>> ok, one complaint. it was received on june 8. 2010. for -- i need to get -- let's see. let me look at this other one here. june 8, ok, 2010, started construction before the permit was issued, a large amount of construction going on, construction should be in the commercial unix only, and it was received on june eightball --

on june 8, but i do not see that an inspector went out. there is a complete from may 28. -- a complaint. that complaint was received in the building inspection division, and it appears to be -- it says police department. i do not know if it is from the police department. construction is in accordance with approved plans, and that is may 28, and, let's see, we have a complaint received on june 1, which says was abated by inspector kevin mchug, and it

may continue to be worked without permits. that was june 1. further information for the border, in september, the inspector gave a rough grading inspection which allows them to cover the work that they have done, and that was issued on june 25, according to our records. does that help? president peterson: i was just going to suggest that you show council and the appellant.

>> these are printouts of the dbi tracking log which are available for anyone who wants to find them. president peterson: did you review your file to see if there were any complaints prior to may 24? >> yes, and those are the complaints that i have. year is a complete list. i may have to review that. this is specifically what they are. ok, so this is complaints at

this address. there are different addresses, to lead marine 1 tu -- there are different addresses. commissioner hwang: it is out of focus. >> maybe i can focus it. president peterson: i think it was about complaints on or before may 24. >> it is not all of electronic. sometimes it is physical sayings. the problem is is that the addresses are a little bit awry. so we have complaints year from june, may 28, g-20, and this is the housing inspection division

complete. mr. bagley has to deal with residential conditions, so the building inspection complaints, the may 28 and the g-8 complaint, -- the june 8 complaint. president peterson: thank you. vice president goh: are sinks and toilets considered fixtures? >> can you repeat the question? vice president goh: yes, they are fixtures -- are sinks and toilets considered fixtures? >> yes, they are fixtures. vice president goh: do you need a permit? >> you can take out a toilet and put in a toilet without a permit at the same location. vice president goh: it is my and

a standing that one could not take out a toilet or a sink without a permit. is that true? >> i do not think that is true. you can take out a toilet to just replace it. you have not touched the plumbing or relocated it. vice president goh: what about removal? >> as as taking it out and not putting another one in approve a permit is required to remove the fixture such that it is not being replaced. vice president goh: thinks. commissioner garcia: mr. kornfield, did you have a chance to read these? >> i read them, but not thoroughly. vice president goh: item four, written by the deputy city attorney gessner, it makes one

wonder that in ordinary circumstances, if someone comes before this board and files the jurisdiction, would this normally caused a permit to be suspended? >> no. if there is a request, we do not suspend the permit. we do not suspended -- suspended. that means all construction activity, it is allowed to take place during that period. vice president goh: -- commissioner garcia: the hearing itself was on the 30th. is this important in terms of a suspension should have been issued? >> >> the hearing on the 30 it

was for the jurisdiction request. vice president goh: commissioner garcia: -- at that time, it was already issued? i thank you for your time. >> now, we can take public comment. president peterson: you have three minutes. >> my name is -- i have been before you before for the same issue. i was not aware of what the issues were, or i would of been able to bring pictures. i did take pictures as it was going on and actually talked to people, and at the time i did that, i did not see anything in the window that said they had a permit. i can get those pictures and get

them to you, but i was not aware that was at issue. that is pretty much all i can say. >> next speaker. >> my name is -- i am the resident manager, and i work with sean morgan, and all i can say is that there was construction started earlier than she said. we were talking on a daily basis, and she had mentioned -- i am resident manager of one of the buildings. president peterson: ok, then i think you are not able to speak it you are affiliated with the appellant. are you employed by the appellant?

ok. i am sorry to interrupt. go ahead. >> ok, anyway, the day that she'd since the initial yield that was used as an exhibit in her case, i had actually been over there, and we had been talking, and i had actually seen that work had started inside of the location, so for them to, whoever, to say that there is nothing going on there is completely false. i am sorry they spend so much money. they could have stopped at any time, including the money they used to buy out the heads of community boards when they thought this was just going to be based on community support. if they have spent more money than they wanted to, that is entirely their problem. they could have stopped at any time. commissioner hwang: what what

did you witness being done? >> al she said, we went over and saw the initial counter wall in place. the counter wall that she pointed out in her exhibit. commissioner hwang: ok, do you know how long that had been up? >> i did not make a habit of looking in there, but when she noticed it that day, when she said the email, we were discussing it and how to look at it, and it was there. commissioner hwang: thank you. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is before you. >> it seems additional evidence has been taken, so i should have the opportunity. president peterson: that is correct. thank you.

vice president goh: well, in regards to whether there was work done before, i have found that we have heard credible evidence tonight as well as in the submissions that we received in preparation for today. i am not sure if it makes sense to go ahead and suggest changes to the findings now or if we should hear from the other commissioners as to whether others would like a revoke or not -- a revote or not. and i think that the project sponsors admission that there

was removal of fixtures, and i know from other cases that i have worked on that these kinds of plumbing fixtures do require a permit, that that is a concession. i think that is probably enough, but even setting that aside, we have heard credible evidence here tonight. commissioner hwang: i think we are supposed to hear from everybody first, and then we will address. president peterson: i just want to say that i think this is unusual that we are taking in additional evidence, and this was at the request of the permit holder. anybody have other comments? commissioner fung: i have some general comments. the decision made by this board was predicated on a wide range

of issues, not just the issue of when construction started. in fact, not all of the findings are equal or pertinent in the decision that i made, and i find that the decision should be made on the entire issues that we had discussed and not on that one specific technicality. and therefore, the question of whether these findings reflect the decision making process occurred, i find that it does. i find that it does.

commissioner garcia: in paragraph 5, it seems there is a case being billed for work done without a permit, and then somehow, it becomes therefore the permit was issued. error -- was issued in error, and it is not a valid permit, and i do not follow that logic. if someone does work before a permit, then they should be cited and fined, but i do not know what bearing that would have on a permit that is issued and decide retrospectively that it was illegal because some work had been done. i do not get that connection.

i do not see where that is valid. they should be required to get a permit, which a permit ultimately does to legalize the work that they had done. i'm not trying to build a case before them -- a case for them, but i am point about problems with that language, and i also a lot of problems with number four. i do not know the affected had on anyone's decision, and i certainly would not be the person to suggest that. and if someone is interested, i will raise the points that i have before, in the event that it might have some effect on what they ultimately do, and the sentence that starts off that dbi was not aware, they have

refrained in issuing it, well, we know from the question that was passed a of mr.kornfield that that is not the case. it would have had no effect whatsoever on sfc -- cfc. it would not have prevented them from getting it, so i am uncomfortable with that language. commissioner hwang: i am convinced that i will change my vote. one of the issues which the permit holder is that i found some credibility issues, and even in the papers set forth, cancel -- council's recollection

does not go with mine. i found a listing of complaints, all of them after the date, and all of that leads me to believe there was good faith, and i would be willing to change my vote. i do not know how that impacts the ultimate decision, but on balance, i think the weight of the evidence does speak in favor of the permit holder. sorry to interrupt. >> what was the prior vote? commissioner fung: initially, -- 4-1.

commissioner garcia: initially, it was 3-1, the tissue were absent, and then you voted. -- and you were absent. commissioner fung: if that is the case, then i think somebody should make a motion. commissioner hwang: i do not believe that the evidence is appear sufficient base the we saw. commissioner fung: we have no re-hearing request.

vice president goh: we could continue yet again and ask evidence. for example, the public speake'' s photographs, and if we're going to do that, i want the date on the other photographs, as well. that is the possibility. commissioner hwang: furthermore, i take issue. there is no opportunity to cross, no opportunity to understand fully what was stated in the declaration, when we have an opportunity here to do this, so i think a re-hearing is what i would vote for.

>> i think the real term would- be "re-opening." commissioner garcia: there are the objections i raised having to deal with paragraph four. even if they had done work before, they actually got the permit, i do not see the that is ever been a standard for denying or overturning a permit. they should then be required to either pay a fine and/or try to legalize it and come forward with some case in which they applied for a permit to legalize. they did not apply for a permit to legalize. the permit that is before us was to object to a project for which a cfc had been granted, so even if we had ample evidence in my opinion that they had done work before, i do not see, as

was said by commissioner fung, if there are other standards for denying this, having to do with community standards, then we should base it on that. i would move for a we votere- vote -- i would move for a re- vote. i will leave that alone before we take a vote, and maybe i will make those comments. commissioner hwang: i just wanted to follow-up on what you were saying, commissioner garcia, on item four. and i could be misunderstanding what you're saying here, but it seems that the critical issue here is number five, and i think that is where the interplay is.

the issuance of the csc. the underlying permit is evidence that is sufficient, and i find the prior evidence sufficient. at the same time, i heard no testimony today that additional evidence is out there that could counter some of the declarations in the appellants evidence, -- appellants' evidence, so i think this was an improper issuance -- improper work done without a permit, and this is where number four comes into play. mrs. tavis can be reconciled.

-- maybe that can be reconciled. commissioner garcia: the permit does not ask to legalize what is done, and therefore, cfc could not have -- that is more reasonable to me, as the question was asked by vice president goh about the moving of the sink and toilet, i think it has been stipulated that they did that, prior to getting the permit.

you do not have 30 seconds or one second unless the president wants you to comment on it. i am onboard for changing the findings or on board for whatever. if i am the one he made the motion to reopen, i mean to vote, because i would withdraw that. i thought maybe you had done that. commissioner fung: can you restate that? commissioner hwang: if we can narrow the issue, that be more efficient. my focus is whether or not there was a valid permit. and this goes to work being done

prior. vice president goh: if we went ahead and voted and went ahead and voted tonight, i am not sure if that means that commissioner garcia would change his vote in vote to overturn or not, because now we have in different than the last time we voted with president peterson, so i think

there are concessions that they remove the fixtures. we probably have enough if we change some of the language in the findings. >> my order of preference would be -- commissioner garcia: my order of preference would-be -- would be, at this point, i am not really ready to change my vote, and i think the appellate or the permit holder still has a right to ask for a rehearing, and my only change would be the sentence would start that dbi was not aware, through to the point where i will read what i think should be stricken.

dbi was not aware at the time is issued thecfc, and they have well refrained from issuing it. had dbi been aware that this was subject to a jurisdictional requests before the board, i would also want to strike the language about unique circumstances under which it was issued in error. this does not deprive the board of jurisdiction over the permit, and the memory of our hearing had much more to do with six rather than whether or not work had taken place ahead of time, but it does lead to the logic that this was an improperly granted a permit and therefore an improperly granted cfc, which i imagine has some bearing.

vice president goh: i did not break down your changes. commissioner garcia: it starts about four or five lines down, on every war that dbi was not aware, and mostly that is i want to what i was stricken, that one sentence. >> commissioners? commissioner fung: i am ebel perturbed in the low bothered by the approach we are taking. a vote had been taken and reviewed twice. we have allowed no introduction of new evidence.