want to read rt as well. because i think that it is important in this case as much of a purpose of a site permit is to allow a review of preliminary conceptual and schematic designs of proposed construction, there is no detailed plan review of construction details required at the time of site permit review. such detailed review will be done at the time of an addendum review. i am available for any questions and i will be on the demolition if you want to know about that one. valuation will be dealt with by ddi, we do use the marshal swift cost evaluation which is a nationwide analysis and i spoke with the engineer today. and he will look at that with the project sponsor, and get it proper valuation on the project. and on the demolition, do you want me to clarify that? >> in the san francisco

building code, if all of the walls were taken down on a project, whenever they are supposed to remain that is what is known as an unlawful demolition and there are penalty and a hearing is held and usually what happens is that if it is found out to be unknown unlawful demo the site has to remain without any permits for five years. unless you want to put back the original square footage of the building which in this case is around less than 1,000 square feet maybe a little more so it is quite a severe penalty. i have seen it happen maybe twice in the last ten years. we don't like to see them. so i think that the essence here is that they have to be very careful with the walls and the floor joists and the joints that are shown to remain and you have to work closely with dbi with the construction to insure that that elements do remain in place.

i think that is... and i think that most of it in the city are really good at this. they kind of give us a heads out and sometimes there are walls that might encounter dry rot or we have a weather proofing issue which we generally work with them and we work closely with planning. when those do happen. >> thank you. >> so we will take public comment now, could i see a show of hands how many people plan to speak on this item? >> everybody is here for this case. >> okay. >> what i would ask you to do if you are willing is to fill out a speaker card and hand it to the... when you come up to speak that helps us in the preparation of minutes and also if you would not mind it helps us also if you could line up against the wall on the far side of the room. so that we could move through the speakers more quickly, if you are able to stand. >> first speaker, can step forward. >> i just indicated that the

speakers will be limited to two minutes each. >> given the numerousty. >> please have the first speaker step forward. >> someone has to start. >> who wants to be the first speaker? thank you. >> >> i did not get a chance to fill it out. >> if you have not filled out a card, come up to the podium and you can fill one out afterwards and hand it in. >> okay, my name is drake gardener. >> you are associated with the project, >> right. >> your time to speak with the parties. >> okay. >> so public comment is for people who are not affiliated with any of the parties just to be clear. next speaker, please? >> if no one comes up to speak, we are going to close public comment. >> someone please come forward.

>> just speak. >> i have not filled it out yet but i will. >> i'm brian (inaudible) and i am a neighbor. i live down the street from the project. and i just wanted to let the board know that we, the majority of the neighbors feel that speaking for myself and spoken with people that the project is out of scope with the neighborhood. most of the homes are around 2,000 to 3,000 square feet. that the average is 2,063 i believe and this is a 5,000 square foot home with 863 foot deck around it. it is a monster home and it is a very quaint neighborhood and a very small street, actually. a dead end street and this is going to be at the end of it.

and we feel that it is out of scope and we are also worried about the size of it in regard to the fact that it is in a slide area. if they are going to build that size of a building they really need to get their engineering in line and do some serious excavating and foundation work. thank you. >> thank you. >> the next speaker please, and i ask that people not block the door, we have fire codes that we have to comply with, if you could line up on that side of the room that would be great or take your seat. >> thank you. >> my name is niko (inaudible) and i am also a neighbor of crown terrace i was surprised to hear the speakers speak about adding security by adding that big house at the end of a dead end, very small street where it is actually difficult to move, and i am not quite sure how they will be even be able to build even such a build house and keep the security on

the street. so i think that is actually going to add to the not security of the street. the other thing is the view that we saw from the various homes, i think that we are quite the photos that were taken were definitely making it more over exaggerated of how the view will be made. i think that the perspective of that does not reveal what actually is going to be obstructed by this. i also want to also comment and agree with my fellow neighbor, that the majority of the houses on that street are about 2,000 square feet and it is a very rare dead end street in san francisco which i believe has a rare charm for the city and this kind of larger space at the end of a dead end will actually really change the view of one of our rear street in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please?

>> thank you. for hearing me. my name is rj harris and i am a resident at 110 crown terrace. one of the issues that has not been addressed at least to my satisfaction is this issue of slope inspection or slope integrity. and you think that you can put a 5,000 square foot home on the footings and foundation of a property that currently supports an 800 square foot building that is ridiculous. so i would assume that they would have to be substantial new foundation and new footings dug and i am not sure that it has been explained to me how that will effect the slope integrity, if you walk around crown terrace and indeed the entire heights area you will see a lot of homes and their attached garages that have that

conspicuous trickle of water that comes out of them and i can't imagine what digging into that hillside would potentially do to the springs that we all live on top of. and the lack of slope integrity that we all see from time-to-time in our neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker please? >> good evening commissioners, (inaudible), this is a project that has been going on for about seven years, i believe. it has gone through a number of (inaudible) that try to satisfied the neighborhood. when you look at the neighborhood, where you see a whole range of buildings from the small ones to the larger ones, it meets the residual design guidelines as a engineering concern, engineering is going to be assessed amid the current codes. so i can assure you that you are not going to see this building rolling down the hill

in any future condition or whatever happens. i think that it is a great card and i would urge you to deny the appeal and allow this to keep moving forward. >> thank you. next speaker please? >> thank you. for hearing me. i'm annie rosenbloom we own the home across the street from this project for the last 32 years, the top policy is the preservation of the affordable housing, whether they take down all of the walls or not, objectively it has been alter fromed affordable housing into unaffordable housing which will surely be $1.4 million dollars or more, this contradicts the general plan and priority policies mr. murphy says project owner would like city support to build new rather than do an expansion project. in other words, change the building permit from an alter ration to a demolition after

the fact. mr. murphy who is president of the building inspection commission knows that this contradicts the policis in place and this would require a mandatory discretionary review and proof that 125 crown is not affordable housing quh it is. and i am quoting joe escanany, article bringing down the housing. the question is asked, is it possible to level a building construct a new one and define this as an alter ration or a remodel? 125 crown terrace their own designer confirms that. his quote is but you can't do it all at once. you have to do it piece meal, they have got codes that overlap and cross each other and so you try to fist through it all, get it approved and build it not get in trouble with the inspector for taking out more than you did designated than you were going to do. >> they can demolish a house piece meal and go undetected. it is valued at $906,000, this

is affordable housing and mr. murphy is a real estate developer and he is disregarding the city's plan and using his intimate knowledge of the policy to his advantage and should be held to the same rules and regulations, and this is a defacto demolition. >> thank you. >> excuse me, from what was it a newspaper? >> it is a newspaper article from san francisco weekly. >> in the materials? >> yes. >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. next speaker. please? >> thank you. >> my name is terry woods. mr. murphy was turned down twice for a general permit. mr. murphy was turned down twice for a permit because this house is considered affordable

housing. and then he applied a third time and now calling it an alter ration, bypassing affordable housing rules and a permit and the mandatory dr. the assertion that this is not a demolition is based on the city planning interpretation of the code 317. the co-author of this code eric peskin says this provision was added to the ordinance to avoid punishing honest builders who after doing the calculations happened upon the unknown discovered area of the building which must be replaced or repaired. >> the department is now permitting savvy project sponsor to plan such repair and maintenance in advance. and tear down more of the building than would ordinary be allowed by the code. mr. murphy, at first said, or at the request of the dr request that we had. he said, well they could be placed or take the walls down

and replace and repair them and put them back and now he is saying that he is going to add to them. not take them out. that they will still stay in the same place and add the sheer wall to them and that is not going to count toward any demolition. but that is not repair and maintenance and it simply makes the load bearing of the original house nothing but cosmetic and it is replacing the walls that he is supposed to be keeping. >> one ceiling on the top floor is being raised two feet so he is saying that it is being retained but it is not being put back in the exact same place so it does not even follow the city planning calculations of what a demolition is. also, this is, there are three zones in this area that are r1, r2, and r3, that is why there are bigger conditions, he is in rhone that is what he should be compared to. >> thank you. >> next speaker please?

>> good even commissioners. my name is margaret vergis and i am concerned for ramona albright who lives next to murphy's proposed projector demolition at 25 crown terrace. i have submitted a couple of pages listing misalbright service at twin peaks community for our city and she is entitled to fair treatment in this protecting her four-year home and the rental housing, affordable rental housing, the light conduct and that requires a three foot set back for windows it shows nine window and two glass doors on the east side, which is her side and he has also signed a written

agreement with miss al bright promising to set back from the property line but his plan now shows his property to be developed on her property line. so, she agreed to remove a much loved 30-year-old redwood tree to improve his view if he would sign that agreement and he did. promising the set back which now does not exist. the albright property is giving murphy a clear city view and allowing for greater building value. murphy has three big decks and room for a patio on the gray stone terrace side of the building which is where everything else put on on the city side. he does not need two more decks outside stairs, a dog run, a bbq patio and all of those windows all on the east side of the rh1 building. this is the albright side, her property does have an average of 7 feet of open space at this time. this open space was created 50

years ago because all of the rooms on every apartment have windows that face that side. this will render her property considerably less livable and it seems to me that the violation of a personal assigned agreement should have some value. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> good evening. i spoke before on behalf of ramona, i am not only a friend of over 40 years, i am a real estate broker for 36 years and i know and all of you know that intrusion like this and lack of privacy will render her property reasonably unrentable. i think that it is only fair that if it took this long to figure out whether this

property was not an intrusion, someone needs to step up to the plate and says that this needs to be changed. i think that it is really over doing it to put this size of a building in a neighborhood. i had the privilege of living in twin peaks many years ago and i loved it because of the peace and the quiet and the walking trails and just a lovely area. and i don't know why something of this size needs to be cramed into a neighborhood when everybody around there is explained that they don't want it. of course a building would improve their values if it was conducive to the neighborhood but it is not. and i think that somebody needs to make a decision. >> thank you. >> do you care to state your name for the record? >> cunning ham. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please?

>> my name is jake, (inaudible) and i used to be on the board of supervisors, but this is just a copy of a letter and i am not sure that it is in the file. i apologize because i was out of the state and i realize that you like to get them a week in advance, i want to go back over the weekend. >> commissioners, we tried to insert it into the planning code and integrity and honesty, we knew that defacto demolitions were going on and let's stop this stuff and it really attacks the veracity of the city government in terms of doing a job in which we recognize what the realities

are and recognize what the priority policies are, that have emerged that have to do with retaining the existing sound houses in terms of affordbility issues not talking to it as pertains to items or areas of subsidized housing and talking about existing housing and it aseriously the character of our city and we basically flush people out of here and so often happens with the cost of housing. but, when we are in such a section 317, the intent was to get a handle on this thing, and it is before you, not just as one case, but really as a case that really can send a precedent and a message to developers and particularly the honest ones and when you do a nice job fine, but you come in with an intent that is different, are you intending to demolish and you cannot because that contradicts the priority policies then you come in with the defacto demolition game

which is a serious game. it actually does something that is not intended it demolishes the houses that will not be demolishes to say that it is an addition and alteration and it is everything under the sun. please reject in and tell them to go back and get an honest demolition permit. and i have two seconds left i hope that you will focus on some of the paragraphs that explain why we passed this legislation and why we think that the city of san francisco needs to do what is really the right thing and you have the opportunity to do that. and send them back to get an honest demolition permit. >> thank you. >> next speaker. thank you. >> commissioners. i'm john kilgam and i am the first cousin of the (inaudible) sponsor and i am from san francisco and i live with mel

and his wife and daughter and cocoa. very interesting chocolate lab. i have watched this family over the last seven years wondering when they are going to get their family home built. and i have seen the changes that were made and i have seen the issues that were dealt with by the planning department. and i have seen it cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars before you even get started with the project. mel has completed over 200 projects in this city during his time here and this is the first time that he has come across such (inaudible) opposition and it is unprecedented and grotseque and unbelievable and bizarre that a group of neighbors can stop him from having his family home built. they know, that every time

change is made, and a hold up is in place, it is costing him thousands of dollars. tonight, you commissioners can stop all of this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please? >> >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the commission, mr. murphy has provided homes for many people for many years throughout the city. and i have been a resident since 1937. and if this is what we do, and prevent people from constructing a home for their families, just because someone don't like the color or the

window, the shades, it is really ridiculous. and i recommend that this commission highly recommend that mr. murphy's home will be approved. thank you. >> do you care to state your name for the record? >> don holts. >> thank you, next speaker? >> good evening commissioners, o'brien. >> aren't you affiliated with this project? >> i am related to the project sponsor. >> when norton in what way? >> as a brother-in-law or a business partner. >> do i get a opportunity to speak? >> on rebuttal. >> that is fine. >> if the permit holder cares

to share time with you, you are on the permit and you get to speak as part of the party's time to speak. >> is there anybody else who is not affiliated with any of the parties who would like to speak? >> hi, my name is brendy yost and i live at 115 crown terrace which is next to this property. and we don't want to prevent a building there, we just want to make sure that he follows it. >> can you stop the timer? >> there is a question, are you a person on, are you an actual appellant? >> no. >> thank you. >> i got confused too. >> okay. so, we had a number of the neighbors who wanted to come and couldn't. so we have a petition here which i would like to read and 38 of the neighbors and this is a small street there are only 14 houses on it so it is that street. neighbors on crown and gray

stone. we the neighbors of the proposed construction project located at 125 crown terrace, and i can give copies if you would like them, are concerned about the proposed project and how it has been processed by the department. we requested that the board rule that mr. murphy goes through the proper process of applying for a demolition permit and also through an environmental review to insure the stability of the hill as it is in a land slide area and a flood area due to all of the underground springs. >> we are not opposed to a new house being built, we just need the city to require the builder to follow the proper process to insure that the building of the new home does not impact the stability of the hill and that the homes fits in with the current neighborhood. please refer this project back to the department for approval

and review. >> i would like to and i would also like to say that the plans continue to have problems with the inconsistencies. >> your time is up. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment in >> seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. mr. williams we will start with you and you have three minutes. >> thank you. steve williams, again on behalf of albright. there was a lot of focus on the neighbors, the 20-foot set back that was referenced by mr. blache that is all on romona's property there is not set back being provided on the property and she objects to the openings on that side. and this is a site permit and i submitted as exhibit 21 the administrative bulletin that says that what you have to do

in order to get a site permit, they have not complied. mr. duffy also referenced this, if you look at 4 d, structural design document was not submitted in order to obtain this site permit and you have to do that if you are going to get peer review and you heard the engineer say that we welcome the peer review. they have not complied and the permit should never have been issued. this is a demolition, you do not have to wait until they take all of the walls and ceiling and floors down because we know for a fact that is what is going to happen because the building code does not allow the elements of the building which you are being told are being retained in order to avoid a demolition, the building code does not allow those elements to be used in the new construction. that is a fact. look at the drawing, the foundations, the ceiling joists

and walls and floors which you are being told which is how we are avoiding a demolition, because we are keeping these elements of the building. and we know that going in that those elements of the building may not be used under the california building code to support the new structure. now they may be decoration, or they may be built beside the new structure, but they cannot be used to support the new structure. the concrete does not have any rebar in it. despite the fact that it is between the new first and second floor and here is the foundation of the building. have somebody explain, how the 80-year-old foundations are going to be inserted into the walls between the floors and ceilings of the new building. have somebody explain how any of the elements of this building could do support two new floors, it can't be done. the building code does not permit it. this is a demolition. and this is smoke and mirrors. and they come in and they wave,

you know, we are going to do everything correctly is all that you hear and we are never getting any specifics. have them explain, how the foundation stayed in the building, it has been very frustrating because when we went to the planning commission he said that it was presented to the commission that is not true at all. the calculations were not there and there was no discussion and the planning commission had to listen to what a great guy mel is, and none of the technical questions were ever responded to and so this is the issue here and this is the issue for this board because you interpret the code section. >> thank you. >> mr. blache? >> commissioners, mr. mel has a reputation in the city and he will not let that get tarnished. he will do what is right