permit, just a new permit. so you're saying they need to get a new permit ksh for the two addresses -- >> either the board can add unit 31 to this permit >> we can cothat? do that? >> yes. >> and then condition this also upon the issuance of a second set of permits for the [inaudible]. sdwl okay. >> okay. so those -- >> does that work? >> and are those plans simply to reflect the east side or to amend the current permit before the board on the west side. >> you add 39 to the current permit and this would be a special condition to up hold the current permit. >> that's not answering my question. the question is is the work on that drawing to amend the current scope of work on the west side of the property, not reflective on the east side of the property. >> yes. then this would be 39 and 41. this permit before the board i believe was for the work on the west side of the property. >> we understand that. we have a permit for that. this permit is only for one side. >> i think what he's saying is if you add the addre

basis a number of jobs that in each time within a permit after the initial permits therefore we were never in a position to review the addendum now, it's essentially they want to put that under the rug and say they'll never be reviewed and that's the existing conditions which we oppose therefore i think that at this time it is we're requesting you consider the problems that this project has had because the piecemeal permitting that is opted to the california go stuktd in 1988 basically no piecemeal permitting and neighbors have a right to see the totality of the project mr. ron tom the initial review couldn't make heads or taldz she said it was convoluted she requested new drawings so see the subject matter into alignment you can imagine in people of the experience and quality of training of diane and tom of ph.d engineering who what do you know the neighbors had to go through we know there's construction outside of the permit therefore we ask you not to continue this problem but allow beginning now which we believe for the first time is going to do american people excellent job of s

permits. >> mr. well in her any rebuttal. >> so the permits the tree remove permits i looked at on the 14th of september 4th months i don't know where that lands me am a good, i think i'm good it's not up for discussion but the bird survey yes i'll conduct the bird survey and yes i'll comply with the findings it is $10,000 if you get caught violating it i have no intention of doing that that's all i can think of. >> thank you mr.les in her. >> commissioners neil with the mapping there are are copies of the actual permits here's one two, this one was for 601 gonzales and others issued on september 16th good for 6 months to address earlier public comment the person mentioned they would require probably require temporary occupancy permit for the replanting of trees if they plan to occupy the public right-of-way that's correct they'll be required to have temporary permits glad to answer questions. >> is the 6 months when the work has to be started or completed. >> i believe i'm not sure the work has to s

the first over the counter permit was permitted for less than 50 percent dry rot on the rear deck i'll show you a photo while the offer the counter permit was in effective as you can see the edition that was built and approved in 2006 and built in 2007 has been mostly demolished and this is what it looks like what it was bought by the permit holders in 2010 the permit holders were cited confessor xooepd the escape of the first permit and recommend they go through the permit process within one week without communicating the permit submitted for other over he did counter permit the drawing didn't fully disclose the work for example, a hero are the plans submitted and here is the area of work right here and they bubble just the edition the work being down user done on the edition not on the work on the southern balcony permits holder doesn't tell us they were working and we heard the noise it was at a time the edition was nearly demolished they were in new hampshire where their primary home was they've chosen not to disclose the modifications and throughout the time we were in touch with

that's going through it took a while to get to this point the permit is a fire permit to comply with the notice also to clarify the height of the building before or after being raised 36 inches there are additions to the site and revisions to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 permits so this permit is currently it's been approved as you've heard by the planning department sent to beginning and currently being reviewed by our dbi plan check there have been correspond distinct giving them engineers and the architect i spoke to mr. wen and she said she's in contact with the gentleman in december she got responses to that shows pretty close to approving the site permit that's good news there's an addenda coming in for some of the work initially our notice of violation addressed the height a recession to show the sdrerpgs of the height when it came in i'm sure that will be spoke about they put everything into o through one permit which was a good idea when it comes back we're looking at the dormer windows and roof deck so the permit is being reviewed by dbi and i think it's fair to say it's moving long and t

delay to the permit holder. as mr. brian indicated earlier after the board appeal is passed intentionally or inadvertently caused the requester to be late in filing the appeal and the standard is not met here. heerm the city followed procedure in code requirements and issuing a permit and caused no delay in filing the appeal. the permit holder was issued a permit to construct a three story home in the property in february and began construction in august. they were issued a revision to install a roof deck with a retractable skylight in the building under construction. this revised permit was oefrz the counter at dbi which was a process that let the applicant hand carely their permit from station to station for prior review. however, it won't be issued if that i have don't meet requirement ls. before issuing that permit, however no neighborhood notice was required for this permit. the planning code didn't require notice for installation for legal roof decks in in the buildable yarl. in addition, public policies a

the permits i have which were contested for the removal not the right-of-way the permits were issue on september 14th of last year, i building they're still valid and flagers well, we were here back in last fall because on brotherhood i was to do removals and the permit was being appealed you guys allowed to to happy we went ahead and did the work no issues i think you guys made a point of having public works chuck but out no inadequate cones or flagers that's a number one issue there this is i need the encroachment permits to take those trees down that leaves the one item this process of trying to prevent the tree removals if park merced is endaring the public your people have told you it needed to happen we're allowing half the trees to sit there it is like russian roulette but you mean someone will get hurt so that's all i have. >> you want to go. >> ghed. >> in response to the injured employee he stated there was a limb that was left half done for 6 months. >> incorrect the tree was limb also. >> in regards to the replacement of the trees that have been removed has there been tr

the motion from commissioner fung to deny this permit with the finding that this permit didn't conform to the existing variance. >> that's right. >> on that motion to deny this permit commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda is absent commissioner wilson thank you vote 3 to zero given the boards vacancy this permit a rerecognized with that finding there's no more business commissioner president lazarus. >> we're adjourned >> good afternoon. welcome to our san francisco board of supervisors meeting of december 16, 2014. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> supervisor avalos. avalos present. supervisor breed. >> here. >> breed

want two separate permits for each address so the current permit needs a special condition permit to fix the address issue or a sec permit to do the foundation permit. welcome to my worl but this is it so you'll have to have two permits for the west side and two permits for the east side for the identical work. >> this board can't issue those other permits. >> i'm just asking -- >> with condition

whether he record or used discretion at this point, i'm prepared to uphold both permits. >> as am i. >> a motion. >> move to uphold i'll do it separately ma'am. >> okay. >> the first appeal is related to the minor encroachment permitted issued by dbi i move we uphold that permit on the base it's code compliant and on the release of the suspension i would uphold the release of the suspense on the basis the da did not error or use it's discretion. >> thank you very much. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to uphold the minor encroachment sidewalk issued by the dpw on the basis it's code compliant and further motion to uphold others request for hold of suspension that the zoning administrator doesn't error in or use it's discretion and this motion on both commissioner president lazarus. >> commissioner honda. >> and commissioner wilson. >> thank you the vote is 4 to zero the dbi permit is upheld and the other upheld thank you. >> we're going to take a short break break. >> welcome back to the january 14, 2015, meeting of is it fair to say we do appreciate everyone's patience we'

to obtain a permit. >> okay. >> okay. is any public comment on this item? oh sanchez. >> good evening scott sanchez planning department it's within rh1 that allows the maximum of a single-family dwelling the based the records of the senior mr. duffy notified the legal use is a single-family dwelling i note that the planning code section that was donated there may be a pass forward to legalize it if certain conditions were met but not fwru i want to restate the mayors derivative that didn't apply to this building where a discretionary review and the planning department reviewed the permit and said it is issued appropriately and calling for public comment seeing none rebuttal, sir. >> thank you the position taken by deploying is of concern to me because of point raised on page 5 of any brief right at the bottom it talks footnote of the case quote healthy and safety section 980 subsection c to has having the following requirements in deciding whether to require the vacation of the building or repair the endorsement agency sh

permit to do something different, and >> i lot of these permits i think that the main permit was a major permit for structural upgrade on the job. and i think that as they got into the job they needed more, permits to clarify like one of the notice of violations was for work for 20 foot of foundation and extension that did not get approved and they actually when they got into the excavation of it doing the foundation and added to the additional work that was not depicted in the plans, that they got a notice. the first was $120,000 and ne took out the subsequent permits for correcting, you know, issues of the buildings there. >> do you and what i am kind of asking, is that normally with the project, that when it gets to its planning permits and it is all there, and instead of, coming in serial. >> and that --. >> it makes it difficult for the public to know what is happening on these processes. >> correct. >> so, i just wonder if we have any threshold at which point we step back and actually ask for some sort of a coming together. because it is it could be or could lead to the scope or co

permit holder is not here based on the fact the permit is to comply with the notice of violation they need the permit didn't they don't comply with the notice of violation it will continue on the enforcement process as an order of abatement on the property or end up at the city attorney's office but they're not here to defend that they need to comply with the notice of violation that is strange i'm noting that. >> and commissioners you should know this case was originally heard to be scheduled in october you had to cancel the meeting and the discussion about when the item would return did include the permit holder he was involved in resetting this date matter is now submitted. >> commissioners. >> well, the i can see where the permit was probably properly issued question here was it completely fair in the sent that the property owner created a situation where they had a deal with the tenant to move him out of upper level and move him adopt into an illegal unit regardless of who filed the complaint, which triggered then the dbi's review and therefore the notice of violation the propert

2012 and the electrical permit was issued that would have cleared the violations but that is electrical permit not showing complete in front instead of recommends we uphold the abatement that concludes my report. >> the reading of the report is the tenant living there or a commercial tenant? >> it's not clear but the electrical and plumbing was installed without permit and naturally there shouldn't be any kind of living accomodation within that building. >> commissioner walker. >> so did they install a stove. >> it's not specific on the type of plumbing involved. >> because one of them is the violation is adding a living unit so you're saying that whatever was duplicate done without permit and the suspicion a living unit that was added. >> yes. like normally if there's a additional unit added a building code certification one is electrical and the other is mrunl they can't get into the you know the area of the unit so the mrunl can only deal with plumbing and the electrical electrical that's why it's a gray area. >> commissioner mar. >> so it was a little bit confusing about the residen

that will roach that if they file a permit the process stops at the end they couldn't get the permit issued you could draw that route we'll go in there before the moratorium route. >> okay. >> commissioner lee. >> is there a form process for a request for more to your memory a formal request. >> basically cite the section. >> is there the appellant making that request now officially. >> we do in question that since the legalization came up and that's why the other option came up i think it will be worth the time. >> so the department is made we'll send an inspector with a court date. >> i'm hearing a continuance if that's - >> to allow for that. >> mr. sweeny has a comment. >> the boards wishes to send american people inspector and the property owner and their agent have no opposition to it i can arrange for someone to go out there. >> commissioner mar. >> from what i'm hearing from the owner it is their preference to go with the moratorium so i think we need to send an inspector out there and then we'll leave that legalization issue for them sometime in the future. >> well, i think

it's not permitable. the sidewalk is legislative. we can do a permit for that. anything that involves negotiation with matulas died. >> no you may not. >> you have rebuttal if you care to use it. >> yes, i just want to make a few clarifying points. one, again, to reiterate what mark brand just said, there were no curb cuts permitted under the street improvement as part of this 15 foot wide sidewalk, thus, unless the future owners, unless the owner applies in the future to construct one, there is not one in the plans right now, nor is there one approved. with regard to the temporary path, commissioner wilson, my understanding in talking to our inspection staff who were inspecting the work in the public right of way was that this path was constructed strictly as a construction path to get equipment to the site and our decision was if this is construction related it could be issued as a street space permit, however, prior to signing off on the project, whatever was constructed whether it was just ripping through some landscaping, that needs to be restored to its or

deny the appeal and uphold the permit condition the permit if. >> let's hear with the condition is. >> okay. go ahead. >> i'm upholding the permit. >> what's the conditions you're asking for or. >> that the timespan be 34 months and the representation of '048 inch box. >> in this case to grant the appeals. >> okay. >> then is there a basis for the motion you want to speak commissioner. >> that's i don't know that the permit is still valid. >> typically in this twitch case related to the health and welfare of the trees. >> that the trees should be renewed. >> and that is the trees should you renewed. >> correct. >> we have a motion then from commissioner honda 0 it 0 uphold the all 3 permits on conditions that the 5 replacement trees be planted within 4 months. >> correct. >> okay. and this is on the basis that the subject trees should be renewed motion to uphold all 3 permits with ann that condition commissioner fung arrest commissioner president lazarus and commissioner wilson. >> nay thank you the vote is 3 to one the permits are upheld including the condition of expedited planting

valley i'm working with the permit holders r

can't continue the permit holder could a cancel the permit and the appeal will go away and not have to come back to the board. >> that's a good suggestion. >> do you want to set a date and it depends on on the department. >> we'll need at least a month to get this done. >> added to the 18th arc madam clerk this report is is bids too. >> perhaps the 18th. >> will that work for you. >> does that work to the permit holder and the appellant? >> well, the other alternate it two months to march 18 of the that is giving the department for leeway. >> mr. duffy will the february 18th work for you. >> okay. >> can you come to speak to the microphone. >> that is a break formal school and both the appellant is out of town if we could push it over to the next meeting. >> it's quite bad in terms of our workload you represented him. >> on the 18th i'm going to be taking my son to different colleges. >> march 18th march 18th no meetings on the fourth or 11. >> march 18th. >> i'm here if you - come forth let me explain be that you can use that time to work with the department to do what is code comp

and it was permitted there, but the other districts north of harrison street ended up not being permitted for llp and that was the way that it was presented and that was the way that it was adopted and the way that is exist and it exists today. and you know, since that, since the adoption, i know that we had the discussions around that time as well. and just this issue was brought up at the planning commission and the board of supervisors and since that time, to my knowledge, we have not had a lot of discussion, and at the department about you know, any specific legislation or any specific changes, that would be proposed. and this is just up for discussion tonight and just it is good to discuss it first and talk. but that is just kind of the background on, you know, the very high level background on the west soma plan and specifically it is how the llps were regarded in that plan and the ultimate rezoning, and planning code change. but i am happy to answer any questions that, you know, the commissioners may have. >> can you also just for, layman... >> sure. >> i don't know if you have the

that is why, you know >> and ultimately you are responsible for this permit? >> correct. >> and you can tell, and i know that you have, and this is here, and your community out reach and you need to tell us, how that took place, and who did you talk to exactly? >> well, mario and the cafe, and the guys over at mocha and i talked to blake up at bics and i know well and the guys from (inaudible) more and i talked to all three of them. >> did you talk to the actual neighbors or the neighborhood organizations? >> those are my neighbors. >> i mean, the residents? >> honestly, i, i don't know, we don't have any residents, it is a hotel next door and a lot of the people that stay in the hotel drink in the bar and so they are the ones that are standing on the street at the end of the night because that is what europeans do, you know, go home and a lot of them live in it and they stay in what is called the sro next door to me. that mccallister owns. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner, hyde, do you have something? >> all right. no? >> well, go ahead, commissioner? >> p

shep wouldn't be here if within the department of public health willfully gave up the permit that is obviously not something it seems like it was unilateral taken from him a point of a board obviously he was not sitting here willfully the permit was taken away. >> any public comment on this item? commissioners it is up to you. >> may i speak please. sorry public comment is closed you had your opportunity. >> perhaps what we could do is look at some the things that have been provided if you couldn't hear entirely the audio transcript and part of the purpose of asking for that at the last hearing to see what the process was related to that hearing at dpw and he could get enough of that out of that understood it was quite boring i listened to the audio but i guess i'll get to the crux of it i'm in agreement that the primary issue for the appellant and the permit holder has to do with ownership i don't think that's what i'm prepared to act upon. >> i will i'll get closer to the microphone what i said was that that p the issue here relate to this appeal of this permit this provisional per

it's a street permit that was they don't have a permit for this, never have. this current proposal is unworkable. this has never been treated as a sidewalk, it's not a sidewalk. this box is more than 4 feet high, sits in the middle of it. it was built with any kind of permit. i tried to obtain it for a sunshine request. it goes up an incredibly street hill and would require the cutting of the foliage that exists there now. the developers have already cut down the foliage. we've tried to cut this deal and get them to apply to legalize this path. if they don't want to come from mountain springs, which was their idea to begin with and they already have approval and permission from mountain springs so this particular sidewalk project only is what we're talking about should not go forward. i want doesn't make any sense and violates the law. >> do you want to expand a bit on why that curving temporary sidewalk is more acceptable than the straight sidewalk? the neighbors are against any sidewalk. >> not true, the neighbors -- actually both adjacent neighbors -- there

l permit that we've issued. fortunately in san francisco we have depend on the public quite a bit to let us know. they'll call into 311 and say it's been a few months, i don't see a replacement tree so we follow up. there is enforcement. it's not i ron clad sometimes it takes a call into us to see if the property owner has been lagging behind a little bit but we have a mechanism of enforcement and we will fine the property owner if they fail to replant the required replacementment tree. >> how about here? >> in this particular case, park merced, a little pit bit of background from my perspective, i was with the department in 2005 evaluating all removal applications for two years. never once received and application from park merced. in 2007 they were removing trees? juan circle which was the first time this ever came to the department's attention that park merced didn't realize they needed permits in order to remove a significant tree so they haven't been on our radar since 2007. no one ever called in a complain

on the front of the permit has one description. the planner and the approval box in the back of the permit elaborated a little bit to kind of clarify what the actual plans show. often the description on the front is a summary of what have the actual plans show and do not provide every detail. the two main parts to the project are the internal work to provide the connection between the spaces and the stairs, but i think the work that's real vanlt today is the exterior work and that consists of essentially keeping the same opening in the facade where the existing two doors existed for 735, but replacing them in kind with wood to the question before you tonight, i believe, is whether or not that work consists would be interpreted and be the modification to the facade per the nsr that is recorded on the property and whether additional world would trigger the work laid out in the nsr. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> there was no option but to come mriel with the ada; is that correct, once the work was proposed? >> i'd h

we get our permits [inaudible] by brad pitt was seeking this by performance permit to -- so we can do further fundraising events. associated cancers group which you may be aware of, as you may know, with he are trying to make that survival were always looking for fun racing and core sponsorship. as with the data live performance for fund-raising events. for private rentals such as birthday parties, graduations that is, we do the occasional private corporate events. we also host dance weekends were people come in and know how to workshops during the day mike again social in the evening. we do have ongoing

thus confer limited live performance permit. metronome as you may know having dance studio teaching all kinds of stance the last 30 years. they have in the past had [inaudible] entertainment to an ownership change they did not renew that and they been doing occasional events with one night event permits and then also doing some other stuff. another coming into compliance by getting applying for a limited live performance permit. just a quick note, the building that the [inaudible] was built in 1949 and doing the music therefore a long time. not that longer lease 30 years. another carbon building was built maybe 15 years ago right next to it. we have heard from tenants over the last year, a tenant may be to tenants -- about the volume emanating from the dance studio ceo finding your binder chain of e-mails, the police report and some other stuff. a letter from the property management, did you also find that letters of support from the metronome from this neighborhood groups.) the general vicinity so without further ado i'm going

shep didn't relinquish his permit and waterfall wouldn't be what it is today, i have to refute b what the horrible attorney said there was criminal activity at the wellness there was one a fire two an illegal grow and through 3 a fire alarm i ask you please give mr. shep the opportunity to get back what is rightfully his and. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is a oscar i'm standing in support of waterfall wellness i'm an employee under mr. shep and mr. malcolm heinicke dices is i want to say my he comparisons or experience has been a good one i organize clean up crews and feed do community i was involved in the 2014 age walks and we walked as a team as waterfall we're giving back to the community i know a lot of negatively has been brought up the record reflect we haven't done anything there's nothing we're hiding or mysterious about waterfall we help 0 out and have a compassion program we help people that are seriously ill and give away free medication we're trying to be a positive member of the you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> and

with the issue that the permit was filed in august the permit was issued in october the requester knew there was going to be a deck in the rear advised project in no time did they ask the project sponsor to make any sort of a change rewarding the deck the opposite neighborhood adjacent to the project sponsor filed an appeal considering that was the only appeal filled the permit holder came to a swift agreement to move forward with the construction project i can't say for certain how the norngsz would have gone with two permits but they wouldn't have ended swivelly i'm not here to talk about the project but i wanted to emphasize the chronicle order i can say it was handled by the city but let you know that the chronological of the approach the permit holder agreed to a settle they eliminated half of the deck and provided screen measures and other issues to address the concerns of one neighbor and now the other neighbor is asking to reopen the case to move the goal line to move the goal line and to allow us a second bite of the apple. >> excuse me. is there a reason why there was no beli

and reviewing these types of permits. i'd like to note, joining me here today and these folks are available for question our [indiscernible] from the planning department, [indiscernible] from [indiscernible] who has performed part of the environmental analysis looking at the implosion they are a consultant to the planning department in from urban we have [indiscernible] as well as [indiscernible]. >> to provide some context, on january 2014 the approved the first major phase application. this development will include five sub phases to be built out over the next seven years. this cover 16 blocks of development, includes 1500 homes. the revitalization of the public housing site. one point 1,000,000 ft.2 of mixed commercial uses. including the retail center will will be in the footprint of the existing stadium. 50,000 ft.2 of community facilities. 9.4 acres of parks and a $6 million contribution to candlestick point state recreation area. in order to move ahead with this development program we will undertake the demolition

we may end up not need this permit if this permit supercedes and makes it better we may be able to resolve this if that permit goes away. >> we'll have to depend on our department to make that donation consumption we need to make sure that things are moving as quick as possible. >> everything of everything has to be quick. >> now that we're moving (laughter). >> the work, yes the permit issuance and work, yes. >> and, of course, the appellant can withdraw his appeal if he's satisfied with the provisions. >> can i make a motion commissioner. >> let's give both party one minute to see if there's major observes - objections. >> starting with the appellant. >> so i think the plan sound good my engineer and the soil owners engineer they've worked together in the past and my engineer building this as a good engineer and requires more work the urgent matter is the shoring i've been disappointed throughout the last 2, 3, 4 months my property remains from a poor condition primary because of lack of enforcement in spite of what the owner tells us there's not good communication. >> sir ass. >> the ci

they're reaching the plumbing code in my case all of the work that is done has to be inspected and permitted. >> exactly. >> we need to go see if it is a residential occupancy which requires the planning review. >> yes. and or to take it out. >> or you can see a pipe there that is not appropriate in san francisco. >> okay. all right. >> okay. >> no other questions we'll have the appellant come up thank you. >> you have 14 minutes. >> hi commissioners i'm karen alumni i'm a family friends of family members actually family member of the project sponsor who is a old lady 85 years old and the tenant actually take a page of the fact that this old lady actually is my aunt she lives in stockton she's old and didn't know anything she's own this property for a long time and the tenant has a at least and then she never visits even san francisco she hadn't been to san francisco like 10 years so she really didn't know what's going on with her belief and the next thing she finds out there were a bunch of tenants in this office floor and then there were violations one after another and then the tenant wen

and we're proposing the current permits. >> your curb permit redoing the doors, but they're custom doors made to match what is existing. >> good to know. we're looking to immediately. we can find something like this we'd like to implement it. >> by the way, what is the -- when they talk about appellants talk about mismatch and you've indicated one door leaf is bigger, how much bigger is it than the other one? >> four inches. >> thank you. anything further? >> i just heard from a building inspector that recommended the [inaudible] whefrz i state that here that means there's no notice of violation, there's nothing in the complaint tracking system so it could be a correction notice which doesn't show up in the dbi system. that would be in the building inspector system. if that i have had inspections out there, there's a possibility that an inspector had asked him to do something with this and this is where this got triggered from. they didn't state that on their permit. normally smtsdz on the permit you'll say to comply with building inspector's correction notice. they didn't say that. it's

maybe in this case we should have had a demolition permit and a new construction permit, but i think it's gone that long -- >> yeah, eight years. >> to put them back into that process again, i think would be a little unusual. sometimes we deal with driel rot issues, inferior lumber size. sometimes we do have the situation we let them do a revision on an alteration permit for some of the walls that need to be strengthened to -- in this case the lack of water proofing is actually i think it was last week, or maybe one of the recent rainy days and you could see the water coming through the siding so you're going to have a building then if we didn't do this we've got a building 99% that has proper walls, you need these two walls as they are, you don't do anything with them you have water coming through there so i think it makes sense to do this. that was my recommendation. >> best of two evils. >> the demolition on the new construction, that's anotherish shuch that i don't think we want to go there. >> thank you. >> commissioners you want to hear from the permit holders next? >> thank yo