to set a couple of feet further back. they are not in front of our house where we have this 4 foot tall wall. like i said, our building is -- it is a very unique building. to have the structure in front of our building would really look terrible for our property. they do not really need this extra space to have an amply sized building. in the beginning when we sell -- when we sold the lot to them, she is correct that i did not speak to her personally. mr. allen did. we told them what we had been through. we wanted to make sure they knew that because we did not want anybody to buy a lot they might not be able to build on. we know how frustrating that is. there were other people interested in the lot that we

could have sold to. we were not trying to pawn off the program -- pawn off the property. we had many people who were interested. we hope the board can see, as someone had discussed earlier, these buildings on this block are 25 foot lots like a row houses. they sit toward the front of the setback. but they are all small and all next to each other. when you have our house and the house next to the lot setting back further, having their building sticking out further than both of our lots really will stand out. it will release standout compared to our property line setbacks. as you can see in this drawing, it is going to be set out very far. the only thing we are concerned

about is the front setbacks. we're willing to live with the rear set back and let them keep that. the front setback is really what we're worried about. commissioner garcia: thank you. president peterson: i might have missed it earlier. would you be willing to let them push the entire building backs of the front said but is acceptable to you? >> yes. they have already been granted a variance in the rare large. -- rear yard. other neighbors might not like it, but we are really only concerned about the front and how it will stick out. that is what we are concerned about. president peterson: who drew that picture you put on the overhead? >> this is from their architect. president peterson: the dark line. >> i did that. that is the house.

i did it so you could see that better. >> thank you. >> ms. roman murray and mr. murray, you also have three minutes of rebuttals. >> i would like to answer some of the things that have come up. ms. fulks has pointed that a few times that they tried to build on the lot and were unsuccessful. as mr. sanchez pointed out, they were not designed -- they were not denied the permit because of the design. they did not follow through on the process. that is the telling argument. it is not fair for them to say the permit was denied so we have to build something very small. they did not do their due

diligence and did not follow the process to the end. that is why the permit was denied. also, one of the property owners on 48 avenue stated that there are no tall buildings on the block. there are. there are some new buildings and they are all taller. they are very good and they do fit in the character. i was born and raised on 47th avenue around the corner. when i was a young person, there were no taller buildings back there. but then on the highway at 48th avenue there was a massive building built, at least five stories tall. it has in many units in it. that is an example of a bad building. for the more modern

renovations, they are taller but they look very good. great highway is becoming a very desirable area because of the new modern buildings. their allegation that it would be a sore thumb and be a bad building is not true. we have a very beautiful design and it will add enhance the neighborhood. i am asking you please to first of all the deny their appeal. as carmen stated earlier, they never gave a reason for why they wanted the appeal to be accepted by the board. they give nothing at all. the only real substance came after we filed our rebuttal to

them. i do not believe that their evidence really should be accepted in light of their appeal. we made the counter claim to expand back to what we requested. that is all that they should be allowed to address, since they did not give us the chance to address any substantive reasons they brought forth when they filed the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. >> scott sanchez. i would like to follow up on a few items. it appears that it could comply. i want to double check to make sure they have an open connection between the levels. there would be allowed to have a bath on the ground floor if

there is an open railing the floor above. it is not clear or detailed on the plans. we could take that up with the building permits we have and follow through with it. the density, to address it again -- you are allowed as -- your base in the minimum is two dwellings. you can increase that if you have a large lot. if you have a 6000 square foot 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.

director :lee is present. mr. chairman, you have a quorum. please be advised that the reading of cell phones, pagers, and other electronic devices are prohibited. a person responsible for one going off in the middle of a meeting may be asked to leave the room. please be advised cell phones are set -- that are set on the buy right position create microphone interference. the board refects police -- respectfully requests libby set in the off position. chairperson nolan: is there a motion to approve the minutes? all in favor, say aye. >> on 5, communications, please be