mr. scott sanchez to discuss the implementation to date. >> thank you, supervisors for having us here scott sanchez zoning administrator begin with a few of the basic requirement for the short-term rental regulatory first, they are the resident at 345ur9 unit and below 345ur9sdz units allow are eligible for the program they have to have a business registration certificate evidence of liability insurance no violations on the protein and only one that can be registered not a city requirement any tenants insure their legal use for short-term rental now the process for the legislation the completion of the applicant on website since january they must meet the requirement and complete the application and retain the form by the tax collectors i appreciate their help with this item and also once that has been received they can make on appointment for registration with the planning department we'll be xefrpts with drop in that appointment no appointment needed a drop in time on march 18 in the early afternoon details available on the website at this time they will submit the application and the $50

mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez adapting the record is clear we have a non-conforming use the zoning administrator loud this to continue knowing it was a garage for any reason repairs minor in the domestic violence of the planning code and major will complied the spray booth they're seeking to legalize this is a residential zoning district the zone explicit allow for major auto repair we're denied the permit the record is clear the planning department may not have the complaints but there's a long history of compliments on the property and the brief that was submitted by itself neighbors exhibit e the fire department in 1994 stating that they were no permits for operation of that during the routine inspection the inspection was seeing that was used a second violation was issued and ordered them to stop that's an explanation why they've not been a long history of the planning department over the years there's been orders to not operate that spray booth without permits the complaint are appearing on our record in 2012 there was a change in the operation that was a complaint and a year ago another co

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening scott sanchez planning staff with a rh3 up to 3 dwelling units under initial review of our electronic records we're report i see a appropriate printout of is an unknown so no conclusion whether permits there was one in 2004 for roofing that is unreliable and the permit which is before you to remove the illegal unit that notes the number of units as two, that said the san born records to indicate two units the building construction date in our database says 19 hundred it is unknown because probable constructed around the earthquake and those records may have been lost in under the code certainly up to 3 twnlz of it was at the maximum decency it allows for the process code requirements can be waived so information i wanted to provide for the board no open enforcement case for this property i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> photo of the kitchen it looks like it was in the 60s or 70s. >> yes. and the current zoning density allows that unit - >> we're not sure how many unit are there. >>

mr. sanchez about that. >> that's fine but what is shown there is the code would have allowed as buildable area. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. >> okay. we can hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department i'll be brief just to address two points before going to the questions there maybe just the reiterate the development pattern of the block it is distinct the properties up front on lake street are in the detached district the properties to the south in the rh1 that has minimal lot requirements that's why you see a distinct property between those and the subject property the reiterate the immediate adjacent structures both of the property to the east and to the west have at single-family home nestled in the property so i'm available to answer questions. >> would you speak to that design if, in fact that is buildable i guess i'm confused what that means is there building code that allows them to do something they're not doing. >> on the overhead the full potential your moinz our 15 set back and your minimum set back and the blue shaded area is simply under the building code. >> not taking a look at the historic residential. >> or the residential guidelines th

mr. sanchez. >> good evening scott sanchez planning staff i think some of the history of the project has been acted this is an rh2 with the zoning district the parcel maps have been revised because of the shape and size and configuration also topographic it is a angle lot up and above or higher than the appellants protein as well as towards the rear this property plays into it the previous variance that authorized a larger envelope than what we have before you today that was never pursued a building permit that was received to start construction so that has expired and within the project was resubmitted we have a different process for reviewing the residential guidelines with the grade level consistent and we have concerns about the variants one of the things i'll note the planned that reflected the commission and my decision son the variants i don't think that which is put on this screen by the appellant it can be found in exhibit d of the permit holders brief so make sure the changes from the previous plan to the neighborhood notification we have a group form and short depth i think there's been

mr. sanchez. >> good evening scott sanchez planning department so the subject property on 2825 located within a rh1 a detached zoning district the subject lot is 67 to 75 feet with a shaped lot and 80 feet wide approximately it was constructed in 1921 open the san born map it is a different pattern of development those lots are located within an rh1 district so the district didn't have the detached the neighborhood notice was performed about a year ago last february and mark 3 discretionary review two from the vanity from the east and west on lake street and 1 from 30th avenue we had a joint discretionary review and variance hearing on the item with the planning commission only june 19th at that time the dr requesters one of the main concerns related to the third-story the removal of the they'll and looking at alternative to build they front of the property the reasons our preservation staff has received this with the vertical addition of the front building wall and found it not compatible with the historic district it is trauma this is not the main district by done the complete survey ceqa ask

mr. sanchez can discuss the zoning here because this - >> thank you scott sanchez planning department the subject project is within rh2 that allows the dwelling units it show the legal use but our assumes and dbi sites this is a two unit building not automatically to convert to the process to authorize that. >> i think at the time that was a discussion whether an additional in the rear or some of the things so i'm assuming that they refile to make it two units there maybe a 311 requirement. >> if they do expansion of the building envelope the section two envelope is required but restoring back to the envelope expansion that will not require notice. >> if it didn't i recommend your staff do their neighborhood meeting very well. >> certainly and the preapplication process the community meeting is only required if certain circumstances depending on the scapegoat of the status of permits they're on our website sf planning.org. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> a continuance. >> continued to when. >> i'll recommend a date in may the 13th a genus amount of time and the appeal can be

mr. sanchez burglary address the board. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and members of the board scott sanchez following the hearings we had a meet at our office of planning department two hours of discussion we ultimately came to with a compromise solution that all parties seem willing to accept i believe this is in xhifrps with the direction at the oriental meeting and the project manager engineer will present the details but in that sense the two story is moved forward to be in alignment with the rear yard there's a small encroachment on the side opposite the side stairs the roof of this area is sloped and not have a deck so this is something since we have a commodity solution the parties are willing to accept the plans were circulated to the parties march 25, 2015 today's date some minor kind of adjustments made to the plan so the parties have those plans and have initialed to note those changes so with that i'll let the parties present and i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> i think we can hear from the project sponsors first. >> commissioners santos structural engineer from

mr. sanchez. >> we haven't heard from the - sorry. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department the significant property is an rh2 zoning district a two family residential district the property was previously located in a c-2 commercial district in the 60 downed zoned e zoned to a residential zoning will district consequently to the rezoning in 1978 the automobile repair garage is a legal non-existing use and from 1970 it was opined about the uses that are considered here they stated to that state had been allowed to operate as a mirror repair garage from the codes and stated that those minor uses will be allowed that explicitly prohibits the major auto repair under g-22 i is the provision that allows you to have a spray booth by converting and trying to legalize the spray booth will be the eye 40 from a minor to a john automobile use this is prohibited so based on those reasons the planning department did deny the permit the permit holder states to the facility that is there now has a manufacturers of 1975 that's years after the determination and that determination is exhibit b of the brief th

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening commissioner president lazarus and members of the board live scott sanchez planning department position remains the same the permit was issued the permit should be denied and do the proper process consistent with the commissions decision when we had a discretionary review in light of the decision at the last hearing the possible outcomes i've prepared a revocation inspection should the board deny the request we'll seek the building inspection get a permit this would add more process moving forward because our request to revoke it will be appealable and there's an appeal process without revocation moving forward certainly in the board denies this permit gichlg the ability to correct the permit that is the most straightforward decision we'll request that i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> mr. duffy anything no any public comment on this item? seeing none commissioners the matter is submitted. >> my position remains the same the rules for rehearing are clear up new information needs to be brought forward i believe we ruled on similar case this is unjust and my feeling to de

mr. pacheco and i'm sdng the boards director we have departments with cases before the board scott sanchez is representing the planning commission and planning department and explain if you would at this point go over the board guidelines and please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to tes

mr. pacheco and i'm sdng the boards director we have departments with cases before the board scott sanchez is

there you go >> scott sanchez planning department we have an f a q on the website that outlines the process. >> okay supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. chair i want to and again, thank you to the members of the public who come out to speak and actually that this is unfortunate in some rights it actually problematic of what is happening here that there are no representatives from the hosting platforms that are here regarding the enforcement of this law they're absent speaks vitamins and that's very unfortunate i want to go back to planning going back to the issue of the data that you have requested of hosting platforms you was wondering if you had a list if you can describe what that data is so we are aware of that. >> thank you, supervisor so if the ordinance were to the amended to remove the distinction between hosted and non-hosted and require platforms to provide a platform number and only list the numbers essentially the numbers we need to enforcement a listing the registration number and the number of nights that have's or hesitate an represented that is the enforcement concerns under the current legislation we would need a muc