. >> andrew zacs, attorney for the rehearing requestor. pleased to report to the board about 2:00 this afternoon my clients reached a settlement with the neighboring property owner, the person who is the holder of the parking easement. it is my belief that in order to effectuate this settlement we will be asking the woerd it take further jurisdiction over the permit. it's possible that won't happen. i'm not quite sure what the zoning administrator's position is, but i intend to try to persuade him over the next couple weeks that the most efficient way to resolve the matter would be through the exercise of this board's jurisdiction and we will be discussing the matter, i believe the zoning administrator supports the continuance at this time and i can represent that the neighbor and her counsel also support a continuance to allow us to finalize the settlement. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. the department would not oppose a continuance of the subject item and definitely we're 73 happy to the parties have be

the requestor suggests that the design of the new building is not compatible with the design of the older buildings in the neighborhood. the proposed massing of the new building is well articulated in relation to the older buildings and the facade used is similar to older buildings. existing building is not an historic resource under ceqa. that's just one paragraph because i know design has been a major issue. the project sponsor has worked with planning department staff ultimately that's who i think we need to satisfy, obviously work with the neighbors but you can't listen to everybody. ultimately you have to come to a decision on design and that was what was made here. mr. stewart did show the rear facade. the project sponsor isn't happy with that facade either, quite frankly. he is shell shocked and gun shy. he would like to revise the year of the building. it's afraid if he files another permit to revise it he will land up here again and be held up another 4 months. i'm asking you commissioners it approve the demolition permit, approve the building permit, and we will still work with

take your understanding is that you could not take the one that was in your file and give it to a requestor or another agency. >> correct. >> or another party, unless it was determined by law or by a judge that the circumstances required that you do so. >> correct. and we work very closely with our attorneys. and again, there is very little that i can say with all due respect not to disrupt. >> i appreciate that. >> >> miss herrick would you be willing to review the correspondence, because you will not release it to review. >> i don't know how the agencies could review it to me, either. >> if you were to provide guidance on it, what specific items would you provide for someone reviewing a correspondence to see whether it was privileged or not? >> well, i am hearing from the controller's office that the policy and the legal guidance that they get is that every, once a file is opened, everything that is into that file and it is confidential. and i respect that perspective. i am not disagreing with that. i don't know if there is any con clusary report that is generated that might be a public d

the requestor suggests that the design of the new building is not compatible with the design of the older buildings in the neighborhood. the proposed massing of the new building is well articulated in relation to