howard elman, i have just a couple points in rebuttal. i don t know, it s my fault, i don t know whether any of you are lawyers and it s probably a good thing that you are not, i guess. the doctrine of latches has been introduced yeah, merchants of misery and paid pessimists, that s what we are. latches has been introduced and it s been completely misrepresented as to how it works in this case. what we re complaining about is the new permit that is based on a foundation of what appears to be illegalities, a combination of a little bit of that while we work on that and then a little bit of that. if you take away the foundation then our argument doesn t fly. but i respectfully submit that having reviewed the files, it does. we also have this business of the modification. when there are practical difficulties involved, this is 104a2.7. san francisco building code. when there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provision of this code, the building official
that is correct. i can have my client testify to that effect. she doesn t speak english very well, but from my understanding of what she has told me or her husband has told me, she has been running the store over 20 years, the impact would be quite substantial. it s substantial enough they hired me to come down here and file this appeal and have it heard. and i think if you tie that in to the fact there s really no rhyme or reason for the 30 days, they are not even applying a 30 day rule, they are applying a 25 day rule and los angeles has a 23 day rule, i think reducing the suspension, appropriate. and what do you feel would be an appropriate fine? $5,000. it s not the amount, it s not the amount of the money, it s what the impact is. if my client is willing to pay that, then he s willing to pay it. thank you. mr. kessler, do you have any rebuttal? you have time if you d care to use it. no? okay. then, commissioners, the matter is submitted. five thousand is a lo