i would be more concerned about this deck being used for people walking up and down the stairs. i heard something about a sliding door and a four-foot drop. that worries me as well. >> any more questions? president goh: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we will give you three minutes of rebuttal, mr. buscovich. >> i am property owner for the -- i am council for the property owner. my involvement in this case is relatively new, given the history of the dispute. this permit was told in the days shortly thereafter from reform retention. we did not have an opportunity to confer before this was told. we were not notified.

there is a bigger principle that this order should be concerned about. the idea that someone can go into the department of building inspection and, over the counter, pay for a permit for someone else's property. it is contrary to code, policy, and there is a civil dispute that underlies this appeal. when not asking you to resolve it, to get involved in the settlement discussions. quite frankly, it is inappropriate for that to be in the other side's brief. it is not an appropriate subject of this body writ in the issues are the legal issues that were raised about the brief, the propriety of filing for a permit that crosses every property line, and the incorrect statements that stated there was no such work. does the building across the property line was the specific question on the form. the answer in this application

was no. the question had been answered yes. i doubt this permit would have been issued over the county -- over the counter. we have asked for plans and a clear description of the work. i believe these property owners deserve that. that is all we are asking. vice president garcia: the nob is for removing wood from 15 g uy. what plans do you need to do that? >> we need to know what is going to look like after the wood is removed. the structural engineer is the person primarily responsible for this appeal. the issue is the structural integrity of my client's house and the safety of the resident in that house. they are pulling would out from underneath the deck without a concurrent plan for how it is going to be replaced and what is going to be built on my client's

side. we have to work together to ensure safety. that is my concern. vice president garcia: thank you. >> a couple of other things that are important. i am a little surprised that mr. barios would reference that opinion without the department of building inspection coming out. they should come out and take a look. you are looking at the application that admits it crosses the property line. they are showing the owner as the development company. there is a permit filled out wrong the second time. in a brief when we pointed it out, they wrote back to us at the president of the hoa see

attached g. i read a couple of times and is the president of the management company. there is nothing in here at all. it is not subject to this board, but i did show what we would have to do when we are all said and done. if they dig out their floorboards, there is a whole issue with lateral support which is way beyond where we are here. you cannot just dig out framing. and have a deck sitting on the air as the soil settles out. >> thank you. >> just a few things in response. he said that his client was not notified before the permit was told corrine that is false. at the august 18 dbi hearing,

he was there. the representative said you would need to pull the permit. we said absolutely. we want to resolve this and we would like to pull the permit. that is on public record. i am not sure what he is trying to do in terms of slamming the permit and replying that some statement was made. the question was, will the building extend over the property line? of course it will not. it was held in accordance with the original plans. i said the form work that was permitted under the underpinning agreement, that is probably on 15 guy place. that is not in dispute. in terms of the president of the hoa, i told you that was a typo. but he is the president of the management company and the letter was clear that he has

authority. that is a red herring. why should you of all the permit? a lot of things have been said. this is a single issue. i think you should all voted because it was properly issued. it is being used by the appellant as leverage in a civil proceeding, which is not appropriate. i think you should upfolded because dbi properly looked at it and made a decision. i am telling you that, obviously, anyone who goes in and does work on a piece of property, if that war was one to be connected to something that was caused structural problems, that contractor would be moving and acting at their own risk. i can assure you that access will be legally and properly obtained before there is any work done on 15 guy place. i want to make clear that we have tried for almost three years to work out an agreement with the owners that involve possible payments of cash, possible doing a list of work,

and those offers are now off the table. we are willing to continue our settlement discussions with them. since this is a public hearing, i want to make clear that there is no offer pending the can be accepted. we are happy to meet with them to work something out that is fair to them. i am happy to answer any other questions. >> is there any issue with providing what is being asked today? plans, surveys, these kinds of things? >> dbi did not require any. i am not aware of the need for any triet if for some reason the dbi required it, we would be happy>> you said that dbi propey look at this. >> it being the notice of violation. >> what was the level of review?

>> it is my understanding that there were multiple inspections and they went back and looked at the original plans. i am not sure. we did consult. at a hearing, at a public forum, what would you like us to do to resolve this? that was the response. >> at the photos in exhibit h, do those show the woods that the permit is meant to remove from the neighboring property? >> those are pre-construction photos. >> i wonder if you could take a look at exhibit e appellants brief, 2 c if b -- see if the

wood you are talking about is depicted there. >> do you want to put it up on the overhead? maybe you can indicate the wood you are speaking about that is meant to be removed. >> is that the photo you are referring to? >> i do not know if that is the wood to be removed. >> i honestly do not know. i could not tell you whether that or anything else is the subject of the n.o.v. since i did not issue the n.o.v. >> ed is not likely that particular would. it is usually on the property owner'of property. >> i was just wondering if we

can see a picture of the wood. thank you. >> thank you. >> anything further? >> i am not sure where you are going with this one. i would like to go out there and take some more photographs. i am not sure myself by reading. i am reading about a six by 12- foot wall. that was by somebody from our department. >> perhaps the terminology is not correct. that is not necessarily assuring.

the shoring is the system that is going towards the underground of the building. also, to shore the excavation. this piece sounds like it is used to form something. >> i would expect concrete on the other side of the wood. >> no one has spoken to the fact that if this wood is removed, what would it do to be structured? i am not sure anything what happened if we took the wood out. if they said it would not be compromised, it would almost seem like any agreement that they came to would have to be

done. this permit would. it should not have anything to do with the deck support. there is not enough information on the permit. i do not the catplans wou -- that plans would have been required from our department. you definitely would not need plans for that. if there is a property issue, then we would ask for plans. >> thank you. those are your photos that i have been asking about. >> they have been covered up by the appellant. >> we are paying attention. we did notice. >> sitting on the shore boards.

you can look at this photo and go oh, shit. >> of language notwithstanding, can you point out the wood? >> this deck is sitting on their shores. >> i think it is cutting off. >> let me hold it. >> you cannot help me anymore. you can clearly see, they are hanging off our deck. here is a great one. this is the back. there used to be a deck here. all that there is now is a sliding door and air. there is no deck.

it has been removed by them. >> what is the wood that is meant to be removed? >> i do not know what they are taking out. you read the language of it and they are taking out these posts. they were put in to shore up the deck. this is underneath our building. >> point to that post again. what is that post sitting on? >> that is part of the shoring. >> you do not know what needs to be removed. i thought that you had filed a complaint. >> i did not file a complaint. i have no idea. i do not know who filed the complaint. i got involved when they wanted to do this work. you can look at photographs and you can see that this is on our

property. this is a great photograph clearly showing that they are doing work underneath our building. this actually shows them working underneath our building. >> before you go away, i want to refer you to the first page of your brief. the first sentence of the second paragraph, will you read that? >> yes. >> do you still maintain that? the appeal is a simple case that began in 2003. i do not think it has been very simple. >> it is simple if you cannot file a permit on somebody else's property. >> we are done unless there is a question. >> i wanted to clarify in terms

of procedure. not trying to r beude or anything like that. >> mr. sanchez, could you shed some light on these issues? >> i think we have a picture of what the existing conditions look like. if i could have the overhead please. that is the subject property. this is the adjacent. this is the walled that is my understanding that the per matter should have had a stucco finish. i don't know how one would remove the work that has been done without going on the appellant's property. that has helped me understand better. it is within the downtown

residential zoning district that allows 100% lot coverage. the north side of guy place. this fronts the south side. they would be allowed 100% coverage. i do not see the issue of placing decks and allowing a fire wall. we have not seen a building permit that allows for that. >> thank you. >> i am almost afraid to say, but the matter is submitted. >> comments, commissioners? >> we worked our way through the hyperbole, you would think that there would be a basis for some

kind of settlement. it is difficult for me to think of a small deck and a stair surcharge against a concrete wall requiring case ions. since i talked this particular role -- particular structural engineer how to do his framing, i am sure he knows better than me now. it does not strike me as fact pertinent as to what is before us. there is no doubt that a bank is supposed to removal of materials on somebody else's property and you do not have authorization to access it, the permit is sort of void and mute.

-- moot. i believe the attorney alluded to it, but it was not stated extensively that the previous agreement still applied. for such a limited scope of work, i would think that there has got to be a solution. we would ask the building department to ask what it is that we are trying to remove. removal of a simple form does not usually required drawings. the appellant and the permit

holder can have ongoing discussions. i am almost that a point where i could make a decision tonight. let's waid and see if we can get a resolution to this. >> i agree with that. let's get a photograph to see what is really going on there. >> unfortunately, the schedule is not good for our number of hearings. the next hearing is either january 11 or the 18th. >> what do you mean? >> we have nine and 13 cases. >> we could squeeze it in on december 7. four of the nine are related. >> may be on the continuance. i would like a little additional time to engage in negotiations.

i know this has gone on for a long time. we really have not had significant discussions. given the thanksgiving holiday is a little bit too soon, i would ask that it would be in january sometime. >> either one is fine for us. >> mr. rose. >> just checking my calendar now. the 11th, i appeared b to beooked, the 18th would be fine. >> you do not feel prejudiced about waiting until then? >> i would ask the building department to hold off on the enforcement until we rezone this. >> that's fine.

>> any other commissioner comments? no? call the roll, please. >> other than the dbi, to submit something in the site visit, do you want the parties to submit something? >> i want them to submit a settlement agreement. [applause] -- [laughter] >> that is to report on the photographs. not with the briefing. >> i am sure thatoral by all parties would be fined. >> i would not mind having a preview of this photograph. >> the motion is from commissioner fung to continue this matter until january 18,

2012. it is to allow the dbi to conduct a site visit. they need to submit copies of the photographs to the board. >> aye. vice-president garcia: aye. commissioner peterson aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> thank you. this matter is continued. >> if there is no further business, we are adjourned.

>> we have much to discuss. i am looking forward to getting started. we are honored that the mayor of san francisco has stopped by. i am very pleased to introduce him and give him a few minutes. he said he only needed 45 or 50 minutes. [laughter] i am kidding. here is the mayor of san francisco. please join me in welcoming him. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. welcome to san francisco.

i want to thank all of you for being here. i have two more weeks to say this. let me say it clearly. welcome to the world series champion city and county of san francisco. it is a great testament for web .0 to be here for the eighth time. it is your decision to bring this back every year for the last eight years. it just goes to show and prove we're leading the world in technology. san francisco was ranked the no. 1 annual growth for high-tech jobs. this growth is not slowing at all. last week, i welcome one company to their new headquarters on howard street. the least 90,000 square feet of space to tech companies that

plan to employ over 600 employees. this is just the tip of the iceberg. according to a recent real estate report, there are 40 technology companies all currently looking for 2 million square feet of office space in san francisco. to put this in perspective, this is the equivalent of four trans- america. midst of space. tech companies employ over 20,000 employees. i am committed to ensuring that san francisco remains at the center of the tech industry. that is why i have created the central payroll tax exclusion. i signed it on stocks. i reached out to check ceo's to understand what more we can do to help. i have also committed to a wholesale review of our tax policy to develop more equitable

alternatives that do not punish job creation. we are working hard to find other ways to interact with technology. our city is the first in the nation to pass open date up legislation. san francisco has been a leader in allowing the community to create over 60 applications based on this day to. over the summer, our department of technology hosted hackathons and resulted in the creation of 23 apps in created over 10,000 hours of civic engagement. i want to present a challenge. we are a consent -- congested city. into the years, we will host america's cup, -- in two years, we will host america's cup, one of the largest events. over 500,000 people visit the city on any given day during that time.

one of the complaints i hear the most is that people get their cars towed away when their part in the wrong place. it can cost $500 and leaves them with the worst taste in their mouth. they were here to celebrate something. i want to challenge you. find me a solution. let there be some hand-held device that can warn somebody that their car is about to be towed. we can save a lot people having disappointment in their lives. we will work on the data to release it. you can go at it and help us to resolve one of the biggest problems we have, that is sparking any towaway zone. can you help us to do that? [applause] all right. by insuring the san francisco business policies encourage job growth, and by staying at the

forefront of ideas like open government, i am confident that our city will continue to be the place where entrepreneurs, innovators flock to us as a place where you want to start your business, stay, and grow. i want you to know that we want you here to start a mistake, and grow. thank you for holding the summit. we appreciate your presence. stay here and keep growing with us. [applause] >> i am really looking forward to getting a text when i am about to get a ticket. i get a lot of tickets. step back here and we can take care of that. [laughter] thank you very much.