not notifying the environmental review was going to be retroactively alter gives -- altered gives the impression of secret processes p.o. -- secret processes. not informing us is the game playing. it is an attempt to create a statute in this chamber. in this particular case, there was a mistake made. this is the subject site. the project started out as a minor alteration of 136 ord street, fall 2008. the project was reviewed. that is exhibit two and three. on december 31, 2008, the department found that the cottage was not an historical source, and therefore the alteration of requested could go forward. for reasons of his own, the developer abandoned the project to alter 136 ord street, and in july 2009 instead presented an entirely different project, a project to build a three-story building right in the middle of the green space that you see. this is the approximate location of the new project. this is where the error occurred. instead of revisiting early environmental determination, the department just carried the previous determination forward as though it were the same project. i

of alteration. depending on how much money was spent for the project, you might have to do a complete conversion. the threshold for determining that is approximately $130,000. it changes every january. if the dollar amount for the project goes over $130,000, you are expected to start at the front door and provide an accessible path of trouble all the way to the area of the remodeled, and to move on to areas like parking. there is part of the california building codes that states are you duvet. there are similar things in the americans with disabilities act. however, they are different. buildings built before 1992 are not grandfathered. but it is expected that if an alteration takes place in a building built before 1992 that not only the area of remodel be accessible, but also you have to start looking at the path of trouble. if those items leading to the area of remodeling are not readily achievable to be made a -- to be made accessible, there is a possibility you do not have to do them. all of this

we were ok with that because it did not alter the properties on the street. it was an interior alteration to accommodate the trash. >> we have dealt with the suspended ceiling. mr. bley talks about two offices having been combined. >> maybe the appellant can correct me. >> mr. bley talked about the fact that it was not between do and reduce. that has all been corrected, that my knowledge. the second notice, having to do with lifting the suspension. that language has been corrected, right? >> there was a language that was corrected in the amended letter. that was plans that were in the eighth in -- the wings. we wanted to have something good come from this. the permits and the suspension, which could have released that without any permit and not having any additional work to the property. we pointed them to correct some of these issues. that is why we had required that permit. we are open to any direction that the board has or that the appellant could provide as to how to improve that permit. these are all good things and positive things that are happening to

in 2009, when the project sponsor submitted a new application, he did change his project from altering the existing cottage at the rear to building a brand new building at the front of the property, leading region will leave the -- leaving the cottage intact. the planning department had already determined there was no historic resource on the property. there is no need to go further into any further historic resource evaluation on the property. i understand the appelant takes issue with the planning department adding a notation in the file. from what i am hearing today, the appellant believes this is in violation of the law. we do have the city attorney here, but it is the department's opinion that it is permissible, despite the fact that the projected change from alteration to new construction, as long as the underlying determination remains unchanged. the department issued -- did not issue a new examination, despite what the appellant is saying. it is for the conclusion that 146 ord street is not an historic resources or in an historic district. according to historic maps in the depa

, -- and major alteration. specifically, the standards state that work should not create a false sense of history. work should not add elements of another style, and it must be differentiated. we think these of the elements of the standards that are the most prescriptive and are very clear. the hpc determined to -- determined that 280 divisadero did not meet that standard. there is nothing that indicates that the building possesses the high architectural style that is stated. the owner even says there is no more to gaudy and rehabilitation, -- to guide rehabilitation, and that was a problem for the department and for the hpc. adding architectural elements where there is no documentation of these elements never existed. it creates a false sense of history. it adds elements of another style, and it clearly does not differentiate itself. the appellate has also submitted -- the appellant has also submitted examples. however, the examples missed -- miss. therefore, the standards say they cannot be added to the build

at that time, it was to alter the existing cottage located at the rear of the property. here is the aerial photo of the property. ord street is here. the cottage sits to the rear of the property. due to the age of the building being more than 50 years of age, the department of preservation staff conducted an historic analysis based on research and historic records and concluded the cottage was not an historic resources, nor was the subject property located in a potential historic district. on september 31, 2008, the department issued and the categorical -- categorical exemption. in 2009, when the project sponsor submitted a new application, he did change his project from altering the existing cottage at the rear to building a brand new building at the front of the property, leading region will leave the -- leaving the cottage intact. the planning department had already determined there was no historic resource on the property. there is no need to go further into any further historic resource evaluation on the property. i understand the appelant takes issue with the plann

we don't dispute the ability to alter the mistake. they should have told us.t hasn't been mentioned. having the city attorney stand up and say that they could change it, we agree with that. the point is, is that if you'd look at exhibit 2 and exhibit 3, the analysis doesn't match because the analysis was never done. and the insulting comments that this is somehow frivolous and an abuse of the process, what a bunch of bull. you know what? i didn't represent these parties at planning, but they came to me and shea showed me an environmental review that had wrong project description, it even had the wrong address. for god's sakes, when will an appeal have merit if every single aspect of the categorical exemption is incorrect and there's absolutely nothing in the record to show that the proper analysis was done. there's still is nothing in the record. mr. gladstone stood up here and completely misrepresented. the environmental analysis taken to the planning commission called this an alteration of an existing structure, period. i printed it verbatim in my brief. thi

the existing buildings had to be altered. a rear addition had to be removed or this new lot line cannot be created. they have submitted conclusive photographic evidence showing that the existing golding was altered after it was purchased by the developer. the project no longer qualifies for this particular exemption. the builder said that they did not alter this building. the rear addition had to be removed, which was the only way this project could beat -- could go forward. by unknown parties for unknown reasons. you have this photographic evidence that shows that the rear addition was put into place when the property changed hands. i have put forward some more evidence on cumulative impacts. ceqa forbids the use of categorical exemptions. the department says that the future projects coming to the area are too speculative or unknown. these are known to the neighbors and to the neighborhood supervisors. if you look at the materials i handed to you, there is a church ot, it is actually two lots, the vacant lot across the stree

the building was altered no later than one year before the environmental exemption application. the department appropriately cannot analyze the removal as part of the project. >> just to wrap up here. with all due respect to mr. volumes and the speakers that we heard today, the department does not find that the appellant has demonstrated that the category was approved in error. the soil report medications -- recommendations are not medications. the description is accurate. on the varmint to review including preparation including one of the speakers today would not change the facts of this case or provide any other affirmation for assessing impacts based on landslides or soil condition. it is the city's responsibility to determine whether there would be a significant impact. for reasons we stated in our presentation, we find that the -- this complies with ceqa and we recommend that the board uphold be catex and deny the appeal. >> if we could now hear from the real party in interest. over here, by the way. >> good afternoon, president and board members. this is the fourth appeal

various words mean, alteration, revision, structural repair. if you are doing none of these things, changing carpets or changing your displays, the state law does not come into play. the building department does not enforce the americans with disabilities act directly. our building code has provisions similar to but not identical to the ada. is that generally right? paul, you see that stuff a right. >> yeah, most cities don't enforce adac >> we don't enforce the americans with disabilities act but they include standards we want to let you know about because today's program is to try to encourage small businesses and other commercial owners to bring their buildings more closely, more reasonably, into what is compliance with the standards. it's sort of like structural repair. something is either not earthquake proof or earthquake proof. there's a large gray area with seismic safety. business owners are still obligated to make efforts to achieve access compliance under the ada and we'll talk about how some of those things get triggered. there's th

with an altered front facades and the inability to meet any of the criteria of the california register, 134 ord street is not an historic resources. there is no information to indicate it has any assisted asian -- has any association with an event. there's nothing to suggest it has had any importance to our local, regional, or national past. it does not have the characteristics of a type, period, or kind of construction or represents the work of a master. and there is nothing at 134 ord street that possesses archaeological significance. again, the building must be one of these four criteria to be protected under the law. staff made a review and determined that the address is not meet this criteria, and therefore it is not an historical resources. ironman -- i understand that they believe the front garden of the subject property, as well as the other neighboring buildings at the front and back, are an unusual circumstance. it may be the case that's 134 ord street is an older structure, but these two characteristics are simply not enough to call the subject building and historic resource

there was no rejection of any alter e.i.r. they agreed that it was complete. they weres of the options that were provided or the alternatives. it is just an exercise. it is meant to explore various options. that doesn't mean those are all the options that could be explored. there are many options that could be floated for a project here and the department and the h.p.c. look forward to seeing some of those options if our disapproval is upheld. and finally, in closing, just to clarify what the department is this is what would be an approveable project at the site. it depends again how it is executed. if the alteration should be simple and designed to keeping the character with a simple utilitarian qualities of the building and the evidence that we see at the -- at the site, and that any materials that are beyond repair should be replaced in kind and that the building should be brought up to code and again, just to reiterate, there has never been an issue regarding the conversion over the building into a residential unit and we certainly would support that as we

you have changed -- the genes can be altered, just like we give drugs for depression, the drugs go in there and eventually alter the genetic programming through the messages that are sent out through the genes. >> what drugs do you give out for depression? >> various ones. one is levaxer and other drugs? >> prozac? >> prozac, paxil, zoloft, the whole raft of them, and there are rother antidepressants. >> you sound like you know your drugs. >> well, i'm a psych -- psychopharmacology is one of my big interests? >> yes. >> it can change somebody for the better. you think someone will be suicidality and with the use of these medications they want to live again. it's very gratifying. it used to be that psychotherapy was all talk. talk, talk, talk, talk. then it moved into chemicals. >> yes. >> such as you have listed. >> yes. >> it was mostly chemicals. i can remember interviewing a woman by the name of leah who started leer's magazine and she said when she took lithium it really made the difference and all of that tal 1-866-331-talk 1-866-331-talk talk didn't do that much for her but that

. >> i would like to make minor cosmetic alterations. they have offered a very minor change that does not alter any of the supporting equipment boxes at st. levels and is not have an impact on air grievances. we found it hard to take the side modifications too seriously because they don't seem to take the planning conditions seriously.they had seven piecesh identical requirements reviewed by the planning department. in an attempt to understand what the design might look like, i have visited the antenna. this was the example that was referenced in the written response. i also visited four other locations in the richmond district that had a similar condition. after five visits, i saw five antennas that did not comply with the condition of approval. they all had a pipe amount antenna. please note that they would have to these conditions before they started construction. it would appear that this is not in compliance with conditions of approval. the example case that they reference in the appeals. i urge the city of san francisco to carefull

. >> and for years, researchers have altered mice to give them alzheimer's.mbalance into the brain. and and there is a new drug they believe could control the disease. >> we're still into early stage was the money. it will be several more months before we know how long these mice will do better and how much better they'll do. >> the researcher says the new drug therapy treatment traces fwook a dits coverry five years ago. that is when the team altered a protein associated with the protein of the plaque. but the mice had amaloid in their brains but surpris surprise -- surprisingly none of their memory loss. researchers believe there is a normal function in the brain and may suspect the protein they'd altered might have a role in regulating formation. >> that alzheimer's disease represents an imbalance between normal processes of memory form maigs and memory reorganization between normal memory and normal forgetting. >> they began testing compounds that could suppress or boost pep tides within the protein. and identified several candidates. >> we have developed

there was a number of other things that allowed some level of alterations. there were gaps in the permit history with respect to the scope of where this building is now. at the same time, there was before us two permits. some of the issues related to the gaps were dealt with in those permits. some were not. there were also a significant number of novs. we tried to get to a correlation between the novs and the various allegations, and those issues which this board would have been sympathetic to, in terms of what maintenance. there were a number of things discussed. then the permit got withdrawn. i have come back with a number of things. i am leaning toward allowing the maintenance permits to go forward because there is such a backlog of other novs that deal with the other issues. i doubt that the resolution of these maintenance novs is going to resolve the cloud on the property title, because there are other novs that are there. i think whatever happens in terms of the final resolution of this, i probably will not be on this board. vice president garcia: i gu

. >> reporter: it alters it? >> alters it. >> reporter: who you were? >> it makes you bitter. it makes you cynical. it makes you filled with hatred. >> reporter: michael had never been in tuble before, but served prison time after his wife convinced him to sell his personal unregistered guns to someone who turned out to be a government informer. >> you get so used to having a rifle, and i used to get these fears like i had forgotten ply rifle somewhere, and to even imagine life without a rifle is scary. >> reporter: monica says michael's attachment to guns is not uncommon. >> that's what they were trained to do and what eyleaed, especially in combat, is that the world is not a safe place, and they are taught to protect themselves and others and think everyone else is crazy for not having a weapon with them at all times. >> reporter: the rate of suicide among vets of the current wars has also been on the rise. the federal study in 2005 found that veterans were twice as likely to commit suicide as those who hadn't served in the military. and ptsd is considered a significant reas

extension of the stucco for this particular balcony delineation would require 311 note because we are altering the building? >> at the very least. i believe it would require a rear yard variance as well. commissioner moore: thank you. secretary avery: commissioners, the motion is to take the december krigsary review and approve the project and requiring some bird-safe material for the railing. on that motion. [roll call taken] >> that motion passed 5-2 with commissioners moore and miguel voting against. thank you, commissioners. you are now on item 13a andb case 2009.# 173 dv and 353 san jose avenue. >> good afternoon, commissioners. diego sanchez for the proposal at 353 san jose avenue. the case was brought before you on december 16, 2010 and planning commission did not take action on the discretionary review to give the project sponsor the opportunity to alter the design in accordance with the following that could the design be more responsive to the surrounding context with respect to scale and two, eliminate inefficiencies and three, units be redesigned to meet requirementses for those wit

at the end of 5 minutes, we were trying to describe the alterations with would find satisfactory. i want to point out on the overhead that at the rear is a slight reduction in the size of the family room in the back to make it more consistent with the average of the rares of the two and adjacent buildings. it would still allow a large family room to be made even larger if the rooms behind it were adjusted somewhat. i really wanted to talk about the variance and the request to raise the house 18 inches. the request came to raise the back of the house 18 inches to make the deck level with the kitchen. we certainly appreciate the need for that. the handicap makes that an important issue. but they want to raise the entire house 18 inches. we do not think the grounds for a variance have been met. variance can only be granted if there are exceptional circumstances that create an undue hardship. perhaps most importantly, it is not necessary to preserve a substantial property. the sponsors say it is necessary to make the garage accessible because they would prefer a less of a slope on the

the alteration of 136 ord will not materially impair the identified historic significance of 140 ord. therefore there is no potential adverse change. in fact, the proposed project repeats a pattern of development long since evident at 138 to 140 ord, which is that of an original small cottage at the rear with a subsequent edition of a primary residence to the front. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, speakers. my name is richard carrington. i live at 154 ord, and i've lived there for about 20 years. and i'm in favor of this project because it will greatly enhance the block that i live on. as you walk up the street, you don't see what i've heard described, which almost sounds like you're describing the gardens of versailles. what next to me is bill's house, which does have a beautiful garden and a big fence in front. next to that is the house you've heard is historic, and it's a beautiful house. i think it's the best on the block. and next to that, of course, is the lot we're talking about, which has -- i've always hate. it drags weight to the back w

it's a challenge that has the potential to fundamentally alter the well-being of people in boast countries. the common challenge is to protect and conserve the environment shared by the united states and mexico in the face of the hot issues of climate change which are drought, water scarsty, or bonnization, deforest station, and climate change. we have to protect the well-being of people in both countries. this is why we wrote the book, to address these issues and provide people in both countries with a blueprint for better collaborative efforts to manage our shared environments. now, before i go on and tell you about how we came up with a title, i'd like to note that when i say "we," i obviously mean the other editors, arizona university press, and to all the authors who contributed chapters to this book. the authors came from the united states, mexico, universities, government agencies, and nonprofit groups. now on to the title. it is conservation of shared environments: learning from the united states of mexico. we took a lot of time to develop the title and careful thinking to make sur

of governance and when i say alteration i don't being only military everything why do the rest and in a way they're doing it now it may take a century. they cannot see practical. steps which can bring growth and strong. nato could save a lot of money and life of their soldiers if they. had. created strong army and police and other security forces who could better handle this war in their own conference they're not doing care we have ten years back. but we don't have stronger gone out of me and police yeah the greater number now are about quality of the army and police is very poor. second economy. if you have. a younger generation down there was a stable source of income it's hard to believe that they will not join any fighting side nor the just. so the economy is very important to. us so you judge how long i don't know how long it will take a long queue for. approach is not correct wolf russian president all representative to afghanistan thank you very much for this interview. my pleasure exists. closer is that so much a given it is a huge decision the power supply side of the market

we have some altering and abolishing to do. [applause] the founders got it right. it is within the power of the people of the united states of america to alter stuff we do not like. we do not like radical socialism that is being shoved down our throats. so we have an opportunity -- and we will, to change it because as their results of this attack on the pursuit of happiness and the american dream, we have become a nation of crises. [laughter] we have a moral crisis. we have a national security crisis. does anybody in here and know what our mission is in libya? i do not. the american people do not know. we have an economic crisis. we have an entitlement spending crisis. i know you have heard a lot in the media about the spending crisis, but it is bigger than that. they're trying to turn around the edges, but they need to address entitlements as well as we are really going to do something about this problem. [applause] we have an energy crisis. the thing about it is we have the resources to become energy independent. we have the resources. it puzzles me why our presi

of government then and when i say alteration i don't mean only new authority. or is there nothing in the way they're doing it with me take a century. old. steps which can bring. and strong. made there could see for a lot of money and life for a soldier they. had. strong. police all the security forces who could better handle this war in their own. they're not doing care we have ten back. but we don't have strong out of me and police yeah they're great the number but quality of the police is very poor. economy. if you. for younger generation there was a stable source of income. it's hard to believe that they will not join in any fighting side to ignore the just libel probably. so economy is very important to. us so you judge how long i don't know how long it will take a long if. approach is not correct i mean a couple of freshman presidents representative to afghanistan thank you very much for this interview. my pleasure. today. these are the images. from the streets of canada. into the country. the invasion. of. traditional language is really. the first beat th

he changed the scope of work from altering an existing cottage to constructing a new development. they already made conclusions that there were no resources or the conduct an evaluation. -- the need to conduct an evaluation. it must be significant under the california register. they are willing to meet any of the criteria set forth, and they determined that it was not a historic resources and there had been no significant impact to offsites resources. the appellant claimed it would have a negative and the cumulative impact for resources. there was no substantial or credible evidence to support this conclusion that was listed in a potential historic district. with those points, there were many in opposition as well as in support of the project. the review process could have been better, but the board believe that the planning performed adequate analysis of the neighborhood. the board upheld the project 11 to zero. i wanted to share mayor ellee introduced several ordinances, including legislation amendments to the planning code. these items are planned to be before this commission i

the president health care reform package alter the relationship has had with the states by requiring the states drastically their medicaid population, governors are also deeply concerned about the new unfunded mandates in the loss and their impact on current state budgets. the cbo estimates these mandates and expansion will cost states at least $60 billion, but the states themselves estimate the cost will be nearly twice as much. today i joined members of the senate finance committee to release the first comprehensive analysis of what the states themselves expect to spend as a result of the health care law and the results are sobering. even using conservative estimates states while phase $118 billion in 2023 as a result of the loss band-aid. today's governors cannot afford to continue offering the same benefit the same way other medicaid populations. however the health care law put us between a rock and a hard place. economic eligibility changes in their options and programs because the health care law freezes or current programs in place for years. there'll be an opportunity to hear

the two alterations that staff read into the record as well as the first suggestions that were offered and the one suggested by commissioner miguel to change parcells -- parcels. the first suggestion will supersede that? with that motion -- >> what about the case report? >> i mentioned those. >> i am sorry. >> with those -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president olague: aye. >> at the motion passes unanimously. >> is there any general public comment on items not on today's calendar? seeing none -- i was not sure if you were standing up or not. >> commissioners -- >> your name? >> gerardo. i just want to encourage you to have a hearing about water supply. we have these show me the water laws that will be kicking in in a few years. according to our calculations, water supply is sufficient to cover the unit's you referred to before that were in the pipeline. beyond that, no. the assistant general manager who is writing the mandated update of the urban water management plan stated on tuesday, i will read you the quote again. they have a pro