Judging by what we have repeatedly seen in the comments here (presumably written and rewritten ad nauseum by the same obsessed reader), this has been the owner's consistent defense for essentially razing the entire Henry A. Darling house all along.
The claims being there was rotten wood, the place was dangerous, the house was collapsing (but not, of course, because of the demolition), and this was all done to protect those who would supposedly someday live there. That is, if there was still a house left to live in. Which there isn't.
According to the owner this was all done with the approval of City Hall, as detailed in those now legendary (but as yet actually produced) plans and permits. Despite the Red Tag pictured above, of course. Something that belies the basic premise of the owner's entire narrative. After all, why would the city Red Tag a largely demolished structure if they had already issued the necessary documents approving that demolition?
You know what I'm saying?
Should you go to the Planning Commission document poetically entitled "Conditional Use Permit 15-23 (CUP 15-23) 3 November 5, 2015," you'll find that the story is a decidedly different one. Here is how the parameters of the city's approved menu of demolition were originally laid out. Link here.
Demolition - The project will require demolition of 39 linear feet (approximately 23 percent) of the 172-foot long exterior walls along the rear of the residence to accommodate the addition, and it will not impact the original front façade of the structure. The total square footage of the area proposed for demolition is 670 square feet.
The proposed demolition does not require a discretionary demolition permit or a historic resources survey. Pursuant to Code Section 17.60.056.F, a project requiring demolition of less than 25% or less of the existing walls is exempt from requiring a discretionary demolition permit if the following conditions exist: a) the demolition is required for an addition/alteration to the structure that is permitted by code; b) the addition is permitted at the same time as the required demolition; c) neither the demolished portion of the structure nor the addition impacts the original front façade of the structure; and d) the site plan and all required permits for the remodel have been approved by the applicable city reviewing authority.
And obviously that bit about not impacting "the original front façade" is completely out the window now. Along with the windows, that façade, and whatever credibility the owner might have once had.
I don't want to appear too critical, but it does seem fairly clear that the front façade was impacted by the demolition. With an extreme and lasting prejudice, too. Despite what the City's CUP had to say.
Of course, maybe the owner was talking about an Unconditional Use Permit? I've never seen one of those UUPs, but who knows? Because that is pretty much what it would have taken to legally allow the destruction of what was once known as the Henry A. Darling house.
But is no longer.