variances that would split it into two illegal lots is one of those. the boosters have no problem with areas for the existing areas of the property was is, which includes the duplex and makes a total of four units. the existing conditions of the property do not change. and we can resolve all irregularities for these existing conditions. the reason for the application is to maximize profit, which is not a problem or a bad day thin but you should know they are vacant. the split also sets of the property for being more easily converted into condos. these lots will be removed from rent-controlled. is this in the interest of the city's housing interested? if there is a problem, it may be because the properties are overpriced. these are basically a 20 foot lots. we do have odd lots, because the happens in all properties that are subdivided, but to go into a standard lot the does not conform to the code, because it does not provide a proper rearguard. -- rear yard. it is probably making it worse. to solve the problems in this property, a subdivision is not it

the proposed debt and still require eight rear yard variance -- their rear yard variance. the combined visible floor area of 200066 square feet requires an additional of street parking space. the proposal only requires one additional space. some in the department believes that the proposal fails to minimize adverse impacts on light and air and privacy for the adjacent property. the residential design guidelines recommend the setting back of the upper floors to properly articulate building mass. in addition, one of the purposes of the planning code is to provide adequate light, air, and crevices. -- privacy. we have seen this a combined total of five times. the result of the deliberations -- staff believes we could allow a reasonable rendition with overarching goals of respecting the prominent mid blocked open space pattern and preserving privacy, light, and air, as practiced throughout the city. specifically, the department proposes one of the following alternatives. if i can get the -- the first would be a 5 foot 7 inch southwest corner on the second floor of the building

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

there was a variance hearing as well as a notification for the variance hearing. that hearing occurred on february 23, prior to the section 312 notice having been issued. there were no members of the public that approach are hearing and expressed concerns about the various. i am not aware of any correspondence of anyone who expressed concerns about the project. ms. bryson did not indicate he intended to file a discretionary review. i did not ask specifically about that. i do not have information about what may have occurred during that time during the section 311 identification. . it is clear that notification was performed. in the variants decision letter was issued on may 6, 2011. there were no appeals on that. the building permit application was issued on june 1, 2011. that permit became final on june 16, 200011. there were several applications for the wireless facility. that is specific to the conditional use hearing, which was heard by the planning commission in the middle of september and that building permit application was issued on december 9. that is whe

i am inclined to grant the requested variances. thank you. >> commissioners, you are on item number 21. 1948 ocean avenue, requesting discretionary review. >> good evening president fong and members of the commission. before you is a request for discretionary review of the burma -- the building permit applications to establish an entertainment use to operate at a billiard hall with an accessory beverage store selling only non-chocolate beverages and will involve interior tenant improvements. this is within the ocean avenue commercial transit district. this is a revised proposal from the originally noticed project was rigid -- which was to establish another bar selling beer and wine. the site is a vacant one-story with a mezzanine. it contains 2600 square feet and has been vacant for two years. it was previously a senior center. it would be an independently owned and operated issa abbas met with hours of operation from 2:00 p.m.-2:00 a.m. seven days per week. and other entertainment news and hours of operation from 6:00- 2:00 a.m. a

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 thei

on the variance. president fong: noting there is no physical expansion of the building. there is a communicating opening between two existing buildings. there is no increase in this area. that would be all for that item. >> thank you. >> with your approval we will hear this next item regarding the budget and take a short break. >> thank you. commissioners, we will go to item number 12. this is the fiscal year 2012 to 2014 program budget. >> good afternoon. this is the first of several budget presentations for you for the coming of two fiscal years. as you may recall this is the first time the department will be preparing a two-year budget for fiscal years 2012 and 13 and 2013 and 2014. i wanted to give some preliminary comments and our finance minister -- manager will present the details of the budget. you have copies of the powerpoint. a couple of things. one of the highlights of those accomplishments of the current and recent fiscal year, to remind us all that while some of our work does have very extensive time periods, we have accomplished a lot in the last year. nam

there was an appeal on a variance decision letter i had granted at 995. that was upheld by the board of appeals. the interesting note about that -- there was a building at the rear of the lot that had been relocated from a property on vermont in order to accommodate the creation of the bayshore freeway. i said this was an extraordinary circumstance to grant the subdivision. there was also a jurisdiction request, and the person who requested it may be here to speak at public comment. the application was subject to section 312 about this, but she did not file d.r. during that period there was -- during that period. there was a question about the requirement to create mailing labels for the abutting properties. there is a question whether or not that is an appropriate requirement. i want to make the commission aware of that. that is all i have to report. >> the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday. prior to their mission, the arc committee did meet. the item of interest there was the boat house. the item had come before the commission prior. t

the project sponsor is also seeking a variance from providing an off street loading space. there has been public comment only in support of the project. the five letters are included in the ks report. the department recommends approval on the grounds it meets all requirements of the planning code and has demonstrated it has adhered to the good neighbor policies affecting 803.5. additionally, the enlargement of the use secures an active use within its neighborhood, and promotes arts and entertainment activities which serve the city and region. this concludes my presentation. i am available for any questions. thank you. president fong: project sponsor, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is aileen. i am here on behalf of dna lounge and a pizza parlor. before i get into the substance of this, i want to point out that we did have a meeting and only two folks attended. i believe one is in the audience. we did not get any letters of opposition. there was no outreach to dna staff, who are always available, because of the nature of their business. we will address what

the zoning administrator will hear a request for variance from the planning code section 145.14 funding requirement, because the project does not have a 14 foot height at a ground floor. the summit of the instructor will also consider relief from the rear yard -- the zoning in minister will also consider relief from the rear yard requirement. it is in the south park district and is immediately south of south park. the project sponsor and department have worked diligently over many months to reduce the number of inconsistencies with the planning code and on the over all mass and scale of the design. we believe this meets the requirements of section 303. it is crafted to meet the intent of the general plan. and it meets the criteria under section 317 for residential demolition. on this note, i would like to provide an amendment to the condition of approval number four. there will continue to work with department staff, producing a setback on the ground floor commercial space, and increasing its consistency with surrounding eligible historic district. i will shoot that amendment to you rig

the building for that all the variants -- that followed that variance. what is before us is not anything that relates to the discretionary review in process itself. the c.u. process for the wireless, which we have no heard you on, would have been better venues for the jurisdiction requester. the issue for me is in between -- between knowledge of the impending project at that time, there was an extremely long gap to the point where it took notice of construction starting to bring forth a jurisdiction request. have -- the appeal of the variance and the permit itself has aged tremendously. i am not prepared to accept jurisdiction at this point. vice president hwang: i am also inclined not to grant jurisdiction. the information provided by the zoning and mr. was useful for me to understand the communication to occupants in the building. i appreciate the clarification of what was going on with the two different permits. if the jurisdiction request your did learn of it in december and filed a jurisdiction request, i do not think that creates such a concern tha

and when you come back from over 40 items that have variances, down to two, of a courtyard that probably doubles in size, close to it, out you see what can be done without expanding the foot print. it is totally possible. it is an ideal example of how things should happen. and with that, i move to approve with conditions. commissioner borden: second. commissioner moore: the issue from the very beginning was really for us to gather focus on the standards of living ability when it comes to adaptive re- use. it was in that discussion that i think ideas came about which i can sometimes described to the commission in detail, but that is not the case right now. staff can do it as well as i can. but the developer, not you could always have an issue with the unit, but that is not under discussion today. as it is, i think it supporting the product for approval is in order. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: very well done. among other things that were brought up, improvements with the windows, but the elevation on jesse and stevenson makes it much more, i think, conte

the only alternatives to removing on street parking is to get a variance, which is required, so we arek because they were maximize for on street parking. az be adequate access for a emergency vehicles, and there could be soil movement after construction. we did consult with the fire department to ensure there was adequate access for emergency vehicles, and the fire department assured us they also have the right for parking red zones and other areas where they need extra room. additionally, the soil movement issue was covered by the geotechnical analysis, was not an issue either. the fourth issue was that the designs idid not meet the review board and design criteria, and there are also concerns that the project should be required to meet the findings of those interim controls. regarding the design, the design team did look that this several times. they made minor comments and work on them, and we also work with them on sculpting the rear. the project is completely in compliance with guidelines. the additional comments about the east slope, we felt those supplied were very minor or did

commissioner murphy: have you applied for a variance? >> no, we have not.g says to hold off on that. we are also willing to pay for dbi staff time. we do need this additional time. in order to get financing to get this project off the ground. commissioner murphy: it needs to be properly framed out, she did with plywood so that people cannot get for that. if that is done, it is up to staff. commissioner walker: our action would be to uphold this and give you four months to comply, to hold it in the n@ comply with staff. >> that would be a tremendous help to us. commissioner murphy: could we make it six months? commissioner walker: i would rather make it shorter. >> could we go five months? commissioner murphy: 6 months is pretty short. commissioner walker: i would make the motion of five months. if they need to come back -- commissioner lee: ok, so the motion is five months? at the same time, give them 10 days to obtain a shoring permit, 10 days for an engineering report? commissioner murphy: i will second the motion. >> is there any public comment on this i

veteran finally won permission to keep his tree house standing after the second try for a zoning variance. the family is hoping for the same out come. >> it is very frustrating. the kids love it and this is something we did, but i don't know how you move four live trees and salvage this. >> worry moving the tree house out of the question, they contacteda know attorney in the hopes that fairfax county might change its mind. in springfield, jane watrel, news 4. >> that's right. news 4 contacted a spokesperson and they are currently looking into the matter. >>> there is a newman at the helm of public safety at loud on county. mike chapman is the new sheriff in town and while he just started the job, he has big plans in store. news 4's julie carey has more. >> day on the job and new loud on county sheriff mike chapman found himself in front of the board of supervisors advocating for a substation. he defeated the sheriff in november and has already brought in a new leadership team that includes administrators from both the dea and fbi. chapman himself is a special agent. >> i wanted to establi

because the product meets all applicable requirements of the planning code for seeking relief or variance. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am appearing on behalf of the project sponsors. thanks for the presentation. as was mentioned earlier, the house on this site is in a state of this repair, and has been for a long time. it has been vacant since the late 1990's, and the commission previously approved it for demolition and for a surface parking lot to take its place. that never came to fruition and the house has been decrepit since then, literally falling apart when the sponsors bought it. the need for demolition is self evident. if there are questions, the engineer who prepared the soundness report is here to answer questions. before i turn it over to the architect, i would like to set the stage. the design is a collaboration between two architect who have worked over the past several months to square direction from the department and feedback from the neighborhood. after a lot of painstaking work, we have sign

anybody says, there is not a developer, him or her in this town, who would not wait for a 146-foot variance and wonder when they will get their foot into developing properties along the northeast corridor. thank you very much. supervisor mar: president chiu, i dissent to mention that some were referred to negatively, and some helped to produce this community vision with quite a bit of time, but you mentioned to the chinatown focus group, and i am wondering if you could talk a little bit about how this helped to inform the plan, as well. >> opening up the neighborhood to the waterfront, and this plan does develop that, and we felt we needed as much information and input from our neighboring greece. i might also add that my group has sponsored a scholarship program for the low-income housing so that they could come to the club and be a part of the kids camp, which is the only kind of club in the city. every year. 700 kids belong to that and come to that club. president chiu: part of supervisor mar's question, how many kids? >> over 2800. they come from all over, from oakland, marin county, fr

the zoning administrator with your requests for variances. >> diego sanchez. this is discretionary review for building permit 2,010.08 0.2 0.9282 for an expansion at the rear of an existing single- family dwelling.

and essentially, that is the big issue for why we need this variance today. this is a key issue that is very near and deer -- and dear to my part barcia the kids in the community need this. and we have a number of partners who are wearing our green stickers today to show our support. it is a multidisciplinary community-based operation that we're trying to put together. for the benefit of kids in the community. thank you. and i would like to introduce my partner, katie albright who will tell us more about our programs. >> thank you, commissioners. we appreciate your time this afternoon. i know you have a long day. i am katie albright and executive director of the san francisco child abuse prevention stsh. and a partner in developing the center for youth wellness and the children's advocacy center in san francisco. also for disclosure purposes, i need to tell you that i am also a commissioner on the juvenile probation commission. i've handed out some additional documents and you received some in the mail and gotten additional letters of support that i wanted to

the zoning administrator with your requests for variances. >> diego sanchez. this

if there was a variance decision or a zoning decision. >> like a notice of special restriction. >> like from the 1930s i've seen, like the parking for this buildings to be located at this other building because they were under the same ownership at some time. those sort of restrictions that are also suppose to be recorded against the deeds at the assessors reporting office would be also here if if it was a case of some decision. >> some other things you need to know, the dimensions of your lot. 100 by 25 on this side of the street. it does not have the official addresses and all of us will talk about that in a second but it has a great deal of pencilled in information. notes from the planner and fantasticly valuable so find the old block books and use our free copy machine and make a copy of the page. how can you make sure it's the right building. this is the cities official address street from block 2129 which is,pachako, 2029, and this is maintained by the first floor on this building and this has the official address of the city. the date the address was issued and maybe the date the