types of permits? >> we actually have -- i would say three types of permits we typically issue. a form one or two permit is for the construction of a completely new building. this particular permit is alteration, addition, or repair, so in this case understanding that this was a partial demolition this is our vehicle for documenting that fact, so the other permit that we have is the form six and that say full demo. that would require the notifications that would be necessary for complete building demolition. >> and from the technical point of view filing for form six now -- would it be accepted by the

department? from a technical point of view? >> i don't know how we could retroacactively review a form six application now. number one, it wouldn't be necessary because we don't have evidence that this was one building. we have evidence to the contrary that it was in addition to an existing building. >> okay. >> so if i could follow up on that. my question -- i don't know if it's to you or the city attorney what are the political implications would be of upholding the appeal. you just said you don't believe the department can issue a different permit. >> i don't believe so because the information that we have and we have recovered from our records indicate what was demolished to be an addition to what was already there. >> so if we were to uphold the appeal what are the politicsal

consequences if any? >> >> and more what other options do we have besides the appeal? city attorney? >> well, i think you just said that. i mean -- i think the gentleman just responded to your question. if you up hold the appeal then you revoke the permit and they have to apply for another permit and what permit is proper under these circumstances? he explained that the permit they currently have is the one that is appropriate for the work that's been done in these circumstances. >> i guess my question is a little different but related which is why do we have jurisdiction to begin with if this is a mute point? the building is gone. the permit was issued. whether it was issued in error or not it seems like a mute point for us at this point. >> i second that line.

>> if i could add one more comment? if we had a permit filed to add -- let's say a 10,000 square feet to a building this would be the same permit. >> okay. >> whether it's to add 10,000 or remove 10,000 from an existing building. this would be the assignment document. >> i understand that. so i don't know if you have an opinion but the city attorney has an opinion why we have jurisdiction? >> you technical have jurisdiction -- you need to use the microphone. >> you have jurisdiction because the law gives you jurisdiction over the appeals of permits and this permit has been appealed to you. what you choose to do obviously is within your discretion as to whether or not you revoke it and create a situation he then applies for another permit and may not get it. you may -- you could i suppose add conditions to the

permit if you think conscience would help. >> >> alleviate the situation and up hold the permit and hope it takes care of the situation if properly enforced. >> and to be clear we don't have jurisdictions for fines? >> no, you don't have jurisdiction for fines. >> okay. just wanted to be clear that is the case. >> and if i can ask and the work is done upon the original permit and visiting the site you had violations and nothing can happen until we do that? is that correct. >> that's correct commissioner. i would like to add as i mentioned the razor wire has been removed but that was a necessary permit as was explained for the safety of the neighborhood.

>> i have a question. do we have the jurisdiction to revoke the original permit? >> original permit? you mean the one they used to demolish this portion of the building? >> clean up and remove? yeah. >> that is the permit before the board at this time. >> okay. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez, planning department. i will be brief and defer to the city attorney but i believe the board has the ability to deny the permit and require them to get a permit to demolish if they feel this one was inappropriately issued because another one should have been issued. i would note if that is the case and they come in now for a permit to demolish it's documenting the work already

done and applylet planning code to that and they're required subsequently to rebuild the building at least the size that it was before if not twice as large. we need to calculate that for the site because section 230 requires that the building be the same size or twice as large, so that would be the implications i would see at least on the planning department side. >> and is that inconsistent with the letter of determination? is it additional requirement not out lined in that letter? >> so the letter of determination was -- they postulated a specific project and reuse of the specific buildings so they wasn't -- >> wasn't know issue that you addressed? >> exactly. >> okay. got it. >> i have a question for you sir . given what you've heard so far what is it that you want

this board to do? >> i think mr. sanchez hit the nail on the head. revocation of the permit would require the applicant to file a full form six. in doing that there obviously are implications. now, there are some discretion on the part of those agencies that would follow that application back to the various departments and agencies that run concurrent with the permit so the demolition permit require that for full demolition. it would require the special inspection permit -- >> sir. >> i'm sorry. >> i have seen the brief. >> okay. so the point is by following the form six there would be required to comply with the regulations and i believe then you could respond to building code requirements for one to one replacement or two

to one replacement. >> okay. thank you. >> [inaudible] >> only to my question though. >> just briefly. that's not possible. if i heard him correctly he said the only other permit to apply for is form six which would require complete demolition of the building -- >> that's what mr. sanchez said. >> okay. mr. sanchez. complete demolition of the entire building which no one wants and accomplishes nothing. do you have anything else? >> for form six you have to tear down the existing main building. you cannot do a form six on this small portion. >> i will ask you the same question i ask before. what would you and your client do to alleviate some of the concerns here? >> yeah. we met with him

yesterday and we attempted to address the issues that he raised in his brief. he had a question about the water that was used to control the dust. we furnished him with the water bills showing the thousands of gallons used for dust suppression. he had a question about the air permit and we supplied that. he had a question about the razor wire. we removed the razor wire, so at this point i'm not sure what more we can do, you know, as the building is gone. oh -- yeah, he asked about return of the milk carton. there was a sign there used by berkeley farms -- >> two actually. >> two. i offered to him to contact berkeley farms to see if we could get replacements and if we could not i offered him that

the owner would reconstruct new ones and put them on the site so that offer is still outstanding. >> go ahead i'm sorry. >> i'm sorry. >> no. >> i have a question for mr. sanchez actually. >> so does the form six require the remaining building to be demolished as well. >> ma'am, that's a department of building inspection issue but my understanding the question before you was whether the permit was correctly issued? this is the appeals board for the permit and if you feel that this board has great discretion and if you believe it was a demolition permit i believe you could deny the permit here and require they full the form six permit. i don't know if the board's decision on that the

board is saying to demolish the rest of the building. you're saying that the work done already should have required a form six and trigger our requirements under 230 and just briefly on the sign issue. the sign as it was before was a business sign and that was allowed to be maintained even though the sign itself and not compliant with the zoning. replacement of that sign since it's no longer barkly farms is a general advertising sign so it's not allowed. however there is a new provision of the code that was passed last year and allows restoration of historic signs and one standards if the sign is more than 40 years old and i believe this qualifies and that is a conditional use before the planning commission. i don't know if there is a guarantee it to be replaced like before. we can look at it and it would

require that authorization and we have to do appropriate review of that so i want to make that clear. >> commissioners just to reiterate you have been presented with evidence that on both sides of this issue whether the building was properly demolished under alteration permit or whether the building was wasn't done that way. your job is to decide what you believe is accurate and then make your decision there so you have the authority as the zoning administrator indicated. and i believe without any further questions the matter is submitted. >> okay. would anybody like to start? i will start then. you know the -- we understand the

concerns and perhaps a certain degree the incentives that the permit owner had but also the concerns of the community had. the question here i believe is one that is potentially more processed then it is technical and legal tenants that we see with respect to the permits. there's no doubt that both the building codes and the planning codes are -- there are some arcane elements within those codes, and it's not always as clear cut as possible. and this board has seen every type of story from every type of developer, builder, or community

member. reading into it who is intentionally erfraudulently doing something isn't easy but we can probably guess, so i would pose something a little different, and i don't know if it's going to get me into more trouble with the city attorney, but i propose that recognizing that there is a desire to have greater communications i would offer the following condition to the permit. that is on all future permits on this particular site provide notice similar to the 300 feet radius map that we would do for either cu's or these. >> well, i think that's an interesting proposal because i note in our packets a letter from supervisor cohen

indicating she is working on legislation to try to fix this lack of notice that exists for this particular kind of zoning district, and i think that's the gist of the problem here, so if that legislation were to take care of this issue i think that would go a long way for this community and i completely sympathize with the concerns here. however, the code is what it is at this particular point and time, so i think what commissioner fung is proposing seems like a very practical solution to the problem, to this particular situation. however, i believe the community and i encourage the community and any other people concerned about this type of situation work with supervisor cohen if she is trying to come up with a solution that addresses this in the future so i guess i am saying i am supportive of what

commissioner fung is proposing. >> commissioners before you is this one permit and i think you would be challenged to require conditions on other permits that are not before you, but i do think this suggestion is something that the permit holder could voluntarily agree to and if it's the board's inclin aitionz you could up hold the permit noting that to provide notice on other permits. >> just for the record i am not convinced or this that the proper permit was taken out on this property. i think it went beyond the scope of the permit but again the building is gone. there is little recourse. they can't rebuild it back and the sign can't be put on and like commissioner suggested -- >> why don't you wait until we

have some discussion first -- some. >> some other outreach and would it have the same results? that's my concern we're here to represent all of the city. >> councilor, we have posed one avenue here. do you want to respond to that? >> yes as was mentioned he is working on obtaining the necessary permit to correct the mov's outstanding, so and i think everyone wants the nov's to be resolved so i would say with the exception of those permits all of which are currently needed and everyone

wants to be issued that we would stipulate to give notice for permits in the future. >> mr. sanchez is going to tell me the only way we can do that is a block book notice. >> scott sanchez. we have a process and any interest party can request notice of the planning department. i guess i would have concerns of a blanket noticing provision. which agency is responsible for doing the notification? what does the notification entail? who does it go to? what does it provide for? does it allow for discretion at the planning department? i think there is a whole host of questions with this so we have a process in place, the bb n process and any interested party can request

notice of permits by the planning department. there is a fee for that. it lasts one year. there is a reduced fee for neighborhood organizations so i encourage use of existing process rather than creation of a new process and all of the uncertainties that would result in. >> it's just a little bit limited in its -- how the information is dispersed. >> so the bb n is a 10 day notice to the interested party when the department is reviewing a permit and currently there is no notification permit but i believe supervisor cohen is discussing possible solutions for that. >> l i think if the permit holder is willing to stipulate to providing notice to the community within a certain radius and the onerous is on the permit holder to accomplish that. i think that's what

we're asking and what the permit holder as agreed to do. i see you shaking your head yes. >> and i think the building department is sensitized to it also. they're relatively young. i don't think retiring soon. >>i think additional specifications are necessary to clarify the radius and advance notice in terms of days and at what initiation point, what trigger point? >> i had a question. there would have notice under form six, is it? >> that's correct. >> is that the one that might be the applicable radius notification group whatever to be applied here? if we upheld the appeal and they had to go for form six that's what would result anyway. is that correct? >> i wonder if someone from the department can explain what that notice requirement is under form

six? >> this would be a noticing requirement regarding a full demolition as you guyses just mentioned, there would be planning and building departmented in this notification process. >> what are the parameters of that notification? >> i believe with neighbors within 300 feet. >> is that done at the time the application is submitted. >> that is done at the time the filing of the application as i understand it. >> i mean given we're basically asking for a voluntarily stipulation by counsel i guess i am trying to put guidelines around it and suggest that is the model they could use. >> i have him researching the code as i am speaking.

>> and to be clear the board is asking that carried out by the permit holder and not by the department so they get the notification and get the materials and distributed it. >> yeah, it's probably something more of what part of the permit applicant should be doing rather than the department because the department is form six. >> right. we're trying to give guidelines how they go about meeting the request; right? >> yes. and that's only written and well defined, so we can accept that as a general process. >> okay. >> does that give you enough information? >> yes. and is that what the permit holder is agreeing to? >> [inaudible] >> okay. >> if i may mr. fung. >> yes. >> i think there are two unresolved issues here actually and if we leave the room only with that stipulation we have

no guarantee from counsel we will receive either the sign or a similar value of the sign if we're not able to install it on the building as was alluded to. nor do we have any result of testing of the soil in this area and counsel did not give you any information on where that process is, where the soil is, and what happened with it, so i would add those two items are kriewcialg for us to understand, and i would agree that the 311 notification in addition to that is satisfactory conclusion. thank you very kindly. >> i agree on one of them which is the soils testing. given that the district there has had a lot of issues with their soil. >> we will test the soil and provide the results to the building department or whoever else you want it provided to,

health department, whatever. >> since you this has been opened up and in the letter of january 3 and no soil has been removed and container of sand and could you clarify that. >> i will let him clarify that because it's with the construction of the -- reare retaining of the loading dock. >> i'm sorry. what was the question? >> according letter a container of sand was received and no soil was removed from the site. >> grade was set a long ago and what is in the soil 10 feet down is an issue granted. when they built this structure and back filled that soil with clean sand. i was out at the building after you tracking down this soil, tracking it down when -- the fill in the box, the

loading dock was moved to say site and mixed into other soils so i have another alternative how to research that soil condition. >> so there was soil removed and it's being tested? >> the soil generally in the code -- the ordinance and digging soil out from the ground. this was soil above grade in a loading dock area used for fill. >> but it's not sand. >> i believe it was sand. you were there earlier. it's been mixed into another site so i don't know if we're going to get a good test with that soil. >> i did see the site that counsel referred me to today and claiming that the soil was relocated to a site. there is a single probably 4-yard -- 4 cubic yard mound of soil on that site. the amount of soil removed from san diego four rex seeds.

>> >> 660 cubic yards and do the math of the area that was mentioned, 4 feet high, 157 feet long and 34 feet wide -- actually that's about 8,000 square foot. >> okay sir. we understand -- >> and tremendous amount of soil. >> we're going to ask that you conduct testing on that. the other condition of the barkly farm boxes is not crucial to my decision. >> or mine either. >> okay. so do you want to state our motion? >> can you remember it other than i? >> i will try. >> all right. >> so i would move to uphold the permit on the condition that all future permits for this site

provide notification as outlined in form six, and that that notification will be the respond of the permit holder. in addition, that the appellant be provided results of the testing of the soil that came from this site. is that specific enough? >> i would suggest one correction which is not be conditioned on the notification for future permits, but that you note the permit holder's agreement to provide such notification. >> yes. and i am satisfied that the permit holder understands the notice requirements and has stipulated to provide them as

outlined in this motion. >> the permit holder requested that the permits to resolve the violation not be included in that agreement. >> correct. >> okay. do you want the soil testing results? what happens after this if there is another hearing and the board hearing is final and we decide when the suspension gets lifted and i am interested when that should happen and after the results and provided to the board? >> i would say that the test results be provided to the appellant and the building department and they could review. they have the experience to review those things for toxicity and for them to sign off on it. >> so the suspension should not be lifted until the department of building inspection signs off

on the soils report? >> i am just getting a shaking of the head. mr. riordan let's see if we can put this to rest. okay. >> the shaking of the head had to do with the reviewing of the documents resulted to the testing of the soil. we don't have professional on staff who's capable of reviewing testing related to soil. >> then let's do it this way. that the testing be done by a certified professional / laboratory, and the results be provided to the appellant and to the departments. >> okay. >> for recordkeeping. >> if i could add to that. if it's provided to us by a professional