president peterson: mr. paul? >> thank you, president peterson. jeremy paul for sally unterberger. this is not an appeal of a faulty notice of violation. this is an appeal of a permit issued to comply with the notice of violation. that notice of violation does not talk about the plumbing intrusions at the lower bathroom. none of the light well issues that mr. kornfield was addressing are part of this notice of violation. we have a clear notice of violation. i did not have the detailed scope of work from the contractor because reading the note of violation it seems pretty clear to me the task list defines the specific things mentioned here. this building inspector knew exactly what he was citing and knew exactly what was needed to comply with this. they're very well may be other issues elsewhere in these houses. there is no question that there are. this is what these property owners bought into. they bought into a three it structure -- three houses that were split in 1953 in an imperfect process in an imperfect bureaucracy in an imperfect city in an imperfect world. these things can

mr. peterson: thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: at this time i yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, a senior member of the committee, mr. royce. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday a small community banker in ohio by the name of sara walz wrote a letter. she wrote about what she believed will be the end of community banking as we know it. and she notes in her words, going forward we will no longer be able to evaluate loan applications based solely on the credit worthiness of the borrower, we will be making regulation compliance decisions instead of credit decisions. and this gets to the heart of the issue with the underlying legislation that we're discussing. despite the fact that every failed financial firm had some type of federal regulator overseeing it, the answer put forward in this bill is to give broad, largely undefined powers to those regulators and not, by the way, in the interest of safety and soundness. if the objecti

mr. peterson: thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: at this time i yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, a senior member of the committee, mr. royce. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday a small community banker in ohio by the name of sara walz wrote a letter. she wrote about what she believed will be the end of community banking as we know it. and she notes in her words, going forward we will no longer be able to evaluate loan applications based solely on the credit worthiness of the borrower, we will be making regulation compliance decisions instead of credit decisions. and this gets to the heart of the issue with the underlying legislation that we're discussing. despite the fact that every failed financial firm had some type of federal regulator overseeing it, the answer put forward in this bill is to give broad, largely undefined powers to those regulators and not, by the way, in the interest of safety and soundness. if the objecti

president peterson: mr. sanchez? actually, more questions for council. commissioner hwang: with the respect to work with the appellants, could you address that? i don't know if you have that. >> the architect was also here. we submitted our plans in march and had neighborhood notification prior to 3/11. the architect was there. the olivos did not come, but their daughter came. after that, we have our plans approved by the planning department, and the olivos, we met with them and they wanted us to match the light well. we had a meeting with them at the end of june and which matched the light well. i sent them an email copy of the plan, and they said that was their one and all the request was us to match the light well. we did that in early july. 10 days later, they filed for discretionary review saying no modifications had been made on their behalf. they actually have not been honest. i think the planning department has all the records. even after we filed, even after we gave them what they asked for, which was a modification of our plans, which would not

president peterson: mr. kornfield? >> laurence kornfield with the department of building inspection. we are pleased we're finally going to get some action to resolve these many notices of violation complaints, many of which have validity, hazardous material, hazardous building, unsafe conditions, open to the weather, and drainage issues. the settlement of the foundation. all of these are in fact a series of problems that have been brought to our attention by the permit holder and the appellant, and we believe the permit as reviewed and issued actually addresses those violations. with regard to some of the concerns that were expressed that the plans may not reflect the accuracy of the actual permit building conditions on the job site, we leave that to the district building inspector who goes out during the course of an -- during the course of construction and if there is some discrepancy they can try to just what is being done. if those discrepancies rise to a certain level, then the building code defines when additiona

president peterson: thank you. mr. pacheco, could you call this, please? >> on that motion, from commissioner hwang, commissioner fung, vice president goh, commissioner garcia, and president peterson. the vote is 5-0. the notice of penalty is upheld. >> president peterson, shall we call the last item? president peterson: how many people are here for the last item? >> if you are here for the last item, if you could raise your hand please? that would be item number 10. commissioner garcia: if you plan to speak. >> president peterson: welcome back to the july 14, 2010, meeting of the board of appeals. mr. pacheco, can you read the next item? secretary pacheco: this is item number 10, william and laura olivo, protesting the issuance on april 22, 2010, to angelique king, a permit to alter a building with a second-floor addition including master suite with dec, living area, and death across the first floor. haute -- with decj, -- deck. president peterson: miss? >> they will impact how we have our bedrooms. there was the section 311 mail- in from 2009. there was a

president peterson: thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. good afternoon, president peterson, members of the board. scott sanchez, planning department's staff. the department respectfully request the board denied this rehearing request. there is no new information presented this evening that is not available at the time of the previous hearing. also, the letter of determination holders, there is no manifest injustice. they have the right to go through and fulfill the use, at which they work properly entitled for. i respectfully suggest the discussion at a previous hearing and the decision was largely based upon the two issues of whether or not it was actually entitled properly in the first place. i think we thought it was not properly entitled and we did not have the permit and not unlawful mcd. the second issue, that they abandon the use by converting it and making significant efforts to convert it into another use. we believe the board properly heard that matter and we request you uphold the action and denied rehearing request. i'm availabl

mr. murray that question. commissioner hwang: right. president peterson: mr. murray? or francesca? >> the business and tax code says generally when a permit is denied you are barred from reapply forg that permit for one year so presumably in most instances when the board denied the permit the permit holder could come back and apply in a year and if that were denied it could also be appealed to the board again in a year. president peterson: you're saying it would be a year before they could come to -- >> given this provision that allows reapplication within a year i dent know that this kind of suspension could really exceed a year. chien-ming wang chien-ming wang so it be effectively the same? is that what you are saying? >> the suspension could be for less than a year. chien-ming wang -- commissioner hwang: got it. commissioner fung: but i believe it's different between a color scheme and a medallion. commissioner hwang: oh, right. commissioner goh: because the medical meld they have to go back to the bottom of the waiting list. exempt for this pilot program where they could be sol

mr. wermer's remodel. she wants to correct situations that exist on her property. she now has an nov to act on. that is what she is trying to act on. commissioner hwang: thank you. president peterson: mr. kornfield? >> i have only to add that in exhibit a, where it is talking about the location on property in the description of property, this is not the assessment for the reported property description. this is a property description put together and signed by the property owners. it may or may not reflect the actual property line of these buildings. president peterson: thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is before you. commissioner garcia: just to clarify the last remarks made by mr kornfield on exhibit a? it is the one in the july 15 submission? >> i am looking at the one that says june 24. that is a party agreement. commissioner garcia: thank you. commissionger fung: the convoluted nature of this particular case is actually quite complex. if you start with the original property descriptions, what is mentioned in those in terms of what is common is fairly limited. if you then go through both sides' briefs, there is a lot of issues there. this board has always tried to find a

mr. peterson: i have an amendment at the desk -- mr. petri: i have an amendment at the desk -- mr. peters: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1519, the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. peters: i yield myself such time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peters: i rise today to offer an amendment that will save taxpayer dollars by reducing waste and prescription medications at the v.a. currently whenever patients leave a v.a. hospital, leftover medications like eye drops and inhalers are just thrown away. often veterans would have to go right to the pharmacy to refill what was discarded. my amendment simply directs the v.a. to implement a program that would relabel prescription drugs used in v.a. hospitals to be sent home with discharged patients for outpatient use. my amendment offers a simple commonsense change that will save taxpayers an estimated $14 million over 10 years while saving patients both time a

peterson: thank you. commissioner goh: actually mr. murray i did have one question. i didn't hear you speak to the briefing issue. i know the issues brought up by my fellow commissioners are more weighty than that but as a person sitting on this board and volunteering my time and having the board give a six-page limit and then to get a 10-page brief was alarming i would say and i didn't hear you say anything bo -- about that. >> i do apologize for that. i realized too late -- i followed the usual rules of the board which say 10-page page limit and i don't believe we received one of the new forms that say when you are briefing what the page limits are. unfortunately i must have missed that part where you said a six-page page limit and i do fog -- recognize that that was an error. i called victor a little too late to ask, you know, because i thought i might even go farther than 10 and he said no, it's six and this was already too late. commissioner goh demoge ok. -- commissioner goh: ok. ok, thank you. president peterson: miss mason, again, you have seven minutes. >> t

president peterson: thank you. mr. kornfield. >> lawrence cornfikornfield with the department of building inspection. i agree with everyone. i think the appellant is right. i think the permit holder is right. let me give you a little bit of history and tell you where the building department seems like it fits into this. actually, we are being dragged into this in some ways. it is a private dispute about the property line. this was a single building that had three town house structures or units in it. sometime, i think in 1953, the owner of the building, or the owners, chose to subdivide the building. they subdivided into these three separate buildings. if he were to subdivide such a building today, we would say you have to meet the code section.

president peterson: thank you. mr. kornfield. >> lawrence cornfikornfield with the department of building inspection. i agree with everyone. i think the appellant is right. i think the permit holder is right. let me give you a little bit of history and tell you where the building department seems like it fits into this. actually, we are being dragged into this in some ways. it is

mr. fung? >> no. >> commissioner garcia? >> no. >> president peterson? >> no. >> commissioner hwang? >> aye. >> the vote is 2-3 so absent another motion, the department files. [inaudible] commissionter fung: i'll move and we'll see where this flies. that we overrule the department on the condition that two 24-inch box trees could be selected in consultation with the department be planted. vice president goh: i have a question i guess for the appellant . could you approach? how wide is your property? >> oh, i think it's 25 feet, the standard. commissioner hwang: is there a driveway? >> no. commissioner garcia: maybe you would want to phrase your motion, commissioner fung, to state that you move we accept dr. kantor's offer to put in two replacement trees? commissionter fung: i thought that's what i said. commissioner garcia: i apologize, i thought you said we require that. >> so there's another motion on the floor. we'll call that motion, mr. pacheco, when you're ready. commissioner hwang: may i amend the voluntary offer that the leak will be repaired? that i would -- we moo move -- t

president peterson: thank you. mr. sanchez, mr. kornfield, and a rebuttal? ok, commissioners, the matter is before you. commissioner hwang: can i ask mr. kornfield about. foundation? -- about the brick foundation? ms. wuerfel made the point that either incorrect or not accounting for -- i see existing brick foundation on the foundation plan, and i believe the appellant is claiming that is not accurate? have we verified? >> at the time construction takes place, the building contractor will do it the form work and frameup the new foundation walls with steel, ready to pour, and the building inspector will go and look to see if it looks like what the plans show. the exact location of where the existing park foundation -- of the brick foundation is probably not the most critical thing as long as it ends up being a reinforced foundation that is similar or very close to what we see in the plants. it seems like a pretty beefy piece of foundation reinforcement. it is not actually what we call capping, which is fish usually an added piece on the top used to raise the

peterson: thank you. is there representation here for the determination holders, mr. miller? thank you. you also have three minutes. >> good evening, president peterson, members of the commission. greg miller appearing pro bono for the neighborhood association. i as i have with me representatives from the association and the divisadero merchants association. we asked for the change of hearing. we did not feel there were any exceptional circumstances to justify a rehearing. many of the facts were presented that would justify rehearing and furthermore no manifest injustice could result of the hearing were denied because the appellant was free to proceed with his use, which he had alleged all along was the backup plan if you are not able to proceed with the prior use. the appellant, through his attorney, has led -- has alleged that his best it rights doctrine and prayer use was going to be similar -- and his

mr. -- miss sanchez -- >> is this a question without time? president peterson: no clocks. >> he gives me what he has. but the record -- the whole box. you do not know what they have. every time you meet them you see the have some more. the custodian of record planning is brian smith. he is the custodian of records. he is supposed to have all the documents. after the sunshine ordinance determination that the compliance hearing, he went outside the room. he said, "we will not give you what you need." i said, it is not what i need. it is what i requested. he said three times, "we will not give you what you need." after all the hearings, they said they had given me everything. that is an independent body. president peterson: can you tell me specifically what you are seeking? >> first, the e-mails from the architect and also the architect plans. there are five specific documents the have not provided. the building department did not provide anything. commissioner hwang: what are the five documents? is that in your brief? >> i have given that to you. the order of det

mr. pache counter, o, if you could call the roll, please. >> on that motion from the vice president, grant the jurisdiction required, commissioner hwang. >> aye. >> president peterson? >> no. >> commissioner garcia? >> no. >> commissioner fung? >> aye. >> the vote is 3-2 to grant. the rules require four votes to grant jurisdiction or jurisdiction is denied. >> thank you. president peterson: we can move on to item number five, if you'd call that item, please. >> calling item 5, bill number 10-056. elizabeth kantor versus department of public works, urban forestry, property at 835 wisconsin street. the appeal on may 10, 2010 of a tree removal permit, order 178.654. president peterson: thank you. since this is a denial we'll start with the department, ms. short, you have seven minutes. >> thank you. carla short from the department of public works, bureau of urban forestry. we received an application to remove one tree at 835 wisconsin. they accept the information provided by the applicant the tree is 26 years old with a trunk diameter 11.5 inches and an estimated height of 35 feet. the applicant's reasons given for removal were disruption to the sidewalk, sewer intrus

mr. wamp's staff. and the majority staff led by subcommittee clerk tim peterson, walter hern, sue, todd and michelle on my staff. they don't get public credit for the work but the work of this bill would not have been done had it not been for their professionalism and i thank each of them personally. in conclusion this bill keeps our promise to our veterans. that is what the paralyzed veterans of america, disabled american vet and veterans of foreign wars have said. i quote them in their letter saying, we offer our strong support for the fiscal year 2011 military construction and veterans affairs appropriations bill. and we hope that the house will quickly pass this critical legislation. this bill send as clear message to america's service men and women, their families and our veterans that we appreciate and respect their service and sacrifice. madam chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: madam chair, i yield myself such time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. crenshaw: thank yo

mr. latham: i thank you, speaker, and i thank the gentlewoman from ohio for yielding. and the gentleman from california. and certainly want to thank chairman peterson and ranking member lucas for waving jurisdiction so we could -- waiving jurisdiction so we could shepherd this bill through the floor. h.r. 5669. this bill really is a solution for the city of ames and the local land owners. h.r. 5669 will allow the city to buy land from the usda's national animal disease center and use that land to build a modern water treatment plant. before introducing this legislation, the city officials were exploring the acquisition of nearby farm land by imminent domain. this will -- bill will prevent a conflict between the city of ames and the local land owners. the farmland in question is highly productive land in fact, it's a century farm. it's been in that family for over 100 years. century farms have a special status in iowa and the families who have carried on the tradition of farming have deep ties to the soil. working with the city of ames and the usda, i believe that we have found a way to preserve this fertile land and honor the memory of the man who