mr. sanchez? >> thank you. good afternoon. scott sanchez, planning department. just some overview, it is 161- 165 newman street, located within rh-2, two-unit density zoning district, located within the vernal heights special use district. i think this is the first variants appeal that the board has heard that i conducted the hearing since the start conducting hearings in june. this item was heard on september 22, 2010. the subject application seeks variances from the lot area, rear yard, and usable open space to allow the subdivision of the lot into separate, legal bahts, one approximately 25 by 46 and the other 25 by 50, but which are substandard in terms of the lot size, even though it is a corner lot. it still requires a variance. into the findings, the vernal heights special use district does have some smaller than normal lots, but they are still generally 25 by 80 feet. the subject lot as it exists is generally larger than what we would typically find it in vernal heights. however, the property is excessively developed. in 1998, there was a building permit

mr. sanchez has lived close of location. if all the documents are true, the $66,000 of work was performed before the work order was issued. they did not take any issue with the facts i have laid out. they did argue that an organization which it supports the pharmacy should be sufficient to show there is support for this pharmacy. however, if you look at the is, we're talking about six votes. as to the law, they essentially ignored the lot in their brief except to make allegations that this body abused its allegations. they did not submit the case law on a vested rights. they do not address the evidence presented this board that a pharmacy in this neighborhood will increase illicit drug trafficking. they argue that the permit in process is to blame for vacant storefronts. it is not the city's laws to protect the quality of life that results in vacancies. it is the very crime associated with the drug trafficking that has resulted in so much light in the tenderloin. it is not their operations plan that is opposed here. , this i

>> we would arrive then at 7,700. >> it appears mr. sanchez is doing the math. no, he's not. is that your motion, commissioner? >> unless somebody else has comments. >> no comment. >> i move to -- >> grant the appeal. >> and reduce the penalty to $100 per day, is that correct. >> that's correct. >> and to run the penalty to run from september 8, 2009, to november 24, 2009. >> that's correct. >> i think we are where we want to be but something is niggling at me and i want to ask you a question, mr. sanchez f. i could. if one goes for a permit and they have to do to d.p.h. and d.p.w. and all of these different agencies, is it made known to them clearly that this isn't the end of the process? ok, you got this from d.p.h. but there are other requirements you now have at planning, it seems like that comes up every once in a while but pretty rarely. >> yes, i think we have a good working relationship with the different agencies and this comes up a lot with any food service and business. we get a referlt from public health. public health informs them of the permitting process as wel

duffy, let's hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good afternoon. it's got sanchez, planning department. i had the opportunity to review the plan, and it appears they comply with the requirements of the planning code. the rooms on the ground floor comply with the rooms. the planning code requirements have been met. there is no notification required for the work they have done. in fact, the permit that included the second level does not even require planning review. we reviewed the ground floor and the ground-floor rooms, and comply with our requirements. president goh: but they don't comply with the adjacent properties? >> the issue is the building code compared with the planning code. with the planning code, we're concerned with the illegal units. we came up with a bulletin that refines what could be approved on the ground floor. we look at bathrooms. that is the critical thing, bathrooms, what bars, 1 3/6, things like that. in terms of windows, project laundry sinks, things like that. in terms of bedrooms, that is up to the building code. presiden

commissioner fung: mr. sanchez, the smaller building, what use to beat i guess a bungalow, runs pretty much to the rear property line? so the only setback with respect to the property line would be the portion of adjacent to the other building? >> rebuilding would have approximately 3-4 foot setback. i can put that on the plans, on the overhead. so the yellow is the rear building you are refering to. the 9 foot yard, in which the stairs go around. there is 4 foot 6 inches at the rear, and this is probably 3-4 feet to the property line. it would be constructed. the building which was built, completed in 2000, occupies nearly the entire front lot and would leave a 5 foot rear set back. commissioner fung: okay, so when they did the new buildings and it satisfied the rear yard requirement so that the existing bungalow wound up being nonconforming use at that point? >> well, that building would have been non complying at that time, as well, because of publication on the property. even if we were to have had the

for mr. sanchez, i requested the possibility of wide variances are not separated from environmentalists. from a normal citizen to a normal resident, the boundaries are blurred. i think would be clearer to us to be able to speak to building issues in one side of our mind and environmental issues on the other. but to me, personally, they seem to blur. if i am not clear, please be gentle with me. this is a question. the other thing is quite discouraging since i have been working so hard to understand and neighborhood groups. how the neighborhood process works, how the planner's work. how we keep up with the street from a citizens' standpoint. my brain has trouble keeping up with that. i went to planning a couple days ago and found that there was a letter written as if you had already made a decision on a project that is very important to us. it was written in the past tense as if you are in the hospital but already dead. it seemed like this was just a rubber stamp. i just wanted to know what tha

. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department staff. i think the presentation given by the project sponsor has been very thorough. i am lucky to be joined this evening by the planner who handled this. he is one of our neighborhood planners with excellent knowledge of this project. he will be able to get into detail with any question. on february 11, they certified the environmental impact report. at this hearing on the 10th, the planning commission also unanimously approved the office allocation for the project, the exceptions, and the variants granted for the project -- variance granted for the project. that has five findings which must be met and much show a hardship, versus the exception. that would consider a variety of criteria set back in the planning code. i would like to highlight two of the exceptions. i would like to talk a little bit about the goals. the tower separation is in order to assure there can be distinguished form. this is a corner lot. on two sides, it does have of this tower separation. one side has a courtyard. i

. >> mr. sanchez? >> good evening, members of the board. i would like to add a few items. the city inspector give you a detailed outline of some of the permit processing. this is located within a residential-commercial high- density zoning district. within this district, retail uses are principally permitted. when the building permit was filed on may 21, the planning department reviewed over the counter. there is no notification required. it goes through over the counter. the board of appeals received a district -- a jurisdiction request on may 14. on june 30, the planning department said there were two permits related to work on the ground floor. the pharmacy is a principally permitted use. the second was a permit for work to convert a dwelling unit on the ground floor to a lottery and storage area. we did have records related to the ground floor, related to the activity in the front in the commercial area. in regards to the approval process for this, it is principally permitted. however, there is still discretion. all building permits are discretionary other than certain

. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department, and in response to the information, the property across the street -- it does not appear those were subdivided recently. those buildings were built previously. the building in front was built in 1930, both prior to the lot size requirements. the building on the north side of the lot was built between 188 the aunt 1907. that is the information i found -- 1880 and 1907. they have done a good job of differentiating this, and also a stablishing there is neighborhood support for this. the department cannot just make a decision based on the fact there is neighborhood support. we have to look at the impact of the general plan, and i think issue is the similarity between the two, and that is a fair result large building developed. -- that is there was a large building developed. have there been a subdivision, that would have resulted in a smaller building. had the front building been smaller, had it been closer to being a code-compliant in terms of the rear

commissioner sugaya: mr. sanchez, on the property -- what was the -- >> it was a dance studio. >> ok, commissioners, if we can move forward. item #5 -- 2011.0149i. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. babson's first opens at the mission bay location. the fast-track m.b.a. program is designed to allow business professionals to earn their mta. -- mba. post secondary institutions and hospitals have an application on file with the planning department. we're proposing to occupy less than 100,000 square feet. upon review of the imp, the commission did not hear a hearing on the abbreviated imp. staff believed it contains all necessary information and recommends the commission approved. if you have any questions, will be happy to answer them. >> thank you. president olague: project sponsor? project sponsor? on this item? they are not here. so, commissioner borden. oh, ok. great. we would ask if you want to add anything to the discussion? >> no. president olague: ok. great. if we have questions, we know you a

. >> it is possible that mr. sanchez -- >> i believe there are conditions in the appeal brief that was received on september 23rd, 2010, they are from the permit holder, they are not on the tenderloin police station letterhead. >> this is a protected and monitored security system. keeping it streets trimmed to maintain visibility. this is fully provided by a contract security firm. maintaining control cash on site. the secured for all substances on site. no loitering. the mta has r timed and metered parking space in front of the primacy. -- in front of the pharmacy. >> what the new meters would do would not be affected by that? >> those are the ones that i would choose to have incorporated. >> do you have those? >> i am not enough. that gives us only three votes. we should probably hear from the commissioners. >> i will accept the conditions. >> do you want all conditions including the parking? >> i would. if this is feasible. if it does not take away a parking place the. >> i'm not concerned about the parking. w

mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. the planning issues here are relatively straightforward. subject property is located within a pdr-r zoning district, which is one of our highest intensity industrial zoning districts, 65-foot height limit. the subject property is full-lot coverage and that is permitted within this zoning district. these issues to come up. the conflict between existing established uses, especially if they are of a non industrial character, and new industrial uses coming in. in this case, it is maybe not so much about the type of use that is going in, but rather the building and property line issue, which as the board knows is not something the department generally involves itself in when it comes to conflicts about property lines. i think it is relatively straightforward from the planning point of view. there was adequate notice, to all occupants within three qaddafi, for the environmental review. -- to all occupants within 300 feet. there would have done a building permit application filed at the time

mr. sanchez, can you supply plans to people? >> diego sanchez, planning. as far as the previous conditions of approval, we would regret the plants back to planning so step could conserve that. before we issued a permit, we could potentially hold the permit at that stage for 15 days, of which point staff would contact members of the public who are interested for them to come into the planning department and review the plans there. if that is acceptable, we can do that. commissioner sugaya: aren't these plants on line? >> yes. those of an online at least a week. -- those have been online at least a week. commissioner sugaya: if more plans come back and you could notify the neighborhood people who are interested, that would be great with those conditions, -- that would be great. with those conditions, i will move to approve the project. commissioner antonini: second. commissioner moore: there could be blocked notification where members could get a ddi -- dbi notice. when the case file shows up, people can go to the web site, link to dbi, and see the plans as

i am not going to recount what you just heard from mr. sanchez and this project has enormous merit and we went over that on march 3. however, we had contention at the time with a number of groups with the open area and the patio space in the back where the neighbors felt that that was inappropriate and there would be a nuisance. subsequent to that, we have met with them per your direction to meet with that group and other affected groups for the continuance and had supervisor david campos at the meeting and was well represented by dr. antonini at the meeting. every single individual from bartlett street that was here march 3 was invited to the meeting and over other one yes knew of and asked diego to supply the meetings and they were invite and we basically were able to show them something of substance. one of the reasons is the vision had to be createed. the tenants has to get together with the property owner and to see whether it made economic sense to all involved and get the architectural drauings to see what the cost would be and who

commissioner hwang: mr. sanchez, what comes next? >> that is a good question. we don't typically have product sponsors who are so unwilling to comply with the laws of the city. in this case, i think we would have to pursue the full panel the amount and it could be referred to collections, which could go to public health and seek revocation of their health. because they violated their health permit. we could call on the city attorney to help enforce on this. commissioner hwang: got it, thanks. commissioner fung: it is still in operation? >> yes. but they were almost closed down by health. >> is there any public comment? no. commissioners? president goh: commissioners, thoughts? motions? commissioner fung: move to uphold. commissioner hwang: move to deny jurisdiction. commissioner fung: great, that is my motion. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to deny at the jurisdiction request. call the roll. about on that motion from commission fung to deny jurisdiction -- [roll call vote] thank you. the vote is 4-0, jurisdiction is denied. thank you. >> ok, just re

sanchez's amendment, and i oppose the second degree amendment to it. this -- these two votes or this vote poses for us a matter of yiewn namety and a very important choice on achieving something we apparently unanimously want. everybody here wants more equipment available for our guard and reserve with very good reason. the guard and reserve are deployed for natural disasters. i believe 45% of our force in iraq and afghanistan are come priced -- comprised of guard and reserve unites. they are overstressed and under appreciated. both amendments try to correct that situation which is why i think there's virtual agreement we should add to this account. i think the difference is here in the committee. we would purport to take the $100 million from an account that the administration didn't ask for, but the military leaderip of the gmd program didn't ask for. i think the reason they didn't ask for it as pointed out is that seven of the 15 tests since 1999 of that system have failed. general o'reilly thinks he can work out those kings, but the -- kinks, but t

., but there's a letter from mr. santos, also a letter that went, part of the package that went to the historic preservation commission from mr. jerry goldberg, there's a letter also to mr. scott sanchez regarding a letter to uphold an initial notice of violation sent by the planning department signed by about 15 people and several of them made chents on it. i didn't go out and try to solicit a lot of letters. i thought what i had was fairly adequate and there was a lot of support many this direction as well. there's also comments by buck passmore taken into account by the neighborhood association of liberty hill and they passed a resolution saying that if at all possible, when someone is doing a project, of a certain magnitude on the ground floor or first floor of a building, that it's not a matter of convenience but it's also of what's good for the neighborhood and what's good for the neighborhood is not to have the trash enclosures out on the street because there's a lot of issues that have come up about them. i d

sanchez recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will be supporting mr. larsen with respect to this issue. i think, you know, if you look back at history even though there were agreements in place, specifically with russia and this topic, the fact of the matter is that, for example, in 1991 in the immediate after math of the cold war, then president george bush announced that the u.s. would dramatically reduce the arsenal of nuclear weapons which led the soviet union to take the similar steps, increasing the united states security. even though it wasn't in the treaty, the fact that the president has the ability to work and to actually lower the amount of arsenal that we have to increase our security i think is an incredibly important tool that any president, whether it's republican or democrat or any other party has. george, that was h.w. bush. and george -- the george w. bush administration announced in 2004 that it planned to unilaterally reduce u.s. nuclear stockpile by nearly 50% by 2012. the reduction was actually achieved by december of 2007. five y

mr. sanchez received death threats. on march 30, the assassination of hector, who was an official with the peasants farmers union. he and his colleagues, garcia were found murdered. days earlier he reported that other peasants were threatened by army officers. on top of the violence there's a problem of impunity. they have investigated only a quarter of the killings since 1986. no one has been held accountable of the crimes against unionists. the violence comes together with another recent case. judge gloria denoia was shot in the head in broad daylight. at the time she was presiding over a sensitive case of a military officer killing three children, one he committed to raping. now, colombia, with a new president, says he wants to turn the page in colombia past but these murders and human rights violations are not the path. they are happening today. before we consider any agreement with colombia free trade, the real changes must come to colombia. that is why i've joined with colleagues to lay out a series of benchmarks

sanchez. >> i'll yield some time to mr. hunter. >> number seven it does ask for a copy of the environmental assessment that was completed. we want to know if there was a hazard or a danger from lead contamination. we're asking for it. we're asking them to put that in the report to you and say, hey, there is a danger here. we are asking for that. we want to know if it's bad, then tell us it's bad and we won't do it. if it's good, then let's do this logically. >> reclaiming my time. and yielding to miss davis. >> thank you. i would just suggest to my colleague that it is important for people to have some idea about what this would cost, and i think that it's not clear how that contamination issue would really be linked to mission impact and that should be clear in that language and you might want to consider that. i would be -- you know, if you need some language to address that, i can help with that. i would be opposed to the measure, but i think at the very, very least that would be required. >> mr. chairman, i yield back t

. >> i appreciate the very thoughtful way that chairman turner and ranking member sanchez and mr. larsen approached this. here's my objection to the amendment. if i am wrong in my interpretation of that i asked to be corrected. let's say the russians agree that they are going to make up a wholesale intense effort to round up loose fissile material and give it a high national priority and let our people help them look and there will be no holds barred, they will give an urgent national priority to rounding up loose fissile material and we determine that is a beneficial security goal for us to achieve. and the russian come to the president whoever that is and say to him or her as a show of good faith to make this happen in our domestic politics we want you to back off some of your nuclear arsenal in europe. that is the gain we want to have. as i read this amendment, if the nato countries disagree with that, then we couldn't do it. if our president decided and had broad support in the country that that is a good deal for us that we should back off some of our nuclear arsenal in weste

sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm proud to be an american. will you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, wildfires have raged in texas because of a long drought this year. the town of possum kingdom, texas, population 5,500, has burned up. this is one of the many photographs showing the raging fires throughout the state. statewide, two firefighters have been killed, 400 homes have been destroyed. the 9,000 fires have covered over 2,200,000 acres. this is the size of rhode island and connecticut put together. and the cost of this devastating destruction are enormous. the gover

sanchez: i yield one minute to mr. andrews, who also sits on our committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: as we meet tonight in support of the sanchez amendment, we have 30 ground-based interceptors and we have other radar protections for this country and we have an effort to give $100 million to a military leader who said the following in april when he was talking about what he needed and referring to senator levin in the senate, right now, sir, i have the funding i need to address the problem. that was not to save any money, but solely driven by the need to go back into production. let's not give a military leader $100 million he hasn't asked for to defeat defend the country. vote for the sanchez amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio has three minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from california has one half minute remaining. mr. turner: i yield two minutes to mr. lamborn from colorado. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamborn: i consider this amendment harmfu

sanchez: thank you, mr. chairman. and i'd like to thank my ranking member and chairman mckeon for really a great bipartisan bill. so i'm feeling pretty good about this one. actually, in my committee with chairman turner and all our subcommittee members, we were really able to come together and make a very good contribution and i thank mr. turner for his leadership and it's pretty exciting to have a subcommittee like this in the new session of the congress. overall we agree on so many of the provisions, encouraging fiscal responsibility, protecting national security, we come together on a lot of issues on this subcommittee including improving satellite acquisition, encouraging efficiencies and showing sufficient development, testing production and sustainability schedules for missile defense and for our nuclear enterprise. for conducting oversight of very large scale construction sites that we have, building on good programs relating to improving our efficientsy -- efficiencies at nuclear sites and of course implementa

sanchez amendment as amended by mr. turner second-degree amendment. so many as are in favor will say i ago. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. excuse me. the no's have it. excuse me. the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. i get confused after about 6:00. if there are no further amendments the chair recognizes the gentleman mr. turner for the purpose of offering a motion. >> excuse me. i missed one. we do have one more reported vote requested, and that was mr. turner's amendment, number 250. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] . [roll call] >> how is mr. wittman recorded? >> mr. chairman, mr. wittman is reported as voting aye. >> thank you. the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman on this vote, the ayes were 35, the no's were 26. >> the amendment is agreed to. now i am back on the right-page. i apologize to mr. turner. if there were no further amendment

sanchez. >> aye. >> mr. jones. >> aye. >> mr. mcintyre. >> aye. >> mr. aiken. >> aye. >> mr. brady. >> aye. >> mr. forbes. >> aye. >> mr. andrews. >> aye. >> mr. miller. >> aye. >> mrs. davis. >> aye. >> mr. wilson. >> aye. >> mr. long avin. >> aye. >> mr. lobe yaund dough. >> aye. >> mr. larsen. >> aye. >> mr. turner. >> aye. >> mr. cooper. >> no. >> mr. cline. >> aye. >> ms. bore die yoe. >> aye. >> mr. rogers? mr. rogers? mr. courtney? mr. courtney? mr. franks. >> aye. >> mr. lub sack. >> aye. >> mr. schuster. >> aye. >> ms. giffords? ms. giffords? mr. conaway. >> aye. >> ms. san gas. >> aye. >> mr. lamb born. >> aye. >> ms. pingry. >> no. >> mr. wittman. >> aye. >> mr. kissel. >> aye. >> mr. hunter. >> aye. >> mr. heyne rick. >> aye. >> dr. flemming. >> aye. >> mr. owens. >> aye. >> mr. kaufman. >> aye. >> mr. gair mend di. >> aye. >> mr. rooney. >> aye. >> mr. critz. >> aye. >> mr. plats. >> aye. >> mr. ryan. >> aye. >> mr. ridge elle. >> aye. >> mr. rupers burger. >> aye. >> mr. gibson. >> aye. >> mr. johnson. >> aye. >> mrs. hartsler. >> aye. >> mrs. castor. >> aye. >>

mr. mckeon: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: yield three minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez. the chair: the gentlelady from california. ms. sanchez: thank you, ranking member. there are three amendments in this en bloc that i have submitted and that the majority and minority have agreed to. the first one is a report on the russian nuclear forces. this amendment requires a report on what the russians are doing with respect to their nuclear forces in relation to the new start or new strategic arms reduction treaty. it seems to me that there are a lot of -- we are told that russia will be taking a look at and looking at some of its older weapons and probably decommissioning them. there might be an opportunity in the coming couple of years to maybe bring down the stockpile of nuclear weapons even more, even below some of those limits with respect to the new start treaty. so this report will help to inform congress on the opportunities and the challenges for further verifiable nuclear weapon reductions whic

sanchez. islamic thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to oppose this amendment of mr. frank's, and he is right, we have had the weaponization of space discussion before as i said before on this subcommittee for over a decade. we decided we did not want to move forward with what position of space more indicate to others china or other countries that that is what we were doing. so i would hate to go down that road with this study. but i actually oppose this study for other reasons. first of all, space-based interceptors have been repeatedly studied for their potential ballistic defense merits and previous studies concluded space-based interceptors are costly and impractical. the study may only be $8 million, but the cost of the space-based interceptor if progress is enormous. in 2000 for the congressional budget office estimated the potential cost of limited space based capabilities against north korea and iran would exceed over $100 billion. concept for the space-based interceptors would be extremely expensive to implement and they may not be fiscally sustainable which

sanchez. the gentle woman from florida, ms. adams. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. holder i have a few questions and i'm going to go qukly because i only have five minutes and i'd like to have a lot more, to be nest with you. earlier i listened and you said there were determinations as to why to follow through on enforcing the law or not enforcing the law. and i have a couple of questions. we are a nation of laws, are we not? >> we are. >> and what do you do to make -- what do you go through to determine which laws your agency will enforce or not enforce? >> see, i wouldn't put it that way. i would say we enforce all the laws. the question is -- >> well, we probably disagree on that. i'm just wondering if there's a process you go through to determine which ones you will act offively enforce and which ones you will inactively enforce? >> i think it's a question of prioritizing. that's how i would say it. we look at - >> so you have a process to prioritize the law s in which yu will enforce? >> no. our enforcement efforts. you look at the pential greatest harm, violen

katherina mccallum who had a three set win over spain's martina sanchez she joined in the next round by. however christmas so losing to thirty one year old. let's look at the n.b.a. playoff conference semifinals are heating up with. a miami heat the bone james scoring thirty five points for miami and mag gritty overtime win over the boston celtics lead the eastern conference semifinals three one in the western conference . big memphis one hundred thirty three points to one hundred twenty three and a triple overtime for their ruffled westwood scored fourteen points and kevin durant's added thirty five that's the level of the series that she was paid. for the biggest game of my life. and i want to you know. you know. i want to leave everything on a full. scale with the results. you know we've. got to keep fighting to go on those you know we're taking a better also. how we have. and that's how the sport looks for the moment. hungry for the full story we've got it first hand the biggest issues get the human voice face to face with the news makers. and. all. of them. did. in taiwan the te