commissioner garcia: ms.short, on page 3, they are under the impression that the city will conduct the annual inspections, so i will assume that is at the city's expense? >> i think that is what we have indicated is that we would also try to do some routine inspections. i do not think that the annual inspections recommended were to be conducted by the city. it is my understanding from the director's order that recommendation was the property owner should have the tree pruned and have been monitored for their own liability concerns and public safety concerns. in addition, city staff has an interest that if this tree is to be preserved, we saw some indication that there was a problem, so we will also undertake inspections, but i do not believe we are committed to annual inspections of this tree. commissioner garcia: last question. is dpw able to assess any fines to the o'connors as to how this tree was pruned? >> we have not efficient -- issued any fines to the o'connors. it could potentially be a situation whe

commissioner garcia: aye. aye. -- commissioner hwang: aye. president peterson: we will take up item one, public comment. if there is anyone who wishes to speak on an item which is not on tonight's calendar, please step forward. >> good evening, commissioners. all of you should have received my e-mail-about my response to miss gethener's response to your qualifications. some of you are not qualified to into the questions before you. you do not have the qualifications. i will ask that the overhead be turned on. i would like to bring your attention to it -- i would like people to get their attention to this. this is a santa cruz news article published on-line. you may you use -- please note that you may bring a small clams action of $7,500. the planning examiners and planning staff have been found operating without certification by the state that is mandated. the judge will hear your case, and the government step can be sued personally. this has worked quite well for the people. please contact this paralegal, no

commissioner garcia: thank you. president peterson: the permit holders also have three minutes. >> rick gladstone. the assessor pep record says it is 1218. i want to point out that in the old days as much as 20 years ago, or 15, the building department and the assessor's office were not always in touch with each other, so people could get permits and the assessor's office and would not know a permit to expand. something would be sent and i would not catch it. it is not unusual to know that the assessor's office may not reflect the square footage that the building department has approved. as to there being no permit, i want you to keep in mind that there were three searches of the permit records by my client's new architect. two of the three came up with different information. price, the micra push people said no permits at all. -- twice, the microphishe people said no permits at all. i believe you could make a fine it -- make a finding that there has been a permit and it has been replaced -- misplaced. the searches

commissioner garcia: how many people are for the project? how many people that hewlnewly showed up are opposed? it looks like no one showed up late who is opposed to the project. president peterson: we would have to administer an oath. i think we have a good sense of the good character of your clients. if there were further opposition, i think we would have to have a comment. i leave the call to you. >> i think you get a sense of the support. you have a long calendar. i would defer to you and your sense that it is a long evening and go with what you want. i do not think it is necessary for each one to speak, unless one is a witness. if someone here is a witness to events, as opposed to speaking in favor of the project, i might turn and ask that. it if there are any, they might want to speak. but i doubt there are. president peterson: i think that might be a confusing question. i think we are fine. >> thank you. commissioner fung: i think you would know if you were a witness, don't you think? >> i would probably know. not in every case, but i

commissioner garcia: alright. commissioner fung: counselor, for the portion of the house that was demolished because of the dry rot that was found, was there any documentation done to the type of material that was removed? >> i was the architect was here. he could tell you. or maybe -- would you like to describe it? do you know the type of material that was uncovered by the contractor when he was working on the rear portion? is that the question? commissioner fung: yes, it and age and the type of construction? >> if you saw those materials, did your contractor tell you what he thought the age of those materials might be? or did the architect? commissioner fung: are you asking if he understood my question? >> i understood the question. the question is -- and here is seth, the architect. i think he is probably more qualified. commissioner fung: for the portion of the building that was demolished because you found dry rot and other things wrong with the existing structure, is there anything reflective of those materi

commissioner garcia: we do not need to find that a permit existed? vested would seem to me it is based upon a legal permit having been issued. >> i would defer to planning and building department as to whether legal non-complying require some evidence of a permit having been in existence. >> scott cinches, planning department. the fact is that it is a legal non-complying structure. that is the finding we would need to have the board make to rescind hour stop work order. commissioner garcia: we can leave the part to do with the permit out? >> commissioncommissioner fung:g to the planning department. >> commissioner garcia: that is who is here. president peterson: we would find that it was built before the change to the planning code and is a legal non-conforming structure. >> on that motion from the president -- the vote is 3-1, the permit is upheld on that basis. >> commissioners, we still have the jurisdiction request open and before you. ipresident peterson: i will make a motion to deny the jurisdiction request. >> ok, thank you, if you could call

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:

commissioner garcia: thank you. president peterson: ok, thank you. >> is there a representative here from the landlord? please step forward. >> i don't have one with me. michael what telwattell. i represent demna drnman drobic. the use permit was a subject of the unlawful detainer from the beginning. one of the reasons mr. drobisch used the unlawful detainer is ike's place had misrepresented the use of their premises in obtaining the use permit the got. they got a use permit for a copy shop and were operating a sandwich shop where they had prepared food and cooked food and that sort of thing. the unlawful detainer was filed march 23, 2010. it had been an issue which ike's place and their attorney had been aware of since that time. there was nothing new. there was no surprise. my understanding is that bike path place attorney -- is that ike's place's attorney was aware of that at the time. the board needs to be aware of that issue. commissioner garcia: were you through? >> yes. commissioner garcia: denam drobisch has

commissioner garcia: i have a question. what citation could you give me that states that our duty is only to review the actions of the planning commission for error of use of authority? >> i do not have a direct quotation on that. i did quite a bit of research in terms of your prior decisions. essentially, i see that the -- as the point is made in my argument -- that this is analogous to an appellate court. i am not saying it is the exact same situation, but looking at the dynamic before you, i think the best way you can characterize the situation is an appellate review of the underlying decision. in that situation, and abuse of discretion standard would apply to the process. i will agree with mr. garcia that in terms of the direct on- point citation, no. but through parallel authority as well as other items that suggest what should be the standard -- it is a little bit of a difficult situation, but i think that may be the appropriate standard. commissioner garcia: that is the standard. that is the standard when we review s

commissioner garcia: s