and why we're saying it's not part of the c.u. is the c.u. was for just the merger and the increased parking spaces and the retaining wall is unrelated to the need for the c.u. you could have had a project without a c.u. that had this retaining wall and these properties. the problem with the retaining wall is the plans for it and the way it's designed, which now calls for a design that will create a dewatering and an instability of the prorlts on larkin street. that's what dr. harp says. we've had no forum to analyze that problem. yes, there was a retaining sketch, i suppose and the designs and plans for that have changed in a significant way that now threatens properties on larkin street from our point of view. they filed revised plans in june of 2010 then we got our extra report and then they applied for the new permits. that's why it's had no oversight and we argue is it was certainly not addressed by the planning commission and at that time there was not the dewatering problem and the lack of tie-in with neighboring properties and so ther

a c.u. was needed because a dwelling unit merger was taking place that needs a c.u. but my interpretation of the charter, which is -- i feel very uncomfortable even saying that, much less interpreting the charter. is that anything that springs from that comes under c.u. and what is unreasonable about that -- and i totally agree it's unreasonable -- is the fact that after the period has expired in which someone could appeal the c.u. to the board of supervisors, an issue can be raised having to do with the project that is no longer reviewable. except by the planning department itself, who has discretion as to whether or not to bring it before their commission. i think that the reason this board exists is to limit discretion of other departments. and i think it's reasonable. i am surprised, too, to hear that it can still at this time be appealed to d.b.i. i did not know that. i hope that's true. i'm getting a nod from mr. -- a shake. a negative nod from mr. duffy that it probably can't be. it disturbs me that there is no other review to be had of this. all we can do, at

. -- these underlying c.u.'s came up after the issue with our clerks. so the jurisdiction request was filed only and solely on the issue of her interaction with our clerks. all the c.u. stuff came up afterwards. so that's why you may feel you need more documents. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted -- president goh: i have a question for mr. sanchez. so she's mentioning that she has submitted plans. she has the plans in her hand. could i -- you speak to that? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. immediately before the hearing i did review some of the documents that she had. this was the first time i'd seen these materials and if in my first review of seeing them i thought perhaps we should continue the item to allow us for some additional information to be gathered. i informed the executive director. then i saw some additional materials, including an email from our staff saying that we have received these revisions. found an ema

it was pretty clear that the c.u. had expired and they had come back to the commission for a new c.u. this is a certificate of appropriateness that marks the first appeal of the historic preservation action to the board of appeals. the acting preservation court later did an excellent job presenting the case to the board of appeals. there were interesting issues related to the cottage in the back that the department would support the rehabilitation or the demolition of that. they were going to rebuild something that they found was inappropriate. commissioner sugaya knows a little bit about the case. it is similar to what you would see on d.r.'s. there was disagreement between the appellant in the -- and the hbc on how they were applied. they would have needed unanimous vote. the votes were split, so it was clear they would not get the votes to overturn. the board continued into may -- it to may.they have been very ct what the requirements are. the final one is a brief period there before the commission last year, and i

if every food and beverage use is now a c.u., it will be in the future. we will see them go or take on the controls. there is a proposal. the mission where i live, looking at the fast-food subdistrict, the conversations are beginning to have it at a neighborhood level. every restaurant will continue to be a c.u. it is the difference between small and large. a retail coffee store can only have those limited and goods. but they will be able to do minor food preparation. that is the only change you will see in north beach. commissioner kasselman: i wanted to see where you were with the health department. even a convection oven or appliance that generates he, regardless of whether it was electrical or through gas means, but still requires ventilation. it would be unfortunate if someone spent $3,000, or may toaster convection oven -- or more on a toaster convection oven because they were not properly following protocol. >> anything that would require the health department or building department to look at will still require the appropriate permits. that is a g

problem in this instance, in everything would be permitted by -- and everything would be permitted by a c.u also thank you for your outreach. supervisor mar: it sounds like miss tran's restauranteur business is positively impacted by this legislation -- restaurant or business is positively impacted by this legislation? >> yes. supervisor mar: supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: are you able to address her? >> there is ho

problem in this instance, in everything would be permitted by -- and everything would be permitted by a c.uey also thank you for your outreach. supervisor mar: it sounds like miss tran's restauranteur business is positively impacted by this legislation -- restaurant or business is positively impacted by this legislation? >> yes. supervisor mar: supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: are you able to address her? >> there is alcohol in this case, and what we recommend it is that she could try another restaurant type, just by switching the business model a little bit. it would be allowed to sell alcohol. or we suggested she could wait until the legislation sponsored by supervisor farrell was passed, and then she could see it as a large fast-food restaurant. -- she could seek it as a large fast-food restaurant. supervisor mar: i can see the vacancies from the fillmore hardware to elsewhere. i really applaud supervisor farrell for moving this forward. any other comments, colleagues? so on the amendments, without objection on the amendments? [gavel] then, is there a motion on the item? so it is move

sanchez, historically, we know that banks had a moratorium against them, or there was definitely a c.u. of some form. since this came out in 2004, has this occurred somewhere in san francisco, and, therefore, the issue of definition of specific news was brought forth? -- specific use was brought forth? >> no. financial-services, it goes back to the late 1970's and early 1980's, when there was a proliferation of branch banks, and then, since that time, it does not seem to have been in use, even the controls regulating financial services being adequate to address those concerns, or it is just the nature of the baking industry, perhaps, that has changed, but we believe -- or it is just the nature of the banking industry. if that is not the case for this community, they can always approached their supervisor for legislation, and that would either create a separate commercial district for dis -- divisadero. there are other ways of dealing with that, special use, etc. thank you. note -- director goldstein: is there anything more? ok, seeing nothing more, commissioners, the matter is submitte

under the proposed restaurants, they would be allowed by c.u. at that time, you recommended approval but with recommendation. you also respectfully requested that they continue public outreach. the supervisors worked with the department and the appropriate neighborhood groups. they handled legislation in two ways. the legislation also amended to specify that the commission considered restaurants in this area, they consider whether or not they use a lunchtime service or daytime uses. with thsese amendments, the land use committee recommended approval of the ordinance. this one would amend article for to lemonade confusion as to when requirements must be met with increasing consistency in the way impact fees are a minister. you heard this item on december 16 of last year. the mayor has amended it to include suggestions from the mayor's office of housing and the comptroller's office. there was an un-codified section. the land use recommended approval for the full board. the board heard the area plan waiver criteria for affordable housing. this woul

think if there were a place for people in the public could go on a quarterly basis to see what is a c.u. what is a dr? maybe it would not help. but i think it would help improve the department's relationship with people in the neighborhood, to improve some of these things. and then the materials of metal -- i think we could probably work it out with different commissioners, with the director, just exchanging ideas and that kind of thing. we are the ones that are ultimately pushing these projects back because we are not satisfied with what we are getting here. i think you are right. the onus should be on ice. finally, commissioner fong mentioned dr reform. what i had an issue with was the commission giving up their jurisdiction on these cases. people were talking about hearing officers, things that took that away from us. that is something i did not support. if there were different iterations, like three commissioner sitting on panels, working -- i do not even know how that would work. under the city attorney or sunshine or any of these acts that we have. if there was something that woul

commissioner sugaya: i understand that, but now we're talking about a c.u. that's going to go to the property and i am not saying they're going to go out of business, but let's say they transition and some other owner comeses in and -- >> again, we don't impose that condition and usually for the other entertainment component with d.j.'s and things of that sort. commissioner sugaya: okay. thank you. president olague: just respond it to a little bit and 2323 market used to be a restaurant at one time, wasn't it? maybe that is the other block. we keep on running against this and across this issue lately here with neighborhood-commercial districts and noise and flow and i do think -- i don't want to be incensensitive to neighbors but when folks move into a neighborhood, i would to encourage people to be aware of the zoning and this type of thing because upper market in that area has a history of not being the quitest of neighborhoods. i am not suggesting that you can move or try to be insulting, but it sounds like it's a wine bar and going to have some jewelry a

information they absolutely denied the jurisdiction request, finding the permits were issued pursuant to the c.u. and not within their purview. the second item was a rehearing request for 3929 caravel street so the planning commission had approved, board of appeals denied it and they had a rehearing request last night. the board denied the rehearing request, finding there was no information that would justify a new hearing or request. the finalizing for des derio street. this is a building permit for chase bank to open at the subject location. this is the site that the planning commission had heard planning commission had heard conditionally formula retail

information they absolutely denied the jurisdiction request, finding the permits were issued pursuant to the c.u. and not within their purview. the second item was a rehearing request for 3929 caravel street so the planning commission had approved, board of appeals denied it and they had a rehearing request last night. the board denied the rehearing request, finding there was no information that would justify a new hearing or request. the finalizing for des derio street. this is a building permit for chase bank to open at the subject location. this is the site that the planning commission had heard conditionally formula retail battery plus store. the chase bank, the planning department administrator has determined banks are not subject to the formula retail controls and this is how the formula retail controls have been applied consistently since they were invoked in 2004 and they have the uses for the bank however condition for formula retail aspect of a bank. it's always been related to the financial services itself. so the board did hear this appeal last night. they ultimately continued that w

c.u. i'm clean right now. and we have also managed to get our hands on the. counter . it is the want to reach for example russia is a margin says the ministry equips us cars and stations where is it now believes that in the city of the about the city's radiation levels stand between twelve to thirteen hour within within allowed maximum area. standing at some thirty five miles per hour or so not yet critical but still the reading is higher than that on the island for example. shares her latest experiences from russia's far east on twitter account that is r.t. underscore. and using a geiger counter she will be tweeting live radiation levels from there and you can follow up with the closest russian region to japan and that's when our twitter account underscored. and of course throughout the program we'll bring you all the latest from the crisis stricken region with our correspondents working in japan to keep you updated twenty four seven. let's turn our attention to events in the libyan forces loyal to colonel gadhafi closing in on the rebel stronghold of benghazi well th

it's the hard work of cfa and hard work of c.u. and "consumer reports" guides. hard work of the advocates talking or highlighting those particular choices of technologies and behaviors and state laws. it's the hard work of -- it's a hard work of a whole bunch of people. but then the question is where safety culture goes along with this technological advance. because then you sort of get the counter argument from a lot of folks that have a different perspective on government regulation, on i'll excuse the term that i really dislike but i guess the best way to capture how to describe things, nanny government, right? how do we convey where the responsibility of the driver begins and end, where the responsibility of the automobile manufacturer begins and end, and where the responsibilities of the regulatory regime begins and ends. because we can issue rules, we can make manufacturers make modifications and changes. but we also have to have the people be willing to accept it. and in some instances in fact for the five-star safety rating for example, having people loo

it's the hard work of cfa and hard work of c.u. and "consumer reports" guides. hard work of the advocates talking or highlighting those particular choices of technologies and behaviors and state laws. it's the hard work of -- it's a hard work of a whole bunch of people. but then the question is where safety culture goes along with this technological advance. because then you sort of get the counter argument from a lot of folks that have a different perspective on government regulation, on i'll excuse the term that i really dislike but i guess the best way to capture how to describe things, nanny government, right? how do we convey where the responsibility of the driver begins and end, where the responsibility of the automobile manufacturer begins and end, and where the responsibilities of the regulatory regime begins and ends. because we can issue rules, we can make manufacturers make modifications and changes. but we also have to have the people be willing to accept it. and in some instances in fact for the five-star safety rating for example, having people loo

sanchez do you want to speak to the expiration of the c.u. or do you want to address commissioner fung's comment? >> i just wanted to say that we've deemed the conditional use to be expired and we would require any conditional use -- i think really what they would be able to salvage here is the building permit application itself potential -- potentially, which has already been denied so i'm not sure of the procedural process for that. with the building cold they go with the building cold of the day. the difference is they get if 1998 building code versus the current building code for the project. president goh: so the c.u. is expired. when did it expire? >> technically three years after the issuance, so in 2006. we had extended to it allow additional time. commissioner fung: 1998. president goh: right, till 2006. i'm leaning toward vice president garcia's view on this one. commissioner fung: we have no choice. president goh: did you make a motion? >> shall i call the roll then? commissioner fung: president goh, the project sponsor is raising