it again. thank you. president peterson: okay, let's hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, commissioners. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department's staff. i just recognize that the permit holder cemented their brief to the planning department and not the board -- submitted a brief to the planning department and not the board of appeals. sorry, i was out of the office until today and i did not realize this mistake was made. i have the copies that we receive, if the board would like to receive them. i believe the board's requirements are very clear. i am not sure why this happened, but i apologize that this was not recognized.

commissioner garcia: at the very least, if we decide to hear it tonight, due to this error, whoever is here this was -- whoever's error this was, like to hold this over so we have a chance to look at it? president peterson: is there any proof of mailing or address on it? >> it was hand delivered to the planning department. commissioner fung: commissioners -- hold one second.

commissioner fung: you cannot tell from the information there. >> let me know who you are. >> they told me they hand- delivered this. i dropped off 10 copies and an original and i left it. he told me to do that. >> it is now up to you whether you want to go forward with oral argument. the u.s. agreed we are seeking continuance. once a minute, we hear oral argument, we take a brief and try to read it quickly. you'll be prejudiced by the fact we have not had a chance to read the brief. >> since in our brief is the written agreement, i think it is imperative that you read that. there is also numerous other emails that will shed a lot of

light. would you rather read it and have argument later tonight, or would you like us to come back at another time? whichever is best for you. commissioner garcia: how long is your brief? >> we used the full six pages. commissioner garcia: single spaced? >> it is not quite single spaced. there is some the spacing and indentation. and then there is the e-mail attachments from mr. stevens. there is a specific email in their way he says i except -- commissioner fung: hold. president peterson: and the representative, did you receive this brief? commissioner fung: commissioners, we need to continue this. >> yes, i received it.

president peterson: did you receive it? >> yes, i did. president peterson: okay, thank you. sir, it is really your decision. would you like us to proceed tonight? commissioner fung: no, i think it is our decision whether we will have the opportunity in a brief moment between cases to review it properly, and i don't think that is the case. president peterson: then we will need to come up with a date for the continuance of this matter. vice president goh: might not be in favor of a continuance, right? president peterson: right, but if we don't feel -- vice president goh: the fact we don't have a brief in front of us, we would have to ascertain

and determine if it was an error on the behalf of the board of appeals and not on behalf of the appellant. the permit holder. >> we are the permit holder. vice president goh: whether it was the permit holders mistake. commissioner garcia: even if it is an error, it could be forgivable. to hear this properly, we need to read the briefing, and if we don't feel like we have enough time to read it tonight, i think we have to hold it over. president peterson: what dates are available? maybe this will help guide the discussion. >> the following meetings are fairly equally full, but if you don't want to wait much longer, i would move into next week. commissioner fung: the 22nd looks ok. >> september 22? commissioner fung: are both parties available?

commissioner garcia: you have to come up here. >> the reason i am here is because mr. stevens is out of the country. i don't know when he will return. president peterson: can you represent him on the 22nd? >> in light of recent events, i am not entirely sure, frankly. commissioner garcia: i am confused as to why you would have been able to represent him tonight but you will not be able to represent them next week in a request for jurisdiction. what has changed? what has changed? i . commissioner garcia: i beg your pardon. >> i was just sued. that is not what i was told. ok. if0ó:g6=7zçof?u)c"00ah would mt likely be able to, yes. commissioner garcia: you have

raised an interesting issue. if there is a lawsuit involved -- commissioner fung: the other opportunity would be october 13. gzñiçó>> i am scheduled to be of the state. commissioner garcia: this is already completed, this project? >> the project is complete. the certificate of occupancy -- how mr. stet holder would be prejudiced if we put off until a time when everybody who wants to be here can be here. i think we go beyond whatever the date is, beyond the 13th. >> october 20 as the next meeting. -- october 20 is the next meeting. is that date agreeable with you?

>> i am checking with the boss back there. may i have a second? sure. >>wmh" request, i believe that has already continued. mr. stevens was planning to attend that. i think two weeks is adequate. commissioner fung: we are not meeting at that time. >> october 20 does works for my schedule. commissioner garcia: two weeks, we don't meet, the following week they are not available. that is why we are going to the 20th. commissioner fung: i move that we continue this case until october 20, for review of the briefs. president peterson: is there any public comment on the motion to continue? seeing none, on that motion to continue, october 20, no

additional sub mittals allowed. -- no additional sub middles allowed. [roll-call vote] the motion carries by a 4-0. president peterson: i like to suggest a short break. >> ok, thank you.

>> we are ready to resume the meeting for september 15, 2010. we move on to item number five, appeal number 10-079, the property at 3750 scott street, appealing the imposition of penalty imposed on july 16, 2010, for construction work done without a building permit.

we will start with the appellant in this case. >>. afternoon, laurence kornfield. this is a penalty imposed for the installation of windows in the building at 3750 scott street.

last seven years, i believe, so this is not recent work. department of building inspection responded to a complaint received in june of this year. the yuens got a permit as building owners in july, and they are now appealing the penalty for the scope of the work that was done without permits, which was replacement windows at their buildings. there was quite a large possibly, -- there is quite a large pot of the, over $3,000. we believe the appropriate remedy in a case like this, where it is a large building, they were aware the permit requirement was to try to get their contractor is clear there is a totally in order. i don't have some of the documents related to the complaint, but it was related to thank you very much. commissioner garcia: do we know if this contractor in the past hasri-t >> i do not know that.

i looked up the license of the 3sec licensed contractor who they said thc3>ñ hired to do the wor. it is a =plus home remodelers. they have a contractor's license. i don't know if we have had past complaints. vice president goh: it seems to come up a lot where contractors say we don't need a permit for this or that, and how do people know. here we are penalizing the person when, i agree, it makes sense to penalize the contractor, but how we go about doing that? >> i have to say based on my recent conversations with the yuens that they knew there was a permit required and they told the contractor to get all the necessary permits and so on, and they did not receive them from

the contractor. how people know whether they need permits or not as a different question. we have an outreach and brochures and so on, but they actually knew there was a permit required and asked the permit -- and ask the contractor to get one. vice president goh: have you ever heard of a case where a homeowner goes after the contractor civilly for the permit? >> i have heard of it, but i don't know what the outcome is typically. commissioner garcia: mr. kornfield, how did this come about? in terms of the department's attention? >> we got an anonymous complaint, received on june 23. by telephone. no, by office visit. somebody actually came in. president peterson: and we hear from the appellant, mr. yuen.

>> hello, i'm frank yuen, the owner of the property. as to the anonymous complaint, i am not sure who it was, but this is work that was done seven, eight years ago. we ask the contractor to get a permit. it will look at his workers' comp and insurance and we signed a contract, and we did not realize this situation until the complaint came in. that is when we were surprised. i guess we could go after the contractor, but it is almost impossible. i tried calling him. he refuses to return my call. i have left messages. nothing happens. simply, the commission has at its discretion to lower the fine to two times instead of 10 times. i think it is just a matter of fairness.

as you know, property rights are going down, and this month we are facing vacancies ourselves. it just seems wrong for it to come out the way it did. i thought we were doing everything we could to make sure that we had workers' comp insurance, insurance, and took care of it. there is nothing more we can say about that, unless there are any questions. commissioner fung: mr. yuen, in his proposal, did he have the permit itemized? >> i cannot recall because i don't have the contract. all i have is the lifetime guarantee. now i am wondering what the value of that is. icommissioner fung: you are an attorney. you had no -- >> i left it up to my wife to take care of it, and this is just the result. i suppose i should have looked at it. i guess ths