that had permit holder taken out a permit it would have complied at the time. showing all of the points i would hope you agree. i would like to introduce michelle >> hello commissioners. my name is michelle myers. i live on ash bury street. i'm trul sorry that i didn't have a permit at the time. i truly am sorry. when i came home and my daughter saw that note on the door i immediately went to the planning department the next day and i thought i rectified situation. i'm sorry i can't change time. if you have any questions for me, please ask. >> the thickness of the window frame that you purchased, how thick is it? >> i don't understand the question because i'm not a contract or. but it fits in the same window seal, nothing was changed. >> perhaps your consultant understands. what is the width of the frame? >> i have no idea. i don't know. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. i will be brief and on this matter i think as we had on the stockton street case we do have windows that we do not believe complied with our guidelines and we beli

permit. and, you know, there are procedures involved with obtaining those permits we go through them. to address what mr. logging as has said many of the trees have been removed due to hazardous nature many are diseased and dying. we are not responsible arbor well, is not responsible for making a replanting plan there's another thing involved regarding that. that's it i have to say unless you have questions >> the appellant or sorry the rehearing requester has indicated in his brief r that are trees within 10 feet of the public right-of-way are those among the trees that you will be cutting down this is. >> oh, yes there are a froou few trees that are diseased and dying within 10 feet of the right-of-way. we've been working with the bureau of urban forestry in obtaining permits to remove those trees. and if and when they issue those permits we will remove those trees >> so your practitioner then is basically for a two week period is that going to occur after you get the permits or before. >>

obtain a building permit for permitted construction in the rear yard. obtain required inspections to abate this complaint. so they applied for this permit and then got the permit issued and miss moon had been down at the department a few days when i was working on it so i became familiar with the address and property and i never actually went to the property. i'm not the senior inspector for that, but i known the senior building inspector. and i thought there was something just amiss about this whole permit that had been taken out to talk about this existing deck and existing conditions and miss moon had shown -- been pretty adamant that there was no existing deck so we opened a new complaint ourselves etch though the permit was suspended and on the 18th of february, 2014, after this permit's been suspended and i don't think this notice of violation was in the brief, but i go ahead and read it out anyway. it appears information used to obtain the permit for the yard was incorrect. the grade was raised before in/stalglation of the deck and retaining wall

, in my opinion, would be invalid and request that the board deny this permit and require the permit holder to submit new permit that does everything this person should have done and is accurate. >> mr. sanchez, one could almost approximate a little bit from where that concrete existing one was and rough thely the height and perhaps a little bit of a grade in. in your opinion then, and just based upon my eyeballing, that exceeds the 36 inches that you brought up for the deck to be allowed in the rear yard based upon the planning code. >> exactly. if the deck, and even the plans submitted by the permit holder, which gives some great elevations, it's clear from that that the deck is more than 3 feet above grade and would not comply with the planning code. thank you. >> public comment on this item? step forward. >> hello. i'm residing at 70 win field and my backyard is diagonal to the rear yard of 37 prospect. i did submit a letter of support. i hope you got it and i had a look at that. rather than repeat that i'd just say there's a long history here. to clarify, these are the same owne

permit we remove the battery from that pole and go get a permit for that box at least we would have solved the noticing issue and giving people due process. >> i like that. >> thank you. >> you want to formulate late the motion. >> sure grant the appeal and uphold the portion of the permit can we do that a partial. >> your conditioning the permit on the removal from the permit. >> the battery box. >> the battery part of the permit. >> and have a separate permit. >> if they want to bring a separate permit they can. >> would you be amenable to on the basis of the permit holders proposed the resolution. >> i like that. >> we have a motion from commissioner fong to withhold this that the battery pack be deleted from the scope of that permit and this is on the appellate condition. >> president fong. vice president is absent. commissioner lazarus. commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is 4 to zero this permit is upheld on that condition and on that basis thank you. we're going to take forward wit minutes to present our case to the board >> hi, i'm here to appeal the that penalty and i'm

we have a permit brow. we do ask you support dpw in that but we're willing to take on a condition to move the equipment. we do not have any additional alternatives they've been achieved. we ask you support dpw in their decision this evening. thank you >> sir anything further? commissioners the matter is submitted >> the planning department we reviewed the aesthetic of the nature did they look at those. >> i don't have much talk on those but i spoke with our wireless planner and he reviewed the previous approved proposal and the revised proposal and buildings those satisfy our requirements. >> what do you mean the revised proposal. >> the one that was proposed as an alternative. >> that was submitted by your department. >> he asked us to look at other antenna types there was another appeal that was looks like an extension of the telephone pole i believe and they indicated that was not feasible because of the property for the antenna that's what i was told by the gentleman. >> thank you. >> you know we've bee

the permit was issued in error. we, you know, probably just a few days after that or maybe the next day they started construction we receive d a complaint, we investigated this and issued the suspension within the 15 day appeal period. again, regrettably we did make an error in this case, however, this is a process by which they can seek to locate here. they have already filed a conditional use authorization and they can pursue the project that they have in this building permit through the conditional use process. so with that, i am available for any questions. >> just to clarify, so there's two bases on which they would have needed conditional use -- the change in use and the formula /rae tail. >> that's correct. >> mr. sanchez, /aeu this applies to the clinic office on the ground floor as a change from retail. >> correct, so -- >> the farm /s*eu. >> so the pharmacy would still be considered a retail use under the planning code. >> what happens if the 2100 square feet they have became 1998? >> then they would be do

obtain a building permit for permitted construction in the rear yard. obtain required inspections to abate this complaint. so they applied for this permit and then got the permit issued and miss moon had been down at the department a few days when i was working on it so i became familiar with the address and property and i never actually went to the property. i'm not the senior inspector for that, but i known the senior buil i

and the permit holders equity jackson and the project is for the first permit to erect a 3 hundred and 48 residential condo building and the second permit is to demolish a parking structure with 89 hundred and 87 thousand square feet and to demolish a 4 story building. so we will start with the requester. who has 9 minute to present >> one second before we get started i did watch the videotapes so i can hear this. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen thank you once again for hearing me a second time. my name is dennis martinez i'm the president of the hoa at the metropolitan adjacent from the fremont project. i'd like to start off with a story on january 28, 1926, the space challenger one minute after launch explode and we now know prior to that launch there was information that was known about a shuttle that should have been a warning sign a sufficient warning sign to tell management not to launch that day and as a result management decided to launch and 7 astronauts were lost. the moral to that story is the pressures that nasa management felt that day were felt by financial pressure

of work out lined in the building permit. page 13 of the window replacement document also mentions a criteria for window replacement permit. a building permit is required for all windows replacement. failure to obtain a window replacement permit. >> we can't see what you are reading from. >> it's a different page. it's all in the exhibits. >> what exhibit? >> exhibit 3, page 9. to this the respondent claims that ms. myers is not a building or planning professional but rather a mother whose windows needed to be replaced an she did not know she needed a permit for windows to be replaced. unfortunately i agree with respondent ms. myers feels that many home improvements do not require a permit. further the reality that ms. myers is a homeowner in several homes in the area and building as several experts wrote this brief at her finger tips. finally according to ceqa categorical exemption form. this is page 3. the project planner checked the box for window replacement meets the department for window replacement standards. if it is

thank you. >> we can hear from the permit

one was, i think the permit -- the police department permits was dismantled or something happened to it. you guys -- >> yeah. >> the second reason was we didn't see the need as much because economically didn't make much sense for us to use it. for your information, actually there are a couple of operations at fillmore right now that are extended ed hours 'til 6:04. boom boom room and the rest aurant across the street. i want to comment about the bus situation. you have to understand when you're in that community, you need to bring a much more diversified, much more market based people in that area. otherwise it's not going to grow. and that's been the problem all along in the fillmore. i have to tell you, you know, if it's not as much as you are checking out, but i make sure that one of the things that impressed me about these /pepl when i give them the list is one was the security plan, very extensive. the most important thing is i wanted to make sure their programming is in house program and that is, as you know, is a hell of a difference between in house programming and when you j

that appeal was administratively dismissed after the permit was cancelled by the permit holder and will not be heard. item number two, which is commissioner comments and questions. >> i'd like to wish joseph duffey a happy birthday. >> i'm 21 again. any other commissioner comments? any public comment? item 3 is the consideration and adoption of the minutes for march 12, 2014. changes or corrections. is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> so moved. >> any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, mr. pacheco if you could call the roll. on the the motion to adopt the march commissioner honda. a: i. >> thank you. the vote is four to zero, those minutes are adopted. >> item number for is a jurisdiction request. the board received a letter from christopher delainy asking that the board take jurisdiction over a tree removal permit which was issued on january 14, 2014. the appeal period ended on january 29, 2014 and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on march 3, 2014. the permit holder is richard price and the project is approval to remove six existing trees and pla

>> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, i am the daughter of the permit holder. i just asked for permission if it would be okay if i were here to speak on his behalf. he's sick and so for someone that potentially would like to live here, i personally don't see a problem with me blocking anyone's garage personally, being a san francisco resident and born and raised, i know exactly how difficult it is to finds parking and i'm very regardless if it's red or not painted red, mainly because i have a fear of people towing my vehicle to begin with. i believe -- this is also included as well if we could [inaudible]. >> can you speak into the mic please. >> they both have two car garages. they're speaking about this curb right here. i don't know if you can see with my finger there. although i guess it's just a very awkward situation, mainly because they have a two car garage, although the sidewalk stops right there. and they are expecting for us -- is there a way to zoom in maybe? and so right here is very close to our property already and i don't see how this is

s understanding of permitting. but let me try to explain why it's not gust -- just about the 3% and then get back to justice kennedy's question. the problem here is that the options, one of the problems, significant problems, is that the options that the american chemistry council have advanced and even that judge cavanaugh has advanced would require an invalidation of or at least a significant revision of e.p.a.'s 34-year understanding of the meaning of the phrase "any air pollutant in 74-79-1 which they have always interpreted to mean any air pollutant subject to regulation under the act. you can't apply that 34-year-long agency interpretation here and get to one of those results. you've got to change it. >> but a 34-year agency interpretation is not a statute. >> no, it's not. >> and you are saying rather than alter our 34-year interpretation we're going to revise the provisions of the statute. i don't think that's a good trade. >> well, with all due respect i don't think that's what the agency is doing the if i

>> over the years there was electrical done without a permit and the structure done without a permit. >> what's happened with those? >> they've all been abated. they've been taken care of over the years. >> has there been any penalties? >> i didn't see any penalties on those. maybe the shed got removed. i didn't notice any penalties on that work. i didn't look that up to be honest with you, but it hooks like the cases all got abated for whatever reason. >> and you often will give your opinion on whether the penalty is appropriate or not. would you care to do so in this case? >> i mean, if the story is the gentleman was in a problem with a building and -- we put violations on a property, we don't go after the tenant, we have to put it on the property and the owner. it seems like it would be fair enough. the penalty seemed a little excessive. it could have been a little bit lower. $1,000 would have been half the amount, so i would say i wouldn't be in total disagreement to lower it, yes. based on what he's saying is that's a bad experience to get through so, you know, i don't know -- th

s understanding of permitting. but let me try to explain why it's not just about the 3% and then get back to justice kennedy's question. the problem here is that the options, one of the problems, significant problems, is that the options that the american chemistry council have advanced and even that judge cavanaugh has advanced would require an invalidation of or at least a significant revision of e.p.a.'s 34-year understanding of the meaning of the phrase "any air pollutant in 74-79-1 which they have always interpreted to mean any air pollutant subject to regulation under the act. you can't apply that 34-year-long agency interpretation here and get to one of those results. you've got to change it. >> but a 34-year agency interpretation is not a statute. >> no, it's not. >> and you are saying rather than alter our 34-year interpretation we're going to revise the provisions of the statute. i don't think that's a good trade. >> well, with all due respect i don't think that's what the agency is doing the if i could j

in lot a and in the use will be permitted horrify if not permitted in the adjacent commercial district it will require a commercial limited use and lot b the only control on t the general plan. the department recommendation gets rid of the adjacent commercial district concept and says the controls are based on the nearest non-residential district so lot a and b the closet non-residential district is right here which happens to be the outdoor mission neighborhood commercial district. so if the use is p in the nearest non-resident lot if it requires a limited use it requires a construction u on the lot and if not permitted in the nearest zone we allow anymore flexibility on the p zoned lots to be more of a discussion if the use was prohibited in a commercial district to allow it on the p. there's other changes that are also happening that don't direct the uses. in the existing code p zone the term accessory uses and there's no specific size limits in the codes. the ordinance replaces the ancillary plays to 1/3rd of the principle use so currently there's no restriction on the sues of the

the 144 permits that have already been given. people who have managed to come into compliance under that. >> oh, it's certainly not our submission that every single one of these determinations is going to be unreasonable or outrageous or reach into the cafeteria but the scope of this is so different in nature and kind, a massive program that bo set up standards that certain people would not be able to meet. and the second point is there is a selectivity about what the agency considers ambiguous and unambiguous. any air pollutant is ambiguous enough to accommodate any regulated air pollutant but 150 to 250 tons a year is really ambiguous. i mention this because the selectiveness with which the e.p.a. has turned the ambiguity on and off so that in combination it maximizes the agency's discretion, we talk about what does the least violence to the statute, we have to think about it in other ways along with the separation of power. what the e.p.a. has done here is al locate an exceptional degree and troubling degree of latitude to des

two permits are in the works we were invited in parrots by people not having permits on the 5 hundred florida in the mission and then a place called performance artists i've brought up before we had a complaint about we've met with those two folks. one complaint about a new underground after hours parties on van ness that's called warehouses that came in very intermittent christmas and this past weekend i'm going to keep my eye on this. two notices were put in after an expense late night eateries one on polk and the other restaurants called cuckoo nut bank so we've got a list of places that are open i'll be visiting and talking to. that wraps up. >> i have a question on badlands did you walk through and your assessment can you repeat what you're assessment was of your walk through. >> i spoke briefly with the manager and their head of security and saw very organized lines outside and very responses to security inside. i didn't see anyone who looked like they'd been offer served the staffing inside was very appropriate for the people inside. this is my first time insides the establishm

doesn't need to be on their permit from us. it could be an agreement that they have. >> i mean, i think we don't have a lawyer here. we can ask the city attorney, but technically as the right of that permit, that's what we can hold them to. there's fire regulations that aren't in here, there's things like that that are still enforceable, but based on other permits so there's not a police permit. >> no, i know that. >> right, but i think you come with verbal agreements, but i think the letter of the law really comes from our commission as it pertains to entertainment, not really anything beyond entertainment. >> do we want to revise? think about that. no other comments? thank you officer chan. is there any public comment on this permit? i do see one. >> good evening again. my -- i did catch something. i think the conditions are very reasonable and customary in great cooperation with the police department. i might add if the police and commission could consider -- say if it falls on a monday or tuesday or any major holiday, that