. >> very rare. >> i like to think that the note of variances that have been applied for have gone down dramatically and it could be a sign of the economy or other factors >> i have a couple of questions. i am trying to remember the first one. were you personally involved. do you have personal knowledge for the original plan verses what is now and the one that was before you know subject to the 311 notice? and to what extent has it changed at all from that point. >> it was issued on the same day of the variance hearing and what was noticed under the 311 should be essentially the same as what i have reviewed at the first hearing under the variance. >> the application itself was for the building permit was submitted in i think, april or no sorry, february or march of last year and our residential design team reviewed it and gave the comments back on it and i don't know to what extent the changes were made. and after the first application was made, i mean, i see that there was a notice of supplying the requirements that we sent on this in april, an

at that time we accepted those changes and that was part of the variance decision. and i will also just want to show, this diagram here. and it does come up. >> i do want to stress the fact that any of other place, or many other places on the block, this building depth would not be appropriate as i think that demonstrated by the appellants, and in this situation, however, we located between the two of the deeper buildings on the lot. what we have done is we have tried to respond directly to the specific site constraints and the extension, or the deepist extension of the building matches up with the deeper buildings of the north and the shallower part of our building matches up to the shallower building to the south. and another point that i wanted to just respond to as part of the appellant's discussion was the appropriateness of a 2-unit building on this site. we went to great length to minimize the size of the building, of the project. both units are what we consider family-sized units so the two-bedroom units which is supported by the general plan. and they are de

would not meet the requirements because there is no open space variance and they are satisfying the open space for the planning code and the lower unit by access for the rear yard and the upper unit for the roof deck and i think that it is sensitively designed, it is just a hatch and so you have the transparent railing and then you have the roof deck and then a hatch that is a minimum at least impact on the neighbors there. and as noted the lot size is 25-70. that is standard relatively standard for the vernal heights and that is true. but for, the lots throughout the city, the standard dimensions are 25 by 100 feet that you would find for the rh2 zoning district. and so here, the subject project that the building permit application that is on file went through the neighborhood notification under section 311, notices sent out in the beginning of december and expired on january 24th and it goes to the owners and occupants within 150 feet of the project and so if someone was not listed as the proper owner of the property, they should have received it if the

the appeal was considered in february and upheld the variance decision. the dr requester is alice lamb of posting street which is directly west of the subject property. her concerns are that the project is not code compliant hence the variances, the rear decks awe butler firewall which could be a fire hazard and she has concerns about potential initial side from the decks. the original design team looked at the project and mind it does not contain imply exceptional circumstances. and the blank east wall and thus would have no effects on their privacy. it's consistent with the guidelines. the department recommends that the commission not take dr and approve the project >> thank you. so the dr requester you can q represent alicia lamb >> no. >> no. so does that mean we should move on >> is there anyone from the public who wants to speak from the public. >> i'm sorry because i had no idea about this case and i shouldn't say anything not to say anything i shouldn't say so i 0 would like to be silence. >> seeing none, let's have the project manager speak. >> i'

and trying to work with him and his problems with the variances that we will be able to get into the neighborhood in general. and there is a meeting set up and there is a lot of people on the 600 block that were against this and against the variances being granted. and finding one, let's see, the main thing about this, is that there is undue hardship with the property that they need these variances to be able to build the structure as it is designed. and their first statement a, and we said that it is not true, and on the 600 block, there are 36 units on 18 of the exact same size plots that managed to fit in two units and meeting the rh2 requirement and not meeting the variances and here is a house or an apartment that sold recently and there are four units on the two lots and it is a 600 square foot one bedroom unit but that is the size of the unit that meets the code in rh 2 in the special use district of vernal heights. >> speaking about non-complying neighboring buildings, my building, 637 and 633 these are very old structures mine. >> i am going to stop you because you are talki

and then just on the, i guess that one point is that there are many ways of looking at variances and we can look at 12, 13, and 13, 14, recommended and we can look at the changes between the first and second readings and we can look at the assumptions back in january. and what we tried to do is give you information and problem managed to confuse you and we tried to give you information that i am hoping that future, we will include much more about variances between what the current year and 13, 14, and the budget year, and currently we see that only in those object codes and we see the increased and that is where we get the where is that coming from. and then we see like now, we have made the presumption that we could make that and that the big increase in the things to which the commissioner fewer referred us and a certificate salary and a classified salary and benefits was about the column and restoration of furlough days but it does not say that in the budget document and it does not say that these are the variance and here is where they come from. and as i said before, i do. but i

to split off the lot and at the time it had required a variance for the subdivision and that bas heard by the zoning administrator at the time mr. pass moore who is here this evening and i understand at the time he was inclined to deny the variance application and that application was withdrawn and there were no development proposals on the site until 2009 when this building permit application was submit and this seeks to have a five story, four unit building of the subject property and also to subdivide it however they have broken out the lot in this case does not trigger a variance and it triggered a variance for the frontage but they have widened it at the front so it will no longer trigger a variance requirement. >> the department reviewed this and it was presentsed with the history of development here, and also concerns about the pattern of development and the concerns that were expressed in 98 about this being a required open space. and we could not find any evidence of it being required or conditioned to be maintained as open space. in the

on the items 5 b which is a variance b closing the public hearing would be to grant the variance. commissioners that will put you under item matters. item 8 for draft of minutes for 2013. >> any public comment on draft minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner border? >> i have a couple of changes to the draft and move to approve the amended minutes. >> second. >> on the motion to adopt the draft. commissioner antonini, borden, wu, sugaya: that motion passes unanimously 5-0 and places you under item 9. commission comments and questions. >> commissioner moore? >> on july 1st, i received an e-mail which you all received from the housing community partnership that they are opening a home for use and transition at age youth. that was i think extremely important on 5th and, butts it's with the commission. i was pleased to hear more about that particular project. >> commissioner antonini? >> a few items, first of all i think we are all very concerned with the situation regarding city college and i think it's, i would like to hear some, a report from staff if possib

. >> on the variance close the public hearing as well as commissioner sugaya's concerns about the project, i would be inclined to grant your requested variance and there is no way to have any commercial lease orthctionv property without granting a variance. with no subsidy letter appealable of the board of appeals within 10 days of the issuance of the [speaker not understood]. contact mr. beale. thank you. >> commissioners, next on your calendar is item 14 for case no. 2012.1356c - 2100 market street, request for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, president fong, and members of the commission. [speaker not understood] planning department staff. before you is a request for conditional use authorization to establish a formula retail restaurant with an outdoor activity area doing business as chipotle 2100 market street, on the corner of market and church street and within the upper market and neighborhood transit district. the subject property contains the commercial building has been vacant since 2011 and previously occupied by a business -- a restaurant doing business at hom

forgot to activate it so for the protection of their employees as well as the patrons to have the variance camera that would be activated and a sensors to run 24 hours. >> so the video surveillance they had reported on a tape or d v r. >> i don't see the system but he had mentioned that it's manually activated and they had forgotten to turn it on. >> is it still the same system. >> he actually wanted to continue the hearing tonight but you guys weren't meeting until september. >> not till august. >> he thought if he got approval from you guys he could still operate not to impact the business and a okay and the crime for the area our part one crimes largest and burglary and as a result and a six months period over a half-mile radius from bay shore there was 53 thefts and 14 robberies and 3 assaults and one warrant arrest. on a bayshore it's an industrial area but behind it's residential and how do you think this business would impact those statistics. its been there for a long time is it help that that's opened >> yeah. in 6 month period there was only two incidents the robbery the night on

although the building is being raised by 6 foot 2 inches due to the ceiling heights the variance is so. we have 188 for capitalization were granted by administrator on february 27, 2012. the dr requesters proposal facts the light and air to this property. his penthouse light well has four windows within a stair and bathroom. it doesn't match the adjoining light well. the lack of matching light wells was overlooked you but the department accepts this modification. the dr folks are concerned about the post panels and roof access. the planning department is remedying that the planning department match the dr south light well, to adjust to 5 feet >> thank you. dr requester. >> good evening president fong and commissioners. this is my wife. i live at 2154 larkin street. i'd like to say thank you for your consideration of this discretionary review and i appreciate the help of the planning department. my wife and i have been renter and we moved into our home. the proposed project has us concerned that the increased height will adversely effect the light which is the primary reason we purified

structural about how the budget is presented or about descriptions, the narrative descriptions of the variances from year to year so that the people can understand them. >> these are questions about the priorities identified by the board and where is there revenue for the common planning time which the board discussed. what about the ethic studies and the cost that have and where is that budgeted? the kc or the high school exam and these are questions in this one and some others too related to the change in the ways, or the state revenue is budgeted and it does not come so much in the categorical streams which we like and but the question of what are we going to continue to do the things that we have previously done with that moneys and this questions about the student nutrition program. and which is why i pulled the items about the cost of the items and how that will be resolved and also we have topics for future discussion for longer discussions. so, one is so that the board and the public and the staff i guess could further understand and begin to change our thinking about the new funding sy

car wash encroaches up to 45 feet into the required rear yard and would require the approval of the variance. no work is proposed for the eight existing gasoline service bays and underground storage tanks, but it cannot be above will be relocated and provided signage. the proposed hours of operation will remain unchanged at 24 hours a day for the convenience store and a car wash will be open from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. the project is located at the southeast corner of 19th avenue and lincoln way within a mixed residential moderate zoning density district. both lincoln way and 19th avenue are major arterials that serve as cross town thoroughfareses whose primary function is to link districts within the city and to distribute traffic from and to the freeway. ~ these are routes of city-wide significance and varying capacity demanding -- depending on the travel demand for these specific direction and adjacent land uses. the subject property is 19,246 square feet and it is developed with a 23 34 square foot building that currently contains four service bays and a convenience store. the pr

to split off the lot and at the time it had required a variance for the subdivision and that

that will widen the variance and, therefore, increase the risk to the stock, so to answer the questionirectly. it will take in our view at least two to three quarters to where the company needs to establish another trend of reaccelerating the system in placement growth, throwing this was an outlier and not a trend and showing you procedural volume does not decline from current run rates. and it has been declining modestly, but with the system placement deviation to the downside, the concern is that procedure growth could actually be lower than what we're modeling, notwithstanding our lower numbers today. >> jason, how much of this do you think is the result of hospitals seeing some of the controversy and saying, whoa, we've got to step back and take a closer look at this? >> it's hard to tell is the honest answer but it probably has something to do with it at some hospitals. also the company mentioned macro economic issues. certainly hospitals are becoming more cost conscious. to the extent that there's capacity on existing robots, first they will want to eat into that capacity by doin

>> but it is also, i have never in all of these years, been in the situation where the legal lot that with no variances requested or anything, and a project addendum with that lot is no one code compliant. and the lot could still be. and the lot could be developed or subdivided. >> no i am talking about the existing lot now. >> and you indicate that you did not feel that it was if we built this addition on to the current lot, it would not be code compliant. so it is a new construction permit and so it is a new building and on the lot. and it is in our approval is predicated upon the subdivision that is shown on the application and so we are approving the permit. they need to perfect that with the department of public works and we have done this both ways. certainly it is cleaner and probably more straight forward to have the subdivision come first. and the permit on that and i can't speak for the project sponsor, i'm assuming that they are pursuing the permit first because the board would deny the permit here tonight they would presumably, you know if that is the end of the project for them they would