mr. winslow reviewed the file and said the d.r.equester his had valid points and that it did not comply with residential guidelines. from his review, was unclear how this project was approved. he noted that the p.d.r. require the project sponsor to illuminate the fourth floor. however, this was not done and it was unclear exactly how this was pushed through. after the meeting, the d.r. analysis report appear to do an about-face and presented an awkward partial setback of the third floor and reduction or removal of the parapet but no mention of the third floor -- the fourth floor. this last-minute proposed plan fails to involve the substantial problems. we were surprised to see this proposal particularly after david's comments in the meeting, so after the meeting i reviewed the record and created -- and it was unclear how exactly this plan was pushed through. the applicant referred to the fourth floor as the third floor, which is confusing and improperly portrays a project is smaller than it really is. the applicant move the third f

mr. winslow here. if you take d.r.nd approve the application then you are almost preempting them to approve it. you can't approve it because it is not code compliant. requires another process to occur before you can approve the building permit application. i wish we could do that, but i'll have to agree that taking a motion intent does not do anything. >> let's continue its. can we continue it until next week? >> they would need to submit an application for variance, they would have to drop plans, it is not next week. at a minimum, it is a month away >> there is a 20 day notice requirement. >> okay. >> november? >> i don't have to -- i don't think we have to push them out that far but i would suggest maybe october 24th might be the soonest we could take it. >> okay, november 7th. >> police speak into the microphone. we can't hear you. >> i'm out of the country from october 15th through to november eighth, i believe. >> november 14th, then. >> the hope is it doesn't come back to us. the d.a. approves the variance, you d

mr. winslow told the commissioners they could not approve the project on the other lot prior to voting to approve the motion and to revert to the project back to its previous condition. also, the architectural survey submitted with the plan for 17 th avenue is not an accurate boundary line survey. therefore, approving the new construction building permit without an accurate boundary line survey would be a clear violation of section 107-point to .5 of the california building code. they did submit an architectural site survey, which is a map. it is not really a survey. and in the survey, or the map, they said it was required under california law to establish a record of survey that would be required, in the record of survey has not been approved by d.p.w. therefore i asked that the minutes be revised to reflect the fact that permit was not approved. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i live next door to the project. i am also here to ask for a correction of the draft minutes for july 25th, 2019 hearing. the plan for the new house cannot

mr. winslow's thorough description, he failed to mention 26 neighbors a post of these projects was receivedlanning on the dr's applications were filed. in our neighborhood, 26 people, they're only ten houses on this block. when the project sponsor or purchase the property in 2015, indicated he had acquired lot 21 , 50-foot by 120-foot lot. since 1938, the legal description of this property described one, 50-foot lot and since 1985 the city's own map lot 21, on block 13. clearly, in order to create two lots come a lot split should have been required. the project sponsor in this case has an improper avoided utilizing a suspect and questionable certificate of compliance project that has illegally denied the neighbors our rights under the law. suddenly in january of 2017, without any public notice or comment, presto, two lots suddenly existed. even without notices of violation, notices of enforcement pending on the property. i am being polite when i say the process may have been improper. these building permits should be denied simply because the legal existence of two lots is clearly in questi