mr. sanchez was staff at the appeal. when mr. nale spoke of having both the garage contractor and the architect available to show that and i quote, "that it is a separate standing building. it uses no foundation, no supporting walls and no electricity from the building." at the july open house for the garage that david hosted it looks to be the same plan that was on view when the first garage was proposed. if no determination has been made on this extension or any extension over the years, then i think the extension is granted in error. let's see things have changed over the course of the seven years in the neighborhood. there is a lot more concern for the effects on dwelling units of garages. there are guidelines for adding garages. there are better streets, 98.1. the sound ordinance no. 29. in 2005 no review was needed to put this garage in, but the fact is that my house is dated back to -- probably 1885, the first people living there that were living there in 1889. it's a house with a very fragile foundation and it's been supp

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department and i think this is a confusing issue especially talking about a variety of lot lines so i would like to go through historically the lot and it is proposals. this is from the 1946 block book and was constructed then and had the dwellings and this is 24th and this is dolores street. there were two lots and 32 and 33 and i believe they were vacant, so then in 1954 they sought approval for a variance from the planning commission because at this time variances were reviewed by the planning commission so they sought a variance for the dolores street lot and it's the lot in blue and create the lot and had the building on that lot. they proposed on the remainder of the lot and 75 and 50 and eight unit apartment building and that was denied by the planning commission in 1954. in 1955 they revised the proposal and came back to the planning department with a new proposal and three lots and contain two lots in the green and red and build new construction on both

mr. sanchez? commissioners? >> it feels to me much of this is predicated on not having needed a cu in the first place. but that was the process that took operation and there is an opportunity to file for another conditional use to remedy the situation and it wasn't made clear to me why they didn't

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. this is located in a zoning direct that allows two -- >> two or three. >> two. historically it did contain three dwelling units so that was on the original block. it was block 6502 and equal 85 feet wide and 95 feet wide -- and it would be in violation of the planning code if they were to have retained that three unit building that was there, so as a condition of approval they sought a building permit to reduce the number of units from three to two but that got a final completion from the building of inspection. there are no subsequent units that add that back and doing so would be violation to the planning code and only allows two units on the property and the original lot was 11e so the title inspection -- i mean if they failed to go back any further than 20 years on the property -- or 30 years on the property that is more bit of issue for the title insurance company because it does have history before that. so they missed the other 85 years that the lot existed but it was clear it

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department, good news, the giants are up 8-1 now. in regard to vice president fung's comments or the question about the conditions of approval of it's prettyboilerplate 1-7. it doesn't really speak to the good neighbor gestures other than the community liaison, which it sounds like from the appellant he is the community liaison or his manager and anybody who approaches will be given contact information. so that would satisfy that requirement. there is recordation of the nsr. should implementation the project result in complaints from interested property owners, residents or commercial lessees not resolved and findly the zoning administrator to be in violation of the code or conditions of approval, we refer the use to the commission and they may seek to revoke the conditional use authorization and that could be another step to take it to them to revoke the cu. i think it's probably in everybody's interest that the cu be feeled to modify these conditions of approval. the authorization itself does not specify a license type, abc alcohol

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. so i like to show what is the map for the subject property and shows it's a two unit building. again it's record that is available to the appellants. in the highlighted it's showing two residential units and with the other two unit residential buildings that were built after it was subdivided pursuant to the zoning allowing two units on each of the lots so under the general plan we have the obligation to preserve and protect affordable housing. however we also have obligation to preserve neighborhood character and matters of density for the subject neighborhoods so in approving the subdivision it was very clear it was limited to two units because that's all the zoning allowed and i appreciate vice president fung's comments here. had there not been a subdivision associated with this and maybe ones of removed but in this case it was removed for the purpose for them to have development potential of subdivision and creating new lots so if that wasn't tided to it i would understand the boa

mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i wish i could just distract you by saying that giants are up 6-1 and leave it at that, but unfortunately, we failed the appellant and we failed the neighbors in properly doing our job. so i will outline the process of events here for the board. so in incidence of 2007 conditional use application was filed for the bar and restaurant called alths and there was a hearing in march of 2008. at this hearing there were neighbors that expressed concern about the operation of the outdoor activity area associated with the restaurant. so the planning commission did add additional conditions to the approval. we typically give draft motion and that draft motion had seven conditions. at the hearing the planning commission added five additional conditions, 8-12 that included closing the outdoor time at 12:00 a.m. and no amplified music except in cabanas was part of the proposal. no outdoor entertainment except twice a month before 7:00 p.m.also lighting couldn't cause a glare and entertainment comm

mr. sanchez? you also have six minutes. >> thank you. scott sanchez [phr-rplts/]. planning department. in 2007 there was a building permit filed to document the legality of the building as a 3-unit building and that permit was never pursued and subsequently abandoned. there 2008 there was a building permit filed to again allow construction of the garage in the rear yard. and we did say we were going hold that until the [o-urpblgts/] question of outstanding question of the violation was dressed. in may of this year, a building permit application was filed in 2012, not 2010, for the garage. and staff was reviewing, we had a 2008 building permit for the garage and 2012 building permit for the garage and i believe on both mr. nales was listed as the licensed contractor for the project, at least according to the building permit records. and the 2012 permit did not match what was in the 2005 variance. so this kind of what mr. gladstone was talking about, maybe some confusion on the planning department's side, between may and july/august of this year because we had two permits from the projec

mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. we would like note that mrs. avery's last day, and has been with the planning commission for 22 years. when commissioner fung was on the planning commission in the 90's. he must remember her well. and for the last years she's served as the executive secretary, and been doing double duty in the last years. we will miss her greatly, she's been a calming presence on the planning commission. and we wish her the best and taking over for her in the interim period is from the board of ape -- appeals. >> can you repeat? >> jonas (inaudible) will be the acting secretary. >> item 3, the consideration and possible adoption of the board minutes for the meeting of october 17, 2012. >> so moved. >> we have a motion to approve the minutes. any public comment on the minutes? seeing none. call the roll please. >> on that motion from commissioner lazarus, to adopt the october 17th minutes. fung. >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado. >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 3-0. minutes adopted. >> calling item 4-a, the board received a letter

mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. just to reiterate, the exemption did include the full scope of work, there was an error in terms of stating that it was not within that portion. but, the appropriate scope was reviewed under that environmental review. it was clarified in an october e-mail that none of the findings had changed and not the certificate of exemption remained valid. so that would be appealable to the board of supervisors. those the board of asupervisors does regularly deal with the sequa appeals and i am available for any questions. >> commissioners? the matter is submitted. >> i wanted to confirm one thing, and i am not sure who it should be addressed. >> but a permit is not required to take down a tree on rec and park property? >> that is correct, commissioner. >> i have a question, of rec and park. you know, it is clear that the principle issue here relates to the trees and the removal that rec and park feels was in jurisdiction to do as it wishes. to the extend that you have a plan for the planting of

mr. sanchezs, i don't see the initial request made to you in the correspondence from mr. mr. lawrence badiner in terms of the specific request to you. you reiterate to you in your letter of determination what the request was, and it's pretty much the same in both letters in the sense that they -- if i could paraphrase it the request was -- the planning commission's approval process in the 1950's for that subject property. all right. the september 11 letter you went beyond that request, and it appears there are probably a number of reasons they wanted the letter that way and give you substantial amount of paperwork to lead you in that direction. isn't the main issue here not that history, but the fact that you really have an enforcement issue? >> i don't quite understand. >> some time back in the late 50's or 60's somebody had lots that were correctly done. >>i think it's important to take the planning department resolution out of this because that was for one particular project abandoned. >> no, no. the final one that allowed them wanted to create three equal lots and that wa

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. this is located in a zoning direct that allows two -- >> two or three. >> two. historically it did contain three dwelling units so that was on the original block.

mr. sanchez. >> just briefly the location of the storage shed, the staff has no issues with it. thank you. >> the matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> well, i really don't have much to say in addition to what i have heard here tonight. i don't believe that there is any basis -- there is not sufficient evidence to show me that this permit was issued in error. i believe the permit does meet the requirements of the planning code, the building code and the ada. >> i would echo that, and would add that when there are comments made about a facility such as the storage or green waste facility could go to any other park, it suggest to me it's not an issue specific to lafayette park, it's an issue that somebody just doesn't want it and if it's not good enough for lafayette park it's good for somebody else's park and that does not help me persuade me to see that point of view and so i would concur. >> some of the issues brought up today where r better brought up in front of the parks and recreation commission. we're dealing with permits and whether the issues related to expenditures,

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. this is located in a zoning direct that allows two -- >> two or three. >> two. historically it did contain three dwelling units so that was on the original block. it was block 6502 and equal 85 feet wide and 95 feet wide -- and it would be in violation of the planning code if they were to have retained that three unit building that was there, so as a condition of approval they sought a building permit to reduce the number of units from three to two but that got a final completion from the building of inspection.

mr. sanchez? >> thank you. good evening. scott sanchyes, sir planning department. i will be brief on three issues here that are planning-related. first the permit at hand which is for the storage shed and the planning department did review this and we do not have issues. we think the project is code-complying. the two other issues relate more to what occurred at previous hearings. first, in relationship to the archaeological questions, at the original hearing for the previous permit, which was i believe in late august, i was here. and at that hearing miss hobson had mention thated she contacted randall dean, who was the planning department staff and does archaeology. i spoke with him after the hearing and asked him if he was contacted by raj goldberg and he said he had and did not express my concerns at that time. he subsequently went on a long vacation, and i was on the same. i was not here for the hearing request before the board i think on september 19 and since coming back, i have tried to track down the answer to the question. and i have phot been able to spea

mr. sanchez can verify that. the coffee shop has been there. the first permit that was pulled on that project to remodel for handicap accessibility because they left it in very bad shape. my client went there and did the permit to comply with ada accessibility and they start working on that project which is march -- according to this march 6. now, there's an ordinance came after mr. wiener's office -- scott wiener's office. they decided to convert all the coffee shop because a coffee shop -- it has very bad -- you can't cook the food. you only have to be wrapped in aluminum foil or plastic and displayed. you cannot cook on the premises. now with starbucks and the other companies tried to change that and they went there and we change to three items. one call it a coffee shop. if anybody before march -- i think march somehow -- if you have a coffee shop, bonified coffee shop you are already a limited restaurant which means you can cook but only certain seats. my client has 15 seats and put the hood in there so he went there and did the second per

mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez, the giants have won and congratulations to them on game 169 world series. [ applause ] >> i think that is the only applause i have gotten here. i hope i don't make it more difficult to understand for the commission. just going through the fact there was a v. from 1991-92 that authorized the garage at the rear. a one-car garage and it was issued and i don't think a building permit was filed. i think it was a previous owner of the building, but that was never invoked. i just happened to find that out today dooing additional research. so the process that we're in now began in 2005. when a variance application was filed in march to allow the garage at the rear. a building permit was filed in june of that year, section 311 neighborhood notify case was done on the garage and building permit. there was no discretionary review filed on that application. there was a hearing and the zoning administrator granted the variance and that was dated november of 2005, seven years ago. almost to the date. the building permit was subsequently issued in may of 2007. around that

mr. sanchez, and thank you to the members of the carpenters who are here. before our next speaker, i'm going to call five more speaker cards. [speaker not understood] jones, [speaker not understood]. ramon hernandez and josh arsey. >>> thank you, supervisors. i'm dennis mc kenzie, long-time consulting education. that's my major private practice where i develop education proposals including cross cultural, sports education exchange programs. also the past 11 years been teaching in the public high schools here in san francisco. i'm here once again on behalf of our students and high school college and all of our youth. as i propose to you and the warriors, everyone involved, for this arena to include within it -- within the arena itself a high school education and career development classroom which could be accessible all year round. arenas in this country, this is a perfect example and opportunity to create a model frat silt. d -- facility. i believe sports is [speaker not understood]. to include a high school classroom which these are inherently educational

. - senor sanchez. - mr. brashov. hombre. rosa says you are like a father to her. she is better than a daughter to me. i don't have to pay her bills. so, what brings you to the states ? rosa. actually, he's on his way to a conference in new york. in fact, we are only speaking english when miguel is here so he can practice. i have been in the states more than 30 years and he speaks better english than me ! come on in. carrie ? are you here ? i guess not. well, this is it. not exactly a palace but it's okay for now. - it's very nice. - how about something to drink ? water would be great. i brought something for you from home. miguel ! it's beautiful ! it belonged to my mother and to her mother before her. thank you. rosa, please sit down. there is something i want to talk to you about. now that i have finished architecture school-- - oh, hi. - [ rosa ] hi, carrie ! this is miguel. miguel, this is my roommate, carrie. - hola, miguel. ¿ como esta ? - good evening, carrie. i am feeling on top of the world. - you want to sit down for a while ? - i can't. you will never g

mr. harte sell. and i'm going to call up five more speaker cards. * peter picandez, walter marchua, henry [speaker not understood], dennis mc kenzie, and lucia sanchez. i was calling the five names before the last speaker of the five. >>> good afternoon. my name is barbara [speaker not understood] and i am in district [speaker not understood]. thank you for voicing your concerns that you've heard from the citizens in our district. i have resided across the street from pier 30-32 since 1994 -- i mean, 1993. so, i've been there port side for almost 20 years and i wanted to move to another area like the potrero, but [speaker not understood] move from a one bedroom to a two-bedroom. i've been there 20 years of my life. i spent a lot of time in the neighborhood. things are coming into the neighborhood and i've seen the growth. i've seen the dot-com come and go. it's now real vibrant. all the people that invested their livelihood making it a real good neighborhood now it's too good of a good thing. and everybody wants to come to our neighborhood. the giants came, they improved, the giants did a first class development. i warriors, i can understand how the

sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, gentlemen, again for being before us today. in preparing for this hearing, i asked my staff back in the orange county to go through the casework we have with respect to veterans in transition. and although we have a great relationship with our va hospital in long beach and we have two clinics, one in santa ana and one in anaheim in our district, the reality is that the most troublesome area with respect to these cases involve the quality and the lack of health care for our service members who are transitioning from active or having been called up and now out into the veteran world, if you will. and, in fact, i have a lot of veterans who come to my office and, um, they express real concern about not receiving treatment or being, or having a long time to wait for a specialty doctor, for example. in long beach it would be oncology where we must be short staffed or something of the sort. and the other really big concern for them is the issue of being prepped up for a surgery and then somebody on the surgery team doesn't show up out