>> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department, the subject property at 225 clipper street, it's subject to planning code sections 132 and 141, so in this case, planning code section 132 would prohibit -- the setback requirement for the property and also prohibits parking within that front setback, the planning code section 142 establishes a screening requirement for off street parking and the proposal would provide no off street parking screening so we'd be having parking within the front setback that doesn't provide the required screening, this is being done voluntarily, so in seeking to have parking in the front setback, not meeting the planning code requirement, they can do so if they seek and justify variance, you have to meet all of the five findings, it's meant to be a challenge, it's meant to be a burden, it's meant to be used only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and in reviewing this case, i didn't see any exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, i had concerns as commissioner fung pointed out, the parking space that would be created here is substandard, this

>> i believe that is the case, yes. >> and the current permit. >> scott sanchez planning department. >> we would be revoking the request that we issued to dbi and reinstate the permits and currently the 3 r report says that the three units and the other would the internal question for dbi of how to resolve that and however, i believe that there may be and maybe there is going to be a ctc issued for one of the permits that has been revoked and 23 that cfc for the revoked permit would then supercede the cfc, from the 3 unit building. >> and so, dbi issues a cfc for one of the permits that is subject to revocation that would over rule the 3 r report and that would show the two family dwelling. >> and should we condition it then? >> and maybe, he could speak to whether or not there will be a cfc issued on one of the permits that is subject to the revocation and if they were to needed to file a subsequent permit that would issue or confer a cfc. >> well, they would still need to go through the final inspections and so the issue is that the elimination of the revocation and the suspension

sanchez? >> thank you, scott san she was planning department. as it was noted at the last hearing there were some inaccuracies by the appellant and i appreciate the board going back to view the accurate height requirements. they did a new survey and noted this is a project that has been around for several years and i think some of these inconsistencies in the plans maybe accounted for i think had different architect the last time of the board of appeals. they have revised the plan and submitted those to the board and those we believe the board should grant the appeal and adopt the revised plans if the board feels that is appropriate. the revisions do not have a different project, they just have more accurate dimension. it has very clear depiction on how the measurement is under the planning code and we have determined that it does comply with the provisions for height. i know that one cannot obtain a variance for height, it's never been allowed in the san francisco planning code. but that is something that cannot be done. we have received this a

>> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. the case was reviewed in 2012. it was not issued until april 18th of this year. there was a block notations request submitted by the requesters and that was received by june 4. th. at the time we reviewed and approved this permit it was before the cbn was permitted. it requires no notification under the planning code. the jury's requester. when that i would turn it over to chief inspector. >> before you leave, mr. sanchez, the definition of a structural addition that triggers a planning code notification requirement, this does not conform to that in your opinion? >> that's correct. the work that is being done under this permitted is what we would view and repair or maintenance does not expand the building envelope. most building expansion are triggers of use on notice of section 311. it was sent to the planning department because the building given it's age there was resource and exterior changes because of the changes to the bay side windows. >> mr. greko. >> good evening. anthony greko. this building was applied

we are joined by the departments that have cases before the board, scott sanchez is here and he is the zoning administrator and representing the planning department and planning commission, creco, is here, the chief building inspector representing building inspection. >> if you could go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all phones and pagers so that they will not disturb the proceedings and carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules of presentation are as follows. appellants and permit holders and department representatives each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 7 or 3-minute periods. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board, but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business c

. >> sorry to interrupt, scott sanchez, this has been revised. a variance is still required which this board upheld at the previous hearing some time ago. but a portion does require a variance. >> okay. >> i would concur with comments of commissioner fung. if there are no other comments i will make the motion to grant the appeal on the condition that it be the revised drawings be the ones that are permitted. >> can we have some specificity on the drawings? >> for the record they are dated, they are in the permit holder august 14th submittal but the july plans are dated 20, 136789 we have an motion from the president to uphold the revised plan july 26, 2013. >> on that motion to uphold with revised plans, commissioner fung, aye, commissioner hurtado, aye, lazarus, aye, honda? aye. the vote is 5-0. the permit is upheld with revised plans. >> what were the dates of those plans? >> july 22nd. we are calling item no. 9. item 9: appeal no. 13-057 david & niloufer king, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 41

. >> scott sanchez planning department and i will be brief and i want to address a bit about the history of the 1970 cfc and why that and how we came upon that and so we had received a complaint in early june that they had illegal emerged to a single family dwelling and i don't know who made that complaint but we received that complaint. at the end of june, i received an e-mail from mr. hansen who said that he had evidence that is was legally a three unit building and initially i took this with a grain of salt because i did not see anything in the records that indicated that this was a three unit building and i was expecting to receive something from pg&e saying that there were three meters here which we would say conclusive of the legality of the unit. but what i received and early july was this cfc and the permit of occupancy and i was quite frankly shocked to see that because that is the gold standard. i mean that is essentially the birth certificate of a building and that is the most important document to have and so the fact that this existed was that i was shocked and didn't, i mea

thank you, scott sanchez, the planning department and i will be briefed on the item, the application was submitted on january 23rd last year of 2012 and it is for a horizontal addition of the front of the budget building and it underwent section 311 notification for november first to december first during that time, the neighbor did contact planning department and stated the concerns and many of those concerns and the planning reported they were all related to more activities and there were a list of concerns that included the concerns about the park vehicles and the construction schedule and nothing that would rise to a level of requiring a discretionary review and addressing anything in the planning code. and they said that they were in support on the pro-yekt project. more related to the concerns of the construction and those are not in the purview of the planning department and not appropriate to have those matters at a planning commission hearing and those appropriate to resolve those first to the department building inspection who will review the plans and insure that the plans

thank you, scott sanchez planning department. i want to clarify that i did look to the property of the west there are several permits for horizontal expansion from the late 90s. there are dates from the late 90s and early 2,000 and on the planning code, private views are not protected. so just want to address those 2 points. i do not have a copy of the mailing list in front of me. i heard the neighbors say that doug view confirmed that her name was on it and she should have received it. she may want to clarify that and if there are some issue with the postal office. i would also note there is a poster on the property as well, a bright orange poster that goes on to indicate the 30-day appeal for the notice window. >> the expansion to the building on the west is that a single story >> it's my understanding that it's a single story. >> thank you, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioner fung to clarify, our notices are identical to 311 and that does show under our list. >> okay. submitted. okay. comments? no. your tim

filed after the permit application had already been filed and if you recall at the last hearing, scott sanchez said the initial permit application was back in october of 2012. so, i don't know exactly how this worked, but it never went back to planning. >> i remember now. >> so we've tried from the time we found out this work was taking place to stay on top of everything, unfortunately, i didn't find out that the permit had issued until i went online looking for mr. muler's complaint regarding dbr for the bay windows. >> you are asking to impose certain conditions to protect the tenants that you represent. what authority do we have to do that? isn't that in the rent board's control? >> i don't think it's exclusive. i think definitely there is an overlap. but i think that under -- excuse me for a second. i think that you have the general power to determine how to condition a proposed project and there is case law that is cited in my request for jurisdiction on page 2. in the footnote no. 1, and so our position is that the permit will affect the general welfare of san francisco by reducing the q

>> thank you, scott sanchez on the planning department. with regards to trademarks, these are separate. jack spade has one, kate spade has another. it is true they are all owned by kate spade, if you go 32 you the jack spade, kate spade is the owner. we are looking at the numbers who maintain the same merchandise and that is what we are looking at. in this case this is their 11th storement this code specifies 11 or more. prop g reinforces. it says you need a conditional use operation for formula retail uses. as we have applied section 703.3 this does not satisfy the retail. >> if you include kate spade that is 332 globally, is that right >> i don't know how many, i know they are pushing a 90-100 in the u.s.. >> i have a question. i believe when we saw that section put up just a few minutes ago, that the introductory statement again reiterated you needed to have 11 or more. >> correct, the business maintains two or more of the following features and the various features. >> i thought i was hearing a little bit of circular logic, it might be

>> thank you, scott sanchez on the planning department. with regards to trademarks, these are separate. jack spade has one, kate spade has another. it is true they are all owned by kate spade,

>> good evening, scott sanchez planning department. the property at 16th street as noted at the hearing last week. the property is located within the valencia street district in the mission district and it's a tenant improvement at such property. it proposals to be retail. there is no other expansion or anything. it's just simply changing from one retail operator to another retail operator. the question before you raise the concern by the appellant whether or not this is a formula retail as defined in the planning code. for the sake of consistency, i will refer to section where it began. under planning section code 703, it says under the definition of the formula retail uses, a formula retail use is defined as a type of retail facility or establishment which has 11 or more other retail establishments located in the united states. in addition to the 11 establishments the business maintains two or more of the following features. a standardized array of merchandise. a standardized facade, a standardized d.c. -- decor and color scheme and

>> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department, there was inaccurate testimony in the last hearing, i want to apologize to the board and to the parties because i did misstate facts tat last hearing regarding the density and i think this board knows in my years, i've tried to be accurate and responsive to the questions that i receive from the board, however, i did misstate the density issue at the last hearing, so the subject property the proposal could be built without a need for a subdivision, the density would allow up to 22 dwelling units on the property i think they're currently at 14, so the subdivision issue is really a secondary matter and again i apologize and i really try to hold myself to a high standard coming before this board, you need accurate information before making your decisions and aapologize to everyone for misstating that, it was something i had reviewed from the staff report and so after receiving the rehearing request, we ran it through the process again and from line staff up to the director, the staff actually, that was an error in communicating in the case