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

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 per

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 insp

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 building

. >> 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

and we will start with the appellant. hold on one minute, please. you will have seven minutes, as soon as the clark sets the timer. >> good evening. i am here to ask for a reduction of the work on this notice of violation. i had replaced windows so they could match the neighborhood without a permit. simply because when my dad was here last year, he had said we could change the windows when he died. a friend of mine in santa cruz owns a glass business, and he was asking if he could change the windows. i was like, i am not sure, but because my father passed away, since i was taking money out of my retirement plan because i am unemployed, i figured instead of paying several bills, i would go ahead and utilize him to do the job because he did not have any work. i even had to pick him up in santa cruz to do the worke. i did not know i had to get the work permit. i want to comply with the notice of violation and reduce it from, i was told nine times, to two times, because i understand i need it the permit, and i did not know what that time. -- and i did no

we met with the appellant's representatives. it was a project that would be in closer conformance with the interior standards. it would not trigger any additional ceqa review, no additional review through eir, and it would allow a number of additional features to be incorporated and constructed into the design. unfortunately, the appellant was not willing to accept the compromise. i reiterate that the department and the historic preservation commission have all try to work with the appellant to develop a style that met the standards and allow for the conversion to a residential unit. does indicate what the compromise recently developed, we still believe there is approval for the project at this location, but without compromise on the design and the fact the appellant would like to move forward with the original project, i would like to reiterate that as of september 1 hearing, the historic preservation commission disapprove this project based on the department recommendations. while the property is at the rear of the property, th

commissioner hwang: on the demolition question which was raised by the appellant, how do you respond to the argument that the collapsed roof has, in effect, created further, in effect, i mean, the argument as i understand it is that extended -- it made more of the property characterized as demolished or demolition, and then, i would assume, exceed the 50%. >> no. first of all, the roof is -- when the roof collapsed, somehow, the wall that was slated to remain has collapsed, but the fact is that wall is still there. it has been propped up, so it is there. it has not collapsed. and, in fact -- commissioner hwang: but it will be gone, right? the wall has lost its structural integrity? >> no, the wall has not lost its structural integrity, because sometimes when you open up a wall, some have dry rot, in what they do is they put a new -- and what they do is put in a new 2 x 4, and that is pretty much standard in the industry. a diaphragm to keep the two exterior walls in place, but i am sure that he can explain that better. commissioner hwang: i will also a way for planning to address the

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

we'll start with the appellant or his agent. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. i would like to submit for the records and documentation from a reputation today. >> i'm sorry? vice president garcia: you have given this to the planning department? >> we continue talking to them. my name is steven stept, the architect for my clients, lesley and brett. this is a six story loft building converted in 1996. this is the building on at 650 2nd street. there is a dedicated space on the roof. the goal was simple for this project -- privacy, security, safety, and the benefit of access which has been permitted to other neighbors. i will go to the first board, which is really a description of the history of permits on this project in the last 10 years or so. there is a variety of elements on the roof, shown in yellow in the first image -- stairs, mechanical equipment, skylights, penthouses', and if you? . the middle drawing showing all the permits that have been issued since 1995, in much similar nature of what we are asking for. 3 is similar to what we would like to do. it is

that knowledge is on page 8, first of all, that the appellant, my client, was told the foundation would be no deeper than my client's foundation, and specifies the so the civil code has been violated. we urge you to force the building to be demolished and no permits issued for five years. vice president garcia: your time is up, but i am going to ask you a question because i think this is a complicated issue. >> id is. we believe notice has not properly been given. there are safety concerns here, and you should find that the building should be demolished, in fact has been demolished, and that no building permit should be issued for five years in accordance with the building code. short of that, the building now qualifies as a demolition, given that more than 50% of the vertical elements will be removed, and it should start over with mandatory discretionary review. if you are inclined to hold it as it exists, a number of conditions we request should be added that we feel are imperative to protect the safety of our client's property and tenants. vice president garcia: thank you. commission

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 penthouse can rise to 75 feet. when you're building rises to 73 feet, you are only able to work with 2 feet on the top of your building to fit in. i think the words he used for that is not practical. he is right. it is not practical. but that is the nature of this building. it enjoys height which would not be permitted under the planning code today. i think it is worth noting, although not relevant, but sympathized with his desire to raise a family in

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

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 brought you here today. i can also see the neighbor's trying to fix a set of stairs that is rotted and dangerous . they hnhee -- need to fix those stairs. it is difficult. when you see the wood and the work starting, instead of saying, what is going on, pickup the phone and call dbi. it brings dbi into it. everybody should go the mediation and figure out how to get along. it might be helpful in this situation. president goh: do we have a motion? commissioner garcia: i don't know if i am failing on the issue for some sort of device to prevent people from reaching over. president goh: i think it is a good idea, but i could not tell from the pictures where it would go and how it would function. commissioner fung: cumene the vertical screen so that one can't go over? commissioner garcia: that would be fine. would you, as an architect, suggests something? commissioner fung: it is

it is done every day in san francisco, and we need to sit down and talk with the appellant and have her agree, making sure her building is protected in the future. >> the issue has been raised having to do with work hours. you have some comments on that? >> it is basically governed by the building code. what time did you quit usually? unfortunately, with construction, one reason people start early is the coast -- is because it is done early to avoid traffic, and you can have a delivery trucks during peak hours, so they come earlier or later, and most construction group stop. people get at the site at 7:00, and they expect actual work at about 7:30. unfortunately, the shorter the hour you allow them to work, the longer the inconvenience and noise for the neighborhood, so it is a to edge sword. >> your client is working on the basis of his demolition and foundation and permit >> currently he is going to be working on the addendum, which has been issued. it was issued on march 18, and the scope is identical to the structural strengthening and the foundation. >> do we have another question?

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 hav

the rules of position are as follows, appellants, permit holders, and representatives each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for a bottle -- for rebuttals. members of the public were not affiliated with the parties have 3 minutes each to address the board and no rebuttals. members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the board staff when you come up to the lectern. speaker cards and pans are available on the left side of the lectern. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the lectern as well. if you have questions about requesting a re-hearing, hearings, or schedules, please request them after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning. the board office is located at 1650 mission street, room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, sfgtv cable channel 78, and abb of this meeting is available for purchase directly from sfgtv. at this point, we will conduct our sw

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

an appellate gumming. you do thesame 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. you know, it

the federal courts in our country both trial and appellate levels were well. and if they are shown to people, by and large, people will see that they were well and that the litigants that appear in front of these judges and the injuries and all of the support personnel and get a fair shake. that is a real virtue of cameras in the quarter of they are ever to be brought to the federal system. it is worth looking at that issue from that perspective as well. it is true that federal courts today are employed and in the sense that the benches in the back of the courtroom are available to whoever might show up on any given day. that is not a public work. the handful of people that have the time and inclination and the ability to show up on a given day is tiny. the americans give their news from electronic sources whether it is television radio, or the web. to say a courtroom is public when it is only available to be seen by the people who show up is not realistic as a way of making courts available. it is true that the fourth circuit and the of the state supreme court

. >> 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

we will hear from the appellant at this time. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is steven hammond. i represent the cal hallow association and other appellants. i will keep my comments brief. others wished to speak on behalf of the community. i would like to first make a point about the notice period. 20 days was inadequate. the proper time was 30 days. there is no dispute that over $ 2 million of this project is coming from the federal funds, and an analysis is required. in fact, a considerable environmental assessment impact report to hud was prepared, and yet, there was no notification to hud or any other federal agencies so that these documents could be coordinated with one another. i would also like to point out that this is on highway 101, and caltrans does have jurisdiction over this area. there were also not notified. finally, the historic elements of this property has not been addressed by the state's office of historic preservation. rather, the project sponsor has made an assessment of no historic value, and that assessment has been echoed by the

the state court ruled quickly against amazon but it got kicked immediately up to the appellate court in the state supreme court now to decide this. they don't get kicked back until it reaches the supreme court and have it a choice between standing by the analysis they did in 1991 versus north dakota or changing the whole background command but until they do that i think they are confident once this gets kicked up the levels from new york to the supreme court will be decided against new york unless a sharp turn in supreme court's reasoning 20 years ago to a completely taking the other side now. >> argue collecting sales tax in new york and what about california? >> we are collecting sales tax in neither place because as soon as it gets past for the night before it gets past or becomes effective, we send an e-mail to all of our affiliate's saying we are sorry, we think you we've built a nice business together but as long as your state has this law enforced we have to sever the relationship, so we keep on those because as soon as they expand the definition of nexus to include a relation

that is what appellate court arguments are about. you have the ability to plan and install cameras in an unobtrusive way. i think cameras in appellate courts would not be disruptive at all and would be a great public benefit. as i said come on trial courts are the more controversial areas -- as i said, trial courts are the more controversial areas and i still think cameras in the court are a very good idea. we are aware of what is to place in the northern district of california. that would have been a perfect case -- and as you know, the trial judges tried to have cameras in the courtroom. the issue at stake was very important. you have highly competent lawyers on both sides. mostly expert witnesses as opposed to civilian witnesses. and there was no jury. all of the conditions should have suggested that the cameras should have been in the courtroom. the instances were cameras are often in the courtroom is in trial court. as you know, the casey anthony trial is going on in florida right now. frankly, i think is our business to provide people with

accommodation could be reached between the planning department and the applicant, in this case the appellant. a certificate of appropriateness would still be needed, as you have said. would you lay any odds on how that would go through? >> in the hypothetical, i would like good odds. vice president garcia: this has nothing to do with this particular case. but it almost seems unreasonable that if a building is built, and maybe this is the issue that was addressed by the one person that offered public testimony, and you impose a high limit that is less than is built, you are taking rights away from the building that are granted to other buildings in the same area. it almost seems like a little bit of a taking to do that to that particular building. >> commissioner, i see your point. but one argument that could be made is the flip side of this perspective is that buildings that conform to the height limits in the district cannot enjoy the same additional height the nonconforming building does. under the planning code, the case could be made that the top floor of this building is a right not enj

but it got kicked immediately up to the appellate court. it may actually be at the new york supreme court now to decide this. it'll just keep getting kicked back until it reaches, i think, the u.s. supreme court, and then they'll really have a choice between standing by the analysis they did in 19991 in quill v. north dakota or sort of changing the whole doctrine. and, but until they do that, i think tax lawyers are pretty confident that once this gets kicked up all the levels from new york up to the supreme court it will be decided against new york, you know, until -- or unless it will be a sharp turn in supreme court reasoning if they go from an 8-1 decision 20 years ago to a completely, to taking the other side now. >> host: mr. byrne, are you collecting sales tax in be new york, and what about california? >> guest: no, we're collecting sales tax in neither place because as soon as the law gets passed we, or the night before it gets passed or becomes effective, we send an e-mail to all of our affiliates saying, very record ri, we thank yo

commissioner antonini: i guess the appellants were speaking more to the impacts to their residents, because i believe they referred to some additional environmental analysis that has to be done when people who are public tenants and have to have adequate housing, and the analysis has to include whether they are overcrowded or not. you know, if we had 48 people there, that could be considered an overcrowded condition. that is the part where i wonder if there is enough analysis. >> in terms of ceqa, overcrowding does refer to density. it does sort of referred to density and land use issues. in the ceqa document and the appeal response, we have looked at their proposed density of the project. the increase of approximately eight group housing units, and we did not feel that that increase resulted in overcrowding. commissioner antonini: ok, thank you. could i ask the appellate that same question, please? go ahead. >> excuse me, i just wanted to add a couple of things. one was, i did want to clarify that this project is not a public housing project. so any requirements related to public housing p