mr. sanchez. it would not reduce the historic value. this kind of onslaught of serial permitting is not how many. that seems to be an issue. what was the intent? i think an entity which receives that kind of money from federal public sources shall live up to their obligations and not carry on a campaign of circumvention and omitting what their obligations are to be met. it is like almost declaring a war on the city. a famous sixth century bc general that was well known even today among military strategists, i will replace the word city -- the word army with the word city. if you expose the city to a long campaign, the city of's resources will be inadequate and their spirit will be depressed. when their strength has been expended and resources consumed, then we will take advantage of the exhaustion to prevail. it is up to you that you have as a board, denied the respondent in these events before the board. this is a continuation of the same tactic used again. the watchdogs of the city approved and in some of the failings of the letter. >

mr. sanchez' ipad and mr. hernandez' sheet of paper, the retail and sales and service, retail sales and service, and then with in that had the other category, as was pointed out by mr. preston, and the relevant code section on formula retail, and my question to you wrote -- to you is what under the formula we telco a provision would fall into that sort of generalized but not catch-all category -- but is what under that formula retail provision would fall into that? >> i guess the answer, to the question before, was accurate, in that in the planning code itself, in section 790, that is where the categories of usages are defined, and there is a definition for services, financial. it is a retail use, which provides banking services to the public, savings-and-loan and credit unions, when occupying more than 15 feet of frontage or a certain square footage, so there is a certain definition of "services, financial." in the definition of formula retail, it lists the more general categories, and those things would appl

mr. sanchez? mr. sanchez? did you have a comment to make about the e.i.r. process and the exercise that commissioner garcia was -- vice president garcia was asking about? >> i think he will probably want to elaborate further. it is a process that the work is done by consultants that are hired by the project sponsor and alternatives were given. those are alternatives that were acceptable alternatives and it is not as if they cannot use the e.i.r. as guidance for a future project. it is very valuable to them. it is my understanding that they did not supply a project that complies with the alternatives in the e.i.r. and maybe mr. frye can elaborate further but i don't think it was a waste. >> thank you. the matter is submitted. >> i can start. the -- this issue before us actually -- has several parts to it in terms of how we are going to approach our decision making. the first part deals with what the existing structure is like and it goes into a little bit of -- what -- historical resource. the existing building in the rear -- portions of it you can see with

mr. sanchez. it's showing it very clear, we do the site permit submitted on the 2006 and because they have three planner changes. the first one, we view it as jesse nelson and then they changed it to somebody else and then later on they sent to it somebody else. i have a meeting particularly with the grand planning department last year because i wanted to find out the status. what's happened? why did it take so long? they told me they didn't have a plan. i said no, i have a record. this is on their city commuter. they received our plan but they lost it. they didn't even ask us to redo the conditional use. but that's not fair because we do all the processes -- processing. if they have no comment they should submit it to the building department. why are they holding it so long and then finally they sent us a letter -- commissioner fung: ms. tong, you need to answer the following question. why did you wait four to five years? >> actually, because we have a lot of projects that are ongoing. that's whi

mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez, planning department. i really do not have much to add. we have applied this consistently. to my knowledge, the other banks that have been created recently, the chase bank on fulton,. -- had that been subjected, it would require section 312 notice, at least, because that was prior to the conditional-use of four retail uses. -- it conditional use for retail uses. there are other banks. no conditional use. there was an item heard by the planning commission. the planning commission did not -- may be the zoning administrator answered it, but that was something that was accepted by the planning commission. that is not a formula retail use. it was stated in our case report it is not a formula retail use, and the planning commission denied it for other reasons, and we have been very consistent in our application. i understand is a disagreement between the appellant and the department and how we are applying this. i respect the appellant and appreciate his argument. however, we simply have a disagreement. we deal with financial-services, not liste

mr. sanchez korea -- the photos simulation, -- you know what i talking about? they look the same note -- the same. there is the antenna on top. to build it in such a way that was flush mounted, would that not require a significant amount of change? >> i would expect so. it may very well be a situation where you remove the antenna and replace it with a freshman of antenna. commissioner peterson: completely remove it -- a flush mount antenna. >> if it is not appropriate, we will give the applicant a certain amount of time. commissioner peterson: i am asking you these questions because we heard that they are substantial and complete, that is the word. to completely remove the pole and put in an antenna, for the complete project? >> to rather replace that topped -- top mast. that can be placed directly over teh pole -- the pole. commissioner peterson: and from your perspective, -- the pole is already there. >> correct. commissioner peterson: i understand. thank you. >> 5 is the highest, in zero would be the lowest. there is some logic of that. director goldstein: w

mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez, planning department. there are two main issues. this was identified that next to one building, and architecturally significant building, this is not a landmark building. this was a survey from 1976, and not all of the buildings that are listed our resources but probably, as we spoke with preservation staff, 90% or so, it definitely would be considered historic resources, so when we are viewing this, we did know about it. that is why it was routed to us. he indicated that he was aware of these issues. this is not a feature that was located on the building. it is located adjacent to the building, and in reviewing it, there are those conditions of approval to try to address any potential impact that there could be on the building, and we felt that those were added conditions -- an adequate conditions to address, with the facility being located next to resources. so we are left with compliance. we have a building permit that was properly reviewed, was properly issued, but we still do not, i think, have a good answer as to why it was bu

mrs. sanchez, are you familiar with the scope of work envisioned in these three -- mr. sanchez, are you familiar with the scope of work envisioned in these three projects? >> i have a general understanding -- commissioner fung: can you summarize what is involved within each of them? >> it's my understanding the first permit, the 2008 permit, and perhaps the permit holder's representative can give a more thorough analysis. it's my understanding the first one deals with parking only. then there are two other -- commissioner fung: before you leave that. and where is the parking being provided? underground? >> yes, i believe so. commissioner fung: beneath the cot ages? >> that's my understanding, yes. commissioner fung: and how about the other two? >> the other two are dealing with the cot ageses themselves and those renovations which address the dwelling units, which are also address in the conditional authorization. they merged 10 dwelling units to four dwelling units. commissioner fung: those remaining two permits dealt with either the removal walls or things to allow lar

mr. sanchez, are there any installed on mission street? >> i am unaware of any markets on mission street. the closest i am aware of is between mission and valencia. i believe it is 22nd, the october revolution cafe. commissioner fong: i am following up on the idea of bringing some of the energy to the front of the space with a park. there might be an opportunity for the solution to pick up the five or 10 seats you may lose in the backyard and bring it up front. president olague: is that something that is doable? commissioner antonini: you could not require it because the city would have to approve that, but you could require them make applications for a parklet. i would consider that part of the motion. that could work. >> if i may, i think it is important that the condition on the monitoring read something to the effect that the commission could impose additional conditions in the future, or modify your conditions of approval if the conditions warrant it. commissioner borden: that is a question i wanted to ask and did not ask. maybe we sh

mr. sanchez today. my understanding is that a change of use must serve the community affected. the residents of russian hill would not be best served by granting this change of use. the density, topography, housing stock, and aging population will suffer with the loss of this parking garage. so mr. sanchez does not feel ignored this afternoon, the project sponsor is also requesting approval of a rearguard variance to reduce the required rear yard of 25 feet by 60% to 810-foot rear yard. since the developer would not be providing sufficient rearguard open space for the new residents, additional demands would be placed on the very little existing public open space in the neighborhood. please do not approve this change of use, and please do not approve this variance. thank you very much. commissioner olague: thank you. [reading names] >> commissioners, i lived at 1170 greene street. i want to talk for a moment about transit first and the transportation impact. i'm a 35-year veteran of transit first and public transit advocacy, right now advocating for the extension of a central su

mr. sanchez said, my four years on the board of appeals, mr. cornfield was a stellar representative of the building department and the city overall. so the board will miss him in more than one way. i won't go there. president olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: we couldn't find ourselves at a better time to take the leadership on this newly emerging issue because he's been outstanding on all structural engineering issues for years. president olague: thank you. commissioners, we're proposing to do something a little different tonight. we would like to take item 7 and 16 together. >> commissioners, i thought these were related and the reason for some of the proposed changing of the scheduling is directly related to the state's vote on redevelopment agencies. so i thought if we can talk about these items together, because we can do that, that would be fine. i don't know, rich, maybe just to start i could say you probably know that the state has been voting this week on the proposed -- governor's proposed budget and including the traili

mr. sanchez, could you enlighten us? >> each of the members of the historic preservation commission are preservation professionals. we have two preservation architects. a preservation planner. an architectural historian and an historian who is considered an expert in american history in san francisco history. there is one at large seat and that is occupied by commissioner matsuda who has some preservation experience at the state level. >> thank you. >> was there any controversy about the person who holds a seat? >> are you referring to commissioner johns? >> yes. >> i'm not sure then what commissioner you're -- >> ok, yes, that's who. there is only one person. >> there was some controversy regarding commissioner johns, however the board of supervisors believes that he is adequately qualified to hold that position. >> thank you plrks frye. you confirm my own aassumptions around the qualifications of that commissioner. >> if i may make one more statement. >> please. >> it is ok for disagreements on the project. the impress

mr. sanchez state that there is a pattern here. i would like to see if there is actual evidence, not hearsay. vice president garcia: i feel somewhat differently, commissioner, because i think it would be entirely appropriate for us to look at whoever is responsible for making certain that nextg is responsible and to extract whatever flesh. in terms of the correct levels of review, i believe they did go through the proper levels of review. i think it was unknown. i think that was taken into consideration. we certainly do not have anything from planning that would indicate otherwise. i think it would be a burden on the city and certainly a burden on nextg, and i do not know what would be accomplished from looking at emails so i would be opposed to a continuance for that reason, and i would also move and see where that goes to uphold the department and to request again if fines are appropriate, that they be levied. director goldstein: any other commissioner comments? so we have a motion on the floor from the vice president to deny the

mr. sanchez, would you be able to speak to that? no. who here from which department could talk about those plans? were they taken in reverse, such that the retaining wall is going to be removed? >> removed and replaced. commissioner hwang: that is what was originally proposed? i am confused. >> it was originally proposed. they do not have permission to do that. somehow, they are back to the original. it is so confusing. we do not know why or how that happened. in october, we were given the plans we marked as revised. commissioner hwang: if you have an easement issue, you would have a different avenue of recourse. >> i do not even know what that is. it just seems if they are going to replace the wall -- there are a couple of different issues. one is the permission to replace the ball. the bottom-line issue is that no one has looked at the ground water issues that i guess to keep the underwater -- to keep the underground garage dry, we now have the applicant's report that concurs that the groundwater study had one line about ground water,

mr. sanchez that there is a pattern of not having followed all of the conditions. also, we have had many cases come before us in the past where the issue came up. this relies upon their having been a valid permit. that does not mean is valid. it means it is invalid. we have had cases like this before. my instinct pending the comments of my fellow commissioners is to overturn this permit and send them back through the process they should have gone through in the first place even though i don't think that they knew. >> i don't think that there is a need to repeat the comments from vice president garcia. i would like to add that as i understand it, this permit is still open. this is not closed. our board is here reviewing the appeal as part of the process. this is not final. i am inclined to grant the appeal. >> i would support that position. >> i keep thinking of the same two wrongs don't make a right. i was contemplating one of the recommendations of a continuance for planning to further discussions. we cannot ignore the past behavior. i'm swayed by the comments of

mr. sanchez would be able to weigh in on the square footage issue. he has spent a lot of time today on the plants. president goh: my question was of dbi had measured. >> i don't think there's anything to measure. >> did you have a question? >> measure what? >> measure this or footage. -- of the square footage. >> what would he measure? >> the square footage. i believe the question was asked by one of the commissioners to find out whether or not it exceeded the -- >> that is the plan. commissioner hwang: there had been questions raised to whether the plans reflected actually the limit, the amounts presented in the permit, which was 50 square feet short of the 4000 square foot limit. when i requested that the interior be measured, it was, i thought it was going to happen. i did not know that dbi was going to be unable to do that measurement. it was not that clear to me that that was something dbi could not do. the answers were, yes, we can measure it. i need some clarification. >> if our department was asked to measure, we would try our best to measure

mr. sanchez, if 20 permits is not serial permitting, what is? >> serial permitting is doing in multiple permits but you cannot do in one. having five or 10 per mets is not bad. we are happy that people do give -- and do get permits to do the work on building. serial permitting and the negative connotation is that you are incrementally doing work that you are doing work that would require a different process. the sheer numbers, they could be revisions or renewals. they are not a fault. it would raise suspicion. we will look at it more closely. the fact that there is more than five permits is not a problem. >> can you look at the ornate door that

mr. sanchez pointed out, would that fall into the catch-all category? the catch-all category is for other things not defined in the code, which is why i used the example that i did, because financial services is a use that is defined and has a specific use restrictions in the code. a type of use that is not specifically identified in the coat -- code. vice president garcia: i don't mean to do this, but she is going to miss her car. do you mind speaking when everyone gets back from trying to move their automobiles, mr. brenna? -- brennan? we will be back at 5 after 12:00. >> thank you very much. [gavel]

mr. sanchez. i'm not saying that this is the direction the project should go but i want to know what the possibility is. can there be additional parking in the building that serves commercial tenants at act as a public parking garage? >> if the current legal use is that of a public parking garage, they can retain that use even if they are converting the upper floors. we could look at this factoring into the project. >> they could entertain some portion of it. >> i would just say that we have asked the community to work with the project sponsor, that means that the answer cannot be that we only want the garages. i want to point that out. we're working with the project sponsor and figuring out how your needs can be addressed through the parking situation and how can a new use the introduced. again, we have plenty of vacant buildings throughout san francisco. we cannot make people do something they don't want to do. there are many instances where people wait and the neighborhood gets frustrated befor

mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. the department strongly supports the planning commission's approval of this dispensary and finds it is inappropriate use and would not have a negative impact on the community. the department did not find any evidence in the rehearing request that will support granting the rehearing request. i am available for any questions. >> can i see a show of hands how many people are interested in speaking under this item? ok. vice president garcia: one minute. but if i may, i am going to play with you. this is not about whether or not marijuana ought to be legal or it is good for that never good to have this. this hearing is about one issue only. and has something new been presented that would cause us to grant a rehearing? anything else, you arsay, but wu to respect the fact that we have a long meeting tonight. thank you. >> we will start with public comment. i would ask that people line up, starting to my left. also, if you would please fill out the speaker card. it will help us in the proport

mr. sanchez speak to that. i believe he can confirm that is in compliance. those are the plans you have in front of you. i think the third page is the easiest one to see it on, if you want to take a look. this area right here is where the atm use to face the outside. you can see now that the atm is inside the vestibule of the building. it will no longer be located on an exterior wall of the building. we would ask that the board approved that modification tonight and thus resolve the 312 notice that was missed in error by several different players. i do want to say in addition, to address some of the earlier comments of the appellant about community outreach and the community lack of involvement in this project, you have with our brief a list of the community outreach activities that chase undertook in this never heard. those included specifically meetings with two own neighborhood associations. at one of those meetings, the appellant himself was present. the meeting occurred before and the permits were issued on this project. it was clear at that meeting, as

mr. sanchez that was written by my colleague robert lopez who is a community relations developer. and in it it elaborates the reason for our support for this project which evolves around the prospect of increased employment and vocational training and opportunities for mission residents specifically hiring and training 30 to 40 local residents at least and outreach to at-risk youth and low v vocational training for hospitality students at the city college mission campus. and so i would like to reiterate our support and thank you very much. >> good afternoon. and from the mission language low voecational school. we have been advocating people for the past 40 years and graduated 2600 students in our school. mostly nonspeaking, lower income families. so we're here to support this enterprise. before we do anything, we did our job and did our homework and gather all kinds of information about many other information and before we meet with the marketing director and we did our job. so some of the questions there is what about the neighbors. what is going to happen to the neighbors backw

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i do not have much to add here. i think there has been vetting of this issue of conditions of approval, what conditions of approval applied. the was a long history to the project. the variance was on the adjacent property. the project was constructed on the adjacent property. the project that was on the subject property has been abandoned. the have a new project. that is what is before you know. there was confusion about conditions of approval for the adjacent property. we were not able to find the variants associated with that adjacent property. we do not have evidence that there are conditions of approval that preclude development of the subject property in the manner proposed. even with that, the planning commission and the zoning in minister would have been the initial hearing bodies, and it would've been the same body this time around. the planning department and zoning commission had approved that. there has been a ceqa appeal. i am available for any questions. vice president garcia: prior to getting the brief

mr. sanchez and will mail secretary avery: okay, the planning commission is back in session. if i could remind everyone to turn off your cell phones or other electronic devices. commissioners, you are on item number 15a and b, 54-62 peralta street. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the project at 54-62 peralta that street is to construct four dwelling units. the project requires a variance from the parking requirements special use district and the planning code to allow five parking spaces where seven are required. the planning code section says off street parking requirements. 54-56 peralta street will provide a three off street parking spaces, and they will provide off street parking spaces. the 60-62 peralta building will provide no off street parking, while the others will provide five off street parking spaces that will be accessible from the adjacent building. two parking spaces will be reserved for the units and the adjacent 60-62 peralta avenue. and the discretionary review applications, the requestor expressed concerns, including building scale information due to the

mr. sanchez, if you could come up -- isn't there quite a lot of space still between the patio and the neighbor's backyard areas, i think? is there? can you show us? just to kind of -- because i think it looks like that might be what becomes the point of discussion here ultimately. >> i believe this area here -- that area is actually being used right now by the owners of this property. >> right. >> but it looks like the use is going to be all in here, the patio use. >> it is pretty close. >> i think part of the issue i have is that, again, mission street is a neighborhood commercial district, you know? it is an area that is a vital commercial district in san francisco. and i would not want to put a lot of prohibitions on and start a precedent where we are prohibiting what business can do along a neighborhood commercial corridor. i think we have two dangerous precedents we are looking at here. you have union street. you have filmore st.. you have all these but the commercial corridors, the visitor wrote. we want to be able to kind of encouraged fatality along these corridors, and although there ar

mr. sanchez, did you have something to add? >> before commission more had spoken, i was also going to acknowledge mr. ortiz for his work. he has moved to the planning information counter to better serve the public. the commission's loss is the public game. thank you for your comments. -- is the public's gain. think you for your comments. >> the motion is for approval. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: aye, and that includes the condition read into the record? >> that includes the condition read into the record. president olague:aye. and we are going to take a 10- minute recess. >> good afternoon. the planning commission is back in session. if i could remind everyone to turn off your cell phones or electronic devices that may sound off during this proceeding. at this moment, at this time, you are on item 9a and 9b, for 1945 high street. as you consider the request for discretionary review, the zoning administrator is hearing the request for

mr. sanchez -- >> i wanted to briefly but sincerely express my deepest gratitude to all the gasp staff and i think this is such a tremendous achievement for all the department, lasting benefits for the city and i know it has not been easy, there have been many sophisticated legal challenges as mr. snyder noted, but you guys have used technology tremendously to improve the efficiency and you've been also very fair and equitable in your enforcement and very efficient in your enforcement. thank you very much. president olague: that concludes this informational presentation and the commission can move on to item two on the calendar. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: yes, i'd

mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. what we're here for is to see if the board would grant jurisdiction and use the board's ability to reduce the amount of penalties. we assess penalties at up to $250 a day. that can be reduced to no less than $100 a day by this board on appeal. the first enforcement notice was sent on june 15, 2009. the notice of penalty was sent on august 24, 2009. in november 2009 we performed a site visit to remind the property ener about the penalty and they agreed that would file a conditional use authorization. there was a conditional use authorization sup -- submittal scheduled for 2010, but they did not show at the appointment. we later reminded them that penalties were continuing to acue. -- accrue. they scheduled another submittal appointment for january 26. they arrived but didn't bring the conditional use application. we called them in february and reminded them again oar the requirements and the accruing penalties. we did another notice enforcement action in march of 2010 as a reminder. we