we suspended the permit and review the permits. what was proposed under the permits was acceptable. we did note that there were issues with the exterior of the building. that is what commissioner fung noted that was earlier this year. it was to address some issues on this building. it was in addition to one of the permits that was suspended by this action. the permit that we will see as fixing one of these problems cannot be issued until the suspension will be released on the permits here. the appeals of the suspension prevents the permit from being issued. it removes the existing steel gate at the front or replaces the windows with the same kind of places the exterior door with the same kind of paint on the outside of the skill building and you can have some consistency on the outside of the building. we appreciate the concern about the replacement permit. it has not yet been issued. if there are issues that we need to clarify, we need to do our best to work with the appellant. we need to make sure that we have clarity it with all parties about what needs to be done. given the hist

>> it's my understanding the first permit, the 2008 permit, and perhaps the permit holder's representative can give a more thorough analysis. it's my understanding the first one deals with parking only. then there are two other -- commissioner fung: before you leave that. and where is the parking being provided? underground? >> yes, i believe so. commissioner fung: beneath the cot ages? >> that's my understanding, yes. commissioner fung: and how about the other two? >> the other two are dealing with the cot ageses themselves and those renovations which address the dwelling units, which are also address in the conditional authorization. they merged 10 dwelling units to four dwelling units. commissioner fung: those remaining two permits dealt with either the removal walls or things to allow larger units? >> that's my understanding. so each of the three permits deals specifically with an element of the conditional use. that's my understanding of the scope of the permits. commissioner fung: do you know why the retaining wall is required? see, we have no graphics in this package. >> i would def

submits the appropriate public networks permit -- public works permit. the department has established time frames for review of the permanencits. once the applicant has submitted the appropriate plans, we will release the building permit and not delay the beginning of construction. on average, once public works has begun reviewing a permit, it will typically take us between a week or two for review. this assumes the application and or architect responds in a timely manner. furthermore, it takes six to 12 weeks currently to process. however, this should not delay the impact sioux businesses as it relates to improvements or new construction -- the impact to business as it relates to improvements are new construction. the sidewalk work comes at the end of construction, which is years if not months away. within the department, i currently have a full-time staff running over 30 different programs. currently the staff will be supplementing as necessary dependent upon the work load. five other staff members are currently reviewing infrastructure improvements ha

>> i think these are pretty normal permits for us to issue. we would issue a maintenance permit. we want to encourage people to maintain their property, and issue permits for that type of work. vice president garcia: if there is an illegal structure to the rear, the patio door that is going to be replaced, you would not want to give someone a permit to replace a door at the rear of an illegal structure, right? >> that is true. i think in terms of the roof, i think that is why the dormer was excluded, because it is a part of the building that is under question. vice president garcia: but it seems as though we, everybody involved, would want to solve this burden. certainly, it is a burden on the permit holder. if they are going to re-roof, and maybe we do not want to step in and make decisions for someone else, but for them illr that has to be removed, that is going to affect the roofing. or am i not thinking? >> if somebody has a roof that is leaking, i do not know what the percentages are we are talking about, if that dormer is a huge percentage of the building. that permit could

this was not in the final permit. when we got the permit, it had conditions regarding paintings and it did not mention the fleshed out which is what we gave to our contractor. when i went through this, i saw that there are these letters from the plan department that have these conditions but that would not be passed down to the permit level. we have ordered the proper pieces to fix the sites. the city will say that we have not done our final inspections and i assume this would have been caught by the city. if they had the permit and the letter from the planning department at that time. this is in the process of being fixed. regarding the accusation of russian legislation, we were rushing because of customer commitments. we have committed to have some things on air by the end of the year ending coinciding with bill launches of the networks in san francisco. that is the explanation. this is the best location. the boxes wall screen from the streets. we will modify this to meet with the planning commission that the city h

there is a permit in the way. you have not seen that permit? >> i find out tonight that that permit is with the planning department. the building department has approved the stage. >> i thought i heard mr. sanchez says something about that particular permit addresses the idea of an exterior door. i am assuming this is the exterior door we are talking about at 731. is that a false assumption? >> there are a few doors on the front of this property. >> it would be a different door. >> echoes from 731 to 739 is the actual address. >> what president garcia is talking about a permit that has not yet been issued. we would not expect to see work have an been completed under the work that you cannot not yet issued. >> i am not talking about what has been completed. these are two things that should have been done properly. i wondered a bank that addressed the exterior door. -- if that address the exterior door. >> unit 731 is that the front. that is -- that has not included any bit of that door. it looks like it is focusing on the adjacent unit. it focus

not to continue to take out a permit after permit. i can show you a few pictures that may interest you. in my brief, i discussed at the entrance to the storefront, number 731 note was an ornate wooden door. that was at a time for tax payers to receive the best. this store has replaced this. there was some level to copy what was there. it is not recognized in historic preservation. the duplication of effort and funds that could have just as easily been extended well doing this in recognized fashion. that door that was there was perfectly solid and strong. there are ways in which the doorway could have been addressed from a handicap accessibility standpoint should that need to happen. it was not choir -- entirely understandable in what had been written. if that doorway was not in compliance with the conditions of approval. it is now being used as a means to attempt to put further handicapped facilities into a neighboring store front. all the while, there is nothing that explains how we get over the fact that this store front is pictured

holder to find that permit. >> do you want to specify the permit? >> the permit that may or may not exist with respect to the retaining wall that was constructed in the right of way in 2004. also those for the removal of trees that may or may not have existed. >> we heard allegations that 11 trees were removed. it is your department that has the bureau of urban forestry. we would expect them to see a permit for the removal of those trees. >> from all indications, the construction of this might have come from a building department permit in this case. >> they often granted permits that often requires a permit for tree removal. >> i know that there was certain inquiries. we searched the block for the baseball field. it appears there might have been a permit issued some time in 2004. >> what about the -- permit? >> i am uncertain about where the property line was represented. if the property line is represented, we're not sure where the retaining wall would be. the trees would be behind the property line and would not fall under the purview of the depa

at that time, the board voted to uphold the permit. the project is removal of a 14 foot by 23 foot advertising will sign the -- wall signed. we will start with the request your -- requester. >> let's wait until the commissioner returns. >> certainly. >> i represent cbs outdoor. we bring this request on the grounds that there is new or different evidence in this matter. the previous hearing and said that the information was inadvertently obtained. it said that the committee and the property owner was unaware of the permit application. subsequent to the hearing, mr. espinoza has made it clear that he now contends that he did not authorize cbs's application for the permit and his authorization was necessary to validate the permit application. whether or not they were unauthorized agent or acting on behalf of the property owner was never discussed during the previous hearing and was not an issue during the previous hearing. in fact, there was a representation during the hearing that cbs actually checked the blocks on the permit application

the permit itself is attached to the permit holder's 3. -- holder's brief. it discloses a mere 43 square feet below what would trigger signals -- what would trigger conditional use. i would think that alone would warn someone from planning going out to the property and measuring. it is a little too easy to come up with a figure a few square feet under the cut off. we have been unable, despite the appearance of neighbors, to get anyone out to do that inspection and objectively measure this space to see whether conditional use is required. fortunately, the matter became clearer when the floor plan was disclosed as part of the exhibit c in the permit holders brief. there is a poor plan that shows the total square footage of the entire property. if one measures out, as i did, the small area for a walkway, even if you take up the walkway and a shaded area that is a common area, even if you take that out, you still come up with 4100 square feet. but i think the proper measurement is actually 4753. regardless, it is essential, to the extent the permit holder denies

we don't have an exact address. >> well, it might be worthwhile. >> the permit holder obtain a permit and they would have a copy presumably. >> the grounds keeper stated he arrived in 2006 and the permit was acquired before 2006. i don't know the record. my motion would be to ask the permit holder to look through their records. we would like to move the hearing until such time that would for that opportunity. >> what i feel is before us is this specific permit. it is not my intent to get involved in the negotiation that has been going on for a long time. >> to you have a date for your continuance? >> april 6th. >> we don't have a full board then. >> april 20th? >> it is a full calendar that night. >> is there any harm in pushing this out to may 11th? >> we are scheduling as of today for may 25th. >> there is no objection. >> the motion is to continue this matter until may 25th to allow the permit-holders time to locate any permits for the wall that was constructed in 2004 and for the trees that were removed. >> perfect. >> one week before the hearing. this would be the thursday prior

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

you apparently met with someone and you reviewed the permit. we don't have the permits. that is part of my confusion. i have not been able to look at the plans and determine what was in those permits. my understanding is that having determined that no exterior modifications were taking place, you then asked to have your suspension lifted. there are two letters. what is before us? what is before us? what was in those permits that caused you to suspend it and then lift the suspension? >> they were suspended as a precaution. we did this so we could review them and make sure there was no issues. there was outstanding other issues not directly to these permits. these are things that have not been keeping in the character with the building. we used this as a number to 90 to have the project sponsor address those. the palette is concerned that this is not comprehensive enough. also, the suspended ceiling. maybe that was our mistake. oif the board believes that the suspended ceiling is removed from this plan, we can have this removed from the 735 unit. we can make requests but t

previous permits have been withdrawn. the building department as failed to enforce the rulings that i have described. it has allowed the owner- contractor to cherry pick what to comply with, instead of requiring resolution about illegal work. it did not follow the rules. i would like to add least show you a few of the issues that i described. this is right next to this person's property line. it is illegal to have this guy like here. this is a picture. underneath the door is a pipe event coming up through the kitchen remodel, and there is the exhaust pipe from the hood. it should be straight up through the roof, but because of the dormers here, they just did it on the side. and here is a picture of the contiguous roof. this is a picture of the world as is extended over the horizontal exposure. -- this is a picture of the roof. and there are the construction permits from dbi that identified the sky lights dot -- skylights, and they also need to go to planning. [bell] we would see that there are prescriptions for how to do

the board needs to overturn the permit, denied a permit, or modify it or grant the permit. you cannot send it to conduct further review. >> because of the mistake, madam city attorney, they would not be barred from reapplying.

we originally got a demo permit, which we got that work and then we got a permit to do the rest of the work, which we fast tracked through the city. it went to the planning department. at the end of it we did the work. it took five and a half months. about a year later somebody complained and said we had taken a little store out which we turned into a fire exit. it had been a problem for years. we had a fairly extensive sprinkler system in there. this went on with the department. we kind of dropped the ball on our side. we admit that. we had a lot of stuff going on. the ball got kind of dropped twine the -- between the guy we hired and i, basically. so we went back to the planning department before christmas and i talked to scott sanchez, actually, on the phone and we've now sat down with the planning department and what we want to do and what the planning department i think agree with is we should go back and get a conditional use and get some other stuff brought up to date, if possible. so that's basically what we want to do. we admit we obviously were in the wrong -- we didn't think

it says check on-line permit status and it's a permit tracking function and you can enter your address and i think all the permits since the mid 80's now will come up with their disposition and what happens, who reviewed them and all of that. that's the first step. that's as we were rushing headlong into the 90's and we're trying to move into the next decade and right now negotiating some vendor to scan these and put them all underseparate addresses. okay where do we go from here. >> right now you can do that yes. >> but it's not on going? >> we're going to increase it. we've initiated that about three to five months back. if you have a permit in for review you can check the status and see who has it and who is the next plan station and if it's prepared for issuing and you feel free to jump in. >> what's on-line is the same we have in our lobby the permit tracking system. applications from about mid 80's to whatevers today issued and that's information you get. it's not the actual copies of documents but the computer indexing the central department does when they accept permits. from t

describe for me what that permit was for. >> which permit number are we talking about? >> ending -- commissioner fung: ending in 91, 91. secretary pacheco: 91, commissioner fung, is a remodel of two cottages. commissioner fung: so it says the same thing? ok. president goh: i have a question, based on responses to vice president garcia. are you finished? ok. if the planning commission heard all of those issues when they granted the cu in april of 2010, i do not understand how they could have hurt the issues that had to deal with the permits applied for in september 2010 and only just recently granted. >> ok, commissioner, president goh, the planning commission will review all -- will review any fat, any concern about a cu that is raised with them, a technical issue, or not. as part of a discretionary review, it does not have any role, and neither does this body, in my opinion, have any role in this. i have been here a long time. a geotechnical report are the people at the department of building inspection are the only people qualified in san francisco to review. for the

because i have the building permit with me. so because they didn't issue us a new permit number while we redo the conditional use. that's why the permit is turned 1998. president goh: can you turn that -- we can't -- 180 degrees. thank you. >> so, and also i talked to the planning because we submitted right on the time what they give us at that time. so when i talk to the planning, they're saying that we didn't submit the right plan because every plan is the same but that's not true. because i have three submittals. because planning told me they only received one submittal but that's not right. i have one by myself because it's not clear but i already showed the original to mr. sanchez. it's showing it very clear, we do the site permit submitted on the 2006 and because they have three planner changes. the first one, we view it as jesse nelson and then they changed it to somebody else and then later on they sent to it somebody else. i have a meeting particularly with the grand planning department last year because i wanted to fi

we are currently awaiting a decision by this board either to uphold the permit or provoke this permit. if it is upheld, this is an expectation that it is complete. it would be reviewed by staff. >> i am here to answer any questions you have. >> is there a certificate of final completion. >> what happens is that we track within the database. the applicant will provide the electronic documents of the final -- and this will verify to make sure that it matches that the plants will go to side and then we will verify. the work has been completed. >> at what point can be operational? >> that is a very good question. there were questions that we had to go back and asked the city attorney's office. >> this was on the new order for legislation to identify. please don't hold me to this. the minute a signal is passed through these facilities, this is considered operational. we would begin the two-year term. most of your permits require a final inspection of some type before they can be utilized or occupied. >> that does not apply to wireless. >> the answer is yes. this is very similar to the depa

the permits that are before you are connected to the site permit set. these are the drawings that need to be consistent with the cu. the technical issues that come after this are not appealable. susan is trying to appeal those aspects of the project when the basic issue is that the site permits that must be consistent with and issued pursuant to the cu set. happy to answer more questions. vice president garcia: mr. duffy, if you would sir. one issue that has been raised by the request for jurisdiction has to do with seeping of water from one property to another property. that is against code, correct? or that the case, that would have to be corrected. >> that is correct. i would imagine that going through the review at dbi by structural engineers down there -- obviously, they are going to review the g attack -- the geotech reports. that is still going through review. if it was a problem later on, obviously we would look into it. but it is a dispute obviously between two geotech reports. we are going to review it as part of the approval process. vice pre

and then having that permit contestant and what is -- having a permit issued and then having the permit contested. i am really concerned that we have situations where a person is absolutely legally through the city able to operate, and then there is a drawn-out process of a permit being contested that stops the business from operating. this is being driven by the small neighborhood cafe that had a few tables and chairs and was permitted by the department of public works. i am concerned about the department's ability to stand by the decisions of the department when they are made fully within the rules. they are fully within the regulations. for a small business to have to spend their time and their money fighting for something that they are permitted to do -- i would like to know why the department -- what holds them up? what can someone make a complaint and another complaint and another complaint and there does not seem to be a time? it is like an open time before the decision and it is closed. i would like to get some briefing on that. >> just to make sure that i have a clear understan

i think it is set up so that even if it is in the permit area, they are not obliged to buy a permit. >> i am prepared to move the item. >> all in favor? next item? >> that concludes 10.2x. moving to 10.9. it modifies the motor vehicle for higher and increases certain penalties. certain structures, it provides a description of each violation. director nolan: mr. toronto? >> good afternoon. look at the name at the end of the item. all the money from the cab drivers, what do we do with it? my point is that it would be good to the how much the fines are. why are you doing this? why is it not a progressive penalty structure? it is important to have reasons for that. how will this be advertised before hand so that before you violate these, you know what you are in for. i believe that they are increasing certain penalties. we should know those before they get fined. it is important that there is some type of book? for release going out that is available to the cabdrivers. you know how arduous it is to find a lot of items on your web site. it is important to at least advertise or announce wh

the board needs to overturn the permit, denied a permit, or modify it or grant the permit. you cannot send it to conduct further review. >> because of the mistake, madam city attorney, they would not be barred from reapplying. they don't have that year. >> that is correct. >> maybe we can hear from the planning department. >> in regards to whether or not these are vested rights, i would refer to the city attorney. this is not route to the planning department for review. this was an honest mistake. there was an honest mistake. that is how the mistake was made. in regards to whether or not the department would approve of the project as revised as suggested by the permit holder, we have not reviewed the application or all of the materials and we cannot make a determination at this time. the plane apart and has been responsible for reviewing these. there has been in this is where we have approved. there are instances where we have denied. there are conditions on many of them. there have been problems with the provider complying with the conditions of approval. we would like a f

it makes one wonder if there was actually work done without a permit. director goldstein: i might suggest we take a straw poll. commissioner fung: i think we should go ahead and continue this. i think it is an appropriate policy that we have had, and i do not need to drag this out. i think the appropriate time where there is another slot is march 23. director goldstein: so, director hwang, are you making a motion? commissioner hwang: i move to continue it. director goldstein: commissioner fung? commissioner fung: i move that we continue this. director goldstein: mr. pacheco, if you could call the wall on this item, please recall the wall -- if you could call the roll on this, please? secretary pacheco: this is only to allow commissioner peterson to participate on this boat. on this matter, president goh, supervisor alioto-pier, -- supervisor alioto-pier -- director goldstein: welcome back to the meeting of the board of appeals for mark shapiro -- for march 9, 2011. mr. pacheco, could you please read the next item? secretary pacheco: item 4b, is subject

we're issuing over 10,000 permit spirited >> 10,000 a year? >> it went down a little bit, but we issued a 10,000 last year. we realize there are a dozen flows to the economy's -- evidence and flows in the economy. -- ebbs and flows and the economy. we are trying to figure out a way to stimulate and support the economy very good >> the other thing would been -- and support the economy. >> the other thing with the vet -- and would be, and you have any kind of leeway in how you operate, that you could intervene and say as opposed to where you are on a first-come first-served basis, if you allow any openings for extenuating circumstances -- it is never a perfect world, as you know it. every process has its exceptions, and some people have a perception that it is very fixed. whether it is fair or not fair does not matter to me. it might open a can of worms. >> currently for our permit we have is divided into lesser complexity and greater complexity. it is the first in, first out system. there was a law passed many years ago requiring the various ap

the board voted 2-3 to uphold the permit. the subject permit was upheld. the permit holder is bay drugs, llc. >> the permit holder has provided a court reporter to transcribe this hearing and would like the board to designate it as the official transcript. the permit holder has agreed to supply the board and the appellant with a copy of the transcript at no charge, but we need a motion to designated as such. president goh: i will move. >> any public comment or bored comment on using the court transcript as the official record of this hearing? seeing none, call the roll on that please. >> on that motion from president goh to designate the transcription as the official record of this proceeding. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner fung: a -- vice president garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. >> the vote is 4-0. the transcription shall be the official record. >> thank you. we can start with the requestor. i believe her attorney is representing her this evening, mr. wagner. >> my name is david wagner. i am an attorney licensed to practice law in californ

delaying the permitting process. how are we going to get these agencies to make sure they work together and that we, while we do the proper oversight and environmental reviews and everything else, that it's not just a continual foot dragging? >> let me answer two parts to that question. one, how do we make the process efficient. i think as both you and mr. moran mentioned in your opening statements, deepwater horizon was a shocking event for everyone, and not surprisingly, it prompted a lot of activity within the agency in terms of developing new rules, new processes, new proceed writers. -- procedures. as those were rolled out to industry, they were complicated s and it took some time for industry to absorb them and, frankly, it took some time for our people to absorb them, understand 'em, explain them and understand how to evaluate new permit applications. i think that has dramatically improved over the last few weeks. i think if you asked industry as i do almost every day whether we're doing better now, the answer

not permitted. if you had a 1200 sq. ft. space, you had to petition of 200 square feet. -- you have to partition off 200 square feet. you still pay rent on it, but you cannot use it. this gets much larger with the mission, 5000 or 6000 square feet. >> the taqueria on mission were given an expanded size footprint because it is on mission street, but if it was in a different location in my tongue and a thousand square feet maximum. >> i was thinking about la cornetta. it probably should not have been permitted on mission street and. i do not know why is there. i hope i have not singled them out. >> it might have been conditionally permited or they got a variants -- a variance. if you went to valencia and valencia has small use size, it would be whatever prevails. the idea is to create parity between these self-service restaurants and other types of businesses in most nc districts. it does not matter if it is a restaurant, a video store, a liquor store, or a hardware store. anything larger than 3000 sq

hmm -- to nine -- deny this b -- permit. director goldstein: next speaker, please. >> there will should be no excuse for installing these in correctly. they are hiding behind fat. they are fully operational. they say they will bring it in line with planning conditions. meanwhile, the site continues to remain fully operational. i would be inclined to also think that they are collecting revenue at the site. i am not sure when it should be judged to be complete, but this is kind of a process construction method. i do not think there is any excuse for these things without calling the planning conditions. director goldstein: next speaker, please. >> good evening. i commend you on your first decision in the case before this. i would hope that this groups -- group, the puc, people can now, we can now deny -- can now deny th3 -- the wireless. three times may be ok, maybe not, but this is a big patterns, and the city does not have the resources to go out and do the inspection that they want to do, but they just do not have them. i wo

the department particularly requires these permits related to many building permits. the question from the commission was under what conditions would the department require a permit. this has a station within the department of building inspection, and we are one stationed in the process. in the course of seville during project, the department of public works will review the proposed work and make a determination if there is an impact. we evaluate entrances and exits islam -- and exit relating to the compliance. the department will also evaluate whether there are new utilities that need to be installed in the sidewalk, and finally, they will evaluate the condition of the sidewalk for the property. is the public works permit integrated? it is part of the process, and it is well-integrated. we tried to evaluate the situation as soon as we get them. there is a question as a degree -- as it relates to the completion of permits from public works. within the building department, the department of public works is one station within its. for over the counter permits, when appl

. >> currently for our permit we have is divided into lesser complexity and greater complexity. it is the first in, first out system. there was a law passed many years ago requiring the various apartments to come off with a policy about how permits are processed, and we established a policy with certain exceptions. for construction which access, but it gets priority. for city project, it gets priority. in cases where there are green buildings, it gets priority, so there are exceptions, and we can provide a copy of the order the specifies when exceptions can be granted. it needs to be specific in these cases. >> i am just asking you to keep an eye on that by god, and if it starts to get out of hand -- on that backlog, and if it starts to get out of hand, to raise a flag so we do not get into it too late so we have people complaining that it takes a year to get a permit. if this gives to where it is more than three or four months, we need to take a look at it. i would encourage us to alert you to that fact. you mentioned you are looking at ways to make it work faster or work for y