on this permit. i might be mistaken, but that is what my understanding is. >> they should have been suspended and it just never showed up in the system. it is more important that there is no work taking place. you are right. i think that the work could continue if you of all the permit. and the revision kermit then takes effect. there will not be any roof deck, obviously. it is gone. >> another option is for the sport to strike that scope of work from the permit before it. president garcia: to avoid the extra process. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. i am sorry. i did not see you. >> is this public comment? i am not paid by anyone, although i did talk to one of the parties out there. i also talked to a number of engineers. my name is pat buscovich. i spend about three hours per day at the building department. why i do is hard to say, but i do. i have learned over the last 30 years to embrace the system. arguing with a building inspector

permit, and a foundation permit for our home. it was suggested to us at the start of the campaign the we could use -- should we use her architect, our permanent problems would be resolved. they have brought us to the planning commission, cal osha, the spca. three times, even our children's pets have not been abused. they have reported our home vacant and abandon while we were living there, both to the city agencies and to our mortgage holder. whose interests are they serving, and what is their goal? on may 18, 2011, mr. butler appeared before this very commission with blatant arrogance, he showed photographs çlr home, and this is in the archives -- you can all watch it. he said, "when we go down into the garage" -- let me assure you, over my dead body did i give permission to this man to enter my home. there appears to be no limits to which mr. butler will not go to achieve his goals. a fairly even breaking into my home is acceptable practice. once aware of our interests, in 550 states, they have transferred their campaign for ha

commissioner fung: permit #145 located at 644 morse street was an approved permit. what happened was that next g is stipulating that they agreed to jurisdictional request for that is a vacation. the other location is 145, which is at 43 bustles -- 43 brussels. that expired because they failed to renew in a timely manner. it will have to go three reapplication process, which will undergo article 25. i'm not sure what the commissioner's decision is on this given that the permit has expired. it is invalid. president garcia: under article 25, all the things they are requesting have to do with notice. at that time, when they got the notice that this was going to happen, then they would be able to file anyway. but it is still your choice as to what -- commissioner hillis: i would have to vote to either accept or deny its jurisdiction request on an expired merriment -- expired permit. if it is moot, i would just accept the jurisdiction request. >> there are two jurisdiction request. you can make a separate motion for each of the permits. it sounds like the board is incline

permit is going to be revoked and remove from the permit. the permit holder attempted to do this after the jurisdiction request and now this matter is before the board again because this roof deck is still a part of the permit. the permit holder, during the jurisdiction request, his attorney and contractor admitted that this exterior roof deck with the stairs are not part of the permit that was issued in november of 2011. the second matter of notice that i want to talk about goes directly to notice to my client, who is the co-owner in this building, a two-unit condominium unit. it did not have her lot number on the actual permit. as you can see, from this parcel map that was provided in the brief, there are two lot numbers, 34 and 33, that cover 1753, the permit property, and 1751, the appellant property. unfortunately, the condominiums do not have a lot number for the roof. that is a problem because that roof is common area. our client must approve anything that happens on the roof. again, she was not provided notice that this permit was go

we applied for a permit, the permit was approved, the permit was issued, built according to the permits, and filed a permit to come into compliance when there was a difference in the interpretation as to the highest in relationship to the facade. they brought that into compliance with the original permit. there should be no need to file a planning permit to come into compliance with the original permit. that is the course that was taken and here we are now. they have had the notice now, they are complaining there was no notice. there has been a notice for this hearing and you can see who came. it was not the next-door neighbors, it was not that neighbors across the street. it is these folks who have an issue with the process and their issues -- if there is apt problem with the issue should not be -- if there is a problem with the issue, they should not be here. they're punishing people who have been issued a permit from the city, we're working in accordance and we're being punished because we are doing what we were supposed to do. people who have complaints with the process and with ind

if we were to grant your permits with the other permits stay out? >> yes, and that is the case even for the wombat is missing the coaxial cable. we asked price for the an extension of that 1-year timeframe. -- we asked twice for the extension of the one-year timeframe. i think we needed an extension of something like five days. it was very minimal. but during the declining of the extension, he did say that we would be allowed to keep the installation up. even as it goes through the pre permitting process. -- epermitting process. correct and if we do not grant you -- commissioner hillis: and if we do not graduate on the permit 10wr-0145, then it will not be permanent? >> i do not know for sure if it is functional right now. everything has been going on completing that. pg&e has been a bit sluggish bring in that -- bringing that. i cannot recall if the jurisdiction request -- it is suspended when the appeal is filed. that is when everything comes through. if the appeal is filed, it will stay in whatever state is in on that date. >> unless it is functi

the question is whether the permit holder is entitled for his business to have a permit that has had problems in the past. this will allow him to do it and hopefully it works if it is allowed. i am not sure i would buy that. i would say perhaps he needs to conduct his business and create a situation where there are no nuisances and come back and get for their entitlements. i would not support -- i would support the overturning of the permit. >> i should know this. there are different types of people in a bar at the 2:00 than 11 or 12. some bars do not have doors. in new orleans. i do not want to let it go as it is. it is almost like there would be a syllogism that you could construct and it seems as though it has been conceded by the requirement there be security guards that it is problematic, and no. 4 talks about whether or not a security plan has been put in place that deals with that adequately. not to miss " her -- misquote her, or mitigate against being loaded or drunk, and it is a little of both. it helps oxidize alcohol. you should drink -- should not drink so much they get d

the revision permit moot. whether you would accept that. otherwise, we could all told this permit without certain things and let the revision permits have a jurisdiction request. president garcia: do you have a question for mr. soriano? >> and you wanted me to respond to that? what we are saying is yes, we would be ok on giving up the revision permit, accepting your modifications to the original permit, which would say, only the existing skylight will remain, no modifications to anything on the roof. commissioner fung: and the deletion of the water heater from the roof. >> yes. everything that commissioner hillis has mentioned i think is reasonable. president garcia: i am not clear on what we want to redo the replace and resize skylights from the original permit. commissioner fung: just keeping stuff away from the contentious area. commissioner hillis: it seems like the roof is common area. on the ccnr's, it would avoid us having to weigh in on whether that is common area. they are willing to give it up. presi

the permit? did the department to its own investigation after receiving the recommendation from the police? >> the initial comment from the permitting office based upon the information that we received was that the captain of the station was concerned about drugs and other elements in that area. by reducing the hours, it doesn't mean that those elements would not be there. >> to the department undertake its own investigation? >> holly did not have that knowledge. >> as to whether there were like foods in the area. or did you rely solely on the police department's recommendation? >> of the department would not be able to take the next logical step in the police department had denied it. if they, on a follow-up had a reduction, we would be able to move on with the investigation. >> department seeds of this jurisdiction entirely? >> in this case, the department does not see a reason, specifically, to overturn or ignore the recommendation from the san francisco police department. we don't believe it

permit application 2011 is a permit to start work to the addition for permits renewed by dbi. in the case of 550 jersey street, new permits based on the building codes were obtained. we have to from electrical. #20110711761. a 61, 20110330941. in addition the 2011 building permit was told. -- was pulled. a mechanical permit was pulled.k into it. the alberhe himself said as a ld said every analyze the structure and determine if it performs to the structural aspects in terms of the 2011 building code. all special inspections have been completed. the under current section code can take the role of special inspections for his or her projects. they would be required to submit an overall compliance report. that is what you see before you. the engineer record clearly stated that his staff had formally required special inspections in the final affidavit. this report was written december 19, 2011. later on about the check process. the deputy director, tom huey. >> thank you. good morning, commissioners. at this stage i think we would hear from the appellant. can you restate the time fr

the permit is to be granted. the permit is to be granted. president garcia: 02 apologies, >> we will start with the appellant, you have seven minutes. >> president garcia, commissioners -- >> if you will pull the microphone, we will use that one. >> sorry. i'ma member -- i'm a member of the chinese-american voters education committee that is seeking a reversal of the entertainment commissioned of the decision to grant the applica

. >> we cannot conditions permit. we can condition a lot that come before us but we're not able to conditions permit. is that correct? >> you can modify the hours. you can change with the hours are. that is in your discretion, but you cannot have it sunset after a certain number of months. >> is there some way we can retain jurisdiction? >> it is suspended with funders, the board's jurisdiction. >> we cannot say we continue it and it gets too -- he gets to operate with that. >> the affected individuals would have to vigilantly monitor and work with the entertainment commission to get the enforcement and police out there. >> they do not have any mechanisms in place other than to find them if they have not complied with their requirements. the best this board could do is to uphold and plead with the entertainment commission to monitor this and suspended necessary? that is the best we could do which is not satisfying the neighbors but the neighbors will have the job of reasonably -- calling when there is a reasonable pro

permits. five of the windows face the side. replacement was done to improve energy of efficiency, so because this is a joint appeal, we will give each region of one of the appellants is not here region one of the appellant is not here. if you will step forward. you have seven minutes to speak. he was not intending to speak, so commissioners, i think we should proceed. >> the subject matter is going to be heard next thursday at the planning commission, so i would like to out for a continuance so they have the chance to review this matter and make a decision. >> we will go into details, and then we will hear from the party as to whether or not they object to a continuance. >> planning is going to read your the standards of window replacement and the guidelines to determine appropriateness of the windows installed a few years ago into my building, and we are going to determine the appropriateness, and we have neighbors coming to speak as well. >> is this not ready for a hearing today? >> there wa

the permit is to be granted. the permit is to be granted. president garcia: 02 apologies, >> we will start with the appellant, you have seven minutes. >> president garcia, commissioners -- >> if you will pull the microphone, we will use that one. >> sorry. i'ma member -- i'm a member of the chinese-american voters education committee that is seeking a reversal of the entertainment commissioned of the decision to grant the applicant in after hours permit. the entertainment commission's position must be reversed because it was impermissibly in effect and with procedural irregularities and is totally unsupported by the records. stipulated fax including the high volume of volume associated with this neighborhood restaurant [unintelligible] there is no basis to grant this application. there is no right to operate a fast food restaurant 24 hours a day. furthermore, the commission's decision isn't in deference to this body. this body must give no regard to the decision except the fact that we point out, procedural irregularities and the finding tha

there has been one permit denied. that is why normally any permanent extension is granted by planning. any entitlement on a small building. the larger buildings have a different process. but the larger buildings are being approved by planning, their entitlements also. and it was a direction of the mirror to make sure that we continue trying to get these buildings built the best way we can. in a lot of instances, we're bringing them up to 2010 codes as much as we can. if it was an older permit. so we are trying to spur the economy, so to speak. and this will be another help to permit applicants, plus a help to the staff. >> commissioners? >> just briefly, well done it to staff. obviously you have listened to our clients, our permit-holders, and this was a continuous problem for them. you have addressed very well. i think the public likes to see that and it is very efficient. congratulations to the director for putting this together and seeing it through. i look forward to this type of analyzing and seeing what is best

because this is the first part of the permit. i do not see the rest of the permit. there is not enough information for me to say that. if anyone has any questions, -- president garcia: why was a permit issued for a wall? >> you can apply for a permit like that if you want to spread it out. if you want to build a wall, you can build a wall. it is up to your neighborhood if they do not like that. that is why we are here, i guess. they can do it like that if they want. it is unusual but there is nothing to stop them from doing it. i am concerned about the flue. on this permit, the existing flue is going to be relocated to an adjusted -- to an existing property by an adjacent property owner. the adjacent property owner says, i will do it next year. where do we stand then that's how we work that out? that is an issue and it is something the building to arm its troubles with. it is a big flue. there are also a couple of outlets -- there are some sort of ants that were on that wall. there are some relocations on hyde st. that need to be considered before the wall is built.

. -- receive her permit. i guess the other issue is the question of liek foods -- like foods. it was not clearly made that it was the determination, although it was stated that way once. they were prepared to go forth, and so my concern here is a little on the due process side, and in addition, since the police information didn't really come to us, and not prepared to give a lot of weight to that other than the fact will -- the fact was that they did recommend disapproval. i would be interested in supporting the appellant in this case, but i would wonder whether we can draft a different time period. versus s6:00a.m. to 3:00 a.m. >> i agree a set for the last fang. i think things are out of whack in my humble opinion. i appreciate the comments by the appellant in her opening regarding having new issues thrown at her, even today to have to respond to without an opportunity to consider and absorber, research, and present to us. at every turn here, in this case, where so than the last, there has been a changeup.

. >> we cannot conditions permit. we can condition a lot that come before us but we're not able to conditions permit. is that correct? >> you can modify the hours. you can change with the hours are. that is in your discretion, but you cannot have it sunset after a certain number of months. >> is there some way we can retain jurisdiction? >> it is suspended with funders, the board's jurisdiction. >> we cannot say we continue it and it gets too -- he gets to operate with that. >> the affected individuals would have to vigilantly monitor and work with the entertainment commission to get the enforcement and police out there. >> they do not have any mechanisn

the first vote is to deny the permit. the vote was 4-1 with only the vice chairman voting in favor of the two denied a permit absolutely. without public comment or an opportunity for us to be heard, the amendment permits said that it will be from 4:00 to 6:00, which doesn't really address the public's safety issues because it occurs at 2:00 a.m.. the vice chairman stated that the reason the fast food restaurant should remain open will help people not be as strong. we will have this restaurant to help people not be as drunk. intoxicated people will and buy food and it will help them. eating a jack bugerrger, drinking coffee doesn't sober someone up. the only thing that does that is time, letting the alcohol get out of your system. paragraph 2, 3, 7, 8 are not satisfied. it states that the application should be denied if it cannot accommodate the traffic that is expected. the police recommended that the establishment stay open, and after hours basis by attaching conditions. and that there would only be 18 people allowed in

permit. at least in the old-fashioned interpretation of the code. you need to have the fire department walk the stairs and approve it. that is my interpretation. am i correct? >> that would be my understanding, yes. commissioner moore: thank you. this is a little bit unusual this happened in the first place. do we have any -- [unintelligible] do you know if the same architect is the one who is proposing the addition or is that a coincidence that this comes out with this application? >> i believe this, because of this -- the project that is before us. commissioner moore: the same architect that did this year. it is not just done by somebody. >> a cannot say for sure but we can ask. commissioner moore: would you please? thank you. >> the mistake that was made on my part is that i took for granted that the general contractor and the metal stair contractor who was doing the job said they were going to do any kind because the old stairs or not usable. commissioner moore: that is not what i am aski