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 believe the board of supervisors upheld unanimously. that project a

new restaurants in this commercial district. 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

the new addition to all cottages represents a building in the back and putting parking in. that's what the c.u. was granted for. commissioner fung: is retaining wall is under which permit? >> i believe the last one. the second one, sorry. commissioner fung: has the -- are these cottages on independent lots or on a common lot? >> there was some confusion there. before my client purchased the actual property i believe they were con doed. we're proceeding to recondo them again. they are on one single lot, i believe. >> seems to be a lack of clarity, at least on my part. you obviously know the project very well but we don't have any graphics and we're taking your word for your position that the retaining wall is -- has always been part of the c.u. authorization, part of the scope of the project, but we're hearing from the requester that it is completely unrelated. that's two opposite arguments, so we -- i feel a little -- i feel the need for more information and i don't know if, you know, i know a continuance is requested but that would not be usual for me. >> if i may, i'm not sure the requester

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 submitted. commissioner fung: can i move my car? [laughter] i guess those of us who have worked with planning codes throughout our professional career, the