dbi only and 3e7b9 appeals and the appeals that have the planning components to them and also separate the va ones we separate that and the surcharge for each the different planning and dbi. >> so it is calculated. >> yes. on the fee side no proposed changes it's a small pox and comes in the same amount and we left that alone expenditures in the next few years we're looking at a small there those increase is tied to the agreement that were entered into last year the infringes in salaries and fairly minor and they're off set slightly by a change in the job clarifications so when the clerical position became vacate last year it was changed in a jen clerical job to a legal clerk that gave us a better pool of applicant applicants that have experience in the documents like the ones in the office and fortunately for us it is a position that is less expensive so we'll have salary savings as far as non-expensive savings to the work orders we're paying for the staff time for the city attorney and the folks running the cameras but i don't expect expenses to go up the largest contractor was an ou

i am an architectural historian and supporter of the appeal. i would like to put up on the screen just to reiterate the fact -- the main argument among the many that the embarcadero side was not included was based on false reasoning based on [inaudible] maps. we have more proof that the gas was shot through the embarcadero side and that the hall actually stretches through. there is more proof that from the photo of the the shooting the teargas across the embarcadero into the embarcadero side than no photographs of that event on steuart street. not that it didn't happen. the hall was attacked on both sides by the police department and the police had their information, their informants perhaps and you would be saying that the police were just shooting randomly into a buildinghalf of the embarcadero side and [inaudible] testified by the former owner and he testified tear bas bombs were shot into the facility as far as the other tenant and i believe aisle a3879 so there is more record. the other part that nk happened on the embarcadero and with you

went below the average number of appeals for the first time in about 5 years but it looks like the appeals down again, i think that perhaps last year's spike was less to do with the comforted economy and the apt apt appeals that increased our numbers we're back to the fiscal year 2013 rate. >> have you done the calculation. >> it's 41 so to the same one hundred and 60 something appeals per year but if we keep on going we'll be back to one hundred and 60 something okay. so moving and

went below the average number of appeals for the first time in about 5 years but it looks like the appeal is down again, i think that perhaps last year's spike was less to do with the comforted economy and the apt apt appeals that increased our numbers we're back to the fiscal year 2013 rate. >> have you done the calculation. >> it's 41 so to the same one hundred and 60 something appeals per year but if we keep on going we'll be back to one hundred and 60 something okay. so moving and looking at 79 current year budget on the revenue side we'll end the year is is surplus and looking at a small deficit in the filing niece but the surplus we're seeing will offer come that deficit and then be some so 32 thousand by the end of the year roughly and on the expenditure side we look to the projected so we'll have savings there there was a clerical position that become vacant so we have fringe savings and some of the costs with the processing of the appeals since we're having two appeals that went projected will be saved as well so when we order the address notification for the requirement the sf s

>> welcome back to the february 11th meeting of the board of appeal, we're calling ie pel number 8, appeal number 14-196, stavroula skinas versus the department of building inspection manbacker planning department, the property is 15 allison street, to replace floor beams with psl and replace columns with ts steel post and footing, we'll start with the appellant ask the appellant's agent. you have 7 minutes. >> good evening, my name is nick skinas and i'm here representing my number voula skinas and i would like to respectfully withdraw our appeal to this project. i spoke with one of the architect ts and we are -- we think you could find the solutions to the problem wes eel be having, and as such i'll withdraw the appeal. >> okay, mr. skinas, we always tell folks would want to withdraw their appeals to understand that if you do so, the board will no longer have any jurisdiction over this matter. >> yes,. >> okay, thank you. >> good luck. >> okay, so item number 8 has been withdrawn, we'll move on to items 9a, b, c and d, this is appeal number 14197 14198 and 1419, against the building insp

for embarcadero that was an appeal of the final mitigated declaration for a one-story building and the renovation for the common club of california it is located on the embarcadero and stuart street the negative declaration identified it as eligible for the california places due to the association with the longs short-term strike the department determined the practice writing project did not say it was any significance not impacting the 12r9 street facade the appellant contended otherwise several of the members spoke for and against several of the members of the i o w union spoke in support and the congesting to preserve the building and former folks also spoke in favor of holding the m.d. supervisor avalos and supervisor campos asked numerous questions for the resource and kim asked about the street trees and they upheld it unanimously in 2012 supervisor kim made a motion to reject the appeal a and it was unanimously passed and the emergency shelter ordinance received its first reading this week the arresting cascades was passed in the final reading and the signed ordinance the articl

them as the appellant on behalf of the greening committee on the hayes valley association had it appeal is protesting the removal of two tries on hayes there's numerous reasons to not permit the removal the numerous public value their that environmental benefits and economic gins their aesthetic beauty on the block of hayes street the public works and the city and county of san francisco recognize the importance value and the enforcement of street trees the planning department is promoting uttering and the known public value on hayes should not be dismissed they're more in a nundz they provide healthy environment for habitat and removing pollutant and reduce energy accumulation they should not be overlooked san francisco prides itself on a beautiful city and time to uphold those privately held issues they provide the hayes valley neighborhood association has invested and tributed to the overall character and the shaving aesthetic tree street helps our local businesses to remove the two trees that's the commercial center of hayes valley will cause damage to the businesses and the propert

appeals board agenda? seeing none, i have item h adjournment is there a motion to adjourn >> so moved. >> second. >> all commissioners in favor. >> i. >> we're now adjourned it's 928 we'll recessed and come back as the building inspection at. >> good evening and welcome to the february 25, 2015, meeting of san francisco board of appeals presiding officer this evening will be commissioner president lazarus joined by commissioner honda and commissioner fung and commissioner wilson there is one seat on the board that's vacate and product to the san francisco charter the board may over rile the vote 4 votes are not required we'll be joined by the deputy city attorney for the board and he'll be providing the board with legal voices at the table a scott sanchez the zoning administrator for the city and he's representing his office as well as the planning commission and pea planning department we're going to be joined shortly loophole by joe duffy representing the denial and nick the senator plan checker with the

so commissioners, i would ask you to deny the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? okay, seeing none, then we will take rebuttal, ms. woods you have three minutes. >> okay, we've contended from the start this was a de facto demolition, mr. murphy could not retain the walls he was claiming on his project which this started. the whole house came down thanks to his construction company and he's still insisting he's going to retain walls that are not restrainable. this is his own plan, this is the section that he's claiming he salvaged. it either can be used for it in his own plans, these red lines are what we can reuse he can't reuse the floor there is no floor he's raising the ceiling, everything is new, the only thing is going to be these two walls so that is bologna, her's appraisals under 317, only applications to demolish sing m family residential buildings that are not affordable or financially accessible are exempt from discretionary reviews, he is not applying to demolish his new house. i don't care if his new house costs 8 mi

. >> good evening marta fry i wanted to give a brief history of our tree application and appeals process that is eaten i'll go into more detail the proposed new 580 hating street the question was read the removal of two trees within our sidewalk and public right-of-way the responsibility of the prove or disprove the adjacent prove or disprove i'm sure you're aware of we requested those be replaced with red maples we want to add more trees but feel appropriate trees this was primarily due to the condition of the fikdz trees permission to remove those trees was noticeably denied and this was the protection application we appealed dpw appeal denial and the department of urban forestry we considered their inspectors opinion and agreed those are trees were struggling come down la print on an appeals hearing exhibits 3 outlining the reasons for the removal request i feel illustrating their intent on replanting twice the number of trees on the frontage as well as new trees on the other footages laguna and ivy street the subsequent site visit by beginning as well as the property owners new arbor

heard by the doctor dr in on-the-job decided not to take discretionary review and the board appeal with a 2 to one to uphold they needed 3 votes by default the variance was upheld and the second item is one 25 crown terrace that is an appeal of the board of appeals the permit setting out to change the method of construction when this was before this commission several years ago it was an entertainment commission permit not to be considered demolition as you probably are aware in late december of 2013 there was a cat tra to from the the building shored fell and as per planned the building collapsed they substantially revised the application the project stayed the same 9 end result the same and the board of appeals they had to remove more of the building to salvage as much of this and demolition under the blad the section deemed this is was anyone centrally not affordable because the seated value the building collapsed the assessment was based on on the assessment of the land and the date of the collapse of the building that exceeded $1.056 million administratively it was reviewed and sub

on to item 7 appeals that you are not to section b .3254 as a city charter appealed by and repealed by the attorneys for gerrero street and tom to revoke a certificate of final completion and occupancy first, we'll have a presentation by the department and then the appellant each side has 7 minutes to give their presentation and 3 minutes for a rebuttal and 3 minutes for public comment pertaining to this as well. >> good morning chief building inspector with dbi congratulations on your appointments. >> i wish this were a little bit less complicated that situation we have i'm going to give a brief synopsis of what has transpired before the commission permit application 2014 was an over the counter ownerships on june 11, 2014, that means it wouldn't have included drawings or mr. haney review that was the case here the description noted on the permit application was for administrative issuance of cf c a certificate of final completion and occupancy of the building now this has to do with the rear building on the lot the front building as two units what we are discussing an occupancy in us

and deny the appeal consistent with the kansas appeal unfortunately ms. the miss steps when i denied the kansas street permit she postponed and the planning commission voted 5 to one to take review and disapprove the permit yet on january 28th you denied the permit based on the fact it was illegally issued this is illegal inconsistent with the kansas street project all of that coffin evaluated if the permit were proper viewed before it was issued all of that could have been evaluated the error the department milled this is also the result of the planning department error in allowing the permit to are issued wyoming's without the discretionary review this remained effective despite the planning commission sdraul by upholding the permit despite the decision you've created a legally maneuvered injustice do the right thing and grant a rehearing in this case and deny the permit thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> hello, i'm the truest for the disease property owner. >> i'm sorry can you speak directly into the mike i am the truest for the dece

grossman and the appeal was taken by mr. sancrow. speaker: let's go back to the original litigation itself. to answer into that litigation and to actually defend against mr. grossman's assertion that the materials didn't have to be turned over. can the staff independently make that kind of determination, go forward, litigate without at least informing the board or two, at least -- or getting the permission of the board? aren't there policy matters involved in that? speaker: there's no obligation that i'm aware of to seek the commissions approval before descending itself in litigation. the decision here - speaker: defending itself in litigation. speaker: sorry, the commission -- speaker: does the staff some sort of independent body aside from the ethics commission that it would have standing to do things as a person in litigation? speaker: well here, mr. sancrow was named as the respondent. when the task force referred the matter to the ethics commission, it was mr. sancrow who was named as a respondent and that's because of the decis

inger we'll take our last item, appeal ie nem 11, appeal number 14-201, terry woods versus department of building inspection planning department aapproval. 125 crown terrace ras, protesting the issuance on december 5, 2014 to mel murphy of an alteration permit revision to bpa. we will start with the appellant, ms. woods. you have 7 minutes and thank you all for your patience this evening. >> overhead please. >> i need the overhead. mel murphy has been trying to tear this house down for here, in 20 ot he was denied a demo permit because it was determined affordable housing, so next mr. murphy called this project an alteration, an alteration is a way that a lot of developers use to get around the demolition rules of section 317, pretending to be an alteration and keeping a certain amount of the original house, developers can basically demolish a house through remodeling, this al ration would increase the size of the house six times over the original size, on december 16, 2013, the house was jacked up on an overstressed beep supported by shoring towers, the beam collapsed dropping the ho

there are no sequel issues with this appeal. we hope it's clear that there is no legitimate basis for this appeal under sequel and thus, no reason to postpone acting on it. >> the appeal has been withdrawn so we will be acting on it today for clarity. >> thank you. i appreciate you madam president. we appreciate supervisor farrell's offer to negotiate the issues and we look forward to that resolution. >> thank you, very much. are there any members of the public who would like to speak in support of the project? okay. with that, public comment is closed. and this hearing has been held and conducted. and it's now closed. item 28, 29, and 30 are before us. supervisor farrell >> motion to table all those items. >> okay. supervisor, before we move forward, i would like to recognize attorney john gib ner. >> you have two options. because an appeal has been held, if you attempt to perform the sequel for the department, you should pass item 28 and table items 29 and 30. >> okay. i will recognize supervisor farrell. >> madam president, i

we sent you a packet dated january 16, 2015 responding to the issues in the appeal. in the report the department find that the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts on the environment that could not be mitigated thus we believe the report was properly prepared. the appeal letter filed with the board of supervisors by david os good with the rincon neighborhood association focuses on the impacts of historic resources. the appellant cites a 2009 position on a proposed project on the site. involved demolition of the existing building and construction of a a story building in its place. this project involves renovation and i will turn the presentation over to tina who will address the concerns in the appeal letter. >> good afternoon president breed and members of the board. tina tam senior preservation planner for the planning department. according to the appellant there are three concerns. . the building is not only significant to the strike but significant with the association of harry bridges and not compatible with the neighborhood that insure c

the code gives us the jury instruction from our appeals of the revocation and allows to you affirm or modify or reverse it decision and if you precede adopt that avenue make the finding for the basis of your conclusion. >> okay. i've been keeping quiet i've been shift in the debate first of all i want to be clear the chief raernd came out this morning and said he whishes he didn't have this case sfarnd but i want to be clear i don't i don't think the department skews the roughness i think i want to commend the chief for doing what he to lay out the history to get to the conversation all the departments and commissioners have done a go back as a victim of badge 3 r reports i've done this over the years it happens i wish i had representatives to correct because my team told me i self-have a leg to stand on with that said, i know that commissioner walker said that particularly i have one 3 r report i had to concede it that i want to kind of come to a point of view obviously i was hoping we won't have jurisdiction and this would go to the board of appeals some of the commissioners believe

they all denied the appeal. >> matters became desperate. now we had no more appeals or challenges. on april 19th of 1999, the final death warrant was issued. we had struck out, we had failed and he was going to die. >> the state set an execution date. >> we drove over to angola. john came into the room, we didn't tell him we had been coming, but he knew why we were there. and he looked at us and he said, what's the date? we looked at him and said, john, it's may 20th, which was basically a month off. >> i'd been around death row at that time long enough to understand what was going on. i was like, wow, it's my time. it's my time. i was trying to be strong, i was trying to like understand what's getting ready to happen. i'm getting ready to die for a crime i didn't commit or anxiety kicked in. i didn't know how to accept the reality they'd be getting ready to kill me. >> and then john did a really remarkable thing. he said, my youngest son john jr. is the first person in my family who's going to graduate from high school on may 21st. will you please go to his graduation and make sur

in a way that other guys who were appealing to the constitution appealing to the established order in the country to do right by black people - they weren't talking about the uses and abuses of the black history. >> not in the same way. that appeal, ability yip, the focus on the black body, on the black community, to turn away from pleading for one's humanity unsettled the political dynamic, and appealed to young people. it affected the children. coordinating committees travelled to new york. he can tured the imagination of young people. the black power movement, the young people-led movement asserts itself in many ways because of dynamic of malcolm x and is grounded in the assertion of our right to live in this planet, not pleading for humanity for everyone. >> you mentioned islam in the conversation. it's important to remember how much the sort of middle of the road civil right movement was aligned with the church, and not just the black church, but the national council of churns. >> absolutely. young people were on fire. was malcolm's status as a muslim leader something that put hi

the best i can give you is what was submitted as part of this appeal. >>supervisor london breed: okay. thank you. at this time we will open up to public comment. each commenter will have up to 2 minutes to those who support the project sponsor only >> public speaker: good afternoon. i'm a supporter of preservation. there is nothing more that makes a difference to a city than to historical buildings. it's very tough to be able to get things done through city planning as far as preservation is concerned. it's not easy to do unless you have the evidence to support it. the common wealth is a great asset to all nabts -- neighborhoods in the city. two residents are alike. leaving vacant buildings like this affects the businesses. by this community. also as a fellow australian i'm proud of what harry bridges has done. it provides a venue for free speech. i urge you not to support the appeal. thank you. breed supervisor london breed: thank you. next speaker. >> >> public speaker: >> good afternoon. i would like to read from the kevin star, san francisco librari

i'm going to move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. >> on the basis? >> let me restate -- let my think about this for a second. on the basis that the dbi's determination is sound and not in error. >> there's a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to uphold this permit on the basis that the department of building inspections determination is sound and not in error. on that motion president lazarus? >> aye. >> vice-president honda? >> aye. >> and commissioner wilson is absent. thank you, the vote is 3-0, this permit is upheld on that basis. >> president lazarus, there's no further business before the board. >> we are adjourned. (meeting is adjourned). 3, 2, 1 (clapping). >> (clapping) good afternoon, everybody let's rise let's have a revolution. (clapping.) i'm here with many of our sisters that are going to welcome you to to and welcome to is revolution today not yesterday not tomorrow today. >> (clapping). >> in february we rise in country hundreds of countries around the world to show wasn't one boil women and girls looks like we want to shine a

now 23 they've agreed to drop the appeals and approximately an actual appeal on 930 van ness; is that correct. >> two pending with the release of stay and a at one of the 950 van ness quite honorable our path to establish a new deadline we have the february 25th publication date and work with the staff to find the next goal post to reissue with that deadline so that will be the goal moving forward and had discussions their council and i think at that point those appeals will be withdrawn move forward with the com pell compliance through the penalties and . >> a lot of the other ones there in compliance with the parts of the program. >> all kind of their rolled into the same issue of a big batch of the notice of violations with the penalty of timeline spur. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> just briefly right to life only what commissioner johnson said what puzzle me it is difficult to do the entire dir with the absence of other institutions in the city has done and done well, that is submitting a institutional master plan, which sets forth the goals the institutional goals of the in

it talked about the disparate impact rule in the court of appeals. it was being done in context of those appeals. >> thank you, counsel. general verrilli. >> chief justice and may it please the court, the provisions that most clearly show that disparate impact regulations are a permissible interpretations are the three exemptions. those exemptions presuppose disparate impact liability and serve no real purpose without them, without disparate impact liability. the providence of those exemptions lens support to a reasonableness of hud's reading. they were added in 1988 when nine courts of appeals had ruled that the fair housing act authorized disparate impact. they were added to provide defenses to exemptions from disparate impact liability. >> your case would be stronger if there had been no court of appeals that had favored disparate impact. then, you could possibly argue that was put in just to eliminate the erroneous judgments of these courts of appeals in certain areas. it would be better if no court of appeals said that. >> i actually think it is

who is it that they're appealing to? >> well, they are appealing to sunni communities in iraq, that feel that the central government has not really basically taken their grievances into account. they appeal to the community in syria that has been under tremendous pressure and attacked by the assad regime in damascus. they appeal to sunni's in yemen who believe that iran is supporting the houthi group that has taken over power in sanna. in this particular sense and also they are appealing to the sunni community worldwide that is look, we are standing out. we are trying to exact vengeance against iran, iran being the major supporters of these regimes in iraq, syria and now yemen. in this particular sense even though the bat doors residence was empty and deserted for three years, it has tremendous symbolic value because isil would like to tell the sunni arab world, we are your defendant, the vanguard, we are taking revenge against the iranians. >> the fact that they were able to carry out this attack on libyan soil, what do