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 and proper and this project will be built in accordance with the law that will be scrutinized as it has been for six years now. it will meet the stand standards of the code and mr. santos is here to talk about issues but you have three minutes and come up. >> in terms of the engineering issues but this will be a better, safer situation once this project is built. >> commissioners, santos, (inaudible) for the project. stability of the site, we are proposing absolutely the best thing that can happen to this hill. why? one, we are going to take all

of the water and create a permanent new watering system, so all of the drainage issues that are occurring on the adjacent properties have been solved by the fact that we are taking that excavation. two, we will have retaining walls that are properly designed and properly reinforced and more importantly they will be peer reviewed and we will have another pair of eyes and structural engineers and source engineer and geologists this is the best possible thing that could happen to the hill and stabilized and let's talk about the demolition. mr. williams is saying, is that according to his interpretation of demolition, if you have a house and a brick foundation and you cannot replace that foundation and make it structurally sound. we are just proposing that legislation to strengthen the buildings. according to estimation you will not be able to replace it

because you will fall unlawful demolition that is insane. this is an area that we are experiencing the seismic events all of the time. we need to encourage the people to strengthen their foundations and to replace their foundations. and that is what we are doing when we have a system that will meet all of the guidelines including the peer review. we meet the guidelines of the department of building and inspection, foundations do not count on your demolition calculation these do not count. we want you who are listening to this and the people that are watching this, to make sure that they are not discouraged from seismickly upgrading their buildings and we want to encourage this and the legislation will be proposed and passed hopefully in the next four months. it will not be discouraged and seismically upgrade your buildings, thank you. >> good evening, commissioners my name is (inaudible) and i have to speak on behalf of my

family and my daughter (inaudible) murphy. we have argued that the building when my daughter was only 6 years old and (inaudible) and then, these project has been dragged on for a long time and we would appreciate that you approve this so we can get on with our life and move in and settle in before my daughter is heading off to college, thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, sir, rebuttal from the departments? >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, i will be brief and refer to any questions, but again the current calculations as shown on the site permit do not equal a defacto demo as noted by the senior building inspect or it is a site permit and additional permit whens they come in for the construction documents that is the addenda and those are not appealed to the board of appeals, if that are submitted

show the additional removal of the walls to set aside the building code requirements that will be routed to the planning department and we will not approve that. and if the project no longer complies they need to file a revision permit and so i wanted to explain that if after subsequent review by the department of building inspection those walls have to be removed and the project no longer complies with 317, we will require a permit that will be routed for review and on the point of foundations nothing in section 317, prohibts the replacement of a foundation, i want to clarify that, it speaks to the removal of the walls and not to the foundation and we do see many projects that upgrade foundations from the brick foundations and we have historic building that are upgraded to reinforcement concrete foundations and therefore keeping the viability and the longevity of the historic buildings. so that is not something that would trigger a section 317, available for any questions. >> i have a couple of questions

and some what unrelated. what is the allowable building height for this project and are they at the maximum? >> yes, they are at the maximum and so it is in an rh one zoning district and the title will be 40 feet here, however it is lower to 35 feet and the rh1 zoning district and it might be even subsequently lowered because of the height change. and i think that they are at the maximum height for the zoning. >> which is lower than 40. >> yes. >> the second question, can you speak to this affordbility issue that has been raised. one of the speakers said that it was currently valued at 906,000 which does not strike me as affordable housing. >> that would work out to be about $1,000 a square foot. so, you know, certainly it is the question of is this affordable housing and we would not call it affordable housing in terms of when we have affordable requirements under the planning code and so it

says a bmr below market and this will not require them. and it does allow an ex-exception from the 317 of a demolition of a family building in an rh1 district if the appraised value of the home is at 80 percent of median. and currently 80 percent of median is about $1.35 million in san francisco. now that does not take into account the size of buildings, which would certainly play into things further. and i mean, i don't think that we could call it affordable as in the definition and the planning code for section 415. this will probably be relatively affordable. under the planning code and $1,000 a square foot and not subject, i believe, to rent control because it is a single family dwelling and yng that it is occupied. i think that buildings that

have tenantcy are not subject to rent control and i was referring to 80 percent of median is not affordable. if you are 80 percent of median or more, it is $1.3 million or more you are not affordable or accessible. >> it does not mean that threshold of being accessible, it is less than that, but it is work out to be about $1,000 a square foot which i think is a fairly high cost. >> one other question, there is reference to a categorical ex-exception that was granted and withdrawn by the department, would you speak a little bit to that process and what happens subsequently? >> so there was an appeal on the categorical exemption that was issued. the staff and rereviewing that

noticed inconsistencies and rescinded that and did an evaluation and issued it. i think that was reissued in february and a month ago or more. and that has not been appealed to the board of supervisors but in that environmental evaluation there were discussions on the slope on geology and water and etc.. so, the concerns that were raised by the neighbors related to the geology, those issues were addressed in the entire mental review and they would further be addressed under the site permit review which at the department of building inspection will look at the structure and how it is built. >> would you agree that it should not have been granted originally? >> it seems that the project is exempt from environmental review, i think that there were inconsistentcy in the written letter that was issued so it was reskended to be sure that everything was correct and

reanalyzed and reissued it and so we have been advised that it the appropriate process for us to undertake. >> thank you. >> one gentleman was concerned about the slope integrity because of the site and we do have in chapter one, the slope and protection act which does as he thinks spoke to earlier, and there santos, this project will be required to have a seismic report from the engineer and it will be reviewed for the stability of the slope, the building, will get a full seismic upgrade and a brand new foundation and so there is no existing foundation remaining i don't think that this would be suitable at all. and just to guarantee to the neighbors that this does get through the review by our

structural engineers with the city. and the document on the slope protection act is about 3 pages long and it has the options for our director to send it for the peer review if he feels that. so, all of this process is ahead of us, and in the future. with the process. question? i believe that it was the appellant that we don't believe that the requirements were met. do you care to address that? >> possibly in the structural design criteria, but as i just said i have not spoke to dbi engineers, it is something that is going to be typically got under the addenda for the structural work. there is an item in there and it is fairly new administrative bulletin and it was issued last june i believe or maybe even september, it is some people don't even have it in the code. it is one for more recent

documents in the code, but it is in there and i am glad that they brought it up and i think that mr. santos did address it as well. but it would not be, it would almost be something that would be checked during the addenda review by the engineers, particularly when you look at the scope of the work and the site conditions. so like i am 100 percent confident that is going to be dealt with. >> okay. >> i have a question just to follow up on that. >> are you saying that the structural design submission that did not get submitted as part of the initial package for the site permit does not need to be submitted on the first run? and it can be caught on the addendum part of the process? >> that is pretty much what i am saying and it is possible. >> so it is not a real requirement? is that what you are saying?

it is in the package and it is in there, it only applies when ab 82 kicks in which is for the peer review portion of it. so it will not be missed before the construction starts. >> each if it get missed you are saying that you have sort of this back stop? >> exactly. >> yeah. >> well, peer review can't be done until you have a detailed design, structural design. >> right, if it was not submitted in the first instance that is not sufficient to reject the permit. >> from your perspective. >> it is a package to say that this building falls under that, it is not really going to give you too much more than that, it is a survey on a report and from my experience, that is what we are doing. but we are going to get that in