jurisdiction request, but hold on the -- continue the appeals that are actually properly before us today? >> we prepared to move forward with the jurisdictional request and then address the continuous with the administrator also. >> okay. let's go forward. >> that's fine. >> we can hear the jurisdictional request and depending what the outcome of that perhaps the board wants to entertain the other question. >> i apologize for not having a brief prepared for the board. the brief that was submitted by the previous counsel is a little sketchy and for the reason we were never able to accept the

plans submitted to the department that was the basis of those permits. let me get over the first one which is the removal of the sheet rock or plaster inside the house. basically the second permit that's issued was one that was issued in error by the planning department because the way the plan they was finally able to see yesterday at the planning department because the permit didn't provide us with plans so we can look at it. they were going to give the approved set of plans to look at on the following conditions. we withdraw the jurisdictional request. we withdraw the permits on the appeals and also forgo any right to challenge

any additional permits they filed on this building, so clearly those conditions were not acceptable and fortunately the planning department finally was able to get a set of plans, the approved plans, on monday. the department will not give a set of plans either, so yesterday the department was kind of enough for me to review the plans, so what i find is the first set of plans -- all the plans have no existing plans. they have no existing elevations or existing sectionses, it is impossible to determine the true scope of work because i have no basis to compare it with, but what i do find out -- i did find out that they were building a second floor in the rear

addition that's an old addition that would have required a variance, and no variance was granted because the way they presented the plan when you look at it looked like it was there. it doesn't look like it was new because the walls were not in that shade, so because of that that permit was erroneously issued. it always have a excavation on the lower level which is right above the garage, and they claim that they extending it back 5 feet, but what it doesn't show is that the garage ceiling is higher than the floor of the lower level which is the family level, so when you look at the plan there

are all these changes that actually go all the way into the garage area but with our section drawn properly. you don't know actually the garage was going to be also in that area when -- so that was another problem. as for the third permit which is -- it show a massive excavations. what the permit application does not tell you that they're taking a very small one car garage at the corner of jackson and presidio and they are extending that all the way back to the back wall of the original building to house five cars. now, to do that obviously they will have to totally destroy the floor on the lower level, so

they also extended that all the way back to the rear wall to add additional space and room and such. in order to have bedrooms and the space and that excavated area they need new windows for those rooms. this assembling a 1915 building so potential historic resource so you have all new windows in the lower level which would have possibly change the kaish of this potential resources. under the normal circumstances if the total scope of the project was presented to the planning department it would have to under go environmental review as well as historic resource evaluation. this particular project has a series of five permits, six permits, and they have -- going to be a few more

so we don't know the total scope of this project, and the department at this point, and i think this board looking at the permits on appeal it's very difficult to decide what is the project because the basis for those permits are not really before you, and that's one of the reasons why we're asking for jurisdiction. >> thank you. >> let me just clarify one thing. the second permit is the one they referred to as four doing the seismic work and the garage extension. is that correct? >> no, the second permit does not do any work in the garage i don't believe. i only have chance to look at those plans. that's my recollection, but it does show that there is an

extension -- expansion of the lower floor which is the floor above the garage level that wraps around the garage, and that was extended to the back about 5 feet. >> and that's in the -- >> and the third one expands all the way back. >> the third permit? >> the third permit. >> okay. thank you. we can hear from mr. soriano. >> good evening members of the board, council for the city attorney's office. i am appearing on behalf of the permit holders at 68 presidio avenue. let me start with a clarification from the question. it's the expandian and the

lower level expansion to your question and let me remind everybody what we're doing right now and this is a jurisdictional request. like the application submitted the presentation was the appeal. they're arguing the merits of the permit but they haven't gotten through the first question and what's the explanation for not filing a timely appealed. i addressed this in my brief and provided information to combat what they had in their brief and ac a acquisition there is a serial permitting and i think the city responded to concerns and questions and it doesn't appear to be serial permitting or intentional effort to under mine noticing requirements. these permits were provided in the appropriate matter and due to some of the work -- they weren't just over the counter permits.

they required a plan checker but let's get back to the jurisdictional request and they should demonstrate that the city intentionsallyily caused them to miss the deadline. the deadline was missed by over a year. the second one was missed by nine months and the third one was over eight months and neither in the oral presentation or the written submission do they address why they didn't appeal sooner, but they seal off any argument that the city caused them to miss the deadline by writing in their brief or jurisdictional request that they did not complain about the project and tried to grin and bear it for many months. that is not because of the city. that was their own conscience conscious choice. >> >> i provided a chronology so you can see what is going on

between the neighbors but i think it's clear for any consideration they haven't addressed why they missed the appeals or why it was someone's fault they missed the appeals and the clear procedure there has to be some merit to the jurisdictional request before we focus on whether there was something wrong with the permits. they took a shotgun approach and accused these people with everything under the sun and didn't provided facts and tonight they came and didn't provide facts about the jurisdictional request. they just want to knit pick the project. these are two sophisticated attorneys representing two attorneys so they can't say they didn't know about the process. jurisdictional request. i want to rehear this thing without addressing the burden.

otherwise there is no time limit on the appeals. it means anything that wants to appeal has the right and the board will entertain that, so i think it's important i suggested there is something else going on, maybe so, maybe not, but on the merits they haven't addressed the jurisdictional request and shouldn't be able to force us to address things that were done to address the permits. i think there are representatives with the city that are familiar with the project that can assure you there is no concern for the safety of the project and no serial permits and under mine the noticing requirement and i suggest that this jurisdictional request must be denied for the board to maintain the integrity in the process so permit holders can proceed with their job and we will get to the appeals and the continuous later but i am very much concerned they are launching into the appeals for

the three items subject of this jurisdictional request. the permit holders have gone beyond what you normally see in submissions here to make sure they're transparent and in part because of their offense to the accusations that have been coming. finally i would say i disagree with ms. barkly's characterization of the settlement terms. i won't get into t i don't think it's appropriate to talk about that. suffice to say we haven't been able to work things out. we are no longer in negotiations. counsel hasn't returned by calls so we're here to have the city rule on what is a legitimate request and appeal and with they will submit it unless there are specific questions from you at this time. >> counselor, two questions. in your brief you indicated that the -- either the fourth or

fifth permit, has an arching -- over arching work that applies to the three permits. we haven't received any of the documentation except the permit copy itself and your design documents that show the full extent so we don't know what is in the actual permit documents. can you expand about that a little bit further as to how that further permit becomes over arching over these others? >> yes. it's the second permit that required the seismic upgrade to the existing building and due to that work the building department has to have an engineer plan checker oversee this. now all the subsequent permits issued reference that permit number. that's the trigger for the planning department to know this has a

special designation and we have to go back and make sure it's consistent for the seismic concerns. this is address that and at appeal document they say "we should put them under one permit" which i interpret as put the cabosh on and deny the project. that's the concern i think for the requesters, but without my speculation at issue the point i address in the brief these permits are all linked and any subsequent permit comes out linked to that seismic upgrade and that requires them to review the plans. >> the appellant's brief mentioned mov's. are there nov's? >> i don't think there are at this time. the city can speak to that. all of the concerns have been addressed. there

were some issued between the transition of the previous contractor and they're in litigation and had real troubles with and the transition to the new builders, so we have been working with the city. they have been out there numerous times. they reviewed everything and had contact and submitted our report from the seismic inspections so as i understand there's nothing stopping the work other than the appeals at this time. >> okay. the actual nov's were not provided in any of the briefs. are they applicable to the first three permits? >> i don't believe so. i know one of them -- i know the previous counsel was harping on was for electric and plumbing work and nothing to do with the permits at issue. >> okay. >> seeing no other questions i will set aside and let the

representation from the city move forward. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. first i apologize to the board that we're bringing to you something that is so confusing that has gotten to a point it can be so confusing. i had requested the approved plans from the permit holder in december. i did not receive them until monday. i had sent an email in december. i received a response back saying they were working with the neighbors and they would give an update. we never received it. i clearly should have followed up. i take responsibility for that and unfortunately i coming into this week and trying to understand the issues with the permits and there are issues with these permits and so i think i had more time to review this i would have been suspending the permits before they got to this point

because there are issues with the permits, not the entirety of the work, not every bit of work on the permits has a problem, but there are parts of each permit that are problematic. the excavation that was done for the garage and one of the problems here this is an inertive process. you have the first permit and for the sheet rock and no plans and not reviewed by the planning department. i don't see issues with that. then we get into the first permit from january of last year, and that has i think a little bit of excavation at the -- what's called the lower level on the plans, but that also i believe calls for doing a new roof, a built up roof on a portion of the building which had no roof. it was in closing that was not permitted. it was

would have required a variance and the structure and walls and odd looks structure. from the outside it looked like part of the building and had windows and i don't know if was used for a hot tub or what have you, but the permit came in and kind of very neatly added a roof on the structure and closing it and incorporating it into the building envelope. that wouldn't have been allowed under the planning code. one problem there are no existing or proposed plans. what we have here are proposed plans that have a little bit of dash lines underneath of what was there and it wasn't very clear. typically we will get one existing version, one proposed version. we can clearly compare the two so that is one of the problems here with this permit so that's the january permit that is problematic with that, and they did resolve it later on with one of the permits on appeal later

on, but that is a problem with this permit. the next permit which was the march permit they added a garage in there. there are a couple of problems with this. first the excavation required environmental review and i don't see evidence of that and i apologize i had a brief conversation with the architect and i went over some of the issues and this one i didn't have time to go over it. i didn't have it in my head when speaking to him but when you excavate more than 8 feet you need to do environmental review so in this case there is no evidence of that being done. also the plans show a five car garage. this is a single family in this district and allowed maximum of three parking spaces. i went by the site this morning and i don't think -- you would really fit five cars in there. i think it's reasonably a three car garage and amending the

plans to show that, but that is problematic and the environmental review is problematic with that march permit so getting into some of the issues there is also the roof deck that i think the last permit, and there was other work on that permit including replacing windows and preservation staff reviewed the changes and i can't approve over the counter but limited it to the roof deck expansion. one of the problems with the roof deck there is no existing plan shows an existing fire escape. the plans show a new fire escape, but the permit says replace existing fire escape or talks about an existing one so it's unclear there was one. the architect said there was an existing fire scape. i think we need more information and says new fire scape because of the

expanded roof deck and that would require a variance for the yard. other things that was not approved. part of the scope that was not approved was a widening of the garage at the front and that does not approved but i noticed that the footing was done and i can show that on the overside so we see the new footing not pourd and that would widen it. that would require neighborhood notice. it's hard to tell from the plans but the expansion of the roof deck to the front. it looks like that portion is above the height limit and trigger a

10 notice for that and it seems like it was done in an inertive fashion. there was first the lower level gets bigger and on the third permit and the garage gets really big and it's getting wider and the next permit -- we need one consolidated permit that has all the work that staff can review and determine the appropriate permits for it, and again i apologize i didn't have this review completed at an earlier time and issue suspension letters. i think there is work that could continue and certainly on the main living levels. they are reconfiguring the floors, not expanding the building envelope. those don't seem problematic and what i propose and the board's desire how to proceed on the jurisdictional question but in

any event i would issue a suspension for the permits for the problematic portions to ensure work there does not continue while we can -- allow us time to consider a consolidated permit that addresses all of these concerns so i know it's very complicated and confusing. i apologize again. i am available for any questions. thank you. >> mr. sanchez, the approved plans that you received represent which permits? >> i've got all of the approved permits -- all of the permits that have plans so i think i've got four -- i have four here, yeah. >> do you have four different sets? >> yeah. so the first permit on the request there are no plans so no plans for that. the second on the request which was january of last year submitted january of last year that has

plans. i have that. i've got the permit submitted in march which is the third permit on the jurisdiction request for the garage and two permits on appeal and suspended and that's the roof deck and the permit to remove the non permitted addition at the rear which is on the end of your calendar. >> do you concur with the permit holder's representative that the permits set issued for the last two permits represent the entire project? >> no. no. not at all. no, definitely not. the last permit was a very -- let's see. yeah, the last permit which was november 20 is just to remove the walls and that has no other

information on the permit. the one before that has a lot of work that we could not approve and just has a little line and therefore showing the scope which was the roof deck, so no, i wouldn't say that the final two permits have a full approved scope of work for the project. >> okay. >> i have a question for you mr. sanchez. how often do i get plans like this without existing plans or as builts? >> this is very rare. i can't think of a time i am surprised staff didn't request to have clear conditions. >> so generally as is drawing or existing drawing required for this scope of work? >> yes, i would say so. it makes it easier. i don't know why it was not done in this case. i don't know if i can give a percentage to it but

about 95% would and it's hard to see the difference. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. dufty. >> commissioners, 63 presidio i am familiar with it. i started getting callos it in the middle of last year from the neighbor mr. greenwald, mostly phone calls and more to do probably with tidiness, noise. he was a little concerned about his foundation, stuff like that, so i have been out there about four times. my recent visit i met with the architect to get at the bottom of the complete scope of work and when there are five permits issued on a job -- i mean there is nothing against it. you it do it but if you

have a new building you have one big set of plans or pretty much start off, but with these big remodels that we're seeing a lot of in san francisco it's the common practice now to piecemeal the permits maybe to get the permits through because if you submit everything at once maybe it will take a long time to get through planing and building and dpw could take a long time if you show the complete scope of work. a lot of people do it the other way and one to get going and subsequently do revisions. what happens in that process we don't get a good picture and i think that is the case here, and as a matter of fact following the site visit out there i had prepared a correction notice for the senior building inspectors as well so it's one of my areas and my correction notice was to ask them to file a consolidated

group of plans to show the scope of work and the building sections so everybody can know and as well as on the front of the plans a full scope of work. that would be ideal for us, and however walking through the building and the work that's been done so far we have inspected all of the work at the garage area. it's been done properly. the concrete seems fine and we gave them a set of plans and they built to that in the four sets of plans. i didn't see damage to the neighboring foundation and there are special inspections on that project so the concrete and rebar inspections and any welding that was done and the quality of the work is there. they're doing a lot of structural work on the inside much the building. they're beefing up walls and installing

hardware and seismic stuff so that is all being done properly. apart from -- there are no violations apart from the notice of violation which we always post for the suspended permit for the appeal. we always standardly do that. there is another notice of violation from plumbing and i believe that happened because there was a general contractor on the job originally, carusso construction, and you heard the new one took it over. someone filed a complaint -- mr. williams actually and the inspector went out there and there is no current permit so means you have no pump scption wrote him up for that and they subsequently got. there are complaints on the active file because we keep them on there but there are no notices of violation. that's it for me. i can answer any qu