several years to get the variance decision approved. the following year, the notice of special restriction was recorded, 2008. that could have been recorded any time after the variance was granted in february, 2007. it seems it could have been recorded sooner, but it was not. it was recorded in early 2008, when the department approved the project. the department has worked with the project sponsor this whole time through. it is not as if they got their conditional use authorization back in 2005, never submitted a building permit, never did any work with the department, never tried to obtain authorization, just came in one day four years later and said here is the building permit. that is not what happened in this case. i think this is a unique circumstance because of the fact there has been an extensive amount of time devoted between all the parties to come to a resolution on the project, and that is where we are. for those reasons that we did determine the conditional use is still valid, allow the building permit, that is why we approve

reasonable, three years, and that has been adopted and the approval for the variance and conditional use is quantified as a reasonable amount of time. in looking at this and the project in the history and how we work with them to come to resolution, we think a reasonable amount of time is the time that it takes to get the project approved. we feel it's still complies with the time limitations of the planning code for conditional use. vice president goh: okay. i'm still able bet unclear. i know you addressed this earlier. why wouldn't product sponsor have been asked or required to have an extension, or whatever mechanism it would be? >> it could've been the determination of the staff working on the project at the time. they still had not cleared up the variance issue, it was still a project in motion, and we had not started the time clock then. the department work with the project sponsor at the time and to my knowledge have not requested they go back and obtain an extension of conditional use, because we were reviewing this project actively over those years and felt it was still consi

and i would based on the finding that the variance is not required? commissioner fung: the interpretation. president peterson: the design administrators interpretation. when you are ready to call that. >> to clarify, i believe the motion is from the president to uphold the permit on condition that the western wall of the first floor deck be made of translucent glass? president peterson: of the lightest grade. >> the lightest grade of translucent glass. commissioner fung: the lightest density. commissioner garcia: before you take the vote, if i may, and this is in no way prejudicial, there was a poem referred to called "the bridge builder." it is a pretty good read. i would recommend it to anybody who is interested in what we do here. >> i agree. >> ok. again, the motion is from president peterson to uphold the permit, on condition that the western wall of the first floor deck be made of the latest density translucent glass, and with the adoption of the zoning administrator interpretation of planning code section 188. on that motion -- [roll call vote]

the project sponsor. i am thinking about that variance code change that was mentioned. the other thing, we heard a couple of times, the noncompliance of the n.s.r.'s was so great that the printed sponsored at the preservation architect involved and has a long list of things to pay attention to and sort of fix. but the preservation architect was required by the n.s.r., so the time that was eaten up by that seems to me on the printed sponsor and not on the city department to explain -- seems to me on the project sponsor and not on the city department to explain. we heard that they did not apply for an extension or l.o.v. to extend the c.u. maybe it would have been granted relatively easily, i don't know. and then more globally troubling for me, and maybe it is sort of bad timing for this project, and mr. wong said that, he said the application of the laws should be applied similarly to everyone, and i think that is true. i think we have had trouble with that. we heard some of the people involved are no longer with the department, and we heard from the very beginning of thi

the age where could be replaced. and defense above 10 feet would require a variance. this would only concern the two property owners. i find it hard to believe the variants would not be approved if the property owners could agree, and that would provide a visual separation my clients are asking for. i would suggest the board either continue this so that the parties could address some of these issues, or i would suggest if the board is not comfortable with overturning the permit that we perhaps at conditions in terms of a higher fence, allowing a higher fence along the property line. president peterson: thank you. mr. butler? >> is not often that i am here with the permit. i am here usually arguing against the permit. mr. atkinson is usually on the other side. i think in this case, i have an idea that would solve the problem. even if you will grant and uphold our permit to put either and open metal rail or a glass rail that is clear, which are permit allows us to do, if you will uphold that permit, i will put translucent glass in the elevations of the debt that face the

you are now on item -- oh, on the variance. >> i'll be acting zone administration for the purpose of variance and i will grant the variances subject to the

it says that it is recorded not only from a conditional use but also the variance from 2007. that is being reported for both the 2007 othe variants. >> you agree there reading this leads to a great -- >> yes. it does then our position that this can go forward and that is the argument that we are putting forward. >> this goes more towards that the planning department want to clean this kind of thing up as opposed to having as deal with this tonight. >> i can understand that we felt simply that this was appropriate. >> maybe this is a policy if this kind of thing exists out there that maybe someone would want to look at its. >> that is a surprise and we will look at that the future. >> think you. had -- to align >> why was there such a large gap? >> i am not been able to get clarity on this. i have not been able to get all of those fine details about the history of the project and why there was the gap. megaprojects sponsor will fill us in on that. >> good evening. the first and the one to bring to the attention of the board is that the charter states that building permits issue

you are now on item -- oh, on the variance. >> i'll be acting zone administration for the purpose of variance and i will grant the variances subject to the normal conditions and just a reminder for those interested in the decision to sign up on the sign-up sheet. thank you. >> thank you. you are now on item 16. case number for nine west portal avenue. >> good evening, president miguel, and members of the commission. planning department staff. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 303 to modify two conditions of approval imposed in june, 2009. it is located at nine west porltle avenue. in june, 2009, they sought the ability to serve wine by the glass as a compliment retail wine business. in order to do so, they're required to seek conditional use authorization for a bar. in order to ensure that their entitlements would not be a full scale bar, specifically condition 11 requires that the business closed by 8:00 p.m. daily, condition 12 prohibited outside seating. conditional 13 limited the business to wine and beer only. no

people that oppose come and speak and the zoning administrator makes a determination and the variance is issued either granting or denying your request. >> let me finish off here by saying thank you all for coming. i mean you guys are ahead of the curve by educating and preparing yourself. you have joanus here answering a lot of questions residents have. feel free to take - there's plenty oov brochures in the back and come down to 1660 mission and speak with our staff and what not.

they waited until there was a new code on that issue in 2007 before the issue of the variance for the permit holder to abide by i would like to think the board of appeals for your time tonight, and i would also like to thank the planning department and dbi for the great job they have done providing this project. the environmental review with the permit nearly four years to complete. it was from the hard work of city officials that we were able to proceed with the project at 605 kearny street. i want to thank the people who signed the petition. iwe have over 1300 signatures ad all. we have signatures from across the country. from canada, taiwan, indonesia, china, and hong kong. we have signatures of our neighbors and members of the local chinatown association organization that has a 150-year history in the audience tonight. we have a 97-year-old lady in the audience tonight to see if we improve. >> happy birthday. [applause] >> in the audience tonight are members of the public to support 605 kearny street, and i would like to thank them all and ask them to stand up to be acknowledged.

so here is a summary of the overall cost and schedule variances of the program level, and what we areg is we are basically comparing the variances from the third quarter to those of this reporting quarter, the fourth quarter. i would like to point out that the black figures are good, as they reflect costs of underwriting and early completion, so if we start by looking at the second and third columns, both of 40 regional project. our cost forecast is now $94 million under run, which is $56 million in additional cost savings compared to last quarter. with respect to the last quarter, we forecasted a reduction of $64 million in hard costs and an increase of $8 million in soft costs. there is no change in our projected completion date at the regional level. we are still planning to complete the regional program by the approved date of december 15, and calaveras dam project is still our last project to be completed. we are forecasting an overrun on the local program of $35 million, whichuvbq$ is $3 milln more than the cost overrun reported last quarter. the additional cost here is due to