mr. sanchez i'm curious about the following. in terms of you're thinking when you made the determination that the name change made it non-formula retail and therefore you realized the permit because when you brought up the paper which was an announcement type of thing one would expect even though there's a name change the checking account is the same and corporation is the same those things would have stayed the same regardless of the name change that is at the physical facility >> they represented they'll operate as the castro pharmacy. >> not separate this is. >> yes castro pharmacy we didn't see castro represented by the h s fireman or pharmacy they were going to operate under the castro pharmacy no representation made they'd operate under an umbrella or h f and identify with them and in the previous hearing there was concerns it's born out through the process if we go out and find they're having the color schemes we'll find those things down the road but they submitted an affidavit they'll operated at castro pharmacy that's

mr. sanchez. >> one question are through two or one permit we split that up in march. >> there's one that proposes a pharmacy at the front and a medical at the rear and the board want the suspension were to remain from effect for the pharmacy but would be released for the rear for the medical service because it didn't exceed 2 thousand square feet so i get the sense that the board is trying to do again kind of release the suspension with with regards to the medical part but not the pharmacy because of the conditional use is needed. >> actually mr. sanchez your statements earlier were that that decision was final. >> that decision was final but as part of the decision it directed the zoning administrator to issue another letter real estate the suspension which is itself appealable so this was part of the boards written decision on that matter and - and they were not allowed to pursue a permit for doing work for the medical services portion. >> correct because once i released the suspension it was appealed again. >> right. >> if it's not final if it's subject to the interim controls mr. bry

mr. sanchez said it 2340i9s typical i don't think mr. sanchez stated you don't normally see the stand alone type of permit without the benefit of a building or permit to accommodate a removal of a unit. >> in this case it would be issued in error it will change the usage that requires another permit. >> the city attorney if this permit was taken out for the permitting use it's part of the process but you need the building permit with it. >> by removing the stove it changes usage. >> no. >> no that is . >> what was the use. >> removing something that the building code requires then, of course, it would be chang the use. >> okay. >> a stove does not set that condition. >> yes. we don't know what the use is we know it's a 94 permit for the space on behalf of it was the top floor being used for a commercial use and conferred back to a residential use there's nothing it on the building permit that told us what the use is. >> okay. thank you. you know what we have the housing inspection services with the open complaint maybe let them do their i

mr. sanchez. >> i have a question mr. sanchez so if planning would like to know what's going to happen to the space how it is affected when the space is modified through a nonbuilding permit or a permit that is not a are planning permit how can you become aware of a space where it's currently habitualable. >> i agree with mr. duffy they should have filed a permit with plans to document this this is typically how people deal with something like that and most instances an illegal unit is being removed and appealed to the board it's - we have electrical or plumbing permits i think as most cases there's a building permit so i think i don't buy the permit holders agreement this building permit is all they need. >> thanks. >> thank you. so we can take any public comment on item 7 the plumbing permit on polk street any public comment on that item? okay. seeing none we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellant mr. crow. you have 3 minutes. >> clearly i don't have much more to add given the testimony of the building inspection a

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening scott sanchez planning staff. i think this project has come a long way in the year and a half since submitted and underwent the neighborhood notification last fall the discretionary review was filed additionally as a may or may not discretionary review because of the property but the planning commission heard this and did not take discretionary review regretfully i was at the hearing but had to leave so director ram was acting da on the item but subject to that the project sponsor heard the concerns in other words, to the elements that were part of the variance as well so the revisions were suggested to the department things they will do to accommodate those concerns. and staff thought it was supportable and reviewed them and thought they remember positive changes to the project and ultimately john ram signed off on the letter it has 3 part variance with the rear yard and street variance facade i'm glad to hear the issues are not so much the issues or observations to the revised plans but rather it seems like addi

mr. sanchez to come up. >> good afternoon mr. sanchez i'll keep my comments brief for the proposed ordinance that changes the zoning for the june 12th is approved at 7 zero under the consent calendar that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> so unless there's other presentations i was going to make two technical amendments and can do them after public comment. >> why not start with public comment. >> my public comment on items 3, 4, 5 seeing none, public comment is closed. >> great colleagues, i have two technical edits on page one line four to respect this with mc t dash 3. i don't know how to - >> it is 385 dash x i couldn't think of the term and the second technical term on page 4 line 1 to strike through the word and put in highway one to the west those are technical words to make it clear. >> so supervisor kim has proposed amendments she's described we'll without objection the amendments are adapted. >> i want to forward item 3 with recommendation and 4 to 5 without recommendation with a hearing date that

mr. sanchez do you want him to speak for broadly or take public comment. >> i'd like to have him address one issue. >> thank you scott sanchez i promise to be brief. but i think it's clear from the record and the recommendations made by the permit holder at the time the permit was issued in error this was, in fact, a formula retail and after the hearing that we had here on the suspension we argued that again, it was formula retail use they did make changes to no longer be a formula retail it was changed in pharmacy to castro pharmacy that's not a formula retail i agree the changes they removed the formula retail defining features and we realized the suspension at the last hearing on this matter i pointed out that's the building application holder it's not a formula retail use. as noted by the council this matter is suspended so it's really before the board to consider is that a formula retail that's why what you asked him to give more information to prove there were not a formula retail since that time the information has become available submitted with the appellants brief they showed a

mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning staff. just briefly that notification pursuant to section 311 is not for the decks in general they don't require notification has this board knows we have many roof detentions brought before this board if they were adding agree staircase to provide a deck that would say an expansion that requires neighborhood notification or the portion of the roof-deck was above the rear yard or set back and this deck is not within a set back so didn't require notification and would confirm that the open railing or glass railing would be allowable under the code and this would be appeal able to the board but confirming no neighborhood notice is required and there was a deck and non-non-compliance portion of the building in this event is it is only for the adjacent building it would be been the jurisdiction requester that would have gotten a notice for request >> mr. duffy. good afternoon joe duffey. the permit seems to have been applied for adequately and it was applied for the building it says on here to c

mr. sanchez the bright orange notices should be efficient to attract aforementioned. >> move to deny the jurisdiction request. >> okay. if you could cail roll. please mr. pacheco >> we have o another motion from the vice president to deny the jurisdiction request. commissioner fung. commissioner president lazarus. commissioner honda is absent the vote is 3 to zero no appeal should be filed against this permit >> next 5 the property at broderick street we got a letter requesters asking the board take jurisdiction over the application which is issued by the department of building inspection on april 29, 2014, the appeal ended and this was filed on august 4, 2014, it is a new roof-deck replacing the new wood railings and a collapsing deck. we can hear from the requesters first. you have 3 minutes. >> hello good afternoon. i'm josh representing myself and the other requesters. we're asking for the opportunity for this jurisdiction request be granted an opportunity to appeal this building permit an opportunity we never had. during the time the appeal was possible the two points we were never

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning staff. the subject property is within an rh1 zoning district a single-family district it was submitted in january of 2013 it underwent the notification of neighbors of 2013 during the discretionary review request was filed it was harder on january 16th and unanimously upheld the project. after the filing 69 discretionary review request the subject application the project sponsor rice the proposal and tied to address the concerns raised by i dr requester it was a vertical addition and it was reduced the impacts as noted in the appeal during the comments by the appellant there are no issues related to the project itself but rather the status of existing building and what work may have been define to make the exterior modifications based on on the psychologically of work raised by the appellant no one would have triggered the report to reconfigure the existing kitchens and bedroom that would not have been an issue but we wouldn't want to see not having a permit they've received complaints but u

mr. sanchez.s concern that he didn't have a place to parole and he was short. >> short? >> short to the door, meaning his release date was fast approaching. and so i told him that i would get him some applications for places in albuquerque. i brought you some applications like we talked a couple weeks ago in places for preparation for parole back to albuquerque. and your release date is -- >> july 1st. >> july 1st. >> that's all i'm waiting for. >> okay. so no more disciplinary. >> there's something in my heart that's just saying that something -- i'm not going to end up going that day. i don't know why. but i just sense it. i wonder if you can give them a ring on the phone, you know. >> yes, i'll follow up. >> can you push this, you know? let's get this approved so i can have that, all right, sanchez, you're approved. >> well, i can get the wheels rolling to make sure nothing happens that will delay you. >> i know something's going to happen. >> we'll do some follow-up for him to make sure that e

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's a large chunk of change for you, my friend. a large chunk. >> can you give me a positive out-date? i just want a positive -- i know it's not going to be no cinco de mayo now, but it will be in may, won't it? >> off the top of my head, i came up with the firs

mr. sanchez when were those drs filed by community. >> one was filed yesterday the notice was issued in early july and expired yesterday one was filed yesterday and one a if you weeks ago in july but an ongoing project for years the neighborhood has been concerned about it and complaints on the property that led to this matter. >> in view of the fact this project has been around i'll move to continue to the 18 for items one and two. >> item 2 is a different date and item 2 is october 9th. >> oh, october 9th i'm sorry. my motion to continue item one until september 18th and two to october 7, 8, 9 >> you commissioner sugaya because commissioner fong has been recused can we have two months ago. >> let's do item one my proposal to september 18th. >> second. >> on that motion to continue item 1 to september 18th. councilmember sharp. commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero if we could have a motion for item 2. commissioner antonini >> yeah. i'll propose item 2 to

mr. sanchez has numerous powers granted by did chart and the planning code to interpret every provision of the planning code there's no such requirement in the a.d. audiominute code and the cut-and-paste suggestion that the head of the department of building inspection coma folks get serious. someone needs to interpret every single provision and make sure it works and this is why this should be an amendment to the planning code and the power should northbound the zoning administration not director of building inspection thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm charlie management government affairs for the association the faa represents the property managers in san francisco and the largest source of affordable housing in san francisco. i'm here to strongly obtain to the legislation and urge a no recommendation or at least hear another hearing the vacation rentals they facilitate the illegal rent control housing we're at a time and place it's unconscionable to have the illegal heirs especially, when it takes several units off the market and planning staff has rightfully talked about

. >> i'll go to scott sanchez he runs the enforcement. >> thank you, mr. . >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. so code enforcement has been historically been understaffed it is the lowest staffing one of the staff members is here doing the work in the tenderloins looking the transparency requirement because many of the issues are not the signage issues but what the store front appears can you see inside or boarded you up because of the machines or registers blocking windows looking more beyond the signage but transparency requirements for the code we've been pro-active in the tenderloin >> i've noticed a difference in the stores walking by they've increased the number of signages on their windows but in terms of you have 7 full time code enforcement officers. >> what's the plan. >> more than 13 hundred codes and packages of regulations from thought clubs and massage enforcement and affordable housing we deal with the general building requirements working with the legal construction activities things that may or may not included like the affordab