one would be 38 inches by 25 feet. it is located in our zoning district which would permit three dwelling units per lot. when the application was first presented to our department and staff presented it to me, my reaction was very negative. i do have concerns about a lot size subdivisions. one this board overturned in the summer, but in taking into account the application asked to provide additional information, and when we found this really building had been removed in order to accommodate the widening of the freeway, and to me that now established

circumstances necessary. i had concerns because there is not a widespread pattern of lots. there are only four, but i felt a fact of we had the state's taking action of moving the building to this location, it was non-conforming, the doing the subdivision was appropriate, and variants could be granted, so i found that compelling. we did get concerns from neighbors expressing concern of the buildings may be expanded, so i took that into consideration and appreciated those concerns, and we did have a condition that prohibits expansion of the building. i believe this is a fair

decision, and they are adequate to protect the community. i think the conditions adequately protects those concerns. briefly on the subdivision issue and the question of condominium conversion, right now they would be subject to the requirements. on the second what they would still be subject to requirements unless each of the unit is owner occupied. now is is owner-occupied you are exempt from the process. i understand concern about rent- controlled, but i see maybe it is less of a concern. gooit is my understanding rent control would be in effect. i felt conditions were adequate to address those.

that is my presentation. i will answer any questions the board may have. >> how many parking spots are available in each of the buildings? >> i believe there are two. >> do not do that, unless you are asked to address. >> there are two in the front building which require front parking in the building. there is no parking in the back. it is an existing condition. have there been three parking spaces in the front and for the two units, they would require the parking variance, because we would assume one of those would be provided for the building in the rear, and there would be of parking variants. >> i do not understand why you would not need a parking variance, because you would be

dividing it and creating what is now an existing non-complying end of the building a. -- in the building. >> it is currently not complying, and it will still be, so there is no change. the variant would have been required hide their been parking required. have there been three parking spaces provided in the front, we would assume two were for the front and one is for the rear. separating that would have triggered a parking variance for the rear building. >> i understood your argument. >> part a talks about the fact you cannot have physical

expansion in the molding area. would that include fences? would that be barred gunma? -- be barred? >> it would be allowed. it would allow a sense of to 10 feet in height on the property lines. >> the property is a very small building. the units would be very small. you have any idea of the size of? >> i do not have the square footage. i can look at that. >> were these and buildings always there?

>> i would need to do additional research to confirm that. >> is there any public comment? you have three minutes. the tracks i did not have any rebuttal except splitting the lot into two pieces. all of these are going to be the same, so they can hold the property without any problem at

all. there is no hardship created. this is what condo conversions are all about. they try to make it difficult if they care and. -- if they can. they want to protect old housing stock. old housing stock is so close -- is supposed to protect rentals. if they want to legalize the pro that, but they added a new one, and that cuts it in half.

they even talked about appropriate property values, so they are saying is worth less. that is what the zoning administrator said. i know about condo conversions, because i have done one, and i know you can put in a phone line and pay the electric bill, and you are an owner and then apply to the lottery, and you wait a while if you can afford that. it does eliminate the old housing stock the city has rules to protect. we want to protect standard size and what practices -- standard

size lot practices. i know they have the power, but i think they should reflect the planning code more. >> the issue has been raised about whether or not this project is going forward. >> yes, they came to one of our meetings. one time they did nothey caughts setting up for the meeting. they tried to talk to me for a while, and i said, i do not want to talk euayou. the only correspondence i had was for the planning department your good we were against this. >> the answer is yes? >> the executive committee. >> when it went before this

committee, was the appellant invited to address the issue? >> no. >> thank you. >> actually splitting the loss makes housing more affordable, more accessible to people looking for small rentals or a starter home. it does not make any physical problems worse. to answer the question about the size, both rear unanimouits aret 500 square feet. they are very small. i think that is all i have unless the commission has any questions. g>> i guess it was not quite clear, but it is two stories in the rear and to stories in

front? >> that is correct. >> the front unit, which is a little larger, house of parkinge smaller? >> it is two units, two floors over the garage. it is a slight of slope, so the garage may qualify as the basement. >> what about the reader? >> it is two nearly identical units. >> mr. sanchez. >> just one point to address the question about the history of the building, it appears when they were out of previous location it was a single family, and the permit was to move the property to the reader. when they got their cfc in

1950, it shows two flat. it appears the second unit was added later based on the record. >> the frog was always two units? >> as far as i can tell. the property -- the lot and was always two units? >> as far as i can tell. >> i actually agree with the appellant in this case. i think there are several requirements and were not met. i do not see any hardships.

there are five of the monroe, and the fact there is not a widespread pattern of smaller lots, the only smaller lots nbwe see are oddly shaped but not necessarily the tiny losts the subdivision would create. i see parking as a problem. i did not agree with the explanation 7 and non-complying in the rear would be it sufficient or desirable outcome. those are my comments for now. >> i am a little bit in between. let me explain why. we have had two cases like this in the last two years.

each had a slightly larger unit in one lot and a small unit on the other a lot. both have significant departures for lot size, and iun financing of for your unix -- financing four units, and i concur that given the size of the units, they are probably more affordable than the larger units, which have some fairly large buildings, given the fact there is still a multiplier that applies in volume -- applies value.

the question that makes me sway in between is while studying the fact the building was moved through a state action and the fact that it is difficult to finance is that the rear property has no parking. when we had these other cases, and i am trying to decide whether i want to be consistent or not, the one i voted for also have rear parking. the front building was massive, so in my opinion it was over- untitled. give me another moment.

>> i appreciate the comments. gooi am slightly torn in my feelings, and the reasons being part of both challenges, and planning looked carefully at the situation, and given the constraints going forward, it does bother me there is no parking, but i think issue the house got moved there as well, someone in voluntarily is also an important factor, so that is where my leanings are at this

point. >> i am of a firm mind on this one. is it legitimate to open this up? i think it is extraordinary the building had been moved to this lot when it was legal to do so. i think this means that standard, so it was legal. when i look at this, this is a different point of view. is it a hardship? i felt like absolutely there was a hard shove, and the idea you would dismiss these factors, there are differential rules, so therefore, it is perfectly reasonable, and i would make the same point if one were to drive

by tomorrow, you would not know the difference. it is not going to have any effect whatsoever on neighborhood character or those types of issues. it is hard to keep track on what the regulations are currently. we talked about requirements for loans. if this were to be built today, i do not know if i would know what though parking requirements would be. it seems like it is a moving requirement. it didfar this property was froe transit lines and all of that. i would assume it is not bad. that does not bother me.

i feel like there is no demonstration of abuse or error on the part of the zoning administrator. i intend to uphold this variance. >> i have come to a conclusion sure i. what has swayed me at this point is the fact that this configuration, and this amount of building on this particular lot was not the specific actions of this property owner. contrary to the other one, i am prepared to support the variants.

>> are you willing to move it? >> commissioner fung, is that on the basis of no error? >> that is correct. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to deny the appeal on the basis there was no error by the zoning administrator. president garcia: aye. vice president hwang: aye. commissioner goh: no. >> the granting of this variance is up held.

vice president hwang: we will move on to item number 12. francis mcdonald vs department of building inspection. the property at 340 spuruce street. permit to alter a building. application number 201130 four zero. we will begin with the appellant. >> good evening, my name is francis mcdonald. >> if you would pull the microphone closer. >> week, the tenants, on this building -- we, the tenants, of this building have been

penalized when they hire unqualified contractors who do work beyond the scope of a permit when i do request to permit. as they did in the case of -- construction to read it was not a certified contractor at the time they began their work. they did corps' work. by the end of their work they did get to the certification needed. when they started, and they were not abatement certified. i'm trying to show you a pattern. the plans you see in front of you are misrepresented of of the structure as it exists today.

because of this misrepresentation, and neighbors will lose their chance to weigh in on the construction. it seems obvious to the tenants that the intended goal of the owners and their attorney and property manager is to even to tenants so they can rid the building of leaseholders and long-term renters and turned it into condominiums or whatever they're going to do with it. they have tried to prove that i do not live there but the court of san francisco ruled in my favor as the qualified tenants. it was the tenants who first called the city to note the violations in the first place. when their calls for unanswered by the owner, we suffer from the harassment that their attorney has been able to spin out of the

notice of the violation. so, too, are unsanitary conditions. what is to stop the owners and their attorney from beginning a staircase project and then abandoning it after demolition? like they did to the bathroom. they went in without a permit and they tore out the whole bathroom. she still does not have a bathroom. what if there is a fire? they have shown they applied to do things and have not done a proper job of it. i do not want to be running out the back door and have no steps. the property management lacks is a good track record of fixing

things. the prime example is the bathroom. fixing a week turned into a demolition puree-- leak turned a demolition. they act as if the fire escape is nothing. we're going to fix the stairs. who is to say they will do a good job? they have not done a good job of much else. i ask the board to grant the appeal and deny the permit until the work required to be done is completed without the threat of eviction or anything. that is eight months without a bathroom. i think it is reasonable. representation of the construction, to the city of san francisco, i think that would be

proper. showing ask that we are doing things in good faith. i do not have a problem or the -- with the owner or the attorney. i would like things to get done in a proper manner. i feel bad when people are living without the bathroom because they got it prepared to fix a leak and they demolished a bathroom. that is what my appeal is for. and i am sorry i am shaking a little bit. i do not speak in public. that's it. >> to you have any photos? >> yes, i do. i have photos of the back of the building. this is where the steps are. they are concealed.

it is not really -- let's see if i can get it. this is the building from the back. the steps need to be done but i do not think the contractor they have hired is the one that should be doing it. i think they have not shall -- shown contractors who have finished on time. they wanted her to use a port- a-potty. >> can we see that photograph again? >> that is the back of the building. >> looking toward -- >> this is from another yard looking up toward the staircase.

the staircases go like this. a zig-zag. these windows have been blown out for years. the back of the building is representative of the things they would let go picking and that the shape of the building. nobody brought it to the city's attention. they would have left it like this. this is presidio heights. the back of the building looks like this. a fire or the neighbors, i would not want to look at this with a $2 million house. i would like them -- my appeal to be granted until they can prove they are in good faith to make the building better. one thing would be putting in that bathroom.

vice president hwang: how long have you lived there? >> i moved there earlier this year. last year, 2011. vice president hwang: is the condition of urine and is in disrepair? >> my unit is fine. it is not the greatest unit. if a fixture bathroom, i would probably spend my money and fix my bathroom. i have a place i go to on the weekends. i like the building. i just think that -- you are the only people who cannot deny or force him to give her a bathroom and live like a human being. i