but directly across the street from the appellant's at 75 howard. we are committed to working closely with d.b.i. and the affected tenants and hope you will allow us to finish this work which should be completed within the next few months. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the department buildindepartment bu. spectra duffy, nothing to add? okay. is there any public comment on this matter? yep. you have three minutes for public comment. >> thank you for your time. and i get the projector police. i will need it in a minute. okay. >> clerk: if you could identify yourself, please. >> thank you. first off i was woken up at 7:0y hammering. i don't know what they are talking about when they say it starts at 8:00 am. that is alive. it was this morning. you remember me from other sessions. i have a two statement and i request you for me to read all of it because we are running out of time here. over the past few weeks, you know, permits have been suspended. my health has started to improve except for this morning. i guess they just, you k

each appellant has three minutes. >> thank you. >> thank you. i take two exceptions to the responses. with regard to verizon usually putting someone in the middle of the blocked, trust me when i tell you i drove around presidio heights, pacific heights kept the marina, jordan park and saw 60 of these units. fifty-eight on a street corner. that is their intention. secondly, if you look at the documents from 2015 in the historic district, nine out of ten are on a street corner. let's just clear that up. [please standby] i p >> inhibiting signals. now my information came from a ucsf professor who's a physicist who said that these emissions go through wood. i also -- you know, the lawyer was saying that the wattage is low. it's still microwave wattage. and then also there was mentioning they'll test. they'll test one times. now we're having these emissions 24/7. it's not intermission with a cell phone, every few minutes, might use your cell phone. this is going to be bombarding our home 24/7. and i understand some of the emissiohe mission -- emissio

>> yeah. >> did you also provide the same set to the appellant? >> yes. so as the inspection's 2340e9s, the plan on the bottom of pa-- noted, the plan on the bottom of page three showed the proposed set back with a slightly smaller adu unit at that location. it also shows some changes in the openings and the shear wall to confirm the integrity of the shear walls pursuant to the plan checker's directions. and then, the third thing this plan shows is the relocation of the housing services from the area where the adu's are going into other parts of the ground floor so that we're not severing any housing services. rather, we're relocating certain of those services. you can see on the bottom plan that there are the upper left corner is a storage room that the appellant believes he has access -- he has the rights to. that is maintained so he's not losing that storage area. the washer and dryer have been relocated to the bottom of that plan under the stairwell of the garbage bins and recycling bins are relocated and there's five storage units placed in the corri

we'll hear from the appellant. the attorney for the appellant, you have 7 minutes, sir. >> thank you very much. i've prepared a letter responding to some of the issues in the briefs that i would like to offer for the record. is this acceptable to the commission? in any event, i'll move on to the points of the arguments that i would like to address. i would like to specifically address 4 points tonight. first and foremost, i would like to address the issue of fcc compliance. it is important to address this issue because this wireless facility was not subject to environmental review under ceqa. it was exempt. so there was no fcc compliance done at the ceqa level. verizon in their brief misstates that the fcc requirement only look at cumulative impacts when facilities are colocated. that's not true. the plain language of bulletin 65 on page 233 says when performing an evaluation, all significant contributors to the ambient environment should be considered. that means all facilities. no matter where they are. 100 feet

. >> four issues raised by one appellant. the shoring drawings have -- and design has been sent to her. they've hired a -- a surveyor to do the elevations. she'll have to decide whether she wants to let them in or not. so two of the four have already been accomplished by the project sponsor. the third one, i think it would be smart of the project sponsor to submit the flashing details. i mean, that's something that needs to be done between two congenial neighbors. the fourth one regarding pavement of the engineer stuff, i'm not touching. the other two appellants are dealing with the issue that relate to the mass of the building and the demolition of the existing building. based upon the extensive amount of changes to the joints, i find that the current design is not massive, and the mass is appropriate for that neighborhood. >> you want to make a motion? >> no, you go ahead. >> i'm going to move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on t permits on the basis they were properly issued. >> clerk: okay. and these are for the

i'm the appellant. thank you, commissioners, president fung, for your perseverance that you can hear our appeal. this appeal resolves around the law that resolves around accessory dwelling units. and i provided you a brief that listed items pertinent to the ordinance for the most part, and i'll go over them and summarize them, but i also want to give you some contexts to this appeal. so i am a tenant in this property. i also have a lease for one of the three garages that would be converted, and i'm also -- i work for architecture firms doing residential rehabilitations in the city, so i've done that for two decades, so i'm familiar with a lot of the things that are required. so i first got involved after there had been two recent permits since the current owners bought the property there were form eight, no plans permits that were done after tenants had left. the first one stated no structural work. during the time of that permit, an addition was built in the back. also, a room was excavated from undern

and interestingly, the appellant provided a survey as part of the appellant's papers. that survey was of a neighboring property, the property to the south, but that survey showed the same data point, the 340 foot data point at the upslope of our property, once again confirming that our property slopes up from 330ish feet to 340 feet. it's pretty darn clear that that's -- that's the nature of the lot. the way you apply the planning code is the way our architect applied the planning code, the way the zoning administrator applied the planning code. we respectfully ask that you deny the appeal. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. being none, we will move onto rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> i will not need three minutes. there is a photograph taken in the late 1930's showing the historic pillsbury mansion, and you can see it outlined, 20 raycliff terrace. right here, there's a driveway that comes in, and there's a driveway in front of the house. the area that mr. emblich was pointing to in his section is this area right here, which is a flat

up to 10 minutes for our presentation by the appellant or appellant representative. up to 2 minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. up to 10 minutes for presentation from the planning commission. up to 10 minutes per speaker in opposition of the appeal and finally up to 3 minutes for rebuttal of the appeal by the appellant or project sponsor or their representative. and with that, supervisor ronen, before we open this hearing, would you like to make any remarks? okay, we will open this hearing and at this time i will ask that the appellant or appellant representative please come forward. you will have up to ten minutes. it appears, colleagues, i wanted you to know all the appellants in the case is also the project sponsor. so we will be having only one presentation from this party, so please move forward. >> president breed and distinguished supervisors, my name is tom mullane, i'm a local attorney and i'm here in support of the appellant's project sponsor. basically we are here to -- >> president breed: are you the appellant and project sponsor? >> this is the

even with these changes, the two appellants, david tong and hana afktekhari. the commission was very excited about the possibility to add an adu. legislation for expansions of singum family homes to accommodate adu's was pending. the commission specifically requested this continuance. so in august 2017, the ordinance 162-17 passed, and on september 7 at our continuance hearing, d.r. was taken with conditions, including the installation of a new adu on the partial first and basement levels. we submitted revised plans and were issued a demolition and building site permit which are subject of this appeal. so at the first year hearing, the planning commissioners requested us to follow a special residential design guidelines. one was to reduce the mass of the house. this was accomplished again by demolishing the building, lowering the building further to just under the 30 feet height limit, remove 160 square feet from the habitable space and also shrink the main unit to just over 2500 square feet. we set the building to reflect the hillside. third floor deck was re

the appellant raised two major issues. first the planning commission did not approve either of the two designs submitted by the project sponsor but instead approved the plan with the condition that the appellant work with the project sponsor. during public comment, there were three speakers in favor of the appeal and three against the appeal. supervisor sheehy whose district the project is located in asked questions about the existing units on the lot and the existing commercial space. supervisor tang asked staff how the design of the building would be finalized and supervisor peskin asked the attorney procedural questions related to cu's and variances. in the end seeing no merit to the appeal and that the project added a gain of two dwelling units, supervisor sheehy made a motion to disapprove the appeal and uphold the planning commission's determination. this passed unanimously. next on the agenda was the condo conversion on 668 page street. commissioners you heard this item on march 29 and disapproved the conowe dergs b

requester and also the appellant, again, he lives at 30 gold mine drive. his house, as you can see, it's actually not adjacent to our property. we believe that, you know, he is asking for the elimination of the roof deck, the third floor, and the adu in the basement. and again we lowered our building 3 feet and demolished it in order to meet his requirements. he insisted on lowering the building 6 feet. from the start of the project he has been opposed to the project, and we believe that it's actually mainly due to his view, because he believes that you know he's shown us pictures from his windows. he says that i don't want to see people on this deck, so he actual -- we actually offered to put a privacy screen up. he said no, no, don't put a privacy screen up. we moved the roof deck to the front of the building, so it's now currently 115 feet away from his home. contrary to what miss schuttish says, there is no massing attribute today this de attributed to this deck. we're using a movable roof hatch, so there is no mass increase on this deck. so it's unfor

sisig as the appellant has created a large base of support through his media presence. [speaking spanish language ] >> he's very popular, and his following goes wherever he goes. he does have more than one truck. [speaking spanish language ] >> and the noise level that he creates can also annoy the neighbors and possibly my clients by creating a high level of stress. [speaking spanish language ] [please stand by for captioner [speaking spanish] >> some of its negatives effects are the level of noise that it creates and the congestion, the number of people and the traffic that it creates making it much more difficult to find parking in the area. [speaking spanish] our business is one of the few that affordable prices in the community. it signifyings a serious threat because they don't pay the high level of taxes and overhead we pay. [speaking spanish] >> translator: besides we have kept our business running with a lot of effort for the past 20 years. [speaking spanish] >> translator: which serves not just the acknowledgment from the community, but also its protection. >>

it is true of the appellate judges as well. one of the case as elizabeth mentioned with judge willett on the other side of the case, the campaign finance case to show you can approach the law from a perspective that isn't necessarily determinative in every case. important as we have someone approaching it in a principled manner and not to simply using their opinion as a proxy for their political opinion. should be their judicial opinion. one of those cases is the sessions first amaya case came down recently and cause a lot of shockwaves because it involved justice gorsuch with the liberal members of the court and in this case to find a statue void that would have resulted in deporting immigrants. we saw the other four justices on the other side of the bench. a lot of people started going is the kind of abandoning his pretense of being fiscally asked judge we thought he was going to be. not at all. when you look at the case is very significant what he was doing was applying a scalia precedent that was he fell controlling the cas

we will hear first from the appellant. three minutes, please. >> the message that must be promulgated tonight is that the u.s. and california constitutions guarantee the right to a hearing before life, liberty and property is deprovided of someone -- deprived of someone. had the code been followed, we would not be raising the argument tonight that due process was violated because there was no hearing. irrespective of whether there was notice, every property owner who is deprived a hearing is violated. the evidence may be irfutabl irrefutable,in controvertible, the city is still entitled to a hearing. here, it says there was an adjudication because there was an agreement between the city and an operator. you can't have an agreement between two parties binding an outside party, particularly when that -- when the result of that is the dependenrivation o hearing, a constitutional right. it would be as if -- you know, commissioner hans plea bargained to a crime that resulted in commissioner swig going to jail. it -- or -- or no

there may be something on the appellate site that we need to take a look at as well. but if we see that, it is sort of a trigger warning or a red flag. if we see a judge who is having every seven for every sixth case come back to him or her, we want to take a look and find out and drill down and see what the reason is. >> so again, a feedback loop will exist. how do you see the standard improving the performance of immigration judges? >> a couple of ways. as i alluded to, it gives measures so the judges know where their performance needs to be. the briar performance valuations, the factors are not as well defined, but their objective measures, it makes it easier to understand what they need to be doing. secondly, it will increase feedback. it will increase discussions between judges and supervisors. judges will be able to monitor their numbers. there should be a positive -- i don't necessarily like the word -- but a positive, synergistic effect from going back and forth. it will help supervisors identify where the issues are, training, resources, or something else, an

earlier the appellants had stated that there was some possible relocation for some affected units. can you elaborate on that? >> sure. so the relocation, that is the item that was discussed for an hour today. we are not prepared -- we're not -- that is where i am not sure the path is going to be smooth. what we are ouring is for the -- what we are offering for the very loud mornings and the loud saturdays, we will provide vouchers. we will allow work spaces for people -- some other working environment for people who are working from home and retired or someplace to be on a saturday. >> okay. thank you. >> can i ask you kind of a provocative question? it's not meant to be combative or anything like that. but as commissioner fong pointed out, there seem to be two permits which relate to lower floor stuff which probably we should move forward with because they don't really seem to effect the tenants so much. but there are a couple of permits that are bull's eye effect. i think we have a choice here. and maybe you can help us make that choice for you or influence us in some fashion. we

by the end of this week, 21 appellate court judges confirmed.ison at this stage in his presidency, president obama only got 7 judges on the appellate court. these judges are very conservative, very young and coming in record numbers. >> people who look at the polling data and don't understand why the approval rating is between 80% and 85% or rasmussen has at close to 50% but my god, stormy daniels and michael cohen and all that's going wrong. the evangelicals are getting what matters most to them. the gop base is getting what they most wanted, which is a conservative outlook from the court. >> you alluded to this before. it's also worth remembering what they are getting is for decades to come. some of these things that trump has done if you don't like them, hopefully democrats will take back thes who and the congress and they'll be able to undo this. but the judges are there forever. he's appointing young judges. on average, eight years younger than the people obama put on the appellate courts. some of the people named today will be sitting on t

i think if you -- i'm an appellate practitioner. that's what i used to do. if you look at the citizens united decision, it's a creepy and embarrassing decision, setting apart the conclusion that it draws. just the idea that after all the briefing was done, and after there was a chance to create a record in the supreme court, the chief justice changed the question to open up a whole new question, and then didn't open up the record, knowing full well from previous records, both in the supreme court and in the congress, what that record would say, and then going on to make these really bizarre findings of fact about independence and transparency, when it's baseline appellate law that appellate courts don't make findings of fact and then the fact the findings of fact are so clearly wrong. they're like -- it's not just they shouldn't have made them. it's they made actually wrong ones and that's indisputable when you watch the decision play out. then they tee it exactly to the tiny loophole that allows you to reverse the protection that you get to police elections

legal analysts expect that daca will eventually be decided by the supreme court which told the appellate coat -- the appellate court to proceed expeditiously with the case. >>> changes to net neutrality rules. those rules prevent internet providers from slowing or blocking traffic or charging for faster delivery of some content. the regulations are due to be replaced june 11 with rules democrats say give too much power to the internet service providers. a new measure that is backed by all 49 democrats and one republican is expected to pass in the senate, but it is likely not to be approved in the house, which is led by republicans. >>> a new controversy involving facebook. there is word that private information for more than 3 million people who took a facebook personality quiz was published on a poorly protected website. the report says in many cases, the exposed data contains people's age, gender and relationship status. researchers found a username and password that granted access to the private information could be found in less than a minute with a simple online search. >>> an oakla

are appellate rights to federal court. typically they file a petition for review that goes to the circuit court of appeals. >> the government doesn't have that right, collect. >> no, not in the current statutory scheme. >> so basically, this is the method by which, if i.c.e. determines or the director of i.c.e. determines that a case deserves more review, they can seek that review from the attorney general. correct. >> that would be one method. there are couple of quirks to it and it varies how dhs hassite but that is one possibility. >> finally, we are both familiar with ooir. you have glen three time, i've been there two times so you have one up on me. were there any surprises, however, for you, about that office when you began your work as the director? >> i wouldn't say surprises. one of the more interesting challenges to it, however, when i came back -- i've been there three times and know a lot of people at eior and a lot of it is senior staff or eoir lifers. they had the same leadership team for a flub of years and

. >> is the appellant present or representative? it looks like the appellant is not here. is there public comment on this item? >> i'm from the city attorney's office. i just wanted to inform the commission that this property and this defendant has been the subject of ongoing litigation since june of 2015, including a court injunction since june of -- since may of 2017 which specifically authorized the city to perform quarterly unannounced inspections at this property and other properties owned by the company and the court order as well, the statement issued after trial also specifically found that there was substantial legal construction on 19th street on the basis of the testimony of former tenants as well as then deputy director daniel lowry, which formed the basis for the probable cause. >> thank you. thank you for that. >> you're welcome. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, does commissioners have discussion? >> commissioners? >> based on what we've heard, i see no reason not to uphold the orders and enforce all costs, and i so move. >> is there a

i am an appellant tactician or. if you look at the citizens united decision, it is a creepy and embarrassing decision, setting aside the conclusion it draws. just the idea that after all the briefing was done and after there was a chance to create a record in the supreme court, the chief justice changed the question? to open up a whole new question and then did not open up the record, knowing full well from previous records, both in the supreme court and in the congress what that record would say russia mark then -- would say? going on to make these bizarre finding of fact about independence and transparency when it is baseline appellant mall that appellate courts do not make findings of fact? the fact that the findings of fact are so clearly wrong? it is that they made wrong ones. it is indisputable now as you watch the decision play out. it to the tiny loophole that allows you to that youhe protection get to police elections in order to prevent a risk of corruption. the whole thing looks so calculated to get to it

there are appellate rights to federal court. typically, they file a petition in the circuit court of appeals over where the immigration case was heard. mr. arthur: the government doesn't have that right, correct? dir. mchenry: not in the current statutory scheme. mr. arthur: basically this is the method by which the director of ice determines that if a case deserves more review, they can seek that from the attorney general, correct? dir. mchenry: that would be one method. there are a couple of quirks to it. it sorted varies how dhs has used it in the past, but that is one possibility. mr. arthur: finally, you and i are both familiar, as result of individual service with the office -- you have been there three times, i have been there two times, so you have one up on me. were there any surprises when you began work as the director? dir. mchenry: i would not say surprises. one of the more interesting challenges to it, however, when i came back -- i have been there three times. i know a lot of people who are at eoir. a lot of it is