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 middle of july, july 13, we issued a

scott sanchez, the building administrator, is here representing the planning department and planning commission. jarvus murrais murray is represg the transportation department. john hwang represents st. use and mapping. the board's legal assistant is the boards except to director. >> the board requests to turn off all cell phones, beepers, and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders, and department respondents each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for but a. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven and three minutes. those who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes to address the board, with no rebuttal. to assist in proportion of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to staff when you come up to the lectern. speaker cards and pans are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcome your comments and suggestions. th

>> scott sanchez, planning department. i do not think that there is much that i can add to the presentation other than to say that i can clarify a bit about the department's history and position on it. the department did find that the staff had complied with the residential design guidelines. the planner had made that decision. the discretionary review was filed. at that time, it was taken to the residential design team, and that is where we came up with the conclusion that changes need to be made to the project, so it is clear evidence that it was a close call from the department's point of view at least in making that decision, and then it was brought before the planning commission. a unanimous vote of the planning commission is, i think, a pretty clear indicator that they think a project complies with the residential design guidelines, and with that, i would respectfully request that the board of told the planning commission's decision to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. i am available

i am very pleased to announce to the city and to the commission that scott sanchez has been accepted as the new zoning administrator. we're very pleased to have him on board. he has shown great excellence at this position the last three months and we're very pleased he will be the city's new zoning commission -- zoning administrator. [applause] >> i would just like to say thank you to the director for showing confidence and trust in me. it is a tremendous honor to be the zoning administrator and serve the city of san francisco in this capacity. it has been an honor to work with this commission and the board of appeals, with hpc, and also with staff. that has been a tremendous experience for me and i am looking forward to it. thank you. president miguel: thank you. it is not the easiest position in the world, so we appreciate you coming at it -- coming into it with the experience to have had. sorry to disrupt. >> quite all right. first up, consideration of items proposed for continuance. there were no items proposed for continuance, although we have just received a request for an item

good evening, president peterson, scott sanchez, planning department. this is an issue about whether the proper notification was performed in the first place. based on my initial review of the subject building permit application, it would not have required a prenotification, but i think there are other considerations the board should be made aware of. we have already issued a stop work order for the subject permit, so we have required that work at least at the rear portion of the building not be allowed to be completed because of the concern that was raised about whether or not the rear of the building was code complying, having been constructed, as is required in the rear yard. it was built prior to 1958, when the special use district went into effect. there is a revision. -- there is a of revision. at the end of the calendar that deals with the issue of the rear yard. as it indicates, if this board finds it is not a legal non complying structure, they have to go through the various process. if the board makes it determination it is legal, they would n

>> 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

>> 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

>> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. the last hearing, there was confusion about what product was before this board. there were several deliberations that were developed by the project sponsor, the most was no parking to the building. they have withdrawn the request for a parking variance, and the variance decision that is before the commission was based on the decision of may 3, 2010, submitted by the project sponsor, showing parking in front of the building, accessed off de haro street. that is the product before you. this is the project and concept that was approved by the planning commission last october. the building permit is planning -- is with the planning department because it is not new for -- because it cannot move forward until this variances reviewed. the full scope of the development is something that would be able to be appealed that a future date. with regards to the variants that was applied for in 1989, granted in part in 1993, this is a completely new project. it was not contemplated in the 1993 varian

scott sanchez has been advised. 10 lundy's lane. >> aaron goodman. i am speaking on the transit issue you spoke about, commissioner moore. i find it a very important thing throughout the city with the housing project being pushed through in all districts of the city. where are we seeing a sincere effort that major infrastructure projects in a lot of areas where we have low and middle income areas, such as the mission, along the 14 muni corridor or 19th avenue or geary boulevard -- how are we going to deal with all this housing being built throughout the city if we cannot do the transportation first? it reminds me of a story called "the biggest house in the world" where it keeps growing and growing and pushing and pushing, and eventually, it is stock because they cannot go anywhere anymore. when are we going to be a planning commission that is going to adequately address the transportation needs of a whole city? you may not be able to do it as individuals. we may not be able to do it, but we are getting there. if 19th avenue is locked up, merced is bl