well and to match the well in the back of the house as well and to reduce the overall size of the project. i also brought along two articles and i don't have time now, but, these articles were in the chronicle early in in year dilemma in halting the flight homes needed to -- thank you. >> for burrow and middle income thank you very much. >> your three minutes is -- quite short. >> it is sometimes next speaker please. >> well i hope it's shorter i'm the coowner of 475 jersey street and if i cry at -- if you have ever heard of -- syndrome when this nightmare started i was enable to walk or stand and so i didn't have a lot of involvement just a lot of stress stress stress the reason i'm here again speaking is because of all of the thing that have just happened the out of town

developers are very nice people and i would probably like them in another life but at this point they are what they are and i'm hearing that they have got a one million dollar house that they paid for it and they will put in another million dollars and then it will sell for what? three, four, 5 million? tell me. the idea is that they have got a two dermabedroom home now, they want to make it into a four bedroom with a media room with all kinds of living space and whatever. we just are requesting that they respect our like privacy and reduction in size and whatever and as i said,, i hope i like you like i like them in another life u. thank you very much. >> are there any other speakers in favor of the d r? if not, the probability sponsor,

you have five minutes. -- project sponsor --. >> members of the commission, my name is -- [inaudible] sponsor we have a brief submitted. eventually this particular project it has a number of demand on it in terms of the -- department guidelines and the commissions of the most setting neighbors and so what the project before you if i can have the microphone please, is that this is the sign-ing up of the project sponsor and we have matched it all the way down and that is the original color.

and at the front top of it, where the windows are, we actually learned that about -- [inaudible] and as to the other side, this is the deck on the top floor. we have matched that deck over here, yes it's about 16-inches in front and it's not going to impact any of the light and air. the planning department asked for -- [inaudible/incomprehensible] and that goes here and it's 2 feet before the end offed widow over here and the problem is that we tried to push this as far as we can but there were two problems and one is the landing and you

notice downstairs by the time we get here we have a problem with the stair and so we could not push the stairs any further and on this end, again, with this is -- push further than the bathroom basically, we end up with basically one laughabletory and this is family housing inferior family of three and two children are going to school at the same time in the morning. it's quite difficult to use the bathroom to get all of the kids ready. the project sponsor and dekoi and irene have two children they have a nine -years-old daughter and four -years-old son and so they are a family and what it's like to raise young children and to have family home in the need and

this is designed for a family with children. the project site, the sooner the -- in the area have demand for diversity of housing and in fact it's an area where families and children like to go and -- [inaudible/incomprehensible] and so they have a diversity of demographic there and we believe that we have done everything possible to address the concern of the neighbor. the problem with not being able to set the fonts back is that it's just set back to -- and do i have have enough room for-two-three bedroom and the other two; the two and three bedroom, i meet the whole list of this work of this site and to put two bedrooms and the site and

putting in a five bedroom in the back by the planning department, i lost the ability to have two berms that it's sufficient width to make the bedroom liveable especially if someone is going to end up with two children in one bedroom. so i would be glad to answer any question that is you may have. otherwise, i'll submit the probability brief and i know the commission reads this paper so -- thank you we may have questions for you, speakers in favor of the project sponsor if there are any? okay seeing none. you have a request for a

two-minute rebuttal.. >> m o n iq u e at 485 jersey and on the screen presently is the previously negotiated top floor it's sheet a one .2 and i believe it's exhibit foyer in the project sponsor's brief and moan technique would gladly [spelling?] exchange the exchange for the 3-foot sidelight well over that portion of house and as you can see it doesn't extend as far as her house does in the rear and so by moving it back, we move it to the same depth as her building, we would gladly forgo the 3-foot long exchange for the 3-foot set back. in addition,, i think it's important to understand, again that when neighbors go

through a process when a developer and they negotiate -- permanent but they want another bite at the apple and they talk about their norm lay and what their forma needs and but heres the floor and so, their form lay is solved now with the 15-foot set backs. >> do you have a question request for number two, you have a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you commissioners i know it's late and there is not much to what i already heard

that we are going to match we are going to add the square feet but you cannot match the 2 feet that you need to match and they are going to add a light well and in the rear of widow it's going to be blocked and didn't hear any explanation why we need to go back past the existing neighbor and we are lined up in a row and into the rather yard and no explanation about that and what we would really like this commission to do and what is this commissions number one job is to protect the housing stock and to find out why it's not a demolition and the staff called in a demolition and said, it's tandem mountto a demolition and asked the sponsor to filed a dem application application and there was no demolition application filed. something happened it was it was not put

in the file. >> johnathan? take a look if he plans, the plan screen to you -- the walls that are coming down and the green one are the one that is they claim are standing up but they cannot stand up because they are digging down and the walls on this building are one 30 -years-old and they cannot hold additional stories and everybody knows that from the beginning and this entire building is going to be demolished and the plans say had a and so no demo application filed no explanation why there was a as if from the staff calling this a -- and not a demolition and the demolition plan is identical to what the staff called a demolition yourself. use your common sense take a stand against these fake

demolitions. >> sponsor you havetwo-minute rebuttal. thank you commissioners. first of all,, we what mr. butter showed a plan that was a plan that they would agree to and that was a plan that was the subject of a discretionary review filed by this morning, may be and so that is the reason why this plan got changed because they objected to that plan. as far as the plans that as far as mr. williams is concerneds hot once but device, i asked him do that again and i

know that more than once, i'm sure it was accurate and the -- of his argument is that basic 33ally if you are going to fix the foundation, you have to tie the plate down to your foundation. and so, of course, you have to remove the interior furnishes so that you can get and expose the stuff and tie it down. and then, you put the new finish back on and in that process, you also put in plywood and draw wall which it doesn't now and he called that a demolition which, is never to my knowledge, the way the planning department defines demolition. because otherwise, we can never bring any building up to the current seismic safety code..

>> okay okay the public hearing is done. commissioner more. >> i would like to open up the conversation about the know litigation and compare this without speaking to the project that we had two weeks ago and it was an extensive remodel and where indeed the existing house was wrapped with new construction on the outside and however since we are not recentlied architect to do the calculations, i'm asking the department for first in what way do you take a calculation submitted to you on sheet a 1.2 as a fact or how far do you go back questioning that these

calculations are done accurately in a sense the approvalling planner went overt standard approved by the architect and was confident and in fact, this did not qualifify as a demolition. >> and basically this was printed on the -- [inaudible] . >> information and their own review of that information it did not qualify as a demolition, okay i'm going to ask mr. butter who's a registered architect you have reviewed thews plans is this a demolition or alteration due to the fact using the same calculations as this would be your building? i i would love to answer that but first i would like to clarify mr. barallies comments zoo no, i do not want that

okay based on my review of plans this istant monument to a demolition because by digging down on both sides of property lines to installing install a new ground floor the walls proposessed to remain cannot hang in space until a new foundation and cripple wall is built underneath them. >> mr. williams in all previous weeks we were told that even if the wall is hanging in there and in this case, they totally hung in there during frequent fraction and there is no future wall it was still not a demolition correct? that is what we have been told and the assumption is we never get behind the form lay but the assumption is that, that assumption that i put in my letter section 317 says repair and maintenance and my understanding is that when that

was put in by the board of directors five-seven year ago when 317 was passed that was when you were in the middle of remodel and found some dry rock you could repair and maintain it and it did not mean planning from the start to completely remove the building and build it out of new material and build it in the same lace and not all it a demolition, every single stick has to be removed every single stick. >> okay i would like to put myself in the position of of the planning commissioner that the information by which we are instructed a few weeks ago and given today it doesn't quite add up and i'm frustrated that the interpretation has so much ambiguity between last and now although the majority of people in this room don't know what we did a few weeks ago that we are in a very serious situation

having today a situation which a registered architect would call a know litigation however your interpretation says it's not so what are we going to do? i'm leaving that with a question mark because i'm very frustrated and i feel inexaibl compatible of really making judges about this probability in the ambiguity of how this definition of demolition is being used and this in particular reference to registered architect saying it is, builders who cannot submit warnings based on some kind of signature by engineer saying it's not and so i'm just kind off opposed to this question. >> if i may add these plans are from a licensed architect and i don't know if you would like that hear from the project

sponsors architect since it's their plans how they would like to proceed with this thank you commissioners my name is andy roger and is i'm a licensed architect and i have been practicing in san francisco for about 14 years. in fact, we are very much consistent with abiding by the city's stated demolition callations and i would like to point out that mr. mr. smith, planter questioned me several times about our calculations and so i went back to him several time and made sure that we were right on. the crux of the matter has to do with what constitutes of the removal of a wall and what i understand and what i have been led to understand by the planning department is that if the wood framing is he remaining in tact. then that wall is not demolish and had when you have a building that is the aim of

this one you are not going to be able to meet the current seismic code with those foundations because you cannot put anchor bolts into the foundation that wand the bolt that we are retired to have now and i would like to persistent out the drawings that mr. williams was showing included interior partition and is that is clearly not part of the san francisco planning department criteria for demolition it has do with interior walls and the vertical surfaces. so ... the other thing that were the to point out is that there is also not really a way to meet both the energy code, the lateral code and the fire code for walls without removing the at least the interior claddings and sometimes

the ex-tierior cladding. so i hope that helps a bid. >> air force couple of questions and first the stated date of this home being built was 1879 and now admittedly looking at the outside somebody did some things because everything was wood frame and mow it looks stucco and so would i would assume there were alterations over the years first of all, i'm mr. washington. >> sorry, this house is had under gone construction but had a major alteration sometime in the 30's probably before any of us were born into a mediterranean revival. and so, it's whatever originally historic was in the house and so it's clear of the review preservation that it was granted.

>> well that was my first question because this was with a lot on a street with a home a lot of home that were in the victorian era and the other situation that the architect just spoke about and showing up the walls and one would presume that there are a lot of homes on the street that are of that age and they must take seismic matters to be able to strengthen their soms and there are probably some that they may not have demolished the walls to to be able do had a and that is one concern that i have and the other concern that i have aside from the impacts expressed by the neighbors and -- if you want to answer that, i guess that would be fine did you. to answer about what they did to strengthen existing homes? was that what you were going to answer. >> yes, that has to do with the edge of the foundation but the only way with a home like this to milk it work is to

replace the concrete foundation and one has to shore up the structure above that and replace the wood framing but the wood framing is usually all strong enough to with stand the verdictcal lobes and with this house in particular and many that i have work on there is no way to save the existing foundation and so, if what he is saying is correct, that it's tantamount to a demolition if you are removing the existing foundation there is very little that could be done on all of these homes i would agree with that there are a lot of homes that i have seen from franklin street to other parts of the addition and they call them out of there so the house can be raised in the foundation and then the house can be dropped back down and i guess the whole point is that even though it has been

altered some of the new structure has very little reresemble ambulance to anything else on the street and i would like to see something that is that was more sympathetic and connect actual to something on the street understood, it is more contemporary but we were trying to pick up on the massing and the scale and the size of widow and door elements that existed on the street. >> yeah, some of that is there and yeah, that is one thing that bothers me about it and as far as the impacts there has been a lot of talk about the light well and is it has been represented that it's not possible to match the light wells exactly. there will be a lot of compromises that would have to be made do you agree about that, that would make it difficult to put together what you are trying to accomplish? yeah, and i just want to point out in in the last iteration especially on the easy side, we came in on broth ends with both the light well to the north and to the south. they

were extended to specifically address those neighbors concerns. such that we dropped the washer and drier at the south end and on the south end we shortened the bathroom by wo feet and so it's not possible to make the stairwell work and have the bathroom up there which, is important to total plan. >> okay that thank you i'll see what the other commissions have to say on this staff is -- a apparently urging us to not take take k. d r and approve the project and the other issue that was brought up is the 18 feet further back into the rear yard but there is no problem with the rear yard

open space or mid block open space as far as the addition there and there is a sloping lot and so, it's going to seasonally essentially be dug in and so the top floor is essentially set back 5 feet from the -- shallow residence. and yeah, and so i that you understand that is not really a factor because it's not really useable base, you are basically going up against the hill and all right i think we have a couple of other commissioners now. >> commissioner ellis. >> two simple question for the architect on the probability sponsor side, some of the issues that were brought up and these are fairly -- at least the first

one is minor and on the top floor you know matching the top well there seems to be a foot or so -- but that was one of the requests coming back on the top floor to match the light well -- right i think that would have been 16-inches. >> that would have been thick it started out as a sing and then it was reduce today a single sync sync -that is a double sync. that is correct [spelling?] we could. >> and then i'm sorry -- that was my fault. it is a double sync and yes, i think we could reduce it to one sing there if we needed. >> and the other side of the home on the first floor, could

you go back and match your light well all the way back to where your light well start begins sorry on the first floor? on the first floor on the living room and i guess on the second floor, the living area either a got a light well in that area and it's set back in the dining room but that light well is coming back to match the light well. >> i'm sorry you want this side of the plan? that would be the west side? let me see -- yeah. yeah and the light well stylly back further than -- property commissioners what you are looking at in the plan is the light well is just a problem

path. the plan is actually a light well that is created and that exists now to allow more light into this region -- side and it's not interview with a light well for 475 jersey can you pull up a one four?. >> yeah, light rail it's -- this actually is an existing that goes all the way down, we cut that out to create more light on the first wall for the sign that belongs to -- [inaudible] . >> right and what was ms., may be requesting of that, that, that light well be continued to the street yes and to the ground.

>> no, it does not -- no, that is what she was requesting. >> she want to request that we have this go all the way down the problem is that, i know have demolition. >> is that true? yeah. that would be the motion of existing wall that is not shown as a demolition currently. >> because in order to do that i might have to go all the way up or down to two story. >> again, i don't think these are huge. you know, but they could be. you know, making compromises to the neighbor and but trying to make some promses for the neighbor.