being given cookies or whatever it's a nice gesture, but it does not detract from the fact that they are not the equivalent of stores. i am concerned about this phenomenon before. this particular branch could pick up a corner location. corner locations are particularly important for small-scale stores, which have the ability to advertise themselves from two corners. while there is a history that this location has not been very successful, i generally do not believe that branch banks or real-estate offices should occupy corner locations. i have said that before and again and again and i feel strongly about that. indeed, it allows the smaller business units that extra exposure with small non-branded store needs.

across the transit stop where the small coffee shop, a small bookstore, a library or a newspaper stand would be a much more appropriate use at the square. i believe that if you are going along and getting a stronger hand all on formula retail then we will develop a criteria for which these spaces can consider each other. within 300 ft. or 500 ft. there can be no additional other. to hear that they block five or six other institutions i find unacceptable. the majority of the people i know, young, old and in between, the majority do banking online. and even the depositing of checks occurs in an anonymous way because all atm's take the

check without even looking into your face. it just verifies that you are the signer of the check. the only thing that atm's do not take its cash, but that is what people do not generally carry around with them anyway. i am in support of the first republic finding a location where there is not a preponderance of many other banks. it is, for me, not within this half block radius. opportunity, i hope the community itself contains solid relationships with first republic. and that as a vacancy occurs and another bank leaves, they will be the first to come in. at this moment, though, i believe based on the definition that the other commissioners

gave us, i cannot approve the institution of another bank in this neighborhood. >> i just want to clarify that a new formula used would have to come back for a conditional use. other types of conditional uses do have to run with the land. but a new formula retail use would always have to come back to you for a cu. if it were another bank, there would have to come to you for a formula of retail, for a cu. >> thank you. commissioner antonini. >> a couple of things to emphasize in this discussion, the size of this particular branch is more important than its location, whether on a corner or not. it is very small. this makes a lot of sense because you do not need the size of branch banks that were used to have in the past. and to their credit, the bank of

america went into a smaller unit, which seems to work well, and the rest of the place was developed from a surface lot into a conduit of development with a couple of nice restaurant and a grocery store. the size is important to me that it is fitting their needs. when i go banking six days a week, or my staff certainly goes -- and a lot of times i go because i do not trust the machines. i would rather have a person to take it and give me a deposit slip. i sometimes do not trust myself to perhaps enter the thing wrong in an atm or something. that is one of the reasons. and i do remember relationships as a kid with banks. at a past bank i was happy to go to the bank and put a couple of bucks in there and see that i had a little bit more money in my savings account.

i do remember those experiences. and i do believe we have a giants game. i'm aware of that. and i will be at the u.s. open tomorrow and over the weekend. and one more thing, i do go to the top there often. my feet are not -- i do go to the cobbler often. my feet are not getting any bigger, and i do need repair. they do a good job. >> we do have to not mistake our own banking habits with that of others. i was always shocked, particularly on the weekends on chestnut street -- my fiancee always goes into the branch and always waits in line. you have citibank, bank of america, and chase all next door to each other and they all have lines on the weekend. in the marina, people use their

banks. i personally hate to go into the bank. wild horses in chains cannot take me inside a branch. a lot of other people, for whatever reason -- because of age, because of their confidence in banking, etc. and of course, merchants, they have to deposit every single day. while our trend is moving in a particular direction for a lot of people, there are tons of other people who still prefer to go into branches. it sounds like first republic, what i've heard about it is that it is the kind of bank that knows your name we always talk about the uses that we want verses their uses we do not want. we can encourage people to use the uses that we do what and you can create the city that you want by rewarding the good actors and pushing out the bad ones. >> i just want to make a comment

about the idea that chains and a formula of retail and what not can contribute to neighborhood commercial areas. i think it only works because san francisco has recognized the issue with formula of retail and has recognized the issue of other kinds of uses and has imposed fairly strict regulations and controls. otherwise, we would be in situations where i was reading, for example, some commentator from york where they regretted certain neighborhoods in new york where they did not have stronger controls because now there are nothing but financial institutions, banks, brokerages, and other financial institutions in a given

neighborhood. and in a publication out of london commenting about london neighborhoods being overrun by banks and other financial institutions, i think that's what happened here -- i think that what happens here is by having strict regulations and controls, we tip the balance, hopefully in favor of small businesses and other businesses that are trying to struggle against well-capitalized and well-funded formula retail establishments. it is not to say that we have to deny them all. because frankly, we have not denied very many formula retail establishments, as i can a member. american apparel is the only one i can think of that we took a stand against as far as formula retail. maybe batteries plus at one

time. almost everything comes before this commission before it is approved. i do not think we should be looked at as obstructionist or that kind of thing. >> i think that the success of the individual businesses in san francisco is not from the controls, but rather from the fact that we have tastes that lend themselves to new businesses and unique businesses, and to some degree, because of the pedestrian traffic of our city where people are walking from banking and other activities and macy's stores and businesses and a check them out. -- and they see stores and businesses and a check that out. sometimes these businesses are victims of their own success and they become formula retail. they become desirable. that is actually a success story, where you have more than

10 branches. that happens a lot in san francisco. formula retail of banks and other institutions, clothing, many of them are based in san francisco. i will move to approve this conditional use. >> second. if i could just make a couple of comments. i think this is a good conversation we are having. it is one of the first of many to come. i think this commission will find its way through this. from my personal perspective, this gives us an opportunity to look at every location. if this is truly saturation, then we have the opportunity to do that. given the pedestrian account and the activity on this particular block, one basically every block is a lot, but not excessive.

i'm always curious about people who are opposed. what banks, if any, do you use? i'm assuming that most people live in san francisco are using some kind of bank. maybe your bank already exists on that block and maybe that is why you are ok with what is already there. anyway, if you could call the question. >> the motion is on the floor for approval as proposed. commissioner antonini aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner wu: aye. commissioner sugaya: no. commissioners, you are now on item 14. 2299 market street. at the beginning of the hearing i announced that supervisor

wiener had requested a continuance of this item we were talking about july 19th initially. the staff planner is not here on that date. then we were talking about july 12th. i do not know if a new date has been proposed for this hearing, but it is up for continuance. >> i would move continuance of item 14 to july 12th. >> second. >> should we have public comment? >> i will ask for public comment. any public comment on this item? project sponsor, are you here on the 12th? does that work out for you? >> commissioners, yes, july 12th the works for us if it works for

the commission. >> ok, thank you. >> if there is no public comment, the motion is on the floor for a continuance. to continue to july 12th. this item is continued to july 12th. commissioners, you are now on item number 15. case #20 12.0084db 42735 through 2737 baker street. -- for 273532737 baker street. >> i need to recuse myself. -- 2735 through 2737 baker street. >> i need to recuse myself. it is close to where i am.

>> i need a motion for recusal. >> the move. greg second. -- >> second. commissioner fong israel -- commissioner fong is reduced. -- recused. >> i was absent at the meeting previously, but i did watch the video over the weekend. it was quite exciting. [laughter] i did fill myself and on the proceedings from the last hearing. >> thank you very much for that. >> good afternoon, commissioners. mary woods of the department staff. at your first hearing on may 10th, the commission made a

motion and continue the item on today's date and asked a few changes be made on the project. the project sponsor made most of the changes. the department's recommendation is to take d.r. and approve with modifications. if you have any questions, here to answer them. -- i am here to answer them. >> project sponsor? >> what? oh, excuse me. it is a d.r. requestor. >> thank you, commissioners. steve williams. as a reminder, i recommend -- represent the family who lives in the-- directly north of the

project. they have lived there since 1973, raising children there, almost 40 years. it should be obvious that most of the impact fall on the building. the building to the north from the proposed project. we appreciated last time the comments made by the commission and at the close of the hearing and the neighbors have been working diligently trying to resolve this so we could come back here and what the commission know we are all on the same page. unfortunately, that did not happen. and i know the neighbors -- would want to thank mary woods. calling out everyone and -- and

so we're acceptful of the suggestions in the memo. the neighbors would like to see the deck sized reduction. given this is a professional developer. he may live there but the building could easily be sold immediately. the neighbors do not want to lose the proposed deck, the railing could be moved with an over-the-counter permit. almost in any direction. the one issue that was discussed was the planning of the trees. she sent me an e-mail saying this would be planted as a protrusion and reduce the noise

from the rear decks. the other comment in the memo -- one of the comments was to reduce the death of the new edition and to preserve the greenery. this is the most important point from the design guidelines. and the impact here are dramatic because of the shape of this lot and the rookie it -- the location. it is the only lot that extends into the rear yard in this manner. the yards are all very small. this lot is to be -- it is divided in two. this is to lots. we would like to see the addition as recommended in the memo pullback so in alliance

with the other buildings. there are three buildings in deerow that are lined up. the point is these rear yards are so small in the adjacent homes that the proposed new protrusion virtually covers the entire yard. and remember this is the bottom of the deck. there should be another rail on top of that. we're asking the commission to make this change. there is an alternative that we discussed with the project sponsor. we would like to see some imagination used in the design of the new pop out extension. we had discussed at one. put in writing that perhaps make a semicircle so you do not have this ridge line running down the

property. it would take the corners often turned away from the rear yard and reduce the impact. there's also a question that came up in the interim that we have not answered. at some point, is there going to be a rare stair attached to this? -- deck and into the year -- rear yard. one unit would be this new area. there is no we're exit for the other unit. we urge you to adopt within the memo and take d.r. and make the changes to the project. thank you very much. president fong: thank you. speakers in favor? there's another d.r. requestor. second d.r. requestor.

>> i am judy kaiser, 2806 union street which is perpendicular and it was the yellow building that was outlined by mr. williams. good afternoon, commissioners, and commission director. thank you for your time. as you may recall, our d.r. is regarding the reduction in size and the position of a roof deck at 273537 baker. i am here to report on the progress. working with the city planner ms mary woods and in the spirit of compromise, we have come to an agreement with the sponsor. we thank ms. woods for her professionalism and dedication as an intermediary. if there have been misunderstandings in the past and disagreement -- this agreement will likely have been

impossible without her. as per pages a3 and a7, of the revision, submitted by the sponsor, we agreed to a reduction of 5 feet from the eastern boundary of the roof deck, reducing the square-foot it to better line up with the other -- square footage to better line up with the other decks in the area. the total area of the roof deck is 400 square feet, of which 335 square feet is the city area. given this has been a heated issue, and there have been repeated misunderstandings in the past and during the mediation, we ask that you, the

commission, said this agreement in stone with a notice of special restrictions. to define the size and location of the roof deck so this process may come to a clear and definitive end. as they do not require a permit notice, we asked for this notice of special restriction. thank you, commissioners and especially to the planner for your guidance and mediation during this difficult d.r. thank you. president fong: thank you. speakers in favor of the d.r.? >> i have lived almost 75 years

on our block. first with my parents at 2727 baker street and since 1989 at 2729 baker street, the home of my grandparents. today, i can only reiterate the objections to the proposed retention with a deck of 2735 baker street which i made before the commission on may 10. the extension with the deck as commissioner more so aptly described it is aggressive in that it violates the shared open green space of all the neighbors, presents a raised stage for outdoor theater better conducted in private for the good of everyone within earshot, and is esthetically inharmonious because it breaks this rare

alignment with the neighboring building. this is my house with a small cement platform in front of it. currently, i look at the ground level, paved patio at the lower end of a sloping garden. the proposed extension with the deck, surmounted by railing, built for the patio now exists would be and high-level, spatial and visual intrusion. i would find it most regrettable if the suggestion made on may 10 to keep the rear walls of the building in alignment were abandoned, particularly if the real purpose of this extension is a scheme to

create enough additional square footage within the building to slip through the annett's conversion. indeed, a mockery of the process. thank you, commissioners for your attention to this case. in particular, i want to thank commissioner moore, who, according to my understanding, was especially sensitive to my concerns in the rear cottage on may 10. president fong: thank you. additional speakers are in favor of the d.r.? >> thank you. afternoon. -- good afternoon. our prodi looks out towards the -- property looks whatout --

looks out toward the rear yard. i have taken time out of my day to be present. i could not make the last hearing. as previously signed the petition and submitted an objection letter to mary woods regarding this project. i believe there has been a lack of public outreach by the project sponsor who has not contacted me today, even after my objection letter. therefore, my opinions are largely based on information and plan supplied by my neighbors. i believe the additions to the building are excessive, unnecessary, and not fitting with the neighboring properties. in addition to the visual impact, our garden will be affected by the noise and

smells coming from decks of the property and our enjoyment of the garden will be affected. respectfully, i request the commissioner ask the project sponsor to scale back the proposal. thank you. president fong: thank you. additional speakers? >> good afternoon. i live next door to the property under review. my family has lived on baker street for five generations. the two flags next door have been nice patio and a large garden in the backyard. the proposed renovation is out of character with the neighborhood and affect the privacy and quiet of nine rear yard neighbors. he proposes to install two large garden patios, a large rear deck

and a roof deck. what is the necessity of building to patio's and two? -- two decks? it negatively impacts the neighbors who will be hearing noise and breathing barbecue smoke and tobacco smoke from parties. all the neighbors have held ground level parties in that garden spread we raise these issues at the july 2011 reapplication meeting and several times following the meeting in e-mails. i have met him only once at the precipitation meeting last year. he has responded in a hostile manner to e-mails which i sent on behalf of the neighbors. he had his lawyer send me a threatening letter in december which demanded the neighbors comments be withdrawn or he would file a lawsuit. he was demanding