i urge the board to deny the variance thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm tom brooks a 25 year residents of the block jim kessler's next door neighbor my wife and i sent a letter to the board an march 19 standard for review is abuse discretion or error on the law the decision contains two errors in the finding numbers one and two by law exceptional circumstances and preto the property involved but the do not generally apply to other properties and finding 2 requires some circumstances must you result in the practical difficulty or hardship the zoning administrator focused on 3 things lot size, a common drive, and certainly historical significance first 2825 lake has a lot that is the sect largest lot on the block with a buildable footprint of the 4 thousand plus square feet the most common size is 25 by one hundred and 25 or 3 thousand one hundred and 25 feet one could build a house that is almost one and a half times the size of our entire lot and that without a variance 2825 has a huge go size advantage not a dis

and the primer argument by the zoning administrator in this decision the shape of the lot requires variances other than the 3rd and 10 floor that was not his opinion during the review process as evidenced by his combines to the applicants the evidence in exhibit 8 of our appeal until the final decision the primary guidelines issued by the zoning administrator that was county to the patents on the first story and the rear yard variants is okay second-story no variance sought and the third-story he provided guidance that the other solutions were possible but not expand the building envelope beyond who a what was stated below those are not final and i understand they're going to consider the spirit in the expand envelope beyond the restrictions to the other portions the envelope and or consider changes that were with any dialog between the neighborhoods no such dialog was had even though the neighbors wanted it and the zoning variance was granted in full we'll speak buyout hardship issue the zoning administrator said at the planning commission hearing no hardship there's no hardship that is not

sanchez whether or not the variance is needed under the revised plan. >> i have the same question. >> okay. >> thank you scott sanchez planning staff the variance is required particular for the ground story addition that remains unchanged from the stairs to the variance is still required. >> to what stent. >> to reduced stent i don't have the exact dimension by basz base it on the ambulances that are going to be in front of you which the project sponsor has the plans come out e came out today they can submit those to the board at this time. >> okay. >> is that your. >> i'm sorry i needed to know what can we take that without objection? action would be needed by the board depending on how you want to proceed >> so assuming we're all willing to do this what is the proper motion. >> my understanding you'll need to make the finding for the variance modified and overturn the conditions the building permit i think the board will be advised to accept the amendment to the record so we know exactly what it is. >> is that a motion. >> i'll let you take a stab at it. >> is that a question. >> no

and the rear yard variance is also opted the project sponsor offered to have a three to four month period for the entertainment use it was rejected by the neighbors the department is recommending approval with restrictions it attribute contribute to the overall noah valley commercial district will in the displace tenants and create additional unit that is readily assessable and their smaller and more affordable the project implements the sound report by the recommendations by a sound engineer environment u consultant to insure that no sound from this commercial says that a heard outside of the establishment. >> project sponsor you have 3 minutes. >> thank you commissioners vice president wu and commissioner richards you tend of the last hearing ass asked us to discuss the hours of operation for the entertainment uses and places of entertainment permit and we were not able to reach an agreement on that and i would propose somewhat different hours than the motion is proposing and jonas if you can passed this larger the hours are emphasizing evening and late night hours for the uses we propo

a lot of discussion about the result of the variance and therefore what has been proposed for the design even though the there's a direct connection between the two i'd like is the following to some of the arguments made related to size of the building the third-story, the impact on the rear explicit resonate with me in particular instance but going back to the variance itself there are questions in my mind about the finding and the few look at the findings the first 3 finding especially from more traditional or perhaps more historical analysis of variances and the issues that go into that i don't necessarily agree with the findings perform in particular instance question m in my mind is related to the rest that was thrown in my preservation because that's traditionally it was part of the overall review of a project but one of many factors that led to the review i would disagree with the z a in saying any other solution to this lot would not conform to the residential guidelines and team i think there are a number of solutions that could satisfy that particular element but satisfy the pr

>> the project will require a rear yard variance. basically the way the code is now, it allows for a mass that is similar to what they have in the rear yard, but they have to have a 5 foot set back from the 2 side property lines since the sponsor wants to shift that mass for the rear yard basically against the blank wall they need a variance to address a rear yard requirement. i think there is a diagram. >> if we were to follow the planning code exactly, that smaller valium furktest into the rear yard would shift over 5 feet away from the blank wall and towards the opening between the cottage and house at the front of the east neighbor. is that clear? it was our assumption by sliding against a blank wall we provide more light and air and exposure for our neighboring property to the east and more connections with a open space by doing this. thought it would be a good thing for everybody. >> thank you. any other questions >> open for public comment. anyone wish to speak on the item? we do have speaker cards. first speaker is doctor lis

the zoning administrator subject property on lake street protesting the january for a rear yard variance to construct a rear horizontal and new three story into the rear yard we'll start with the appellant you have 7 minutes. >> closure i've hired reuben, junius & rose for a personal private matter prior and feel like i can hear this case obviously. >> before i start my presentation based upon the fact we have a high burden and one of the issues with this procedure since the planning commission we've asked to be included in with the dialog and been included in that so so would the board poison this and have real dialog with the property owners again, that's one of our main issues here as well but i we're ready to have a host off neighbors here so whatever. >> we'll precede. >> okay, here we go. >> again members i'm annuity rude i'm here are my husband mr. fox we live around the corner from the subject property and lived here 23 years raised our 3 girls as each of our surrounding neighbors and while we've not at the end the discretionary review hearing we find this with interest to the va

the it is not necessary together with the conditional use authorization the project requires the variance from the planning code to modify the sections for one hundred and 20 units to allow combined parking on hate street and to allow height expectation for the elevator overrun administrator will consider the variances for the action from the downtown conditional use authorization department is aware of both support and opposition for the project so several letters were received in favor and opposition after the planning commission published it a request for tupdz was on file and basically will the proximity between the building we understand the project sponsors has met with folks and the proposed concerns have been summarized in a memorandum distributed to you by the project sponsor today 55 e-mail i have altitude copies the letters of support include the hayes valley association and i - staff represents that the commission recommend it with conditions in conclusion the staff recommend it the market octavia plan to create nor housing and has a mixed use unit sizes and close to downtown

appeal t is appropriated until may 21st and the next c and d on market street conditional use and variance are proposed until may 21st 2015 further under your question of question of calendar commissioners items 14 ab and 15 ab d and b and we're in receipt from the project sponsor is request until may 7 and the dr requesters are a here and not in opposition to that for continuance i do have two speaker cards for that. >> okay. >> melinda and robin. >> hi good afternoon melinda i'm here on behalf of project sponsor for item 14 and 15 we are school board asking for the may continuance we've received different requests for the recent uses and project design and working with the planning and planning department to provide this information and make sure the department and the commissioners have accurate and complete information about the project we appreciate your willingness to grant the continuance and the project sponsor to allow us so. >> thank you. >> hello commissioners my name is robin tucker i'm the chair of the pacific avenue neighborhood association and the dr requester and i've comme

one of the variances is the size of the different non-profit organizations so we often talk about them in one breath but they're a varied group. this chart is showing the bars here reflect total spending by the city on contracts in these different tiers so you can see we spend $102 million on contracts of less than a million dollars in 13-14 whereas we spent 174 million on contracts of more than 25 million. the line here represents the number of organizations that those bars reflect, and so you can see we have relatively smaller organizations, 805 organizations contracting with the city for $102 million or a little over $10,000 on one end of the spuk rem. >> >> $100,000 on one end and you have contracts for 175 million. >> actually what are the two largest nonprofits? do you know? >> the single largest non-profit contract we have if you consider it a non-profit and not government is the ucsf contract itself at the general hospital. >> mr. rosen field in terms of the chart would you characterize this is consistent as years past as well, this break down? >> i haven't looked at the detail

commissioners telephone ab for the cases at 4022 on fourth street conditional use authorization and variance please note on march 26 commissioners you held a public hearing and closed public comment you continued this matter to today by a vote of 6 to zero commissioner antonini you left earlier have viewed the video if you could acknowledge. >> i viewed the entire hearing i think i'm have famous with the remaining issues and hopefully can add to the process. >> thank you. appreciate that. >> and you had a recommendation on timeing of presentation is that right. >> oh thank you because this has been heard the practice to reduce the sponsor and i believe some organized opposition to this to 3 minutes each and any any public comment to one minute. >> thank you good afternoon commissioners michael smith planning staff you have a project before you on 24th street proposing to construct a third-story rear addition to the rear yard line at the ground floor requiring a rear yard variance it will add two dwelling units to with with off-street parking it will be combaelgd which is greater than the per

of the medallion now zero it's nothing i think one of you guys should get out on friday night or variance and looking at what the drivers are going through thousands of tmcs you stop at one traffic light theirs tmcs with passengers my is an entry cab they're picking up and dropping off passengers wake up come on (clapping.) >> last speaker. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> i've been driving taxi like the almost 20 years i have a medallion first of all, since the economy has been tough we're not making money it is a tough institution out there i'd like to request all of you to waiver this fee to make it possible now going back to the situation right now right now driving 5 to 6 days a week i mean, i work hard liquor every other colleagues and drivers the taxi is sports to be all over the city you know this is a city culture this city is losing the integrity of the city so many uber drivers and lift drivers breaking reputes right in front of me doing u-turns i'm not to make u-turn i can't find a passenger 20 or thirty minutes not or not anybody why is that why the funds what we need

did nlt have variances and it is a sichblgal family home. i think that just hearing from both sides i think it is offensive to talk more in jeneraltys to say that everyone is a speculator. as we have seen the project sponsorerize trying to live here. they lived in the neighborhood and tried to live with the multijen racialal issue. at the oned thf day i haven't evidence in terms of the determination and exemption issued today. i think that for the purpose of our decision again in terms of the environment review, i would be willing to support and uphold the planning departments decision to issue a categorical exemption so i would like to hear from colleague squz make a motion to approve item 19 and table item twunt and 21 >> supervisor made a motion to approve item 19 and table 20 and 21 second by supervisor co00. seeing no other names on the roster can you call the role >> supervisor yee rr aye. avalos, eyei, breed,i. supervisor co00, aye. supervisor ferrule. i. supervisor kim. aye. supervisor stang. aye. supervisor wiener is absent. >> this

on the land side we did see a variance with respect to side walk beautifulication and order. this is explained to a increase cost of parking control officers to help address pedestrian activity only jefferson street and increase ambassadors along that areas as well. in terms of management plan verse annual budget, on theport side the fishermans cbd was well within the 10 percent range. with respect to bench mark 3 for the fiscal year, assessment receive new they well exceeded this expectation as well. and then in terms of budget to actual for land side we did see a little bit of a skew on district identify and street scape improvement by 3.4 percent and on the port side 2 percent increase. let's see, this is explained by expenses related to hiring a new employee and war fest 2013 which was a event that helped replace the fleet week events that were sequestered. in terms of careee, we plan to careee over 56 thousand dollars into the this fiscal year and will work closeically to insure the funds. we want to the insure every cbd including fishermans warf and expanding the funds

gives people the option not to convert it so houses in district 5 can turn their garage into housing variance it reduces the bicyclist time and lastly it allows minimum parking requirements if doing so limits the rear yard and yard requirement so many building owners pay to have off-street parking but if people wants to remove the spot they can restore character to the neighborhoods the legislation passes the planning commission unanimous on february 26th the newest is the substitute that incorporates 3 small changes by the planning commission as well as one other issue that came up i'll address that we've incorporated a grandfathering progression for existing in the van ness district d for projects in the pipeline i'm happy to go into it in detail the legislation has options we can activate the improvement of bicycle safety and restore the yards hopefully that was quick enough i'll be happy to answer any questions supervisors thank you for your time. >> thank you very much any questions if the colleagues seeing none, is there any public comment on this item? item 2 seeing none, public commen

commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero zoning administrator what say you >> on the variancelosed the public hearing and grant the exemption. >> thank you. >>break. >> commissioner >> commissioner regular meeting for april 2, 2015, remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind. please silence any devices that may sound off during the proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioner we least off in our regular calendar for case no. at 5 61 through 73 valencia street a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon planning department staff have you a conditional use authorization to legalize the expansion avenue restaurant.org to approximately converting an reinforcing space at 563 valencia to a restaurant use specifically the expansion requires a conditional use authorization both to exposed a floor area of 3 thousand quote nartdz to the size of the routine use the expansion includes the just a minute space at 9 hundred and 98 square feet that is for a pro

believe we have to respect that processed i do on aside remember sitting here when the school needed variances and needed them quickly we were trying to go quickly to get into a start date for the year and you understood and granted the details are trvm and problematic but this project complies with everyone in market octavia that it filed at least not to my knowledge 6 months before the school was even approved all those things speak to the need to go ahead with this i hear all the parents concerns and if this were a developer that we hadn't had a lot of experience working with notely one one hundred van ness and polk street if i didn't know how responsible this developer was i would have concerns but the opening comment from the school person that do we're in the process of working through those things and need to have good faith and move forward you have a developer here this is a responsible partner and good partner there is no sensory hashing who shove known what when the plans speaks for itself they've been out there for a longer one 50 van ness those are facts that are there i admire th

they gave up and i guess my question is if this had been treated as demolition or even gone for a variance would they had to move the house forward and protected those people's backyard this is another one i found the other here's another 1 on 24th street off of diamond there's the house as it was now, it's historic here is today it looks like the christ i didn't museum no new york this is up on 27th the original house and that's the one i took about a month or two ago and this is the one the other day i have messenger and mr. sanchez is really nice he responded to my overwhelm and i'll write back to him and thank you and to the appropriate people in the building inspection i guess my point who is going to take care of this is the the building inspection or the how do you figure out this i felt bad for the people on jersey street when are we're going to know about the residential guidelines because as the previous speaker said those are for people that are really, really troubled by the loss of what we perceive to be their mid block open space thank you very much. >> i believe i'm next don

of the medallion now zero it's nothing i think one of you guys should get out on friday night or variance and looking at what the drivers are going through thousands of tmcs you stop at one traffic light theirs tmcs with passengers my is an entry cab they're picking up and dropping off passengers wake up come on

of the medallion now zero it's nothing i think one of you guys should get out on friday night or variance and looking at what the drivers are going through thousands of tmcs you stop at one traffic light

block away from major transit hub on eloquently bus lines in the neighborhood you're asking for a variance on the conditional use on the parking to add additional 5 hundred cars since i've been sitting on the commission we've not been approving those you have car spaces for 4 hundred residents i'd like to see a different portion you're using starkers one other concern i want to see the 3-d drawings looking west on 55 polk and north on the other area so the rendering to look those ways i want to see how the zoning relates to the shorter you mentioned the principle from the market octavia plan the mass articulation on the treatment on that i think a minor one the ground floor entrances on hayes street you had a great example included in the packet or emerald put it in the packet it remind me in portland those are actively utilized spaces people having a glass of wine encouraging the neighborhoods i think i saw in the drawings that was a little bit uninviting i'm not sure of it going in and out so this is something that should be taken a look at and the last thing the cigarette is 5 feet vers

ask this commission pass the downtown planning the conditional use authorization and the requested variances for the project today i must also sigh if you were a parent of a child i'll demanding you issue all planning entitlements today, the existing building on this is an dpeel dangerous seismically this has been pubically known for a number of years as many prospective users including the san francisco public opera found it dangerous in every case the complaint of some parents are due to their failure to look at the well-known plans the city and the developer and, in fact not being able to understand the issues about the physical safety of that building and the provision of new windows and light and views of the garden thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm a resident of san francisco and la port parent i'm here to represent my kids 3 years and 19-year-old kids have a right to education light and air and to live in a safe environment i see this jeopardizes it i'm concerned with the construction noise interfere with those rights there are accide