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 your

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

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

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 co

on the permit application so they've heard the tenants appealed we noted the decision of this commission on the discretionary review and somewhat again, it is unusual we brought this back to get our input on the project the board voted last week 22 to deny the permit which would have the semieffect on the commissions decision that essentially is not an action it could be overturned to deny the permit so the permit was being issued i know that the metcalf appellant in that case can do that within 10 days and we're looking at 09 avenues for the commissions decision to be implemented that'll and i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> good afternoon tim frye so share with you several things from the preservation commission before the commission the second meeting of the cultural heritage assets committee met with a presentation from the mayor's office on the investing neighborhoods program the mayor's office focused on their work in the joint powers authority and the mission neighborhood at the next cultural heritage meeting on march 18 we have small business will be perpetrate

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 subject to section 311 no discretionary review filed but an boil last time the broadly uphold that permit and that moved and lastly over the past few weeks and months an uptick a dwelling unit oftentimes at the board of appea

>> 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

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 mil

we just ask the board to dismiss the appeal. thank you. >> anything further, mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez, just to reiteratefinger this is not subject to the directive, there's no requirement for a discretionary review, there's no bbn, thank you. >> mr. duffy, anything further? commissioners, the matter is yours. >> commissioners, this case is way different than the previous case. >> yes. >> the previous case, well, i don't want to talk about too much, but there was an issue of what was a number of units and it was actually zoned allowable for two units. here it's only allowed for one unit and the owner occupies the top floor. i'm not even sure it's an owner move-in situation. .sing it's the brother that lives on the top floor. >> it's family. but the question here is it's not warranted as a second unit or even a third unit, and therefore they're not allowed. >> so the permit was properly issued, is that your conclusion? >> that would be my conclusion. >> yeah, i mostly agree. i think that the there's legal rooms down and it is not a second or a third unit property it's a

gone on without anyone saying anything i agree with the commissioners. >> motion. >> move to deny the appealphold the letter of determination on the basis that the zoning administrator did not error or abuse his position. >> there's a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to huddle the letter of determination that the zoning administrator didn't railroad error or abuse commissioner adams commissioner honda commissioner wilson thank you the zoning administrator order is huddle on that basis thank you. >> okay. so we'll go back to item number 8 mr. halves please step forward madam president and commissioners we've reached an agreement with the appellant in the permit condition the only item outstanding was number 4 a contract showing a sold be it resolved back up left arms previously stated a dba we've reached an agreement on the product is a d bs 82 that's the language in writing and the issue of replacing that with other method if necessary the next night is already incorporated. >> that's correct. >> okay. good thank you you made our job a little bit easier we would if there is further

and deny the appeal consistent with the kansas appeal unfortunately ms. millers case is 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 true

. >> good morning today is is january 21, 2015 this is the regular meeting of the abatement appeal board i'd like to remind everyone to turn off electronic devise. >> commissioner clinch commissioner melgar president mccarthy commissioner mar commissioner lee commissioner mccray commissioner walker we have quorum and the next item is item b the oath we'll all parts giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? to the best of our knowledge thank you you may be seated next the minutes approval of minutes discussion and possible action to adapt the minutes for november 19, 2014. >> move to approve. >> second. >> we have a motion and a second any public comment on item the minutes? seeing none all commissioners in favor >> any opposed the minutes are approved item d continued appeal order of abatement case central avenue owner of record of appellant action requested continued stay of order of abatement to allow the owner time to abate violations. >> good after

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

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 arborist report has a condition that replacement tries be 36 inch box size along the frontages that permit approval was appealed we're here to represent that the argument for the removal of those two ficus trees we're advocates of the healthy and gifted urban foresty streetscape we're all in argument like the appellant court we're not questioning the benefits nor the goals by the city of san francisco it is those reasons we're asking for the removal upon the recommendations of our firm and i arborist this is do trees important structure as a relative to structural or suckle soil it's age and years of neglect and years of s

resky and the neighbors coming in to discuss the appeal and the project sponsor. he has agreed to withdraw his appeal without prejudice and my office is going to be working with d d i and request that everyone comes to my office to have meetings together to come to a resolution on the remaining issue. i want to thank both parties for agreeing to come together and work this out. if the colleague can dismiss that all after the procedure. >> okay. great. first, would the apell ant like to make a statement? is the apell ant here? not at this time. is there any members of the public that would like to speak in support of the apell ant? if so you have two minutes. seeing none, it is closed. did the planning department have any remarks? would the project sponsor like to speak at this time? >> good afternoon president breed. i'm craig here on behalf of the project sponsor. we strongly request that the board hear the matter of this appeal today rather than table it. the city has already expended resources and the planning staff is here to explain the decision and the effici

full board two items the office conversion and landmark building passed its second reading and the appeal hearing for 2655 broadway was drawn u withdrawn so that's good two introductions the first one was a hearings request by supervisor farrell and supervisor christensen from the planning department to enforce of short-term rental owners and for effective enforcement this is a quick hearing next week i believe we'll be attending that so law enforcement staff and the interim controls that commissioner richards mentioned richardson sorry is intended to address the issues for the monster homes in the crescent height and will result in permanent controls that concludes my presentation. >> and the board of appeals met briefly 3828 caesar chavez some of the be complicated history the permit was issued no error but if you want to deny this permit we did not deny the permit that was essentially issued last night so today, i issued a revocation notice for the permit clearly it was issued in error and sanchez is before you as a discretionary review so there's a minor rear yard addition but the app

you have to look at the appeal over the internet. you have to look at youth programs. you have to look at the economic incentives offered by i.s.i.s. to families to come over with children and their wives. >> good to get your perspective on this. sydney jones joining us from jakarta. thank you for your time. >> the united states federal judge has temporarily blocked president obama's controversial immigration plan. the executive action would have spared a raping of undocumented immigrant from being deported. the delay now means an estimated 4 million people looking to apply for the programme will not be able to. >> moralize is a family man in a country he loves. he came to the u.s. 20 years ago. he works as a car pep ter trying to make a good life for his family. he was an undocumented immigrant, having to live in the shadows to avoid peeping deported. he looked forward taking advantage of app executive order signed by president obama in november and set to go into place this week. >> it will be better to work legally. i want to help my son and wife. >> it's not going

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 decisi

easier we would if there is further dislikes required no than that the appropriate motion to grant the appeal and uphold the permit to be extended to july 31st, 2014 and incorporation of noise mitigations as per the list dated day today. >> with the conditions agreed to by the party mr. pacheco i know you want me to read the moths. >> adopting the list of conditions that are stated 225 and the expiration date is 7 31 you want to go ahead and read it. >> he's got it on the basis of the agreement of parties. >> yes. >> so we have a motion from commissioner fung to upheld this night noise authorization permit with adaptation of conditions as signed and dated 2 slash 252014 and the expiration date be extended to julie 31st 2014 and this decision a rer7b9d based on the mature agreement of the party on that motion to upheld with conditions and that extra condition on extending the date to 7 slash 31 and commissioner president lazarus arrest commissioner honda and commissioner wilson thank you vote is 4 to zero that permit is uphold with those conditions and that extra condition on the expiration da

process on hold until the completion of that and assuming we continue to the end the appeal gets dropped we're on to the commission if it was felt the moratorium was more appropriate it is a zoning district that typically allows one unit but because of the ordinance we can increase it to two this unit was in existence prior to 2013 we want to get this resolved in a way that keeps mrs. williams mother in a space downstairs and defer to the commission which way they prefer we go. >> commissioner walker. >> thank you. i think that at this junk you are which way you want to go. >> that's not our position your telling us which way to approach it. >> the leg shin process is interesting there's been a number of applications it's not been really a planning issue with those cases but planning recognizes if it's been in existence since 2013 what happens the building code getting the unit consist with the building code in many cases can be challenging for mr. phillips prospective the moratorium would be better it keeps the united in place like 20 years and again it's outline one existing unit just

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 libraria

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 librarian. wrote. by restoring to the 1934 appearance of the facade. and to place a plaque there to commemorate the 1934 events and will bring the events to far greater focus and make the building much more publically accessible. for over 11 decades no institution is better equipped to draw attention to historic events than the common wealth club. the goal is to increase public awareness and understanding the different between public and social issues and hat -- has the authoritative reasoning to do so and will present the rich history of this location and more than it has ever been presented before. the club history will reach back to the 1890s when in the yard caused the antitrust enforces and the docks and labor action of the 1930s and collective bargaining rights. given the labor issues to the american west, it is not surprising that labor was a significance focus and 1934

happened in a month i remembered at the last testimony you were saying it was still ongoing. >> for the appeal. >> right so at this point what you didn't have the testimony you had new did you make testimony that last time. >> no, i don't. >> so the last time you're saying there's been drawings completed and new design you're ready to submit for permit correct. >> correct we've schedule on the 31st the neighbors meeting. >> i'm not sorry on the 31st. >> the neighbors meeting before submittal it it requires neighbors hearing. >> so okay. are we to understand legally everything has been done and moving forward or you moving forward on your own. >> no, i'm moving in particularly i royals the permits needed to be done with time so i'm moving particularly to this. >> the litigation is ongoing. >> under appeal yes. >> so commissioner walker. >> yes. we have not voted to rehear this this is only reconsidering things from the previous one i don't see any new facts to allow for a rehearing. >> commissioner walker the commissioners is allowed to ask questions. >> i understand but this is reconsidering.