be in the permit. nothing will be strapped on the rug by doing that. -- swept under the rug by doing that. christ can we hear from the permit holder what particular work would present a safety issue if this has been allowed to continue for two weeks? >> the issues that i'm concerned with are that there are some steps in the back stairs that need to be repaired prior to the actual demolition and replacement stairs because they create an immediate health and safety issue. there are plumbing issues that are being dealt with which create the same issues. there are also heat issues. there are two units. as a matter of fact, the person who is appealing is simply wanting to put in heaters for the unit. the heat in her unit would be affected, particularly in 356, which was done by the first contractor. that is the list as it comes to me right now. >> if the board believes is permit was issued in error, there are aspects that don't comply with the code, i would recommend not approving it. once the board approve

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 eventually, the permit was revoked by the board of appeals, and they got a new permits that made it illegal, and that permit expired before we purchased the property.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not say anything then, so it was surprising to us when our permit was denied, and i guess-reaso rn the initial permit was revoked was because both parties agreed to make cakeit a legal two unit.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 situatio

there has been 3 permits that have been issued to the permit d. -- to the permitee. there is a foundation upgrade permit that was submitted on december 9, 2010, and that was also issued on the same day. then, the third permit is a structural upgrade permit, which was submitted on january 4, 2011, and that was issued sometime in february. work began under these issued foundation upgrade permits and the structural upgrade permits. as i stated in my brief, unfortunately, those permits that were submitted did not correctly identify the scope of work of what is the existing building and what was the new construction that should have been covered under the site permit, and that portion of the work should not have been approved by the department of building inspection until after the site permit was issued, so the work was done under issued permits, but i would knowledge, and i acknowledge, that they were not lawfully done. subsequent to the collapse of the risks -- roof, the department actually revoke the structural upgrade permit, has find the applicant, -- has fined the

the permit would have required a separate employment typical of any other permit. the work would have had to comply with the practices for lead based paint because it is a remodeled. and having got through the phase of demolition, it would require that of the tenants. they would be given three days' notice of the work. there will have to of been containment and clean-up. and if they had any problem with that, they could call and we would have sent someone from the program to make sure that that happens. i saw that in the brief period i would be available for any questions you have on the permit. >> there was a copy of the plumbing permits. it references 342, i don't know what has been appealed to us. >> i was under the impression that it was the building permit that had been appealed. >> and it references work and multiple units? >> hit references 342. the other permit, i would like to talk about that as well, but the appellate has not shown up for it. >> you can provide us with the appropriate context. go ahead. >> i would like to speak about the permit. it seems

and cpb will issue a permit. vice president garcia: there is still a process available. >> but not to the planning commission. >> if it triggers one right, but it is not a dr right. vice president garcia: would neighbors be noticed? >> i do not know what exactly the notice from ddi -- dbi would be at issuance for this type of permit. vice president garcia: i hate to ask the permit holder. it is like asking tobacco companies its cigarettes are dangerous. do you know if there is any neighborhood opposition? i know your answer will be of course not. >> i do not know. we prepared the neighborhood map. we are prepared to do a 311. >> i think an option available to the board would be to uphold the denial but make findings is only on the basis that section 311 notice has not been done, and make clear the permit holder is authorized. the one-year bar does not apply. he can apply tomorrow for the permit. if we were to issue this permit now, it would not become compliant. commissioner hwang: it is not ok given that the ide

permit, -- issued structure will upgrade promote -- structural upgrade permit and the foundation permit. so i would be glad to answer any question you ask. vice president garcia: if you would get to the issue of the excavation. >> in the garage, away from the parking lot, and it goes down 7 feet. but the perimeter foundation does not open on the adjacent property foundation, and because the site is basically very hard clay, it was the opinion of the engineer that there was no danger, and therefore, under the civil code, because it is away from the property line, the permitee did not believe that he has to get any permit because there is no danger to the adjacent property. vice president garcia: and, therefore, no notice. >> and, therefore, no notice. excavation. vice president garcia: thank you. commissioner peterson: i was interested in the prior owner and the previous owner. some design. >> my understanding from their argument is that they believe what was changed is the amount of wall that has been demolished. they do not believe that the demolition is within the scope of what is all

permit. did i miss something else? what other issues you have with the. that is before us tonight? -- what other issues do you have with the permit that is before us tonight? >> what we went up and saw on the plans is there is a drawing of the master project, and it is marked approved and it shows an elevator and rear decks. that is what the correction was of his. vice president garcia: and mr. duffy will clear that up, but that is not before us now. my question is, you have an issue with the baths and whether they are properly vented, correct? >> yes. vice president garcia: you have an issue with the property line windows that you think will infringe upon your privacy. >> yes. vice president garcia: the question is, are there any other issues with this current permit before is that you have? >> no, my only issue was if it was on the plans that i saw it mean that it is approved? vice president garcia: "it" meaning? >> whatever was on that plan. vice president garcia: he will clear that up. ab

it is the permit

we ask that you uphold this permit. vice president garcia: would nextg be compliant of the other standard were applied? >> yes. vice president garcia: who owns that other box? >> i found that no identification on that other box. some of those boxes are not marked. vice president garcia: thank you. >> thank you very much. we will hear from the department now. >> good evening, commissioners. i am from the department of public works. i need to provide a little history on this permit specifically. at the permit received an application from nextg networks ouon august 15. it was found this location is on a significant street, and on august 18 we submitted a referral to the planning department with plans and photo sims, the full package, so they could do an evaluation. in november of 2010, we received approval from the planning department with conditions. prior to that date, the health department had already reviewed all the equipment to be placed on this pole and determined its satisfied all appropriate regulations. on novemb

not require a conditional use permit. we feel like -- these permits are expected to have a far smaller impact on the neighborhoods and the performance for at least a year is only allowed until 10:00 p.m. and so we felt like it was appropriate to make them available to more businesses which by the way will respect a big savings for small businesses because the price tag that's associated with a conditional use permit. i'll give you a few details about the application process and the enforcement of the performance rather than the $3,000 or $4,000 tab. it will be a $385 application fee and a $395 annual renewal fee. upon submital of a submitted application, each application will be submitted to the police department and recommendation to the planning department. the planning department will review the applications to ensure compliance and there will be a hearing at your commission. your commission may impose specific conditions relevant to the specific applicant. i think you also have some details about the enforcement of th

it would not be permitted to build a deck or install under this permit and i issued a correction notice and i gave that to both sides. i thought that might be the sensible thing to do even though the project has not started. if they did attempt to build a deck, there would stop. the events for the bathrooms, that would be under code. they're not any issues with the department. >> are there other permits that are insured or in the process of review? >> there is another building permit on site. for the? on the elevators and that is going through the process at the minute. we can get that clarified. >> that is ok. >> three levels of? . -- of decks. it has not been sent yet for notification. >> there is an issue of serial permitting filed? >> there will be along the process on the decks. the architect for some reason or another chose to split up. i would not call that serial permitting. it is interior work on that permit that is under review tonight. >> the appellate requested clarification on when some document stamped approved -- can you help us with that? i do not know what document she

about but we do not have that permit -- but we do not have that permit before us. there is no permit in front of us that has anything to do with an elevator or anything to do with decks. >> so what you are saying is even know there are stamped "approved" on the plans we saw, they are not approved? the elevator has not been approved? vice president garcia: i don't have a comment on that. i am trying to narrow down the issues that are under the umbrella of the permit that is before us. is it fair to say those issues would have to do with the baths and the property line windows? >> i think that is correct. vice president garcia: i understand your concern about something that may happen in the future, but i'm just trying to be clear about what we are to deal with tonight. >> yes. vice president garcia: thank you. commissioner hwang: i think some of the issues that you raised will be clarified by the department. >> oh, good. we can hear from the permit holder now. >> my name is bill. i am the architect. originally, my client was going to speak first, but i will. i am go

a structural package, -- a site permit versus is structural -- versus a structural permit. as to the alteration portion, the existing structural framing looks like it varies in size. >> are we talking about this photograph? commissioner fung: yes. >> ok. these are the existing, and these are the new. commissioner fung: so all of those are new at that point? >> no, not all of it, because if you look, the new is the one in front, but if you look back further, those are not new. commissioner fung: right, and i guess my point is, the members sizes vary between the two portions of the wall. >> you are correct that it looks like is, that it varies, but on this portion, some of these look like they might not even be the same size, but these are the wall that as construction goes along, if they are the -- not the right size, they will put another next to it. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is michael cassidy. i am the contractor. this area here is the area that was requested to be dropped by 1 foot in the original agreement. this is the wall that they say is totally demolis

but to also allow the limited live performance permit to be permitted in those particular areas which we have identified and you have a copy of the commission's recommendation for west portal, pacific avenue and the south of market and the c district and the parts of the market area. we understand that there are some with the west -- western somea that there are some rezoning proposals, but should this legislation pass this and then with the new zoning -- new zoning that's coming through with the western soma area, there will still be pars of south of market that still will not be able to apply for this permit around 4th street, 3rd street, the south of market. and so the commission has made that recommendation and encouraging the district supervisors to consider requesting supervisor mirkarimi to add those back in. and i'll be happy to answer any questions if you need me. >> commissioner cain, do you have any questions? do you want to -- >> no, i mean, i think it was weighed out very well. i want to remind you that most of the people here are here for public comment. maybe you want t

for the light entertainment permit, right? supervisor mirkarimi: that's right. the new limited live performance permits will cover the same area in the city where the place of entertainment permits are currently allowed as of right with the conditional use. president o'brien: and for the south of market situation, we're just going to have to kind of leave it the way it is and leave them out of it for now in the hopes that maybe they'll see the light later on? supervisor mirkarimi: that's another way of putting it. i would certainly welcome interest enlightenment that would i think activate their participation in this, but out of professional courtesy to the host supervisor and the resident neighbors in the areas where there's prohibitions, we decided to keep it out and just make it simple. but, you know, there's a big leap from what advances from this body and feel free to make recommendations that escort this legislation to my colleagues that suggest if we want to expand or elaborate on this, i will be more than happy to carr

but you do have the ability to modify the time of the permit and the extent of it through this permit process. you do have that. >> ok. let's talk a little bit about conditional use. i fully understand any place in the city where entertainment is a permitted use, go for it. makes total sense to me. they have -- addressed those issues. everybody is living with it. i don't think you need to have to go back and reinvent the wheel. but in the case -- conditional use is awfully important to the neighborhoods. it is their last legitimate chance to be heard. the planning commission has a huge amount of discretion with regard to conditional use authorizations. they have a standard to judge whether a new venue is necessary or desirable. that's pretty loose. and they can say, look, here, 100 neighbors are lined up. they don't -- they argued some very good reasons why this should not be allowed and they can say, no, it is within our disdrotion say it's in the a good idea that location. we can't. so what are you going to say? i've heard from a lot of neighbors about this, the fact that you're tak

vice president garcia: was there a permit for that? >> we don't need a permit for the minor repair.anted to show you a picture. i am sorry, i wanted to show a picture -- here it is, of the building. is it coming up? those are the two windows in question. i have circled the two windows in question. there is the building. it has been repainted since 2007. commissioner hwang: looking again at the questionnaire, it says what is your occupation, expediter. >> that is me. commissioner hwang: and mr. von uckerman, retired employee of the planning department. is that him or you? >> that is him. it commissioner hwang: okay, thank you. >> if there are any other questions, i would be happy -- commissioner hwang: how long was your client and employee of the planning department, and in what capacity? >> 20 years. commissioner hwang: what capacity? >> zoning administration, nonconforming uses. he did a lot of work on those. commissioner hwang: thank you. vice president garcia: how was it determined the work was done in the 1960's? >> that is a gas. all we know it is it was done prior. we figured

the department does not have any issues with the permit. president goh: just for clarification, the sperm that has nothing to comply with it kolkhoz there is no notice of violation, it should probably not say that. president goh: thanks. commissioner fung: did you look into the co conformance? >> i saw it in the brief, but i was mostly interested in the stair work. from my research, if you have an existing property line window, you can replace it in kind. there is no working property under appeal. it is just the rear of stairs. >> what about the allegation that it was replaced in kind. it was out of the and provides access to that room. >> i believe there was only one window in the room. >> this appeal was based on -- i never really pay much attention to the windows. >> how would this board deal with the issue if there is an issue that the window is being used for that. >> is more of trespassing issue and call the police. we have property line windows. i know i see property line windows open all over the city. and you can't change that if i

it was permitted on may 23. and i think that the of poland's request to its -- i think that the appellants request id. -- requested it. it was suspended on june 1. and also, i wanted to say that the tenants, can they come and talk? i don't live there. can tenants come and talk about the complaints? president goh: is there time? >> yes. commissioner garcia: let's not get into that. president goh: just say your name. were you here at the very beginning of the hearing? you didn't swear? >> i am a tenant in the house. the stairs are a big problem because the bottom part is rotten. the permit is necessary because it -- we have friends over and a garden back there. we don't climb out the window onto your roof. i wanted to impress that it is important that we get his permit - -this -- this permit. we have friends over, we like having barbecues and it's important we get it. president goh: how long have you lived there? >> since january cl. president goh: is the room a bedroom? >> yes. president goh: is it a bedrrooom in

entertainment uses are permitted in some districts and are conditionally permitted in others and are not permitted in the third category of districts. with the proposed ordinance, the police code would be amended to create the limited live performance permit and the planning code would be amended to allow entertainment uses that receive the limited live performance permit from the entertainment commission to be considered an accessory use. this opportunity would be available in areas of the city where entertainment uses are allowed, either as principle or conditional uses. i think what's most critical for you to consider and to remember is that the proposed ordinance includes very specific parameters for what may be considered a limited live performance. and as the supervisor summarized, that is essentially the area devoted to live performance is limited to 250 square feet. the live performance must be subordinate to the primary use. and the live performance permit is only available in specific areas of the city. the live performance is permitted until 10:00 p.m. during the first yea

overseer of the permit process. -- in this case is the department of public works that as the overseer of the permit process. commissioner fung: the write up is quite limited. it's sort of relates to having gone through many years of history with this issue of communication equipment and everything that there are limitations in terms of what planning can or cannot do with respect to the qualitative reviews of these permits? >> that is correct, there are a variety of state and federal regulations that supersede local jurisdiction or limit local jurisdiction. commissioner fung: the letter from your department? the shortness? >> it is to the point. commissioner peterson: i am happy to start. we have seen a few of these cases now, and i think there has been some conduct in prior cases by the company's that perhaps was improved, but i think in this case in particular, i am inclined to uphold the permit for nextg in this situation. it appears they follow the process. there was notice. it is unfortunate to have these boxes

the others have -- one we do not have a permit history for. the others have a permit history. the one on the bottom right shows a stir in closure. in the second board is going to explain the roof deck element. when we were denied by the letter of determination, we looked to see what this means to us. what it is showing is that the requirement for us is we would have specific stair elevator access, which would require us to cross the roof to the deck, if we could even do a deck. this is an extremely unsafe condition, with a baby on the way and a toddler running around in a few years. there are parapets on this roof that are 30 inches high, at least a foot below what current code allows. it is extremely unsafe conditions. there are other elements that do not make sense. the windscreen was only allowed to be 2 feet high, which is shorter than the existing power cut. it was not making practical sense. we wanted to look at section 260. there are different ways to do things sometimes. we wanted to see if there were different ways we could achieve this, whether we wanted to do it tha

a place of entertainment permit. i just want to make sure. >> ok. >> i think this is great. >> ok. thank you. >> commissioner? >> i guess i have a lot more thought than i did at the start of the conversation. some good and not so good. >> i appreciate the commissioner's point about us having the discretion to limit the type of amplification. but that really only makes sense if we know beforehand exactly what type of music they're going to provide. and we can do that preliminarily but that would be a restriction on bringing in another different type of entertainment. if we don't limit it and they bring in amplified music there's really no noise like night clubs have a limitation. you can't hear any sound outside the building. here, if someone plays amplified music and the windows are open, they're not in violation. if you can hear the noise outside, regardless of how loud, they're not immediately in violation. how would somebody violate this? >> can you clarify that because i thought the ordinance says that they can e

cassidy, in we reviewed the plans for the main permits, the 2009 permit, the permit that was under suspension -- and we reviewed the plans for the main permits. -- the main permit. every wall is still there that were shown to remain. vice president garcia: and one of the walls to remain is one that was damaged, and a prepared to that would not be considered demolition? >> -- and a repair to that would not be considered demolition? >> advised that that wall be braced again. i am not so sure that that wall is permanently damaged. there may be damage to the exterior siding on the wall, which we see a lot of, because on the plans, they show walls to remain, but those walls are probably 100 years old. there are always problems with the siding on those. keeping walls that are 100 years old versus taking the whole building down, it is always tough on builders. how do you get proper waterproofing on a wall that has been there for 100 years that you have to keep their? we struggle with this, we really do. a lot of times, the flashing on the roof is where you are going to get your proper sealing. it is

i was thought any should permit that we appeal to pummel the on. but we don't have a permit yet. we have an application that has gone through. i think they may have found out what the penalty is going to be, but the permit has not been issued. >> we have always allowed people on building permits to appeal prior to issuance for electrical and plumbing. for safety issues, you have to pay the penalty first, but historically, we have always allowed it pre-issuance. commissioner fung: i think before you issue the permit, the penalty has to be prepaid. >> yes, i was under the understanding that you appeal the public and then you pay it. maybe i read that on the back of the notice of violation. anyway, i think in this case, we are slightly different from the previous one. the notice of violation was given in april. april 5, 2011, and we issued the second notice on may 5, 2011. then within a week, the permit was filed. so we have referred it to code enforcement. the case has only just been received so it has not been set for a hearing and we have not spent a lot of time, as much time as