say these are the things we want. we are willing to do them. one story i want to tell this court, we had a meeting to saturdays ago. we got to the meeting at 1:00. we said what about mr. lee. she said, he is parking the car. he never showed up at the meeting. we gave a whole list to look it over, let's talk about it before the hearing. the next time i talked to her was at 3:45 today. she is asking me, she is sorry, she did not know what we wanted. we have done everything we can to try to get them to come together with us. none of the things we're asking for it are outrageous. that is my story. we have tried. i am not trying to defend these people or say they are bad

people, -- defame these people or say they are bad people, but i have never seen people do business the way they do business. when they say they will do one thing, they do something else. that is my story. >> i am sorry. i was asked to sit in on the meetings because things have been jury difficult -- things have been very difficult. relations between the three neighbors. i sat in on one meeting -- she is the resident on the eastern side.

the subsequent meeting that was just referenced, also with mrs. lee and the other two neighbors. we had a very detailed list of items that we've interested in. today, i received a document called the proposed changes and they appeared to encompass major points that were referenced. very quickly, the primary concern was no deck on the eastern side. that is shown on the new drawings that were said to me. smaller windows on their rear north side. one of the concerns, gutters be applied to rooftops. smaller window, that appears to

have been mapped on the drawings that i saw. the only issues i saw that were still not clearly addressed or specifically addressed on the drawings, but maybe there, the lillegal curb cut that was made. there is no need for a curb cut. they are restoring the bay to the original condition. the entire block has granted curbs. when they restored, they use the original materials. it was a little bit frustrating that we did not see the drawings until early this afternoon.

it would have been good had we seen them, but my perception is that the drawings that we were given today represent the major issues. i think we are very interested in seeing this resolved effectively and having this property began healing and restoration. i know there have been very harsh feelings and these have been very trying and difficult, but that is my perception. >> thank you very much. speakers in favor, you have three minutes. >> just leave it up there, i will get it. >> ok, representing the applicants.

sorry that i am a little bit late. there are about 50 people in line out front to get into the building. what i've outlined is what we have requested. we have gone over each item with the project sponsor's wife on the 21st. it seemed the reached an agreement for the most part. unfortunately, we could not get agreement in writing, but this reflects our conversation. i am submitting, requesting the dr be taken and as many of these conditions that you can legally impose be applied. we support the application. we want the approval to go

forward. we want to see this dilapidated building that is an eyesore to the community cleaned up. we believe in supporting good business, putting people to work. i'm cleaning of the neighborhood. -- and cleaning up the neighborhood. i think the things we're asking for here are pretty fair and reasonable. we backed away from some other items that we originally requested, at which would have been more onerous, including increasing the size of their rea yard rear -- the rear yard. we hope that you will take dr

and applied as many of these conditions. the history speaks for itself. we have tried for a year and a half to get some level of cooperation. i am sure you have heard from at least one of the neighbors. we cannot get there. rather than leave it hanging in the hands of the project sponsor, we do not want them to submit plans that will not be reflective of this agreement. unfortunately -- hopefully, by doing this, it will put us on the path of being good neighbors and working together. thank you. >> in the other speakers in favor -- any other speakers in

favor? project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> we have met with all three neighbors. on the east side, west side, in the back. we discussed what their issues were. his dog barked as it runs along the walkway and may see a window, one of us in the building by the window. we agreed to raise the window higher, even though it is more expensive to do so.

we have accommodated his request. as far as the daughters and the back, -- gutters in the back, that is part of the building process. her concern was that she did not want any deck in the back. she was very adamant about it. i mentioned to her that the banmboo tree can provide the privacy already. she replied that she did not care. she would fight as for what ever it took. we took out the deck to accommodate her.

gerald said that he was fine with our plan. he had received a judgment from a gentleman years back and the judgment calls for the property line was 6 inches wider. he wondered us to take that out. i do not know -- he wanted us to take that out. i do not know how to do that. i am not sure if we are able to do such a thing. we purchased the property, but i am not sure if we can legally inherits all the rights. this list, i think we have been

very diligent, taking time to meet with all three of them. address all their concerns. we did not know that we had to call them again and again to make plans for them. i thought they knew that from years past. he has built 10 buildings, so he must know this. we may be able to accommodate some of this list, but this can be ongoing. i think it is wrong to have neighbors to come out with this sort of demands all the time. i think it is a wrong message

for the commission to send that you can require neighbors to comply, even though everything we do is legal. everything we want is just to move forward, to make this building better. and to add a unit. i am not sure if we are able to quickly review everything to say yes, we can move forward. i ask, please, let us move forward. this plan has been here before you for months and months and we have been here three times already. we have made every effort to communicate, to e-mail, to meet with them.

we can all disagree as to how many times we can meet to address an issue, but i think we should move forward. we need your blessing to just go on and not the stock like this. thank you. -- be stuck like this. thank you. >> speakers in favor of the project sponsor. there is one speaker in favor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am a co-owner of the property. we have been behind them every step. i am witness to the amount of can -- an indication that has come forward.

-- communication that has gone forward. there have been reasonable requests from them to incorporate some changes in our structure. we are willing to do so, but within reason. it is a lot of time, in a lot of energy spent and not the best way. we are willing to work with them on this, but we need some cooperation. to meet halfway. the things that have been asked for comment a change from time to time. i reached out to our neighbors and said, i understand this seems to be -- i think this was october the year before last. we got a list of things they

wanted to change. we submitted that to the city. we have made our best efforts to reach out and incorporate what they wanted. we want to see this project before word. thank you. >> additional speakers in favor of the project sponsor? >> thank you. i think we are over the he said- shesaid at this point. the reports its belt -- the report speaks for itself. they submitted fraudulent plans. they were told to resubmit them. they have been given plenty of notices of violations. they have failed to cure any of them to date. the record speaks for itself.

i do not think i need to engage in some of the misrepresentations been aimed at us. all we're asking for, everything on this list, we discussed with valerie. her husband was supposed to be there, it took him the better part of two hours to find parking. be that as it may, there is no surprise. we are not pulling any punches under the belt. the biggest item that we were requesting, that we gave up on, we pulled it out. everything else is reasonable. with respect to item number four, the proposed west elevation, this is something i just found out a couple of weeks ago. in good faith, if she could work to have that removed.

the 6 inch encroachment, they have built a house 6 inches away from their property line. that is not realistic, it is a separate issue, i understand. that is something that she said she would look into. other than that, i think everything else is fair and reasonable. we hope that you take -- you incorporate the special conditions. thank you. >> project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> i just read through some of these items. i am not sure if i can address all of them. [inaudible]

i can try to explain. what he is talking about is that years ago, a gentleman filed some sort of judgment, when that judgment, that the property line is 6 inches over from our wall. i do not know how to go about addressing that. that is not -- legally, i do not know if it is within our means. i know -- much of the other items, i have not been able to read through. they're similar to some of this. the windows looking into adjoining properties, the east

elevation, that is all of our windows that were pre-existing. that is not possible. that requires all of those windows to be closed. people have no light and air. on the west side, there are no windows. again, the list, i can go on and on. our plans have addressed all the other issues. we really have to move on. thank you. >> the public hearing is closed. commissioners? commissioner moore: i am basically confused. when the applicant first started, it seems like there was an agreement.

the majority of points seem to be not acceptable and not studied well enough by the applicant. i assume that you feel the same way. i would like to say, the original continuance of this project started with this of standard set of drawings. they were -- they are simply stick drawings. the issues cannot be fully addressed, property line, windows, those are not things that are negotiated. however, since this set of drawings does not constitute anything, i think it is difficult to have the applicant

understand the conditions. i think the dr requestor use -- the d.r. requestors may be more familiar with the requirements. if you want to downsize the windows, you need a line drawing, preferably by an architect. depending on the agreement between the parties, it is nowhere fully documented. basically, i do not know what to do. i am curious what the other commissioners have to say to this dilemma. commissioner miguel: the first thing i have to say is i do not see an architect and has dealt with this. is there an architect? not present.

bad mistake. ver bad -- very bad mistake. your other mistake was buying a property that had a lien on it you did not know about. either you did not look at your papers, or you have an incompetent real-estate agent. third bad mistake was not dealing constantly with your neighbors, who you knew. this does not work, as far as i am concerned. it does not work at all. if you want a commission to deal with something, the purchase the property was non-conforming, that had work done without a permit, and you expected to go ahead without any actual people to work with you or testified to this commission that our experts in the field. i cannot deal with this.

it should not be in front of us in the first place. commissioner sugaya: i would agree to the comments from the commissioners before me. on the other san -- on the other hand, there are certain conditions i cannot except either. opaque windows are not going to make it with me. forcing them to close everything on the east side is not going to work. i do not care whether they have a deck or not. i think that is egregious. we cannot deal with the lien anyway. i am sorry you used your two minutes to talk about that, but that is not the condition we can deal with.

so i do not know. i hate to continue this, because it is going to come back and be just as bad as it was now. i will try to make a motion. i do not know. commissioner antonini: the easiest way to do this is we do have a recommendation from staff. it sounds like if the conditions can be met, or some of the conditions, that we could have this finished today. maybe we can look at these conditions, if you would. some of these, i do not think are before us.

i think eliminating those would be good. we can concentrate on what is left and may be draft a modification. >> do you want me to go through the list? commissioner antonini: some of these sound like they have to be as submitted. that is obvious. >> just so you know, this is the first time i have seen this. number one, that is fine. they should do what they are going to say in the drawings anyway. property line windows on the second floor shove the fire rated, and as required by code the non-opening and opaque. property line windows have to be fire-rated. i do not think fire-rated windows can be openable. perhaps cross fat off. -- cross that of.

-- off. commissioner antonini: just take the opaque part of. >> the upper living room will not be used as a deck. it is not shown as such on the drawings. commissioner miguel: i see no reason why they could not have a legal deck. >> ok. take that off. the doctor shall be added to the second floor. that is not really -- the gutter shall be added to the second floor. that is not really a planning issue. the proposed west elevation is seeking to do a clear story -- clerestory window, the property window. commissioner miguel: does it have to be opaque? >> that is your call. commissioner miguel: no.

>> the sighting should match. the fence is not really a planning issue. i recommend you take that out. that should be something they deal with. number four should not be in there at all. the project sponsor has already removed the stair and deck, if you want to keep that in there. it is still physically there, but on the plans. number two, i think you should

take that out. that is up to dbi. d1 is in the plans already. but we can keep it in there, just to reemphasize. to restore the curb cut using the same materials that were there -- apparently, it was a granite curb cut. commissioner sugaya: there is a source of granite in the city. you can call architect joe butler and ask him, because there is a stockpile that he knows of. >> to restore the sidewalk is already part of our requirement.

just to go over on sheet a, 1 and 2 are ok, but not opaque. take away 3 and 4. section b1 and 2 are okay, but take away 3 and 4. and opaque. section c1 is ok. section d is ok. section e, both of those are ok. f, if you want to have them review the plans before i approve them, that is fine with me. commissioner antonini: thank you. maybe i can ask mr. marquez to go over these. how do you feel about these how do you feel about these change