mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, the planninging, it is 2169 square feet and so it is smaller than the typical lot which would be 2500 square feet and there is a provision in the rhg zoning where if you have a large lot size you can increase the number of units but this is the smaller of the standard size, so but not qualify, and actually would not, it is a substandard lot and yeah, it is so they would not be able to have any dwelling units under the code available for any questions? >> assume that there is no provisions to accommodate people with disabilities in these? >> the provisions to accommodate people with disabilities does not allow for the zoning to be changed for a property and we could make reasonable accommodations in terms of set backs for facilities but in terms of changing the zoning and what the general plan sets should be, the density for the zoning district, we don't have that ability in my understanding from the conversations of the city attorney's office that don't ha

mr. sanchez. and i'd be okay with that if mr. williams was okay with that. and mr. sanchez? >> thank you. >> mr. williams here? >> yes, the neighbors never had objections to an upgrade to make the bathroom a-d-a compliant. >> answer my question of mr. glad stone just stated. is that yes? >> yes. >> okay. >> those permits are condition to allow work just to the bathrooms. >> that's what i understand. okay. >> so, it's a proposal to continue the items to allow the parties to revise them or to have the board make those revisions now? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning. the board grant the appeals on all the items, limit the scope of work to only a-d-a renovations to the bathroom. no other work. and that there be no chase of use, and that the existing and proposed use be clarified to be retail. >> okay, everybody is nodding. >> if that's the proposal i would like to get clarity on the individual permits so that we know exactly what we're saying with respect to the notices of decision for each one. >> inspector duffy, do you have [speaker not understood]? >> commissioners, i wa

mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, the planninging, it is 2169 square feet and so it is smaller than the typical lot which would be 2500 square feet and there is a provision in the rhg zoning where if you have a large lot size you can increase the number of units but this is the smaller of the standard size, so but not qualify, and actually would not, it is a substandard lot and yeah, it is so they would not be able to have any dwelling units under the code available for

mr. sanchez, i hope that you are looking up what the site area is? >> thank you. >> another question for mr. duffy? just one thing that i would say, i am sorry that i had just for some reason that i had a single family, but the two units going to the third is also a change of occupancy under the building code, it is dowable but harder to do it from three to three units changes the occupantcy to an r2:singer. sprinklers kick in and stuff like that, it is more severe to add this unit. >> as a legal unit. >> yeah. >> but your suggestion about the rooms down with the weted bar is a good and people do

mr. sanchez, i hope that you are looking up what the site area is? >> thank you. >> another question for mr. duffy? just one thing that i would say, i am sorry that i had just for some reason that i had a single family, but the two units going to the third is also a change of occupancy under the building code, it is dowable but harder to do it from three to three units changes the occupantcy to an r2:singer. sprinklers kick in and stuff like that, it is more severe to add this unit. >> as a legal unit. >> yeah. >> but your suggestion about the rooms down with the weted bar is a good and people do that and it seems to work well. in these type of buildings. so >> is there an interior access to the... if it is like a inlaw type of rooms down, is there an interior access to the units? because it is two units and it is two additional units occupied, is there a connection between the lower floor unit and the ground floor? >> that we are aware of? >> i have not been there but it does not sound like it? it sounds like they said that the studio was totally ind

mr. sanchez. the attorney for the permit holder stated that the planning and building did not rely on exhibit a, the 90% from reservation or preservation of the [speaker not understood] foundation. is that a true statement? >> that is correct. we did a separate analysis using the requirements of section 317. one was done prior to the discretionary review hearing and i did the evaluation prior to our last board of appeals hearing. >> just wanted confirmation for the record. thank you. >> commissioners, the information that was provided in the brief was basically a repeat of what we heard. the testimony tonight is basically a repeat of what we heard. i see no new information and i see no manifest injustice being presented. >> i agree with you, commissioner vaughan. i see no manifest unjust either. this was just reiteration of what was said at our last hearing and highlighted. so -- >> i'm going to move to deny the rehearing request. >> okay. mr. pacheco, if you could call the roll, please. >> on tha

mr. sanchez? >> as i understand the commissioner's deliberation and appreciate the discussion that did occur. it seems the board made the decision perhaps because what constitutes formula retail is the lease. so where they have 9 establishments now there are two additional properties for which they have leases. one lease in hillsberg and one which is a master lease in evan ston for use. that constitutes the birth of formula retail stores 10 and 11 and this would be the 12th location in the u.s.. to get back what i said earlier by having clear thresholds. that was my understanding from the board's deliberation. maybe it's consideration to the leases that have been signed. >> that was my concern as well. >> i think also the issue of internet stores. that was something that darryl. >> i was the sole guy. >> i don't know what your view is on that. >> let's leave it at leases. >> when the findings come up, the board will have to vote again on the exact language of the findings. >> okay. thank you for b

mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez planning department. i just want to reiterate that we are more than happy to review the calculations for the height and confirming again that the street address even where the door is located has no bearing on the section of 20.12 and that they can choose their frontage. i apologize to mr. garfunkle that he did send me an e-mail. it's been a very busy week and i did not get a chance to review the matter before today. >> mr. sanchez, in terms of the amount of time given, everyone has pressing other work, would two weeks be enough time for to you sort out the calculation? >> no, unfortunately the staff planer who process this is out on vacation. i'm going to be out myself next week. it might be toward the end of june or july if that's acceptable. >> okay. >> bear in mind. there has been too many meetings on this case. i don't want this to drag out. if we need to have absolute verification on the height, i would like to have a decision made as soon as possible. >> is there an issue with the timing in july? >

mr. sanchez. did you say that there was an explicit provision in the 2008 legislation for businesses that were already in existence before 2008 as fringe financial services? >> can i have the overhead to show up on 249, it's actually included in. >> we can't see that. why don't you read it? >> okay. thank you. this part of the appellant's brief 249.5 continuing existing prohibited fringe financial, exhibit 2 of appellant's brief and it's referenced to the code section. so any fringe financial service subject to the restrictions setforth continue planning code of section 186 following and when you refer to 186.1 allows for any non-conforming use may allow within that commercial district only upon approval of a new conditional use application with according to the this article 3 code. >> you have rebuttal if you would like to use it. >> i have nothing further to add. >> okay. >> i have trouble in spanish. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> all right. any comments. >> i have a comment. com

mr. sanchez? >> sure. >> thank you. scott sanchez with the planning department. it's located in the nc 3 zone center with the alcohol restricted use district. the controls of the fringe financial special use district in planning code. to provide a little bit of background very briefly. we received a complaint regarding the establishment about this location in 2011. we sent our first enforcement of this project and we didn't get it until july of 2012 because of backlog. we also received subsequent complaints about permits and we had two separate notices that went out regarding this and change of use location and subsequent to that staff realized this was within the fringe financial special use district which prohibited new establishment and sent enforcement notice says the use with a prohibited. the appellant has stated they tried after that time to discuss with staff the proposal and they have no record of any e-mail or phone calls from the sponsor or the number and lost communication with them in may with someone with lisa who no longer worked with the company.

mr. sanchez. this district is predominantly rh 2? >> and so when you go to the south the 29th street and that is nc three and so it is a higher density and otherwise this block that you can put it on the overhead so that you can see and it is not adjacent to the zoning change? >> no, it is several properties in, so you can see on the overhead here. and... >> it could have stopped flickering. >> this is the c3 on 29th street and otherwise the major of the block going toward duncan is all r2 two and based on the sand born it appears that there are quite a few single family dwellings that make it a bit older. and one apartment building. >> thank you. >> any comments? >> i have a motion, if you want to hear it. >> okay. >> commissioner? >> i am going to move to continue this to the call of the chair. >> well, with two-year review period. >> i would lean to accept that. >> any further comments? >> okay. >> go ahead. >> >> we have a motion then from commissioner fung. to continue this matter to the board's indefinite calendar, the call of

mr. sanchez. who would like to start? okay. mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez. the plan was not routed for review. however the review in material briefs based on what i saw it appears it did comply with the planning code. we did not review actual plans to confirm that. one of the issues that was raised was whether or not it violated the conditional uses of the project on greenwich and polk street. it was a p ud and conditions of approval. that issue has been raised about easement and building permits for the correct property or not and i would defer to the property building department to discuss issues on that. >> inspector duffy? >> good evening, commissioners. a few things about the permit and the main thing about the permit is that it is under the wrong address. it should have been under 1380 greenwich street based on the property lines even shown on the plans. so, i would say that's the main thing that's wrong with it. the work shown on the plan shows the building code structural review, everything else. a new application is required for the correct address

mr. sanchez. >> thank you, with the planning department. commissioner fong in response to your question, i could not locate any additional formation -- information from the building permit. both did very clearly indicate that the building permit application was approved by the department as a retail store and actually that was just handed a copy of the original permit. i put it on the overhead which shows the retail store which was on the letter which was approved and what perceived the cfc application. getting into this question about how do we apply sections 780.3 and i believe that a reasonable interpretation is a question that in making this determination in interpreting last use to be the last legal use could possibly be the only legal use as a property retail store and again i have concerns about the implications of having a broad interpretation of last use and think that it could very well encourage people to encourage a legal use something that is not a serving use and it wasn't last occupied by a neighborhood serving use therefore

mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. just wanted to briefly address thish other you that was raised about the discretionary review hearing. the week before material went to the planning commission staff did inform the appellant that they could submit additional information the following week. ~ the appellant responded i could not do so, i was otherwise tied up till wednesday which is when materials had to be to the department. the deadlines are also in the discretionary review application. staff made copies of all materials that had been submitted by the d-r requestor and submitted those to the commission. those go up on our website, the entire planning commission packet goes on our website the friday before the hearing. and the appellant would have had that time to review that if there are things that they warranted to add, they could have added that at the hearing. ~ wanted as stated. there were technical difficulties as we see tonight with the presentation, but those are beyond the control of the department. so, if th

mr. sanchez. a couple of points. the averaging calculation between the two structures went from the tangent to the adjacent building. >> so the averaging terms of determining the front set back requirement. we take the distance from the front property line to the main building walls of both of the adjacent properties and so, based on that and the revised plans is correct, and then the set back the required set back would be 12 feet. planning code section 132 requires... >> i understand that. but where the turn occurs is that in the main building wall or is it the wall beyond that? >> so the face of the turrit is not the main building wall, we would use the flat building wall that is parallel to the front property line and it would be theplans that the commission had approved or had reviewed initially that project would have actually been located within the front set back and so the planning commission's decision to set it back three feet, the project complies with the front set back requirements of the planning code

mr. sanchez says and what was not supposed to be heard over there, you know we are talking about 16 inches. right? >> well the appellant suggested four feet. >> right. >> any help from the architect of the house? >> you are out of order. >> does anybody else want to make a motion? >> well, i think that we are in the middle of an attempted motion but the question is how far set back? >> do you want it to be fair to all parties. >> if you take it back the four feet, if you want to do it on the same type of... >> evidently i was not there ten years ago and it looks like there was some type of agreement that was made and they out weighed the people that were there and it is not that i don't want people to build but there is a queen anne victor an on the left that there should be some consideration. right? i mean, so, i just need help like i said, if it is 16 inches on one side, and you know, i want to make a motion, and i don't know what the amount of the set back that i would additional that i would make a motion to. well, if your motion is to simply put a front set back, condition the permit

mr. sanchez. thank you. >> commissioners, the last item on your calendar is public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment today? >> okay. seeing none meeting is adjourned. >>> >>> >>> >>

mr. sanchez. thank you. >> commissioners, the last item on your calendar is public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment today? >> okay. seeing none meeting is adjourned. >>> >>> >>> >> >> here, commissioner kimberly brandon /-fblgs /*r >> here>> item three public comment on executive session. hearing none. executive session. >> second. >> all in favor. >> i. >> i. >> >> second. >> all in favor. >> i. i move to not disclose anything discussed in closed session. >> second. >> all in favor. >> i. >> thank you. >> pledge of allegiance. do you want to do pledge of allegiance? >> please be advised that the ringing of any cell phones, pagers and other similar devices are prohibited at this meeting. please be advised that the chair may order removal for any person responsible for any ringing of any electronic device. please be advised that a member of the public has three minutes to make comments on each agenda item unless a shorter period is adopted on any item. >> good afternoon. welcome to the port commission meeting today. it's nice to see you

mr. sanchez? mr. duffy. >>> commissioners, the permit went through the building department, went through the review for building code mechanical, went through the fire department ~ that issued, it was a current permit of values, 275,000. it's a typical tenant improvement that we see. i don't see any issues with it. obviously signed is something that people worry about. i think they've covered that. the isolators are really good. that's a great idea to do that because we do get a lot of complaints in the department about noise from equipment on the roof so that the isolators were done, that definitely would help to mitigate that. but i'm available for any questions as always. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i just wanted to note the subject properties in the mur mixed-use [speaker not understood]. it was an eight year long zoning effort. it was previously under the purview of the redevelopment agency a yerba buena [speaker not understood]. the office is principally per

mr. sanchez asked me to load those up. i brought them with me if anyone needs so thooe -- see them. >> okay. thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >>> just based on the briefing materials and of course always pending oral testimony, i wasn't originally convinced, however if there is a compromise that's been accepted with the department then i'm willing to go with them. >> i agree with you to have one substandard park. since they have come to an agreement that there is two parking spots and it's not substandard, i don't have a problem with it. >> okay. we have a motion? >> the da knows that i'm not enamored with most of his motions. i move to overall the zoning administrators, it's not a determining. >> it's the denial of a permit. they are two different denials here. >> okay. so we need to address both the za denial and the building department denial. >> you will need findings for both. >> it could be on the basis of may 15th revised

mr. sanchez did you want to speak? no, okay. we can take public comment when the commissioners are ready unless you have questions that you want to pose right now to the parties. >> you stood up and is there something that was stated that you need to clarify? >> first of all i agree with mr. duffy. he clarified what i said and i like the way that he said it better. and second, commissioner fung you asked why would my client want to do that he believes that he spent the money for the previous space to be approved as it is and the tell ant looking at the space and he thinks that it would show better with some walls and that would be the response that is what my client would want. i wanted to ask the appellant's attorney, do you feel that you have had enough time to consider this and accept? >> steve williams, again on behalf of the appellant. i agree with commissioner fung, i don't understand why you would change something in a space if you put in w rk going wireless facility, and the idea that it will pull conduit through that sp

mr. sanchez, anything? seeing nothing for mr. sanchez, is there any public comment on this item? can i see a show of hands how many people want to speak on this item? okay. if you can step forward. [speaker not understood] be willing to step to that side of the room and line up, that would be helpful to move things along. >> commissioners, i'd like to address this item. i've known [speaker not understood] for many year. she's an outstanding citizen and has been living in san francisco for many years. she's a fine, outstanding business woman who runs a full-service travel business with tours and has every intention of running this business in compliance with what she has done in the past. there have been allegations about her relatives that are inaccurate, that there's nobody that's related to her that's ever been convicted of a felony that i'm aware of. and i've been her family attorney for many -- for 10 years at least. whatever allegations in that regard that have been made are not true. >> would you state your name, sir? >> my name is eric sapphire, s-a-f-f-i-r-e. >> [speaker

mr. sanchez.s expressing his concern that he didn't have a place to parole and he was short. >> short? >> short to the door, meaning his release date was fast approaching. and so i told him that i would get him some applications for places in albuquerque. i brought you some applications like we talked a couple weeks ago in places for preparation for parole back to albuquerque. and your release date is -- >> july 1st. >> july 1st. >> that's all i'm waiting for. >> okay. so no more disciplinary. >> there's something in my heart that's just saying that something -- i'm not going to end up going that day. i don't know why. but i just sense it. i wonder if you can give them a ring on the phone, you know. >> yes, i'll follow up. >> can you push this, you know? let's get this approved so i can have that, all right, sanchez, you're approved. >> well, i can get the wheels rolling to make sure nothing happens that will delay you. >> i know something's going to happen. >> we'll do some follow-up for him to m

mr. sanchez, nothing further. the matter is submitted. >> a lot of things were brought up, but i think the primary issue with the appellant has to deal with the stair to the roof and the stair penthouse. looking at the orientation i would have guess that the blockage of the sun occurs relatively late in the afternoon. given that the penthouse is almost directly due west of the appellant's property. which means the southern sun is what provides most of the light and sunlight into rear yard and will continue as it tracks across the sky somewhere late afternoon where the penthouse will have any impact on the supplement. -- sunlight. at that time the sunlight is very low on the horizon and as was stated by a number of people, i find the impact here is modest and minimal. i think the appellant should accept the offer of the permit hold er to put glass in the stair and enhances their stairs and will add a little bit of transparentcy and light through that wall. >> i agree. i don't have anything else to add. >> me neithe

mr. sanchez, mr. duffy? >> thank you. the subject property at 312 video street can contain one legally dwelling unit. the record that it contains one dwelling and has no second dwelling unit. this could not be returned because you cannot legalize the property. i did note there were two permits moved. one was issued in brrythe appeal passed. there was noah appeal filed and it was canceled by the permit holder. there are some change in the language listed on the project description, but otherwise i'm unclear as to why it was refiled. anyway. it was an appealed here and so say the zoning only allowed a single family dwelling. i'm available for questions. >> would an novb issued on the property. they are asking for permits on something that is not warranted. they are giving permission for the nov. >> there have been no complaints by the planning department. but the planning department may have a violation on the property. >> thank you. >> commissioners, i'm not aware of any violations for the illegal unit. we sometimes get pe

mr. sanchez on the board of commission on@/-y÷ the detai.with that decision and whatever wording are i don't know what's being considered but because it is the staffs definition does that - is that going going to come back to the commission in terms of some kind of resolution ordinance or anything? or is it going to the board of supervisors? >> the form use controls we have made about 9 or 10 amendments over the course over the years but one of the debates last night was whether or not the stores should be like arrangement stores and if they have a store in the commercial district but some of the commissioners felt if you have a large company that that should be considered former retailer but the commissioners - the boards decision didn't get that far but the code says the use has 11 or more other retail stashlts establishments and we would work with the city attorney's office. but we'llr interpretation and we'll elaborate more on that. they're not precedent setting but they made clear their interpretation of the coincide and would you bring