aforementioned reasons we believe it's incumbent for the board to give the rehearing and his constitutional right of due process. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker please. >> my name is kathy lens. i am representing park merced coalition and group of residents and interested people in san francisco reserving park merced for future generations. we support quentin kopp proposal of due process that the president of the board was not present at the last hearing. we also want to say although this is a very narrow question this is much bigger than this narrow legal question. i attended every hearing over the park merced

project for the last two years. 800 brotherhood way was never mentioned. i don't know if was in the eir but it was never mentioned. it would be egregious to allow this to go forward because no eir's have been done with the project. together these projects are devastating to the environment and the school across the street. the planning comgz authorized increased air pollutants and toxins and add this project to that what are the school going to have? toxic air quality. are you going to have your children continue to attend the school? i ask you to stop this project now. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? seeing none commissioners the matter is submitted.

>> well, i'm happy to begin, and i was present at the last hearing, and i just wanted to state that at the time of the last hearing mr. kopp made almost the same arguments, i will call them, as he did today, arguing that he wanted all five commissioners here. that he felt that we were not prepared -- actually accused of us not reading briefs, and i just want to state we do take an oath when we agree to volunteer for this commission, and part of that oath includes the promise and the oath to be well prepared for all hearings and be ready to vote on all matters before us, so i personally take great offense at the accusation that any member of this board is not well prepared and has not put in

hours upon hours to prepare for each and every matter before us. we are public servants here, and as a fellow former public servant i would think that mr. kopp would afford us that same presumption of competence and dedication to what we have taken on when we take an oath to do the work here, so i have not heard apart from making that very clears -- i have not heard anything that would sway me to vote to grant a rehearing in this case. there's no new material facts, nothing whatsoever presented to us that would make me vote to grant a rehearing. >> i'm in concurrence with that opinion. it is a narrow issue that is before us which is the zoning administrator determination. i have heard nothing that is new with respect

to that. the issues that have been brought fortare better heard at either planning or the board of supervisors where they have the purview of those issues. >> i would echo the sentiments of my fellow commissioners and while just the i would like to reiterate that the position of not responding to the question of whether or not the commissioners have read the briefs is i believe a principled one and it's not to be taken as a presumption that we have not read them even though that is the allegation that has been hurled at us in the public forum and i do personally do as well

take offense. i know judges are often considered people not to read the briefs and maybe that's why that allegation has been thrown this way because he's been on the receiving end of the same, but i think in this case i would wholeheartedly concur with my fellow commissioner that we do take this role very seriously. i spend enormous times in litigation and i add to this time by being on this board and it's a privilege to do so and i take it seriously and dedicated to it and i believe it's the same for my fellow commissioners. on the merits here for the request i concur and i actually move to deny. >> thank you. mr. pacheco if you could call the roll please. >> we have a motion from the president to deny this rehearing

request. on that motion commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado. >> aye. >> vice president lazarus is absent. commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is four-zero. this hearing rerequest is denied and a notice of decision will be released. >> thank you. we will move on the next rehearing request at 79 new montgomery street and the board received a request on paawan kothari for the the chai cart vs. dpw bsm and at that time the board voted four-one. commissioner hurtado absent and remove the permit based on dpw's analysis. the project is charter schools and the chai cart vs. dpw bsm and we will

start with the requester. >> i got it. thanks so much. >> you have three minutes. >> hello i am paawan kothari. i'm the owner of the charter -- the chai cart. i am sorry i missed the last hearing and i had the date on wrong and because of the mistake of putting that on my calendar and completely missed it and i'm here to request the board to allow me to present my case, and i apologize for missing it, and i did put a lot of time if you all read the brief that i had submitted. i did put a lot of time collecting all the information and preparing the brief. it was just a mistake and i just want

to get a chance to actually present my case, and also i want to make sense -- before that and since then i got other permits from the department of public works which i appreciate a lot. thank you. and i honestly feel that there was some kind of a mistake made for this decision and i want that chance. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. quan. >> good evening commissioners. john quan from the department of public works. i want to go back -- this is a rehearing request and in order for you guys to grant that my understanding has been there has to be additional information provided or manifest injustice. the department doesn't feel additional

information was provided. the appellant provided it and we provided statements at the hearing. it appears if there was injustice it was not caused by either this board nor the department rather for whatever reason, the applicant failed to show up. we are not here at this point to argue over the merits of the permit or it is merits of the rehearing and we don't believe there are merits to this case. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none commissioners the item is submitted. >> i -- you know if it was an honest mistake then i think we should allow her to present her case. >> i agree. i mean i think -- sorry. >> no, go ahead.

>> i find the appellant's testimony very truthful and i think it would be manifest injustice not to allow her to present her case. >> she was speaking about the planning commission versus us. >> i concur with my fellow commissioners. life happens and evidently this is very important to her so i think a rehearing should be granted. >> i would move to grant a rehearing in this instance. i'm sorry. >> that's okay. >> did you want to say something. >> only that i would normally -- i would feel differently if the requester was represented by an attorney and in this case it appears that she isn't, so i don't cut that much slack for attorneys missing deadlines, so anyway i concur with my fellow commissioners. >> commissioners, we need a date

in the motion. >> what do you recommend? >> well -- >> they're loaded between now and april. >> i was going to say for the board's sake april looks best. i know it puts off for a while for the requester. >> april fifth. >> 10. >> tenth? okay. >> okay. >> excuse me, tenth. all right. >> the department -- okay. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner fung to grant this rehearing request and set the rehearing on the merits for april 10. on that motion president hwang. >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado. >> aye. >> and vice president lazarus is absent. commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is four-zero. this rehearing is granted and set for april 10.

thank you. >> >> okay. the next item on the board's calendar is 4d which is three jurisdiction requests. the support property is at 68 presidio avenue. the board received a letter from steven greenwald and roashiel alpert and take issuance over the following dates in the application submitted respectively. the appeal periods ended on november 14, 2011, march 20, 2012 and april 27, 2012 respectively and jurisdiction requests were filed then. the project for item one is remove sheet rock at all floors and removal limited to

50% of each floor and not significant change, replace existing sheet rock and property line, no structural work. second is remodel bathrooms and miscellaneous improvements and elevator and the permit number is listed and extend elevator to garage level, add one bedroom and bath. since there are three requests there is nine minutes total. >> i had a procedural question. i have also submitted a request for continuance and i am wondering whether the board

want to hear that matter also at this time or after the jurisdictional? >> the request for continuous with respect to the later -- the things later on the docket? >> the request was for both items. the reason is because -- >> what item numbers? >> okay. that will be the last two items on the calendar. >> right. okay. >> so you're seeking request to continue the jurisdiction request as well as the appealing hearing. >> that was the request that was asked for, but i am prepared to give the board the reason, and if the board doesn't want to grant continuance for the jurisdictional request i am prepared to address the board even though we only received the plans to review them yesterday.

>> and you're referring on the continuous only with respect to 10a and 10b and not with respect to the jurisdictional request. >> (inaudible). >> wait. i think she is asking for the board to consider continuous for all the matters. >> including today's. >> but i'm prepared to talk about the jurisdictional request item because i am finally able to look at the plans to provide you the reasons why we're asking for it. >> okay. which one is it? i am confused. do you want to do the jurisdiction request today or continue all the items that are before us today? >> let's do the jurisdiction request -- >> hold one minute counselor. perhaps we could break into the two. we could deal whether we're interested hearing the arguments on a continuous first and make a decision on that. >>i just want to know what they want first which is you want to go forward with your

jurisdiction request, but hold on the -- continue the appeals that are actually properly before us today? >> we prepared to move forward with the jurisdictional request and then address the continuous with the administrator also. >> okay. let's go forward. >> that's fine. >> we can hear the jurisdictional request and depending what the outcome of that perhaps the board wants to entertain the other question. >> i apologize for not having a brief prepared for the board. the brief that was submitted by the previous counsel is a little sketchy and for the reason we were never able to accept the

plans submitted to the department that was the basis of those permits. let me get over the first one which is the removal of the sheet rock or plaster inside the house. basically the second permit that's issued was one that was issued in error by the planning department because the way the plan they was finally able to see yesterday at the planning department because the permit didn't provide us with plans so we can look at it. they were going to give the approved set of plans to look at on the following conditions. we withdraw the jurisdictional request. we withdraw the permits on the appeals and also forgo any right to challenge

any additional permits they filed on this building, so clearly those conditions were not acceptable and fortunately the planning department finally was able to get a set of plans, the approved plans, on monday. the department will not give a set of plans either, so yesterday the department was kind of enough for me to review the plans, so what i find is the first set of plans -- all the plans have no existing plans. they have no existing elevations or existing sectionses, it is impossible to determine the true scope of work because i have no basis to compare it with, but what i do find out -- i did find out that they were building a second floor in the rear

addition that's an old addition that would have required a variance, and no variance was granted because the way they presented the plan when you look at it looked like it was there. it doesn't look like it was new because the walls were not in that shade, so because of that that permit was erroneously issued. it always have a excavation on the lower level which is right above the garage, and they claim that they extending it back 5 feet, but what it doesn't show is that the garage ceiling is higher than the floor of the lower level which is the family level, so when you look at the plan there

are all these changes that actually go all the way into the garage area but with our section drawn properly. you don't know actually the garage was going to be also in that area when -- so that was another problem. as for the third permit which is -- it show a massive excavations. what the permit application does not tell you that they're taking a very small one car garage at the corner of jackson and presidio and they are extending that all the way back to the back wall of the original building to house five cars. now, to do that obviously they will have to totally destroy the floor on the lower level, so

they also extended that all the way back to the rear wall to add additional space and room and such. in order to have bedrooms and the space and that excavated area they need new windows for those rooms. this assembling a 1915 building so potential historic resource so you have all new windows in the lower level which would have possibly change the kaish of this potential resources. under the normal circumstances if the total scope of the project was presented to the planning department it would have to under go environmental review as well as historic resource evaluation. this particular project has a series of five permits, six permits, and they have -- going to be a few more so we don't know the total

scope of this project, and the department at this point, and i think this board looking at the permits on appeal it's very difficult to decide what is the project because the basis for those permits are not really before you, and that's one of the reasons why we're asking for jurisdiction. >> thank you. >> let me just clarify one thing. the second permit is the one they referred to as four doing the seismic work and the garage extension. is that correct? >> no, the second permit does not do any work in the garage i don't believe. i only have chance to look at those plans. that's my recollection, but it does show that there is an

extension -- expansion of the lower floor which is the floor above the garage level that wraps around the garage, and that was extended to the back about 5 feet. >> and that's in the -- >> and the third one expands all the way back. >> the third permit? >> the third permit. >> okay. thank you. we can hear from mr. soriano. >> good evening members of the board, council for the city attorney's office. i am appearing on behalf of the permit holders at 68 presidio avenue. let me start with a clarification from the question. it's the expandian and the

lower level expansion to your question and let me remind everybody what we're doing right now and this is a jurisdictional request. like the application submitted the presentation was the appeal. they're arguing the merits of the permit but they haven't gotten through the first question and what's the explanation for not filing a timely appealed. i addressed this in my brief and provided information to combat what they had in their brief and ac a acquisition there is a serial permitting and i think the city responded to concerns and questions and it doesn't appear to be serial permitting or intentional effort to under mine noticing requirements. these permits were provided in the appropriate matter and due to some of the work -- they weren't just over the counter permits.

they required a plan checker but let's get back to the jurisdictional request and they should demonstrate that the city intentionsallyily caused them to miss the deadline. the deadline was missed by over a year. the second one was missed by nine months and the third one was over eight months and neither in the oral presentation or the written submission do they address why they didn't appeal sooner, but they seal off any argument that the city caused them to miss the deadline by writing in their brief or jurisdictional request that they did not complain about the project and tried to grin and bear it for many months. that is not because of the city. that was their own conscience conscious choice. >> >> i provided a chronology so you can see what is going on

between the neighbors but i think it's clear for any consideration they haven't addressed why they missed the appeals or why it was someone's fault they missed the appeals and the clear procedure there has to be some merit to the jurisdictional request before we focus on whether there was something wrong with the permits. they took a shotgun approach and accused these people with everything under the sun and didn't provided facts and tonight they came and didn't provide facts about the jurisdictional request. they just want to knit pick the project. these are two sophisticated attorneys representing two attorneys so they can't say they didn't know about the process. jurisdictional request. i want to rehear this thing without addressing the burden.

otherwise there is no time limit on the appeals. it means anything that wants to appeal has the right and the board will entertain that, so i think it's important i suggested there is something else going on, maybe so, maybe not, but on the merits they haven't addressed the jurisdictional request and shouldn't be able to force us to address things that were done to address the permits. i think there are representatives with the city that are familiar with the project that can assure you there is no concern for the safety of the project and no serial permits and under mine the noticing requirement and i suggest that this jurisdictional request must be denied for the board to maintain the integrity in the process so permit holders can proceed with their job and we will get to the appeals and the continuous later but i am very much concerned they are launching into the appeals for

the three items subject of this jurisdictional request. the permit holders have gone beyond what you normally see in submissions here to make sure they're transparent and in part because of their offense to the accusations that have been coming. finally i would say i disagree with ms. barkly's characterization of the settlement terms. i won't get into t i don't think it's appropriate to talk about that. suffice to say we haven't been able to work things out. we are no longer in negotiations. counsel hasn't returned by calls so we're here to have the city rule on what is a legitimate request and appeal and with they will submit it unless there are specific questions from you at this time. >> counselor, two questions. in your brief you indicated that the -- either the fourth or

fifth permit, has an arching -- over arching work that applies to the three permits. we haven't received any of the documentation except the permit copy itself and your design documents that show the full extent so we don't know what is in the actual permit documents. can you expand about that a little bit further as to how that further permit becomes over arching over these others? >> yes. it's the second permit that required the seismic upgrade to the existing building and due to that work the building department has to have an engineer plan checker oversee this. now all the subsequent permits issued reference that permit number. that's the trigger for the planning department to know