if we uphold the denial of the permit than it goes back and what we're making the assumption it will be foiled for again and that lets make the summaries go their filing again in their wisdom or lack therefore denies the permit and the boil- we will assume at this point, i hate the words assume but based on the circumstances we'll assume the denial of that permit will be appealed and we're right back here again ; right? >> correct. >> so we're now in that situation if we were to honor that appeal that anticipated appeal what would happen and that permit was changed and we approved the

permit; right? >> uh-huh. >> what happens they would go through a 60 day they will notice the tenant and the tenant will have 60 days there's a legal process by which the tenant will be compensated improperly according to allowing law. >> gorth. >> yes. i'm an expert but the process and path if the permit as immunizing denied and appealed here there's 4 votes to overturn the appeal than the denial is over turned and the appeal is uphold and it starts the eviction process to complete the eviction process. >> and then so let's turn the table and is that we agree with

planning and planning we agree that no permit should be issued you'll have a house enencumbered by the tenant they'll preceded to sell the how is it is is a legal or let me unit. >> they could seek to legalize the unit. >> so then they can sell it enencumbered by itself legal unit. >> or seek legalization. >> from my point of view that's where we are whether we go with an let's resolve this today so we don't send it back to - for the inevitable to happen i'm spewing u suggesting an illegal shortcut. >> commissioner, i see our

analysis i would repetitive it a little bit differently in that the permit was before this board for a review weeks ago and the planning commission issued the dr before the commission before at this point in time and the commission voted by default to uphold the permit but essentially your arguing you could go the long way it's been before the commission and for the review commission by default disagreed with the planning commission at that point in time i'll reach the same conclusion. >> but tonight's proceedings is under a different standard so tonight the board it charged with surveying whether the

planning commission record. >> what motion will be raised i'm asking for dominions here please if we wanted to end this right here tonight what is the proper motion. >> under the what i just laid out so we don't see this a year from now one way or another. >> you'll need to request the rest indication in that the zoning administrator record. >> a quick question if the permit is denied forgot is there a timetable they can't reapply. >> there's typically one year you can reapply within one year

if the facts that led to the denial in this case we're seeking revocation we can foil the next day and in the initial permitting process in having a new application would also allows you to make the final determination on that building that is not legal and perhaps the more appropriate permit to remove not only the kitchen but united states structure that didn't appear to be legal that is probably a better case for them to pursue and this is my letter requesting the department of building inspection to row revoke the permit it is for the building inspection for the procedures and will have a hearing process i believe that discussion can be appealed back to the board of appeals so there's that this is - it is the

first step in the process but again, we feel this permit was not improperly issued and further did question about the legality of the structure in the rear yard. >> are you saying you think the permit is somewhat fladz. >> yes. for the reasons of the notice. >> but in terms of the issue the legality and yeah. we haven't seen this question was raised during the appeal hearings and commissioner vice president honda raised the issue we don't have evidence that structure was legally corrected we one way or another don't have evidence that was the case i think there was an extensive some permit that was conducted by the property owners to determine what was legal and not

not that i'm aware of. >> thank you commissioners the matter is submitted. >> from the very beginning i thought that the process was flawed i thought the permit was issued in error i agreed with the planning department also you know i'm troubled that you want to legalize it but only fix half of that as an issue in the structure is illegal and you want to legallize lists it the structure should come down so your splitting hairs as in the last one i'll support of revocation. >> since i don't have enough votes you guys. >> i was on the losing he said

the last two times how far how many votes are required. >> to deny the appeal. >> yeah. >> you'll need two votes arrest 3 votes to have the motion pass actually but 2 votes to have it stay in place by default. >> discussion? very complicated >> no, it hadn't i think initially it shove sent back the first time it is still flawed from the very beginning by accepting that the last time we just accepted a condition that was flawed in my opinion. >> i guess clarify another point maybe to either one of you if we

deny the appeal and uphold basically your request that it does go to the building inspection. >> correction this is a request to the director of the building inspection to revoke the permit it is up to dbi to then revoke the permit. >> they have discretion on that. >> yes. >> okay. and commissioner swig. >> he's shaking his head. >> step forward joe. >> i have a question after as well. >> just commissioners i sometimes dot revocation matters in my district i don't think we've ever disagreed with planning if they excuse we do it i don't think our director is

going to draw but definitely if dpw or planning whoever the health department asks us we always do it i don't know - >> i have a question for you mr. duffy the same question for the permit holder any outstanding permits on the property. >> i don't bring that with me i don't have it with me i took the details off the permit together. >> could you take a look. >> commissioners walk me through how to end this tonight. >> if we uphold the appeal. >> you mean grant the appeal

grant the appeal of the revocation request. >> so deny the revocation and uphold the permit. >> uphold the permit. >> ultimately now you've gotten me. >> uphold permit we're going to end up a year if now and the tenant is going to be offered an eviction notice go through the 60 day process and be compensated that is the way if we do that tonight or wherever it is unequivocal it will gorth regardless i'm not denying the

permit i'm agreeing with you commissioner vice president honda but you know i look at the if we already know this is probably going to happen a we're holding up an entire estate and putting a tenants invisible eviction i'm forecasting that it is going to happen anyway. >> i think i'm going to lose this vote too (laughter). >> that's where i. we're going to end up anyway to why not uphold you use the word i can't it's 715 i can't get the words. >> would you like to make a motion. >> i remembered that the

standard of error you don't have the permit a request are for a revocation. >> you have to state it the planning department record. >> mr. sanchez. >> other than the discretion. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department so at the previous hearing we didn't center a hearing on the merits that the tenant made we requested that the board deny the permit because of the fladz nature in that the item should have been disapproved if it comes back as disapproved you need 4 votes to overturn that had we had a hearing several months ago on the merits a clear will they were at least a super majority of board felt the permit was appropriate we could have taken that as as indication how it would have held i

appreciate the comments and what you're trying to get it i think i tried to get that at the previous hearing if the board feels this should be issued making a decision tonight will be the quickest way to get there. >> your agreeing with me awhile dangerously with me. >> yes. the planning department. >> did you summit that (laughter). >> having a hearing whether it's profile on the burden is on the appellants you get the four votes that's the concern we have getting to that point. >> that was my thoughts from the very beginning. >> do we need 4 votes or not. >> you need 4 votes to grant the appeal.

>> so my motion is to grant the. >> deny the - >> you're looking at to. >> you know what accident words. >> my sense to grant the appeal and overturn the revocation request you must state a basis to what error or discretion you want to identify on the part of zoning administrator. >> mr. sanchez. >> that was a joke. >> i was here last week my motion to grant the appeal and

to overturn the rest occasion request based on the error of the zoning administrator? >> or the discretion. >> right i think you should identify the error or the abuse of discretion. >> so you might say on the basis of the zoning administrator record because or abused his discretion because - >> commissioner swig in the disconnection i hear our going i can give you a suggestion of an error the error would be that a permit that has been upheld by the board should not be revoked. >> it was still upheld we issued it by default we issued a

decision to uphold the permit. >> no floor disagrees. >> yes. i have reservations i have reservations about that logic i think if the commission were to conclude that the permit was improperly issued that's was one thing but to conclude that the permit that the erred because of the default on the base it is a question - >> i don't know if i can make my motion i can't find of the error. >> i can make the opposite motion and take that vote is that acceptable the way to go i move to deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator

on the basis it was in discretionary error. >> i'll end it the someway. >> so, now we have a motion on the floor if the wanting to deny this appeal and uphold the zoning administrator, what say you? order on the basis in error or basis of discretion correct. >> yep. >> on that motion to uphold the zoning administrator, what say you? order commissioner fung is absent commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson no commissioner swig. >> no. >> thank you. the vote is 2 to vote the motion fails so absent another motion the zoning administrator, what say you? order would be upheld by default

do we have another motion. >> i'm asking. >> we've got 4 zero so we'll see you in a year were there's not other motion and no other business before this committee this evening we're .

>> good afternoon and welcome to the lafco i'm supervisor avalos the chair of logical today is clerk call the announcements please.

yes please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones planning code are prohibited at this meeting. . >> thank you. let's go to the fir item rrlt. >> on that call of the role supervisor avalos supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor chiu's supervisor mar is alice griffith absent mr. chair you have quorum. >> approval the lafco minutes regular meeting cultivation have you had a chance to review the minutes questions or comments going on to public comment seeing we'll close picking up public comment and rrlt vote. >> first and second.

>> motion from commissioner cruz and second by commissioner linda commissioner linda is an additional sxherld and item 3 consideration of the lafco budget for 2015-2016 thank you we have clerk of board. >> good afternoon supervisor avalos and members of the lafco the clerk of board i'm here today with andy our administration and finance deputy to answer questions that surfaced during the lafco review of the proposed 2015-2016 budget as the commission is aware in 1963 the state legislation created the lafco in all county

the responsibility stepped from the 19985 local government reorganization act sxhaenl in san francisco the coincidesed with the san francisco lafco being activate the lafco locally the lafco established their mission bay and created a work plan for the adaptation of a conceptually model of gfrnsz for the future of san francisco including among other things a straight utilities strict within the framework of the city and services at the pleasure of board in 2007 when i became clerk of board the economy was in recession he determined at this point that lafco had a massing

one million dollars carried forward i worked with lafco they've agreed agreed and the board of supervisors agreed that the lafco instead of proofing more dollars would conduct a general lafco business under this agreement lafco retired the reporter for primaries in the future if approved by the board fast forward the chair is reaching it's end life in 2007 the board requested that lafco take on additional roles of the project so do to they asked for clerking assistance when the board of supervisors authorize via motion and memorandum of understanding was created between the puc and

the lafco for the ability to utilize costs not to exceed $2.1 million for a virus role for the puc implementation of cca provide are 7 slides i don't intend to review only the first 4 for the clerking support the remain 3 slides provide the current general fund carried forward and the puc carried forward on slide 2 the versus actual in 2008 the board approved the motion authorizing the clerk for additional administrative assistance for the additional support in corneas with the agreement my office charges lafco a $27 million support of costs and

half time clerk is about $72,000 a logical and the board agreed to the arrangement that was the exception for the advisors role the frequency of the lafco meetings and the workload due to the sires will increase 3r5ish8 instead of him or her new staff they absorbed the duty and fin they moved the friendly benefits cost from the general fund to the logical carried forward-looking back we understand it never materialize as you can see on table on slide 2 through the clerking services will lower the actual costs of the services are much higher than 20 thousand and supervisor breed you've identified a

structural issue that needs correcting it currently charges more staff time to lafco than is utilized or needed so since lafco general fund carried forward will be decompleted we'll recommend did half time clerk will be moved back to the general fund. >> supervisor breed. >> can you explain that because i think that i'm a little bit confused by the statement. >> the statement that it is paying for more than it is using. >> thank you, madam president the halftime salary the entire salary oozed used to be paid for by the general fund when the cca advisors fund lafco for clerking services ramp containing new staff we absorbed those staff

and rather than continuing to have ism of them pick up the lafco and board allowed them to pay for the other halftime similarly for that staff you started did conversation and appreciate you're asking the important questions if no other questions i'll move to the staff and clerking services provided by the office through the chair. >> oh, sorry linda there's a difference of 61 thousand dollars for actual to the budget for the halftime per year. >> that's correct as far as the information that is on the slide i will be a little bit more forthcoming we engaged in a conversation with the lafco clerk that indicated it is actually more than that in terms

of the the hours utilizes. >> the follow-up question is mined is lafco paid the $71,000 anticipating halftime employee who has that money. >> in terms of the staff who are currently hired in my office. >> i was wondering it went through a certain budget line item. >> the lafco is a line item in our budget so it is in the budget for the board of supervisors lafco - and the board. >> in the clerk of the boards budget that's correct so it is currently a line item in our budget. >> understood okay.

>> hi the lafco carried forward is off budget it was bucked in the prior fiscal year the funds are in the reflected in the we are talking about the clerk of the board has a division within the board of supervisors the hours clerk of the board the logical has it's on separate index soda code those are not coming into our office we charge those expenditures separately and it is throughout the year to cover the costs. >> basically move the expenditures from the side to lafco kinder forward because the clerks funds are supporting the sore the assistant clerk we moved those expenditures quarterl