. >> it's not clear i get our objection about the variance but it's tough to build without a variance no real way without the encroachment into the rear yard. >> the project sponsor is a professional developer i mean, he knowingly bought this incredibly small substandard lot knowing this in advance. >> so what itself impact fee what are you looking for besides i get the variance discussion what are you looming to mitigate against. >> there's two aspects to it. one is the fact that the project sponsor deliberately misrepresented >> forgetting forget that half the process getting here open the development reporter on the project before us what impacts are you looking to mitigate. >> there's impacts on clayton street in terms of light and privacy and ashbury street in terms of the fact it didn't follow the roofline it clearly is way above the ashton roofline it is not period of time inept to the ash burger roofline it hooves over is west side it completely pops out on the west side so those are the elements, of course, their - >> the jumps. >> you've seen the presentation. >> the elevati

the zoning administrative on corbett avenue of a veterinarians to construct the second variance the rear yard of the property we'll start with the appellant you have 7 minutes. >> do i need to do that without a presentation and why not do it. >> okay. let's do that. >> mr. foster would like to request a rescheduling of his matter an amended piece. >> a continuance we need to hear the basis for this. >> should i go through my preempted comments or cut to the chase. >> you want to give him a minute to explain why he wants to thank you for the opportunity continue it. >> if you review my brief there are a lot of persistence and technical issues involved basically, we're talking about here is the cart before the horse a variance before the process that's the essential problem the merits of my arguments are it through 5 are really did not on the building that the dr process results in. taken to the scream that the building next door to me becomes a one story cottage then my arguments it through 4 really kind of metal >> so what are you proposing we continue that to what. >> that's the problem

so i think some issues were raised from the brief about the notification the notice for variance is 3 hundred foot owners but, however, the board hearing at board does the informs it that's typical for the 311 and see you know, i certainly think it's appropriate for the board to go over brief the roles and discretions that everyone has certainly the board can deny or modify the veterinarians or add conditions that change the variance. that the under the dr the planning commission will have to modify the project so even if the broad support the variance today, if and when it went to a dr the commission can make changes to reduce the envelope of the building they couldn't approve something bigger but something smaller so i wanted to provide that information this is ready to go for hearing tonight each if the board finds this is an appropriate variance they can filing file with the board >> commissioners, if you're interested in entertaining this we should hear from the predicament holders just slow on the issue of continuing. >> you need to come to the microphone. >> do you understand

williams you described your rear yard there's a variance by it's not 10 percent i believe that was just below. >> it was on the building on clemente and 27 the rashlgd is at first residential level because the ground floor essentially half of that is taken by the circulation and the parking garage and then if we don't have the parking it will also be before the zoning administrator for a parking variance and then on the other one the one facing 26 street what happens because of the building next to it a very small residential building the area in front of it is an actual a great to make sure they're not facing a big wall. right up there it's 13 feet deep whereby the code is 37 feet deep when it's facing 26th street so they have tried to keep the department of public works of the actual building itself to 84 feet >> yeah. >> to make sure there's room for circulation, the bathrooms and 3 bedrooms because they wanted to make sure their family and not an opportunity. >> yeah. i understand what is not unlike the project before this one the rear yard is provided at the first level rather than

and in short, i urge you to not take dr, and also, that the variance be granted and the very unique, configuration of this lot, it is steeply down sloping from front to back, and it is not very deep at all. and it averages 51 feet in depth and necessity the minor variance, and i will turn it over to the architect. >> thank you. >> my name is eric and i am with the architects and the projector going on. there we go. >> yes. >> just a couple of points about the property itself. and it is a very small lot, it is approximately 1340 square feet, and as tom mentioned the average lot depth is 51 feet, ten inches. and relative to the proposed project, the primary rear wall of the new house is set back 15 feet, from the rear property line. and it extends 6 foot 8 inches beyond the property to the north where we have introduced a 3 foot, three inch side yard set back and it extends three feet short of the rear wall of the property, to the south. the floor plate itself is very small and it is approximately 700 square feet of ha bitable space and the narrow end of the depth of the... >> sir your

with that, >> i'm wanting to address a couple more points on the variance the two variances is the rear yard and in that on the clement street lot the green variance is above grade in that that's a gray but however it public utilities at the first residential level. on the 26 the building the variance that is sought is in the corner there is a little piece of it that will not go all the way to the gray and the rest of it will, however, instead of 15 feet deep only 13 feet deep the reason is the lot is only 37 feet deep so by the time you take 15 feet and it makes it difficult to try to fit 3 bedrooms and then basically, the second variance which is goes to the plans that was presented to you earlier at the beginning and this is the variance of active street frontage our on the 37 foot lot it's impossible to put barking or parking in and have a footage of 25 feet deep so what the architect did was a to maximize and have a retail space in the corner and bring the residential in the 26 street building to bring that into an active use that's the second part of the vanes and finally this lot

to have the 6 units have 6 opportunities to purchase you need 67 parking spaces they could seek a variance to have less parking but other thought we can't require this but i'm going to through this out if those are for sale unit they're not subject to hawkins; is that correct city attorney. >> deputy city attorney marilyn burden cost requires rent control i'm curious to see and where i'm going with this. >> (laughter). it nighttime possible we used to have it's 9/11 unfortunate we had a policy that forced a 6 unit building to have one affordable unit for sale it was changed by the legislation by the voters that raised it up to 10 this is below the threshold, however, i'm not saying it would be a condition of approval but through might be a possibility better than that dumping tiny rent control units one hundred percent tile but certainly be a better solution than trying to keep those rent control unit as they are nobody in they're right mind is going to leaving them we're going to disapprove the expansion to make them bigger there's a question of takings when i start deprofiling someone of

. >> so just thinking how to do this between the variance and the dr i mean, i suggested putting some scott maybe deny the dr because i also, you know, things get complicated as we move architecture and encourage him for the variance hearing he could remove the elevator and the deck inside if that's the case and remove the roof-deck there should be a set back on the back at least 5 feet you can put a deck out there. >> it could be, you know, if the conditions could be the same i could take dr and remove those elements or not take dr and change anything and get through the variance i don't share the same concerns with the roof-deck because it is part of the design and it's very well landscaped it doesn't have a penthouse and really the quality use of open space because their rear yard is so many levels below and the balcony would be the only usable space so the roof-deck as proposed is really quite fine so if the commission and want to take dr and prepared to take action on the variance to have a 15 rear yard with no obstructions to the rear yard level. >> thank you commissioner antoni

the two 2 units were emerged and enlarged after the variance expired. if the project applicant wish is to return the cottage to its original configuration, they will still need a variance because the exterior stair to the upper unit was demolished and into ed to put it back. it's brings the total unit to five instead of four. therefore the conditional use notification was insufficient. this matter must be continued. thank you. >> okay. opening for public comment? mary ross, whitney. >> hello commissioners. i'm the house right on the other side of the cottage. i'm not evening -- even going to talk about aesthetics. i grew up in a land and when they were making major the fact that there is water will change. all the property owners near this project are equally affected. we are going to have water issues, construction vibration that is going to cause properties to crack. i think it will move in an earthquake. what we find mind boggling is that there was no proper geotechnical which went down 5 feet as well as an environmental impact report. if i wanted a

as required the commission approval of the variance request will be subject to approval by the board of supervisors and in capacities as the protective body for ocii because it constitutes a material changed in the ocii programming and additionally because the project is in zone two the planning commission and board of supervisors will consider approving the development agreement with the developer consistent with the action i'm here along with the property owners to answer question and madam secretary do we have speaker cards >> we have one and (calling names) >> good afternoon, commissioners thank you i'm with the council of community housing organizations here to express our support for the change there are clearly significant issues raised business owner around the hoa dues this addresses that problem we want to say in general we don't want to see this effect the mixed neighborhood to the rental building but clearly this is the out liar in the types of building we want to commend the methodology using a third party consultant to look at the opportunity cost and come up with a num

for the next case at 19 through 25 mason street request for compliance and variance are proposed for continuance until september 18th. item 4 at one 10 stewart street a negative declaration is proposed for few minutes until september 4th item 5 for the next case at 14 telegraph hill, 20th street discretionary review authorization until october 9, 2014, pr item 6 case the patrick rode and gun club a appraisal of a perimeter negative declarations froept for continuance october 23rdrd. commissioners under our discretionary review calendar items 19 on green street a may or may not discretionary review we've received a requester inform the project sponsor to continue to october 18th and for item next at 1804 request for discretionary review we've received a request from the project sponsor with an agreement to continue it not november 6th. we are also in receipt of a request for continuance of item 14 on van ness avenue request for a large project authorization in the supervisors office but i think we might take that up when the item is called >> okay. >> that's all i have and there are n

the board upheld the variance granted. no building permit has been filed but once the neighborhood notification comes out, that will be before you for discretionary review. the next item a roof deck that had existing since 1988 but removed for roof repairs. there were complaints on this property between the adjacent property and complaints made by one neighbor against the other and the other neighbor against the other. there have been 26 complaints about 200 hours of dbi staff staff about the legalization of windows placed over 20 years. also the replacing of the roof and a complaint about the board foundation had not been removed from one building when the property owner try the to go get access. the board expressed some frustration and concern about the staff resources spent over the years on a case like this. i think the commission may share those concerns. i don't think it's before this commission but it had before the hpc in the appeal of the cfa. hopefully there is not further issues with this property. i'm available

house to the west and the west beyond that so the kids flow from one yard to other wrarptd to the variance we looked at the property in the current house where it's located the set back is very much impacted by the fact that the neighbor to the east set way back creating a set back requirement for the property we're asking for a set back variance to merely align with the adjacent property and the proposed location is 18 inches back from the structure and will look nicely reforced the block pattern and this line is a future development occurred at some point will set that the massing of the adjacent properties no one's is here in opposition clearly so we're here to ask for your support for the project. thank you >> thank you just foyer formality is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini and it's a very well done project it's been mentioned already it is not affordable it will be exempt basically, we're placing a single-family home that's adequate with another single-family home that's much more adequate for the family needs and conceptual but t

kline's letter says they use 3 spaces without the expansion in place pr that variance this parking variance will be moving another one or two parking spaces in the white zone depending on how it's laid auto this will leave space to park in front of my house without blocking the entrance to my garage and driveway. when you factor in the parking for the staff and the parents this reduce street park and not included are the transfer appointments and the elementary staff and the after school staff for myself and other neighbors that signed the port commission petitions objecting to the project i ask you to deny this where both requests thank you, thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, everyone. commissioners. my name is is a commissioner earl lynn louie we live across the street from the project. i want to bring to your attention loving ton middle school is located one block away age over 6 thousand students and staff they've got no parking for that site. so in the past we've had teachers parking in front of our house all day from 7 to 6 clock the picture open the scre

the lines of the variance of allowing it at the ground level but restricting it at the floor above if that is at five feet or something more and i think that another thing to take a look at and we don't want to beat this to death, but, reform itself and going between the gable and the flat roof because the flat roof over all, the height, may be less, but the height is higher at the five property line and therefore the impact may be greater, than the neighbor and so, i just wanted to point that out and i think that it is cognoscente as well and i think that it is a minimal couple of feet but having that higher wall, at that and along the property line and it looks like the current shed extends about eight feet passed that rear building wall and proposing to come out five feet further and for a 13 foot total from that wall and if you were thinking that, that second story, would be above the existing building entirely and not extend above the shed is that what you were thinking? >> originally yes. >> and it would be shifting it essentially, and i mean that unfortunately the plans and may

i could take dr and remove those elements or not take dr and change anything and get through the variance i don't share the same concerns with the roof-deck because it is part of the design and it's very well landscaped it doesn't have a penthouse and really the quality use of open space because their rear yard is so many levels below and the balcony would be the only usable space so the roof-deck as proposed is really quite fine so if the commission and want to take dr and prepared to take action on the variance to have a 15 rear yard with no obstructions to the rear yard level. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> i'm prepared to make a motion to take dr and reduce the building in keeping are the suggestion of commissioner moore to shave the back off she's discriminated i won't roach the roof-deck. >> commissioner antonini i believe that the roof-deck holds itself quite well interest the northern property with a deep notch in respect of the joining properties so i'm leaving it there and would second the motion. >> okay. thank you. >> i'm sorry can you reiterate that. >> i would leave

i strongly oppose the conditional use and variance application of san francisco anyone sorry academyhe neighborhood doesn't need a large for profit care facility there are seven hundred preschoolers in the outside of san francisco. since this is a residential area i want the childcare facility to continue to serve up to 12 prirlz this academy is on 32 avenue of the houses that are historic district homes to convert a self-same dwelling for a large for profit facility will defeat the historic designation to have a large for profit facility in the mirandized of the block will industry even though history and character of that area. granting the conditional use and variance application for san francisco anyone sorry academy sets the dangerous precedent lose any family in an rh1 residential zone to file for a conversion for a nonresidential for profit academy severing everything s serving up to you 36 kids what's to stop and file an operation for a

that will expand is that hundred plus square feet with a 16 hundred foot roof-deck and requires no variance the subject property on 25 by one hundred up slope level at the front property like line and two at the rear the massing is sent from the front property line and the vertical edition above about the residence they've reviewed the residence and determined it is determined to be okay. the dr filer receipt is located diemg i dialoging and on higher ground the residential design team no extraordinary circumstances and accepts the recollection not to take discretionary review and allow it >> thank you doctor requester. >> i'm richard the requester i live in a tick behind this complex the techy live in consists of 11 cottages i'm at the a paradox the lowest open the hill when this unit adds on additional level we'll be looking each other across the lot. the area is quiet i basketball it two years ago when i retired my unit is one thousand square feet the europe level is not impacted i fully admit i'm the only person faxed by the project but affected but it. i asked the plant to do something

. >> so there a way to take and because you have the variance, but you can, work on it more in detail in the architecture and kind of exactly where that set back is? >> is there a way that we can make a motion and kind of punt to you and you have more details discussions with them on the where that line is for the second floor. >> yeah, we want to be sure that the commission's decision is honored and so, you know in my mind, that i think that even a five, simply going at the five feet at the second level at the back could be adequate and that may not be enough for the project sponsor and it could be as much as 6 feet and may be able to retain that existing stair up to the master bedrm and it was concerned about, and it is a small, tight, you know, floor plan here and how can they keep access to all of the levels? >> okay, why don't we continue with commissioner comments. >> commissioner antonini? >> thank you. >> okay. i just want to talk to the architect and see if everything that has been said about it is correct. that it has been stated that while, you have already moved your proje

but in the search for private dollars they're often looking for a variance to the waterfront land use plan the recent projects involve some kind of variance plan so we're requesting the port or recommendation is that the port review and rise the land use plan, which was created 17 years ago. and include a maritime aspect because it focuses on preliminary land and development and the maritime aspect of the court is very, very important. we feel there should be a lot of pun input on the revision there was a revision announced august 11th we received a copy today between august 11th and december 30th too the time period closes is 7 weeks we feel that's an example how it's not city to do public entity on this and finalized on october 13th it should include maritime aspects of how to develop the maritime activities of the port which is examples are great cargo and fishing and x urgsz a a great deal of of other things private birthing and reject finding six the 2007 it is estimated that that will be b at thirty percent capacity and one of the preliminary reasons is fell statute dating back

commissioner moore >> thank you for clarifying the issue of the variance i was about to ask mr. washington it's a little bit hard to understand it's clear i want to jumps in and recognize this project as a significantly designed project and those presentations of the project is actually that good that i would like the department to put that that it's library this is an exception i feel that the presentation itself made it very clear those issues which we're norman concerned about where the rubber meets the road two building start and effect each other and we residence if i within the city and when i look at sensitivity that particular project concluding how it's duplicate reaches a high mark even if sensitivity something i'd like to recommend too on the today. in this case i'm supportive of it for the number of reasons noted and indefinitely suggest we don't take dr >> commissioner antonini. >> i completely agree with commissioner moore that was stated quite clearly by the project sponsor it's below the allowed height and the skillfully matching light well will allow the sin fro