the this system not entirely clear. it seems the the variance that was granted has been given because of hardship. the hardship is because the house is so vague. that would be better if the house matched the footprint of the house next door. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. i am a 31-year resident and a member of the garden association. i am also a retired teacher. i appreciate having open space around. this building is way too big and shadows too much open space. >> i am licensed architect from california. i am in support of the de haro

project. a variances should be granted. i know the amount of work that went into this project. it is a zone for this level of density. it is in full compliance with the zoning code. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i visit the people the in 1321 de haro. there are 50% of the four properties that have killed since in their rear yards.

does that not set the precedent of how the current variance was decided? >> my name is gary. by live at 1265 de haro. most of us who live next to the open space have backyards that border the open space. it gives the impression that the open space is larger than it is. those of us have trees, ferns, that border the open space. we are not saying the bid will take away square footage. we are saying the building a landmark will permanently change the landscape. this building will overpower the

next-door neighbor homes. fifth but we give these guys of the variance -- if we give these guys the variance that the one, it will change the neighborhood. >> next speaker. >> the evening. i live about six blocks away from the open space. this is a part of the neighborhood of that needs to be preserved. there are all kinds of forces that are trying to make this go away. we should not allow that to happen. this is one of the last open spaces. whether it is public or private is irrelevant. the further away that this 6000- square-foot house is replacing the 980-square-foot house is irrelevant.

>> any of her public comments? seeing none, we can move into rebuttal. mr. cole, you have three minutes. >> i agree with commissioner goh and with many of commissioner fung's comments. what is this project? the changes to much. we in the neighborhood should not be subjected to this shifting stance of what? the planning commission was very clear, no cars on the open space. that means no construction through the open space. let's get it decided what the developers want to do and have a fair discussion about that. that has a lot happened yet. the planning department the stock concede what is before you

is the current plan of what the developers want. this is enormously expensive of time and your time to be here at 9:30. the comments that i've heard from mr. brown and mr. sanchez about the 1989 project being a very different projects, as if somehow this justifies this huge project that they want to play in. the statement that what is going to be there now is what once to be there by the developers is going to be an improvement for the open space over what is there now, it is "alice in wonderland." it is saying something without facts to back it up. it is going to be huge, much bigger than what is there now. that cannot be ignored. i would ask this commission to

do was one of two things. take the appeal and deny the variance, or just send us back to planning so that it could be heard where this should be heard. it is not fair to this board and the people to make new plans as we are discussing a variance. send it about, let it be decided. if that comes back to you, maybe it will come back with a better decision and more planning from the department. we will have a letter about the de haro street versus carolina street. this is something of that changes as the developers want something more from this.

>> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, thank you for your patience. you do not have been legally approved hollings in front of you. there is a three-car garages facing the open space. no garage, no cars on the open space. two of the commissioners voted against the demolition of this sound, affordable, rent-control the house. the garage was turned into living space. mr. sanchez and explain the procedures. after a year, you could make the same application. he did not hear any reasons. he heard in 1993 that the

addition of a single story of what caused -- would cause too much of a shadow. how could a 40-foot building not cause more of a shadow on the open space? this causes that much more additional shadow. the house next door has the exact same access as the recess. they do not have a garage. they parked at the end of de harol. they were, -- de haro. there are clear. they do not want access. they did not even one pedestrian

access. the amount of misinformation you are provided is stunning. it is hard to encapsulate it all. this is not a pop-out. the current building has a rear yard. the building that was approved it was a small shed. they would have had to have gotten a variance just for that shed. the five findings that were made are crystal clear that no rear yard variance was appropriate. the visual impacts alone are detrimental to the neighbors in the open space, -- and the open space, which is a neighbor. you have three plans coming on

in august. they made the application to eliminate the parking and submit new plans without telling anyone. that is where we are now. i complained and they took me off. >> you have six minutes. >> thank you. the variance and the rear yard does look like the pop-out that was accepted. we do not go to the full build out. this project is three units, essentially two bedrooms each.

it hugs the ground at the level of the earth. this diagram shows the envelope that we could have gone too. we made a lot of concessions over the years. we are here before you because we thought we were doing something good by pushing it back. this diagram here is where we are moving forward. that is not what we want to do. the enforcement of the rear y ard, it is a hardship for us. in terms of other projects around the area, there are other projects that are in the area. there are some up de haro. there is a whole array of larger

projects. there are other rear yard structures. this one is tough like this. a rear yard would be created. those are the main points. commissioner fun, your comments regarding the -- gung, your comments regarding the plans represents what came out of the commission at the vr. those did not have the parking. those are the plans in front of you. the sponsor and the owners are

planning on exadninding at great cost. we have plans for the, they have done and solidified. we can get them. that would need a continuance or something. do you have anything to say about that? >> i wanted to talk a little bit about the parking. our intention is to provide parking on de harol. -- de haro. dpw has heard a lot of resistance from people that do not want to expand de haro. it is going to be very difficult.

dpq has got to come -- dpw has done to come up with the engineering plans. the people at the bottom to not want a 16-foot concrete wall supporting this. they have already spoken to dpw. we need a set of plans that we can build. dpw is saying that you do not have approved plans yet. we are not interested in talking to you until you get that far. they are saying that we do not have any money in the budget for an extension of the roads. our preliminary estimate contractor is $972,000. the fire department is also in on this . access for the fire department is on top.

there is no way they can get to this structure. that is where they're coming, no matter what happens. that is where the plants are in front of you. we do not know fifth we can get dpw's approval. in our heart of hearts, that is what we like to do. that is the conflict you are seeing there. the planning commission did say that fifth you cannot get a parking structure down on -- if you can get a parking structure down on de haro, we would support that. this is what we need to do. thank you.

>> i think you deserve an ans wer. the drawings that you presented to the planning commission for discretionary review of show parking at the top. you then created drawings to reflect the planning commission's comments with requirement to parking in the front? >> the planning commission all lisa, no parking in the -- only said, no parking in the rear. >> was there an aural conditions to the discretionary review? -- oral condition to the

discretionary review? >> the commission had adopted the basic discretionary view. they directed the changes be made so that there is no parking at the top. they would have to put parking of the front. the commission did not see parking again. they towed action with the direction. they did not see the final revised project. that was submitted in the june of this year. that was submitted formally with the building a vacation. we did hold a hearing on revised plans that have the garage in front. at the various hearing, in order to put this in front, they did not meet the variance.

this was a code-complying. i can understand the confusion on the part of the project sponsor. they are providing plans the do have the correct to rear yard. that does not changed between the plants that you see now and the plans you were seeing in june. it is not about parking in the front. there would have to have the parking in the front. it is an approved part of the variance. >> we need to see the same drawings that you saw when you made your decision. >> i completely agree. >> we could continue this. with and also provide support of the decision memo.

we could provide those materials to the board. >> i am in agreement that what is before us is this particular variance. i do not know what may be done in the future. >> has the council scene those grants you saw with a garage in the frong? -- front? they are indicating that, yes, you did. >> the matter is before you. >> i would hate to continue everything on this calendar tonight. maybe i will start with a little

bit of trivia. the original starr king school was on the other side of the freeway. that is now gone. i think we need to continue this. to get the same documentation that the zoning administrator placed his review upon. that was discussed by all parties here. can we do it by the 20th? october 20 s? i am pretty sure we do not have the agenda. is everybody available? the date?

>> i think we need more time than that to look over these plants. we are not heart attacks. i am speaking for the boosters -- not architects. i am speaking for the boosters. this issue should not be before the board. this is an issue for the planning commission. >> i am not sure i understand. >> they have these plans for this big thing on de haro street. is this not an issue for planning? >> this is a different issue. the issue before us has to deal with the variance. >> we need time to look over these things. >> fifth anybody knows what

occurred, -- if anybody knows what occurred, it is the people that fought this project. >> if we are going to get new plans and we have to get them, -- >> mr. williams has seen them. >> november 3. >> it is a busy night. >> i am available on either date. i would like to see the project brought together. we are hearing and that they're going to move the parking back to de haro. >> you know what we are dealing with. we are dealing with the various that has already done some of it. that is not before us.

>> we are looking for a date for a continuance. >> i am available either date. >> what about december 15? is that too late? >> that is even worse. >> it is a heavy day. >> these are long nights. i am saying they are heavier days. >> october 22 is the best day. >> we are not on that day. i think you mean of october 20.

>> i do not know what that is supposed to mean. the you know what is on the calendar for the third. >> we also have the issue of losing a quorum if certain commissioners cannot stay until 1:00 a.m. >> let's try. >> the 15th of december will be the safest in terms of the commission's lad. -- load. it is up to you all.

>> i do not think it is fair. i am going to move that we continue this until november 3. and to ask the project sponsor to coordinate with the zoning administrator on the document that was the basis of the review. we should allow both sides to respond. that means that they would be due two weeks before the hearing date. the appellants can respond one week before five pages limit. >> 5 pages in addition to the supporting documents?

>> it is likely to change that much. -- not going to change that much. >> the motion from commissioner fung to continue this item until november 3. it is to allow time for the owner and the zoning administrator to submit additional plants. additional briefing is allowed. five pages per party. on the motion, with all of the conditions, commissioner garcia. the vote is four to zero. >> we are adjourned. thank you very much.

>> welcome to culturewater. in 2001, the san francisco arts commission and tampa does go public library established an arts master plan for the city soon to be renovated branch library. almost 10 years later, the san francisco arts commission has integrated a collection of vibrant new artworks by bay area artists into five new libraries, and there is more on the way. here is a closer look at some of the projects.

>> the branch library improvement program is a bond funded program undertaken by the san francisco public library to upgrade each of the branch libraries throughout the neighborhoods. one of the great benefits of this opportunity is that each of these branches has a unique artwork that has been created specifically for that branch, based on input from people who live near that branch, in the surrounding neighborhood. >> trur- minded. there was a lot of community support for the project. i try to make it about the true hill and its history.

they were something that natives used for making houses. the construction of the pond is based on abalone house construction. at the bottom of the form, it is woven into a rope which transforms into a manufactured rope. that is a reference to the cordish company, a big industry at the waterfront that went along with the shipbuilding industry. other examples of art work in libraries that you might be interested in seeing it is dana zed's glass shatters in front of a library. there are a wall sculptures in the lobby of the glen park branch library. and then there