. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department, the subject property at 225 clipper street, it's subject to planning code sections 132 and 141, so in this case, planning code section 132 would prohibit -- the setback requirement for the property and also prohibits parking within that front setback, the planning code section 142 establishes a screening requirement for off street parking and the proposal would provide no off street parking screening so we'd be having parking within the front setback that doesn't provide the required screening, this is being done voluntarily, so in seeking to have parking in the front setback, not meeting the planning code requirement, they can do so if they seek and justify variance, you have to meet all of the five findings, it's meant to be a challenge, it's meant to be a burden, it's meant to be used only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and in reviewing this case, i didn't see any exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, i had co

sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department, there was inaccurate testimony in the last hearing, i want to apologize to the board and to the parties because i did misstate facts tat last hearing regarding the density and i think this board knows in my years, i've tried to be accurate and responsive to the questions that i receive from the board, however, i did misstate the density issue at the last hearing, so the subject property the proposal could be built without a need for a subdivision, the density would allow up to 22 dwelling units on the property i think they're currently at 14, so the subdivision issue is really a secondary matter and again i apologize and i really try to hold myself to a high standard coming before this board, you need accurate information before making your decisions and aapologize to everyone for misstating that, it was something i had reviewed from the staff report and so after receiving the rehearing request, we ran it through the process again and

sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department, the subject property is located at 435-437 potrero, this is an urban mixed use zoning district, which is in the neighbors planning area, i want you to know a little bit about this process, this might be the first letter of legitimization that's been brought before you, when the eastern neighbor's area was rezoned there was a lot of down zoning in some cases, so uses that were once permitted under the previous zoning were no longer permitted. this program allows those uses which establish prior to the effective date of the ordinance to legitimize, so these are for uses that did not obtain the proper permits at that time, so maybe an office use is one example, then 2005, it was allowed in the zoning but they didn't obtain proper permit, the zoning changed in 2008, they can consider a letter of legitimization to allow for legalization, it is not an entitlement, it just says that they can avail themselves of this procaesz and go through th

. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department, this is another jurisdiction request for a letter of determination that was issued for the property on 3166-16th street, it is in the commercial district t letter of determination made a determination at the time in september of 2012 that jack spade, the subject use, was not considered a formula retail use. now, i would like to provide a little bit of perspective about a letter of determination, what it is, what it means, what it doesn't do, under planning code 307, the zoning administrator is responsible for interpreting the planning code and also is responsible for responding to requests for determinations about planning code requirements. so, in this case, they sought a letter of determination, they wanted to get the department's official position about whether or not the subject use was considered a formula retail use. it is not a permit, it does not vest, it does not entitlement, so what is really the important, the key thing for

i'm sorry, i have a question for mr. sanchez. i want to be perfectly clear here because something one of the public comments stated confused me and the statement was along the lines was, if the letter of determination -- let's just say hypothetically we grant the request, we have a hearing and we push back the other hearings on the merits of the permits. if in the end after hearing on the merits on the lod we determine that the lod was improperly issued and that was an error on your part, then what are the implications, and would they need to go through -- would those permits that have been issued be undone or how does that work? >> so, assuming that we would have a hearing on all three items together, if the board found the letter of determination was improperly issued, that jack spade is a formula retail use, i would suggest to you at that hearing you also deny those building permit applications that establish the use and you would allow them to refile within one year if they were to receive a conditional use authorization beca

i want to make sure i recognize mr. sanchez who did a aspire job. mr. sanchez was able to move this to your calendar in 3 months. i want to give a brief overview of the project. we've got 57 business of male adult shelter. we're adding within the same building 24 beds targeted for lgbt folks. the hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and dole's of the street arthur services about talk about the operations so you'll get a better feel. first floor fro the land as you standpoint there are no conflicts with the existing uses because we've got a childcare and a church use that occur during the day and we've got a building this houses a union office and a child service facility as well as the church. those uses don't conflict with very limited conflict. the other issue is significant is the site is set back from the street and also from the you've got a large site almost 24 feet and people working and living in the neighborhoods are unlikely aware of the homeless shelter because a lot of the it's happens after work. we're asking you for the entitlement. the r

i want to make sure i recognize mr. sanchez who did a aspire job. mr. sanchez was able to move this to your calendar in 3 months. i want to give a brief overview of the project. we've got 57 business of male adult shelter. we're adding within the same building 24 beds targeted for lgbt folks. the hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and dole's of the street arthur services about talk about the operations so you'll get a better feel. first floor fro the land as you standpoint there are no conflicts with the existing uses because we've got a childcare and a church use that occur during the day and we've got a building this houses a union office and a child service facility as well as the church. those uses don't conflict with very limited conflict. the other issue is significant is the site is set back from the street and also from the rear. you've got a large site almost 24 feet and people working and living in the neighborhoods are unlikely aware of the homeless shelter because a lot of the it's happens after work. we're asking you for the entitlement.

mr. sanchez received a copy of it. if it pleases president hwang i have level copies for you commissioners. >> tell me what it is again? >> it's the affidavit that states i phillip being sworn stated under penalty to perjury as follows. i over see the real estate for all jack's stores. it's part of my responsibility and writing of all stores. at this time there is 10 jack spade retail stores. at this time we have neither written nor signed any loi's. we have no -- apparent signed leases. at the completion of the store in san francisco, we'll be operating a total of 11 jack spade stores in the united states. sworn before in connecticut this morning we have the documents from the zoning administrator. >> did it say sworn under penalty of perjury? >> yes. >> i don't need it. you read it. >> so, all the arguments about the similar features that's out the window. you need 11 existing stores plus two features. that's the law. it's not two features, three features, four features, it's 11, plus two. so we heard from the pell a

mr. sanchez? >> thank you, good evening, scott sanchez planning department, the property is within our zone district. the property includes a horizontal addition to the building. the building application was submitted on june 19, 2012, and went through notification from august 2012 and september of 2012, there are no discretionary reviews filed as noted made it pop out at the rear slightly smaller and we reviewed an approved that early whier this year. the permit was subsequently issued and an appealed to this board. the board does require with the planning code section 126 c 125. that pop out can be 12 feet into the rear yard, no higher than 10 feet to the roof of that structure. and it can be the full width of the lot or you can set it back 5 feet from each of the side property lines and go to 2 stories. what they are doing is the smaller version, the shorter version which they can go to the full lot with the revision to move it away from the side property line is something they did, not a requi

. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, good evening, scott sanchez planning department, the reasons in the brief for supporting the executive director's determination not to appeal the filing of appeals 295 determinations and planning code 295 does not contain any appeal language in it that will allow an appeal to the board and it is not a permit it is not a license, it does not allow construction, and so, having a determination and section 295, does not allow one to go out and construct a building of this height, of course a building application needs to be sought and received in order to have that happen, there will be a subsequent building permit application on this and also a 309 application that will be up for appeal shortly after this item. with that i am available for any reasons, questions. >> i believe that the appellant referred to the determination as the equivalent as an entitlement. >> that is not the case, it will not allow someone to construct the project, to a license or a permit that dates ba

. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, good evening, scott sanchez planning department, the reasons in the brief for supporting the executive director's determination not to appeal the filing of appeals 295 determinations and planning code 295 does not contain any appeal language in it that will allow an appeal to the board and it is not a permit it is not a license, it does not allow construction, and so, having a determination and section 295, does not allow one to go out and construct a building of this height, of course a building application needs to be sought and received in order to have that happen, there will be a subsequent building permit application on this and also a 309 application that will be up for appeal shortly after this item. with that i am available for any reasons, questions. >> i believe that the apellant referred to the determination as the equivalent as an entitlement. >> that is not the case, it will not allow someone to construct the project, to a license or a permit that dates bac

. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. the case was reviewed in 2012. it was not issued until april 18th of this year. there was a block notations request submitted by the requesters and that was received by june 4. th. at the time we reviewed and approved this permit it was before the cbn was permitted. it requires no notification under the planning code. the jury's requester. when that i would turn it over to chief inspector. >> before you leave, mr. sanchez, the definition of a structural addition that triggers a planning code notification requirement, this does not conform to that in your opinion? >> that's correct. the work that is being done under this permitted is what we would view and repair or maintenance does not expand the building envelope. most building expansion are triggers of use on notice of section 311. it was sent to the planning department because the building given it's age there was resource and exterior changes because of the changes to the bay side windows. >> mr. greko. >> good evening. anthony greko. this building was applied

mr. sanchez received a copy of it. if it pleases president hwang i have level copies for you commissioners. >> tell me what it is again? >> it's the affidavit that states i phillip being sworn stated under penalty to perjury as follows. i over see the real estate for all jack's stores. it's part of my responsibility and writing of all stores. at this time there is 10 jack spade retail stores. at this time we have neither written nor signed any loi's. we have no -- apparent signed leases. at the completion of the store in san francisco, we'll be operating a total of 11 jack spade stores in the

mr. sanchez received a copy of it. if it pleases president hwang i have level copies for you commissioners. >> tell me what it is again? >> it's the affidavit that states i phillip being sworn stated under penalty to perjury as follows. i over see the real estate for all jack's stores. it's part of my responsibility and writing of all stores. at this time there is 10 jack spade retail stores. at this time we have neither written nor signed any loi's. we have no -- apparent signed leases. at the completion of the store in san francisco, we'll be operating a total of 11 jack spade stores in the united states. sworn before in connecticut this morning we have the documents from the zoning administrator. >> did it say sworn under penalty of perjury? >> yes. >> i don't need it. you read it. >> so, all the arguments about the similar features that's out the window. you need 11 existing stores plus two features. that's the law. it's not two features, three features, four features, it's

mr. sanchez received a copy of it. if it pleases president hwang i have level copies for you commissioners. >> tell me what it is again? >> it's the affidavit that states i phillip being sworn stated under penalty to perjury as follows. i over see the real estate for all jack's stores. it's part of my responsibility and writing of all stores. at this time there is 10 jack spade retail stores. at this time we have neither written nor signed any loi's. we have no -- apparent signed leases. at the completion of the store in san francisco, we'll be operating a total of 11 jack spade stores in the united states. sworn before in connecticut this morning we have the documents from the zoning administrator. >> did it say sworn under penalty of perjury? >> yes. >> i don't need it. you read it. >> so, all the arguments about the similar features that's out the window. you need 11 existing stores plus two features. that's the law. it's not two features, three features, four

>> mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department and does commissioner fung have a long history of the board of appeals dating back 7 years and previous issues related to a fire escape which was proposed to be added to the building and concerns about impacts on the potential historic resource here and it has been addressed and they have given a new fire escape that was appropriate and what is at issue here is a revision permit and the revision permit was not routed to the planning department and there is a block and notification request on the property that has been in place since early june. the revisional permit that this permit revises, was submitted last october and issued this last april on april 18th. and that permit was to repair the basement and frame and replace the basement and it was routed to the planning department to review and we review ited and approved it and our approval was from october. and so, we that permit again was issued and this permit is a revision a

. >> have a seat, mr. sanchez. >> why don't we go to your office? >> well, my office is too small for the two of us. why don't we sit here. >> you know what? do what you want. whatever the [ bleep ] you want. i don't give a [ bleep ]. i say you're wrong. >> mr. sanchez, you know me. i've been here for 15 years. you know me. why are you talking to me -- >> do what you've got to do. >> okay? >> do what you've got to do. >> i'll tell you what i'm going i'm gonna sit over here, right next to you. together. we're going to go over this together. on august 20th of '06, you were placed interim level vi. in the policy, when you're placed interim level vi. >> what was i placed there for? >> this is the one where you assaulted that guy. were you in med-line or something like that? yeah, med-line. >> he had it coming. so this one has to be consecutive to the seg time you were doing here. it was, wasn't it? >> no. it's concurrent. >> no. policy says segregation is consecutive. this is my biggest concern, is this right here. is you're talking about 74 days. that'

. >> mr. sanchez. thank you, scott sanchez, the planning department and i will be briefed on the item, the application was submitted on january 23rd last year of 2012 and it is for a horizontal addition of the front of the budget building and it underwent section 311 notification for november first to december first during that time, the neighbor did contact planning department and stated the concerns and many of those concerns and the planning reported they were all related to more activities and there were a list of concerns that included the concerns about the park vehicles and the construction schedule and nothing that would rise to a level of requiring a discretionary review and addressing anything in the planning code. and they said that they were in support on the pro-yekt project. more related to the concerns of the construction and those are not in the purview of the planning department and not appropriate to have those matters at a planning commission hearing and those appropriate to resolve