the first point states that a variance must prove a hardship will ensure will ensue if the variance is not granted. town of agenter ton versus templeton, california appellate case, ~ judged the voluntary purchase of a lot too small for further development is not a hardship justifying the granting of a variance. in a letter written by jeff wood, a member of the cal hollow association zoning committee, states that, and i quote, to significantly reduce or destroy these side yard open spaces to provide arbitrary benefits to a single homeowner, ashe trayerly denies the same light and air benefits to all other property owners on the common side yard ~. it is the duty of each planning commissioner to respect and protect these common benefits that are provided for the enjoyment of not just one individual to cherish or throw away, but for all the public to enjoy. another letter written by darwin [speaker not understood], the previous owner of my home at 1990 jefferson [speaker not understood], and i quote, i previously owned, remodeled and lived in the home and know how the side yard allows for

and i would ask you specifically to, when considering these variances or request variances, to consider article 10 of the planning code which specifically finds that areas of special character of which the marina is clearly one, continue to be unnecessarily destroyed. and the problem that i think we're dealing with is the incremental problem of a variance here, a variance there, a variance there, and pretty soon what all of the gardens in the marina are going to be concrete. the subject property at 3700 broderick that we're talking about, it already has a variance in the backyard which is going to be extended even further and a variance in the side yard which is going to take away more garden. and i was walking this morning along jefferson street at the opposite end at webster and there is another requested variance that was going to come in front of this commission in the next few weeks for someone to build in nigh backyard. the marina has a special character. those of us that move there move there because of that character. and by allowing one variance at a time for people to replace

i want to speak briefly to the variance. as has been noted there is a variance from the rear yard requirement that's being sought by the project and there is no side yard requirement, also has been noted under the planning code, but being raised under the d-r as a pattern and they would like the commission to consider that. i first heard this variance on april 24th of this year. at that time the section 311 notice had just gone out a few days prior and the adjacent neighbor spoke in opposition to the project. at that hearing i took a matter under advisement but i did not take a decision on the variance. i did express concerns related to the variance very much along the lines that commissioner antonini expressed. i did state that there were some grounds for a variance, but not to the full extent as has been sought. i had hoped that the parties would meet and discuss and come with a resolution that would address all the parties' concerns and i'm very dismayed to hear an alternate that was not proposed until yesterday and i did

items considered today so it could be credit card by the commission that would be imposed by the variance. >> we talked earlier about live ability i would find it difficult to put might have in the situation of the person who made the comments about the noise and smell it seems to be the visual impact on the quality of our life your bedroom or living room or all of the above each time you look up to get a feeling of a street you don't want to look at exhaust equipment. so i suggest we have the department work with the reasonable solution to sun screening that don't add height and shadow but visually breaks the idea of not having to look at this equipment. there are many ways >> with the attempt to try to deaden some of the noise. >> it would be visible as well as noise and potentially smell and create an updraft it is important. >> oh, yes back to staff. the ms. jackson the photo that shows the exhaust system that's currently sitting on the building that was installed without permits >> that's correct. >> so we don't know if this is legal; is that correct? legal in terms of the height and

the general plan is where a we have variances. i could see a variance nigeria in this case a hardship for a rear yard but how about a hardship that demands for the unbelievable by being 40 thooet feet smaller than the rest of the building which is very tall and hienlly wide like a house lot and a half that is usually allowed. good afternoon commissioners and wanting fong representing the lower polk neighbors. we met with the sponsor and since then we've not been contacted by e the developer. we were notified by the posting of today's hearing by the posting on the building and we requested a continuous to on october meeting. since then we've had back and forth e-mails. leadership of the lp n is not opposed to the project but we've been unable to meet with our membership. we do support the auto as a local business but we are not supportive of the new use but thought retention. we strongly request the ride share. we do want to mention we're concerned with thirty now comedies in the vicinity and it's to require some form of disclosure

the city - we did require a parking variance yet the commissioners exhibited some hesitancy about this sow we have checked two garages and the intent is to rent two additional spaces so we would comply with the parking lot requirement without the variance. widespread to note if we were to add the two parking spaces it would be approximately 5 hundred square feet on our property and the commercial space is 8 hundred and 82 square feet so it would did he ludicrous the commercial space it does add parking to our building. people walk blocks after they park in a neighborhood so we feel like this is a solution and to remove mechanical equipment off the roof. the furnace had about that removed from the roof to the basement which leaves the ventilation. we're also intending to use a screening fence to soften the impact. another item of contention was window information. and so the windows that are being used are you w c aluminum window and on sheet 3.4 - we've now provided a window wall section. the windows themselves we've recessed four inches from the facade of the building. and they're a m

so, present, although we're showing an overall $54,000 net positive variance, most of the positive variances we hope to carry forward and where we really hope to be able to do is close out the personnel costs variances through the -- through the year-end closing process with the controller. ~ what so, if there are any questions, be happy to answer. >> [speaker not understood]. >> when you started the flex funding for [speaker not understood], how much a.m. was put in the reserve? 5 million or 21 -- 20 million, okay. so, less than what we put in the service -- >> i thought when i took the rates that were in the rate setting process, the rates that were expected in terms of pmpm expenses and applied that to the membership, it would have produced about a $25 million ibnr june this year. but the 25 million is really the difference between claims that are actually settled between, you know, by june 30 and those claims that have not yet been submitted and adjudicated. so, it might have been an estimate of more like 20 million. but the reality is it depends really on how quickly claims are paid and

a variance is still required which this board upheld at the previous hearing some time ago. but a portion does require a variance. >> okay. >> i would concur with comments of commissioner fung. if there are no other comments i will make the motion to grant the appeal on the condition that it be the revised drawings be the ones that are permitted. >> can we have some specificity on the drawings? >> for the record they are dated, they are in the permit holder august 14th submittal but the july plans are dated 20, 136789 we have an motion from the president to uphold the revised plan july 26, 2013. >> on that motion to uphold with revised plans, commissioner fung, aye, commissioner hurtado, aye, lazarus, aye, honda? aye. the vote is 5-0. the permit is upheld with revised plans. >> what were the dates of those plans? >> july 22nd. we are calling item no. 9. item 9: appeal no. 13-057 david & niloufer king, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 4162 & 4164 26th street. protesting the issuance on may 08, 2013, to tony szeto & annie kong,

so, present, although we're showing an overall $54,000 net positive variance, most of the positive variances we hope to carry forward and where we really hope to be able to do is close out the personnel costs variances through the -- through the year-end closing process with the controller. ~ what so, if there are any questions, be happy to answer. >> [speaker not understood]. >> when you started the flex funding

there's no variance hearing on this item and that said the commission should you so choose to make that one-on-one i would note any determination if you do agree with the reduction in parking that is not appealable on the decision you're hearing today it would be to be part of another appeal >> just for the record the commission didn't request under item 7 to see the architects credentials because we can't ask about any personal information. the comment was made instead of they didn't indicate the name of originalor of the drawings and having said that my recommendation was to hire a professional architect to help with provide to provide a proper set of drawings. this applies that we ask that kind of questions which we didn't. the building has come a long way forward. it will be a background building on lombard street. i would have preferred a different window material but that's neither here nor there but the department said it's okay. so i'm okay. i like to say that - what was i going to say this doesn't address your thing. i'm going to ask the zoning administrator i've never heard th

and they would allow the parking so in the variance for the set back and also i denied the variance because it would deny the privatization of the parking space and also, because the parking pad that was goes to be accurate was substandard. i would say it was a depth of 14 feet and unless it's something like a smart car would overhang into the parkway and my denial was upheld. they're meeting again next week and i'll report on that and the jack spade item when we reconvene. >> commissioners that will place you under. >> as to the zoning administrator it doesn't sound like kroet listen is going to come back to us it's either the board of supervisors or the board of appeals. >> the only ways i could see it if the board of appeals ultimately denies the project and the board of supervisors approves the subdivisions that allows construction they could reply it after one year. >> commissioner and yeah. i've seen something on the news i didn't see the whole story on jack spade. >> it is - there's a larger corporation called pacific that owners 3 businesses and they does not have - right no

i want to talk about the variance and opposing the project. the whole point of the design guidelines especially in the review process is to look at issues that are not regulated [speaker not understood] regulated by [speaker not understood] standards when there is something about the side or it's complex to know the [speaker not understood]. here we have a very unusual circumstance, a block with unusually large lot with -- to accommodate open side yards and three corner lots that are all designed around a single side yard. if this is a circumstance that merits the [speaker not understood], i don't know what else would. it's truly unusual situation. which brings into question why we should have design guidelines and the d-r process if we aren't going to use them. three feet is the standard building code. [speaker not understood] setback at least three feet requires special fire rate of construction. to randomly apply the building code standard to [speaker not understood] design patterns and issues is both the easy way out [speaker not understoo

that is in the yard and is subject to a variance. the c r was filled by the property owner of 2 hundred 20 san bernardino way behind the subject property. the application has already been included in the packet and basically, the requester is concerned biologist the house up by 2 feet would effect their view of the second floor rear windows. and secondly, the operation of the house without resulting an inner construction that is not comparable with the neighborhood in terms of building scale. the department also received several additional support letters to the project. those had been froitd us after the dr packets had been delivered so - the proposal has been reviewed by your residential design team and our d t found the project wouldn't present imply xierld circumstances under the guidelines. first they're not protected under the guidelines and secondly the overall 2 feet of building heightened has no significant impact on the neighborhood character in terms of building scale. and another reason this case was also continued from a

planning commissions preview i'd like except them to use the highest level of sxrut imply for the variance of a court yard which is completely over exaggerated and not relative to was it needs to do in an identified unit design >> yeah. i'd agree with commissioner more and more this building is extremely aggressive and it's oversized interest it doesn't step down to the alley we talked about the alley have variances we talked about the lot windows and it is horrify it sticks out to me it's not at all respectful i recognize the height is what the height is but there's a way this can be skunld. i think it's a extreme aggressive >> i'm also supportive of a continuous. the units here i'm not sure the height is appropriate but even if it is it looks worse because it takes no includes from the holiday in its one of the worst looking building it's a cookie cutter urge building. it should fit in about the rest of the buildings and take some clues from the neighborhood. donates the one thanking thing and the other thing is the parking lot. we heard they've got a hardship they can't meet the codes b

variance. thank you. >> thank you, zoning administrator. commissioners, if there's nothing else we can move on to commission matters. item 8, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for august 8, 2013 and draft minutes for august 15, 2013. >> is there any public comment on the two draft minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden. >> yeah, i'm looking at the minutes from the eighth. i believe that item 16 is incorrect. that was the one that was 1865 to 18 67 greenwich street. [speaker not understood] we approved the merger, but i recall that commissioners fong, ant anyone i and hillis were not in support of that, phil orlando correctly. if i recall correctly. >> i believe that is correct. >> indeed you are correct, commissioner. i'm looking at my hearing results from the 8th and that correction would be -- is noted. >> great. and i have some other small like editing errors or names and things. i'll submit those to you for -- to fix. >> thank you, commissioner borden.

items considered today so it could be credit card by the commission that would be imposed by the variance. >> we talked earlier about live ability i would find it difficult to put might have in the situation of the person who made the comments about the noise and smell it seems to be the visual impact on the quality of our life your bedroom or living room or all of the above each time you look up to get a feeling of a street you don't want to look at exhaust equipment. so i suggest we have the department work with the reasonable solution to sun screening that don't addgh

i don't know in terms of variance would require a code change. i think probably focusing on incentives that we can operate procedurally, but if it requires legislation, it's something we would consider. >> now it's strictly process? >> that's right. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to ask the maker of the motion to support the resolution proposed by dr. chung for the health commission. that's commendable. >> i will be happy to do it. >> commissioner antonini? >> i just want to know if we have to adopt the ceqa separately. >> it's part of the same motion. >> commissioner sugaya are you accepting the modification? >> yes. >> i believe they are calling the question. >> on the matter to adopt a recommendation for approval as amended, commissioner antonini, borden, hill it's, wu, sugaya,. that passes. >> commissioner, commissioner sanchez, singer, mcgee, chung, cars mere. >> i want to thank everyone for this project. i think this is a model of how two departments and two commissions can work together to really know what the right hand and the le