george imperiali -- i knew the imperiali. it was not mr. imperiali who approached mr. court. the facts were wrong. the facts were wrong from the other side. it was mr. court who approached george imperiali, and being neighborly in those days, and trusting, he -- he obliged, but it was with the agreement that there would be in perpetuity, an open space, which has been -- which is in the variance. the thing that gets me is the etcheverrys bought the property from george imperiali and his family with the understanding that that open space would be held in perpetuity. now when is a contract no longer a contract? this was an agreement, so i don't get it, that anybody could just come in and decide to change the rules and take over somebody's property, 'cause that's what this is about. we need to pay attention. this is a -- a -- this is one case, but it's precedent. it's precedent. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. >> commissioner honda: ma'am, may i ask a question? >> yes. who's asking? >> commissioner honda: i'm asking. so prior -- even though there was no notification required for t

george imperiali would not have sold his property without the guarantee that that open space was going to stay open for his tenants and his building. it's not in perpetuity, it's in perpetuity or until his apartment building doesn't exist anymore. and he's entitled to that. and he was the only owner before the etcheverry family. two family owners in 113 years. you heard a lot of nonsense that this decision is not in the property information act. look at exhibit shou14. i put it right in front of you. look at exhibit 16. you know, this is a demo. when they did a survey, how did they miss seeing the indication of an n.s.r. and a variance on the assessor's map when they did that initially? they knew about it years before the application went out, and if they claim -- they claim ignorance, it's constructive notice, and that's what the law says is they're held to the constructive notice. to ignore the neighbors, ignore the harm caused to the neighbors and to grant this variance based on parking without any evidence at all in front of you is just an incorrect decision. and, you know, the --

george imperiali wanted to sell a large portion of his lot, and arthur court, the preceding owner of our property wanted to buy that property as mr. williams stated. the subdivision would cause 3030 larkin to be in violation of several requirements, yet a variance was granted. the 1970 decision transferred an area to our ownership as an area to remain an open space in perpetuity. that's depicted here. 3030 larkin, the appellant's property is now over here. subsequent lot adjustment created a new lot, lot 22, and that created our new parcel, 24, which is the subject site. to address mr. williams' concern, the variance was on all of this property. we now own this, so we have standing. i don't know how that's hard to understand. because of all these reassignments, the records were muddled to say the least. before preparing plans, the architect and i went and searched at every building permit on the hu's property. we looked at every building plan and researched the entire city history. the simple fact is that neither the hu's, the architects nor variance city employees saw the recorded r