mr. winslow. please mr. winslow, uh, we typically rely on sanborn maps documenting historic conditions.can go all the way back to the, uh, 19 zero zero. even before that, and have done that consistently. so for the doctor requester, it is typical, and it has credibility and proof that the use of sanborn maps indeed confirms that there was originally a stair and a porch. we're not talking about the enclosure most likely was probably open. uh, but i would like to say that that is a commonly accepted tool we are using. uh, so if mr. winslow, if that's an understanding of the doctor requester, i just want to make sure that this commission knows that the request seemed to imply , if i heard it correctly, that there may not have been anything before. yeah, i could elaborate a little bit on. i did do a site visit. i couldn't get inside, but it was netted off. but from the photograph submitted as well as my visual inspection from the street and you can see this in the in the packet, the beadboard, the, the elements that construct this existing porch. one can easily tell how old this is. it's no

mr. winslow? um perhaps i'm not an expert on that, but i would say it's an by definition, it's an unoccupied roof. if it doesn't have fall protection in the form of a guardrail and as you mentioned, adequate structural, um, you know, members to support a live loads, i would imagine the building code, the building department would, uh, recognize it as such with or without the specific nomen curvature of saying it's an unoccupied roof, but we can certainly ask the project sponsor to include that on the on the drawings. okay. is there a motion i'll move to? uh, not take dr. and approve. second. second. thank you. commissioners on that motion to not take the unapproved as proposed. commissioner braun i commissioner ruiz i commissioner tanner i commissioner imperial i commissioner coppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner. president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and concludes your hearing today . thank you >> you are watching san francisco rising. a special

mr. winslow? um perhaps i'm not an expert on that, but i would say it's an by definition, it's an unoccupied roof. if it doesn't have fall protection in the form of a guardrail and as you mentioned, adequate structural, um, you know, members to support a live loads, i would imagine the building code, the building department would, uh, recognize it as such with or without the specific nomen curvature of saying it's an unoccupied roof, but we can certainly ask the project sponsor to include that on the on the drawings. okay. is there a motion i'll move to? uh, not take dr. and approve. second. second. thank you. commissioners on that motion to not take the unapproved as proposed. commissioner braun i commissioner ruiz i commissioner tanner i commissioner imperial i commissioner coppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner. president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and concludes your hearing today . thank you 2024.) >> one it is now, 1:04 p.m. i'm chair bracke

mr. winslow. i'm just. if i don't need to, i can go home. thank you. put the name down. good good afternoon, president diamond and commissioners. david winslow, staff architect. uh, the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application 2022 at 1216 8564, which revises a previously approved building permit to add a second and third story and construct an adu to one storey over basement single family home. this permit seeks to extend the front of the third floor. the previously issued permit also proposed to lower the height of the rear portion and create a sloped roof. however, that construction work was never done. this permit leaves the non-complying portion of the rear building as it exists today. the existing building is a category c, not a historic resource. built in 1910, uh, the daca. requesters adam belsky and deborah nelson of 3753 21st street residents of the adjacent house to the west, are concerned that the proposed project is tantamount to demolition and therefore is new construction and is inconsistent in s