they have withdrawn the request for a parking variance, and the variance decision that is before the commission was based on the decision of may 3, 2010, submitted by the project sponsor, showing parking in front of the building, accessed off de haro street. that is the product before you. this is the project and concept that was approved by the planning commission last october. the building permit is planning -- is with the planning department because it is not new for -- because it cannot move forward until this variances reviewed. the full scope of the development is something that would be able to be appealed that a future date. with regards to the variants that was applied for in 1989, granted in part in 1993, this is a completely new project. it was not contemplated in the 1993 variance decision. even if it was the same product, the law allows the application to be made again. iyou can, and more than one year later, and that is conceivably could get a different outcome in get a different decision -- and get a different decision. i think the appellant would tell you it is set in

it is should not be in the variance. they've not establish the need for one, but if there is going to be something, they don't need to spaces. they took out their broadcast -- they took out their garage, and they have more living space. vice president goh: i have a question about that drawing. could you put that back up, please? will you show me on the drawing where the rear yard setback should be? i think you have it written there, but it is hard for me to read. >> it is hard for me to read. vice president goh: we can see it on the overhead if you point to it. >> i have asked that the gentlemen who did a drawing, if that is all right with the commissioner, to have him come. vice president goh: i think so, because he is pointing to a line. >> he is also an architect. if he could show as the variance. >> the old building, the existing building is in the rear yard, but it has the whole front. so now the new building is taking up the front as well as the rear. >> mr. will? >> good evening. i will share my time with the pres

soto would have an opportunity, possibility of a variance hearing. there would be opportunity there. even though he was not officially noticed, he was effectively noticed in that the plans that this couple used in order to redo this house, he has been privy to them, he has seen them, so i personally would be against granting jurisdiction. ]q see anything jurisdiction would provide that we're not going to discuss at the item 10 hearing. president peterson: i tend to agree with that, but have the feeling i might be missing something. i feel like we should kick the decision on this hearing request until after we hear the other case. i also don't feel well and may go home early, in which case we will shut down this hearing because we need a quorum. i should put on the record, too, i used to sit on the northwest of for all heights design review board. i sat on that board for years before i was appointed to this board. i did not hear this case, and my history on that board will not affect my decision on this case. president peterson: thank you, vice presid

now it is in limbo and needs of variances. the project got its over-the- counter permit without 311 notification of variances, dying community notification and appeal rights. -- denying that community notification and appeal rights. not notifying anyone of the adjacent owners and giving us erroneous plans. after a while, we figured this out, as a week appealed the revision permits, allowing the extension of rebuilding. the first stop work order ordered the revision permits, and the second was the underlying alteration permits. then there were asked to work on the old footprint, including the u2%m correct in -- second revised correction. this left the partial permit with problems, two floors with no bathrooms, and one without egress. we rejected and planning suggest we filed this jurisdiction. these plans need serious review before proceeding and hopefully an umbrella permit. testimonials about character or uses of school letterhead cannot change codes. in other appropriate values exist for owners to seek redress. without notif

. -- variance. the question is neither fin impact of this building upon the open space, which i find to be minimal, whether it is as proposed or required by the setback. the real question is whether the front setback justifies the rear yard variants, because it allows views by the adjacent home. i am not a great fan of variances purely for the basis of one particular neighbor. i think the variants has to be based on not just some of the language of the site criteria, because some of those are very difficult or subjective, but i find that this variants does not satisfy the five criteria i. vice president goh: i agree with commissioner fung. just put my thoughts on the record, i don't see the hardship, i see the hardship of their own making. we deny variances and have also been interested in the case law and cannot be hardship created by the owner. i find residents do not enjoy this proper configuration, building on 100-foot lots. i also find it is detrimental to the public welfare, and the height of

that is what they received the variance for last year. vice president goh: what is the planning department's view of what will happen to this diminutive cottage in the city if by your analysis that would be allowed to become hyper- modern, in your language, more lovable building. >> there is a formula to it. we cannot have a cookie cutter application. we looked at each one individually. if the cottage is a historic resource, we would have a different approach to our review. i feel like we did review this appropriately and apply the appropriate requirements. vice president goh: who were the commissioners who spoke belowdecks the former commissioners, i mean, who spoke during public comment? >> one of the people listed in the variance decision letter -- it is not a recent commission member. commissioner fung: i think he left the commission 19 years ago. >> the full list is available in exhibit a of the appellative brief at the bottom. it lists all the speakers who were at the hearing. there were 10 or 15 people who spoke in support of the p

code had already been amended to allow the rear yard addition to be built only with issuance of a variance. the appellants said the castillos at the rear yard additions specifically after october, 1978. why? after that date was the time that a building at this death cannot occupy with the building does today, which is all but the rear 17.5 feet of the property. may i see the castillo letter? ironically, the former owners letter that the pilots provided to you and is now on the overhead -- that the appellants provided to you and is now on the overhead, supports our case. i draw attention to what is in yellow. it says, "my father built all around the backside and that under. he dug it out for us, around 1970. then there was a fire, no. 8 next door burned." this time line is supported by the only building permit that is on record at the building department the entire 100 years of the property, which we will see now which was dated october 26, 1970, to cure the fire damage. this, we think, is the reason you can make a finding tonight that this was built prior to the time building this would ha

total variance would be adjusted as the expenditure is $2.8 million. in comparison to the large surface that we saw before. with this in mind, we can see where we are, financially, and the agency presents the final slide of the representation. quarterly results for the agency in the first quarter is $5.8 million in deficits. but must emphasize that this only represents 2% of the agency's total budget. we are already taking measures to improve the citation process , transit services is working on a plan of action and once it is finalized, mr. haley will be able to comment on the course of action. in addition, the team and staff are looking for ways to curtail expenditures and equipment. we will continue to monitor over time with new safety initiatives in place and are hoping to see fewer claims in the future. this concludes my presentation. i will be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> one area that would be helpful for the board to understand is a detail of the technical adjustments made to the budget between when the board adopted a betwe

no. 3 is submission of a variance application to legalize the encouragement. and all encroachments above grade shelley documented to be fully maintained on the southern property >> and the questions? >> no. >> average expense line above grade? >> building code does not require permits to be issued for deaths and patio of debt of less than 30 inches above the grave. therefore, we would consider such items to be a simple matter. -- civil matter. let for? the requirement level? -- >> at the requirement level? >> id is not 30 inches above grade and would therefore not require a building permit. >> for them to put a deck and 30 inches, it would not be enforceable. that pending into a non compliance -- back ending into non compliance could not be for them to find there are arrayed? >> it with their foreign of our new building permit. less >> when we heard this before one year ago part of the new design. >> currently adapted and submitted in the documents. for this side in the rear, a as was said? in chile with several buildings in the keating construction that goes