for the permit holder. he has cooperated with the city and has done a lot o permit goes forward in the least intrusive way possible. it has been improved -- it has been approved multiple times. the problems that the appellant is complaining about provide no practical benefit to her whatsoever. for those reasons, i ask that you denied his appeal and reinstate the permits so that this project, which has been delayed for over one month, can continue. thank you for your time. president garcia: if you would address the issues having to do with blockage of ingress and egress and the garage. i am assuming the port-a-potty is there because the project has been suspended a. >> it has -- it is required to be there based on the permanent. it has been extended by stipulation and logistics of the board itself. normally, an appeal would have been heard weeks ago. to take down the port-a-potty and pay to have it back out, he does not seem like a practical thing to do. there is nothing being done to block reasonable ingrah

you can renew the boiler permits an electrical permits, but nowhere in this in francisco building permit is the word redo it used. and the authority of the building official in the state of california to review a nine- year-old permit does not exist. everything that has happened since that renewal has been an attempt to show the process as being done. we have this and that, but you cannot get an invalid permit and make it better, give it authority by doing all of the things after the fact you were supposed to do in advance of the permit issuance. when mr. sweeney finished the meeting, he should have sent the application downstairs, not only to planning but to mechanical, electrical. the san francisco unified school district needed $1.75 times the square footage to renew. that is a lot of money. none of the other fees were collected by your department. you guys are talking here about $4 million of uncollected permit or fees on vacant buildings, and now within your own department you are passing up fees. there is nothing in the code that gives you that authority. everything that has happen

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

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

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

our permit policies prohibit the transfer of permits once issued and in paragraph 8 on each permit we issue states the following -- no assignment. this may not be assigned or transferred, violations of any of the conditions will result in depriving the licensee of further use of the facilities. once we found the violation, we noticed all permit fees, violations will occur in this type of consequence. our investigation of the notice we found did show on numerous occasions in february, they arranged for agents to purchase walkup permits and use them for their league games. examples include sunday february 5, february 12, february 19 and crawford feels on february 14, 16th, 21st, and 23rd. as a result of that investigation, i issued the initial decision whereby we stated in our very first line to them on our decision that we are committed to ensuring the public is not adversely impacted by this violation and we would allow them to use our fields this spring since the season was already in play and they already have the permits. we would suspend their ability to attain a future permits fo

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

there is no real permit. even if we were to continue it, there would still be no permit. what has been achieved here is that mr. alexander and his client go tto voice their dissatisfaction with the policy that is practiced by sfmta. hopefully, sfmta will take their remarks into consideration and will speed up this process. for the sake of people who want to open their own color scheme. i would move that we not accept jurisdiction. do we need a reason? not granting jurisdiction? >> is it based on a finding that this is not a denial of a permit? >> thank you for that. >> we have a motion from the president's to not invoke subject matter of jurisdiction with the finding that this department will auction by mta was not a denial of permit pursuant to the charter. on that motion -- thank you. the vote is 3-1. subject matter of jurisdiction is not invoked. >> we will move on to item number five. go sheng lei forces the department of public health. the subject property is that 646 washington street. directors case number fd-12-14. we will start with the appellant. the appellant w

we were in the process of retaining a permit. -- obtaining a permit. the permit was issued, after that point, the complaints kept rolling in th. all the work being done now, the bay window, everything is in that current permit. i can go through those items in detail if you would like. with respect to the final item about removal of material, it was a licensed contractor. it was our understanding that everything was being done per standard. causes the contractor's responsibility when the issue was raised, we started to question the contractors competence and went out and tested the material. it was a very low content of asbestos. it was not airborne. we have now removed that contractor. we sat down with the neighbors, we explain that to them, we told them we would hire a new contractor. that contractor -- we could all sit down again, what ever we needed to do to make sure everything was done right. >> i have a question. did you do any testing for lead? >> not to my knowledge. >> ok. that was not -- the asbestos testing was not our responsibility. it was

the permit consultant is here. she has the details of what codes we believe the apartment is violating end a general contractor who has been helping me figure out the costs for these different scenarios. i have an initial summary of those if you would like. by granting this appeal, i will be exposed to financial and criminal liabilities. i do not wish to be a part of an illegal endeavor. and the other option is not viable. -- any other option is not viable. thank you for your time. >> what are the criminal consequences? >> if it is unsafe, i could be sued for unsafe housing. i am not sure. >> mr. sanchez. >> planning department, i will be brief to confirm the property is located within and rto. -- an rto. this changed as part of the market plan. now it removed the limitation. three units would have been permitted under the previous zoning and under the current zoning as well. there is no parking requirement, parking minimum or maximum requirement. it would not be in violation of the parking requirement. they could

we had an entertainment permit. the entertainment commission issued a license with the full knowledge and consent of the planning department and renew that permit for six consecutive years. only after our business transaction had taken place and after the entertainment commission granted tupelo an entertainment permit did the zoning administrator decided he needed to intervene and putatively stripped tupelo of this important right. [inaudible] gto rectify what he claims was an invalid permit of entertainment, we would not have purchased the business nor spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on this venture. there have been numerous missed characterization's about our business. i will not spend the board's timer putting those now. i am happy to address an issue that may come out in the discussions today. suffice it to say that we're providing an exceptional southern themed food service and run a comfortable, safe, professional restaurant. we do have the support of our neighbor merchants. we understand that it is the

we can say it does permit it or not permit it. what is or is not authorized is a different statement. we have to be mindful. one thing i wanted to say about jeremy pose a question was, there are quite a few very good people in san francisco to go to if you want to legalize something that had been done without a permit in the past, or you want to get a permit for every model that was done or a bathroom that was added downstairs without a permit, and you feel like your uncle maybe was -- may have done it properly. oftentimes, it is no big deal. it is a good thing to do. there are many companies that specialize in doing just that. you can do that. it depends on your goal. if your goal is to sell the property or to avoid neighbor complete -- there could be two different goals with two different results, choices about how you go about taking care of the bathroom that you built in the basement without a permit, or you might do nothing. that may be ok, too. >> the question was focused related to value. >> ok. the hypothetical of a kitche

permits. they're not able to rebuild these rooms. the permit for bade them to do so. what happened? these rooms were demolished in less than four hours. we were told by some construction men that they plan to reconstruct windowless rooms, void of natural light. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> is there any other general public comment? we will move on to item number two. it is commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? >> i am going to be absent on may 9. business obligations. >> i will also be gone on may 9. not with commissioner hwang. >> my next meeting will be my last meeting. i will be submitting my letter of resignation and it is possible that that might happen before i get to come here again. hopefully, it will happen next time we meet. thank you. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? we will move on to item number three, the adoption of minutes. considers -- coaxing no comments, i move that we adopt -- >> si no comments, i move that we adopt. >> any public co

and a plumbing permits. -- and a plubming permit. we will begin with the appellant's up -- attorney. >> eunice chang appearing on behalf of junel solbach. this board is to hear appeals if the health and safety of the public will be impacted by the granting of a permit. in this case, we are dealing with a repeat offender, a land owner who has a pattern of disobedience to the decisions of the department of building inspection. the 45th avenue apartment which is the subject to this appeal -- in 2009, the landlord filed a permit to demolish this illegal permit, but he never did. instead, he rented out to an unsuspecting tenant, my client, junel solbach. he has a property on 47th avenue where he went to the same process. it was an illegal unit. in 1996, there was an order from the department of building inspection and a restriction on the deed that said you cannot rent out the illegal units. you have to remove it. in 1996, he filed a permit that said, "yes, i am going to remove it." in 2012, the same building -- the illegal unit has not b

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. president garcia: sure. do you want to make your comments a motion? commissioner hurtado? commissioner hurtado: i am in agreement with how it was stated. pres

the permit in 2012. in answer to your question, you can link and the process but our department has to go ahead if they find the unit is illegal. based on the fact we are dealing with a complaint. president garcia: do fees toll? >> i do not think so. >> and abatement order could issue as well. >> it could. that is down the line. if you are continuing this and you're talking about enforcement, continuance will come before enforcement. am i right? perhaps. it is a long process. it is not something we go out there and pull people out of their home. there is also appeals board for the notice of violation. there are avenues for that. commissioner hillis: we have always told to go to code enforcement and ask them for continuances. it is not automatic. we do not tell them what to do. go to them and ask them and tell them i have a board of appeals proceeding. can you help me and postpone the abatement process? >> you are entitled to 30 days. when it gets to a hearing, we have to have a first and second notice an

modify the permit. that is faster than applying for a new permit or a revision permits. >> or go through 311. >> if they were modifying the permit to be code compliance, like the window, that is not a week-long process. you could do that over the counter. >> we need to address it at the board. >> not necessarily. >> the permit is suspended. no modifications can be made right now. >> you do not like these people and do not want them back? >> i have confidence we have given direction for them to make the neighbors happy. >> we are giving them a break in terms of reducing the amount of process they have to do. the neighbors do not have to come back because they know that their problems will be addressed, and they know that planning is motivated and intends to make sure that the permit holder is motivated to be in compliance with codes relating to his project. >> i get it. i want to shorten the process. >> we could save report -- say revoke or get 311 for the roof. >> i am not trying to defend the actions o

you need a permit for most other things. you need plan review permitting. when you come and pay a large fee for us to review your plans before you get your permits. the street use permit. public works street mapping where the dumpster goes. issue permits for construction work taking place in the public rieft way. fire sprinkler permits get reviewed by fire departments. signs have a separate requirement under the planning and building code. although they are usually included with the building perm permit. if someone wants a restaurant design the sign acknowledges part of the over all permit otherwise it's separate. and lek signs have different permit requirements. additional licenses include those that the contractor needs to build including his contractor's license and his city business license to run a restaurant you need a bunch of licenses. a city business license. health department issues -- is it a what is the health department issue, do you know off hand? >> they issue a permit. required to have one owner or manager certified in food safety. actually

they had no permit. the photograph was taken -- together, the 5 feet between the houses is two and three, and the photograph was taken from that side yard. i would like to say that the issue is whether or not work had been performed, and if no work had been performed -- and no evidence is in the record to date to demonstrate that -- then you must find that a new application must have been made. when it was revoked, that was correct, and it was revoked for a dbi reason, not a planning reasons. [bell rings] if i may continue? commissioner mccarthy: we have to give equal amount of time for both sides. thank you. at this time, public comment is closed. it is back to the commission. at this stage, i guess, i will hold my comments for now and open it up for the commission. >> i certainly appreciate the rights and responsibilities of the public for appealing permits if they feel that there are issues. however, appealing permits is not in our jurisdiction. these permits and these issues all are appealable to the

permits. we continued to operate until 2:00 a.m. under its unrestricted entertainment permit with amplified music. they did this for six years. also, the paid the city $600 a year as the renewed the entertainment permit annually. in closing the entertainment commission followed proper and established protocols in issuing of a valid entertainment permit and we respectfully request the zonnie administrators to -- determination to be researched -- reversed. vice president hwang: thank you. if you would like to speak. no? >> the afternoon. -- good afternoon. to give you some background on the subject property. in december 1996, planning received a referral for place of entertainment permit from the san francisco police department. responded that the use which was la bodega needed a conditional use permit. in 1997, they filed the conditional use application that was approved by the planning commission in june 1997. it was proof for another entertainment use that did contain specific conditions of a

that is not permitted. if there were a swinging door adjacent to it -- you could go to the garage, but you still need a swinging door. president garcia: you talk about the flue. that could be -- that could not be removed because it is serving -- >> the furnace and hot water heaters. president garcia: very difficult. but could it be rerouted? >> i believe so. president garcia: that is not of itself prohibitive? >> we could move it. president garcia: i am not sure i understand with your point about the reason for the wall is within 10 feet of a new staircase being built at the permit holder's property, and if that staircase would be moved in some direction -- what would the distance be that would have to be moved to obviate the need for this wall? >> about 3 feet. it would line up with the rest of the stair. this particular portion only serves the deck to the third floor. the stair in their design moves to the west, in line with a spot that would not affect the windows of 2323. i am not sure why the stair tak

they did get a permit showing the bay window and the exterior work than not been on the original permit. i would have concerns about the second permit. i have seen some demolition in the photographs. new framing. structural plans and architectural plans, a little bit of a difference. i spoke to the architect about but already this evening. i'm available for any questions if you have them. i know lead has been mentioned. >> based on what you have heard from the zoning administrator and what you have heard in terms of testimony, the permit holder has to do certain things to rectify the record and in terms of what their scope is. what did they have to do? >> now or once we issued the notice of violation? i think there is a revised permit required to show the full extent of the work and probably to go through whatever planning department requirements are required for the exterior work. we definitely need something to clarify exactly what they have done. i am not sure the second comment that properly. -- permanent did that properly. i think there are some issues that need to be addressed. >>

the first day they had bad permit, they had a live band. -- had bad permit, they had a live band. >> what was the>> my recollecti, maybe march of 2006. >> thank you. >> do you have a question? >> it would be good to get your understanding of what happened in 2005. did the 1997 restriction on hours come up? >> i was not aware of it at all. i was never given a referral with the nikkei's number. the only case number i was ever -- with a case number. that was the only cu i knew about. the issue of hours of operation was not in there. my assumption, and maybe that was incorrect, there was not a restriction on hours. when they are silent on it, that was my assumption. >they came to the commission asking for entertainment until 2:00. >> that would need conditional use. >> in node. -- no. we go to planning. you are planning, it is this a permissible use? the only response i got was the 2005 cu, which did not speak to hours. my assumption was there was no restriction on hours. >> authorizing a place of entertainment, they do not reference anything? they are silent on that? >> they were in thi

again, it's only for permits issued in may. vice president o'brien: those permits should be pretty quick because once you go to the planning desk at 1665 mission, you generally get it right there. president adams: it's an over the counter permit. vice president o'brien: o.t.c. president adams: any other commissioners? i just want to say this is great. in a lot of the neighborhoods that you described all over the city, and i'm very much involved in merchant organizations, this is a big cost for small business owners and the one thing i hear from them is they don't do it because of the fees. sometimes it's overbearing. so i think this is very, very good legislation and especially with the electrical, waiving the electrical permits as well. with sfpd there is an effort to lighten up the merchant corridors to help deter crime, so this is very good, thank you. >> thank you. president adams: director dick-endrizzi. >> thank you. thank you, kris. we extend our appreciation to supervisors carmen chu, again, to have something for the ci

as soon as we had the permit. 2004 or 2005. >> the day we had a permit, we had abandoned that night. >> are you done, commissioner? -- we had a band in that night. >> are you done, commissioner? you are the second person who mentioned being singled out or targeted. i would like to hear why. >> there are a lot of people in north beach to have been there a long time and maybe have outgrown their love for music the a lot of the residents have and perhaps they should move. there are places called retirement homes. there are other people who are very wealthy and their attorneys and they have a lot of time on their hands. the folks that live there would rather see empty think they cart anything other than amplified music that would disrupt my evening. that is storefronts and thriving businesses. they do not care about the artists or the bartenders or the cooks. i do not what north beach is all about. hopefully, that is what they will be. >> it sounds like conjecture. i am very curious about -- >> certification, please be seated. -- sir, please be seated. >> i am not a frequent patron of th

it was only then that he filed this permit. i also want to point out that in the three houses closest to the house in question, there are a total of five children living from the ages of 1 to 10. that is why i take the asbestos abatement very seriously. i wanted to bring this to the attention of the planning department. we have confidence in the system, but there is no way you can monitor everything that goes out in the field. given our interactions with the homeowner, and the consistent pattern, that is why we filed this appeal. as a homeowner, we are wondering why he can do these things while the rest of us play by the rules. thank you. oh, i have pictures. this is the state of the house now. the only approved permits is forgotten -- active and kitchen remodel. this is the second floor. it has been removed. this is new construction on the second floor. the february permit was asking to enlarge a bay window. it involves more than in march meant. it is going out over the perimeter -- enlargement. it is going out over the perime

that is on the revision permits. if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer them. >> the revision permit is also appealable? >> there is a special conditions permit that gets issued after the board makes a decision. that is not appealable. >> that is the permit we're talking about that has the structural elements that have changed. >> what happened is the removed the roof deck. if it did get issued. that showed that is where the roof will be framed with the revised permit and if there is any other special conditions permit. >> there was just the board's notice of decision without special conditions permit. the board struck the scope of work that was under the appeal. >> they thought they would get the roof deck off. that was originally the issue under contention on the appeal. the main thing was the roof deck so that got taken off and a modified it. it will be built according to code, according to designed. it will be built like that. it is a valid point to bring up if someone is taking out a wall that is