>> good evening, i'm john hiko, i'm the other owner of 74 crestline. i've lived there since 1985 in one of the apartments there, and i oppose the rehearing. we're against professionals here, they've had four years to do their job and figure out how to get this done and it didn't pass and i don't think they deserve a rehearing on this. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other speakers? okay, seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> madam president, on this new letter issued by the city server, i think we should allow both sides to comment briefly on this letter. >> so, a continuance on the hearing? >> no, i'm asking them -- >> right now? >> i'm asking them right now to give us -- >> wasn't that issued today or yesterday? would you prepared to comment on it today? >> [inaudible]. >> okay. are you prepared to comment on that today? >> yes. >> okay. >> thank you, commissioners for allowing me to speak. i am the structural engineer of the project, the first step that we took was a meeting with the city surveyor, bruce stores, which happens

board of appeal, we are calling item 5c which is a rehearing request, the subject property is at 730 crestline drive, the board received a alerted from kenda macintosh requesting rehearing for appeal number number 13 f 062 t.p.e.n.a. versus dbi, pda, decided july 17, 2013. at that time, the board voted 4-1 commissioner fung dissented, to grant the appeal and overturn the permit on the following preserve and protect the character and stability of the vista francisco development and it will not be an orderly and beneficial in-fill project in the vista francisco development, 2, the project if approved will result in an inappropriate precedent or expectation for similar in-fill projts elsewhere in the vista francisco development and 3, the board's authority pursuant to article 1 section 26 of the san francisco business and tax regulations code to consider the project's effect on surrounding properties and residents. the appellant is twin peaks east side neighborhood. we will start with the appellants. >> i'm here on bemaf of the project sponsor, i was retained shortly after the last hearing and i'

the open spaces to be maintained, one of which is the open northern section of the property at 70 crestline where subdivision and construction were proposed. lastly, the permit holder has a right with no explanation as to why the covenants weren't offered into evidence on july 17th, that explanation is explicitly required by the board's rules. in conclusion, none of the board's requirements that would warrant a rehearing are found in the permit holder's request, for the reasons discussed here tonight, as well as other reasons cited in our written response, we respectfully ask the board to deny the request. thank you. >> mr. [inaudible], in your brief, you indicate that -- and you referred it again in your oral testimony just now that the documentation provided by the rehearing requestor -- well, maybe that's too strong a word, showed what was the original planting plan, i believe you referenced that. are you saying that the parcel maps they had which indicates the planning areas is the original planted plan? >> we can state that for certain if we can find the preliminary planting plan, howe

item number 6, we also have 5c which is the 70 crestline matter. >> oh, 5c, okay. >> okay, so i'm going to ask a few things of the people who would like to speak, if you haven't done so already, you fill out a speaker card, if you're willing to do that and give it to mr. pacheco when you come up to speak, it would help us in the preparation of the board's minutes, i ask people line up on the far side of the room so we can move this along as quickly as possible. >> i'm going to allow 2 minutes, if you really need 3 minutes, then take the 3 minutes but i would like to keep it to 2 tonight given the number of speakers. >> mr. paul, you can begin whenever you're ready. >> one minute, mr. paul. madam president, it's not that i don't want to hear a lot of testimony here, the question is, i want to make sure that the people in the audience are aware that whether a jurisdiction is granted doesn't mean necessarily that the permits will be overturned, and i may suggest that we go ahead and grant jurisdiction and hear all of them together as one comprehensive, and therefore people can say whatever