mr. sanchez or mr. morris, but there was some discussion as to what the shadow impact would be if the structure without the variances would be built. is somebody able to come on that, understanding that there hasn't been any formal study done? >> i can show you a little on that if you're interested. let me share my screen again. so that's why we developed this little model that sort of explains this. so the proposed project is on the left. what we're calling the code compliant alternative is on the right. so in the alternative, we maintain a 45% rear yard with the building that lines up at 1222 funston. that happens to be 11 feet west of the facade at 1218 funston. so what happens is we're closer to the appellant, and we're casting more shadow. what happens with the sun here basically is that as the sun goes across the southern sky, in the morning, the facade of 1218 is in shadow because the sun is behind the facade. then at noon, the sun peaks at its due south, and it goes across the sky in that gap be

mr. sanchez? >> thank you. nothing to add. on't see any value to the appellant's case. >> clerk: okay. mr. duffy? >> commissioners, i don't have too much to add. just in these cases, i have no problem with a neighbor being concerned with a project. it's pretty typical in san francisco, and it's pretty typical what we hear on this board, but i just think it's been played out. the last hearing, there was a dispute between the engineers, saying that one engineer thought it had to be fixed, but the oth -- thought it didn't have to be fixed, but mr. yang said it was dangerous. i actually erred on the side of caution, and mr. yu has asked for a little bit -- hughes has asked for what we normally ask for, a structural engineer and geotechnical report. once they get going, if they fix the cracks, we can look at that and sign off on that permit. we've got the special inspection letters. when the project issic at thatting place, there'll be ongoing inspections from the record architect, from d.b.i. inspectors. i'm not anticipating anythi

mr. sanchez. >> thank you, good evening, scott sanchez planning department. the matter before you is the property at 2622 greenwich street. the subject property was the subject of a previous request where the planning committee took view. the permit is a revision to the permit. it doesen require section 311 notice. after the original permit was issued it exceeded the scope of the work by the requester and may have been issues related to the buildings and their foundation. i'll refer it to disaccuse those matters. the permit before you was filed on september 27, 2019. it has additional on october 19 around or after that time. the jurisdiction contacted and made a complaint regarding additional excavation. we had conversations with the planner. they could file a bbr or requirement for future permits a and track the status online when it was issued and available. there are other agencies that require prevision. there are a final set of plans because they have been updated there is a policy and not a code requirement. it doesn't live-in the planning code. we coul

mr. kelly. i now ask the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez, the floor is yours for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. commissioner, thank you for joining us today. i'd like to start with an issue that i raised at our previous hearing regarding the extent to which the irs has unfairly been focusing on the wrong population for audits. all taxpayers need to follow the law, but the current tale of two tax systems is unacceptable. specifically, i'm speaking of the audit rate for taxpayers earning over a million dollars per year. as i'm sure you likely know, mr. commissioner, the audit rate for those taxpayers has been cut in half. but the automated program that audits low-income taxpayers is chugging along at higher rates. we recently heard testimony from experts regarding how audits impact tax law compliance and deter cheating. mr. commissioner, do you agree that audits impact compliance and deter cheating? >> do i agree that -- i missed the last part, ma'am. >> do you agree that audits impact compliance and deter cheating? >> correct,

mr. rooney will vote yes on the pending motion. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. sanchez: mr. speaker, as the brian designated by mr. higgins, pursuant to h.res. 965, i inform the house that mr. voting aye on the pending motion. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. tonko: mr. speaker, as the ember designated by representative lowey, pursuant to h.res. 965, i inform the lowey hat representative will vote aye on the pending motion. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. pocan of wisconsin, pursuant to house resolution 965, i inform the house that mr. pocan will vote aye on the motion. as the member designated by ms. jayapal, pursuant to house resolution 965, i inform the house that ms. jayapal will vote aye on the pending motion. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by representative roybal-allard, pursuant to house resolution 965, i inform

mr. costa will vote yes on the levin amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? it ms. sanchez: mr. speaker, as the member designated by by mr. brian higgins, pursuant to house resolution 965, i inform the house that mr. higgins will vote aye on the levin amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: as the member designated by by mr. welch of vermont, pursuant to house resolution 965, i inform the house that mr. welch will vote yes on the levin amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? mrs. hayes: as the member designated by ms. wilson, pursuant to house resolution 965, i inform the house that ms. wilson will vote yes on the levin amendment. as the member designated by joe courtney, pursuant to house resolution 965, i inform the house mr. courtney will vote yes on the levin amendment. as the member designated by john larsson, pursuant to house resolution 965, i inform the house that mr. larson will vote es on the levin amendment. t

mr. commissioner we return to regular order. and i now asked the gentle lady from california the floor is yours for five minutes ms. sanchez. thank you for joining us today. and to the extent of the irs and with the tech to text system is unacceptable the audit way for taxpayers over $1 million per year. as i'm suree you know the audit rate has been cut in half. but the automated program and those testimony how odd its impact and do you agree that tax compliance is cheating? audit impact compliance teachers cheating? d then to go to the lowest rern amounts while leaving the wealthy unchecked? >> i believe you are referring to you the unearned income tax credit. >> no mr. commissioner i am referring to audits overall and overall, taxpayers make over a million dollars way are not equally enforcing tax laws across income levels? >> we are. be willing to sit with you to walk you through those that are the top ten examiners on the high income taxpayers and not focused on low income taxpayers. so most americans nobody likes tons pay taxes so everybody pays their fair share but statistically speaking we will go through the statist

thank you. >> thank you. >> president sanchez, that concluding public comment. >> thank you for hosting that part. mr. steel, board members, if you would like to -- okay, vice president lopez and then commissioner collins. >> hi, thank you. thank you everyone for calling, for sharing your thoughts and your concerns. as a coauthor of the resolution, i want to reiterate my stance on not opening schools until we know it's absolutely safe. this is merely our attempt to move forward the plans to make this happen when everything is in place, everything is set and we're ready to go. we have been wanting transparency and clarity. we made that very clear. we heard from all students and staff that transparency is necessary during this time. so this resolution is really to up lift the numerous, numerous details that will be required, an effort for us to collaborate that is necessary if we do want to return to in-person instruction and the last thing i want to ensure that families know is that we stand in giving you all the option to return or to stay in distance learning and because of that, we are prioritizing

thank you. >> thank you. >> president sanchez, that concluding public comment. >> thank you for hosting that part. mr. steel, board members, if you would like to -- okay, vice president lopez and then commissioner collins. >> hi, thank you. thank you everyone for calling, for sharing your thoughts and your concerns. as a coauthor of the resolution, i want to reiterate my stance on not opening schools until we know it's absolutely safe. this is merely our attempt to move forward the plans to make this happen when everything is in place, everything is set and we're ready to go. we have been wanting transparency and clarity. we made that very clear. we heard from all students and staff that transparency is necessary during this time. so this resolution is really to up lift the numerous, numerous details that will be required, an effort for us to collaborate that is necessary if we do want to return to in-person instruction and the last thing i want to ensure that families know is that we stand in giving you all the option to return or to stay in distance learning and because of that, we are prioritizing

mr. chairman. i yell back. >> thank you. >> -- has expired. and we're going to continue 2-1 questioning. i'm going to call on in a second ms. sanchez from california, the gentlelady. but i want to say this, commissioner, since 19 -- 2010, rather, and in the last years leading up til now, in the enforcement area which is under your guidance and responsibility we've gone from 50,524 employees -- you know these figures better than i $to 33,529. that's down 17,000 employees. that's all wonderful and we both agree to praise the workers because they very seldom get it. but these are our numbers. employees did not vote for this. and in the taxpayer service, it went from, it's less of a hit, went from 32,029, so that's a 3,000 difference. you cannot enforce the law are, i would say -- and you may discuss agree with me -- with 17,000 less employees than you had nine, ten years ago. >> sir, i'm not only going to disagree with you, but i will -- i think it's appropriate at this time to indicate that from 2011 to 2018 we had a hiring freeze as well. so with adistribution and a hiring freeze, i will say two commissioners ago made comments that

mr. chairman. i yell back. >> thank you. >> -- has expired. and we're going to continue 2-1 questioning. i'm going to call on in a second ms. sanchez from california, the gentlelady. but i want to say this, commissioner, since 19 -- 2010, rather, and in the last years leading up til now, in the enforcement area which is under your guidance and responsibility we've gone from 50,524 employees -- you know these figures better than i $to 33,529. that's down 17,000 employees. that's all wonderful and we both agree to praise the workers because they very seldom get it. but these are our numbers. employees did not vote for this. and in the taxpayer service, it went from, it's less of a hit, went from 32,029, so that's a 3,000 difference. you cannot enforce the law are, i would say -- and you may discuss agree with me -- with 17,000 less employees than you hadine, ten years ago. >> sir, i'm not only going to disagree wh you, but i will -- i think is appropriate at this time to indicate that from 2011 to 2018 we had a hirg freeze as well. so with adistribution and a hiring freeze, i will say two commissioners agoade comments that we'll do m