we have t>> this is from e public. president goh: my apologies. >> you want copies for the commissioners? president goh: i will take one. >> next speaker, please step forward. >> good evening, commissioners, gus hernandez. i am just a neighbor. i am not an attorney. but i have read the planning code, and i believe this project should be before the planning commission. you guys are kind of our last hope here. we're not asking to kill the project. we just want a hearing in front of the planning commission. i sent you guys a letter, and

you have seen the formula retail argument. i want to point out, again, this diagram that shows the suppose it use. is that still a walk up facility? they are saying that they brought the atm indoors, but it is still reject it is an accessible atm from the exterior. we just want notification, neighborhood notification, some way to get this in front of the planning commission so that we can express our concerns as neighbors to the commissioners who will actually be able to do something. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please? >> hi, my name is amy.

i think this is a landmark case on two occasions for this commission. one of them is that i think the formula retail law has been misinterpreted this whole time. that is one aspect, and this is about writing that wrong. me as a person who lives in the neighborhood and community wants to be able to have a say about whether a big chain that comes into our neighborhood. that is why san francisco is so cool, we have formula retail laws. this is a landmark case. the other thing is we have a landlord and organization, a chase, that is trying to shift the planning requirements around 4,000 feet. they're just trying to shift around so it gets under 4,000 feet. we all know that. what we want if it is 4,000 feet to have a conditional use hearing, because that is what we are entitled to by the code. but the two issues are landmark

cases -- i have been told, i am not sure, but i think you have the power to overturn this. -- to overturn this permit because the larger issues are problematic. i think you have that power. is whether you choose to exercise that power. i would love it if you exercise that power as a resident of san francisco. that is why i love living in the city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is: o'donnell. i have been a resident of the neighborhood for almost 40 years. i am in favor of the bank moving in. i am against the appeal. i am a member of the alamo square association board of directors. that board considered this, approved it, and recommended that this bank locate on

divisadero street on the corner of oak. i want to address the issue of formula retail. if you apply a formula retail to banks, there will not be any banks in neighborhoods. none. there are not any community banks in san francisco. and by the way, there are not going to be any. i actually looked into it, about starting a bank. it is not going to happen. the requirements are so onerous that no community bank is going to get established in this city. so if you want all the banks to be downtown and none in the neighborhoods, ahead and apply the formula. i think that is a wrongheaded result. last, i want to point out there was a survey done by the alamo square association and other neighborhood groups for everybody who lives in the alamo square area.

one of the things that the people wanted on divisadero street was a bank. this is a bank. this is what the people what. please denied the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please? >> hi, david, speaking in favor of the appellant. i have been a neighborhood resident over 15 years. they said no such vote was taken at alamo square for support. i agree with the appellants arguments that we have been unfairly denied an opportunity to have conditional use at the planning commission and notification as required. clearly it is formula at retail. that was the intent of the laws that it exceeds 4000 square feet. not only that, mr. hernandez and

i work together to file within 30 days of the permit, and i was shocked the person at the planning counter rejected it. the said because there was no 31 to notice that we had to file it within three days, which is ridiculous. if anybody had followed the d.r., you have to do all the mailing labels, all the work chase bank does not want to do we had to do, and the planning commission has the right to hear things the public is interested in. every step of the way, the planning the park and is denying our right to bring this to the planning commission, where this clearly belongs. i also have with me the petition. i submitted a copy of it. we have several hundred residents. you have the overhead, it could. i did a random sample and got about 75% in the seven blocks square, and i would also like to

speak back to the square footage issue. i did calculations myself, twice, and i found out the space is over 4000 square feet. we did a public record sunshine request and we found -- we did not know about this until we got a brief, and i just wanted to show you one of the emails. basically they want it to change this space. bu>> thank you. next speaker, please? >> yet, commissioners, joe donohue. listening to him, it was like regurgitating all the issues from last hearing. listening to him is beating a dead horse. those issues were discussed, but

they still keep bringing them up. the second thing, when you look at this whole case, this is an outrageous case. we're going to take this case to the board of supervisors to show the board of supervisors the manipulation and the military tactics of the zoning administrator with the chief building inspector on an unprecedented case to measure a building. the measurements came back that they were within 4000 square feet. now you are hearing that somehow or other a door is a corridor and that's based somewhere or other belongs to the bank. his words were they were manipulating the law. let me tell you something, the opposition is manipulating the process. they are doing it on the basis they cannot let banks. this case is about the

precedent now that ross mirkarimi announced he is running for sheriff. i guarantee you this, he will not stand a chance of being supervisor in that district. that is what this case is about, and i am not getting personal, commissioners, because you have that look on your face. the petition that side, the issues before the board of supervisors, there was a pamphlet that came out, which was a lie, slandered. we're going to ask of the association to take his license to practice law away. thank you. >> thank you. ext. speaker, please? >> -- next speaker, please? >> thank you. my name is michael. my family has been here 33 years. before half of these guys were even born.

i lived on haight street and the banks left. we had to go to ninth avenue to go to the bank. finally, wells fargo came back to heat street, bridget came back to haight street, and that was fantastic for us. now have a business directly across the street from this site. it is the closest proximity business across the street from this corner, " and divisadero. -- oak and divisadero. we're trying to revive this corner, and we did with the business we have. it is a big eyesore and problem with the look at this boarded up place, tag across the street. it is nice to hear that somebody will fork up the money and build.

the fact is we cannot go in there because the city and not give us money for it. i like to have a gallery, coffee, something of culture, but it is not going to happen. when my employees need more money and tips, they depend on local businesses. these businesses coming in will help our business. as a neighbor, maybe i could see a small community bank, but it is not one to happen. we like a bank to be there, does not matter if it is chase or wells fargo. i own the business across the street, and i think it is a big insult to the city that we have to go back five times to check on the square footage of the place. maybe the plan checkers should be checked themselves. thank you. vice president garcia: excuse me. what is the name of your business? >> cafe divisadero, across the

street. vice president garcia: thank you. >> the next speaker, please? >> i am not necessarily against the bank being there. it seems that we have fallen to the argument of whether the bank should be there or not. to me, this is an issue of due process. i think the appellants have raised substantive concerns and should be addressed in the way they're supposed to be addressed. i ask that you will pull their complaint. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, will move into rebuttal. itmr. mecke, you have three minutes every bottle. >> -- you have three minutes of rebuttal. it that the commissioners, i have studied the planning code hours on end and i hope that people follow the law. to quote mr. but donahue, not to

beat a dead horse, but just as the previous note on the square footage issue, i agree with the previous speaker. we have -- we should have found this issue at the beginning. at the exit quarter was not from us. that was from the previous exhibit. it says exit corridor. miraculously, in the three, months since the exhibit, it has now morphed into an unusable storage space that does not be counted but still has a door for exit from chased. at the end of the day, it does not matter if you are for or against. it does not matter how many people you have on the petition, it does not matter how many businesses are lined up, if the neighborhood once the chase bank, have the conditional use hearing which is required by law and let the people decide for themselves. that is all we are asking,

commissioners, follow the law. you cannot reinvent the idea that suddenly the exit corridor is something new. it is written on paper, it is written in but the exhibit. i am not talking about formula retail, not talking about 312 notification. if that is beating a dead horse to follow the law, so be it. but at the end of the day, the law is the law and the planning code is the planning code. we have submitted all the evidence before you. let's have the conditional use hearing and let the neighborhood settle this rather, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. christine griffin for the permit holders. i think the issue was presented clearly by the senate administrators, the two chief people who measured the space.

that one out there, they have the plan, the area in question is not available for use as part of the bank. it is not a designated exit for the bank. at the door is not necessary for fire code from exiting from the bank. chase has chosen to keep the door because it is an added safety for patrons and employees. they do not need it. it is not required. and it is not available to them for use. that is it. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. i would just like to note one item. there has been ovations made there were no public hearings on the case. this is the third public hearing, and the board of appeals still has the same notification requirements. notice was done to owners and

occupants within 150 feet of the project. this is a duly noted public hearing. with that, i am available for any questions. president goh: would you address the allegation that their appeal was rejected? >> i believe the request for discretionary review came after the building permit was issued. once the building permit has been issued, the proper process is to file an appeal with the board of appeals and the planning commission cannot hear it. vice president garcia: mr. sanchez, if the project sponsor worst to submit plans and a designated area as something and it was a specific designation and would trigger c.u. because it would be over 4,000 feet, it is an option for them to rename that? can they decide to avoid the

c.u. process we're going to use it for storage and said? bridget for storage instead? >> it is important clarify that it was not an exit space, it was not a space under their use or lease, that if they were too common with a revised. and crossed that out, we would have a question of whether they still had any intention of using that space or any intention of occupying or renting that space. the case it is it has never been their intention to occupy or use this space. vice president garcia: i am not suggesting that. before you go down that road, what i am saying is given the plants they had, if they are to avoid the c.u., they're not barred from designating some space as nine use. >> as long as it is less than

four dozen square feet, that is acceptable. vice president garcia: some question if that is manipulative, etcetera, but that is available to them. >> the space in question is not for the sole use of the candidate, it is not for the soy use of the subject tenet, so i think it is clear that it should be left out of the usage copulation. vice president garcia: -- for ãgarcia: thank you. >> the motion is submitted. vice president garcia: i will go first. square footage, and formula retail. this is a permit for an atm. one speaker spoke about the atm. i must not have been paying attention, because i did not hear one single person talk about -- hear we go, somebody did, thank you. very few people spoke about the atm issue. this had to do mostly with the square footage, and we just

learned whether it is feasible or fair or not, they can read designate an area to avoid that issue, which has been stated by the zoning administrator. as for the formula retail, i think it was mr. sanchez also who said this constitutes or functions as a re-hearing. this board weighed in on the formula retail issue. maybe this does not rise to the level of collateral or something like that, but to me, the comments of this board, the vote we took the last time this was heard. those issues, square footage and the formula retail, to rest. as for the remaining issue, i don't think in my life anything has been presented that, one, the process was wrong. never mind on that. whether there has been abuse of

process, by which side? what has been clearly stated by mr. sanchez, 312 was not required, so there is no other issue for the atm. they are allowed to have it inside. the process that went through to resubmit the permit satisfied that the planning department, so i intend to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. icommissioner fung: i am in basc agreement with that position. the atm permit rests on itself. the issue of whether it is 4000 square feet rests with the department to enforce what was presented to them. therefore, i believe that has also been addressed previously, and i am prepared to uphold the permit. commissioner peterson: i would

concur with my colleagues. there was an economic decision made by the landlord and reducing the square footage. maybe that is a technicality, but it is within the law. i think the argument is trying to make it a legal, technical argument. i think there are bigger issues, and i think that has to be addressed elsewhere. i would also uphold this permit. president goh: i am troubled by the square footage issue. i was at the last hearing, and i still am, perhaps i am more trouble now we have the measure met and we have changed the name of the title of the corridor being changed. the most troubling to me is getting a hold of the department figures required the sunshine request. i think in order to have open process and have people feel heard, we need to be supplying

-- >> thank you. if you could call the roll, please? >> on the motion from the vice- president to deny the appeal and a pulled the person on the basis that complies with the code, commissioner fung -- [roll call vote] thank you. the vote is 3-1. this permit is upheld on that

basis. >> thank you. call items 9a, b, and c. three appeals, all filed by sina tarassoly and maida taylor. subject properties at 207, los palmos 3 permits to erect three- story single-family houses. one with 1240 square feet, one with 1303, 1 with 1304 square feet. we will start with the appellants. you have seven minutes per a.

>> i would want to thank the board for hearing our appeal. i know that we're supposed to center around quality of life issues, and i will do that. at the first outset, despite reassurances to the contrary, putting four homes on a lot where one home exists now, and that the statutes that exist, the zoning, it is legal. to the point, though, i like to speak to the fact that the three east lot or shaved -- they were shaved a few inches to accommodate the fourth lot. i have the drawings on file with the planning commission that recalculating. after calculating the area of all of those lots, that fourth what appears to be legal by one square foot. a lot minds of the three

easterly lots were shaved in water to make that fourth lot legal. -- the lot lines of the three easterly lots were shaved in order to make that fourth block legal. they are one zone, but one position of the zoning statute is chosen to be ignored, and that is that the project should be consistent with the predominant pattern of development within the neighborhood. could i please have the overhead? the predominant pattern of development within the neighborhood is clearly in excess of 25 _ feet. i did calculations and enumeration of 108 homes in the approximate 300 feet of the project, and of these homes, there are six which are on lots of less than two dozen square feet, which represents 5%. -- on lots of less than two

dozen square feet, which represents 5%. imost of the homes are 2500 square feet or more. the question i asked it to you is, what does the term predominant mean? does predominate mean and the, some, if you, or one? there are six lots under 2000 square feet. i would ask that you consider that the portion of the statute that addresses predominant pattern be addressed. because these four small lots will increase the number of substandard lots in the area by 40% and will be imposed on one corner and one set of residents. there are other quality of life issues that come into play. the value of existing homes will be greatly impact ied, and we he

data on this. we know the legacy of mayor brown's tenure was the fund's ability of use were allowed to be considered. but they do count with appraisals. the initial appraisal of one of the homes, when the new product was accepted, and the loss of you would arrest, the appraiser lower at the valuation on his home by $60,000. there are eight homes on the north side that will lose their views. in aggregate, that is a loss of almost half a million dollars to the neighbors on the north side of the street. none of that is being taken into account by this project. in addition, the imposition of this project has made the homes on the north side of the street unsaleable. one of the homes that was for sale, basically prospective buyers would walk in, would be told in disclosure about the

project on the south side of the street, and prospective buyers would leave. as a result, for college students have moved into the property. they'll drive, they all have guests on the weekends. at this and salable property now has four to eight vehicles all vying for street parking at the same time. we already have a high-density area. there are at least three homes within 150 feet of the project where adult children have moved back in with their parents because of the current economic climate. those adult children are married and have significant others or children, and this has also imposed tremendous density in proximity to this corner. transit first is a myth that our neighborhood. the developer has at least six people living in the existing house on the site. one of the people, one of the young men who lived in that house works nights in a coffee

shop out in the richmond district. he works the 2:00 a.m. shift. with the transportation cutbacks, he could no longer get to work unless he leaves before 10:00 p.m., meaning he there are rides at work four hours before his shift or he drives. he has bought a car which is also parked on the street. the existing house is being blighted, the property neglected. i like to cite commissioner antonini from the planning commission who made a site visit and entered the house. in his statement at the planning commission, he said the house is, "pretty rough." it is blighting the valuation of the other homes on the block. our homes are our largest asset. the position of the density, number 2, in some ways the crowding that will be imposed is going to decre