architects and people to get together that everything might effect the height minimum request thank you. >> we can hear from the agent holders representative now ms. barkley. >> members of the commission first of all, i need to apologize. that in my brief to you exhibit c actually was incorrect set of plans i attached the plans that was before the planning commission was, in fact, exhibit 7 that was in mr. hester's brief the reason is the

difference between there are 3 sets of plan the first set is all throughout every sheet exhibit 2 is i'll let the architect explain that >> i'm brigitte with the architecture the architect for the project sponsor their sorry they couldn't come they're expecting a baby i'm here to explain on behalf of. revision two is a set that was prepared prior to the dr and variance hearing. right before we were to submit the sue hester saw a error so we sent a surveyor out to correct

it as revision 3 >> so measure the height of the existing building on the site so revision 2 a combination of a couple of sheets you'll find in sue hester's brief submitted for the appeal revision 4 that she referred to was in response to the paris concerns for the roof-deck so on the upper level where there's a roof-deck previously in the discretionary review and the hearing there had been a roof-deck. up at this level here on top of the floor closer to the western property line so in response to that we eliminated the roof-deck and moved all the roof-deck space down to the lore level and got rid of the roofline to make

it a clearing close-up we will have solar panels in line with the roof pitch. page is one to 12. the new gastroroof number one, the green roof on portions of the building that we requires a variance they're here. the garage, and here. and as you can see from the original graphic that's over this building and over this building and this is the buildable envelope. so the green roof has nothing to do with the variance it didn't

require a variance so we're not quite sure what ms. hooefs complaint with inclines of the legal requirement in this 3 so 5 c what she's complaining but and state for the record is some kind of view blockage from of those two windows right here. over this portion of the building >> as you can see the red line representing the outline of the existing building so that portion that she's complaining about or rather her clients is complaining about a view blockage has a two-story volume

right there there's not a lot of blockage as far as that's concerned the rest of her brief talked about the discretionary review which is the purpose of the special use district lighting none of that has anything to do with the variance and she didn't point out in her brief the objection to the zoning administrators decision or where the zoning administrator did not make the correct conclusions. so if you have additional questions for the architect she's here to answer it.

and i'd like to submit the correct one in the 8 and a half by 11 it's identical to mr. hester's edition >> one to mr. hester's. >> yes. i need to put on the record i have no objections to the changes. >> ms. hester don't speak if the audience you i want to make it clear i do not obtain. >> mr. sanchez.

>> thank you. good evening scott sanchez planning staff. i think this project has come a long way in the year and a half since submitted and underwent the neighborhood notification last fall the discretionary review was filed additionally as a may or may not discretionary review because of the property but the planning commission heard this and did not take discretionary review regretfully i was at the hearing but had to leave so director ram was acting da on the item but subject to that the project sponsor heard the concerns in other words, to the elements that were part of the variance as well so the revisions were suggested to the department things they will do to accommodate those concerns. and staff thought it was

supportable and reviewed them and thought they remember positive changes to the project and ultimately john ram signed off on the letter it has 3 part variance with the rear yard and street variance facade i'm glad to hear the issues are not so much the issues or observations to the revised plans but rather it seems like additional requests on the elements of the plans so this is an appeal of the variance as noted several building permits that are still needed for determining demolition and reconstruction and several structures as well the total number of permits is three or four and, you know, hopefully the matter here can be resolved through this process and eliminated through the

board. to prevent any need someone needs to appeal the building permits that remain again, it sound like there are not necessarily concerns that the project given it's typography and the situations and the lot conditions does justify granting the variance was outlined in the variance letter and see what the board has to say on the matter and mr. sanchez perhaps you could are you familiar with the changes from revision four to what was submitted previously >> yes. i believe i am. >> i take a look at it also but didn't look at it exhaustly. i might san diego with you that

the roof change is related to the variance in the sense it deals with a non-conforming structure that's within the rear yard in that sense >> that's part of the variance decision this was a decision and the conditions that talk about changes that are made that are being reduced in parts and increased in parts. you know, regretfully this is not our best process permit and variance we've ever had. you know, i take full responsibility for that i think that we saw that there had been changed we thought the changes were sufficient and asked the foreign or sponsor to discuss that further i think that conversation didn't quite happen and would have prevented an appeal tonight but now we're in

the process it's clear to everyone what changes have been made and at this point what i heard from the appellant they're not net necessarily proposing the provisions >> can you then spell out what the changes were in totality in provision four from excuse me. from the submittal the combination of 3 plus 4. >> this is one i don't see graphics that clearly illustrate that one or two pages but the rooflines were lowered in part. and there's the portion that is transverse on the lot that is the master bedroom that had a roof-deck that was opposed by the neighbor that was removed and at that time the roofline

was carried across above the point where the dedicating deck was so again, it it is part of the project but overall the roof heights would have decreased but the project was reduced >> i saw that change i wasn't looking at to compare the two sets exhaustly is that the main change nurp. >> yes. the key change is the roof-deck remove the concerns the neighbor then the change of the roofline above the bedroom portion the master bedroom portion and the height of the building toward the flat roof that decreased the height and slightly at the rear those are the main changes and perhaps the

architect can talk about the changes. >> the silver panels those are not before you sthairt. >> that's an excellent point we've had a couple of solar panels appeals those are zoning approved those the case is if they're adding the structure those are above and beyond the solar panels otherwise those would be approved regardless of the set back don't have discretion those are described as low profile and maybe those details will address the concerns. >> also laying them obligate on

a relating flat roof is not efficient. >> you're absolutely correct they've improved in efficiency and being a flater plane but the standard is at an angle taking the northern latitudes i call them. >> okay any public comment on that item? okay. seeing none we've started our rebuttal. oh, this is public comment no. we're having rebuttal which is it >> you have 3 minutes. >> just hold on is there public comment? okay >> get the image up i want you to look at the section of the building and all those great changes that be neglected by a

10 shift. >> and they reduce to put this on their drawings and all those wonderful changes obeying will be neglected by a 10 foot shaft this mechanical shift. >> they've leaving off the roof and it's disingenuousus and they not build this shaft otherwise those great changes b will be neglected >> i'll make this quick is plans have changed dramatically they are different than presented to the planning commission. and their i don't think they care about our planning. we asked the planning commission we've also asked the people the developers we wanted to meet and talk about this and get it

scared away i don't understand what's going on they have not reached out to us the city asked him asked them to we oppose it for the following reasons. as you can see they've changed the elevation of the roofline here. this is 45 feet away from our kitchen window in the 45 percent so they're bringing this up to the 323 with the mechanic shaft they don't list the size in the plans i'd like to talk about that. i'm sure saying we wouldn't work with them they have not had an open forum. the next question they're in filing this we asked them not to

this cults our view in the back 45 percent of the non-conforming lot you're not supposed to build that was set up to protect that view the next issue is the roof-deck. which is now seven hundred square feet and that will cover this area right here. so this is also going to cut into our space i ask at this point that we think this and we ask they come back come and talk to us they're making a non-common structure worse i want to sit and asking for them to meet with us to come to a consensus by we can't if they

won't get together. thank you >> ms. barkley. >> members of the board i know that - okay. this drawing which is also in the your packet illustrates what is changed from this was before the planning commission and the zoning mist they objected to a deck over here they claim is right in front of the of the building this objection is in writing to the zoning administrator after the hearing was closed. so in response to that e-mail that they sent u.s. to the zoning administrator that further it to the client the client offer to accept

conditions of the approval on the variance granted to change this deck from here to a lower level very far away from those windows so there will be no privacy issue. as far as the this pinch pitch is a one to 12 pitch they decided instead of having very large high angle solar panels in the front part of the building this is larger a they'll put it on top of that roof to be minimal and the people directly across the street have no objection and to extend it all the way over to continue that to have the solar panel because

this building is projected to go for a platinum lead certification so they want to use as much solar energy as possible. as far as the complaint about the shaft nights in the basement level it going to be a radiant heating floor all the pipes that come out in the day and night baementd ceiling that's itself reason why it didn't go up through the second floor and into the roof >> just to clarify the shaft you see it on the second floor of the radiant floor it's not intended to be a large shaft that protrudes through the ceiling we don't want the outline of the roofline to

change it is, in fact, accurate. >> thank you mr. sanchez any rebuttal. >> scott sanchez maybe i found the two best elevations that summarizes the changes to the project and the west elevation the elevation that faces the appellant. great. well, if we didn't have closed captioning that would be easier to see but exhibit 7 this is sheet a-3.12 was considered the

variance hearing there are set backs at the rear there is also the deck above the master bedroom and portions of the front has previously proposed and then i i guess it's good but 8 perhaps but the other plan sets the revised plan sets that shows the set backs that had been here no longer existed to the property line. the deck is removed and that roof plane is carried all the way over and the height are reduced targeted the front we thought those changes with will a minimal impact on the neighborhood and a minimum

variance but the appellants sound likes plans are supportable and conversations to be had and other provisions that could be resolved thank you. >> commissioners the matter is yours. >> i'm a little bit confused i have not harder anything to find the zoning administrator abused his discretion if there's differences between the parties i don't know how that gets resolved in this way ambassador seems like in the around a permit and not an appeal of a variance decision. >> and i well, this maybe on the side but i don't know we have a policy open frivolous appeals anyway my strong suggestion

would be rather than filing an appeal not on the merits that the parties speak to each other rather than spend everyone's time trying to resolve your disputes this is not the appropriate forum so i suggest you spend time talking to each other i'm going to deny the appeal based on no errors on discretions of the district attorney. >> i'll move the similar opinion. >> okay mr. pacheco. >> we have a motion from the vice president to uphold the finding that the va did not bylaw abuse his discretion. commissioner fung. commissioner president lazarus. sxhold is absences the vote is 3 to zero the granting of this

variance is upheld with that finding thank you >> thank you there's no further business. >> we're adjourned.

>> i have been a cable car grip for 21 years. i am a third generation. my grand farther and my dad worked over in green division for 27. i guess you could say it's blood. >> come on in. have a seat. hold on. i like it because i am standing

up. i am outside without a roof over my head and i see all kinds of people. >> you catch up to people you know from the past. you know. went to school with. people that you work with at other jobs. military or something. kind of weird. it's a small word, you be. like i said, what do people do when they come to san francisco? they ride a cable car. >> california line starts in the financial district. people are coming down knobbhill. the cable car picks people up. takes them to work. >> there still is no other device to conquer these hills better than a cable car. nobody wanted to live up here because you had to climb up

here. with the invention of the cable car, these hills became accessible. he watched horses be dragged to death. cable cars were invent in san francisco to solve the problem with it's unique, vertically challenged terrain. we are still using cars a century old >> the old cable car is the most unique thing, it's still going. it was a good design by then and is still now. if we don't do something now. it's going to be worse later. >> the cable cars are built the same as they were in the late

1800's. we use a modern machinery. we haven't changed a thing. it's just how we get there. >> it's a time consuming job. we go for the quality rather than the production. we take pride in our work and it shows in the end product. >> the california line is mostly locals. the commuters in the morning, i see a lot of the same people. we don't have as tourists.

we are coming up to street to chinatown. since 1957, we are the only city in the world that runs cable cars. these cars right here are part of national parks system. in the early 1960's, they became the first roles monument. the way city spread changed with the invention of the cable car. >> people know in san francisco, first thing they think about is, let's go