very well in a mall. how is it going to do well in a place where there's virtually no foot traffic? if you check out that block of mission, which is around the corner from where i live, there's and so he would have to reach out. he would have to advertise to areas outside of the neighborhood to bring clients in. if it was really that worthy of people wanting to take muni, that would surprise me. i've gotten massages and usually they don't involve a bus ride. especially as a mission bus. we're worried because there's parking problems already in the area. especially at night and on the weekends when there's a lot of church activity. and so do we think the neighborhood needs a massage place? no, do we think it will support it? not really. is he a good guy or bad guy? i don't know. so thank you. president olague: thank you. >> 4192 mission is my address.

i'm less than a half block west of this location. a massage parlor in my opinion is not going to survive at that particular location and how it's situated on the block. between the traffic and the parking, it will make it very dangerous for any clients that try to park in front of his business and get out and come and go safely. there have been numerous crime incidents that have taken place. and i'm concerned about the neighborhood that surrounds it. we've had numerous burglaries and because he's going to be running a cash business, i don't know that he's going to have a security office. but they will be a target for burglaries. and my family has owned my property since the 1950's. and the businesses that have

survived there have basically been real estate offices, insurance offices, i have a property management office. one of the city employees for his company, he's a consultant, rents the space next to mine. so those kinds of businesses in my opinion are going to be the ones that will do well and survive. we've had numerous businesses come and go over the years. and they're in and out of an eye. on behalf of this man and his judgment on investing in a business and maybe going under, i don't know if he's making a wise decision. but that's not up to me. that's up to him. and thank you very much for your time. president olague: thank you. >> commissioners, my name is robert greco. i'm a member of the excelsor improvement association. i'm also the police liaison for

excelsior. we have two massage parlors that have been busted a lot. and they open up the next week. when i get my emails and stuff like that, they want me to come to tell you guys, they don't want this massage parlor. we have enough trouble in our district and we don't need any more. and that's basically it. president olague: thank you. next speaker. >> can you hear me? ok. my name is angelique mayham. and i'm the second vice president of the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods. i'm also a member of the excelsior district improvement association. of course, you know about the coalition, you consider an organization of note. so at this point, i don't think i can offer anything else that anyone else has offered to

object other than the fact that besides the foot traffic, the parking issues, this is really not even a commentary on the gentleman who is proposing this business. it's really about the ability to be able to sustain another massage parlor. it's about the location which is right ajunt staircase that leads all the way down to a street that's -- unable to basically monitor or supervise. it presents a safety hazard. it presents a lot of different issues and more importantly, the person who brought -- the business owner, the three businesses he mentioned and like i said i'm sure he had a very prosperous business up until the point where he couldn't fly back and forth to idaho. but all those things were occurring in a mall. and a mall setting where there was foot traffic and a protected environment where basically he could not have his business stay open later than 9:00. because the environment is --

linked itself to that. and you're in a situation where even if a person is in there late, the business can stay open later, he can be subjected to adverse conditions which will force him to stay open longer and that could have -- basically a difficult impact on our community. so i'm not one -- i'm not anti-capitalist and want to encourage him to open a business in our community. and i along with my cohort, steve courier, would encourage us not to deny it but certainly to offer maybe even a 90-day so we can vet the situation. we found about this maybe two weeks ago. we haven't had a chation to ask neighbors to really -- a chance to ask neighbors to really look into this situation. we want to be fair to the business owner but 90 days is enough time for us to be able to investigate, work with the business owner and see if we can come up with something that's reasonable. thank you for your time. president olague: thank you.

>> peter witcom. i'm a merchant on the corridor he wants to open up on. i'm actually in the middle where he probably got the most foot traffic in our corridor. and i'm just barely hanging on with this economy. where he wants to do it, there's absolutely no foot traffic. if you were driving by, you wouldn't even know he was there. so i just -- as a merchant, there's absolutely no way he would make it, i guarantee it. also, we have two massage parlors, full massage parlors in our corridor and our corridor is only 12 blocks long. we also have six nail is a loans. i went and investigated on the nail is a loans. they also do foot massages and they also will massage you with your clothes on. so i don't -- i mean, he's got a lot of competition. the corridor really doesn't need another one. and i have nothing against the man. i don't know the guy. i want everybody to open up a business and make it. but the excelsior doesn't want to be known as a massage parlor

corridor. i mean, we have enough already. and move on and let's get some new businesses out there to succeed and like the lady said, where he's opening up, office buildings, most real estate, insurance, something of that nature where you don't need the foot traffic. if he's hurting in the idaho mall he will really hurt on mission corridor where there's no foot traffic. president olague: is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: yes. i have a quick question for the project sponsor. i too went to the web and did a search and found not only this ad but some other ones. none of which were located in san francisco i don't think. and there were also references,

as good abc's google is, i suppose to -- as good as google is, i suppose, and c.h.i., spelled it q.i., which i assume but you aren't the owner or proprietor or any of these others or this one-handed to us in citrus heights? >> i don't know the website. president olague: -- commissioner sugaya: so you aren't affiliated with? >> no. commissioner sugaya: in terms of the massage establishment itself, looking at the plans there, foot massage chairs in the front and one or two tables in the back. and your particular method of massage, can you describe what you mean by accupressure?

>> accupressure. commissioner sugaya: you can demonstrate on ms. -- no. [laughter] no. that's all right. no, no. i understand what it is. but i think it's just a different form of massage where you don't necessarily -- it's not like getting a swedish massage or an oil massage where you do have to take your clothes off. you can do the pressure through somebody's clothing. is that correct? all right. thank you. i was just trying to establish some relationships here. and if he says he's not affiliated with this, i have to believe this project sponsor and being familiar somewhat with massage, you know, no

pain, no gain, i don't like accupressure myself. but i can understand people that do. and deep tissue and that kind of thing. so i don't know. i'm willing to continue it if the community wants to have more input and more dialogue and then have it come back to us and maybe we then have some resolution of the issue. president olague: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i would say the same. i actually support -- in general, i think it's great to have massage places and i think accupressure can be wonderful. i've had it done before. it sounds like you have great qualifications with your background. but the recent web search of information that was pulled up and you say it's not your business, i think it does warrant a further investigation and actually, there's a massage place where -- we approved in my neighborhood where i live and the windows are always covered and there's a bell to get in. so it's like -- they came back a second time for an approval and then decided to go down a path that's unacceptable and i reported it to police and also

reported it to the zoning administrator. but i know how this happens sometimes. and i'm not saying that this is going to happen, and i'm not suggesting that about the project sponsor, but given the number of other facilities, and makes sense to do a little more due diligence to look into the situation. and i think it's -- it sounds like from the qualifications, the project sponsor, there won't be anything there. and probably be able to support this and it makes sense to look further into it. we always look at oversaturation issues and important to look at that. in terms of the business model and whether that's successful, that really is the personal business owner's decision and we don't really -- we're not in a place to decide whether or not someone's business plan will work out for them. that's something for them to decide. but on the merits of either looking into this business, and its potential connections to others that were referenced, and then also the fact that there are a lot of other massage places existing, i think it does warrant taking some time to step back. and i'll move for a continuance and unfortunately, i hate

continuing items but i think it makes sense in this case. so i don't know what date would be the best date, commission secretary. >> someone mentioned 90 days. i don't know if that's -- yeah. someone in the neighborhood. we can go to july 7. i assume. >> you can go to july 7 or july 28 or august 4 if you don't want -- president olague: that's good. that's when all of us will be here. commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i would like to ask staff to -- the public was saying that they only had two weeks' notice, is that correct? or is that a misstatement? could you please tell? >> commissioner moore, the conditional use requirement is a 10-day notice. commissioner moore: so only two weeks. >> i'm sorry. it's a 20-day notification. and the notice was sent on

april 29. commissioner moore: i found a comment from one of the gentlemen very compelling. and he was saying that hearsay and starting the rumor, particularly in the way communication travels these days, is a very dangerous way of starting to cast a shadow. i found the presentation itself, the application, the modest application, the business was his and only his. and based on that, until this other commentary came, i didn't have any problems approving this. and if he couldn't succeed in the larger space, this might give him if he's as qualified as we have to believe he is, to really start something. but i think the pushback based on hearsay is very difficult for me to accept.

i'm not opposed to having a continuance. but i don't think it will do anything. we had this kind of like lost in translation situation once before where somebody with a foreign language background used a word and raised red flags for us. i remember it very distinctly. and it was one of those things where people very quickly jumped to judgment and in the end it was unsubstantiated. i just want to leave it open to us to be the voice of reason and consider how we feel when somebody does kind of put that kind of a doubt in our mind and change how we felt about this. it hasn't changed it for me. i'm still prepared to approve this application. president olague: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i'm in favor of the continuance. i'm in favor of the continuance definitely until i have more information, the name of this

establishment, miracle chi gong massage is exactly the same one as the citrus. and there must be some sort of copyrighting -- there isn't. so anybody can -- you can use the same fictitious business name? ok. well, i want to have that explained before i would approve this. so i'm in favor of either disapproval or continue -- or continuance. president olague: commissioner fong. commissioner fong: thank you. i am not in favor of continuing the item. i don't feel we're put in a position to deny a business and give someone a fair shot. unless i misunderstood or didn't hear. i didn't hear that there was any problems or danger with the existing similar like businesses in the area to warrant not adding another one.

as far as street traffic and pedestrian flow, this type of business along with the nail is a loan is not an impulse, -- is not a salon is not an impulse, it's really a destination you have in mind that today i'm going to do this or whatever. so i think that the pedestrian traffic has no relevance to the type of business. other businesses, yes, it requires a pedestrian traffic. so again, i'm not in favor -- i would have been supportive of approving the project as is. president olague: commissioner miguel. vice president miguel: i'm not in favor of a continuance, either. when in business myself prior to my retirement, there were throughout california at least a dozen businesses in the same field with the same name. some of which had excellent reputations. some of which had lousy reputations. and so i'm very familiar with

that type of situation. and i have heard nothing that would connect the project sponsor with this or any other particular business than the ones he stated that he has run. so i'm not in favor of continuance on this one. president olague: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i just want to state for the record i'm not at all judging the project sponsor in a poor way. and i'm not suggesting that there's anything untoward in that. at the same time, once we let these things go forward, they're a lot harder to undo than they are to do. and i would think that if everything is copacetic then a continuance would allow more comfort in the community and then everything would be wonderful going forward. so it's not -- my intent is not to sully the name of the project sponsor. nor is it to delay what could be a perfectly wonderful business. i have no reason to assume that it's not.

what it says it is. but at the same time, the information we got about the citrus heights location actually shows a 415 phone number associated with it. not a 916 phone number associated with it. so that -- you know, does bring a question into my mind and because of the issue that's harder to undo, it's easier to delay an approval and go forward with the project than it is to like go forward with the project and then find out that there are indeed issues. like i said, if the process worked differently, that's one thing. but we know how well enforcement works. we just had a case earlier and going on 13 years. and so i just wanted to point that out. so with all due respect to project sponsor, it's not my intent to say that you're doing anything wrong or that you don't want to have -- that your business is irreputable and that's not my suggestion at all. in general, i think when there's issues in the community around a project we try to bring everyone together because it's a lot better if there's

people that are able to embrace a new business coming into the neighborhood, it ensures its success because people will patronize it and feel comfortable with it as opposed to the office of people think when -- the opposite of people when they don't have information about it. it's not our business or place to decide you put that together and make that decision. our place is to look at the land use and the compatibility with the neighborhood and whether or not that fits. from my standpoint, i'm not saying it's not a fit. it sounds like it is a fit. but i'm saying there are some questions that do remain that would be valuable to have vetted before we approve it. president olague: i'm inclined to support the project but in favor of the continuance. and there are neighborhood groups we've worked with a lot that we trust. and i always think it's good to when the neighbors and the project sponsor have more of an opportunity to engage which could occur if the project were approved.

but i guess out of respect for the existing neighborhood groups that we always work with, you know, in this instance, i would support the continuance. commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i give the department credit for doing the type of research which we request. that is indeed the standard health department investigation. plus the police reports. i think this is opening an opportunity for somebody. this presentation was very modest and i think thoughtful. he has been at it for a long time. and i don't see any reason not to approve it. and i make a motion that we do. president olague: the continuance supersedes all motions, commissioner moore. and commissioner borden made the motion. >> seconded. >> i didn't hear the second. >> i'll second it if it hasn't. president olague: if that's -- we would have the opportunity to make mare notion. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: yes. whether or not the continuance

fails or not, or -- no. that's not what i meant. if the continuance is approved, sorry, then i don't think i have to say this. but i would hope that the people who are going to participate in a meeting with the project sponsor which i assume is the point of this whole thing will hopefully approach it from an open minded situation and try to not paint the project sponsor as was -- there was a whole article in the paper the other day about bad guys. so i hop you don't approach it from that standpoint. and i also hope that the project sponsor will, you know, be as forthright and forthcoming as he can be about the type of operation he's going to be operating. president olague: call the question. >> commissioners, on the motion for continuance, to july 7, commissioner antonini.

aye. commissioner borden. aye. commissioner fong. no. commissioner moore. no. commissioner sugaya. aye. commissioner miguel. no. commissioner olague. aye. that motion passed on a 4-3 vote with commissioners fong, moore and miguel voting against. the item is continued to july 7. commissioners, you are on -- president olague: we are going to continue to move through items along i guess because still pending -- yeah. let's go ahead and take the nine and 10 now then. if they're finally ready. >> then we're going back on your calendar to numbers nine and 10. case 2011.402-t. the fee revisions and adjustments per the planning

code. yes. amendments to the planning code. and item number 10, case number 2011.0427-p, revision and adjustments per the administrative code. >> good afternoon, president olague, commissioners. my name is keith demartini and i'm the finance manager with the planning department and my pleasure to present fee changes for the upcoming budget or fiscal year 2011-12 and i have a presentation. >> i don't think the commission has met you before. is that right? >> no, you have not. >> my apologies. that is my mistake, my bad. demartini came to us recently -- >> 2 1/2 months ago. >> from the controller's office and the new finance manager for

the department. so he takes over and works under tom and taking -- and responsible for the finance operations. so welcome and i apologize nor not doing it sooner. >> and proposing some adjustments to the fee schedule, so i'm going to be walking through just sort after brief summary of what those adjustments are and you'll see in your packet there's an executive summary which outlines some of the proposed fee, all proposed fee changes as well as the ordinance. and a resolution. secretary avery some other resolutions here for the commission to act on. there's a slight adjustment in the language of the -- of the ceqa language in this resolution. it's very minor and just a code reference. so this is the final version that i just handed to secretary avery. so in summary, there are four things i would like to cover today. first is all of the fees will be adjusted based on the annual

consumer price index adjustments. that's for the -- administered by the controller's office and we will be correcting some c.p.i. language that's in the administrative code section 31.2212-3 in regard to basic ceqa fees and also proposing a 50% cap on the initial fees that are based on estimated construction costs. and finally, i want to talk just briefly about the department's plan to more comprehensively revise the fee schedule going forward. so first, talking about the c.p.i. adjustment. this year's adjustment will be 2.07%. and it will apply on all fees that are in the planning code and in the administrative code. and this is an annual process that is administered by the controller's office. it's based on the two-year average consumer price index for the san francisco-san jose

primary metropolitan statistical area. normally we wouldn't come to the commission to communicate this. but because where proposing some other changes, we're going ahead and adjusting all of the fees accordingly. next, there is a very minor technical adjustment that we're proposing on administrative code section 31.22-12-3, for ceqa basic fees. there were two pieces of language that were added to this ceqa code last fiscal year. they were in section 31.228.12 in regard to monitoring conditions of approval and mitigating monitoring. and section 31.22-b-1 and six in regard to the $52 fee that is assessed on installment payments that are made. so those -- that language was added last fiscal year. and we never upped the actual reference to the c.p.i. adjustment was never actually implemented then. so this is just a very minor technical adjustment.

so next is a proposed change that will place a 50% cap on some intake fees. so we've received some feedback that some of the intake fees that are assessed on some very small scale construction projects are just too high. for many small scale projects, the implementation of the existing rule has resulted in the initial fee being in excess of 50% of the estimated construction cost. this high initial fee amount has actually deterred many applicants from following through on a project. so this change we hope will encourage applicants to follow through on these projects. and we have begun some analysis and this change does not represent a significant revenue -- negative revenue. and the department, there's a couple slides that will show the impact. so we feel it's a good thing to do. this slide lists the

applications that will be affected by this 50% cap on the initial fee based on the estimated construction costs. and they are the conditional use applications, commission and variance applications, downtown c-3 district review and coastal zone permit applications, certificate of appropriateness, and building permit applications, both for a change in use of alteration of an existing building and new construction. so it's these applications that will be affected by the 50% cap. so this table represents a summary of the potential lost revenue and the volume of applications and permits that would have been subject to the 50% limitation if the proposed change was in place over the past three fiscal years. so you can see there's only about a handful of planning applications that would have been subject to this 50% cap. and there were anywhere between

29 to 63 d.b.i. permits that would have been reviewed by the planning department. so it doesn't represent a high volume of activity. and the financial impact, if you average it over the past three fiscal years, was just around $10,000. so it does not represent a significant loss of revenue for the department. in fiscal year 2011-12, next fiscal year, the department will more comprehensively review all schedules of fees. you may recall about five years ago in may of 2006, there was a comprehensive fee study that was done. the department contracted with public resource management group to comprehensively review all the fees. the study took about one year to complete and it did cost about $50,000 to produce the study. but the result of it was a report that infoed