we did not over turn the board's decision to up hold the prior variance. we came to a new conclusion based on additional facts when a variance was requested for a second time. okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is your sound person here? >> june wintrof, the head of the noise regulation program is here. >> okay. >> or the person who actually took the measurements previously? >> there were a number of measurements taken, mr. peakus who is here last time. he is in the training across the bay and could not attend. >> okay. the suggestion to wrap the duct, and then all of the duct came from the department, did it not? >> no, i don't think that is accurate. maybe you would like to speak to this, because she was at both of the abatement hearings and she can discuss it with the first hand knowledge. >> good evening, i am the acting manager of the noise program, among others for the environmental health branch and i can tell you my recollection of what happened at that abatement hearing at which the wrapping of the duct work was discussed. what i believe had hap

i am not supportive of this variance. and i would have hoped that they would find some way of negotiating a reasonable settlement, rather than have us take such a droconian action. >> assuming that we take. >> assuming there is support. >> i concur with the commissioner fung as the person from the public previously stated. you can't negotiate and come to the table with only one person does come to the table. and hearing from the other tenants that live in the building, it would be really unacceptable to have things vibrate throughout the day all day. if i happened to live there and so i am also not supporting the variance at all. >> any comments? >> this is a tough one for me, because i completely understand what the city attorney is saying. but it is hard to get around the fact that this woman has lived in this place for so long, and yet did not have this issue until the restaurant came in. >> second restaurant. >> yeah. the second restaurant. >> a huge upgrading of fans. >> the upgrading of the exhaust system. >> yes, i

or the side yard variance nor the rear yard variance and really i mean, he it is an excessive a huge project and this expectation would really be a totally excess they want to extend the deck on top of that and just going to do create a omi truthful and non-conforming structure there's no need for it there's no specification particularly in view that they're gaining so much more says that the whole level of occupancy so that's all i have to say i thank you for listening to me and giving me the opportunity to voice any concerns and objection and i hope once you look at the project and see what a massive project that say that i will give me consideration and not allow this additional 14 feet to be constructed thank you for your time. >> thank you other members in support of the dr requester? okay. then moving on the project sponsor our team has 5 minutes >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and commissioners from rubbing benefit and rose on behalf of the project sponsor their family this is not a massive expansion this is a truly a quiet a modest proposal and i'll keep my ranger

not impacting the buildings i think i've shown you with this affirmative this outline is where the variance request is so it's a big deal to us because this house has been very poor light and this is the essential outdoor space of the building. >> well, thank you for your comments yeah. i think i think so i do not agree you have to go back you don't come out on the ground floor and you're out on the upper floors where the variance come into play that area i was referring to was the average between distance between the dr requesters rear lot line and the adjacent neighbors lot line so that's using the planning department. >> that's supposed to be done. >> yeah. i'll agree you with you don't have to cut anywhere in my opinion. >> i appreciate the clarification. >> thank you, thank you. >> commissioner richards i appreciate the classification. >> thank you. >> commissioners, we have a motion and a second to not take dr and approve as is. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner richards commissioner fong and commissioner president wu snoemdz unanimously 6

decision made pay the zoning administrator and in raising those issues the appellant challenges the variance those decisions are appealable thus i can go through detail if you want that finally the appellant is concerned this lot is what they said in their documents did be density a not maximum missed neither the general plan describe a density awhile other cities search warrant may have a density in rich areas san francisco does not instead san francisco says here's the most you can build and the housing has policy elements we know in the general platoon there is a growing need for larger units as extended families increase and more households stay in the city the appellant is correct so four units is correct it's not uncommon because there are so many other requirements and rear yard that apply so although the property is less than the maximize density the property will be closer in k3406r789 with the density of the area so in conclusion so the following reason the department recommends that you uphold the decision to grant the conditional use authorization for the project. >> colleagues a

it was built without benefit of the rear yard if they remove the kitchen they would still need a variance to legalize the unite. >> if it's illegal. >> before we turn it over to the gentleman if this the records and i'm accepting it as a fact the records show this was there before 1954 your set back codes were not no place yet it's not illegal at this point to have a building on the rear property line. >> you if they have a permit to establish it prior to 1954. >> there's no permit. >> i can't say with certainty the issue there's a sand born map no structure there it leads me to building there's no permit to have a structure in that location. >> okay. >> mr. bryant. >> just to continue the conversation going on before the important thing the condition that was needing to be change was the condition that prevented the permit that's where the commissioner is referring to if the three permit were denial here for are reason those conditions that justified the denial of the permit is a condition that will is have allow them to apply again. >> good point. >> that's a concern if the trustees are

legal then simply removing the kitchen doesn't solve the violation they'll need a certificate of variance for an accessory residential space or demolish the structure intriefrl i mean, if they pursue legalization the process for legalization waves the rear yard requirements it maybe easier to legalize the unit than to remove the kitchen if they remove the kitchen the building will have to be demolished so they probably time to think about it. >> except for one thing whether the analysis and research was done to prove construction you know beyond a point where you know some records were destroyed we've having had lots of incidents where they couldn't necessarily show a building permit by found other types documents that was built if whatever it was. >> and sand born maps show a building in print this is on a argument that the permit structure that you know - >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> are we finished? >> well, i - no everybody is finished thank you not finished but that's it on the timing. >> let me go through what i think it a process that may may not be acceptable to al

well, we're the only house to introduce two light wells to the property this is showing the area of variance it's behind and explicit comploech that is the neighbors building beyond and how our floors relate to the subject property and another way to look at the how the property fits into the block face you figure those buildings would step up we're at the apex in the hill if i put this on an apples to apples the dr requesters building is taller in conclusion i wanted to say there's no basis for a discretionary review we've done everything to awe dress their concerns. >> let's up open up for supporters. >> good evening, commissioners and commissioner president wu and the members of the committee i'm here to offer my strong support for 312 green street i'm not a paid consulate just a friend because of the practicing architecture here in san francisco and lend my expertise and put a project sponsors opinion as my professional opinion there's no basis to allow this to move forward it represents significant compromises to the neighbors that is consistent with the residential guidelines and most

as to not confuse that with what a variance is in the code it makes sense by removing that one word so i ask you to include that in our recommendations today, we're asking you to remedy the approval with the modifications to the board of supervisors that concludes my manger thank you very much for your attendance. >> okay open for public comment since eave heard this any time we'll limit public comment to 2 minutes please line up on the scene side of the room (calling names). >> >> good afternoon again commissioners i'm jennifer again for spur as an vocabulary for go government we ask you to adapt this this is one of 3 plan phases the modifications to follow the organization and concentration in drafting this ordinance takes a great step to help practitioners and the public to engagement in the 0 process we appreciate it being referenced in one place and it is splilg i shrinking to one hundred and 16 zoning control tackles is a decision that is more user friendly we applaud the staff and liveable city and we hope you'll move forward with the two phases of the organization as rapid l

. >> i know that the project sponsor has to apply for a variants and want a variance on the radish simulating you're describing you're saying not demolishing the knowledge and not create a surveillance because open space open the rooftop. >> so the variance was for the amount of radish priorities with the zoning administrator considers are not within the appellant are there extraordinary cascades open spaces being provided in general to see if their comparable open space to be provided the da approved it on the ground floor why there was no yard and the rest of the 4 stories compliant and on the other building two feet short to the zoning administrator felt the rooftop made up for the loss and if you have key building there maybe less flexibility. >> i appreciate you answering the question it didn't look like it is completely out of the realm of possibility but chablg for the project sponsor to build on the existing vacate area of the lot i think based on some of the information we have right now i'm not the move is for a turns to explore other alternatives i'd like to see more density and ho

and we need to obtain a second variance which is in the process and soon there after, we will fix the problem. thank you. >> i have a question. so, since this has come up and the notice of violation has been issued, and have you gone into mediation or arbitration. >> and so we have come in the voluntary mediation with the brokers and we have done the mediation with the sellers. and if we have completed those mediations last year, in november. >> okay, so thats that been resolved with the previous sellers and so are they paying for the penalties at this point? >> they are not paying for the penalties, they are paying maybe a 30 percent of the construction costs. we decided not to pursue them in court, which we could have done. and but, for the reasons of just cost, and time, we basically settled for an amount that is as i said, maximum of 30 percent. >> okay. thank you. >> sure. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners, the notice of violation that was issued was following a complaint that was received by dbi july second, 2012, but in the housing inspection services, and this is an

and the variance and not a way to come close to the homes of the footprint, and i have worked with the architect and we had a remodel in our home and neighbors were pleased and thoughtful and considerate of our house and the neighborhood. and and with the normal requirements, and do not answer, in the neighborhood. >> good evening, madam president and members of the board of appeals, my name is joyce hicks and i am speaking on behalf of the owners, i would urge you to up hold the decision of the planning commission and allow the design and to para phrase, commissioner moore, this is a modest renovation, project and i would also like to reiterate, that the family have lived in this house for 28 years, and i have known them since 1996 and they are decent, hard working family that has made valuable contributions to the community, as we first knew her she is a pediatrician who has treated our children and tort and organized medical organization, and clay has been a volunteer youth soccer coach and president, and i have also put in enormous amounts of time and energy at the children's schoo

humors and the other the today is franchise time and the voters you all treated this like a zoning variance hadn't anyone heard of skype how about the secret passwords it would have been over at 6 to 5 recognized verified telephone presence as the presence madam clerk would only need too see the smiling face or video to count the roll this this is the 21st century please catch up. >> next speaker >> president chiu the clerk is kind enough to make copies i believe this is in our box that is relevant i'll talk about the hate crimes against me city attorney this letter is my i'll notify you thought city and county of san francisco 2015 such claim is false medical records in my name that were held in those record is is is diagnoses with me being psych and the verbal content for undisclosed treatment it was a means to benefit any landlord at this point whereby some reported he uses to file a detainer summons and sold did house on april 14, 2014, a letter was sent to the department of public health providing accident director with investigation about those records as i've not discovered those rec

years the outstanding overlay design the exemption for the planning code section 34 it requests variances from the planning code one hundred for 40 for one denial he did not recommends approval it's located in a historic building for a compliant wrashd or radishes anothers project sponsor has purchased light and your facilities project is consistent with the objectives and the policies of the general plan and adds up to 24 now housing stock by converting hotel space into much needed housing and didn't include alternatives to the historic building it is located in the zoning district for the density of the projecting property and pay the affordable housing fees that concludes my presentation. and i'm happy to answer questions. >> project sponsor. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and commissioners scott on behalf of the project sponsor i think this is a pretty straightforward project it is went through very significant approval in 2004 to get where it is today, the restoration of our infrastructure this is changing within an existing building 24 unions that are currently designat

this in the past needed to go to a variance hearing. what the planning department has done, is they have empowered staff, they are educating staff, but most importantly what they are doing is providing a clear process so that a person with a disability understand how to ask the question and how to meet the rules in order to get that modification that will make their home accessible as they need. our office has worked very closely with the planning department on this legislation. donna atkins has presented on this report. regarding the giants celebration and parade this year, our office provided support. our role was really to work in collaboration with the party planners which is no small feat because we had only 48 hours to put this to go, that is part of major league rules and we worked to ensure there were appropriate barricades that didn't block paths of travel that there was portable accessible toilets and captioning and as in 2012, we served as ambassadors because in these large events, it's sometimes impossible to find your way o

. >> assess ramps are also in the administration active variance they should not block the structure of the property. >> elevators are useful for people who a physical disability the elevator may only be granted if the elevator structure is not visible from the property line and with the building code dimensions an additional bedroom on the ground floor can help with the liveability it will be loud given it does not result in an additional dwelling unit and hallway bath is being requested finally the second process will continue to be review for the procedure identified in the planning code and if it didn't meet the guidelines will be considered to the caesarean list at the hearing the commissioners asked first how does it be defined it's the responsibility of the project sponsor to make the reasonable mischievous and the tenants in the building who are renting can't make changes to the property, however, the tenants with the 2k5ib89 are electricity under the disability and the landlord are to be providing that modifications there's a question who pays for the modification as a remin

why am i letting a variance of 4 pounds dictate my mood for the day, taking it out on others? what did the paxil say? (laughter) one of the signs of the paxil, this movement. (laughter) >> yeah. >> stephen: let's talk about some of the stars you have. you say it's a shallow life, but you do meet incredible, creative artists. cher, anderson cooper, lady gaga. >> yeah. >> stephen: at one point, you were hanging out with lady gaga and malala yusef xi. >> right. >> stephen: (laughter) she is truly deep. >> she is. i love awkward duos. i love eavesdropping and reporting on their conversation. >> stephen: what was it? ga-ga was trying to explain to her about the little monsters and her fashion, and i don't know if it was translating and -- >> stephen: was she trying to invite ma la-la to be a little monster? >> yes, i think so. >> stephen: ma la-la actually lives in a country full of actual monsters. >> true. >> stephen: one thing i notice in here, i just opened a couple of pages at random. >> did you read it? >> stephen: yes, but not in the correct order. i read words at random. >>

yes, we had a variance, we've gone back and looked at it and here are the results and now these are the implications of it. for public digestion that would be helpful. >> advice taken. okay. >> are there other questions from commissioners? >> >> can i just clarify from your point commissioner scott, we've been pushed by by one of our vendors to risk adjust the rates. is there really that much difference? and based on just the diagnostic analysis, just a pharmacy analysis and age and the urls in the document, there was a huge difference between kaiser and blue shield and kaiser said we have a different prescribing pattern of blue shield so will you go back, kaiser could have done the analysis themselves. they wanted it to be n.d.p. -- independent and they went back and did it independently. i will admit it was my understanding that the data itself, because i remember we talked about kaiser having 16 diagnosis because they keep more data and blue shield having three, that we had to say this is how many diagnosis we are going to look at for each claim but what we are looking at is the actu

they're determined on a crack by contract basis, in the sentence that there may be variances that can be looked at, but i have to say that on a overall basis, we've established 50% and communicated that to the community. there is a priority that's given to local residents and those are reflective within what we'd determine to be project areas and the high priority is given to the hunters bay viewpoint area. we do currently have three project major areas, hunters point, shipyard candle stick point, mission bay and transbay, but there's other projects in outlying areas from development that's shown in the reports as well. i want to acknowledge in march 4 of 2014 we did -- ocii entered into with oewd. overall we look at -- what is it? in the sense of priorities being given to bay view hunters point, but i want to also talk a little bit about the alice griffith mou. there is a separate priority list for alice griffith projects an i just want to, for the sake of the benefit of those in the audience and for yourselves, just highlight the priority list, don't take that quite as seriously in

gentleman made is that if it was more a space for a view person looking for then you'll support the variance for the edition but going further into the lot will be in contradiction to his first point which is to say the lot is substandard but to go further is a negative to the property we've been actually very counter of the dr requesters light and air we've set back the front of the property by 15 foot to allow for his property line windows which he has property line windows here and the addition will be set back 15 feet to respect the neighbors light and air on the windows we've also set back the property 3 feet from his property to allow for more air to his already in darkness light well this the scale of the building which the way less than the dr requests massing on the block we have a letter from the neighbor on the right of the property question also have an extensive shadow study since the subject property is north of the dr requester there is no way we can cast a shadow on the neighbors i have all the drawings here showing the different times of the years and the neighbors is castin