test

>> would impact to the meeting. we are going to move on to item -- welcome back to the meeting. we are going to move on to item no. 8, protesting the issuance on march 24, 2011 to john brennan, a permit to alter a building, a provision to bpa 2010/10/18/3214. >> i am the appellant. i think many of you will remember we had a hearing on

march 16 that ran quite late. you heard quite a bit of feedback regarding a variety of things relating to his particular permit and not for the proposed development of of steak. -- development. if we were following the law as written, we would be having a conditional use hearing. i want to point out three issues regarding the permit. this was amended on march 24. it required an notification for 30 days of would have allowed neighbors to request discretionary review. that's never happened.

instead of moving forward, the resubmitted the new permits, which is been -- being repealed. this movement to avoid a hearing should not be permitted. i am first asking that you rule to go through the process required of them in the first place. there is the permit and the notification for that. the second issue is the square footage requirement. i understand there are limitations as to what ncnb presented to you. we only acquired this when a neighbor actually filed a request.

note it was incomplete. what that shows is that this project is over 4000 square feet, which would trigger a hearing. i would submit that on behalf of this issue. based on the definitions, this was not briefed before. we believe there was an issue of total square footage proposed. finally, i want to touch on another primary issue, which is the retail law. if you would get the planning

department's brief in response to our questions regarding the proper formulation of the retail law, the only authorization we have received simply states this is incorrect. there is no letter of determination. there is no analysis. the only analysis is provided by the permit holder. given the fact we are protesting, it is interesting and now the only one is by the permit holder. it makes no sense how the current retail loughner -- law is being interpreted by the zoning administrator. i do not know if you can see

this on the overhead. it is defined to include the following uses -- of favre, a drive of facility, a liquor store -- bar, drive up facility, a liquor store, sales and service, a movie theater, take- out food. what is interesting is dead because financial services is not listed, -- is that because financial-services is not listed, it is rove vote. it is an and the category that does not -- and m c category that does not exist. -- empty category that does not

exist. the way to do it is not to have it listed. back when this was drafted, we have heard banks lobbied hard to have this exempted. it makes almost no sense to have sales and services listed if it is a category with no potential uses in it. that is the argument put forward by the planning department, because public services have not been pulled out of the general category it sits in but is otherwise listed, apparently it is exempt, so we are asking for your help in having the city and county follow the rules.

there is no way to have some way in. they are not here today about whether or not people like corporate thanks. it is about following the formula retail block. it is about following notification from neighbors, and is about following the planning code. to continually manipulate the law makes no sense, and frankly, is sort of an affront to all of us who worked to pass this law in the first place. >> excuse me. i have a question. would you handed in -- is that

what we have in your brief? >> the diagram was the planning department notes when they went to do a measurement. that measurement was talked about at the end of our last hearing as something that should be done. we received the planning department brief, but that did not include the notes you are looking at. >> is your argument and the square feet is incorrect? >> if you look at the upper right-hand corner, there is a six by nine area.

the only people that can exit are the proposed inhabitants of the bank. exit quarters are included in the gross area. we are only provided with that yesterday. >> do we want to put up on the overhead? >> we are looking at the section in the upper right as far as the calculations. that section right here -- this is on wall for adjacent tenants, and this is an exit corridor.

good are removing that, that is the only way this project comes under 4000 square feet. -- by removing that, that is the only way this project comes under 4000 square feet. >> good evening, commissioners. owe have multiple breeze here. -- briefs here. the appellant is correct but all it does is move the atm from the outside wall to the inside wall. the use of the property is not at issue. they raised two arguments. the latest argument about the atm they did not reach.

unless any of you is interested in talking about statutory limitations, i will not bother you tonight. agency that is charged with enforcing the ordinance is accorded great weight. goothe definition is clear. with regard to the square footage issue, they measured the space. a coordinated, and it is an

area contributed to storage. goois good for the community toe involved. i think this process have is and who -- has demonstrated good community involvement. we have been involved and also submitted now 1300 as signatures -- 1300 signatures.

unless there are any questions, i would ask that you respectfully who deny the repeal tonight. >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> good afternoon. i will be brief and just speak to 3.3 good -- three points. there is no notification required for the change of use. gthe notification issue involves the atm on the exterior wall. we noted that notification would be required. at the hearing, it was even required by the board that the revised plans to be adopted.

the board did not reach consensus at the hearing, so following the hearing, the permit holder submitted a revised permit that address the issue, and it was something they mentioned in the initial review. they moved the i.t. -- the atm inside the building. we approved a permit, but the notification has been issued. the board has expressed concerns about the use and wanted to verify that we do not do this for actual construction, and we measured the site, but you have to be for you -- before you the

notes of the site. the site is actually smaller than what is in the plans. they are within the size limits of the planning code. anything more than 4000 square feet would require additional authorization is essentially functions as a rehearing request for the appeal. this is a longstanding interpretation. we have applied it consistently in this way. to my knowledge, we have never processed at a conditional use authorization for a formal retail use for a financial service. occasionally they may required

use based on an underlying zoning district. ther conditional use required for the subject property. goi reported the issues that wee raised, and the planning commission acknowledged this has happened before, and we have consistently said they are not formula of retail use. they are not subject to a formula of retail controls -- to formula retail controls. we said we have a hearing to discuss formal retail controls in general, and this could be considered as a revision if this is an issue, and when they were

adopted, it was partly based on proliferation of french banks, and that resulted in the lake and 1970's and 1980's, and you will find that as a separate line issue. the commission has requested that hearing be held in conjunction with a hearing introduced regarding for miller retail controls for pet food usage in the special use district, and i think that is currently scheduled for sometime in mid-july and july, so we would try to hold a meeting. this is something the board of supervisors can also introduce legislation that would specifically state formula

retail usage includes that. i think it has been briefed in the previous case, and i am available for any questions. thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> i seem to recollect from the last hearing it was utilities or something that had to do with the entire building or landlord space. >> that is my understanding as well. it would function more as a janitor's closet. it is not least to the permit holder. it is my understanding the door would only be an excerpt door as

well. >> how do we calculate square footage that is necessary for a fire exit? it looks to be in the rear. >> it is not clear if it is required, because i do not know if that determination is made. i do know that based on previous conversations, that might be extra means of egress. >> it appears to be only means. >> they also have doors going to the parking lot, so there are already two other means of egress in the space, but i would refer to the building department, but it is not leasable space. it would not factor into our

parking calculations. it has no function for the use itself, and you have to draw the line somewhere, and if it is the space that is not routinely used or that appears to be used by someone else common-law -- something else, i do not believe you should include that. >> thank you. >> anything? we will move into public comment. anyone interested in speaking on this item? if you can line up on the side of the room, i would appreciate it. >> can i see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak on this matter.

i am going to say two minutes. goo>> i support the appeal. i am not going to address the formula retail issues. i have explained why, and it appears the board is degrees. i am going to address the square footage issue. -- it appears the board agrees. i am going to address the square footage issue. it is extremely misleading and conflict with a prior set of plans submitted in march, so for this to not be the exit corridor it was previously believed to be is really outrageous, and there is no question when you look at these plans that this line here -- there is no wall there. they just came up with that.

they drew out on its. there is no wall there. this is an exit corridor. it is labeled exit corridor. when you add that in, you get 4000 square feet. i have a memo i would like to give you on that responding to yesterday's pause zoning -- yesterday's zoning administrators. its specifically includes exit enclosures. the law could not be clearer. at a certain point you have to follow along arrogant -- follow the law. they are getting it said wrong. and we do not have a hard copy, because we did not know they would say it is a storage facility for the landlord.

can we have the overhead? i will just leave copies of this memo is that outlines the gross floor area. if you look, i guess it is not up. it is labeled, but what does it say wha? building exit corridor. i guess you can rewrite it the second time around. it is over 4000. let's send it to planning. this project is over 4000 floor fee or square-foot. but have a conditional hearing. thank you very much. president