That we would like the record to be as clear as possible. Which is why i would suggest a continuance, whether they can prove it or not. So that is the record is quite clear. And i think that there is many of us who would seriously support a Small Business in our city. I think that there are certain things that could be done to help them. There are agencies that provide both technical and regulatory support for Small Business and when they are set up in san francisco. They should have availed themselves of that, that is neither here or there, we are dealing with a fairly specific code section and i would be inclined to continue this to allow further research and documentation to be provided to all partys. I concur with the commissioner fung. And as your neighbor, i live in the district and i actually drove by this building twice today. And as a Small Business owner from that district for over 20 years, i also was understanding as a landlord you are a Small Business owner yourself. But,
Service. On a side note, you have a great location. And i believe that this becomes a problem, i am sure that another business would love to be on the corner of 26th and terevelle. I know that is sounds to me more, or most everyone perhaps, other than myself, is interested in a continuance and i am quite skeptical given the. I think that what is my concern is a continued moving target on what the name of this entity is and at the same time, i do think that there is some sufficient lack of clarity issues being raised in this manner or make me uncomfortable where there isnt. I think that enough opportunity to really understand what we are looking at here. Even though again, i will state again, for the record that i am skeptical that there is going to be sufficient evidence to establish that it will meet or will not require a conditional use but that this entity. Whatever it is. Will not require it. Okay, i move to continue this to madam director, what do you think . April, is our next op
Service. On a side note, you have a great location. And i believe that this becomes a problem, i am sure that another business would love to be on the corner of 26th and terevelle. I know that is sounds to me more, or most everyone perhaps, other than myself, is interested in a continuance and i am quite skeptical given the. I think that what is my concern is a continued moving target on what the name of this entity is and at the same time, i do think that there is some sufficient lack of clarity issues being raised in this manner or make me uncomfortable where there isnt. I think that enough opportunity to really understand what we are looking at here. Even though again, i will state again, for the record that i am skeptical that there is going to be sufficient evidence to establish that it will meet or will not require a conditional use but that this entity. Whatever it is. Will not require it. Okay, i move to continue this to madam director, what do you think . April, is our next op
This Additional Information pursuant to the boards comments. Permit holder update brief is due two thursdays prior and appellant and zoning due one thursday prior. Five pages, no more than five pages per party. On that motion, to continue, president hwang . Aye. Thank you. Commissioner hurtado is absent. Vice president lazarus. Aye. And commissioner honda. Aye. The vote is 40 and these are continued to april 17th, thank you. Okay, we will call the last set of appeals together, this is item 9 a 9 b and 9 qappeal number 12161, 162, and 163. All are filed by half had. Yman against the department of building inspection with the Planning Department approvele. The first and all are in relation to 227 douglass street. The first is appealing the issue ans on december 7 to tank mehul permit to alter a building voluntary removal of kitchens levels 1 and 3 and revert level one to utility room and permit 8011207 with washer dryer level three wet bar. And the other is to remove the kitchens on floo
They have the Contact Information for the Building Permit and this is something that the permit holder submits and on there they put the designer name, they put the contractor and also the leasee, and the vocal Point Insurance agency as the contact for the permit application and what was submitted under evidence that this is a financial use for signature vest tores, i did look for vig signature invest or and nothing came up with permits and i all looked for chan and nothing came up, with the department of real estate permits or licenses but nothing for Financial Services. The materials that they handed out if i could have the overhead says that the signature Investors Inc in oakland, with the business address in boston. And it talks about Investment Advisory services this is not Financial Services as defined under the planning code. What they were referring to from the interpretation from the mid 90s and referring to somehow the board of supervisors over turning a Zoning Administrator