assessment appeals board. it's a lot of work and it is important work. we appreciate the volunteer spirit in applying for these positions. >> make a motion to move mr. tham for seat 2, mr. watts for seat 5, ms. crowser for seat 8. ifmr. spertzel seat 6. gvl (gavel) >> item four. assessment appeals board. four seats, nine applicants. >> i believe several candidates are here and alberto rios has withdrawn his nomination. four seats, eight applicants. ms. lewis. >> good afternoon, i am a licensed attorney in the state of california. coming today seeking reappointment to the appeals board. i was seeking your regular appointment. i would like to amend my application and add alternate as well because i do have a full-time government position. >> do you prefer to be an alternate? >> that is my preference. however i still would consider a regular appointment. as far as my experience i have been the president of the condominium association for the past 15 years. i am an active landlord, over 25+ years of public service

the assessment appeals board is 7% or 9 20,000 which includes a one-time 350,000 for online softwaretion very many and 1% for the youth commission and the sunshine ordinance task force. finally the gift that keeps giving is the lasco's willingness to spend down last year's funding and not appear on the budget. if things remain equal this may also be the case in fiscal years 13-14 and 14-15 budget. alternatively, when looking at the budget by type of expense, the department's budget is 73% for salaries and fringe or 604 million. for salaries and 2.6 for fringe. 25% or 3.1 million for professional services, that includes yes, the budget analyst contract, but also the c-a-f-r, which is under 300,000, and the raab tracking system. the remaining 2% of expenses are materials and supplies. and work orders which are determined by the level of service required from the department of telecommunications, building maintenance and smaller amounts for risk management and youth work. if we look at the department's expenditure by costs, the budget overwhelmingly funds labor. budget and legislative a

with that the public hearing was closed and the board voted to deny the appeal. and then the board lastly voted on a final reading of the ordinance introduced by supervisor campos allowing personal service uses on the heard this and approved it at your november 29 meeting. there are two new pieces of legislation introduced this week coming your way. first was introduced by supervisor ferrell and it would allow medical service in the sacramento neighborhood commercial district. it would permit a change of use from business or professional service to medical services on the first floor. also this week supervisor avalos introduced a rather large ordinance titled conversion, demolition and conformity of residential uses. this would revise the criteria for residential conversion and standardize definitions for these uses across various use districts, permit enlargement of dwelling units which are non-conforming as to density in the districts where these dwelling units are principally increase into the non-conforming elements of height bulk are required rear yards or se

the board received a letter from william coggan and san francisco police department and appeal johnson versus the sfpd decided on november 72012. the board voted three-one-one and to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the basis of the appeal the appellant fully disclosed his conviction history at the time he applied for the permit and there is no proof in in in the rord of any conviction. i want to make sure mr. johnson is here. are you here? you're going to speak on his behalf? thank you. mr. coggan is going first and then you will have your chance. >> good evening commissioners. i am william coggan from the police department and we are prepared to submit what we filed in this issue. thank you. >> okay. now we will hear from mr. johnson's representative. you will have three minutes. okay. >> good evening board. my name is henry johnson junior -- >> raise the microphone up if it's more comfortable. >> thank you. i am here on behalf of henry johnson of no sense toe and bay bridge towing. i am 22 year's old and work two jobs. i do security at embassy suites and work at victoria sec

the superior court upheld in 2006 and the board of appeals did the same in 2007. there was a tree removal permit issued and this board up leld that permit in 2007 and this city and the board was sued and the superior court denyd that writ and up held the permit. they have been diligent with the map and puc and relocation agreement with the arts commission and restore the statute at the site and install a traffic signal with mta and sidewalk ordinance that the board of supervisors approved lasted year and a second tree removal permit. in august of september of 2012 my client submitting grading and permit applications and now currently under review. site work is scheduled to begun this spring. the approval of the conditional use permit is unusual. let me quote it verbatim "if there is lapse for three or more years and null and void and reverse to permit permitted in the district" and lapse and issued between three years or any particular action within the three years and. conform we're are compliance of this we asked that the zoning administrator to make sure it didn

they had not tried to appeal that decision to the board of supervisors. o the question that the court had to answer was, given that they did not try to appeal, was that failure to exhaust their administrative remedies, meaning they hadn't gone through the entire city process. >> commissioner antonini: i got it. so there was no question that they had not. that was a given. and so that was the basis for our first motion. in response, there are some judicially recognized exceptions to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement. their first argument -- and i want to make sure i get this right -- so the trial court overruled the city's demur, because it found that the developer and the property owner cu to the board of supervisors, and i'm going to quote from the trial court's order, because the board of supervisors is the body that started the landmarking process, and it continues to landmark the building through other city agencies like the planning commission. the board of supervisors adopted a resolution which initiated the then fact finding proc

turn off owl >> good evening and welcome to the january 16th, 2013 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer this evening is board president chris hwang joined by vice president frank fung, commissioner lazarus and commissioner darryl honda. commissioner hurtado is absent this evening. the deputy city attorney will provide the board with any legal advice i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director. we're joined from representatives from the city departments with the cases before us. scott sanchez is here, he is representing the planning department and planning commission. joseph duffy, senior building inspector representing the department of building inspection. john kwong is here and i'm not sure if they are in the room, but i'm expecting representatives from the environmental health section of the department of health. if you could conduct the swearing-in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all phones and pagers so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallways. the board's rules of presentation are as follo

this is a meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president clinch? >> here. >> vice president melgar is excused. commissioner lee? >> here. >> commissioner mar? >> here. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> here. >> commissioner [speaker not understood]? >> present. >> [speaker not understood]. >> present. >> we have a quorum. item number b is the oath. all those persons giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand? do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? >>> yes. >> thank you. item number c is approval of the minutes, discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for the meeting held on september 19th, 2012. >> move to approve. >> second. >> okay. all those in favor? >> aye. >> okay. i'm sorry, do we have any public comment on these minutes? did someone have any public comment on the minutes? okay. the minutes are approved. we can now move on t

in the staff notes this did go to the board of appeals so the board of appeals apparently made some conditions, and i am curious as to how we got into a situation where the board of appeals' height was supposed to be 395 to 396 above sea level based on what is on the site survey to all of a sudden we're at 420. i mean is this like a comedy of errors or what? >> the project had -- i mean i understand it's fully within the height and all of that stuff so i'm not arguing from that standpoint. it seems from a process standpoint some things went by the weigh side or i don't know -- >> there had been a history of issues about the construction techniques that this project had initially started and issues that took it to the board of appeals prior to this aspect of it even coming to our attention. again those things that happened after our initial review and sign off on the project when it was through the building phase. this current situation regarding the framing was again brought after the fact, but yes, there has been an unfortunate history about this project that has caused some problems along th

it has also been before the appeal board. the only reason why this is coming back before you as a new permit because they also took to the board of supervisors on the basis that the design at that time, is not okay for a historic building because this is a voting by -. what we have done now after talking to the staff after it was appealed the project sponsor decided to eliminate all of the bay windows facing 7th avenue that was approved. on top of that they also otherwise if you look at the - this plan. all of this in color where the additions have been widow - taken away. the top floor envelope is also the same as approved by this commission. in addition to this because they didn't want a roof-deck and - because they wanted the open space and this commission actually approved of the new - because of their objection that was eliminated and now it's a mechanical. as far as the staircase gol up it is the existing volume of the house. nothing was extended it's going to be basically glass so that there will be a lot of looithd to

board to make a decision. >> mr. bryant. >> yes, sir. >> as an attorney you know it's fundamental to have a person who is considering an appeal in an appellate form to be able to assure the parties that he or she has read all the briefs. >> and the briefs were presented timely and the board is ready to hear your arguments. >> i know it's ready to hear the arguments. i would like to make the arguments on the basis of each member present, notwithstanding the ab70 -- the absent of the president and you all took an oath that he or she has read all the briefs. >> i think you should begin your presentation. >> start the timer. >> i want the record to show that constitutes an impediment and a handicap to argument in a forum in which the appeal is argued and decided at the same occasion, the same meeting, without a statement for the record that each of the remaining members of the board of appeals has read the briefs that have been so assiduously prepared and filed. this appeal essentially involves a may 19, 2005 conditional use authorization with two relevant conditions. administrative and judicial action told one of those condition

stewart: >> good evening members of the board, my name is dennis stewart and i'm a [ra-ert/] round the corner. i would like to make two brief appeals on this one, as i think the board has already decided, but for the public record i do wish to reiterate for the reasons set forth in previous testimony. this building even with the small reductions in height is inconsistent to the department's codes, with regard to its compatibility with the neighborhood. i want to say it for the public record this is not compatible with the neighborhood and sets a bad precedent for future decisions that will be based on a comparison with this building, assuming that you approve it. the second is a procedural objection to this, which i raised at the last meeting. and that is i take with due respect to commissioner honda, i do take umbridge with the fact that he is taking part in this. i would take note to assistant city attorney, subsequent to the oral statement this was cleared by the city attorney's office i filed a formal request with the city attorney and they are not in compliance with foya in terms of responding to my request. i conclude that th

community and be more involved in a few with my experience that i could be a good asset to the appeals board. >> and if you could also address the question i had earlier about the length of time and suggestions about how to make it easier for homeowners who are not large property owners and may not be savvy about the process. >> a friend of mine went to the process within the last year. her main complaint was how long it took for a decision and now she ended up winning the getting the adjustment, reimbursement. education, educating the public. what you need to do to come in with the data to be considered for review your taxes and also educating them in the process, and how long the process may take. so people know what to expect upfront before they come in >> seeing no other questionsm' thank you for your time. the property owners have the opportunity to request translation? >> we have not had people ask for us to provide that translators. if when they come into the office it is apparent that they may have difficulty during the hearing office because of language barriers we suggest that the

accomplished in public service she began her public service as a member of the assessment public appeals board and to the john burden done and she was elected to the board of supervisors in 2,002 and pan banned toxic chemicals and toys and led effort to protect local woman and minority business in his contracting practices focused on woman's health and domestic violence suspicious now keep in mind this is a ten year career that i'm condensing into five bullet points? he was a pointed majority and speaker pro testimony making mer her the most senior asian woman in the state of california she pass of the legislation, again like i mentioned she led the evident and continues to lead the effort to pass the high speed rail bonds and looked out for the san franciscoians interest in passing legislation to improve reliability and healthcare child care programs and protect consumers and regulating lock submit and tatoo parlors but with a ms. miles will be leaving after ten years of service she has been a personal friend and mentor to me and she has spend a lot of time mentoring a lot of people in this p

this is the appeals board for the permit and if you feel that this board has great discretion and if you believe it was a demolition permit i believe you could deny the permit here and require they full the form six permit. i don't know if the board's decision on that the board is saying to demolish the rest of the building. you're saying that the work done already should have required a form six and trigger our requirements under 230 and just briefly on the sign issue. the sign as it was before was a business sign and that was allowed to be maintained even though the sign itself and not compliant with the zoning. replacement of that sign since it's no longer barkly farms is a general advertising sign so it's not allowed. however there is a new provision of the code that was passed last year and allows restoration of historic signs and one standards if the sign is more than 40 years old and i believe this qualifies and that is a conditional use before the planning commission. i don't know if there is a guarantee it to be replaced like before. we can look at it and it would require th

:# december 12 2012 meeting of the san francisco board of0xjh appeals. president chris hwang, franknnjy fung, commissioner. to my left is deputy city attorney robert brian who will provide thec i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director. we are joined by city departments5c%( qez that have cases before the board. scott sanchez, zoning administrator, and planning department and planning commission, stey, representing the department of building inspection john quawng. the board requests you turn off9k%z!ñ or silence all phones and other thereinh[9k7t devices. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules of presentation are as follows.rhce appellants permit holders have seven minutes each to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude within these three or seven minutes. members of the public have up to three minutes each to address the8 9m board and no rebuttal. please speak into the end of the microphone. to assist the board preparation of minutes you are asked to submit

the vote is 4-0 and this matter is continued >> i will [ gavel ] >> we're resuming the board of appeals meeting for january 16th, 2013 and i'm going to call item 12, appeal no. 12-142, poa with an kothari doing business as as the chai chart versus the department of public works bureau of street use and mapping. application nato 12mff0083. is the appellant in the room? i do not see the apellant in the room and we have not seen the appellant here this evening. we have the department here. if you would like to have the department speak? >> sure. >> good evening commissioners. john kwong from the department of public works once again. in this specific case for this permit for the service of chai tea at 79 new montgomery, the department denied in it this case for like foods. in the evaluation there is a starbucks coffee and jumba juice, who serve similar types of drinks it's relates to tai chi or chai coffee in this case. we denied it and we believe in the evaluation what was appropriate based upon the guidelines. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment? i'm going to give you tw