882 cubic yards excavated and at least 17 on site in-person inspections were conducted. look at the framing of all elements. the rear structure, the light walls, dormers, all done at the same time. there's a violation letter from the planning department this states work was done without proper noticing and other work is inconsistent with the planning code. discrepancies include expansions to the building without permit and excavation and revisions to windows and doors without permit. multiple permits in just two years and most of the projects should have been under one application with neighborhood notification. it should also have been subject

to demolition calculations and possibly environmental review. hit-and-run is without a doubt deliberate, premeditated and planned. to be clear, the hit and run is no accident. arguments are beside the point. whether neighbors saw the hit-and-run or cared about the hit and run is beside the pointed. whether dr applicant is nick or tom or the great gatsby himself, it's beside the point. there'the planned department is willing to legalize without punishment and review is needed to have the hearing before the planning commission. the point is, what is to be done? whether planning codes apply to all or some or punishments for the violates o violations to so.

the planning commission returns to the original condition and should approve and should not approve any building of local expansion or variances. >> thank you, sir. your time is up. >> thank you, mr. chang, you will have a two minute rebuttal. any public support? you know, when you read the great gatsby, daisy's husband tom told murtle's husband that it was jay gatsby that ran him down but we all know it was daisy. so just keep that little literary tid-bit in mind. i gave this to the staff already. i was going to talk and i'll resubmit this, about the flat policy because it is pertinent here but i have to gather myself. may i have the overhead, please?

that's the project in 2014 and you can see there the two doors to the flat and the illegal unit. here it is before, back in 2007, when george bush was still president, and you can see what was there and that's a variance issue. on february 22nd, i came here and i rewatched the public comments. february 22 of 2018 and that's what i'm giving you now. i talked about this building and three other projects that had branding names. you know, i don't know what you can do. i mean, this is a statement that i really like, where you point a finger at someone and three are pointing back at you and i worry that's the case here. they did the wrong thing. they obviously did the wrong thing, but i think that you as the commission can do the right

thing, whatever that is, and you have the flat policy and you have the illegal unit and all issues that have gone on in the city that this represents and the other projects that i've talked about, you know. i was talking to someone before and they said bree greed is good that's part of this, but i think you have to deal with it in the right way for the right reasons and that's my concern. and i'll say one more thing, i know you deal mostly with the outsides of the building, but what's inside is important and these were two flats and the illegal unit that were simple. they were typical, simple flats. that's the whole point of the flat policy. if the project sponsors had been smart, they would have just stiffed them up instead of overdoing them because they're overdone if you look online and

everyone knew because it was on the original ads. i don't know what to say. i wouldn't want to be in your shoe. i trust that the commission will use the discretion properly. and it's all too bad. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. yyes, i am here to urge you to force the project sponsor for the owner, not necessarily to restore the building because i'm asking for a different ask. this is an rh3 zoned lot and obviously, the project sponsor and the developer have committed many infraction violations that, basically, brought us to this point. as the dr requester stated, this is a large firm, very

experienced. we're not dealing with a bunch of recent grads from architecture school. they knew the planning code and building code and i believe that the just punishment for this is to ask the project sponsor to the building into three units. we are at a point everyday, people are coming here from various schools of thought, mostly yimby action and they are lobbying for densification at all costs. i was at an event where the mayor was saying densification by all means. this is an example before you that somebody has done wrong and this is a perfect situation for you to make it right by asking this personning, asking the owner to take the building to

it's zoning district. rh3 means three homes. this is an opportunity to build three and this is what i urge you to do. we have to set an example. the serial permits has to stop and we cannot just expect by fortifying the demolition control that people will stop doing serial permitting. still they can pull out excavation permits and a couple of other kitchen remodel and we'll end up with something like this, $11 million home on the market that now it's been actually reduced to a mere $9 million. so i urge you to please ask the project sponsors to build three units here. if we have having housing shortage, well, this is the time to do the right thing, thank you. >> thank you.

any other public comment in support of the dr requester? public comment is now closed. sponsor? you have five minutes. >> we're the sponsors of the project and we have operated in san francisco for 20 years. the bulk is client work. however, we have over the years did a handful of speculative projects and this is one of them. this is the first time we've had a dr come into the commission. this project comes to you having been built. after construction was completed, we received a violation addressing the un-permitted work. at that point, over a year ago, we started working with enforcement and planning staff

through their process to compile a complete and accurate set of plans and address the problems with the project permitting. went we first undertook the project as a design built opportunity five years ago, the complete programme was unknown. the building was in foreclosure, with several violations to remove an illegal dwelling unit. we acquired the appropriate building permits and we were to ensure things were being done correctly and we failed. regretly self-areaalthough we do add a new garage and the work actually completed would have been completed without a variance or other special considerations, the volume of the excavation to be done was not re referenced. the time saved by getting over-the-counter permits rather than going through the correct process has been a tremendous misstep.

the most significant violates we filleviolationwe added 219 squa. without planning approval or proper 311 notification. the existing rear of the building we were matching was already encroaching 22-inches into the rear yard setback and would require not only a 311 notification but a variance. it showed the existing conditions but subsequent permit applications were misleading and we take full resident fo respon. we relied heavily on the subcontractor and were lax in oversight or control of that process. it's not accurate to say we had no knowledge of the work outside of the scope of the permits but it's true we did not know the full extent of the issues until we began with the planning enforcement staff. we feel that it's important if for no reason than to point out mal can doesn't ang is not here or engaged with us during the

process. kevin chang filed this under a false name and submitted other complaints impersonating real communitying members including garry weis. it is clear the purpose of the dr is to create fulls equi eequivalency and to make a condition of the unfair treatment project but our project is not state streets. unlike state street, we have the support of our neighbors, at least six letters from adjacent neighbors to attest to this and no complaints from actual neighbors or neighborhood groups during our 311 notice. unlike concer kevin chang we woo properly remedy our violations a it has cost us dearly, pushing us to the brink on every front. the claim on the application are without merit. there was no unit merger. the building retains two units, both units larger than when we started. the project was not tantamount

to dep ligs. demolition. this does not increase the scale of the building visible from the public right away or any adverse effect on the properties. for over a year we have done everything to right the wrongs. the process to date has been a heavy penalty to pay. we currently have $7 million in debt on this project. our carrying costs have been $50 million a month and increased to $5,000 a month. this is not being able to lose the building and impacts the survival of our company. our heartshiourour hardship is . we believe penalties impoe impoy the planning department are important for our project and we have fully cooperated and accepted the consequences from performing work beyond the scope

of the permits. no owner has come forward about the finished property. we have strong support from our neighbors and have worked with them from the beginning. we sincerely, sincerely regret the actions that got us here and take full responsibility. we respectfully ask the planning commission trust the planning department has taken a course of action and handled our violation accordingly and asked the planning commission to accept the recommendation and not take dr. thank you. >> your time is up, sir. >> i'm here on another matter today. but i was surprised to see dawson clinton here. we were finishing a remodel with

these folks, so i would just like to stand up and vouch for their character. they're honest, above-board and they have wonderful subs that work for them. they're quality builders and we would recommend them to anyone. so thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment in support of the dr? public comment is closed. dr requester, you have two minute rebuttal. >> commissioners, my name is kevin chang. this is not about me, not about the sponsor but about this project and 13 counts of violation against the project. we're not here to talk about the motivation, looking in the

hearts and souls of individuals but what facts you have on the table. these violations were deliberate, planned, premeditated. at the end of the day, those are the violatese violates violatio. how could this have happened? in the past i have asked for a permit history review and he will give a clearer picture about the history, about details, about the documentation and so forth to justify the path that this project took. but absent of this information, you have to look at the facts, the violations stand. what kind of penalties have they imposed on projects similar with similar violations? it has asked for the building to be returned back to its original

at