this regulatory agency by endorsing the operations of companies that are operating in the city unlawfully, unregulated, unlicensed. and for the mayor to do that i mean it seems disgrace full to me. those companies are providing uncontrolled competition. their numbers are growing day by day and the direction that is solution is taking of putting out more taxis to meet more of their vehicles to take back taxi share from us. i don't think that's going to work. there's a very influential article that goes back a few decades called the tragedy of

the common sense where, you know, the farmers use a common area to grace their cattle and, you know, farmers this farmer puts another cow an and another farmer puts a cow on it and pretty soon that's their individual benefit to do it but the cows are staffing. we in this situation are the cows senator something has to be done >> (calling names).

>> at the april 6th accounting vote of this task force the vote was to find a violation of the speaking times 5 to 4, however, one member of the task force does not show so it failed for the affirm active vote of the members of the sunshine task force. i'm moving for reconsideration and we'll keep you posted. the second raison i rise to he'd i is to get a formal answer on

behavior of good government why didn't you go to get the report inside the agency. you had to spend how much money did you spend on the doctors report? and a thank you. >> (calling one more name). >> i'm 25 years of driving a cab. doesn't mean anything. i brought to our attention the charging of 5 percent even though our rule says they can only charge 3 percent.

this is the law of the land of the united states of america you can't charge minimum in dollars and i can go to the credit card.com and you can fill that out for yourself. i suggest to the drivers to put a sign of credit card accepted which dollar minimum and you'll be all right. and the other things i want to talk about we talk about in the town meeting if you're going to allow the cab companies to so-called dispatch to the center app the problem is still going to be there. what you need to do is when people called red or yellow or other other companies they can see the four block radius you

can see them. you can see in if the yellow cabs are available for them fine they can get the cab right now right away. then they can make their choices. and the second thing or the third thing there is no u turn for the taxi. there's a difficult situation over there on sutter street >> moniker to address that? >> i'd like to a take into account the credit cards charging 5 percent. also the california trains thing is right i've been down there

are i don't know what kind of authority you'd have but the members can take a look at 0 those things. okay. the director is not going to be giving a report >> last item on the agenda seeing none. >> very quickly. i'm going to a higher authority. >> director reiskin i would appreciate a report on the muni delays. i know that some of them were caused by the wind and interesting circumstances but it certainly seems to me that the delays before the van system where the trains are coming in

there's been significant details p delays. i don't know if it's something to be with the switch or something else. i asked a year and a half agree as far as i, tell the sander hose is for more a problem but i'd like to know and i know that supervisor weaning would like to know >> anyone else on new or unfinished business? >> we're going to talk about the california train corner that's my neighborhood. that would be a awesome to

switch that over. in terms of the the office of california train station 3 lanes have a green turn and the pedestrians have a signal to walk it's scarey to cross that intersection. so if you're looking into anyway that's - and a fourth and town send. >> anyone else? our all scared aren't you. thank you all. and a need a motion to adjourn? >> all in favor say i.

we're adjourned. test, test,

test, test, test, test, test, test, test, test, test test >> welcome to the april 10th, 2013, the preceding office is chris fong and two commissioners. to my left a district attorney city attorney and that's the controls of the boards legal assistant. we're joined this evening by he representatives from the departments that have matter before us. also representing the planning

commission is the other people with the building inspectors and larry is here from the environmental health section of the department of public health. and let's conduct the swearing in process >> the board requests that you turn off all cell phones and pagers. the boards rules of appreciation department representatives each have 7 minute to present their cases. people affiliated with those parties must conclude their comments won t within the 7 minute period. no rebuldz. to assist the public the public

is asked not required to submit a speaker card. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions there are comme comments cards on the side of the table. the board of appeals office is located on mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sf gov. tv. thank you for your attention at this point in time we'll conduct our swearing in process if i

wish to have your testimony please stand and say i do. please note that any member the public my speak without taking this oath. >> today seldom swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth? thank you >> thank you so looking item number one is there any member of the public to speak on a issue that is no one o not on the agenda? commissioners any comments? >> go ahead. >> i just want to note that i now will be absent from next

week's meeting. >> i also will be absent from next week's meeting. >> i guess we'll be rescheduling a meeting. >> any other commissioner comments? any public comment on item number 2? move on to item 3 for the boards consideration are there any adoption? is there any public comment on the minutes? call the role please and on that motion from the president to adopt the march 13, '13 minutes?

(calling commissioners names) those minutes are adapted and a thank you. so we'll call item number had the subject property is at tree avenue. we received a letter agent appellant requesting a approve from the planning department. at this time the board voted on the basis that the permit was properly issued and the project was to create first story stare at bedroom, bath at upper level. >> before you start i watched

the tv version of it and prepared to listen to this request. >> thank you. >> you guys hear me well. we're here to say that we have property reporters of the object of this permit is to make an additional basement unit it's not to the upkeep of the foundation. it's in the party wall. this building here is part can i show this? okay. so this is my little chart. the permit holder have two party

walls so she had to take down the walls. she needed 3 permits. half of the foundation is on the different lots it's our property therefore with our permission of authorization it's not on our property. here's the copy of the party wall agreement it clearly says that this agreement here wants the land so whoever gets the land it's this alternate.

the parking wall is to benefit both party. we're not getting two foundation walls upgraded and any future buyer of our property is wondering why we you couldn't up grade the property. it's not cause us problems in the future even though the engineers say this will not negatively impact our believe therefore we're not going to grant the permission for this work. please consider. >> please state your name for the record. janet son. >> we can hear from the permit

holder. >> i'm the property owner of this tree. according to the rehearing procedure the appellants need to show different facts and circumstances have arisen. there's two reasons the reason that the d by you didn't have the authority to issue the permit and second the permit issued is not in koorng with certain sections. based on our review all of this was covered in the prior hearing at length and the plans that were submitted are according to

code and it's for both properties. >> i'm the project architect. just to recap since the last hearing that my client peggy did meet with the owners of the adjacent property and once again offered them a comprises that we would build a new foundation on the side of the property line. they choose not to accept that answer so it leaves us at a little bit of an impasse. i mean just to reiterate what peggy said i don't think they present any new he reasoning. their brief details they do not

understand the calculations that was done by a engineer. i don't think they've come forward with any evidence in any way to say their deficient or in any way their inadequate so we're not to accept the rehearing request >> any departmental requests? any public comment? and okay seeing none, the commissioners matter is submitted. >> question for building department. >> commissioners. >> watching it on tv is a little bit different than looking at the packet and drawings attached but one of the

issues that was raised was related to our pursues 3 they straddle two property lines. >> well, we do have those types of properties in san francisco where they share party walls. sometimes, it requires two permits but the party wall that they're doing i think they're putting plywood on that site. this building should have been split. years ago when it was done they never physically split the building. it's very difficult project but

in answer to your question the building permit they have is okay. if their not going underneath the foundation on the other side which is a different lot. it's difficult - at any time hard from stopping people from doing work on the property that they own but it's better to split the foundations and make them separate at this .83 and that's what the permit people are trying to do. there are going to do it in small