yard and the required rear yard in the districts is located in the rh2 is 45 percent or you can average with your neighbors and although this is consistent and i don't think that this block will gain anything by averaging. it will require a pop out, which is a 12-foot addition into the required rear yard and the maximum of one stories if it is four lots and two stories if you are set back and there is potential that this could be approved under that pop out allowance, but we have to review it to be sure. okay. >> i think that it is he have evident if you are going to do this type of work, that you will need a permit.

>> i will give him a break because he will wind up spending more money. >> and he did pay for an appeal, when the permit may or may not have been issued, correctly, at this point, so, we should offset that because there is going to be additional fees here. >> what the fine was for having done work without a permit, regardless of the work that was done. >> you are right. it is just that i think that i have a record of never except one time, that i agreed with mr. duffy, and hammered under the full penalty. >> and again, i don't think that the penalty is that severe, it is 1100 dollars, and so... >> okay. >> and i move that we deny the appeal and up hold the fine issued on dbi on the basis that it was valid and fair, and

proper. >> and the basis that it was appropriate. >> thank you. >> and that is what she meant to say. >> we have a motion from commissioner hurtado to up hold this penalty at 9 times on the basis it was appropriate. on that motion to up hold at 9 times, commissioner fung? >> can i back up one second? if he does not agree with the department's take on the permit as they, because it is not finalized. if we act tonight, and then he would have to his recourse will be to seek a new appeal.

or can we continue this and piggy back any further appeals on this one? >> are you suggesting that dbi will reassess the penalty if the scope of work changed >> no but they may do other things to him in terms of the approval. >> that way he does not have to pay it twice. >> that is my point. >> i think that is the risk that he took by not seeking a permit. >> oh, come on. >> you know, i guess that i am not sympathetic to it. >> understood. >> okay. >> all right. >> yeah. that is too late. >> yeah. >> okay. >> should we continue with the roll then? >> yes. >> on that motion, to up hold at 9 times, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> president hwang is absent

and vice president lazarus. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 4-0, the penalty is upheld at 9 times. >> okay commissioners. and we are not done yet. no. and not done, and commissioners item number 8 is reschedule to the twenth of november and we left with item ten for the annual report for 2013 and i have prepared this report because it is for two purposes because it is a charter mandate that all boards and commissions adopt the annual reports and the other is that we can educate the public about all of the hard work that is done by this body, and so what i thought that i would do is briefly touch on the highlights of the report and i will entertain any questions that you might have. and the report does cover the

year that began july 1, 2012, through june 30th, 2013 held 20 meetings and met for 102 hours which was 24 hours more than the prior year and a whole other day just in time for the vice president's arrival. and we heard 147 matters during the year, and that was an increase of 29 percent over the matters heard the prior year. and this does reflect in general the increase of the appeal volume filed with the board during the year, and if you look at the chart on page six, you will see that in 2008, the board appeals volume dropped, and we basically flat lined for the following four years but in this reporting year that increased 14 percent and so you can see an uptick in the appeal volume and however with that increase, we are still 18 percent below the average appeal volume for the past ten years. in terms of the subject matter of the cases that you

considered, and still, we are looking at a majority of the appeals heard and having to do with the land use matters coming from dbi and the planning and zoning administrator and i added a chart to the report this year that shows the appeal distribution over the past five years and so you can see that the land use certainly does come nature the board's agenda and going back the five years and that the second place finisher if you will will change from year to year and so last year we saw an uptick in the dpw, related matters and having to do with the mobile food facility permits and that legislation first came on-line and then the prior year to that it looks like an increase in dph related case and two years prior, a bit of an uptick in mta related cases and i think that those two are probably related to whatever enforcement activity is going on in those departments and so when they have an added push to look at sales of tobacco to minors we

see an increase in the appeals in those types of cases from those departments. you upheld the 55 percent of the matters and over ruled, 37 percent, and i did add a chart to this report, that shows out come by department and so you can see how that is distributed based on the different departments whose cases come before you and i did take a look and it is not in report but i did take a look at your pattern of up holding and over turning over the past five years and it seems that in the past year you were the most agreeable and up holding 55 percent of the cases that seems to be it is maximum percentage, the lowest is 32 percent, which was the prior year. so obviously it has to do with what is coming before you. >> and i am sure. >> because of me and you, you know that right? >> do not analyze the data.

>> the report also does discuss the board's budget and i was pleased to be able to report that we had a good budget in a year, and we had an increase and a surplus in both of the revenue streams that we received, and so, surcharge revenue exceeded projections by eleven percent and filing the revenue by eight percent and there are three charts on page 12 that shows actual revenue against the projected revenue and you can see that for 1,000 fees it tends to go up and down, each year. and i think that that is even though the appeal volume was basically flat that is just a reflection that the fact that the different appeals cost a different amount of money and so it just reflects the variation in the composition of the appeals that came before the board, surcharge revenue, shows a nice little increase from year to year, which i think is a reflection of the economy, and since our surcharges come from a permit application and permit renewals that are applied for throughout the city and as the economy

approves, the revenue from that source improves and this year, surplus of 11 percent is a significant improvement. and over the deficits that we have had in the last four years, last year, one percent and the year before that 6 percent, and the fiscal year ten is was seven percent and in nine, 16 percent and so it is nice to be back in the black. >> and also because of the budget. >> and i am sure that we will get back to the new arrivals as well. >> we are eating more dinners. >> that is true. >> and on the expenditure side we have continued to work to keep the expenses down and we were able to spend, $85,000 less than projected and a chunk of that came out of the safe ands we had a vacantcy in the department beginning last july and we held it open for a portion of the year, and again, because of the appeal volume was down, we could move forward with a fewer hands on deck, but that position is now filled and so we will not be looking for the salary savings in the

current year. and we also had some savings from some of the costs associated with processing the appeals because it was lower than in the past, and so, a little less spent on the materials and supplies and less spent on the neighborhood notification costs and those types of things as far as the work orders go, we basically did spend the work order budget and not quite the way that we had projected, and our city attorney costs were higher than we had projected by 9,000 and you know that is a difficult, line item to pin down and that changes from year to year and i think that based on some of the issues that are presented and you know, when does it call for a city attorney analysis, and some ways it also depends on who the city attorney is and each attorney is billed out at a different rate and so those charges do tend to fluctuate. but we did have the savings in other work orders that we were able to cover that cost and so we did not have to dip into the source for those funds. and there is a chart on page 13

that shows the break out of the budget and you can see that two-thirds of the budget goes to salary and fringe benefits for the staff and 23 percent for the work orders that we have the other departments and that is the city attorney and the folks who work on the broadcasting of the board meetings through the sf government television and also the it support that we get for the department of technology and the website and data base and things like that. and we just spent 4 percent for the infrastructure cost like rent and phones, three percent for the services of our contractors and the neighborhood notification company and the kouriors that provide you with the packets and interpreters who help you. and oover all we reduced the expenses by nine percent and combined with the surplus and revenue, we ended the year with 188,000 in the bank and actually, this time, for the first time it is in the bank. and we were able to work with the controller and the mayor's office to set up a rainy day fund, if you will. and in past years, if we had a

surplus it has gone back into the general fund and it was understandable that it would do that, because there are years where we have been given the allocation to help to cover the deficit and this was a way of repaying the general fund, now we have this rainy day fund so we can segregate the additional dollars and if we face the lean years, we will not have to rely on the general fund for support. >> the report talks about our performance measures and talks about the staffing, and then there are two appendixes and one that gives you a detailed break down of the cases that we heard and also more detailed description of the challenges that the board has faced and with that summary, i will be happy to answer the questions, if you have any and also ask that you consider adopting the report. >> i would just like to say that i think that it is very well done. >> yes. i was going to say the same thing. >> thank you. >> and well, presented, and i

think that the visuals and the charts and graphs help to illustrate the points and i think that it will serve as a primer as someone wondering if the room and wondering what in the heck is going on here. >> thank you. >> i would certainly move to support adopting it. >> do i have one quick question, on the geographic distribution, is this the only demographic information that the board keeps in terms, or i guess that i am interested in knowing, who appellants are other than, you know, what parts of the city they are from. >> the data on that, on that shows where the appeals are filed, the only other data that we have the system will be the addresses for the appellants and the permit holders, likely they are very close to where those marks are and but not always, from the people appeal things that are not necessarily in their neighborhood. and but we don't have the demographic information and we do not track the race and gender and those types of issues. >> it will be interesting to

have that and i guess if you don't do that, yeah, i mean that i have my own ideas about what it is, >> lawyers and information. >> data, data. >> i agree with you. madam, vice president. and the report, and it reads easily. >> yes, very well done. >> yes. >> can we keep our cop j? >> yes, those are for you. >> and there is no public to comment, and so i think that we have a motion from the vice president, to adopt and if you could call the roll on that please. >> on that motion to adopt the department alanal report? >> fung? >> aye. >> president is absent. >> hurtado >> aye. >> and honda. >> aye. >> and the vote is 4-0, and the report is adopted. >> thank you very much. >> meeting is adjourned. so we are done.

> >>. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

hi, i'm with sfgovtv i'm here to discuss prop a that will be before the voters in tuesday >> the health care truth fund was for health care correspondents that would substantially there. the 5 member board passed the fund they mate not use the fund to pay for the costs until january 20, 0200. preparing will allow the bodies to make payments from the fund only as the cities account balances to fully funded it has to be large enough to pay for the costs as they're due and thus, the cities total payroll costs can't go over 10 percent.

they must allow the payment and they're limited to no more than 10 percent of the cities account or the governor and the trust board passed it. they would allow only if the agrees fund account or two-thirds of the agencies funding board and the trust board productive. a yes vote means you want to change the charter from the health care trust funneled only under specified circumstances a no vote i don't want to make those changes. i'm here with supervisor marking feral and he proponent of preparing >> thanks. having me.

i'd like to start with supervisor farrell why do you believe this prop a is important >> i started working on this when our city controller said we have a 4.4 blindfolds liability. number one we have retirees who worked long and a hard tossed the city of san francisco and workers that are feasor full. that's something we want to avoid and fight against we want to make sure that our seniors have their health care that were second of all the costs for our city a hundreds of thousands of dollars. this year as chairman of our committee b it will grow to $500 million a year over the next 20 years were so preparing

prop a does make sure that our cities retirees and their health care is priority for in the further. in thirty years our 4 half a billion dollars liability will be wiped-out off the books and we'll save a lot of money from 5 hundred memorial day's a year down and those hundreds of dollars of million dollars dollars will go toward neighborhood things. and to make sure we put ourselves on a course everyone is sporting and i'm proud to be part of. mr. murphy would you recycle to speak to the opposition >> yes. thanks supervisor so far could not it's quite impressive our here to discuss that human resources as the supervisor points out the city has a whole in the retirees health care budget about the

half the size of the last budget. now prop a the city sets aside money and that's not a bad thing. the idea that we can just promise things to retirees and not pay for it is obviously not a responsible concept and not something i would endorse, however, prop a is on the hard choices that are associated with paipg for a 4 mrs. billion dollars health care be liability. you have to pull that money from somewhere and prop a puts the city on the hook for paying for that obligation that's usually by putting >> funding requirement in the charter but it didn't tell you where that money comes from there has to be taxes in the in

the meantime to come up with that money. so the question i would then prop is that prop a leafs unanswered is that where is the money going to come from and we shouldn't put ourselves on the hook >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you. the money isn't coming out of thin air but prop b this mauntdz that the city employees contribute 2 percent of their pay. and the city for 2008 matches that with one percent so new employees from as of 2009 two percent of their health care is being saved it's not coming from taxpayers in san francisco it's from city applies from the city

and county of san francisco >> mr. murphy. >> sure so one of the troubling points of prop a there's a catch all in the amendment that the contributions of the employee and accident planned contribution by the city are insufficient to meet the requirements of the truth you fund the city is on the hook for the balance. which means in practical terms we have to cut from somewhere else or raise taxes. and the picture of retiree health care where we can fund health care on 3 percent of people's annual salaries is a little bit rosy. it's not something we can really bet on with health care costs and benefit costs rising at the, you know, 3 and 44 percent.

salaries rising at 3 and 4 percent rather. its far greater than the pace of inflation and greater than the contributions >> so we have a little bit of time level overview left are supervisor farrell when i started working on prop a it was important in san francisco. i made sure we assaulted with our labor and all communities. i'm proud to say we have the support of every member of the board of supervisors and the democratic party here in san francisco and the republican party in san francisco. swms the harvey milk club and every single every elected official in is no. this is building on prop c we

passed in 2011 and if we can pass prop b we'll pass at the ballot and something we should be product u proud of >> thank you, mr. murphy. >> there are promises and there are commitments. one of the pieces of language on the ballot is about candle lights and the our promises for the roasts health care. setting aside in law that the money will be there is a promise. until we condominium the enemy of money to make those commitments work is still a promise. the commitment comes when i put the effort on the table to make health care sewer secure. the promise is nice but we have to figure out how to deliver and the funds that are available so far from the measure that the

supervisor vitals i cites are again, a nice probable but that's not realty. when we passed prop a we should know where the resources come from >> we hope this information has been information active. please visit the san francisco sf elections.org. remember the voting t is available in city hall be sure to vo november 5th. >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ hi, i'm marconi i'm here to discuss prop b the measure will

be before the voters on test november 5th. they have a proposed site called - prop c is an referendum. a referendum is the process by which the voters can proof or reject legislation. a 3 point plus acres is on washington street. on 2012 the board of supervisors approved the construction of two mixed used buildings containing 3 hundred residential units and a properly operated fitness space and under parking. in approving the project they adopted the ordinance to there the height limits. the referendum be submitted to

the voters for approval or recreation. it will not take effect unless it's pass see if you vote yes. you want the ordinance passes which influences the height along drum street if you vote no. you don't want the owns which increases the heights to take effect. prop b which also concerns the washington site qualified after prop c it would create woodworking parks and housing district. the sdrishtd would include two buildings with a total of 1 hundred 21 to nine hundred 41 units and there the building from 84 feet up to 1 hundred and

36 feet. a privately owned a height of 6 stories along embarcadero and payment for the housing fund a public park and open spaces and sidewalks on at least 20 percent of the site and new case to the waterfront and ground floor retail and cafes and under gown car and bicycle parking and increased revenue to the port and city. if you vote yes open prop b you want to approve the 8 development site if you vicinity no on prop b i don't want to approve the washington street development project. i'm here with alec the proponent of propose b and c ambassador

we're also joined by on opponent of the measure >> i'd like to a start with mr. barb why are you for this as opposed to. >> i'm for the proposition because i cared about the san francisco project & using the waterfront i see this as an opportunity to open up the waterfront by opening up streets that were closed in the dark redevelopment stage when the freeway was here blocked by fence and further made ugly by a parking lot. we need in this 3 blocks open vitality spates housing over retail shops and cafes and restaurants we need to turn

those into something that's a benefit for people walking along and enjoying the embarcadero >> why are you against it. >> we're using a no vote on prop b and c. number one it changes the height all along this particle of the waterfront to almost double the size the freeway that was torn down. it also is bulky as a favorable field so instead of opening up the waterfront as argue walking along the waterfront a lot of your views of acquit r coit tower will be restricted. number 3 it increases the heights along the waterfront because there's 3 other particles along the north waterfront. f it destroys the tense club it's been use that i t