the community meeting was held election night, presidential election night, as polls were closing. however, we were able to get there. and the -- before that meeting, the neighborhood architectural committee was very clear that the first proposal would probably never be approved by the city and they should meet with us to talk about another plan before they hired an architect. the architectural committee wrote a recommendation to historic planning that said that you should -- we didn't deny it. we said carefully consider the second floor addition, change to the roof, change to the windows. and the historic planning group found that everything we recommended was accurate. nonetheless, the homeowners decided to retaliate by threatening a lawsuit, asking to remove me from the committee,

architectural committee, and asking to remove another board member. the other board member was removed to appease the neighbors and we descended to a period where there was no communication from the homeowners, no back and forth. we were not involved at all in the further negotiations on the second floor. and the board voted to say that we would deny approval of the project if pulls were not installed and our architectural guidelines clearly state that -- i can put it here, if you want, can be required. the homeowners said we will not put up story pulls or have another meeting we asked several times. at this point, i hate to say this, but the homeowners have engaged in an attack on ms. tan and her mother. it's really descended into a

terrible, terrible situation. and it's extremely controversial. and i think it would be in the best interest to have the discretionary review approved and enter into a period of looking at the alternatives. that's my comment. >> vice president melgar: any other public comment in support of the d.r. requestor? >> just begin and we'll -- >> hello. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm susan grazioli. i have lived in balboa terrace over 40 years. and i actually live 150 feet

from the current home, 30 300 darien way. what i have now is a picture -- this is the illustration done for the sale of the home, 307 san leandro way, the tan residence. that's what the house looked like originally. this is the house currently with the renovation that was completed over 10 years ago. my point being that this home was 10 years ago renovated and i think it fell under completely different architectural guidelines and everything that we have now because we're now a designated balboa terrace district, historic. so i wanted to show you the difference of this. now -- >> vice president melgar: are you speaking in support of the d.r. requestor?

>> no. i'm speaking for the d.r. requestor, in support of her, yes. i'm giving you a history of her project for historical relevance. this particular project, if you can show that house, that house was built 10 years ago and that was the last house built in balboa terrace before we became a designated balboa district. today if this project was to be put forth before the board, we probably would not approve it. in 10 years' time, you know, you have the historic and different planning departments. so i would just like to show that. i also have another point. this is the current dormer on the south side of the home.

this is what they have now. i will struggle with this one because it's a little big. this is the proposed dormer, roughly 30 feet long, projects out 12 feet. you have two projecting dormers on the side, which to me, i don't think the classic style dormers. they look like a barn that you see when you have a hay loft. i question the design. the overlap of the windows for the neighbor on the next side, the tan residents, they will have to have a lot of curtains or stained glass windows. i'm not sure. it will be real cozy. thank you for your time. >> vice president melgar: thank you. any other public comments in support of the d.r. requestor?

>> good afternoon. my name is elizabeth katigian. i've been a balboa terrace rest rent -- resident for five years. before that, i was in the castro. i feed my family by practicing commercial finance law, but feed my passion by architectural design and interior design. i'm very sensitive to what is going on in the neighborhood and the importance of the compatibility of the design. i think there are at least two reasons that the commission should accept the d.r. and deny the application at this point. first of all, the owner's failure to comply with the planning department requirements and h.o.a. design guidelines, there is overwhelming evidence that the project sponsor failed

to notify the neighbors that were entitled for notification, holding their neighborhood meeting on the night of an historic election, not a reasonable person would believe that people would show up to a neighborhood meeting, instead of watching an historic election. the next reason is the design's failure to comply with or to be compatible with the architecture in the neighborhood. with all due respect to ms. jonckheer, who has done a great job in accepting all the comments from folks, i do think if you saw the project, if you were in the neighborhood, you would see that it is absolutely not compatible with the surrounding architecture and that there are ways that the homeowners to get the additional square footage they crave by excavating the basement area,

which numerous homes in our neighborhood have done, i would respectfully request that you accept the d.r. and deny the application at this point. >> vice president melgar: thank you. any other public comments in such report of the d.r. requestor? we will hear from the project sponsor.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm marcia ng, and i'm one of the project sponsors. my husband and i bought our home almost exactly two years ago. i've lived in balboa terrace with my family for over 18 years. after saving for many years, we were excited to be able to raise our family in the six great neighborhood i grew up in. we fell in love with the house itself. however, as you can see here, the house is deteriorating, as the previous owners failed to maintain it properly. we decided to use the project to plan for our family needs and performing much-needed repairs. we've yet to spend a single night in our new home. it's been quite a journey over

the last two years, we know that the end results will be worth it, because it will serve our family for the rest of our lives. my dear husband, nathan, will go over the many reasons why we think our project should be approved as-is. >> here's the pictures of our house as-is, as the original plans and our revised plans. our historical preservation planner gave us two options to add square footage, one to lifrt -- lift the house, the other, to add dormers. we decided to go only with dormers. the revised plans are only adding an extension of 383 square feet, 55% reduction compared to the original plans the d.r. requestor has stated that she will not accept any exterior changes to our home. as a comparison, here's the d.r.

requestor's own house before, during and after the renovations. her 4,700 house includes a height increase. having dormers, she said, would be out of character in balboa terrace. there are many homes in balboa terrace have dormers the one on the left, 290 san leandro. here's two more examples with dormers. and another with dormers. and another two with dormers. here are many more examples of homes throughout balboa terrace with dormers. here are examples of harold stoner english style homes with

dormers. it's clear that dormers are characteristic of balboa terrace and harold stoner homes. our house is to the north of hers. based on the trajectory of the sun, our dormers never come in between her house and the sun. the d.r. requestor claims we didn't notify neighbors or the h.o.a. about our plans throughout the process. they state that we refused to meet with neighbors. over the last two years, our house has gun through numerous neighborhood notification and involved. this includes showing the architectural plans to 100 neighbors individually through our own petition. we have a lot of support for our project. we have gotten 103 signatures from 69 homes. this represents 24% of all the homes in balboa terrace.

the d.r. requestor has a fair number of signatures, but we have reason to believe they're not obtained in good faith. we spoke with some people that signed a petition of opposition but asked to sign and were refused. we were told that we were house flippers or we're not allowed to make changes. even neighbors who signed their petition had never even heard about our project, so they were not aware what they were signing. "i met emily's mother when she rang our doorbell. she was gathering signatures because of a home down the block. she told me they were going to raise the roof and do more work. i signed the petition based on the fact that she said it was the only way it get information. i have no problem with them getting work. the homes at balboa terrace are older and from what i see, it

would not take away with the character of the home. i'm fine with nathan and marsha's work." what does it say by other signers that may be neutral? >> vice president melgar: thank you very much. are there any public comments in favor of the project sponsor? >> hi, commissioners. my name is patrick tan and i live at 301 darien, which is directly across the street from 300 darien at the same intersection. i happen to also be the daddy and daddy-in-law of the project sponsors.

of course i'm a big supporter of this project because i want the best for my kids. my daughter has lived with me ever since we bought our house in 1999. not only is she not moving far, she will only be living a few feet away from us. she and her husband saved for many years to be fortunate enough to purchase their home. now they just want to make some small changes to their house to fit their family for many more years. i did the same to my house almost 20 years ago without any issues from the h.o.a. or the city. i was even able to make changes to the outside of my home.

and added an atrium that i enjoy very much to this day. over the last decades, i have seen many other homes in the neighborhood go through major changes, including the d.r. requestor's own home at 307 san leandro way. i think our home values have only increased with these improvements. and i think the city should continue to support them. in my opinion, the proposed changes are very small and go well with the character of the neighborhood. please approve the project because my wife and i are directly affected if this project is not approved.

the project sponsors are currently squatting at my house. [laughter] and they will not leave until they can move into their own home after it's renovated. the longer this is delayed. the longer i have it continue to supply a roof over their heads. please approve this project. thank you. >> vice president melgar: any other comments in support of the project sponsors? please come up. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is kevin mulivant. i have lived in balboa terrace for 19 years. i'm a former treasurer of balboa terrace home association. i'm writing to provide full support of the 300 darien way

project as approved by s.f. historic design. over 100 balboa homeowners have signed a petition in support of the project. the scope and scale is consistent with the other homes on san leandro way and darien way, including the home of the discretionary review applicant, ms. emily tan, who reside next door to the 300 darien way project. ms. tan's home was remodeled extensively, as you saw by the picture in 2008. and approved by the architect review committee, adding a second level that significantly increased the scale and mass of

the structure. in fact, the btha residential design guidelines drafted in 2005 confirmed that there is no predominant height level in balboa terrace, based on a survey in 1997. as a balboa terrace board member in 2016 and 2017, i can confirm that the property owners followed the design review process in the btha residential design guidelines. they held a neighborhood meeting in november, 2016, and engaged in numerous discussions the property owners devised their plans in response to input from the neighborhood, reducing the scale of the project as an accommodate. the current project plans do not increase the height of the structure and simply adds dormer to the attic.

any changes to the roof, including addition of a dormer, would not be approved, but the association's decision is unrealistic and inconsistent with the btha residential design guidelines, that do not prohibit dormers in the neighborhood. many homes in the neighborhood have dormers. so i support the plans as approved by the planning department. and i thank a statement from the environmental review sums it up nicely. "the project is a class 1 minor alteration of an existing facility." >> vice president melgar: thank you very much. any our public comment in support of the project sponsor. please come up, so we can keep it moving.

>> michael skinner. i will read a letter on behalf of sofa brawls, former president of the neighborhood association. she couldn't be here today. it's to elizabeth. "i understand there's a d.r. hearing on thursday, july 19. currently i'm undergoing chemotherapy and may not be available for the hearing. i hope that you or someone can read my email at the hearing. i'm a neighbor to 300 darien and live at 365 santa ana. i was president of the neighborhood association when 300 darien first attempted to redesign their house to suit their needs. they are wanting to enlarge the house to fit their family. they were married last year at their family's house.

i heard troubling comments about the owners of 300 sdarien and they were flippers and brother and sister and didn't want it live in a neighborhood. most of the comments stem from emily tan, who is the secretary of the neighborhood association. i'm happy to have such a lovely young couple in our neighborhood. i'm flabbergasted that our neighborhood association would demean the couple and do everything they can to block a well-thought-out upgrade to the home. my husband and i have looked at the plans for 300 darien and we feel that the plans are well designed and take into account the beauty of our neighborhood. i hope that the hearing will be the end to a long opposition to the upgrade for 300 darien." thank you. >> vice president melgar: any other public comment? >> hi. laura clark.

this is why i joke that d.r.s are, we're never having a block party ever again hearing. they bring out the worst in us. they pit neighbor against neighbor in this very destructive and hostile way that is sad and disappointing. the homeowners association came out here and told you their agenda pretty clearly. they said that their mission is to preserve the value of the neighborhood. the fiduciary interest of the neighborhood is what they said. in other words, they're here because they want high property values. and we maybe shouldn't take that into account in our public policy making the interest of a homeowners' association are not the same as the interests of the people. we need more housing. this is all zoned single-family home only. it's on zillow or i guess i

looked at redfin, walkable with excellent transit. there is no reason why this shouldn't be upzoned to allow a four-unit building at the very least. and now we're debating whether dormers are in context or out of context while the next door neighbor managed to expand their home and wanted to pull the ladder up behind her so the next family along couldn't have a house that works for them. this is really silly and hostile and should not be the way that we make policy. this is not -- this is why planners quit. this is why the planning department is constantly losing qualified people because they cannot handle this. this is the worst that our city has to offer. and you all have the ability to say, we're not going to do this anymore. you all have the ability to say, no more, on these kind of nasty,

retaliatory d.r.s of neighbor against neighbor. the rules should be the rules. if you follow the rules, you get your permits. i don't want to waste your time. i don't want them to waste your time. i don't want to listen to who signed who's petition and if it was in good faith or bad. the rules should be the rules. we cannot lose any other planners to these hostile processes. so i hope that you will do what the rules say. thank you. >> vice president melga >> vice president melgar: thank you. any other comments in support of the project sponsor? okay. with that, d.r. requestor, you get a 2-minute rebuttal. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i just wanted to point out that

there were recalls in 2017 and they're both supporting this project. and in the notice for the 311, it failed to mention that the huge, massive dormer, does not mention that at all. it mentions that they're adding two dormers and that's it. this is extremely misleading for neighbors. it's just an example of how not transparent these project sponsors are and how dishonest they are. in their response to my d.r. application, they state their home is 30 feet in heat. in the notice of preap, it's 25 feet and 1 inch. because they wanted to add another story, about 10 feet or so.

>> project sponsor. you don't have to take the two minutes if you don't want to. >> hello. i'm the architect. you know, on the dormers, we have the obscure glass, you know, so to try to create a privacy barrier between the

neighbors and ourselves. it did you have -- do you have any technical questions we. >> the commissioners may have some questions. >> ok. >> public comment is closed. and commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i have a question for staff. although the terrace is one of the few -- those design guidelines, where they place their before the historic eligibility was identified? >> i believe that we identified the district in 2011. >> 2011. >> ok. and the design guidelines are how old? 2005. so they happened before. what is the overlap between the

historic guidelines and the design guidelines? i am trying to understand -- they took the department suggestion that that had dormers or raise to the building. in 2005, where these dormers allowed based on the site mac, deposition, the length, and if you had not put that into context of the historic district, where these two are. that is my question. >> they were determined not to be too large to the environmental review process and our review based on looking at the sec. standard. it runs through this project and had numerous discussions with the project sponsor. >> commissioner richards: ok. i mean, i agree with clark here. we hate seeing these kinds of neighbor on neighbor things and who said this, and who said that, at my petition. we are looking at what is before us. it is a project that adds

dormers. does it make the standards and guidelines? the answer i got was yes. so i will wait for some other commissioners. i am leaning towards accepting the project as is. >> commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i would like to ask the city attorney. as a commission, we are interested in established neighborhood guidelines. however, when staff evaluates them, they do have to calm and balance with the rest of the neighborhood consideration. is that correct? i can't hear you. >> commissioner richards: can you turn on the mic? >> commissioner moore: neighborhood guidelines do not trump other considerations, correct? >> that is correct. >> commissioner moore: i think that is an important thing. neighborhood guidelines are augmented for residential guidelines and i think we are

all sensitive to them. when staff looks at the project, together with the historic presentation, they are bringing us a reading that indeed they have made corrections and amendments to the project and i think that is what was in front of us. at the neighborhood is as divided on the subject matter. we often have that. in the end, i do personally not see anything disruptive or disturbing about where the dormers are, the sides of the windows, the dormers are on the sides and they are not affecting the façade. and when the pictures were shown of other dormers in the neighborhood as things -- i think they added a certain kind of richness and variation to the appearance of the neighborhood. i did not find what was here in front of me as negative or distracting. i have to support staff in this recommendation to not take it and approve the project as it is. >> second.

>> clerk: commissioner koppel? ok. >> commissioner richards: we will call the question. there was a motion from commissioner moore and a second by commissioner richard. 's. >> commissioner koppel: with that motion to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. that motion passes 6-0. we will move on to the final item on your calendar. item number 15 in case number 2018-004675 drp-02 for the property at 310 montcalm street which is a request for discretionary review of a project proposing removal and unpermitted rear addition and a reduction of dormers and restoration of a façade to bring

the building back into compliance for planning enforcement case. >> so there is a request for a continuance? >> clerk: correct. staff may be able to -- >> vice-president melgar: i want to understand procedurally what happened to. >> clerk: in this instance, the project sponsor requested a continuance and staff mabel -- may be able to elaborate a little bit more. the requester is not supportive of the continuance and neither is the department. >> vice-president melgar: ok. we will hear it. we will continue it after we herhear it? >> clerk: correct. >> vice-president melgar: thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am with the department staff. the item before you is a request for discretionary review of the building permit seeking to bring the subject building at 310 montcalm street into compliance with the planning code. the property is located on the

north side of montcalm street between alabama street and paradise boulevard within the zoning district and the bernal heights neighborhood. the subject building is a two story single family dwelling that was originally constructed in 1900. their proposed scope of work is to construct three dormers at the roof to provide additional habitable space of the attic level and to remove and unpermitted rear bump out and reconstruct the code compliance rear addition projecting approximately suffer a feat to the rear and to permit a screened parking space at the setback. the total habitable interior space would not be increased from the existing square footage. footage. this project was originally brought to staff as an enforcement case relating to unpermitted exterior alterations and including significant massing at the roof level which approved the scope of work for a new dormers as seen in the exhibits. staff coordinated with the prior architect and d.b.i. instructors from april and october 2017 to

get an adequate permit filed for the abatement of the violation. after exhausting all avenues of enforcement procedures in november 2017, the project was referred to the city attorney process office by the zoning administrator in conjunction with six of our properties owned by the same property owner. the department's enforcement process has continued to run in tandem with the investigation and a penalty of $10,000 was paid by the owner in november o. a fully compliant set of plans was permitted but a new architect was before the commission today. their request for discretionary review were filed by an individual at montcalm street.

he requested the proposed dormers and parking space be removed from the scope of work. in addition to remediation of all damages to adjacent properties. staff has reviewed their proposal with the residential zone advisory team and concluded that they come -- agree with our standards. that the proposed parking space appears to have been in place prior to current ownership due to an existing curb cuts. as such, staff recommends approval of the design of the project as they are in conformance of the planning code. in regards to damages incurred by both adjacent properties, there is no viable planning to mechanisms that would require the property owner to seek permits on separate assessors lots. yesterday the commission was sent a letter from supervisor hilary ronan expressing support for discretionary review at the condition that would allow for enforceable protections of these recent properties. one neighbor at 311 montcalm has additionally request support for taking discretionary review this afternoon. the department recommends the commission not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed to allow

for abatement of the violation. i am available for questions. >> vice-president melgar: thank you. do we have -- >> vice-president melgar: you have a five minute presentation. >> overhead please. >> president hillis: yes. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is marion. i live at 312 montcalm street with my husband who is a third-generation san franciscan. we live immediately downhill

from this project. the project has been extremely painful. it has been fraught with difficulties and it has forced us to spend our hybrid money which we save for retirement to protect our homes and ourselves from this developer. we reached out to the man from the moment this project started at attempted to negotiate and work out problems that existed letting water into our home. as a result, all that we have experienced is our trust has been abused and our goodwill has been abused at every turn. now, let's turn to the edge till discretionary review factors. the only information that you have in front of you from him involves the plans that they have submitted. he has not filed any response to our discretionary review materials and he is not here today either. and i understand that it is virtually unprecedented for a

project sponsored not to respond to a discretionary review application. this kind of behaviour has been common to us on this project. let's look at the factors that support discretionary review. in fact, this project, as we see it, these are -- these are the tiny houses. this is our house and the other house is right next door. what they want to do is create, with of the rules, great battling dormers and put another dormer in the front that is going to dwarf our little cottage right next door. they also want to put a car right here which is right next to our down stores -- downstairs bedroom window which implicates privacy and health and safety concerns for us. let's look at the actual project. the project's history.

there have been rampant consistent and flagrant permit violations throughout. there was a whole -- homeless encampments they are. people are defecating inside this property and shooting up drugs. they came over to our house and starting using as -- using it as a toilet. plus the construction that has occurred there already does not reflect the plans that he originally provided to the city. hhe breached the contract that e signed with us. he breached them and we -- he showed he was not willing to stand behind his own legal obligations. the property has been declared a nuisance by the city. and he, in february of 2017 added this unpermitted third floor to this property. i was aghast. i went next door and i talked to the contractor. i said, what are you doing over here? , how can you put this third floor up here? this is not part of the plan.

he said i am just doing what i was told to do. so i pondered this. what has happened here? does he get two sets up plants? does he have a set of plans that he gives to the city and another that he gives to the workers squeaked i don't know. but we have something that you might want to look into. now all the reasons that you are to grant discretionary review include his past. his history. he is not admitted and documented history of real estate misconduct. he gave us -- he voluntarily surrendered his real estate sales and brokerage license to the state of california after multiple charges of misconduct were made against him by the state in connection with those licenses. he admitted all the factual allegations made against him and that the actual charges involved fraud mismanagement, mismanagement of funds, negligence and incompetence.

additionally, there have been multiple multimillion dollar civil lawsuits filed against him since the end of 2016 for his unfinished projects which are alleged to have serious major defects. then, we have the city attorney lawsuit. which i am sure you are aware of which includes his project next door. all of this information shows that what happened there was not a mistake and it was not an isolated incident. there is a pattern and practice here. which we are asking you to stop. police, put this house back in its original footprints. please get rid of the dormers. don't let them take the -- put the parking spot right next to our bedroom. what you have to understand is any representations made by his representatives are not liable. he has shown that he will do

whatever he wants. >> your time is up. we have five minutes for the second request or. >> thank you very much. >> my name is susan. i am my husband's anchor. we live down on the property at 308 montcalm street. abutting montcalm property. i'm a fourth generation californian. one of my great grandfathers was a signatory of the california constitution. we have owned and lived in our home for 25 years and our roots go deep. the last two and a half years we have spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to protect our home using up the money that we had saved for long renovations as we move towards the retirement. here is a brief description of what we have endured in these two and a half years.

we have worked hard to come to agreements with him. neither we or our consultant or our lawyers knew we were dealing with someone who seemingly had no actual interest in coming to agreements. and only an interest manifested by his absence. to profit as highly as possible. if he had adhere to the original plans there would be no problem here today. starting in february 2016, problems arose involving the date -- drainage and the electrical system of our garage. from from months to get this repaired. just the beginning. spoke poorly tiered scaffolding broke loose. threatening our wiring structure. and subscribed by neighbors homeless occupation. april 2016, we saw the interior of the building had been gutted. the list goes on and on. abatement by d.b.i. in august 2016, we went after that

and we went through the expensive time and energy draining process to put together an underpinning and license agreement to protect our home. signed by him november 4th a few weeks later on thanksgiving weekend, a crew came in without permits, without notification and porridge and unpermitted foundation directly contrary to this agreement jeopardizing our home. we then, at great expense, filed with our neighbors and sued him on december 20th. by december 27th, while i was ill and helping to care for my seriously ill sister, we were asked to quickly hammer out another agreement to remediate the situation caused by his flaunting of the original underpinning and license agreements. this was signed by him on december 27th. he never fulfilled it. subject -- february 2017 pack he

built an entire unpermitted third floor. notices of enforcement followed. in april and may of this year, they approached us to put together another agreement. this document somehow, they forgot after it was made until two days before we had to file for d.r. the issue here is not whether the current architectural plan submitted are adequate. the issue is he has never adhered to the prior plans he has submitted or to the permits he received. those very plans have not been worth anything. his current request for permit plans seem adequate and they must be seen in the light of the exceptional circumstances i have described. aggregated and violated every permit code and every plan in the history of this project.

has repeated actions have endangered our property, our house, our health and safety. 's actions have interfered with of interfered with the work life and my right not to live and feel endangered. quite frankly, i am worn out by this. because of these exceptional circumstances we are asking that this permit application go to discretionary review. we ask that the permit be issued only as it makes the terms and conditions of the prior underpinning agreement and licensing agreement to which he has already agreed. the minimal conditions for such a permit to. and we ask that any work done on the permit be done with continuing mandating supervisi supervision. in regards to our property never fulfil any obligation or

responsibility either to the city of san francisco and its agencies, to the terms of legal documents signed by himself or to the tenants values and ethics of this community that we all share. thank you for your time. >> vice-president melgar: ok. is there any public comment support of the d.r. requesters? >> hello. i really try to make it a written rule for myself to not comment on anything outside of the valley. but i am breaking that rule today. i think that you should take d.r. i think the key word here is footprints. going back to the original footprint as mentioned is the best thing that you can do here. why do i say that? because all that uncommitted work could be taken away quick

quickly. what should happen there is what should have happened originally which is the house, which is a very nice house, could be fixed up, modernized, and marketed quickly. it could have a nice neighbor. all of this could have been avoided except for one of the seven deadly sins which is greed. i urge you to go back to the footprint. is a good plan to do. it would never have come here. it would have been an over-the-counter thing, i believe if they had done something to spiff up the house and keep the original footprint and get it onto the market as soon as possible and provide housing that everyone says is so desperately needed and probably would have been relatively affordable. thank you very much. >> vice-president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is terry. i am a member of the bernal

heights east slope design review board. i am here supporting the previous speaker that you had. i would like to know, may be from planning about the agenda item that i am looking at which is a permit that was issued a few weeks ago or a couple months ago. it does not have anything to do with the previous owner or the things that were done to the house in the past three years. what about the new permit? it seems like that intent is as the previous speaker said, returned -- return it to the original footprint and take away some of this embellishment and extra floors. it seems like that would be a really good idea for this lot and is that what the permit number on the agenda is? i would like to know.

>> vice-president melgar: thank you. any other public comment in support of the d.r. requesters? ok. with that, i guess we do not have the project sponsor. or do we? there we go. >> good afternoon. i am here on behalf of the project sponsor. i want to start by saying i understand neighbor's anger and their frustration here. i was involved at the end of 2017 in negotiating and drafting an agreement to resolve the problems that had arisen back then. between the d.r. requesters and their attorney. concluded to that agreement in november of 2016, and very regrettably, the contractor began pouring foundation in deviation with what we had

agreed to. i was pulled back in a month later. to negotiate and finalize affixed to that agreement in addendum that gave them protections and payment. i concluded that on six -- on christmas day. sitting out christmas dinner for my family at that time. i wanted to get this solved for my neighbors benefit and bringing peace to the project. i had no involvement with the project or property since then and very disappointed to see this is still going on and there have been serious problems here. last week i was asked to come and try to bring some kind of closure and resolution and that is why i'm here. i would like to help. i will ask for your instructions and what you would like. if there something you can do to try to resolve this.

this project has a completely new team. the previous architect is no longer on this. the project has not been under construction for quite some time. there is a new architect and as i said, i was brought in a week ago. also, vary significantly, this property is now for sale. because of what has happened here because of the city attorney and their complaint, the owner is selling the property at a loss, a significant loss to a new buyer. it has been opened and i and i understand the financing has been arranged. the sale has not been completed and i understand that may depend on what happens here. my suggestion is that the new buyer which probably be a better person to be talking with the neighbors in resolving their concerns. they have obviously had very difficult times working with the current owner over these past years with their concerns.

i had a conversation with the d.r. requesters consultant last week. my understanding was that he was arranging a meeting between the new buyer and their team and the d.r. requesters to talk about their requests and how to resolve this. i understand from the d.r. requesters today that that was never communicated to them. which is problematic and disappointing to me because we arrive here and they are surprised that we have been trying to set up a meeting. that is what should happen and that is what i would like to have happen. we would like a continuance so that the fire can take care of this property -- buyer can take care of this property and handle that. it is and everyone's interest. they want closure today and if that is the case, what we can offer is as they have requested on page 3 of your pockets, if i can have the overhead, please. the d.r. requesters have made

three requests that are to arrange the planning process for their request and the d.r. applications. it was for a legal agreement with the owner. these three requests we are prepared to accept. the requests are to remove they're proposed parking space, which i understand is historic with a 100-year-old curb cuts. number 2 is to remove the front dormer. number 3 is to remove the rear dormers. i think that the permit that is before you today, which as i understand, it has been imposed on the owner by the planning department as part of this enforcement process. it scales back substantially from where it was at the time of purchase. so these concessions would be in addition to that, giving up quite a bit of space and obviously value in the project. if there is something else that you think would help resolve this, i am all ears.

i would like to resolve its. i would like to meet with these neighbors. they should also meet with the buyer and this is supported, this is supported by the sloped designer review board. we spoke a moment ago. i am happy to answer any questions. i would like to show briefly, may be i need to do it during rebuttal, the pre-existing pho photo. >> that exceed your time. >> thank you very much. >> are there any public commenters in support of the project sponsor? ok. with that, the d.r. requesters get how many minutes each? come on up, please.

>> can we see this? >> start talking. just start talking first of all. the allegations that the foundation was just poured by the contractor suggests that this was a one off. in fact, as this document shows, the contractor who did this was a builder. he is a contractor on multiple projects owned by him and all of which are part of this city lawsuit. that was not just an isolated incident that mr patterson seemed to represent. mr patterson contacted our experts, not us. we are the people who are lifted -- listed on the d.r. application. you should have contacted us. not only is it inappropriate, but it is sexist. this should not be any

continuance here. this is today. this is the time character as i told you in my papers, there will be a last-minute manoeuvre or to gain a tactical advantage here. that is what has happened all throughout this project. that is what has happened all throughout this project. that is what he tried to do here. this is the day of reckoning for this project. please do as we have asked. i am telling you, the words of his representatives are worthless because he does whatever he wants. you have to enforce this. whatever his representative says is not what he does. time and time again that he has shown that. please. do as we have requested. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we have never received any errors of notification from mr patterson that there was going to be this kind of a defence and i only want to say, really, until there is an actual bill of

sale, which there is not, we have been through this kind of manoeuvre or time and time again. as i hope i made clear, and things aren't what they seem until there is a guarantee that the work is going to be done in the way it said it was going to be done. saying there is a sale pending should not affect this request for d.r. until there is a bill of sale, and we know with whom we are dealing, we cannot let go of the request for the d.r. it does not make sense given our prior experience. thank you very much. >> vice-president melgar: thank you. >> project sponsor's rebuttal? >> thank you. i will try to be brief. i did speak with the consultant to the neighbors who are

referred to throughout the paper work when i was brought into this last week. he was familiar with the buyers coming in and thought it was a good idea to have this meeting and request a continuance. i understand he conveyed that to his client to deny the continuance and i told him i would make that request to you, which i did. there is nothing sexist about that. my practice is to work with the consultants or attorneys in the case. the request that their requesters are bringing beyond by the initial request was including to tear up the foundations accord, i would just request caution the commission that you should consult with an engineer before earning that. thank you. that could be highly problematic. the foundations are supporting the neighbor's property right now. i suggest speaking