mr. scott sanchez on the form. it just does not make sense to us that we were trying to build a 37 by 20 -- the 38 by 28 by 38 foot tall building and we were denied. now someone is trying to build a 47 by 25 by 40 foot tall building and they are being granted. it does not make any sense to us. we know they could build a smaller building. >> i think you will have time in their rebuttal. let us hear from the other side. commissioner hwang: i want you to put on the overhead the 2001 decision by scott sanchez. >> here is the front of the thing. commissioner hwang: does it say his name on it? ok. >> that is the front of the region commissioner hwang: ok. can you pull it down a little bit? i do not see it. oh, i see. >> here is scott sanchez's name. here is the front. commissioner fung: who set the sales prospects -- sales price? >> the sale price for the lot or the house? commissioner fung: the only thing sold was the lot. >> you mean when we sold the lot to them? it was a broker that we had. commissioner fung: but who

mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez, planning department. i do not think there is anything in the record that warrants a rehearing. i think all the issues were addressed accurately at the two appeal hearings this board had in the item. there was also a discretionary rehearing before the planning commission. all the issues have been thoroughly vetted. i do not see how the arguments are directly related to the item on appeal before you. the issue of how it was raised. that is a residential plan guideline issue that should be addressed to the building permit, which would also be appealable to this body. we cannot approve it until the final action is taken on the variance. that would encompass the entire project. i am available for questions. president peterson: public comment on this item? >> how much time did you want to give for public comment? one minute per speaker? >> i am in the community. my children attend school near the open space. the open space -- i am very familiar with it. this is an area with views that are unparalleled in the ci

mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez, planning department. just to reiterate again, there are two issues that have been raised by the appellants -- whether or not the project is code complying. using their arguments would change how we review mcds in san francisco. if we were to consider child care facilities, which are a separate definition in the planning code -- and we do have many definitions in the planning code. it would be common to refer to one definition for one use and another for a different use. the important thing we look at is how we would process the application. the chapter facility we will process as a child care facility in planning code. we will not process it as something else. we will not process it as a social service. i think that is an important part to make. this is a code compliant project. we did review it against the requirements of the planning code for the 1,000 foot requirement. we did not find that there were any facilities with of the defis that are prohibited in the code. in reference to the error in the code

mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department's staff. this evening i am lucky to be joined by the planner, who is involved and the legislation that led up to the requirements that we have, developed in 2005. if there are issues about the intent, it maybe he can address those. there were questions that came up during the testimony. i will jump around a little bit. bear with me. i want to begin with a procedural background of the application. the property is located at 2139 taraval street, between 31st and 32nd streets. the building is a mixed use building, built in 1924. that has a small retail presence at the front, and that is where the subject mcd would be located. it has one dwelling unit at the rear. bmc -- the mc-2 zoning district is principally permitted use. people like to throw around the term as of rights. there is a discretionary review, of course. the subject application, the bill to permit application was submitted at the end of december of last year. they submitted through the review process and the planning commission heard

mr. sanchez. >> good afternoon, president peterson, members of the board. scott sanchez, planning department. the academy argues there is a lack of justice to the students, that they have illegally moved into the subject building. this is not the first building the academy has acquired and converted without benefit of permit. this is just one of the most recent ones. as mentioned in the last hearing, the department has taken an approach to this. properties that were acquired and converted before they had their environmental impact -- we are allowing them to go to the process. those which were applied afterwards -- no one can say they did not have do notice. they knew very well the could not acquire a property and conferred it without going through this process. the acquired the property last year, moved students in. they did give the courtesy to the planning commission of sending a letter that there were going to do this, but they did not require -- they did not apply for acquired permits. their attorney has said the building does not represent a health and safety hazard. that is not because

mr. chao. >> good afternoon, president peterson, members of the board. scott sanchez, planning department. thank you for your kind comments. i look forward to coming to appear before this board and will endeavor to continue coming here. on the matter before you, the jurisdiction request, here is a timeline of events that might help where we are and how we got here. at the end of march, we received a complaint that ike's was operating illegally a self- service restaurant. we issued an enforcement notification at the end of april, april 21. during may, the project sponsor, i, made contact with the department, discuss possible solutions. in may, there were thinking about relocating to a new location. the submited a conditional use operation in september to try to legalize it in place. two days after that, our department staff realized the authorization form did not have the honor as authorizing it. it turned out to be the leaseholder, not the one who owned the larger commercial lease. he was subleasing it to a ikes place. the owner did not authorize a conditional use authorization. in the mid

we also have secretary pache co, scott sanchez, the zoning administrator, laurence kornfield, carla short, with the department of urban forestry. at this time, mr. pacheco, if you could go over the guidelines? >> the board asks that you turn off all of your cell phones said they do not disturb the proceedings. please carry on all conversations in the hallway. each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for a bottle. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within the three-minute or seven-minute period. those not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate presentation of minutes, members of the public wishing to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or a business card to board staff when you come up to the lectern. speaker cards and pans are available to the left side of the podium behind the board also welcomes your comments and questions. there are customer satisfaction forms on the left side of the podium, as well. if you of questions about a rehearing or board rules, please speak to board staff dur