and we found that there will be a few days when our building will put a shadow on the rear yards in question and there is a couple of days of the year when the removal of the cottage will allow some light that does not exist now. an accurate depiction of what would really happen is that it does not exist. >> i have a question about the photographs. can you describe where the subject property lot is and what direction we are looking at? >> we are looking south and the three buildings that are up hill that have cottages or structures behind this.

what is next to it was developed in the 90's by the owners of the property. it is this area right in here. >> this area was developed on the earlier variants. is that with a pencil list? >> that one was brought forward and raised up. >> no. it was not brought forward but it was raised. then the building i just pointed to is behind that. >> ok. thank you.

>> i don't really have much more than add other than that the findings have been met here and the situation is and not given the conditions of in it and the existing pattern of development which justifies the variants and we have reviewed matters as stated by the permit holders. they have found this project to be compliant as well. i'm available to answer any questions. >> i just have one question following up on some things that the architect stated about this variance, did you know what he was talking about? >> well, i think the question here was what conditions are or were during the 1998 assurances

the -- variances. we have only seen one for the subject property. i think that that would be really irrelevant. i did not see anything in there that stated that this had to apply or maintain the opening. one could argue that they had to have that opening by reference to the other plans. the zoning administrator and the planning commission said they would it be the one tune all and avoid any previous conditions and they have done so conditionally. there is an argument which has expired because they did not have the building permits. they never built the homes. they did to the retaining walls. they did not actually stop

construction. >> what we have here is that there was a requirement to guarantee some access. i think that that is a moot point. access to the subject property is provided. the commission has found the appropriate design and that is what they approved. >> of imagine that there can be accessed to the light. can you put this back up please? >> so, looking at of the building next door, the original

building is that one in the front and then there is the gap and that is the open space with the porch that we saw the photographs for. >> what we saw as the landing and the stairs, these are actually on the subject property. >> they were back in that area where the gap is. >> they were on 1269, you would walk into 1271 and turned and walked on to the adjacent property. that is the landing and those stairs which were demolished maybe 10 years ago. if you put those strides back up, there is the gap and there is a separate building behind. that is the one we just saw a photograph of. that one was built under the

various is that were granted a couple of years ago. >> i believe that is the case. that is my understanding of the project. >> we look to them before which shows --f shows 98. i don't think that there is a date on this. one could imagine that that new construction in the rear to have been approved with a various because that gap was open to the subject property. one could imagine that was part of the deal and the conditions

that were imposed now, it is your argument that this is over and done with, we're looking at a new project. i just wonder what does that mean for us because many times we up hold permits with conditions but it seems like you are suggesting that those conditions can be tossed out to in the future. >> that depends on the body and the process. in this case, the planning commission invoked these conditions. they heard a new project and approve this without any conditions. the real question was in regards to the condition, it was my understanding that it was a matter of access to how the project was designed.

previously, there was no access from 1269 to the street. you would walk into the property, they would use those stairs. what had been a condition of approval was that this opening remained and that there was an easement on 1271 that they would maintain access and maintain use at the front of the stairs. >> i will stop you right there. the previous owners estimated that area and demolished that staircase in that historic porch and what not. then what happens. >> if they were to pursue the previously approved project, then those would have been rebuilt and there would have been access there. >> the demolition of those was

not under consideration. they were meant to stay put. >> there was access through an easement. i don't know if it was specified that any existing stairs must retain. >> will we rebuild them? >> access would be provided and it did not specify how that would be divided and whether or not desisting stairs would be contained. >> you have answered my question. thank you. >> i think that this board asks very difficult questions. >> mr. sanchez, we are not done yet. the project as presented in these documents reflects exactly the design presented for the variants.

>> this has been presented by the permit-holding and what was approved during the various application. i believe that is the case. >> the matter submitted. >> the issue of the variance and the five criteria i believe are met. i've not felt that way about money that comes through this board.

there is an unusual pattern to the developments in this block. therefore, those portions of the first three which are the significant criteria of the variants, they are met because of the unusual nature of this block. on the other question that as to the scale of the project in relationship to some of the underlined portions that are not so specific to the five criteria but underlined the various process. but it would be interesting to see whether the zoning

administrator or the planning commission would consider limitations on the extent of entitlement when a variances given. i think, is close to being a little too much. >>ism going to pretty much echo comments made by the commissioner. what is a variance? section 132, front setback,

section 34, rear setback. i think all necessary criteria were met. the one that came closest to not being met to me was the one that had to do with the impact on the public injurious to a neighboring property, and the impact is going to be severe for sure, but they are fully developed on that lot. they have lot-line windows. that affects the degree to which one needs to consider what the impact is going to be. i think that this certainly -- the configuration on the property, the way it has developed, is appropriate for the neighborhood and surrounding properties, and what impressed me, i guess, about the testimony, at any rate, was the fact that it has been my

experience thoo when -- that when russian hill neighbors come before, it seems they are in opposition. it seems there are plenty of things they are proving that we don't know about. to have russian hill come here and say it is an improvement to the neighborhood, that they find it to be compatible to the neighborhood in terms of size and design, that had somewhat of an effect on me. it impressed me they had taken that stance. i, too, feel it is an attractive design. i don't mean to, again, echo the commissioner. i have no problem with the front. were i involved in the process, and thankfully i'm not involved in the process, when this thing went before two other, it was well vetted before the historic preservation commission, i personally found the back property to be large.

i don't know if that is the force. it has to do with the section 134 variance. my intention is to uphold the variance. >> i will then proceed. >> i just have to say, it took all my will and stamina to listen after hearing about the pleasant's mother and the other side not granting a continuance. i have to say it is a real question of judgment. thankfully, he is well represented. you may be a lawyer yourself. i understand your frustration with your project. having said that, i would agree with my fellow commissioners.

again, i get to that agreement with every ounce of my body not really wanting to because of the judgment call made by council. i ls commend the testimony from the board members, rodgers, was sensitive to the open-space pattern, and it is a real blithe -- blithe -- blight in that area that needs to be remedied. >> thank you for commenting on the lack of cordiality and professionalism in granting a continuance. i similarly feel that the variance should be upheld because of the design. but not to scale. i'm not going to repeat what everyone has said or has articulated what my view is. i also want to make sure that

members of the public, people impacted by this, like one of the speakers, zetssaaund the -- gets to understand the ploss and has the ability to -- understand the process and access the planning department and whoever else you need to speak to in order to understand the process involved. it should not be so confounding and difficult and i think -- i commend those of you that have followed this. and i think as the building itself gets with the planning going up for review, you have another opportunity to address this. >> i have no problem with granting a variance. some were relying on a deal that

was played and then having that deal not go forward. i don't know, and i don't have a good idea about what the remedy might be for that. i do have a problem, like i said, we condition permits all the time up here. so probably i will vote against upholding. like i said, i don't have a good solution for this. i echo the comments of my fellow commissioners that i think that rear property is probably in excess, and that the appelants should avail -- may avail themselves of the other remaining processes. >> before someone makes a motion, i am going to make a comment to mr. morrow also. he would have had the right to come up here and ask yourself a

continuance, you might have gotten it from the board. had we known what the circumstances were. i find it is unfortunate situation. but at any rate, does someone want to make a motion? >> i'm going to move to uphold the zoning administration variance decision. that he did not err and abuse his discretion. >> if you could call roll on that, please. >> it was not mr. sanchez. >> the motion is from commissioner fund to grant the variance and that he did not abuse his discretion. >> on that motion, with that basis, vice president go?

>> no. >> commissioner garcia? >> aye. >> president peterson. >> aye. >> commissioner wang. >> aye. >> thank you. the granting of the variances is -- the vote is 4-1. the granting of the variances is upheld on that basis. >> the last item on the agenda is your consideration of proposed amendments to the board's rule. for the last few months, i have been working with president peterson and vice president goh on coming up with language that might be useful to consider in order to try to clarify the rule to make them more understandable to the public, more consistent with the board's practices, and to make sure that we are operating in accordance with any relevant legal requirements. you've been provided with copies of the proposal. an overview of the provisions

have been posted on the web site so that the public has been given an opportunity to review them as well. i thought what i would do is walk us through the more significant proposed changes and make any comments along the way so we can move these forward. i think the articles and section numbers i will refer you to are the ones in the proposed draft, and as an overview, they have been somewhat reorderers to -- reordered f -- ordered. starting with the way that appeals are filed, it cites if it is continuances, et cetera. >> what was put before us this evening, are they in any way different? >> there was my suggested addition having to do with the draft finding.

that is what was containeded in the -- that was contained in the draft. there are copies if anyone here would like to look at that. article one and article two which have to do with officers and duties of officers, those have not been changed in any significant way. i don't know if there are comments anyone has on those. >> a brief comment. i know we went through these before. because it is established by charter. but i sure would like to find another way to change your title . >> to change my title? >> yes. is it possible to change it without a charter? >> that is something for future consideration, because we tride to do this in the past. >> we talked about it at length during the search process.

>> what's the date on the draft? >> it was distributed for you this evening. if you need a copy, i'm sure it would be provided for you. >> no change without changing the charter? >> the charter uses the term "executive secretary." as a cloak wall matter you are -- colloquial matter, you are free to refer to her otherwise, but that is the term in the charter. section 6-a talks about the

order. currently the order changes adepending on if it is an appeal or a denial or revocation. this would be similar to how matters are handled in appellate court and would allow the issue to be framed by the pleasant in each case so that the departments and -- athe pellant in each case so the parties and boards would know how to frame the question. section 6-b. >> before you move on, austensibly, i don't have any issue with these changes, but i do have word changes. i don't know if i should show them to you at another time. >> i think now would be a good time. >> how strongly do you feel

about those? >> i thought i could just give you my red line. >> nonsubstantive changes. >> what do you want? really, it is small stuff. but since i read it and wrote it, i thought i would mention it. i'm happy not to give it to you, wls. >> why do i need to do it now? >> my understanding is this is the public acceptance now, so i don't think there can be amendments lather, even minor, or else we'll have to go through this again. >> forget it.

no need. >> public commen on circumstances warranted on a practice already in place but this would clarify it in the rules, and then section 6-d-2 explains and clarifies the board's policy that these affiliated with a party should speak during that party's allotsment of time and not under "public comment. so that is it for section -- article 3. i don't know if there are any comments from commissioner fung, or others, that you had on that article. >> article 4, no significant

revisions were being proposed there. article 5 obviously has the bulk of the suggested changes. people are free to submit as much briefing and evidence that they want at that time. the proposal to limit it to one page is to limit it since the responding party is limited to a 12-page submital. sections 2-a and b makes the apellant brief doo due two weeks instead of four, the respondent's brief one week instead of two. the reason is to try to shorten the time it takes for a matter to be brought to hearing. it is similar to how other bodies operate. for instance, the board of supervisors has everyone submit their materials at the same time

so no rebuttal brief at all. any new information raised in response to -- and the board retains the ability to allow supplemental briefing. >> i have an issue with the elimination of the reply brief. elimination of the reply brief. i understand that we are trying to comply with our hearing and rulinging requirements, and that -- ruling requirements, and that buys us a week. i still have some concerns about eliminating the reply brief.

>> i think it is useful when issues are raised in the response that were not addressed, and i often feel at the hearing new things come up that don't get properly vetted and aren't developed in advance. >> if we found the situation was to ask for additional briefing, it has been the custom, i think it is additional briefing, three