>> i want to take stevenson from the controllers to respond to mr larkin about the supplemental.the requirements are in the budget and fiscal provisions of the admin code. they are standard and to my knowledge of this is a little bit dated. julia dawson or others may be able to correct me but a change of less than 15% is straightforward in most cases, and the controls can be set at different levels so when you design your original appropriation for the bond, you can hopefully obviate most of the reprocessing by the board of supervisors by purposely sizing the project and program allocations. just to say that, so you are aware and there are significant changes. i think the board approval of the supplemental is an important part of the overall transparency on the bond. that is the thinking behind it but we can certainly look at the original bond allocations to try and make it easiest to manage. >> i understand the need for oversight because that's why there is a go door to go back to begin with. there was some misuse of bond funds for previous bonds, where things were supposed to h

mr. etcheverry is concern to light and air in some apartments in 3030 larkin, as would be the case in almost every development. without such an easement there is no statutory right other than what the planning code acquires. our plan had provided a fully compliant 20 foot year yard and yet we have continue today revise the plans. our latest building plans which were attached to the variance decision show a greatly reduced volume in the rear of our building. this was the approved building, and this is what we have currently worked on with the zoning administrator. sorry get that above the closed captioning there. we've moved the -- removed part of the commercial space and replaced it with residential, so we have a full 20-foot rear yard with appropriate deck set backs. perthe z.a.'s new decision letter, the revised plan is consistent with the letter and all sections of the planning code. the city and its residents are not wronged by this modification. mr. etcheverry's building continues to have access to light and air and his 1970 variance still exists for his noncompliant building. unlike th

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 t

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 th