the planning department approving the additional two feet? >> there is a possibility, but, again, if it was in the required rear yard, it would not be required without a variance -- it would not be allowed without a variance. director goldstein: sir? >> good evening, commissioners, department of building inspection. i just want to clarify some information was provided. the permit was issued on june 16 for the new roof deck, and it was stated that they required it revised plan for the deck. an application was filed on august 25, and that was to correct the deck size.

this had to do with an additional inspection, which is our foundation, and that was on june 21, so i just wanted to correct the record. the revision has been filed, but i do not know for sure that it was the result of the correction notice -- if it was a result of the correction notice we issued. vice president garcia: what possibly were the goings on at dbi? you were noticed, and then maybe you or not? -- or not? -- were not? >> i have a copy of what was sent to the appellants. vice president garcia: to the appellants and the other neighbors earlier enumerated? >> i do not have that, but i do

have a copy of the notice that was sent to 1838. vice president garcia: thank you. director goldstein: is there any other public comment? seeing none, the matter is before you. commissioner fung: i think we should continue this case until some point where all of the facts are known. commissioner goh: the revision permits. commissioner fung: continuing, we still maintain jurisdiction over the jurisdiction request. commissioner goh: do you have a date, commissioner? commissioner fung: madam director? director goldstein: i am wondering if we want to hear from mr. sanchez or another? vice president garcia: before we

keep going, and i am sorry, but perhaps we want to entertain this comment? >> that letter was produced when we went down there. it is an enigma to me when they produced a document saying 1850 and a house on pine street received the notification, and we were not on the list. when i asked assertively why we are not on the list, they went back and printed it. but we did not receive any notification. if we did, we would not be here today. commissioner fung: we are saying you're going to get an opportunity for process. commissioner goh: we are saying that if we continue the request for jurisdiction and you appeal, the revision permits, that we are getting now, that would give us an opportunity to wrap them

together -- the revision permit, that we are getting now, that would give us an opportunity. this is why we are hanging onto your jurisdiction request. >> i am sorry. i am just not familiar with this. commissioner goh: we are not denying it. we will hold onto it. the question was the date, and director goldstein? director goldstein: how long before the revision permit would be issued and appealable? >> scott sanchez. i think in october, that would be acceptable, and the project sponsor would verify and do their measurement and show the correct plant, and building inspection -- and show the correct plan, and building

inspection can work on it. the application in question here to correct deck size and landscape. it does apply to this deck in question. that would be ideal. commissioner goh: october 5 is ok with him. commissioner fung: i move to continue this to october 5, unless you want to make a mission -- motion? commissioner hwang: my understanding was to allow the rest of this to move forward. am i correct that there will be no additional briefing? commissioner goh: an oral report. three minutes. director goldstein: mr. pacheco,

if you are ready, could you call the roll, please? secretary pacheco: there is a motion from commissioner fung, at no additional briefing allowed to allow for the revision permit to be issued and possibly appealed by the dobrows. on that motion, president goh, vice president garcia: , commissioner peterson is absent -- vice president garcia, commissioner peterson is absent, commissioner hwang. this item is continued. director goldstein: we will call our last item, the subject property at 1633-1649 haight street.

august 17, 2011, the board voted to deny the appeal and upheld the denial of the permit with a finding that the billboard does not comply with the planning conception planning code section -- does not comply with planning code section 604-h, the billboard to be replaced exactly in kind, exterior work only, not associated with any commercial space. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners, president goh. i asked for a re-hearing, and i will explain. at the end of the hearing, as we were arguing, presidents --

president goh asked whether or not this item was really about 604-h, and whether it is the owner of the sign, company, or the owner of the property who does the voluntary removal, that is very important, because if the owner of the sign structure voluntary removes it, that does not destroy the property owners' vested right to display advertising on the building. that is a constitutional right protected by the federal constitution and the state constitution, so the question is, what we were talking about, i think, president goh -- i believe you are an expert in appellate law. we are talking about interpretation of the statute. how is it being interpreted? what is meant by it?

who is the owner? and the planning department position, in the brief, they said it is the owner of the structure itself, the sign company. and when push came to shove about, well, what was the legislative intent, and they said they really have to defer, -- i would have to defer to the legislative intent, not answering the president's question. that does not tell me much about what the intent was. when the voters voted on it, what were they voting on? what was the intent? then i understand commissioner hwang, i am sorry if i missed pronounced it, in all that i have read, she did not say this to me, but in the brakes, it does not look like we have a lot of will room -- but in the

breach -- briefs, it does not look like we have a lot of wiggle room. [bell] you only heard half the story. with the amendments -- amendment of your rule, i cannot fight a response brief. i cannot give the documentation. the supreme court in california, the supreme court of the united states, talking about property rights. i could have given you all of the legislative history. i could have given you everything, and you could have come up to a good decision. that is why i say i apologize. this is a really important issue. it will become an important issue, not just on the sign in

the haight. but this is a big issue, property rights. since it has such far-reaching ramifications, the commission should -- and when they make that consideration have it on the legislative history, which i provided you in part the first time and have provided you now. again, i did not have because of the rules, not being able to address you in writing, all of the errors and misconceptions that are in the respondent's brief. that is all i can say. commissioner goh: thank you. vice president garcia: the findings that say it was a noncompliant structure? >> when the disapproval order was issued, his basis for it was

section 604-h, and the factual basis is we did not have a letter uprising us about -- uprising -- telling us about it. another section of the building code or another section or in violation of a change in voting, so in one sense, what happened here, we got blindsided here. i am looking in my brief about whether this could be pushed on us and basically extinguished my clients -- extinguish my client's rights. this is like alleging a petty theft, and you get into court,

and they give you a robbery. that is what has happened. you made that ruling, a complete lack of a process for us. we had not been appraised of it. we could not answer it, because i am just looking at a 604 violation. vice president garcia: it could be that my memory is wrong, but i strongly to support -- disapprove of 604-h. there was a letter i think to this board that i would feel certain you would have a copy of. >> no, no, we were responding to this board based on the letter that to issue the permit would be a violation of 604-h. no, what i am saying is, yes, he

did, and i could not answer the brief. what i think the right of thing is i have to deal with why it was denied. he only said 604-h. period. and then i get into this hearing, and i am having to deal with testimony. it could have been the trees were hiding it. please, give us the opportunity to respond and do it properly. just do not blindside us. i hope that answers the question. vice president garcia: ok, these are the hearings. you are perfectly aware of that. number two, just to be clear, in my mind, before you came here, the first time this meeting was held, or the last time the meeting was held, because there was a meeting dealing with issues, the last time we were

here, which i think was the last time we met, you had in your possession the findings or the arguments that were made by him, is that correct? >> yes, yes, yes, correct. completely correct. thank you very much for your time. i appreciate it. director goldstein: sir? >> president goh, vice president garcia. department staff. i will be brief. we are opposed to this request. mr. torres is basing his request on the fact that there are circumstances that if known at the time of the original hearing would have influenced the outcome of that hearing.

he has not provided any new information. relevant to this case. much less fact that would have influenced or could have influenced the outcome of the original hearing. what is more, commissioners, this general advertising sign has been before you on three separate occasions as part of three separate appeals. just a few last point in regards to the mark -- to the remarks we just heard. in his own words, mr. torres does discuss the 604-h issue was something that was discussed several weeks ago at the previous hearing. he did provide ample information at the onset of last week's hearing, in addition to is quite thorough briefing he provided in advance of that hearing.

we would respectfully submit that this matter has been thoroughly investigated and briefed and considered, and we would suggest that the grounds for the rehearing simply have not been met in this matter. thank you. director goldstein: thank you. ok, anything from dbi? nothing could -- nothing? i see no one from the public, so, commissioners, this matter is submitted. commissioner goh: comments, commissioners? vice president garcia: as is well known, i am very sympathetic to sign owners, not to use strong language, who get denied without the consideration of property rights as a result of 604-h, but as to whether or not something new has been presented that would cause this

board to grant a rehearing, i find that nothing new was presented, and i personally would not be in favor of granting this. commissioner fung: i am in agreement with that. commissioner goh: is there a motion, commissioners? vice president garcia: i would move that the board tonight -- deny the request for a rehearing. director goldstein: ok, mr. pacheco? secretary pacheco: on that motion to deny the rehearing, vice president garcia, president goh, commissioner hwang. it will be denied. commissioner goh: -- director

goldstein: no further business. commissioner goh: we are adjourned. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

>> welcome to "culturewire." today we are at recology.

they are celebrate 20 years of one of the most incredibly unique artist residency programs. we are here to learn more from one of the resident artists. welcome to the show, deborah. tell us how this program began 20 years ago. >> the program began 20 years ago. our founder was an environmentalist and an activist and an artist in the 1970's. she started these street sweeping campaigns in the city. she started with kids. they had an exhibition at city hall. city officials heard about her efforts and they invited her to this facility. we thought it would coincide with our efforts to get folks to recycle, it is a great educational tool. since then, we have had 95 professional artists come through. >>ho