. >> mr. tigue. >> good evening president lazarus and commissioners, corey tigue for planning department. we feel like this project was approved appropriately by planning department. sounds like the proposed changes between the two parties would, if anything, result in a smaller project overall so wouldn't trigger any additional notification requirements and i don't think we have any issues for the compromise that's been reached. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> any public comment? seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. mr. duffy, commissioners are you willing to entertain him again? >> yes. >> as long as he entertains that. >> sorry commissioners for the time. just one point of clarification, i heard mr. calvin there saying that the -- it would take the walls down prior to any -- the addendum being issued. you can't start the work until the addenda has to be issued before you take the walls down so we won't know what the foundation is until the a ddenda is issued.

. >> mr. tigue, anything? no? okay. any public comment. seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i personally did not hear anything that was new or different from the previous testimony and p i do not believe this request meets the requirements for the hearing. >> i'm of the same opinion. >> i agree and unfortunately from the last meeting that we had i know it's hard for you guys to go through this process, bull the ground for the threshold for rehearing was that any new information that would cause us to open up this. i have not seen any information that would cause to reopen this up. >> i'll move to deny the rehearing request on the basis that it doesn't meet the requirement of the board. >> thank you. chief, call testimony roll please. >> we have a motion from the president to deany this rehearing request. commissioner fung. >> i. >> commissioner honda. a: i. >> commissioner wilson. >> i. >> the vote is four to zero. this hearing request is deanied and notice of decision will be released. we'll move on to item 9. the

do you want to say something mr. tigue? >> very quickly. we post letters of determination on our website. we don't post variance of decision letters. i don't know why exactly. i can speak with the building administrator and we can report back to you as to why we don't get -- >> it doesn't have to be a major i.t. projoekt. we can sepd send it out to those on the original notice. >> a bbn would not have helped in this situation, correct? >> no, not necessarily. >> an issue for me is an expectation was created but there was no requirement. i guess i'm a little confused about this e-mail. as i read it there are two questions. will you also be sending the notice, to which mr. smith responds yes. second question, we would also like the notice from the permanent issue. aren't they one in the same? >> i believe it's two second requests. >> right. he doesn't answer the second request. >> no, we're talking about the first. >> with respect to the variance. >> do you have another comment mr. tigue. >> i should have worn my purple tie. i have reviewed t

. >> mr. tigue. >> good evening, planning the president staff. department staff requires to be noticed. also specifically the question of the delores height special use district it states no portion of a building shall exceed a height of 35 feet above the existing grade of the lot. the existing building as a proved it's building on does not exceed that height. the special use district doesn't in any way limit how the code does exempt certain features from height restrictions under 260b. this is no different than the preordained height district for any property, whether it's a 40 foot height district hor higher. you can go above that height district specifically with those features that are exempted under 260b and the use district doesn't exempt those features. we basically interpret them and implement them the same way which is non structural features that are exempt under 260b, such as minimum required d parapits and railings don't fall under this requirement for height and do not require 311 notification. i'm available for any questions you may

. >> mr. tigue >> this is just a bit of history discussed and in the brief that there were appeals before you several years ago and the board of appeals did rule at that time to acquire this property to state that the property owner agrees that if any work to the facade of the subject building following conditions shall apply and the conditions are essentially the removal of the garbage room or relocation and the doorway. the subject permit was reviewed by our head of historic preservation and was approved over-the-counter on september 30 of this year. in terms of the scope of work it's kind of an evolution to figure it out because the actual permit itself on the front of the permit has one description. the planner and the approval box in the back of the permit elaborated a little bit to kind of clarify what the actual plans show. often the description on the front is a summary of what have the actual plans show and do not provide every detail. the two main parts to the project are the internal work