we'll hear from the other appellant now. thank you. >> sure. >> hello. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. i'm susan bramholly representing the friends of the hearst meeting and i requested 10 minutes and we only have five, we're totally unrelated appeals here. >> i think that we gave the other gentleman five minutes so i think that it's fair that we give you five as well. but we may have questions for you. so go ahead. >> thank you. i do have a picture. so we're here appealing the mitigated negative declaration. and what's happened here, it happens a lot, and understandably, the project sponsor is trying to resolve all of the issues with the design before going forward to this commission. but the ceqa analysis must precede that for the decisionmakers to understand what the impacts are and what the feasible mitigations and alternatives are. that's the whole point of ceqa is to mitigate impacts. the question before the commission is whether there's a fair argument in the record. it's a very low threshold burden that

the appellant purchased the property in 1998, according to city records. came in with this permit application in 2001 to do a change on this property, to go to the planning department. that was denied. it was appealed to this board of appeals which overturned the scope of denial. at no time was the building ever demolish. this was not to demolish the building or facade, it was to do an adaptive reuse for the building that was going to be a gym operated by touchdown climbing, who was the applicant for the permit. all the environmental review, all the materials provided by the planning commission and board of appeals were specific to that scope. the application can telephone and all -- itself and all of the approvals were based on the fact that the facade was to be retained. there was a significant length of time after the planning commission hearing before work did proceed on the property. i understand that back in 2004-2005, the engineer that was working on the project passed away. permits were set to expire at that time. that was one of the arguments for

let me just also briefly turn to the ceqa issues that the appellant raised at the hearing today. once a proper ceqa determination is issued which happened in 2016, the time to appeal that determination is after the first approval. the first approval was in 2016. the ceqa document was not appealed to the board of supervisors, it was not litigated. such an appeal of the ceqa document is not before this board in 2018. i would also note if there is a project on florida street next to this site that does propose a nine story building, it will go through its own ceqa process and section 295 shadow determination and could not be approved if it does cast a significant shadow on franklin square park. but going backwards, not only is the ceqa issue not before this board, but there's no ceqa issue that's been shown by the appellant. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we'll now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. the subject property is located within the urban mixed use zoning district. the project began in 2014 and in august 2014, a p.p.a. or p

the appellant submitted plans that did not show a property line window. what the permit holder had submitted was a sketch because they're not allowed to submit the actual plans, but they submitted a sketch, and they were correct. the plans did not show a property line window for that top floor. it wasn't misrepresented the windows that were there because if you look at the photos of the rear of the property, it shows only the one window, but on the plans that they had submitted, there were more windows on the rear. again, the project is code compliant. we'd respectfully request that the board uphold the permit as approved and issue. thank you. >> commissioner honda: just one question, mr. sanchez. in the brief, it shows one window, but you say there's four in the back rear area? >> well, the photos correctly show i think what is there now. but on the plans the appellant had submitted in 2017, they did not show a property window, and they had actually shown two windows. >> commissioner honda: just for curiosity, would that suffice for light and air, do you

the appellant's concerns relate to historic architect you'll resources and valet parking. the planning department considered the concerns raised and concludes the mitigate negative declaration for the project was appropriately issued. the department responses are provided in exhibit a of the draft motion. in addition, the presentation today will address the sub la mental materials on tuesday and by mrs. brant, holly yesterday. they have not provided substantial evidence to support the project would have namely, the flat roof and it may be a significant impact under ceqa. the letter sent yesterday implies the structure report was received and it explained why the letter was not submitted soon. planning staff notified the appellant of updated materials prepared on january 25th and heard no request for that report for additional materials at which time materials were sent as soon as they were available. the project was evaluate today determine if it would cause change in the significance of a historic resource. if it met for the standards of rehabilitation. the standards for r

it is the same question i asked of the appellant's representative. hen you use the term that it is explicit, does that mean that it is specifically stating that an existing parking use, under the new ordinance, would be prohibited? >> yes. >> an existing -- >> it basically says, i read it in my first presentation, and it is quoted in a letter of determination where specifically says, within 155 are, if you have an existing curb cut that is nonconforming to section 155 are, and may not be replaced. >> all right. not that you can drive over a sidewalk without a curb cut. [laughter]. >> i don't think it actually says that. >> it says you cannot have garage access. it uses multiple terms to make it very clear. you cannot have garage access, you can't have a curb cut, you can't have vehicular access, and uses different terms. thank you. pre-existing access to offstreet parking and loading on development lots that violate the restrictions of section 155 art may not be maintained. so as we mentioned, this is a development lot, because they are proposing new

so i echo everything the appellant just said. >> first of all tease an honor to speak. i'm born and raised on clay street on the back block. i've seen that neighborhood change from irish to african american to the industrial area and i'm a resident and i believe you can ask for anything but the project is just too big. it changes the flavor of the neighborhood and it does no benefit. it's all market value property and don't believe it belongs. thank you. >> commissioner: next speaker. >> thank you for the opportunity to state the impacts on me and my views. i'm dr. robert friend. i'm a child and adolescent psychiatrist. i've been on this block on sacramento street 40 years and continue to practice full time. i think the engineer's report has given a good idea of the four different kinds of impacts on this neighborhood. we as therapists depend on a relatively quiet neighborhood. we picked our offices because of that. it's a vibrant mixed commercial use neighborhood. that's also good for us and our patients who also provide the business opportunities for the m merchants on

the appellant racist two main issues in their appeal. first they contends that the proposed lot side exceeding 5,000 square feet is incompatible with the sacramento street neighbor commercial district, second, the appellant contends the proposed nonresidential uses size exceeding 2500 square feet is incompatible with the m.c.d. in response to the first issue, the commission found the project was on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan on and the planning code. the project addresses the impacts, a large development can have on the surrounding neighborhood by breaking up the proposed project into 25-foot vertical segments. that development pattern is more in keeping with the character of the block and neighborhood. the ground floor retail commercial storefronts were also modulated to emulate the existing size and scale of the storefront on sacramento street. the project also incorporates an elegant architectural language that has accentuated by contrasting and exterior materials, further helping to blend

my husband, eric tang and i are the appellant. in light of a new land survey and additional san francisco city codes on the validity of the 1990 permit, we ask the board of appeals to revoke the alteration permit in question. the permit has to be revoked because first, the permit includes two windows that are inside our property. second, both the 1990 and 2018 building codes do not allow any openings on the property line. and third, the 1990 permit is null and void. the permit holder must apply for a new permit. since submitting the appellant brief, we have obtained additional evidence. we hired a california licensed land surveyor to locate the property line between our properties. the land surveyor is here to answer any questions. the survey results confirmed that the entire alley is our property, and that 159 beaumont's face of building is north of the boundary line. that's what's highlighted. as you can see, 159 beaumont's wall encroaches on our property. i'm a licensed architect, and i taught building codes at the academy of ar

the check box that was pointed out by the appellant is part of the screening for historic resources. there was no question at any time about the project description, and the full project description was properly evaluated by the planning department. this determination was upheld by the board of supervisors, again, at another public hearing on the categorical exemption, so i feel confident that that was properly issued as the board of supervisors has unanimously ruled. lastly, in terms of possible conditions that the board may be considering, in terms of having conditions that would be enforceable, you know, i would suggest to have them be as clear as possible and you know avoiding some vagueries because that is not defined. my suggestion would be to have limits -- limits on the hours to be used. even restrictions such as structured play versus unstructured play. >> commissioner tanner: how do you define it? >> i appreciate those conditions, but i would ask that the board be as clear as possible. something limits to something like -- limited to something like hours and days would be a

we've been meeting with the appellant and my office is working directly with her. this is not an old case. the appeal was filed just last month, so allowing for continuance will not prejudice either party. >> supervisor yee: thank you. the department's staff, do they wish to make comments? i don't see a department rep here. these items will be continued and we'll take public comment. >> mr. president, i believe aaron star is here from planning although this is public works. >> aaron star, manager of legislative affairs for the planning department. no comments to the issue that the appellant brought up are issues that are dealt with the during the entitlement process and our response lays out that process and when she had an opportunity to respond. i'm here for questions if you would like. >> supervisor yee: thank you. with that understanding, these items will be continued. we'll take public comments on the continuance. are there members of the public that wish to speak on this -- madame clerk, question? developers of this project. so, yes, aaron is correct, this is

they sued us in the 9th circuit and we lost, and we lost in the appellate division, and we went to theis he talking like that? it's like he's auto tuned. it's very addictive. i can't stop. somebody help me! ( laughter ) we should be thankful he used it to talk about the wall and not a natural disaster. imagine if he whipped it out after a earthquake -- there's a big earthquake, lots of people trapped, going to do own best, have to expect the worse, not saying move on, but if your husband survived, his face is probably smurbled and all gross! ( laughter ) but cardi b's jam probably wasn't wrong. his prediction of the court battle makes sense, which made me think, what if the whole time the key to making trump a smarter president is to just teach him in song form. maybe that's why he doesn't retain information. his advisors should do this the next time they have to explain anything to trump. they should be, like, sir, even monitoring sectarian violence in yemen and if you look at -- >> sex-tarian? what did you say? i don't understand! ( laughter ) well, sir, you have the sunnis, and you

we'll hear from the other appellant. mr. newcome. >> thank you. first, let me thank you commissioners for hearing our concerns. mine and those of my fellow tenants. i hope to garner your support with my remarks. for the record, my name is daniel newcome. i want to state i reside at 76a paige street next door to the 84 paige street property in question. i filed this appeal on behalf of myself and the tenants of 74-78 paige street. several of my neighbors are here tonight to support me in this appeal. can i have some of them stand up. this is on behalf of myself and my neighbors. what i want to do is speak to the potential noise impact this school yard may have on us in the nearby residents. i would not have brought this appeal if i didn't feel that the impact would -- if i felt the impact of the project would not be significant. i hope to illustrate that with my own sound measurements and statements tonight. on july 20th, 2017, i intended at a community event hosted by aaron lavigne at the french american international school grounds. and on july 28

we will hear from the appellant first. >> hello, my name is davis. i'm here on behalf of peter wilson, the project sponsor. there is over ten years of history on this project, and i don't want to go through it all tonight, we don't need to do that. i want to allow the time for other people to speak. i will summarize what this issue is about. it is really about permitting three parking spaces to continue where they are in an enclosed garage with two units above them. that is all this is about. we have been working on this for some time. the letter of determination that the zoning administrator issued in 2018 is different from the letter of determination that was issued in 2014, which approved three parking spaces with three units on the site. part of the confusion for this is subsequently in 2017, and in 2008 -- a new ordinance was issued in 2018. it was adopted, which opposed some inconsistent policies and inconsistent statements to what should be permitted in the north beach special use district. i want to point out the inconsistencies for this, and

the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permanent holder and department respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttle. people affiliated must include their comments within the period. members of the public not affiliated have up to three minutes to address the board and no rebuttle. please speak into the microphone. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. if you have questions, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office. we are located at 1650 mission street. it's broadcast life on sfgov and will be rebroadcast on channel 26. the video is available on our website and can be downloaded from sfgovtv.org. we will affirm those who attend to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to tes

it went to the appellate court to review his trial records. in the trial recors, you can introduce new material. it was widely published that he was under the age of execution. in appellate courts, you can't bring in that new material and i would just want to ask the judges who upheld his conviction and sentencing how they could ignore the fact that this was a 15-year-old boy. i think the answer that i will find is that young mexican boys were seen as mexican men. the revolutionary fighting had conscripted many of these teenagers into service. they grew up overnight with the revolution and were seen as a male threat. no longer a child. >> the book is titled "the lynching of mexicans in the texas borderland." it is available on amazon and elsewhere where you get your books. he is a professor at the university of colorado in boulder. thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you for having me. >> every weekend, american history tv brings you 48 hours of unique programming. to view our schedule and an archive, visit c-span.org. >> i am alway

would like some additional time to review those, and therefore, and i have discussed this with the appellants and with the project sponsor, i'm requesting one week to continue the remaining item. i understand the hearings have been filed, but if we can continue the matter for one week so we can have the neighborhood look at the conditions that have been proposed, i have copies of them, i have given them out to some of the appellants, and we can have further discussions with the project sponsor and come up just come back in one week and take care of the ceqa appeal and the c.u. appeal at that time. >> there is a motion to continue the item to our tuesday meeting on february 5th, 2019. is there a second? >> seconded by supervisor safai. i guess we can take this motion same house, same call. without any objection, the motion passes. again, these items will be continued to the full board meeting on tuesday, february 5 th. madam clerk, i will go back to item 47, and that is when we had already closed 46 in terms of filing the hearing, and now i want to turn it back over to supervisor walton, if yo

. >> and then we lost in the appellate division and then we will go to the supreme court and we won. [laughter] [applause] greg: i don't know if he is president or dr. seuss. [laughter] he only got a little over a million dollars in the budget they didn't take it from the drug lords and take it that way. [cheers and applause] but l chabot is worth 14 billion and that is a lot of wall but trump also took the campaign in a different direction earlier this week. >> today we started a big beautiful wall. >> it is so attractive and so ugly. >> we have a beautiful structur structure. >> see what he is doing he is making the wall sexy because sex sells. why not use it to sell the wall? >> hey there. you are looking for the hottest border security? rod naked steel? then you will love the all new southern border wall. >> i would totally bang the wal wall. [laughter] and the great barrier reef so call now because one way or another you are getting laid tonight. [laughter] [applause] my god. doctor you are from canada do i need a wall for canada crack. >> not for canadians but i wish people cou

they're prepared for a number of outcomes but i think based on what some of the appellate judges saiding the last hearing, which seemed to me they were favoring at & t's position that this is not a monopoly, justice department is preparing for a loss. liz: my money is on at & t and time warner. i think the merger will go through. we already had one judge who is highly respected say not a problem, it's a horizontal situation, not a vertical. therefore, it should be fine. at & t does something different than what time warner does. >> yeah. liz: who are those two people who were right? >> they're very good-looking. very smart. liz: charlie and i, charlie and me, charlie and me -- charlie and i? >> objective case. liz: that's right. i was talking five days ago. at & t, being on the precipice -- >> you went to berkeley. i went to pace. liz: yeah. but you know. >> um-hum. liz: they are both public. >> yeah, right. liz: doj, antitrust battle, at & t wins. >> they win. what our sources are saying inside the trump administration, it is highly unlikely they are going to appeal this to the supre

financial compensation so the matter has been aired quite widely over the past few years where the appellate conviction will encourage others to come forward remains to be seen but lacking at the moment as i just know the entire syrian population is not so shocked that their senior catholic cleric should be found guilty of effectively paedophilia roger thanks very much for that roger maynard for us from sydney thank you. the north korean leader kim jong un has arrived in vietnam ahead of his second summit with u.s. president donald trump he stepped off his personal armored train in the border town of don't know dying for traveling for more than two days through china from pyongyang president trump is also on his way to the two day summit in hanoi air force one due to land shortly with trump and kim said to begin their meetings on wednesday after celebrating their initial encounter last year as a diplomatic success white house will be looking to achieve more concrete results in its efforts to reach an agreement on pyongyang's nuclear weapons program. a check in now some of the other stories m

the sponsor had a list of accommodations that they would be willing to abide by, and the appellant had not had a chance to review them, and they continue it had to the next week. that's my review. >> clerk: the board of appeals last night. they had been scheduled to hear the appeal on 1228 funston avenue. -- by the property owner, a licensed contractor, without benefit of permit. at the hearing, the commission took d.r. and followed the staff recommendation, requiring the rear addition to be reduced to comply with the residential design guidelines. the property owner he was ared to comply with the commission's decision, resulting in the appeal to the board of appeals. yesterday, the property owner agreed to submit a new permit adhering to the commission's decision. the department will review this permit to ensure compliance and establish a timeline for the property owner to move forward. if they fail to do so in a timely manner, the department will continue forward with the appeal process, including administrative penalties. the next one -- >> commissioner hillis: wait. commissioner ri

101 in a kind of sing-song today about how this case will do to the district court and then is the appellateourt and up to the supreme court, where he had some confidence. what is your -- i mean, there seems to be a sense among this administration that they've got the votes on the supreme court. how are you gaming this out, ceccelia? >> well, i think president trump in his sing-song refrain is really recognizing that what he is doing is illegal. he is on thin ice or no ice at all and falling into the abyss. we've got people, members of congress from right to left, you've got the national review joining maxine waters in saying that this is possibly an impeachable action. and we're not going to comment on that. but it's certainly true that the president has repeatedly said that the supreme court is going to come to his rescue. he claimed it during his government shutdown when he claimed that the court was going to intervene on daca, and they did not do so. >> right. >> so i think the president's really counting his chickens before they're hatched and he's wrong on the law and he's wrong on the

opinions gett appealed to the appellate courts . for the most part, district court judges get it right. you don't see tons of decisions that are overturned by the appeals court. sometimes it might be 15 or 20%. carswell on the other hand has seen his opinion turned over at a higher ratio than any other district court judge in the country as of 1969. a lot of these were not cases that carswell is making anti-civil rights decisions and the appeals court was saying you cannot do that. these were technical decisions. carswell seems not to be understanding the basics of the law. their quickly emerged a consensus among both parties that this was a man who was not particularly smart. whether that was a good nominee for that to be on the court. this becomes crystallized in a senate debate. the republican point person, the senator from nebraska, his is that for carswell the mediocre people of the united states deserve representation on the court as well. this is a very peculiar argument for a supreme court justice. from the senate republicans

once the appellate body seizes to function. and you can't get these approved if they're on appeal so they just sit there, and the result is that, well, we wouldn't have to do anything if we lose. we don't get anything if we win. and i don't see how that -- and if we're winning, i don't see how that's an advantage. i don't dare get into rsep. i leave that to others. so i think on the whole, it's not going to be a year of brilliant, spectacular conclusions. but if you look at it from trump's point of view, the time you want to do those anyway is next year, when it's the election year, so people haven't forgotten, you know. in political terms, you don't want to win too early. because then people don't remember. so if he wins in may, june, july, next -- in 2020, that's all right. i think from his point of view. >> okay. anybody want to add to that? including the prospect that india is going to join -- consensus on rsep? i think i can answer that one. no. i think india is going to continue to be a problem in rsep, which is why i don'

expected, the appellate court affirmed the district court ruling.hat they did was set our standard is very high. this is a fact-based ruling and what we have to determine to overturn it is there was clear error. there was not clear error in the way the district court judge interpreted the facts and evidence before him in the trial. i as i understand it there was an agreement between the justice department and at&t to hold separate the assets. they hope they did not scramble the omelette, as they say. it is thought the deadline will come up on thursday. will the justice department get an emergency order to keep that separation going? jennifer: that is the only thing they will able to do to keep at&t from integrating turner they can certainly ask at&t to extend that agreement, but i do not see why at&t would agree to that. they will say we are finished, we will not appeal, and if they do that before the 28th, once that happens at&t can integrate. it is either when the process is over or the 28th, whatever comes first. or at&t can go ahead, and if the

that is not our position, so i don't exactly know why the appellant was raising that. there was additional review done that is required for the demolition of that facade. it would require additional environmental review which cannot be done now because the his torque resource has been removed by the owner without proper permit. in response to president fung's question about the designation of this, i can put on the overhead of the survey of the property which i believe was done in 2008, if i can have the overhead, and i'll go over some of the details. >> the foundation is reinforced concrete. the primary facade faces west and includes five structural bays. the ground floor is boarded up, and angle marquis is cantilevered above the ground floor. capped capped and molded rosets, and the building does appear to be in poor condition due to general holes in the north wall, and this survey was from january 2008, so even before the work they did to open up the facade of the building. this is a historic resource, no it is not a landmark. prior to the designation, it would have

you, president yee, i am a cause for the last-minute continuance request and so i'm happy to second it and look forward to visiting with supervisor stefani and appellant and project sponsor in the intervening week. >> president yee: thank you. so what i'd like to do now is, if there's any public comments on the continuance, step on up if you have any. i see no public comments, so public comments is now closed. is there -- should we take roll call or can we take this same house, same call? >> clerk: same house, same call, mr. president. >> president yee: same house, same call, the motion is passed. that will bring us now to -- can you call the next items, please? >> clerk: yes, items 11 and 12, mr. president? >> president yee: yes. >> clerk: items 11 and 12 approve two contract modifications on behalf of the airport commission. item 11 modifies modification no. 4 to the airport extension and improvements program for project management supports services to extend the term by 555 calendar days through october 31, 2020, and to increase the contract amount by $6.3 million for a total not to exceed $16.3 million. and item 12 approves modification no. 9 for

this is permit number 781669, and we'll hear from the appellant first. mr. klipp, you have seven minutes. >> thank you. and before we start, i'm just wondering if the commissioners have received the brief that i submitted. >> president fung: yes. >> okay. and i don't know if anything else was submitted. i didn't receive anything else. was there anything else submitted to the board? >> commissioner honda: you're the only one that supplied a brief. >> okay. i'll just go over kind of briefly what i laid out in p pretty excruciating detail in my brief. this all began in a hearing on september 24 of last year. i protested an application by webcor, which is the sponsor of a project at the corner of smith and union to remove two healthy sycamore london planes. that appeal was ultimately issued. i filed an appeal to that. the board issued a suspension on the permit, and after that, the trees were cut down the next day any way. so just a little bit of history here. this project sponsor went through many hoops to get the permits for this project, and in getting those p

and you know, they're preparing for a number of outcomes but i think based on what some of the appellateid during the last hearing, which seemed to me they were favoring at & t's position that this is not a monopoly, justice department is preparing for a loss. so what do they want out of a loss? this is key. they are just hoping that in a loss, they just don't blow out all their arguments about the mergers of massive content providers, at & t -- excuse me, time warner and distribution. and that there's a problem with merging those two together from an antitrust standpoint. so what the justice department is hoping, and they feel comfortable they are going to get this, from what i understand. i'm not saying bet the ranch on it. i'm telling you based on what we're hearing, they feel comfortable that they are going to get from -- at least from the appellate division, a split decision, even if they lost. they lose the case, and okay, they lost, deal goes -- merger goes on, but there's language in there that allows them to keep their basic theory about merging these two entities, a massive dis

. >> i'm for the appellant. agree to april 9th. >> attorney for the project sponsor and the project sponsor also agrees to the continuance to april 9. >> commissioner: thank you. with the understanding the items will be continued, we will now take public comments. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the continuance? any speaker would be two minutes each. seeing no public comment, public comment for this is closed. [gavel] >> commissioner: supervisor haney, would you like to mation the motion? >> i move to continue to april 9. >> commissioner: seconded by supervisor mandelman. colleagues, we have a motion to continue items 20 through 27 to the board of supervisors meeting april 9. the motion to continue. can we have roll call on the item. >> clerk: without objection. >> deputy city attorney john gib ner i want to get something on the record. i understand based on conversations with the project sponsor and appellant the april 9th date was agreed to outside of this room the planning code sets c