my other issue is the variance. i guess the question is if this project were not to require [speaker not understood], how far would it need to be setback from the rear yard? how much of the building they are currently proposing would need to be lopped off in the back? >> it's not significant. on the third floor at least in my mind, if not significant, on the fourth floor, pro poed fourth floor, you'll see the living room has about a 6-1/2 or so -- 6 foot 11 inch by 15 foot 7 inch extension and that is the portion that requires the variance. and, so, it's not as significant. i can provide my thoughts on the variance if you would like. may we jump in a bit there. so, i am a bit torn on the variance question itself. as i noted it's a shallower lot than typical 37-1/2 feet deep, but it is a little bit wider than typical. it has a significant front setback of more than 15 feet. the building was built in 1907. it's a potential resource. so, one of the factors that is pushing that fourth floor addition back. they are also

granting the variance. and his response to the various criteria. >> neither addressed it from the presentation but i would say from my point of view i don't see that there is a criteria that has been met. i do not see that either exceptional hardship, or exceptional circumstances has been met. and i think i concur with one of the statements made earlier that a variance requires fairly high standards for the granting of it. the fact that it is a non-conforming building does not play much into my decision. what it does do is triggers the variance requirement because it is non-compliant. however, it is hard for me to get into exactly whether the others in the neighborhood are compliant or not comply apartment. we don't know their conditions and we don't know when they were built and how they were granted and what type of entitlement. we do know that this one here is asking for some things, beyond the code and i don't see that it has been compellingly argued to me that those conditions, that those criteria were

it is a rear yard variance. and i would ask you as you listen to the testimony, make them meet their burden, there is no showing of an extraordinary circumstance that applies only to this particular lot and because of the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances they have been deprived of some property lot and only this property is being deprived that in order to obtain this property that all of the surrounding properties have this variance has to be granted and that is the burden, what you see in the letter from the architect is a lot of personal references. variances can't be granted for personal reasons. you can see that this is a superior design, variances can't be granted for superior designs. let me start off by orienting you to the site as mr. sanchez did. could i have the overhead, please, victor? >> okay. so, this is the site here, and there are identical lots in a row. mrs. lam's lot is here and all of the longer lots goes out this way and this is a very long lot here behind. that is my exhibit f. h

the variance cannot be justified under any theory. it's really an insult to injury to try to tack on this variance at the end. the architect's letter claims the project is sensible -- sensitive and respectful. he also makes the outlandish assertion the project is code compliant. that is not his first page, paragraph 3. it is not code complaint politectionv. that's right. it requires variance from the code. look at exhibit 6. there are two different illustrations there, both from the architect's plan. it shows you what this is. the variance and this project are both in your face. they go out of the way to buildup, block windows, and overhanging brow right in front of the window. the addition is 1300 square feet. that's not a penthouse, that's a full build out. they constantly refer to the lowest penthouse, the lowest penthouse is 200 square feet. it's not even close to being comparable. we need setbacks on the rear that match the front for 15 feet. we need additional setbacks on the side to the five feet to make it minimal lie visible

parking variance. >> good afternoon, president fong, members of the commission. tom wang planning staff presenting conditional use and variance application for 12 70 sanchez street. project sponsor seeks conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 209.3f and 303 to establish a child care facility. the [speaker not understood] academy providing less than 24-hour care for 15 or more and up to a maximum of 45 children at the bethany united methodist church, 12 70 sanchez street. and based upon the project sponsor's statement, the proposed child care facility will be allowed to accommodate up to a maximum 45 children. according to the total square feet of outdoor activity areas and the rest room capacity, the child care center general license and requirements of the state of california. the proposed child care facility would occupy the fellowship hall and the nursery within the church. these two spaces are not used during the weekdays by the church congregation. the proposed child care

we're going to allow the addition, that it definitely should be pulled back to where there is no variance required. those are my comments. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i would go along with what commissioner hillis was talking about. we would take dr. we would bring, i guess it's the living room back, although the rooms could be reconfigured to the conforming line. and then also we would try to work with the architect and work with staff about the style to make it kind of blend in a little bit more, even though nobody really see it much from the street. if it fits a little bit more with the building, it's more contextual. that would be my motion, to -- to take dr with those changes. or that change, the other is working with staff. >> commissioner sugaya, i think i accidentally -- >> no, no. >> okay. commissioner moore. >> mr. sanchez, [speaker not understood], could you explain to us in what form we are protecting the rent controlled units? construction will require that the tenants move out. this building has three empty units and three rent controlled units, and once the unit is e

>> it does require a rear yard variance which is why i'm here to hear the rear yard variance. >> that's correct, there is no front setback requirement under the coyed. however residential design guidelines and the rdt review is suggesting a 15-foot setback. ~ code there would be no legislative required side setback requirement but their pinching it in at the sides and having a three foot setback on the sides on each of the sides. but they are extending into the rear by 6 feet 11 inches for a portion the building at the rear which is where the living room is. >> yeah. and then the commissioner was talking about a noncomplying building. what is noncomplying about the building? >> the building, portion of the building extends into the required rear yard. the building was built in 1907 before any planning code requirement. the lot itself conforms to the lot planning code. it exceeds the minimum lot size requirements. it is wider than typical. it's 30 feet wide. it's shallower than the typical 100-foot lot we would see. this is only 87-1/2 feet deep lot. this is one of the smaller -- not the

but we know that this commission has already decided to approve the subject variance. so, the only reason for this meeting, this hearing is for you to consider the attitudes, opinions, and beliefs of the people who would like to be here one way or another, if not in person, by petition. and you saw the people who -- they felt negatively affected of any physical change in their habitat. and they saw this so clearly that they asked to have the petition. we didn't actually solicit. people came around asking, couldn't we come -- how about a petition? it's interesting to note that your discovery review document indicated there were zero people in favor of this project where 11 were registered as being opposed. 11 was a good start, but 4 37 decided to add their names to that and i could not emphasize that more than i can at the moment. with that in mind, i petition you not in any way to turn your back or ignore these people. these are the people of that particular neighborhood. you have in your possession a copy of this, and this is only the first hundred or so people that s

. >> on the matter of the variance, i close the public hearing, denied the requested variance because we got [speaker not understood]. if anyone would like a copy of the decision order please contact the staff planner. >> commissioners, that places you on your final item, number 17, case no. 2010.0272dd for 1235 40th avenue, two requests for discretionary review. >> president fong, members of the commission, michael smith, planning department staff. i have before you two requests for discretionary review for 1235 40th avenue. the project is proposing to construct a three story accessory residential structure at the front of the lot and demolish the existing detached garage structure in that same location. the structure would be accessory residential use to the existing residential dwelling at the back of the lot. the dr was requested by the adjacent neighbor to the west who is concerned about the existing structure being in the mid-block open space as well as the presence of two separate structures, one with a kitchen on that lot and thinks that would be easily converted into an illeg

please deny this project permit and deny the associated variance. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >>> good evening. i come here -- i live inside the building at 1531-1521. i live at 1525 jones for over 30 years -- 30 plus years. and there's many concerns i have about this project. >> excuse me, ma'am, sorry to interrupt you. do you wish to submit your name for the record? >>> my name is rita del sombrano. >> thank you. >>> my concern is, number one, the scope of the building and also there is an issue around security of the building right now. when i heard about this, the private elevator -- and for the past, the winter months, the lights have not been adjusted. and we've had homeless people sleeping up in the, up in the loft. but i'd also like to address how many people are living in the building at this moment. three of the buildings -- three of the apartments are empty, the slots are empty and three of them people are living in. above me lives a chinese family with three kids in a one bedroom apartment. or maybe it's even less than

you need to get a variance? all right. >> let me have the staff explain, because this would cause a variance? >> no the deck would. if we extended this deck to the side. >> he has limitations on how far back the deck and they can't over the previous plan and was actually resulting in the interference and they came back with this alternative not to have to go that route. i don't think that the administrator is going to be inclined of granting a variance in that scenario anyway. we don't want to create a solution that is going to cause a further problem for them. >> i think that with the stairs already being there, i don't see it >> then vote against the motion. >> i wanted to be sure from the interior space. >> no. >> commissioner hillis? >> i think that five feet is a lot to take off that side given that they have a five-foot set back there and there is only one window there that is affected. so maybe amenable to a smaller chunk out of that. >> how much are you talking about? >> three? three. three works for me.

parking variance. the zoning administrator will hear the variance while the commission considers the conditional use application. basically the department would recommend approval of the project and it is based upon the following. one, it is not a formula retail use, but rather an independently owned business. it will be a compatible use with the surroundings residential neighborhood. it is designed to mainly serve children not yet reaching school age in the noe valley community. it is well served by public transit, the location, and should have negligible impact upon the current traffic pattern on the surrounding streets. in addition, the project sponsor has applied for a passenger loading and unloading zone along on sanchez street in front of the facility's entrance. and the number 5 [speaker not understood] at least five jobs for city residents. and finally comprised with the maximum number of children permitted under the child care center general licensing requirements of the state of california. b

it would require a variance. that's another hearing, but it's not a dr. >> i would rather -- i make a motion to take dr and i think instruct the zoning administrator to find a way so that the project sponsor can move the kitchen to the front building without mandatory dr, without it being considered the loss of a -- what was it, the loss of a dwelling unit removal. >> second. [multiple voices] >> wait. >> one second. >> can i make a suggestion that maybe you take a motion of intent to allow findings to come back to you that may satisfy the mandatory discretionary review findings? >> yes. >> that way the action you take will be a discretionary review and you will be adopting findings that are specific to a mandatory -- [multiple voices] >> we'd have to have another hearing. the matter could be placed under consent to adopt the findings of the dr action. >> the public hearing is closed. >> okay, thank you. ~ for the suggestion. i believe that is a motion of intent to take dr given the circumstances i outlined earli

located at 2529-2533 post street with a three unit residential zoning district and it is a rear yard variance to allow the reconstruction and expansion of the deck and stairs, it will be relocated abuting the appellant's property. that subject property was built in 1890 that is planning to the planning code or any rear yard requirement and under the current planning code it encroaches into the required rear yard given the age of the building it was listed as a historic resource and a survey that does feature a substantial front set back, 14 feet from the front property line and the lot is wider than typical. 27 and a half feet wide and longer than typical, 110 feet or so in depth.

we want an independent state of bavaria this is an extraordinary aim there are twelve million by varianceif independent we could be the ninth biggest nation in the e.u. with the fifth largest annual economic turnover i'm convinced we have the cultural historical and economic strength to survive the bavaria parties campaign literature certainly doesn't pull any punches when it comes to showing how they believe the rest of germany treats the sun state the group poses little threat to germany's political big guns it took just over one percent of the vote locally in two thousand and eight but their ideas are spreading increasingly influential circles. to picked when i look at the map of europe and of history i see the boundaries are not made to last forever if they can be moved by free people czechoslovakia made with a peaceful transition into two democratic states in two thousand and fourteen scotland will have a referendum and there is work being done in catalonia this movement is happening in europe today. the varia is booming when it comes to business it's home to some of the most recogni

the variance.om the separate ascent of man in germany to protest a gripping spain workers first spain's iberia airline set to ground more than a thousand flights as they plan a second round of strikes lasting five days last week the firm said it wasn't giving up its plans to cut salaries and x. almost four thousand jobs or around twenty percent of the company says going to be each day of strike could cost the airline ten million euros. a massive car bomb has gone off outside a mosque in the pakistani city kharaj killing at least forty five injuring many more police say one hundred kilos of explosives were used at ripping through several buildings setting fire to others no group has yet claimed responsibility the shia populace in the city often targeted by sunni muslim groups. libya has been forced to halt gas exports to italy after a deadly gun fight between two armed groups in the northwest shooting broke out after an argument between the two militias over who should guard a major plant conflicts

met with the applicant when their plans were under review and told them we wouldn't support their variance request. the property no longer needs a variance making this some sort of concession furthermore, we're not seeking concessions per say when we say that in our home we had a meeting and it ended abruptly. we took the only step that we could and filed a c r. we state in contact with this sponsor and i understand what a difficult part the staff is in this situation thus when discussions break down the burden of proving substantial impact falls on us. i'm not an architect but the design is like whatnot to do. in a neighborhood a higher level of scrutiny is needed. >> are there speakers in favor of the dr? >> thank you all for your time today, i appreciate it. i'm here to support this dr. as i know rental rates >> do you mind stating your name for the record? >> yes. my wife and i were happy to find a home here. we understand we might not been able to afford ail the awe meningitis. we found limited sun light in the front and back. there's no direct sun light in either bedroom upon viewing

under the access variance there would be a variance 6 and 7 are not proposed by the sponsor. therefore the commission would need to don't you want an overriding action if they choose to approve the project. we would suggest that the report is adequate and accurate. and it complies with the code so this concludes my presentation on this matter unless the members have questions >> thank you commissioner. >> one question. in terms of override isn't that part of the findings or part of this motion >> that's not part of this motion. the statement of overriding considerations would be took into consideration at the time of the approval >> i have some comments yeah. i believe that the eir is adequate accurate and complies with se. i did want to say about some of the comments by the public. individual projects are asked to do cumulative pedestrian analysis and some analysis for this project was done during the trans bay and there's a plan to do an independent analysis during the central corridor. there's no part apart from this certification there couldn't be other ways to address th

the request for variance must also be continued by the zoning administrator. the director of planning will act in the zoning administrator in this case. >> i will continue the variance to april 4 as well. thank you. >> commissioners at this time you have two remaining items, both informational. the first is 13, the city wide growth item informational item. >> good afternoon commissioners. john ram with department staff. >> if you will indulge me one second i forgot to mention this is bill's last day on the job. bill is retiring and i was remiss for not honoring him today. there will be other events and i ask that the commission adjourn in his honor today. as you know bill has been with the department for 27 years and before that was a muni bus driver so has worked for the city for 30 years and deserves recognition which hopefully we will give it to him. today i want to have a discussion about growth. there is a lot of interest and concern expressed about the growth projections and how we're trying to accommodate them in the city and i would like to have a disc

. >> the variance closed, [speaker not understood] granting requested variance off-street parking would result in the loss of on-street parking and alterations to the building which is a potential historic resource. if anyone would like a copy of the decision letter, please inform staff. >> congratulations. >> commissioners, that will place you back on item 12 for case no. 2012.1329u, california environmental quality act procedures. >> good evening, commissioners, amy rodgers planning department staff. i'm joined for this item sara jones, acting environmental review officer. before we begin our staff presentation i'd like to invite supervisor wiener up to make his remarks. >> hello again, commissioners. thank you for your [speaker not understood]. so, since the last time we were together on this item in november, i have as you requested convened a series of very well attended round tables with people in the community, some in support, some in opposition, some in the middle. we've also had other meetings with individuals who have been interested or organizations, and we've been listening

side before the hearing, to speak with him and would not require a notification and not require a variance and corrected the issues with the ground floor rooms on the earlier plans it showed two full bathrooms and a laundry room even though the floor above also had laundry and the plans that he showed were much more simple and complied with all planning cold requirements and that is all that i have to comment on. >> what was the first one? >> the story room at the ground floor behind the garage required notice. >> and now, the drawings that he showed you, then are reflected in the plans that were the revised plans that was the basis of the second? >> there are some differences in that, the plans that he showed me, it is about the landing is getting smaller and you can have this stair and landing and the required rear yard, but it is only the minimum landing required but it was a gracious landing you could call it a deck and so that was reduced and anything else of the grand floor looked different. >> when did he show this to you? tonight? >> i just noticed before the hearing. >> and those

or he might ask him to pay an open space fee instead of a variance, no parking is required if they want to create a second unit. the city needs these and this is the run around the planning department. and frankly, i'm a little bit surprised. if indeed, you are inclined to approve this, then at the very leave don't approve it tonight, make them show you plans why they can't create two units by removing the illegal third, giving the owner one larger unit. make them show you exactly the seismic work that has to be done. make them make the building department ask the building department to go out and confirm that the seismic work needs to be done and by the way that it is of such a large amount that the tenant really has to move for it to be done successfully. i must admit i have been in the shoes of mr. zaches representing a owner like that and i have corrected permits consultants to go down and see if they could convince the building to do a 3 r for one unit because that is the eastist way to avoid the hearing procedures and inputs from the neighbor that you get from a planning commissio

we want an independent state of bavaria this is an extraordinary aim there are twelve million by variance if independent we could be the ninth biggest nation in the e.u. with the fifth largest annual economic turnover i'm convinced we have the cultural historical and economic strength to survive the bavaria party's campaign literature certainly doesn't pull any punches when it comes to showing how they believe the rest of germany treats the sun state the group poses little threat to germany's political big guns it took just over one percent of the vote locally in two thousand and eight but their ideas are spreading increasingly influential circles over an industry to predict when i look at the map of europe and of history i see the boundaries are not made to last forever if they can be moved by free people czechoslovakia made peaceful transition into two democratic states in two thousand and fourteen scotland will have a referendum and there is work being done in catalonia this movement is happening in europe today. the very a is booming when it comes to business it's home to some of the

the project requires a variance from the landscaping permits as well as p u d expectations for rear yards and a c you for off street parking. the property is located within r dwelling street. the project would provide only 34 dwelling units that is below the zoning district and consistent with the 1976 p u d that left units unconstructed. the department received several letters in opposition to the project from the residents in the neighborhood. this is located at the end of crestmont drive. the destable shin of the street pedestrian safety and construction impacts to the two existing residents. a letter of opposition was received from the preservation coalition. so the department is relating approval of the project with conditions. we feel that the thai family size units about be beneficial. the r m-1 is less dense above and below the site. we have the owners to make sure the highly side it stable. it would provide more than parking spaces that are needed their providing two to get for the larger unit sizes. and lastly the p u d proposed number of units is much less than that would be pe

. >> miscellaneous variance to same section. >> can we take the same call? without objection this is passed. >> the appointment of murphy term. >> supervisor avalos? >> thank you, president chiu. i don't necessarily speak out against appointments. i know the mayor has a lot of leeway to appoint commissions. i have a reason why i want to appoint mr. murphy. i know he has made many contributions to our city as a contractor and developer and also made great contributions in terms of housing in the city. i'm really concerned about the appearance of really not following the rules that all of us expect to a contractor to follow over the years. as president of the dbi commission of the past, would you expect that mr. murphy would make sure he could follow the proper procedures along his permits. apparently there are instances that it shows where he has not. he had a house on 26th street, 3418, 26th street, he bought a single story home and in 2004, the house was demolished without a permit. that gives the appearance of that he's been getting special consideration w