and there were photos. staff recommends that the commission approve the project as noted in the executive summary. the project meets all applicable requirements of the planning code and will add two new dwelling units to the city's housing stock. this concludes my presentation. thank you. i will be available if you have any questions. >> thank you. is there project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. my wife and i brought -- bought the place in 2017 out of necessity because my wife worked in san francisco. after four years living there, we do love the place and we intended to rent out units after construction.

we actually do like the location because of the convenience. at the time we were living there , i do not own a car, so we proposed not to have a garage. we do like the neighborhood because the convenience for groceries and also other amenities. as well as the neighborhood. my two daughters would like to go there for school. lastly, we would like to build the structure where we would -- [indiscernible] we are also striving for a rating for the building. along with the architect, we chose to do a study to the building itself to enhance the

neighborhood. i guess we would like to request your commission to approve the project. thank you. >> thank you. now we will open this up to the public. are there any members of the public would like to comment? come on up. >> hello, my name is dan waters. i submitted the photos online. i apologize for my lateness. i did not have a lot of time to see the plans and make a determination on how this would be impacted. we talked with sam a number of years ago and we expressed our concerns about the destruction of the light well that flows into my unit, which is the two units next door. also, as i am looking online, on page 33 of 61 for these plans, i remember seeing that this new deck would actually give a

natural view into my unit itself , specifically right into my kitchen, my bathroom, and my living room. as well as completely blocking my view of any light. i would be amenable to seeing changes to the plan, but i don't think this is very acceptable as it is. >> thank you. any other members of the public who wish to comment on this item >> you live to the east of the building? >> that is correct. >> he is over here. >> next figure, please. >> i think the project is too immense in relationship to the whole neighborhood. besides that, there is no garage it will take a lot of space and

parking in our area. it is so dense anyway. thank you. >> thank you. anyone else would like to comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is jessica middleton. i was born and raised within the city and county of san francisco i am the co-owner of the house adjacent to the west of 2478. my property is similar to 2478. i have a one-story home built in 1885.

as sam mentioned in his consideration letter for today, i understand some of the things that he submitted to the hearing board. i don't think he mentioned it today, but he said with our two properties that are old, i understand the issues and problems that he has with his property of owning an old home. it is leaning, water leaked, near a hallway, small sized rooms, the yard is bigger then the home, and i understand the issues he is going through because my parents own this home for i believe over 20 to 30 years. i have just inherited the home approximately two years ago. i am a co-owner with my sister. what this project will provide is something that i would like

to have for my children. i have always thought that our properties were historical landmarks and we cannot rebuild to make our home seismically fit and appropriate for our children with our family sized girls. currently, because on a co-owner with my sister, a one-story home , between us, we have five kids and we would like to rebuild thought home just like sam wants to do. he has two daughters and he would like to leave something for them, for their families, and he won't be able to do the -- he will be able to do that if he can build several units, which is something i would also like to do as well. it is just not feasible to split it one-bedroom, one-story home between five children. >> my experience, i am a nurse

at seven cisco general hospital, and every year we get a new enrolment of medical students, residents, and interns moving to san francisco to work at san francisco general hospital ucsf. this property is located across the street from kaiser. i am a member of kaiser. i am aware that they are also a teaching facility. in my communication of working with doctors, many of them move from other counties and states and they love san francisco, the diversity -- the population. >> sorry. >> thank you for listening. >> thank you. anyone else with wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner richards? >> one question. did they talk about what will happen to the tenant? >> yes, we moved out of the

property because we were expecting some construction, so then the construction didn't come. we went up to a couple which was short-term. they are going to move to los angeles in september. they would like a short lease. that's why we gave it to them. that is the reason why we gave them the april to september lease. that is all. >> thank you. >> commissioner phone? >> laura, this is a four story building. the top floor on this building is not set back because it is r.h. three? >> no, this project was evaluated in the context of the neighborhood and because of the mixed character and commercial nature that is adjacent and across the street, four stories all the way to the front of the

home was approved. [please stand by]

>> on the second unit. are you saying two? >> commissioner hillis: he said a-2.02. by the way, i just got bingo.

>> there's probably a better view that shows the elevation. >> commissioner hillis: do you have it with you? >> i do. i'm trying to find it. >> commissioner hillis: you can put your phone on the overhead, sir. >> okay. the phone, and there's a dial on top that'll zoom in or out. >> commissioner hillis: okay. so which deck are you concerned about? >> vice president koppel: and then, also make sure you speak into the mic. >> so my unit would be the bottom unit, and the dotted lines refer to the windows in my unit. >> commissioner hillis: you have windows on the side of your unit. are they property line or set back off the property line?

>> i'm not sure what that means. >> so currently his unit ends right at the window to the right, so i have i -- a sun well from the other building, and other buildings are there, so it allows sun light to come into my building in the afternoon. >> commissioner hillis: jonas, will you put that up? >> i have a picture on my phone of the actual window. >> commissioner hillis: yeah, okay. >> no, we're looking at the side. >> commissioner hillis: just zoom out. >> well, this is not the view. we need the east view. >> commissioner hillis: this is the back of your house. >> vice president koppel: one at a time on the projector there, people. one at a time. >> commissioner hillis: so just generally, on your building, which is to the left on the screen there, can you point on that picture to where your windows are, sir? >> on this view? >> commissioner hillis: yeah.

>> my window -- my windows would be on this west wall facing right here. >> commissioner hillis: and the deck you're concerned about, point to the deck. >> this deck right here. that's going to give a view down into my living room, my dining room, and my bathroom. i don't know about you, but i don't want to give people a show. >> commissioner hillis: no, i get it. i've often used the example that my neighbor can turnoff my daughter's news button because our homes are so close. >> this is the view that i'm talking about, the windows right here. >> commissioner hillis: okay. i get it, but i don't know there's much we can do. like, he's set back, you're set back. >> well, what about the light well? >> commissioner hillis: what's the issue with the light well?

>> so currently, i have light coming in, and this will completely block it. >> commissioner hillis: where? you have a light well in your home. >> no, i have light coming into my home. >> commissioner hillis: but you're set off from the property line. most of your line comes in directly from your back yard. >> that's essentially the light that comes through right now. >> commissioner hillis: yeah, on the side window, but you've got windows that face your back yard, also. >> yes, there's some there, but that's not a sun light. >> commissioner hillis: there's no doubt there's impact to you by building a three-unit building next to you, but some of it is inevitable. i get it, though. >> vice president koppel:

commissioner moore? morei >> i see a constriction in your drawings. a-103 is being labelled as only accessible to the upper units, however, your other drawings shows it accessible to the rest. >> it's only for the top unit. the design was to keep the number of penthouses down. there is a fire department requirement on a four-story building with a roof deck, all of the units to have at least one penthouse for the fire department to get out there, but there's a -- there's also a requirement for any because we're above the fourth level to have two means of egress. but one of the means of egress if it's a private deck can be the retractable hatch, and that's how the design was

arrived at. the design was the entire ground unit has the rear yard, and the top unit has the exclusive use of the top deck. if we did make it accessible to all units, i did talk to the fire department, you'd need both penthouses, and not a penthouse and a retractable hatch. i thought that was a combination of that. the middle unit, which is the smallest of the units, the way it was designed, has a nice size deck the way it was just talked about, and the bottom floor really has the exclusive use of the open level, and that they're all realistic open spaces for everybody. >> the comment i would make is

the space is generally, i like the design. i think it's a good idea. i would like to have seen more communal use of the back yard and not have such a massive roof deck on top. just to form, i think the transition from the small-scale residential that is still in this transitional area of geary boulevard makes it a very large building. i'm concerned that. i would prefer a six-story building or a building that does not add a roof deck of this size because you're tre trending towards luxury units. >> vice president koppel: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i'm not a big fan of roof decks. i've had friends that lived in

top -- three full units from front to back, and they never used the roof deck. if you -- i'm open to reducing the overhaall height of the building as commissioner moor samoore said, but i'm just not open to the apartment sharing the yard. >> vice president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i'm supportive of the unit as constituted. i think this area can support larger structures, the three units. the only suggestion is i probably am not going to suggest anything that deals with the separation between the

adjacent neighbor and this building on a on windows that are parallel to the property line. however, a small suggestion would be that a six-foot-high solid screen on that side of the deck so there is no visibility between the deck and his kitchen and bathroom. >> commissioner hillis: second. >> vice president koppel: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: can you make the screen translucent? >> yeah. i've been doing a ton of these, and we get the same comments. we call that opaque screen. you tell me, 6 or 7 feet high. >> commissioner fung: accept it as amended. i didn't know i made the motion. >> vice president koppel: we'll accept that. >> clerk: all right, commissioners, there is somewhat of a motion that's

been amended to include a 6-foot opaque screen for a privacy screen. >> commissioner hillis: that translucent or opaque? >> commissioner richards: opaque is fine. rich, rich, rich. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. >> vice president koppel: meeting adjourned. [gavel]

>> everything is done in-house. i think it is done. i have always been passionate about gelato. every single slaver has its own recipe. we have our own -- we move on from there. so you have every time a unique experience because that slaver is the flavored we want to make. union street is unique because of the neighbors and the location itself. the people that live around here i love to see when the street is

full of people. it is a little bit of italy that is happening around you can walk around and enjoy shopping with gelato in your hand. this is the move we are happy to provide to the people. i always love union street because it's not like another commercial street where you have big chains. here you have the neighbors. there is a lot of stories and the neighborhoods are essential. people have -- they enjoy having their daily or weekly gelato. i love this street itself. >> we created a move of an area where we will be visiting. we want to make sure that the area has the gelato that you like. what we give back as a shop owner is creating an ambient lifestyle.

if you do it in your area and if you like it, then you can do it

>> i went through a lot of struggles in my life, and i am blessed to be part of this. i am familiar with what people are going through to relate and empathy and compassion to their struggle so they can see i came out of the struggle, it gives them hope to come up and do something positive. ♪ ♪ i am a community ambassador.

we work a lot with homeless, visitors, a lot of people in the area. >> what i like doing is posting up at hotspots to let people see visibility. they ask you questions, ask you directions, they might have a question about what services are available. checking in, you guys. >> wellness check. we walk by to see any individual, you know may be sitting on the sidewalk, we make sure they are okay, alive. you never know. somebody might walk by and they are laying there for hours. you never know if they are alive. we let them know we are in the area and we are here to promote safety, and if they have

somebody that is, you know, hanging around that they don't want to call the police on, they don't have to call the police. they can call us. we can direct them to the services they might need. >> we do the three one one to keep the city neighborhoods clean. there are people dumping, waste on the ground and needles on the ground. it is unsafe for children and adults to commute through the streets. when we see them we take a picture dispatch to 311. they give us a tracking number and they come later on to pick it up. we take pride. when we come back later in the day and we see the loose trash or debris is picked up it makes you feel good about what you are doing. >> it makes you feel did about escorting kids and having them

feel safe walking to the play area and back. the stuff we do as ambassadors makes us feel proud to help keep the city clean, helping the residents. >> you can see the community ambassadors. i used to be on the streets. i didn't think i could become a community ambassador. it was too far out there for me to grab, you know. doing this job makes me feel good. because i came from where a lot of them are, homeless and on the street, i feel like i can give them hope because i was once there. i am not afraid to tell them i used to be here. i used to be like this, you know. i have compassion for people that are on the streets like the homeless and people that are caught up with their addiction

because now, i feel like i can give them hope. it reminds you every day of where i used to be and where i am at now.

>> good morning, and welcome to the san francisco planning commission and building inspection commission joint hearing for thursday, june 20th, 2019. i would like to remind members of the public that the commissioners do not tolerate any outbursts of any kind. please silence your mobile devices, and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. technically speaking, all of those persons standing who cannot find a seat are causing a fire hazard and can't remain in the room. we are setting up an overflow room. we're just trying to figure

out where media services can accommodate us. i'd like to take roll for the planning commission. [roll call] >> for the building inspection commission. [roll call] >> very good. commissioners, we have one item, item one for case 218-02728 for the controlled demolition merger conversion and alterations. this is an informational meeting. >> before you start, i wanted to go through for a couple of things of how this is going to go this

morning. good morning and welcome to our commissioners. i missed many of you. so what we are going to try to do is have -- this is a very complicated piece of legislation, and folks have a lot of opinion about the different aspects of it. we, the president mccarthy and i, want to give as much time to the public to opine. so with that being said, we only have a limited time. so what i'm going to ask first is that there is going to be times after each section that staff can pause and allow for commissioner questions. i beg my fellow commissioners to ask questions of clarification only. let's leave the comments to the end. so please keep your questions short and succinct, so we can allow everyone to ask questions for clarification, and allow as uch tim much time for

public comment. after staff presentation, we will open it up for public comment. please fill out a speaker card. i will try to get through as many of those as possible. you will have two minutes to make your public comments known, and we will hopefully get through everyone. we will leave 30 minutes at the end of the meeting for commissioner comments. hopefully all your questions will have been answered by then. and i will also, again, because there are so many of us, ask that we keep it short and succinct as well. i encourage you to write down your comments as we go so we can get through it expeditiously. do you have anything to add, president mccarthy? >> in, thank you, madam commissioner. with that, i think we can go straight to presentation. thank you. >> good morning,

commissioners, audrey maloney, planning commission staff. before we give the planning presentation, supervisor peskin is here to speak. >> thank you. >> chairwoman: welcome, supervisor peskin. >> thank you, president melgar. president mccarthy and commissioners, good morning. i will be very brief because i'm actually in the middle of a committee hearing downstairs, and let me thank you for vetting this piece of legislation. i think we all agree, and have agreed for many, many years, that there is a problem relative to definitions of demolition in the code relative to demolitions. we all know the numbers. the reality is, as we see in the housing balance report, for every two units of affordable housing that we build, we lose one, probably more than one, if we counted the numbers a little differently. it is not just about the high-profile things we've

seen in the meeting, like 49 hopkins, and the willis polk house. it is a larger, systemic problem. i am not the first supervisor who has tried to fix this. it has been attempted by many people. my former colleague, jake, teamed up, unlikely though it may have been, with alice barkley to solve this problem almost 20 years ago. but i think we all know that there is a problem. we all want to stop these types of demolitions. we have attempted in this legislation to incentafize it. whether it is higher densities that we're seeing throughout the city -- i will be the first to admit that perhaps i have bit off a little more than we can all chew here. but what i would like for you and the public and my

somewhat dejected staff to do is to really figure out a way where two siloized departments, building and planning, can work better to stem the tide of the demolition of sound housing, which is the most affordable housing that we have. if you have better ideas, we want to hear it. but there is a problem, and we can all come together to fix it, whether it is as simple as vastly increasing fines an andpenalties for bad behavior -- the vast majority play by the rules. but there are a handful of player who soil it for everybody. i know, mr. mccarthy, you

don't condone it. but we have to find a way to get rid of the bad apples because they screw up the whole thing. with that, i have to go downstairs. >> chairwoman: thank you, supervisor. >> hold on just one moment. technical difficulties. all right, well -- there we go. all right. >> before you begin, audrey,

thank you. for those of you who are standing in the room or sitting on the floor and you cannot find a seat, the north light court is being set up as an overflow room. if you make you're way downstairs to the first floor, the north light court, you will be able to view and hear these proceedings. when your name is called to submit your public comment, feel free to come up and enter the room. and if those of you with a seat who submit your public comment would be so courteous as to then leave the chamber and make your way down to the light court to allow others to enter the room, that would be appreciated. thank you. i appreciate your cooperation. again, anybody who can't find a seat will need to leave the room.

>> again, commissioners, good morning. my name is audrey maloney. planning department staff, i work on the legislative and policy team. with me is elizabeth watty, and patrick o'reardon, and cyril yu. >> we're not going to be making any kind of staff recommendation today, but we are highlighted our concerns of the ordinance as it currently stands. and we have done our best to condense and simplify this ordinance, and with that being said, it is a very dense ordinance. and we'll be breaking this up to more digestable segments. and we also wanted to warn

you about the amount of information you're about to see on these slides. we broke all of the power point rules, and there are way too many words. that was done on purpose. again, this is a very complicated piece of legislation. we don't expect either yourselves as commissioners or the public to be able to digest every single piece of what is going to be presented here today. the slides were designed with the intention to be able to take them with you, both you and the public, and be able to read them on your own and understand them without somebody explaining them to you. sorry there are way too many words on these slides. after the final conclusion, as commissioner melgar said, we will be taking public comment after all of the segments of the staff presentation have been given. first the good news: we all agree that there are some major issues that we're trying to solve, and there are some common goals that we are trying to reach. the first of which is to develop a straightforward permitting process for

residential projects. and the second is to eliminate loopholes that result in illegal demolition. and the thirdto go into the background of this particular ordinance, back in september, supervisor peskin introduced the original ordinance, and since that time, supervisor peskin's office has been working with the planning office on almost a weekly basis to try to address some of our concerns and listen to our requested amendments. on may 7th, the ordinance was reintroduced, and some of the planning was adopted into that new ordinance. with that, i'll turn it over to patrick o'reardon from the planning and building inspection. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is patrick o'reardon, chief building spectoinspector at d.b.i.

i want to extend my thank you to the planning department for working on this legislation. the effort is very much appreciated. to start with d.b.i.'s mission, to serve the city and county of san francisco and the general public by ensuring that life and property within the city and county are safeguarded. we do this through the effective, efficient, fair, and safe enforcement of the city and county of san francisco's building, housing, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. these codes are updated every three years as we learn more about safety hazards, and new building techniques and materials and technologies and developed. i'm giving this last bullet a little emphasis. d.b.i. wants owners to do everything in their power to upgrade their buildings to

make them safer, healthier, more efficient, and more accessible. why do we want to do this? primarily it is because of our aging housing stock. if you look at the picture on this slide, i believe this is monterey boulevard, taken some time in the '20s, and so you'll see all of those houses were there, much like they're still there today. housing stock in san francisco is aging, but the vast majority of residential buildings were built prior to 1950. because of this, building inspectors often see obsolete and unsafe components or conditions in residential buildings. we see damage due to dry rot, pest infestation, and water intrusion. we see old, unsafe wiring, and oftentimes we see old and ineffective plumbing. now, this next slide

shows -- is in relation to unsafe electrical systems. as you can clearly see, this is old nob and tube wiring. and this is an example of deteriorated knob and tube wiring, which possess a fire hazard and is often unable to cope with modern electrical demands. related to outdated plumbing, this section shows sections of old plumbing in need of replacement. problems are old led and joints that are leaking and are not properly supported. you can see the rust, which is a sign of leakage at the joints. blind walls -- we know them as blind walls. some people refer them to as property line walls, as side walls, but essentially they are walls that are at the site of buildings here in san francisco that maybe zero lot line buildings.

in other words, they're buildings that are between adjacent buildings and there is limited or no space between those buildings. usually it is an inch of space or maybe even less in some cases. blind walls or properly aligned walls where little or no space is left between buildings. they present a specific set of challenges. because of their location, work to bring them up to code requires significant alteration or temporary removal. in the case of vertical additions, they often need to be reinforced or replaced to safely hold the increased load of an additional story that may be added. continuing with blind walls: the frequent problems that we encounter. we see that there is a lack of proper fire protection. you can see from the picture this is a wall with the interior finishes having been removed, and an additional stud has been

added next to the old stud. but as you can see, there is evidence of deteriorated building paper there. so that would indicate that this wall would be prone to leaks. obviously, we see no insulation. it is unlikely there was insulation when the surface and lath and last properly was removed. this is what was uncovered. obviously these walls are susceptible to pest infestation, also. when insulation and drywall is added to the interior of the blind wall but the original exterior remains, it can create mode mold problems. upgrades for fire safety and weatherization are impossible without temporary removal of the wall. it is impossible to add overlapping paper at the

exterior of the wall without its temporary removal. so plainly said, it is the wall -- you just do not have the peace between the outside of the ask tear wal exterior and the adjacent building's wall. so it is impossible to upgrade its exterior. the next slide is pretty dramatic, but this is an actual event that took place about three years ago on mission street. it gives a little emphasis to the importance of the fire-rated walls at property lines. this fire did spread to an adjacent building, and several people were displaced from an s.r.o. the buildings did not have the firewalls that we see in buildings that are -- modern buildings that are constructed today. so the benefits of these

blind-wall upgrades: homes are healthier, more energy-efficient, and safer. new walls are better able to support greater loads. they'll have fire protection, allowing more time for firefighters to stop the spread and residents to escape. at this point, i'm going to turn it over to my colleague, cyril yu from d.b.i.. >> i'm not cyril yu. going into the first thing this ord nan wil ordinance -- when we talk about noticing and permits, these are the amendments to section 311. throughout the presentation, you can see this format, and on the right-hand side, the way that the ord na

ordinance is currently written, will change the procedures. i won't focus too much on the way it is. i will highlight the major points about the way it will be. for neighborhood notification, known as section 311, the legislation generally would expand the items that would require 311 or neighbourhood notification, and how quickly a poster must be placed on the site for certain applications. it would also expand what must be included in the packets that are mailed to the public. and all of those items listed on the right-hand side, the renderings, engineering, calculations, construction drawings, those are all now new requirements that would need to go into the packets mailed to the public for notification purposes. this is another slide you'll be seeing a lot of today. to try to go over some of the planning department's anticipated impacts and concerns, we used more of a

diagram model. on the left-hand side, you'll see a grey circle, which is some of the planning implications. on the right-hand side, the orange circle is some of the anticipated presumed impacts for the public. in the middle, we have general significant impacts to both the planning department and the public. for the neighborhood notice example, some of the biggest impacts would be increased cost to applicants, due to consulting, plan drafting, and application fees. and the permit applications that require neighborhood notice would take much longer to process. looking at the new requirements for permit submittal and review, they must verify d.b.i. and the project would have to comply with the residential guidelines as

they existed on the day that this ordinance became affective. some of our largest anticipated impacts with that new set of permit su submittal guidelines are that the planning department are not engineers, we don't have that skill set, so verifying a department of building inspection, demolition or structural plan calculation is not something in our skill set, and this ordinance would require us to do that. it would also be a substantial shift and how d.b.i. and planning currently process these applications. it would take a very long time for us to put this new system into place. so we envision that that will cause some delays. and once the system is in place, it does impact our procedures in that we have many more things that we need to examine, with trans

pe transfer permits back and forth. on the public side, some of the biggest changes are, again, that applicants must hire an architect to submit those plans, and the plans and structural drawings are now required at the front end of an application. right now it is just a site plan because we know that planning is usually going to come around and ask for changes and reiterations. so, again, the biggest impact would be significant delays in permit processing, and an increased cost to applicants because of all of these changes. with that, i will turn it over to cyril from the planning department. >> hi, commissioners, i'm a supervisor with the plan review surface division. currently you require building permit for new buildings and demolition and grading. what is so great about our

entitlement process, you'll need architectural drawings, and these are conceptual drawings to establish the building windows. the application will now require structural drawings and calculations to accompany these site permit conceptuaconceptual design. this is for d.b.i.to review it and for means and methods and construction. and the application will need to include a sworn declaration and testing to the accuracy of the submitted plans, and stated impact on the tenants, and construction means and methods. currently in regards to permits, when d.b.i. has determined that the work has gone beyond the scope of the permit, we issue a d.u. v.

the project sponsor must obtain the additional permits for the work. when d.b.i. determines that work has been done without a permit, an n.o.v. is submitted. with the new ordinance, d.b.i. will no longer be able to issue these after the fact, permits for additional work. so before a permit is issued, the sponsor will have to file another permit to remove the legal work prior to putting back the seated work. does that kind of make sense? so pre-existing condition, it is not well-defined. we don't know what that is. if you were to pull a permit to bring it back to pre-existing conditions, we don't know, is that pre-approval of the permit or pre-issues? >> now we'll break for commissioner comments and questions.

>> okay. so i -- do you have a question to commissioner mccarthy, and then we will allow for the rest of the commissioners to ask clarifications. my one question was: i was a little confused by the staff presentation packet that came to us before this meeting. before this meeting, there was an item of dry-rot removal that would trigger the definition of demolition. i read the legislation, and i did not see that in there. can you clarify where that came from? is that related to the contacts? >> we will be covering that in the demolition section of the presentation. if you don't mind waiting until we go over that slide. >> chairwoman: no problem. >> we do cover that in the demolition section. >> chairwoman: thank you. >> so we're going to come back and ask questions on

the second phase of the presentation. >> chairwoman: they may have been answered during that presentation. >> mr. reardon, i have a few questions for you. thank you. so if we could go back to the slide -- i kind of just want to walk through it to make sure i have a really good understanding, particularly to the blind wall section of the presentation there. if you could -- if john could come up there, or somebody, and get that back to that slide area. and then i have kind of -- as i was reading last night, i was preparing the question for you. i want to be sure i have a clear understanding. in most older homes or buildings that water-proof is broken down or ripped or isn't performing anymore, can you explain to the public what happens when you take these older, leaking walls, and fill them with, say, insulation and sheet

rock, as described by the code, what is likely to happen? >> so the best weig way i can kind of explain that is if you go to slide six in your package, where it shows a picture of monterey boulevard in the 1920s. when people file for permits now in regard to maybe adding a story or updating those buildings in some way, where it would involve the removal of the interior surfaces, the code requires the insulation of insulation to meet the energy code requirements, and it requires, obviously, sheet rock on the inside. the sheet rock that is applied to the inside in modern construction provides much tighter construction than the old lathe and plaster provided. not only is the sheet rock

taped at all of the joints, but caulk is applied around the electrical boxes and switch boxes, and so you have a much more air-tight enclosure, at least from the inside. in the existing wall cavity, if you look at the following slide from the second blind wall slide, you will see those cavities are going to be filled up when installation is provided by the code. essentially, it provides an incubator for dry rot and mold because you're introducing insulation to a wall that is probably lacking in weatherization from the outside, and really it just harbors the growth of the fungus, and that is mold and dry rot. so our effort is to achieve minimum code compliance.

and the minimum code compliance would be to make sure that we have a code-compliant wall when said wall is exposed. >> and i hear a lot of building inspectors, from their experiences, this -- moisture doesn't become a problem with these older walls until a remodel occurs. would you agree with that? >> absolutely. because we don't see the problem until the wall is opened up. once the wall is opened up, we're looking at what is illustrated in the slide, where you see the open wall cavities between the studs and the wall. >> the other part of the equation, which i talked to a lot of contractors over the years, can you explain why it is impossible to fix or patch the papering of a wall without actually taking the wall down? can we talk a little bit about that? because that has been a real field condition problem for years. >> it is about accessability. because if these are zero lot line buildings, you don't have the ability to get to the outside of the

wall. with a front wall or back wall, you can work on it from the front or inside of the front wall, and likewise with the back wall. with the lot line walls, if they're to be kept in place, there is simply no way of doing any work to the outside surfaces of that wall. including the application of sheet rock for fire protection, or paper to ensure we have proper weatherization for that wall. >> these walls, as you kind of pointed out in your presentation, are very important. now most people in the general public don't know what that means. quickly explain what it means and how important it is when we're remodeling that we do achieve these walls, particularly on the property sidelines. >> most people don't think about 1l walls. the