what it means is it gives the permit holder a lot more latitude in terms of moving in different parts of of building. in terms of whether or not this particular permanent member came close to the threshold, i think that is a function of the process we have in place. if it had a certain amount of square feet, it would have required further review, so it is reasonable to try to avoid whatever process unless you are doing it illegally. i think it is reasonable to rely on two different departments in terms of whether or not this represents a demo.

i'd think it is easily reasonable in terms of what else needs i worry about it. i do not want to force more process on any one. but would be something knowing they would not have to go through folks, that might be something they choose to do for whatever reason, but in terms of satisfying the appellants as to whether this building will continue to be safe, i think it is a reasonable to rely upon this, and because there will be

great liabilities for whoever got hurt, so i think they will now give this a an extra level of scrutiny because of past events, and they are very aware there is of greater concern about safety, so unless there are other comments, i would move to uphold his permit. >> in the papers, there is a lot about construction. we did not hear about tonight. >> there is a certain amount of discussion, and if you have some feelings about that, please. >> may be adopt the resolution for the working hours, which they think was 8 until 5:00

monday through friday and 9:00 until 4:00 on saturday. >> might i suggest something all little different. at a minimum, they need to come to an agreement with respect to access to the one wall and to repair that wall, and i am not set for the final conditions. yo>> about would entail keeping the promise suspended and not allow any work, -- that would not entail keeping it suspended? >> is the appeal is continued, the permit is continued.

>> you might not need to be heard. >> i am reminded about something that are usually choose to ignore, that there are certain things that are private matters , that might be difficult to enforce with this particular board. >> did you want to be heard the? >> we are willing to accept conditions of approval as long as the planning department agrees but if we allow access to

fix what is behind, but we do not have problems with doing that, as long as there is also a time like two weeks that they get the job done. it is not of been a job, but we are willing to accommodate as long as we do not end up with a one-year delay in the structure. >> two weeks from when? >> two weeks from today, and tomorrow. >> we are getting to an area that is beyond the purview of this board. but is something we would have an interest in making sure it happened, but i do not know if

we have the authority. >> any conditions the board is going to place on this side to permit needs to work, so the repair work being discussed is not part of the work on the spur matt. -- on the permit. >> also, i think when the building is completed, it is the best way to prevent future water going between the buildings. it is done every day in san francisco, and we need to sit down and talk with the appellant and have her agree, making sure her building is protected in the future. >> the issue has been raised

having to do with work hours. you have some comments on that? >> it is basically governed by the building code. what time did you quit usually? unfortunately, with construction, one reason people start early is the coast -- is because it is done early to avoid traffic, and you can have a delivery trucks during peak hours, so they come earlier or later, and most construction group stop. people get at the site at 7:00, and they expect actual work at

about 7:30. unfortunately, the shorter the hour you allow them to work, the longer the inconvenience and noise for the neighborhood, so it is a to edge sword. >> your client is working on the basis of his demolition and foundation and permit >> currently he is going to be working on the addendum, which has been issued. it was issued on march 18, and the scope is identical to the structural strengthening and the

foundation. >> do we have another question? >> i want to remain in a dress for comment, because we are talking about conditions -- to mainly address a common, because we were talking about conditions, and the appellant listes seven conditions, and i agree some of them are not within our purview. when you said you were a man of god, you were speaking solely to the question of -- when you said that, you were addressing solely that question. i wanted to make sure you were not seeing these.

>> i understand this is the only permits that is applying right now, so if we were to go in and get a permanenit, we woud have no way to insure we have access, so i think this is an appropriate forum. if you do impose such a condition, i would say we need to have access to the wall for of least two weeks. it seems like it is relatively minor, but we have to have a

reasonable time for notice before that occurs to get our contractors lined up. in addition, we did submit a number of conditions, including on page 8 that we be provided access to the site in order to work on repairing our property. but seems reasonable and in line with what you were thinking. in addition, we request we get a complete set of plans. these make sense. the other issue and we did address, a lot of our tenants have addressed concerns.

the primary issue is the early morning start. they are starting construction, very noisy construction, at 7:00 a.m., and some of my clients tenants liken that to an earthquake, so if construction could start at 8:00 a.m., about avoid some of the peak and seems reasonable. >> just those three. those are the three your urged the board. >> that was three of hours and one of theirs. and the condition that they were

volunteering to allow us to have access with 30 days' notice and two weeks window to do repairs. >> i see it differently. that is very specific. >> #1 is fine with us. then you did not need to get to the specificity of the methodology that is being used curio -- that is being used. anything that is going to involve removing the wall for a term, i concede the need for a

time -- i can see the time need to access the wall. goo>> the work to put siting onp of abuilding paper once the wall is removed will take one day. it is not a major construction. they are talking about punching holes throughout this building, and that is totally unacceptable.

my clients will quit work. they will only start at 7:30 curio -- of 7:30. on saturday they would be happy to start work at 8:30. also you have to know the building is framed up. all the noise is going to be pretty well contained. >> as i read the condition on page 8, the access is not to test your client's property but rather -- >> there is one problem. there are walls of the garage level. what they are asking is ability

to go through those walls. >> in reading this, it would be reasonable access, but as a problem with the way it is worded. i get that. >> we know we are willing to accommodate, but anything beyond that, you are talking about getting through a wall that is already constructed or is in place, and i think that goes to the problem raised by the city attorney about the difficulty of trying to frame something. do we offer something about one specific problem and we know, but if they are not willing to look a reasonable solution, i guess they have to find her

reasonable way to look up the problem zeroth. >> i think it is extremely reasonable to allow access. i think we can impose the hours. good i think what is provided in the permit holders brief, those are my comments, so i would be willing to adjust the hours from 7:00 until 5:00 the 30 answer a decline of 30 -- 5:00 30 and -- 5:30 and 8:30 on saturday. >> the you have an end time on

saturday? >> i have one last question. i would just say it is a later start time. >> in terms of the department's position, and issuance of addendum one allows the work to proceed on what ever is covered. is the work aloud if the permit is under appeal? >> it would not be allowed. i was wrong there are a two addendums.

we are still waiting for the mechanical addendum. >> thank you. >> i want to learn there would be a permit required as well. >> i cannot remember if i made a motion. >> you made a motion, but it has been changed. you originally made a motion to deny the appeal, but you will need to make and a m motion that would change them. >> do i need to states that? >> it is understood that your motion would be to grant the appeal, and it would be ideal to

have a basis for your motion. >> would that be based on the fact of aeronaut in violation? -- the fact they are not in violation? >> i thought you said to grant the appeal and a pole and a permit. >> of holding the permit while placing the condition -- and uphold the permit. >> upholding the permit while placing the condition. >> it is now on the substance of the motion, which as i thought we were going for the permission. >> i do not think we can do

that. i think appellants should be very grateful they are granting that access, and we can always sit back and pray it goes about way. >> of the only condition imposed as the hours of construction -- so the only condition imposed is the hours of construction. you can call role. >> are received the motion to uphold the permit on condition that construction be limited monday through friday 7 assaad 30 until 5:30 and on saturday from 8 hickock 30 until -- 8:30 until 4:30.

[calling votes] the vote is 4-0. the permit is of held with those conditions -- is >> we are resuming the june 29, 2011 meeting, and we are going to call item 8, witchehich is fr the planning department's disapproval, appealing to a

denial on march 25, 2000 a 11th of a permit to alter of building, remove the illegal units her parents, illegalize rooms and a ballthroom on ground floor, interior remodel and horizontal addition. >> my wife and i purchased a property in 2009, thinking it was a single-family home but we could renovate and live in the entire the building, and over the last year and nine months, we learned about this tenant rights and other things like this, and when we purchased it, we did not know about a

violation and what the expired permit men to. -- permit meant. at some point in 2006, the landlord applied for a permit to remove the downstairs unit and make it legal, just to remove its superiot. eventually, the permit was revoked by the board of appeals, and they got a new permits that made it illegal, and that permit expired before we purchased the property.

we purchased it a few months later, not knowing this, so we were going through the process of assessment, and applying for our permanent. we thought everything was going to be fine, and eventually, i reach the planning department, who had already seen our assessment, the initial plan we had, and they did not say anything then, so it was surprising to us when our permit was denied, and i guess-reaso rn the initial permit was revoked was because both parties agreed

to make cakeit a legal two unit. i mean the tenants and landlords. basically we are the only ones that are going to be living there are as of tomorrow, and it is not our rental unit any more, so i guess it is a different situation, so we would like that permit that has expired retak-- our recourse is to revo, and we can move forward with the additional permit. is that clear? >> it is for a clear.

-- it is very clear. when you purchase a house, you purchase it with the assumption it was a single family dwelling? >> it said on known -- unknown. >> it seems to state it was a one-family dwelling. >> but was of dated a few months ago, because i did some research, -- it was updated a few months ago, because i did some research, and they determined it was a single family dwelling instead of on k unknown. >> when you purchase it, it said unknown? so they have done a defacto

merger. we will work that out. >> the permits they polled to make it legal to units, none of the work was done. >> thank you. >> good evening superior del -- good evening. i would like to run through the history of this issue. historically, there has been an illegal units.

in 2007, a few months later, the variance was granted, and a permit was issued to do the work but was required end to the elias -- that was required to legalize the unit. to complete the work of was contemplated in the 2006 permit -- i misspoke. in november, a new permit was filed to remove the unit and filed to remove the unit and also to expand new building.