mr. fung's office saying that the permit was revoked at which point we removed all of our employees from the property because we did not want to incur a fine. for about 15 days, i made an attempt to reach out and resolve the issue and before that 15 days, from the fifth until september 24th when we received another notice from the board of appeals offices, we did not have our signs up so we lost 15 more working days with our guys using that space. there was time off and there was money lost. we're not looking for another extension of six months and we hope that in our future projects, this is not prejudiced against the other. >> were you the persian that -- were you the person that person and delivered the paper? >> i went down there on friday morning and i originally went to the building department and they told me that i had to go to the office. they notified that he would give me authorization and one of his staff gave me to post it note. as i was leaving, i said, are you going to let them know that i am coming. the gentlemen who gave me the note said yes. he said i will call over rig

mr. fung's office saying that the permit was revoked at which point we removed all of our employees from the property because we did not want to incur a fine. for about 15 days, i made an attempt to reach out and resolve the issue and before that 15 days, from the fifth until september 24th when we received another notice from the board of appeals offices, we did not have our signs up so we lost 15 more working days with our guys using that space. there was time off and there was money lost.

commissioner fung: depends how they it -- anyway. commissioner garcia: mr. kornfield, we can assure this couple that the department will do everything in their power to expedite this, correct? >> absolutely. commissioner garcia: thank you. commissioner fung: you have indicated -- vice president goh: i am thinking, even though i would desperately like to go home -- here are the choices. what i would like to do is to vote against the motion, and doing so would take it to a time when commissioner hwang will be here, at which time she may or may not vote with the other commissioners. if she does, the proposal as suggested goes forward. if she does not, we are at the same position we are today, where we are failing to overturn, we are failing to secure the four votes to put in a special condition, the permit will be upheld for a lack of the four votes, and mr. kornfield will be required to nullify the permit and require the permit holders to resubmit for two seperate permits. >> the ramification of that permit would be appealable back to you. vice president goh: i

commissioner fung: mr. sanchez, do not go yet. vice president goh: a swimming pool. can you talk about those? >> i do not have specific information on those other than what was presented to you. there was the permit holders' evaluation today. vice president goh: ok. commissioner fung: it was stating in here that one of your planners worked extensively with the permit holder. >> yes, as the project's sponsors indicated, it has been a process of 4.5 years. it was submitted in 2009, but there was an older variance decision, and i am a little unclear how the contact first began, whether it was a project review meeting or they first came to the department to discuss it, but it is common for members of the public to have a project review meeting, and that is when the first to engage with the department, and they will take the proposal and make changes based on department comment, and there was 2008. commissioner fung: prior, there were other levels of review it beside the single planner. >> yes, the design team has been in place for several years. we changed how it is used

commissioner fung: mr. kornfield understand what i am saying. my idea of a revision is not to create two permits all of this. it is to reduce the scope of work on one permit, which means you could reduce it to the point of -- >> alone to go forward. allowing it -- allowing it to go forward. vice president goh: i am not following. commissioner fung: they could file a revision to this one which would take off one of the buildings. vice president goh: that was your motion. commissioner fung: or they can submit to another process. but my motion was not going to carry. vice president goh: i think with all that said, i am disinclined to change my vote then. am i missing something? i may be. i am not feeling well, because it is very light. commissioner fung: it is about reducing part of the process for all of the people in this room, a -- including the appellant. their capability of appealing occurs on the second permit. vice president goh: i see. the appellants could still appeal. commissioner fung: it is your call. i am not telling you which way to g

commissioner fung: mr. sanchez, i saw your documentation, but i did not see a position by yourself or the planning department. >> our position on the rear yard is, at this point in time, we don't have any evidence is a legal non compliance structure. that is why we had issued the stop work order because we did not have any evidence it was a legal not complying structure. commissioner fung: and that was based on the permit history research? >> right. commissioner fung: okay. president peterson: thank you. it is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. vice president goh: i have a question for mr. sanchez. if we were to grant jurisdiction in this, what would we have in front of us that we do not have in front of us in the matter that we are hearing later? >> there are several possibilities. if the board grants jurisdiction, opening the appeal went up, i imagine it would be six weeks out or so that the appeal would be scheduled. if at that time the board finds

commissioner fung: mr. sanchez, the d.r. hearing had a number of points. do you feel that those points have been addressed in this particular iteration of the design? there was the garage parking. the other was the drop in the stairway enclosure, to reduce it to the minimum required by code. >> yes, the department's staff worked extensively with the project sponsor at the combined hearings that were held in october, before the planning commission, and it took a while to get all of those changes made. they were made to the satisfaction of department's staff. commissioner fung: in conformance with all the comments made? >> that is correct. president peterson: it seems there is still some concern there would be a snowball effect in all projects would be of the same height, but because of the downward sloping, i concede that is the case. >> one is the worry about the snowball effect of rear yard variances. as we have seen before, variances are unique by definition. just because there is one granted for this property does not mean variances will be granted for

mr. kornfield. [coughing] commissioner fung: did someone have a question? commissioner garcia: i was waiting for you. vice president goh: i was waiting for you. i would like to hear about the permit history research investigation, and what other kinds of investigation one might undertake. >> laurence kornfield from the department of building inspection. there are many sources of documentation of construction in the city. the basic one that most people go to is the department of building inspection's microfilm office on the fourth floor, where we maintain records of permits going back to 1906. we have a fairly comprehensive collection of all permits, whether they were completed or expired or otherwise acted upon. it is true that occasionally we have [unintelligible] that is not common, but it does occur. there are many other sources of information which often use when either people cannot find documents or contest the determination we make of legal use or construction. one of those we find very useful is the assessor reporter's office maintains a paper copy