I want to apologize for starting this meeting 15 minutes late, first time it has ever been started late, but such are things in the time of love and coronavirus. We are joined by our vicechair supervisor ahsha safai, our clerk is ms. Erica major who has some special announcements that have not been heard before. Ms. Major. Due to to declaration of local emergency related to the Novel Coronavirus disease and the Subsequent Health order, we are asking all attendees of the meeting to maintain at least four feet of physical space between yourself and others. Hash your hands regularly for at least 20 seconds and try to avoid touching highvolume surfaces as much as possible. Madame clerk, could you please read item 2 out of order . Yes. In addition be sure to silence your cell phones and electronic devices. Speaker cards and documents are to be included part of the file should be submitted to the clerk and items acted on today will appear on the march 17 board of supervisors agenda unless ot
Thursday, march 5, 2020. I would like to remind members of the public to silence your mobile devices that may sound off. When speaking before the commission, state your name for the record. I would like to take roll call at this time. [roll call] commission richards has first under your, on your agenda, is consideration of ims proposed for continuance. Item 1, case 2019001455cua, 1750 wawona street, conditional use authorization proposed for continuance. Item 2, 2019003900drp, 1526 masonic avenue proposed for continuance. Item 3, 2019017837prj proposed for indefinite continuance, and item 4, 20154109, 33 12th street has been withdrawn. Item 12, the Hazardous Materials Management Procedures informational presentation is proposed for continuance to march 19, 2020. Items 13a and b for case numbers 201913cuavar proposed for continuance to april 30, 2020. Under your discretionary review calendar, items 15a and b, case numbers 2825drp at 780 kansas street has been withdrawn. And the variance
Context of criminal law that can induce solely to acts that solicit or facilitate unlawful activity. Thats the meaning they have in the context of this criminal law. Theres no reason to reach out and give them a vastly more expansive interpretation simply to strike the statutes down. Soliciting unlawful activity have been elicited since the founding and are perfectly constitutional. It would be overbroad and directly contradict the cannon of constitutional avoidance. Historical standing and practice confirm congress didnt use these familiar criminal law terms to enact a novel broad band on speech. The statutes have been on the books since the late 19th century and existed in this current form for decades yet the respondent has listed no statute for activity or concrete documented instances of chilling speech. The absence of such evidence isnt just happenstance and doesnt just reflect longstanding executive selfrestraint. Because the statute isnt aimed at speech and certainly doesnt enc
Thats in general protection of the property. There are concerns about how this work is going to be done, given that breaking up the concrete in this particular way is a little bit more invasive, doing it onsite than it would otherwise be for cages where you normally just put rocks into the cages. Do you dispute the design they have come up with is compliant with the building and planning code . Yes. We would not be here otherwise. So what part of the Building Code does it violate . I believe its stated in our brief, and i believe mr. Paul can attest to better. We took issue with some of the engineering calculations and what was submitted in that regard. I dont think thats in the brief, actually. He has a if you would like to hear from our from an engineering standpoint theres no question pending. The design process its okay. I think you have a part in the brief here. I did have a question, ms. Raphael, if you did have a settlement, and you did have this design for five years, why was t
Out and give them a vastly more interpretation simply to strike the statute down. Unlawful activity have existed since before the founding, and are perfectly constitutional. Interpreting this lot to be unconstitutionally overbroad, would deviate from that tradition and directly contradict the canon of constitutional avoidance. Historical understanding and practice confirm that congress did not use these familiar criminal law terms to enact a novel and broadband on speech. Predecessors to the statute have been on the books since the late 19th century, and this provision has existed and it substantially existed form for decades. Yet they have identified no actual instances in which the statute has been applied to protect the first moment activity or any concrete documented insistence of speech. The absence of such evidence is not just happenstance, and it doesnt just reflect longstanding executive selfrestraint. Its because the statute isnt aimed at speech and it certainly does not encom