board. there is an unusual pattern to the developments in this block. therefore, those portions of the first three which are the significant criteria of the variants, they are met because of the unusual nature of this block. on the other question that as to the scale of the project in relationship to some of the underlined portions that are not so specific to the five criteria but underlined the various process.

but it would be interesting to see whether the zoning administrator or the planning commission would consider limitations on the extent of entitlement when a variances given. i think, is close to being a little too much. >>ism going to pretty much echo comments made by the commissioner. what is a variance?

section 132, front setback, section 34, rear setback. i think all necessary criteria were met. the one that came closest to not being met to me was the one that had to do with the impact on the public injurious to a neighboring property, and the impact is going to be severe for sure, but they are fully developed on that lot. they have lot-line windows. that affects the degree to which one needs to consider what the impact is going to be. i think that this certainly -- the configuration on the property, the way it has developed, is appropriate for the neighborhood and surrounding properties, and what impressed me, i guess, about the testimony, at any rate, was the

fact that it has been my experience thoo when -- that when russian hill neighbors come before, it seems they are in opposition. it seems there are plenty of things they are proving that we don't know about. to have russian hill come here and say it is an improvement to the neighborhood, that they find it to be compatible to the neighborhood in terms of size and design, that had somewhat of an effect on me. it impressed me they had taken that stance. i, too, feel it is an attractive design. i don't mean to, again, echo the commissioner. i have no problem with the front. were i involved in the process, and thankfully i'm not involved in the process, when this thing went before two other, it was well vetted before the historic preservation commission, i

personally found the back property to be large. i don't know if that is the force. it has to do with the section 134 variance. my intention is to uphold the variance. >> i will then proceed. >> i just have to say, it took all my will and stamina to listen after hearing about the pleasant's mother and the other side not granting a continuance. i have to say it is a real question of judgment. thankfully, he is well represented. you may be a lawyer yourself. i understand your frustration with your project. having said that, i would agree with my fellow commissioners.

again, i get to that agreement with every ounce of my body not really wanting to because of the judgment call made by council. i ls commend the testimony from the board members, rodgers, was sensitive to the open-space pattern, and it is a real blithe -- blithe -- blight in that area that needs to be remedied. >> thank you for commenting on the lack of cordiality and professionalism in granting a continuance. i similarly feel that the variance should be upheld because of the design. but not to scale. i'm not going to repeat what everyone has said or has

articulated what my view is. i also want to make sure that members of the public, people impacted by this, like one of the speakers, zetssaaund the -- gets to understand the ploss and has the ability to -- understand the process and access the planning department and whoever else you need to speak to in order to understand the process involved. it should not be so confounding and difficult and i think -- i commend those of you that have followed this. and i think as the building itself gets with the planning going up for review, you have another opportunity to address this. >> i have no problem with

granting a variance. some were relying on a deal that was played and then having that deal not go forward. i don't know, and i don't have a good idea about what the remedy might be for that. i do have a problem, like i said, we condition permits all the time up here. so probably i will vote against upholding. like i said, i don't have a good solution for this. i echo the comments of my fellow commissioners that i think that rear property is probably in excess, and that the appelants should avail -- may avail themselves of the other remaining processes. >> before someone makes a motion, i am going to make a comment to mr. morrow also.

he would have had the right to come up here and ask yourself a continuance, you might have gotten it from the board. had we known what the circumstances were. i find it is unfortunate situation. but at any rate, does someone want to make a motion? >> i'm going to move to uphold the zoning administration variance decision. that he did not err and abuse his discretion. >> if you could call roll on that, please. >> it was not mr. sanchez. >> the motion is from commissioner fund to grant the variance and that he did not abuse his discretion.

>> on that motion, with that basis, vice president go? >> no. >> commissioner garcia? >> aye. >> president peterson. >> aye. >> commissioner wang. >> aye. >> thank you. the granting of the variances is -- the vote is 4-1. the granting of the variances is upheld on that basis. >> the last item on the agenda is your consideration of proposed amendments to the board's rule. for the last few months, i have been working with president peterson and vice president goh on coming up with language that might be useful to consider in order to try to clarify the rule to make them more understandable to the public, more consistent with the board's practices, and to make sure that we are operating in accordance with any relevant legal requirements. you've been provided with copies of the proposal.

an overview of the provisions have been posted on the web site so that the public has been given an opportunity to review them as well. i thought what i would do is walk us through the more significant proposed changes and make any comments along the way so we can move these forward. i think the articles and section numbers i will refer you to are the ones in the proposed draft, and as an overview, they have been somewhat reorderers to -- reordered f -- ordered. starting with the way that appeals are filed, it cites if it is continuances, et cetera. >> what was put before us this evening, are they in any way different? >> there was my suggested

addition having to do with the draft finding. that is what was containeded in the -- that was contained in the draft. there are copies if anyone here would like to look at that. article one and article two which have to do with officers and duties of officers, those have not been changed in any significant way. i don't know if there are comments anyone has on those. >> a brief comment. i know we went through these before. because it is established by charter. but i sure would like to find another way to change your title . >> to change my title? >> yes. is it possible to change it without a charter? >> that is something for future consideration, because we tride to do this in the past. >> we talked about it at length during the search process.

>> what's the date on the draft? >> it was distributed for you this evening. if you need a copy, i'm sure it would be provided for you. >> no change without changing the charter? >> the charter uses the term "executive secretary." as a cloak wall matter you are -- colloquial matter, you are free to refer to her otherwise, but that is the term in the charter.

section 6-a talks about the order. currently the order changes adepending on if it is an appeal or a denial or revocation. this would be similar to how matters are handled in appellate court and would allow the issue to be framed by the pleasant in each case so that the departments and -- athe pellant in each case so the parties and boards would know how to frame the question. section 6-b. >> before you move on, austensibly, i don't have any issue with these changes, but i do have word changes. i don't know if i should show them to you at another time.

>> i think now would be a good time. >> how strongly do you feel about those? >> i thought i could just give you my red line. >> nonsubstantive changes. >> what do you want? really, it is small stuff. but since i read it and wrote it, i thought i would mention it. i'm happy not to give it to you, wls. >> why do i need to do it now? >> my understanding is this is the public acceptance now, so i don't think there can be amendments lather, even minor, or else we'll have to go through this again. >> forget it.

no need. >> public commen on circumstances warranted on a practice already in place but this would clarify it in the rules, and then section 6-d-2 explains and clarifies the board's policy that these affiliated with a party should speak during that party's allotsment of time and not under "public comment. so that is it for section -- article 3. i don't know if there are any comments from commissioner fung, or others, that you had on that article.

>> article 4, no significant revisions were being proposed there. article 5 obviously has the bulk of the suggested changes. people are free to submit as much briefing and evidence that they want at that time. the proposal to limit it to one page is to limit it since the responding party is limited to a 12-page submital. sections 2-a and b makes the apellant brief doo due two weeks instead of four, the respondent's brief one week instead of two. the reason is to try to shorten the time it takes for a matter to be brought to hearing. it is similar to how other bodies operate. for instance, the board of

supervisors has everyone submit their materials at the same time so no rebuttal brief at all. any new information raised in response to -- and the board retains the ability to allow supplemental briefing. >> i have an issue with the elimination of the reply brief. elimination of the reply brief. i understand that we are trying to comply with our hearing and rulinging requirements, and that -- ruling requirements, and that buys us a week. i still have some concerns about eliminating the reply brief.

>> i think it is useful when issues are raised in the response that were not addressed, and i often feel at the hearing new things come up that don't get properly vetted and aren't developed in advance. >> if we found the situation was to ask for additional briefing, it has been the custom, i think

it is additional briefing, three page. the majority of the cases, the reply brief has been mostly repetitive. >> i have no problems with a summary. we wind up looking through there to see if it is something new. it can be 50 or 100 pages.

what ever the person reading the reply brief saw in the brief vs. the timing. i favor the brief, and i understand the argument. in most instances, very few pages are provided. >> what do we have to understand what is useful in submitting a response?

>> we have a multieye page document that talks about the appeals process. there is not a lot of guidance on a more substantive areas of what would go in a brief. >> is that something -- that document is on the web. when we talk about what the font

size is, that would be useful. >> so we don't need to do that tonight. >> so we don't need to do that tonight. >> i guess a concern i have is if respondent comes up with additional documents, which happens often if there is no reply brief, the apellant is meant to address that. maybe there is a way that we can, as president peterson requests, grant continuances, and grant more time, maybe even.

the apellant gets more shots at the apple because they get a brief. in fairness, the board of supervisors, you are coming in at the same time, a simultaneous change. having said that, you know, we all read the initial opening brief you really are looking in response to the response. you also sometimes get a response from the pro se litigators. i would say the non-litigators

view it as an uneven playing field. >> the preliminary statement in the feemed back in 2002, the old days was both parties briefed. one thursday prior simultaneous rebuttal. so when the board came up with this schedule, the reasons for the reply was, given the super -majority vote, the board wanted to, for lack of a better word, wanted inform -- wanted some sort of extra chance to present their case. >> that was the higher hurdle. the previous director used to mention a number ever times that the apellant has a -- a number of times that the apellant has a much higher hurdle. >> you need 4-7 votes to get any. >> not in every case. >> at a d.r. hearing, you need a 4-7. that was a discussion.

8 -- >> is that when the change took place, eight years ago? >> yeah. >> the other reason the apellant goes first is the apellant has the burden of proof. the apellant has the burden of proof in a situation where the super majority is required. >> i think it is prejudicial to the apellant for the fact they have to go first for the rebuttal period. they should have the option. i don't have a problem with that. it would be complicated to say you can go first or last, but to me, the fact that they have to go first creates a higher burden on them than the issue we're having due with, you know, rebuttal. i find -- man, i thate to gitch a percentage, because i'm not noletised enough, but 5% of rebuttals have something in there worth reading other than the guy is wrong, he lied?

you know, i didn't shoot my mother-in-law. so do -- to do away with rebuttals is not problem matic in terms of what we gain from it. i think it is too complicated to say when do you do your board of appeals.

>> why don't we just keep going until the end. >> article four, which has to do with the administrative record, noted no proposed revisions there. the other party has a -- has one shot at briefing. changes the deadline from materials, members of the public.

i'm not sure what the reason was for setting it at two-thirds-based, but would allow staff sufficient time to include them in your packets. of course the board is allowed to bring something today board pursuant to sunshine. they will not be forwarded to you, but it creates a process by which someone may request permission to file. there is an opportunity to request additional pages. section 2 offers the board to give guidance to the public and give assistance to the people

that may communicate with the board. it says evidence may be made part of the public record, and to do that a, written submital to the board, and those submitals should be submitted to me, to the executive secretary, and not individual board members. >> i want to applaud that change. that means are no longer 6 c1 that means we are no longer to be contacted by the public. >> that is putting the public on notice those types of contacts should not take place. >> section 6. clarifies the rules. what should and should not be discussed at a site visit and the subsequent reporting requirement once the visitor comes back to the board meeting. section 7 revises the rules on continuances and scheduling requests. ps