sanchez and mr. sider -- you might walk away with them saying they would love to help you but cannot. that is the sentiment of this board. we would love to help you, but we can't. commissioner fung: the proposal to continue, i will support that. but i will remind everybody he has 8 feet for an elevator. that includes framing and the cab itself. that is not going to get done. if they can find something that turns the language, ok. but i do not see a technical response to this attrition. vice president garcia: i misunderstood. i thought you could not go above 75. commissioner fung: it is 16 feet above the 65 for elevator. vice president garcia: i thought they could go 16 above the seven. >> commissioner fung articulate it best when he said the 65 foot height limit is the point at which any exemption is taken. 10 feet in the case of stairs and 16 in the case of elevators. because this building is already 8 feet above the height limit, they only have a fee to play with. perhaps when i indicated an elevator was

mr. sider? >> thank you, commissioners. i am actually a little heartened by what the appellants have to say in this case. there was a presentation a few minutes ago about

mr. sider? >> thank you, commissioners. i am actually a little heartened by what the appellants have to say in this case. there was a presentation a few minutes ago about the letter itself and about the code and an interpretation of the code. previously, the argument had been one of my neighbors had it so why can't i. that, as you know, does not carry any weight in the planning code. i would like to briefly address the code issues that were raised with respect to the appellants, the issues and the diagnosis he made of the code. he is correct. there are various controls that relate to permiting on the roof of a building. complexity increases when you are talking about a non complying building. this building rises to 73 feet in height and is in a 65 foot district. it is about 8 feet over the base hight limit in this district. while the code does allow certain things such as a scared -- as a scare penthouse, they are limited to the top 10 feet of height. if you have a building that rises to a height of 65 feet, you're penthous

with gratitude, i think mr. sider opened a window where there might be a ray of hope. if you want to pursue that, some of us are willing to continue this. commissioner peterson: i will move to continue. >> do you want to suggest a date? commissioner peterson: the end of august? how about august 24? >> commissioner, did you want any additional briefing? commissioner peterson: i think this is an opportunity for them to discuss. >> this would be a motion to continue to august 24 with no additional submittal is allowed. vice president garcia: i would recommend that if you start feeling like you might get some accommodation that would work for you, make sure you leave their knowing all about -- there knowing all about the certificate of appropriateness from the historic commission. >> the motion is from commissioner peterson to continue this matter to august 24. the public hearing has been held. it is to allow discussion of alternative options. no additional briefing. commissioner fung: aye. >> the president is absent. vice president garcia: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >>

mr. president, when we see what our friends on the other sidere are doing, they are cutting education 15%.he we don't believe that's the right pretty for the country. yes, overall spending has to be cut. we do cut spending almost $2 trillion in the democratic almost blueprint. almost $2 trillion in the mr. president, another key whas priorities ener hgy. we know what's happened to gasod prices. from they have soared from $1.81 a gallon and december 2008 to over $3.50 a gallon by july 4th. i just paid $3.77. we all know what's happened toay gas prices, and many of us believe a key priority is to reduce our dependence on foreig. energy. a house republicans have a different idea.grams they cut the programs to reduce our dependence on foreign energy by 57 per cent. 't don we reject that proposal. we don't think it's a national interest. i mr. president, infrastructure, roads, bridges, airports, here's what the u.s. chamber of of commerce said about infrastructure spending. we if we don't change course overte the next five years, the economy could forego as much as 346 billion lost economic gr