lot, as saying that it is an r h 2 -- you can have up to four. that is what the density issue. it complies with the density requirements of the planning code. an issue came up about the height of the building. it does comply with the height limits. it is set back substantially from the building wall, 15 feet. that complies with the height requirements of the planning code. there is a rear yard requirement with a variable provision. it is not in article 2.5, which has the height control. it is a variable provision. you can have a building taller than 30 feet. the 30 foot provision at the front is a height limit that is not terrible. they do comply with that. the character of the

neighborhood -- there are many three story buildings. the department position has been if you are a four story building, it could be appropriate in a district that has largely three story buildings if the top floor is set back substantially, which this is. the building behind does drop down significantly. there are a lot of two-story homes on that block. with regards to a five story building, i believe the height limit is 40 feet. i would imagine that the tallest building would be four stories, perhaps with the penthouse. we are available for any questions.

what the appellant had colored in was the architect's plan. i will put it on the overhead. in the north elevation, one of the requirements is that there were notifications you have to show. that would be their building. >> commissioners, the matter is before you.

commissioner fung: when i reviewed the criteria for the variantce, looking at the things that impact two of those criteria, i found that the findings were not met, and therefore the variance was not supportable. vice president goh: which two? commissioner fung: the first two. vice president goh: i agree with commissioner fung.

president peterson: i am inclined to uphold the variance this evening but address some of the concerns with the size during the building permit

process. commissioner garcia: i tend to agree with that. i somewhat disagree with the findings. one stems from the other. it doesn't -- it does seem there are severe restrictions to this particular lot. someone suggested the couple should have gone out and done due diligence. i do not know that city processes run themselves to that. you cannot go and say, "what can i do that is" complian code comd then cancel it out. it almost seemed as though the people that sold the property

was offering a decision. if your plans do not work out, we will make you whole. anyway, we do not need to because property values have appreciated. i do not think property values have appreciated too much in san francisco. i think as stated before by president peterson, it will be interesting to see what happens when that process goes through. i think it reasonable case was made for the fact that when you do the average and you add the 15% allowance that it is a pretty modest variance, and to not grant it would practically make that lot and buildable -- unbuildable in the sense that

you're not going to generate any income and what was paid for the property. if you were to do those kinds of numbers, it is probably out of line. at any rate, that is not part of the consideration. i intend to uphold the variance. commissioner hwang: this is a stark image. this is the one i kept asking about. because it does -- it is a little bit striking in 2d. we are looking at a very challenging space here in which to build a property. i can relate. i can sort of empathize with the appellant's concern with having

this huge thing right next to it. but i am -- there are limitations to the space in which to build something. my inclination is next here. -- mixed here. i am having some difficulty really. whereas the setback issue is a very important one for the appellant, it seems like the nature and size and style will be addressed at the building of. -- building level. i am not sure where i am going here. i will have to keep thinking about it. commissioner garcia: please.

commissioner fung: move to accept the appeal and overrule the zoning administrator on the issue. on the basis that it does not miss -- does not meet the first two criteria. >> the motion by commissioner fung to revoke this variance on the grounds of findings one and two. on that motion -- vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: no. president peterson: no. commissioner hwang: aye.

>> the vote is 3-22 overruled. four votes are needed under the law. absent another motion, this variance is upheld. president peterson: no further motion being offered, we are done with this item. thank you all for coming. we do have one more item on the calendar if you can bear with us a little bit more. i can go into item 10, which is the board's consideration of the annual report for fiscal year 2009-2010 between july 1, 2009 and june 30, 2010. the charter requires that each board and commission submit an annual report every year. that is for the purpose of

setting out our jurisdiction, the purpose and the goals of the organization. this report is designed to meet those requirements and also to help educate the public about the work you have all undertaken in the past year. very briefly, i know it is late. a few highlights from the report. you held 28 meetings. you heard 134 cases that included 101 appeals, 28 requests for late jurisdiction. as was typical, the majority of matters to consider it came from determinations made by planning, dbi, and the zoning administrator. the remaining matters were from the police, taxi and the dph. this report does break down the appeal by the type of appeal that was filed and what action you took. you upheld the underlying determination 52.5% of the time,

overturned 36.5% of the time, and of those overturned placed conditions on matters 8.4% of the time. you might notice in the graph on page 6 that the appeal volume was down for the second year in a row. on average, we see 237 appeals filed each year. last year we had 157. there were no significant changes in the types of matters. the fact that the appeal volume was down i think also suggests and shows that there has been a decline. i know other departments have experienced this as well. that is the number of permit applications taken out citywide. that has presented budgetary challenges for the board. we did have a total budget for the year of about $834,000. we were only able to generate 93% of that revenue. we have a 9% shortfall in the surcharge revenue, which is the

majority of the budget for the department. we did have a surplus in the appeal filing fees, which was helpful. those items -- those rates were increased in that fiscal year to try to address what we expected to be a revenue shortfall since we have had one in the year prior. we were able to reduce expenditures somewhat so that we could end the year with a small surplus of about $4,000. on the services of other departments, 4.5 on infrastructure and the rest on services such as courier's and or notification service.

one of them is a 70% target for how often cases are decided within 75 days of filing. . we were able to release all the decisions within 15 days of your final action. that exceeded the 97% target. we were also able to do a few things in the world of technology. we were able to set aside funding to start working on a database that will streamline the appeals assignment process and allow us to better automate the production of agendas and minutes and some of the other pronouncements. that eventually will link to the database dbi and planning are putting together.

this year to try to move that some what we have to scan the notices of decisions. that could be parceled in the information database. someone in planning is trying to look up to see if there are any restrictions. the board's decisions will be included in the information they get. going forward, we will be bringing to you next week the project we have been working on for a while which is some revisions. we are trying to streamline the appeal process and also to make sure that the public was informed accurately about what to expect in terms of how the appeal and freezing process will go. -- and grieving process will go. we will continue to up that the website and research materials and will expand the availability of materials in other languages. there is a language access ordinance that does have some requirements we need to meet,

particularly around reaching out to spanish-speaking and chinese speaking people who have english skills. we are also trying to develop some of our materials. we hope you will consider its approval. president peterson: as president, i want to commend our executive director. this is a fantastic job, a fantastic report. it was a challenging year. you responded to many of my concerns. it is well written. it is articulate. i will -- hats off to you. thank you for making all of our jobs easier. commissioner fung: i just have one point i would like to add. under the bullet items under jurisdiction, the one area --

dr. commissioner garcia: do we have any preservation commission issues coming our way? >> there was one filed. commissioner garcia: january? what do we get to review that they do? certificates of reviews only? cs of a? vice president goh: i want to also complement the director and staff for this report. it is excellent. also, i think in your quick review you did not say what our attendance record was. >> to have an excellent attendance record. you met for 114 hours, not all of them tonight, although it might seem like that. [laughter]

there were only seven meetings at which there was a missed commissioner. commissioner garcia: i like the different colors you used in this. did any member of the sport who has some ins with hp help you get some toner? >> we no longer possess that money. >> how does that work? >> it has been budgeted for like ipad allocations. that has things like planning code easily accessible at your fingertips. i love it -- i lugged three of these with me today. >> in past years when we have had a shortfall, we had to be given an allocation from the general fund to make up our shortfall. it did not seem appropriate in this instance to ask to retain that money. but i am certain when the city does better i will be fighting

hard to retain any surplus we might generate. commissioner fung: we were probably the last department to get computers. i remember times when it was all done by typewriter. commissioner garcia: did they use an abacus also? [laughter] >> before you leave, is there any public comment on this item? ok. then i believe a motion would be useful to adopt this report so we can -- president peterson: proudly so moved. >> on that motion to adopt the annual report for fiscal year -- commissioner fung: aye. vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the book is 5-0. president peterson: we are adjourned.

thank you very much.

the biggest issue in america today? segregation still exists... racism...

the repression and oppression of women the educational system stem cell research homeless people cloning government health care taxation announcer: so, is there anything you're doing to help make a change? i'm not really doin' anything. ummmm [sighs] got me on that one...