/rejecting the president of the board of supervisors', supervisor david chiu, nomination of bobbie wilson to the board of appeals, term ending july 1, 2018. clerk of the boardd charter, section 4.106, provides that this nomination is subject to approval by the board of supervisors and shall be the subject of a public hearing and vote within 60 days from the date the nomination is transmitted to the clerk of the board. if the board fails to act on the nomination within 60 days of the date the nomination is transmitted to the clerk then the nominee shall be deemed approved. transmittal date: july 18, 20144sf 31234 >>supervisor katy tang: thank you at this time i would like to give our board president an opportunity to speak on these items. >>supervisor norman yee: thank you madam chair and colleagues. i would like to thank you for attending this particular hearing. i would like to say a few words at the outset in support of the nominations that i have made today. first up is kathrin moore who i think all of you know. i have decided to nominate her to rea point her back to the planning commission for a third term.

the marriage cases and that lasted 4 years. all of that experience i want to bring to the board of appeals. people have asked me, why do you want to serve on the board when i spend all my days working in law? to me it's simple. i believe in service. i have sat on not-for-profit boards, communities, pro bono work. it gives me a chance to give something back. i also have become concerned that there seems to be tools to manage me to be a limitation on the access to justice. for example, our state courts don't have any money which makes cases go later and there is lots of delays. federal courts, as justice kennedy reminded us, congress has advocated their responsibility and the judges have not had a raise in 20 years. forcing talented judges to leave public service and go into private mediation which is a loss to all of the system. even a quasi i judicial body like the board of appeals, it's an important body in people's lives to come somewhere they maybe able to have an opportunity to have their cases heard, an opportunity to have their day in court and an opportunity to change a view where the

the d.v.d. i was given 10 days after the board of appeals hearing which was the last possibility for administrative review without seeking judicial review. that's how it is with the california environmental quality act. after the board of appeals makes their determination you have 10 days to file rehearing requests. the planning department complied substantially with the request 12 days after meaning they pushed the project forward while holding back the information i needed because the information on that cd i was given at that time and one of the members of the sunshine ordinance task force we have a computer let's stick it in and see what's on there and in the middle of the hearing i am seeing emails that have to do with this study so everything i was saying to the the board of supervisors, the board of appeals the planning department was rooting for the project pushing it forward while saying they didn't have -- so they were pushing it forward while not having the information. why is john rahaim here on charges from the sunshine ordinance? i can sum that up -- he is in charge of the planning de

>> good evening, welcome to the july 16, 2014 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals, the presiding officer this evening is board president ann lazarus and she joined by hurtado, frank fun and brian will provide us with legal advice and joined with the city departments who have cases before the board, scott sanchez is here and the city administrator. and joseph is here representing the department of building inspection, and short is here for the public use of street use and mapping and young from the envier menal section of the department of public help, if you would please go over the board meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. the board requests that you turn off all phones and pagers so that they will not disturb the proceedings. appellants and permit holders and department representatives each have 7 minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. the people affiliated with these parties must include their xhepts within the 7 or 3-minute periods, members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes to address th

argument and we requested reconsideration, which was again, denied and then the next day, sought to file our appeal with the board of appeals. now i understand that the board's ability to grant jurisdiction is very narrow under these circumstances but these are the type of circumstances that the procedure was designed to address. it was through no fault of the project sponsor that this appeal was filed late if it was late at all. our position is that it was filed timely. and for that reason, we request that the board take the jurisdiction over the dispute. thank you, for your attention to this matter. >> appreciate your time. >> anyone that mr. sanchez is representing the department on this? >> okay, mr. sanchez. and just a couple of points on this, and i think that the appellant and the jurisdiction requestor did not state what it was but my understanding is that it is the calculation that we used indexing and so under the planning code 409, and also the building code, the fees which are assessed for these projects are indexed annually beginning on january first. and so, under the planning code we do, or under t

i was going to ask that same question but in terms of the decision can it be appealed to the board of appeals. >> presumably. it did not require a variance i'll ask the city attorney this but it's a non-decision so is that appealable. that's a variance issue the decision not to require a variance is appealable >> just some background there's currently a variance from the recorder this was associated with a rear yard shed that the current proposal is proposing to remove so he determines the variance is not requiring additional review because their removing the purchase of the original variance. >> commissioners kate from the city attorney's office if there's a written statement if there's not and no variance the decision here there's nothing that's appealable to the board of appeals. >> i had another question not a question just a comment or observation perhaps excavation work was to egregious that sequa would have to go beyond a negative declaration that, too is not within the pressure view of the commission and would, sir if she wanted to challenge the deck they're a procedure separa

the project and >> item? seen none, public comment is closed. . commissioner low. so what happened at the board of permanent appeals does the project need to be redesigned >> the department is looking at for the renovation we're looking at withdrawing the permit and the item go back to the appeal board and the renovation plan will going cuckoo. >> and have to be rebid. >> we're looking at different vehicles for the construction i mean one avenue could be a form of contract and another a j oc that's think exceeded way of completing that, yes there has to be a rebid to the scope. >> so some of those termination costs that lowers the bids on the new scope of the work. >> that's correct the interior part of the work we'll do on this rams that's buffoon done not an added cost to the rams. >> so the new scope of work we k can still stay on budget. >> that's correct. >> seeing no other questions is there a motion? >> so moved. >> moved and seconded in favor so moved. >> we're on item 11 port smith renovation project and. >> it the locked in chinatown and near walter alley it's a living room of chinatown residents next to

the project and >> item? seen none, public comment is closed. . commissioner low. so what happened at the board of permanent appeals does the project need to be redesigned >> the department is looking at for the renovation we're looking at withdrawing the permit and the item go back to the appeal board and the renovation plan will going cuckoo. >> and have

the motion passes. congratulations. [ applause ] >> we are joined by supervisor mar. madam clerk. item 4. city clerk: item 4: [appointments, assessment appeals board no. 3]1408394.hearing to consider appointing one member, term ending september 5, 2015, and one member, term ending september 5, 2016, to the assessment appeals board no. 3. clerk of the boarddvacant seat 5, new appointment, must have a minimum of five years professional experience in the state of california as one of the following: certified public accountant or public accountant; licensed real estate broker; attorney; or a property appraiser accredited by a nationally recognized professional organization, certified by the office of real estate appraisers, or certified by the state board of equalization, for the unexpired portion of a three-year term ending september 5, 2015.vacant seat 6 alternate memberr, new appointment, must have a minimum of five years professional experience in the state of california as one of the following: certified public accountant or public accountant; licensed real estate broker; attorney; or a property appraiser accredited by a nationally recognized pro

i represent police officers, firefighters deputy sheriff's and other employees from the appeals board and the city's retirement system. i have noted an extraordinary difference between my representation of the deputies sheriff's and the san francisco police officers and san franciscos before the retirement board and that's because deputy sheriff's by virtue of being apart of the retirement system -- they join the same presumption that we're asking the board to give to our firefighters and police officers. i would like to bring to your attention, there's three types of retirement systems in california. the 1937 county's act which applies to 20 counties in california. the public employees retirement system which applies to the vast majority of public safety officers in the state of california and small independent systems such as ourselves. for 20 years, firefighters and police officers who are in public retirement system have received and obtained what we're asking in fairness inequity that police officers and firefighters receive. when you say president chiu this is a city of saint fr

>> okay, seeing none, we will have rebuttal from the appellants. >> and i think that we are encouraging that this board, up hold the appeal, and the board of supervisors and the ordinance, 76-14 and hopefully, when at&t reapplies for it we can have a better communication with them and have a dialogue and which we have not had a dialogue in many many many months and so the last dialogue that we had was when we did a walk through on july third, that ended then and there and so we are encouraging you, this board to up hold the appeal and we will proceed. >> nancy barsotti again and i think that i did not get to complete it and the major thing that i was trying to communicate was the lack of communication with at&t. and we tried the e-mail or talk to anyone to try to get the information or to try to make the changes and there was a failure to communicate and i think that we need to find a compromise and something easier but they would not even call. and the only person that actually called me back on that, and on that spacing, and on the sidewalk, was the employee from apath and he actually said that at&t could go underground

at various points, whether it was at the sunshine ordinance task force, their subcommittees, the appeals board, the planning commission or whatever. if i can keep you from having the documents you need to prove your case and prove something i presented is not correct then you have interfered with the course of justice and that's what the planning department did and i have no reason to believe that they are so ignorant of what they do that they didn't realize that was exactly what they were

at various points, whether it was at the sunshine ordinance task force, their subcommittees, the appeals board, the planning commission or whatever. if i can keep you from having the documents you need to prove your case and prove something i presented is not correct then you have interfered with the course of justice and that's what the planning department did and i have no reason to believe that they are so ignorant of what they do that they didn't realize that was exactly what they were doing. now as far as finding mr. rahaim responsible he is responsible. no ifs, ands or buts. if you're the head of the department and accept $200,000, whatever salary you get plus another 40% in benefits and take an oath in defend the constitution of the united states and that of the state of california and all of the laws that come there from that's a big responsibility and you can't come back later and say "well, because i didn't directly handle this request i'm not responsible" is just a complete denial of anything you know about proper management and acceptance of responsibility. and now we find out that

what the issue is and propose solutions and report back to the board we have not begun that process. >> just a moratorium but no particular position taken. >> no. >> thank you. >> and the board of appeals met one item that was of interest the public healthy for the ocean avenue this effects the approval process for another mcd 5 hundred feats from this location that's been in front of you on calendar for september 11th last time the item was continued until october 29th we'll discuss further items with staff. other items president chiu nominated bobby wilson to the board of supervisors it's been vacant by wang and it was her last meeting and we appreciated her leadership on the board of appeals and she was a great voice and will be missed and add my sentiments to commissioner sugaya leaving he be you're great voice on the commission appreciated serving with you and also the experience you bring with the past experience with the landmarks so thank you. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further move ton opi address the commission on matters that are within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda. members of the public may address the commission up to 3 minutes i do

maybe a general number. >> right now, i have 276,000 appeal -- things that the board -- appeals -- not at the board of veterans appeals. in the whole end-to-end process. that includes vba's portion, vba's portion, vso's portion, because they have a chance, an opportunity to do things, and it does not include the court. >> whatever it is, that's a huge number. how long do you expect them to grind through that with veterans who've already waited years in many cases to get from, through the first point, and then to find out that their case has been tossed and pushed back to the veterans board of appeals? >> so, congressman, i won't -- i'm not going to blow any smoke on this. we need a better way to do this process. this appeals process. it is not -- we are not doing the best we can do by veterans in this appeals process. i can tell you -- >> because 97% of them get remanded back, my understanding, to the regional office once again. so it's time lost for veterans, big time, especially when they're in a bad way, so, first of all, we are -- vba's part of this is to do three things. those thr

robert for the appellant that has 7 minutes. >> good evening chair and the members of the board of appeals we're here tonight an, an nc d permit that was issued to waterfall wellness to operate an mc d the board need only consider the simple facts not get imbroiltd with a lot of extraneous stuff decide the litigation too the permit and the commission and really don't need to entertain a dispute between the parties. the motivations don't matter what we have a simple case should the city entrust the gentleman and it's stepdaughter with an mc d permit they are the urban relieve before mr. shep came in and began operating the waterfall wellness at the location. i'm sorry, i have a couple of things for the overhead. and, of course, >> you had it correct the first time. >> now again, you don't need to get into the disputes between the parties are those issues that are being litigated between them we know in 2011 shortly after the location had a fire caused by unpermitted i uninspected electrical work throughout the building and an, anlogically grow specific to conditions the planning commission

like to make a motion to move forward on a motion approving -- amend the motion to approve ann blumlein lazarus to the board of appeals pending reck ommendation to the full board of supervisors. >> thank you. i'm happy to support that motion. i think that when the issue of reappointment comes up, the question is has this individual done what you'd expect of a commissioner, and i know that commissioner blumlein lazarus takes her role very seriously and is well prepared and i think it's a good reappointment so i'm happy to support it. >> okay. before we take supervisor tang's motion, is there a motion to delete from line 3 and 11 -- the board reject? >> so moved. >> with no objections then amendment is made. there's a motion on the floor to approve this nomination. any objections? seeing none, motion is passed. congratulations. okay. let's move on, item number 2. >> approving or rejecting the mayor's commission of legal frost [inaudible]. >> mr. frost. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm honored to be the mayoral nominee for the law enforcement seat of the entertainment commission. i'd like to take this opportunity to te

. >> commissioners, i'm 6, review f of past events of the board of supervisors, board of appeal, there was no historic preservation commission yesterday. >> good afternoon, erin star, planning department staff, at the land use committee this week, the committee considered supervisor wiener's legislation that adjusted density calculations, from projects of 20% or more affordable units on-site. this commission heard this item on june 12 12* and recommend the board doment the proposed amendments, the boerpd was passed unanimously by the committee, those supervisors kim and cohen added their time as co-sponsored, at the full board, the 2009 housing element passed on its second read, and the rose was continued to july 8th. the mission alcoholic beverage special use district was also heard, this ordinance would amend the beverage to allow other entertainment use that is are physically sbe grated witched a restaurant use to obtain a liquor license, this commission heard this item tennessee may 22, 2013 and moved the proposal, this ordinance passed its first read without any discussion. we had

notification to the community so we suspended that for the notice for the permit holder appealed this they made sizeable investments and the board found that it was in error and upheld the suspension request they want to see how to proceed nervous. they'll >> next week one thing of interest an appeal for ocean avenue and that was appealed by the project sponsor for the case that was before us so the results for you next week if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> commissioner antonini. mr. sanchez a question on fremont i didn't understand the argument it sound the fee is based on when the project was first pulled for construction and clearly in this collared year what are they challenging >> that's an excellent question laughing. >> we think the code is very clear. >> okay. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and members of the commission tina from the planning department i'm here to present the report at the architecture review commissioning committee on wednesday july 16th they commented on the that respect changes to 50 sale street there are article 11 of the planning code constructed i