it is not part of the appellants appeal. this is not a discretionary review hearing, so the question is whether those issues that are going to be adjudicated in some civil venue, not here. i think a permit in terms of what it normally contributes zero to what has been approved is still violenalid. >> i understand why an appellant would consider the percentages submitted as white suspect, but who -- submitted was suspect your your -- as suspect. however, despite the information about the calculation, that was done by planning. i feel more persuaded of everything done by planning is acceptable. >> i want to take a different tactic and follow up on the comments of the property may be on sound. -- unsound. there's another process for review, and i do not know if there is a process to take it to a further staff review, but i i think with the safety concerns raised by the appellant, it should be addressed under that mechanism is possible to regard -- if possible. >> if it turns out to be on sound -- unsound, but does not serve the

and we will start with the appellant. >> i am here for the appellant. we understand that it is not the role of the board to be the arbiters of good neighbor behavior. we're not here to impose this person on you tonight. the building code does exist to establish requirements necessary to protect general welfare of the general public and it is this role that we ask you to consider this evening. what we have here is a property owner that consistently performs work without acquiring permits as required by law. she has admitted to this behavior and having been cited as such, the conduct unfortunately has persisted. sometimes she is caught red handed. sometimes she is caught after the fact were able to persuade an inspector that she has now done what she has done to her property. the appellant here has personally witnessed a substantial amount of work being done by unlicensed contractors in and out of this building. and at the time the complaint is made, it seems the word is taken in she says no work, therefore nothing is done. when this property was marked f

also, the project sponsor paid $7.5000 to the appellant. if i could address the water intrusion issue -- the project sponsor paid $7,500 to the appellant. they came on to the appellant's building and said of the new wall over it. -- set up the new wall over it. it is a construction defects. -- defect. so at this stage the roof collapsed, the water membrane came off between the two buildings, and the water got between the buildings, and that is when the problem showed up. it would have showed up every way -- showed up anyway because the membrane -- both parties agree to water-proofed between the two buildings when the building at 1138 page street is complete. that will resolve that issue. i would say this. as far as the roof collapsing, it is an insurance issue. they are working to resolve this, and that will get solved as it goes along, so i think the key here is that all of the proper permits are in place tonight, and i would ask you to uphold the permits of the construction could be complete, and agree to water-proofed between the buildin

. >> i am the appellant. the question is, if those windows were replaced at all, and i say they were not, we did not do the work. did anybody ever before do the work? i don't know how the inspector arrived at what he picked out when he looked at the pictures that they were replaced. therefore, and the amount of work stated on the permits this kind of arbitrary, $1,000. for what, to fix the stucco? ? and i have talked to the supervisor of the inspector, and he did not say anything that could be down further. that was in 2007. this is for years, five years later. commissioner fung: mr. von ucerkman, can you explain why you did not respond to the notice of violation for several years? >> yes, i went into the office and spoke to the supervisor of the inspector. commissioner fung: imn 2007. >> in 2007. commissioner fung: and? >> and i thought the matter was cleared up at that time. vice president garcia: if you thought it was cleared up, what caused you to go and get the permit to legalize it. >> i told him we did

i think you said that the appellant's attorney was in fault in the revised proposal but that the appellants themselves or not? >> that is correct. president goh: okay, thank you. >> we will hear from the appellants now. >> my name is richard zillman, the applicant. we are appealing the decision by the starke preservation commission. they took a very technical view of our plans. if we accept that the hpc is correct in both instances, which a doorway with appeals. the board of appeals job is to consider all goals, encouraging property owners to maintain their properties, and recognizing community support. the project should be evaluated not as to the effect on the carriage house but on the effect of the overall site itself, since the sot must be removed for repair work. it is considered an unavoidable, defacto demolition. we have decades of experience renovating san francisco victorian apartments. in showing our places, if we have heard it once, we have heard it a thousand times, light is very important to me and i love the detailing. we decided the facade contains historic elements arranged

it has to do with, appellants council -- the appellant's counsel has received an n.o.v. your client will not grant access? what is the reason? >> the n.o.v. that was issued to the appellant was due to our original construction -- due to a regional construction defects -- due to our original -- due to original construction defects. i had a conversation. the wall is in place. you do not have to destroy the wall. and then after they fix or whatever they do -- and my client does not have a problem in terms of cooperating with them as long as there is a very strict time limit where they have to perform the work so they cannot stretch it out, one year, two years, when my client is not even halfway finished. and that would allow them access to their exterior wall, which is behind our clients and exterior wall -- are climate -- our client's exterior wall. i will go to the structural defect, construction defects. what well have been -- what happened, and i was there, when they built their building, everything that was below the roofline of my client's building have building paper

vice president garcia: was the appellant's time up? if you have anything to add, please go ahead. >> that is all. i want to comply, but i cannot afford. i am unemployed and i have a daughter who is a senior. i cannot afford it right now. or if i could have -- well, i cannot. so to reduce from nine times to two times, that would be great. i understand the violation. i just want to -- commissioner fung: thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy? >> i suppose the first question i was going to ask, is it ok to appeal the probably on the filed a permit? i was thought any should permit that we appeal to pummel the on. but we don't have a permit yet. we have an application that has gone through. i think they may have found out what the penalty is going to be, but the permit has not been issued. >> we have always allowed people on building permits to appeal prior to issuance for electrical and plumbing. for safety issues, you have to pay the penalty first, but historically, we have always allowed it pre-issuance. commissioner fung: i think before you

if i could call the appellant appear, that might be more helpful. the first page of n. >> describe what these pictures represent and why they were included. >> the photo here is where it has been started. it was prior to a permit being issued by the department building. -- department of building inspection. i went down and filed a complaint for work proceeding that had not been permitted. they had taken a lot of wood into the backyard. i thought it was going to be more than what the permit had been issued for, the 50% of stairs to be repaired. they are rotted all the way through. in the next picture here is looking down on these two. from my roof, with a potted plants were put on my roof by the neighbors next door. >> did you askt hem to -- ask them to remove them? >> they have been removed. the stoop is an issue. it allows egress. the photos here from six years ago. they show, let me see. they show this to our event from in front of the window that was installed. that is the window that was replaced. i believe you can see a difference in color were

the appellant may reapply for this permit. commissioner peterson: provided section 311 notices obtained. -- notice is obtained. and there is nothing i can do about fees? are there nov penalties paid? >> that is different. >> what is the one-year thing you are talking about? vice president garcia: under normal circumstances if we uphold the department, you are barred for one year for replying for the same project. we are waiting that ban on you. >> on that motion from commissioner peterson -- commissioner fung: aye. >> the president is absent. vice president garcia: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the boat is -- vote is 4-0. >> will move on to our last item, item nine, brett poffenbarger versus the zoning administrator, appealing a letter of determination dated march 30, 2011, regarding whether a news their penthouse and roof deck may be constructed and the permit height of a glass wind screen wall and skylights at the subject property. we'll start with the appellant or his agent. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. i would

it may not afford the development potential the appellant would like. we have not heard a solid argument as to how this could be built today. we have heard how other decks were built previously and other stair penthouses were constructed previously. in fairness, there is ambiguity in the permit record. certainly, some permits issued by the city are in question. some actions taken by the various owners of the building over time to not seem to be evidenced by the permits. there is an ambiguity. the fact that something may exist and an adjacent property owner may enjoy it a particular amenity under the planning code is not reason to grant that same amenity, particularly in a case where it is clearly prohibited under the planning code. that is all i have to present to you. i am happy to answer your questions. commissioner hwang: how old is the building and how did it get to 73 feet high? >> i believe the appellant indicated it was built in 1920, before height limits existed in san francisco. interestingly, the property report i have shows built in 1996. i s

we will start with the appellant. or his agent. have seven minutes. >> thank you, i am here to represent the appellant. 1354 york street. we have a notice of violation issued in 2007, april 5, for two windows replaced at the ground level at the front of the building. some stucco work on the front exterior was also in disrepair. a building permit was filed on may 12 of this year. the permit application number 2011-925, and has been signed off on june 14 of this year. in order to get this permit, we had to pay $1,800 penalty. for the notice of violation indicated on the panel day that there was $1,000 of work. -- on the penalty that there was $1,000 of work. this is a commercial building. i talk to the owner who purchased the property in 1979. he did not install these windows. these were installed prior to its purchase of the property. there was no report, no disclosure that anything had been done without a permit when he purchased the property. the other item that you should know is that he is an elderly, retired at, on a fixed inco

an appellate gumming.you do the same job, ask the questions, and you really lose sense that the cameras are there, but i know i'm speaking for myself only and not my colleagues. i know my colleagues don't all share this point of view. i think it's a very interesting argument for our panel discussion that we're now living in an age where regrettably the decline of the print media is astonishing. in 2009 alope, 100 newspapers closed and 10,000 newspaper jobs were lost so there is this large vacuum or deficit, whatever word you. to use -- whatever word you want to use, where people traditionally brought the information to the public are not available to do so anymore so does broadcast then step in and expand? if so, under what constraints, and if not, what else do we have to bring the message to the people? i think it will be a good subject for our discussion. lastly, i'd like to touch very briefly on unpublished opinions. it's kind of -- as we say in the washington area, an inside the beltway proposition. yo

with regard to the appellate broadcasting, my experience is it did not make any difference as an appellate judge. you do the same job and ask the questions and do you lose the sense that the cameras are there. i am speaking for myself and not for my colleagues. they do not all share this point of view. i think it is an interesting argument for our panel discussion that we are living in an age where regrettably, the decline of the print media is astonishing. in 2009 alone, 100 newspapers closed and 10,000 newspaper jobs were lost. there is this large vacuum more deficit where the people who traditionally have brought a lot of this information before the public are not available to do so any more. this broadcast step in and expand? if so, under what constraints? if not, what else do we have to bring the message to the people? it will be a good subject for discussion. i would like to touch briefly on unpublished opinions. it is an inside the beltway proposition. maybe more interesting to judges and regular practitioners in the appellate courts but it is of interest to trial judges and two tri

, that might be something they choose to do for whatever reason, but in terms of satisfying the appellants as to whether this building will continue to be safe, i think it is a reasonable to rely upon this, and because there will be great liabilities for whoever got hurt, so i think they will now give this a an extra level of scrutiny because of past events, and they are very aware there is of greater concern about safety, so unless there are other comments, i would move to uphold his permit. >> in the papers, there is a lot about construction. we did not hear about tonight. >> there is a certain amount of discussion, and if you have some feelings about that, please. >> may be adopt the resolution for the working hours, which they think was 8 until 5:00 monday through friday and 9:00 until 4:00 on saturday. >> might i suggest something all little different. at a minimum, they need to come to an agreement with respect to access to the one wall and to repair that wall, and i am not set for the final conditions. yo>> about would entail keeping the promise suspended and not allow any work, --

the other permit, i would like to talk about that as well, but the appellate has not shown up for it. >> you can provide us with the appropriate context. go ahead. >> i would like to speak about the permit. it seems like it is remodeling a bathroom for plumbing. it goes on to say that it will comply with a a different complaints with notices of violation. when i looked at this permit, i would have problems with the way the permit was issued because it was not specific for all the work that would be required for the notices of violation. the rear stairs need to be replaced. there is another that is ready for pickup for that. one of these complaints references the remodel. it would not allow you to remodel four units. i am not sure it got issued by the department, there have been inspections on that one. i believe it was for 340. that is the downstairs unit that we spoke of an earlier. there are problems with the permit. the date is may 4. >> i am assuming that based on the permit number for 340, it is may 12. >> that is correct. >> i am also assuming that the permit was picked up becau

the appellate court is just another type of jury, right? the supreme court is a very different kind of jury because the supreme court, and having only had one case before them, i learned very quickly that president -- precedent is not as important as the justices, who will decide what the law is. they will change what the lot is if they get a majority of their sisters and brothers to go along with it. to have a jury made up of diverse cultural views and understanding only makes us a stronger society. so i think -- i personally think it is a good thing. i do not think you ever separate your life from what you do. your personal experiences -- some of the personal experiences i talked about tonight shaped my life, and i think they are important parts of the decision- making process in may, that they did not overwhelm -- but they do not overwhelm the legal obligations i have in the case. >> i am going to ask a different kind of question, which is -- do you see the difference between the idea of a constitutional democracy, which is a term you ha

cozy house that is right next door. -- the appellant's house that is right next door. if you put a large plant there, it is not that big of a steoop o begin with and you are limiting the amount of space available. commissioner hwang: i would say that a lot of the comments by vice-president garcia would be the same as mine. i think what is very difficult is how we live. i live in vernal heights. i try very hard to avert my eyes when i see my neighbors eating their breakfast and i try not to look at them. not because all we are unfriendly, but just affording privacy and consideration that we would like for ourselves. that is something that i think everyone should think about. i agree that it has also been said. neighbors have gotten into it over un-permitted work. it is hard to dial back what might be a hostile relationship and work together as neighbors. i can understand the appellant's perspective once the on permitted work -- un-permitted work, they're not in position to see it or see as a fair response has been incredibly frustrating. i understand that is what brough

this shows all the complaints from the appellant from 2005. they have all been investigated or are not active anymore. this is the diagram showing when those -- windows. it is included in the brief. >> i was mostly interested in the color photograph, thank you. commissioner garcia: this is a permit for the stairs in the backyard and to comply with the nov. what is the scope of the nov under this permit? i will wait to ask mr. the feedback -- duffy that. >> thank you. >> it is really just a typical permit that we see. the drawings to less than 50% and we go out and inspected. it's this year to comply with the notice of violation. and there is a complaint that got investigated. the cases of them. there was an issue ready on the same day as the complaint, filed. what happened was, the permit for the property line whistling in expired system. -- that was showing an inspired as the = --r expired system. it had been completed. we corrected that. the property line was signed off in 2007 but not reflected in out system. for some reason, one of the ins

both trial and appellate levels work well. and if they are shown to people, by and large people will see that they work well. the litigants who appear in front of these judges and juries and all of the support personnel who work in these courts get a fair shake. i think that is a real virtue. it is true that federal courts today are public court rooms in the sense that the benches in the back of the court are available to whoever might show up on any given day. but in the sense of modern american life, that is not a quorum. a handful of people who have the time, the inclination, the ability to show up on a given day is tiny. and most americans get their news from electronic sources, whether it is television, radio, or the web. to say that a courtroom is public, when it is only available to be seen by the people who show up on a given day is simply not realistic as a way of making the courts available. it is true that the fourth circuit, and certainly the united states supreme court, have made tremendous progress in a wonderful

i want to speak to one item brought up by the appellant law partners. specifically the claims of the national environmental protection act review was required for this project due to the presence of federal funds in the project. i wanted to clarify that, indeed, this project was funded only with local funds. the decision to do so was made because of the deadlines that we were facing to acquire the project under the purchase and sale agreement for the property. originally, we were intending to use federal funds, but when it became clear that the review would not be complete in time, we withdrew those federal funds and used only local funds. you will see reference in some of your materials to the analysis, but i wanted to clarify that that analysis was never submitted ketubah hud for approval. it was withdrawn. thank you. president olague: thank you. was there additional public comment? >> my name is patricia. it was mentioned -- and nothing was mentioned concerning ada. they have been required to have four ada rooms. unfortunately, the drawings showed th

i applaud the appellant. i did drive by the primary building. the fanciful designs looks lovely although i am not a design expert. but i do have some concerns when we are working with buildings of landmark status, all of us here in the city need to work with the department index of some of the guidelines. i am disappointed that all of us that the compromise plan by the department wasn't acceptable because the think we would all be benefited by the improvement of the property. i don't think my vote matters, but i think you did a lovely job. we're dealing with buildings of landmark status, this is where we need to work with the city experts. yet done a lovely job with the main building and i applaud your investments. >> is there a motion? >> i moved to uphold the department for the reasons stated. >> told the historic preservation commission, and disapproval set forth in motion no. 78. >> we have a motion from commissioner hwang to uphold the denial set forth in the hpc motion. on that motion. [roll call vote] commissioner fung: no. commissioner g

my mother hired an appellate attorney. he was telling me all the time that i was in cousin, "you have to be patient, be patient, be patient." i got out and found out that he never filed the appeal. i lost it. i took a wooden cross out of railroad ties and a ticket to the court house and i yield myself to the cross. i mother told me when i was a child, when you have a problem, take your problems to the lord. they were upset. tavis: we minute. to get the attention of the criminal courts system that was not giving you the respect that you deserve, you went to the courthouse and nail yourself to a cross to get the kind of the media attention needed to get. >> in my navy uniform. tavis: what happens when you did that? >> i nailed my foot and the officer grabbed it and said, "your 15 minutes of fame has come to an end." they took me to a hospital and then they took me back to the courthouse. the judge said, "disturbing the peace. $100. here you go." i am supposed to leave. i am leading. next thing you know, "we in this room." i

the appellant did not show. we heard from mr. duffy that the department is to do something with the permit and can provoke it. i am satisfied with that. >> if you choose to overturn the department, the pilot would have -- >> my concern about this is that this would be the one-year statute that they cannot be applied. it seems cleaner since we have heard from mr. duffy then they need to do something with the apartment. i don't know if that is agreeable to the other commissioners? >> i will make a motion. >> might give the permit holder an opportunity to speak. >> certainly. >> my comment is that it is not our intention to do any more work than is permitted. there is a separate permit under this application for the heaters in unit 358. there is at least one other permit that has been pulled under this application. we have been working within the rules, even though the application itself might be broad. i'm committed to make sure the paperwork is right. it is our belief that the work itself has been done under the permit has been pe

. >> the appellate requested clarification on when some document stamped approved -- can you help us with that? i do not know what document she is referring to. >> thougon the front pages of te plan, the showed, there was some drawings for that meeting and that showed the elevator and the deck. these are the existing and proposed, even though it is on there, we would not recognize that as an approval. it does not have any structural details. because it has an approved stamp on their, i certainly -- if i were called to that job and someone said it is on this, i would not recognize that. >> what did they stamp indicate? what is the point of the stamp? >> that is a good question. there is not enough to build it. when you go further into the plan -- >> commissioner peterson: what is on the plan? >> on the plan -- if you want to get into legal things, that is part of the legal question. you would be allowed to do that. >> vice president garcia: would- be -- the building would be approved by the processes on the sheet. >> that is a good question. >> commissioner peterson: it is a source of

i think appellants should be very grateful they are granting that access, and we can always sit back and pray it goes about way. >> of the only condition imposed as the hours of construction -- so the only condition imposed is the hours of construction. you can call role. >> are received the motion to uphold the permit on condition that construction be limited monday through friday 7 assaad 30 until 5:30 and on saturday from 8 hickock 30 until -- 8:30 until 4:30. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. the permit is of held with those conditions -- is >> we are resuming the june 29, 2011 meeting, and we are going to call item 8, witchehich is fr the planning department's disapproval, appealing to a denial on march 25, 2000 a 11th of a permit to alter of building, remove the illegal units her parents, illegalize rooms and a ballthroom on ground floor, interior remodel and horizontal addition. >> my wife and i purchased a property in 2009, thinking it was a single-family home but we could renovate and live in the entire the building, and over the last year and nine months, we learned about th

in general, this appellate process is completely different, it seems, richard, than the appellate processn the states. there, there's a trial all over again, the reintroduction of evidence all over again. it's not like a panel of judges like here in the states. >> i've never seen anything like this, fred. it's amazing. they have a trial. they introduce evidence and a ruling is made. and now they get to have a second trial to further attack the evidence. i don't know. i disagree with aye ri. i think she's going to do a substantial amount of prison time on this case. there was evidence that convicted her. >> let's move on to the drew peterson case, former police officer who allegedly killed his third wife. he doesn't want a lifetime movie to go forward. and this with -- oh, darn. i've forgotten the actor who's going to be -- >> rob lowe. >> he doesn't want this to go forward. but lifetime is saying, no, we're going forward. even though he has yet to stand trial on this particular case, does he have any real leverage, avery, to get lifetime or a movie house to say, no, you can't do my story?