it's georgia schiutish. i want to refer to a demolition of a house. it was originally going to be an alteration, but the second time they got the appraisal, they took two appraisals to get it in the rh-1, and they were out to demolish it, and the department approved an a.d.u. when it was completed. it was actually completed in the last year, and it hasn't sold. it's sitting up there, the building's been empty since 2015, when the original house was sold, and they've lowered the price. and in the ads for this luxury home, they never mention the a.d.u. and so i think this is something to highlight when you had all of these projects up in belgrade, that you have all of these a.d.u.s. but this house is empty, so i guess the question is, what are you going to get out of this program with a. -- how do you impose it, especially, especially, especially, especially for these spec projects? i think there's a real distinction between a project like i'm citing here and somebody that wants to create an a.d.u. for their r

this is georgia schiutish. your staff are always so helpful. see them, but there's two of them. there's video of the excavation across the street from me showing the outcome so far, and this will ultimately be over 10 feet deep for the entire 2700-foot lot, including the jacked-up house that you can see. this extreme alteration is just to create a basement that will have very questionable exposure and egress under neath the garage. this is a very bad tablet to densefy, and it could have been done in a better way by using a house and a horizontal expansion, not only using a lot of resources to create a subterranean unit. it's pretty deep, it's pretty astounsing, and i think this is environmentally questionable. i -- astounding, and i think this is environmentally questionable. i know you don't deal with this as a commission, and this is the domain of d.b.i. however, a design like this one is approved by the planning, and it needs an excavation and the rear yard disappears, replaced by a cement patio. it seems like the staff considered the issue

it's georgia schiutish. in my correspondence, i think i raised issues of the context of the development on the block, which has been pretty intense, but mostly, my concern is with the transformation of this project. from an alteration with six bedrooms to a demolition with five bedrooms and a teeny a.d.u., which has obviously added because it became a demolition, and this is obviously a sound house. why and how did this happen? why did the project sponsor originally think they could create a project this way and without the potential for a hearing facing them? did it have to do with the thresholds of the democalcs? remember back in march of 2009, when the c.i.d. was before you, the staff said they would be coming back to you within a year, which would have been 2010, with adjustments to the calcs, which never happened. if that happened, where would we be now? would we have all these projects that are super sized and super moneyed. i disagree with the 317 criteria. you don't tear down a perfectly fine house b