as is mentioned in the letter and the briefs, because the variance actually provided variances to specific code controls for the property at 3030 larkin street and did not grant variances to 898 north point street, our on-line record provided variance information for larkin street property but it did not show up on the 898 north point street property, so that is why staff did not see that. and ultimately it was not brought to our attention until after the site permit had been issued, and it was clear that pera condition of approval for that 1970 variance, there was this 30 feet set back open space requirement at the rear of 898 north point. just quickly, that variance as it was described was required because of a lot line adjustment between the two properties. and with that lot line adjustment, the property at 3030 larkin street got smaller, and it was already essentially over density. so it required a variance from lot density and from recovered usable open space. so the actual variances grants were only for that property at 3030 larkin street. however a condition of approval applied to 8

i need a new variance. second, the job of this board is to determine if there's substantial evidence somewhere in the record in front of you that supports the findings of the z.a. and whether the findings meet the threshold that's been met. the new threshold is based solely on parking. there's nothing, i mean zero evidence of any kind that supports that decision, zero. it was never mentioned in the application, it was never mentioned at the hearing, and none of the briefing mentions it at all. and to grant a variance on parking for this new project is directly contrary to all of the new city policies. and in fact in two weeks, all of the minimum parking requirements are going to be completely eliminated. and specifically, this is in the waterfront special use district. section 161 creates an exception for this. you don't even have to have parking there. so to say that this doesn't cause harm to the neighbors, to say we can grant this variance because it doesn't cause harm to the neighbors is completely and

the variance is still in play. 3030 larkin still needs that ra variance. >> commissioner tanner: just to clarify, so the -- the larkin street property, and this was approved and the project is dlt, do they need -- built, do they need additional variances in order for their project to be -- it's not conforming because of the variance, but is that still okay? >> that's the everyone. >>clerk: given the volume, we're going to limit public comment to two minutes, as well, for public speakers. >> first of all, i'm the one that's going to be the most impacted. the idea that there's a light well that serves the apartment is incorrect. there's only one wall that's going to have any light, and that's going to be blocked by this. the second is i actually read the title myself. we're talking about n.s.r.'s and variances. just read the title. it's super clear. super clear that this restriction's on it. i don't know what it's called exactly, if it's n.s.r. or variance, but they paid for the property with that restriction written very clearly in the title. so i would love it if it was my business to

on two properties in one variance? >> when this situation -- and again, it's a nuance situation that we don't get very often, the variance was triggered by the fact that the lot lines were moving, and that by nature requires the both property owners -- >> president fung: no, that wasn't my question. my question was in 1970, you've very clearly stated that today, you could not apply for a variance that applied to two -- to properties that you do not own. fl in 19700, could you do that then? >> no, and that was the point that i was making, was the only variance was on 3030 larkin street. >> president fung: no. that variance crossed through what was two properties, but that property had already changed hands, and then, the variance was applied for. >> i'm not sure i'm understanding. are you saying the variance application was filed -- >> president fung: was that variance applied for in error? >> almost 50 years ago, i don't have those ducks in a row to answer that. obviously, the zoning administrator at that time did not

of -- of this variance. having long-term and eve native san franciscans with families in san francisco, and leaving our city at a rapid pace, i'm very supportive of people that are willing to make modifications to their daily life in their dream home so that they can stay in san francisco. and then, further, to bring multigenerational families fack together so that grarnts and grids and -- grandparents -- back together so that grandparents and grand kids are together -- sorry. emotional. >> i agree with what commissioner has mentioned. i think what is also really valuable to the project is the addition of the a.d.u. it's not just roomed down or an addition to the home, but in the future, it will be a rent controlled unit which will be available to renters in san francisco. so not only are they able to bring their family under one roof, they're providing housing not only for their mother but for future san franciscans, as well. >> president fung: i think i stated this last time, but having participated in rev

when this variance was given, that property, the variance was given, what was next door was a vacant lot. it was an empty lot. there is, in fact, a house there. there are windows in the new house that face the illegally constructed deck. that is a photograph from the window of the new property, looking down at the illegal deck. you can see it. so because of the change in circumstances, that's one reason why the application should be denied. the second reason, i think, is a lot more telling. essentially, what the project sponsor is asking for, what he wants, is he wants to rely on a variance that was given or applied for essentially a decade ago, that had two requirements in it. one, the first requirement, was that he legalize swiftly all of the illegal structures that were on the property that were built without the benefit of permits. they were already existing n.o.v.s, that he legalize all of those diligently, and he require all the necessary permits to build the new deck. he did neither of those things. the only thing that he did was he built the deck. so in relying on building th

the variance and the d.r. are asking us to look at it, two different bodies, looking for exceptional and extraordinary circumstances in two different ways. here there's an argument being made that there's not exceptional and extraordinary circumstances because the lot was split, it was developed a long time ago this way. it already exists, and because it was developed that way so long ago before many of the code requirements we have in place now exist, and considering the topography, i think there are some exceptional and extraordinary circumstances related to the property, and that that could create some practical difficulties in relations to hardship with regard to reasonable increases in the home. having said that, where i would kick it back to you guys to discuss it a little bit more is whether or not if there's materially injurious to the adjacent properties. that's something you all are looking at specifically in your roll, so i think there's -- role, so i think there's some interesting arguments on your

the plans cannot change the variance because that's the only thing that's being approved is the variance themselves. plans start to change when you're having to deal with building code and fire code and some of these things that can trigger slight changes. as long as it's consistent with the variance, it will be okay. however, having said that, if the plans were to change in a more significant way than was permits, if someone has an issue with that, they would be able to appeal that building permit. specifically, if your concern is could you approve a variance that's an a.d.u., and then, the a.d.u. goes away that was required, that could be part of the conditions of rationale of approving the variance. >>clerk: do we have a motion to continue? >> i move to continue on the basis arrestticulated by our ci attorney, based on the evidence provided. >>clerk: okay. we have a motion to continue by commissioner lazarus for the preparation of written findings in support of the variance in support of the written plans submitted in tonight's hearing. >> president fung: let me ask one last question

the -- the things that are important to note is no variances, and one -- mr. sucre, can i ask you a question, if you can answer it. when this project was heard, and we don't -- this is de novo. we don't have plans from the past, we don't know anything, so we're taking it from that point. but have you had the opportunity of -- of looking at what was proposed in 2003, was it? >> correct. >> vice president swig: and what were the variances -- what were the major differences that created the variances at that point, and what i'm trying to get over for the satisfaction of the appellants is that this is the same old project, and they're just ramming it through again 15 years later. but what were the ravariances used? do you have any knowledge of that. >> from what i remember -- and i will admit, it's been a while since i've looked at it in detail. the bulk of the house was much larger. they are seeking a variance basically for intruding into a portion of the rear yard. i will note we did do a lot of shaping with the architect to kind of get to the building form that

maybe they got a mayor variance to -- a variance, but even with that 8 feet, they'd have a building of 17 feet deep. that's not logical, that's not what the planning code is all about, and it wouldn't be approved today. let's look at the next photo here. i wanted to show you from this photo the building next to our client's building. this is appellant, this is a building next door, and how deep it goes into the rear yard compared to our existing building today. also look at these buildings. all these buildings built along here have deep, deep rear i can't remembered. now we're not proposing -- i'm sorry -- deep buildings into the rear yard. now we're not proposing to go as deep as this. you've seen what we're proeptsing, and it comply -- proposing, and it completely complies. here's a better view of it. here's the building next door. here's our building super imposed. here's the corner appellant building, and here's the building next door today on carolina, and you can see what we're proposing the depth is roughly equivalent to the depth of the adjacent buildings to the south, right? y

in order to allow for the 25 parking spaces, the commission must approve a variance to the design forersion requires an amendment to the block schematic design which purposed the 315 parking spaces residential use only. ocii staff recommends granting the schematic design amendment and the variance of the design for development guidelines with certain conditions. under these conditions, following an approval, the building owner, udr, will come up with a plan to restrict the use of the 25 parking spaces for gus's customers only and will develop a plan to monitor access to the garage so a own sure the safety of block two residents. before coming to the commission today, ocii staff brought this item to the mission bay which was briefed in october. the c.a.c. communicated a strong interest in meeting gus's request for the 25 parking spaces and voted to move this item to commission for approval. ocii staff has determined that the parking conversion will be considered exempt from ceqa under section 1503 of that statute. upon commission approval of this item, the block 2 building owner, u.d.r

the project did not need a variance. we showed willingness to compromise with housing over retail or a grocery store. the project sponsor has shown very to no interest in the proposed compromise. instead we're stuck with the current proposal of eight units of market rate housing over the world's largest retailer and bring unfair competition to small businesses. it's a slap to the face to housing needs. they are not added to benefit the community. i say we're stuck with them, these units will be here for the next 60 years. the city is giving away this benefit to amazon. they will always are the best credit and as the city changes a new multistory project goes up all around it. on the last meeting the question was brought up. who loses and who benefits? first thing, amazon stockholders will benefit. neighbors will have another grocery store in the area. the important question to ask for the neighborhood group, what do you have against more housing on polk street. the city loses. it's a perfect location for density housing.

in 2016, they did meet the variance requirements comparing the annual budget to the annual actuals. one time they did not meet this was in calender year 2013 and everything has been ok since then and com compliant. they did indicate their carry forward amount and how it would be spent in the upcoming fiscal year. in conclusion, central market c.b.d. has performed well in implementing the plan for the district. they did a commend able job of raising non assessment revenue. they continue to partner well with community organizations and city agencies to fulfill the management plan and they maintain an active board of directors and robust subcommittees. are there any questions for staff in i'm happy to take them now. if not, ms. everwine. >> hello, again. tracy everwine. there's a map of our district. 800 parcels back in 2016. we're now over 1,000 due to all the development. that's a new condominium and apartments. we had a $1.3 million budget. core services again are cleaning and maintenance and public safety and economic development. our services are seven days a week, 7:00 a.m. to 7:

globally women make up 23% of parliament variance, 26% of news media leaders, 1596 variance, 26% of newsnals around world. these numbers are pretty grim. they are these numbers are pretty grim. they a re pretty these numbers are pretty grim. they are pretty grim and the rate of change is not what one would like to see either, in some areas, women in politics's progress has stalled, rates of change in the numbers of women senior managers, we have seen a1% women senior managers, we have seen a 1% increase in a decade. so there isa a 1% increase in a decade. so there is a lot to do, i think you look at all those statistics, we are actually at the stage where we need some new tools to make a difference. in many cases, people have done some of the obvious things to and encourage more women into these occupations, into politics, and now we need to get to the deeper causes that are locking women out and particularly locking them from coming up to the most senior levels, andi coming up to the most senior levels, and i am very pleased to be spending some of my time and that. you have spoken about

to the only clinical result of variance in that we're combining some other acts with state of the are you know therapy so that we're ready not just for late fees testing but we're all tingly ready for potential commercialization in the u.s. but there's still work to be done researchers say first results from thirty american patients are very encouraging but they now need to replicate them in the largest sample group. a u.s. federal judge has halted construction of the keystone x.l. oil pipeline which was supposed to run from canada's texas the u.s. district court of montana ruled that the trumpet administration should not have a return to ban on the project trump called the court's decision a disgrace he'd given the go ahead for the eight billion dollar project despite widespread protests and it would create jobs and fresh infrastructure and twenty fifteen president barack obama had denied a permit for the pipeline off to numerous oil spills. irish prime minister says a briggs it deal could be done and dusted within weeks his comments came at a british irish council meeting with senio

president described french calls for a joint european defense falls esquire's variance. and demanded that europe pay its fair share. in california at least eleven people have died and hundreds of thousands have been displaced as wildfires continue to rage in multiple the patients on thursday flames engulf the town of paradise in northern california driven by strong winds and by a paunch landscape the blaze destroyed thousands of homes separate fires have forced two hundred thousand people from their homes and. friday the entire city of malibu also had to be evacuated. malibu home to the rich and famous but it's wealthy residents have been ordered to leave for their own safety as residents took to the highways and fled a wall of fire swept towards the pacific ocean emergency services are struggling to contain the wildfires more than two hundred thousand people have been evacuated from their homes and the thirty's warn there could be worse ahead. so there's not going to be really. can't tell you that our. first responders are doing all they can to protect lives. eight hund

talk about the golden hills of california those are brush brush that turn now it's brush that is variance slam of all and therefore make a perfect path for. the fire when specially when the sometime the wind which is this went down is explode ok so it's coming if there are fixed storms up to asia and what are those stories still. wondering the student what authorities are doing to bring these fires under control how are firefighters our firefighters coping with the situation. there are five thousand firefighters right now some healthy come in from neighbor states from oregon to washington state to help because they are exhausted i just want also to point out that i think it's very important especially for the county have been to have been the first place starting on thursday together with the north of the fire right next to thousand oaks where a lot of fire. they were still struggling in dealing with the shooting that has happened now on wednesday night so this is a some of them are very exhausted and even if the wind yesterday gave them a sort of sound they are they are it's spread i mea

the conservatives are very busy with themselves and the infighting going on particularly with the variances to party the c.s.u. at the same time the green party but center left has been doing rather well this raises the question whether there could be a new set up but both parties the social democrats and the conservatives see do you know that if there were fresh elections they were to lose so this coalition is being held together by the fear of things potentially getting worse if there were fresh election did abuse chief political correspondent mccain of course now thank you. it's at least storms have killed at least twenty nine people this week the harsh weather is especially battering sydney where dozen bodies have been recovered from floodwaters one family lost nine members overnight and forecasters warn more severe weather lies ahead. this is where an entire family lost their lives after a nearby river and gorged by heavy rainfall burst its banks. among the dead a baby and a three year old relative. and that is that the probably rented a house for a union but we don't know exactly why

it is fully code-complying project and is not seeking variances, waivers or exceptions from planning code requirements. in order to minimize the shadow, the project would need to be reduced by one story that is eliminating several dwelling units, which does not support the current housing goals of the city and the need for production of new housing. the project meets the department's design guidelines and has been determined to be compatible with design and the surrounding neighborhood. it would also provide inclusionary affordable rental housing, therefore a total of 12 units will be part of the city inclusionary affordable housing program. also, on balance, the project is consistent with the east soma area plan. the department recommends that the planning commission determine that the shadow cast would not be adverse to the park. the proposal was subject to a 30-day notification of residents within a 150 feet of the project. the notice was issued. the d.r. requester opposition is two-fold, one for the shadow cast on victoria park, and second for the housing typeology as sro units b

. >> can someone else have a variance if you tore down the building and came back with the larger format in the store. >> the mass mum use in the polk street is 4,000 square feet. if it is demolished you are abandoned the existing use you have there and no commercial use greater than 4,000 square feet could be put there. it cannot be varied. >> thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> we approved. i approved mr. star had given us a use back. going to the supervisors to add housing and put in a grocery store. we do spot zoning more than we feel comfortable with. it is possible when the community gets a lot of benefit. >> we have a motion and second. thank you for your testimony. people were passionate. it was 50/50 split for or against. i know it is a long process and we appreciate you coming out. half think we are knuckleheads and half think we did the right decision. formula retail tends to generate a lot of comment. people care which is good and we are happy to have you come out and testify. >> a very quick somewhat technical remark. you may want a motion to intent to disapprove. >> the

as you said, no variances, no exceptions. the -- i think even the -- even the window situation, the -- the wall -- the living wall, all of that, is -- is fine. i don't even feel that that needs to be a part of the approval by granting the appeal and conditioning it because i think that's going somewhat -- well, not going to say above and beyond, but a nice concession, but it's really, ultimately, doesn't even speak to what has been desired here and which i'm not prepared to support. >> commissioner honda: and i agree because unfortunately, both properties will have property line windows. and the property across was mentioned by a person from the public that property -- that project came before us, this board, and i believe we reduced that project, and it was right when you first came onto this board, mr. president. so i'll make a motion to deny the peal on tappeal on the grou the permit was properly issued. >> vice president swig: can i make one comment? if i were to make the motion and add on the obscuring of the second and