includes an increase for other expenses. and for the city's failure to fund the unfunded mandates for health care that we support, and when asked how we pay for this, i want to say that nonprofits are already doing what we can. we raise $1.50 for every $1 -- from the city. this is being discussed now. it cannot be revenue neutral. we must recapture what was lost a few years ago. thank you for listening today. supervisor chu: thank you.

and the other members of the public wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: i want to thank everyone. with this hearing with the president, we have had this ongoing issue about how do we fund the non-profit sector, and there are workers that have not gotten raises, escalating costs, workers' compensation and insurance, winds blowing up, and the city cannot keep up with how we pay our nonprofits with these rising costs, said that is what this hearing was really about, how we can get on say footing with what the situation is. i am strongly in favor of working to get this. i think the bulk of the worked is happening in the mayor's office, and to the extent that the mayor's office is able to

work the magic they do there, and if we can rely on some magic to help make it happen, we do have a budget deficit. it is not as bad as it was in the past. we have been able to make huge commitments in the past when we have that large amounts of a budget deficit. there is a pathway to getting there. so i am in support of that. when the budget comes to the board of supervisors in june, it is harder to make that commitment, although we want to work with the mayor's office to see what we can do. in june, there is a finite amount of money, what ever we are able to do with this process, so this is something, now, which is the essence. now is the time, and that is why i scheduled this hearing to take

place now, so thank you very much for this work. we will push and push and see what we get, and clearly, the need is not just an intellectual one. it is a real one. it is workers and their families being able to stay in san francisco, being able to age with dignity. i understand, and we will see what we can do as a body. chair chu: thank you, supervisor avalos. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you for calling this meeting. this is something that is a priority for us this year. we want to make sure we give thanks to our nonprofit workers and our service providers if we can. and i heard from folks, our budget is a value statement about what we value and prioritize in this city, and we do have to make a number of very difficult decisions to balance the budget, but, certainly, for

me, this is something i will be looking for. i think that four years without a cola, it is a tremendous burden. i think it is important for us as a city to look at our for- profit contracts, whether it is our real estate leases or other for-profit contracts to see what it is that we do do in terms of the escalators. that has been mentioned before. and just to have a better evaluation of what kind of increases we generally give nonprofit and for-profit, and i think we need to look at this with an equity lens. but i certainly appreciate what everyone says. i spent years in the non-profit sector. i know what it is like to work between $30,000 to $40,000, and even when we did get as 1% or 2% increases, with increasing cost of living adjustments, and i

want to thank everyone for taking the time to speak so eloquently about the work that you do and also to the folks that we serve who came out to talks eloquently about how the services are provided , so the thank you. chair chu: thank you, supervisor kim, and i know a number of the members of the audience said they view, but others have been sitting and patiently taking notes, so i want to thank them for sitting through, what is this now, i guess it is a 3.5- hour meeting, and i also do not want to sugarcoat this. you all know we still lead the budget deficit, and for whatever reason there is a feeling that we have a lot of money. revenues are up, so that is good, but we still have a deficit, as supervisor avalos alluded to. in addition, we face challenges with the state in not knowing where the cuts are going to come

from in terms of the federal government and the state. we need to understand our city's structural deficit and your issues and how to balance it all out, so we want to thank you for your comments and spending the evening with us, so with that, supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: we can have a motion to file. chair chu: a state, we have a motion to file. are there any other items? : -- secretary: to adjourn. chair chu: thank you. >> san francisco recreation and

parks department offers classes for the whole family. rec and parks has a class for everyone. discover what is available now and get ready to get out and play. henri matisse. frida kahlo. andy warhol. discover the next great artist. get out and play and get inspired with toddler classes. experience art where making a mess is part of the process. classes and the size the artistic process rather than the product. children have the freedom to explore materials at their own pace and in their own way. talks love art, especially when they died into the creative

process -- dive into the creative process. at the end of the classes, they have cleaned and washup. of.com great way to get out and play. for more information, visit sfrecpark.org. that out and play and get into the groove. rec and parks offers dance classes for seniors. first-time beginners or lifetime enthusiasts -- all are welcome. enjoy all types of music. latins also, country and western. it is a great way to exercise

while having lots of fun. seniors learn basic moves and practice a variety of routines. improve your posture, balance, and flexibility. it is easy. get up on your feet and step to the beat. senior dance class is from sf rec and park. a great way to get out and play. >> for more information,

screaming and welcome to april 18, -- good evening and welcome to the april 18, 2012 meeting. present are arcelia hurtado,

commissioner hillis, fun, and hwang. we are joined by some of the representatives who have cases before us. the minister representing the planning department and the planning commission. jocelyn kane will be here, executive director of the san francisco entertainment commission. at this time, if you will go over the board meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests to turn off all phones and pagers. the board requests [inaudible]

please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders, and president have seven minutes to produce their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated with the party have up to three minutes each to address the board but no rebuttal. to assist the board in the actor preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked not required to submit speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to the podium. speaker cards and pans are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium as well. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, or hearing schedules or board rules, please talk to staff

after the meeting or call the office tomorrow morning. the board office is at 16 edition -- 1650 mission street, room 3 04. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, cable channel 78 and dvd's of the meeting are available for purchase directly from sfgtv. at this point in time we will conduct our swearing-in process. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's hearings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or firm. please note any member of the public may speak without taking this oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance of the administrative code. thank you.

do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. we have one housekeeping item this evening. item #seven. appeal 12-017 regarding a permit at 15 valencia street. the permit holder has submitted a request to the department of building inspection to have this permit canceled. dbi is indicated it expects cancellation to be filed tomorrow. staff will dismiss the appeal. in order to allow time for the cancellation, i would request that -- one continuance in weekend continued the case to april 12. >> so moved. >> is there any public comment? if you could call roll on that. >> we have a motion from the president to reschedule item 7

to april 25. on that motion, commissioner fung, aye. commissioner fung, aye. commissioner hillis, aye. commissioner hertado. -- hurtado, aye. there are five ayes. >> we will move to item two. any questions or comments? seeing none, item three. before you for your consideration are the board minutes in april 11 -- from april 11, 2012. texting moat -- no comments i move we accept the draft minutes. >> is there public comment on the minutes?

seeing none,, if you could call the roll on that. >> on that motion from president garcia to adopt the april 11 minutes, commissioner fung, aye. vice-president hwang, aye. commissioner hillis, aye. commissioner hurtado, aye. >> whoever placed cards here, please take a back. a hand in call -- cards when you did -- you had in cards when you speak. we will call item 4a which is a rehearing request. property is at 1750 beach street.

this was -- approval was decided march 21, 2012. the board voted 4-0 to grant the appeal and uphold the permit on condition it be modified to eliminate from the scope of work the new roof deck, exterior stair to the new raft -- sha'reff dekema any resizing or replacement -- any resizing or replacement of skylights and a new water heater. the permit holder is sanford specter. we will start with the requestor, ms weesner or her council. >> good evening. i am appearing on behalf of the requestor. i understand i have a limited amount of time so i will defer to mr. buscovich will talk about the facts and circumstances

that warrant a rehearing. quex after my testifying last week or month ago pro bono, i was asked to take a look at the drawings regarding the stack issue and the -- the bering will issue. i still will say i'm doing this problem a. they have offered to pay me and i do not want to get involved with the charge. the drawings that have been submitted to them to show that the roof deck structure is what is supporting the deck. and also supports the framing when they remove the bearing walls. there is a a provision set that shows these structural members that were on the original on top of the red supporting the deck are being relocated in the attic space. that is apparently part of

their religion permit you approve but i was here during the hearing and i did not understand that not only did you delete the deck, they have moved some of the structural framing members from above the roof into the attic space. the new detail that i am not sure you know you approved show structural members been put in the attic to support this. the building department is looking at the revision and they are ok with that. i have to have something there to support the wall. i'm not sure procedurally how his client understands that they not only deleted the deck but they are moving structural members around to accommodate a bearing wall removal. they have the structural issue resolved. i am not sure you guys heard to -- there are structural members been put in the attic which may be an issue to you. i am fighting this out right

now. you might have a comment about where the structure goes. >> i do not know where the structure goes but i do know that some of these issues have been brought to inspector duthie's attention by our client. inspector duffy has been in contact with an engineer to look at these issues. that portion of it i will defer to him as well and that department's review. the new facts and circumstances warrant this board pose a rehearing this request are again the removal of the deck to comply with hoa approvals made this project structurally unsound and not go through the correct procedures in terms of the structural review the building department's review of the plan so we can make sure that our client again who was living underneath the unit for the project has a sound roof

above her head. i will leave it at that. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> good evening. i am appearing on behalf of the permit holder. let me and just say as i said in a written response, there is nothing new that is being brought up. they have a new approach. mr. buscovitch was at the hearing. this is a new target. we have revised the permit but had a new system that could -- moved the support from the roof basically into the envelope of the building. the board for procedural reasons decided to adopt their original permit with some revisions. nobody intended to remove any structural support.

the key -- the original plan did anticipate their removal of this load bearing wall. the plans put the structural support to the exterior walls instead of the interior. she was complaining about the roof deck so we said no roof deck. that means instead of it being on top of the building, it is underneath and making a new ceiling. the city's representatives, mr. duffy is here. mr. hansen has reviewed this and determined that this is sound and is an attempt to misuse this process to gain leverage over the permit holder. we have been offered for -- on four for three months. we have no intention of building a building that is unsound. i challenge anybody to prove otherwise. this building will be more structurally sound that is because of the code update and the support that is their that

were planned to support the roof deck and now there is no extra roof deck to way down. there are no new facts. there is no reason to have another rehearing on something that suspended work for three months. the plans are going to provide for a structurally sound building. we have lvl's running to the exterior walls and they just move from the roof to the attic. the ceiling instead of on the roof. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. today i met with -- i have the contractor come into dbi with the approved plans, he looked at the details, he spoke to the design engineer for the project

on the phone. it went over the calculations. the span of the ldl's are per approved plans. that is on the revision permits. if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer them. >> the revision permit is also appealable? >> there is a special conditions permit that gets issued after the board makes a decision. that is not appealable. >> that is the permit we're talking about that has the structural elements that have changed. >> what happened is the removed the roof deck. if it did get issued. that showed that is where the roof will be framed with the revised permit and if there is any other special conditions permit. >> there was just the board's notice of decision without special conditions permit.

the board struck the scope of work that was under the appeal. >> they thought they would get the roof deck off. that was originally the issue under contention on the appeal. the main thing was the roof deck so that got taken off and a modified it. it will be built according to code, according to designed. it will be built like that. it is a valid point to bring up if someone is taking out a wall that is supporting rove, what are you doing to reset and the question was answered by the engineer. according to the dbi. we're happy enough. >> is there any public comment?

>> i work at sotheby's international realty and i'm here to address the board. i've seen this whole thing happened, i was here a month ago when the appeal to place. this neighbor is literally trying to extort money from the sky. last this -- this guy. it is not how this system is -- he will finish up this project and get out of there. it is unbelievable how the system has been abused and i hope you guys deny the appeal. president garcia: any other public comment? seeing none.

>> i was absent for the hearing. i did not review the tape. i did refer to hon had read the brief and i feel prepared -- i did refer and have read the brief. i feel prepared unless there is any objection from the party's or my fellow commissioners. thank you. >> their response -- the response by the requestor of the hearing did not provide anything specific. there are certain generalized allegations of nahyan structural compliance. and denounce the new intimation. i except the department's explanation of their due diligence.

i would not support a rehearing. >> i would concur. in denying the rehearing. >> do you have a motion? commissioner fung: to deny the rehearing. president garcia: if you could call the roll. >> president garcia, aye. vice president hwang, aye. [calling roll] this is denied. vice president hwang: mosquito llc. this is 37 grant ave.

address to -- 1337 grant ave. requesting that action taken to -- be taken to remedy a conflict between our recently issued place of entertainment permit. the matter is on for hearing and we will start with the appellant. or his agent. you have seven minutes. >> thank you for hearing our appeal this evening. i run tecolote at 1337 grant ave and i am a longtime san francisco blues magician. i am joined by my partners. their friends and founders of the investment bank based in the city. we are serious business people trying to operate a model establishment and that is what we have done every day for five and a half months since we have opened. tupelo is my