September 12, 2019. Item two. 220 post street. Conditional use authorization proposed for continuance to october 24, 2019. Under your consent calendar item 3. 101 bayshore boulevard. Conditional use authorization proposed to continue to october 24, 2019. Under regular calendar item 17a and b for case 2018 at 45 tear resconditional use authorization and variance proposed for variance to september 19, 2019. Under discretionary review item 20 for 16058 bow layer row street for an indefinite continuance. I have no other items and no speaker cards. Anyone have any Public Comment on the items proposed for continuance . Good afternoon. Ryan patterson on behalf of the project sponsor 45cally bra. I want to give you an update working with neighbors. This is the matter of continuance. To september 19 to conclude notionations. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on items proposed for continuance. Public comment is proposed. Move to continue items 1, 2, 3, 17a and 20. Second. Thank you. On that motion to continue items as proposed. roll call . So moved. That passes unanimously 50. Under the consent calendar. 17p on the variance continued to september 19th as well. Thank you. That will place us under the consent calendar for item 4. This matter constitutes your consent calendar and is considered to be routine by the Planning Commission. It may be acted by a single roll call vote. There is no separate discussion until the staff requests where it will be considered as a separate item. 2019006116 at 2621 ocean avenue conditional use authorization. Any member of the public have Public Comment on this item number 4 on the consent calendar . Without Public Comment it is closed. Commissioner koppel. Vice president joel koppel . Second. Thank you. On that motion to approve item 4 under the consent calendar. roll call . So moved that motion passes unanimously 50. Placing under item 5 commissionnents and questions. Commissioner koppel. Commissioner moore. Commissioner moore the long emails on 333 california street make me wonder if it would be making sense to have a public presentation, ask for continuance of approval. I have a feeling there are so many contradictory interpretations what it is, somebody may not give this project justice. I would like to ask whether or not other commissioners feel the same way and whether or not it would make sense to ask for full presentation not just five minutes but give the architect, applicant 15, 20 minutes. It is complicated to fully explain. I think it is a complicated project. I want to keep the project moving. I would like to have everyone on the public understand what the project is. Perhaps, you know, we can talk about what the presentation looks like and what is entailed and prepare for it so folks get what they need. We would give them more time. Perhaps that would help. I myself had a long meeting with the architects and developer, actually three architects. I have to admit certain details had slipped my attention because the project is quite complex. Commissioner hillis. Commissioner hillis i want to hear this next week. It is clearly kicking around for a long time. I have met with neighborhood groups on this and gotten a feel where they are going on it as well. We owe it to everybody to hear this and not prejudge if we should continue. We can continue if there are questions. We should move ahead to the hearing next week. Commissioner koppel. Vice president joel koppel i am in agreement. I would like to keep it on calendar but i am open to an extension on the Presentation Time and effort just for clarity. Commissioner moore. Commissioner moore i agree with that. The developer expressed questions why cant i get more time . It is away given to everybody. You didnt have the opportunity to independently give a presentation which other people do perhaps just by the director changing a little bit of the timeframe to present perhaps that would help. Thank you. Nothing further we can move to department matters, item 6 directors announcements. No new announcements. Item 7 past events. I have no reports. No Historic Preservation hearing yesterday. That is general Public Comment. Members of the public may address the commission on items of interest except agenda items. The opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member may address the commission for up to three minutes. I had one speaker card. Are you here . Any other members of the public who wish to speak during the general Public Comment, please come on up. Thank you. Overhead, please. President melgar and commissioners, cathy with the improvement on the subject of understanding the project. If they are going to have an extended presentation i would appreciate five minutes instead of two. It is not enough time to get out the neighborhood position. I dont want to preclude other people from talking. It is up to you as the president to determine that. The Development Agreement is full of loopholes that allow the developer to get out of the requirement to build the Affordable Housing. First, he has the vested right to develop the project but it is not conditioned on building the affordable. There is no requirement that he complete or initiate development of the project. On 30days notice he can terminate the agreement. If he hasnt started anything in five years. The walnut building is designated as Affordable Housing building. I have copies for you. If the tax credit closing doesnt occur, he transfers the walnut land to the city. This is a small part of the property. There is no reason the tax credit wouldnt close unless he doesnt go forward because they are readily available. If he doesnt transfer the walnut land the city gets the fair market value of the walnut land because it is in the paragraph. That land is burdened with the Affordable Housing requirement. It wont be worth market value without it. The developer previously at the delores property promised Affordable Housing and did not go through it according to the article. Now the lucky penny project promised 25 affordable on site. Got an s. U. D. A year later he cant go through with it and there is a proposed modification he will pay the fee. At least he will pay the fee on the whole property. The walnut land is only a small part of the property. If this developer defaults he should pay the affordable fee on the entire property. I have copies highlighted for you. Any other Public Comment . Okay. Public comment is now closed. Commissioners that is placing us under the regular calendar. I will announce for the benefit of the public that we will be calling item 15 out of order first followed by item 10. Then proceed with the normal order of the calendar. Item 15 then item 10 will be called out of order. Item 15, at 49 hopkins avenue is conditional use authorization. Please note on august 22, 2019 you continued this without hearing to todays date by a vote of 70. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners, i am the Deputy Director of planning. The project before you is 49 hopkins street on the southeast corner of burnett in the twin peaks neighborhood. There is a two story Single Family home that was last of 1300 square feet originally built in 1937 that subsequently had additions including 240 square foot garage, 1580 square foot steal and steel and glass fun room. It was originally designed. In 2014 it was approved to increase to approximately 3900 square feet. It underwent the public notification process and no discretionary reviews were filed. At that time it was determined to not be a historic resource. The construction that was supposed to occur was limited to alteration permit and several additions. On december 13, 2018, obviously the reason we are here today is the scope of that project was exceeded in the field. On december 13, 2018, the commission acted on request for conditional use authorization to legalize did unlawfully demolition that occurred on the property. The commission had quite the deliberation on that day and made a motion to approve the project with conditions that included replacement of structure back to the original footprint and masking from the 30s and plaque outside the property acknowledging the reconstruction of the original structure. On february 14, 2019, just to give history since that last hearing, the Property Owner filed two lawsuits challenging among other things the Planning Commissions decision to approve the conditional use with those conditions. In response to that lawsuit, the sponsor, council and architect and City Attorney and planning staff have been meeting to discuss alternative options that might be a possible path to settle the lawsuit and move forward with the Development Proposal on his site. That is why we are here before you today. The current proposal is three for re30foot tall two unit building with mile marry primary 2600 and access re1200 square fee and 355 square foot garage with an independent access off burnett avenue. It is access to the second floor four bedrooms and three baths and kitchen upper polic floor. There is a hatch on the roof deck. The accessory dwelling unit including two bedrooms and two bathrooms wit access to the rear yard. All in all the project presented is the result of extensive negotiations with the sponsor. Planning staff worked to get to this point including getting the addition of second unit in part thanks to recent legislation that has allowed accessory dwelling units in new construction. We worked to make sure there is increased density on the lot, the units are of relative equibly sized units to prevent sham units which is through the design that has two independent accesses as well as improved neighborhood character through a revised architectural design. All in all. The Department Recommends approval of conditional use before you. We are available for questions. Thanks. Thank you, miss waty. We will hear from the project sponsor. Before we begin procedural questions. A question was raised about the connection between main unit and a. D. U. Project sponsor requests continuance to september 19 to resolve that issue with the Planning Department. I believe planning staff is am meanable to a continuance. Are you able to speak to that . Planning staff is fine with continuance if they would like to continue refining the design of the a. D. U. We still have to hear Public Comment. We will do that. You are going to for go the project presentation . That is what you are asking . If there is Public Comment on the continuance, that is fine. We want to make a presentation if the matter is going to be heard today. I think that i am okay with continuing this until september 19th if it will give you more time to work out the issue of the connection between the main unit and a. D. U. We will hear Public Comment on the continuance. Okay. Members of the public are you okay continuing to september 19th . This is your opportunity to speak to that. This is joan kim. I live at 36 hopkins. I am here with some of the neighbors from the hopkins avenue neighborhood. We would prefer to actually present to you our opposition to the project, and the principals behind our opposition to it. The project sponsors are asking for continuance. We will be here if it continues on september 19th. We did rearrange schedules to be here to present the neighborhood perspective. We would like the opportunity to do that for the commissioners today if that is okay. We will hear from other fol folks. This is just on the matter of continuance. Then we have to vote on the matter of continuing it, right . It is on the agenda. We have to vote whether or not we want to continue it. Is that okay with you . Yes. Maybe i dont understand. There are three of us up here and it may be confusing to you as well. If i am understanding correctly now, we would speak at the continuance and not now . Yes. Right now we are taking up the matter of the continuance. The commissioners are considering whether or not to continue to september 19th. This is your matter to speak to the continuance. If the Commission Decides not to continue you will have an opportunity to speak to the project today. If they continue the matter you will speak on the date they continue it to. I am confused with mr. Patterson not advising us earlier he was going to request a continuance again today. We have juggled this matter quite a bit on the agenda today and put out to members of the public expecting to have it heard today. We will vote. There may not be support for continuing it now and we will hear the whole thing. This is a very late request, mr. It looks like it is for Public Comment on the continuance request. If you want to talk about the continuance. Madam commissioners, i am david hooper. I came for a different item. I was surprised to see this one. I have the same questions why did it take such a late time for somebody to say that they wanted a continuance if the staff knew, the project sponsor knew about it, why the surprise . That is what i wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. I am stephanie peak. I sat here all last thursday afternoon so hot like you all sat through, too, to make my remarks. Here i am today. I would like to speak today. I would vote against the surprise continuance. Thank you. Commissioner richards. Commissioner richards i understand the project sponsor. It is a bit of a surprise. I think this commission should hear this item today to give direction to the staff so they understand where we are landing so they can design a building rather than potentially design a building that is not where we land today than come back for a surprise. I do not support a continuance. Commissioner fong. Commissioner fong i also dont support continuance. The issues will be a process with the staff to reach a final decision. Is there a motion to continue, commissioners . Seeing no motion. Ryan patterson, you have five minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon. I am Ryan Peterson on behalf of the project sponsor. I would like to start by thanking staff by the tremendous amount of time and Energy Invested on getting this project on the right track. The project before you today is extensively redesigned and we tried to take your comments and Department Guidance and neighborhood concerns into account as well as City Attorneys. This is not an easy needle to thread. This is a compromise negotiated at great length, detail and expense with planning and City Attorneys office. Due to the unfortunate background this is the bare minimum needed for the project. There are costs and financial constraints and significant changes are not financially feasible. We have been pushed hard to revise this application. We have done everything we asked and everything we can. The results of the project designed meets the applicable standards and is subject to housing account ability act. The project sponsor was not asking for the project before you. They wanted a modest Single Family home and we are coming to you with a compromise we can live with. There is a roof deck to meet open space and recoup the costs, the features you see in the project are important to make it pencil out. I will turn over to the architect to go over more details about the application. I thank you for your consideration today. Good afternoon. A year ago before the commission i presented a history of 49 hopkins site discussing how the original Single Family residency involved and lost the qualities with a fire and now with the demolished site with Single Family residential. I will focus the best to address the city housing goals for replacement structure. Surrounding properties are 1 and 2 to the east and four stories to the south and larger multiunit apartments to the west. These Larger Properties to the west are separated by significant grade change. Similar to properties on burmelt this burnett this has unique geometry. Our goal was to respond to recent legislation supporting accessory dwelling units to meet general goal of providing rental housing and provide family size homes. The result is proposal in lieu of one home is two moderately scaled family appropriate homes. The ground floor proposed single car garage to the east to better cluster with the adjacent neighbors driveway resulting in additional parking space on hopkins. First floor i is okay you occupy the a. D. U. It requires 300 square feet of open space when is the rear yard for the use of the a. D. U. To allow the two units to function independently to avoid the a. D. U. Behind the garage feel to fully inhabit the ground floor. Set backs provide landscaping on hopkins. The entry for upper unit is located off burnett and elevated 6 feet from a. D. U. To distinguish between the two properties. We provided four bedrooms on the second floor. Kitchen, living, dining on third floor and it is a third story structure. Provided minimal amount of open space as required by zoning code and planning code. This is the proposed property as viewed from the west. You can see we maintained the two story reading stepping from the four stories from the south. Set backs along hopkins further reducing the size of th the structure. This is the proposed structure as viewed from hopkins. It steps down from the east and with the setbacks it there is a two story a. D. U. This is a great opportunity to see the new legislation allowing the new construction to provide two moderately sized home. No waivers and taken care to compress the design to take advantage of the hillside and maintain two story reading in the neighborhood. We request the Commission Support the design before you and we are available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. We will now take Public Comment on this item. I have two speaker cards. Cheryl traverse, you guys are going to do a joint presentation and stephanie peak. Thank you. We are three of the neighbors on hopkins avenue representing seven out of the eight homes on hopkins. The only remaining homeowner was ill. The remaining seven submitted emails and letters detailing our concerns with this project. We summarized them in this presentation today. I think we have been given a little bit of the historical context. First quickly to set the context what brought us here today. In september 2018, the developer was stopped when it disregarded the permit and application Building Codes by unlawfully demolishes a historical home at 49 hopkins. You ordered the developer to rebuild the replica of the original home. We are here in defines of that decision once again. The permit under consideration today represents not the original 700 square foot home or 1300 square foot home demolished unlawfully but more than 4,000 square foot dwelling in the proposed plan. A little about our neighborhood. Hopkins avenue is the kind of modest family neighborhood that is disappearing in San Francisco. We are a Diverse Group of long standing residents some have been living there since 1963. The homes are lived in by the owners not rented buy out of state developers. We know each other by name. We are quick to help each other, we take in recycling bins after trash day, always calling one another to alert puddles to the flat roofs and so forth. We would love to have a new neighbor at 49 hospita 49 49 ho. We want to keep the character and scale that exists there today. This permit does not fit the character and scale of existing neighborhood nor does it follow the intent of San Franciscos a. D. U. Programmed. This is for a 4200 square foot dwelling. The average size of the existing homes is 1400 square feet. It was actually probably the smaller than that if we included the 1449 hopkins dwelling that was demolished unlawfully. They are made up of two and three bedroom homes as opposed to the six bedroom design there. It is three times the size of the average house on hopkins and four times the size of the house next door. 4. 5 times the size of the one demolished. It is no lower a two floor sort of building from hopkins. Your time is up. Thank you. The a. D. U. Section j the a. D. U. S have to be in character and scale with the neighbor. Give me a break. 1200 square feet is not small. It is not low rent. It is as big as my house. The proposed a. D. U. Is larger than 50 of the homes. Use the microphone, please. The proposed a. D. U. Is larger than 50 of the homes on the block. Section j. Without agreeing to recording. Will it below rent . The only way to do that is to record it in the deed. This is a 1200 square foot house for market rate which is, you know, it is going to be a lot. There are other theirs we didnt other things we didnt bring up. The a. D. U. Is a good manual. It talks about seniors walking uphills. If you took our 14degree hill and made it flat there would be no discussion you could see what we are talking about. It is a hill. You cant see the scale. When the architect showed the views, he doesnt show the real hill. You are talking about how big is dannys house . Yeah, 1200 square foot house behind. Take that hill and make it flat. You will see what i am talking about. No walking distance, no anything. You have got to drive. So we are asking the commission to put conditions on this that make a small footprint home. 1400 would be about right. The a. D. U. Approximately 400 square foot. Nobody asked us our opinion. The architect came and gave what he was going to do, no discussion at all from anybody. I dont know what this guy is talking about. We would like hopkins entrance it is r1 street. We dont mind the a. D. U. It is an r1 street, multi family, totally different neighborhood. We would like you to make the deed, get this guy to put in forcible restrictions in the deed. That is the only way to do below market rate housing. We would like you to supervise the contractor because we were out there. I am the one that called to have it stopped. We want weekly reports if he does get going on this. Thank you. I am sorry. I will have t have to ad lib. I believe the priority policy section 101 states that new construction major alterations of the a. D. U. Not be out of character of the existing neighborhood. I believe this is. Cheryl is correct. When she showed that slide he did not show hopkins avenue he showed burnett with all of the huge constructions that previously were not there when i moved there. My parents bought that home. The character of this neighborhood is disappearing. They have built down on corbett street high. They have builtup twin peaks higher and higher. San francisco is known, i was born and lived here and lived in the projects. My family saved so we could move in a neighborhood that was safe. I have a history here. This neighborhood has a history. San francisco has a history. It is important that communities like ours are not disappearing. There is enough of it going on. I believe what is the real intention of this building being built . Having access to burnett rather than hopkins . What is the future going to look like of this neighborhood . We could easily sell our homes. We could easily get mega dollars for the homes. We somewhere chosen not to do that because we like our community and would like to keep it. We are not opposed to having someone move and build something reasonable. That is fine. If you need us to participate in that, we would be more than willing to participate and some of the things that we think might be workable, but we dont believe this is workable. It goes contrary to what we believe the code states, and also with cheryl stating i believe that the investor and the contractor need to be over seen through the process. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is stefanly peak a long time are dent of San Francisco. I urge you to limit the size of the New Buildings designed to replace the house at 49 hopkins. It seems only fair that the new houses not exceed the propertys foot present which existed before the illegal demolition by the sponsors. What message is sent to the community and the world atlarge if the sponsors worry warded with a project rewarded with a project four times the size of the original size. I am not representing San Francisco heritage. I would like to quote from the letter sent to you last week. After the illegal demolition the commission mandated the sponsor rebuild based on the 1936 design for 927 square foot residence. Nine months later the sponsor seeks approval of a project exceeds 4100 square feet and adding a second dwelling. In the past the Planning Commission limited the size of the replacement to the Square Footage of the preexisting structure and it should do so here. The extra Dwelling Community may promote goals of the plan it should not provide a ticket to build larger projects. In San Francisco there is an overwhelming financial incentive to transguess despite potential penalties. We hope the commission will not under mine the tough statement of last december with a new pathway to demolish and seek forgiveness and reek more square foofootage. It should be no longer than the house that stood prior to the illegal demolition in 2017. Thank you so much for listening to us. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. I am jerry dadler with the San Francisco land use coalition. Legalizing the demolition of 1312 square foot dwelling, 1580 square foot pool and 380 square foot damage and replacing with two dwellings with 3825 square feet of habitable space would be a clear violation of 103 a of the City Building code. It imposes five year restriction on former demolition sites to the same number of units and same or fewer square feet. The commission should only approve a Building Permit consistent with this code section. Approving the proposed 192 increase in habitable square feet gives the developer a substantial economic reward for his ill legal demolition. The architect brought up the point of the project penciling out. The Planning Commission is not obligated to approve a plan that pan sells out for the developer. Denying increase in the Square Footage would be consistent with prior decisions for similar demolitions and would send a message it will not be tolerated. Examples is 214 straight street and 310 mount calm. This permit is incomplete pupped 106. 3. 2 and should not be approved. The code states a demolition permit shall not be deemed complete until there is a written notice that it is approved the diverse plan. No plan is filed or approved. I was a member of a commission in the city of San Francisco and took the same oath you took to uphold the laws of the city. Approving this project which violates two sections of the city code would be a violation of your oath. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. I am Caroline Kennedy from the demlower resheights improvement club. Thank you for the current state of 49 hopkins. My neighborhood has Significant Homes as well. This is important to us. Back to basics. We all know. The San Francisco general plan has San Francisco general plan has priority one existing housing and neighborhood character be preserved and protected. Two the city citys supply of Affordable Housing be enhanced. That landmarks be preserved. Illegal demolition of 49 hopkins violates all of these. The contractor was ordered to reconstruct the building. I urge you to uphold the decision. To do otherwise would damage the integrity and trust as citizens of the city. The general plan and housing priorities are core values and principals to guide how we evolve our city. Thank you so much for your time today. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. I am bruce bowen from the San Francisco land use coalition. With great surprise and distress i heard this project was coming forward to the Commission Last week in the comment form and distress full to see it with a Department Recommendation for approval with the prospect they could approve this as proposed not take advantage of the possible remedies available to you for remm deeing the situation created into the unpermitted demolition. In our neighborhood within a couple blocks of my house there are seven demolitions going through approval process. I emphasize there are seven going through the approval process. That is seeking approval for demolition before proceeding. I cant imagine what would happen if the developer realized they could go avoid the lengthy process and get the bulldozers out directly as a first step. What confidence can the public have in the protections that are available to the public by the city . I would like to add to the list of demolitions you heard a minute ago 1068 florida. I believe that is the right address was illegal that i have read about in the press. This is not a good prospect. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Okay with that Public Comment is now closed. Commissioner richards. Commissioner richards two questions for staff. First, is the pool house enclosure considered living space . Not considered living space but gross Square Footage do include that area. Question for the City AttorneyBuilding Code section 1. 3. A. Would this call under the Building Code definition of demolition . Deputy City Attorney. Is my microphone on . We would have to take a look at whether it suffice the definition of demolition. That is currently being reexamined and legislative work and i cant answer that right now. I would have to take a look. I will wait to get a sense from other commissioners. Commissioner hillis. Commissioner hillis on that point with the City Attorney. Can you talk more about the planning code if demolition did apply i mean Building Code. Again deputy City Attorney. The section sited is to prevent people from building fewer numbers of residential units than previously located on the site. I will look for City Attorney opinions. I dont think it is intended to permit us from building more residential units. It was to prevent tearing down a three unit and replacing with a single mega mansion. I would have to research it since i have just been presented with the question. The Building Code definition right now demolition is defined as fully scraping the Site Foundation and everything. That is not how the current lot situation is. There are a few remaining walls at the site. Technically under their code this is an alteration. Obviously because our code is more stringent defining it as significant alteration. We treat as demo and make them continue out the process of treatings as if it is a demo. Building code is not a lot different. I cant site chapter and verse of the code. Generally it is clearing the site under their code which is not the situation before us. It is in the planning code considered a demolition. Building code is different right now. The second point of the question the five year moratorium. It has not been heavily used in the past mostly because the situations we see up here are situations like this where they have exceeded alteration. There is still something on the site even if that is the foundation. It doesnt technically meet the way the law is currently written. There are 2001 or one or two instances where that is utilized and the neighborhood stood there with a site in state of disrepair. Everyone has come to the conclusion who is that serving, the community . The general consensus is to find a project to be able to place on that site so it is not in a state of disrepair for five years. What does it say about Square Footage . If it is illegal or exceeding the scope in demolishing, does it say the Square Footage of the new structure shouldnt exceed what was on the site prior . I am not aware of any such language. I cant know for sure every day teal of the Building Code. I am not aware of any language that says obligation to repair it. Distinction. Building code is more mechanical to build buildings for life safety. Not a lot of policy intent. The planning code is the policy codes in the underlying code. You will see that direction, our code and less in the Building Code. Once again, deputy City Attorney. Your mic phone is on. Speak into it. It is showing on but not very loud. The bottom line is that under the circumstances as described by ms. Wattty it does not apply to this property. Why . Under the Building Code as the planning staff described this is not considered a demolition. There is enough left on the site of original structure it is not a demolition under the Building Code. It will be demolished . To the public and others, we are faced with a lot here. The Building Code and planning code are not consistent on this. We view this as demolition. Building doesnt. Logically we can say this is a demolition. Supervisor peskin is working on legislation to address this where we have a demolition to make fines and remedies appropriate for demolition. Clearing this is a demolition. Do you know if there an enforcement case at the Building Department currently . Yes, there is an active enforcement case. I will defer to jeff. Yes, since november of 2017 when construction occurred there is open violations with d. B. I. And enforcement cases with planning. Exceeding the scope of the permit or illegal . This isnt exceeding the scope, it is not illegal demolition . D. B. I. Has two main kind of categories for violations. One is work without permit and one is work over scope. This project is work over scope because they did have alteration and addition permit to do construction activities. They would happen to go beyond what was approved in the planning site permit. What will happen with that . I am actually may refer to the sponsor to talk about what d. B. I. Moved forward and where the status is of those violations. It is my understanding once the violations are served the project sponsor has to respond with a permit to correct the situation. So these permits before you are the permit applications before you reference the violations to correct them and get a permit for the unlawful demolition that has occurred. This would extinguish those cases . Correct. Those are pending in my understanding . I dont think there is a penalty assessed as long as the project is moving forward in a way would would eventually address them. No penalty if these eliminate that enforcement action . My understanding if there is no effort to move things forward the penalty is usually assessed. In the cases where it takes awhile for the process to work the way out there is typically not a penalty assessed for that. I have seen it in a variety of different ways. A important piece of context as the rules exist and we are working on these the Building Departments violations and planning code penalties are not punitive in nature. The goal of the penalties and violations are to gain compliance. That is a important distinction. When the violation sort of letters of violation go out the goal is to get a permit to correct the situation and remedy it. Where the fines get assessed on the Building Permit they will regardless of the sort of violation bucket and permit to correct. Permit to correct will be two times permit fee with the Building Department. Our estimate and this is ballpark based on what the Building Department staff anticipate the adjusted cost of construction for the project right now, the two times fee falls in the range of about 36,000 so normally it would behalf of that and they are getting charged 18,000, ballpark normally they would get assessed 36,000 or so because of the two times fee and the planning code right now again if they respond in a timely manner to file the permit to address 250 a day violation stops we can approve a 1,500 enforcement fee on the permit we approve. Those are the two remedies. We recognize this is an issue working with supervisor peskins office to remedy the these. That is the way the law is written right now. [please stand by] kind of absorbed into the main home itself. The fact that were getting two units now where there was one larger unit is good. I disagree with the neighbors in cutting the a. D. U. Down to a 400 square foot a. D. U. Or a smaller a. D. U. But i think the main one is too large for that block especially in relation to the downslope neighbors. And you talked about there was a discussion on the entry i mean, what was the discussion or needs to be fixed on the entry to the a. D. U. . I mean, the issue of we were going to continue this, what was the issue . I dont think its the entry in and of itself. I think its a desire of the sponsor to refine the interior layout of the a. D. U. To ensure that theres not a concern about punching through a wall in connecting the two units or having this being absorbed into a larger singlefamily home. We made a point working with the sponsor that this needs to be a legitimate unit. So i think the sponsor has some further ideas how they can further refine the layout of the ground floor unit to reinforce that. Whats the height of the entryway into the main floor . Is there a height differential between where you enter . Yeah, we separated them by 6 between hopkins and burnet. That would help mitigate the changes, but the way the stairs are oriented that would make it come down why dont you just go up from the burnet side . We do. You mean, you take up a lot of space on the a. D. U. With that kind of stair case configuration. Could you just go up from burnet, give some more space to the a. D. U. Where you dont have that grade change and do the typical staircase on the upper floor . Well, you come in at 6. Can you pull up or put on the overhead that drawing on their packet. So where you enter burnet. From here and were about 6 above this level. So what weve done is come across here and come up an additional 4 feet to get to the level of the second floor. So that whole area thats outlined in that checked pattern is all 6 above the a. D. U. Height . Yes. We could make this an elevated platform but how far do you have to go up to get to the main unit . 4 feet. Why not make a stair up into the unit like a typical San Francisco building. Then once youre in the unit you have the stairs going up and give some of this space back to the a. D. U. . We could. I think our intention was basically to block off the space underneath so it cant be filled in or used as a stair to extend down. I think part of the discussions weve been having are can we make the walls around the stair out of something thats harder to break through such as concrete i dont understand why youre taking that much on the a. D. U. You would be able to get that space back into the a. D. U. We can look at that further. I thought we were up 4 feet, but were immediately into that unit. Commissioner moore. I would like to ask mr mr. Dredler, who was a commissioner, to explain to us if he in his practice as a commissioner has ever used the provision he was quoting us. Would you mind speaking to us about that. We are in a very awkward situation as the definition of demolition between d. B. I. And the Planning Department is definitely not on the same page, not to say theyre at odds. Could you explain in your time of how you used that provision, if at all. I was on a different commission. Oh, i thought you were on the Planning Commission