variances. a little bit of background. the project does propose uses designed to approve by the commission in 2010 and 2012. the current design of the project has been substantially revised compared to the original proposal in order to achieve a more sympathetic relationship to the character of the surrounding area. it is important to highlight the previous receipt reiteration of the project is 3 stories instead of 5 stories. the first is rear yard, the project would require under the planning code a 25 percent rear yad grade level on each subsequent floor. depending on the primary frontage that required rear yard would be between 24 and 29 feet in depth. the project does record an interior yard in a configuration that does not meet the requirements of the code. the second variance involves the open space of section 135. this section requires a minimum of 160 square feet and approximately 180 square feet of commonly open space which is for area, horizontal dimension and sunlight access. the proj

, i don't consider a variance an entitlement and i don't think these home owners, the variance home owners bought a home that they didn't know how this existing walkway that looked into their backyard. and i have a house behind mine where we are looking into each other's homes. that's how it is. it's not the same public right-of-way, but that's what i bought. i didn't expect that i would have a variance. i didn't expect this variance hit all the five requirements. i think three and four. my inclination is not to uphold the variance. that's where i'm going. >> well, commissioners, i can't fault anyone for wanting privacy. i'm fairly private myself. but the question here really is the precedence to a certain degree as far as i'm concerned, but also to what extent does this generates the level of reason in terms of that satisfy the variance. i in the past have indicated that i have never been established with the five criteria, understanding there is a process needed in order to do something outside of a code that cannot be 100 percent perfect. i understand that process and, but it always giv

they promptly filed a variance in july. we received a lot of concerns from the neighbors as well as regarding the fence of blocking the views and were able to expedite the hearing variance on august 28th, i believe they had lowered the fence prior to the hearing as well. at the didn't construct it as tall it was allowed under the plan. at the hearing we heard a lot of passionate testimony from the neighbors regarding the impacts on the view and i was quite compelled and impressed by the neighbors by the passion and concerns that were raised. it's a little bit of a joke now. people are saying they are not allowed to see people on mount olympus. also things pointed out if someone in a wheelchair that is on mount olympus on the public right of way and sidewalks and the impacts of views for them. there are a lot of valid points raised. i wanted to consider all of these. i did go out to the site prior to the hearing. i did go with the neighbors that the views are spectacular and it is a gem of the city and i'm agree with that. a

variances. the appellant has said she's only appealing two of them if you read the appeal. three things i would like to say, one, the appellant made a comment that tndc would like the buy the property. commissioner at the planning commission meeting held up a letter and said at the october 13th planning commission meeting this letter state to me that tndc isn't interested in this property. that's not a quote, but pretty close. you can look back at the tape if you like. we have tried to sell this property to third parties other than mr. mac ernie. we tried three times. finally, this property, as the appellant points out, a large property. if you look at other properties on that section, all of them have less open space in them than mr. mac ernie's proposing. he's proposing the largest chunk of open space for any building in that area. that's why the zoning commissioner said yes. mac ernie moved things around to accommodate other neighbors. if you look at two of the other buildings on that corner

variance must be necessary. the reason for this requirement is that a variance is not to be lightly granted. whenever possible the code itself must be followed. if there are other options for preserving the rights in question, option which are code conforming, they must take precedent and there are other options. e-mails sent to mr. sanchez prior to the hearing laid out options for security. it's not necessary to list them but to know they exist and have been suggested both prior to and at the public hearing on august 28th. there is no indication that the administrator suggested these suggested option or any other wunsz. what matters here is the zoning administrator has failed to state the requirements have been met. >> thank you. we can hear from the variance holder now. >> hi. my name is suzanne and this is my husband. we are the residents and owners. we are here once again to reiterate the case for a fence we constructed with the city's approval at the rear boundary of our property. the facts we'll share with

so, i felt that the variance granted

the issues then are called variances, but these variances don't necessarily entail changes in the entitlement level where you would see for a variance for elimination of potential parking or increase in parking, variances on potential increases in setback or reduction of setback. these variances to be are related to the fact that if you buy the urban design concept as to how a corner to be. therefore i would not support the appeal. >> i don't have anything more to add to commissioner fung's articulate explanation. so i would not support the appeal. >> i would just doubt that i sounded interest in the public comment and opposition and the appellant testimony was more about alternative purchasers and developers of this site and really didn't address the issues of the variances and whether they the zoning administrator had abused it's discretion. i would go with my fellow commissioners. >> who is going to make the motion? >> i will move to deny the appeal based on the reasons stated in this zoning administrators brief. >> typically these types of appeals are looked on error abuse of discretion.

i want to show you the variance here. i'm using the site elevation and the rear yard is running along the back a side of the rear yard variants north of that i guess. so everything back here so there's development here on, on the garage. the dr is requested by 9 neighborhood in the present area. they find is out of scale they don't support of the variance to extend favorite on the lot. to address their concerns they want the top floor set back 25 feet and the rear of the building to the top garage of the lot. the dr requesters are concerned about the loss of affordability. since the materials were released we've received 11 letters of support within the immediate area and two letters in opposition. the department is recommending don't take the dr and approve it as proposed. the feel the scale and massing of the building are in context with the rest of the block. it remains as a two-story building approximately 13 feet to the3 4 f1 . >> it should also be mentioned this is not the first time the architect has provided us wi

i wanted to speak quickly on this variance. this was arrived upon with a fair amount over the many years. as stated before we are on an upsloping deep facing lot. it was originally approved for a 5-year project taking over 75 percent of the lot. that's in the packet letter provided to you. however, we feel this project is somewhat unique because of the pattern on the mid-block area and the mid-lot space which is created by some prevalence of some rear yard homes in the area. it's in response to this design that we've come up with this. i can sort of run to give you a little visual. the green is the mid-block area, the red is the property site. you can see with the project coming in there and here is an a little bit of an overview. that mid-lot open space. the project helps define while maintaining the connection between the corridor and light and air that would otherwise be interrupted in a larger code compliant building with a 25 percent rear yard. it's also important to know that the mid-yard space is close to 30 percent and

that version was the building that required a variance step into yard to get the variance or to initiate requiring the variance and then stepped back. >> i see. >> it involved the variance. >> it wasn't just stepping back from the rear yard line. >> the regard is that it's not a very nice rear yard. it is surrounded by walls and that was not good. >> okay. thank you. >> maybe we will finalize it tonight. might i try a motion? >> certainly. >> i'm going to move to adopt the findings and conditions with two changes. i would add condition l which is that the ground floor commercial space being neighborhood serving uses as defined by the san francisco planning code. i would modify condition a as follows: the original entitlement as authorized by the planning commission in terms of density will be maintained. our feeling is that the residential design guidelines have not been conformed to with this particular design. have not been conformed to. and therefore i'm imposing a setback at the front and rear of the 5th floor to a depth of 10-12 feet depending on the final architectural solution. >>

variance. >> commissioners, that will place you under your last angendized item, public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. meeting adjourned. (meeting adjourned). >> good evening, everybody. let's hear it for the san francisco display men's anchors. let's hear it. (clapping.) >> i'm your any objection c for today's hearing thank you for being here for the thai annual harvey milk and encountering moscone. i want to thank you he thank our interpreter for being here and mayor ed lee for soobl us here tonight and reflect autopsying all that happened in november in 1978 and where we are today. i want to recognize in addition our public defender jeffrey is here. defense attorney george mukdz from your city college board of trustees and walt is here from senator will keenz office and a gentleman from nancy pelosi office. and the amazing teresa sparks as well >> so we are here to remember and to honor two extraordinary men mayor george moscone and supervisor harvey milk. who together literally changed the face

variance. >> commissioners, that will place you under your last angendized item, public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. meeting adjourned. (meeting adjourned). okay good everyone. thank you very much for coming happy new year i'm ed reiskin i'm the director of transportation and happy to kickoff the new year. san francisco has been a dynamic city during the break i was reading the history of muni how things have changed and required the city to view. we're in a lot of change including in our transportation system a lot of change is good but it needs to be managed and it's safe and a consistent with the transit first policy. we're here to talk about that. we've got a lot of great partners partners if commercial transportation from the private be sector and companies that they service and our participates in the city. i think you'll hear from the mayor and other speakers we're chronically this issue head on and really going to address something that's are bringing benefits to san francisco and we'll co

requiring the variance and then stepped back. >> i see. >> it involved the variance. >> it wasn't just stepping back from the rear yard line. >> the regard is that it's not a very nice rear yard. it is surrounded by walls and that was not good. >> okay. thank

we do not believe this variance application meets the 5 required findings under planning code section 305. specifically, there is no hardship or practical difficulty that justifies essentially 100 percent lot coverage or even if you consider the ally the unbuildable portion. lot, that's 84 percent coverage. no other home in this neighborhood has or has ever proposed the mass and scale of this project such that finding no. 3 could not be met and last we believe the variance should not be approved unless there is a reduction in the main area to accommodate sufficient rear yard building space so we do not create a detrimental precedent for the neighborhood. thank you for your time. >> hello, good afternoon, commissioners, thank you for this opportunity. my name is james clamerty, i live at 45 219th street. i am one of 7dr filers who believe the sign of this design is just too large for this location. i will show how the design will be out of scale for the lot, it will cause a walling in effect of lampson lane and it will forever block one of the nicest public views along our block, that

we had a lot of discussions about who that what would be a variance on the opening. the conclusion that i came too and the staff came to this particular building it unusual enough that by go adding windows or slot windows would actually detract from the architecture building and that's a matter of opinion. that's the conclusion why this particular approach is interesting. the large window is dramatic along stockton and the staff is recommending approval on this project >> thank you. commissioner johns >> you know a reoccurring at home is who maybe the only at home is whether or not this building is compatible with the surroundings and the design people and the architects and the political people have expressed their conception of compatibility. i looked at gnat ability this fits nicely into the history of union square. which has been one of the most remarkable retail districts in the country. maybe in the world. you know, if i've been in san francisco i should think more than most people in the room. so i remember the city of paris and it's contribution and benny haa

the third and fourth story away from the courtyard to allow light and sun and now he's asking for variance because his building and lot and print is so big and therefore he doesn't have room on the largest lot on the district to put a complying courtyard or to comply with window exposure and sunlight which is going to affect the eight 8 units that are there. the standards of the code are there because the city wishes there to be adequate light and space and open space and so on and there isn't here. this also is another picture which if you can -- i don't know, can you circulate these. this is a picture of the existing building and the buildings around it where you can see the scales of them. the roof line and they are on much larger or smaller lot. what is here is a hardship. what has happened is the sponsor took over or hasn't even purchased but the control from the unfortunate methodist. we have been told that church communities are sometimes seen as easy mark and obviously this one was and he got a hold of their site about 10 years ago. didn't buy it but did use the opportunity to wrec

on the matter of the variance >> continue item b to the date specified. >> thank you that places youour consent calendar. there will be no separate discussion and then the matter shall be removed and selected for a 2350u67 meeting. the first ordinance at the 1600 guerrero street the preliminary recommendations so to approve with recommendations and the next case at 1060 hyde street for continual continuance. and next for conditional use authorization and the next case amendments to this third street alcohol street i there are no speaker cards. any r and any any public comment on the consent calendar? >> i'm patricia i have a concern on 16 hundred interray restraining order street. >> we'll removal remove that and you can wait. >> i have a letter from the community. >> your opposed to the project correct? >> yes. >> okay. any further any public comment on the consent calendar? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> move to approve items 4, 5 and 6. >> commissioners, on that motion to approve items 4, 5 and 6 under consent. commissioner antonini. commissioner b

. >> so did variance on the overall variance is 40.5 so i assume it's basically as we kind of go down the list there's what is it 8 flap has we don't have any say over what happens to that. >> exactly and the biggest part is the realignment revenue so the kuvents give us money and we don't have a choice to spend it. >> and again so the summary of this one slide is based on the 40.5 of aggregate discretionary 2 and a half of that is taken off. >> yes, so kind of in the revenue departments we're talking about the human services agencies their surplus coming from big savings in salary and aid payments. and also with the department of public health some revenue particularly the hospitals and some savings there as well coming in us. one other thing i want to talk about the economic and workforce development having a shortfall that's related entirely to the america's cup project and there's a lot to talk about but to explain what this number is it's strictly what we're projecting budget versus actual just for the current year not talking about what happens at the outside of the project like

what is the before me is a variance that has a transparency requirement it's not getting into the double or single pain those efficiencies standards are under the. are you of the building department. the architect will kline client with the building codes and they can address the issue that's been investigated and how to address to satisfy the building requirements. i want to clarify that >> does this commissioner in following up on this explanation has the ability to add a conditional recommendation we're supporting it in kind of do we have that possibly. >> what's before you is not the building permit per say it's a review of the building permit but it's under the building inspection so i think it's best to if you liquor - >> i'll answer that question. we're using a inside comblaz so we have a glass panels we are going to use heat strengthened and we have to shots even if laminated glass what we we have a how performance so heat is stopped. the slowing down doors is dependent on the weather and having the demeanors open it is a positive thing. we're using heating and cooling in the flo

i'm concerned about the stockton side there's no change there and the question about the variance that's required. i've sought variances on issues and there's been hardships that are there and obviously designing a building there's no hardship there that's not our charge so i'm not sure how it gets resolved. i don't have a major concern but it's again only one building i could find in the desire district that doesn't have any blank walls that's on the macy's building on farrell that has blank walls but that's not a shining i didn't example of walls in our district. the materials you know the bar building is great. i think to say you can't have cast stone that looks like indiana wall stone, of course, you can use stone that looks like stone that's appropriate. i'd love to see the blast sandstone. i was tale a back i'm sorry it was stairwells steel i was taken back about the comment of the reflective material it would have a massiveness you know it happens to be stole and my comment with when i wrote my noets notes i'm okay it's grayish and will have a began you will quality but the reflec

>> well, interest to the hear about and you look at the variance, particularly your actuals compared to budgets and under the lobby that was a significant variance in our favor and at least on the budget. and then under campaign consultant fees, we budgeted for 18 kind of okay with that and that was okay. so talk to me, a little bit more mr. st. croix about the lobby fees that we, they jump so quickly. >> and we were able to, we only budgeted for 27 and it is 53. and are they or is it just because it is a particular year? or if it is an election year? and is it just because more people have identified that because there is more enforcement and more folks feel the need to register as lobbyists in. >> or else, i would say, if you are going on, like you do the budgeting year over year and you look at what the past was and you put in a conservative number in there. and we are already with only two months into the year, or however far we are in the year. >> 7 months. >> we are 53, but we budgeted for 27. >> yeah. >> so that is great. >> but i was just wondering if you saw some kind of...