mr. teague or miss tam, did you want to comment on this case? >> no comments, thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so we will now hear from the appellant, mr. father, and i believe mr. father has -- alec will be sharing a document from him. >> yes, thank you. i've prepared a small document. >> clerk: okay. >> so thank you for sharing the approach. i did much appreciate it. i did find that it was lacking in geotechnical, not from a soils report. that's not relevant here. it's the process in which you backfill, and fill the hole, so if we could go to the next slide, please. so what i did this time was sought the advice of craig herzog, whose report i had submitted to the board for previous consideration. mr. herzog is a soil expert, and what he came back with -- next slide -- it confirmed some of my fears when i was reading the plan. first, that hole is not free draining. we'll be trapping water with gravel. it's flowing through the gravel, it's porous, and it will be draining through the gravel. >> president honda: i'm sorry. could you pause his

mr. teague, i just want to make sure that i'm hearing correctly. it sounds like because these prior decisions haven't always been carried out through an l.o.d., it sounds like we don't have, you know, a ton of kind of, you know, clear precedent or standards in this area. if i heard you correctly, it kind of seemed like you were, you know, just relying more on, you know, the little bit of, you know, your experience and maybe some of the prior decisions that weren't encapsulated in an l.o.d., am i right? >> not really. we've been entitling projects in san francisco for decades, so we have hundreds and hundreds of projects. so almost all projects change between the time of concept and permitting, so this kind of thing is happening all the time. there's no kind of formal database of these decisions. there are some that are more well known, right, because they were either more challenging decisions, more, you know, larger changes, much more of a line call. is it significant? is it not significant, and i could provide some examples of those. i'm sure mr.

mr. teague, did you have some more? >> just briefly. i just wanted to speak to the variance and note and discuss the site dealing with a number of constraints and specific context. it's dealing with the existing historic building, which is the zoning and the more, and i think there's sufficient context to support the variance, and overall, the amount here is not a situation where the variance would be allowing more development and would otherwise be permitted theoretically on the site, so i'm also in support of the project from the perspective of the proposed variance. >> clerk: thank you, zoning administrator. that concludes commission deliberation. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0 -- zoning administrator, what say you? >> i will close the public hearing for the variance and intend to grant the standard conditions. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, at that places us on item 16, 2017-0156

mr. teague, did you have some more? >> just briefly.t wanted to speak to the variance and note and discuss the site dealing with a number of constraints and specific context. it's dealing with the existing historic building, which is the zoning and the more, and i think there's sufficient context to support the variance, and overall, the amount here is not a situation where the variance would be allowing more development and would otherwise be permitted theoretically on the site, so i'm also in support of the project from the perspective of the proposed variance. >> clerk: thank you, zoning administrator. that concludes commission deliberation. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0 -- zoning administrator, what say you? >> i will close the public hearing for the variance and intend to grant the standard conditions. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, at that places us on item 16, 2017-015678-cua