permits. then there were asked to work on the old footprint, including the u2%m correct in -- second revised correction. this left the partial permit with problems, two floors with no bathrooms, and one without egress. we rejected and planning suggest we filed this jurisdiction. these plans need serious review before proceeding and hopefully an umbrella permit. testimonials about character or uses of school letterhead cannot change codes. in other appropriate values exist for owners to seek redress. without notification, the planning counter accidently bridge this. the basement still has extensive problems. we respectfully ask you to take jurisdiction so we can appeal and ask you to review this permit. thank you. president peterson: thank you. we can hear from the permit holders now. >> i am the permit holder, sam ball, at want to introduce my family. -- and i want to introduce my family. this is my wife, my son, my daughter. these are my parents, who are the co-owners of the house. and this i

we have one on the subject permit in the permit described in the jurisdiction request. vice president goh: but your investigation was limited to reviewing the permit history and not the kinds of questions we heard from the other commissioners, looking at the kind of wood that was taken out and that sort of thing. >> we do not have that broad a discretion in deciding if it is non-complying or not. we are purely looking at the record. it does not have a building permit. so it is up to this board to decide if it is a legal non- complying structure. president peterson: mr. sanchez, you said it was code compliant, it appears? >> i believe if it was constructed prior to 1978 it would have met the planning department code requirements for eight rear yard at that time. -- for a rear yard at that time. commissioner fung: refresh my memory of the exact dimension that is non-conforming. >> it looks like it is the rear 10 feet. commissioner garcia: what? >> 10 by 25. commissioner fung: we would have allowed a pop out, right? >> that is correct, but only at one level. i will check t

there is no permit, therefore it is not built with a permit. it is incumbent on the property owner to go to those other sources and show us it was built at a certain time. vice president goh: let us say that the lumber was old, and it did happen that there was a port and it was in closed 40 are "years ago. there would not have been permits pulled to do that sort of work. -- was enclosed 40 or 50 years ago you do not require the property owner to take that down. >> it is a problem. just because it got done without a permit does not make it ok. we do actually have to take action. normally, things do not get taken down. they go to the permit process. they have to get a permit and either meet today's code building plan or they have to document and either come to this board or otherwise document in some reasonable way why we should apply some previous code. president peterson: i am good to interrupt you. for fire code reasons, we need folks to sit down. sorry to interrupt you. >> over the years, this board has said, "we believe this was constructed

what about permit? >> it would have required a permit, and you are able to authorize that or the planned department can authorize that today. as you know, when work is done without permit, someone is allowed to retroactively get that permit it. the have to pay a penalty, hopefully not nine times if they did not do it themselves, and what we're seeking is that the planning department allowed a retroactive approval in the form of allowing a renovation of the envelope. that is before you. commissioner garcia: alright. commissioner fung: counselor, for the portion of the house that was demolished because of the dry rot that was found, was there any documentation done to the type of material that was removed? >> i was the architect was here. he could tell you. or maybe -- would you like to describe it? do you know the type of material that was uncovered by the contractor when he was working on the rear portion? is that the question? commissioner fung: yes, it and age and the type of construction? >> if you s

is on this permit? >> i do not think that we would be able to process the second permit when there is already one permit issued for the same work. it would be not appropriate, not possible. commissioner fung: depends how they it -- anyway. commissioner garcia: mr. kornfield, we can assure this couple that the department will do everything in their power to expedite this, correct? >> absolutely. commissioner garcia: thank you. commissioner fung: you have indicated -- vice president goh: i am thinking, even though i would desperately like to go home -- here are the choices. what i would like to do is to vote against the motion, and doing so would take it to a time when commissioner hwang will be here, at which time she may or may not vote with the other commissioners. if she does, the proposal as suggested goes forward. if she does not, we are at the same position we are today, where we are failing to overturn, we are failing to secure the four votes to put in a special condition, the permit will be uphel

we can say it does permit it or not permit it. what is or is not authorized is a different statement. we have to be mindful. one thing i wanted to say about jeremy pose a question was, there are quite a few very good people in san francisco to go to if you want to legalize something that had been done without a permit in the past, or you want to get a permit for every model that was done or a bathroom that was added downstairs without a permit, and you feel like your uncle maybe was -- may have done it properly. oftentimes, it is no big deal. it is a good thing to do. there are many companies that specialize in doing just that. you can do that. it depends on your goal. if your goal is to sell the property or to avoid neighbor complete -- there could be two different goals with two different results, choices about how you go about taking care of the bathroom that you built in the basement without a permit, or you might do nothing. that may be ok, too. >> the question was focused related to value. >> ok. the hypothetical of a kitche

time is left on a permit that would be a former permit? >> this would be a four month permit. >> this ends on december 3rd. we were originally issued on december 3rd and then we removed the permit on the shift and did not put them back up. the 24th when we received a notice from your office stating that the revocation was suspended. according to what was issued, this is only good until december 3rd. this is 19 days. >> you are using this as the you have a permit. >> they don't want to establish for the future. the whole situation has run away with itself which is why resolution outside of this arena might have been easier. i am here and we filed the appeal because this is not in our company's interests or my interest and this was an effort to come here and make this statement. i agree that there is a discrepancy. i have never run into an issue before. >> is is finished on december 3rd. >> at that point, we cannot renew a space. we might be able to apply for an application but based on previous construction companies, you can live on the bu

what is before you is this revision permit. the motion that is on the floor right now would deny the appeal and upheld the permit. commissioner garcia: depending on what the vote is, the planning department could rescind its own stop order -- stop work order? >> got sanchez, planning department. if the board finds it is a legal non-complying structure, the department would rescind the stop work order because we would have nothing to stop work on at that point. there are many reasons i am sure you can find to justify that, if the permit was lost, perhaps. it is up to the decision of the board. commissioner garcia: now the question would be that because we are just going beyond upholding the revision permit -- we are trying to conclude the fact that we consider this to be a legal non-conforming. do we still need only a simple majority vote or do we need four votes? >> 3 votes to uphold. four votes to overturn. you can stay with three. >> the motion is to uphold the permit on the basis of the prescription -- on the basis of the co

>> it with their foreign of our new building permit. less >> when we heard this before one year ago part of the new design. >> currently adapted and submitted in the documents. for this side in the rear, a as was said? in chile with several buildings in the keating construction that goes back onto the subject. >> think you. we're there. commissioners, rivers and in the owners of 135 is -- camino del mar. we have been working hard with the planning department to get this through the process. and eventually get to burke regina kilovar et. quickly i want to run through where we have been. exhibit c shows the chronology. every process over the last 12 months. outlining what their requirements were. at that time we felt we needed a new architect, so we hired more to help us through the planning department. this is really more complex as this involves the redesign of the entire front of the building. june, first submitted plans from july and into july without more comments backfill a number of times we noticed and held a site with the meeting

the applicant must show the current fire permits and you have this permit you should show the staff that you have this. if you have not done this you will be directed to go to health to get your inspection. we will check for compliance with the americans for disabilities act, and many of the other roles, will be adopted after this legislation will making process, which is also a public interest. things like, the park in the month hands down. this will be done after the legislation is passed. this is a major feature of the new proposal. after the application is filed, there will be a notice to all the businesses within 300 feet or one block of the requested location but we do with most of the noticing processes in the city. it will be the responsibility of the applicant for listing businesses within 300 feet. and the public works department will send out an official notice to those businesses and i will know that for the requests, to sell food after o'clock, you must notify the residence as well as the businesses. and if there are no objections received by mail from the notice, the permit

have to be removed from this permit in order to allow this permit it to proceed, so that is one way to deal with it. there may be other ways, but that is one way. thank you. commissioner fung: which raises a question for mr. sanchez then. what does that do to notice? >> scott sanchez, planning department. in regards to notification, i would argue that since the project, the proposal, has already gotten the section 311 notification and has gone before discretionary review, the permit would not trigger a new neighbor notification, unless the design of that front structure was enlarged in some way. it has already been clearly vetted by the planning commission. a revision permits or something along those lines. it is not a substantial new deviation. in terms of the appeal process, yes, that would add a 50-day appeal to the sport after the issuance. commissioner fung: so planning things that this is predominantly a building code issue? >> yes. president peterson: we can move to public comment then. is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this matter? please step forward. you have one

the permit. >> stayed and coming back if there is an issue? >> you want that? >> you want to give 90 days? >> ok, 90 days. >> second. the upholding of the staff and staying of the action for 90 days, pending the permit work to be done. >> i think that what you're saying is to pick a final action today and if all of the work is completed, the order of abatement would not issue. the alternative would be to do continuance for 90 days to come back and report what is happening. i just wanted to clarify. >> 90 days sounds like a permit issued. >> whichever comes first. >> let's clarify. holding the staff's recommendation for 90 days, within which time the permit has been issued and the work will be done? if there is an issue, you can come back to us. >> this is a final decision. >> does the national apartment expect to have this done in 90 days? pop >> the case is fairly contentious. there were probably have to be some exploratory work done. 90 days would be very optimistic. >> dr is back in our department, i think. >> the 25th of october? >> it was