both the permits the occasion permit my the new construction permits were issued by dbi on mark 18, 2014 and as you heard earlier the notification process is part of our code for demolition of a building and we see those signs all over the city. we at dbi and cb issue the notice wherever their picking up the permit we don't check it's up there we assumed they do it if we got a complaint we didn't get one. but i assume everything was followed at the permits were issued credible and the building permits are still going the process so i'll be available for any questions >> thank you. any public comment on that item? please step forward >> good evening, commissioners. my name is mr. monet i live on turk street this is in district 6 with all the new building and tearing down in my district since other parts of the city has been built and now a they're moving sfwo to this eastern south of market and one thing i know that i see the complainant at all kinds of different community meetings. she's just like me making sure that things are done right because the people that live in the district the

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

sanchez >> thank you scott sanchez planning department i don't see a permit from 2010 the first permit is from 2012 the neighborhood verification goes to owners and couldn't and provides 2011 plans based on the dr application in their dr application they clearly state their opposition is to the roof-deck i'll say during the 2013 dr they filed it in response to the dr notification based on the roof-deck had there been no roof doishg deck on the plans during the dr their won't have westbound opposition. in regards to the other issues the roof-deck is set back 50 feet with regards to bay electricity its a fairly wide street in san francisco and 6 million hull owe traffic and approximately 70 feet wide to the buildings across the street it's significant in san francisco. and again yeah. i think the height issue that was raised the building is not above the height but this is not above the height limit is follows the grade that is an up stepping lot the deck is well within the height limit we don't have height limits on trees so they can plant a redwood or anything allowed on the planning c

one is why was this permit rae issued >> excuse me. >> iowa's why was the permit reissued on may 2nd it's the same permit number. >> that i'm not sure about. one of the things that is within the our database is when we provide a permit status change the system automatically adjusts itself so if we take it from a paragraphed status it takes the latest approval date and places it on the permit itself even though the original permit was approved at an earlier date >> what happened. >> that i'm not sure. >> second question was refresh my memory i understand about a mirrores vacation permit that applies to many things. this permit is part of the at&t light speed project that has other layers of protocol due to the mou and thing is there any, no, sir, requirements in there >> the initial visitation as it relates to at&t's agreement with the city and the mounted facilities is the original posting necessity indication we'll hold a hearing to gather input from the public to determine whether the site is appropriate for place of employment once that's determined a decision is render and if the

the solar panels were permitted on an electrical permit issued by dbi. they were issued through electronic class c 10. the contractor looks to be licensed. the description of the work appears to be within what we would normally see for solar panels. i did speak with chief director of installer panels. he looked at the photographs that were in the brief, he looked at the permit, the work was actually inspected and completed. it looked like a typical installation. i asked about the angle of the solar panels. he says they are normally about 37-38 degrees. from a dbi point of view we don't see anything strange or complicated about the installation. the structural question i came up with earlier, that would be on the plans of how they would be bolted and designed to obviously for wind load and stuff like that. we would check that. it's actually plan checked by our electrical inspection as well. these installations has more stream lined over the year for the process of this. we know the directors inspected this and electrical they are looking for the electrica

and dbi did issue that permit and that permit got signed off. so, in our opinion, the last legal use would be a single-family dwelling. there was also a notice of special restrictions and connected with that permit and the approval of that permit back in '97 was approved by the planning department per application and plans for final plans and notice of special restrictions attached to g 11 5 63 ~ and [speaker not understood] which what provided to us i believe by the permit holder, g 11 5 63 and i'm not sure, i don't think this is in the brief, but the plan started with a present application indicated on the first single-family dwelling on 2386, one bedroom, one family room, one full bathroom. said rooms have an independent access to the street by way of a front entrance and limited visual interior, still connected to the floor above. the restrictions and conditions first notice here by given are said first floor shall be used only as accessory to the dwelling above as under nc-2 zoning of the subject property and that this first floor shall not

as on the imprisonment permit that was approved the 2012 permit >> you indicated that is for january 2013. >> correct. >> i'm curious if you know this is the same drawing he's referencing he indicated the date of 2012 i can't remember and so those plans were prepared in 2012 and the notice was conducted in 2012 but the dr hearing was in 2013. >> so it could be the same set. >> there's a revision date on those of 9, 1, 2012 and i think what may have changed they're calling out i'm put this - sorry those are the plans that i pulled from our discretionary review packet heard by commission i didn't on the set that was sent out for the 311 notice but you see here it's clouded as a talking about the tempered railing around the roof-deck so i don't know if that's a clarification but it certainly shows the plans under the commission. >> all right. >> do you see that have often the plans are changed between the discretionary review hearing like the planning commission. >> it's not uncommon i mean it depends on what the changes are in this case maybe there was a solid firewall they changed to

they didn't cancel that permit. they realized it wasn't a commercial unit once we started lookinging into this and seeing it was -- this permit with the nsr on it. so, it's maybe -- that may answer something to do with the sale of the property. it might have shown up as a commercial. and i see the [speaker not understood] got changed as well to reflect single-family. >> so, it's not a commercial -- >> no, the commercial was taken out on the permit that we signed off back in 1997. >> okay, thanks. >> but put back in again. >> mr. duffy, i have one question. is there any requirement that a notice of violation must issue before a permit removing a unit is applied for -- i mean, there's no precondition? >> no. a lot of people did voluntarily. the permit came before [speaker not understood]. we're still in there. we're not in the business of getting warrants for this type of violation. we just don't do that. we couldn't possibly do it. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> anything further, mr. teague, no? okay, commissio

permit consultant verses lobbyist? >> well, i was referring to the permit consultants but i believe that their objection was that they do provide a service for people who may not be as familiar with the process ha one goes through, that they are not actually lobbying to influence a particular out come. >> okay. okay. >> good point, okay. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and public comment on item 8? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i want to start off first with acknowledging after 35 years of practice, i have come to terms that most people are quick to complain but not fast to compliment. >> and could i get your name. >> patrick boskvitz. >> i want to compliment the building department for doing a great job, very challenging and people come here and complain and i want to comment on the person coming in a few of weeks ago and complaining about the public comment and i thought about getting up and commenting that was inappropriate but i decided free speech, and to encourage that conversation, by commenting du

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. >>>

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

the permit was issued, correct? >> it's my understanding the permit was issued but what happened when at&t went out to meet with the city building inspector. >> we heard that. >> all right. >> mr. quan? >> good evening, john quan. i want to thank the appellant in this case for it's diligence in the maintenance of that portion of the unapproved portion of montclair avenue. operational staff has been working with them as they are suggesting to acquire a grant to maintain that portion of the public right-of-way. one thing that must be pointed out that there is some misunderstanding of what is opening space and what is not. the appellant as part of their briefs show that they provided a section within their brief stating defining what the definition of open space was. in this case, because of claremont street is unimproved right-of-way it was definitely not considered open space by this definition. one thing, and i did go back at&t is correct that they did make several attempts within this neighborhood to identify alter

so that's the permit that's under appeal.t's in my opinion the permit to fix something now that effects is going to be difficult unless those people get together to figure out i don't how to do the work we have the means and methods basically you've got the construction and you either prop that up or demolish it but the permit is to fix it two people need to get forgetting together there's a permit to build an edition that's been properly approved and issued in my opinion but the issue is those people the two sides getting together and obviously there's something golden with the utilization and stuff like this so i'm available for questions. if i'm wrong sorry on the lean of the building either party is welcome to question that by that's my that happens sometimes with the bottom and top when you get up to the top of the building there maybe the one or two inches out >> what's our suggestion there's a utilize pending should we follow the lawsuit. >> when i read the brief there's a request from the appellant they wanted the per

first of all, i would like to say that we have issued over 200 permits to at&t for excavation permits for these smfs where there were not objection to the location of the permit. the reason that these cases have gone to the departmental hearing in the first place is because we agreed that they met the objective criteria and based on the objective criteria, we said okay, go ahead and do your public notice. then the public had the opportunity to be notified. they determined that it was incommodious to them to have these. they appealed and that's why we ended up at a hearing. i think it's not legitimate to say we did not find these were incommodious. we said based on the objective criteria it seems to work. however, the neighborhood, whether it's incommodious to the citizens of the public right-of-way is the public notification. it and it was after that public notification that there were objections ~. that's what led to the hearing. i would also like to make the point, we are not denying at&t because they didn't include multiple locations in their initial application, in their original

i will ask the permit holder and the department how much time they need? >> through the chair can i ask a clarifying question. >> in what form do you want to see that. >> i want to see an accurate drawing but you, however, you want to show me the conflicting zones of different dimensions required of. >> okay and it's relating simple. >> i think we can get it back. >> your choice we may have to rescheduled upon our schedule. >> i noticed. >> before we pick a date i want to be clear are you asking for an additional argument or inhabits. >> inhabits that demonstrate the technical feasibility they've stated. so the technical feasibility of the alternative sites proposed >> of any other sites proposed. >> that's the basis of the argument why the site permitted is the only technically feasible site. which i would accept for easily if there it was documented >> okay. go ahead >> what do you think about july 2nd. i think july 2nd will work >> will that work for you. >> actually, i and my attorney will be out of town either the work before or after. >> it would be

permit holder: richard price. project: approval to remove six 66 existing trees and plant nine 99 >> item >> we will start with the requester. >> good afternoon, commissioners, you know who i am. delaney. i'm back for the trees. what we are asking first is that the previous motion be amended to read that the permit be issued after the final approval, not after the june 5th meeting because that's not the final approval. while it might be and might not be. but after the final planning approval. because we as the citizens around these trees would like them there as long as possible. it's not clear dha this project will actually get through. so how do we know this? we would like these trees to stay as long as possible within our community. most of the people in fact all the people who live around there work and can't come for various reasons. all of them are passionate, you have received letters. i would like to give you a little bit of education and this is for commissioner hwang, you had many questions. i'm going to

the permit is unlawful. it was inadequate as a way of notification. >> sir, your time is up. >> thank you very much for your time this evening. >> thank you. any other public comment? okay, seeing none, we will start our rebuttal. mr. moreno, you have three minutes.3 minutes. >> i just wanted to know that i do in fact live half block from the proposed site and never received a notice about the box walk. there is significant community opposition. don't penalize us in this area for just being the third one. they need to find a place that is not going to have 41 neighbors opposing it. there is open space. it is in every sense of the word open space. just please don't penalize us. the community person that he mentioned does not represent the neighborhood association. i have been on the board for almost 10 years now and never heard that person's name. they do not do outreach to the neighborhood. >> i think they just mentioned the name of one individual whom i know. i would like to see this on the screen here real

so, this has yet to be drawn and permitted yet. all of this is drawn and permitted and approved and the work is currently underway. so, our objection is that we don't want one of the boxes to interfere with our ability to have commerce and deliveries for this site when two other alternative locations were identified when we did the box walk with at&t. >> and the second box, i can show you where the second box is going to be on these drawings. ~ >>> so, i'm finished. >>> and the last thing actually is this is an area where it's our back fenced in area and it's going to be an area that we're going to need a gate so that we can bring in pallets because when i ship my shoes out, those pallets will have to be packed. and we don't want to leave them on the street. we can't leave pallets on the street. so, this area will need a sizeable door so that we can leave things, pack things, like, you know, take leather and deal with them outside so that we can bring them to a very small access point on the back inside. so, we need that space. we

so the conditions are no extended hours permit in the future. it didn't say in the future no third party preordainment's unless registered by the entertainment commission and valid security cards and e-mail event calendar and 6 security cameras to be installed and i'm going to add the word outside and no event associated with party buses or pro tem's >> so what's been struck is the lead training because he requested that and what's been amended is number 6 having security cameras specifically outside. >> can i be recognized for clarification because since we're down here and you're now considering a condition around extended hours and have had discussion around optional i have a hard time enforcing this i need you to consider how you can maybe on the record get some acknowledge if that's the police department after but not inserting something that's problematic like the in door commission. >> i want to amend my motion some of the conditions already exist point out no third party's unless by the entertainment commission exists and guard cards exi

in terms of getting permits. a lot of the work that ought to be done should be done before the application it filed. this site outlines the types of permit the restaurant and bar and nightclub might need and encourages people to take the appropriate preapplication steps to learn about how to successfully get through the permitting process. there are also best practices running a night life business and a lot of materials that the entertainment commission has developed the security manual they'll to have and this links out to all over the place. and finally a section addressing noise but perhaps sound another lesson learned when noise generally and the various, you know, what happens if you violate a noise condition on our permit. and one of the things that came up was the centerpiece of the night life summit earlier this year was the southern that businesses have about new developments unhappy and what to do in working with the planning department we've developed this one page understanding new sites there's a nu

not pull a permit and gets caught, you charge 9 times the original fee. and that is that fee is much higher, than those charted by the survey group, the next highest was three times and your is 9 times and so it is a very high penalty. >> the next slide is a or gives you a picture of our results, or our draft results, for the plumbing and the mechanical division. so it liflts category 1 through 23 and these are straight from your plumbing and mechanical fee schedule and for each category we identified first of all the current fee and so for the first category, single residential units and the fee charged is $160. and if you look at the far right column we see that based on the time estimates, multiply by the hourly rate the cost is $129 resulting in a profit being generated and so the fee is $31 higher than the cost. and you can see for the remainder of the fees, generally that is not the case, typically, the current fee is coming in a little bit lower than the cost. but again, these are draft results. lastly, we have recommendations for the next steps. w

from before, for good behavior and so i will be much more open to raising permit fees and lowering permit fees for businesses who want to improve their facade and the land lords who want to improve their earthquake safety and you know, legalizing the laws, and whatever, that carrot, would be, but just to do it automatically for six months does not make a whole lot of sense to me. that is my general comment. >> we have discussed some of those options with the controller's office. we had similar feelings that it would be good. and we do wave the awning fee to do the similar things for soft story and we were told that that was not an appropriate use of our funds and that the fees really need to be used for the purpose that they were collected. so, their recommending that we not do that on a large scale. and that they really recommend that we do an interim across the board. fee cut and then adjust on a fee to fee and which we agree to set an appropriate fee level. >> supervisors? i am sorry, commissioner melgar. i keep promoting you. >> and i, i wanted to point out a couple of things the fees

for all functional permits there's not a change in the way of the space there's only new ownership. >> nothing is changing. >> i want to be clear as well the hotel grouping u group is we're the hotel management company so we did advise the owners to have representatives here as well. >> i think, you know, to commissioner hydes point there's controversy about the theatre bringing entertainment there's a larger amount of traffic so you're telling me nothing is changing at this but it does bring an alarm we encourage all permit owners to know the new voices. so we'll see if we add that as a continue but know that's what the spirit is of commissioner hydes >> we post it every moss month and nothing has changed it's wednesday through sunday. and now we're in a movie invite we do movies and winetasting right now >> our board meetings with the knob actually meetings took place once a quarter i attended the last one at the end of the january and even though next board meeting and then they had one in april i was actually on vacation i didn't attend but the next board meeting is in july that

for the building permit to electrical permits. then served as governor for eight years. then did some work. savings bank or any other small community banks in maine did not cause the crash in 2008. and yet they are getting a lot of the burden from the top franc bill. every time i see maine bankers, that's all they want to talk about is the amount of new applications. it's now up to 39 forms at the barber has to sign in order to get a simple home mortgage. the burden is higher. the cost is high. small banks are now hired compliance officers of laid-off loan officers. because they have to do all this work on regulatory compliance is isn't necessarily contributing to this dilution of any discernible problem. you've seen the studies i'm sure. they're a bunch of them out there were people have calculated the cost of the regulation per life saved, health and safety regulations. on that it didn't cost about $100,000 per life saved. most of us would say that's a pretty good guy. that's reasonable, straightforward hit saving lives. asbesto

just a couple of questions, on that single permit. and it was, was it voluntary, i mean, did the process... >> yes, it is a voluntary program and it happens to be on baker's street. >> okay. >> and is it occupied? >> yes. >> well, i don't know, if the vacant unit is occupied and i don't know that detail, actually. >> and i had a question, on this, and so, depending on what the professional comes up with in terms of the scope of work, if it is not clear whether there are these legization will be over the counter or go through the planning; is that correct?? >> yes. >> is that something that needs to go through the planning approval and then come to us. >> and for us, my intention is for the surface and because, there is no such of a work and it is more just a basement alteration, and it is nothing to, you know, to have that much except for the fire raiding of the wall and the door and exiting only. >> okay, thank you. >> and then, after the fact, and if they have legalized this unit, and then the information goes back to the tax assess

would that be an over-the-counter permit? >> definitely. if he renews it, he has a set of plans, he might have to modify that, i don't know how fancy his plans are. he could stick with the plan or he could modify the plan. >> let me ask this. can he do this, put in a set of plans for a temporary stairs now. that's kind of generic, whatever, just to get the violation out of the way, but then he resubmit his expired permit for the stairs in full like where he designed it? can redo that? he would have to call it a temporary set of stairs. >> we're talking about clearing the abatement order, giving them four to six months to complete, however they want to comply with the novs and if they want to go through the big process they can do it, if they want to simplify, they can do that. then we'll reduce the fees to whatever figure, $100 or something. that's the technical part of what we'd propose here; is that correct? >> that is what -- i agree, that is what we're proposing, but i think there's an acknowledge m that it may not be able to be come co

. >> there might be a public health permit. we would not see it as a change of use. >> isn't the situation, not isn't, but it seems to me that the situation is similar to target selling alcohol, beer and wine, right? and when target came developed their stores, in most i think recently i think the one, the city target on gary and near the may -- you know about those processes with respect to the sales of alcohol. >> just in general, they have an issue regarding their starbucks because it was a formula retail and the reason why chipotle is being held up. the planning commission just heard conditional uses for that location. the chipotle starbucks, starbucks is actually within the target of masonic and gary and we have long determined that formula retail within a formula retail use even if it's accessory that would still require the formula retail c u. >> the formula target formula resale use. i don't know if they sell alcohol there, however they would be, the code would allow it at that location because under the definition of l

legislation is amending, not to include all 20,000 permits, but a very narrow number of permits which would amount to no more than 300 on average for year with those disclosures are required. i think that's fair and reasonable and i'm willing to support this ridge lags and move it forward. >> supervisor breed, would you second the motion on the amendments from present chiu. it's seconded. we have a motion and seconded. if there's no other comments, colleagues can we take the amendments without objection? thank you. and now on the amended legislation, can we take that same house, same call. thank you. so this item is adopted on first reading. madam clerk, next item. >> item 25 is an ordinance to amend the planning code to change the designation of 1000 seven market street to the contributory category three under article 11 and making the findings. >> colleagues, can we take this, same house, same call. this ordinance has passed on the first read. >> i would like to go to our 2:30 special accommodations. we have one from supervisor campos. >> thank you. thank you very much, mr. presiden