as the appellants had mentioned. i would like to get a number of vacancies and violators, because there is evidently a reason why the system changed. >> i do not know what system change you are referring to. we were discussing a change in the fee methodology. it should not have any impact on a lease up or vacancies on the bmr unit. those are separate issues. i'd be happy to come back and report on vacancies in our bmr program. >> i didn't mean to off track. >> i want to make clear that our team is dedicated to ensuring a lease up happens as quickly as possible. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? moving on rebuttal. >> thank you. i am disguised with glasses here. if you want to answer a question about the vacancies, our brief is freely available. we have identified units that are vacant in assistant. the other issue whether you want to call it prejudice, or unfair. the fact of the matter is, small units under the old system, it was unfair to them. i think that was just stated differently then i stated i

the appellant has a right to appeal the other half. building is aware, there is a complaint and they will issue notice of violation. on this record the appellant had a chance to prove there is a problem with the fence. no evidence in the record the fence is on his property. i am looking at exhibit 2-2. it is flush with the house. it is on the property. we would need more evidence before we could say it is improperly issued. the inspector measured the height and it is fine. i think we should take the fence off the table. we will see them again when we get to the rest of the yard. >> i would agree. >> commissioner lazarus any thoughts? >> this work is all complete? i don't think you are the proper respondent. inspector duffy, they are done everything they want to do, right? >> that's correct, yes. it has been done, yes. the work is complete. not properly documented. >> right. including the fence as far as you are concerned? >> i am going to look at that again. definitely. >> the fence technically has been signed off on. >> we can rescind

we think that the notice was received, the appellants appeared. there were 12 respondents of the 50 notices we sent. they were sent in 50-foot radius around the pole itself. there were protesters at the protest hearing and tonight. we feel the notice was adequate even though it referred to an address provided by the planning department and department of public works. if the notice is defective which it was not in this case. the california state law says it would prejudice somehow the appellates. we don't believe they are prejudiced. that it caused injury to the appellants which we don't think occurred and would have to cause the result to change this address difference. we don't think that also is a difference with the address difference created that problem because we don't think the notice was defective. in addition to the mail notice there is posted notice and the three pictures up and down the street where this notice was on the poles on lions street that happened twice. with respect to design and aesthetics. i think you remember omar massey w

the appellant had the ability to file a discretionary review. that process is outlined in the section 311 neighborhood notice. it says if no requests for discretionary review are filed, this project will be approved by the planning department after the expiration date. that is language from the section 311 notification. in this case, i think the notice was pretty clear. in regards to the -- >> sorry, scott. and is that -- needless -- i'll wait until you're done. >> okay. no problem. so the section 311 notice was done. we did find it to be compliant with residential design guidelines. in approximate looking -- in looking at the concerns that the appellant has raised, i don't find this in any way a violation of the -- our residential design guidelines. we do ask for generally top floor set backs if it's going to be rising above adjacent buildings. it's set back 15 feet from the main building wall. there's also bay windows on the front facade of the building, so i think it'll be minimally obje obtrusive on the neighborhood. i think the last issue t

the appellant -- the appellant's engineer made the assertion that if you go to the crawl space, you would see more evidence of cracking. i don't know if you've seen the current foundation and describe its current state. >> i observed the foundation before the drawings, and yes, there are some cracks, but the foundation is over 40 years old. i'd challenge you to find any foundation in san francisco that's 40 years old without cracks, and i think the allegations are baseless. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. sanchez? mr. duffy? >> commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. first of all, i'd like to welcome commissioner eduardo to the board. >> commissioner honda: you're not going to tackle that last name? >> i'm not. >> commissioner honda: neither am i, and i'm latino. >> i've been dealing with this one for a couple of months with this case. we heard it in late may, and i know the appellant has been e-mailing the department, you know, quite frequently, which is fine. i appreciate her getting her engineer's report. if she had it ahead of the hearing, it would probably have been mor

appellant -- appellants, permit holders, and department respondents are given seven minutes to present their case in three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include these comments within the seven or three minute period. members of the public were not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone for rehearing and jurisdiction request, the parties have three minutes each with no rebuttal. to assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked not required to cement a speaker carter business card to staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. four votes are required to grant an appeal, jurisdiction request or rehearing request. if you have any questions about requesting a rehearing, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call and visit the board office. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government t.v. , table channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on fridays on chan you'll 26. the video is

i don't see the appellant here, either. is there a representative from -- for the appellant? is there any public comment on this item? commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> we grant the appeal and condition it on the revised drawings. i will move that we grant the appeal and the permit with the revised drawings. >> can you clarify that for the record, are those drawings dated august 7th, 2018? okay. thank you. we have a motion from vice president lazarus to grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the condition that it be revised to require the adoption of the plan submitted at the hearing and which are dated august 7th , 2019. it is a condition. when there are conditions, we have to grant an appeal. >> on that motion... [roll call] on what basis is this motion made? >> on the basis that it satisfies the planning and building code. >> it makes the project code compliant. >> on that motion... [roll call] that motion carries 4-0. okay, thank you. we will now move on to item number 7. protesting the issuance on june 18th, 2019 of an alteration permit to

it is not really the issue that the appellant is here to talk about. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. fisher, you have three minutes to respond to this. >> this is all news to me. i guess the real question is that they need to grant us the appeal. the tenants want housing. the role of the department of building inspection is not following up on violations, i am ready to go on this. >> you can talk to us. >> this is really interesting because this has gone on for a year and this is an eviction of long-standing african-american tenants. forty years in this place. jackie long has mobility problems, her daughter is schizophrenic, her son-in-law has had six surgeries since 2014 due to a work-related accident and has more coming. these people have no safety mats -- safety nets and cannot be moved away from their doctors. i went into this because i don't want this on my head. i have been to their weddings, i have been to their funerals. what is going on here, which is really offensive, as i have a report from their engineer from 2018 about what is needed from

that brings us to the issue of the appellate body. this is a case where if we lose, either side loses, the temptation will be to appeal, which if nothing else will drag things on for another year or so. yet, we may face a situation relevantly soon where that is not really an option because the appellate body will go away. the eu seems to be busy creating alternatives to the appellate body using article 25. can you say a few words about that and how it is going? do you have any traction or not? ms. weyland: i am making a habit of this. i will start by disagreeing with you again. [laughter] we are seriously worried about the dispute settlements. -- settlement system. mr. reinsch: as are we. maybe not our government, but -- ms. weyland: obviously, the bodypearance of the applet has wider repercussions, because after december 11, when there is only one appellate body left, -- member left, people can appeal into the void. it paralyzes the whole dispute settlement system. in that situation, the first stage of the system is unlikely to survi

get rid of the french and indian allies west of the appellation. we can move west, occupy those lands. people like george washington, benjamin franklin, all of these guys had heavily invested and speculated in western land in expectation of that glorious day. because once the french were defeated, they would swarm over the mountains and cleanup, selling or renting their land to migrant populations. will, look at the big red line down the middle. down the appalachian trail. the same year that the british security victory, they also, in a sense, slammed the door. or at least partially close the door on western expansion. the proclamation line of 1763 is designed to check expansion and to protect indian land. what's all that about? at the end of the war, the french leave and the british occupy the forts the french previous, previously occupied. the british secured neutrality in the war by telling the shawnees and the delaware's that their lands will be safe. once we kick out the french, we will be good neighbors. we do not intend to take your land, we

you heard what the appellant said. where are you and your clients at? >> i think it's important if you're going to have a vibrant patio seating at all to have the hours where no new patrons can be seated past 9:00, and it will be completely cleared off by 10:00. our policy is one of our attachments to my brief. >> commissioner honda: it's a pretty simple question, counselor. >> i'm getting to that. we would go giving up one table, so three tables with 12 patrons, and we would give up the table closest to the residents. >> clerk: okay. thank you. mr. slocum, do you have anything further? [inaudible] >> clerk: okay. mr. sanchez, anything further? no? okay. so commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> we going to start with a motion? >> let's have some discussion because we have some -- what i've heard as far as compromise is a reduction of one table and also in the argument section, a willingness of closing down by 9:00, so i'm going to combine those two. >> yeah, i would agree with that. you know, to the residents that are here, we are sympathetic to th

>> diane, so she's not a current appellant so he can speak -- >> okay. i'm sorry. welcome. >> good evening. commissioners. my name is john sims. as we just established, i am representing diane english, oh, my gosh, here. just quickly, my credentials. 15 years as a contractor in san francisco, wood frame houses and apartment buildings, 11 years as a d.b.i. building inspector in the mission, four years at laguna honda for projects for d.p.w. i reviewed the brief extensively, and i was present at a meeting with mr. balzer. in my opinion, all the work that they want to do can be done without dislocating the tenants except for the staircase and the upper decks, and that time of dislocation can, in my opinion, can be reduced to two to three weeks or two to four units at a time, if they would do one staircase at a time. and on the decks upstairs, we could dislocate for 30 to 45 days, but again, if we can use the apartments that are empty now and complete the apartment number five which is the subject of this review here, then the two people, diane and cow an wou cowan wou

however, do we have the appellant in the audience? >> the requester is present. at this point, you should probably recuse yourself, and then we will call you when the item is over. >> that's why we elected the vice president. [laughter]. >> are we going to hear the next case if the department is not here? >> okay. , i see, the bureau of urban forestry is not here and no one is here from o.c.i. i. >> correct. i guess we could do that. the requester is here. would you like to delay it and go into the next item. >> why don't we go into the next item. i appreciate the requester's patients. >> but you shouldn't be involved in deciding whether or not the case -- arms adjusting the vice president in the two other commissioners -- do you want to hear in our given opportunity for the other departments to be present? >> i am of two mines because there is no response from the department in the material, so i wonder if they are going to be present or not. they know it was the first item on the agenda, i mean. >> it is 5:12 p.m. >> frankly i think we should go ahead and here

appellants. permit holders and department respondents are given seven minutes to present and three minutes for rebuttal. people must include their comments within the three or seven-minute periods. members not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone. to assist board in the accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. four votes are required to grants and appeal. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office. we're located at 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv and will be row broadcast on channel 26 on friday. the video can be downloaded. now, we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. any member of the public may spea

contrary to what the appellants indicated, this

action requested by appellant to obtain a 90-day extension to do the work. would staff like to come forward? >> good morning. my name is mauricio hernandez, chief building inspector for code enforcement process. so the summary is work without permit, over excavation and removal of a retaining wall, at the rear lot and hazardous condition. a notice of violation was issued back in august of 2018. number regards to the excavation that was observed. -- two building permits, one for shoring and the other one for remediation to comply with a notice, repair the retaining wall. and also provide -- [inaudible] in regards to the damage done to the foundation. as you can see on the back, there's some picturing showing the damage. this is the foundation of the existing adjacent property. the retaining wall is the one on the -- already removed and that's the exposed soil conditions of the adjacent property. staff issued order of abatement. and 3/20/2019 the owner was given enough time, he was also given an extension of the hearing, in order to correct this. there's only

then, the appellant will present their case. next, there's public comment, and each member has three minutes to speak. lastly, there's rebuttal, three minutes for the department and the appellant. next, discussion of minutes for the meeting held on july 17, 2019. >> okay. are there any corrections or comments regarding the meeting minutes from the 17? okay. i move we accept. >> second. >> clerk: okay. a motion and a second. is there any public comment on the minutes? are all commissioners in favor? any opposed. okay. minutes are approved. i also wanted to announce that our first item, case number 6861, 49 drum street, has withdrawn their request for appeals. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: next item is order of abatement, case number 6863, 1139 guerrero street, rincon properties, l.l.c. action requested by appellant. time needed to work with tenant to get final inspection done. the departments can come forward. >> good morning. my name is moises hernandez, chief inspector for building enforcement. -- a wall heater improperly worki

the appellant hasn't challenged that as those being the date. that's our understanding of what the neighbor had submitted as part of their complaint. >> and although i wouldn't want you to speculate and compromise anything, just for the information of the permit holder, so if you look in your crystal ball, and this was kicked back to planning, one thing for sure is that it's going to stop the project right now, right? number two, in the process of getting the -- going into compliance and if they deny a variance, which would be the worst case scenario, right? what would happen to the structure as it sits today? >> if the -- 'cause there's two aspects to it. one, the conditional use authorization, the planning commission hearing the project as a whole, and then, two, the discreet variance that's currently in the required rear yard. if that were denied, they would appeal that to the board of appeals, and if the denial was upheld, they would be required to remove the last 5 feet of the building. the whole ground floor extension, that is being shown

in which the justices go through a case, what they are deciding -- not guilt or innocence at the appellate jurisdiction, but rather, look at the constitution and due process. >> you are here in washington as the big decisions are coming down from the supreme court, as it's happening. >> absolutely. i often use tinker versus bell. that captivates my students. they love to debate their rights. so the idea of freedom of expression is a big one. the other big issue for them is vaping. >> the vaping issue. >>>> because they were really disturbed by how it wasn't being dealt with and how the industry was allowed to regulate itself. they have been doing letters about that. this week i was watching a few of the committee hearings on. and i'm looking forward to bringing back clips of that to have them evaluate what would be the next steps. write to their congressman or senator or their local school board, how would they do with the problem? >> you teach seventh and eighth grade. >> eighth-graders mostly civics and taking topics in history to look at how different historical events have shaped the c

continues to block the appointment of new judges for the appellate body the organization will be unable to make rulings by the end of the year the w t o is stepping up efforts on a contingency plan but time is running out the organization already has its hands full the volume of goods affected by higher tariffs or other trade barriers is reaching new records the world trade organization wants to ensure that trade barriers are not imposed in the 1st place. well as to what the future of the dolphins you know with laura from don is she's with the institute for international security affairs and think tank. donald trump accused of unfair treatment toward the u.s. saying washington doesn't have to abide by its rulings the kremlin now said in a reaction if the u.s. pulls out what's the point of the w g o can it be rescued yes of course it can be rescued i mean the w t o essentially rests on 2 pillows one of them is negotiations among the 164 member states in the of a pillar is dispute settlement and now we're talking about a block of the dispute settlement body the 2nd stage of the body so th