on the permit. the one before that has a lot of work that we could not approve and just has a little line and therefore showing the scope which was the roof deck, so no, i wouldn't say that the final two permits have a full approved scope of work for the project. >> okay. >> i have a question for you mr. sanchez. how often do i get plans like this without existing plans or as builts? >> this is very rare. i can't think of a time i am surprised staff didn't request to have clear conditions. >> so generally as is drawing or existing drawing required for this scope of work? >> yes, i would say so. it makes it easier. i don't know why it was not done in this case. i don't know if i can give a percentage to it but about 95% would and it's hard to see the difference. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. dufty. >> commissioners, 63 presidio i am familiar with it. i started getting callos it in the middle of last year from the neighbor mr. greenwald, mostly phone calls and more to do probably with tidin

>> why did we withdraw the permit? >> yeah. >> because they had notified any legitimate problem with the permit the only time that happens is when mr. sanchez doing his due diligence and raising things that they are latching on to. but showing up and preparing the brief and coming to the hearing trying to negotiate with them they did notify any problem with the permit so we had no reason to think that this permit could not be upheld. that is the honest answer. >> all right. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> sure, i think that he is going to have a chance. >> mr. sanchez, rebuttal, i think that there is a question for you. >> mr. sanchez were you going to speak again. >> i don't have anything further to add. >> i would like to clarify that the permit that has been issued is for a non-code comply apartment roof. ; is that correct?? >> that is correct. it does not comply with the planning code. >> anything further mr. duffy? >> no. okay. >> so commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> so, i will just comment that i am not f

you also need a building permit, electrical permit and plumbing permit for this type of work. so i'm available for questions, but the penalty was properly imposed unfortunately. >> mr. duffy, are all of your complaints anonymous? >> no, not all. they are harder to investigate because we don't know where they are coming from. the complaints online, there is a lot of detail and a lot of people like to remain anonymous. i understand. it's about half-and-half. >> thank you. is there any department made by your department of which particular contractors are doing unpermitted work through the city? do you keep a list? >> i wish we did:no with, we don't. in my experience i have seen the last three or four years, maybe with the economy, things are doing a lot more work without a permit and it annoys me when i hear a contractor didn't get a permit. they are licensed contractors and know for this type of work particularly. there is a loot of investigation time that goes into this and they are not big-money permits so to speak. but we are bound by city charter to investigate the complain

seven that is my permit. and so since we did not have any potential tenant or so, we did not process with it, what is it? proceed with it. and so, in later of the year, around september or october, market start to get better, and so, i started just thinking about it and starting some work. and so pretty much in october, i started 30th and we started opening up the entire floor and this floor which we did the work there was no tenant it was total empty. we have many floors totally empty with no tenants and so with that floor we start doing the work and demolition and all of there to just progress. but, definitely, we were working with the plans and with the architect to finalize the scope of the work for the future ti work and future tenant. that is the reason it started later and did not have any reason to start the work prior to that day. >> is your building entire building an office building? >> yes, it is. >> >> and since we added some tenant on different floors, if you start the demolition and make the no

so you have not got a permit. not you have a conditional permit and you do not have a final permit. so, i know you understand what i am saying. i see it in your eyes >> okay. but i would like to ask, commissioner hyde who requested that you return to go through the items that he wants to ask you about. and but i just needed to say that you are not permitted to operate after 2:00 in the morning and that i see the officer here from the station and we will ask the tender loin station enforces that. >> okay? >> okay. >> commissioner hyde? >> so and i just want to say that commissioner lee also was interested in bringing you back in as well. it was not just myself. so, when you were here, and we have a condition that the last meal is to be served at 2:30 a.m. with security on hand from 12 to 3:30. could you just explain a little bit about how your security is working and how you are telling those people at 2:30 and controlling the crowd of people coming in? >> well, actually on the weekdays we don't have that much business. we have no problem closing it down at 3:00. you know? and when i

now all the subsequent permits issued reference that permit number. that's the trigger for the planning department to know this has a special designation and we have to go back and make sure

it says, a permit application existing single family home, revision no change in use of the permit no change of use no help me out here. no... what is that word? >> sorry. no other work for this application. so the work that was declared on the first page, that planning department pointed out and it said no other work is very simple amount of work and it is not true. the amount of work will include ripping out a lot of walls and making holes between ceilings to create stairwells that were not there and were never there but the applicant describes the scope of the work as voluntary, no he says voluntary is not compelled by seismic dangers, he puts down removal of kitchen. see attached plans. revert level one to utility room, it sounds like they are just doing some minor work at that level. and then it says level three, wet bar, makes it sound like they are removing a wet bar. that is nowhere near the amount of work that has to be done to convert this building which is rented out as three units into a single family home. not surprising that the planning department wrote what they wrote.

verses the full demo permit. however there are a number of things here that would without permits in contrary to some of the things that we brought up, and i'm not sure exactly what the resolution, i guess that is what a rehearing may do. or entail. but i would support that. >> okay. i would move to grant the rehearing, request. >> and on the particular date? >> any suggestions in >> probably one of the april dates would be the best, given that there is a need to give time for briefing and the board's calendar in march is so full >> april ten? does that work for the parties? >> april ten? >> okay. >> and as for grounds, i believe that our standard for new information material to the dispute were undisputed in fact. >> okay. >> we have a motion from the president, to grant this rehearing, request and to set it for april tenth, on that motion, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado is absent. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda. >> aye. >> the vote is 4-0, and this rehearing req

now all the subsequent permits issued reference that permit number. that's the trigger for the planning department to know

that as a permit. and the meters don't come into play either for the building department on establishing the number of units. you can have a couple of meters on one unit and, but, it is it is an r3 r report as a single family dwelling and i am available for any questions. if it was 3 units, housing inspection would have it on their books and they don't have. there is no housing inspection done on to for the three units. >> i am not sure if anybody has any questions for me >> housing inspection would have done... >> it would do their bi annual. >> or anything over 2 units? >> yeah. >> three or more, do it for the apartments. >> and i did walk through the building today and mr. boscavich and mr. zaches were there and from me i just has the one number, 227. some of you probably see that a lot in the city though, and it is not a big building from the outside. it is just, you know, and when you go into the building you walk up the stairs you go into the hallway in of door in front of you and locks on both d

that becomes part of the permit. once the permit is issued, we trust that it will operate without issue. there is a whole enforcement process but that is the end of the process. i will add a word on conditions that you attach in the conditional use process or that we attach; with our commission there is a desire, well-intentioned, to micromanage the day-to-day operation of the space with conditions. you have 30-40 years of old permits; if you look to them that are conditions and some that are better than others. we don't like to see include -- these are actual things -- no heavy metal music, no rap music. this is from the government. government is not supposed to do that. music cannot be amplified. it misses the point. marching bands are not amplified. there are large gosple choirs too. better conditions relate to the structure in the physical space and soundproofing. security enhancements through the space. that is everything in a nutshell. if you have any questions about any of that i'm happy to answer. >> presiden

by having the permit, which it is minimum permit that they apply for, whatever they wanted to do. but they do, way beyond what it has done. so, who is guarding this? anybody where can we go that? it is frustrating. >> it is not us, we are dealing only with the permit. >> it is frustrating >> i understand. >> and for the inspectors with four nvo on hand and can she stop the work and inspect the house? what happened to it, why is someone filing the nov? you know? but with the four nov on hand they still be able to work if they inspectors at that time stop the work and find out what is going on, we probably would not be here and talk about and we are saying how much set backs and they were saying three inches and i was saying two foot and we are arguing if the inspectors at the time when the first nov filed they gained access and received the whole picture of how the room looked like and then how come, she can't get any access to the building and just an nov on it? >> what is the nov for? >> i have all of those questions and i don't understand it. >> yeah. >> so i just hope that for

and a street permit and the permit in front of you today. and so, even with all of the tenant problems and the complaints that took months to prepare and for the 40-year-old building there has never been a single permit taken out until the neighbors complained about work going on and in the current permit was taken out. the neighbors filed this appeal because they had no idea what was going on. >> they attended a community meeting i believe it was on november the fifth and within a few days of attending that community meeting about the wireless antenna facility, the construction started. they had no choice, having received no notice, no permits and no plans, on file anywhere. and could not get any information, they had no choice but to assume that they were starting the work on the wireless facility. and i don't think that you could consult the neighbors for that and filing these appeals. i have been dealing with an attorney out of milbray and an attorney named eileen hawstien that represents the vocal point insurance agency and i was in con

for is that you deny this permit so that they can come up with one set of permits so that it actually can be done. and i have to also emphasize that there is an area on the landing of the staircase, the front steps going up that encroach on to my client's property and so that has to be addressed also before that permit can be issued. >> mr. soriano? >> i promise not to take all of the rebuttal time because i am not fearing anything new. it is nothing that deal with the specific permit. i do want to answer a question that mr. fung had about why are we not moving forward if there were exceptions for us to go ahead and do that. the reason is that the existing permit that is being held up by this appeal, it requires replacement of the stucco work and so we need to be able to address the stucco work before the installation of the windows while we appreciate the exception that was made it has not allowed the work to proceed. it is causing the work stand still and financial damages to the project owner. so just again, suggest that we have got revised plans that the city is calling compliant.

it was after i red the permit holder brief that i realized the extend of the permit. we did receive a complaint on february 8th as well specifically with the allegation that this was not an active commercial use. i can say that our department has spoken with the supervisor's office and it was their understanding as well that the business and professional uses would not be allowed without a conditional use. i think that it is clear from what the planning commission heard last june and you snow, while the board did not take our recommendations in making it clear in the code and making it easier for the staff to understand. we said that this recommendation would not change the intent of the legislation or the effect of the legislation, so they still require a conditional use authorization for business and professional service use, they have not provided evidence that they are a financial service use. nothing close. i mean the names could keep changing but nothing has been able to evidence that. the name on the lease is vocal point. i mean they could call themselves a fin

and lastly the sus expensing of this permit shall not be lifted until the permit holder provides the appellant and dbi and soils testing results that have been prepared by the certificated professional soils testing laboratory. >> my name is dan dodt i am the director for the bay view office for community programming. >> i am going to interrupt to let you know that although i was absent to january 9th, i did review the video of that hearing. >> thank you very much, president hwang. >> on behalf of the individuals and the groups in the way view district that participated in this event, i want to thank you very much for taking the time to review the documents and the prior hearing and for this rehearing request, ladies and gentlemen, what we are witnessing here is a pattern of practice and deceit with respect to the work proposed, actually carried out, and continued by this applicant and his team in compliance of the orders by both dbi and this commission. in the december 10th, january 10th, original hearing. and this deseptemberive pattern of behavior has a pattern. from the outset, t

it a dry rot permit. and let's repair front. and it is a dry rot on the front steps and the city signs off, comes out, and basically says, nice try. it is not a world war ii grandpa fathered unit based in on a address it is a single family dwelling and it says 5 r residential run story plus basement one family dwelling. i went in there again today to double check with patty who is in charge of microfilm to go over this process. this cfc is the birth certificate of the building. it is everything. it is everything that i deal with the building department, cfcs control unless there is a subsequent cfc. so, and there were other ways that you could have fixed this. it could have come in later, there was rap, urban renewal and these are problems that i deal with every day that legalize units and nobody did it n1980 comes along and the owner comes in and pulls a bunch of dirty permits. he pulls a permit, there is great drawings on file where they got a permit for the first floor to add a bathroom. there is a dwe

or get permits to remove it. now, if it is, you know, or the three district where the two district and they are asking to legalize a third, obviously they would not say, legalize because you cannot legalize a third unit in the rh2 district. but it is wrong to think that the opponents were asked to clarify the record to make this into a single family home. they can get a permit for a second unit. and the second unit can be made large enough by removal of the illegal third one that both the owner and my client can have a bigger place to live or my client can stay where he and have what he has and the owner can stay where he is merely by merging an illegal unit into his unit. we don't need to go destroy the whole building. destroying the whole building, however, let me state a lot of the misrepresentations have to be looked at. for example, look at the scope of work in the amount of work that they declare on the permit. they declared that there is going to be only $3,000 in work. i asked you to show them the drawing

permitting process. as with certain permit and requirements that can take the weeks if not months or longer. that is not going to work for these folks in what we can tell talking to them. >> they don't want to be in the places but they want the flexibility to go to the place wheres the people are. and using social media to generate demand. hey, we are going to be here and the people on my social media group, come check me out this weekend from 2:00 to 5 p.m. and so they are doing all kinds of things that do not lend themselves to city permitting or traditional permitting process. but we think that it is, there is a way to balance it whereas the mobile food folks go through a public hearing and potentially but they are going to be there several days a week. these folks may drop in to several hours and so there is a balance between the heavy handedness sometimes of government and the flexibility that these types of business owners are seeking. we also need to develop, you know, some list of allowed goods a

i think you have five minutes does vary a bit from permit officer to permit officer. whether appropriate or not, that is the outcome. [speaker not understood] to give you a view of how it works on their end. >> let me say something. i think that this commission and its staff has the highest amount of integrity that i can imagine. i really do. we don't just arbitrarily just grant permits. >> no. >> let me finish. just so -- to be clear, we follow the code. we follow the law. we hold people to standards for noise, for security plan. we continue permits when they have not filled out their application correctly and have not done their due diligence. beyond that, to deny a permit or to not approve the permit without, without just cause within the code is reprehensible to me. when someone says we just approve permits, tell them to read the code because it says shall approve unless certain conditions exist where we're not allowed to. and i've had the same thing. so, i get it. >> you know, i agree with you. but what i'm saying is that obviously there is enough need for neighb

does the permit holder want to concur with this approach? >> yes. i can say that we spoke out on the hallway, and i have got the architect and the permit holder here, and they agree and the architect is confident that we can meet that time line, the changes are minor and it will not be hugely time consuming and hopefully let these two neighbors resolve some of the animosity between them. >> okay, all right. >> i have a question and it all sounds like it may end up in a good place, two things. first, is this process of coming to a resolution around various pieces of permits, i think that it is a little too complex and a little too much information for me to process as you delivered it. so, i am sure that i missed something in terms of understanding what you said. but one thing that i want to understand is, is this process going to in some way expedite the processes that would otherwise take a little bit longer? and therefore, you know, use more city resources, for purposes of advancing the interest of permit holder that i believe has done some things