we can start with appellant, mr.am. >> could you speak into the microphone when you do speak, sir. >> hello. i'm anthony tam. i live on -- my neighbor steven wong, he's doing the building, remodeling. okay. okay. anthony tam. mr. huang -- speaking foreign language. [speaking foreign language] >> my name is anthony tam, and i am here to talk about the building permit and address some questions regarding my neighbor's attempt to rebuild or to alter his building. the first question is that when we were presented with the floor plan for -- when he was applying for the permit, he gave us the first draft, first copy of his proposal. when he -- when it was -- but when there was the second plan for the building permit, it was different from the first one. our neighbor did not show us his final floor plan, and he skipped a step by applying for the permit with his first draft, but draft but finally building based on his final draft of his floor plan, and he skipped a step and he did not show us the final floor plan. mr. tam's

we will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes to present your case. >> good evening commissioners. thank you for taking the time to review this matter. there's a lot of details and facts and history behind this. but i'm representing the appellant uptown market and abdulbasit al-hubuishy. instead of going over the history of this within the seven minutes, i am going to break it down to four core issues that have led up to this appeal. the first being the failure to provide by client with any records which created the basis for the audits relied upon by city officials in alleging unpaid wages. if i can direct your attention to exhibits a and b of the declaration. this is all that was provided to my client in alleging unpaid wages. so is this an audit done on the city's own accord. and when he requested the, any further evidence on the basis that they were relied upon, he was denied. he repeatedly did so. and to this day, we have no idea what the -- where these calculations come from and, in fact, we have two,

next this is thal appellate's pink property. that is adjacent property to the west. 2666 hide on the corner owned by sandy walker, who is here. sandy decided it is time i need to paint my property. this absolutely infuriated ms. tsang. there was a painter in the morning. she tried to shake the painter off the ladder. the police were called and there were witnesses. nothing happened. this is the behavior we are dealing with. lastly, as she talked about the garage. this is a view of the corner. this is sandy walker's property here. this is ms. tsang's property on north point. this is my property here. now when i attempted to put in the garage, you would think that number one she was around the corner this wouldn't impact her that i would be improving the property and maybe taking a couple cars off the street. this infuriated her as well, i would dare to put a garage on my property. her boyfriend attacked my contractor, the contractor had to get a restraining order in court, and it took me seven years to get a garage put in. seven

is it okay for the appellate? >> i move to continue it for two weeks to march 7th so the planning department can ascertain what was in the mailing. >> so there would be no additional submittals, just an answer verbally back in. >> i believe that is all we are looking for. >> on that motion from commissioner lazarus continued to march 7th to allow time for the zoning administrator to verify what plans were sent to the neighbors. president funk aye. there are three votes in favor and one opposed. that motion passes. >> can we t >> we are returning to the february 21, 2018 meeting. we are calling item five. we are dealing with the street artist certificate denial. they are requesting a hearing of 17-1131. -- 131. they decided 5-0 to deny the appeal on the basis the appellant did not satisfy the requirements of the application. three minutes. . >> on the order audio the commissioner said even if it is a transient address like a shelter we will accept it. the new information is a shelter navigation house omission stree

seen none, we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellant. first appellant. >> looks good. devil is in the details. i hope that with this, really, i do believe these are good people we're working with. but the vagueness does not reassure me on some of the points they're all agreeing on. therefore, i hope that you can be -- grant our request for this specific condition, particularly light and sound and on the -- that's all basically at this point. i didn't talk because there's only so much time, about the water concerns underground. i'm very happy that inspector duffy mentioned that because there was a dairy up the hill and lots of water flows down. we're downhill from 363 a little bit. so -- but it sounds like dbi who i mistakenly called mr. murphy in my brief. >> that's his uncle. [ laughter ] >> that it would be okay. so i hope you grant our conditions. thank you. >> let me float an idea. the inspector indicated that only new buildings have sound criteria and that mostly applies to canada -- condos. the state code has a standard for sound transmission between party walls

seeing none we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellant. >> i'm the appellant's son. i wanted to start by saying good evening everyone. they were saying it was compliant with all the building department but i says on their website the type of building couldn't be visible from the street which the picture showed it was visible from the street. so that would not be in compliance. the owner came up here and described the number of bedrooms set by an illegal number that was not part of any plans or legal number. i think this represents more than a remodel. this is more than doubling the size of the existing home. many of our neighbors are elderly, who are not able to make it. a couple neighbors were able to file comments with you guys. these are people who have lived there for 40 years or more. who have described the neighborhood in one in which families grow up, grow fruit trees in their back yards and have open areas where everybody can barbecue and talk across yards. i think building this would cut off the yard an cut off a sense of that community, not to mention takin

i have been saying that from the word go to the appellant. obviously, he's concerned for his own property and the safety. we get that. we always get that at dbi. we try to relay that at all times. we're able to go out there, means and methods, proposal from mr. santos on how this work will get done so this doesn't impact the neighbor. mr. bleskovich is obviously on the other side. he's welcome to be there as well, just to make sure the work is done properly. i would probably at this point be asking that the permit is upheld as well for the purposes of getting this under a safe condition resolved with the good and review by dbi on the inspection process and preconstruction. >> president honda: just for the neighbors to hear, the wall height is gonna be the same as it was prior. did you get a chance to look at that? >> i'm just going by what you were told as well. i assume it was. >> president honda: i imagine it is. >> looks like it is. >> president honda: okay. thank you, inspector duffy. >> i'd give them my business card tonight. i'm willing

appellants permit holder and respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties should make their statements within the three minute periods. members who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each and to rebuttal. we ask that you speak into the microphone. you are asked to submit speaker cards but you're not required to when you speak. the board comments and welcomes your feedback. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the bored's hearing rules, please ask the staff before or after the meeting. or come to our office. this meeting is broadcast life on sfgovtr cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast friday at 4:00 on channel 46. there are dvd's of this meeting available for purchase on sfgovtv. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking the oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you wish to testify in these proceedings, and you wish to have the board take your statement as testimony weight, please stand as you're able and

next item owner of record and appellant action requested by appellant because he is no working and unable to fix the violation and is selling the house. would the department like to come forward? sorry. the department will come forward and then you go. >> good morning commissioners. i'm a senior housing inspector with housing and i'm here to respect our division. i was informed prior to today's meeting that the case is being abated. so all work to comply with the notice of violation was completed. so, that's the update. >> thank you. awesome. >> commissioner gilman: thank you. so, city attorney, it's been abated and all the work has been completed -- >> i think you still need to make a ruling on the case. >> commissioner gilman: make a ruling. okay. >> still grant the appeal. resoars the order of abatement and i don't know what you would want to do about any kind of fees and cost in that instance. >> commissioner gilman: okay. let's go through the process. the owner is here. this is very encouraging though. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is jennifer tran. i'm the new owner and i

or the appellant representative. colleagues, if there are no objections to proceeding in this way, we will move forward and open up this hearing. and supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you ladies and gentlemen, president breed. colleagues, today we will hear from the appellant, along with the planning department and members of the public about a halal poultry butcher. brought forward by the animal legal defense fund, alds, expressed concerns with the planning commission concern to exempt in the approval of the conditional use application submitted last november. my office has spent the better part of the last month working to understand how this particular facility would impact the proposed area and city at large. and with that, madam president, i turn back the rest of the hearing over to you. thank you. >> president breed: thanks, supervisor cohen. and before we proceed, i'm going to ask members of the public, if you could please keep it down, we need to move forward with our agenda. thank you very much. a

appellate court said you won, completely owning guns.hen the mayor said we would bring this to the supreme court. dick: exactly. emily: that was a tactical mistake am a well known by the mayor.- the d.c. it opened up a lot of people -- the supreme court made its ruling in 2008 in a landmark heller case that said, what? dick: the supreme court, my favorite quote -- there is a lot of stories, interesting stories to get to the supreme court, but my favorite story about the supreme court is that i did not know anything about the law. i did not know how this decision might go. but when they announced that justice scalia was going to read the decision, and i liked -- this is my quote. here is what scalia said. we are not here today to a race the second amendment -- erase the second amendment from the united states constitution. [applause] emily: [laughter] dick: i did not know anything, but i know we had won something. emily: god rest his soul, justice scalia. dick: rest in peace. that is what he will be forever famous for. emily: i have never

to each appellant. we will handling getting the materials to dbi and planning. >> you will be sending it to them. all right. thank you. >> you're able to do that by next thursday? a week from tomorrow? i see thumbs up behind you. okay. on that motion, commissioners. [ roll call ] >> that motions passes. >> last case on the calendar 17-194 teal momota with planning department approval the department is 730 cabrilla street. we model of single family residence including kitchen plumbing e electrical and structural work. no work on front facade. no fire alarm or sprinkler work. rear deck in buildable area. if everyone could leave the room quietly. >> i'm sorry, people. please be courteous to other people that have cases before us this evening. thank you. >> we'll start with the appellant. >> president fung, commissioners, good evening. i'm teal momota. i live at 732cabrillo. my neighbors is the 730 have the property and they've -- the former neighbor pretty much left that place in disrepair. it's a gut job.

finally we won in the appellate court, and d.c. said we're going to challenge this. >> by saying you won, you got to the appellate court, which you know they're regional around the country. d.c. appellate court said you won, meaning d.c. can't ban completely owning guns. then d.c., the mayor, said we're going to appeal to the supreme court. >> exactly. >> and that was a tactical mistake well known now by the d.c. mayor, city council, because it opened up which a lot of people did not see coming, supreme court made a ruling in 2018 in the landmark heller case that said what? >> the supreme court, my favorite quote. there's a lot of stories, interesting stories to get to the supreme court, but my favorite story about the supreme court is that i didn't know anything about the law, i didn't know how the decision might go, but when they announced that justice scalia was going to read the decision, and i like to -- this is my quote. here is what scalia said. we are not here today to erase the second amendment from the united states const

. >> this is the appel of the preliminary mitigates declaration. >> hang on. before we present, commissioner fong? >> i just wanted to say that i sought the advice of the city attorney that i am not recusing myself on this particular item, but i have served on the golden gate park national everybo conserveancy. >> we're going to hear first from the city staff and then the appellant and then the project sponsor. >> correct. >> correct? okay. thank you. go ahead. so sorry. >> i'm lisa gibson, environmental review officer, and this is julie moore. she's a senior planner, and she has roughly prior 20 years of experience prior to joining the planning department conducting environmental review under the california environmental quality act, and she has a degree in geology and a masters in psychology, and we're very pleased to have her working in our department, and again this is her first time before the commission and her first appeal of a project, so she's been very fortunate. >> good afternoon, members of the commission and president hillis. as you know i'm julie

the primary argument from the appellant is really an argument around transportation. and i don't believe that there is any evidence in the record that could lead this board to actually come to the conclusion that there is an unusual circumstance or that there are transportation impacts. quite frankly, if this were before us as a conditional use appeal, it would be an entirely different matter. but as a ceqa appeal, i believe that a categorical exemption as a class 1 exemption was properly issued and agree with supervisor cohen and will vote in the affirmative on her motion. >> president breed: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, madame chair, president. i would like to associate myself also with the comments of supervisor cohen. for a community that doesn't often come out, one that is working often in the late hours of the evening, many of the folks in the audience are januaitor janitors, they don't often januaitor janitors, they don't often present in the hearings. i want to first recognize them. i understand the frustration on resident when

well one professor we spoke to earlier in advance of the appellate court ruling said that he thought that if the appellate court ruling did free leave that it would send a message that in fact people were not or at least the judiciary was not taking seriously the quote misdeeds of politicians or members of these conglomerates you have to keep in mind that in the past members of congress who have committed misdeeds have largely been tolerated they've never done any kind of jail time and when lee was sentenced to five years last august that ruling was considered unprecedented so the hope was that by cracking down on these alleged misdeeds of mr levy that it was sending a message not only to samsung and lee but also to other conglomerates and as we mentioned this is inextricably linked to be corruption case that president poc is in the midst of we're expecting a verdict in her case in the next couple months but again remember that levy was allegedly or was convicted last august of paying eight point two million dollars in bribes tupac in exchange for the government her government puttin

said we are going to challenge this. >> by saying you one, you got to the appellate court, and they said you one, meaning that d.c. cannot been completely owning guns. then d.c., the mayor, said we are going to appeal this to the supreme court. >> exactly. >> and that was a tactical mistake, well known now by the d.c. mayor, city council, because it opened up, which a lot of people did not see coming, the dream court made a ruling in 2008, in a landmark heller case, that said what? -- my supreme court favorite quote, there are a lot of interesting stories from the supreme court, but my favorite story about the supreme court is that i did not know anything about the law, i did not know how the decision might go, but when they announced it, justice scalia was going to read the decision. and this is my quote. here is what scalia said. "we are not here today to a race the second amendment from the united states constitution." [applause] [laughs] >> i did not know anything, but i know we had one something. -- won something. -- weave never asked you are very good friends, but i have never aske

the lower federal appellate court agreed with microsoft. the justice department brought the appeal to the supreme court. so the arguments today we're going to focus on, whether the act applies outside of the united states, what re this act mean. >> woodruff: and remind us, why did the fedral government want these e-mails so badly? >> again, because they believe they were intragal to the government's investigation ofk drug traffing. >> woodruff: all right. so how... what kind of conversation or discussion did you see? >> right away there were several justices who wconcerned about how to apply this 1986 law to modern technology. justice ginsburg, for example, said back in 1986, no one e heard of clouds. she wondered, wouldn't it be bettero leave things as they are. we have to give an all-or-nothing decision, but congress can take account of all the nuance, the new technology. justice breyer also said, is there any way we can read the language in the act to adapt it to modern times? but lawyers on each side said that the duty of the justice wa

charges in this corruption scandal was bad for the economy and for those who were happy with the appellate court ruling today they echoed that sentiment that this was good for the economy samsung is the largest conglomeration in south korea their exports account for twenty percent of the country's exports but richelle this corruption scandal involving the vice chairman did not impact samsung electronics at least in the short term last year the company posted record profit and in addition to that natasha it seemed that he basically obviously it's a big deal solution freedom sure enough but he still operated as a businessman in many ways even when he was locked up. that's correct he continued to run samsung electronics in december he oversaw a major cabinet reshuffle and again there's even a term for it here in south korea it's called jail management and the reason there is a term for it richelle is because this country has a history of allowing conglomerations and politicians to commit crimes and there have been historically tolerated people have not done prison time when lee was convicted