part that sticks out the 14 feet. >> and what about the red line goes out further. >> and so the red line, is that is what they are calling ground level of the structure that they are putting in. >> so it is all land? >> so they are going to have to create new ground and new hard scape to elevate the existing lot up to that red line. >> because of the garage issue? >> that was discussed earlier? >> because of the way that it is designed. >> all right. >> i don't know how how much you can change the existing grade of a lot before it needs to be permitted and that is where i go in down here. is there another variance needed that they are elevating the back of the lot 6 feet above the existing grade to say that okay, now we are still within the and this is told where it is tight right there, that is pulled directly out of the vernal heights special use code that it will not exceed 30

feet above grade and they do meet that and at the end it says, the rear most eight feet of length cannot exceed 32 feet above grade. >> they are measuring that 32 feet from this red line. >> so they have to now transform this lot and bring it up to that red line to measure up to the 32 feet. >> okay. >> and then the contract that i signed with them and the addendum said that they were not going to change more than 3 feet. >> i was not able to look and measure things. >> how is that going to impact you? >> it is going to be a lot more structure in the back. >> the height, the grade, i don't... how is the higher grade going to impact you? >> the whole rear variance is going to impact me. if that rear variance was not granted i would have a lot more sunlight and there would be

more of that open green space that is very valuable if we go back to... >> the green space from the... >> yeah so as you can see here. >> you don't have much green space behind yours? >> i don't. >> the green space behind the property of the proposed project. >> there is may flower and this is all green space and we have a lot of wild life. >> but you bought a property that had no green space. >> but there is an animal highway back here of all of this green space and stuff and it is you know putting one more structure where the rear set back next to mine is going to really cut that off. >> okay. i see. i can see it from the picture. okay. >> thank you. >> you have three minutes of

rebuttal. >> i guess that maybe my last question or my last response or comment might be just to look at this project in reverse if we did not request the variances i think that my client would be greatly debtmented by the two adjacent properties because on the already small 70-foot lot there would be a large front requirement set back because of the vernal height design restrictions the structure would be exceedingly smaller than both adjacent properties and both would then create or have privacy concerns on the proposed property. and both properties would then, or would also you know, cast larger shadows upon any open space that was provided at 639. and that is why this is set up to address these types of situations so that when we are not looking at a you know

monopoly city and we are looking at an organic city we are able to respond to the correct context that we are working with. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department, i don't have much further to add other than what is in the letter and what i testified to previously, the section 311 requirements and there is also a white orange poster that go on that for 30 days and no limitations as to who may feel a discretionary review, because you may know there is no requirement for standing, you can be a neighbor next door, a neighbor in nevada, i mean there is no limitation. much as someone filing an appeal to the board of appeals

does not require to be someone who is even impacted by the project. for the variance, there is a ten-day mailed notice to property owners within 300 feet and also a 20 day poster, 30-inch poster that gets posted on the building for the 20 days before the variance hearing. and so those are the notification processes. i see that the disclosure agreement that was referenced earlier was signed in october of 2012, the variance application itself was filed in july of 2012, the application was on file and the item itself had not yet been noticed, i believe, and so that would not have happened in october. it would have gone out, poster 20 days before and ten days before. so again, we find that the requirements for the variance here have been justified and i do not take the variances lightly, and i think as noted we are to be you know restrictive in this, and i find that here given the condition

of the adjacent properties that does have an impact and i see nothing in the state law that prohibits one from considering that, the fact that there is no citation certainly by the appellant and that sites with any clarity that prohibts that and there is references to the specific provisions in the different municipalities which to me indicates that if they felt it necessary to include at the local level then it is probably not included at the state level and i just briefly looked at the state, at least the first part of the state ordinance and did not see anything that would restrict that and certainly this has been something that has been considered for variances and in this case, the size of the lot and the topogrophy and i think that those are all considerations as well and it is not just the condition of the adjacent property. the code complying would be 30 feet tall. they could actually extend the length that they are and they would need to make a set back

in the buildable area and so they would have to create a larger zig zag, if you will and take away something in the build able area and in exchange for that gain in the rear yard. and so over all extension would be allowed, this was reviewed by the slope design committee in vernal heights and they did not have any issues with it. thank you. >> it is very rare that you support a variance. >> very rare. >> i like to think that the note of variances that have been applied for have gone down dramatically and it could be a sign of the economy or other factors >> i have a couple of questions. i am trying to remember the first one. were you personally involved. do you have personal knowledge for the original plan verses what is now and the one that

was before you know subject to the 311 notice? and to what extent has it changed at all from that point. >> it was issued on the same day of the variance hearing and what was noticed under the 311 should be essentially the same as what i have reviewed at the first hearing under the variance. >> the application itself was for the building permit was submitted in i think, april or no sorry, february or march of last year and our residential design team reviewed it and gave the comments back on it and i don't know to what extent the changes were made. and after the first application was made, i mean, i see that there was a notice of supplying the requirements that we sent on this in april, and maybe the project architect could address what if any changes the planning department had made to the project as initially proposed. but the variance was applied

for in july and we had the hearing last year and that is when the notice went out. >> the next question that i have relates to the vernal heights east slope design board? do they have different slopes? >> yes, there is an organized east slope review board and we do ask for the people to go and see them and have them review the projects. when you say the special use district is that because it is subject to these design review boards? >> no. because there is an over all special use district as legislated and that or has different requirements than elsewhere in the city given the unique nature of vernal heights and that was implemented in the late 80s. >> so what did that, what is the... >> i think that it is advisory only. >> okay. >> capacity. i don't think that there is... there is not a review process where there is an approval or a

denial. >> but they are very organized. >> having the support, and i think that in response for finding it for and received endorsement from and is that a... i mean, what is the rate at which we should apply to that in terms of is there... are there standards that are review more stringent than what the city will allow. my pdsing of the process and it has been a while since i worked in the south east. they are more restrictive than maybe what the codes would allow. the code will say that you can do this but the design review committee may say that we don't like the project. >> okay. that is all of my questions. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> comments? >> having dealt with the east

side design review, they are tough. i mean, so they are very organized and they want certain things to be addressed in their neighborhood. so, given that i take weight in the fact that rsea does not support the variances very often. looking at the project, i don't see that, it is a huge impact, the fact that there are two units that are under 1,000 square feet. and on that particular block, even though the lots are small, the homes that are particularly surrounded are the several of the larger homes on the block. and so basically, you are getting and it is just bringing the center piece into parody and so in that case, i would

say that the zoning administrator is correct in his variance. >> no error. >> no error, no. >> thank you. >> any other comments? >> nods? >> no error, but a difference of opinion, but that is okay. we always have that. i would concur with that basic finding. the fact is that on the frontage most of the homes there go up to the property line. and the two homes, and then the two speakers, who are appellants, actually have homes that are non-compliant with the current code. >> the question of, the impact and i am not sure that i quite agree with them on the level of impact that they foresee. the privacy issues related to the deck, the deck back there is visible to everybody, for

half a block. and the shading, it was probably the over all envelope that has not changed from the documents that he was given when he first saw it and i don't see how the shading mostly of his roof has significant impact upon his occupantcy. so. >> okay. >> and i'm inclined similarly. i think that i want to address, you know some of the issues raised by the appellants, i think that how to engage with them is a concern for the public and i think that is new home owners, and vernal heights, i mean there are a lot of things going on there with respect to wanting to insure that you can have a say so. and it seems to me though, that

whereas there was some level of notice and some effort at attempting to organize, a response, it does seem to me that notwithstanding, not showing up for a discretionary review, their voices were heard in some ways maybe you did not get everything that you wanted, with the variances but it sounds like some part of that worked. but recognizing the process and accessing it is a critical issue. >> and i think that the issue on principle of the green space that is an important one, i think that our city, i live in vernal heights in a different part in seeing the structures that i mentioned and i recognize that we want to maintain that on principles as well and the particular location of this property, next to and as commissioner honda was saying, it seems to me and in a comment from the variance holder that it would be very negatively impacted if it had

to maintain ta small size that i think would be appreciated by the appellants but it would then be in some ways not benefiting from what is already in existence. so, those are just the additional comments or otherwise i agree and concur with everything else that has been stated. >> we have a motion? >> i am going to move to up hold the variance decision on the basis that he did not error with his position. >> thank you. >> could you call the roll, please? >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to up hold the granting of the variances on the basis that the zoning administrator did not error or abuse his discretion, on that motion, president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you.

>> the vote is 5-0, and the granting of the variance is upheld on that basis. >> no further business this evening,. >> the meeting is adjourned.

(applause) >> good morning, everyone. we're going to get started now. thank you for attending today's announcement. my name is adrian, i'm with immigrant affairs. let me first start by introducing the other partners for today's initiative lunch. first of all, the san francisco foundation, dr. sandra hernandez and tessa rivera, [speaker not understood], senior program officer for immigrant rights and integration, walter and alise fund, also known as the haase senior fund. pam david, the wallace

alexander gabode foundation, stacey ma and thomas, concerned with immigrants and refugees represented today by felicia barto, deputy director. also present today are commissioner canali vice-chair of the san francisco immigrant rights commission, city librarian, luis herrera, [speaker not understood], and clementine of the african advocacy network. so, let me provide first of all just a little bit of background on the initiative. in 2008 while serving as city administrator, mayor ed lee created the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs, one of the first such offices in the nation. the intention was to better communicate with and engage our city residents while providing opportunities for meaningful participation and particularly for under served and vulnerable communities. in 2009 the city had the

pleasure of collaborating with business community and philanthropic partners for the 2010 census count. we learned a lot about applying relevant street wise, street smart approaches to outreach and supporting community stewardship. this successful outreach effort and ongoing relationship evolved into a new model of engagement and collaboration. last year under the leadther ship of mayor ed lee and dr. sandra hernandez of the san francisco foundation, ~ planning began on a city-wide citizenship initiative, a total of five philanthropic foundations, a national grant makers organization, and trusted community partners are working together with the city on this effort. we will be starting the pilot phase of the initiative after today's announcement. we hope to include more partners as the initiatives progresses into full implementation over the next three years. so, mayor lee will now announce the initiative.

and as a long-time civil rights champion and leader, mayor lee has infused san francisco's city government with a new sense of inclusive collaborative leadership effectiveness and boundless energy, creative innovation and energy. so, mayor lee. (applause) >> thank you, adrian. i don't know about boundless energy. [laughter] >> but i do -- i am inspired by our immigrant community. we've done so much that i think the city is -- its dna is really about our diversity. let me thank adrian. she's been a wonderful leader at the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs, leading an effort not just with the immigrant rights commission, but a good strong relationship with our community-based organizations that do all of the great on the

groundwork with our immigrant families, people who are coming here as refugees, adjusting, people who come here, permanent residents, people who have come here seeking their future, their hopes for themselves and their families. also people who often came here by different ways and stayed, and maybe overstayed their status, or are escaping from war-torn or impoverished countries. we will be a sanctuary city for many years for people who want to be here. having said that, i am glad to be here this morning with adrian, dr. hernandez, and also, again, teaming up with board president and supervisor david chiu who i got a chance to work with very early as we prepared back in 2010 with all the community groups and with

the board of supervisors. and then i was the city administrator tasked by the mayor and the board with this big challenge of how do we go about of the census, knowing that every census in past history and those brief partial census efforts that go on in between the 10 years always under counted our folks and people who have been here. all the groups that i just described and the folks that we have tried to serve and knew that they were living sometimes in the shadow, sometimes without a lot of help and support. how do we count them in as residents of this city? and, so, we began on a very strong outreach program that depended upon service providers, to be quite candid. not just government agencies, but providers that sacrifice much of their time in the

nonprofit world, surviving on very, very much foundational grants, foundational leaders who oftentimes were the only ones that heard the voices that we need help to really identify these folks because if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have people coming out and telling us what diseases were causing them problems, what was spreading, what were the fears in our immigrant communities that were preventing them from participating, from not getting licenses, not accessing themselves to job opportunities, being perhaps caught up in underground economy. and you know what that leads to oftentimes is many problems that also may have challenges in our criminal justice system as well as our economics. but we wanted all of that to change. we for many years kids of immigrants, we always felt it was our duty to take up what maybe our parents and our friends were not able to out of

fear or out of the lack of government action or accountability, or even a safety net for people to be able to speak freely. taking all of that immigrant life lessons and now placing them in effect i have culturally competent programs was our task. and, so, back in 2010 we tried to do that, and i think we did very well in the census count by bringing forth so many groups to be counted and not to be afraid and not to be experiencing consequences. but the census was only the beginning. we knew that. and in our follow-up conversations with dr. hernandez who helped lead a lot of the community-based efforts as well as conversations with foundations and grants, with people like annie chung and others who are community leader, with different ethnicities, and i mean all ethnicities.

not just ones that dominate, immigrants in san francisco like asians and latinos, but our african community, our eastern europe committee, our middle eastern communities are all engaged in this effort. and our goal was always beyondv just being counted, how do you participate fully in american society? ~ how do you get to a david chiu as the supervisor or ed lee as the mayor and register your heart felt viewpoints on how your park should look like? what kind of education level your schools should be in? what kind of community safety plans would make you and your family feel safe? what kind of level of health care, which is a big, big challenge for us these days, that you need in order to keep healthy? all of these kinds of issues, including input in the government, we've always wanted to improve. well, today there is over 100,000 permanent residents in san francisco who are not fully

engaged yet in everything that they can be doing in registering their voice. and, so, we want to announce today a new initiative, it's the san francisco pathways to citizenship initiative. its job, its focus is to work with all the community-based organizations in the public-private way, work with the foundations with historically supported these efforts to bring voice and communication to hidden communities and unannounced communities, and to bring them to a path of citizenship, and to talk in culturally competent ways what the benefits of full citizen participation are, and there are many. if you are becoming a citizen or if you become a citizen, you're going to have a lot more fuller rights. for one thing, you get to vote in san francisco. you get to vote in america. and that voting right is so

precious. and we saw just a month ago or less than a month ago how we revisited how valuable that voting rights is, and all the sacrifices that heroes of this country had to protect that right for everybody. we want everybody to enjoy that because that gets you a voice and all the things we initially talked about. we want citizens to have a proper rich orientation and training classes that will conduct -- that will be conducted through this initiative, nonpartisan voting, the rights to vote, the right to be educated around every ballot measure that we have, whether it costs you more money or it doesn't cost you anything, or how do we improve muni, whether it costs you more or doesn't cost you anything. how do we do all of that in a much more involved way? education, outreach, more engaging new citizens to mentor

and help other eligible immigrants navigate the citizenship application process. we think this is our next big challenge, but opportunity just beyond the work that we did which was groundwork to get people counted. and i said earlier, our diversity is not just to be tolerated. it has to be celebrated in every way, and full participation is the goal. well, i want to thank wonderful historic and new funding partners that through their leadership and generosity in this initiative, certainly sandra hernandez and the san francisco foundation have been long-time partners. she's been so helpful in many other things and many of you know she's helping me on hope s.f., provide housing opportunities for some of our worst dilapidated housing. now she's also again stepped up with additional partners. and i want to just signal to

you some of these historic partners that are working with us. the [speaker not understood] foundation, the haase junior and senior foundations, as well as the asian pacific fund amongst many other foundations that are assisting us. this is a $1.2 million initiative over the next three years with the city providing about half of the funding and the foundations stepping up with the other half. but the real work is going to be done at the community level. the community organizations that are going to be working with us on numerous and they reflect all the different ethnicities that i just mentioned. but i want to mention a few to give them some special thank you because they're stepping beyond what they've traditionally done and going into the mold of going beyond just the citizenship count and now into services into this new orientation and training, and that is [speaker not understood] for the elderly, one of the lead agency.

thank you, annie, for leading that. you've been a wonderful collaborater with us. the asian caucus, asian pacific islander outreach, catholic charities cyo, international institute of the bay area, jewish family and children services, [speaker not understood] community resource center. as well as the african advocacy network, the arab resource organizing center, myob which is the [speaker not understood], the southeast asian community center, [speaker not understood] media, of course san francisco immigrant rights commission. well, i've often said in many speeches that our immigrant population is important. well, over a third of our population are immigrants and we acknowledge that. but i don't just want to say it as an announcement. everybody knows that. what we want is full participation. we want people to not