mr. teague?ust respond briefly, generally whenever we have projects come to the planning commission that also require a variance, the staff report does not work provide recommendations on the variance itself because we do not do stuff requirements to other variances. the project sponsor often will explain why they are proposing the portions of their project that requires the variance, and then the department's recommendation is looking at the project as a whole. >> i guess the question is, because we are looking at this project in its entirety. and part of this project extends over the required property line. >> the rear yard line, yes. >> i guess if the project sponsor would like to provide an explanation as to why they feel that they should be allowed to go with this design i'm willing to hear it at this point. >> can somebody from -- i think we are talking about the rear yard, the rear setback. >> yeah. the building, just to be clear, does not extend over any property lines. i just want to sta

mr. teague or mr. sanchez, and i would like to hear from not. it's interesting that they are not here today. i don't know if you have anything you would like to add about section 1 eight six and how it has or has not been applied. we do have a gentleman from cole valley who says it has been applied. i don't know what the truth is. >> absolutely. we did pass this question along to scott sanchez, the former zoning administrator. cory teague, our current zoning administrator was on vacation at the time. scott sanchez did state in the email that he he cced myself on that supervisor brown read. if you would like reassurances from mr. teague i am happy to get those for you and pass that question along to him as well. >> let me be clear - the way this is being representative is that the quarter-mile does apply where there is a named street but does not apply when there is a named area, a defined area? in other words, you are saying it would apply - it would not apply to third street, but it would apply to haight street. it would apply, for an since - i

mr. teague described? >> kate stacy, city attorney's office. i think what we would have to do is talk to the zoning administrator about how and wh what, how this project moves forward with the three units. i think one may be a midway solution is for the commission to take the motion of intent and then give us staff and our office a couple of weeks to figure out what is the best path forward. in the context of dr and discretionary review authority of the commission is a broad authority. i do not know the nuances of all of the permits and permit applications that are still pending. maybe with the commission could do is take this motion of inte intent, then we return in a few weeks with more information about the best path forward. >> commissioner richard, you are the maker of the motion, would you be open to that? >> the question i have for mr. teague, you looking at this permit that is going to cover all of the bad things that happened to make everything okay again, that is what is before us. you're going to trace this permit back to all the con

mr. teague or mr. sanchez, and i would like to hear from not. it's interesting that they are not here today. i don't know if you have anything you would like to add about section 1 eight six and how it has or has not been applied. we do have a gentleman from cole valley who says it has been applied. i don't know what the truth is. >> absolutely. we did pass this question along to scott sanchez, the former zoning administrator. cory teague, our current zoning administrator was on vacation at the time. scott sanchez did state in the email that he he cced myself on that supervisor brown read. if you would like

mr. teague i am happy to get those for you and pass that question along to him as well. >> let me be clear - the way this is being representative is that the quarter-mile does apply where there is a named street but does not apply when there is a named area, a defined area? in other words, you are saying it would apply - it would not apply to third street, but it would apply to haight street. it would apply, for an since - it would not apply to the mission alcohol special use district because that is a big defined geographical region. would it apply - there's a whole number of these, i assume it would apply to lower old because it is a name street? >> it is the exception generally speaking. the others do not state a quarter-mile requirement. stating the quarter-mile explicitly, whether or not the boundaries closely track the neighborhood commercial district boundaries. those are irrelevant - - elements. these are limited to the alcohol restrictive use district. this interpretation does not, so for red that is not alcohol that is partly overlapping with a neighborhood commercial district, o

mr. teague, did you want to add something to that? >> sure. >> good afternoon. good morning still, commissioners. cory teague, zoning administrator with the planning department. just to give the planning department perspective there. the city attorney's office is not involved with the vast majority of our enforcement cases, because they tend to be more minor. the more egregious cases we absolutely do coordinate with the city attorney's office. they also do work themselves to stay abreast of these situations. we have a lot of interagency coordination with d.b.i. and the city attorney's office for these specific types of enforcement cases, for example, illegal demolition. the city attorney is -- they have the ability to take civil action. and basically take the enforcement further than we can through the planning code, the planning code actually specifically states that our enforcement procedures and penalties are not designed to be punitive. they're purely designed to bring about abatement of the violation. so we're very -- there's a lot of due process, there's a