the variance decision letter was more detailed and lengthier than a typical variation letter precisely for this reason because it is a complicated situation. i will just try to give a little bit of background and information and will definitely be available for any questions you may have and try to cover as much under rebuttal as i can. the proper here is 898 north street. it's currently zoned c-2 in a 40-x height and zone district. it's a multiunit residential building that fronts only on north street which is not part of this proposal. as was discussed originally, the property owners submitted a building permit for demolition of the commercial building and new construction of a five story unit and because this property is located in the c-2 district, a commercial district, assist not subject to neighborhood --

it is not subject to neighborhood notification and also not subject to preapplication meeting requirements with the neighbors. however, the property owners did conduct a preapplication meeting in november 2014. the owner and residents of the appellant's property at 3030 larkin street were invite today that meeting but did not -- invited to that meeting but did not attend. the plan was subjects quently reviewed by the planning department and issued by d.b.i. in february 2016. that permit was not appealed. as was mentioned, the permit holder was going through an additional subdivision process after the site permit had been issued when at that time they discovered the n.s.r. on their property regarding the original variance from 1970. as is mentioned in the letter and the briefs, because the variance actually provided variances to specific code controls for the property at 3030 larkin street and did not

grant variances to 898 north point street, our on-line record provided variance information for larkin street property but it did not show up on the 898 north point street property, so that is why staff did not see that. and ultimately it was not brought to our attention until after the site permit had been issued, and it was clear that pera condition of approval for that 1970 variance, there was this 30 feet set back open space requirement at the rear of 898 north point. just quickly, that variance as it was described was required because of a lot line adjustment between the two properties. and with that lot line adjustment, the property at 3030 larkin street got smaller, and it was already essentially over density. so it required a variance from lot density and from recovered usable open space. so the actual variances grants

were only for that property at 3030 larkin street. however a condition of approval applied to 898 north point street. the permit states that any variation at 174 is a requirement of the code. it's subject to the code, just like anything else. if someone gets a condition on their property that says there shall be a 10 foot set back in the rear, it's tantamount to a new rear yard. any quantitative control of the planning code can be varied by the zoning administrator with some exceptions. so in this situation because the proposal here was to only modify the condition of approval which created this 30 foot set back or open space area on 898 north point and did not propose to change in any way any of the

variances that were granted to 3030 larkin street, it was clear that the property did have standing to file the variance. once you get over that hurt will, the primary issue turns to what are the impacts to the property at 3030 larkin street? and the original proposal from the applicant was just to remove that condition completely. we weren't comfortable with that approach. we thought it was reasonable to relook at this development in the context of today as opposed to a development context 50 years ago that didn't actually come to full fruition. if you look at what was approved, it is a code compliant project that is very similar to this lot configuration in the city, and you have basically a ground floor level in this lot, and basically a subterranean

level going to the other lot. there are two units in 3030 larkin street that would be somewhat affected by this. both those units have their primary windows fronting on larkin street and at the rear. the windows are small and secondary windows, and the light well is an interior stairwell. so given that context, and the fact that you do have this sloping lot and there are limits on where vehicular access can go on this lot, the determination was made that if that is made, the absolutely lowest it can go and still allow vehicular access from the lot, that that would be a reasonable state for this property. again, there are many other issues that have been raised in the appellant's brief, and here today, i'm happy to address any of them, but we do feel that the five findings were met to issue the variance.

thank you. >> vice president swig: mr. teague, i'd like you to sort something out for me. >> sure. >> vice president swig: so last week, we heard a -- an item, and it resulted in approximan n.s.r the n.s.r. was a space within a new residential building will be continued as a small manufacturing and in perpetuity. >> 19 street, yeah. >> and that means forever, that's going to be small manufacturing space. it's not going to be office, it's not going to be anything else. in -- in this case, there's another n.s.r. which would mean something -- if an n.s.r. is forever on the other place, this would be an n.s.r. forever on this. but are you saying that this n.s.r. was juxtaposed to the

larkin street building, it was a requirement placed on the larkin street building as opposed to the north point building so that when -- as part of the transfer so that when the north point building transferred, they had the right to come back and say okay, we don't want that n.s.r. anymore that we required when we did the transaction in 1970? is that -- >> i'll try to answer that the best i can. so one thing that's helpful to keep in mind is that an n.s.r. is not the actual restriction, it's just a notice of the restriction. so the n.s.r. is just a tool to make people aware that there's a restriction on this property. it does not serve as the actual restriction. the actual restriction lives in the variance decision letter that says this variance is granted on the condition that.

so in the planning code, just to switch gears a little bit, because this is more a planning code issue than a variance issue, if you get a conditional use authorization for anything, maybe hours of operation, sometime in the future, you can come back and request that the plan commission modify or -- planning commission modify or remove that condition of approval. the general principle is no current zoning administrator or no current planning commission can kind of tie the hands of a future zoning administrator or planning commission for various reasons. so in this case, the reason the n.s.r. was recorded on both properties is because there were restrictions on both properties. even though 3030 larkin street was the only property to receive the variance because the lot line adjustment did not trigger any nonconforming situation for the 898 north point street property. it only created the nonconforming situation that

triggered the variances on 3030 larkin street, but because the decision did include a condition of approval that was a quantity thaitive restriction on 898 north point, then the n.s.r. was also recorded on that property because that restriction was documented or was made part of the variance decision. >> vice president swig: so does that mean that, for example, going back to last week, we were fairly furtive about saying okay, we -- we will go ahead with our support of this development, but, you know, forever and forever, this space has to be, you know, small manufacturing. but does that mean that when we're dead and gone, let's see, how many -- that's 45 -- >> 50 years. >> so probably 50 years from now, won't be around. yeah, you may be around, but when the next zoning administrator comes in, that he

could pull that restriction on that property that we dealt with last week? >> not the zoning administrator. the planning commission, yeah. two years from now, the property owner could apply to have that condition modified. that would -- they'd have the right to do that. now, clearly, the planning commission at that time would have the full context of the situation on how the condition came to be, that obviously plays a role, but in terms of what is their legal ability to do so, they would have the option to do that. and the same is true for conditions of approval for a variance. >> vice president swig: so basically, restrictions are at the -- at the will of the -- the planning commission and -- i mean, in this case, let's say that mr. etcheverry and the owner of the north point property -- sorry, just forgot his name -- decided okay, one

thing we're going to do, we're going to keep this space open. we're going to make it a restriction on this property, and so that really -- they were pipe dreaming because along comes 50 years, and some successor planning commission can say well yeah, they did that, and that was fine for them 50 years ago, and so things have changed, and so we're just going to blow it off. >> well, in this case, at this time, the property owners may have been amenable to the condition, but the decision was the zoning administrator's to grant the variance or not vagra the variance or apply the permit or not. >> vice president swig: they were ill advised by counsel probably, and they should have gone to an easement if that's what they wanted to achieve.

>> we're talking about this 50 years from now. i don't know if that was on anybody's mind at that time. there was a proposal for commercial redevelopment of the site, so i can't speak to what was on their minds at that time, but that would have been another option if they wanted to have a control over that property that was outside the realm of a decision by the zoning administrator or the planning commission. >> vice president swig: so mr. williams' point of view really doesn't matter whether mr. williams is right or wrong or it does -- that the hu's or right or wrong. it is up to the planning department 50 years later, and placing a new context and responding to a request in this case from the hu's as to how the use of that property is going to be. is that the bottom line? >> the restriction only exists because the zoning administrator

adopted it as a condition of approval to the variance. the variance is still in play. 3030 larkin still needs that ra variance. >> commissioner tanner: just to clarify, so the -- the larkin street property, and this was approved and the project is dlt, do they need -- built, do they need additional variances in order for their project to be -- it's not conforming because of the variance, but is that still okay? >> that's the everyone.

>>clerk: given the volume, we're going to limit public comment to two minutes, as well, for public speakers. >> first of all, i'm the one that's going to be the most impacted. the idea that there's a light well that serves the apartment is incorrect. there's only one wall that's going to have any light, and that's going to be blocked by this. the second is i actually read the title myself. we're talking about n.s.r.'s and

variances. just read the title. it's super clear. super clear that this restriction's on it. i don't know what it's called exactly, if it's n.s.r. or variance, but they paid for the property with that restriction written very clearly in the title. so i would love it if it was my business to buy properties and takeoff stuff on the title that have encumbrances on the property, but unfortunately, i haven't been that smart in the past. i would have to move because my apartment would be a cave. they already built dw-- so in ce it wasn't clear, they own the property next door door, so basically -- next door, so basically, they removed the fire units and moved -- i don't know the exact number -- towards me, and now, they're looming over -- i think they're doing a lot of

airbnb in that property, as well. so i would like to say, please read the title, and yes, my apartment would be destroyed, and i would still have to move. >>clerk: you still have 20 seconds. >> that's okay. i'm done. i love to hear myself talk, but you don't, probably, so that's okay. >>clerk: okay. next speaker. >> my name is page kuyper. our building is on the second floor and also in the back, three windows in my main living area directly overlook this open space that we're discussing today. my back windows, the only other windows i have face a wall, and no air and light come in. these windows are the only windows that provide any sun

light or air into my home. this open space that we're discussing is a key factor in the quality of life in our home as well as our privacy and is evidence that this long-standing variance still has enormous relevance and significance to us as residents today. when undertaking a new real estate project, consideration is simply due diligence 101. the residents of 3030 larkin should not be punished for this. thank you for your consideration. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is brian connolly. i live at -- i've lived at 3030

larkin for eight years. i've enjoyed the midday sun that streams through the windows and open air, the building in this mini tower will block fresh air, the sun, the view, and lower the standard of living for the renters and box in an area that's celebrated around the world in part for the open air around its landmark tower. boxing this block forever destroys part of its character. and on a personal note, we've just gone through two years of construction next door, and if this happens again, it's another two years of construction that starts at 6:30 in the morning with saws and hammers and then moves onto the construction treatment around the building that flaps in the wind all hours of the day, so you have to listen to this noise constantly with the san francisco wind. thank you very much for your

time. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is dori kriesfell. i've been a resident at 3030 larkin street since 1991. george imperiali -- i knew the imperiali. it was not mr. imperiali who approached mr. court. the facts were wrong. the facts were wrong from the other side. it was mr. court who approached george imperiali, and being neighborly in those days, and

trusting, he -- he obliged, but it was with the agreement that there would be in perpetuity, an open space, which has been -- which is in the variance. the thing that gets me is the etcheverrys bought the property from george imperiali and his family with the understanding that that open space would be held in perpetuity. now when is a contract no longer a contract? this was an agreement, so i don't get it, that anybody could just come in and decide to change the rules and take over somebody's property, 'cause that's what this is about. we need to pay attention.

this is a -- a -- this is one case, but it's precedent. it's precedent. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. >> commissioner honda: ma'am, may i ask a question? >> yes. who's asking? >> commissioner honda: i'm asking. so prior -- even though there was no notification required for this particular project, the project sponsors or the owners of the property sent out that they would have meetings with -- with evidently the neighbors. did you not get any of these notifications? >> when were these sent out? >>clerk: quiet in the audience, please. >> i get every piece of mail. i only got a notice posted on the door from somebody across the street with a different --

they're building something across the street, and i went to that meeting. >> commissioner honda: okay. i'll get the information. >> okay. i got nothing, and i attend everything. >> commissioner honda: okay. >>clerk: next speaker, please. you can come up. you can start walking up. that's fine. >> yeah. >>clerk: thank you. please go ahead. >> hi. my name is lauren lai. i'm a neighbor. i am kind of excited about this project because i truly believe that this project can add very positive aspect to this neighborhood because as of right now, the building is not at its highest and best use and frankly is kind of an odd structure for the neighborhood. it's not in key for neighborhood. it's clear we need more housing

in san francisco, and that's a fact. we know that. every single unit counts in san francisco, so therefore, when we're adding four residential units in this neighborhood, plus a commercial unit, it's truly tremendous for this area, it's much needed. with more permanent housing, hopefully, it will promote goods and services and establishments that support and cater to the locals themselves as well as just the tourists. this part of russian hill is kind of a no man's land. you can't walk to anything to get anything that's normal, such as a grocery store or sandwich shop because there's not enough regular housing to support these merchants, and as a neighbor, i would very much like to see that that would contribute toward a community, a more neighborhood feel. and lastly, i think granting the variance is a great solution to

correct the existing issue of the open area on larkin street. i walk my dog there many times, and lots of times, it's in the dark. and sometimes i see a mess being made because it's an open space, and bad things can happen. it's just that kind of, you know bad elements can go into that open space, and i think it's a matter of time before something bad is going to happen. >>clerk: thank you. >> so i'm all for the project. >>clerk: thank you. >> commissioners, my name is julie tang. i moved into the neighborhood about four years ago after my retirement, and i never looked back because this is truly one of the most open space neighborhoods in all of san francisco that i know of. both buildings adjacent to a

lovely beach and being requeaqu. on july 4, you see the most spectacular fireworks. you can actually touch the fireworks. this is the kind of open space that both buildings are adjacent to. and i understand, i am sympathetic with the residents and the neighbors who feel that the encroachment of the small garage within 800 square feet of space will impact their concept to air and space, but this is an area that provides plenty of open space and light and air. now having said that, i wanted to say that the owners of this building are really, really wonderful people, and they're the kind of people that you want at neighbors, as property

owners. they have a baker that baked all the fresh pastries every moer morning, and they opened up a croissant shop that's known as the best croissant shop in the united states. they'll watch over the building and everybody else. everybody has indicated with ne

because we live cheek by jowl with each other, so it's very concerning that this could be overridden because of a determination that one property owner's use of the property is more valuable than the others. also, i did love the bakery that was at the north point property. it's closed, though, now. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. i live in fisherman wharf for 20 years, so i have two reasons to support this building. why? because in 2005, i remember. it was station across the street, the corner, it was a station -- gas station. it looked very awful. so they build a three-story high

apartment, very beautiful. so every time i go over there, come back, go to work, and i come back home, and i look at the left side and right side, just like i wear a short, one's a long sleeve, one's a short sleeve, it doesn't matter because right now, the building is very low. the other building is, like, three stories high. so i sat fisherman's wharf, we should have prosperity. commissioners say 50 years. i say maybe ten years later, we can see fisherman's wharf, the apartments building for, and create, like, a commissioner -- mr. honda says, we create the people living here. everybody loves san francisco. i love san francisco. that's why i choose to stay in the fisherman wharf. so then everybody, tourist look

at it. wow. there's a new building, new apartment. build that. all i know is create the living for the people, so that's all i'll say. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. anymore public comment? okay. seeing none, we will move onto rebuttal. mr. williams? >> thank you. steve williams again. it's really a matter of fundamental fairness. the etcheverrys should be entitled to rely on the title report, the property they bought, just as the waterfront people should be bound by their title report because they purchased this property at a huge discount because of the development restrictions on their property. this is a gift from the zoning administrator to waterfront. you heard this criticism of the variance. you heard the zoning administrator's being very reasonable. maybe it was done wrong, maybe it was incorrect, maybe it was a

mistake. future -- you know, all this -- supposed to be future commercial, etc., maybe it wasn't followed. none of that is in the variance decision in front of you. please pull it out and look at it. it is devoted exclusively to parking. that is the only hardship cited and the only issue sicited in tt variance decision. they have not -- and the burden is on the variance seeker, they have not provided substantial evidence to justify those findings. they have presented zero evidence. did you hear anything about parking tonight? is there any word in any of your briefs or evidence about parking? the answer is no. this variance was not properly granted. george imperiali would not have sold his property without the guarantee that that open space was going to stay open for his tenants and his building. it's not in perpetuity, it's in

perpetuity or until his apartment building doesn't exist anymore. and he's entitled to that. and he was the only owner before the etcheverry family. two family owners in 113 years. you heard a lot of nonsense that this decision is not in the property information act. look at exhibit shou14. i put it right in front of you. look at exhibit 16. you know, this is a demo. when they did a survey, how did they miss seeing the indication of an n.s.r. and a variance on the assessor's map when they did that initially? they knew about it years before the application went out, and if they claim -- they claim ignorance, it's constructive notice, and that's what the law says is they're held to the constructive notice. to ignore the neighbors, ignore

the harm caused to the neighbors and to grant this variance based on parking without any evidence at all in front of you is just an incorrect decision. and, you know, the -- they keep coming back to this preapplication meeting, this mystery preapplication meeting. there was no preapplication meeting that ever mentioned a variance process. instead of coming at the start of the process, it came at the exact end. >> commissioner lazarus: i have a question. >> yes. >> commissioner lazarus: you mention in your oral testimony and also in your brief asking if there were other cases where applicant was permitted to seek a variance on someone's property. >> yes. >> commissioner lazarus: are there any legal cases on that topic? >> you know, it's a hard question to answer because it's so basic. can you pick up a piece of paper and go make an application for a permit on somebody else's property? no. the variance application says no, only the owner can do that.

>> commissioner lazarus: is there any litigation that you can cite or any court cases that document that? >> no. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. that was my question. >> it was such a basic rule. >> commissioner lazarus: thank you. >>clerk: thank you. we'll now hear from mr. schab. >> good evening again. jeremy schab, schably architects. the zoning administrator is allowed to make changes in previous variance decision cases, especially because, you know, we heard a lot about what mr. imperiali wanted to do on the site. he said, quote, the life of the existing apartment building at 3030 larkin is relatively short. he was already planning to demolish his building 50 years

ago, so for these -- because of that, we've been trying to work with our neighbors. can show you again, this was our original -- >> commissioner honda: overhead, please, thank you. >> this was our original approved volume. here in blue are the adjacent property line windows, so after it was approved, when cory and i were working on this, we cut down the volume. so we are now down to affecting only the two lower units. that's the extent of the shade that we'll be doing on their building. so now, if i can have the owner come up. >> hello. i'm the sponsor. thank you for allowing me the opportunity to state the facts

that we did not discover the variance and the n.s.r. issued on the property until 2017, a and-and upon discovery of the n.s.r., we immediately applied for a variance. if we had known there was a variance issue at the beginning of the project, i would happily have discussed this with mr. etcheverry. [inaudible] >> at that time, a discussion was held with mr. etcheverry to grant us a garbage easement. also, if i had known before 2017 there's an n.s.r. issue open space on our property, it would be logical and practical for us

to seek notification of the open space requirement with the planning department at that time when we were still in the designing stage rather than wait until all the plans were approved and notified plans as the letter has caused us more money, time, and delay to rework the plans. to my knowledge, this parking lot has been an eye sore -- >>clerk: thank you, ma'am. your time is up. >> it has been a parking lot and eye sore to the neighbors. >>clerk: thank you. >> thank you. >>clerk: and we will now hear from mr. teague. >> commissioner honda: no one knows what to call you this evening. >> i'm sure people call me a lot of things by the end of the night. good evening. cory teague again for the planning department. i will assure you the acting zoning administrator at that time did not go out on a limb by his or herself to make that determination. i can assure you that the full

resources of the department and the city were consulted to make that determination. a lot of conversations about the nuances of what the original propertiener was, but all we have is the record. if you look at the original variance letter from 1970 and why it's being provided it talks in have you flowery language that it would be an open space open to the tenants of the buildings, and it was going to be this kind of great open space, natural plaza for the community. that did not happen. the development context that exists now is very different than what happened then. i would disagree with the appellant, again, that we didn't address the issue raised about parking and why no one's talking about it. our brief directly addresses

their question in their brief about the parking and how it was used in the justification of the variance. you're not hearing much of it because the vast majority of arguments being made have nothing to do with that, so that's what you're hearing responses to. and i would also say -- we can have conversations about the parking issue and how it plays into the justification issue. i'm happy to answer questions about that. i will say that yeah, we were not able to find any other cases that were exactly like this, where a condition of approval was actually placed on an adjacent property, and then, that condition of approval was changed in the past. we then, doing variances since the -- well, for well over 60 years, more than 100 a year in our system simply does not have the capablity to search those that way. also there's limited institutional knowledge to search that. we do have plenty of examples, though. if you take the adjacent property context away where people had variances maybe in the 70's or 80's that required

something to kind of fulfill in some proxy a code requirement at the time, and maybe 20 or 30 years later, that code requirement has gone away. maybe policies change, and people come in and request to get that condition of approval removed from their variance or removed from their conditional use authorization because it's really not relevant to the current context, and that happens fairly commonly, so the idea of coming back to amend a condition of approval from either a variance or a planning commission motion sometime in the future due to a changing regulatory or development context is not at all unusual. i'm available for any questions. >> vice president swig: mr. teague, i'm having -- you just fueled my fire a little bit. the architect fuelled it initially by saying, implying, well, that was yesterday. it's 50 years later, and everything's changed. san francisco's different, whatever, and you just said --

you said the same thing. it's 50 years later, and things have changed, but you're using it in the example why a -- a variance might change, why a situation might change. what's bugging me here is that we have an owner of an apartment building that's been there 100 years, and that owner of that apartment building bought it with a condition on the title that -- that this area would be open space. there was an n.s.r. on it. it said on the title, open space. now if the apartment was gone -- the original apartment building was gone, no argument. the condition has changed, but this is the second owner. this owner bought it with this condition. the evaluation of this building will severely suffer because those two bottom units will not be -- sure, they may be livable,

but they're not going to be as valuable as they were when they had open light if there's a new bmg built next door, so i really disagree, and i find it a little cavalier to say well, conditions have changed on the site, conditions have changed in san francisco. no, they haven't. same old building's there 130 years, and it's just that there happens to be a new owner. and it's very convenient in san francisco -- and i support housing. i think this building should be built because of the housing. i have a problem with that garage, but you all know it's housing, and this building probably got -- might have gotten some very benevolent views because it's housing, and we need housing. but it denies the existence for me of the building sourced there for 130 years and that owner. how do you reconcile that for

me? >> well, i think it's important to understand, the variance isn't justified because the context is changed. the point we were making is that after 50 years, a change in context is a relevant thing to consider. and also, the context by which the original variance was issued. to your other point, this -- the proposal that's happening here is not that different in the framework that -- in the way that you framed it is, for example, the rear yard requirement for this property for 898 north point, assuming -- let's just pretend there was never a variance here, and these were just two adjacent properties. let's say the rear yard is required to be 25 feet. it can be that way for 100 years, and they can amend the code to say there's no requirement, and it's just whatever d.b.i. says for exiting, and maybe it goes from 25 to 10 feet. the reason i bring that up is

because this condition was in reliance on a specific decision that was made by the zoning administrator at that time. it was not a private easement that was held between the two properties. so i can definitely understand that there is probably an expectation that if a variance is granted with a condition of approval, it's likely going to stay that way for a long time, and there was definitely not an expectation that just because the owners of 898 north point had standing to file, that it could be removed. as i mentioned, their original proposal was just completely remove the condition altogether, and we were not comfortable with that. what we were comfortable with was allowing a development there that allowed for a reasonable otherwise code complying development on the north point property without having any significant impacts on the property at 3030 larkin street? >> vice president swig: is there justice -- i see injustice

to the owner of the larkin street property because your arbitrary changing of this restriction has devalued the -- it's devalued his property when he bought it on the condition that that value would always be there by virtue of this -- this -- this restriction. i -- is it not manifest injustice to that property owner? i'm being sympathetic to the hu's. i know they want to build something, but i'm looking at the manifest injustice created by devaluing a piece of real estate which has been owned by an individual long before the hu's showed up. >> i can't make the decision for you whether or not it parking r

is a requirement for that site, and that is basically the only place to be able to provide parking is at that space, and that -- but that's also one of the reasons that we've requested they reduce that -- that partially subterranean level on the parking garage the lowest they could absolutely get and still fit a vehicle in on that slope, but is there an option they could do that if they were to obtain some type of parking waiver or variance or something like that? i would imagine there is. >> vice president swig: thank you, and i won't hold the time. >> president fung: looking at the chronology -- [inaudible] >> i'm not positive when the

sale occurred fu. >> president fung: if that's the case, in 1970, could you have applied for a variance on two properties in one variance? >> when this situation -- and again, it's a nuance situation that we don't get very often, the variance was triggered by the fact that the lot lines were moving, and that by nature requires the both property owners -- >> president fung: no, that wasn't my question. my question was in 1970, you've very clearly stated that today, you could not apply for a variance that applied to two -- to properties that you do not own. fl in 19700, could you do that then? >> no, and that was the point that i was making, was the only

variance was on 3030 larkin street. >> president fung: no. that variance crossed through what was two properties, but that property had already changed hands, and then, the variance was applied for. >> i'm not sure i'm understanding. are you saying the variance application was filed -- >> president fung: was that variance applied for in error? >> almost 50 years ago, i don't have those ducks in a row to answer that. obviously, the zoning administrator at that time did not feel it was filed in error and that issue was not raised as part of that variance decision. >> commissioner honda: i'm sorry. one question. i've heard the word code compliant a lot this evening. so other than this particular variance, where is is this -- is there any other projects or exceptions to this project? >> no, it's code complying. >> commissioner honda: and on the bulk and size, would they be able to build larger and still

be code compliant or are they right at the limit at this point? >> they're not at the full limit in the rear, but they are basically max height and max a.

i guess the -- there's two questions. one is if the variance was applying to both properties, ad what are are ad what approximated xz awhat -- at wht point does the current property owner take over responsibility for that portion of the variance? and if so, therefore, has standing, contrary to what the appellant's brief has indicated?

it's my opinion that the current property owner has standing to deal with this. that variance portion, that one condition, applies to their property. it's the only portion that applies to their property. if that's the case, and the current owner has standing, then, what we're faced with is the second question, is has the zoning administrator, in his approval of the five findings and criteria, was he accurate in doing so? the appellant's brief raises a couple of things, and most of it concentrates on the other question mostly of standing. in my opinion, the zoning administrator did not err, and therefore, the findings are

correct. >> commissioner honda: i will concur. being on this board for the last six years, we've had many permits appealed properties that had n.s.r.'s the fault lies on t

that he sold that property, and that, you know, he got his building to go noncode compliant on the basis of having that open space and then sold the open space. so i'm in concurrence with my president. >> president fung: further comment? >> commissioner tanner: i also agree. >> president fung: i'm going to move to deny the appeal on the basis that the five findings of the variance decision were correctly done. >>clerk: okay. we have a motion from president fung to deny the appeal and

uphold the variance on the basis that the five findings in the zoning administrator's decision were correctly done. on that motion -- [roll call] kre >>clerk: okay. so that motion carries, and the appeal is denied. okay. we're going to move to item number nine, and thank you so much for your patience. this is peal number 18-130, neighbors of upper cole valley versus san francisco public works street use and mapping. subject property is 1509 slad

slaters dsh- [inaudible] >> and we will hear from the appellants first. >> good evening, president fung, vice president swig, commissioners honda, lazarus, and tanner. i'm brian cedar, representing the neighbors of upper cole valley. thank you for reviewing and hearing our appeal. there are 115 people in our group, and we had about 18 here tonight. we've dwindled down a little bit to 11, but thank you for your patience in staying with us tonight, too. i know it's late for everybody. we're not here tonight to protest wireless cell sites. neighbors of upper cole valley

understand respect san francisco's objective to have a process to approve the use of appropriate existing light poles for 5-g cell sites. on this particular permit, mobility did not comply with that process, and mobility does not meet the permit's explicitly stated conditions and article 25. this is why we're asking the board to please grant our appeal and deny this permit. so there are four major issues. mobility -- first off, mobility did not comply with noticing. some quick details of 37 occupied residents within the circle, 15 attested they did not receive a mobility mailing. the brief -- let's see if i can get this going here.

the submitted brief shows that mobility only notified residents south of market street. it might be a suspect way of deflecting a time honored way of no notification. one copy of the posted notice was very poorly affixed. posted notices would definitely have helped us. neighbors were desperately trying to find a notice and strongly resent d.p.w.'s statement that notices were somehow removed. second issue, mobility failed to

forth rightly notify residents of the scale of the work's plan. the photo simulations, commercial photographer across the street from the site cries them as deaccept tiffly photographed, the angles carefully chosen to mask rather than show the scope and scale. this is one of the mobility photos here. it makes it look like mount sutro is on our street. you have to be down at bumper level to get that photograph. this is what the street looks by to resident. the equipment block was blended into a window in another one of the photos. mobility ignored a significant san francisco guideline for cellular companies to call out those large enclosures for equipment. we've done that in our equipment, so you