i would argue that rh-2 has greater development potential than rh-1. i would argue that if we advertised it incorrectly as rh- 1, that would be a concern. in this case, they cannot do two units. if people had concerns about development potential, that would have been triggered more by the rh-2. there was quite an extensive amount of community out reached done by all parties concerned. we receive letters in support and opposition to the project from many in the neighborhood. i believe there was notice of the hearing. we had notice of the variance hearing and this appeal hearing. we can rest assured that notification was properly done. i think that summarizes most of the issues i wanted to raise. the condition that is their -- by the appellant's own admission, he is not opposed to the project. he wants a more restrictive condition, more restrictive than i think is appropriate. the condition we have in place, i think, is very effective. it would allow future construction, but only with a variance. that is a tremendous burden to place on the property owner

the notification as posted said the property was rh-2. that is incorrect. it is rh-1. this was corrected less than four days before the hearing, and no re-mailing occurred to the neighborhood that this was in fact an rh-1 property. finally, i am not opposed entirely to allowing the owners of this land to have rights to maintain and keep up their houses. but to imagine that they could build a 35 foot tall structure on a less than 1,100 foot lot is completely odious. the opportunity that has been given them has been to build in the backyard of another lot, which should have been an open space offering several buildings. i urge you to accept this appeal and if not deny out right the variance, place further restrictions on the ability of the property owners to enlarge their building size. thank you. >> thank you. ms. kryc. >> i am going to use the overhead. commissioners, thank you for your time. i am kelly kryc. i am speaking on behalf of the owners of the prort

vernal does not allow averaging four rh-2 and rh-3, so it is more restrictive. had theythe bungalow is non-com, but it is also illegal use. >> that is correct. >> therefore, there were no planning entitlements outside the project review done by your department. >> that is true. have there been a subdivision and a development, it would have required a very inferior -- have required its. goo>> are there any nsrs on the lot? >> i am not aware of any. >> i am confused by the answer you gave. it seems the question was is the process as simple or difficult as the various processes they are now going through? i am understanding there is a lottery that is considerably longer. >> no. i am estimating in terms of cost and time, but in terms of the actual process -- this is not subject to a lottery, because it is exempt from the lottery. i believe they have requirements to be eligible to retire all they have to do is apply. there is no waiting list for this property. the various process is a much more cumbersome process to go through in that you have to meet the findings of

not appropriate for an acceptably large lot that intrudes halfway down russell street, which is an rh-2 zone. therefore, the lot never had any planning sense applied to it. and the result of that inadequate planning is a conflict of use. existing park transit use versus residential use. the use changed to residential violates urban design principles. as the commission knows, it can take d.r. for extraordinary circumstances. and according to planning, those circumstances occur as follows -- one, where the commonplace application or adopted design standards do not enhance or conserve neighborhood character. in this case, the existing building use and mask conflict with the surrounding residential and n.c. area. the project creates an oversized out of character residential project by reusing the building for a new residential use. the units described as family units are luxury units. and will be sold at a market rate unaffordable to average san francisco families. two, extraordinary circumstances occur where the design standards do not balance the right to develop the property with the i

vehicle in the final clearing stages, more are heading to the tul areaqo starting8 just9(%=hb, ruction rhon, enjoypxt that bridge, another bridge, san mateo, moves as smoothly. no problems for winds this morning, calm drive, as christina said, enjoy it for the morning, heading out the door, a7!çylling thousands of t priuses. we will tellhy. weudquplus, ca most unusual triathalons. >>> unusual the well, >>> welcome back, everyone. live look outside this from the south bay this morning, a little break in the which will athlete taking the in water,wr3 check in with -jy 6bil here to compete this week with the 31escape from alcatrazfrancisco,6 dod2cisco. forf úl. .lmg will run y back to marina green, where they will suit 98-út-mile run that we a nice little climb up the sand steps of baker beach. sherry sanders, last year was your first year, only 15 then, 16 now, obviously, last year, you were the youngest at leath, this year, one of the youngest. why such a young age and how do you balance this with school and jus weekendjbt,ol when i sequoiai( lot and enjoy spending >> just weekends? >> usu

it is an rh-1 district. in the future, they may be able to subdivide the lot. but that would be through subdivision and demolition of the building. that would have to go through the section 317 process for loss of a dwelling unit. i am not aware of plans for future development of the property at the corner. to clarify, i am available for any questions. vice president garcia: i am confused. it seems mr. gladstone said there would be two new curb cuts, three houses, three garages. >> there is actually a net gain. there would be three of street parking spaces with three curb cuts required. that would provide two off- street parking spaces each. the current plan would probably result in removal of one off- street parking space. we are looking at a net gain in each case of one additional parking space. vice president garcia: thank you. president goh: i am sorry. your time has expired. if commissioners have questions for you, they can call you up again. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. president goh: comments, commissioners? commissioner fung: i would offer

. >> the california and pacific campuses are zoned rh-2, so institutional uses are permitted, but the other principal use is the two-family dwelling. commissioner sugaya: ok, cool. president olague: ok. >> if i may also just thank staff. especially elisabeth. i think the staff presentation was well organized and coordinated and answered a lot of questions. it was very easy to understand. i want to thank you for your work. also, all the departments for being here, especially the department of public health, thank you, director. i thanked one of the good thing. i think one of the good things about these large projects is we get to collaborate with people who are from completely different fields and different perspectives. i think it is very helpful for us to learn other people's lines of business when we're doing these projects. i think you all for your work and help on this. president olague: ok. secretary avery: thank you. that concludes tonight's public informational session on cpmc. planning commissioners, you still have the general public comment. president olague: is there any gen

dheis rh a leenop itrow aargo onthulthe pan a pssal yo wve a umnd pbl ivr. soinivyobe aw mg tk b nge raee e' pydum >>hiha ts a viy ece pde r de d eafoos w wa t donedo exivunnsnc ns ciee luhi enwiheryf w bionan fod osri w w ii ingl wce it aoo a amadwh ais to dann ttt yeofif >> wnkse's toy eranwa odg unat in a fof ar ct wae,iopaa, pslol at. in tnvon mind raun episineynd s i dy ur. ha: haan e diof ohe coue if'vd ke het ea ( am yo h hinin coe laps d or tan oats. psitus. ♪ ( -c5- mni y y s ro cllt bethdscot op ths'stlld yl 's enevda alrome.ermestrope tidt ur orn onas m, ja ar threllsi os. f waro foreer ppsmbuss opll canipoed semuti om sosnerk ciths lise rentmasshe ons inn im assbo t w ghta anchaeur 0ro e9 bthnbysebe 12 wdr0,oo by e1 ahe inby2. w l00oo fgst he at wth prenid tisin b thd uror tnd twa l d thak pi gte' mawhwn o fo araio spblrurto af gnm neayincho ilt a ithuratll anrt ha phofthnsn. d tpe ot d hawn muarit pic le. s vehe an gomend sitrc iclloities rcie an leclg tan. poon eks ea eytbeed tgh ve, thwhnt to at ef ghta refr aldandioe id bhe an cotu. iarau or

ean lads eyged rh a ng p sn. bir tthneofe 'si nin.safgst esose tion cr a aciou ledaatmes rlnte te fd. thril w th uln arofst r'rlntra entidzaea c, r lse join tlen lit esthly ckka'sho. b edero g t, in l 40aqndun t 80 thtataed-i iof cal. n ri cliwall aarbog. e. e rt s wor fhenc fntti dopt. e a nitias ancean rse liar ol t ricro rv otcoielltrte keuno uor sodonli ureseoutos thtwysthdoic cmpn. e unntt pr ilblmoh $ noradto a re onlleetoweow plr oe a ss alafo jossnes e. tely tos thd, don duive nt c a,0 hedain7 ts cl a68 thtiinotrt otpa aod aconeray tsa fd asom dpsm heri r c pwale o hreeghh ti fd. thewcun r wcrwhle een ls edayld rrtfeff sinve ns sedn r n in wesdanp 10 pe--ua oe -- e edflhe >>m ed o m f h iinit essolihedl isngfit. thshog. i neat amis ngdo ynoouinur ho, lso'sd ofvo d ca we ghr i > nin:, e mope b fd itat t cca rea iceer ce spoly s. e dis re o mvee snmen ad e isexedpe ndr aytihe coet18y n htet a sitoo thme kekybyrn. v sese he chilwn lvi kek wrs terllhe essa u smy e firurato s thweo rito leans. ra c re rr errukeanbe sovidfeifey tamr

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 filed to allow the construction of the single- family dwelling at the front of the property, and that w

if i may approach the witness with a series of photographs marked rf, re, rg, rh, ri, rl, rk and rj for identification? >> you may. >> -- i think we talked about this before. >> it would -- george, myself or casey. it was mostly myself or george. >> who bought caylee's clothing? >> casey and i and then relatives and friends. i mean, typical. she got a lot of gifts and -- but primarily casey and i did. >> okay. did you do a lot of shopping at target? >> yes, ma'am. >> you recognize that the circo brand on a lot of caylee's clothing is a target store brand. correct? >> yes. absolutely. >> okay. can you take a look at those photographs that have been handed to you and tell me if you recognize any of the clothing in the photographs? if there is something that you don't recognize, segregate that. >> object this time. they don't show clothing. they show tags. >> tags on clothing. >> objection overruled. she's just looking at them for now. she's not testifying to them. >> do you recognize everything in all of those photographs? >> the only one i'm not certain of is -- is re. i'm not sure if th

>> the e-mails come up in almost ef rh every case we have. >> reporter: 81% of divorce lawyers reported an increase of evidence reported from networking sites. >> before we'd hire a private investigator. now people post their own dirt on these sites. >> reporter: we're not just talking about the people they share publicly. divorce lawyers get access to all the messages and deleted items that they'd prefer to keep secret. >> since we're doing it electronically we're leaving a trail of everything we've done. >> reporter: you're practically sending a postcard anybody could read. >> we might find out about an affair through a knock on the door but now we have a basic running transcript of the entire relationship online. >> reporter: when it comes to cheating 2.0 paste is just part of the picture. there are also text messages like the one nast famously came back to haunt tiger woods. >> if anything i think you have to be more disciplined when you're on the internet because the intent is i'm alone with my computer, i can do whatever i want but it's the one media where there's a record of ever

we gave tax breaks to the rh and large corporations. the end result was a our manufacturing sector has ended up in china, and median family income going down by $2,500. under the clinton era, and i am not here to say that those years were golden, we raised taxes on the wealthy. what happened during that era? we created 22 million jobs. the contrast between raising taxes and lowering taxes -- people can make their decisions. host: on our line for democrats, and deborah, in cincinnati, ohio. caller: i want democrats to stop calling the a tax break for the rich, and, an entitlement for the lower income people. would you please refer to it as an entitlement for the rich for the subsidies and all the tax breaks that they get. guest: i am not quite sure i understand what you mean, but what i can say is that the real story here in washington that the media does not write about enough is the incredible power of the big money interests, whether it is wall street, the energy companies, or the military industrial complex. when people criticize us