it as you stated only the adjacent light wells are only on the third floor, which at the adjacent or the dr or the appellants can best address that. but my assumption is it. >> you made the comment about the light wells, and i was just reflecting on that because i thought that the building on the left was only two stories. >> it is, correct. >> yeah. it is only two stories. >> let's go back to the issue of most of this existing structure and by the way commissioners, >> you were here. >> i was here. >> i was thinking about that. >> yeah. >> and the, and it was a mess. >> it was a total mess, usually i think that i tried to find some things the way that i can offer some suggestions, but that one was impossible. >> but, the existing walls

which are under the two phases and it is own partial, the planning department is saying that those have to remain? >> as you stated that this is a mess, the work that was done was done prior to section 317 of the planning code, and which regulates the demolition, and the staff, and in reviewing this, and the initially they had filed for the section 317 review but the staff reviewed calculations provided by the project sponsor which led them to determine that if they retained those walls, that it would not be classified as a demolition under the planning code and looking at the plans anew, i have the concerns about that determination, but also i have concerns about how we deal with something like this over all, where the work and everything was done, and i mean that it is, and if it is

demolished it is demolished and it is gone and it can't be replaced that, how do we subject it to the code requirements which they became effective after it was demolished and i don't have a clear answer for you, other than i think that this is a bit of an unusual circumstance. and it will be appreciate any further advice of the board and we cannot necessarily or may it already be passed the point of demolition and at which point, removing all or some of those walls, could and may not be an issue. >> let me pose the following. >> sure. >> it is probably would clear up some of the questions from both sides. and have some benefits to both sides. if this was completely demoed and you don't have to worry about the building department has got to look at the structural nature of that wall

and its foundation. and it is conformance then to a new code. the code has changed for structural purposes. it also then is easier to monitor in terms of how you establish your construction and then the impacts of that construction to both parties. and probably the both the developer would save some money and the neighbors would get a little bit more confidence that some of their issues will have been resolved. >> if this board can do anything to resolve the issues on appeal that would be great. >> i am just raising that to find out what you are thinking. >> another question, mr. sanchez, if that building is allowed to be brought down, would the year build be current because that is generally why we keep the structural walls, right? >> it is still on the existing year built? >> it usually goes by the cfc and so that is the

determination of the department of building inspection, when you know, a new cfc will be required and a new cpc may be required any way for this building as it is. and it may be what is proposed now and so i don't know that removing a bit more of the wall would matter for that purpose. but, the existing building was a single family dwelling and so it would not have been subject to the rent control any way. i mean a single family dwelling and are subject to rent control if there was a occupant prior to 1996 that had been. >> how does it apply if the building was built prior to 1978, and turned into a two unit building. >> is that on the original year build or on the construction date? >> that is a question for the rent board, in this case, it is, you know, i think that this has limited amrikbility and it is not a clear cut case, if it was a two unit building, built prior to 78 i think that will

be a bit more clear cut, but given that it is a single family dwelling, going to a two unit building i can't say, how... >> and we will have to peel it one layer at a time, right? >> many layers. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> mr. duffy? >> good evening commissionerers joe duffy dbi, if the 34, and 44th avenue would be an address that is well known to any of us that work on the building inspection division between the dbi and we all and, i have been there a few times, and i actually live in the neighborhood believe it or not and i see this building when you drive up between folton and it is an eye sore and it has been there because of this mess that we call it. and we have these scenarios and i have only seen this and this is about the third one in 15 years that i have seen where we

have had this unlawful demolition hearing and it is, pretty, it is a nightmare for everyone concerned and it is a nightmare for the dbi staff and the planning staff and the obviously the people that own the property because they get this five year ban and then they can't and they have to decide if they want to put back what they had there originally and one of the cases actually did that on 46th avenue and got out of the process and about a year and a half and did not end up with their 3 or 4 story building. and there is another one on 27th avenue and sat vacant for five years as well and what i am leading up to is whatever process, we decide on, and i don't think anybody wants to see it set for another five or six years. and because when you go into the building, it just looks like there is a lot of construction defects in the property that needs to be repaired and that is patrick and myself that made the determination when we went

there about pre, 2012 and you can't show this as existing and proposed that you george to have to show it preexisting as you built it and what you want to built it as because there are so many things wrong and so what you are looking at is three different scenarios on plans and you don't normally see that and there is a lot of demolition of the work that was done on the 2004 permit that has to happen. before they even get through any work, and a lot of the walls have to come down and there was no fire rating on the walls and there was no built wrong and they are and there is they are flashed wrong, and there is just bad water proofing and everything that you do want to see in a project this is it. and you know, this is the permit or the, and there is like the new owner wants to fix all of that it seems, how we do that. and there is a lot of, preconstruction meeting if we were going to do it on this one and that would have to happen between dbi staff and the contractor on the owner and the

engineer, to try to figure out the best way to do this. and i do appreciate a commissioner thinking that if you only have 40 feet of wall left, where are we keeping it. and how we do that. and how the process would be nice with how have you got the power to do that. and that is mr. sanchez was saying that would be great and the foundation that we are talking about i imagine that it was a new foundation poured under the building and under the 2004 permit. and i may be wrong on that but i thought that it did say that there is a new foundation, and the fear with that foundation, getting back to structural defects is that the concrete, the new concrete is touching one of the adjacent neighbor's foundation which is not good obviously, and we are supposed to have separation between the concrete between the foundation, and that might be a problem and so, there is a lot of things to be ironed out here and a lot of it is dbi, and the

department of building inspection judy and i am surprised what for the third party and i mean for the department building inspection and regularly building in this city, and prior to that, and we are asked to have the third party to go to the head of the building department and that is fine for the special inspection and so have you to put the faith in your own department and in your city and mr. low is down there a lot and that is fine and i don't understand what that is about. the, if the plans were wrong, on the amount of walls that were shown and we were asked for a revision on that. and these plans, we assume that all drawings that were if the design and who did these drawings. and reflected these walls. and we will have to take that on the merit of the plans and

if that is wrong and the dbi will go out there as part of the preconstruction and we are going to say, go on a minute, these walls are 2004 and they are not here, and that is what the people are saying, and that was there and i can't remember, 3 or 4 years ago. and but certainly, these drawings are wrong. and like any drawings you ask and you stop and get a revision and you reflect it accurately. >> and those are some of just my notes and that permit at the minute and the site permit. and it is still going through the review. and so i am available for any questions. thank you. >> this is the juniper of the richmond district and that is the one and it has the tarps over it and the tarps get old and it looks like an eye sore, and i know that they are appealing the permit. we want them to go away and to get the from the bad memories.

>> you saw the photographs and it is as ugly as the photographs depict. >> there was another case in the department knows that i think that i wrote it up. and the building was gone. and this, and i think that there was some, and what i read on his notice of violation, and at the time, i was not involved in the hearing and i do know that some of the building was definitely remaining and i can remember, i am pretty sure that i can remember, seeing elementments of the existing building there. and so, that is the all it is. good. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> please step forward. >> good evening, commissioners my names is james james and i am an, engineer, and i have been involved. >> are you a consultant to the group? >> yes, i was hired by one of the labor. >> then, you need to speak in

within their time. >> right. >> not in public testimony. >> okay, i am sorry. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> okay. seeing none, then we will have our rebuttal starting with the appellant, mr. lou, you have three minutes, do you want to give your time to mr. lee that is okay. >> you might have to, because he has the valid information that i don't have. >> okay, then you have three minutes for your rebuttal. >> yeah. >> thank you, and i was getting involved in the 2006 and what i went and i saw the way that they construct their wall and it is absolutely unbelievable and they took down, you know, my client's you know exterior sighting and to raise up the wall and the siding and the (inaudible) is all into my

client's property and also the foundation it was encroached in that as well. in summary, i don't see how this one can be done without a demolition and a new building permit. >> okay, you have three. >> and of course, you can. >> basically, we support the project. >> and we like the condition, okay? and that is a project and a condition, and thank you. >> mr. cevlin. >> thank you, commissioners. and i don't think that we are very far apart on this and i think that one of the reasons that we are here right now, is that because of the history of the project and because of the changing planning regulations because of the poor construction, that the project sponsors had to thread the needle here in terms of working this troubled project. and getting it through the rest

of the process and getting it and they came in, and 2011, when they bought it. they filed a permit three months later and it took three years to get through property ses. which is much longer than typical and understandable because of the situation but there was a lot of time spent on this and we don't have any problem with removing the rest of those exterior walls on the side lot lines and our own concern is that we don't want to trigger a demo permit, because if there is a demo permit, we are opened back up to another appeal here and we might be back here, and the key is that we, we would like to come to a resolution, tonight so that we can get this, and the project completed and we are flexible to do that and we don't want to trigger a planning commission hearing or a demo permit or any other additional process, that is going to keep this moving and keep this honestly this eye sore there and the problem

going on. so, with that, we are flexible and that is our concern here. and we just asked the board that when considering our next step to take that into account. and this owner very much took on a problem when they purchased the building and they knew it and they really are enthusiastic about getting this to the end. so, we are here for any questions, and thank you for your consideration. >> you are not you don't want to go back to planning. >> you have a site permit here. you know the first addenda could be a demolition. >> we have no problem with the demolition, you don't want to go back to the mraping commission. >> there is a 15 day posting and another opportunity to file an appeal to come back here.

>> and i defer to mr. sanchez and mr. duffy to participate. >> so this is the alteration, and the demolition permit and if this were would be converted to a demolition, and to your building inspector and joe duffy can confirm, and they need to refile and there is two applications and one for demolition and one for new construction and this cannot be converted to a demolition, but maybe. dbi can also comment. >> but i think that perhaps the board and yeah, commissioners it is a form six, demolition permit, and the yellow form and that is the members of the form 1, 2, which is the new building, so you have two separate applications, and this as you have heard is an

alteration, permit on the pink permit of what we typically see, and so that decision was made it is an alteration permit and so bear with me for just a second. >> then we will let them. >> i think that you have time. >> all right. >> yes, just for a second. you and i are probably not in disagreement that the greatest utility here for both sides is a complete demolition. >> i would say a lot on this project and i would say it on a lot of projects because, all right. >> where we, all know that

their construction effort of building all new foundations in the walls, without monkeying around with the existing making it much easier. it provides much better, ability marketed by the planning and building. and here, and not all of this, and thank you, commissioner, fung the only thing that i wanted to add was that these guys are very careful when starting out on this project and want to make sure that they start out on the right foot and not that, anyone suggested otherwise, and dan, and the ar architect, he went in and spoke with one of the senior level

folks and asked for what do we do here? do we restart the old permit? do we, what do we do here, he said the alteration permits. thanks for the questions. >> we want to hear back from the department. >> i am in mr. duffy's hands. >> i will say that you are in good hands. >> we are happy to discuss it with you if you just want to do that. >> i think that is a planning issue, too. >> we can continue it if you want me to verify what is actually existing. >> or what was pre, 2004, that is still there. because that is the issue with the demolition, i think.

and we also in the past have run into this situation, and we have dealt with it with planning and we are dealing with it on a couple of projects i think that terrace may be one and you have the existing lumbar and the existing wall and you, bring in some new material and you sister to the existing framing and you have both elements in there. >> that is, pretty much, you still got existing but you have also got new. it is done in various reasons and if we had dry rot for example on the wall and a lot of the times with the section 317, on the drawings it looks great and the wall is to remain, and in essence you are talking about a 100 year old building and there is a lot of dry rot and water proofing

issues and so sometimes we end up writing a correction notice and saying that the existing wall that is shown to me is dry roted. and submit a revision, to the dbi with planning department approval. to dismantle the wall and to make the wall and to bring it up to code so to speak and so the challenge is that we usually ask them, and the contractor to give us how he is going to do that and how can they lower the wall down, incorporate some new elements into it and bring it up to, get our, and get the water proofing on it and it also gets fire rating on the wall which we don't have that wall to show to remain and this all gets back to section, 317, and how to do the projects and that with sun suggestion on this possibliment >> so i am just and i just put it there. >> okay. >> do you know.

>> i know where you. >> we can continue. >> and what that does is it does two things and one is that it asks for continuance and it asks to continue along the basis of this permit with its addenda. and that site that triggers it after the demo occurs. >> right. >> which does not solve it totally here. >> there, is going to be these neighbors have and there is a lot of miss trust over this project and i don't know what is going to get and i think that is the bottom line here, i think that these neighbors need to have confidence in this developer here that is going to do this project and how he is going to do it and they are going to take care of the concerns if you are siding missing from the wall and you have flashing that is overlaped and on to the property, what are you going to do to fix that and i don't think that there

are any agreements and there has to be confidence and you know, between both parties to try and get to know that the project is going to get done. >> i mean that they also got for know and understand that this is one of probably five properties in the last one dozen years in the city. and so, i mean, >> anybody would be a plus. >> yeah, the one on 27th avenue was a complete demolition and so therefore the new permits that came in were demolition and new construction. and maybe the discussion in 2011 obviously should have been and you want to go alteration and will we go construction. >> i think that as commissioner fung has stated i think that it will be best for all parties if it was demos and the concern about it being, a properly appealed and maybe we can address their spokesman. see if we can get around that right? >> and that is the challenges and i think that honestly, it is honestly better for the neighbors to have a demo, and

that is going to make things much better. >> we know when these buildings are finished whether you keep the walls or not they all look like new buildings, and as a building inspector i helped to sell that, and you look at that building when it is finished you will not know that there was an existing wall or anything existing in there and it is going to look like a new building. but, a lot of people do this because of whatever the process of getting a demolition, and a new construction, and that is what they are fearing and i can understand that and i can understand that fear of how they can, and if they are sent back for a demolition and a new construction permit. and get it field again. >> you can understand that and how long is it going to take and what is the process for that? and it, and what if the board, adopted certain changes as part of a special condition's permit and this is an issues permit and if you make any changes a special conditions permit is required and you would just put into that special condition's permit, elements that get us closer to a demolition.

>> very good. >> picture. >> and i have no problem. >> which means that i was thinking along the lines and that means that you have to leave a piece. >> correct. >> but it will resolve a lot of the procedural issues. >> and i mean that skirting the issue i think that you know, planning already knows that this is a defacto demolition, you know? and the question is. it is remaining to leave a little piece. and it is the same as what we deal with on the other projects. that have the dry rot in my opinion, and we asked for a detail, of showing, and it is shown of the old lumbar and the new lumbar, basically is what it is doing anded that under the observation permit. >> is it possible to continue this so that maybe that determination can be made or is there so many there that you could not really get at, what it was that you could leave.

>> yeah. >> i think that that would be a good enough idea. president lazarus, if you want to do that, that would be okay. it may as well, one of the concerns that i had was the foupd daysing. and if the foundation is touching and no one has told me once it is and one side is saying that it is not and maybe they don't know and maybe we can do the testing on that as well and figure out if that is an issue if you can take the foundation out that is a lot more work and you know, it is a going to be a problem and if you are going to have to chip away at the neighbor's foundation, maybe and i don't know if it might be good to get some sort of a report from an, engineer on that as well and then we could ask them to give us something on the walls. and i would not mind going out there with the plans and checking that what we show as existing and actually is existing because there is some discrepancy over that. and you don't want to go far out of your home. >> thank you. >> yeah.

>> and i would stay away from that. >> and if i have the potential of the approach and getting it, what he was suggesting but allowing some time, for some observations to suggest how to accomplish that. >> in such a complicated case, certainly at staff level, we would like plans. revised plans, that there is no ambiguity about language and the board would just adopt a set of plans that gets this closer to that demolition then commissioner fung was talking about. >> but it would have to be plans. >> i think that when we were wrote initially, there was so much work that had been done we are looking at that more than the existing walls we were looking at very, very bad construction which is obviously all going to come down.

how long will it take this kind of process. >> how long? >> for the revision and out there for you i would assume that twot sides that look about and is there. and is there a portion of the existing walls that can stay that both sides will accept, i will be happy enough for that. and what about the submital of the revised plans? >> we have got to take it right here. >> so, if you are continuing it, and you would not be getting the plans before that, would you? >> no. >> could we get them at the same time as you make your determination. >> i am sure. >> the architects here and certainly we can prepare those plans, and whether or not at that point, you know, we would have been out with inspector duffy, and update the plans, and then, if hopefully they

will be to your you know, you guys will be comfortable with them at this point. >> and you don't understand, where we are trying to go with this. >> absolutely. >> yeah. >> and yeah, the other side understand where we are going with this? >> okay. and then i will let the va make the last comment in case he is uncomfortable. >> yes. >> i think that we need a commitment from the developer and i am sure that he will agree to this that all parties need to be and that i want the other side to be able to get into this property as well and see this and i would like the other property and sometimes that is a problem after the hearing and some what access from i don't want to let them and come in and i would like to let the owner to let the others. >> that was going to be my recommendation. >> thank you. >> that they share this from, and i only got a nod. >> and would you come to the mic and do you understand where i am going with this. and could you state for the

record. >> if you can see it again, and you understand where i am trying to go with this. and you say it again. >> and do i have to repeat everything? >> and go ahead. >> and let me restate what i am trying to do is to have both sides agree that if there is a minimum amount of existing walls that are proven by the building department in their review. that both sides can accept and therefore, everything else is demolished and so most of your issues go away. >> yes, and most of them go away. >> do you understand that? >> yeah, that is where i am trying to dow with this. >> yeah, they have to do what they promise to do and we see it. >> and they will do what we decide here,, and what the building department says that they will do. okay? >> yeah. >> and