mr. winslow and recently. it's clear that neither the dr requester is comfortable with the project without the elimination of the top floor which is inconsistent with the goals of the family. we tried to minimize the impact to the neighbors. but one thing i want to point out, next slide, please, the ground floor of the light well, as you can see from the entry on the right, the existing condition on the property has a platform at the second floor in the light well area. it maintains a platform and enclose the trash below this area. this isn't exacerbate the existing condition but serving no turn. as you can see from the left image, no windows on the north property line and windows on the subject property at the ground level facing the garage and store an area, so it's not something to be concerned with. leaving this area open would be unsightly for cyrus and marissa but create a pest situation because we've got trash and recycling enclosures in there and taking -- we feel confident that it has no negative impa

mr. winslow. there are many letters reading what the report was two weeks ago not current status. we listed prior renters. neighbors. don is missed. susan is on the phone from southern california. don is hr professionally. when he moved away the owner in the ellis act evicted susan in southern california. on the phone until 5:00 p.m. if there is any possibility to talk before she has to leave. it gives you a feel of the loss of tenant buffer hurts the neighborhood. the 75-year-old high school principal has borne the brunts of don not there any longer. she spent 12,000 on a two day permitted sewer repair for lateral connection. it went downhill. she spend the day yelling hat the sewer workers and demappedding they carry away the dirt and don't bring back the next morning. there was nobody living in the morning. it was easier to give in than resist. the building department indicated they have a file on the owner. the units are lost by the ellis act. invection should not be rewarded by endorsing the proposal to add the garage and elevated the view of the three bedroom home. second, t

mr. winslow. in a case like this are the seen as cumulative and below market rate requirements would be enacted. >> when we have a project that involved multiple cites subdividing or a combination, which is happening here even if there are the resulting buildings separate and on separate lots we consider it one project for the purpose of the below market rate inclusionary requirements. them is a project that has 18 units the requirement for bmr is 2. or in lieu fee of 2 million dollars. why was that not explain in the the staff report or did i miss it. >> it was not in the staff report but might have been an error on my part it is common lawly understand practice of hours the bmr's go with the project not with the buildings in this case. >> good to know. i don't think i every koirntsed it interesting sometimes not today to talk about that and explain that in a broader context we have few large sites and the question this come up this is a very height end build with large unit and sure the develope

mr. winslow. there are many letters reading what the report was two weeks ago not current status. we listed prior renters. neighbors. don is missed. susan is on the phone from southern california. don is hr professionally. when he moved away the owner in the ellis act evicted susan in southern california. on the phone until 5:00 p.m. if there is any possibility to talk before she has to leave. it gives you a feel of the loss of tenant buffer hurts the neighborhood. the 75-year-old high school principal has borne the brunts of don not there any longer. she spent 12,000 on a two day permitted sewer repair for lateral connection. it went downhill. she spend the day yelling hat the sewer workers and demappedding they carry away the dirt and don't bring back the next morning. there was nobody living in the morning. it was easier to give in than resist. the building department indicated they have a file on the owner. the units are lost by the ellis act. invection should not be rewarded by endorsing the proposal to add the garage and elevated the view of the three bedroom home. second, t