this report, done by it will no architecture firm, financed by the national endowment for the arts to renovate the building. >> if i could just mention one thing? the permit was done by the building of building inspection -- department of building inspection. >> in the first part, the attachment to no. 3, the feasibility study that was done references index four or five times -- decks four or five times. >> that was presented at the hearing? >> basically, the first part of this package was all presented to mr. friedman. he then inspected it.

i spoke to him after the hearing. we cannot commit to ai deck whee people might fall in. i sent them the structural report on the 22nd. >> ok. if you take down a deck that has been there for 100 years, adding an extension, you need plans in terms. that is why people keep 50% of stairs, so that they do not have to get land. >> and we concur with that. that is why we have the permit now, to comply. >> another question that i have

is more on the category of structural capacity, that this could be construed as a deck or an assembly area. is there a limitation to the number of people liking go on deck? >> to my knowledge, there is not. >> overloaded. it stresses beyond the calculations, clearly. >> it would be addressed in the building permit. >> occupancy on the limitation of people going there is crucial. >> yes. >> hearing from the other engineer on the commission here? >> the permit would address structural concerns.

>> thank you. yes. we have that structural pork and a building permit. >> can i ask a question of the city attorney? i believe that this deck, as it is, requires a permit that was not received in the beginning. in which case, normally i would say let's give them time and hold the notice of violation. but it seems to me that the directors hearing did not have a determination, so there is nothing to appeal of his points. >> if you find that there was never an order of abatement, you would not have jurisdiction. that would be for factual -- factual determination. >> ok. >> so, order of abatement was

never -- >> if you conclude from the tape that there was never an order of abatement, if it was referred back to staff, you would not have jurisdiction, as there was never an order of abatement. >> if you want us to do the tape again, we will do it. >> do we send it back to the department? >> maybe we should hear public before we comment. >> let's have public comment. any public comment? >> [inaudible] >> that is what he said. explaining that they gave more time? it covers both of you. three minutes for rebuttal. you are up. >> do they have any more time? or not?

>> we went through that already. >> all right. it seems to me like there is a need for this permit. plus the notice of violation that was issued. i believe that the order of abatement was not issued clearly enough at the hearing. last hearing, unless there is a subset -- something subsequent to that tape that the staff has. i would say that we do not have jurisdiction on this. that we return it to the spot. if they wanted to have eight directors hearing, going through that process, they could bring it back to us. >> was at the same thing? >> we are doing the same thing.

>> [inaudible] excuse me for a second. commissioner? are we all set? we will go with commissioner clint, then the rebuttal. >> if there was an order of a patent issued, was the conclusion that meeting someone in the notes under the order of abatement? >> it is clear from the tape that it was returned to staff and in order, these things happen all the time. >> you did not receive an order of abatement? >> we did, as well as a bill for $1,500. >> anything else? public comment?

no public comment? are we doing public comment? >> we did. >> is there a public comment? >> and the public comment? >> hello. i lived in the building for 25 years. i just wanted to say that the deck was always there. tenants enjoyed using it. thank you. >> any other public comment? seeing none, ok. three minutes for rebuttal. >> there are two key words. those that were mentioned earlier that the first hearing, when the case was continued. the key word is continuance.

at the hearing on january 13 of this year, the key word used at the hearing was not up to date. that tape at the very end, there was discretion in that case. discretion was done back and forth for three minutes. it got fairly unpredictable. so, the portion that we put at the end was a hearing officer saying it was returned to staff. we talked back to the staff and there was a further opportunity. they assured us that they were going to get permits to deal

with and the violation. that did not happen at the end of 30 days. at the end of that 30 days they were obligated to issue an order of abatement. they were given very the time to process it. now we are here with a deck that is occupied. there are no guardrails. the department is now going to ask how we allowed this condition to continue. i would say that if there is confusion, maybe we can consider requesting a transcript of the hearing at that particular address, held on january 13. all of you board members can review it thoroughly. if i am somehow misspeaking, i

will be glad to admit that at a later date. in absence of that, -- [unintelligible] >> i appreciate that. we only heard a key portion of what was presented. i hear what you are saying. i would feel more comfortable getting a copy of the tape and being able to listen to it, to make sure that we have jurisdiction to do anything. or, get a transcript. i just, i think you are right. i hear what you are saying. >> when it comes to abatement? >> they are saying get the transcript. give them another 30 days and another 30 day exception. >> i feel like the order was issued. i get that part.

i am sort of confused as to whether we are supposed to follow the words of the hearing officer. i guess, we usually start our action once the order is issued and an appeal is filed. so, that part was done correctly. we just have not had a situation where there is a contradiction between what might have been said at the hearing and the order itself. i guess, that is where ibm -- >> lets reserve that discussion until afterwards. >> i would like to respond to the comments. first of all, there is a guard rail. a significant guard rail. secondly, the transcript, and i have handled director disagreements four years at the department.

advisement does not come back for another hearing. when it turns to staff, generally, i have no problem with getting a transcript or looking at the whole tape to get the thing. if we have to continue for 30 days or something like that -- >> once again, i would like to have final rebuttal. never once was the word advisement used in our case. never once did use the word advisement. i addressed that very clearly in item #3. i object to what has been referred to as a lack of due process. we submitted this package to staff on september 13.

in the staff report, none were noticed in terms of the violation or the order of abatement. the have extensive claims as to why the deck is too large. the building code does not apply? that was never said before. we had no opportunity to respond to the false charges about which was the applicable code. the original deck covered 25,000 square feet. when we renovated, it was reduced. based on the staff report now, which we just saw for the first time, that would mean that any time you be route to a historic building, you lose your roof. that could not be the intent of the historic building code, to undo the historic features.

there has been a roof deck on this for 100 years. there has always been a roof deck. the contractor that worked with the roofers here. they can testify that they simply replaced the deck that was there and replaced it with boards. >> commissioners? but discussions? >> on the face of this, i would actually suggest that we uphold staff recommendation and give the appellant time to complete the work. but i do have issues about procedure here. i want to have a discussion here with other commissioners. >> i also want to get clear. it seems like the issue is not just time.

it -- if it was a different or smaller configuration, but what is the resolution? >> you are right. we just noticed this for the first time, 15 minutes ago. we got a structural report that was for what a deck normally is. normally only 30 people. this was one freak incident, one year ago, where someone supposedly had a party, which was not approved -- there are rules about that. we notified all the tenants as soon as i heard about that. it should have been done through the police department. but you are right. this issue about the size of the deck is an incredibly important issue. the deck was a lot smaller than ever before, but it has been there for 35 years. this is a in a square building that is entitled to keep

historic features. we would want to be able to make the case that the state historic building code allows you to retain the features that were there originally, in the same size. i consider these to the scare tactics. we had a well known structural engineer already determined that as and walking back for people to stand on, it was perfectly safe. what we would like to do is try to work out -- >> perhaps the best course is to take a continuance. looking into this matter on the order of abatement in the first place and get that fire out with the department. i suggest that, because there is an issue here that the law clerk brought up. >> maybe this comment will help

bring us to a solution. if i were solomon and i were handling this case, i would say close the deck. do not allow anyone on that roof. reversed the abatement order. let it go through the planning process. this way, no one uses it while it is going to planning until it is resolved. i think that would be the best solution. is there any way to accomplish that? >> we had better check to see if the deck is part of the system. >> i would like to figure out if the deck is part of the mx -- annexing system. >> are there guard rails? are they high enough? can you explain that?

>> we do not have an issue, therefore we cannot categorically say. we have to assume it is on safe. >> could i have -- is this the -- is that a whirlpool on top? is that a pool? >> what that is, there is a storefront on about -- ground floor. the hood is to protect the skylight. >> how about this? take a 30 day continuance and have staff look at the issues of exporting. and then come back to the abatement heart. >> commissioners? >> what was that?

>> a 30 day continuance. going out to see if the deck is a required exit. with a chance to review the tape. >> i am ok with that, but the issue here, we did have an order of abatement that went out. the question is -- against that seems to indicate that that was their contention. there are some issues about it, but when you replace a deck that requires a permit. the issue at hand -- i am not asking a question. the issue at hand is really whether to be clearer on that procedure. in order to clarify whether we have terrorist action to do anything.

-- jurisdiction to do anything. at this point, i am leaning toward polling for staff recommendation, but we do need more information. the issue is challenging for a lot of people. if the deck is inconsistent, but not complying and falling apart, we want it to be safe, but for it to be rebuilt it has to go through the planning process, as it does not conform. it is not our job to make those rules. >> commissioner, as your motion is in the form of emotion from you -- >> first, i wanted to hear what the commissioners and my colleagues thought. >> added to your motion.

>> just to see, for a 30 day continuance. >> after that, we talked about taking a 30 day continuance on this matter to allow the staff to go out and review the deck. and at the same time, maybe get a transcript of the hearing for us. >> is an exit, we cannot close it. >> do we have these tapes? are there transcripts in existence? >> we only have the tapes. we do not have the transcript. sorry. >> the department has a tape and a transcript. >> i am not sure if they keep a transcript. >> we can make one. >> all right. >> a continuance of 30 days?

>> the motion on the floor is for a 30 day continuance for the inspection of the property. also to get a transcript of the tape. during which time, the roof that will not be used. -- roof deck will not be used. >> is there something about exiting, also? >> this is a roll call vote. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> the motion carries, unanimously. item d, public comment on items not on the agenda. but seeing no one?

-- >> si no one? >> item -- seeing no one? >> item e is adjournment. >> aye. >> abatement is adjourned. we will take a 10 minute recess. >> hello.

welcome to "culturewire." we are here today with bay area artist jody chanel, and we are here to see the plaza where your piece has just been installed. >> i have been doing large-scale paintings in the galleries and museums, and the idea that in the future, i could do something that would hang out a little bit longer than the duration of the installation the kind of appeal to me. i quickly found out about the san francisco arts commission school and realized there was a pre-qualified school you had to apply to, so i applied to the. >> how long did it take you to develop this work for the plaza? >> this was a fast track project. design development was about a month. >> let's look at the beautiful

mural. i have never seen a mural created on asphalt. >> the heat of the asphalt, a new layer of asphalt. then, these wire rope templates that were fabricated for the line work get laid down and literally stamped into the asphalt, and then everything was hand-painted. >> maybe you could talk about some of the symbolism, maybe starting in the middle and working out. >> [inaudible] the flower of industry. >> it is like a compass. there's an arrow pointing north. >> within the great bear consolation, there are two pointed stars here. they typically lead one to the northstar, otherwise known as polaris.

so i thought it has a layer of theme. >> let's talk about some of the other elements in the peace. we are walking along, and there is a weather vane. there's a sweet little bird hanging on the side. what kind of bird is that? >> [inaudible] the smallest of the gulf species, and it lives around the bay area. >> you want to talk about the types of flour patterns that you send? >> [inaudible] around 1926 or so by the dahlia society. >> what is this bird here? >> that is the california quail. >> coming up here, we had a little blustery theme. what is this area here? >> this is supposed to be the side view, the expense of the

golden gate bridge. >> there it is. >> there are really beautiful elements of architecture still around, i would say that it gives that feeling over to the work. >> what are your hopes for it? >> that in a way it just becomes part of the area. i think it is starting to have that feeling. people utilize it. they sit and, and have their lunch and play on -- they sit and, and have their lunch and play on that -- they sit and come and have their lunch and play on it. just for it to be part of the neighborhood. that is my hope. >> is such a beautiful addition to our public art in san francisco. thank you for joining us. it was nice to meet you. and thank you for telling us about your beautiful mural.

thanks for watching "culturewire."