i have been engaging the mission regarding the bus line. i have copied the director and president adam os it. i have asked and they have agreed to come to the presentation and how they could do the mitigation regarding the impact on small businesses. >> do they have to do it on the 16th? >> obviously, they saw what happened on the mission corridor, and, unfortunately, we are trying to mitigate that. they knew this going on that 25% of total sales was going to be affected. there is a 25% decline in the corridor. foot traffic has declined considerably as well so they are trying to do better outreach, but this is an opportunity to give them feedback, you know, see what we can do. >> i know we are going to have department of public health come

in and talk about prop e. i hear from and i don't know if you hear from it. i heard from two smaller stores, liquor stores, they make sandwiches. the department of public health is coming in to make them change the way they cook bacon around stuff like that. have you heard of any of that? >> i want to get more information. i have a small business owner that needs help at the moment. i can't figure this out. they have been doing business the same way for 30 years, never had a problem in 30 years. all of a sudden the department of health came in to make them change the way they do their business. see if you can help me with that. any other new business? do we have public comment on new business? seeing none, public comment is

closed. next item. >> please show the office of small business slide. >> it is our custom to begin and end each small business commission meeting with a reminder the office of small business is the only place to start your new business in san francisco and the best place to get answers to your questions about doing business in san francisco. the office of small business should be your first stop when you have questions with what to do next find us online or in person at city hall. best of all, our services are free of charge. if you have any concerns or opinions about policies that affect the economic vitality of small businesses in san francisco, please come to the small business commission meeting. if you need assistance with small business matters, start here at the office of small business. >> i item 9.

adjournment. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.

>> sfgtv, ready to begin? good morning. today is wednesday june 20th, 2018. this is a regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. commissioner constan -- konstin lee mccarthy walker warshell president clinch is excused and commissioner moss is expected. oh, commissioner moss is present. we have a quorum. the next item is item b, the

oath. will all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. you may be seated. next item is item c. approval of minutes. discussion of possible action to adopt the minutes for the meeting held on may 16th, 2018. is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> move to approve. >> second. >> clerk: there's a motion and a second. is there any public comment on the abatement appeals board minutes? seeing none, are all commissioners in favor? any opposed? the minutes are approved. our next item is item d. new appeal, order of abatement, case 6846. 2459 32nd avenue, san francisco. owner on record appellant

samuel kwong, benny kwong, revoke the order of abatement due by delay caused by the planning department. the department has 7 minutes to present its case and the appellant as 7 minutes to present their case. if there is public comment for each person and 3 minutes for rebuttal. is there someone from the department presenting on behalf of d.b.i. just a moment. you could have a seat. >> good morning, all. a complaint was investigated on may 5th regarding an illegal addition of the back. when we got access to the property, we found there was an illegal addition, two story

vertical addition on the back. 90% completed, no permits, electrical or plumbing inspections. the owner was given corrective action to obtain a building permit to legalize the structure with a set of plans. at this point there's no permit listed for that property for this addition. so d.b.i. is recommending to uphold all orders of abatement procedures. >> can the appellant come forward? >> good morning, members of the board. sam kwong, architect representing the owner. this case was called in after

the owner got the violation and we applied for a permit. the permit number is already listed in one of the documents. and the delay is really caused by the planning department not having enough staff to even assign a planner. we were waiting for planning to even put somebody on for at least two months before we got that. some good news right now, the planning released the approval and on monday this week i obtained the over-the-counter approval to take the site permit and get it approved and i think within the next 30-60 days we should have the completed plans approved for corrections of the violation. we are moving ahead. so we ask the board to not penalize the owner for delay

caused by the other departments. >> through the chair? >> yes. >> has the notification gone out to all the neighborhoods, all that was done? >> yeah. the neighborhood notice and -- >> the expiration time frame. >> yeah, and all those time frame is 30 days, 30 days. so that took some time too. >> that's all -- >> completed and signed off, sir. >> okay. no further questions. >> any other? okay. i guess we could do rebuttal, if there's any. >> unless you have a further presentation, you may be seated. >> thank you. >> does the staff have rebuttal. i'm sorry, public comment. any members available for public comment? seeing none. rebuttal time.

>> so the owner was explained the process. if he needed time he could get an extension. based on whether he was working with another division. nobody from the property actually came and said, hey i need more help, more time to address the situation. to be honest, it's 90% complete. the owner was given the choice whether to demo it down. for the permit we would expedite to demo down because we had multiple complaints, calling me myself to go out and say hey they are building it now and we finally got access and saw it was 90% complete. >> so just a question. it sounds to me like there's been approval from planning. have we seen any of that at

this point? >> no. >> do you have copies of that approval? >> it's a filed permit but it doesn't mean they have a permit issued. i know the complainant was to a point that any permit he was going to appeal. i don't know if you looked at the pictures. >> did they build this over the weekend? >> when i got there it was 90% completed. two story addition with foundation, full electrical and some plumbing, i believe. >> thank you. rebuttal? >> members of the board. this week i got the email from the department of building inspection that the plans are at the building from planning

that i can take it to over-the-counter which we are doing this week. once we have this site permit over the counter approved we will submit the addendum, which includes the foundation design and whatever structural and title 24 energy compliance to legalize the structure. and we believe that it is very easily legalized. the neighbor has no objection to this current size of the structure. please allow the owner to legalize what they have been trying to do for the last six months. >> through the chair. you do understand that a building was built without permits, you know? >> yes. >> to make this sound like everything is okay now. it's a pretty serious extension.

i'm just trying to figure out how did the owner think they were going to build a two-level extension at the back of a home seems over 1,000 feet of structure built there, is that correct? >> no, it's very small. it's one room. >> what's the square footage? it's two levels. >> below is a crawl space, it's only a one-story structure. and it's about maybe 250 square feet. >> so that's a crawling space i'm looking at? anyhow, either way, let's say it's 500 or 800 square feet of an extension. >> well, there's a crawl space -- >> let me ask you, what is the extent of the living area on your plans you submitted to planning for approval. what is the total square footage, please? >> about 300 square feet, i would say. i don't have the plans in front of me. >> you're the architect? >> yes. >> so, let me just ask. because all we can do here is

look at what's given to us. we have testimony without any documentation of this. >> you don't even have any set of plans to show? >> no, the plans are already approved. >> why would you come to a meeting like this and expect us not to ask for a set of plans. >> there's no instruction from the owner please bring these documents to you to come to the hearing. the only notice was please come to the hearing. so we are here at the hearing. >> as an architect, you don't think this is irregular an extension like that would be put on. when were you engaged in the project? when were you involved? >> after they were notified of the violation. >> so you were brought in to legalize the building? >> correct. >> this is a request for a re-hearing. excuse me. this is on the abatement appeal.

so the director's hearing -- we issued a. >> it's great that it's legalized but it still doesn't eliminate the abatement, right? >> we -- where is my? i'm going to read exactly what the front page says. the order of abatement was issued with conditions. so we already issued an order of abatement. they had 30 days to complete a building permit and complete all the work. and that didn't happen. so this is effectively -- >> i'm just confused. >> we submitted a building permit in 2017, august 29th. the permit number 201708296247. this is the one that the planning already approved.

so we are taking this to full compliance with the foundation plans to legalize the structure. >> may i ask a couple of questions? >> yes. >> sam, are you related to the property owners? >> no. it's the same last name. >> thank you. the second question is how long has the existing unpermitted structure been there? >> i was not -- >> okay, you don't know. >> i don't know when it was built, i was called in after the notice of violation was received. >> then my question to staff would be, what state did you find the unpermitted structure? was it under construction? was it finished? >> he took pictures. in my estimation probably 3-4 months before he was there.

first violation issued may 7th. >> it's under construction then, the department would say. >> let me just mention that both the owners, their english is very limited. so a lot of the correspondence may be -- they may not be aware of what these letters are. after i was retained, i tried to explain to them all the paperwork that's involved and have attended the director's hearing and explained to them that this is a process and this is how we have to get it legalized and have to go through this neighborhood notice process. and we did all that. and now we are ready to get the full permit to finalize the legalization. >> just through the chair, was

this a licensed contractor who did the extension? >> i don't know who did the work, sorry. >> i would just like to weigh in. to me it seems there was a clear violation and there's no evidence to the contrary. it's great it's being resolved but that's not what we are being asked to look at. i'm of a mind we would uphold the order of abatement and hold it for 60 days, assuming they would get a permit. and if not, it would -- >> i wouldn't even hold it in abeyance. i would just deny the appeal right now. that's what my recommendation is. this work was obviously done

intentionally without a permit. and that's something we, as a commission, have discussed we don't want. and we want to impose some sort of penalty to make it feel impactful. >> yes. >> my feeling would be, why don't we just straight out deny the appeal. >> second. >> without knowing if it was a licensed contractor who did the work, it feels that was the right thing to do. >> this is brad russi, city attorney's office. just to clarify, the order is a motion to deny the appeal, uphold the order of abatement and impose the assessment of cost. and would you like to state a basis for the motion. perhaps that the order of abatement was properly issued and the department didn't error in its use of discretion.

>> yes. >> exactly what the city attorney said. >> there's a motion by commissioner lee and who was the second? >> i second. >> commissioner mccarthy second. we will do a roll call vote. commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner mccarthy commissioner moss commissioner walker commissioner warshell the motion carries unanimously. our next item is case number 6845 60 clifford terrace. own of record and appellant dorian and julie stone. we will have the department come forward. >> i apologize. my representative is running a little bit late.

if we could please just defer that item for a little bit. we would very much appreciate it. >> we will hear out of order. >> we are going to hear item f. the hearing request. items f1 and 2 should be heard together. possible rehearing of an item.

this is case number 6843 3515 santiago street. heard and decided march 21 2018 at the march 21 2018 hearing the aab voted to uphold the order of abatement and hold it in abeyance for a period of 90 days. on the condition work be commenced within 30 days and be completed within 90 days and to impose assessment of cost that the order of abatement was properly issued.

>> seems the last a.a.b. hearing, numerous reinspections have been scheduled but cancelled because the work is not completed. as of yesterday, phone call with the owner, she stated she had completed some minimum work in the kitchen but we have no activity on the active permits. the initial complaint in the case was originated about a year ago at the last hearing. 90 days were granted to complete the work. as of today, we have no substantial work. and again, no permit activity. it's your decision if you want to grant a re-hearing.

>> is the appellant present. >> i was in the property -- >> state your name for the record. >> marilou samson. >> you could go ahead. >> i was reading for mr. lopez for the re-inspection yesterday. the reason for the cancellation, i was waiting for the electrician and he kept rescheduling with regard to the box of wiring. i have a contract to put the panel in and he changed -- he didn't complete the panel, per my electrical contract. and he renewed the permit and stuff, that's the reason for the cancellation. i was waiting for him and he rescheduled and also my work schedule. and then also, the reason for

the renewal. originally i got two bathrooms that was for the original permit and the other bathroom upstairs was completed way back in 2006. there was electrical and planning permits i was requesting a final, they said i have to wait for the other bathroom downstairs to be completed before they final it. the other bathroom downstairs was for my mom who cannot climb the stairs. but he passed away last year and she ended up renting somewhere else because of a contractor who left me with the second bathroom and waited and waited. so we never pursued the second bathroom until recently which kind of delayed the original permit. that's the reason for the renewal. although the first bathroom has previous electrical and plumbing that needs to be

finalized and then also, there was activity on the permit. before the last director's hearing, i got a permit because the original bathroom was in a different location and then albert young, the inspector who got the electrical permit approved said let's final a revision for the relocation of the new bathroom, which i filed before the last director's hearing and then also on the planning permit that was approved, that was approved on that relocated bathroom where i filed the revision of the new location. because the original permit has a different location of the bathroom. for your correction, when the inspector came, he said there was only one tenant. as of today i don't have a tenant. but yeah. he said there are tenants and there's only one tenant living there who filed this complaint

because it destroyed stuff in the house and i ended up evicting him and i got into this complaint. and also the electrical contractor, i'm pushing him to correct all those wirings because he was supposed to put the panel there. that's the reason for my cancellation. he kept pushing the schedule on me. and then i waited for inspector lopez yesterday to come to the house. at 3:00 but he texted me, i didn't see the text. what else. yeah, and the last inspector who came to see the bathroom, because there was a dome there on the bathroom downstairs, he asked me to raise it another six inches. it's supposed to be for a steam shower and there's not supposed

to be any leaks or openings, that's why it got lowered. and i'm planning to call the inspector to come in and approve the corrections. the corrections raise that dome on that shower. and what else? i only received this packet yesterday. i read it last night. i didn't have time to read it, i was only reading it today, you know. and there were, what else. i got permit. it says here i don't comply with title 24. i complied with title 24 because albert long approved all the electrical permits. everything complies with title 24. i don't know why he says it

doesn't comply with title 24 or albert long wouldn't have ever approved the electrical permit. i didn't have time to go through all this, i just got this last night when it got into my mailbox. and i'm doing the work. my mortgage on the house is $3,500. i'm working within a limited budget. if i work on this on full blast, i could lose my house. because the electrical contractor whom i paid already $5,000, the original contractor $6,800 charged me another $6,000 just for the panel. richie is working, i'm forcing him to work on it, but he is working slowly and that's my reason for the cancellation and i had an appointment for an inspection with mr. lopez yesterday but he happened to be not be there. >> are you done with your

testimony? >> i got permits for all my work. all the work i did have permits. >> this is a request for re-hearing. so the issues that were before us for the original permit, there's no evidence of anything else. you are just giving us a reason why you aren't complying with the order of abatement conditions. joo* >> it's fine. >> i'm just saying you have professionals who are working on this for you? >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> but they aren't very diligent. i may have to do some complaints. >> may very well be but nonetheless. >> any public comment on this? no. then rebuttal? >> take public comment first? >> there's no public comment. >> [inaudible] chief building inspector.

here is the concern we have. let me read you goal two of the department's strategic plan. provide inspections to enforce codes and standards to protect occupants rights ensuring safety and quality of life. this notice of violation is over a year old. you gave the property owner back in march 49 0 days. 90 days. she has cancelled four times. a lot of items don't have anything to do with the permit. none of that work has been done by her admission. we heard some work was done with respect to the kitchen but there was mold and mildew, a lot of things going on. she is also telling us the tenants are gone. this is exactly what we don't want to have as a result of this process. we are concerned while she said she just got the application, she is the moving party here. she has filed the application for this rehearing. she hasn't given us new information.

she is just rehashing. while i have tremendous respect this may be complicated for her, she has had additional time and the help of this board. so we are concerned the tenants may be gone now, the conditions still exist. we are trying to preserve the housing and the absolute result we did not want to occur seems to have occurred. we do not believe as staff, we strongly advocate that a petition for the rehearing be denied. thank you. >> appellant, do you have any rebuttal? >> i'm doing my best. i have to work. i'm pushing the electrical contractor. i requested mr. lopez to go there yesterday.

i only received this so we could check every one of them, whatever their concerns is. he happened to be there yesterday. i said i rescheduled because i was waiting for the electrical contractor who was rescheduling on me and part of the complaint was his job. i hired him thinking he is a licensed contractor and he did the work with permit and stuff and i'm doing my best. i have a $3500 mortgage every month and all of this work involves a lot of money. and if i do the full blast i could lose my house. i'm begging the commission. i'm trying my best. i would like to talk personally after the hearing, make an appointment with ms. rosemary to tell her what my concerns

are and go one-by-one. some of these i don't know, like title 24 and the stuff to the garage and there's no mold and mildew in my house. i would like to talk, they could even go to my house. >> yes. and they were scheduled to do that 3-4 times already. you cancelled. so i appreciate that. i think it will happen anyway. >> i scheduled a meeting with mr. lopez but i waited the whole day yesterday but it didn't happen. >> okay, thank you. >> that's why i called him on the phone, what's happening, i'm here waiting. and you know, that's why i called him on the phone yesterday. >> okay, thank you. >> i recall this case.

we're always sympathetic to people trying to do the right thing in rectifying problems. and as i recall, we asked the city attorney what the maximum we could do to assist this homeowner and the 90 days was the maximum that we were allowed to offer her to get this situation under control to get the permits, the inspections scheduled and to get some resolution to this. i think that was our best effort to see a good resolution to this. and if it were as simple as -- we've had several inspections. things are shown to be proceeding well, but there is

need for a slight additional time requirement, i think we would be sympathetic again. but when i hear three inspections were cancelled and there's been no permit activity, my concern is that, you know, the demonstration of adequate due process or good faith in getting this addressed has not really been shown. it would be my opinion that the complaint is properly written and that no further extensions should be offered at this point.

if there are options for this homeowner to diligently complete the project and file some appeal to the penalties, if we saw resolution in a correct and expeditious time table. so not seeing that, i would uphold -- >> this is a request for re-hearing. >> i would deny the request and -- >> is that a motion? >> i would so move.

>> brad russi, city attorney's office, the motion is to deny the request for a re-hearing and would it be on the basis the applicant has not come forward with new evidence or established legal error? >> correct. >> a motion, is there a second? >> i'll second that. >> a motion and a second. we will do a roll call vote. [roll call] motion carries unanimously. back to item e. continued appeal order of abatement.

6845 60 clifford terrace. dorian and julie stone. would the department like to come forward? >> good morning, again. senior building inspector -- a complaint was filed february 12th 2016 regarding a bridge -- >> can you speak into the -- thank you. >> a complaint was filed 2016 regarding a bridge built in 1961 or '67. it seems there was more permit

research to look for the -- that happened in the 60's. so we investigated a complaint, did permit research and found there was a permit in 1961 showing some plans that showed no bridge. and then permit in 1989 that showed an existing bridge, walkway going to a roof deck for a detached garage. so we issued a notice of violation on march 1st 2016, showing permit 244366 shows there's no walkway in the plans. but in permit pa a79973 identifies a walkway as existing so requested to obtain a building permit for the construction of the walk. so staff recommendation is to uphold the order of abatement and assessment costs.

>> any questions? >> i do. in 1989? >> yes. so this complaint came forward, you know and stated there was a bridge that was built in the 60's. we actually asked for help with planning to determine whether in 1960 it would require some type of permit for these items. both permits went back and forth. at one point we abated the complaint because we had no clear evidence but we found that permit in 1989 showing an existing bridge. but it was approved by planning but we still wrote up the notice of violation because we couldn't find any actual legal conditions whether that bridge was actually built before '89. thank you. >> is that standard practice in our department? >> yes. yes.

>> so we will go out and identified whether something was built at a specific time? >> yeah. any time we get a complaint like this stating there was something built in 1960 or 1970 without a permit, we go back and do permit research and we put it on the owner to show us proof it was legal. >> do we use the code and enforce at the time or use the current? >> the notice of violation states the work without permit 9/1/60 is actually on the notice of violation. >> okay. do we have any photograph specifically of what we are looking at. >> i believe what we did, inspector duffy attached all the plans for the 1989 permit that shows a walkway.

>> i don't see any. do you have them with you? >> yes. >> can you you let us look and put them on the -- yes, thank you. appreciate it. that would be helpful. thank you. >> it's not showing up on the screen. >> okay, got it. >> [off mic] >> e, is the deck walkway?

>> [off mic] >> i got it. i see. thank you. >> what height is the walkway? >> it's approximately five feet, i believe. >> five feet up? >> thank you. >> yeah, it's approximately five feet above grade. >> [off mic] >> it's five feet.

>> are you guys seeing everything clearly? >> move it up or down, i guess. better. yeah.

>> i guess we are done. are we done? >> sorry, yes? >> do you guys have any questions? >> any questions at this point? not at this point. we may bring you back. >> can the appellant come forward? >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the abatement appeals board. my name is eric jacobs. i'm here on behalf of the property owners. there's been a long history associated with this project spanning from 2014 when the property owners first filed an application to renovate their home. they under went a 14-month planning review process culminating in a discretionary review hearing.

their planning commission hearing has been rescheduled by a series of carefully crafted complaints. the heart stems from an existing walkway constructed in the early 60's. though some permit history exists, no permit has been found for the structure in question. which connects the main house to a deck over the rear garage. the property owners purchased the home with the feature in place and no complaints were never filed for the first 50 plus years of use or the first three years of ownership of the home when the complainant was living next door. it was mentioned the previous owners didn't use the deck frequently so it wasn't a nuisance but when the new owners moved in it became more of an issue and became something of a focus.

only after the filing -- [coughing] they have gone to great lengths, filed to legalize their existing deck and remove the walkway in question. so though initially the walkway was also proposed to be legalized, through discussions with planning and adjacent neighbors we are now proposing to remove the walkway which was the source of the original complaint. the permit was originally filed in 2014 and that permit has been modified over time to address the complaint and the notice of violation. as well as the subsequent permit filed to legalize the existing deck over the rear garage located on that adjacent parcel. we would like to request time to finish our permit so that we can move forward with our

discretionary review hearing, permit and complete work. so what was previously shown to you, i can put this back up. this is the 1969 aerial photograph showing the work done in 1961. the original '61 permit did show work to a rear deck. and i can show you what that area of work was. so, essentially the 1961 permit showed a portion of this deck and walkway with a stair to the yard but did not show the extent of that existing walkway to the existing deck over the other structure. so that was the reason why, although the complaint was originally abated, in june and

january of 2017, the complaint was re-opened based on the information found in the permit history to not be completely water-tight. so what is now being proposed, and these revisions have been filed with planning, is a new deck configuration complying with planning code but also requesting a variance for the new rear stair at the back of the lot so that they can have access to the existing roof deck. >> and they are removing the -- >> the walkway. >> the walkway. >> i can show you again, the existing conditions.

with the walkway in place. and the current proposal which has been reviewed and vetted by our planner, jeff horn and ardat. removal of the walkway, different deck configuration and a new stair from grade up to the existing roof deck. >> any questions, commissioners? public comment? >> let's see if i can help here in this process. somewhere in the 60's this

walkway was built. aerial -- >> can we get your name for the record? >> it was built without a permit, it needed a variance in '69 and it needed a fire wall. there was a notice violation. they have submitted drawings showing the existing walkway as of last month. and then a permit to remove it. and here is a close-up of removing it. i'm concerned with their family. they need to have access to the backyard. they have a fundamental problem i don't think they quite figured out they have a notice of violation. the last thing you want to do is resolve a notice of violation with a major house remodel. notice of violation should be resolved with a stand-alone permit because if you do it the way they are doing, they will be resolving this two years from now and it will be an administrative nightmare.

my suggestion would be they file a stand alone permit that would correct the notice of violation, since they agreed with planning to remove it. planning said you could have 2-3 items but you can't have them all and they agreed to remove this but the smart deal would be to file a stand alone permit to resolve it as part of it building temporary stairs to get to the backyard and deck. we are happy to work with planning on that. and we request the fines be waived, if they do move forward with a notice of violation permit to get access, but don't co-mingle this with a huge house remodel. it will be an administrative nightmare. i'm happy to work with you on some way to resolve access to the yard with a clean n.o.v. permit and i'm sure planning would be happy to do that too. if you have any questions i'm happy to answer. >> so in the back unit, what's happening there? is there somebody in there?

>> it's a garage, i believe, with a roof deck on top. haven't said a word about the roof deck. we are leaving that alone. >> you are suggesting you are planning on -- is that an agreement from the -- >> well i'm suggesting to them they don't really want to move forward on a notice of violation for removing this cat walk with a main building permit. it will be a mess. when they are in front of the planning commission on this, this issue should be resolved, but at the same time they do need to have access to the backyard, so my suggestion is get a permit to remove just this with stairs to the backyard. >> thank you. >> this is for staff. mr. sweeney, if you could, please. the corrective notice that could be given, with the intent to add stairs, so they still

could have accessibility to the deck, would that trigger anything in your world above and beyond anything approved over the counter? >> that sounds like an over the countier permit that could go through planning and building. >> yeah. obviously mr. jacobs has to come up and talk to this but -- >> why don't we do -- do you want to come up and answer that question? >> sorry, just one second. is there any additional public comment? sorry, had to take care of the public comment first. go ahead. >> this was a point of discussion with the planning department. the best way of moving forward. and the planning department -- our planner with advice from the z.a. wanted this to be treated as a single project, especially because there had been planning comment and the

resolution of the decks was part of this major alteration. if we were to separate out this corrective action, access to the existing roof deck with a new stair would require a variance which is an appealable entitlement action. the original d.r. filer, who is the complainant has used every device in the book from d.r. to filing building complaints, to delaying hearings, to filing letters of determination, to appealing their own letters of determination, to delay the process. and this has come at extreme expense both to the property owners emotionally and financially. and we want this to be treated

as a single project, such that we're not dealing with a notice of violation and then dealing with additional series of d.r.'s and appeals. because though it could lead to a speedy resolution of the complaint, it gives more devices and more process at the finger tips of the complainant to make the project sponsor's life difficult. i think keeping it as one item makes it clean, allows the different departments to look at holistically and not break it up into pieces. >> and duly noted. and i do understand your thought process with regard to that. based on the history here. if there was some memorandum of understanding that would not be appealed, would that change anything? >> if there were a memorandum of understanding that the

attempts to legalize the roof deck were not to be appealed, because as they say, they haven't said a word about that yet. but it is a permit which requires some public notification and a variance action, so if there are a memorandum to that effect as well as a resolution on the table to the d.r., we would have no issue separating a corrective action for the n.o.v. and moving forward as quickly as possible. >> because mr. boskovitch is right about the process but duly noted about your concerns. >> i suggested to planning we resolve it in that way. jeff horn went directly to scott sanchez and said would you like the removal of this walkway and the permit action to correct the n.o.v. separated from the base building permit. he said no, i don't