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 goh: we have t>> thise 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