>> the plans that were submitted -- the plans that were submitted at the joint hearing june of 2009 had the parking at the rear of the building. the plants are revised plans that have not parking at the rear but have converted what was the garage to that space and have relocated the garage to the front of the property. commissioner fung: we do not have that. the plans that we have have no parking. vice president goh: could i jump in? commissioner fung: i am not finished yet. let me try to track this through. >> the project sponsor can address that issue. they submitted plans directly to this board. >> albert costa, architect and agent for the owners. at the commission hearing, it was six-one approved, but they did ask us in terms of taking the garage away -- they did ask us that we would work with staff and sculpt and kind of gives it a little more -- commissioner fung: i just want to know what documents i am looking at first. i do not want to know the reasons why get. the documents that we have -- was their drawings submitted for the following to reflect the design review? >> the plan>

the original permit was submitted october 21, 2009. vice president goh: does that original permit safe kitchens? i am having a hard time reading it. >> we have copies of the permit itself. you can look at that. >> should we call public comment, or the want to have a minute to look at those? vice president goh: go ahead and call public comment. >> is there any public comment on this item? step forward. >> my name is mary russell. my husband and i are new residents of russian hill and originally from southern california. we have been coming as tourists to san francisco for a long time. we have enjoyed many parts of this city. the historical views are part of that. a couple of weeks ago, we went back to visit one of our favorite sites. when it arrived, we were surprised to discover that the views had been obstructed. i am not exactly clear

seeing none, unless you have further questions, the matter is submitted. commissioner garcia: i have a question for mr. sanchez and a question for mr. cornfield -- kornfield. private these are not protected. public views are. i am sure that was taken into consideration when the permit was reviewed by planning. >> under section 1 01 0.1, which was derived from prop them, dues from public rights of way would not be impeded. i am not aware of any blocking of the public view. this is the first i have heard of it. i have not had any opportunity to investigate this claim or to review that. commissioner garcia: i will ask the same question for mr. kornfield. it seems like most of the issues raised by dr. kravitz have to do with nonconformance to a permit and not why he did not file in time, except for the notice issue, which has been addressed. if there questor fort jurisdiction 0-- requestor for jurisdiction did not do that, there are other options than the board of appeals, correct? >> the department of building inspection could verify that it is what on the bu

you can submit a three-page brief in response to the documents submitted. commissioner fung: if you would selectively choose any other year, i will be satisfied with that. i think there is some statistical validity to that approach. >> call that motion, commissioners? >> the motion is to continue this matter and the january 12, 2011. this will allow time to allow the parties to submit additional information pursuant -- mta is due two thursdays prior. commissioner goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. th >>e vote -- >> the vote is 5-0. president peterson: why don't of>> , in item nine. -- calling item number nine. the property is at 2037-2039 jefferson street. this is appealing the nile -- this is appealing the denial of a permit to alter a building. >> good evening, scott sanchez, planning department. there was an application to merge two dwelling units. the second unit was added in the early 1980's the certificate of completion was in 1984, approximately. the project sponsor is looking to remove the second un

seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: well, commissioners, i thought we were very specific what we needed at this meeting and the information was not provided. the situation is the following right now. if you look at the site permits, it is almost exactly the same as the 311. it shows that the things that were mentioned in the various letters -- it was also very similar to the set that was initially approved by the homeowner's association. two major issues there. one was whether the rear of the building was a retaining wall and therefore had no windows and therefore there was no grading beyond that point up to the next street. secondly, as mr. sanchez indicated, the sides of the garage. what we asked for last time was also some idea of the proposed typography of the grading the permit holder wanted to do and to establish their for an elevation to this building that then would establish the height of the building with respect to the site. that was not provided to us. we have two choices. one is to revoke

you can submit a three-page brief in response to the documents submitted. commissioner fung: if you would selectively choose any other year, i will be satisfied with that. i think there is some statistical validity to that approach. >> call that motion, commissioners? >> the motion is to continue this matter and the january 12, 2011. this will allow time to allow the parties to submit additional information pursuant -- mta is due two thursdays prior. commissioner goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. th >>e vote -- >> the vote is 5-0. president peterson: why don't we take a short break?

that has been submitted to date. there is no factual review of the soundness of the existing units or the seismic units of the towers or the transit that would solve the transit problems out will which is dealing with the intersections. without those types of solutions and effort to really address these issues, we are inadvertently and directly affecting low and middle of course renters in the city and county of san francisco and a lot of people that are students, disabled seniors and families. here are a couple of images of parkmerced taken recently. i don't know if you have the overhead on or maybe not. there you go. i'll show you some of the images of parkmerced as an open space. it far exceeds any images that being shown by the actual developer or the architect. the original architect stated initially his intent to do the towers. he thought the towers were the best things to deal with initially. he should have stuck to his first instinct. that is the solution that would most address some of the problems we have c

basically, i will be submitting 150 word statements. believe me, i've taken the library commission and to the arbitration board and a couple of other boards to sunshine and this is very clear for those enumerated in the charter. they are required to put that in. the interesting thing is that they all put on their agendas and know your rights under sunshine. hong it person is entitled to do something and they will fight you about it. i will put it in next time and see if it gets into the minutes and if it does not, we will go to sunshine about that. every single citizen of this city should have the opportunity to exercise his or her constitutional rights and each one of you took an oath of office to defend and protect the constitution of the nine states and of california which guarantees citizens the right to express themselves and if you don't put in anything which reflects what citizens have to say, we can make sure that -- >> you have the minutes. is there any other public comment? commissioners, i will call the motion to approve the

commissioner fung: the permit holder should submit it in writing. the appellant should have the opportunity to review it at least once. >> that means those three items that are requested would be due 2 below thursday's prior to the hearing date. you would have to submit a response one thursday prior to the hearing date. the page limit? commissioner fung: i think they should be able to take care of everything within a couple of pages. >> would that be true for these three items? commissioner fung: if they do and acoustical study, there can be an exhibit. >> three stages -- three pages of argument each. you can have additional pages on the acoustical study. if you have additional questions, you can call me tomorrow. >> the motion is from commissioner fung to continue this matter to december, 2010 to allow time for the permit holder to review all permit issues and acoustical issues. additional briefing is allowed by the permit holder 2 below thursday's prior, the appellant one thursday prior. three pages per party. vice president goh: aye. commissioner

that was submitted in the june of this year. that was submitted formally with the building a vacation. we did hold a hearing on revised plans that have the garage in front. at the various hearing, in order to put this in front, they did not meet the variance. this was a code-complying. i can understand the confusion on the part of the project sponsor. they are providing plans the do have the correct to rear yard. that does not changed between the plants that you see now and the plans you were seeing in june. it is not about parking in the front. there would have to have the parking in the front. it is an approved part of the variance. >> we need to see the same drawings that you saw when you made your decision. >> i completely agree. >> we could continue this. with and also provide support of the decision memo. we could provide those materials to the board. >> i am in agreement that what is before us is this particular variance. i do not know what may be done in the future. >> has the council scene those grants you saw with a ga

we have a draft that we think is about ready to submit to the iwboard.sult of this, but we do have the nucleus of a draft]o almost ready to submit to the board. giÑthe facilities maintenance ad revenue enhancement -- we have certainly submitted requests=÷ o the capital plan each year. we have been successful in we were able to do a major + were just horrible, when we got the market back under real estate three and a half ye ago. we were able to secure money from the capital plan. bathrooms, which turned out very well. 45the roof repair worksw is unr way right now. wekt have got folks out there right now doing more comprehensive roof repair there, so we have tried to(iñ see capil funds. we have to be just within the o general services agency for this request that move forward, and once general÷oñ services agency submits all their requests, we have to compete with all general fund departments for the3rv(s@&i and limited fund salaries that are available. we are happy to be, moe aggressive, to be more comprehensive in putting together a wish list. ÷ -- i'

i am submitting an in memoriam for muffy myer. she was born in san francisco to parents who came here from portland, oregon. she has been a lifelong resident of san francisco and is survived by her siblings and their families, her beloved nephew alan ryan, her brother in law, and her nephew, alex novelli. she leaves behind a world of friends and families who grieve the loss of a friend. her life will always be defined by the fierce loyalty to the one she loved. she had a profound wisdom and provided advice to every level of government. a tireless desire to help those in need. she had a profound capacity for friendship most profoundly by her love for her nephew. her contributions are numerous. don cecil worked with her for a number of years. she had a great devotion to her community and was very involved with the zen hospice project. she was a past member of the concordia club, a member of congregation emanu-el, and a political consultant. a memorial service is taking place and many will miss her. i also submit an in memoriam for n

i will be submitting -- drawing -- showing you how that's being done. the closure of mason street does add more park land and playground to the area, but that should not be counted in any true addition to the playground because it can be closed in any design scheme. the softball fields will be eliminated in the master plan. and that's because the fence will be moved 41 feet eastward. that's also shown in the plan. the public process since 2008 really hasn't shown property lines and where original lines are so when you look at a green site plan it does look very appealing. when i first saw that site plan in 2008, my initial reaction was positive. but the more you look at it, the more you will see that it contradicts many parts of the san francisco general plan. president miguel: thank you. >> thank you. >> will you use that one? >> actually i want to look at the time. thanks. i'm sue. i am disappointed in the e.i.r. and i will tell you why. but first i want to tell you what the present library commission said about a 50-year mistake in locating the libra

>> if you wish to submit speaker currents, please submit them to your left. if you wish to submit copies of materials to members of the committee, please submit an extra copy for the file. supervisor chiu: thank you. please call item no. 1. >> hearing on san francisco's public safety conditions, including a discussion of citywide crime levels and crime levels by police district station and/or neighborhood. the hearing shall include a presentation from the mayor's office of criminal justice and/or the san francisco police department, which shall provide all information relevant to the discussion. supervisor chiu: this is our regular item regarding statistics and crime. capt., good to see you. >> good afternoon. during this presentation, i want to present the crime stats. we are preparing an extraction period from august to september. homicides were down from six to 3. rapes were down from 11 to 10. robbery's were even, 236. aggravated assaults were up from 263 to 271. property crimes were down from four heart of 34 to 231. auto thefts, 350 to 317. arsons were

was their drawings submitted for the following to reflect the design review? >> the plan>> the plans are notu now. there was no parking on the plans that the project sponsor had submitted. they do not have the co-required parking. -- code-required parking. >> those became the basis. >> that is correct. >> we do not have that. >> we also did the have the discretionary comments and analysis. >> i apologize that those materials and should have been submitted. >> your variance is based upon that review and what ever was decided. >> we can have the discretionary view documented and brought to this board. >> this represented what? >> what the project sponsor had submitted represent what they would like to have fifth and they pursued a parking variance. -- if they pursued a parking variance. >> this is what they would like that this point in time? >> i believe so. >> these documents say they are a side permit. >> beside permit was from april, 2008. that is what the planning commission had acted on nastier. -- last year. >> we did not submit to permits for a building

if you sit -- submit copies of materials to the committee, please submit an extra profit for the file. items recommended out of the committee will be considered by the board of supervisors tuesday of next week unless another date is indicated. supervisor chu: thank you. item one. >> item 1, a hearing to consider the issuance of a type 42 on sale beer and wine license to christy bergman for the secret wine shop at 1097 howard st. # 209 will serve the convenience of the people of the city and county of san francisco. >> good morning, supervisors. i am here on the secret wine shop at 1097 howard st.. propose operations -- sunday clothes, saturday through friday, 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.. if approved, the premises will operated shop was on sale and of sale premises of wine. applicant premises is located in a high-crime area appeared applicant premises is located in a low concentration area. there are no records of protests. conditions -- sales, service, and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. each day of the week. no pers

they submitted records for the years 2006-2009. on base value, it appears they had met the full time driver requirements. because of numerous discrepancies that we received, we found that the documentation was basically unreliable. and the way that it was submitted was questionable. it cannot be relied upon. a lot of this is in my brief, and i am not going to go through every single thing, but give you the finer points and the primary issues. there are -- he was driving while it was operational. let me give a quick explanation. when you have a medallion. that is the medallion you put in the car. you drive those two shifts a day. what is happening, someone would be driving the vehicle while he is driving another vehicle. this is an illegal practice as far as taxi services are concerned because it is one medallion to a car. basically, two vehicles are operating under the same medallion. what you also saw in my brief, without going into too much detail, some numbers matched exactly. and the following day, it was the exact same day. th

>> when we submitted the revisions, it was actually submitted for a different purpose. we were of the understanding that we needed to make a change but we in fact did not need to make the change. we included a couple of changes. but we have been through the request and it was in fact when the late request was submitted that we discovered that it was still in the system at the planning department. if i might speak now, the reason why we did not feel it was necessary because we did not actually built what is billed on the with strong permit. you can see a top floor but this was not built. all that is their is the furniture that covers from the elements. these are all appliances can -- that can be moved and all we're doing is protecting them from the elements. >> there is a grill and a trash chute and there appears to be a refrigerator. you're saying that this is not built? >> there is a grill there that is movable, there are other pieces there that are completely movable. the trash chute, you can pick it up and move it. >> this appears to be a glass wall. that is in this

subsequently, this variance application was submitted in may 2008. it went out for a neighborhood notification. it was heard before the planning commission on october 15, 2009. the planning commission did approve it with a six-one vote. commissioner olague was opposed. there was a condition that parking not be at the rear of the building. that was the planning commission action. after that hearing -- at that hearing, the zoning administrator granted the variance that is before you today. after that hearing, they did submit revisions that included a garage at the front of the property. this was the subject of a variance hearing in june. during this time, after the notification went out and before the hearing was held, we took a second and third look at the plants and realized it had not complied -- it was determined that a variance was not required. at this hearing in june, the project sponsor and one or two members of the public attended. we announced that after reviewing the plans that no variance from the front setback requirements were required fo

. >> i believe the first speaker cards submitted was mr. jensen. >> before i offer comments, i submit a letter noting some problems with the proposed resolution. ñ entertain a revised resolution based on our comments or anything else, it would be helpful for us to know what you are going to vote on before i make comments. i might like it. i might not. i would like to know what you are going to vote on first. commissioner crowley: before we doi that, i am going to entertain anyone else would like to make public comments. seeing and hearing none -- >> i am josh cooperman. i live downstream from the doam of the creek. i am the ratepayer to the commission. kery!móan account supervisor ine hillsborough district and serve on the advisory committee. i am a resident and and protected by the dam. i am here generally today not to alert you to some of the issues i have been dealing with since january of 2007 regarding new seismic studies of the dam, before spending up to $4 billion into the system. it is kind of like getting a second doctor's opinion.