mr. gladstone, perhaps you could go through that with us, why that doesn't work. and rdt is here to instruct us in terms of what the rules they need to apply for everybody else, at least we can form our own judgment, but i'd like it to be taken apart -- >> yes. sf govtv, please. >> thank you. if i heard you right, commissioner, you asked me to address the effects of this not cutting back 4'6", and i wanted to explain. so this stair, the top portion of this stair is here, the bottom is here. so we looked at this. if we cut this out, i asked the client, what if we take the -- a quarter, eliminate this -- the depth of this bathroom -- a portion of this bathroom would now be a corridor to take you from here to the stair or from here to the stair, but it was pointed out to me that there's a drop from where the toilet is, the elevation there, to that of about 9 feet. to put a corridor there, as opposed to keeping the corridor here, we'd have to reverse the stair, where this is the top of the stair and this is the bottom level of the stair. that would cause a reversal of

mr. gladstone, it doesn't really matter what the editorial states. i looked at a piece of paper and it shows three stories, so we have -- i think we have a completely poisoned process. i am not saying that the project is right or wrong. but it's poisoned because just a little cyanide was poured in the water. so i'm really confused legally -- >> do you have a question? >> i am confused legally and looking at the city attorney. is this -- what happens when -- what happens with something like this? where the city screwed up, misled the public, and also -- >> i do have a question. >> what happens? and you can answer the same questions. because it must have happened before. >> what happens when there is a mistake made like this? >> i don't know that i have ever experienced this exact situation where the wrong plans were sent out with 311 notice. what we have before and this is something that came to you not too long ago is where a project had a bbn notice filed. and that was not called. and the permit was approved, issued, whether there should have been t

mr. gladstone. >> so just to clarify, there are 18 tenants, you said, two occupied before the building was taken offline? in october of 2012, when the notice of relocation went out, there were a total of 20 as folks had mentioned, unfortunately, two of those had passed away, so there are 18, and we have reasonable to believe about 14 intend on returning, but we're going to give all 18. >> so could you do it on the overhead? >> oh, sure. it looks like it's on your phone. you can expand it. >> rick gladstone. i haven't been involved in this until very recently, but i did obtain this. these names in yellow which indicates tenants who have stated on record and writing they want to return now. blue is tenants who no longer want to return, and they've stated that. at the very bottom of this are two tenants, mccouldy and nicholson have passed. one of the tenants is currently living in sacramento. we don't have any recent information on the others who are not shown in yellow or in blue, but those people not shown in yellow or blue will be sent notices to reoccupy. apparently one of the peoples who