mr. scott sanchez regarding a letter to uphold an initial notice of violation sent by the planning department signed by about 15 people and several of them made chents on it. i didn't go out and try to solicit a lot of letters. i thought what i had was fairly adequate and there was a lot of support many this direction as well. there's also comments by buck passmore taken into account by the neighborhood association of liberty hill and they passed a resolution saying that if at all possible, when someone is doing a project, of a certain magnitude on the ground floor or first floor of a building, that it's not a matter of convenience but it's also of what's good for the neighborhood and what's good for the neighborhood is not to have the trash enclosures out on the street because there's a lot of issues that have come up about them. i don't know that i can speak any more to the continuance issue but the d.b.i. is investigating these issues and they do have -- they do have authority to look into them and a lot of them do have planning code issues. for instance, i drew this plan from the 1963 pla

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department, and in response to the information, the property across the street -- it does not appear those were subdivided recently. those buildings were built previously. the building in front was built in 1930, both prior to the lot size requirements. the building on the north side of the lot was built between 188 the aunt 1907. that is the information i found -- 1880 and 1907. they have done a good job of differentiating this, and also a stablishing there is neighborhood support for this. the department cannot just make a decision based on the fact there is neighborhood support. we have to look at the impact of the general plan, and i think issue is the similarity between the two, and that is a fair result large building developed. -- that is there was a large building developed. have there been a subdivision, that would have resulted in a smaller building. had the front building been smaller, had it been closer to being a code-compliant in terms of the rear yard,

mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. the planning issues here are relatively straightforward. subject property is located within a pdr-r zoning district, which is one of our highest intensity industrial zoning districts, 65-foot height limit. the subject property is full-lot coverage and that is permitted within this zoning district. these issues to come up. the conflict between existing established uses, especially if they are of a non industrial character, and new industrial uses coming in. in this case, it is maybe not so much about the type of use that is going in, but rather the building and property line issue, which as the board knows is not something the department generally involves itself in when it comes to conflicts about property lines. i think it is relatively straightforward from the planning point of view. there was adequate notice, to all occupants within three qaddafi, for the environmental review. -- to all occupants within 300 feet. there would have done a building permit application filed at the time

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department staff. i think the presentation given by the project sponsor has been very thorough. i am lucky to be joined this evening by the planner who handled this. he is one of our neighborhood planners with excellent knowledge of this project. he will be able to get into detail with any question. on february 11, they certified the environmental impact report. at this hearing on the 10th, the planning commission also unanimously approved the office allocation for the project, the exceptions, and the variants granted for the project -- variance granted for the project. that has five findings which must be met and much show a hardship, versus the exception. that would consider a variety of criteria set back in the planning code. i would like to highlight two of the exceptions. i would like to talk a little bit about the goals. the tower separation is in order to assure there can be distinguished form. this is a corner lot. on two sides, it does have of this tower separation. one side has a courtyard. i

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 lot size, even though it is a corner lot. it still requires a variance. into the findings, the vernal heights special use district does have some smaller than normal lots, but they are still generally 25 by 80 feet. the subject lot as it exists is generally larger than what we would typically find it in vernal heights. however, the property is excessively developed. in 1998, there was a building permit

mr. pulte walked out of the room with was may 11, the no change. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. this has been an extremely frustrating enforcement case for the planning department. prior to the hearing, i spoke with the enforcement planner who had been handling this, and she wondered if they would show up because they have not showed up, they have not been doing the things they need to be doing in order to come into compliance. there have been very non responsive. actually, we have directed them -- there is an outstanding penalty of $50,000. that may begin within the orbit of the history. 2000, there was a planning commission action that authorized activity at the subject property. it 2009, received a complaint. from 2009 to

mr. pulte walked out of the room with was may 11, the no change. >> thank you, scott sanchez, pl

mr. pulte walked out of the room with was may 11, the no change. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. this has been an extremely frustrating enforcement case for the planning department. prior to the hearing, i spoke with the enforcement planner who had been handling this, and she wondered if they would show up because they have not showed up, they have not been doing the things they need to be doing in order to come into compliance. there have been very non responsive. actually, we have directed them -- there is an outstanding penalty of $50,000. that may begin within the orbit of the history. 2000, there was a planning commission action that authorized activity at the subject property. it 2009, received a complaint. from 2009 to 2010, we work with the project sponsor which dealt with noise emanating from the front seating area, the smoking area. we had sent the notice of violation and penalty to them in may of 2010. it became effective on may 24, 2010. they failed to file an appeal on the notice of violation public. we sent reminders to them in june and july, received no meaningful