would give him the days off to make it to zero days. he decided to do two out of the three so he had seven days. he could have gotten from 25 day to zero. we know 90 days is a hardship for the operators so we have implemented the rules and regulations. taking into account the community stakeholders, regulated community. we listened to the board of appeals the suspensions of 90, 180 days and a year is too much. we implemented the pilot project so it would be fair, equitable transparent and clear. >> is it a closed issue or is that strategy up for acceptance by the appellant at this point?

>> absolutely if it is fine with my supervisor, it would be fine with me. >> when were the new measures to reduce implemented? >> i gave the operator a week before about the compliance agreement. then while i was i gave him another two weeks to decide and to implement the strategies. when i came back two and-a-half weeks later for the follow up inspection, june 13th. he had implemented one of the strategies, the educational part. he was also wants to do the tobacco advertisement removal which he did on the spot. he removed the tobacco adverti

advertisements and chose to keep the tobacco products in full display of the customers. >> the reason i asked the question is because and as commissioner honda mentioned. we used to have a lot of these on a weekly basis. we haven't seen it for a long time. perhaps the guidelines are having some effect, and the primary question we used to ask and we never could get a good answer to was the creation of the nexus between the penalty and the infraction versus what other infractions in dealing with underage purchase were. as an example, abc first

infraction is $200. >> what? >> abc. you sell liquor -- sell the liquor to a minor first infraction is $200. we could never establish the nexus between the penalty done by the department with individual cases. >> which looks to me you bridged that gap as far as i am concerned. >> we tried really hard to listen to the community and the stakeholders and board of appeals. i plead you to uphold di to up e susspecks in this case. >> mr. yahya aldabyani you have three minutes to address the board.

>> i see in the case that it is my lively hood is in danger because of this isolated incident that never happened before and will never happen again, and i am under your mercy. thank you. >> a question to make it clear. you made a conscious trade between you were given the option to have no penalty whatsoever if you would put up the opaque shield over the cigarettes or take a seven day suspension. you reviewed to put up the opaque shield and accepted the seven day penalty in lieu of the

opportunity to do otherwise. i just want to ask. were you clear on that option? >> no. >> so if given the opportunity to you do it again and put up an opaque cover over your cigarettes. that is why i asked the question to the health department. is it still open? given the opportunity to put a shield in front of the cigarettes or take the seven day penalty are you open to putting up the opaque shield over the cigarettes? >> on the cigarettes. it is like placing a restriction on me. >> that is a yes or no question. are you willing to do that for the seven day trade or are you not willing to do it? >> no. >> okay.

ms. lopez. three minutes. >> i want to touch on the main argument. mr. yahya aldabyani you argued it would cause great financial danger. he had options available to him, and this chart here is attached as exhibit d to inspector pra ado's desk coloration. i highlighted the suspension the appilllant faced in this case. given he trained employees and decided to remove advertisement and lastly his clerk asked for identification before he engage understand the prohibited sale of tobacco. all of that brought it down to seven days. i will highlight for the board that he refused to cover the

tobacco products with opaque covering. he is left with a seven day suspension. we ask the court of appeal uphold the director's hearing affirming the seven day suspension. thank you. >> thank you. this matter is submitted. >> if we don't as this board if we don't uphold with full recognition this is painful for the small business operator and if this was an abc case where somebody serves booze over the counter to a kid, it is the law. it is the way it stands. this board is particularly compassionate on how we look at these things. but if we take exception to what is clearly the law especially

when the option to take that suspension pozero was waived and i confirmed that. if we say no suspension because he is a nice guy and small business operator and he deserves our compassion, then i feel we create an exception. if we create an exception. we will be asked for an exception from everybody else, we under mine the health department, under mind sfpd and that is dangerous territory. i am very sorry for the small business owner. we have to be consistent and support the law. >> as president fungistatted we had many, many cases. it was often we would have a tobacco case every week. the normal suspension was 90 to

180 days. as vice president swig said we are very sensitive to the needs of small businesses in san francisco. the department has brought in a 25 day suspension and given options to bring it down to zero. that is very, very fair. i would support -- deny the appeal and support the department on this. >> i agree,y. >> is there a motion? >> a motion to deny the appeal and that the penalty was implemented appropriately. >> we have a motion from vice president swig to deny the appeal and uphold the seven day suspension of the permit on the basis it was properly imposed. on that motion.

(roll call). >> that motion carries and the suspension is imposed. we are going to. >> good evening. welcome back to the november 7, 2018 meeting of the board of appeals. we are on to item 7. this is appeel 18-122. potrero launch affordable versus department of public health. 2235 third street. suspension of the swimming pool spa permit to operate for failure to maintain maintenance records and logs and maintain adequate disinfectant and maintain ph levels for the spa in violation of the san francisco health code article

15. this is permit c-18088. we will hear first from the appellant. >> good evening. my name is jay hundred. i am representing the dogpatch area of the city. >> speak into the microphone, please. >> this is regarding the spa at the property which is on the rooftop. on may 2 of this year, the health inspector came out to the property to perform the testing of the ph balance as well as our logs. on that day he informed us they were invalid and we did not have the logs maintained. this prompted us to go to a hearing with the health director

on july 19 of 2018. which we were then informed we were in violation of the code and that we failed to maintain maintenance logs of the spa. >> hold on. could you move the mic closer. >> secondly we did not adequate the disinfectant and ph levels of the spa. i am here today. i like to say we would like to reduce the suspension period. we were sanctioned for something that happened three and-a-half years ago. this is prior to my time so i am not sure of the entire details of the failure to maintain the logs, but on the day of the hearing july 19 we did provide a one-year worth of maintenance logs which is exhibit 1 showing the daily logs of the ph levels

and that they were in accordan accordance. that is all i have to say. >> the department indicates that it was missing the last couple of weeks for those logs. >> they were missing? >> yes, from what you had presented at the hearing. >> they were not missing. he could not find them. they are always in the same spot. i attach exhibit 1 which is a copy. he could not find them. so on that day we had our spa van tor we had -- vendor we had for three years. it tested normal. he came back the following day and tested normal. he was able to find the logs just fine. i don't know why on that day the inspector was not able to.

it has always been in the same spot. >> thank you. >> do you have anything further. >> no. >> we will hear from the department of public health. >> good evening. i am a senior and manager of swimming pool and several other programs at the san francisco department of public health environmental health branch. i have been with the department 17-years. i have been the manager of this program for a couple of years. i have with me senior inspector corey chris man, and he will be available to answer questions. he also has some information to provide you about the logs and the importance of them. i do want to just explain to you

even though i have been the manager of the program for two years, i am very familiar with the long history of our excellent enforcement and ability to achieve compliance in the swimming pool program, and as you know, this is the first case he has ever heard. it is the first time we have ever taken a case to the point where we recommend suspension. as you learn by reading our brief, you can see that there was a lot of difficulty getting this party to comply even from the beginning when they first opened the spa at the new apartment building, and as a result of that in 2015, the program brought the property to our abatement conference, which is one of our progressive enforcement strategies we use in environmental health.

at that conference which you have the results in exhibit c. you can see doctor johnson was very clear with them. they needed to take specific steps to comply with the law and that if they had a reoccurrence of the specific violations of maintaining the chemical balance and/or maintaining the logs we would bring them to the director's hearing and remember suspension. it was effective for some time in getting them to comply. when the inspector went out in may, he once again had kind of a daafeeling of the way they were before. we recommended suspicion as we had said we would -- suspension

as we said we would. in the materials i provided i described the public health importance of maintaining the chemical balance and the records. it is intuitive why it is important to maintain the chemical balance. it might not be as obvious why we care so much about the logs and the ability to find them in the place they are supposed to be when we go to inspection. i will give senior inspector chris man a chance to explain his perspective on that. >> good evening, commissioners. corey chrisner, senior inspector health department. logs are important for familiar reasons. it is the first avenue for electrical has guard discards, p

-- hazards, without noting logs you are telling us maybe potentially no one has checked the ph or chlorine for the readings. it is imperative the log are maintained and diligently kept on a daily basis. i will be happy to answer your questions. >> could you explain what happened on that afternoon? we are getting two different occurrences. >> i am shadowed with a on site personnel and test in front of them and ask for locations of the logs. they are kept behind the spa. they have their own logs. i review both of them.

i think the vendor's logs were there. the on site maintenance logs were not kept there. >> can you explain the difference between the vendor log and on site logs. >> state law requires you test ph chlorine in temperature of a spa. typically vendor logs are more detailed with what chemicals they added. >> what is the frequency of the vendor log verse the on site log? >> most facilities is once a week. this place is three times a week. >> thank you. >> it was characterized all over again. what was your da moment. >> i have closed this facility four times. >> what length of period, time

wise? >> 2013 through 2018. >> more. >> every other visit i am closing the system. >> thank you. >> in terms of the logs that they did submit at the hearing and the copies we have here, did those logs look okay to you? >> yes except for the last two weeks. they couldn't come up with those logs that is the vendor's logs which i think are three times a week. >> thank you. >> you still have three minutes if the department would like to speak further. >> okay. thank you. any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, we will move to rebuttal. miss ch un g, you have three minutes to address the board. >> on july 19, we had provided a

copy of this exact maintenance log and the vendor's log. that was not evaluated. we believe the finding os that day were prejudiced. secondly, because our vendor, who has been checking our ph levels for the past three years was able to test that all of the chemical balances on that day were normal. we believe there was an error on the inspector's part which could very well happen. i just wanted to say that based on the findings of that director on july 19 we are definitely prejudiced. because basically they are saying that because the past three and-a-half years we may have not had the correct records or, you know, failure to keep up with maintenance of the logs.

i believe the suspension of 30-days is the detriment to the operation of our business. we would like to have the cancellation of the suspension or to have that reduced. >> are you done? >> yes. >> can you walk me through the inspector has said this has been an occurring nightmare since 2013. which did the management change and can you tell me like he is still saying a problem with the last two weeks of logs. >> if you could speak in the microphone it is difficult to hear you. >> management is the same since the opening of the building. i know there were many turnovers in the actual manager. i have been there since april. i cannot speak prior to my time. since my time there, this has been the first incident. >> then the inspector says there

is usually he does the testing with someone on site. were you the person he was with when he was testing it? >> i leave it was the -- believe it was the maintenance supervisor. >> and he witnessed him doing the check? >> thank you. >> the department has three minutes.

>> you have never had one that has been suspended. this is the first. how would we relate, whether the penalty fits the size? >> one way to think about it is it is one 12th of a year. they have put their residents at risk. it could easily be one 12th of the time.

so that's a way to think about it. >> can they pick the time? >> i don't see why not. especially -- at this point, we are using it as a punitive measure to make sure that they continue to take seriously the threat of it. as part of our progressive enforcement strategy, we are following through on our threat. we would like them to pay attention and not have to come before you or us again. >> i thank you got their attention. >> most importantly, we would like for people not to get sick or drown. >> okay. thank you. >> i have a question for your technician. your inspector, sorry. you'll have to move that microphone up because you are kind of told. again since this is the first

case that i've heard in six years, the permit holder says that they have a professional company that maintains it three times a week and then when you took your measurements -- i respect you are a professional and your equipment is correct, what was that measurement? what did indicate? she might have said there was too much chlorine in the water. >> there is 13 and a half or 12 and have parts per million. >> i don't have my google on. what is that? >> state law says you have to do three and ten parts per million of chlorine. chlorine is the means to get to hypo clark asset. it reacts with water to make hypo cloris acid. >> and they had too much? >> they had too much. at that point, you start to bleach people's clothing. thank you. >> i have a question. the maintenance logs and the on-site mac logs, are those

maintained by the private company or is there an on site persian -- person testing daily or is there someone testing three times a week? >> i can't answer for the appellant but the maintenance logs are typically done by a vendor that they are paying for. >> but there is two different logs that are required or only one is required? >> it says it should be ph chlorine and test -- temperatures to be tested daily. >> thank you. >> i would also like to note that every time i test outside state law, there is a minor suspension. so they have been suspended four time so far 41-3 days, typically >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners pack this matter is submitted. >> would like to start? >> i will start. since this is the first time that a full -- pool suspension has come before us, in the

previous case i did appreciate that the department is working with the small businesses and making the punishment appropriate to the crime. i am supportive of some type of suspension. i am not supportive of 30 days. i think a week is in line with what i feel. at that point, a serious message is being sensed that the next time will be much longer. >> i would agree that 30 days is a long time. it seems a 1-3 days was mentioned and have been somewhat effective and that they have had hired a company to do the testing and maintained the pool 's ph. it seems like elevating the length of the suspension would be a way to send a stronger message. >> i guess that is my motion. >> okay.

we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant to the appeal and uphold the department's order on the condition that it be revised to reduce the suspension to seventies. >> on the basis that that creates that the punishment fit the crime. >> on the basis that the consequence fits the violation. >> thank you. >> okay. >> i say it so well, don't likely. [laughter] [roll call] >> that motion carries and there is a seven day suspension. thank you. we will now move on to item number 8. this is an appeal number 18-118. the subject property is 1042 minute street.

and alteration permit. a response to a correction notice september 2017 to show as built conditions and obtain geotechnical letters. this is application number 2017 09221277. we will hear from the appellant first. >> good evening, commissioners. i filed the appeal. it is probably the last place i want to be. >> please speak in the microphone. >> thank you. >> thank you. there we go. >> it is the last place i want to be. i was involved in a case. i really can't get into a lot of those issues that they made to because those are there issues. with some of the issues don't belong to me. my issue is after the case settled, the plans that were submitted are incorrect.

i have information that i would like to share. i would like to explain of why i have appealed the permit. the plans himself, i'm embarrassed to say, i would have ignored. i would have said, that is not my business. someone else can deal with it. that calls it enabling, bad behaviour. i would have been happy just to say it is not my problem. the problem is, when everybody does that, you end up with situations that are getting worse and worse. and the situations that got worse and worse and drove me to this hearing. i don't want to be here. so the plans that have been submitted basically show and resolve a structural issue by showing the neighbor's foundation being four and a half feet below the top slab of 1042 minute.

on the plans were submitted in 2004, it showed the bottom of the forging 24 inches down. about three months ago they resubmitted new plans. these plans were part of a permit that was with the building department for over a year being plan checked. a specific question was being asked that wasn't being answered and within a week of the case settled new information came out that the adjoining buildings foundation was 4 feet below their projects so their foundations were much bigger instead of being two with the below. they were four and a half feet below. their foundations grew, on paper , from 2 feet to four and a half feet. i don't know of any fertilizer that grows foundations to double

the size. the premise is the adjoining building's foundation is deeper. if you look at their drawings, they will show that the adjoining buildings has a brick foundation. this is evidence that i can get. i don't have to pull something else that is privileged. that doesn't belong to me. those on the top of the foundations of. >> are you pointing to something on the overhead? there is nothing on the overhead >> overhead, please. >> that shows the top of the foundation. 30 inches above grade. their representation is the bottom of that footing is four and a half feet below the sidewalk, because that is their slab right there. they are saying to the city, a two story brick building has a . that is a high-rise building. but that's what they want you to believe. that there foundation is 7 feet deep. i know how deep it is.

you can go on to microfilm. there is a permit. i did it in 1991. is on file. it shows the depth of that footing. it is 4 feet deep which is the proper depth of a foundation. you will also notice joe should they have shown something about a neighbor's building that basically says the neighbor's building is not 4 feet deep. it is 7 feet deep which is ridiculous. it is offensive to me as an engineer. at then allows them to show something on their building that resolves the issue. sometimes you just have to say, this is not right. i will take a hit for this. i would love to walk away and be another person that says this is somebody else's problem. i just can't do that. i will take a hit for it. it is the right thing to do. there is no other motive. and a brief they say i am doing

broke. i talked to the building department and i should have talked to them earlier. they've made some suggestions. i'm happy to listen to it and happy to believe their investigation. i would stand down and listen to whatever they have to stay. i don't need to say anything more. thank you, commissioners. >> i have a question for you. going to the brief, you are paid to council or paid by the page family and 2005 and 2015. >> even later than that. >> so there was, it looks like there was a five-year argument and an appropriate settlement. >> there was a settlement. >> are you representing the page company at all? >> no. >> are you representing the ministry project? >> no.

>> you are just out of the good nature of your heart? >> no i don't want to be here. if you think this is fun or pleasant -- >> going through the brief,. >> enough is enough when somebody does this. your guy will have to decide. not me. >> we will now here from the attorney for the permit holder. >> i am with a law firm and i represent tony shields. this is a head scratcher for me i have never seen an appeal as is substantial as this one. he has acknowledged to mr honda and has been on this matter for 12 years. he was originally with the neighbors when there is a dispute when this matter was first proposed back in 2005 and

2006. after ten years of a happy relationship between the properties when the building was built and the owners took ownership of their units, one of whom is here today, he came back in as an expert for four years of litigation. all the parties spent a ton of money and went to mediation and went to court and reached an amicable agreement with respect to all of these issues. the foundation, the structural integrity of the two buildings and the two buildings made their peace with the settlement agreement that was approved by the court. and when i looked at this appeal , i asked myself, i think as mr honda did, what is he doing here? he is not a good samaritan. he made a lot of money. perhaps was frustrated that his ideas didn't lead him to make more. but he is not the permit holder. he is not an owner. he has no interest and he hasn't even alleged much shown any public interest.

there won't be any public comments later. this was a private matter that was resolved regarding a building that has been standing for 12 years, with owners who have been there for 12 years. so we just can't understand what this is about. mr santos is here and he will address the merits such as they are with respect to what is going on there. but at some point, things have to end and people need peace. this is not a question of a good samaritan. i don't know what his motivation is but his clients have disowned him. and said we have made our peace. we are happy and we are safe and we are structurally sound. we are not behind this the -- at all. yet we had to come here tonight with half a dozen people taking off work and coming again to make the same argument we made before a mediator and a court accepted settlement. at this point, i think the question has to be asked, why do we not assume that the planning department and d.b.i., which went through this, not once but

twice this was not a walkover. this was not a back of the hand counter permit. there was a substantial process in 2005 and 2006 in which the neighbors had objections based on the hype. those were dealt with. the permit was granted in the building was built. twelve years later, litigation broke out. it went through another year of planning and whatnot and resulted with the issuance of the permit. the idea, if i heard correctly that suddenly, after 2005 and 2006 and after four years of litigation after we settled, suddenly he discovered something that he hadn't discovered before as nonsense. i think we need to put this to an end and let the owners live in peace and let the parties live in peace and let them abide by the settlement that they've made at great cost to both emotional and financial to themselves. thank you. >> thank you. we will now here from -- is mark

epstein here? attorney from the homeowner's association? do we have a representative from the homeowner's association. >> i am one of the homeowners. i am one of the homeowners. i have been an owner for about eight years. the building has been there for about 12. to give a little background, what happened is a nightclub moved in next door after we bought our unit and moved in. they operated outside of the balance of the entertainment commission and the a.b.c. at some point after that, the nightclub sued us, alleging a whole bunch of things and that the noise was all our faults. the lawsuit encompassed our neighbors as well and lasted five years or so. to work through that. as it has been mentioned, we have settled that. during the case of the lawsuit,

the claims kept changing and the sands kept shifting. they began complaining at the d.b.i. about a variety of things including plumbing permits. the builders worked with the d.b.i. to resolve the issues. we are also puzzled by why we are here. the building has been fine and we have not seen anything wrong with it and it has been there for quite some time. these issues -- they did not bring this up initially. they discovered them and thought they could stick it to d.b.i. his seem somewhat suspect to us. thank you.

>> thank you. >> thank you. there is still five minutes left for the homeowners association. but we will -- is there anyone else? anyone else who wants to speak. >> did you want to let the structural engineer speak under your time we. >> oh. yes. thank you. >> welcome. >> good evening. this is a well-built building that was built 15 years ago. not a single callback to the owners of the three unit condominium. nor a hairline crack. you walk through that building and there is no evidence of settlement no evidence of structural distress at all. push the clock forward to 2013. claims have been made that no inspections were submitted for

this project. wrong. absolutely wrong. third-party inspections, d.b.i. inspections, inspections by a soils engineer. the misfortunate thing is that the soils engineer retired. this is a building that was done 15 years ago. but we found him. we found him. we got a copy of his original letter. and in that letter, assess not only did i review the grading and excavation, but i also specifically inspected the interface between 1525 mission and our building. and i wrote that letter and i signed it. and i dated it 2005.

we found the letter. that wasn't enough. we had to get a new engineer and take new samples. we have a full-blown new geotechnical investigation on a building that is performing magnificently but we have to do it. to appease his errors. their conclusion. they thought that the soil was better than what he had anticipated. they gave us higher values. you over designs the foundation. we could have done it for 15 inches and we did it for 18. the thickness of this building is a same thickness of the new building that is being proposed for d.b.i. at 1500 mission. that is a seven-story building. this is a heavily reinforced slab. he is questioning the

reinforcement. there is nothing unusual about having different reinforcements in the centre of the building as it is on the edge. he is the litigation support structural engineer. we do drugs and we get permits. the final issue, what happens at the interface between the two building? once again, the source engineer, at the time made that investigation. we wanted to make sure that it was the proper interface between the two. it is not unusual in the structural engineering drawings to say 24 inches minimum or depth to match existing foundation. that is not unusual. again, that is something we do all the time. we are given minimum dimensions but if we do an -- if we need to do more, we will do more on site how do we verify that we? how do we certify that cleat with special inspections.

is a procedure. those were submitted and those were signed off. this is a very unusual case. we have a concerned citizen who worked on the building on 1525 mission. we did a brief investigation as to what happened with 1525. we uncovered there were no special inspections signed off on that building. that is a brick building. it happens to be a club. it is an assembly. no special inspection. the ordinance required brick testing. no evidence of that. and my filing a complaint? of course, not. that is not my style. my style is to do proper design and get signoff and get additional inspections.

thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> joe duffy, d.b.i. permit application here to a responsible response correction. to show conditions and obtain geotech letters based on the original structural drawings referencing the building permit. the permit was filed on the 22 nd of september, 2017. it was issued on the 17th of august, 2018. it did go through d.b.i. intake. the building plan check by an engineer, richard tam. and it was then signed off. was issued on the 17th of august and signed off on the 20 th of august and subsequently suspended because of the appeal on the 7th of

september, 2018. the correction notice that was referenced on the building permit was issued on 9617. and it said file for and obtain a building permit inclusive of a geotech review letter to document the structural integrity of the building. it must make reference to as built conditions on the original building permits and in 2004. so that was complied with on the correction notice. then there was some sort of a delay. me beat with comments and on -- than they noticed issue of violation. you have not provided the requested materials to plan review staff that was identified in december of 2017. a correction notice was issued requiring structural validation of the building's foundation based on the original permit and

the as built conditions. obtain the building permit within 30 days by submittal of the documentation materials requested by the review section staff. failure to comply will lead to additional enforcement actions. it sounds like the notice of violation got complied with with the issuance of the building permit. he is making claims that there's something improper with the drawings. i don't know if there is or not. d.b.i. have signed off on the permit. one of his options could have been to come to, when he saw when the permit got issued, he could have canned to the chief building inspector and said one of the inspector signed off on something that is wrong. he didn't do that. he filed his appeal which is the right thing to do. that would have been an option. i did discuss that with him. it is still an option even though the permit is completed. we do have a section in our code of the issue and sign off on something, we can't resend stats

based on improper information on the drawings. i just wanted to add that. it may make it easier. that is where we are at with this. obviously, you heard about the litigation and the years of that that went on. i'm not that familiar with the case. i was not involved in it. i do know that some other staff members were and there were depositions and stuff like that going on. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, we will move on to rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> in september of 2017, a year ago, plans were submitted. this permit was submitted a year ago. eventually it came down to one question about the plans. they couldn't answer them. they sent them to a director's

hearing saying, you need to answer this question. go online and look it up. there is a hearing on it. they still couldn't answer it. the case settles two months ago. within a week, new drawings, the one i am complaining about, are the new drawings that were submitted showing something completely different next-door. showing the neighbors' foundation is 7 feet deep which we are now matching. for year, this information doesn't come out. these new plans don't come out. they only come out after it settles. if you want to believe a building has 7-foot deep foundations, and say it is fine and tell everyone you will believe anything because that is what you are really saying. i am happy to listen to the building department and have them investigate this. continued for two weeks and see what they say. if, in fact, the neighbor's building is 7 feet deep than they've matched it.

it's the only reason i'm here. but you guys just have to decide what you are willing to believe. do you believe foundations get bigger when you pour them in the ground? i could spend an hour talking about the history of this building. it doesn't do any good. none of that really matters. you submitted a set of drawings that are fictional and you guys except that. >> thank you. you have three minutes. >> you read the papers that mr epstein submitted on behalf of the homeowners and the oak h.o.a. and that we submitted on behalf of mr shield. you will see the answers to these questions. he let me to believe he is an expert consultant. he does not build and design. he testifies. and yet being involved in this property for as many years as he says, back to 2005, and in 2017,

when disruptive testing was done as part of an overall settlement and discovery in the process, and the case was settled on the basis that money was paid to the pages. if they had any problem with anything, they could repair it. this is where we are today. i don't believe infections. i have you believe in what is in the ground and with what he has seen and what mr santos has testified to and what the d.b.a. found and what the owners of that building have lived with happily and safely for the past 12 years. to reopen this and make a spend more time and money may make him feel good but unfair to the participants in this case and unfair to the homeowners and unfair to the other professionals involved. all of whose reputations have been affected and to have now made their peace and left two sound and happy side-by-side buildings with one disgruntled engineer. thank you. >> thank you.

the homeowners association association. you have three minutes. >> i won't need three minutes but i would also like to request an end to the process. i think the d.b.i. and their engineers have signed off. it appears that everyone is happy except for mr bosco which but i believe the city and mr santos have done a good job and have reviewed everything. >> anything further? mr duffy? i'm sorry. >> could i ask mr duffy a question? he is -- so. >> i'll hold him, you hit him [-left-square-bracket. >> we are all friends here. >> so i respect his right to come up here and appeal.

thank you for doing that as a citizen. so there is a claim that there are two sets of plans. one is right and one is wrong, if they are indeed different sets of plans. have you reconciled those two sets of plans in any way, shape, or form? can you reconcile those two sets of plans? if one foundation suddenly grew legs, it will be implying through an obvious three straight reconciliation of those plans. >> there is original plans for building the building and thursdays revision plans. there is a permit that is repealed showing an as built condition. there may have been something but d.b.i. that got replaced. we don't tie them. those sheets aren't recorded. all we have is what is drawn on

the drawings. there is nothing else. he is showing the brick foundation and they are level with the building i'm not sure what the inspection process we have done in order to determine that. in these cases, base as built conditions are drawn. so someone on the divine -- design professionals end of it does some testing to determine where the bottom is and then we sign off on that. usually that's what happens. we can, in addition, asked them to open it up and make sure it is the same depth that they are stating in their reports. this was based on a geotech report, and engineer's drawings. we take the drawings on good faith.

>> i will ask my question. because i am either an engineer who isn't sport expert nor am i an engineer of any kind whatsoever. so if there is a difference in the two plans, were suddenly a foundation grew 2 feet, what is the impact on the world? >> i'm not an engineer. that is a good question for the engineers. if i was -- if d.b.i. were informed of that that this wasn't right, as i said, that is why i stated that. if the attention is drawn to us that there is a discrepancy, we have the right to rescind what we signed off on go back and say , hey, are you sure about this? is this right? if it is not right, then we would refer that another revision be