afternoon, everyone i'm assistant clinical professor at ucsf and work and the san francisco board of appeals in medication i'm also the physician champion for the portal now in months to implementation. >> so a little bit background will the design of the portal initial efforts began in our attempts to try to demonstrates we were able to meaningful use the electronic health records those measures were developed by cms and came with financial sensitive for networks that can show we're meeting criteria regarding the use of hr and the portal in the design phase of this our task was to think of a way to take all our systems as dr. chin talked about and combine them into a comprehensive portal i'll talk about that latter in the presentation apart from that in particular just to provide a improved care experience for our patient in the network that is a website in which patient over and over their clegd proxies look at the electronic health record and provide access to a patient education database to search tops this is not be attorney general offer high-level things like e-mail or appointment req

lawsuits those have been resolved and the jurisdiction of board of broiltz is clear the mta is not required to go to the board of permit appeals to hear independent cases but the mta will continue to go to the board of permit for the permit cases and if the mta does decide it wants to shift away from going to the board of permit of appeals we're going to have a public process that's my report i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor kim has a question. >> thank you. >> this is largely straightforward i have a couple of questions about some of the articles i've read i only ask this i know that motor vehicles is in terms of other entities called ridership as well as - two questions you said if a limb zone couldn't provide a bill their though the regulate by mta. >> we have the authority and that's all right. existing to request that we - this 0 authority will not be new. >> what's a waybill. >> it could be a piece of paper or trip information and sits in requesting the waiver bill the trip would have been prealigned the distinction between a taxi and temp is the arrangement by requesting the waiver bill the piece of

efficient we know that we're looking at it very concretely and specifically at san francisco board of appeals and anticipate that the learning we have there and the process improvement will be applicable to the rest of the dpw i'll get back to 7 in a second number 8 this a house do i have in mind this is trying to measure a urban if i had organizational culture that measures 6 hundred a 5 staff at san francisco board of appeals we took a web-based module this is something that needs to be looked at some more all right. so number 7 is around patient experience i'm going to talk about this in the quality metric session i wanted to let you know original we have two questions per division one right of vendors c.j. caps changed divisions so for both substance abuse they manually administer there is not love changes it is fairly flat same tool and methodology important substance abuse and pretty flat health at home they've used we have approved a tool for health at home agrees what i'll say awhile a 20 percent dollars decrease this last database there are 39 patients and in general you need one hun

don't draw but other reasons for an increase in the more of a market issue historically the board of appeals has teen e seen most the removal of illegal permits have been dealt with by the board of appeals and any uptick it could be more off the market rather than the legislation. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> could you address for me and clarify for me, the issue of lack of notice i understand the residence is illegal i understand for a at least 5 years that individual is living there in a notice of violation and then when ash trail the building owner can get the permit then without notice to the tenant that's been there for 5 years which is not 5 months or 5 days not provide any, no, sir, whatsoever until a 60 day revocation process where's the legality and that's a great question so in terms of. >> sorry wacky question. >> is it a puny ditto our friend it is something we need to look at so under the planning code 311 we look at the code for expansion of building and for illegal unit but nothing in the planning code for that case for an illegal unit under the mayors directive we'll requ

. >> commissioners item 11 review of the past events the board of appeals and the preservation commission. >> good afternoon archbishop ttd another that weeks land use committee the implementation committees annual progress report and the impact fee report sponsored by supervisor cohen that was an informational program at the land use commission that was discussion about the progression of implementing infrastructure improvements and funding for an additional the ability to raise the impact fees to impact the transit and the the facility for co-chair funding because that was an informational item that was filed with no action taken and the land use commission was the analysis for certain plans supported by the depended this item was exhausted by the planning commission identifying the sources of revenue and the need for childcare facilities funding this item was farther to the full board with a positive recommendation the off-street parking ordinance sponsored by supervisor breed was continued the balboa citizens advisory committee establishment sponsored by supervisor yee passed its seco

did go to the property and issue a notice of violation saying that both permits under appeal have been suspended and all work is to cease by order of the board of appeals pending resolution of the appeal. all work is to cease pending the hearing and the hearing is scheduled for april 8, 2015. so that was two days after the suspension. i did hear the gentleman say that the permits were suspended on the 23rd and they hadn't got word through to them that they had been suspended. i do know that the board calls permit holders on the same day so i'm not sure if there was a breakdown, but certainly two days later they were told to stop and as far as i know they did stop at that time. that notice of violation is still in effect until resolution of this hearing. the lead paint issue, i had a little trouble finding the violation because actually under 15 nobles alley and it appears this property has a lot of addresses based on the start, the first permit was 472 union, which is the wrong address. and this happens a lot in apartment buildings with block and lots and stuff like that, but anyway, that notice of violation is still in effect. it was issued

like to make a brief announcement we're still curling having your appeals abatement so there will be a bit of a delay green before the board of appeals starts. >> we're on the next case on delores street the appellant and record important baker and action by appellant seeks an order of abatement or an opportunity for a rehearing on the ground he doesn't receive notice of the hearing and therefore is not here the department will go first and then the appellant. >> the address 2 delores street that is two family twelz the violation on delores street created an unsafe condition of this property no violations were filed and the order of abatement was issued on june 17th of last year therefore staff recommends i uphold the order of abatement and uphold the cost. >> fo

was a single-family use o those permits with in fact signed off and an appeal was filed at the board of appeals regarding this matter also just so you know it was continued based on a decision that may not be render by the commission here today so city planning has also indicated that it would be willing to consider the legalization of this unit permit application that could be filed to do see based on the mayors derivative for those types of units to be legalized code enforcement activity has been suspended based on those hearings we're to the moving on that pending potential decision by this board of appeals. >> permit application 201406 would one one 838 was issued the associated cf c was issued in error the garden shed was not converted to a legal dwelling unit and drawings should are occupied the application, and the planning department should also have approved that same application an erroneous 3 r report was issued on april 5, 905 shows the unauthorized use as a one family dwelling that report is now inspire the it is important to said that report was generated based on the permit that

like to make a brief announcement we're still curling having your appeals abatement so there will be a bit of a delay green before the board of appeals starts. >> we're on the next case on delores street the appellant and record important baker and action by appellant seeks an order of abatement or an opportunity for a rehearing on the ground he doesn't receive notice of the hearing and therefore is not here

agreement with the mta that in terms of any individual appeals appeals by individual on permit issues that they would retain the right to continue to go to the board of appeals a public process before any of that was changed we've also retained this right to bring those issues up in future litigations if necessary so one way or another the appeals of the issuance of new permits will be covered by that so that is something would be eliminated by those changes i have one small bone to pick this is in the section about taximeters inaccurate technique meters can routine in a criminal penalty the word knowingly should be inserted somewhere in that section. >> thank you thank you is there any public comment on item one okay seeing none item number one public comment is closed supervisor wiener any last comments. >> nomadic thank you to the community and i move we send it to the full board with a positive recommendation and that's my motion. >> okay for i move we send it to the full board with a positive recommendation seconded by supervisor kim and we'll take that without objection. this item passes madam clerk please call item two and three together. >

hester brought you up to speed pretty well the subject of the appeal as well as at the board of supervisors the sdrapts surrounding the project but the project manager recognizes the need to improve the streetscape we're working with supervisor kim's office to we've already you know - offered to help move this process forward and fund the improvements but supervisor kim asked for a continuance yesterday for one week in order to cooperate with sfmta prior to going through with that appeal hearing we may not be asking for the boards sympathy but we're working on this since september of 2013 we're a year and a half into this for a partial office conversion of an existing building we've been working through the issues we'll got the board of supervisors next wednesday and our commission is april 8th we would prefer this on april 8th, april 15th is not a date that works with the project team the next is a month out from today, we respect and understand the board has a full calendar on april 8th we feel that it will give us plenty of time we respectfully with request a hearing for april 8th. >> be

. >> welcome to the wednesday, april 15, 2015 meeting of san francisco board of appeals the presiding officer is commissioner president lazarus and joined economy commissioner fung and xhilz and to my right is robert bryan the deputy city attorney that will provide the board with legal joys and mr. pacheco and i'm cynthia goldstein the boards executive order and for case sitting at the front table scott sanchez representing the planning department and planning commission we'll

cite others violations one case went to hearing and got an order address one case went to the board of appeals you're hearing today. >> commissioner mar. >> yeah. i had a question i'm not sure the scope for the attorney or someplace from the staff but let's focus on the rhode island property not the rear yard neighbor i don't it is clear for example the multi unit property if there's a violation in the general vicinity is it goes to the property owner no matter if it's two or one hundred units so in the same sense for the condo owners because we have many in the city or tic owners how would we accredit the individual owners if it is a common area question why it didn't go to the hoa why didn't it not go if it's a yard problem that are condos that is a simple condo two unit there would be condo with 50 units are we saying we are going to accredit those 50 different owners? because of the rear yard problem? >> we've a very unusual situation in n 24 city if you own a condominium this each with separate ownership and condo association the condo association didn't own any property we can't cite a c

that was at the building that the permit had been suspend open all work was suspend about i the board of appeals on noah valley there is a lot of work going on in different unit this notice of violation was issued on the 25th of february 2015 per the other notice of violation from the housing inspection serves for the lead paint i spoke on that as well that was dealt with by inspector yee they got warnings the notification for the lead paint requirement i spoke about that last week i'm not sure it would have made a difference but it was missed it may or may not have made a difference but the work per say i've not heard objections about usually appealing what is being done or the work it's an quack of the failure of someone from dbi to give all the information regarding violations on the property there was two notices on the property i'm telling you about them now thank you. >> be any public comment on this item? seeing none commissioners the matter is yours. >> your thought madam president. >> i feel like i was aware of the novs particle the one having to do with the address that was corrected a

when those that retailer appeals that this is when we come to the board so in smoudz up and down totally unrelated depends on who choose to appeal. >> aside that the lovely of retailers the same that are getting into trouble. >> no as i mentioned the violation recite has dropped we were at 11 percentage last year is the attempted sale of e cigarettes but is it went down we've done a lot of education with those kinds they still come and only a couple of retailers unfortunately, the retailers that are known we work with them i'm sure your familiar the youth you know those are young people that pretend to want this product but youth are president sects and alcohol they're very resource full and maybe it maybe worth it but to get all it is one business maybe. >> what's that. >> as were we when we were young. >> yes. young people we really expect did seem application we try to be tom as is fairly consistent i licenses to the case and every case has a suspension the police officer witnesses the sale have to be to a youth an officer witnessed that we're trained to be somewhat consistent you know argument or questions raushldz for that why that considers they think

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 bu

. >> welcome to the march 25, 2015, meeting of san francisco board of appeals the presiding officer is our president commissioner president lazarus joined by commissioner vice president honda and commissioner fung and commissioner wilson is absent we have a vacant seat when

in a recent case at the board of permit appeals existing tenants attempted to file late appeal and theywe're working with our city departments with staff at the board of permit appeals to understand what is happening there and what the city attorney. i look forward to moving forward with that legislation. >> madam president. >> it is now pass 2:30. we have one accommodation that i will be presenting today. i want to ask betty and other representatives to come forward so that i can present to you a proclamation on behalf of the city and county of san francisco. the women joining her today are part of the international league of peace and freedom. they are celebrating 100 years. i wanted to read this proclamation in order to acknowledge the work that this organization has been doing for a century now and honor the women who continue to make sure that we continue to support and fight for causes that impact women. whereas on april 28th, 1915 approximating 1500 women from a dozen countries gathered in the hay to express their strong opposition to the first world war and to work on plans to e

think it has i'll volunteer to be the one that arrests this in front of the destructing and the board of appeals i'll agree that in regards to the idea of a waiver then then moving on to the next question this thing can be waved by us a commission why should we wave one of the most egregious campaign violations that has come before this commission and it's history why wave it because people have come to us and say farrell is an honorable man directing your attention of the forfeiture proceeding he can negotiate with staff with our staff and if he wants to reject some sort settlement of the $200,000 i think that he is legally gothd to pay back the city because of the illegal campaign contributions if he wanted to negotiate something some sort of deal with us our staff will listen to him if it is an questionably thing and this question hose an honorable man had enter into that we may accept it but the matter should just go forward some people made statements about the fact powerful individuals in the past that had matters before the commission by visible of their power tossed aside matters if we d

. >> welcome to the wednesday, april 15, 2015 meeting of san francisco board of appeals the presidingfficer is commissioner president lazarus and joined economy commissioner fung and xhilz and to my right is robert bryan the deputy city attorney that will provide the board with legal joys and mr. pacheco and i'm cynthia goldstein the boards executive order and for case sitting at the front table scott sanchez representing the planning department and planning commission we'll be joined by the senior building inspector joe duffy that will repeal the department mr. pacheco please go over the boards out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium

. >> the board of appeals tells me we're not going tout out there tomorrow morning if we get a complaint we have to investigate it but wherever that leads use it leads us you alu you'll order the micro film and you know a lot of time i'll be honest it is really postcard hard to do that plans were not not that many plans until the 60s and 70s we didn't see drawings in those types of buildings not easy. >> and then you've also got the water department records i heard someone say 3 units in the building i think that people are saying it is 2 and the city accessory. >> mr. sanchez would you mind interpreting please. >> scott sanchez planning staff so the plan is for it was debiting quit meticulous he had notes removal of the dwm not subject to section 317 of the planning code rooms done having dick access to the street with a lacquering lack of connection and some measurement of 25 feet max with no complaints open the property in regards to the first part given no complaints on the property given the record there were permit that is a 2 units but no clear report i did not discuss that with e

efficient we know that we're looking at it very concretely and specifically at san francisco board of appeals and anticipate that the learning we have there and the process improvement will be

. >> past events of the board of appeals. >> good afternoon aaron star planning staff at the land use commission supervisor tang's massage establishment ordinance was on the agenda they heard this ordinance the item was continued until may fourth the land use to continue to work on the grandfathering clause also on the agenda the noise regulations relate to places of entertainment 24 ordinance will amend did planning code for the purpose of the planning department it will require the planning department to notice the entertainment commission for the projects within 3 hundred feet of places of entertainment the planning commission heard supervisor breed's legislation and the planning commission relayed approval the modifications to one refine the entertainment outreach process in order to including exclude 80 those to the residential building and second riders the sponsors subject to the outreach process to conduct the outreach prior to the application to the planning department and 3 reduce the timeframe for the planning department to receive comments or recommendations for the entert

of 2013. that decision was appealed to this board. however, the apellant, the permit holder, withdrew their appeal. therefore that decision became final. so the suspension remains in effect to this date. there were interim controls that have been adopted by the board of supervisors over the past year from the end of 2013 to the end of 2014. also when the permit holder released or withdrew their appeal, they indicated some willingness to work with the city to look at alternatives to legalizing the building. not aware of any constructive discussions that were had during the past year to result in legalization, certainly no permits, no proposal was moved forward to legalize the residential uses of the building. late last year we received a communication from the attorney for the property owner indicating they would like us to take a final action on the suspended permit, it had been suspended for a little bit more than a year at that point and they wanted some action to be taken. we did our best to complete review and determined that certa