the there's a number of provisions that were listed in the variance. under the will vblgd 4 there was a list of things the size of the decks were to remain similar to the original ones and the highest third floor deck was to be smaller in area then the lower deck the final plans don't show this the restrictions of the future limited rear yard and the variance decision required the restrictions be posted on the permit drawings and as far as we can tell have not been poflt. we were not given the opportunity to have the drawings by the sponsors architect. and in trying to see them at the deniable we remember told they were at a veshdz reproduction service and not available to us. in terms of the lamb family is requesting as i mentioned given the size of the increased deck and the limited yard really the intent is to enforce the code to its fullest stent it's currently shown that in the document is missing a lot of important information about the construction of the firewall in particular, the structural drawings are not shown, the assembly that's required

with a small rear yard the variance on the rear yard and the non conforming and a half of the stair i'm supportive of that. the question for me it's not the fire issue because that is prevalent throughout our city what's problematic is the fact in close quarters sound contributions are the most irritating the planning department the stairs took up the rear yard right up to another united another building. and you could hear everything through it. the guys moving his garbage can 3 decks up you could hear it in somebody's bedroom that's my main point. i was trying to offer a compromise by moving it away for less options for impact noise that's difficult to hide >> i couldn't disagree their using outside voices i like to say to my children. i take it wondering with the fire external wall if this absorbs sound >> if it only goes up. i'm sorry i don't see noise as being one of the issues raised by the appellant >> i'm raising that. >> right. i mean - okay. okay. i'm prepared to move to deny the appeal and uphold the appeal as code compliant. >> sir, when our ready. we have a motion from

is tail proposed for continuance actually april 23rd which is the next wednesday variance hearing the reason for the separation the dr is going to be withdrawn but if not, we're continuing that matter out. commissioners hale that's all i have for continuance nrdz >> is there any public comment seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'd like to ask why item one is continued it's an informational presentation. >> that is a request from the board of supervisors from supervisor mar he wants to have his ordinance heard with ted's report bus that's it or supervisor mar's ordinance. >> it's not an action item for us either day. >> the ordinance i believe would be an action item. >> i'd prefer to have this heard as an informational item before an action item italian-american i'm going to vote against it. we've had a series of presentations and then everyone can mull over those and make their decisions when the ordinance is brought before us. even though it's a supervisors request i like the procedure >> commissioner sugaya. >> move to continue item one actually,

b for the request for conditional use authorization and variance at the 2198 market street. >> good afternoon, commissioners michael smth with the planning department staff you have before you a project to construct a new to 65 story building with 87 dwelling units along market street a portion of which would be occupied by a restaurant use. and a basement level garage that contains off-street parking parking spaces. the project is on 2891 market street. it's within the market octavia market area it requires a conditional use authorization for a lot to establish a restaurant use to add a curb cut along a bike route this is sanchez street for ground floor that occupies 75 listen year feet and requires variance for a rear yard, by the way, window width and ground floor and non-residential ceiling height and for dwelling use and exposure it was also anticipated for the level of the octavia plan. the project was issued a community plan exemptions you'll be adapting sequa finding if you adapt this project it economists of new landscape beverages and lighting bulk outs this is a requirement and for

and rebuild of restairs and decks that requested under e grossing ingress it was approved and that variance was appealed and the board of appeals denied it the building was the art it came to this commission in 2013, the dr didn't approve that it was an appeal 0 of the building permit and after some discussion it was denied. that was a long meeting >> thank you. commissioner sugaya >> you should start earlier. on valencia street do you remember the number of units >> the original most removed the fifth floor and the revised motion, you know, restored a portion of the fifth floor and kept the same minimum of unit which is 12 so basically, their required to set it back in the front and rear without loss of revenues. >> so that means the affordable unit is triggered still i mean reinstated. >> yes. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move stone the general public comment commission. on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction. poovk. commission will be afforded when. the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may members

i want to say to the public that the dr for carolyn street has bun withdrawn but that leaves the variance planter on the calendar so at the john sharp the zoning administer will top the matters and if the public could exit the room quietly. commissioners on item 13 for the case at the 1110 ashbury bureau street request for discretionary review >> good afternoon. jessica wolf that's a discretionary review for the address of a single-family located in hate ashbury in the zoning district the plan is recommending you not take dr. the subject property is currently a single-family home that's located at the rear of the parcel about 46 away from the property line it includes a vertical and horizontal room. this edition will expand this into a larger single-family home residence, however, no work has been done in the rear yard and no variance needed and also the top story is set back. the slopping garage and store will be fully upgrade by below grade larger than or longer the rear of the building that was filed by the owner on hate ashbury street. some of the dr requests concerns are the scale an

i ask you to grant the conditional used variance to our long-term naibdz neighbors the property owners. i'm well aware of the developments along market street from van ness to castro we need the gray star units to provide the additional housing as affordable housing and others. it was initialed during the several years the associates relationship with the wong family extends over decades and we've had our corporation and we're working together. the close cooperation by victor and others has resulted in gray star donating that for trash recircle. i've informed the association about the suggestions and that has incorporated many of the suggestions here. 3 of the 6 pie wenld corners at this intersection of market street and sanchez will provide 2 hundred housing units at intersection alone. and there's more to be developed out of the starbuck's area. both of the commercial housing and retail shops will provide for the new commercial areas i ask you to grant wong and gray star the conditional use they've requested. mr. secretary i'll leave those >> good afternoon. i'm the project manager f

yard go entrance and the light in there for the windows off the court yard requires some of the variance and the scale we'll discuss and the shadow al at length. i've not heard anything that will change any opinion in the previous and i'll support the permitting of this permit >> can i make a motion. >> move to reject the appeal and uphold the permit. >> commissioner fung two things one because the board is the last decision making body for this and it's subject to my attention measures you have to uphold it a draft is permitted and it's entered into the record. >> you want to do that. >> why don't you read it. >> i'll read it then and i was wondering if there's a basis for which you want to state the upholding of the permit. >> well more myself i've read it therefore concur with it. >> not basis for the denying of the appeal under our normal procedures we have to have a stated for the denial of the appeal. >> okay. that's two simple but i will say then that based on the fact that the project is co- off and on and gone through a tremendous you amount of review and approval. >> okay. all

i'm observing in my own vicinity something that requires a variance despite the nature of the project on the other hand, since i don't see the permits posted on the building i assume the construction activities that are going on in the building have not vetted properly so i'm trying to make sense of this for the commission to schedule a joint meeting with dbi and talk about this. among other things which we might have in common. >> okay. thank you. >> my apologizes through the chair if he could go back to the items for continuance if item 3 b the variance also proposed for september 20th. >> as acting zoning administrator i'll continue that. >> commissions that places you under directors announcements. >> good afternoon, commissions are couple of announcements i want to introduce you to mr. kelly he who's the new director of the planning and he's been here 2 1/2 weeks he is coming from portland where he had his own firm and in berkley for nine hundred among other things he spent time with the rec and park i've known gil and we're frankly glad to have him as part of our team. >> thank

so you can see this is a zoomed in view of the concentration and you can see how much variance that is and how every community reacts differently to formula retail. given this variance it's not possible to define an ideal concentration level that can apply across multiple neighborhood commercial transit district. changing the formula would exempt some fast-growing companies while still capturing a vast majority of large chains. some start-up businesses that have recently qualified as formula retail include phils and blue bottle and the san francisco soup company. while these chains are over the current threshold of 11 they are significantly smaller than the other well-established chains. so these are just some points to consider and i'm happy to answer your questions. >> very good. >> thanks. >> so commissioners, christian has prepared a briefing document for you and he is going to take you through some of the questions or items of consideration. >> thank you, director dick-endrizzi. so commissioners you probably saw this in preparation for the meeting. the points that are outlined in

there are variances among states in their contract law. the second part of the same response is, i don't think the standard that we're articulating is a particularly -- >> there are variances but not variances in such an inefficable question as to whether this is really an effort to discern the real intent of the parties or rather whether it's an intent to impose community standards, especially since, as i say, parties intend to adopt community standards usually. >> with respect, justice scalia, i think that's not at all a difficult question. i think it's unlikely that a frequent flier contract or any airline contract that reserves discretion is likely to have incorporated implicitly community standards. i think the point would be if a carrier were to decide to incorporate inefficable standards such as that, it would have been clear in the reservations -- >> well, easy for you representing the government, but suppose you were representing the airlines. would you come up here and say, the airlines want to be well known that we don't have to

. >> on the closed session of the variance noticing. thank you zoning administrator >> i'm to acknowledge them for providing us with the update i appreciate that to see this in the context of the discussion. commissioner that places you under our discretionary review calendar >> sorry why don't we tak >> thursday, april 24, 2014. i'd like to remind did audience to please turn off see the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. . commissioners we left on and on off on your discretionary calendar request for discretionary review >> good afternoon, commissioners david lindsey from department staff the 6 avenue includes an edition with the story family home it's set back 9 feet from the property line. the 18 hundred subject louse house is on the east side of the intern sunset arresting and the subject lot t is 95 feet deep within the zoning district. the lots adjacent are couped by single-family dwelling and there's generally aligned and each had editions constructed beyond the maintain rear walls. the notification fo

been withdrawn and so at the conclusion of you're hearing the zoning administer will consider the variance so that bring you to general public comment. i i have no speaker cards. ma'am, if you wish to submit our comments now this is our opportunity >> while she's coming up are we to keep the materials. >> for 88 carolyn. >> offender for ashbury i believe you do. >> when you have been speaking sophisticating will turn on the projector. >> okay. thank you. >> hello, i'm a concerned neighbor i want to show some pictures. first, this is explaining my building is right her in the proposed project is two lots over. i'm sure you're aware of the house sits in the rear of the building. essentially my myself and other two owners in our attacking have 4 concerns about the plan the first is the proposed building is not comparable with the 0 neighborhood. as you see the building s are 3 stories at all and this is at 4 stories the building covers ups 080 percent of the lot. my preliminary concern is the impact on the light into my apartment. in this 3 unit building my apartment is in the rear and the on

i got all of your information from kaiser and given the variance in cost from period to period our analysis and our interpretation of the data and what they are offering on a fully insured basis, we recommend not pursuing either funding alternative where the hss trust would take risk as they do under flex funded. that's our opinion. at this time, i'm going to review the fully insured options that kaiser has put together and are part of this analysis and review on your behalf to decide which one of these two options you prefer. okay the two options are: for 2015 as is with no benefit changes for the actives and early retirees because this is jointly pulled when it's rated. the active data indicates less of a decrease. the early retiree data says i want even more. so when we blend that for 1 year the answer is 1.277 which is different than a plus. it's a minus. the next one is they have multiple year option and what they are offering is minus 2 and we'll review some of the caveats. minus 2 for 2015. so if the rates a hundred, it's going to be 98 and it will stay at 98. it's a 24-month break.

and places you on item 16 a and b for the request for conditional use authorization and variance at the 2198 market street. >> good afternoon, commissioners michael smth with the planning department staff you have before you a project to construct a new to 65 story building with 87 dwelling units along market street a portion of which would be occupied by a restaurant use. and a basement level garage that contains off-street parking parking spaces. the project is on 2891 market street. it's within the market

. >> do we know up here robert what's the variance notice. >> the notification period is 20 days. 20 days >> and with the proposed split equipment people in 9 room might have a problem with that okay. >> does that make sense to continue this. >> i'm leading that way the reason being we've had similar cases in the past when the notification has in question and the alternative location has also been in question so i think if the parties are willing to extend and that notifications on the second pole maybe it will have viable alternatives. >> i'm not sure i'm going to agree with that for the following reason the ability of our board and planning to address the issues of a lot of those types of installations is primarily limited to aesthetic types of concerns. i don't see how switching a huge box like that from one side to the other changes the aesthetics of the situation. i'm bothered by the fact that we would be guessing that the people on the one side of the street would have no issues >> less objection. >> i'm wondering if there's a way to craft this time period. one of the things wh

every program area which shows you the expenses and the revenue and then in chart form shows you the variance from this year to last year. and as you see from looking through these, there are relatively minor changes in all except for one of these, and the one area where we do have a significant shortfall is in the area of clean transportation where we had an earmark that has sustained our electric vehicle work for a number of years that is now ended or will end as of june 30th. we also have additional (inaudible) in the area of clean transportation so that's the one area that does not balance as of this very moment. everything else does. we have match revenues and expenses in every other area. as far as clean transportation is concerned we are asking for general fund support for clean transportation and we have a meeting with the mayor's budget director tomorrow to discuss this issue. >> okay. >> everything else i think is fairly self-explanatory. i'm happy to answer questions. you will see the expenses at the top left on each of these sheets, then you will see the revenue on the top right b

well, many times the projects do have large variances the schedule the cost and scope which can't be mitigated we want to look at the realistic numbers are and how we can finance or mitigate it. then we also look at it all those projects which have been done if there is funding left in there can that be reallocated to use somewhere else? not only that i think our system on which we report is the management system and it has a good baseline in order to give you an accurate report so we wanted to make sure that we meaningfully revise this thing and give you an accurate picture and the california water board requires us that if there are projects that are going to be delayed we're obligated to report them and that's why what we did is 2 months ago the program director and his team all project managers and everybody else started working on developing a real solid baseline all construction estimates were looked at all change orders and potential change orders pending change orders and the trends and we came up with a construction estimate and then we looked at a bottom to top analysis of

what has been done does not comply with the planning code and would require a variance. the deck would be higher than what would be allowed as permitted in a rear yard. they would be allowed to deck up to 36 inches above grade given that grading on rations have occurred here without proper permitting is difficult to evaluate what the previous grade was. unfortunately we don't have a really good catalog or resource of historic photographics that would allow us to do that. the google photos are /raeplly not of sufficient resolution, but also the angle in order to determine that. the best case scenario if there are no historic photos would be to probe and see how far down the foundation of the building would be and maybe that would give you an idea where grade may be relative to that foundation to the footing ing to that foundation, but beyond that the permit, in my opinion, would be invalid and request that the board deny this permit and require the permit holder to submit new permit that does everything this person should have done and is accurate. >> mr. sanchez, one cou

to put those into context, when in our current year financial statements we're showing a salary variance, positive, in the financials. a lot of that hiring is coming online, but we've adjusted the salary budget to a count for what we anticipate we'll be able to hire by next fiscal year and so we can get up to our staffing model that's adopted. the other piece is -- and if you look at the initiative that was before the commission at the last budget presentation, associated with the new san francisco general hospital, we have about 100 fte's, in addition they're added in the san francisco general budget so in this two year budget you would actually see, despite this initiative, which is kind of seen in isolation when you look at it on presentation in front of you, you would see a significant increase in staffing proposed for san francisco general hospital as a whole in this budget proposal. >> so you expect that will take place in 2015, '16; is that it? >> that's correct. that's when the hospital is anticipated to come online. >> okay. >> also just to add for the salary savings item, it is