president goh: here is a question. if the property line stayed where it is, are both buildings considered non-conforming? let me ask a follow-up question to that. if that is true, does planning code section 188 prohibit developing them as non- conforming properties? >> no. under the non-complying structure requirement, you can expand on the portion of the building which would be complying. president goh: whichever part of each building seemed to be complying, they could build up. >> exactly. for example, the lot for 260 mullen avenue would be completely complying with the rear yard requirement. they could develop, right now, up another two to three stories. but with the condition we have placed, they could not do it without a variance. the condition is limiting the development of that property. president goh: the curb cut we looked at before seems to suggest that might have been a garage. you can see seems under the new windows. -- seams under the new windows. i wonder when that was converted. >> we assumed it was once

president goh: okay, thank you. commissioner fung: the building on the corner that was constructed in 2000, were there special entitlements related to that? >> no, there were not. commissioner fung: there was no planning? >> the planning department reviewed the drawings and signed off on them, with no comment. commissioner fung: thank you. >>

president goh: is there a motion? vice president garcia: suspecting it will fail, i move that we will uphold. >> you are going to grant the appeal? vice president garcia: grant the appeal and reduced the penalty to 20 days. >> ok, thank you. if we could call that motion, please? >> on that motion from the vice president to grant this appeal and reduced the 25-day suspension to 20 days. on that motion -- [roll-call vote] thank you. the vote is 3-2. four votes are needed to modify any department all action. so the 25-day suspension would be upheld. >> should i call the next item? president goh: yes. >> appeal number 6, appeal number 10-26, richard rabbitt vs. the department of public works. protesting the issuance on october 29, 2010 to the university of san francisco minor sidewalk encroachment permit, a chain fence and retaining wall encroaching 6 feet onto the sidewalk right of way for a distance of 389 feet. it public hearing was held on january 19, 2011, and for further consideration today. on january 9, 2011, the

president goh: okay, thank you. commissioner fung: the building on the corner that was constructed in 2000, were there special entitlements related to that? >> no, there were not. commissioner fung: there was no planning? >> the planning department reviewed the drawings and signed off on them, with no comment. commissioner fung: thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. good afternoon. scott sanchez, planning department. just some overview, it is 161- 165 newman street, located within rh-2, two-unit density zoning district, located within the vernal heights special use district. i think this is the first variants appeal that the board has heard that i conducted the hearing since the start conducting hearings in june. this item was heard on september 22, 2010. the subject application seeks variances from the lot area, rear yard, and usable open space to allow the subdivision of the lot into separate, legal bahts, one approximately 25 by 46 and the other 25 by 50, but which are substandard in terms of the lo

president goh: comments, commissioners? commissioner fung: i would offer a little historical perspective, as i have been known to do. when i was at planning, the first residential district that had a residential design guidelines accepted was west would park, which is not far from here. that height limit was 28 feet. it went from 40 to 28. merrill loma park -- miraloma park wanted to adopt the exact same guidelines as set for western park. it never came to fruition, but if you look at this project, which is 22 feet and, i guess the attitude related to height has changed. i will continue and add my comments on my take of this particular project. i think the project is contextual in scale and in terms of design. i think it is totally suitable for the size lots that are there. vice president garcia: i guess my comments would have to do with the fact that, first of all, i am very familiar with this neighborhood. i do not live far away. but i took umbrage at the fact that -- i did not know who it was when i read the brief. i hav

president goh: commissioners? commissioner fung: i will start. i think it would -- just to summarize my view, because my questions are all geared that way, i would assume and it is probably correct that the portion of the appellant's building where there are no setbacks in her building probably have no windows. at the point where there are starting to be setbacks, it appears there are a number of windows. she has mentioned a number of different floors. primarily on the second and third floor. i would concur with the zoning administrator's assessment of direct sunlight patterns going into that. it is not likely the addition will cast any further shadow. however, the addition does come closer to her building. therefore, in terms of ambient light, it affects it a little bit. in terms of the overall impact, we are talking about the permit holder having made an accommodation by keeping his building off the property line. i think that is significant in this overall discussion. the issue of how much accommodation one makes with respect to the property l

president goh: thank you. we are adjourned. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> i would like to call the meeting of the public utilities commission to order. vice-president moran: here. commissioner caen: here. commissioner courtney: here. >> commissioner vietor is excused. >> we have to work harder. mr. secretary, if would call the next item. >> that would be the approval of minutes of the special joint meeting on may 5, 2011. >> moved and seconded. link electronics, inc. model number: pdr-885 software version: 3.0c address the commission on the items not on the agenda today. we have no speaker cards. >> do we have any speakers? seeing none, moving on to communications. >> the commissioners have received electronically copies of all of the letters in the summary. are there any questions regarding the staff report admitted in this packet? >> i have a comment on the letter summary? regarding the impact of climate change and storage and those of you who have been around for awhile now that i have

president goh: we have t>> thise public. president goh: my apologies. >> you want copies for the commissioners? president goh: i will take one. >> next speaker, please step forward. >> good evening, commissioners, gus hernandez. i am just a neighbor. i am not an attorney. but i have read the planning code, and i believe this project should be before the planning commission. you guys are kind of our last hope here. we're not asking to kill the project. we just want a hearing in front of the planning commission. i sent you guys a letter, and you have seen the formula retail argument. i want to point out, again, this diagram that shows the suppose it use. is that still a walk up facility? they are saying that they brought the atm indoors, but it is still reject it is an accessible atm from the exterior. we just want notification, neighborhood notification, some way to get this in front of the planning commission so that we can express our concerns as neighbors to the commissioners who will actually be able to do something. than

president goh mention that the zoning would remain rh2. is any modification of zoning ever done? >> no, if it does not change. it will forever be until there is a zoning change, and it would otherwise allow two dwelling units. >> if it were to be split, would they still meet the requirements, or would they try to double it? would it continue to me that? >> the proposal would meet the parking requirements. that is my understanding. the variance was not for parking. the variance was for the rear yard space. >> they said they have three parking spaces. >> i think it is the same as that case, the parking in the new building and not involve old building. the you know the dates of the place across the street? >> i do not know. i can take a look at my ipad and see if i can find it. >> it is different, because both buildings have sparking a. >> is there any public comment on this item? rebuttals comes after public comment. >> i am an architect, but i am here as a friend and neighbor of the appellants, and before i speak about this appeal, i want to talk about the context stereo -- the co

. >> many of the statements made b y president goh also resonate with me, especially the -- i don't know if that wa s a failure to consider a lot split prior to construction, or if that was considered at all. the maximum use was evidence it was built to its full potential, rather than more modest. never having done a condo conversion, it is useful to hear that on both sides of tehe issue. it probably does carry greater home value, so i don't know what offsets what. being more new than president goh, i am aware of the small lot issue, and i am sympathetic in that regard. i am not sure where i am going to land. it is pretty mixed. >> were we to overturn it, we would have to find discretion, and the other way to overturn it is to have error, and there is the fact that it is not the predominant element of that neighborhood, but they do exist. one thing that is very similar with the pennsylvania thing is that if you ride by their tonight and it is not a split lot and we allowed it to be a split lot, you would not know the difference. another consideration would be the fact that a large buildi

president goh: -- director goldstein: thank you. miss? >> thank you. i would like to make a correction in my brief. the date should have been submitted on january 4, 2011, not january 20, 2010, and the application number should be -- i need to quit using the copy function on my computer. basically, this case is really very simple. there has been 3 permits that have been issued to the permit d. -- to the permitee. there is a foundation upgrade permit that was submitted on december 9, 2010, and that was also issued on the same day. then, the third permit is a structural upgrade permit, which was submitted on january 4, 2011, and that was issued sometime in february. work began under these issued foundation upgrade permits and the structural upgrade permits. as i stated in my brief, unfortunately, those permits that were submitted did not correctly identify the scope of work of what is the existing building and what was the new construction that should have been covered under the site permit, and that portion of the work should not have been approved by t

president goh: i am troubled by the square footage issue.i was at the last hearing, and i still am, perhaps i am more trouble now we have the measure met and we have changed the name of the title of the corridor being changed. the most troubling to me is getting a hold of the department figures required the sunshine request. i think in order to have open process and have people feel heard, we need to be supplying -- >> thank you. if you could call the roll, please? >> on the motion from the vice- president to deny the appeal and a pulled the person on the basis that complies with the code, commissioner fung -- [roll call vote] thank you. the vote is 3-1. this permit is upheld on that basis. >> thank you. call items 9a, b, and c. three appeals, all filed by sina tarassoly and maida taylor. subject properties at 207, los palmos 3 permits to erect three- story single-family houses. one with 1240 square feet, one with 1303, 1 with 1304 square feet. we will start with the appellants. you have seven minutes per a. >> i would want to thank the boar

president goh: could you put the other picture back up and i will repeat my question? what is the lot coverage of the smaller of the two lots? >> the current coverage on this lot which is closest to the street -- we have not calculated it. it is close to 100%, with the exception of an area in between the two houses where the parking space was about 20 years ago. president goh: the way it is configured now, it appears the smaller, 264 mullen avenue, could not be developed at all because it would be considered non-conforming. go ahead and finish your rebuttal. >> this lot, you could still develop up. on this lot, it is a one-story building. develop further to the rear, you could certainly add stories to it. as far as the question about nonconformity, adding those additional stories would not be increasing the degree of nonconformity. you are allowed to go up within the height limit. >> thank you. >> thank you. review of the subject project against the requirements for h-1 and the special use project. the requirements require that once you calculate the maximum permitted

joining us is president goh. commissioner chris fung will be absent. patricia will provide legal advice this evening. i am the executive director. we will have cases before the board. we have sanchez here, the zoning administrator. tom is the senior building inspector, and dr. johnson is representing the environmental health division. at this time, if you would not mind going over the meeting guidelines and conducting a swearing in process. >> the board requests you turn off all phones and beepers. please carry out conversations in a hallway. respondents each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for about those. it -- 4 rebuttals. members will have three minutes each to address the board and no reliable -- no rebuttals. members of the public who wish to speak on a particular item for us but not required to submit a business cards when you come -- are asked but not required to submit a business card when you come up. we also welcome suggestions. there are survey forms on the left of the podium as well. if you have questions about

president goh: no. >> the vote is 3-22 to deny jurisdiction. >> we will call item no. 5 which is 11-036. this is for the property and building 146 on treasury island, and it is an appeal of an extension of a tobacco product sales and establishment permit non march, 2011. now this is in regards to case fd-011-17, and we will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> i am the attorney. the request is for the 25-day extension for the sale of tobacco items. this store was in treasure island. it was opened in 2008, and prior to that, it was on the island. the appellant has had his license for 26 years. he has never suffered one citation, which speaks volumes for his commitment. he did on one occasion half and an employee -- have and employees of some cigarettes to an undercover police officer -- an employee sell some cigarette to an undercover police officer. i have represented this family for 21 years. this is pro bono. they cannot afford a presentation. two families subsist in the store. the household are the principal employees. they have spent many hours selling items out smal

kendall goh will be absent. at the control is the board's assistant. i am cynthia goldstein. you wilscott sanches is here. the building inspector is here and dr. johnson is here representing the board of health. if you can go over the guidelines and conduct the swearing-in process. >> the board requests you turn off all funds, beepers, and pages of that will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentations are as follows. each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for a bottle. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven - oare-minute period. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to the lectern. speaker cards and pans are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium as well. if you ha

te a rin urante a i lybeehi leofff wi g yt cse wit noguitwa doge wt iou goh nkis a deibnd sle pon st f iafis thto tthtois d e trrt tero. 'mo eacc hach dmarots i k cinoio erfi. serly g it prr tre vity souen iatnou t s nia a w roubrte li feait wekebo- ar w htwzerv ba ciehelith thliepred goe. es h t t . t otpaf t mee al ypnt lfhe cait dro tho s n t weotere i otsif tos thheissy k leth evy shis ntthom wbeerng e idadseat y arif y dri es o cna ic oton st, hive ndf otuto goe ni pt rd cie tfoou th whi lof wiawherot ti >>onin wer's ,0r 00rore maa dreat d heay ths t, iha towihesif ba tel aos potlhe tca sun wcr t erm st >>haot th ki am sd ts eru ly o bldt'er igr thrid hi rtarec s t a ad 'v h a mvee,ouowa mae -acae i thakniit rain wser beedtoe men syhi rinan umes es. hihahe gto neefs deow eiupr t li anonehe ein cy ng arth io >> mjure t instdepmin e womoat t ic pioof st an pfu nia lehaane wnt. e eisweo ka ga chwh stdwot p mierndd a inu re fe f tioslife kf onrarkha d ecisergi ann. isosilte ominraio prs. dththth one fubo mo aytr os chwoarfo iout thut yo ti um kef viis py tal. hcoenha enyore a tie so

it is to allow president goh to participate in the vote. up on that motion -- [roll-call vote] thank you, the vote is 4-0, this matter is continued until august 17. thank you. >> thank you. move on to item number 6, appeal number 11-073, irene acosta against the department of building inspection, subject property 20 walter street, appealing the imposition of penalty for construction work done without a permit. and we will start with the appellant. hold on one minute, please. you will have seven minutes, as soon as the clark sets the timer. >> good evening. i am here to ask for a reduction of the work on this notice of violation. i had replaced windows so they could match the neighborhood without a permit. simply because when my dad was here last year, he had said we could change the windows when he died. a friend of mine in santa cruz owns a glass business, and he was asking if he could change the windows. i was like, i am not sure, but because my father passed away, since i was taking money out of my retirement plan because i am unemployed