appealing the denial on october 16, 2013, of mobile food facility permit denial of permit application due to non-response by applicant; for sale of hot dogs, chips, sodas and energy drinkss. application no. 12mff-0030.>> sf 712341234 >> we'll start with the appellant. please step forward? you have 7 minutes to present your case. >> good evening. my name is julio castillo. i'm here to appeal to the permit 4-1-11, 18th street. to continue the paperwork for 4-1-11 because we get the first permit on 2012 and we get the first permit and the 41 mission. and we won't continue on 4-1-11 on 18th street because we need more money to get the papers because we buy the trailer and i don't have enough money to continue the paperwork. that's why we don't continue with the paperwork. i did not receive the letters because they stole the mail from my house. when i went to the dpw, they said if you want to continue this paper, you need to appear. that's why we appeared for the purpose because it was denied. >> i didn't understand, you didn't receive the mail? >> yes, because it was stolen. the gate, the

permit to renew drainage, a one dollar permit. and which is one dollar permit he proceeds to dig 15, 20 yards of dirt out on a hillside this deep in a known land slide zone the project gets ahead of him and he rushes into the building department and says oh, my god i destabilized the hillside and you need to give me an emergency permit and they did the only thing necessary that they had to give them a building permit and the client found out about it and we got involved within one week we had meetings with them, and we said, great, if you want to do a tie back design, fine, do a tie back design and be aware that you are going to put the tie backs under these 100 foot tall pines and if you destabilize the trees they are going to wipe out our house because we are in the fall zone and they immediately revised the design and come up with a new design. during this period we say start digging and get ahead of the winter and they start digging and we mention to them, why don't you protect the hill because if it rains it is going to wipe

i want to say one of the comments he wants the permit resented for appeal number 8 a which was permit application 2017167. that's a permit to obtain a final spriks for the application which is for the underpinning protection for soil. they said the work was bun done and never got to signed off and now they're saying they're going to get it finished. and there's outstanding plans. it was part of the plan for the underpinning occurred whether it was at the rear of the site or on the south property line or north property line it needs to get closed out. i'm assuming the work got done but i wouldn't want the permit rescinded so for that one i'm not sure maybe the permit holder can speak to that and answer was the work done and he needs to get it signed off in 2014. and i'll available for questions on anything else. >> you said they're still outstanding the permits for 9508. >> in 2005 because the site got excavate. not only 2512 there was one - there were 3 properties involved. that's why they needed underpinning permits. those are the permits that were taken out around that time. as far

requesting that the permit be granted so that we know what the permit at issue truly is that at&t has satisfied all conditions of the permit and dpw has a chance to say we are denying the permit for reasons one, two and three in this letter or this application, then thosish shies would come before you for /aeu analysis and appeal. >> i think what our city attorney just state d makes sense to me because the permit that will ultimately be denied is the permit which we have jurisdiction to hear and it will be included in that as the matters that you brought today on appeal. so we will get there. i agree, this must be frustrateing, but that is part of the city process. i understand your argument on the law, but i don't want to mess with the city process because i don't want to operate outside our current jurisdiction. >> i heard something a little troubling, and i don't know that this is germane to the particular issue. the represent said that at&t was asked to go out, meet with the neighborhood and identify alternative sites and it looks like they're trying to circumvent that. it seems l

does not permit you to do any work, it is just an administrative permit that shows an expired permit. and they can work on that and we would be happy to work with them on that. >> thank you. >> mr. teague? >> good evening, commissioners cory for the planning department staff and just to go back to 1997, 2000 there was a permit in 97 and a board of appeals case in 2000 on that permit where the board of appeals did rule that the schedule of work had been exceeded and that part of that work was the removal of the one existing off street parking space and in the garage, which was removed, and without authorization, and it did require that parking space to be back for the project to meet the planning code which resulted in a notice of special restrictions being recorded on the property. and in conjunction with a building permit to correct the violation, and which basically stated that for a period of a year, the project sponsor may obtain the off street parking through a nearby property. and in the meantime, they would file a permit to construct a new garage or otherwise provide the requi

i'll hear from the permit holder next. we're ready for your rebuttal. 6 minutes >> i know things might have been done but again we're discussing the same privilege they want 24 inches from the bottom we're willing to give that to them. in those plans they were submitted to disallow before that meeting at the building department. before we submitted we called them again and said fine. we met that day it showed 24 inches. fine we'll label the section this is the copy of the approved plans that specifically show the 24 inches from the bottom of they're under pinning. i showed them back to a him and he agreed. he didn't say anything he look at it and we preceded with our application and the next thing we heard was an appeal. so again, i have to grant to them that we've been trying to - they have not happened the way they should have one hundred percent on their part. the meat of the problem is the 24 inches. we don't want to see this drug on another 3 months. now the fact that this foundation for the type of soils i'm not a so

it's a completely different design they've submitted a permit here's the permit application and the only person involved is the structural engineer. that's you can't what i am i would not go practicing technical. if you look at this note right here it says the calculations by mr. southern california sullivan. i looked for a technical report none exists so if they want to revise the design get a new sole last report and a closer report they're not comblooil that the contains. the solar report the structural engineer has to address and this is why they have to explain it. the same problem that happened 10 years ago. if the technical engineer complied with the code and they'll be working out how to work with the underpinning issues. we've schd asking them to submit a report or use the old report and submit a closure letter and pretty much that g.e. will be calling up this g.e. and workout how to do the problems. let them build the building and comply with the code and the safety issue of her house will be okay. we're asking for a continuance >> we can hear from the permit holder now or his

so we don't know what the permit really is or will he comply with all the permit requirements if you were to submit a completed application. >> that would be correct. there was no process to submit a permit. >> this is the same with at&t? >> this was similar but different. that was a notification that could result in a permit application. this is a permit application that is incomplete and in essence to be abandoned. and there is nothing in the code that allows it. >> even which there is someone at the cue and there is a process and appealable point where public notification is given whether it's this applicant or another applicant in cue? >> that's correct. the challenge we face in this case is that it doesn't let us to close the permit. >> i think that's one way to go if the board were to decide that the permitee should be allowed to complete an application then complete the application and the permitting process starts for the applicant. the other approach which i think is a bit trickier is that the board, that the permitee submit the application to the board and the board would d

we suggest that at&t can apply for permit. it will be administratively denied and that will up to them to appeal the decision of the department. >> so dpw never stated to the appellant that they do not have approval to apply. they've sort of jumped over that stuff and said there's no point in applying because there's going to be administratively deanied. denied. no one has ever stated if you have never applied don't apply. >> no. >> if they appeal the denial of the excavation permit, with that also allows them to -- wait, that would be no site, never mind. okay. >> in case excavation permit or not we will back it from this commission to go over which is the approval of the site. >> okay. go ahead. >> you have asked for an interpretation from the city attorney representing your department? >> actually, the program manager requested that from the office that was provided. >> i just want to -- just one point. is there a clarification request. there's a public comment and we have a chance. >> i was going to recommend we have publi

permit to renew drainage, a one dollar permit. and which is one dollar permit he proceeds to dig 15, 20 yards of dirt out on a hillside this deep in a known land slide zone the project gets ahead of him and he rushes into

permit holder: parkmerced llc. project, 1st permit: removal of one (1) tree with replanting of three (3) trees of similar canopy and of largest size available; order no. 181658. project, 2nd permit: removal of one (1) tree with re-planting of three (3) trees of similar canopy and of largest size available; order no. 181659. project, 3rd permit: removal of one (1) tree with re-planting of three (3) trees of similar canopy and of largest size available; order no. 181660 >> mr. lagos, you have nine minutes to present your request. >> thank you, director goldstein and good evening commissioners, my name is julian lagos and once again here on behalf of our community and our trees and as you were here a month ago and you had to hear what we had regarding the preservation of these three trees and we have discovered that there has been other information that has come forth since that hearing and it is in regards to the conflicts of interest that have been discovered by myself and the number of residents and park merced reg

the permit was the intent to upgrade to finalize what was done under the old permit. but from my observation ever since the junior 2005 to help ms. hanging no work was done for that particular permit. so in a sense that permit was issued in error and i submitted it a while back in august. so i'm going to talk about appeal 13 dash 67. as you know i come before you on behalf of overview have a tanning. i'm licensed in the state of california as a technical engineer. i have over 45 years of experience in practicing so so to technical engineering. i spent most of my professional career involved in work in san francisco. i support the appeal for the 1311051188. therefore i'm not going to repeat what was down, however, i'm prepared to answer any questions. let me respond to the rebuttal. i maybe overzealous in calling the notice red tagged but as i recall it was touch and go to whether ms. top of could stay there her home in 2005. this was serious and it led to the then district supervisor shawn. several of the visits from the inspection namely raymond louie to name some. i

the permit holder is here and the project is to complete work completed under a permit. to erect a single-family dwelling. and the next is for the building inspection on 19th avenue protesting the ordinance on july 13th to obtain the final construction under the ordinance. seeing all work is completed and 8 b is filed by affordable housing have the same property address protesting the ordinance of an alteration permit and to change the foundation design tomato foundation. this is a vision to application permit in 2013. and with all 3 matters being heard at the same time the requester and her agent have 17 minutes to present >> so before you commence our statement i want to get clarification from our director for everybody's benefit. item 7 is a jurisdiction request for a permit that is being considered in 8 one of the two >> in 8 b. >> that's right. >> so it's a jurisdiction ending in the number zero 86 and item 8 b is an appeal of the building permit that's a revision that ends in '86. >> maybe we can get clarification but that means that the jurisdiction request is goi

, you will not appeal this permit. but today, this is where we are. they are abaoeling the permit, and they want us to wait, three and a half months and they never give me drawings as to what they are proposing. if they are so concerned about the safety of that, that building is currently occupied. xhe. commissioners we have a valid permit and scrutinized by soil engineers, structural engineers. but let me, end this in a friendly cooperative tone. the reason why, they want to replace the foundation from our side, is because it is cheaper for them. we gave them the content to do that. we recognized that something happened. and we are do not avoid the responsibility. and incidents happen in construction. and we take responsibility for that. that is professional ethics. and we will allow them to access this site. and they have not, come back to us. the reason that we are showing the ceiling of the garage with a slab below the foundation is that they can get the foundation and take it out. and that section that he is showi

the one at our site permit. all i can tell you the drawing we have in our brief is the current unchanged. no heights have been changed or modified. it is a clarified drawing. for that purpose of measuring the height in here. >> so the section that you have provided as part of your response you are saying is the same section as in your site permit? >> that is correct. yes. >> okay. >> thank you. okay, we can hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. this is a rehearing request. this item was properly before the board on december 18th the board upheld the building application and a standard of review whether or not there is new information that couldn't of been presented at the time of hearing. it seems the appellant is in fact rearguing the case here. all the material, all the arguments were available to them prior to the previous hearing. in regards to the question related to reliance, certainly they had approached the department in march with proposal. we reviewed that. determined

important to this permit holder. we're saying we're going to reward it by saying it's not that important to us either. go ahead and keep the permit and do your best. that's not acceptable. it's no longer do your best. this is what we'd need to have done in this industry, in the city to protect our people and i don't think there's anything else i need to add related to that other than again, mr. oha is the color scheme holder and as far as transferring his permit, he's frankly the only color scheme permit holder that has ever, as far as i'm aware of, requested a transfer of their permit to another company without actually closing their current company because it's something that's kind of mo magnanimous saying i want someone else to hold my business for me. it's something none of us have been able to wrap our heads around regarding why a person would do this so -- and i think with that, i'll leave it open for questions. >> mr. murray, one point that wasn't addressed in your brief was related to the punishment that wou

the previously approved permits. when we sit down at the counter we are showing what was previously approved and what the proposed modifications would be. of course there is no such thing as a perfect document. so mine were not clouded. that included everything. the intent was to make the planner aware that we were modifying something that was previously approved. thank you. >> anything further from the department? no. okay. commissioners, unless you have questions, the matter is submitted. >> i guess you know the there is two issues here. one is that whether the revisions changed enough to have warranted some type of further review and therefore some discussion as to how those revisions could have been incorporated with a little less impact. that's one issue. the second issue which is different from that is really whether those revisions if they had been in the original packet would have warranted any changes and therefore modification. i don't think that those changes would have warranted any further changes or imp

have a temporary permit? >> he does not. >> so he is operating without a permit and in violation of our rules. and so, that is that. and having said that, thinking that the old permits transfer, and everything that we hear at this commission, my feeling is that if you are going to be a good business owner and you want to own a business, and especially a new business, it is your job to research what you need to do to run

what permits you need. and you could not operate without a health permit. you can't have entertainment without an entertainment permit and so he is operating without a permit and so that to me is always a problem, so those are just my problems with it. i am not saying that we don't grant a permit. i am just saying that behavior is a problem to me. the security guard not, doing security. so, >> commissioner lee and then commissioner akers? >> and i have a clarification, then, so the build out that scott weiner did for updating the entertainment and so i thought that there was a transfer. >> yeah, there is an opportunity for a new owner to have a temporary permit, but they have to be in process within a window of time. >> right. >> i believe that it is ten days. they didn't come to us until after they had already done the transfer and gone to the abc and so, we began speaking with them in september, i believe, and then it was not until more recently that they were able to. >> basically there is a ten day window and they came way after that. >> yes. >> commiss

mark, permit holder. we respectfully request that the board allows us to retain a work permit. that is 7-6:00 p.m.. we heard testimonies how the marsh has changed people's lives and how new housing was going to run out the neighborhood. we did not hear with any evidence or facts to support the findings. 1 person testified they have been interrupted during the performance and they heard noise next door. the 7-4:00 p.m. restrictions places a burden on us and inconvenience. it makes this project unfeasible for safety and financial standpoint. dragging this job out pro longs all the congestion and the community disruption that comes with it. the original 7-6:00 p.m. time restrictions were arrived at after the appellant and commission and permit holder. and they are arbitrarily imposed. these new stop work time seems more like a sentence, more like a punishment than anything practical. please remember that despite all the demonization that we have heard here, creating jobs and tax base is still a desirable activity. we want to get this project done quickly. i just have to address th

>> commissioners, structural engineer, we used this last permit as a house cleaning permit as well. it is a series of violations from the past, one of them was dry rot, repair, and we wanted to include that response of the nov and actually put it as part of the list of items that we were going to take care of the roof deck and the parapet and the extension of the retaining wall and the patio and the response for the nov which is the dry rot repair. >> okay. >> >> i have a little bit more information this time, the original permit was actually to comply with the notice of violation and so maybe our staff saw that that violation was standing until all permits are seeupd off and added it on this permit as well, there was a notice of violation, it was probably a previous owner, but he did not say that but i imagine that it may have been a previous owner, and when we see a violation on there we like to reference that as much as we can and so when we sign-off on the jobs we abait the violations, i don't think that it is anything that i would worry about, >> do you know what the violation

. >> there is no permit yet? >> there is no permit yet going forward. >> how would you have in the record that you would allude to having that conversation? >> since we moved to our new office we have a computer electronic sign in list so when people come in they sign in electronically and we verify that data and right now i don't have any information to support that mr. castillo was in our office. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >> okay. well, there is no permit here. i don't think we have jurisdiction of this. it's a permit application in process. so my vote would be that we don't have jurisdiction to do anything at this point. it's an administrative, the dpw has administrative discretion to deem it abandoned. that's my position on it. >> what you are saying is we shouldn't have accepted this appeal? >> right. >> i understand that point. i think it was confusing in trying to figure this out and i'm sure it was confusing for the legal side to look at this. but i would probably approach this

any permit. a few things the applicant is required to provide is provide technical report, providing graffiti reports and each facility must display contact information of the applicant. so that folks that do receive problems or any other type of issue can call in. supervisor scott weiner: back to that last slide and those requirements, can you just describe how in terms of with at&t and how that's working? because, i mean some of the boxes are in place, some have been in place for a while now and they are the older boxes as well. so if you can in terms of the reporting and displaying contact information and repairing within 48 hours, can you talk about that? speaker: like i said there is two types of boxes, the older once in 2005, those do not have the 1800 number. they will come out and replace or repair graffiti. those don't have the 1-800 number. it is required. all the new ones do have the 1-800 numbers. all the once that you are suggesting are you talking about the graffiti issues? supervis

leo this permits said shows 24 inches. >> no. if i went to the building - and the drawings that they showed us showed 24 inches >> the drawings show 24 inches, however, the permit that said that i -- i looked at on the fourth floor at dbi the changes was made by image i am going by handwritten form so what's presented here tonight is not the same my you're concerned that if this drops below 24 inches it is going to sewer charging. >> it's not sewer charging the most critical time is during - >> during construction. >> when we open up, you know, to meet their 14 plus 2 plus 5 then basically, it puts the underpinning another risk. so once you put everything he together then you do have the confinement >> that issue has nothing to do with a mat or spread foundation. >> no. >> thank you. >> thank you. clear as mud >> pretty much. it sounds like we need to continue it to let dbi sort of so sort it out there's no way we can do it tonight. there only concern is the 24 inches and if we can continue it to clear up the set that the dbi ind

i'll talk about what would be involved in the permit and the fee to have a permit. and there would be enforcement. so, let me give you an example. this slide, the map is not so lit. we're creating a form that the shuttle providers could tell us about what stops they'd like to see considered. wheel ask them what locals they'll be using, what length, what frequency they're using. that aggregate, when our planners look at all the stops from the providers they requested, we can tell everybody is asking for using the same stops. and instead, we need to spread it out. or if there are some stops that really are only going to be used once it doesn't make sense. but we need to understand the intensity with which it measures with muni operations. we're developing a web-based input system and information system for san francisco kid, drop a pen, similar to what the folks in the bike share program did for crowd sourcing to identify shares should be using a similar technology and interface. so, people could tell us in their neighborhood, specific conditions, suggestions for stop