i understand the fact that you want to keep everybody happy and tried to keep everyone on board with the mission here. tom is building for the next 100 years we had this town was founded in hundreds are so you did here we are in 2019, things have transitioned so much, and i think tom's mission here was to build and try to cater with this economy needs. that is for the next 100 years to have two more unit that are going to help house families that are growing, trying to keep kids here in the city, and keep families together. if you could please give this strong consideration i closely review the plans that tom put together, is architect, mr. wise is an incredible architect. he's very busy working on several projects and he is very credible. they all stand by the work that they do with the craft --

pressman ship. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is andy levine. i am an architect, i live in the 400 block of 29th street, three doors down from the property. my family has lived there for 22 years now, and we have been very excited that there's to be a project to take away this abandoned building that is more than 20 years that has been empty. we saw the drawings for the project, for the first time last wednesday. it was not mailed out, as part of the 311 process because of the conditional use area i left a message for mr. townes, he did

not call me back. we left an e-mail, week later he replied to the e-mail. it turns out they were the wrong drawings area their outdated drawings area he sent us updated drawings, they are very close. so, for the last week it has been a hectic time to try to elicit a response from the neighbors to talk about what we thought the project was good or bad. in the process, i did send to the commission the petition that we have been talking to neighbors. i'm just going to put it in here. that is page three, we will start with page one, which i did

send to you guys. there is 11 signatures on that from neighbors, on the street. up until today, i guess i can put this in, the 36 people have talked to me about their interest and their priorities. yesterday -- the site action was not included in the drawings area yet it is something i always include with my site permit and conditional use application. this shows the 6-foot high person across the street, the 1. to mitigate the fact that there is a fourth story, plus a fifth story deck.

this is a drawing that shows -- all of the red areas are areas that they are proposing to build that do not match the light wells. i always match the light wells are the planning department requires that our addition matches the light wells. this is on the second and third floor -- >> thank you mr. levine. your time is up. >> any other public comment on this item? okay. public comment is now closed. commissioner moore. >> may i ask the architect finish his presentation. i would like to have technical input on this particular project please come and finish her presentation.

>> can you please my cover so we can hear you? >> that would be great. we have talked about the light wells and how they are not mimicking it, and they are not as wide, and as deep, and they are an extra story high. the black is a drawing that was part of the permit by mr. weiss. the red is information that i have added on -- the roof deck

is not shown in the section. it is higher than 40 feet by 3-foot 6 inches. the other thing that concerns me is that they have two duplex units with four bedrooms and 3.5 baths at an elevator connecting them. the living floor level is 14-foot high ceilings raise. which is as high as that molding here in the space area if they were, instead, to remove the top floor -- and dig down to feet and have a garden apartment in the backyard, they can still build as much square footage as they wanted. the roof deck is hardly ever going to be used.

we get nice sun in the afternoon. the other thing is, this is the existing street view, the white building to the left is the subject property. it was declassified as a historic building by the environmental evaluation review. this is a 1939 picture that does show it right there going back view, the property is not a one-story, and it is shorter than all of the other buildings on the block. this is to scale. i took his drawings and superimposed them. the fourth floor, which i showed in the site section, is visible from across the street. he mentioned in his proposal,

from the down low, you do not see as much. that is true. there is a tall building and that is the way the slope works. from across the street, and up the hill you see it a lot. it is a four-story, plus a fifth story. the other thing that we have concerns about his the façade rendering, and the materials. i personally believe there is too many materials area you have stone tile at the bottom -- mr. weiss has said he is into use high quality materials, and mr. mcgraw is a quality builder. i don't think the design is quality. it is a collage of elements that are not working together. there is a syntax and a context on the block. it does not have to be victorian. it can be modern, but there is such a thing as good modern. what we are concerned about, and i think what really has inflamed us is -- across the street,

there is a victorian behind the stucco. which, in -- 2013, they replaced with assembly building here. the building to the right, which was a victorian, two years ago was replaced by this boxy, out of scale with windows building. there is a collection of materials on there. there is stucco. it is a random collage that does not work together. it's complicated to more than one material. i would prefer one material. either shingles, wood, taco, stone, but not three materials, with concrete at the bottom. i think that is my case. thank you. >> commissioner moore, did you

want to -- >> want to say this is important, because the drawings themselves leave a number of things and said in the package that we received. there is no material description. there is no 3d, and particularly the misrepresentation that the sloping site with a 14.6 ceiling height, makes you wonder if the front room really works. for all intents and purposes to really modify the impacts of this aggressive massing. i believe society is suitable for a two-story building. the building that existed is 750 square feet. with a total of 6,004 to 55 feet for two units sounds to the collective and too much out of context.

i think the neighbors have made a convincing argument, and i would agree with what many people think. the architect chose this particular building -- it is desperate, is one way of saying it, out of context. it makes me feel uncomfortable about understanding context. i think the window size, and a number of materials, and how they put the collage together it is something at this moment, i cannot support. i would encourage two units, but they have to be more moderate size. they have to be fitting context. they have to be fitting adjacent buildings on the light wells. and they have to obey two situations, giving out the

stepping of the site allows for significant square footage. however, a roof deck is not part of this as far as i can tell. i think the building has to go back to redesign, come back and respond better to what all neighbors said he had -- -- said >> thank you. commissioner hillis. >> i agree with neighbors who have said that, given the size, this could be five units or more. we can't do that, this is an rh2. this could be an argument that this should not be rh2. it shares many of the characteristics of no e valley, and clearly it wasn't rh2. there are apartments on this block that exceed two units.

i agree with the architect who commented at the end that there could be some design modifications to this, it is large and it has too much going on on the front of it. also we've got the opportunity to put three units in this building, that of two units with the legislation that has been passed to the ground floor behind the garage to be a units, and then the third and fourth floor could be a unit, too. we have varying degrees of size. a thousand square-foot garden apartment, 1300 square-foot flat classic flat, and then a larger, 2200 square feet to floor, four-bedroom unit. we could get three units in a spot that used to be one unit. that is what i would like to see. i think i could support some

reduction of the fourth floor. i think taking off the fourth floor, calling it a day, is not going to get anybody anywhere. there is a large building on the side of this with a huge blank wall that i think you can take advantage of, and the architect does go beyond that. that would be my direction. doing some design modifications to make this façade similar. bake at three units in this building. it is a large living room, den, kitchen area. you could still have a four-bedroom unit on the top. >> thank you. commissioner richard. >> i scratch my head and kind of , section 317 establishes all of these criteria, it might come down to where the project promote designed to enhance

neighborhood character. whether the project promotes construction of a well-designed house. i don't think it really passes that one. [inaudible] i agree with commissioner hillis, i think adding three units in there, slightly smaller size would make them more affordable. on the design guidelines, or the residential design guidelines, policy -- [reading notes] i don't think this really fit. i really think it should go back , and be re- looked at. i think esther levine comment -s comments, i receive them well. you can make the building seems smaller by making the cubic space more efficient. i don't feel like i have enough

to approve it today. i moved to continue and have the project come back. >> commissioner fung. >> i can handle the three stories. i am not sure i would be with the fourth floor, in this case. contextually both this block, and portions of the two adjacent blocks are all two and three-story buildings. there are some things that i think have been missed stated, in terms of criticisms of the plan, because the residential control, does not require the match exact the, the dimensions both on the horizontal and the debt which is what is shown by

the last speaker sketches. i usually don't want to be asked at excel buildings, otherwise we would be here all night. i avoid that discussion. >> thank you. i will say that i support the motion to continue this, i also want to see three units here. i think if we are going to vastly increase what is there right now, i want to see more density and more affordability. to me this crop -- project reads as a specular tory project. you are trying to -- i think some of that was supported by the public comment that we heard. because once a part the project. i am not ready to approve it

right now. i do want to see the façade read more in context with the neighborhood, and to support our general plan goals of, you know, greater affordability and also to produce more housing. i am agnostic, on the fourth floor actually, i think if we get a project that is well-designed, and support what this commission has barely stated about having rater density, and something that is more respectful, i could support a fourth floor. i would like to see what comes back. >> i would hope when you do come back, he would bring material board, so we can actually approve and see what the condition of the material that you give us, so we know exactly what we are getting from the façade. two month? what they would that be?

>> november 7. >> if we are asked for specific information on submittals that are to be included, the window cross so we know what kind of windows we are getting, more typical with the submittal guidelines that we are seeing posted on the planning website. this package falls short relative to the completeness of the package. >> commissioner richards. >> a 3d drawing showing the context from different angles, please. >> seeing nothing where the commissioners. a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to november 7, with direction from commission on that motion. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously

6-0. that will place us on the item 14 a and b. for item numbers 2018-002602cua and 14. you will consider the conditional use authorization while the administrator -- any member of the public here for item 15, at 49 how can, or 1608-1610 vallejo street, those matters have already been considered. >> good evening commissioners you'd item before you is a conditional use authorization request -- >> i'm sorry, hold on. excuse me, folks in the gallery.

we have an item before the commission right now. if you need to speak, you need to leave the room. >> a conditional use authorization for 411,821st street, legalize demolition and authorize reconstruction of the dwelling unit with a new basement level i vertical addition totaling approximately 3900 square feet. in addition, the project request variances from the zoning in is rated to construct with the setback and rear yard. the property is located in the open market for hood on the north side of 21st street. [reading notes]

the existing building encroaching to the front setback and rear yard of the legal noncompliant structure. as a result, the demolition -- [reading notes] this concludes my presentation. >> thank you. we will now hear from the project sponsor. >> hi. i apologize, i am very nervous, i am the homeowner. my name is jenna, and i've never spoken to a commission before. please bear with me. thank you in advance for your patience. this is my family's home, that is why am seeking. i am here today with my husband,

george. we have lived in noe valley for five years we had we are novice homeowners. we know very little about the planning or permitting process. we trusted the contractor and our architect to manage our renovation as we have demanding full-time job. when we bought our home in 2017, we have a 2-year-old and she is an absolute handful in the best possible way. george's mom is retiring, planning to move in with us. we had to postpone her move as we do not have ways to accommodate her. they've been up for the past two weeks, and our daughter is the first grandchild on both sides, they would all move in with us if they could. we are here because our simple home upgraded has become challenging in every way, in terms of money, time, stress, it has been a tremendous heartache, and we are though sincerely apologetic that we are here.

it was never our intention to be in this position. our initial plan was to update our house, which was in very poor condition. the first to keep costs reasonable in terms of materials and timing as we are paying for two mortgages, and second to have the least impact on the neighbors. this is a key deciding factor for us in purchasing a home. we wanted to undertake a renovation that would preserve the homes footprint to maintain it as it existed and beautify the neighborhood by obtaining a home that was in dire need. once we began renovation, the conduct for -- our home was built in the early 1900s. it is. [reading notes] the contractor approached us, with extensive change orders to address the conditions. we had no idea that these change orders would have additional permitting. if we have known that, we would

have already moved in. the contractor undertook additional demolition which we felt was -- he was wrong to do this. [reading notes] [reading notes] we were surprised and embarrassed when the case was open on our home and we stopped work immediately. from our first meeting with lan and we been open and transparent and express consistent remorse. we wish we had never heard the phrase -- as new homeowners with no knowledge of the complicated regulations we regret we missed an opportunity to save time and money. [reading notes]

we are eager to remedy our mistake. during this process, we met numerous times and responded to all e-mails probably, fully in in good faith. we are surprised, disappointed and hurt by the inaccurate and misleading narratives that are in fact minimally impacted. we have been nothing but open and responding to accommodate all valid concerns get we continue to undergo the appropriate costly, lengthy, permit process preferred to be presented any other way is inaccurate and hurtful. months ago, these neighbors wished for a reduction in the rear depth of our home. with advice from planning, we agreed to as we want to maintain amicable relationships with the people we are going to be living next to a more portly we want to become compliant. this resulted in a reduction of 12 feet, in the rear depth of our home requiring redesign that

has cost us more time and money. this is a significant benefit for these neighbors as they are gaining 12 feet of light, air. [inaudible] [reading notes] the architect will cover the details would we want to rest our concern about the changes they are requesting to cost money, and he lay and create a less family friendly home for us -- delay and create a less family from the home for us to get. >> this item is open for public comment. i have a few public speaker cards. mr. david ross, cynthia schroeder, and mr. curtis larson. if you could please come up.

someone. >> good afternoon. my name is carlos. i live at 4124 21st street, i own and live in the house by 25 years, and i'm directly impacted by 411,821st street. before i began, i would like to talk about a letter of support -- -- 411,821st street -- i do e this letter has come from, and i did not write it, sign it or send it. i do not support the proposed land you hearing. i am here to for myself. i have difficulty hearing

sometime. thank you for understanding my situation. i am concerned about colder temperatures, inside my house, as a senior citizen living in a fixed income. i cannot afford to and more money on, electricity. i would ask you to help keep as much light coming into my house. [inaudible] before there was more distance between my house and 4118. i had been able to walk into this space. my bathroom is much darker with a wall that has already been built. when the top floor started, it will be even darker. i am also concerned about -- the new house is so close, that i

already have damage in my bathroom. the new owner stopped the water from coming into it. i would ask you, that you do not allow the new house to be built in closer to my house to provide me with enough air, light, and protection from future water damage. i am concerned about my privacy. the rear of the proposed house, both large windows on the third floor and second-floor deck extension will look out and down into my rear windows. this causes me to lose most of my privacy. i would ask you to consider making the new house be no deeper than my house and i can obtain as much privacy as possible. for over 30 years -- [inaudible] the shadow cast by the new taller, and deeper house, especially in the winter, will

cause shadows to my prized plants and be bad for them. i would ask you to consider reducing the height and depth of the new house, to help maintain my privacy and keep my rear yard. thank you for hearing my concerns. >> next speaker, please. >> i have updated letters reflecting carlos' e-mails that he sent to planning. hello commissioners, i am here as one of a group of neighbors concerned about the project at 4118 21st street. my families home is at diamond street where we have lived since 1997, north of the property, adjacent to it and downhill from it. our kitchen dining area, and main bedroom face it. because of the way owners handled the permitting process, neighbors did not have any

opportunity to weigh in with concerns until march of this year. after demolition and construction had already taken place, and the project had been halted because of a violation. i would like to share some of the concerns that we have now regarding building privacy, and light. first, the new home is deeper, higher, at approximately 2.5 times larger. it size sets a precedent for the neighborhood. it's height and depth to make it out of context with other homes on the block. according to the planning department report, the proposed building is not of appropriate scale or development pattern for established neighborhood character. second, concerns about why privacy or ketamine. my family, and all neighbors surrounding the property of the rear. the proposed house will have significantly more windows than the previous house said. some positions higher above us than before. others at ground level closer to us again what's more, the proposed second-floor deck will

create a new elevated outdoor space that overlooks our yards. the owners have offered a 50% reduction in window area, and a 4-foot setback on the top floor, but have not responded to our request for drawings so we can see what their proposed modifications would be and where they would appear. we would appreciate the opportunity to review those plans before any approval is given. we would also like to request that the owners consider creating a forfeit setback to both of the home's top two floors, not just to the highest floor. it would align the top floors with neighboring homes on that side of the block, and help alleviate our neighbors concerns about natural light, privacy and rear building mass. third, and finally, the home appears to be higher than the one uphill from it. lowering ceiling heights on some or all of the four floors would reduce the overall height without impacting design or livability, reduce the amount of light block and approve the visual fit with the

neighborhood. we hope you will consider our suggestions for mitigating what has been a difficult and disruptive process for our neighborhood. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, i have lived at 382 diamond street for 39 years, and i plan to live out my retirement there. our residential area was originally modest working-class home. there is one house that is the earth. my 1913 building was divided into two flats was 11929. many of the original homes have been remodeled with some expansion but none approach the 4,000 square footage that the plans for 4118 21st street include. the building would be considerably larger than any other on the block. it will be the highest building

other than the one on the corner. it will represent us up into an opposing level of housing which is incompatible with the neighborhood. my property, the end of my garden is at the east side of their yard, so that there were years of the are quite close. i was aware that the building had sold her the new owner said they were going to do a little interior and exterior remodeling. then one day the entire landscape garden, including an old apple tree, was level. last july 2018, there was a loud crash and a roof was gone. that was alarming. i made inquiries, and was told that the new owners were going to a within the envelope of the new house, which would result in no essential change for me. i asked the building inspector and city planner why i had not gotten any notice of so much work being done, so close to me, and was told one of the

permitted work required notice to neighbors. by january, this year, the current structure was in place, and my concerning east because it is higher, and deeper than the original building. i attended the pre- application meeting, in showing that the current structure is higher, which the owner and architect dispute. they said that the wall is temporary, and shows plans for 34 home. the current plans show four floors of large windows, and a deck that would provide views into my dining room, bathroom and bedroom. they have said that there been to reducing the size of the windows but have not provided any drawings that would allow us to determine if our privacy concerns were really being addressed. we have rejected any reduction of the height, although their planned high ceilings could accommodate it without drastic change of their. i especially ask that the commission mandate lowering the height and reducing the size of

the windows area thank you very much for your consideration. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. or, good evening i guess. my name is david ross and i live one door down from george. i would like to voice my support for this project. we love living on our little block. i just really feel bad for them, for what happened. they have just been trying to build a forever home for their family. all they have done, and it is disappointing that they have had such a negative range. our experience on this trait has been awesome, we love this area if regular people are not able to update our old housing stock. the only people that are going

to be undertake these type of things, look at what these people are going through here, the only people who are going to build houses are going to be contractors building a spec home that are super unaffordable and these big mega mansions. this is all best intent for these people to build a house, that they can live in. that was it. we are going to have our first child, in a couple of weeks, on this street. we are super excited to have another family who is living there, as opposed to the stalled out construction project that is just going on indefinitely. i see no end to it. that is all i have. they can for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon.

my name is cynthia schroeder, this is my husband mark. our family resides at 390 diamond. our home is located here, east of the subject property near the corner of diamond and 21st we had being in the corner pocket, as you can imagine we rely on a lot of southwest light coming for our house, particularly when it is dark in the winter and the ring. our personal concern with his object is the proposed depth and height extending beyond our immediate neighbors home at 4112. this merely impacts our access to the southwest light. in fact, earlier this year we had the same concerns when 4112, our immediate neighbor proposed their vertical and horizontal expansion to a 3,000 plus square foot house area in which we did share with the homeowners at 4118. as a result of working together with 4112, our neighbors, they agreed to reduce their depth by

4 feet to an effort to restore our southwest light from the rear. the horizontal depth is 49 feet 10 inches, whereas 4118 is planned for 53 feet, 7 inches just for the top two floors, not counting the 12-foot pop out on floors one, two, and three which has the deck. 4112 also agreed to reduce their height by 2 feet 6 inches, from their original plan. that is for a total of 27 feet and 7 inches. 4118 proposed height, i found two different numbers in their drawings. there is 31 feet and 9 inches on drawings and 32 feet, 9 inches on drying 3.2, for a difference of 4-5v. we have shared our concerns with the homeowners about the impact of this light from the beginning of the project. as my neighbor have said, we have finally seen the updated

plans in march, and then found the most recent plans online. we did ask them for a meeting to discuss the following reductions, and concerns. we asked that they reduce our house depth by 4 feet on both top floors. currently there are master them on the second floor is 16 feet by 11 inches, by 16 feet 3 inches, their previous plans it was 15 feet by 13 feet and 8 inches. we also asked that they reduce their height 2-3 feet to be aligned with the immediate neighbor at 4112. this height can be received by going nine or 9.5-foot ceilings and currently their top floor is 10.6 feet, and the floor is 10 feet. secondly we have privacy issues with their deck looking directly in. we can show you where this temporary wall is. this wall here is a temporary wall on the current construction

>> your time is up. but, your husband has three minutes as well. >> i just wanted to add that the scale of the project is out of scale with the neighborhood. everyone lives in about 1500-2,000 square-foot homes. it is a 4,000 square-foot project and it just doesn't fit the neighborhood. as my wife asked means, our neighbors have agreed to pool the house back, to matt the design of the houses, that are lined up on our block. we are in the corner pocket, as my wife mentioned. we really rely, we have a small yard, and we get most of our light from the southwest exposure.

for most of the year, that comes exactly from where they are trying to build a four-story, very large home, which will reduce the light in our house. the other issue, is the privacy. there windows in the current proposal, look rectally into our master bedroom, our guest bedroom, as well as our -- -- directly into our master bedroom, our guest room, as well as our dining room. i think that is something, in my view, is unacceptable. 4112, the other project next to us agreed to move there windows further west to minimize that impact, and angle them so that they would not be looking at, acts, ads, at our house area -- house.

it would ask that they push back with the designs of 4112. also reduce the overall height, so it adds to the scope of the block so it doesn't count higher than the uphill houses currently planned. we have been 50 year residence in the neighborhood, we area we love the light and the access. this construction would basically turn our house into a light rail. i appreciate your consideration. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is curtis larson. i live on eureka street.

i am this house here, if it is still visible. my view is of all of the houses of the reverse of the houses on the 4100 block of 21st street. how this house first came to my attention, about january i started to see building that was not there before. of course, it raised in my mind, why was i not notified? you know the story. we have heard it today since i have been hitting him. remodel, demolition, -- -- sitting here. remodel, demolition and here we are with a proposal on a new house area i cannot comment on the discovery of what caused this problem. this sounds really familiar to the hopkins situation. you guys are our last line of defense from stopping workarounds from your power and what you do. i wanted to make that., that it's about precedent for me. i don't want to deny anyone their family home. i have enjoyed this neighborhood, that is why we are all there in the first place. thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> good evening. i pretty much echo the sentiment of the previous speaker. this is not about, please let me build my family home. i agree, you know, people need to be able to build something reasonable. i don't know what the square footage of this development is. i have one question for the commission. what is the difference between this case, and hopkins street? what was this other one that we just heard from another rogue contractor. you may want to ask who are these contractors that come in, and demolish buildings and they just walk away? also, because there was a lot of conversations, i know commissioner hillis you are asking about the building code, what was going on.

i went in and printed seven copies of what building code says about what demolition is. it's not too expensive, it just says demolition means the total tearing down, or destruction of a building containing one or more residential units, or any alterations which it destroys or removes, as those terms are defined by the building official principal portions of an existing structure containing one or more residential units. you might ask, what is a principal portion? good question. principal portion, it continues, this is building code section, it means that construction which determines the shape and size of the building envelope such as, the exterior walls, roofs, and interior bearing elements. that construction which alters two thirds, i repeat to third,

or more -- -- two thirds, or more. nowhere in the building codes, does it say the building has been stripped to the foundation that it is considered demolition. specifically here it does if it is two thirds, it is good enough. i would like to leave this with the commission, and also just a note to deputy city attorney. i don't think anywhere in this code that says if you are demolishing one unit to build to that is permissible. again, i think you need to keep in mind all of the other cases that have come before you come not to mention just today, we had the third one that the contractor, you know, ate my homework kind of a situation. thank you very much area -- much. >> next speaker, please.

>> may i have the overhead please? good evening, i am jerry adler with the san francisco land use coalition. demolition seems to be the theme of the day today. i did not know you had thematic meetings. therefore, it is really important to clarify what the building code says. you know, i spent a year studying dbi when i was a member of the civil grand jury who wrote the report that was definitely not very flattering. i am very familiar with this code section. i really get annoyed, and i cannot stress this enough, when people make up stuff that is not true. you know what, this is a really simple section, there is too little paragraphs and ozzie

quoted the one that is really relevant. it just annoys the heck out of me. i think we should contrast this project with the presentation of 121 king street, which was a demolition. and, you know, pat knows what he is talking about. if you folks have any questions, he is somewhere around here, it is that clear. so, what is the remedy? the remedy is the same remedy. the remedy is, you cannot build anything bigger, or any more units than what you tore down. let's not make this a too complicated. it is that straightforward. as you say, we need to be consistent. this is no different than 655 alvarez. when missus schroeder show me the picture of it, but it looks like today, it looks exactly like 655 alvarado who you have the poured concrete, but they

don't even have the fake façade up. thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? okay. public comment is now closed area commissioner richards. >> i guess somebody joked and i was thinking this, i think we need a special session each hearing on code enforcement, and legalizing things that were done illegally, and it's actually a sad comment i think i'm where we are today. things don't surprise me much anymore. what surprises me is we have been consistent starting about two years ago with 214 dates. architects, contractors, structural engineers, homeowners, you need to understand that if you come and do this, we are not going to reward you. we have a consistent pattern here. we just reverify that with 49 hopkins. to see that this was done in december of 2018, at least a couple years after these

president -- precedents have been set. this might be a remodel permit, and i see nothing, are you. [bleep] kidding me? this is ridiculous, it is absurd. i will be honest with you, we have the building code handed in , i don't even know if it is legal, director huey can do an information sheet and override with the building code actually says. in the new memo that i found that i was unaware of of until today. you have to erase the foundation. forget the building code, we have a new thing called a memo, i have texted it to several of you out there. i cannot imagine doing anything but putting a structure back with the same footprint as what was there before. it doesn't have to be exact on the inside, but the same massing. just like we have been doing before on all these other ones, including when we did earlier

today. >> question four staff. -- question for the staff. the comment that was being made, on both sides of the fence -- there appears to be some contradictions as to what this project really entails. am i incorrect in saying that what they are proposing is some reduction of the existing building? especially in the rear. >> not necessarily. because they demolish the rear, the department requires the project to be co- compliance, and the existing building, before it was demolished, was encroaching into the partnering yard. >> regardless -- i understand it's nonconforming.

what i'm saying is physically, the rear got reduced, just physically got reduced from what is existing to this permit set. >> no, it did not. >> it sure looks like it. >> the depth is the same. >> only add to the ground floor where the little pop the second floor has been entirely removed, is that not correct? okay. all right. so, i am asking then, i don't need that, i can see the drawings. my question then is, from some of the neighbors -- the portion of the building that would block

has been removed. what they're asking for is even more, then what is currently available. i am not quite sure about that. the issue here is whether -- i may be in a different situation than commissioner richards, the question in my mind, when i look at the photos, there is a lot of dry rot here. therefore, i am assumptive of their excuse, if you will on the demolition portion, my opinion is probably one that was accidental. >> okay, commissioner richards. >> i would hope, in the future,

we would have dbi, do a series. this permit was issued, this is what the work was, this is when the interview was issued and they did this. we ask the building inspector o'riordan, the same question commissioner fung asked him, what are do when there is extensive dry rot and you want to knock it down? the building inspector says you call me up, and you have me come out, and i will take a look at it and authorize it to be pulled down. you know, that is a standard process. most of the building is gone. the whole building was dry rot? we should have had a report that the building was just uninhabitable, and should be demolished. i mean, i feel like i'm in never never land.

>> i want to address if few things. just to that last comment. my understanding from dbi in the presentations before us, if a homeowner discovers dry rot they should contact d.b.i., get appropriate contracts, if they are going to utilize our dry rot, they need permits to do d.b.i. come out and having them do it without permits. that is my understanding. that clearly did not happen here in this case. in this case, the enforcement process is fairly straight forward. there was not a lot of back-and-forth, it was one permit where they went beyond the scope. just to address the difference at the rear of the building, it's just an issue of semantics. they up the depth of the structure of the same, but yes they reduced the mass in the rear. they basically pulled it in, and reduced the mass come at the rear, but then added the third floor. the amount of square footage

that is in total, that is being proposed, is more than what was there prior, but at the rear there had been some reduction in mass area -- mass. >> i just want to ask around that. i know we did not hear from the architect. can you pull up the plans? >> sure. take a look at the illustration first. >> what was there before? what was the project that was being proposed? and what is different about the project being proposed now? >> if you look at the red structure highlighted is what was there previously. as you can see it goes much further into the rear yard that was allowed in the neighboring properties. once we found out that planning would not be supportive of that, we switched to adding another four, basically to make up for the lost space and bring us more

compliant. if you look at this other one, you can see their previous outline, of the previous structure, in this illustration. the areas requested for variance her variants are shaded on each side. those are 60 square feet each. >> can you pull it up again so we can see the red shaded at the same time? >> and then, the rest of the project, the front setback is co- compliance. >> so, the diagram in read is what was there, and the project was to on the interior work? >> the approved permit was for interior work and for going underneath. which is generally allowed for less than 12 feet. >> that is where you exceeded the scope? >> we exceeded the scope -- that portion had already been construction.

.-ellipsis constructive. the scope was exceeded through the dry rot through the rest of the house and the framing and permitting was not handled correctly. we discover that in the removal process. there was confusion between what the building inspector was saying. you know, he and did them, you know, to explore the, you know, basically remediate the dry rot on the contractor took, to his interpretation of that was much more, as you can see from the photos. >> what is the square footage -- what was the square footage of the home prior to construction? >> i have to check out, are you asking for the actual square footage of the home, or the home plus what was approved? >> just the home. >> i have to look at the staff reports, i think it was -- okay, 2500.