mr. peterson. mr. peterson, the state of utah recently sent amazon a bill. it is an affiliate that amazon owns in the state of texas. and generally the physical presence test. if you have a physical presence, you have an obligation to create a state sales tax. we have spebt spent the last 20 years trying to determine what physical presence means. we have been to court a thousand times trying to figure it out. if i understand it, and i have not talked to texas or amazon, they have a distribution facility in texas that texas now believes creates a physical presence for amazon. and because they have that presence there, that amazon has an obligation to collect their sales tax. and not on an ongoing basis, but texas wants it look back a little, too. >> and it was a bill for like $269 political mill. >> if not more. >> what's the situation on that? >> i think they are going to be in court. >> and it is really a question of -- it is a corporate law question as to whether or not there is enough ownership in the fulfillment center. does that create the nexus where t

mr. peterson? what's your response to that? >> guest: thank you. jerry's correct that the supreme court has said that states do not have the authority -- >> host: and that's the quill case from 992. >> guest: from '92. if you're doing business in the state and the concept of a physical presence doesn't really have the same meaning as it did back in 1992, or the first time they did the this in 1967. fedex and ups and what remains of the post office make conducting business in this country extremely easy. i mean, you don't have to own the merchandise you sell anymore. you don't have to own the web site that you sell from. you don't have to do almost anything to be a retailer today, and 25 years ago that wasn't the case. if you wanted to be a retailer in the united states 25 years ago, you had to buy a build, you had to buy inventory, keep people employed, and that's not the same now. i mean, there are companies who specialize in fulfillment. i can give you 5% of my sales, and you will own my, all my inventory, you will be 100% responsible for shippin

mr. peterson, what is your response to that? >> guest: thank you. jerry is correct that they still don't have that authority today. we think everyone has an obligation. you're doing business business in the state in the concept of a physical presence doesn't really have the same meaning as it did back in 1992 and the first time they did this in 1967 simply because it was so much easier to do business today than before. fedex and ups and what remains of the post office make connecting business in this country extremely easy. i mean, you don't have to own the merchandise to sell anymore. you don't have to do almost anything to be a retailer today. in 25 years ago that was the case. if you wanted to be retailer 25 years ago you had to put the money in, by the inventory, keep people employed and that's not the same now. i mean, there are companies who specialize in fulfillment. i can give you 25% of my sales and you'll own all my inventory. you will be 100% responsible for shipping inventory. all you have to do is send sales to you and you'll do everyth

president peterson: thank you. mr. costa? >> president peterson, members of the board, albert costello, architect for the owners. -- albert costa, architect for the owners. we respectfully disagree that the case should be reheard. the issues stated in their briefs were not new material. there are no new facts or circumstances that were not previously submitted in their briefs before. i have with me in front of me -- this is my folder of the briefs submitted already to you guys. there are 10 separate briefs that have been submitted to you. inside here, the issues that were raised regarding the policy to 0.3 -- policy 2.3 have been thoroughly exhausted. we rely on the interpretation of the planning department. we think the zoning administrator did an accurate job at the previous hearings. further, the issues of the easement and what was said before the not have a bearing on the requested variance. there was a lot said in the past about the owners could do this or that. there was a lot said. i do not have enough time here to go i

mr. peterson. i like to recognize mr. lucas franco should like to make. >> thank you for calling this hearing today. i'm not sure i should call this the last in a long series of hearings this committee found on the regulation of truth in this congress or perhaps that are described as the first in a long series of intensive oversight. i promise this committee will engage in over the next several months. one thing i'm sure if it have to echo the comments of my colleagues are good friend from kansas is going to the other side of the building. i didn't see the other side of the world, will be missed indeed in this body. i can't use the other phrase, jerry. i'm sorry, just can't do that with some people describe you with the public in the future, but your efforts on behalf of campus at culture in this committee have been a much appreciated him one of the many legislative battles you and i thought for the integrity of our domestic futures markets. we've long been focused on making sure the markets provider farmers, ranchers and

president peterson: mr. pacheco, thank you. we are ready to call item no. 7. secretary pacheco: i think he has another question about the directive? president peterson: the parties have left. you can call me. here is my card. secretary pacheco: item number seven, appeal no. 10-110, john horvers and f. joseph butler, 1269 lombard, versus the zone in the administrator, protesting the grading on a two-for-one, 2010, for the rear yard variance disconcerting demolishing the existing two story single- family building and constructing two new buildings at front and near -- we are of a lot. >> -- note the front and rear of the lot. >> good evening. john is not able to come this evening. his mother, unfortunately, his 91-year-old mother in arizona was hospitalized, and he had to go down to arizona. i note will do like to point out that he did ask mr. gladstone to continue this, and he refused. i say shame on mr. gladstone. however, we're going to continue with the process. i happen to also live in the neighborhood. all i am out1251 and 1249 lombard. -- i am at 1251. how

president peterson: mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez, planning department. just to reiterate again, there are two issues that have been raised by the appellants -- whether or not the project is code complying. using their arguments would change how we review mcds in san francisco. if we were to consider child care facilities, which are a separate definition in the planning code -- and we do have many definitions in the planning code. it would be common to refer to one definition for one use and another for a different use. the important thing we look at is how we would process the application. the chapter facility we will process as a child care facility in planning code. we will not process it as something else. we will not process it as a social service. i think that is an important part to make. this is a code compliant project. we did review it against the requirements of the planning code for the 1,000 foot requirement. we did not find that there were any facilities with of the defis that are prohibited in

mr. peterson. your testimony please. >> mr. chairman, ranking member smith. >> i believe the microphone may not be on. [no audio] >> mr. chairman, a ranking member smith, thank you for the opportunity to testify. the long scope of history teaches us one single lesson it is that sooner or later, the powerful folks in society will try to come and take the land from the less powerful folks. that is an immutable lesson from history. that is the truth about the human species. that is what we are seeing today. one of the first thing that the european colonists did before freedom of speech, before separation of church and state, before any of our constitutional principles, all 13 original colonies passed land owning statues that established property records in the control and custody of democratically elected county officials. the people who got to decide who owned the land was the first thing they set up. they did that because in europe, there was an understanding that sooner or later, the rich people wou

president peterson: mr. gladstone? >> ok, my name is tom. it was a company my father founded 32 years ago. it is a small private lender. this property had to be taken back due to foreclosure. he stopped making monthly payments. we feel that the tick advantage by not following certain rules by leaving the site in an unpleasant state. the developer also took the advantage of us. he lost all of this money that was invested with us, as well. there is no money or profit to be made on this foreclosed property. the picture in the middle is it. there is the historical report from the best known living historian who had been retained by mr. butler himself. there is the owner of the building to the east. we were disappointed that we could not satisfied mr.horvers. we are pleased to have created a large light will open on one side that will allow. this was for their benefit. >> mr. gladstone. of course, we feel sorry for mr. horvers and his mother, but another has spoken for him before, and we knew from mr. butler that the appellate would be here. here

mr. peterson, let's start with you. what is the main street >> host: mr. peterson, let's start with you. what is the main street >> host: mr. peterson, let's start with you. what is the main street >> guest: it is, let's start with you. what is the main street >> guest: it is authorization from congress to state, giving them the ability to let retailers collect their sales tax. the governor wants the ability for their tax law to apply to everybody making cells in the privacy. the mainstream fairness act includes a lot of conditions actually. it only allows the state to have the authority of the state has done all the streamlined supplication. i won't we all disagree whether or not there's enough of those in there and i think it's a legitimate conversation, you would be a lot to authority. you are today by the court to get that authority. they would not begin to see the fairness act. it would also grant to have tribal government on this country and they would have the same authority. it would give retailers the ability to go to federal court on sales taxes,

president peterson: mr. sanchez. >> good afternoon, president peterson, members of the board. scott sanchez, planning department. the academy argues there is a lack of justice to the students, that they have illegally moved into the subject building. this is not the first building the academy has acquired and converted without benefit of permit. this is just one of the most recent ones. as mentioned in the last hearing, the department has taken an approach to this. properties that were acquired and converted before they had their environmental impact -- we are allowing them to go to the process. those which were applied afterwards -- no one can say they did not have do notice. they knew very well the could not acquire a property and conferred it without going through this process. the acquired the property last year, moved students in. they did give the courtesy to the planning commission of sending a letter that there were going to do this, but they did not require -- they did not apply for acquired permits. their attorney has said the building does not represent a health and

president peterson: thank you. mr. murray? hopefully our issue will be more brief than the last one. this is a relatively simple matter. it is -- i am sorry. jervis murray. mr. omar applied for a medallion and was denied his permit, primarily because he has not fulfilled his full-time driving requirement. it is that simple. even by his own count, which was in the opening brief, where they say in 2005 he spent 77 ships, 2006, 76 ships, and 2008, 84 shifts, he would not have made a requirement for more than two out of the last four years. there is a question about whether or not mr. omar has been in the industry. he made drive a little bit, but the burden is on him to prove to us that he drove, and not for us to prove to anyone else that he drove. it is up to mr. omar to keep these records and to deliver his records accordingly in order to obtain a permit. the permit is not an entitlement. i recognize mr. omar has been on the list a long time, but it is not an entitlement. it is something he must work to obtain. as far as the te

mr. pacheco. president peterson, commissioners, an appeal before the board of supervisors regarding the environment determination was deemed timely, and the matter should be rescheduled until after the board of supervisors can hear that case. it is scheduled for january 11 before the board of supervisors. the parties have requested february 9 as the date to which this matter would be continued, but, of course, the matter can be continued to any data you wish. supervisor peskin: pick february 9. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, mr. pacheco, if you could call the roll, please. supervisor sandoval: -- secretary pacheco: [reading roll] that is scheduled for february 9. >> is there anyone who would like to speak on an item that is not on tonight's agenda? seeing none, we will move on to item two, which are questions and comments. commissioners? seeing none, a number three, which is the adoption of minutes. , the minutes of december 8, 2010. supervisor peskinterson: i move. secretary pacheco: on that motion -- [reading roll] the vote is 5-0, those minutes are adopted. >> if you could read the

president peterson: mr. kornfield, anything to add? vice president goh: i have a question for mr. kornfield. commissioner fung had asked last time what are the permits that are needed for this kind of a thing. i think the question about permits might have been directed -- >> i can give you my opinion at the moment, if you like. there are the electrical permits to provide electrical service, in this involves the equipment itself in the backyard. -- and this involves the equipment itself. i know it is a large and heavy piece of equipment. i would not consider it to be a serious safety hazard. typically, notwithstanding outside of this case, other than the letter of system, i cannot actually imagine that we would require a building permit for the compressor itself. if it was in a location where it might block an exit or cause a hazardous condition, perhaps we would consider that, but the foundation itself is not a structural issue. i just do not think that this rises to a level -- it is not specifically exempts either. vice president goh: at the last hearing, and maybe this came from

mr. sanchez to speak before myself since he is the actual respondent. president peterson: he will speak after you. >> ms. leong, are we ready? president peterson: go ahead. you have 40 minutes. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the board. thank you for the time this evening. what i would like to say really boils down to this. the appellants are here trying to take a second bite at the apple. what do i mean by that? every single issue that was raised here this evening was raised at the planning commission, heard at length at the planning commission, and decided upon by the planning commission. the issues raised tonight are nothing new. that are in fact reiteration of the very same issues that the planning commission listened to, analyzed, and did not find merit. what they are trying to do through this is effectively rehear the exact same issues presented, and reanalyze and take away the discretion given to the planning commission. the planning commission is vested with the original authority to decide these matters. the board of appeals is to review and make sure th

president peterson: thank you. mr. sanchez, we again apologize. that night was confusing, but we should have a parade in your honor as well. any other commissioner comments? any public comment on the commission of commons? seeing at non-, we will move on to item 3, the adoption of the minutes. before you for your consideration are the minutes of the board meeting of november 3, 2010. i move to adopt the november 3, 2010 minutes. any public comment on the minutes? seeing non-, call the roll, please. >> on that motion from the president to adopt those minutes, commissioner fund. commissioner fung: aye. vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> item 48 is your consideration of findings to do with -- item 4a is an adoption of finding to an appeal you heard recently. it is appeal no. 10-092, up banks versus dbi. you voted to overrule in grant the approval on the condition that the utilities be capped and maintained. these findings were drafted with your motion in mind. the parties have agreed to the findings as writ

president peterson: mr. sanchez? >> got sanchez, planning department. i would like to begin by clarifying what the environment is under the planning code. under section 132 e, there is generally an averaging of the adjacent building walls so you would come to something in line with patterns of the block. that said, there is a maximum requirement for a setback, and that is 15 feet or 15%. in this case, the 15% gives you a different measurement. we calculated the front said back as 10.5 feet. that was the maximum they needed to provide for the front setback. the proposal will extend to within 7 feet of the front property line. it is an encroachment of 3.5 feet into the set back. the permit holder had initially applied for a building that went out to the property line. the department did not feel this was inappropriate design and initiated discretionary review, taking a matter of of the planning commission. this was considered with the variance. given the proximity to the coastal zone, it needed a coastal some permit. those were authorizations by the plann

president peterson: mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department's staff. this evening i am lucky to be joined by the planner, who is involved and the legislation that led up to the requirements that we have, developed in 2005. if there are issues about the intent, it maybe he can address those. there were questions that came up during the testimony. i will jump around a little bit. bear with me. i want to begin with a procedural background of the application. the property is located at 2139 taraval street, between 31st and 32nd streets. the building is a mixed use building, built in 1924. that has a small retail presence at the front, and that is where the subject mcd would be located. it has one dwelling unit at the rear. bmc -- the mc-2 zoning district is principally permitted use. people like to throw around the term as of rights. there is a discretionary review, of course. the subject application, the bill to permit application was submitted at the end of december of last year. they submitted through the review process and the planning commission heard

mr. peterson: the public works and -- mr. petri: the public works and transportation committee has a long and honorable record here in our congress and i think mr. oberstar has been a contributor member of that committee, both as a leading staff member working his way up and then as a member of the committee representing northern iron range in northern minnesota and working his way up to the chairmanship for a significant percentage of the life of the committee. i think a 200-year-old-more-plus country and you've been on the committee for a quarter of that time. so it's really been a joy for me to be able to learn about the background and history and context of a lot of the different decisions that the committee has faced over the years from mr. oberstar who in some cases read about them and in other cases experienced firsthand the history that we were discussing and the background of the decisions that we were making. like any other two members of a body like this, we've never agreed on everything but i think we've always tr

mr. peterson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. this article that i referenced earlier, as i understand it, i do not know if they call to, did they? you offered a service. was it true that you could not get people to sign up? >> we had an offering with citadel investment company about a year-and-a-half ago to bring to market trading of credit defaults swaps initiatives and we did not receive any traction on that initiative with the citadel investment firm. we have had a lot of businesses that we invest him and some work and some don't. we test hundreds of products and maybe one will be successful. this was another venture that did not succeed. >> the agree with the characterization that these secret committee of nine bankers close out? >> i do not know any fax -- any facts. we do not have barriers to enter into our clearing house. there is not a multibillion- dollar commitment today. there are risk-management issues. i am not saying that is not important. in today's business, we do not have the barriers of entry that the chairman m