mr. sanchez referred to the front and back windows. it will be significant to the impact of the light on our property >> we can take rebuttal now from the variance holder. >> i have to admit we're a little bit confused. from the documents from the appellant in the dining room of their document you can see they've basically triangleed this square footage in the front yard their own windows their southerly view would be blocked as would the neighbors it's quite baffleing. we're the 37 percent below in square footage we're not building an huge home he we're truly have stayed within the footprint almost identically and added a modest third floor. regarding one of his exhibits i believe he put in there d or e referring to the overhead? he took a overhead or google to suggest that the house's have a set back. he's only focused on that homes this is is our proposed home that is the appellants home well

mr. sanchez referred to the front and back windows. it will be significant to the impact of the light on our property >> we can take rebuttal now from the variance holder. >> i have to admit we're a little bit confused. from the documents from the appellant in the dining room of their document you can see they've basically triangleed this square footage in the front yard their own windows their southerly view would be blocked as would the neighbors it's quite baffleing. we're the 37 percent below in square footage we're not building an huge home he we're truly have stayed within the footprint almost identically and added a modest

mr. sanchez. did you say that there was an explicit provision in the 2008 legislation for businesses that were already in existence before 2008 as fringe financial services? >> can i have the overhead to show up on 249, it's actually included in. >> we can't see that. why don't you read it? >> okay. thank you. this part of the appellant's brief 249.5 continuing existing prohibited fringe financial, exhibit 2 of appellant's brief and it's referenced to the code section. so any fringe financial service subject to the restrictions setforth continue planning code of section 186 following and when you refer to 186.1 allows for any non-conforming use may allow within that commercial district only upon approval of a new conditional use application with according to the this article 3 code. >> you have rebuttal if you would like to use it. >> i have nothing further to add. >> okay. >> i have trouble in spanish. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> all right. any comments. >> i have a comment. com

mr. sanchez irregularity of the lot is at the two ends. the north and south faces of the building is relatively parallel. did you or your staff discuss a co- compliant? >> i discussed with staff many of the alternatives and they could push out further to the front but again, the building already encroaches into the rear yard so the addition thought you third level - that didn't answer my question. >> i don't believe that staff asked for the alternate. >> how many people are planning to speak? okay. please step forward. first person who wants to speak >> good evening i'm anthony caylee live on terrace and have owned the property for over 40 years. my wife and i raised 2 boys there. and we happen to mention that the block of cliff terrace and upper terrace there's not 23 homelands on it, it's unique and my house has been there since 1915 and the oldest house is 1907. there are two things that certain me. one is the details of the proposed construction which mr. sanchez and the architect have laid out to you and the other pursues by which the

mr. sanchez? >> sure. >> thank you. scott sanchez with the planning department. it's located in the nc 3 zone center with the alcohol restricted use district. the controls of the fringe financial special use district in planning code. to provide a little bit of background very briefly. we received a complaint regarding the establishment about this location in 2011. we sent our first enforcement of this project and we didn't get it until july of 2012 because of backlog. we also received subsequent complaints about permits and we had two separate notices that went out regarding this and change of use location and subsequent to that staff realized this was within the fringe financial special use district which prohibited new establishment and sent enforcement notice says the use with a prohibited. the appellant has stated they tried after that time to discuss with staff the proposal and they have no record of any e-mail or phone calls from the sponsor or the number and lost communication with them in may with someone with lisa who no longer worked with the company.

mr. sanchez. who would like to start? okay. mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez. the plan was not routed for review. however the review in material briefs based on what i saw it appears it did comply with the planning code. we did not review actual plans to confirm that. one of the issues that was raised was whether or not it violated the conditional uses of the project on greenwich and polk street. it was a p ud and conditions of approval. that issue has been raised about easement and building permits for the correct property or not and i would defer to the property building department to discuss issues on that. >> inspector duffy? >> good evening, commissioners. a few things about the permit and the main thing about the permit is that it is under the wrong address. it should have been under 1380 greenwich street based on the property lines even shown on the plans. so, i would say that's the main thing that's wrong with it. the work shown on the plan shows the building code structural review, everything else. a new application is required for the correct address

mr. sanchez. one last question on that. the conditional use process runs with the property; not the business. how does that work. >> the conditional use authorization requires the previous use to be abandoned and so a check cashing space can not relocate at the previous location as part of the planning commission's decision to allow relocation to this establishment because right now, i think other use t previous location no. 3, is my understanding to a converted use so that has effectively been abandoned but the new location has not been legalized through the proper process. they should have gotten a cu when they moved in 2011. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing no public comment we'll start with rebuttal. >> i have listened during the time in here during the interesting exchange with the whole thing regarding non-conforming with the conforming uses. the fact is that the business has been there since 1994 in that neighborhood. no legislation prohibited it. no legisla

mr. sanchez? >> thank you. yes. one that lawfully existed at the time of the legislation went into affect would be allowed to be maintained and would not need a c u. the cu is only triggered when they are changing locations which it refers you to. i think the language under e, it does talk about continuations of existing prohibits fringe financial service uses. it's not saying continuations of permitted financial. >> yes. i think that's the point. if they are principally permitted then they are in non-conforming use. >> i get what you are saying. >> all right. at the risk of complicating this a little further. >> don't. >> i just want to draw your attention to section e 2, e 1 and 2 which suggest perhaps that, well, i should let you read it for yourself. >> like all legislation this is not clear. >> let's read it. >> which my interpretation they meet. >> i would actually like to hear from the appellant since we gave mr. sanchez an opportunity to give his interpretations. >> i certainly agree that that legislation is

mr. sanchez. >> thank you, with the planning department. commissioner fong in response to your question, i could not locate any additional formation -- information from the building permit. both did very clearly indicate that the building permit application was approved by the department as a retail store and actually that was just handed a copy of the original permit. i put it on the overhead which shows the retail store which was on the letter which was approved and what perceived the cfc application. getting into this question about how do we apply sections 780.3 and i believe that a reasonable interpretation is a question that in making this determination in interpreting last use to be the last legal use could possibly be the only legal use as a property retail store and again i have concerns about the implications of having a broad interpretation of last use and think that it could very well encourage people to encourage a legal use something that is not a serving use and it wasn't last occupied by a neighborhood serving use therefore

mr. sanchez >> thank you skovt from the planning department i'll be brief. the property at the 71 b street is located in the zoning district. this is a little bit unlike the other items specifically when we had a dr commission we had properties that are subject to the residential guidelines but this is a residential side it abuts to the nc zoning district and to the west is the c-2 zoning district continues on. so there is no notification required from the neighborhood of the project. we have cases from 2006 but the planning zoning heard a declaration from another previous project and i believe at this point there was an denial from the board on that project. and the building permit that was - in 2010 the building permit was submitted and we reviewed the permit and held the mandatory discretionary review and the hearing commission approved the building permit application so we find it meets with the guidelines and find the design to be appropriate. i would note in terms of that have the 3 story to the 4 story building code issue i believe there is reference

mr. sanchez. >> as mr. sanchez approaches i would ask the people on the right side of the room to take a seat we have to keep that area open it is part of the fair code requirements. >> mr. sanchez? >> planning. >> so, as argued by the appellant, there is a concern here that there is a defacto, demolition going on and the article that was cited to by the appellant and someone who from the public quotes the developer and the permit holder project sponsor as finding a way to get around the demolition. it seems to me, you know, how often are you seeing this... does this type of project notwithstanding the technical position that you are taking here, smack of a way to circomvent the 317 requirements? >> certainly when you have a rule or a requirement that sets a threshold for additional burden that designers will design to meet that threshold. and so wherever the bar is placed that is where one will design to. and so i think that is what they have done in this case and said that they are meeting the letter of th

mr. sanchez? >> thank you, good evening, president and members of the board, scott sanchez. the permit that is for tonight was not reviewed by the planning department because as noted in the scope it is to do foundation up grades, replace the water damage, studs and also ada up grades of the front door and a separate permit which has been appealed from the change of use to oska. that is formal retail use and we found that it is not retail use that is a separate permit to the tenant to establish the use and that is controlled for appeal as noted on may 15th. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, if we took action tonight, and the filing of the second appeal would not have been because it is a separate permit would not effect this permit; is that correct?? >> they are separate scopes of work, so if you were to take action tonight and approve the permit. then the structural up grades would be performed and you would still have the ability at the hearing in may to deny the permit for the use that is proposed to go in there and they would have to propose another tenant to go in there. >>

mr. sanchez? >> thank you, and good evening, president woningsinger, members of the board, planning department. >> no permits for the use. otherwise there is really no building permits on the subject property. there was a letter of determination for a liquor store and will take up some time to wrap

mr. sanchez, i was talking about after -- i know temporaries do not need public hearing. when they go to put permanent facilities on there, there will be process for -- >> yes, all of those housing projects would follow the entitlement process, design review of the umu district. >> and also any of their campus buildings that might be built, i would think, too. >> yes. >> okay, very good. it sounds wonderful to m

mr. sanchez, i was talking about after -- i know temporaries do not need public hearing. when they go to put permanent facilities on there, there will be process for -- >> yes, all of those housing projects would follow the entitlement process, design review of the umu district. >> and also any of their campus buildings that might be built, i would think, too. >> yes. >> okay, very good. it sounds wonderful to me. i just wanted to get some clarifications, but that answers my questions. >> commissioner hillis. >> i just wanted to briefly add to the caa is a great organization. not only a great neighbor, but they've been involved in kind of city-wide planning and architectural issues. david and faculty and staff are involved in the design competition in mission bay, i wanted to publicly thank you all, too, at cca. >> commissioner wu. >> i'll add my voice to that. i actually took an arts extra course at cca and in undergrad and had a wonderful time there. i wanted to ask a further question about the temporary structures. i'm supportive of temporary structures. if not for the

mr. sanchez, thank you. >> thank you, the planning department. as it has been noted the subject building permit on appeal is to update the concrete foundation and replace the damaged studs and also 20 percent ungrade for ada access believe. this permit does not change the use, there is a subsequent permit that was issued on march fourth and that is to remodel an existing retail space within the existing mixed used tenant building and for any retail establishment that is on appeal. that is the permit that creates oska. if the concerns over the establishment of oska, then the ax action has no bearing on tha. we found this is not a formula retail use. when the change of use or when the tenant improvement permit was issued by the planning department and issued in march fourth, they the applicant submitted a formula use affidavit which stated that they only have 8 operating. we have also separately requested materials from them, which show that they only have eight operating and tried to clear everything that i can on the internet to try to find if th

mr. sanchez, how are you doing today? >>> we were at the penitentiary of new mexico with inmate joe sanchez in the weeks just prior to his release date. he had already been informed it would be delayed by 15 days due to a miscalculation of his earned good time. but the news was about to get much worse. >> mr. sanchez, how are you doing today? got a little bit of a problem. in looking at your file, i have found an error -- i found -- >> you guys find errors. you never find nothing good. you're good at finding errors. just get to the point. >> okay. at this point in time i'm looking at 88 days, not 15. >> 88 days? >> and that's what i wanted to talk to you about, but i think it's more appropriate -- >> you guys are [ bleep ]. i don't know where in the hell you get 88 days or who the [ bleep ] made that up but -- >> that's what we want to talk about, and i think it's more appropriate to talk about that -- >> you guys already did it so what the [ bleep ]. you already did it. you already done it. >> no, i haven't done it. >> i

mr. sanchez will be greatly alleviated to see this work. >> thank you, i was fortunate to be able to attend an event last night at pier 28. i thought it was very well done. it involved a panel discussion and brought together some members of the tech community, the small business owners association and it was also under the auspices of city.com and supervisor ferrel motion to dismiss moderated the group and there was good information regarding small businesses in general and the city family and what can be done to move things more smoothly and help each other promote their businesses and everyone really liked it. in fact the event was quickly sold out once it was announced and i think they plan to do more in the future. i think it's really a step in the right direction. a lot of times issues we have are easily worked out when people talk to each other and sometimes there is not a lot of dialogue going on. i'm not saying any of these groups had any issues but it was a good forum to bring these issues and it's the beginning of hopefully that could be very productive for the ske. -- city. >> i

mr. sanchez anything further. okay commissioners the matter is submitted >> you want to start? you know, for some reason, i remember the previous and i don't remember whether it was that particular proposal or one previously when i was at planning which would have been significantly a long time ago. in that particular area begin the rentals that are in that area the amount of tourist traffic and that lot never got developed. from looking at the brief and trying to track through the changes it appears that there has been significant amount of movement on the design and on what's important importantly the envelope and the volume of this particular building. i find that the overall volume of the building is similar to the area. i'm not sure that i arguing ago with the appellants that the chopping of one floor is going to take care of all their needs. the issue here if it's really an issue to the neighbors on height street the only thing that's going to change it is the reduction of vitamin of this building vs. the rear of the building to the front of the building since the pattern

mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, the planning department. given the lateness of the hour i will try to be as brief as possible. this project does have a long history it was before this board before, and there were revisions of the board had adopted and there was a special condition's permit that was approved and the departments worked with the executive director to insure that the board's conditions were successfully implemented and during the course of that appeal process we did find and i think that it correctly pointed out by the appellant inconsistentcy in the addenda and the approval and the things that had changed and we tried our best to catch of the issues and one of the things that we did not recognize at the time that this was not a level lot as depicted on the plans this is a laterally sloping lot and so the project was constructed and the appellant pointed out to the department that the building was higher than was being shown on the plans. so we promptly suspended the building permit and reviewed the matter and found that it was