during the trial, there was a motion to withdraw all references that he was a contractor the court awarded $100,000 in damages because of five violation of the professional code. there is clear and convincing evidence that he acted with malice and committed intentional misrepresentation and awarded

the settlement of over $109,000. this was appealed in the appellate courts. the judgment was confirmed. -- was accused of using the names of licensed engineers. mr. -- can continue to appear before you. thank you.

>> your time has run out, ma'am. >> thank you. >> any other speakers? seeing none, we will move on to item number two. commissioners, anything? >> i would like to inform the public that i will be leaving today's hearing at 7:00 p.m. for personal reasons. >> thank you. >> i wanted to follow up answering the question regarding the city attorney opinion that our office issued regarding the building code. that is an official legal opinion of this city attorney's

office and this was reviewed and approved by the city attorney himself. this is posted on the city attorney's website. >> thank you. >> any other commissioners? >> item number3, the possible adoption of the meeting minutes of october 13th, 2010. >> any comments to add? >> i move to adopt the october 13th, 2010 minutes, please. >> on the minutes? >> please call the roll. >> on the motion to adopt -- >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the senate's are adopted. >> moving on, we can start with item number4. >> : numberfour -- calling number 4 a, the subject property is at 6090 douglas. this is a letter from jim stevens asking that the board take jurisdiction over a zoning administrator stop work order released october 15th, 2009. the request was received august 30th of this year. the property owners are bruce and joanne kapsack. >> mr. stevens is not here.

i'm here to speak in his behalf. first, i want to draw attention to the document for jurisdiction request, the one that was received at planning. it says here that your testimony should focus on the reasons he did not file on time and what the board should allow delayed filing. as we've heard from the onset, the notice was not received to august of this year. mr. stevenson not receive this on time. -- mr. stevens did not receive

this on time. that is pretty cut and dried. therefore, he did not respond on time and that is why he is asking for jurisdiction moving forward. >> are you finished? >> i don't know. i would like to be finished. there is another issue which would better be spoken to moving forward as part of the review. i asked whether in fact you have any questions. >> he mentioned planning costs alone it mission.

>> it was mentioned by this gentleman here. >> what i read was that the jurisdiction request was received august of this year. >> mr. stevens never received anything until august of this year. >> i thought that that was already represented by planning. never got it on time, it never arrived, therefore they could not react to it. >> i don't want to interrupt by asking you a question but let me know. >> i am finished. >> in our package we have a letter dated october 11th and this was amended october 13th. do you have that in your papers?

>> 2009. >> this was sent to mr. stevens. >> it seems to me that it is pretty well outlined what the steps are that the police will follow assuming the disagreement that is outlined on here is met and that this will be followed up by phone call. are you saying that this letter was received by mr. stevens. >> i am saying that the notice to remove the stopped work order was never received by mr. stevens. >> i am asking about this

letter. the implication is that this letter says that the stock release order is now in affect. >> the that i would say this agreement actually is closed one month even after the stop work order was to released in the first place. >> i might save some comments from when we discuss this. i don't know that the city has the authority or the ability to force the agreement. if the parties have reached an agreement between themselves, then the city based on that agreement and based upon the facts that are in item number 3 on the first page are saying

that, we will release the stop work order. we will rescind that. >> i guess i'm saying that i think that a sufficient notice and maybe the argument it's surrounded by whether or not this is the notice that is required. >> i will say that this letter amended october 13th, this is over one month. i don't really follow. i can tell you that he agreed to

set lowest bid. this is a token of good faith. >> the actual job itself that they don't have an agreement about. that is why i think that this is best continued until that they can hash out what it is they are green about. >> i have no more questions. >> i have a follow-up question. >> are you contending that the work does not comply with the codes? >> and the original permit

succeeded in the first place. this has been remedied. this is work that has already been completed. >> the two parties are not in agreement without the work. there is an agreement that mr. stephens is to accept the lowest bid but he thinks that the chop itself is something else. >> thank you very much. >> but apologize if i seem a little upset. i have two seats sitting empty right now.

more of the problems you have when a surrogate stands in is that they don't know the facts. i'm not saying that they were lied to but they are incorrect. there is no expansion, this is a miniaturization. we were given position to build on the rear property line. we shortened the building by 3 feet. we did a setback that was not required under the variants. mr. stephens started the whole process. >> i would refer to you right after the letter you just mentioned. you can see that on wednesday october 14th there was a series of e-mails that mr. stephens was

copied on the says go ahead and release this work order. i don't know how much more notice you want but that was plenty of notice for mr. stevens. as you recall, we served a lawsuit to mr. stevens. i don't know how many of you have a legal background. we have asked for a specific informant. i have asked the courts and now there is a default judgments being entered because mr. stevens did not respond that lawsuit to allow me to go in and change the window as per the agreement. we had agreed to move it up and make it go horizontal above the roof of this building which would provide even more light and air then he currently has, more than he had in the past. i should have brought a picture.

pass to this is the butt end of my house. the only a few that he had was into my bedroom window. it is not like he had a lot of light. there were four cheese that banged on the window and they were damaging her property. this is not like there was a lot for him to get. i am reminded of what commissioner garcia said. you said, there is no reason to grant the release that will not result in any change. even if you give him jurisdiction, this will not change anything. this is an agreement between the two parties. there's usually a them against us mentality. it is not in this case. >> thank you, sir.

mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez, planning department. there is no notification for the stop work order request. the jurisdiction request was going to be prepared and issued. that is all i have at on this. >> is to any public comment? commissioners, the matter is before you. >> i would move upon the fact that no notice required that we not grant jurisdiction in this case. >> any other commissioner comments? >> also that this comports with

applicable codes. corks on that motion to deny the jurisdiction request -- >> on that motion to deny the jurisdiction request -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> jurisdiction is denied. >> please call the next item.