louie is the appellant in this case. today, i am asking the board to revoke the building permit that was granted to the permit holder the department of inspection and when work is outside the scope of the permit, it's not allowed. to remedy an encroachment. the permit holder is now proposing to do new work with new plan which would exceed the scope of his existing permit which is the permit at issue in this appeal. we had hopes to resolve this during the party's prior hearing but were not able to do so and the contractor for the permit holder who is acting as their representative did not wish to continue the matter so dpoo it the fact we're attempting to settle. so i'm here to request that the board of appeals revoke this permit. i'd like to share my screen. and show. can you see that? so this is the work at issue. this is the photo of the southern wall of the permit holder's property and the encroachment is the butter and the down spout that running along new siding. the gutter and the down spout are attached to the per

we will hear from the appellants first. you have seven minutes. >> i would have my assistant speak on behalf of the san francisco community empower center. go ahead. >> clerk: we will pause the time until we get your speaker on. her name is ellen? >> yes. >> clerk: i don't see her. did she join by phone or by computer? >> yes. okay, ellen? i see her. >> are you able to hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> my assistant ellen will speak on behalf of the san francisco community empower center. go ahead. >> we have studied what is going on in san francisco. we have draft two pages to the commissioners and appeal board and the applicant. we, the people, residents and we the people do not want the 5g tower there because we study enough and give you enough information to let you know this is a global issue. it's not only san francisco. we have present you 11 pages about science and data that 5g is going to be damage lot of health issues. we gave you the data that the people who are behind this project that we suspect they are part of the gl

the appellant project. appellant assertion is incorrect. it provides that the project will construct the improvements adjacent to the project. if the project is approved it will be responsible for implementing the streets changes at 447 battery street. the appellant provided letters from two technical consult constants that they critique the geotech -- the letter restate the conclusion of the report rather than critiquing the analysis. the report is 109-page geotechnical report. section 7 of the report addresses what type of showing systems already required to prevent ground water drawdown from adjacent properties including 447 battery. that concludes our presentation. we're here for questions. thank you. >> president walton: thank you mr. abrams. any questions? i don't see any questions from the colleagues. madam clerk, we will now invite members of the public who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal. >> clerk: thank you mr. president. we are now taking testimony for those in opposition to the appeal or in support of the project proje

the appellant project. appellant assertion is incorrect. it provides that the project will construct the improvements adjacent to the project. if the project is approved it will be responsible for implementing the streets changes at 447 battery street. the appellant provided letters from two technical consult constants that they critique the geotech -- the letter restate the conclusion of the report rather than critiquing the analysis. the report is 109-page geotechnical report. section 7 of the report addresses what type of showing systems already required to prevent ground water drawdown from adjacent properties including 447 battery. that concludes our presentation. we're here for questions. thank you. >> president walton: thank you mr. abrams. any questions? i don't see any questions from the colleagues. madam clerk, we will now invite members of the public who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal. >> clerk: thank you mr. president. we are now taking testimony for those in opposition to the appeal or in support of the project proje

are you still representing the appellant? >> i am, and it is wrong, what was stated by counsel. >> clerk: okay. >> we have not had any conversations with miss zack's office at all. they asked for drawings, we provided drawings. they asked for more drawings, we gave them more drawings. they asked for elevations in the front, we provided that. i've never seen anybody move the goal posts so many times than they have moved and yet have ever offered any resolution, so this issue is against the city and county of san francisco versus the louies on this permit. we obtained this permit to comply with the notice of violation. we do not need their access or their permission to do any work. we will not go on their property. we just want to finish this project. we will remove any encroachment without their help whatsoever. they don't want to help us, they don't want to do anything, we won't do that. it's raining now. there's water coming down that needs to go into the sewer lines that's supposed to as per the city of san francisco plumbi

we will proceed as follows: up to ten minutes for the presentation of the appellant. up to two minutes for public comment, and up to three minutes for a rebuttal by the appellant or their representatives. i don't see any objections to proceeding in this way, so seeing no objections, the public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open. supervisor peskin, do you have any opening comments? >> supervisor peskin: i will reserve my comments until after the public hearing unless i have any questions of the project sponsor, the planning department, or the appellant during the proceeding. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. seeing no one else on the roster, we will ask the appellant to come forward and present their case. you will have up to ten minutes, and i believe the appellants are ryan patterson, brian o'neal, eddie lau, and [indiscernible]. >> good afternoon, supervisors. can you hear me? >> president walton: yeah. >> first of all, our group has never been against or opposed to the new fire house for station 13. if you heard something differently

the board heard testimony from the appellate and the public as well about the impacts on the appellant but i think that the board consideredthat . the code doesn't allow for the flexibility of the appellant. >> the final question is given that the council is not presenting any new evidence, given the council is not presenting any new alternative, anything that wasn't previously discovered and manifest injustice which we discussed extensively and took very seriously and very sincerely, what is , where is the new evidence and where is the new example ofmanifest injustice ? >> i haven't seen the standards for the rehearing request have been met. they haven't met the burden fo granting a rehearing . >>thanking . >> the of building inspection with a light away in? i don't see joe duffy. i did see matthew green. okay, i do see. director duffy, welcome. >> i don't have anything to add, thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> quick question mister duffy, can you reap us again on i'm sorry, i don'twant you to get upset again . the whole issue related to the marking down of a kitchen as the bathroom

-as noted by the appellant's in response to the study light study was prepared by the appellant who are not technical experts and handheld light meter readings a cardboard model a misunderstanding of basic concepts of life and misinterpreted information divided in the analysis . according to revision among other things this study fails to knowledge that the interior courtyard is over 25 by 25 feet and given the location of the sun not only will there be light directly into the interior courtyard unit increased light reflecting off the new structure into those units. uses techniques such as cardboard boxes which have been found in academic papers to be unreliable in part because they lack reflective colored materials of the actual buildings which greatly influenced light levels and also fails to understand the interior reference enters . what standards are usedtoday interior lighting design and not to establish minimum interior daylighting models . they do not assume additional lighting will be used and handheld light readings taken after the shades and turning down all the lights does n

our position is is always to say intervention and appellate courts. our point is will be have a handoff from one state official to another, only to exhaust all appeals it does not make sense of a firm line and appellate intervention brickbats by we think there is such a strong analogy in this case were new to intervene as soon she learned her interests were unprotected. this court said that was timely even that was post judgment too. >> we need a standard for timeliness we need a basis think we are reviewing this on abuse of discretion standards we need a basis for saying these sixth circuit abused its discretion. i simply want to know if it's rule 24 does not apply on its own terms, what does apply that would give us the authority to find abuse of discretion? >> i think it is a general equitable standby don't take my friend on the other side to argue from intervening in appellate court is a general equitable standard as we pointed out this court on occasion allows intervention on its own sockets. it does so and circumstances that are very similar to

justice thomas: there isn't much law for appellate intervention. so what do we rely on? do we rely on rule 24 which does not really apply? what would be your strongest case that we should have a basis for this intervention that is not in the rules of our appellate procedure. >> the best case is the scofield case discussed in the briefing and scofield says even though rule 24 is not technically applicable in appellate courts it serves as essentially a helpful analogy. rule 24 is perhaps the starting point of what we are looking at. our position is not that interventions under rule 24 is always the same as intervention in appellate court. our point is that when we have a handoff from one state official to another, only to exhaust all appeals, it doesn't make sense to draw a firm line between district court elevation -- intervention and appellate court intervention. there is a strong analogy to mcdonald she intervened as soon she learned her interests were unprotected. this course of this was timely, even though it was post judgment. justice thomas: we did a standard and a

-as noted by the appellant's in response to the study light study was prepared by the appellant who are not technical experts and handheld light meter readings a cardboard model a misunderstanding of basic concepts of life and misinterpreted information divided in the analysis . according to revision among other things this study fails to knowledge that the interior courtyard is over 25 by 25 feet and given the location of the sun not only will there be light directly into the interior courtyard unit increased light reflecting off the new structure into those units. uses techniques such as cardboard boxes which have been found in academic papers to be unreliable in part because they lack reflective colored materials of the actual buildings which greatly influenced light levels and also fails to understand the interior reference enters . what standards are usedtoday interior lighting design and not to establish minimum interior daylighting models . they do not assume additional lighting will be used and handheld light readings taken after the shades and turning down all the lights does n

the appellant raises two main issues in their written appeal. first, that the planning commission mistakenly found that demolition of this type of housing as being necessary and desirable for the community, contrary to the need of the neighborhood during an affordability crisis, and that it falls under s.b. 330. in response to the first issue, the commission found that the proposed three-story property is keeping with other residential properties in the neighborhood and is complying with the san francisco planning department and residential code guidelines. the existing building contains a lower story unauthorized dwelling unit that is not code compliant, request no code compliant bedrooms. the current ceiling height is substandard in the bedrooms and do not have risk [indiscernible] windows. further, the ceiling is 6'9", for 70% of the space. it's required to be at 7'6". regarding concern number two over the implementation of s.b. 330, under that, if existing units to be demolished are under the rent control ordinance, and the tenant has 80% of

is there another caller if the queue in support of the appeal or appel? -- appellant? >> hello? >> welcome. >> hello? >> welcome. >> as it sarah short with sun rise and we're also in support of the appeal of the project. there's a number of reasons. we think the last thing the tenderloin neighborhood needs right now is market rate group housing. the units are not going to be affordable to members of our community and we should do all we can to address the affordability while so many remain over crowded and rent burdened and living on the streets. group housing by definition is considered non-permanent housing. we need permanent housing in the neighborhood to afor families to build roots and help build the community here. we also need family housing. you can hear the disappointment from so many the project was originally intended to be family housing. that's where the need is right now and the fact that forge has not been willing to come to the table and look at alternatives to how to increase the unit size and serve families despite many requests to do so and even alternate prop

the appellant raises two main issues in their written appeal. first, that the planning commission mistakenly found that demolition of this type of housing as being necessary and desirable for the community, contrary to the need of the neighborhood during an affordability crisis, and that it falls under s.b. 330. in response to the first issue, the commission found that the proposed three-story property is keeping with other residential properties in the neighborhood and is complying with the san francisco planning department and residential code guidelines. the existing building contains a lower story unauthorized dwelling unit that is not code compliant, request no code compliant bedrooms. the current ceiling height is substandard in the bedrooms and do not have risk [indiscernible] windows. further, the ceiling is 6'9", for 70% of the space. it's required to be at 7'6". regarding concern number two over the implementation of s.b. 330, under that, if existing units to be demolished are under the rent control ordinance, and the tenant has 80% of

appellant now. >> president walton: if you have a question of the appellant, i think you should feel free to ask. >> supervisor peskin: i do. i have looked at the draft sections of the environmental impact report, which miss hawley said were, quote, unquote, scoped out. i've never heard that, but they were, based on a planning department study in 2019, no potential impacts to those historic and cultural resources. subsequently, it appears that -- not appeared. based on comments on the draft e.i.r., the response to the planning department were those comments didn't raise any additional issues so they did not modify the e.i.r. that's in the may 2021 document. what i wanted to ask assessed, project will affect the surroundings of the historic resources to the point that it might affect their integrity, and we would argue is not responded to or analyzed in the e.i.r. adequately for a project in this particular location. >> president walton: supervisor peskin? >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin, and thank you to the appellants. seeing no one else in the roster from my colle

appellant now. >> president walton: if you have a question of the appellant, i think you should feel free to ask. >> supervisor peskin: i do. i have looked at the draft sections of the environmental impact report, which miss hawley said were, quote, unquote, scoped out. i've never heard that, but they were, based on a planning department study in 2019, no potential impacts to those historic and cultural resources. subsequently, it appears that -- not appeared. based on comments on the draft e.i.r., the response to the planning department were those comments didn't raise any additional issues so they did not modify the e.i.r. that's in the may 2021 document. what i wanted to ask assessed, project will affect the surroundings of the historic resources to the point that it might affect their integrity, and we would argue is not responded to or analyzed in the e.i.r. adequately for a project in this particular location. >> president walton: supervisor peskin? >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin, and thank you to the appellants. seeing no one else in the roster from my colle

federal district courts, federal appellate courts.wanted to bring that to true fruition and in that again, he got lucky. he got four nominations, four men on the court who in this respect ended up not just going with the administration but helping to lead their fellow justices to what is right. there is still something we get to brown versus board of education but truman was not in the office at the time. during the truman presidency the court unanimously, consistency without equivocation very clearly written opinions and the literate american could understand, argued two other citizens the constitution guaranteed the rights of all american citizens. again if there's anyone who made his own luck, professionally and politically it was harry truman. he also did it traditionally as well with three justices and the sip chief justice to the supreme court. >> it is the adage luck or opportunity. >> guest: absolutely. so when i want to close was something i hope gives people hope in the supreme court will incorporate one of the things you're

you can't as the attorney for the appellant miss brad holly said rely on trusting me. that doesn't cut the mustard. it has to be analyzed or decision-makers to come to conclusionson a discretionary project . there are a range of reasonably feasible alternatives that could have been analyzed but were not. and i associate myself with the comments of supervisor preston relative to the potential for physical impacts because of gentrification that were not analyzed. again the eir is insufficient. it is inadequate and should be rejected. i respectfully urge you colleagues to vote against the motion that is on the floor. if thatmotion fails i would make an alternative motion to move items 40and 41 . >> thank you supervisorpeskin, supervisor stephanie . >> i was happy to second supervisor 80s motion . it just does not sit well with me. we just rejected a proposed project because it wasn't housing this does add family housing to our stock. i just don't understand how we ever housing built in the city if we continue to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. it does not sit we

so i think it is a new for afghanistan appellate bond was there for more than 20 years. so we haven't had about the aesthetic state there. so now after the american defeat in afghanistan, we start to hear about the esna mac state, and they have bases there and they have a suicide. those them, they are packing most. i think this is, this is a conspiracy will plan by certain foreign groups. i'm not the secluded united states who have been with an interest in creating havoc and anarchy in afghanistan about the taliban by moving toward the chinese camp that russian camp that you know could create in good relation with the hon. i think they put themselves and there are of the american radar and their target. and i wouldn't be surprised that it says, do it. doing this in behalf of united states. the attack mosque is a sheer one. how important detail is that? is that community at a particular risk right now? oh yes, definitely. you know, as some states were targeting chia and iraq, they were targeting shia in syria. they were targeting g r everywhere in the middle east. so i wo

investigators are advised by specific designated deputy city attorneys and the appellate work is done separately, and i want to make sure we have clear agreements about that, that we keep those separate and distinct. but otherwise, you know, we're recruiting, we're in the process of hiring. these are difficult jobs to fill. the people out in the world are in great demand. we're probably going to be promoting some people internally. we've been there for a while and done our best to rebuild from the bottom up. we're also restructuring the way -- the process of complainting, relying in port on the controller's review but also on professor gould's report and our own assessment with greater efficiency, which is also -- i believe that the fact that these reviews and findings takes so long generates on its own the sense that we're really not committed to the work, so i think just simply becoming more efficient is going to help quite a bit. >> supervisor haney: definitely. thank you, director eisen, and you certainly have your work cut out for you, and thank you for stepping up to this. i thi

> apple lanzó nuevos productos, es la de 14 a 16 pulgadas, estos tendrán un chip m1, el mes pasado appelnemos en pantalla la nueva moda de (inentendible) (palabra en inglés) esto por correo electrónico a (palabra en inglés), esto para revivir la manera antigua de relacionarse con email, solteros deben responder a 3 preguntas sea ceran las actividades de gall las casas estarán siendo decoradas por concurso, luis berrios nos tiene más . >> cada año decoraviones se vuelven más populares, por segundo año consecutivo regresa el concurso de decoraciones de halloween en el distrito 43 . >> para tener algo aquí para venir, caminar, un pcó de expresión, no solamente apartamentos grandes . >> de acuerdo a la concejal del distrito 33, parte del concurso es interactuar en el vecindario . >> lo que queremos promover es la p'romulgación de espacios, menos probabilidades de que haya violencia . >> algunas son divertidas, en esta residencia fueron súper creativos . >> me encantan los zombies, me gustan muchos los the walking dead . >> está lista, es algo que hacen aquí, lo festejan cada año . >> la resi

you can't as the attorney for the appellant miss brad holly said rely on trusting me. that doesn't cut the mustard. it has to be analyzed or decision-makers to come to conclusionson a discretionary project . there are a range of reasonably feasible alternatives that could have been analyzed but were not. and i associate myself with the comments of supervisor preston relative to the potential for physical impacts because of gentrification that were not analyzed. again the eir is insufficient. it is inadequate and should be rejected. i respectfully urge you colleagues to vote against the motion that is on the floor. if thatmotion fails i would make an alternative motion to move items 40and 41 . >> thank you supervisorpeskin, supervisor stephanie . >> i was happy to second supervisor 80s motion . it just does not sit well with me. we just rejected a proposed project because it wasn't housing this does add family housing to our stock. i just don't understand how we ever housing built in the city if we continue to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. it does not sit we

they cross the appellation mountains and came across over here with you were not supposed to be. it was illegal to do that but they saw opportunity, and people had come into that upper eastern corner of our state, and things go people than began to come in more numbers. now that is not the place you're going to have a big plantation with lots of cotton, right, on rocky top. though not be a lot of cotton raised on rocky top but they came not for that purpose. they came for the opportunity to own land and own a big plot of land, even if they were going to have to to take it from someone else, another part of this story. but they came here for the opportunity to own land because land equals independence. it equaled you are your own person. you owe no win anything. and so the population of those little settlements grew very, very slowly, but then the revolutionary war is beginning. it was decided that about half the population was going to really, i hate to say this, but take advantage of the war going on on the other side of the mountain to come all the way over here to the cumberla

underwater mountains as top as the appellations -- appalachia. nothing like it in the world. because of its unique diversity, marine scientists believe it is the key to understanding life under the sea. president obama established a national monument five years ago, recognizing its irreplaceable value. my predecessor chipped away at its protections. the proclamation i will be signing will restore protections established president obama when the monument was first created. the protection of public lands must become -- must not become a pendulum that swings back and forth depending on who is in public office. it is not a partisan issue. i want to thank the members of congress who have come together to support this work. i might add, i spoke with both the senators from utah. they did not agree with what i was doing, but were gracious and polite about it. i appreciate that, as well. the truth is, the national monument and parks are part of the identity as a people. there are more than natural wonders. birthright. we passed from generation to generation of birthright of every amer

it has not come up as an appellate issue much. that first circuit has relied on the patriarchal rule a couple of times. it has said that is the standard of the circuit. more recently, it has reviewed voir dire and concluded that the voir dire complied. as far as we can tell, generally, the district courts are complying with this rule. that reflects the routine question that is often asked. >> we have generally given the district courts quite a bit of discretion in jury selection. the court of appeals displaced that with a list of mandatory questions that if things should be asked in every single complicated or widely publicized case? ms. anders: that would present a closer question. the district court does have discretion. what the district court did here was well within the court's president, both within the racial bias context and also them movement decision. this is not a wooden rule. this is a rule that the district court has discretion to decide applies at the outside and to decide how to apply it. >> how do we know how far t

what does last night's appellate court ruling mean for them now? >> well, it's just heartbreaking.r judge pittman's excellent ruling and this morning there are patients whose procedures were canceled after that late-night ruling yesterday, and i just want to bring everyone back to the fact that these are constitutionally protected services. you have the right to an abortion up to previability, way past six weeks of pregnancy and what is happening in texas is the rights that people are being flat-out denied and it's outrageous what the fifth circuit did last night. joyce, it's outrageous says, nancy, a confusing provision that provides four years from the time a person gets an abortion for vigilantes to file suit which is questionable. break that down for us. >> so the statute in texas is confusing and complex and it's intended to be that way because confusion means people are afraid to exercise their rights. it says this, if the law is temporarily stayed during litigation like what the district judge in texas did this week and then it's later permitted to do this week, and later pe