appealable. so the ordinance is designed to pick up - it essentially contamination something that is a matter of board discretion that works okay. when the cad index it appealable through the final action >> d but if the cad ethics is required it's appealable. i want to make sure this is clear. >> that is not a decision whether or not a new cad index it needed but in the project meets the substantial modification. if it meets that standard it needs a new cad index. it's not an environmental sequa determination >> (multiple voices) >> you determine the project hadn't changed enough a that's what's going to be evaluated. yes. i - given that the substantial modification is specifically designed you know, i think it's up to mann anyone to guess what the specific issues or changes that would be brought up open appeal >> why would - what would be the harmony of having the appeal made as opposed to doing this - this is a over time without proper environmental review is navigate an issue of concern and m

appeal. this is us going to staff with the ability to say hey, we think you made a mistake. you might remember at the beginning of this process we as a coalition said it was extremely problematic to us to have to appeal the original determination payroll it's kind of wild west and because we're able to appeal after the first approval on the project it happens all the time that projects change the fact we can appeal the total environmental determination catches those moments like with the null murphy house. it protects us but we sauce saw the big thing the opponents wanted to keep was first approval. so supervisor kim's office came up with that we accept the first approval but this piece of legislation before you from supervisor kim is absolutely key. it's the reason we sponsored the rest of the legislation and it was approved yesterday >> thank you. thank you commissioner and thank you for your contributions to the city with our volunteer work. i really appreciate it. we're talking about ciga

it still appealed more than 1 month later. it failed to appeal. this appeal is actually about trying to protect the private views from the appellant's own unpermitted penthouse. for almost two years the2 -- the appellant defaced the public hearing noticed attached to our building and is threatening to appeal all permits. the private view the pell sanity trying to protect cans -- is from a boating. this penthouse stands 50 feet tall, the same height as we propose building. they have never pulled an electrical permit, never pulled a plumbing permit and they have not completed a building permit since 1988. their billion is a fully rented 6 building unit that has not any permit 25 years. appendix 2 in my submissions, in written accuracy. >> your time is up. you said the appellant acknowledged the existence of the permit on july 18th, what do you mean by that. >> he said they learned of it july 18th, they went searching for answers. >> you understand there is no right to appeal that type of permit. that's the point. just wondering. okay. i think you an

if the appeal is regretted there shouldn't be any further appeal action. so the supervisor is looking forward to ref the feedback & from today and a also for tomorrow in the planning commission >> thank you so, now i believe you have a good picture of the skwoep e scope of the pictures and we believe that with the first reading of the ordinance yesterday the city has a concrete idea of a modification. a substantial modification under that ordinance is to be regulated under the planning code or new information first year so it is it a change then it would require a new sequa document. new information? a new sequa document. and those sequa documents would be renewal appealable. this is a decision that is left to the discretion of the c r o. it would be without - this is the main reason we believe the new process for appeal should not be loud. first there is an exiting avenue for appeal as you've heard. if the public believes it's based on a sequa permit that would be appealable. it is for improperly issued permits. this is a substantial new process with bala

were valid appeals. and the next is for the property on 16th street with regards to jack spade wanting to relocate and they found they were not notified and the letters were not - i have been sending the letters so we mailed this to 36 groups and there were no appeals and it was reopened to a 35 day appeal. and whether or not there are appeals for building permits that the board has calendar appearing next week. so at this hearing i'll advise the board they could make an demonstration that the permits were improperly given and they didn't take jurisdiction and they will hear the matter next week on the building plagues for the jack spades store. and another was for kres listen drive. the planning commission approved it and at the hearing the board of appeals denied the permit overturning the planning commissions decisions. there was recent information that was brought to our attention. yesterday we received a letter from the county surveyor saying they're reviewing it and they received it in july. the su

less than and hill and took the dr and heard on appeal of the deck and this was scheduled for an appeal late last week an appeal was filed so it was continued to the call of the chair and it will be scheduled once the board of supervisors makes the determination on the board of appeal. >> commissioner moore. >> when those things happen there are additional fees left on this process correct? >> yeah. basically, we're doing those for fretting free so my time is not covered by any additional fees for the permit application we don't charge informing for those items when they're at the board of appeals. one thing as my understanding i need to get better detail we can't include those in our normal appeal process. so the appeal process can only be covered as part of our normal fees >> it's a difficult situation as a director i must say. >> good afternoon tim department staff here to share with you the outcome of the preservation commission hearing. it was the first scheduled he meeting since august 1st so the calendar was full. the first resolution item on their calendared was a resolution hon

appeals. that groupings group has its own procedures and ways to deal with things in some instances it's satisfactory and other instances not. i was impressed with the fact that if there's this appeal that supervisors kim and chu favor this project will not be debated and that's an important part of my consideration but fundamentally it is i don't think that a great deal of harm will come from allowing this proposed appeal >> thank you commissioner. >> my primary of coming in this hearing is not whether there should be an appeal but the recommend are, you know, a hearing or not i thought what i read ahead of time defended the process for a written determination but i want to congratulate the public on doing a really good job on convincing me and to come up with an agreement so the speak how this appeal should be handed. i can support a hearing because that's where we are at at this point. my understanding is assuming that's the way the vote would go the staff would have to come up with a new r

or very, very small number will be appeal cases. now, the thing about appeal cases, they take a sizeable amount of staff time, but we found is that what we have in the recent past where we have one or two appeals hearing each commission, that does not disrupt our operation too much. even though it does take some staff time. and we find, you know, that moving forward we will be able to bring it before you but if we do it in a similar way as in the past and in the case of extra because we have the staff that will prepare them and that will be a better model like it is okay for you to pick one day, and have all of the hearings in one day. but, the amount of staff time for each case, but we would actually have to put some of the normal operation on hold. and there is some particular appeal case that you might be aware of that we should bring forward. and earlier, and unless there is some other major reason that i think that, the what we have up to now is good where the housing and enforcement and each division sends one or two, and it d

. >> we have an appeal letter from 691 post. eric cohen. he says he's a resident of 691 post for over 10 years. i urge you in the strongest possible terms to deny any permits. since the day it's opened the bar has substantially reduced the quality of my life. both my bedroom and living room face jones street and i'm regularly awakened between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m.. they are breaking bottom -- bottles by patrons. jones has done nothing to mitigate this problem. now they want to st live music performances until 10:00 p.m.. the neighborhood is already noisy. i would argue that existing background noise of this neighborhood is substantially different than subjecting people to this noise. if you live adjacent to the bar that had created an on going nuisance in your neighborhood would you permit them to host live performances. the only answer is no. i would urge you to deny this. >> i have showed everybody the paperwork e-mailed cl ugg the letter from their owner supporting the bar. they told me they are surprised that their suppor

the permit was subsequently issued and an appealed to this board. the board does require with the planning code section 126 c 125. that pop out can be 12 feet into the rear yard, no higher than 10 feet to the roof of that structure. and it can be the full width of the lot or you can set it back 5 feet from each of the side property lines and go to 2 stories. what they are doing is the smaller version, the shorter version which they can go to the full lot with the revision to move it away from the side property line is something they did, not a requirement of the department, they did it voluntarily, apparently that was not sufficient to resolve the issues related to this appeal. the department does support the project as proposed. i'm available for any questions. in regards to the section 311 neighborhood notification, it does advise members of the public who receive that notice to contact the applicant or the department staff to ask any questions and any discretionary reviews must be filed within the 30-day window. i have never extended a section 31

it is not in the appeals board? >> good question. >> because we really don't have a venue during these meetings for people to come in and appeal to us. >> it is just a regular board of appeals, you know, if they present drawings to us and let's say that we disagree with the engineering, for example. >> sure. >> and then it goes through the process and it will go. >> good morning commissioners. the appeal poll says that it especially in the other job, do you remember that we have add two more members for those, and soft story to go through the examiner and also through the board of appeal. >> got you. >> and hopefully we will not go through the board for the wood frame building. >> i see, thank you. >> the permits, is it a posting the soft story permit. do you have to post it on the building? >> they have seen to the other permits. >> it is appeal able up to 15 days or something like that. >> yes. >> and it is just a regular permit which happens to be a seismic upgrade? >> yeah. >> just a regular building permit. jus

there was a ceqa appeal filed friday. i have received notice that appeal was deemed timely. >> okay. >> and i don't know if the other parties are in agreement or object to that request so if you would like you can hear the parties speak to that first. >> yeah. i think that would be appropriate, so given what we just heard from our chairperson i would like to hear on the issue solely on whether or not the continuance is acceptable or not. >> thank you. steven williams on behalf of the appellant. ceqa appeal was filed on thursday and i'm glad that ms. goldstein received it because we didn't receive it on a timely matter and it states it will do that and traditionally the board has continued the items to the call of the chair once the ceqa appeal is filed and the basic reason is no one knows what is going to happen to the project. conceivably the project could be changed radically and this might all be a large waste of time, and i would add those are the only written procedures that we have is the city attorney's memo from t

the people actually affected by the remodel on file with this permitted appeal are letters of appeal of support from two immediate neighbors to the right, to the left, both unsolicited and also support from the three people across the street. in short, in my mind a hundred percent of the people, most affected by this project do not support this project and support this appeal. after 33 years of seeing this property neglected, we welcome the applicants commitment to restoring it. however we believe the property should be scaled down to address the legitimate concerns of the neighbors directly and permanently affected by it. we hope to be able to work with the applicants to achieve a solution that will work for all the parties involved. >> thank you. anything more from the permit holder? miss kong or mr. levi? i just wanted to put up the list of those who were notified of this process. these are a list that we have prepared for by a service that does this on a regular basis that i believe who need to be notified per 150 feet were notified. it was possible that the previous speaker is o

the issues on each appeal are different. our planning commissions review under the california quality act sequa announced the adequacy and completeness of the examinations. this is a legislation hearing and to over turn needs 6 votes of this board. our consideration of the appeal of the use authorization involves an analysis whether the planning commissions determination was appropriate. the second hearing is quasi and we're required to afford the project sponsor due process to over turn the authorization of the continual condition 8 votes of the board are required. while into need the consideration and the members of the public who wish to speak and the consideration of the patents my suggestion is we condolences hearings. the public planning department and sponsor each receive a fair opportunity to address the appeals. first, the pales will have up to fourteen minutes to peel and next the members of the public meaning i request the board to regret the project may speak up to 2 minutes. we ask the speakers address the progr

when you talk about a rehearing, i wasn't aware that the board of appeals people can have it heard a second time. >> yes, there is a process, any appeal that is heard by the board within 10 days you can file a rehearing request. and if you can show that there is either new information that was not available at the time of the previous hearing or manifest injustice, the board can vote to allow a new hearing on the item and it will be scheduled for a brand-new hearing with new briefing and that is a possibility. >> okay, thank you for that information. >> commissioner antonini. >> i already asked. >> thank you. >> there is nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to general public comment not to exceed a period of 15 minutes. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the com

the city has appealed to the supreme court and they argue that no, this third circuit court of appeals and other federal appeals court have applied similar rules to this type of situation and have gotten it wrong. there does a not have to be a disparate impact type of analysis before we can go forward. we cannot have intentional discrimination and we are not intending to target people because of their race but this type of burden you are placing on us is not required by the federal housing law or by the constitution, and you cannot make us jump through these hoops before we complete the redevelopment of this neighborhood. the court will look at that and it has implications not only for housing law but also for other areas of antidiscrimination law, possibly including employment discrimination. the same type of test often arises when you have an employment discrimination lawsuit. it is hard to prove that someone is intentionally discriminating. the jargon that part uses of disparate impact smokes out impermissible discriminatory actions. it could have implications even beyond housing in

welcome to the august 21, 2013, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals.he presiding officers is our president chris hwang and joined by our vice-president lazarus, frank function, honored a hurtado. at the controls is the board as legal assistant pacheco. we are joined tonight by representative who have cases before the board. anthony greek oh is here. chief of department of building inspection. we have department of public works, department of building inspection and bureau of urban forestry. at this time mr. pacheco would you please go over the meeting guidelines. >> the board request that you turn off all pagers so you do not disturb the proceedings. please carry conversations in the hallway. appellants, permit holders and department representative each have 7 minutes to present their cases and 4 minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 7-minute period. people not affiliated with the parts -- parties have to 3 minutes to address the board, but no rebuttals. members of the public who wish to spea

he's appealing to that half of the united states to whom president obama himself was appealing.hink he hit home. >> i think there was a little superpower envy there, as leader of a former superpower, now sees a moment for him to get back on the world stage, appropriately so, i might add. i welcome his involvement in an attempt to find a solution in syria. and in taking a poke at u.s. exceptionalism, i think, you know, he wants to make the point that the, it's not only the u.s. that can make things happen on the world stage, but when there's a humanitarian problem, basically all of those countries look to this country to act. rarely does another country act. the french went into mali, british went into sierra leone. that was very good. mostly when there's a humanitarian crisis, everybody comes to the u.s. with their handout. >> i think vladimir putin is a propaganda, he honed in on this, look at the last election when the gop candidate built his entire foreign policy platform on this idea of american exceptionalism, lifted it right out of the romney play book, lifted it out of th

. >> commissioners, item 11, review of past week's events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. well, there was no historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners, ann marie rodgers planning department staff. this is the first week the board is back with their full schedule of hearings so i'm here to report on those that pertain to planning and land use. at monday's land use committee, the committee heard supervisor cohen's ordinance which would create a formula retail restricted use district for 3rd street. this commission considered that ordinance on july 25th and unanimously voted for approval with certain modifications. you'll be pleased to know that supervisor cohen incorporated all of the commission's policy recommendations. she did not, however, expand the rud to include a few properties along main street. on this matter the commission merely requested that the supervisor consider this change. and because some of these substantive amendments were made at the committee this week, they amended it and continued it so i

it made in the court of appeals. the argument is that the provision of the statute is valid under congress's commerce clause power which is the power to enact laws that regulate the flow of goods among the states and chemicals are sold in interstate commerce like these which are not illegal weapons. this argument was not addressed in the opening brief because bond's position is that it was waived so it is a ear bones description but the government portrays the case differently. the government explains the two chemicals used have the rare ability to cause toxic harm to individuals with minimal topical contact and one half a teaspoon of one of them could be lethal. shegovernment says that attempted to poison the friend with these chemicals at least one to four times over the course of 24 months. substance on the mailbox and the door to her home and car in sufficient quantities to be lethal. to these additional details, expect the answer to the constitutional question. shebrief for bond explained was under incredible st

>>> good evening welcome to the san francisco board of appeals. we are joined by our vice-president, lazarus and. at the control is victor pacheco. the boards's legal assistant. scott sanchez is here in the front row, the zoning administrator and i would like to take this time to introduce to you the new assistant zoning administrator corey keith. we are also joined tonight by the department of inspection and bureau streets and mapping jocelyn king and as well as the deputy drofrment director. at this time would you conduct the meeting. >> the board will request that you turn off all pagers. please carry on all conversations in the hallway. department representative each have 7 minutes to present their cases and 4 minutes for rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes.3 minutes. members of the public who wish to speak, are asked to fill out a card. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions. if you have questions ab

these grant ors have 5 days to appeal. >> item no. 5. item 5: appeal no. 13-061 nancy luo dba "clement service center", appellanttss vs. dept. of public health, respondent 311 12th avenue. appealing the revocation on may 13, 2013, of massage establishment permit. director's case no. msg-13-23. for hearing today.>> item no. 5. item 5: appeal no. 13-061 nancy luo dba "clement service center", appellanttss vs. dept. of public health, respondent 311 12th avenue. appealing the revocation on may 13, 2013, of massage establishment permit. director's case no. msg-13-23. for hearing >> item no. 5. item 5: appeal no. 13-061 nancy luo dba "clement service center", appellanttss vs. dept. of public health, respondent 311 12th avenue. appealing the revocation on may 13, 2013, of massage establishment permit. director's case no. msg-13-23. for hearing today. >> we will start with the appellants. you have 7 minutes to present your case. >> can i state appearance for the record. i'm fred baker, attorney and this is shawn salehih behind me. miss nancy lou

i started the appeal process in 2011, and i didn't actually get an appeal hearing until january of 2013n you -- you made the decision to appeal, what do you think your chances are? >> well, i was -- it's my understanding that it never should have had to have been appealed anyway. it should have been given a disability rating. it deserved one. it rated a disability rating. >> and do they tell you why think delayed it or didn't give it to you? >> there was nothing that i could understand as an explanation, no. >> what does that mean you couldn't understand it? >> i read the paperwork and there was nothing that made sense to explain exactly why i was not given -- i was given a disability rating at 0%. >> we're looking at your picture on the screen here. glenn, what can be done about what john is talking about? >> well, the v.a. has admitted that only 17% of their raters -- the decision-makers are adequately train, that received the mandatory train. right there, over eight out of ten aren't getting properly trained. so we're seeing many, probably two-thirds of all decisions have mistakes in

the appeal would be struck from the resolution. the new resolve the san francisco municipal transportation agency board of directors takes no action at this time on the question that it's qualified to participate in the next stage of the rfp process and be it further resolved that the san francisco municipal transportation agency board of directors that may submit to the director by close of business on monday september 23, 2013. unless such information alters the directors recommendation that not be able to participate in the process. in the final consideration of the final protest appeal at the next meeting of the san francisco municipal transportation agency board of directors. >> thank you. members of the board, questions or comment. members of the public care to address on this issue? >> seeing none. okay, members of the board. it should deal with the amendment first. amendments that mr. boomer read to us and whereas and the resolve clause. is there a motion to accept the on the amendment? >> i would move to approve the amendm