Manageable. There are a few items on the calendar that may go away. So moved. And i need cards from both of you, we have a motion from the Vice President to reschedule all 3 matters 14098 one hundred one and 4 to november 5th on that motion to reschedule all matters commissioner fung president is absent commissioner honda. Thank you vote is 3 to zero all 3 matters are rescheduled until a 10 minu. Welcome back to the september 17, 2014, meeting of the San Francisco board of appeals were on item 9 which is a hearing request it is on crestline drive weve received a letter for the, llc permit holder for the permit request for the t p n and they decided on july 27th at the time the board voted 4 to one to grant the appeal one the project has xooerld circumstances that will to the protect the San Francisco development and an beneficial ordinance with the francisco that will have an appropriate or inappropriate for an in fill were the San Francisco development and 3 the pursuance to article o
Seconds. I said what i said. What do you want the board to do you, we want to resee the set lines as nonappealable we want to take the issue to the Planning Commission thats the proper organism to the site on planning and development in the city we think that this is been a very unjust everybody in planning that says its great but unfortunately you cant why not cant you hear but all over the city theyre the reviews of zoning and changes in height and zoning and so forth but this one seems to be sacred thats part of your case. Let me get to the point you have a subdivision thats been depraved with a permit thats been determined that no building maybe allowed on the site. Right. This board didnt have the ability to reverse the supervisorial approval to you. Im not an attorney i dont know the legal aspects of this. Okay. Thank you. Thank you okay. We can hear from the appellants then. Good evening, commissioners and staff im donald abatement the chairman which the east Side Alliance on ap
Forward. Mr. Pacheco. We have a motion in the Vice President to grant the appeal and overrule the dpw and deny this permit and with the finding this permit didnt to the ply with the new smf ordinance ordinance 76 dash 14 anything else on that motion to overly overrule commissioner fung the president is absent commissioner honda thank you vote is 3 to zero because of the boards vacancy only 3 votes are needed this permit is over ruled with those finding thank you. Okay Cynthia Goldstein will it makes sense to take item 12 before the break. Im not sure the parties are here is the appellant attorneys in the room sure. So what we will do to call whether or not a continuance is needed ill call items 12 abc all of them filed by marie vs. The department of building inspection some with the Department Approval on filling burn street to zoning property, llc of an alteration priority to convert to a singlefamily home with new stairs and staircases and an alteration for the units and also a plumb
That. In section 1040 is not whether disclosure is permitted, it is whether disclosure is forbidden. Jerry made that lettering error. How a deputy City Attorney can confound forbidden can permitted and then, deputy City Attorney herrick fell into the same mix is really disturbing. Let me ask you about that mr. Hau. Because c369913, appears to use the term to the extent permitted by state law. I draw your attention, commissioner hur to section 1040 b. Im assuming that state law takes precedence over 69913. I would assume, sir, that you would know that 1040 should take precedence over the city charters or this particular government conduct code which is not even at the city charter level, if i am right. 1040 b, clearly states, a Public Entity is a privilege to refuse to disclose official information. Unless disclosure is forbidden. There is nothing in the act of the u. S. Congress or any other statue that forbids the disclosure of the information that i am seeking. Except that there is a
Procedures in c369913. So the whole thing in my opinion is moot. I believe that miss herrick, may have also have wrongly claimed that the california evidence code 1040, and its definition of official information, may have been misquoted and she may have incorrectly relied on deputy City Attorney improper letter to the Sunshine Ordinance Task force in which he wrongly combined two or three of dr. Derek kurrs complaints under one ball of wax wrongly. He made a mistake when he did that. In section 1040 is not whether disclosure is permitted, it is whether disclosure is forbidden. Jerry made that lettering error. How a deputy City Attorney can confound forbidden can permitted and then, deputy City Attorney herrick fell into the same mix is really disturbing. Let me ask you about that mr. Hau. Because c369913, appears to use the term to the extent permitted by state law. I draw your attention, commissioner hur to section 1040 b. Im assuming that state law takes precedence over 69913. I woul