we tried everything we could. we designed the bar and if you come to our bar, there's this sound -- >> you are part of the team that owns the bar? >> then your time to speak was with kingston's time. >> next speaker, please. >> having sat here since 1:00, and hearing about the dogs barking and the noise from a bar, i think of how in my very quiet neighborhood, that i can have neighbors directly next to me having a barbecue outside but i only know that because other neighbors are calling me and saying, do you know who is having a party? i can't hear it. there is something very strange about how sound works. i don't know quite what that is but i think it would be really good to figure that out.

there could be sound barriers in these different situations. it is a really strange thing or a rooftop deck that is across three blocks away, i can hear them but maybe someone just down the lane cannot hear them. it's a weird thing. i think it's well worth checking out how that all works. especially in this case, i can appreciate what people are saying about noise. i can also appreciate the time limit on how long that noise goes on and that you do want piece of mind when you do return from home or from work. so, i hope that there can be a way to figure out how sound travels and to find a way to mitigate it. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none. commissioner richards. >> ok, my commissioners get sick of me saying this but i used to be in a situation like the

neighbors with an establishment in the upper market. we've had three or four big issues with where the commercial meets the residential. i guess the question was there documented proof that after the notice of violation there were still events going on on the patio? >> department staff. i was in correspondents with one of the neighbors would was looking to submit some, i believe it was videos and photographs but i did not actually successfully receive those materials. it was the same neighborhood that was working with mr. dario jones and also had submitted some photograph evidence at that point. >> i mean, i have not heard a more compelling reason not to approve something than i did today from the neighbors. honestly, we heard people down in the lower area the kind of

coffee we wanted. we're dealing with people's lives and people's health. i hate to say this, your financial interest don't really, in my book, stack up against people's well-being, how would you feel if you went home and i believe the neighbors, how would you feel if you weren't able to sleep? how would you feel if you went home and you weren't able to know if and when you would be woken up. this is what i went through for a few years and i finally threatened the establishment with everything i had against them and they stopped. i don't believe that we have to program every single inch of this city. we don't. we're on top of each other already. and this 20-foot by whatever, whatever the space is, maybe it just doesn't need to be programmed. and if you suffer a little bit of financial consequences as a result of that, your telling people they should have been aware of us when they moved into the neighborhood. one, you moved in after some of these people but two, you moved in this space and you didn't realize that wasn't legal.

so shame on you. i call b.s. on you. i absolutely cannot support this. come back in a year after you have got a sound-proofing plan and all that. think we would be sailing the neighbors down river if we approve this. i can't support it and i make a motion of intent to disapprove. >> commissioner moore. >> i have one comment. it is actually the openings hours which concern me. we all know there's a lot of enthusiasm for the giants and warriors and all of those people play until 10:00. three minutes before 10:00 is when most of their games end. so leaving it open until 9:00 when these games is just an open invitation for extending or basically carrying on the noise just because the game is so much fun. i think the opening hours

suggested are not quite in keeping with the tight neighborhood with the small court yard. i could understand that someone from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 or 3:00 on a sunday might want to be there and chat with neighbors. the extended hours in the evening don't quite work with me and do not seem to be compatible with where we are. >> i agree. and i grow with commissioner richards. i've heard this from him before. so, a couple things t i think that i absolutely wouldn't support the c.u. as it is right now. i heard it loud and clear from the neighbors. i do think that there's physical things that can be done to mitigate sound. you have not presented those things. i don't know where to go for

that. i also, you know, what i heard from your employees, specifically, was brunch. that closing off the patio. i don't think that that was some of the -- the brunch wasn't what the complaint from the neighborhoods, it was the loud, drunken uncontrollable noise that goes on after hours. when you come back, i would encourage you to present a plan around hours as well. it's one or the other or perhaps both. physical mitigations and hours of operation. >> i think this case is unique that you are in a canyon there. you are sunk between buildings open space of the neighbors and they are right there and so it's not -- it's tough to figure out

what you would do sound wise except to cover that space, which i think you can do here, right. you could -- it's on folsom. i just think it's in a tough location. the sound will go up. it's going to go in that canyon and be a nuisance, even if someone is talking back there. there are 10 people eating. i just can't support this. >> i'm not saying -- i want to come in and have a drink in your bar and get filipino food because the place in my neighborhood closed. come back in a year with some qualified sound engineer and a plan to mitigate the sound. i welcome you back, i just don't think you made the case today. the neighbors made the case over the case that i heard from your establishment. >> i'll give you a quick minute. >> i'd like to make closing remarks and i respect your

opinion on this. i think that you know, when you say for the patio or against the patio, you characterize it like opposing sides to the issue and i always operated businesses as, like we can all succeed over here too. i will say though, that i encouraged a physical meeting between people that have complained and i have never -- they have never accepted a meeting with me because of time schedule issues for the past year-and-a-half, i have tried to meet with them as well to address their complaints in-person and it has not happened. not for my lack of effort. i will also say that i looked into covering the patio, it was said that i was too cheap to cover the patio, that was an incorrect statement. we hired a architect and there was two responses they got from them. the reason is that the way that the parcel is zoned that the patio is on, and i don't know the technical term but 25% of the lot had to be exposed to the

sky. so we couldn't cover it. >> you may be able to do it with a variance but you may not be able to do it. it doesn't resolve -- if you can't do it, then we're still back to where we are. >> i agree. i just want to make sure that you realize that i tried. >> if you came and said, we're going to do no sound whatsoever back there, just bren much from 11:00 to 2:00 on saturday, you know, maybe but that's not what is before us. i just don't know, given the condition back there, just again, how you are in this sunken pit where sound is just going to go up. it's never going to work. i appreciate it. thank you. >> commissioners, so just to inform you, you do have the ability to disapprove today. if you can articulate sufficient findings for the necessary and desire ability. i've heard a lot in terms of the commissioner discussion, you can just take an outright motion to deny the project and then staff will prepare the motion.

>> motion of intent to disprove. i make a motion to disapprove based on what you heard for us. >> i would read into the record like the proximity of residential zooses to the outdoor patio would cause a negative impact upon health and well-being of adjacent residents. >> it's a physician kind of way. >> the physician layout. >> this is one of the ones that rises to the actual physical impairment of individuals. it's not something we make up. it's documented. >> is there a second. >> i second. >> i just like to raise a point and i just address to the applicant, i am a little bit disturbed by the fact that i have three letters on city and county letter heads one from the office of district attorney county of slano county, one from daily city, and one of the city

of san francisco from the probation department. that is a first that we have original letters from a mayor, from a deputy district attorney, and from a deputy probation officer on their respective letter heads supporting use for two of them not in their own cities but expressing sadness and emotion by which i feel they're interfering with the task and the obligations we as a planning commissions in the city and county of san francisco. i just like to put that to note and i'd like to put the app can't oapplicant on notice thats not helping you at all. >> i actually met with the director of the ethics commission about an issue, one of the things that was clear to me was i could never use my planning commission stationary

for anything other than planning commission. that is how it works in this city. >> that's the reason i mentioned it. >> there's a motion and a second. >> to disapprove this matter with findings as read into the record by staff on that motio motion --[ roll call ] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> we have more. >> we have additional business to attend so if you don't mind stopping the clapping. >> commissioners, item 16 case number 2017-01649 hopkins avenue. this is a conditional use authorization. if you are leaving the room, if you can do so quietly we would certainly appreciate that.

>> all right. mr. warren. >> good evening, members of the commission, jeff horn planning department staff. preventing case 2017-01605 at 49 hopkins avenue. a request for conditional use authorization per planning code section 217 for a two-storey single family home and permit a 3,960 square foot three-storey single family home within a residential house one family zoning district and a 40x height and bolt district. the property at 49 hopkins is

located at the southeast corner of intersection of burnette avenue within a twin peaks neighborhood. subject report is developed with almost completely demolished two-storey single family dwelling originally of 1,312 gross square feet built in the mid 1990s with a subsequent addition including a 240 gross square foot addition above the garage and a 1,580 square foot steel and glass inclose you're for a pool sun room. july of 2014 the project sponsor submitted the building permit for an alteration and visit calla addition to the existing structure. in february of 2015, the planning department issued a categorical exemption including a termination on the preservation status of the structure and the department included the structure was not a historic resource. the sponsors consulted and prepared historic resource determination and the departments are included in the case report before you. the department sent out

neighborhood notification for the project in july of 2015, which closed in august of 2015 and no d.r.s or dis correction y were received at that time. in october of 2017, the department of building inspection opened a complaint for a unpermitted demolition planning open and enforcement case in november of 2017. since this time, all work has stopped and only feature that remains on site is a portion of the garage. patrick owe reardon is available to present and answer any questions on the permit and violation history of the project. the current proposal before you today is a three-storey, 3,960 gross square foot single family home. the department has reviewed the proposal and recommended it be modified to remove the third floor to be consistent with the two-storey homes that along

hopkins avenue. providing necessary and desirable project. i would like tonight into the record three items that were received after the publication of the case record provided to you in a memo. a signed affidavit from property owner ross johnston, a signed affidavit from the general contractor for the project and a letter in opposition from the real life with concerns on the speculative nature of the project. this concludes staff's presentation and i'm happy to answer questions. >> do you want to give us a summary or do you want to just respond to questions? >> good afternoon, or good evening. i'm going to try and log in here and get this set up.

>> this is an update based on d.b.i.'s involvement with the project. so, the agenda is the permits

that were issued and filed. notices of violation, the project status and the next steps. >> it was a little section of walls extending up for the remained when we connected our investigation. the complaint was filed october 2, 2017. notice of violation was issued and the work was stopped and they were sent whack to file a permit and get planning approval

for what they were intend to go do. permit application 2014-0725 it was issued on june 22nd, 2017. and 2017-1207 for demolition and replacement building respectively. then the permit from 2014. was canceled because it had been superseded by these new filings. notices of violation.

complaint number 201-70-9144 filed on october 2, 2017, a side visit occurred and a notice of violation was issued october 24th, 2017. basically referencing san francisco building code 1068.7 which speaks to the requirement for an additional permit being needed when you exceed the scope of the work that's described in the permits that you have at the sim of the site business. the job was shut down. it was barricaded. when thwhen the stop work was i. it might be notable a complaint had already been filed about three weeks before that. the complaint mentioned that work was going on without a permit and they were removing the roof from the building. we closed that complaint simply because we knew they had a permit and we knew that they

would need to remove the roof because the permit they had included a vertical addition. that might be noteworthy. >> the findings based on the inspections for 49 hopkins, no inspections were schedule prior to this site visit based on the complaint investigation. even though the permit had been issued four months prior to that in june of 2017. the notice of violation was issued based on the site conditions and exceeding the scope of the work approved on permit application 2014-072157. the project site has been barricaded since october of 2017.

d.b.i. will review the submittal documents and the start of work inspection will be scheduled to approve the documents based on the current site conditions and to give correction to the project team. they will assist the district building inspector at the start of work inspection, framing inspection and the final inspection. in the meantime, the site will continue to be monitored by inspectors to ensure compliance with all d.b.i. requirements, i'm available for any questions. >> ok, thank you. we may have fine. let us first hear from the project sponsor and take public comment. >> thank you for that presentation. >> good evening, commissioners.

my name is ross johnson and i'm the owner of the 49 hopkins property. i purchased the 49 hopkins as a family home. that would enable my family of six to move back to san francisco. i've been stuck in limbo for a year as this has progressed. i appreciate that the decisions made by the gun contractor brought us to this hearing today. i ask for your support and i'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> good evening, commissioners. justin. i represent ross johnston. before the project architect discusses the history of the property and our proposal, i want to correct the record given statements that have been publicly made about this project. first, as mentioned by staff, the property was not considered

a historic resource by architectural historian or the planning department, even though it was designed by richard nowtruck. as described by mr. johnson, since january of 2017, he has always been and continues to be the 100% owner of the property via the 49 hopkins llc legal entity. third, the general contractor ken gwon is not a rogue contractor. he has never been cited for exceeding the scope of permits in his 15 plus years of working in san francisco. fourth, the 2014 plans approved by the planning department and d.b.i. called for removal of the vast majority of the existing structure and a small portion of the work exceeded the scope in the approved plans for life safety reasons. fifth, the general contractor who is also a licensed structural engineer made judgments giving field conditions to remove structure elements he felt posed life

safety hazards. dangers that cause injury or death to construction workers. the general contractor submitted affidavit describing what he encountered and i would be happy to answer questions of the element that's were in danger of collapse and why he had to act without shutting down the job. we wish the sequence of events in the field could be been different even though the end result of removing structure elements would have been exactly the same. unfortunately, the decision by the general contractor to place safety over process brings us to today's hearing. as the project team has worked with staff during the past year, our frame of reference has been the 2014 plans previously approved by the planning department and d.b.i. the 2014 plans call for transformation of a one-bedroom home with a large pool room into a three-storey four bedroom home

suitable for families. like mr. johnson's family of six. he has been fully responsive to comments from staff and neighbors. he has put fourth a proposal with reduces mass, height, confirming set backs, and reduced living square footage relative to the previous approved 2014 plans we hope you have your support for this project. at this point i will turn things over to the project architect. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm going to go through several -- >> get that mic on. >> hello. i'm going to go through several visual representations of the history of this property starting from the original 1935 resident to the various remodel and additions that resulted in the loss of the property's historical integrity to the approved 2014 permit and how we move onward. my own involvement with the property began in 2014 with the previous owner for whom we permitted a remodel and

addiction. i've been retained by the current owner to document the existing conditions and assist in finding a way forward. my practice always strives to balance the desires of our clients with respecting the potential for impact to the neighbors and the neighborhoods in which we work. and in many cases, respect the history of a particular site or structure. we've been hired after the fact where there's been a clear and blatant dis yard for building and planning codes. and these projects have been easy to identify and in many cases involve repeat offenders. i don't believe this is one of those cases. although everyone involved agrees that the scope was exceeded and regardless of the concerns expressed by the general contractor about life safety and discovered structural conditions, there was a process and a place that should have been followed -- a process in place that should have been followed and the architects, engineers, building officials should have been contacted but we are where we are. that sid, no one is rewarded for the mistakes made but we want to

find a way to balance the needs of the homeowner, the impact on the neighborhoods and avoid setting a precedent for future projects that suggests others can follow suit. this project began as a small residents designed in 1935. as one of only five residential buildings he designed in san francisco. fortunately, another four examples are restained much more their historical integrity to this date. no one as a important architect, 49 hopkins was one of his early projects. in a career that spanned to the 1970s. in 1968, a fire damaged this structure and extensive remodel included replacement of doors and windows and this is likely the time when a room above the average and a deck over the concrete car port were added. in 1985, a rear yard pool was added followed by a 1995 a large glass and steel cmu enclosure with a rear yard variance.

and a portion facing the west. the approved 2014 permit described a vertical and horizontal addition creating a three-storey, four bedroom family residents. it was sold in 2014 with approved permits we developed. this slide represents what was intended to remain of the original structure. at the time of the permits in 2014, the rh1 property exceeded the evaluations of 317 demolition and it was sold in 2017, it also exceeded the 2017 valuation threshold for demolition. this is perhaps why no demolition ca cal uliss were damned. as you can see the majority of the original structure was approved for removal. this is a fairly straight

forward process at the time. in 2017, a notice of violation was filed and we were retained to file correct permits to memorialize the work taking place. how do we move forward. the 2014 permit retained the existing structure in the front yard and incorporated high zealings and included vertical additions with large decks at each level and and own suring there's no reward for the approvals and follow proper procedures we came up with the following suggestions for scaling down the proposal. step one remove all of the remaining front yard construction. push the garage into the main building mass, reduce the building depth by 12 feet and remove depth at the second floor, reduce the high of the building and create a volume smaller than the existing structure and maintain a two-storey reading from burnette

avenue. and steps three dramatically increase set backs for the size and scale as it relates to the context. the revised proposal the home is scaled from burnette avenue. it's appropriately mediates between the adjacent four-storey building to the south and larger structure to the north. it provides an entry at the street and has setback areas for landscaping on the north at the edge and the corner. and the design steps down the hill and appropriate to the architecture and scale of the adjacent properties. the new set backs at the front allow for landscaping and the increase setback allow minimize the scale in the neighborhood. and as viewed from hopkins, the project is con tech actual and appropriately scaled. in summary, clearly mistakes were made in construction was rightly stopped for the past year. the approved 2014 permit allowed for demolition. the previouslily existing

structure lost all its historical integrity. there was nothing to gain by exceeding the scope and the general contractors spent six weeks disassembling the residents piece by piece. moving forward, we're proposing a humble and com fact single family home that fits within the neighborhood and avoids giving any benefit to the client by the actions taken by the general contractor. the proposal before you is a smaller volume than the original structure and smaller than the original leaoriginally approvedy questions. >> thank you. we will now open this item up for public comment. >> i do have some speaker cards, mr. dratler. stephanie peak and catherine.

>> my name is jerry dratler. when time magazine put richard on the cover of its august 1949 issue, time said the architect had been designing modern homes for 20 years. large house at 49 hopkins house is one of those homes. all that remains say portion of the garage. the property owner filed for demolition permit two months after the house was demolished. and pictures showed the near total demolition. it's another example of a developer asking for permission for an illegal act after the legal act was committed. the developers emo tive is to earn millions from building a house four times larger than 927 square foot house they demolished. the large house illegal demolition is no different from the illegal demolition of 655al

var add owe street and that case, the commission approved construction of a replacement structure with the same physical attributes of the structure that was illegally removed. if the planning commission a proves this project, and does not impose restrictions on the new construction, it is sending a strong message that existing building and planning codes prohibiting unpermitted demolition can be ignored and there are no consequences. the architect experience license professional has not been honest and transparent on important facts. architect claimed the existing structure was three-storeys and the c.u. a. when it was one-storey over a garage. and the application showe showes johnston and the corporation to be the property owner. you can only have one owner. this may explain why architect

saskuy would sign it. the erroneous facts are highlighted in the documents you received. there's very little public information regarding the corporate ownership of the house. we know the agent for service of process for the corporation is mark brown. and associate broker at brown and company. realty owned by developer tim brown. we know that a second corporation by tim brown loaned the property owner $350,000 or 20% of the purchase prize on the day the transaction closed through a deed of trust. the deed of trust requires the owner of largen house to restore any building that is damaged or destroyed. the deed of trust document is the documents you receive. it's my sincere hope the planning commission will require the property owner to rebuild large house exactly as it existed in 1936.

thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> although i am reading a letter for ozzie roam from neighborhood council and san francisco land use coalition. she was unable to stay. last year, the day after 49 hopkins appeared in the article about the rampant illegal demolitions, i attended, i being ozzie, priest application meeting for its replacement. mr. sskew presented the plans that including the garage and storage was close to 4,000 square feet. i asked mr. askew if he was aware of any penalties for what had taken place there. his response was emblem attic of the problem we're here for today. he said that since it normally takes a couple of years for anyone who obtain permits, that

would be punishment enough. in other words, the normal lead time for getting permits in this town is the appropriate penalty for someone who grossly violates the planning and building codes. commissioners, this illegal demolition and 655alvarado where you approved the construction of a replacement structure with the same physical attributes and the same footage of what was illegally removed, except that this is worse. it was designed by renowned architect and one of a few examples of mid century architecture in san francisco. and new york city unlike what the project sponsor claims, it wasn't 3,372 square feet. i'll put this on the overhead, please.

in what universe was 49 hopkins over 3,000 square feet? of course the house is gone and they can make up anything but according to the city records, 49 hopkins was only 927 square feet. at best they should only be allowed to build a 927 square foot structure. two days ago, supervisor peskin announced the introduction of his legislation to housing preservation and expansion reform at as a response to illegal demolitions such as this one and countless others that are disguised as remodels. our legislators are doing their part in passing laws to penalize such violations of planning and building codes. for the time being, we're relying on you to eliminate the financial incentive for illegal demolition and there's only one way to do so. authorize only the same or fewer square feet as the building that was unlawfully demolished. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker,

please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is stephanie peak. i've been living in san francisco since the early '60s and i love it and i love what you do to help protect it. here again, we have a case where the developer, tim brown, was mark brown has demolished a building without permission and then hired a lawyer to ask for forgiveness. but what is exceptional in this case is the 49 hopkins house was designed by one of the most famous mid century modern architect in america. in fact, when richard was chosen as man of the year for the cover of "time" magazine in 1949, he was described as second only to frank lloyd wright. the work of this legendary architect, whose contribution to california modernism is i am measurable. help define modernism around the world.

the large house was the first of five houses designed by richard in san francisco. it was not one of his largest projects, probably because the owners were not wealthy. they were teachers and art. one teacher and one artist. or little people. as leona helmsly used to describe such. in my unprofessional opinion, the architect is capable of restoring the house. it would be a testament to our city's honest concern for its architect actual history if the commission is able to ask for this solution. out of respect for this valuable and graceful contribution to san francisco's architect actual history, and as a deterrent to future developers bad behavior, i ask you to have the house restored. thank you so much for the time that you take listening to us. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> and then be rewarded. despite the willful and acknowledged wrongdoing here, the project sponsor is asking for the benefit of the doubt. quibbling about historic significance. as we've seen time and again, there is overwhelming financial incentive to transgress with very little risk of penalty. we ask that you assist in remedying that, thank you. >> if you want to tear something down, you should replace it with affordable housing with a permit. not after the fact.

that is a building department call. what is in front of you now is what to do. i don't know if you can make that decision yet. there are two thresholds. a planning department threshold that if you exceed 50%, you guys have the authority to put it back or do something else. if you exceed the building permit threshold of 66%, there is no choice. you can only put back what was there or you wait five years. this is clearly more than 66%. you may not have the discretion to do anything else but refer to the building department and let them put it back, exactly what was there. >> president hillis: any additional comment? seeing none, comment is closed. commissioners?

>> commissioner richards: i'm tired of going first. that's a joke. question for planning staff, mr. horn. if you get an application that doesn't have the proper signatures like we were shown here. is the application complete? >> that would not be considered complete. i do think that application may be partial victim of us growing pains with our new kind of intake processes and those being turned electronic. i have the hard copy with me. and it has been signed from the get-go. >> commissioner richards: great. appreciate that. that was one of my questions.

>> this has the same date as the electronic which is april. >> commissioner richards: great. that answers that question. second question, mr. horn -- i'm not sure who can answer this -- because this was exceeded the threshold of section 317 was it referred to planning to do the demo calculation and say, look, we took all this stuff away? section 317? and the original building permit? >> commissioner richards: the 2014 one. >> so we don't have the full calculations for that permit. i have looked at it and it does seem there is an exhibit in the sponsor materials. there is a substantial portion that was meant to stay. sidewalls i think, almost the entirety of the first florida. so i can't talk about -- we don't have the exact specific percentages for what was

approved. but normally the process would call for -- >> it would be, but this project also happens to be located in the r 1 zoning district, it has the ability to be approved by the zoning commission. >> and it didn't make it to the zoning administrator desk? >> no, the official document is the review of the demolition. no such document was issued for the project. >> i read the signed affidavit i believe. he says on page 2 of 5, i am alone acting as professional construction made time critical decisions in the field to remove various structures that were compromised and posed a risk. my professional code of conduct demands that my number one priority be safety, in all capital letters, for the reasons described in the affidavit, the

significant structural issues i encountered, will require immediate action to prevent injury or death to construction workers or future occupants of the home. this imminent life safety issue, what should he have done? >> contact the building department. schedule an inspection. or call a senior inspector or myself. if we hear hazard life safety, imminent hazard, those are the trigger words for us getting out there, like in 45 minutes in cases where we hear those trigger words. especially imminent hazard are life safety. i don't want to sound like the enforcer, but we are the authority with jurisdiction.

and i believe we have a role. and when we go out there, we can help identify these problems and we can bring our own engineers out there to help with -- >> sure. >> -- getting a really good read on it from an engineering perspective. >> commissioner richards: he wanted to prevent injury or death to construction workers. would it be a reasonable assumption to stand in front of the building, get on the cell phone and call you? >> absolutely. it would be expedited if we heard there were life safety concerns. >> commissioner richards: that makes sense. i'll wait to hear -- >> president hillis: just to follow up on that. what would you -- so what is dbi do in this case? you talked about the 60% demo. what is your course of action now if we don't act? >> the inspection would be

scheduled. we'd go out there and if the engineer or the contractor brings our attention to something that is hazardous -- >> i'm talking about now. they're in a legal demo. you would say, if dbi went out today, there was an enforcement action, you said it was an illegal demolition or exceeded the scope of the permit. mr. says you have to wait five years or help them put it back. is that the case? >> this building wasn't completely razed. the notice of identification exceeded the scope of work that was done on the approved plans. as we have done for -- as we did with several projects, we wrote a notice of violation and asked

that the project team generate the appropriate documents and come in and file a permit and be routed through the planning department. we have had projects where we go out there and there is nothing left, the entire building is gone. and those are scheduled for hearing for an unlawful demolition. and we've -- in fact, we've had three of them in the last several months. so when we go out and there is nothing left, it's a no-brainer. it's unlawful demolition, but when we see there is some of the building left, it's exceeding the scope. >> president hillis: okay. what was he referring to about the 60-70%? i can't remember. >> i believe he was referring to the 1038.3 san francisco building code that talks about unlawful demolition. as has been spoken to and as we

know, there is some new legislation pending in regards to helping to make both 317 and our own building code more defined. so we're obviously, it sounds like we're going through that process, or the early phases of that process. but the difference between hopkins and some of the ones that we are scheduling for hearing is they were completely torn down. there was nothing left. >> right, but i'm trying to reconcile where that 60 or 70% is. is that in the new legislation or that exists somewhere in the code? >> there is reference to that in the existing building code. and we've had many discussions about how that -- and that has probably preempted some of the moves toward working on new

legislation. >> so dbi would not consider this a full demo, where it would apply the five-year rule or put it back exactly as it was. >> if there is building left, the entire building has not been removed. 103-a talks about the removal of the entire building. and that's at the discretion of the building officials. so we look at it for what it is. and it's obviously a no-brainer if everything is gone. you know, that's the hearing. >> president hillis: right. >> we have three of those going. >> president hillis: i think it's going to be helpful there is legislation before us that clarifies that because there seems to be confusion -- and then there is our definition of what is demo that adds an additional layer of confusion. >> hopefully what we end up with is better code. >> president hillis: it probably

couldn't be worse. so dbi would say this is not the demo. and your course of action like taken in the past is go to planning and get a permit, because it's tantamount to demo. >> what i would say, our notice of violation is accurate for exceeding the scope of the demolition based on the site investigation. >> right, right. >> they have a demolition permit filed and replacement building permit. they're on that track. >> president hillis: okay. commissioner richards? >> >> commissioner richards: this one smacks of the one -- was it on chestnut? the one on polk. lombard. they demolished it and rebuilt it, which was extraordinary because they built the as it was. >> they added some features. >> i know i got an invitation to visit it.

214 state and the developer did over there on lombard, i think it would be -- we have the -- i think the project sponsor said they don't want to have any reward for what happened. and i think that case report says 1300 square feet. as an asset to the city and help you recoup the investment, i would ask that my fellow commissioners consider taking a look at getting the original plans for the house from the or could i haves and putting -- archives and putting a replica back. >> what we don't want to experience too much of is the thing sitting for five years. and blight. >> no, i'm suggesting we replace it today with the decision, with

the house. >> that's excellent, yeah. >> very good. that would be my take on it. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: this is interesting and really important for us to hear mr. reirden explain the subtle what is demolition, versus how we look at demolition. for us a building starts to disappear when the majority of its useful presence, reuseability is gone and what is left on this particular building. and my general reference constitutes demolition of the house is gone. and i do understand that major difference and it has been the obstacle between reconciling the two forms of definition between planning and dbi. but i would completely agree with commissioner richards as most positive response to where we are, to really put conditions on what can be rebuilt and limited to the replica of the

house at its size, using archive drawings. and definitely within his capabilities to work on that. that is all i can do here. >> president hillis: do we know what that is? mr. askew? >> when we started the project in 2014, we hired william castra and there aren't any drawings of the old house. so we've been able to recreate it three dimensionally. >> president hillis: can you put that back up again? i think it would be helpful. are there pictures of the house? i would be nervous if i didn't see photos. there are no actual photos of

it? >> not that i'm aware. >> what year was it constructed? >> 1935. >> president hillis: what year was the addition? >> substantial fire in 1960s and at that point, many of the windows, sort of front area facing the garage was replaced with a sliding glass doors which was not original. there was a new deck placed over the car port. the old deck on top of the garage was replaced. they left all the concrete. >> president hillis: if you just go back one. >> can i comment on that? >> president hillis: what was the layout of that building? >> i'm not sure. there is indication perhaps that wasn't a garage on the first floor and perhaps it was part of the living space. so maybe there were two bedrooms in there with living space above. it's hard to tell, because at one point it became a garage and then one bedroom and it's been

one bedroom since then. >> commissioner moore: there is an architect historian in the room. to research documents, are those records available and what form can they be retrieved and where? >> could you repeat the question? >> how would someone go about identifying credible records? are you aware that they're documented properly to be rebuilt to the extent we're asking? >> i can't speak specifically to this structure, but there are fantastic resources. there are a number of archives and repositories. i have several books about his

work which is consistent, especially in this period. so it wouldn't be conjecture to try to understand what was there. but if i was doing the work, the first thing i would do is to call uc berkeley, environmental design archives and others that have drawings there. other architecture historians that specialize around the state. there are vast resources to try to understand what was there. >> commissioner moore: thank you. he is not only a well known architect in the united states, but his work is well published and do you meaned across the world -- documented across the world. there were certain times when modern american architecture was more appreciated in europe because the modern architecture is