the 1% shadow will not alter the appellant's shade garden. over 80% of the garden is currently in concrete patio and artificial turf and what plants exist are against the eastern wall where they're in shade all of the time. concerns of the health of their tree, the appellant commissioner had an arborist report. it made clear they're unjustified. as he quoted, root losses are not likely to be so significant as to be a reason to remove the tree, so why would the tree die? also while it concludes that pruning might condemn the tree there's no evidence that we need to prune the tree. in fact, there are no limbs, major limbs, that cross over the property. the appellant claims that the destruction of the interior block space. there isn't a pattern of interior block space here. many of the buildings go directly to the rear property line. their garden, which is a grade is cut off from other interior box space and that pattern won't change. as mr. goossens-larsen explained correctly, there was an alternative design which was proposed by the project sp

cardin: the appellate courts are extremely important. most of the decisions are going to end at the appellate court. they're not going to reach the supreme court of the united states. so a lot of important policy is being determined by the court of appeals. we think it's outrageous that the type of people that he is nominating with very little qualifications that are coming to him through outside groups that have an agenda rather than trying to appoint mainstream journalists -- jurists that will understand the importance of the checks and balances in the judicial branch of government. soledad: senator ben cardin, it's nice to have you with us. sen. cardin: thank you very

i don't have specific rebuttal regarding the appellant. certainly our client would prefer a cleaner transition here. we certainly don't want to be seen as moving along with the removal when the status of construction permits are in question and clearly in play. so, you know, we're not here -- we don't need to push this forward, we're just presenting our case. we've always tried to look at the tree itself and let other experts in the field of building inspection and planning, you know, do their jobs, so we're really here just before you to -- whatever your recommendations are. thank you. >> mr. buck, you want multiple conditions, don't you? >> multiple conditions are the box-size replacement and sidewalk landscaping to be installed. >> species. >> species would be at our recommendation, our approval. we agree that there's a number of species on that block that would be more appropriate for replacement under the power lines. next step would be probably get -- they're not at the approval process yet, but when they're at that step, they would

we were about to start with the appellant, the attorney for the appellant. >> he is in the back. >> okay. is it mr. brett gladstone? you have seven minutes, sir. >> >> good evening commissioner, brett gladstone speaking. i want to make a correction. in my brief i stated something that wasn't accurate and i thought at the hearing my client said that he was inclineed to give the variance if we just cleaned up some lot numbers and i went back and looked at the transcript and he did not say that, so i apologize. this third unit will not be accessory unit as the zoning doesn't require it to be. it will be a one bedroom of about 1050 square feet. we are perplexed that it is one of the grounds that the space is not sufficient in size. you are going to hear from the architect in a minute where it doesn't seem very light filled on paper. sara velve did make a site visit and said she saw a lot more light than she expected from the plan. we had a building and fire department meeting and the minutes indicate they are prepared to go forward with it so, from their point of view it's livable. besides l

francisco gutierrez, attorney for the appellant. before cutting into the time, i would have a request. we do have three speakers, but the way we have postponed the hearing and continued it to this date was to meet and try to settle this matter with bureau of urban forestry. we did ultimately meet with chris buck on the 10th. which would like to smith pictures that include written analysis, as well, so i would ask the board for their permission to circulate copies of those documents because they are relevant to this hearing and it would be to prevent man test injustice against appellant as the discussion is relevant to the discussions with urban forestry, but also in support of his appeal. i have 11 copies of these documents here, and i ask request to circulate it. >> well, i'm not going to -- you can submit it, but we're not going to have time to review it. >> so this is to avoid a rehearing. we met with bureau of urban forestry on april the 10. one of the main concerns expressed by the bureau. >> if you're going to talk to the issu

block any appointments to sit on the appellate body. the fourth member's term expires in september this year and it is not clear whether the u.s. will allow that person to be reappointed or not. if not, we will be down to three members of the appellate body. one of them may back -- be have to be recused as cases as early as this fall when the appellate system collapses, which means the rules-based system starts to collapse. pretty dangerous situation we are in with the appellate body in terms of what the u.s. is doing. i will skip ahead to this last slide. what can you do when you win a case? what does the user have to do? the theory under the wto rules is that you have to come into compliance. that is your first obligation. what will likely come in this steel and aluminum tariff, it is clear the recommendation coming out of the wto will be removed the tariff. they are fundamentally illegal, so what should the united states due to come into a client -- compliance? they should get rid of them. they are in violation of article two, get ri

i am the appellants. my reason is is to prevent manifest interests and omission of different material facts. that if presented, would present a change of the variance. i have applied for two variances. one for exposure and one for open space. to present an affordable unit on the lower level. at the appeal hearing, the president stated that the reason he would vote against the variances is because neither the appellants or oral arguments prevented the variance. these criteria are different material facts. they are. one, why extraordinary circumstances for my property because it was originally one property and then split into three. and my property is on a northward slope. two, why the enforcement of the code leads to practical hardship to me and it would be cost prohibitive to give up a new affordable unit otherwise. three, why i am deprived of a substantial property right that similarly situated other property owners had. for, why granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welf

i would agree tonight, with the appellant, that one of the windows, there is a permit at the appellant's property he is building on that is requiring a roof deck. there is one window that will be closer than six feet to one of the opening on the neighbor's property. that's going to be an issue. i have to inform the appellant as well, because of this whole issue that we brought up here, it's possibly -- there's a possibility his permit has been approved and that was permitted at the -- for the roof deck, because of the proximity of the skylight opening and the stair going to the roof deck. that is something we need to address. i thought i would add that as well. there's a photograph in the brief of a window, and that will come up in front of that window. if that window is allowed to remain. i talked a lot. i'm available for any questions. i just ask the senior inspector walls with me. hopefully i've covered everything. if there's any questions, i'd like to -- >> i have one. so, the large window, there's several windows. i think there's six openings. the very large one that the tenants are

the appellants have failed to reach the required grounds for rehearing. we don't believe there is evidence of a manifest in justice or any new evidence was introduced [your hearing last month there was a comprehensive discussion and review of the evidence suggested by the appellant and by us of how those findings just couldn't be made based on the evidence presented to this board. there is no new evidence submitt ed to suggest that decision would be changed. this is the fourth hearing on this item, and we don't believe there has been any man test in manifest in justice and we respect the integrity and the proper decision was made and no rehearing is required. thank you again and i won't take anymore of your time. >> thank you, we will now hear from the department of public works. >> amanda higgins. i am merel randall and revied at 3508 clavie and our property abuts the light pole in question at 3512. i didn't think i was going to be testifying in front of you today because mr. ferguson has done extremely good job and excellent position both legals and on

the appellants that brought forth two major points. one is dealing with the issue of congestion and that they have documentation that they brought forth which was not available. the other issue was dealing with whether this board looks at findings as a part of legislation. i don't think that was necessarily a question in my own mind. i have looked at it. multiple ordinances, i have always found the findings are part of the ordinance. so that's not the issue. but the question of whether there was any real information on congestion levels, was brought forth as part of the appellants' brief. anecdote elite, previously, most of us probably guessed that this is the most congested spot in san francisco. if this is not a congested spot, then why is that language in the ordinance? [please stand by] -- we put our conditions on that so i would have voted against you if i had been here in my physical being allowing me to be here. but we passed it. and i agree with commissioner lazarus and i agree that commissioner fung that is the most cop jested

and we will hear from the appellants fr

cardin: the appellate courts are extremely important.ost of the decisions are going to end at the appellate court. they're not going to reach the supreme court of the united states. so a lot of important policy is being determined by the court of appeals. we think it's outrageous that the type of people that he is nominating with very little qualifications that are coming to him through outside groups that have an agenda rather than trying to appoint mainstream journalists -- jurists that will understand the importance of the checks and balances in the judicial branch of government. soledad: senator ben cardin, it's nice to have you with us. sen. cardin: thank you very much. >> next on matter of fact -- the check is in the mail. >> ten years ago that we were still getting funding and recovery dollars from that storm. >> one year after hurricane harvey slammed port arthur texas, the city just received aid for another storm. hurricane ike. plus -- can she put the confederacy in context? >> this idea that everyone in the south were ardent c

one supreme court justice. 24 appellate court judges. record pace on the appellate level. talk about that legacy. this is part of why the senate is so important. i don't think we will lose the senate. if we were, that with that. the father of three children, a 15-year-old daughter, 12-year-old daughter, and eight-year-old son. when judge kavanaugh becomes just as kavanaugh, it's possible he will be serving on the supreme court when my children have grandchildren. that is why i am in this fight. that's why all of us understand how important this issue and president trump legacy and majority leader mcconnell and chairman grassley, their legacy on judges is going to be felt for our children and our children's children. there is nothing bigger. a president term might be for years, but a supreme court member could be on there for 40. topic, mario. i know you will appreciate us. i want to talk about antonin scalia for just a minute, because in so many ways, his impact is still being felt. there is no area where it is being more felt than on the idea of original is unbecoming not

. >> i'm basing it on the fact to me the appellant was focused on one particular part of this permit. i guess the comments, one of the appellants had general comments about food trucks and mobile food facilities. what i am saying is that i believe that applicable i don't have an objection with that permit. >> you also stated that you were going to deny the third one which is the app epi center of s discussion and i wasn't ready to do that until we run and get some sort of idea of where the d.p.w. director has discretion or no discretion. see i am not convinced he has any discretion. i don't think the supervisors intended that the director of d.p.w. has discretion. not only on under served but on congestion. which is the subject of the next one. >> do you want to continue this? >> i'm prepared to act like you say on the two that is not under any objections and continue the one without a definitive answer. >> if we can do it. >> they're one permit. >> >> let me try this. condition the permit, grant the appeal, allowing the issuance of the two market street permits and holding in advance

and we will hear from the appellants. >> good evening, my name is pam louis and i'm the appellant for mission bay commercial corporation. i'd like to introduce sam from arbor well who has presented or given you a a arborous to rept our case. >> i'm sam. i'm representing mission bay commercial corporation. the issue is there was a permit submitted for the 1650-1700 owen street property. the city staff originally counted four eucalyptus and approved 10, denying four. they cited that they used online images to determine that the health of the trees was good and that they were showing previous decline but they were producing new leaves and in good condition. that pruning would mitigate the defects. when i went out for my inspection last month, i found there were 13 eucalyptus along the street frontage. nine trees were permitted with signage. if you look at the overhead, it would be tree one, four, seven, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21 and 22. trees six and 14 along the frontage, this is going from 16th street towards the new kaiser hospital. six and 14. six was likely permitted. it was the worst of t

amount of time for the appellant? okay. and then, it will also be open to public comment. so -- >> correct. >> if you're going to speak, you need to come forward. >> one question to verify if there's an agreement, it's still open to public comment. my sense is we'd still have public comment. absolutely. >> yes. >> clerk: since you're allotted seven minutes, i would suggest you just keep with that. you don't have to use the full seven minutes, but in the event you go over three minutes, you don't have to stop, so --

allow a street to be harmonious and add trees as the appellant's self-made graphic showed. it really enhances the situation on the street. that's what i'm wrestelling w the gums need to go because they're going to be a problem in every which way you described. but, why not replace those gums with something appropriate in a narrower base is my question? just because the director, with all due respect, decides that, you know, the next director could come by and be completely different. i don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater due to one director's point of view versus the harmony of an alley. i'd like to figure out a solution with that. >> ok. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment

and we will hear from the appellants first. you have seven minutes. thank you. >> hi, it indicates minutes? >> clerk: you will get a chime that indicates that you have 30 seconds left and then a final chime. >> all right, thank you. >> clerk: so... >> i want to -- okay. thank you. hello board members i am james goossens-larsen, the owner of 85 sycamore street. i hope that all of you have had a chance to read our brief and review its exhibits. today i would like to briefly touch on the concerns that we have with the current project design. after that i will comment on the arguments set forth in the responding brief from the project sponsor. since we were told about the project in 2016, we had been

would the appellant like to come forward? >> good morning. i'm the elevator service provider for building and i have been for nearly 25 years. never at any time throughout this entire period has the state of california elevator division not issued an operating permit. this elevator was manufactured and installed in the 1920s. and it's 99% original and it is termed in the industry as a reecstatic control. the elevator is adjusted a certain -- to a certain load and the brake spring tension on the brake drum, on the brake shoes on the brake drum is set at a certain tension for a specific load and the elevator circuitry and controller does not have the capability to adjust for a varying load as newer elevators do. so we tried to set it at an average and we've been setting it at about two people to stop. and i contacted the state of california elevator division who issues the permits. the issue with the expired permit is nearly all the buildings in san francisco have expired permits and they're very far behind. we requested a reinspection and rece

you have an appellate party, feature of the system. and another four all over the world, the standing appeals courts, the issue for what it is worth the appellate body has 7 members, down to only four, three members expire left the united states is blocked, and any consideration of any new member, and the past rulings of the appellate body, for any appointments to sit on the appellate body. and first term expires in december of this year. not clear if that person will be reappointed or not. with remember the of the appellate body, one of them may have to be accused from cases and the rules-based system to collapse. and the appellate body in terms of what the us is doing. i will skip ahead to just the last slide. with you do when you will in a case. the theory under the wto rules, that is the first and foremost obligation. that may likely come for the steel and aluminum tariffs. and to remove the tariffs, fundamentally illegal, that is what the united states should do to come into compliance. that is what you would supposed to be doing.

. >> did the second appellate speak? >> yes. did she have more time? yes, she was part of the second appeal. there were two. did she have time. >> she had two minutes and 12 seconds and she stopped. >> you can sit down. can you approach and if you can give him two minutes, please. if you can identify yourself. >> hi, my name is mohammad, i'm the owner of oasis grill. so i want to talk about three issues. number one that the items this cart plans to sell is hellal food, rice bowl and it's already being sold by the block. more than my establishment are selling the exact same items for years now. it's not difficult to sit up shop in location that everybody around you is selling the same things. it would be smart to put yourself in the area that does not sell your menu items. i don't know understand why of all locations this businessman would like to compete with us. and be next to us. he knows that the other restaurant owners they higher in this area and d.p.w. charges him next to nothing compared to about what we pay. basically he is getting a free ride.