commissioner fung: the permit history. i saw the permits referred to by ms. wuerfel. >> de you have that? sorry. no. president peterson: okay, thank you, sir. mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. there are two issues as i see it. at first, the work proposed under the subject building permit application, the addition of the three dormers, all of which comply with the planning department requirements for dormers that are exempt from public notification. none of them require public notification. then there is the foundation work, which appears to be diverted to the building inspection and appears to be a life safety issue of and something that should probably be taken care of. the palin has raised issues about the adequacy -- the appellant has raised issues about the adequacy of the planning department review. the review was adequate, i would challenge. there was a preservation specialist that approved the building application, and he can comment on some of the historical questions you may have. the dormers comply with provisions of the

, simple foundation permit. ms. wuerfel appealed that. we withdrew the permit, went back through and talk with supervisor chu's office 20 times. we were told to have a meaningful remediation. she wants to be here and be on tv. that is what she wants. what can i say, this is a safety issue? we have five people living in that house, to veterans. ms. wuerfel would have us remove one of the bed rooms for demolition. she certified with the building department she had photographs of the building in 1984. i was not even american at that time. all of the building inspectors have gone to my house and say it has gone downhill, and why now this brush of nov's? president peterson: with your question answered? commissioner fung: i have not heard an answer. is there time left? >> can i add -- commissioner fung: no, i asked a question. the question is, what is the time line for your application? >> we filed an application in 2007 for the horizontal addition. we sent an informal letter to the neighbors. we have resolved are iss

when sur rending the permit is required. so that doesn't give us a whole lot to address, you know, revocation proceedings. clearly, the supervisor has introduced legislate which is going to give us grounds -- much more along the lines of what you are looking for. >> secondly we had at oufer disposal the proceedings. the grounds under which they may be suspended are far broader. and can be tied to the good neighbor policy as well as the conditions that are imposed on this permit. and you have already presented the case saying many example that we would have to consider. finally there,'s the option of reconsidering this permit and putting a whole new set of conditions on it. to be honest, i likewise have deep reservations about taking that approach because it does seem to almost be rewarding them, giving them an entirely fresh start when you've presented a mountain of event that we should take into account of past violations of law and failure toed a hear to conditions. receive cation, i'm sorry i just don't see it. that's rea

if you look at the intent, and it is hard to tell what has been done with permit or without a permit, the intent of the permit holder is legitimate. it is utilizing certain construction techniques to capture the attic space as a livable space, which is why the dormers are being placed in there to create the appropriate height for livable space. but it is hard to tell what happens to the ceiling, the original ceiling of the building that was below the attic space, and what framing would have been required to upgrade that to become the floor. it is clear that the existing roof in its entirety is gone. the framing plan shows entirely new framing around the entire roof outside of the dormers, although the note of adding plywood sheeting is scratched out. that is why i knew there was something up there on top of the new roof. so i am not sure that i would buy that this project is not -- it does not need to have some level of notice. i am going to also require that the department -- i need to see the permit history on this. i remain undecided. vice president goh: i agree with that. it was a

rest of this permit. now we have this large existing previously undocumented area of being shown as existing. it has been there for over 50 years, we think. something like that. it has been there for a long time. the issue seems to be -- there are a few issues. it seems to be this little area along in here where the original building ended. there is a single wall. this property has now nailed its interior finishes in to this existing wall, and mr. we rmer's building is completely open. this part of the building is totally gutted. there has been a lot of remodel work that has come to a complete stop until we can resolve this, which is really unfortunate for everyone and the city. as he opened up this wall, you can see that the plumbing is sticking to the wall. i do not know whose property it is, but the plumbing is sticking right throughout the wall. nails are coming through the wall. you can see dry rot over here. there are leaks in this whole area. so there is some problem related to the way the building

the permit holder, mr. wemer rmer, and his attorney have told me where they believe the property line is. the appellate says they do not know where the property line is and need a survey to understand it. truly, i do not know where the property line is. i am not sure the building department wants to get into the middle of the argument about who owns half of a stud wall that is 5 inches wide. it is claimed to wiggle as the buildings moved around. also in 1953, the parcel that is under the permit that we are talking about here today had a permit applied for to legalize two units. this is important because this is part of the problem that we have before us today. they had a permit in 1953 to legalize two units, to convert what was a ground floor business into a residential unit. that permit work was never completed. it was never signed off. that conversion never took place. so it continues to be a single family home until sometime, and i have a permit here from 1993 for this very building, where there was a lo

wuerfel, i have a question about your attempt to communicate with the permit holder spree -- permit holders. in your brief, you have stated that you along with neighbors attended two meetings in 2007 with brand new plants and then the owners applied for a site permit in september, which is currently in the process of being withdrawn. in november, 2008, they moved out. have you had any communication with the property owners? >> no, since they put in their site plans in 2007, all of that was a shock to us. there has not been any communication. even when they moved out. commissioner hwang: what at times have you made, if at all? >> we are available any time. i don't knock on their door and say what are you doing with your plans? i expect them to send notice to the neighbors, and we have attended each and every invitation. but i don't that is appropriate for me to knock on the door and ask when they're getting around to their plans. commissioner hwang: okay, thank you. president peterson: you have three minutes. >> again, i will get back to the whole, did we want to build an addition in 2006? y

you cannot just sit on the permit. >> most permits are good for one year. she took six months to get it. now we are at 18 months. we change the district inspectors every two to three years. so a lot of times the new inspector comes in and looks at a lot of new cases. president murphy: in every case that i have seen, as much time as could be reasonably given within the requirements and administrative code, we have given it. we have always wanted to be in a position where we have not wanted to say we give you less time. and the opportunity for advice or continuance we have tried to request. >> when we get our new computer system, that is point to make things a lot more efficient. what inspector sweeney just mentioned about violations sitting for four or five years and not showing up -- we are actually going to paperwork years later. >> we are in the process of changing the code enforcement department. we are going to have a single number. right now, eid and pid -- plumbing and electrical -- the building inspectors go out for work. they go out for a lot of the

jake canyon southern permit officer. the southern station recommends the approval with the following s. you have those conditions before you, going to read them quickly. number one is entertainment and dancing. allowed five days a week from 8:00 to 2:00. it is exclusive to patrons 21 years or older. the permit is valid for one pool table. when they hire permit holders, they take control of the nightclub and operations and bar tenders and cocktail servers and security personnel. if using outside promoters the head of security much contact southern station one week prior with the calendar of the event. during hours of operation, at least one manager shall be on the premises. one person should be inside the nightclub for every 80 patrons. the front door of the premises shall be closed or covered with a sound curtain during hours of operation. all beverage servers and entertainment and dancing shall cease by 1:45 a.m. the soft clothes and all patrons shall exit by 2:00. all managers and bar tenders and cocktail servers and s

our permits and reservations division focuses on special events and permitting issues. our planning capital team focuses primarily on capital projects. the general manager's office focuses for the most part on the larger policy change conversation, so while staff is -- will continue to fluctuate from time to time, maybe we will get new staff in, but i think as we develop protocols for each of those subject matter areas, i think we could actually very effectively manage specific personnel changes, and as you can see, i think we actually, but typically in our planning and capital group, we have very specific things we did with respect to our capital project. we are very lucky to have sarah on board. as everyone knows, there has been a lot of time at city hall, board of district supervisors. i do not know how many people understand the need and importance of community outreach more than sarah, and we're giving her time to build the systems that are necessary. >> you ask for input. i do have a couple of suggestions. one is that we are doing a lot more facilities leases and

we heard from the permit holder that the permit at issue relates to a correction. can you give me a little bit of assistance to clarify what is actually before us? >> this is a building permit application that invoked a variance decision issued by the department several years ago. it was appealed to this board in 2008 and upheld. this permit follows on net variance completion letter. >> can you address the notification issue raised by the appellant? >> from my understanding of the appellant, they did not get the dvn notice prior to the variance hearing. that was an issue brought up at the time of the appeal. i believe that was addressed. i believe the appellant has had notice of the project through this process, through appeals to the sport for the variance. there was a notification for this building permit application. that was taken to the planning commission. the planning commission unanimously upheld this permits. all the others voted for it. commissioner hwang: thank you. commissioner garcia: i am sure you are aware the reason for my question was hopefully to

and please adopt this permit before someone dies. thank you. >> if there are any other speakers, please line up to my right. >> thank you. i am a resident of 320 alabama. i live with my wife and my daughter. we live two residents down from the neighbor who is have the bullet. i wake up repeatedly and see 30, 40, 50 people outside, with no security there. and also when i was speaking on the other side of the building, they come out. and are very extremely loud. ha the club, but out.mely loud. ha we are definitely very concerned with the bullet being shot into the built as we are just two units down, which is very close. our daughter actually sleeps on that window. so we are very concerned every time there is some sort of action and things going on in the club. we definitely feel like it should be suspended indefinitely as well. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, commissioners. my name is donald, rarmse. i am the not resident of 320 alabama. i was going to say the same thing about the newspaper articles and stuff. the el rincon club ha

the permit was submitted in july 1st. july 7th, we sent out the notation to someone affiliated with the request. no discretionary review request was filed during the time. the change of use request was filed to the concerned parties. the person who requested this can explain why that happened. i would be happy to go into why this is not a form of a retail use. they only had one other store, not 11 or more. this was an independent company purchased by gap in 2008. looking at some of the materials available on line, if you purchase something online from the store, you cannot return it to a gap store. we see this as a different type of operation. the determination was correct. we request that you deny the jurisdiction request and we are available for questions. >> -- >> this was submitted on july 1st. this time has already expired to file the discretionary review. this was given to representatives. i have the request here. >> does this have to do with a permit? >> what is before you is the letter of determination. in order t

, extended hours premises permits, and onetime event permits to include public safety considerations were operation of the permit poses a substantial risk of physical harm or injury to individuals and where the pretty's persistent action or inaction causes serious or continued problems that amount to a public nuisance -- the permitee's persisted action. supervisor chiu: we have two items in front of us that have to do it public safety issues. the first is the regular quarterly update from the entertainment commission, having to do with statistics surrounding public safety incidences' related to nighttime violence. this quarterly report came out of the legislation that we passed last year concerning entertainment where we had heard from numerous members of the public that there had been many complaints brought by neighbors and by the san francisco police department that appeared to be going into a black hole where there was no follow-up by the entertainment commission or other city agencies to resolve these complaints. last year's legislation required the entertainment commission ever

the building permit was submitted on july 1st, we did the permit on july 17th and we are holding this as a matter of courtesy to find out what will happen with the board's decision. if the appeal is filed, i don't think that this would be approved and issued until we have the issuance. >> if this is not file, then this is not correct. >> they have filed to the building permits. we have an accurate notification. this opened up the 10-day window for filing discretionary review. >> the permit is not correct if we took jurisdiction and determined that there was a formula retail. >> you don't have jurisdiction. you have not chosen to do so. >> our potential ruling could make this move. >> that's why we are holding it. >> when you say holding it, this is not issued it but you don't mean you are holding the time in which someone can file dr? >> no, this has already closed. the question of the form of a retail use would be opened up. >> this seems like this kind of compression process. it seems reasonable that perhaps this party might have waited to see where this would go and deciding whethe

the permit is upheld. -- thank you, the vote is 5-0. the permit is upheld. commissioner hwang: president peterson, shall we move on to the last item? president peterson: call item no. 9 when you are ready. >> calling item 9, appeal number 10-059, nancy wuerfel verses the department of building inspection, planning department approval at 2514 23rd ave. it is the protest of issuance on may 18, 2010 to mary galvin a permit to alter a building, comply with various nov's, convert a crawlspace to storage, cap existing foundation, roof framing, add three dormers, stairs from basement to attic, replace windows and trim in kind, and remodel kitchen and bathrooms. president peterson: thank you. ok, ms. wuerfel, you have three minutes. >> i am nancy wuerfel protesting the approval of a building alteration permit to the house next door. this appeals about mistakes made by all the parties that contributed to issue a permit in error. it is also about the unresolved the legal structures on the subject property. at first, the owner has submitted plans containing numerous er

hollis' color scheme permit. mr. hollis explains away the simultaneous usage by saying that he repaired the car and is on apartment, at his own place, and did the work himself. this was also calling for the mta, but there was no indication he was a licensed mechanic. this is a public safety issue for us as well. that he is not a licensed mechanic performing this work, we don't know what will happen to the vehicle. it is a huge liability for him and the city. importantly, and because i am short of time and i understand the reason why, someone once told me that people follow rules because it is logical and right to do so. others follow those rules because they are afraid of getting caught and being punished. mr. hollis is in the latter category, afraid of getting caught and being punished. if mr. hollis walks at this room today without any form of discipline, the message that will be sent to the industry, for all those abiding by the rules and paying for their permits, taking care of their vehicles and drivers and cust

the board overturned the denial and upheld the permit and allowed the permit to be issued. this is without any section 311 neighborhood notification. the direction of the board was to make sure that the project complied with the residential design guidelines. the project was approved in december of 2006. sometimes in 2007, apparently work beyond the scope of what was authorized by this board occurred, and a revision permit was submitted in april of 2007 to correct what had happened here. in january of 2008, a section 311 noives went out -- notice went out. this was the first notice neighbors had received of this project, which was already under construction. there was a discretionary request review filed. that was heard by the planning commission in january of 2009. and yes, as the appellant noteded, the department did have a recommendation to approve the project as it is, but the commission, which has the ultimate decision power on this, made the decision that it needed to have the parapets lowered to six inches, and that there were certain other details, lighter colors, a

it would be useful to know what the permit holder is going to do. when i went there the other day and said, "what are you going to do with this laundry shed," mr. poehl did not know. he called back later. he did not know and i did not know. it would be useful to have if not plans a list of the work. president peterson: what about the contractor's task list? isn't that the outline? >> that was not submitted as part of the permit. president peterson: ok. commissionger fung: it was not part of our package either. commissioner garcia: the think it is sufficiently explained now what is to be done? >> i do not think so. there is this whole issue of things getting nailed to and through the walls, and dry rot and all that. i would think it does not sufficiently -- if i was a neighbor, i would say, "let us resolve all the issues." but i am not the party at issue. commissionger fung: but would you be in agreement that quite a few of those items -- if they were to be unplanned, there would be a note. >> that is right. "remove nails from wall." how're you going

do you feel permit owners will send a venue to the permit officer every three weeks? does this require prior restraint. >> i will certainly investigate that with people who do have law degrees if you wish. >> this is not any legal comment, but i do want to make a comment. that is very interesting what you just said. . providing public information does not necessarily in for a prior restraint. it can, but they are not required to inform anyone. i do believe when you have a public assembly order, you have to have an order to operate. if the gentleman would like to stand and sing, he cannot even do that. that is the entertainment committee. the occupancy permit goes to public safety, so there are constraints that can be put on the venue. that is an interesting question. >> i was surprised when i heard the police department was soliciting and of plan of how they were going to engage in the protest and that the police department actually reach out to say, can you let us know what you are going to do. the idea was not to constrain that from happening, whereas if there is no

please vote to deny the permits for this location. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners. i am a marina district resident. before you came today, it is the question of whether t-mobile should be granted an accessry use permit proposed at the location under discussion. the wts facilities guidelines were adopted by the city in 1996 and supplemented by the planning commission in 2003. these guidelines require a conditional use permit in a neighborhood such as the one that 2010 chestnut is located. additionally a presence five location, like the subject building, requires it. a location like the subject building requires an alternative site analysis from t-mobile explaining all of the available alternative its has and why they are not viable for its proposed antennas. instead, t-mobile is relying on a zoning administrator's determination and is engaging in the abuse of the accessry use process to try to slip itsa antennas in without planning commission oversight and without explaining why alternative sites o

often because of the complex nature of permitting in san

we do not want to issue a permit to a building that is potentially unsafe. contributing to that had their comedy did that work continue with violations addressed? maintaining the safe building. >> commissioner? >> i asked for this matter to be heard. for them to look at opportunities where we can save staff time, shortening the time line to resolve these issues before they become appeals issues, perhaps even to engage the property owner, even on an earlier stage. what i would like to ask, when someone receives a violation, if they disagree with what the inspectors said, what opportunity they have? can they request to go straight to the directors hearing? the way that i understand it, we place the item on the directors hearing if they do not respond after a few inspections, correct? >> yes, we scheduled the case for the directors hearing. there is a code that allows people to bypass that provision. >> i am not talking about bypass. >> but there is a provision of code that would allow that. >> that is not what i am asking. if someone gets a notice of violation

we do not want to issue a permit to a building that is potentially unsafe. contributing to that had their comedy did that work continue with violations addressed? maintaining the safe building. >> commissioner? >> i asked for this matter to be heard. for them to look at opportunities wre

ilc required a permit review -- i also required a permit review. so it was really important that we brought the owners into compliance. this is also an opportunity for the public to express their concern. and there was an eviction notice. a permit review remains relevant. they are recommending a set of conditions. others impose conditions, as well, yesterday. some of them are very similar to staff recommendations. i am not entirely sure whether the owner of jelly 's got these. kind of following along and for the purposes of the audience here, i want to read these. this is how they will be operating. commissioner joseph: in this memorandum, there are 14 conditions. and there are 17 conditions. and while you are doing this, once they go into effect, they will become part of the permit. part of the permit, and you must operate under these conditions. >> the operators are here. i had not reviewed the plan you put together. they do not have a problem with putting -- implementing these conditions. i understand they made a point that the suspension is not

our permits, and onetime event permits. the first is a public safety ground where the operation of the firm poses a substantial risk of harm or injury to individuals. the second round for revocation would be if a public nuisance was being created where the permitee's persistent action or inaction was continuing to cause serious problems that amounted to a public nuisance. this ordinance does not restrict the entertainment commission's suspension options nor require revocation in any particular instance. it simply provides another enforcement tool in compelling cases, and for these types of permit revocations, permitees would be ineligible to apply for year. i want to thank both the entertainment commission as well as other industry organizations for their support in is because everyone from law enforcement and neighborhood groups to the entertainment industry understand that it is important for the city to have revocation tools at its disposal. not to say that they will always be used, but to give them an option in certain

this is a brief note old permits forward to your note -- bringing old permits forward to you. again, this is something we just received. we sat down at the venue. we came up with a variety of ways, a security plan, which essentially becomes part of that permit. we said that by email and hand delivered to the manager at the karaoke lounge, and that would take effect 10 business days from date sent, which was friday, july 23. again, the actual section is attached. because the permit was issued in april of this year, -- this area. i wanted to adjust quickly to update you on the file number that came before you in may. this was heard on july 19. i do not know what the outcome was. it was on the calendar. that is as quickly as that is going to move. i promised the commission and update on the citations, procedure, per, again, the revised section, and i did not get any written update. the creation of a cetacean issuance form -- citation issuance form come a long drawn- out issuance process -- form, a long, drawn-out issuance process. there are the dollar amounts but that we are capa

number one, they can ask to see the permit. and they can read the conditions on the permit. and if the band has been in violation of any of those conditions to one extent they can simply tell them to turn it down and to another extent they can issue citations if the sound is audible beyond 250 feet. so to make a long story short here, how would you recommend we get the message back to the police officers that there are things that they can do even if they have a permit. >> i would just say one of the ways is just in the fashion that we're doing right now. i don't think to answer your previous questions, i don't think the marathon went through our district because i didn't get a single complaint come across my desk or my captain's desk as well. but i think just know, gee, we have this problem last year oftentimes at the end of an event we do an after actions what went right and what went wrong and putting it in there. so for the affected districts they can put gee, if there's a noise complaint this is the pro toe call. find out what the real issue is. maybe it's turning it do