neither have a permit the sprinkle system had a permit but the permit was cancelled. this permit depended on on the integration but those prerequisite systems don't exist. i directing your attention e direct your attention to the permit holders h. a letter if the san francisco fire department from 1994 and he quote therefore the spraying operation must be permitted or removed the spray booth was never installed or permitted. you may be wondering why the neighborhood cares and the answer a this. the garage is spray exhaust is in the middle of the neighborhood and the paints comes into the neighbors homes so the permitting fire systems is very, very important. i respect what they say by she is incorrect. i'm going to turn it over to mario the fire captain who was in charge of the fire planning review and ask him to talk about the details >> commissioner president lazarus and members mario balanced arrested as mr. patterson states that's a simple matter a permit was put in but the system was permit process was never completed and not reported as being complete the permit

and someone said well fill out a permit i went down and all of a sudden when they appealed the permit i was in the process of doing the permits as soon as i got the appeal i stopped so i want to be in compliance i had no idea that booth was not permitted i only wanted to do with the board i had to file that's a state agency but once i got the notice i stopped everything >> if not paint what's the fumes do you understand the fumes to be. >> the building a empty. >> you think someone is making up the fumes. >> if they smell. >> if not paint what fumes. >> i don't know what their smelling i painted inside this this and cleaned that up. >> you did paint but ♪ the spray paint >> no, that booth has been there the booth we're disagreeing i cleaned the filters i don't smell anything. >> okay got it. >> do you have - >> i have a question for mr. patterson. >> so as commissioner fung has stated i'm troubled with the fact you don't have a brief yet our professionals were able to do their homework. >> yes. we had decided to withdraw the appeal looking at this particular permit being a fire safety

is that part of the permit? >> is 1984 permit; is this what you're talking about? the 1984 permit; is this what you're talking about? >> the stairs would come down from that to this area here. >> that was part of the permit he was issued. >> i would assume it is. >> why is the front entry stairs removed without the permit? could it be was removed, but it's not finished yet? >> it was removed and then they got the permit for the major scope of work involving the addition, but because both permits have expired, there is no permit now to replace the stairs. >> okay. >> or to remove it. >> but it was part of the original permit that expired? >> i would assume it was because the permit couldn't get issued for the rest of the addition without displaying existing stairs in front. >> notwithstanding your financial problems, what do you feel would be a reasonable time you could finish the stairs, whether you're able to do it yourself or whether you have to hire somebody? >> just the stairs? >> just the stairs, but the vertical addition, i believe you guys are finished, but

then we have the issue of the 94 permit for the installation of 0 false sprinkle system that permit got issued in 18994 and extraordinary in 19995 the planning department would have been the ones to sign off and the building department to sign off. the pollutant part working for the department of building inspection i'm surprised the fire department didn't catch the sprinkle system was never signed off so on the way to index this is to are you new the sprinkle system and go back and get the permit final also and probably move ahead and do the modifications. so that would take care of that. i think that's a 3 part thing and the issue of the spray bloating a complaint on january 22nd 02014 of this year we issued a notice of violation by building inspection a complaint was filed regarding the installation of an automobile spray booth and they failed at that catheter a building permit on the required inspections to close the complaint we issued that in january 2014 and a second notice of violation on march in 2014 and notice of vision that is with code enforcement we've not had a permit fil

duffey. >> wearing your permit hat. >> where's the permit? >> wearing our permit hat. >> oh, yes. okay. >> based on and we're picking up on what you said and others. the original permit never got built 14 one hundred square feet whatever. the 5 unit permit got built. but there was no permit for the other two unit. i haven't seen one >> based on what was said so far. >> correct. >> how do that work to the structure in terms of the legality either as a single-family home home or two units or structure. >> that's like a lot of old buildings they're built so long ago and that was talking about through could be more information we went from 1906 to 1970 there's aol.com other addresses on the lot. i don't know what the housing have listed we'll be doing inspections and the other card is a good record but to answer our question i don't know if there's a permit to build two other buildings >> around that time after an earthquake, you know. >> that's okay. >> commissioners this jurisdiction request is submitted. >> well, i move we grant the jurisdiction request. >> i have a question for my

the appeal that same denial of the permit on january 26, 2011, and having to do with building permit. and i believe the zoning administer is prepared to present first to set the stage for what is at issue here total >> just want to go over sorry members of the board the subject permit seeks to remove an off-street parking partially and we determined this parking space was satisfying a requirement for the adjacent property at the 6760 on montana sdoum street we denied the permit and the board upheld our permit application. the only way to allow the removal was to seek a variance we we had a hearing to remove the grant. i granted the subject variance request that was no appeals of that decision given the new facts the underlying building permit it for approval they have the surveillance to allow for the off-street parking parking space if the board choose they will grant the rehearing for the item and overturn the denial based on the off-street parking can be removed and add a request that the curb that was previously in front of this part of the driveway so the curb will be restored an

and i needed to hire a permit expediter, permit consultant. and that was key into my success and to my being able to expand my business. you know, i moved here 15 years ago and for the first 12 years i used to tell people i love san francisco. as a small business owner, i really like san francisco. we make it really difficult to start small businesses. and i believe that if i didn't have access -- and by access, i mean be able to afford somebody like a permit consultant -- my business which started as -- employing 3 to 4 employees, i now employ over 30 employees in san francisco. i'm proud of that fact, but i don't think i would be here today if i wasn't able to get through the permitting process. and i didn't get through the permitting process, i had to hire a permit consultant. and i'm just concerned that if we move forward with it as it's written that the accessibility of consultants would put small businesses like myself or not make it possible for small businesses like myself to succeed. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >>>

holder. >> i represent the permit holder. really submit open the papers >> i'm sorry counselor i need to ask the city attorney a question. >> okay sorry one second so she represented me 5 years ago but it won't effect my judgment today. >> just quick we would like to submit on the record the owner bought this property as a single-family house and related on the the purchase documents during the 3 hour report that indicated on the public record this is a single-family house and it's irrelevant how it looks like a pair of flats but it's a single-family house and treated like that she purchased it that way and it looks like the main living area that upstairs and the tenants have been living in downstairs ground floor with the illegal kitchen portion etc. we understand their clinging to the basement area because the rent is $507 there b will not that a discretionary review because denying the over the counter permit is intended for being for illegal 3 unit or more this property didn't apply there's have been tenants are trevor wi

the building itself didn't have to be a potential for the building permit process so the building permit process is, you know, they have the building permit that's what i'm appealing how exactly has it and i can show you the potential damage to the advert club. thank you for your time >> thank you. okay. i'll hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening, commissioners thank you four hearing this case. i'm with the law enforcement i'm the attorney for and partner with the sfmta projects. the paelths appeal first addresses the just a second hammering the just a second hammering didn't require a buckle permit only a public health department permit. so department of human being health asked for the exposurey for the mitigation plan. so to this stent sf hires someone to do the testing and january 21st it had the building permit and on january 27th they punched poles in two spots to provide access to the soil to test the soil. that same morning the appellants mother foiled a complaint with dbi they're to open the complaint and the complaint was immediately boitdz there was no notice of vio

. >> make a motion to uphold the permit subject to the permit holders supplying information to the department regarding this replacement of the 3 property tree and if there's adequate space to install the 3 trees. >> to clarify the permit at issue is for the removal and replacement the third tree will have to come under a new permit correct me if i am wrong unless the board conditions the replacement of an additional tree that could be done but not a separate permit issued. >> no. we'll typically add any additional trees that wouldn't necessarily have been required as part of the removal our permit requires we typically add them to the stage u same permit that's okay. from our side. >> okay saying the two uphold the permit for the or more of two trees and a third tree be added and the permit holder verifies with the department that the two replacements trees are able to be planned there. >> so your grarnt the appeal and on the condition there are 3 trees not 2. >> and that the two proposed that the permit holder verifies with the department they can place the trees there as indicated per ther

the violation, guardrails approved under permit application under 8707964 we are removed without permit. there was an order of abatement issued june 28 of last year. therefore staff recommends to up hold order of abatement and impose assessment of trust. that -- >> thank you, is there anybody here from the appellant? >> thank you commissioners. my name is clinton choi and i'm the owner of 284 union street and i also am the president of our condo association, 280 union condo association which is made up of three owners. my understanding is we are subjected to a penalty for not replacing the para pit wall in a timely manner. what we are here to say is that we are requesting that the penalty fee be waived because we've actually engaged in this permit approval process over the last two years. we live in a landmark preservation area and therefore we are subject to the certificate of appropriateness rules and regulations. if you take a look at the records you can see there were a number of instances and opportunities for us to engage in hearings, to engage in acts of action -- let's say actio

they pulled permits. the permits to sound proof the building this was done in the 80s dollars more people living there now. if the march had a problem neighbors would have filed complaints like bay jones and finally the rules of the board was violated when 5 members testified in violation of the board rule and i have a listed of those individuals. this particular case is about noise and 4 meetings narrowed testimony the board only asked a couple of sound questions and those were answered federal and local. the march sound proof will not be concerns and i'll do the appellant damages they want a rehearing a there's no hearing to reduce the fifth floor of the project and the cost of implementing it will render the project unfeasible and the next is is violates the california accountability act and they've failed to approve the overall city objects the board has

thank you we'll hear if the permit holder now. mr. silverman >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners i'm david silverman i'm working with the permit holder. the approved permit is for construction on a single-family home the proximately is gary g he was pro-active in engaging with the neighbors during the design and permitting process. our submittal to the board listed the substantial changes in response to comments by neighborhoods and accident appellants and the department which resulted in total square footage reduction of the home. the appellant didn't question the discretionary review and the appellant has failed to raise building code issues. the design review is conducted by the planning staff and if t a discretionary review is requested the building permit was approved by the planning department and the department of building inspection and the appellant has not claimed otherwise. the appeal doesn't raise any reason to invalid the permit and mr. g will make a brief presentation. thank you. >> i'll use

>> i would like to move to approve this permit. and also, i think that for the limited live that she did absolutely enough out reach. so. >> all right tl, is a motion, is there a second? >> i will second. >> commissioner lee, second. >> any other comments? >> take it to a vote. >> okay, should we do this one, same house same call. >> yes. >> i think so. >> yes. >> thanks. >> that means that you are approved. congratulations. >> and we will move on to 5 d,al fred steakhouse and so this is marcello petri on 659 merchant street and applied for a limited live performance and this another legacy restaurant and bar, it has been known for their delicious stakes and would like to be known for comedy and the central station approved and offered no additional conditions. >> hello. >> how are you? >> commissioners. >> great, how are you. >> i am well. thank you. >> we would like to every once in a while and not with any consistency, offer either a comedy or a music venue in our private room which is down stairs in the basement of our restaura

thees vacation permits have been denied within days of submittal. however, if you interpret the puc to mean the s m f process at&t has agreed to submit the permit in scheduling the box walk and submitting more applications than we can process we process 5 applications we told at&t we'll do our best to keep up with that. i will also note 2ke7 has set up a hearing today to accommodate it wasn't finding the room but space within the hearing because there's other items to be heard, however, we try to facilitate this and smooth the process and dpw has a special hearing set aside >> essentially we feel that at&t is trying to force the hearing officer because they're not submitting multiple sites and it's our belief the mou clearly suggests multiple sites should be presented and the neighbors are pitted against each other their told at the hearing that site maybe appreciable and not given an opportunity to weigh in. the brief indicates at&t's willingness to install bulk outs but when suggested at&t refused to do so we believe that denver is not in violatio

and so swapping the two, so that our permits go up before we hear from atmosphere. and i don't know if we take a vote on this or we can just do it as is. >> all right. that is what we are doing. >> so, thank you, atmosphere for being patient and we are going to move on to our hearing and possible action of permits under the jurisdiction of the entertainment commission and this may be newer, i asked the staff to put the items that basically met sort of all of our conditional requirements and so including the limited live permits and the applications on the consent calendar which means that we will not hear them independently, we are going to vote on all of them altogether, unless there is a member of the public, sorry. >> so today there are only two. >> yeah. >> for the consent calendar. >> unless there is a member of the public or any commissioner that wants to speak directly to one of the two, aor b, on the consent calendar we can take a vote. >> so, do we have to do public comment on that? >> i think that we do the public comment as a whole, right? >> right. >> an

it and i would like to see at least some sort of neighborhood group actually before we grant the permit to be honest. >> and do any of the other commissioners feel simply? >> no. >> i feel the same way, we are establishing this policy to require every permit to have a neighborhood out reach and so i think that we need to enforce it. >> but i think that it is not our job to put undo strain on businesses that are long established and have a repport in the neighborhood and are looking to do something that is really mild, we are talking about an up scale and very expensive steakhouse and i pds that it is i understand that if good for one it should be good for all, but also think that this commission in its early days had a discussion about not putting undo stress on applicants for permits and that is why we grant conditionally and we don't make them come back after all of their sign-off and stuff like that. and so, although, i see your point, and in most cases i would agree with you in this particular case, i do not. >> on my time during the commission, i know that we have added a condition

some of the work has completed without a permit and the other work is proposed to be permitted. it's noted in the plan which work and have been completed already. some of it is evident in the photos as well. the siding replacement were the primary scopes of the who, that proceeded without permit. >> okay. >> commissioner highland? >> this is a project that came before us that we did not prove -- approve and we asked for it to come back. >> the windows, does this reflect the windows that were installed without permit or were those being taken out and these put back in? >> these are the windows that were installed without permit. we did a site visit and measured the details of the windows that were installed without permit and they do in fact match the historic windows from a very similar building across the street and they are very similar to what we normally see in double hung frame window openings. the difference is they have a dual glazing and there is a slight intent in the glazing to meet title 24. >> the siding on the north elevation is that also existing where it was insta

the only basis to deny the encroachment permit is that that permit would block the right-of-way felt public. this particular one there's no evidence in the record this location would have blocked anything the hearing officer didn't have any basis to deny >> we've heard that. >> actually, i have another question i think you've heard you i want to be clear that's at&t's position if the board should move for this you would be at&t would be would not object to go back and renoticing multiple sites is that what i heard. >> that would be correct we think that's the process that's envisioned by the s m f distribution. >> rather than deny. >> at&t thinks what would be proper to reverse and remand the instructions the hearing be reopened and the hearing officer do the job that the order containments to look at the various locates and look at the public record of the testimony and make a recommendation to the best location. >> why didn't he do it in the first place. >> why. >> that is one of the issues raised by the department. >> again, we're required to get permission from the department bef

the issue around the permit is a new issue to me. i think i receive probably two e-mails recently regarding the particular issue. so, i wasn't completely aware that there was a lot of controversy as it related to this issue. and i do appreciate your willingness to work to try and get it resolved. i don't necessarily think that it's the intent of your legislation to impact this particular population in this particular way. so, i would like to be supportive of that and making the necessary changes to accommodate the request of some of the folks who made public comment here today. and i also had just a minor amendment. ~ i'd like to offer as well. mrs. mayo spoke earlier about this particular concern. it was an amendment i had planned to propose based on my own experience with nonprofit organizations because i do support the legislation overall. and the developer disclosure of nonprofit donations, and i don't want this to have a negative impact on nonprofit organizations who oftentimes truly rely on the support of contributions, but mor

that motion carries 3 to 1 and that permit is upheld on those conditions. okay. thank you.o the next item we actually are calling items 9 through 16 together. already hang on a second i was incorrect there's a 4 vote need to pass that motion i was speaking incorrectly that motion does not carry and absent any other motion the permit would be upheld >> you want to modify the motion. >> i'll file the motion. >> it has been vote on. >> i'll make a motion the same motion except if i do this commissioner fung would it be worthy my time. >> make the motion. >> the objection i heard from commissioner fung part of the condition where the trees would be removed to the date to the site that the site permit is issued i think this motion will be modified to say the trees will be removed to the dated of the hearing on site permit; is that correct? >> yes. >> i think i need clarification on the hearing and on june 5th open the project that's a site permit; right? >> it's a large project for authorization. >> can i hear from the - what exactly is happening. >> it's the large authorization

>> i would like to move to approve this permit. >> second. >> great. >> on the motion to approve with the good neighbor policy. >> akers >> aye, nexter pier. >> aye. >> joseph. >> aye. >> lee. >> aye. >> campagnoli. >> aye. >> tan. >> aye. >> good luck. >> all right. let's move on to the next permit, i think that it is one that we will have to vote to continue on. >> yeah, this is the buzz works and so good luck and be careful. >> they are located on 11th street and they are still under going a change of use there and so the applicant has asked to be continued. and i moved to continue. >> and it is not our continuance, we are accepting his continuance. and his request to be continued and do you rephrase that >> and accept the continuance. i will second. >> i will second. >> and all right, let's vote. >> any public comment? >> sorry, any public comment on continuing the item? >> thank you, for calling it out. >> i don't see any. >> on the motion to continue the applicant's request. commissioner akers. >> aye. >> per hes. >> aye. >>

i think it's important to say as we give permits for the department of energy gives permits, they have to be built a have to be built and decisions have to be made to sell it. >> to come back to mr. smith on that. how many export terminals do you anticipate will actually be constructed? >> i can't really say mr. chairman. >> give me your best guess. you're an export a 10 -- you're an expert on this. >> first of all there are terminals being built right now. in terms of making predictions about what will happen subsequently, my experience is that i came to the job from industry. i spent 11 years at chevron before it came to government. i worked on the terminal what was an import terminal. if you'd asked me at that point the question you would've asked the was how many terminals to import lng would've been built i probably would've made to estimate because i was working in that field. i'm going to demeter from giving a numeric total because our collective faith and our collective -- -- >> we of the seven permits after already, 24 permits that are still pending. do you think we will build

and make a decision well, is this the best location reflected by permit. if he were to look at it purely on the basis of notice than the process they currently has is a little bit broken. if has commissioner honda said at the very beginning if you want to have a competitive and the departments wants to if you want to have a comprehensive notification process then at the beginning you'll have your primary desire site but our secondary site identified and notification it handled wound it may be a boarder area and therefore we don't have the situation that the department is concerned about and we're also is that that you go to awning easiest site but never solicited whether they want it in front of their house all the people here don't want it in front of their house not the one down the block i have a problem making a determination if i have to look at each individual ones. if i do it collective one i'll support of the department and saying the notification should have been done for alternative he sites but the process needs to be tweaked >> i mean, i think

yes permit holders. >> good morning, everyone. board and board president i'm the architect for the project. some of the things to address i talked to joe duffey after the last appeal that was denied and again, i affirm we've submit the required details in all that's required for the permit for the project to be built as far as the site project we're not required to submits the details of the wall essentials that's done and this permit is not built from was to be addressed what was submitted and rewarding the setbacks and the proposed firewall and assembles that are noted. so this is a correspondence from mr. duffey confirming we'll submit all the required items for the property to be built according to code and also in regards to the argument the stair has increased no size is not true. again ex

i mean what can we do here we've got to deny the permit? or accept the permit but that still requires notifications; right? >> we should probably be consistent, you know, the fact that their might have been a kwifrn here the fact of the time i'm wouldn't be comfortable to grant this appeal and law the conditions so that the alternative site as mr. quan mentioned we do know whether they will obtain so i'm prepared to uphold the denial and . >> deny the appeal. >> deny the appeal and on the basis that department did not error and their decision was compliant. >> any other commissioners okay. we'll take that as a motion so there's been a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the appeal on the basis the permits were okay under the code. commissioner hwang sfdz and sfgovtv that motion carries and the next is item 167 appeal. so mr. george you're up implicit. 3 minutes. >> so that particular application was filed in june of 2013, the hearing was ultimately scheduled on january 14, 2014. as with the other 21 appeals the board has heard lynn fong of

and the permit is issued. if i'm missing anything - >> if i can go from that so the department will receive a permit onions application from the sf m f sponsor how maydays for notice of intent. so the 60 days starts the moment you submit our application >> right. >> and how many days does the did not have to mail and post the intent? well, one second we'll find that answer. >> mr. song isn't here. >> i guess i'm wondering about the flexibility i think most people i would have trouble responding given my own schedule and the residents have implicated schedules so my question is really - >> if i could go to public comment we'll have this information. >> this is - they work with the city attorney's office and so we'll get a precisely description this is a tight fit i have no problem of extending it. >> i completely other one's the state law but my one last question is on the cords that are slated for improvement. and i don't know if this is a question for the planning department but we have two cords in the south