for them and they give them statements to support them before the planning commission and the board of appeals. why a are the planning and building officials willing to be part of these activities? if you don't do anything, you will get nothing. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we have five adjacent properties that surround us. the owners of three of these properties use the same expediter and architect. one of them was able to build an addition that exceeds the height limit without a permit. this requires a notification.

the zoning administrator ignored his own staff and did nothing. the owner of the second property submitted false plans and claimed that they had an existing gargar-- garage. they claim that they were not excavating 250 cubic feet of soil. an inspection revealed that the garage did not exist but they are activating over 1000 cubic feet of soil. the owner of the third property submitted 11 rescissions' of false plans and they were looking to legalize an illegal debt -- 11 revisions of false

plans and they were looking to legalize an illegal deck. the zoning administrator of granted a variance. we have proven many of their false statements at the public hearings and the staff was left speechless. in justice still prevailed. you three ladies are lawyers, officers of the court. don't you think that your decisions have been influenced by their plans and decisions? they have violated our constitutional rights by withholding talking -- documents. don't you believe that your decisions are inaccurate and unfair and unjust to the public? you should not support illegal and false statements. thank you. >> is any other public comment

under this item? seeing none, we will move to item number two. seeing 9, we move to item number three, the adoption of minutes. before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of july 14th, 2010. commissioners, any comments? >> i move to adopt the minutes of the july 14th, 2010 meeting. >> is there any public comment on the minutes? >> on that motion, -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> thank you, and the vote is 5- 0. >> please call item number 4-8. -- 4-a. >> this is a jurisdiction request, no suspect -- no specific subject property in fault. this is a letter from clary sage organics, requesting that of the board take jurisdiction over a letter of determination by the zoning administrator regarding the "athleta" brand of clothing and the formula used classification under the planning code. >> please step forward if this

is what you have requested. >> thank you, good afternoon. i am the general manager of clary sage organics. on behalf of our business and the merchants association, we would like to summarize our request. on march 18th, mr. abrams requested a letter of determination regarding the retail store and there was no letter associated. the zoning administrator issued a determination that this letter would not be considered as a formula retail designation as there are no other of these businesses in the u.s.. we learned that they were interested in the junior league store located across the street from our business. as detailed, this set in motion a series of conversations in

conjunction with the plan department and the merchants association. in response to our request, mr. abrams has argued that we have not argued of the letter of the termination within the 14 days that were allowed. there was no address the sensitive with the request so we would not have any idea that would be relevant to our neighborhood. in looking at attachment one, all of the letters of the termination submitted in 2001 have letters associated it. there is no way that we would know that the letter of the termination what impact us. this was -- we actually did pursue action after we learned of the letter within 14 days of our knowledge. our hope is that "athleta" would find a different space. we did not know that we could

file a jurisdiction request until we were told that we could go to the board of appeals. we did submit to this within 15 days of running this was an option. we rely on the stated intent of the code and a basic notion of fairness. the stated code is to preserve the diversity and distinct nature of the san francisco neighborhoods. when a major corporation with like to open a new store, we believe the strategic intent should be considered. gap inc owns three brands that are considered a form of a retail use. -- formula retail use. there should be additional scrutiny of this brand and others that are owned by major corporations. the lack of notice it eliminates any bylaw with local businesses

and associations. this effectively precludes businesses from knowing that they have an issue. >> thank you. >> now we can hear from mr. abrams. >> at good evening. we are here to risk west that the board the 90 request because it -- that the board denied the request because we legally notified everyone. even if this board determines that the jury of the occasion

was correct but -- could not have known about letter because of the notice situation, we still feel that it would be on sale -- unfair to grant the jurisdiction request because the appeal was not timely filed after there was notification of the existence of the letter or the store being planned. given the circumstances, it would be unfair if you grant the jurisdiction request because we think that there are other and more corporate forms for this to be considered, for example the planning commission. -- appropriate places for this to be considered. the planning commission has tried authority to discuss the appropriateness of land uses.

also amendments to the planning code, if there's a decision or a letter of the termination or the definition of formula retail is not appropriate. turning to the record, as was indicated, the letter of the termination was issued on april 8th. at that point, we had no lease on fillmore street. we were looking for places to rent throughout the city. the request was made. we understood our legal rights and the legal position. the record shows that -- became aware on may 12th. two days later, she was made aware of the fact that you could make a request for any activity of the property. she was aware of where the property was located, the procedures that you are allowed

to do such as filing a notification request. that was not filed until three weeks later. there was a three-week wait. the planning department notified her of a letter of the termination. she was notified of the letter of the termination. -- determination. thank you. >> is there any public information on either the business plan or the business model? >> no, there's not. >> we probably have two more questions. >> you have mentioned she became

aware of the letter of the termination. >> she became aware of the location of the store on may 12th. two days later, getting notified of the letter of determination. june 7th, she was provided with the letter. the appeal was not filed for three weeks. >> on june 7th, she became aware of the letter or she received the letter? >> she received a letter in an e-mail from the planning department on june 7th. >> thank you. >> council, so you referenced letter from the planning department and it mentions that you can appeal this within 15 days. >> it does. >> there is no notice about a

concerned neighbor filing an appeal at that stage of the game. >> i think if i was a merchant and interested in retail in particular and i became aware of about a letter that allows you to file a determination, it would have been appropriate and reasonable to file an appeal. there seems to be the strong feeling that the company does not -- does represent for miller retail. it would of been a brit to have an inquiry at that point. she knew where the store would be located. on june 7th, when she actually had the letter, she said there was a two-week appeal. . -- there was a two-week appeal

period. >> by april 8th, did your client know where -- >> no, they did not. >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> thank you, good afternoon. the letter of determination was initially filed in march of 2010. it was filed in february of 2010. no notification is required for a letter of determination. this did not address a specific property. there is no requirement that this address a specific property. at the time, they simply indicated what the business was, how it would operate, and whether or not it would be considered for a retail use. this is not a requirement, this

is something that they did voluntarily to get a response from the department. the proper way of addressing this would be a discretionary review. as was noted, this was filed by a representative of the appellant. the building permit to invoke this use is not a formula retail use. the permit was submitted in july 1st. july 7th, we sent out the notation to someone affiliated with the request. no discretionary review request was filed during the time. the change of use request was filed to the concerned parties.

the person who requested this can explain why that happened. i would be happy to go into why this is not a form of a retail use. they only had one other store, not 11 or more. this was an independent company purchased by gap in 2008. looking at some of the materials available on line, if you purchase something online from the store, you cannot return it to a gap store. we see this as a different type of operation. the determi