but if the appellant, the named appellant was paid for his services here by the 25 or 12-25 people, those people are parties. therefore unable to speak as public commentors. >> the appellant was not paid. it was voluntary work on behalf of all of us. the appeal. that's correct. >> it's a split cost. to any extent, this is very technical and i always appreciate people coming out to participate in this process. but i think from a legal and fairness issue to whatever extent the participation has financial stake here and you participated in those fees you can't speak as a public person because you have a representative speaking on behalf of you. >> you are saying that anybody who made a donation to the fee that was paid in order to file the appeal should not be speaking as a public representative? >> i'm going to defer to our city attorney, but my understanding is that it makes you part of the appellant group. but i'm not the city attorney. >> it's a board rule that's focused on fairness. if you are paying him, he's your representative and you can't speak on his behalf. and if that's the purp

the appellant is speaking on behalf of 25 people. that it should be on the 7-minute component and 3-minute rebuttal. if the people that are here speaking for the appellant would state they are part of that briefing creation and they do not get additional time from public statement standpoint. would that be correct? >> if that's correct, they are not officially aligned with the appellant. >> he mentioned in his brief that it was complying with 12 people and he mentioned today there is 25 and who are those 12 people. they effectively wrote the brief with him. >> okay. i can't answer your question. >> sure. i just asked. >> got it. thank you. not right now. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i believe the project sponsor has compelling arguments, in our decision letter. i would like to go back to the subject property 272 upper terrace in our zoning district. at this rear property we have mount olympus and there is a public sidewalk at the rear property line essentially of the subject property. in june 2013, they did seek

the appellant is speaking on behalf of 25 people. that it should be on the 7-minute component and 3-minute rebuttal. if the people that are here speaking for the appellant would state they are part of that briefing creation and they do not get additional time from public statement standpoint. would that be correct? >> if that's correct, they are not officially aligned with the appellant. >> he mentioned in his brief that it was complying with 12 people and he mentioned today there is 25 and who are those 12

the appellant is located one property removed at 530-day street. this is a sloping lot so the property is higher than the permit holder property. also as the permit holder noted there was a 2011 building permit application for addition and to add a garage and that went through notification. and there were no discretionary review requestcious , the building permit was issued last may and after the issuance of the building permit, they decided to add the roof deck and access to that roof deck. based upon the plan, that is code compliant and would not require notice. it would be allowed without section 311 notice as well as the railing that is proposed. that said, there are a couple of discrepancies that i did notice in the plans which maybe something that can be addressed as through revision process. when comparing the roof plan and third floor plan, the location of the retractable skylights do not lineup. there is also a proposed stair from the deck at the rear of the building that goes on top of the retaining wall in the rear yard. that's shown, i

here the appellants arguments is what is necessary to the security. the fact that the building code that is determined to provide home owners with security and privacy. unfortunately we are not able to apply that code guarantees based on the prototype and the current variance is best we are able to do. >> sorry, i hope your time gets stopped every time i ask a question. i want to follow your argument. can i see that illustration again. the 6-foot fence is something you cannot do bought baus of the 6-foot fence. >> you wouldn't, we are referring to the planning code which we understand allows for the construction of a 6-foot fence on someone's property. >> okay, the neighbor could build it because there is no retaining wall and it would go above the grade of the retaining wall? >> we are talking about the grade of the sidewalk height which is up here below. we are just referencing the fact that we could not literally follow planning code because it would be ridiculous. >> i'm wondering if that circumstances is if your neighbor others right next to you

we'll start with the appellant. mr. zaretzky. you have 7 minutes to present your case. >> i'm irving zaretzky. before we get started i had asked ms. goldstein. i had a history prepared for this particular project. she mentioned to me that it would be up to the board if they would accept it and if they do i should come up with 11 copies and i have those. if you would allow me to leave that. >> did you say it's a chronology? >> partly narrative and partly chronology. >> how many pages? >> it's about 7 pages. >> did you just now prepare it? >> i prepared it before and submitted it and ms. goldstein told me she told the other side that they could not submit in a letter and then both of you should prepare and leave it up to the board and the board will be able to decide whether to accept it. >> does anyone care for it? okay. >> i don't have a problem taking it. >> okay. that is other side seen it? >> yes. it was e-mailed to you. it is what was e-mailed to you. >> let's leave it out for now. >> it's true. >> okay. >> why don't we set i

makes you part of the appellant group. but i'm not the city attorney. >> it's a board rule that's focused on fairness. if you are paying him, he's your representative and you can't speak on his behalf. and if that's the purpose of splitting the fee for the appeal, then i would say that you are paying him. you are allowed to speak, but your testimony would not be admissible as evidence in the proceedings. you are a member of the public. >> so what you are saying is that anybody who contributed money to the filing fee, cannot speak as a public person? >> you can speak, i heard him say you can speak. >> but your testimony would not be admissible as evidence in the proceedings? >> why would i want to speak if my testimony is not admissible. why not let the next person come up and finish. >> okay, next speaker. >> good evening, my name is shirley glob. i also contributed to the appeal. i'm not speaking. i brought pages of neighbors who were not able to come tonight. overhead. they asked me to drop these off for your considerati

i'm asking for a rehearing for appellant and best cab company.ary 15th hearing i heard commissioner fung and commissioner honda ask whether sfmta would be treating the cab company differently and mr. murphy stood here and said no other medallion holder had so you get to move from his own color scheme to another color scheme and they were not treating him differently. the appellant says this is a misrepresentation of the facts and we were not prepared to creditor because we didn't have institutional knowledge as mr. murphy would have had we'd last week to present different facts at the time of the hearing would have made a difference. in fact, your i'm sure you're aware of the briefing gold star taxi owner left his color scheme in 2012 concurrent with his color scheme. although mta has not disclosed or divorced volunteered the information there were other such transfers as well concluding 626 taxi. here i'd like to ask mr. omaha a question on page 3 of respondents brief it says you never approached mta with a transfer color scheme permit to anyone

finally, this property, as the appellant points out, a large property. if you look at other properties on that section, all of them have less open

appellant made a comment that tndc would like the buy the property. commissioner at the planning commission meeting held up a letter and said at the october 13th planning commission meeting this letter state to me that tndc isn't interested in this property. that's not a quote, but pretty close. you can look back at the tape if you like. we have tried to sell this property to third parties other than mr. mac ernie. we tried three times. finally, this property, as the appellant points out, a large property. if you look at other properties on that section, all of them have less open space in them than mr. mac ernie's proposing. he's proposing the largest chunk of open space for any building in that area. that's why the zoning commissioner said yes. mac ernie moved things around to accommodate other neighbors. if you look at two of the other buildings on that corner that are almost as large as mr. mac ernie, one is larger, have no open space. thank you. >> okay, we can hear from the zoning administrator, mr. guy speaking first? >> good evening commission

finally, this property, as the appellant points out, a large property. if you look at other properties on that section, all of them have less open space in them than mr. mac ernie's proposing. he's proposing the largest chunk of open space for any building in that area. that's why the zoning commissioner said yes. mac ernie moved things around to accommodate other neighbors. if you look at two of the other buildings on that corner that are almost as large as mr. mac ernie, one is larger, have no open space. thank you. >> okay, we can hear from the zoning administrator, mr. guy speaking first? >> good evening commissioners, my name is kevin guy with planning staff. the project is at the corner of clay and market street. the project proposed to demolish the church. as you heard on october 3rd, the planning commission approved the project including granting a bulk exception. on november 13, 2013, the zoning administrator issued a variance decision later granting decision requesting variances. a little bit of background. the project does propose uses designe

now the appellant is here do i donating tonight with the deduct core system that's been used by m k a they looked at newspapers articles and this ground has been plowed over for many, many years and the design approach and the deduct approach has bun used in many of the projects that are currently under constricts or have been approved. the affinity the lumina and transbay tower and 350 midgets and the transbay tower. the only argument it the structural platoon is not being used it should be used in a category 3 as opposed to a risk category 2. every high-rise and office building in san francisco per code is built to the risk category 2 level. the code is specific on which a code 3 building should be provided and that's buildings that have obviouscy levels for group occupancy of 3 to 5 hundred people or more. the fact that this building like every other high-rise in san francisco risk 2 size standards didn't make it less dangerous. the life safety standard, in fact, the design uses in this case by m k a predicted an absence of a collapse the maximum standard event. the same prediction

it directory continue disabilities one -- contradicts the appellants argument. we obviously don't agree with that but i don't see how we can have it both ways. then lastly the project does not meet the definition of housing development project. the planning code doesn't define small scale general or specialty scores with goods and services. restaurant, but according to planning staff, a restaurant would generally be considered a neighborhood serving commercial use on article 7 of the planning code and 62 says that restaurants are part of neighborhoods retail uses. i don't know how you reached the conclusion that this law has never been used. i can't see where it has been used at city level, city councils or boards like this. anyway. thank you. steve will be up here. that was three minutes.3 minutes. >> a question for you. during the pro curing of the land entitlements -- we reduced it from 15 units. then it was reduced to 12 units, that's right. we reduced it in order to comply with the set backs and this type of thing. >> during the planning entitlement the hou

the appellant and everyone else. my name is neal, i'm one of the property owners. the appellant has not demonstrated that the zoning administrator has errored or abused his judgment. if anything, the picture that i can show you here has maintained what everybody has called a sacred space. this view is still available. if anything, the view will be increased by removing the fence by another 6-8 inches. the view and the argument made for that with or without mr. woois has been granted. i'm sorry the facts were not known early on. but the fence was created with a valid permit. it was created as we were new home owners not knowing the 15-day appeals process that could have gone through that we could have waited 16 days where it could have been failed. we followed the proper rules, proper procedures. even made a concession so the neighborhood could try it before they buy it from this lower fence height which we are seeing here. so that people could see what we are were trying to do was not breaking with what mount olympus actually has. we agree it's a special place, we

this is an example of being accused of being deceptive when the deposition is coming from the appellant. it's been the hardest thing for me to defend this project because of his on going twisting of facts. i also want to address mr. sanchez's understanding of what the board of appeals approved. there was a revision suggested to combine the units into a dwelling unit merger. the planning department communicated that would not be allowed under the addenda. so what was allowed though was interior changes of reconfiguring the 2 2 units and door changes iechlt -- i wanted to clear that up that we did not sneak this into the addenda for the merger . we did discuss about how to reconfigure the two units.2 units. what mr. sanchez putting this forward is why we are making changes to the house. they are the owners and the project sponsor's desire to make changes if they are not conforming with the approved plans, that is board approved. my question is my understanding is not that those plans were frozen and there was a condition of no changes. again, historically, those plans were initiated with

>> good evening, steve williamson behalf of the appellant.t to go into closed session. as the board of appeals you conduct a public business and you are residents here m san diego. closed sessions take away the public right to know what's going on and takes away the transparency. the decision that you reached in this particular case was reached in the most public matter possible in a very large public meetings attended by dozens of people who gave testimony and broadcast on television at the same time. your deliberations and your decision was also done in the full light of day whether right or wrong or whether agreed or disagreed with it was open and transparent. i urge you not to change that now. don't move the process behind closed doors. the public will end up what's happening now and i don't believe if you look at the statutory language that this is a situation that even calls for a closed session. if that true language is very specific because of the disfavored nature of closed door meetings and the administrative code of 67.10 mirrors t

sf 91234 this is on for hearing tonight and we'll start with the appellant mr. bash. you have seven minutes.7 minutes.a good evening commissioners, my name is tie bash and i'm the individual pealing the window replacement i believe in error to respondent. as a 19-year resident of the city of san francisco. i have met the planning commission department. these are windows installed at ash bury meeting the standards. i don't believe they do. i met with the preservationist counter that permits that city does not allow windows that were originally wood and #, a window replacement permit for a building of this age and one classified as potentially historic resource should have been reviewed by preservationist, again it was not. in her brief, respondent on behalf of ms. myers claims that no where in the window replacement document explains windows. i would like to refer your attention to page 3, section 4. where it states replacement windows should match the historic windows in size, dmraezing, operation and material, finish exterior profile and arrangement. section 4d furth

they heard the hearing request by the appellant and they still approved it. there is no reason to deny it. the garage is in place, approved, an appealed, upheld. whatever. a non-revocable feature of the building at this point. the building was raised 36 inches. i don't want to address these arguments of the appellant that are not jermaine to this appeal. there is nothing that could be the outcome of any future actions by city department that would stop this curb cut and driveway from being completed. >> your time is up. i have a quick question, if it's not about the height or the process but it's about a curb cut, what's the -- can you help me understand what you understand to be the real issue to be? or are you? >> i want to be completely honest with you. i have worked on this project for 2 years and trying to determine the motivations for the neighbor for that long. i do not know. >> okay. thank you. >> i would like you to address the height issue so it's clear in my mind. i may not be relevant but helpful. >> i would be happy to. there's an error on the pl

it's an accelerate process and the appellant court will offer see is supreme courts activities take into consideration the new briefs and within two months we'll have some clarity on the high-speed rail so the treasure can go to market if the court were to direct that. cap and trade amber alluded to one of the biggest issues about cap and trade this region and as well as other multi couldn't mp os want any cap and trade revenues for the transportation sustainability to come to them within the each respective region i believe the c m a's have really taken an aggressive stand and unfortunately, the governor has elected to pressure a process it appears i say appears because we have not seen the trailer bill language to direct the appropriate to various state agencies for the additional substantial allocation on some basis probably a competitive grant base it looks like the governor want to maintain control over the cap and trade so the concerted effort by mp those have to continue to press their case the leadership has drawn sympathy to the collaboration approach but that will run head ways

and usually appellate practice. and that is not the norm. in one today as part of this is a scholar and teacher. >> what is that practice? >> we have appellate courts rather than trial courts. >> gloss colors should be masters of some aspect of the law. not necessarily an aspect of legal practice. and i think it would be a shame if law schools took such a pivot towards creating a practicing with lawyers and the entire academy we can see that they became a vehicle for facilitating this and the law. that is not what the legal academy has done for the last 100 years and we would lose an awful lot of value if they abandoned their traditional roles and criticizing the law and legal institutions from the legal profession. and instead refashioned itself toward the end of something to be practice ready and there would be tremendous opportunity in doing that. >> what is the kc like to go to when teaching class? >> all, the cases that i enjoy are the first year, my cases. >> what those cases? >> these are cases -- did you go to law school? >> no, i di

before i respond to the appellants comments i want to provide background about the special permit this is the first time you're aware of this permit issued by our agency we have the authority to create a manual for the public in most cascades contractors to do and conduct work with on city streets within the public right-of-way that's called the recollections for working in the san francisco streets it is called the blue book it outlines certain streets when lanes can be closed and what's required if a sidewalk is closed and addresses impacts to transit facilities and bicycle facility and pedestrian facilities. if the contractor is not able to comply with all the requirement or if the work is not consistent with the spiefgsdz that are outlined in is a city contract then they're required to hold a special traffic permit. our special traffic permit is like a supplemental or rider permit to a permit required for the contractors example public works tear occupancy so if the contractor is going to put equipment in the road they need more permits. so it identifies the traffic permits to addr