with respect to the complaint sheet indicates that similarly what you indicated that the amount of construction conforms in terms of scope of work to the permit sets? >> yeah. when i went there i had a pretty good look at everything and everything i could see and hour and a half looks like everything was conforming. in the brief i read and there was work and they got a head's up and i didn't see it. there was no addition to the back of the building but everything seemed in the scope of the permits given there are five permits so you're going to cover a lot of work with that. >> okay. when is the last time you visited? >> less than two weeks ago. >> the photos from some of the more specialty consultants, geo

technical and inspection people pretty deep shoring. is all that work done? >> all of the work at the garage i would probably say it's 90% done. i believe they got okay to pour on the slab on january 30 so when you do that all the walls are done when i walked through the garage the walls have all before pored so the excavation is done and the concrete walls are in place and probably cleaning up lose ends. there is an area above the garage that got expanded. it's a strange area and like a steady room and it's being framed out and below the main floor. it's a pretty big house. >> thank you. i'm sorry. >> i never seen mr. sanchez

raise his hand. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. i just want to stand corrected. there are xiflting plans and the first set of plans they are labeled and towards the efndz the plan set. typically we see it on the same page so you see existing -- there are existing four plans. i didn't see any existing elevations, just the existing floor plans so sorry i just wanted to clarify that. >> i have a question mr. sanchez, so when you're looking at the plans you're talking about an area where a roof was added. how is that indicated on the as builts? >> it's shown as a room where the portion -- i can pull the plans. if you're asking about

the room at the back that had the roof added to it. let's see if it will fit on the overhead. so it's the room behind the studdie. this had no roof on it and on the plansz they said new built up roof here but there was no other plans or elevations and no indication they're closing this space. >> and by putting a roof on that would that trigger neighbor notification? >> it would require a variance because it's in the rear yard. the required rear yard line is here so this would be in the required rear yard and would trigger a variance. >> okay. thank you very much.

>> and just to be clear on the last permit which is on appeal to the board those walls have been removed and the work has been done -- >> i'm sorry. it's been removed at this point? >> yes. the walls here have been removed. >>i think the photos show that there was no roof originally. >> correct. >> it was like a 8-foot high screen wall and it was ind kainded in the brief it was removed already. >> okay. shall we ask for public comment? is there any public comment on this item? okay. commissioners unless you have any other questions the matter is submitted.

>> i have a further question for the permit holder's representative. you've heard from at least one city agency that they're intending to take some further actions on this particular project. in terms of where you may want to go with that in terms of your hearing before this board, you may want to consider a continuous. >> of this one or the one coming up?

>> both. otherwise if there is further action from planning that could create significant delay to your project if it's not worked out. >> so you're asking me if i want to stipulate to continue right now? i have to speak -- >> i am asking you to think about it. >> i am happy to think about it. anything else? >> i have one question counselor. so was there a particular reason why the plans were given to planning so late after they requested it several times? >> to be perfectly honest with you the communications weren't coming to me. i had no idea mr. sanchez wanted the plans. if anybody let me know i would have addressed that so no, i can't tell you. >> so who would be responsible for getting the plans to the planning or to the city agency? >> i don't know. i only learned that he requested them

previously very recently and that wasn't a direct communication with me, so i apologize to mr. sanchez if he wasn't able to get the plans sooner. >> okay. >> but i love to reign it back in and saitd wait a second. first they have to show some reason to trigger the jurisdictional request before we address the merits of the appeal. >> understood. are you done commissioners? all right. i do have one additional point to raise. you know i understand that the permit holder has rights also, and therefore my questions related to the building department was whether there were issues with the heavy construction and engineering that is occurring on excavation and shoring. mofts of the work, the heavy lifting has been done . the question is whether a

delay creates harm to your client, or the question also relates to what can be continued because i don't think everything here is of concern to the appellants. >> well, yes to speak to that, yes delay will cause financial harm to the permit holder because they can't apply for new permits either while the appeal is pendzing so if that is continued they're running out of things to do. all of the work we can do is getting accomplished so at this point it's a matter of causing financial harm to the permit holder to tie his hands when frankly we still -- there has been some testimony about being rare to have the permit set up this way, but no testimony about wrong doing or intentional attempts to circumvent and

mr. dufty said he was called out there for complaints -- >> we heard the report. >> we submitted the report from them and this is a safe project. they're going beyond for the safety of them and the neighbors. >> i understand that. your list of future permits are minor items and curb cuts and minor items until you won't finish until the end of the project anyway. >> right. >> one last question. i guess they were at the project site today and the garage door had been wided. >> if mr. sanchez checks his email there say picture that has been removed. nobody knows why it was there. we speculate maybe the previous builder made a mistake. it's not being widened. the garage is

finished. they took a sledge hammer as soon as it was pointed out. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> it appears that one issue is related to the designation of the garage. more quantitative. when i looked at the finish drawing for what it represents doesn't appear the garage can fit five cars. that is one issue. you had another issue with the new windows and the appropriate -- either environmental or historical resource analysis that maybe

required. do you still have an issue with the upper level, the rear, the new roof that you mentioned? >> no. yeah to be clear they have done good things too, and i did get the email. i guess at 623 that confirmed that had been removed, but the portion at the rear, the screening walls that were about 8 feet tall, that has been removed. they had the permit to roof that which they shouldn't have gotten but they corrected that and removed those walls so that is good. i need to get more clarification on the fire escape issue. the plans are unclear about it being existing or not and i need to confirm that with the permit holder. if there was an existing fire escape and required form of egress and

seems like it is and they could replace it and that wouldn't be a problem . the other concern was the widening of the graf ranch and they seemed to. >> >> address and it's minor with the number of cars to get that corrected but the environmental review wasn't properly done for the excavation because it was beyond 8 feet so that needs to be addressed, so certainly this could be addressed in another permit and they changed the windows and that wasn't approved by the preservation staff and it's my understanding they're doing it in kind and not change the shape and that is acceptable but we need to check the plans with that. >> hard to check the film now. it's gone. >> that is a problem, yes. so thank you. >> how long would it take your staff to deal with these issues

with them? >> the permit work -- we confirm there is no expansion on the building and no variance required we need to see plans and i would rely on the preservation specialists to make a determination whether that could be approved over the counter or require additional environmental review. if it's over the counter this isn't much of an issue. i am more concerned about the excavation done. now granted it's been done. the issue is and for our check list if it's more than 2 feet in a archaeological sensitive area it needs review and if it's more than 8 feet of that and needs environmental review. it needs to receive that. that is a couple of weeks to do environmental review for that. again it's 90% done at

this point. >> i'm sorry. but the work has been done already at this time. we recently seen cases similar to this. >> yes. unfortunately we take responsibility for those. we should have caught this at the time we did the permit. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. thank you. are we in deliberation? >> are we. so the time for public comment is over? >> yes. >> you want to -- >> i guess i will start. looking at the briefs it's a difficult case to look at. after hearing both sides they have already evidently had a problem with their initial contractor. the room would have triggered something was removed. seems at which point they're

code compliant. they probably are going to deal with the city for another matter pretty shortly. i would say -- i mean if jurisdictional -- i would actually deny the jurisdiction request. >> my -- actually commissioner fung would you like to weigh in? i can hold until the last. >> you know -- there's two aspects of this case. one is that the work in the first three permits has been already been done. two, is that from both the previous appellant briefs and the issues today are predominately procedural. i haven't heard anything, and i

guess i am jumping the gun a little bit by looking at both situations because my intent would be to -- or my inclination would be to bundle it all together so we can deal with it singly and get it done at one time both on a procedural basis, and i know that that would require some level of delay but it's going to happen anyway based on the comments made by planning. at the same time if there are any substantive -- the risks to the permit holder if there is a delay there is a monetary issue to it, but there is also another issue that should anything substantively come up arguing against their improvements or the scope of their work that may bear in how we look at the final permit. i would be inclined to continue both but not to stretch it out

and allow them to be able to reduce the number of issues that is before us, and therefore be able to not only take care of -- any substantive concerns in agreement with the appellant but allow the permit holder to correct any of the procedural issues that have been brought up-to-date. >> i view this -- the issue here -- i mean what has been presented and the testimony we received and particularly from planning is very troubling to me and seems to me this is exactly called out as the jurisdiction requester has call it out, the serial permitting problem, and i think that -- i think it's a

catch me if you can situation, and oh you solve that problem. we will take a slerch hammer to it. gone like it wasn't an issue. these are sophisticated people and this is a problem. if you're so sophisticated and finding loopholes around the way everyone else is required to do it is deeply problematic to me and i am inclined to grant the request. if a continuous is preferred on the part of all parties i would go that route but i think everyone needs to delve in and if there is an environmental review that will happen anyway and i want glad planning is on top of it, but this is one of the cases that calls for greater scrutiny. >> i can't say i disagree with

president hwang. the way i'm leaning is more towards a continuous because of mr. sanchez's representations he hasn't had the opportunity to look at this closely, so i encourage that route if that is acceptable to everyone. >> did you want to hear from the parties? >> should we ask the permit holder? >> we should ask both parties. >> yeah. >> commissioners just to add more to your conundrum here i want to remind you if the zoning administrator does suspend these permits that action is also appealable as is the release of that suspension so there are other potentially appealable actions coming. >> i guess i am always looking for a solution madam director and seeing if we can take care of these things at one time and

get it out of here, and perhaps we can make both parties not happy to some degree, but the -- i would add one final thing. in reviewing the scope of the work -- most of the scope of work i don't have issues with. i just want to lay that out and i want to make sure that this doesn't get people carried away. >> so can we hear from all parties regarding a continuance then? >> [inaudible]. to the continuance on the terms suggested, whatever works for the party of the important thing is get a full set of plans and i think planning wants that as well so that makes sense for us.

>> okay. >> mr. s ore no. >> on behalf of the permit holders no we don't know stipulating to a continuance will accomplish anything. we hear what you're saying and the board -- i mean the department might take action to put brakes on things and we are confident working with them and appease with them than negotiating with the other side at this point so we would rather have you vote? >> okay. >> i don't know if i have the votes but i'm going to move to grant jurisdiction.

>> commissioner hwang i wonder if you would state a basis for your motion. one possibility is cities to do plans that failed to articulate a project. >> sounds good. >> okay. mr. pacheco do you want to call the roll on that motion? >> okay. we have a motion to grant jurisdiction over all three permits. on that basis commissioner fung. >> no. >> commissioner hurtado. >> aye. >> vice president is abcent. commissioner honda. >> no. >> the vote is two-two. four votes are needed to grant a jurisdiction request so absent another motion the jurisdiction would be denyod all three permits. >> i'm going to move to

continue the jurisdiction request. >> okay. to what date president hwang. >> let's see. let me think. march 20. >> we have a motion from president hwang to continue all matters, all three matters to march 20. >> all three jurisdiction requests is what you mean. >> yes, all three to march 20. on that motion -- >> hold one second victor. >> yes. >> madam president, i know i am perhaps jumping the gun and i see no reason to keep the parties here to the end of a

fairly long agenda, but it's going to be my intent to ask for a continuance on the two permits that are occurring further so there can be some dialogue with them and planning resolve certain issues and get it and have the final solution occur at this board. >> so consolidate? >> and if they choose to not accept that then they will have to wait until the very last case of the evening, but that would be my suggestion. >> if you would like to vote on those other matters we can call them -- >>i would rather have their concurrence. if they don't concur we will wait until the end. okay. >> i think commissioner fung even if they concur technically we call them and at least

accept public comment on it because they're on the calendar. >> [inaudible] i think board member fung is asking if we will continue the appeals scheduled for later today. >> yes. >> to that the answer is yes. we would. >> it's also bundled of the jurisdiction -- >> no, i don't understand the motion to continue the jr's since there was a two-two vote taken. what is being continued? we had the whole hearing so i don't understand the need so i don't think we are continuing agreeing to continue that. >> that's fine. we will continue with my motion for the jurisdiction request whether you agree or not. >> i understand that. >> so shall we move with calling the roll on that motion.

>> [inaudible] >> we're talking about march 20. >> [inaudible] we will wait for the end of the calendar. >> okay. so mr. pacheco i will ask to call the roll on the request to continue the jurisdictional request to march 20. >> the motion was made by the president to continue to march 20. commissioner fung. >> no. >> commissioner hurt. >> aye. >> vice president is absent. commissioner honda. >> no. >> the vote is two-two. three votes are needed to continue this matter so i believe then the prior motion would stand,

correct? >> the prior motion failed -- not sufficient votes. >> the result would stand. >> right unless another motion is ready the jurisdiction request is denied by operation of law. >> right. >> okay. >> okay. >> that's fine. all right. so commissioners do you want me to move onto item five or take up items 10a and b? >>i would like to move to item five and after that item i would like to take a break. >> okay. we will call item five appeal no. 12-146 and mary amil san francisco palm reader and 247 columbus avenue appealing the denial of fortuneteller permit. this is on for hearing today. mr. fisher representing the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. good evening

president hwang and members. i represent mary amil and who has told fortune for years. no san francisco fortuneteller law existed in the city until the end of 2003 and after full investigation of mary amil the sfpd granted the yearly license to her which would have been automatically renewed again in 2010 except the payment deadline was missed requiring a new application for which identification she used her 2005 expired dmv id and the fortuneteller license issued by the sfpd after full investigation which had just

expired in 2010. the police department rejected this as proof of identity, and the processing for the new license was delayed several times for a year, almost two years as mary tried unsuccessful to obtain her birth certificate from vital records, from the mormon church, salt lake city genealogical center and elsewhere without knowing her birth place, date or birth name. the call by the board this tonight is fairly apply the ordinance and interpretation of the ordinance to the facts of this matter, and the purpose of the id is to aid the police check for somebody seeking a business license. it's not to bean