the variance is upheld. thank you. >> our last item, item number 11, [reading application] >> before we hear from the appellant. i know mr.murphy and enjoyed lunch with him. and have had not any conversation about the case before us and no way am i prejudice and unable to be fair in this case. >> i hope he'll invite you for lunch again. >> not any time soon. >> the project sounds just beautiful and i'm all for him building up. but i have the issues mainly for me is the light, going to be a lot of light missing from my home when it goes up and just the -- i got a lot of my windows and he is going to come out three feet which he has proposed to do and i can just see it being quite clause trove bilk since i have a couple small decks off a couple floors there. and it took me so long to realize it because it just didn't hit home until the time was quite close. and i got a fairly old home as well and i just think -- i would not have purchased this home if it had been, you know so close to another home because of t

any proposed changes will require a new variance. in summary, you have seen this slide before, but i want to emphasize. there is an existing lot line that separates the bathroom and front door of my house from the rest of my property. by changing the lot line this way, we bring the lots closer to conformance with the city code, which would afford both of us the rights to our structures and a backyard, and will match the living conditions more closely. there is absolutely no evidence that the zoning administrator abused his discretion in this case. the owners of 260-264 mullen avenue respectfully request the board up hold the zoning administrator pit decision with no new conditions. -- the arizona administrator' -- the zoning administrator's decision with no new conditions. vice president garcia: i assume the zoning administrator will talk about what is legally required with parking. the curb cuts -- would someone get a ticket if they parked there? >> they are not actually painted red. next to the curb cuts, they are painted red. thre

the binellis are not opposed to the variance. in all of the history of their work with the neighbors in trying to reach a compromise, they have been strictly asking for this solid railing for some privacy. so again briefly, they're just asking you to take a d.r. and go back and look at the original variance drawings and look at the original design and go back and approve that. thank you. president olague: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes for rebuttal. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm ashton richards, jerry's architect. and what i would like to address arrow one, which would be sitting on the landing, standing on the landing of jerry's proposed project facing the neighbors facade. and the point i would like to make is at that site angle, when you're looking at is the inside frame of the windows and their backyard. essentially two black strips of glass. it's very difficult to see into their -- into their -- into their house. but -- but you can. and that's because the railing is at waist height. the material, th

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 was completed in 2000. that maximizes the development potential of the lot as one lot. had there been a subdivision at that time, that front structure would have been smaller. i think that is the key issue. it was built to the proper zoning for the proper restrictions for the property of 25 by 107 feet lot. additionally, this is not dissimilar to another case that the board of appeals heard recently last year, v-10-004, 1120 19th street, a.k.a. 398 pennsylvania. the board upheld the previous owner administrator's denial, similar in the existing older buildi

we will be taking the variance -- taking a dr where there is no variance. this is about converting an industrial building with that is the purpose of the variants. instead of 10, it is 25 feet. >> that is not my motion. my motion is 12 and it is said to be 12 by 10. i think 12 by 10 is the number we are coming up with. we are eliminating the awning. that is what i am prepared to do on this motion. if i get a second, that's fine. but that is my motion. >> there does not appear to be a second at this time. >> if there is no second, the motion dies. >> commissioner, you were up -- >> i was looking for some modification, but it has to be more than doing this little notch. i want to get back from the building edge. if that means a formal variants, that is more than that notch. it just needs to be a little bit more. i think that the notch is so atypical relative to the building form that it will look unattractive. >> we try to shy away from dialogue but in this case, we might need to have a conversational approach. so that we can reach some kind of conclusion. we

meeting and variance drawing that showed the railing as solid. we believed the issue with the rating had been settled. in december 2010, the city sent a site from the drawings. these drawings now noted glass railings but with the north base facing railings still showing opaque. here on the overhead is a copy of that drawing. the drawing shows the deck railing two different ways. the west railing is transparent and the north is opaque. that is why we thought we were getting a solid railing. on december 31, our neighbor notified us his plan to have transtransparent glass on the north railing even though that was not what's depicted on either of the sets of drawings that we received from the city. since filing for the discretionary review, we have tried to get to a compromise solution with our neighbor. at his request, we even provided alternative railing design suggestions. both of these plans keep a portion of the railing frosted, closest to our home, to lilt views down and into our home. our neighbor has rejected both compromised designs. in conc

these will be, if the variants -- variance is approved, the smallest lots in the area. the other contention is the off street parking space will be removed. in fact, the parking space has been compromised already by the creation of the fence to show where the new property line would be. until three years ago, that fence did not exist. that driveway was still marked by a curb cut, by double opening doors wide enough to permit a car, and was able to permit off street parking. the property line proposed in the variance would no longer allow that because the fence has been built in the middle of that parking space. in addition, there was a serious flaw with the notification process in the neighborhood. 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 th

there are variances on lots of things. >> height is not variable. i was intrigued to hear the notion of an elevator. those are subject to somewhat different controls with respect to extension's above height limits. but in terms of the proposal before us in the letter of determination, this is a black and white issue. there is no discretion or opportunity to seek a variance are conditional use. vice president garcia: let us ride with the elevator a dip for a second. if it turned out they were allowed to do that, they would have to put on an elevator to go where they want to go. what else would be allowed? the windscreens would not be allowed? the botanical screening would not be allowed? the rails could be no higher than how high? >> in general terms, what the code allows on top of the noncompliance structure is a deck surface when built to the minimum necessary under the building code, along with rails that are as open or as low as required under the building code. with respect to a larger windscreen, under the planning code that is not permitted ab

nothing will change if the variances granted. when we applied for the lot split variants, we were told we needed to request a variance for open space and at the rear yard, but 13 years ago the planning and building department reviewed and approved a permit request to build the new warehouse with no comments regarding rear yard or open space, possibly because this lot had historically been designated as a legal but nonconforming lot. in any case, the decision about open space in the rear yard of this property was made at that time. at a different decision then could have affected the amount of open space in the rear yard, but nothing in today's proceeding will affect either of those issues in any way. having said that, we could do a better job of meeting the open space requirement then they give us credit for. he did not factor in the large 180 square foot back off the kitchen of my home, which uc and this photo and the other photo of from above. he also discounted the courtyard at lorraine's house, which you will also see in the

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 context. it is a unique area. we have a specific planning code. we have small homes and small lots and narrow streets. the typical lot size where i live is 25 by 70. that is 1750 square feet, and that is the size of most floor plans in other neighborhoods, so we already have small lots, and we have many substandard sell- offs -- lots in the neighborhood, so the map i want

these will be, if the variants -- variance is approved, the smallest lots in the area. the other contention is the off

the variance, case number 2008 .0689d was granted on august 132010. on february 10, 2011, the residential design team reviewed the project in response to the january 14, 2011 request for general review. commissioners, the e.i.t. believes the request for review does not demonstrate the project containinged creates any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and such is warranted a abbreviated discretionary review. the various plans indicate the same material will be used for the windows and railings as indicated and they indicate the use for the same material as indicated in the building permit application and the height does not appear to have any unusual effect on the privacy of any terlt spaces irrespective of material selection. this project would not be referred to the commission if this project does not contain or create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. staff recommendation is to know take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. i would act to add since delivery of the case report to you, staff received two let

there is run of all part of the variance goes beyond three hundred volts three hundred fifty kilo because we've according to them at least they can reach the whole of the. gestalt of the country which is something israelis know these missiles originated in syria they found their way to levanon and then they were fired by his beloved onto the true state back in two thousand and six this museum was set up about a decade ago so that the i.d.f. could display weapons ammunition and items it had captured from israel's enemies on the ground and almost administrate a lebanese palestinian and his belief legs flying on the israeli border the message is clear here no country's immune to what happens to its neighbor and it won't take much to two individuals precariously peace into all out war policy r.t. israel. just one up do you want our top story this hour in greece the parliament

no variances were required for any of the work propose. after the commission approved it, we approved the subdivision. the subdivision was appealed to the board of supervisors. the board of supervisors unanimously upheld the subdivision. building permit was subsequently issued an appeal to the board of appeals. it was scheduled at the beginning of january. a few days prior to the appeal, the ceqa appeal was filed and heard by the board of supervisors in march. that was unanimously upheld by the board of supervisors. so we went to the hearing last night at the board of appeals, and they unanimously upheld the commission's decision, said that is where we are with that project. i think most of the appeal options are exhausted at this point, although they can request a re-hearing within five days. the final item is a very it's decision that i heard earlier this year. it was a lot line adjustment, not a subdivision. it is a unique situation where we had two single-family dwellings, and two small lots, and they actually straddle the property lin

in addition to analyzing the access, we also covered variance. this is the access variant, with the only primary difference that you'd be able to leave the m.o.b. onto geary.

, as you consider the request for a discretionary review, the zoning administrator will hear the variance request. >> good afternoon, president olague. this is conversion of a two story over basement parking garage to a three story over basement seven unit residential project including 17 parking spaces and one commercial unit. the new third floor will be set back from the front and the russell street side of the property to protect the historic integrity of the building. the addition would have a rear yard of only 10 feet or 25 feet are required, necessitating the request for a variance. the building is considered an historic resource, and the property is within nc-140-x districts. the commission considered this request in march and continued the case to allow the sponsor to meet with neighbors and consider revisions to the plan to better protect light and air to an adjacent building to explore parking options and to provide more information regarding the parking in the past in the building. the sponsor has met with the neighbors and has revived the project as follows -- modified the new

it really is to acknowledge that there could be variance in the future your economic assumptions with the financial plan. again, as the controller's office relate, the revenue projections that we relate -- for example, if we had better than expected revenue -- really does alter and change what our five-year financial outlook looks like. the proposed amendment would really speak to that and said that there could be differences in what we actually see in the future based on what our actual economic situation turns out to be. it is really making sure that there is variability in the economy and what really comes to be and also making sure that we are controlling and capturing potential big changes in the plan. those are the amendments that i would like to propose. supervisor chiu: thank you. in addition to what our chair just propose, and number of other amendments came out of our conversation last week. we have circulated a couple of these to you. the three additional amendments i would like to make would be to insert at the end of the strategy is to restore fiscal stability is section,

the variances are granted, and we will schedule findings to be adopted at a later time. >> there are no further items to come before the board. 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 h

i would like to point out that no variances were sought. it was determined of variants was not required, and that was withdrawn. the board of supervisors has found the project lies with the planning code, and we think these are modest developments of the turn we like to see an would respectfully request the board denied the appeal. i am open for any questions. >> we do not have anything at alsl on the process. >> i apologize. we specifically submitted to live aboard -- to the board, and i do not know how that happened. >> i was of explaining the question i had to ask had to do with the board up held. >> thought was categorically exempt. the appeal but was -- was that it was inadequate. goo>> could you say what you sad about the height limit? >> it is a little quirk of the planning code. is actually a 35-foot height limit. you can increase the height of the building. good >> what is the height of this one? >> 22 feet. >> is there any public comment on this item? please step forward. >> can i get a showing of hands of how many people wish to

they could still apply for a variance, but ultimately, the matter would have to come back to the sword to change any conditions. good -- to this board to change any conditions. >> hair is the matter submitted. >> i will start. i know we are often opposed to variants, but i think there is a striking reason to grant it. i know one of the findings was extraordinary circumstances she modified, but i think the ownership is essentially the american dream, and we would be a entangling these folks forever. i think we have heard from members of the public that this could fit within the neighborhood, so i would very much support this application for the very and superior -- for the variants. >> i have a couple of disclosures. one is that i have known him for many years and did hear from him before the case, and he asked, can i talk to you? i said, no, and so he wrote a letter we all received in our pocket. the other thing is i am a neighbor. i am not close to the propertiey, and the third is tht i sat on the review board before i was appointed to this commission, and it was a board that did not

are experiencing in the current year of under 1%, so, yes, i agree that there is some significant variance. you see a quick bounce back, and another cycle down in the years after. these are the treasurer's assumptions. because of the revenue source we are applying, the rates are small, it does not have a material effect on the bottom- line numbers, but it is a good point, and it is a curious trend. supervisor kim: the other question i had was undermanned and concessions, why there is such a drop. it is pretty steady. then, just for that one year, it is -13.9%. >> that is up on some further research after your question last time -- there is a specific revenue source coming into the recreation and park department that is scheduled to expire. it is a prepayment of some parking garage spaces, so once the one-time benefit expires, it causes a one-time loss which is then more steady growth going forward. supervisor chu: thank you. >> we are back to it to answer some of the questions that the board have had, and, of course, happy to take any additional questions you may have. supervisor chu: why

in 2007, a few months later, the variance was granted, and a permit was issued to do the work but was required end to the elias -- that was required to legalize the unit. to complete the work of was contemplated in the 2006 permit -- i misspoke. in november, a new permit was filed to remove the unit and also to expand new building. what i think is important to note is the initial action we understand to be motivated out of concern by the tenant, who would be evicted, and our our action stems from that as well. our action stems from the decision was made in 2006. aside from the outcome of this does comply with planning code. were it not for the history, we would have issued a neighborhood notice and would have gone on to a approved a permit. we will continue to defer to your judgment. we understand the circumstances which led to your 2006 action may no longer be presidenent. if the is the case, we would not find that objectionable at all. we do not have anything else to say, but we would be available to answer any questions. >> do they have any time clauses related to implementation fo

we have submitted formal magic 7 formal design variance is. we have that approved, so we know we're building the station in the right place. we have agreed on the layout spirit we have agreed on the link with rail concourse layouts, and we are now in a state where we can bid out the below ground work with confidence that we will meet the requirements of both operators. we then start a strategy of what we should do over the next three years. that strategy, which was really important that we continue the interface with and -- caltrain and high-speed rail, that we provide all the information needed to put it to the train box being built at the early stage now where we go in to bid next year so that we do not ever have what happens on some projects where the systems and the work comes in to late and you have already put the concrete in, and you are looking for places to finalize work. we will go through with parson'' contract in practices, whether we actually do design build, or whether we do some early practices to move utilities out of the way,

there are variances were there are town homes adjacent to memorize building and these flex zones will straddle that. a building up to 2 minutes 40 feet could be constructed. -- at a deep -- a building up to 240 feet could be constructed. that would preserve the use -- the views