measure and in the interests of maximizing utility to suit potential requirement. so in between the poles do they keep a running number or tally of what the capacity is on the pole and between the poles? so we have also heard, if i recall, two or three speakers mention pole mapping and restrictions on information related to homeland security issues. so i imagine the same is true in terms of the operation of laying underground fiberoptic cable which we can all appreciate. i'm wondering then if at&t and pg&e require that field operation employees verify their identities in the employment document and whether both agencies promptly comply with state and federal investigators on request, particularly given the laxity of rules regarding membership adopted by trade

unions over the past decade. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. no other speakers. public comment is now closed. chair? >> supervisor walton: any more comments from colleagues? >> supervisor fewer: i think we learned a lot today. i want to thank colleagues for holding this hearing. i think public speakers bring up good points about the overhanging of wires and i look forward to calling for an additional hearing about the study, but actually i think there are still some open issues about what is on those poles. and now i am being alerted that the pole heights have been extended, which is something i didn't know about. so, chair, i'm respectfully asking to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> the motion has been heard. let me check in. >> i want to briefly say i appreciate all the folks that came out today.

i know that there's a lot of people that have been pushing this conversation. it's interesting when you leave san francisco and you look at other areas all around it's not as -- i want to use the word polluted the wires everywhere in our city. the argument about not being able to do it, transmission lines, these are factual in some ways, but in other ways you can argue they're not. if you go around the bay area you don't see the same level of congestion and wires and other localities. the other frustration i have for our part of town is we essentially have no undergrounding. so same in the richmond. so there's just not much as all or any in our part of town. then when you do, people will get messages or get a letter from a utility saying if you'd like to do this, you can pay $30,000 or $15,000 to have this

done on your street. each individual household -- our part of town are working families, they don't have that money. i know in the past $170 million was spent to do this. it was through a grant process. the communities organized were able to get it done, but it was not in the southern parts of the city or the southwestern part of the city. so we want to do this. i think it's important. i think that scientific studies have shown that energy efficiency is increased when you put it underground. safety is increased when you put it underground. overall, quality of life is enjoyed when it's put underground. so i think there's some good points made today. i think we should further in conversation and bring folks back, but i want to voice that today >> supervisor fewer: i think it's exploring our jurisdiction of the lines, not so much the poles, but the lines also. >> supervisor walton: i think it's interesting that cpuc hasn't conducted a study of

whether or not underground is safer. but yet we have new developments that are required to use underground utilities. it's interesting and we will have further conversations of course to understand how that could be the case in this point. to your point, supervisor, i want to thank you and supervisor stefani for calling this hearing today. this is happening in other cities. it's definitely happening on new developments right here in san francisco. so we're going to continue to work hard to make this a reality, and you have a commitment from us to do that, which is why we're here having this hearing today. with that said, there's been a motion to continue this to the call of the chair. i don't think we have any objecti objection. without seeing any objection, we'll move this item to continue to the call of the chair and we

seal take this with no objection. with that said, clerk, is there anything else that we have? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> supervisor walton: seeing as there's no further business, this hearing and this meeting is adjourned. [adjournment]

>> clerk: good evening and welcome to the july 31, 2019 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president rick swig will be the president tonight. to my left is deputy city attorney brad russey who will provide the board with any needed legal advice. at the controls is the board's legal assistant, and i am the board's department. up front is scott sanchez, acting deputy zoning administrator, also representing the planning department and planning commission, and we expect joseph duffy, senior building inspector representing the

building department. the board requests that you turnoff all phones and electronic devices so they will not interrupt the proceedings. please carrie on all secondary conversations in the hallway. each party is given seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. parties not associated with the case have three minutes and no rebuttal. four votes are require to grant an appeal, jurisdiction request or rehearing request. if you have questions about the

rules, please speak to staff after the meeting or visit the office. we are located at 1650 mission street, room 304. this meeting is broadcast life on sfgovtv, cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast at 4:00 p.m. on fridays on cable channel 76. now, we will swear in or affirm any members that wish to testify. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your item evidentiary weight, you must swear or affirm.

is there anybody here for general public comment? you're not here for an item on the calendar? okay. please approach. thank you. >> good evening and welcome back. >> thank you. i had a fruitful discussion with dr. tomas argon. he's constrained by the limits on his time since he's assessing the negative health effects of juul's e-cigarettes. i am suggesting a timeline, perhaps a month or so, so this keeps moving forward. as an aside, bloomberg news

reported there were health concerns regarding 5-g. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there anyone else here for general public comment, please approach the microphone. >> good evening, as well. >> good evening. hello, board members and president swig. my name is michael levesque. at the board of appeals for cheryl hogan, a matter was denied for appeal. president swig had received a large number of recent studied about the impact of e.m.f.-r.f.

radiation, wireless antennas and sent them on to the department of public health. he did so because the board of appeals is limited in the scope of determination and nine years have passed. president swig cannot receive the response at the july 17 hearing, and this information appears perhaps to me as new evidence that warranted a postponement awaiting the response by the department of public health. the postponement would recognize the seriousness of the issues facing the members of the board of appeals, also would not unduly delay its determination. how serious is the issue? it has great impacts on the life of cheryl hogan who suffers from electric sensitivity, legally recognized by the federal government. this now affects one out of ten

years and individually manifests itself in our genetic make up. with the wireless antenna, it will affect cheryl hogan so bad she will not be able to live at her home. this puts everyone at risk. pg&e had a legal battle when she deployed the smart -- they deployed the smart meters, and it was later found that they permitted an opting out for the electronically sensitive, so legal relief exists for such individuals. in hawaii, a much more aggressive approach resulted in only an opting in by the provider and several resignations. a cellular antenna placed in front of cheryl hogan's home could be placed in another area

to protect her health. my question is is it possible for the board to reconsider their determination on behalf of cheryl hogan, and thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: is there anyone else here for general public comment? okay. so we will move on to item number two, which is commissioner comments and questions? >> vice president swig: commissioners, comments and questions? >> commissioner honda: i would like to welcome our shining new commissioner, eduardo, from harvard. welcome. >> vice president swig: okay. i'd like to welcome eduardo, as well, and i think indicative of our enthusiasm having you filling out our panel is you have a brand spanking new name plate when only yesterday the board of supervisors finally approved you, which shows the excitement and enthusiasm of

our executive credit. >> clerk: all credit goes to gary quintara. that's made out of paper. the official one will be here as soon as possible. >> vice president swig: wow, gary. we're excited to have you aboard. second of all, and this is not in response to the public comment that we had a moment ago. i was going to make this comment. it follows up on the request of our last session to our executive director, requesting that we get some feedback from the department of health as to if and when they will respond to an update on this request of their 2010 opinion of the technology. >> clerk: yeah. they have not provided me with a definitive date yet, and i will work on getting a firm date this week.

>> vice president swig: yeah. would you, as a matter of public record, tell them that another formal request was made in public? >> clerk: yes. >> vice president swig: yes. just yes, no, or when, please. >> clerk: okay. any other commissioner comments and questions? is there any other public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, we'll move on to the adoption of the minutes. before you for possible adoption are the minutes of the july 17 board meeting. >> vice president swig: commissioners, a motion? >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt those minutes. is there any public comment on that motion? okay. seeing none, on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 5-0.

we're now moving on to item four, this is a jurisdiction request at 610 clipper street. dave cunningham, the requester is requesting that the board take jurisdiction on a permit which was issued on november 6, 2018 by the department of building inspection. the permit holder 610 clipper, l.l.c., the project description is the addition of six new dwelling units to be built within the envelope. >> commissioner honda: and upon advice from my city attorney, i will disclose that the appellant works for the same real estate brokerage that i do. we have not had any transactions nor do we have any

ever. >> clerk: thank you. okay, mr. cunningham, you have three minutes. >> can i give you a map before we start? >> clerk: you can put it on the overhead before we start. >> okay. good evening. my name is dave cunningham, and thank you for taking the time for my jurisdiction request. i was encouraged by the written response to my jurisdiction request from veritas' attorney which says they have no intention of taking away my parking and storage in violation of rent control laws. however my worries remain. the plans show all garages behind 610 clipper and all of

the open parking at 410 douglas being turned into a.d.u. units. i've drawn a rough map for you to show you my parking and storage location and the planned veritas a.d.u. locations in my building. on june 17, i sent veritas a request to provide the plans at this hearing. hopefully, they have the plans in question with them this evening. it is my understanding that this board of appeals has notified the board of supervisors about your concerns regarding the no notification on a.d.u.s which are in the envelope of the building. i left a message for my district eight supervisor, raphael mandelman on june 19.

the rent board cannot stop veritas from taking my parking and storage, only help me with a rent reduction after the fact. because the board of supervisors have not acted on this yet, i am asking you, the board of appeals to grant my appeal so the plans can be redrawn to show the retention of my parking and storage which is what veritas' attorney says is their intent. i cannot take veritas' work for it because their plans show the opposite of what they say they will do. i need to see new plans that show my parking and storage intact and you, the board of appeals are my only hope in getting that accomplished. thank you.

>> actually, i didn't know reuben and junius were making a presentation. i need to disclose that my company has hired reuben and junius on numerous occasions. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now here from mr. kevin. >> this might sound familiar. we were here i think two or three months ago on 1064 delores. little confused about this request. there doesn't seem to be anything in dispute. the rent board has very clear guidance on its website that parking along with storage and other amenities to rent control

units are subject to the same control as the unit themselves. there's no intent of forcing or involuntarily removing the appellant's parking so there doesn't seem to be anything in dispute here. i'll leave it to the board to ask questions if you do have them. because this does seem a little odd, two requests for jurisdictions filed. i'm just going to mention mr. cunningham is on the complaint as one of the parties. also mention the appellant at the 1064 jurisdiction request two or three months ago. john kessler is also on the complaint as well as the gentleman that spoke in his

favor at that hearing, so there's nothing i can do to stop this from happening. in fact there's nothing the board can do to stop future jurisdiction requests to be filed. i just thought i'd put that out there to connect the dots, but i'm more than happy to discuss

five a.d.u.s, but that's where we are right now. >> and where is the project in terms of actually constructing the a.d.u.s or where are we on that? >> seismic reviews are being done in september. the site permit was issued last november. as of right now, there's no immediate or even midterm plans too construct -- to construct or build it out yet because there are several spaces that are encumbered, so assuming

that doesn't get solved in a way that benefits everyone, veritas might come back, but right now, it's okay for everyone. >> understanding that your client has to abide by the current tenant rights and not take amenities away, so how did they get a permit to build a unit that they don't have anything listed yet? >> i'll let mr. sanchez fill in the details as necessary. there was a lot of enthusiasm about it. a number of building owners went out and got permits for parking, storage, etc., and

with the a.d.u. program, you can get a site permit and you don't have to file construction drawings, and it's a relatively simple process. it's only in recent years that you have to start working with the tenants, working to fix out these conflicts are going to be resolved. i think it's a year ago, two years ago that the department implemented a policy that the a.d.u. builders have to provide notice of the rights of the a.d.u. tenant pursuant to law. it's the risk to protections that don't allow you to actually build it out. >> but just simple math, you were here just recently, and veritas is the largest business landlord in san francisco. it would be good faith to deal

with the tenants prior to showing up that there was a permit being done. >> this permit's been on file for a number of years and just got issued in november. so while veritas and some of the other larger landlords in the city, the practicality has been shifting, so what you're seeing today has been in the works for a number of years. for veritas' own purposes, they are continuing to update their processes with their tenants. >> and then last question, counselor. how many a.d.u.s are in the works for veritas currently? >> we're actually working with some very enthusiasm party -- enthusiastic parties in city government, and we've got

some -- >> 200? 500? >> i don't have a number, but we're talking in the hundreds. >> thank you. >> yeah, so thank you. >> a question that's going to lead to a question for the city attorney later. so we've had a series of, like, issues some nothing to do with veritas and some having to do with veritas. in some, there was a lack of transparency, either intended or unintended where because the law did not require that plans weren't -- that tenants weren't disclosed of the plans, the plans weren't offered to the

tenants, and -- and as a result, we made a request to the board of supervisors to make some requests to cure that in their legislation which i believe was passed about a month and a half ago. my question is was veritas proactive in informing the tenants in this building that this was underway and was there any proactive attempt to inform the tenants that these plans were moving forward and was there any proactive attempt to show the tenants any plans to relieve anxiety stress questions or the general

apprehension that tenants have when they ultimately found out? >> i'm not aware of any situations in the a.d.u. program. i will say the submittal that the appellant made showed a good intent. despite the fact that there's just me here, there's others watching about this hearing. i went back and told them about your comments, and they're watching this, so your comments are welcome in terms of moving forward. >> thank you. i'm going to follow up with a question for the city attorney later on. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. sanchez? >> good afternoon, president

swig, members of the board. welcome, commissioner, to the board. i hope you enjoy coming to these hearings as much as we do. the permit that -- a jurisdiction request is being sought for is to add six a.d.u.s to the subject property. the planning code does not currently require neighborhood notice for the additional a.d.u.s. we did institute late last summer more of a courtesy requirement that they provide some notice to the tenants of the building when there'll be a reduction of services. this change occurred after approval by our department, so it was not subject to that additional step. some other facts to consider if they are helpful enough for the board. parking is no longer required under the planning code, so the parking spaces that are not --

actually, at the time the permit was issued, they would have been required parking spaces but no longer because of recent legislation that was effective at the beginning of this year. also, there's a new process for kind of an expedited appeal process for a.d.u.s, and my understanding of the approval process for this is it would not be subject to that stream lined appeal process. i think it's also based on the issuance date of the permit, but the type of permit that is here is not one that would require the future expedited process. that's all i have to add to the jurisdiction request and i'm available for any questions. >> vice president swig: so in your opinion, this permit was issued appropriately and there's no hair on this dog, so to speak. >> from the information that i have and the information that i have from the jurisdiction request, it appears that the

permit was properly issued. >> vice president swig: okay. can i -- aligned with the line of questioning which i gave to the project sponsor. so we're a little twixt, in between a lot of stuff, to put it in context. there's a significant position by the city to get more housing, yes? >> yes. >> vice president swig: as part of that initiative, the a.d.u. initialsi initiative is something that the city is behind and wishes to move forward. >> a.d.u. is a requirement under state law, but we've gone beyond what the state law requires and provided greater

flexibility for the providing of additional housing. >> vice president swig: okay. we know that the tenant is protected in that if they have a contract with the owner of the building to have parking, that parking will continue. if they have storage, that storage will continue. if they have laundry space, that laundry space will continue as long as those contracts are enforced, correct? >> that is a matter for the rent board. there is a process to deal with that. it is not through the planning department or building department or permit process themselves, but there is a rent board, and we direct people to them to deal with their concerns. >> vice president swig: but it would be a plan if the storage and laundry room disappeared. >> yes. and we are checking to see if their common facilities, those are -- if there are common

facility do facilities, those are things through the a.d.u. process that we like to see retained. there shouldn't be necessarily a removal or degradation for existing tenants, especially for things like laundry and for other items like that. it's -- you know, parking, it's not required by the code. we go to the project sponsor, do they have the ability to actually remove that parking space. if they have a problem with the tenant, they work that out. we've seen situations where these things will come up and they've work on a solution, maybe they'll retain more of the parking spaces, and it sounds like the permit holder is weighing on how they want to proceed.

do they want to drop the permit altogether? will they get a resolution with the tenants and have the permit as it's proposed? that's something that they are working on separately i'm assuming with the tenants and moving forward. >> vice president swig: okay. and continuing on the betwixt and between, all this has been in a choppy fashion because it's just a learn as you go. so one of the learn as we've gone is in the a.d.u. process, there was no requirement for building owners to give notice that they were going to do that for their tenants, and it was not required that they share their plans like we would have in a 311 notice for a neighborhood. and that's caused -- that's caused the stress, that's caused the consternation. and now, as part of that

learning curve, there is adjusted legislation on a.d.u.s. am i correct on that? >> i don't have the latest on amendments and what the requirement would be. unfortunately, there's something additional for the board, and i can look into that and report that back to the board. >> vice president swig: and i was told by the members of the board of supervisors that instead our written recommendation to them to include notice and the opportunity for tenants to review plans, so therefore for you, it's your opinion and for the city attorney, it's a matter of legal advice.

does this involve a learning curve and let's involve the community when plans are made. does this have any bearing or is it too late now for our review of this jurisdictional request? >> i don't have any information configu . >> vice president swig: so you would defer. >> i would defer. >> commissioner, the ordinance was reviewed and amendments were added, but it wouldn't affect this jurisdiction in any event because at the time those note any indicatithose

notification requirements were not in at the time those permits were issued. there was no requirement by the city for the landlord to provide this notice. >> vice president swig: i think the city has a question. [inaudible] >> clerk: can you put your microphone on, please? thank you. >> how does that, then, comport with existing sort of contractor or less provisions? i didn't get the context of your -- >> it has no bearing on whatever private contracts a tenant may have with the property owner. it's just for purposes of applying the planning code that parking space is no longer required to satisfy a planning code requirement. in this case, they were removing the parking places, but they would have been required to provide bicycle spaces to offset that? it's just that because of this, it's no longer required to have parking as the main point. >> commissioner honda: so one

more question, mr. sanchez. so what is your opinion, i mean, regarding us taking jurisdiction? i do have a little bit of a concern that a permit and plans were drawn for a space that they didn't have control of, are you able to work that outgoing forward? >> it's really for the builder to work that out with the tenants. i don't want to provide an opinion for the board on whether or not to grant jurisdiction. one of the things that struck me -- >> commissioner honda: i was asking for your expert expert opinion. >> one of the things that struck me was the permit holder at this time has no intent of moving forward with this permit, which is not something that we usually hear. if jurisdiction is granted, then, the permit holder could be harmed by that delay, but here, it's interesting that they're not moving forward with that. they may need to come back with

revisions, they may need to abandon it altogether. that's something that i hadn't typically seen a project come before you but we don't actually intend on doing anything right now. >> commissioner honda: i see a counselor shaking his head. >> commissioner honda: another expert opinion. mr. kevlin -- it's good to have you back. >> certainly, the permit holder is not -- i'm here to oppose jurisdiction requests tonight over this permit. we are still, just like every a.d.u. permit seeing whether or not we can make this work on any given site. obviously, we've got an issue

with mr. kyunging ham, saying we don't want this permit. we would oppose taking jurisdiction in this case. >> commissioner honda: and you wouldn't happen to have any plans that showed his permit still in place, would you? >> yeah. >> commissioner honda: you have plans that show his permit still in place? >> commissioner honda: okay. but not one retaining his deeded parking space? >> no. >> clerk: okay. mr. duffy, do you have anything? okay. is there anything further on this item? okay. seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted lazarovitz -

>> i do not believe that we can accept jurisdiction. >> i concur with commissioner lazarus. >> vice president swig: yeah. i -- you know, we've made it very clear that we are sensitive to this transition period and learning curve that the a.d.u. process is presenting, but there is -- at the time that this permit was filed and accepted, it seems that everything was in place to approve it appropriately, and i don't think that -- that we have the right to reverse it at this point. so i agree with commissioner' lazarus''''. ''''''' '''''''''. >> commissioner honda: i agree with my fellow commissioners

because i don't believe they're able to build that a.d.u. without the consent of the development. we haven't heard from the new commissioner. >> i concur with my fellow commissioners. i'm encouraged by hearing today that they have no intention of taking the tenants parking space without going through the proper channels. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from commissioner santacana to deny the request on what basis? >> that the city has not intentionally or inadvertently caused the requestor to be late. >> commissioner honda: you must be a lawyer.

>> clerk: okay. so on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so on that motion, that passed, 5-0. >> commissioner honda: wow. his first night, first hearing, and he's already making motions. >> clerk: all right. item 5, this is a rehearing of appeal 19-023 decided may 15, 2019. at that time, the board voted 4-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the process that it was properly issued. and commissioner santacana,

have you had the opportunity to review the materials and proceedings that took place on may 15, 2019? >> i have, and i'm ready to proceed. >> clerk: okay. we will hear from the requester first miss soliman. >> the reason i'm doing the appeal is -- [inaudible] >> and they have not provide any evidence for anything they said. i have my engineer. he will be explaining everything and i have everything with me. also, i got the calculations that the engineer requested. would you like to -- would you like to get a copy of it? >> clerk: at this point, it's up to the commissioners, but the time has passed for a briefing. >> okay.

>> okay. so first time coming to you, san francisco city hall. i'm a licensed structure engineer in california, and i got my degree in engineering at purdue university. i have been working as a structural engineer in the bay area for over 20 years. right now, i'm a specialist in seismic design retrofit. so i was retained by my client to review the design documentation and also the crack of the site conditions. i did an inspection, and i reviewed the design, and i also did my own calculation. i made the calculation that the foundation was really under designed for a number of reasons. so this house was built in '48. in those days, the foundation

had very little steel rebar in the concrete. it only needed minimum 1 feet wide 1 foot deep foundation. that's the minimum for any house. but this is a two-story house, and this is, like, a -- maybe older, like, foundation, and it's already cracked. myself inspected hundreds of foundations around the bay area, and i believe that if we have opportunity to inspect the foundation inside the crawl space, you would see much more cracks. so this one, i don't know how

the city approved this design. the foundation is not adequate, and it's not safe, and we needed to review, you know, the engineering part of this design and do more inspection from inside and definitely from inspecting many houses, we need to retrofit the foundation before adding to the structure. >> clerk: okay. thank you, sir. your time is up. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, commissioners. troy kishani here with the owner and engineer.

>> -- the appellant continues to make calls to d.b.i. the d.b.i. inspectors have visited the property four times to date based on neighbor complaints, and the owner needs to be there. it interrupts her work schedule to be home to meet the inspectors. we don't have any new evidence he here. we discussed cracks at this hearing, we discussed cracked at the last hearing. they're arguing that cracks are evidence of foundation failure. there's no evidence of this. there's no sloping floors, no cracks in drywall. the cracks in the original home

appear to be level. so i'll yield the rest of the time to the instrustructural engineer, and if he runs out of time, i hope you can ask him questions. >> i'd just like to say that the facts as represented by the gentleman who just spoke are incorrect. the existing structure is a one-story house. there are two stories, but the bottom story is on the ground. the plans will add a second floor? >> clerk: okay. your time's up, sir. >> commissioner honda: just one question. at the last hearing, the engineering report was available to the appellant at the time, correct? would you like to come to the

podium, sir? i'm just verifying that the engineering -- >> the permit drawings were available to the appellant, yes, sir. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. >> to the engineer, just a question for you. the appellant -- the appellant's engineer made the assertion that if you go to the crawl space, you would see more evidence of cracking. i don't know if you've seen the current foundation and describe its current state. >> i observed the foundation before the drawings, and yes, there are some cracks, but the foundation is over 40 years old. i'd challenge you to find any foundation in san francisco that's 40 years old without cracks, and i think the allegations are baseless.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. sanchez? mr. duffy? >> commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. first of all, i'd like to welcome commissioner eduardo to the board. >> commissioner honda: you're not going to tackle that last name? >> i'm not. >> commissioner honda: neither am i, and i'm latino. >> i've been dealing with this one for a couple of months with this case. we heard it in late may, and i know the appellant has been e-mailing the department, you know, quite frequently, which is fine. i appreciate her getting her engineer's report. if she had it ahead of the hearing, it would probably have been more helpful. there is an open complaint on

the property that somebody filed in september 2018, and it's very similar to the issues brought up in the appeal. when the cracks foundation, when we get a report from an engineer which is in conflict with their engineer, we will treat this as a conflict with d.b.i. friday was the first i saw of this. i did contact our plan check department, and i have requested a site check visit from a d.b.i. engineer, and the structural engineer for the project and the other engineer is welcome to inspect it, as

well. i would probably encourage the board to go ahead with this permit, knowing that d.b.i. are following up on the open complaint any way on the structural issue. again, it would have been nice to have the report for the hearing. it's not finished yet. it will be wrapped up by d.b.i. >> vice president swig: is it your recommendation that we

should deny the appeal because it'll be dealt with or what would be the condition? >> what would be the condition? >> commissioner honda: it's a rehearing. >> vice president swig: just leave it alone? >> yeah. i think leave it to d.b.i. to deal with the complaint, and the appellant has also indicated that she's going to go to the state license board. i printed out the state engineer with this, so i don't think it's finished in any way but for the board of appeals, maybe it should be. and knowing that there is another process taking place within the department. >> commissioner honda: thank you, inspector duffy. >> clerk: okay. is there any other comment on is this? okay. seeing none, the matter is submitted. >> commissioner honda: i think who was presented today was all

available at the engineer's report. i see no reason or cause to hold a rehearing. >> i would move to deny the rehearing request on the basis that no new evidence has been submitted that suggests that manifest injustice would be inflicted upon the appellant. >> clerk: so who's making that motion, then, commissioner tanner? >> vice president swig: can i make one more little comment? because i took a little bit of problem with the permit holder's architect, you know, they should have had it in last time. i'm going to use the glass half full. we have to remember -- when somebody makes an appeal, we're not dealing with highly skilled professional who know every answer and know every place to turn, so i understand the architect's point of view,

yeah, you should have had it in, and mr. honda brought it up, you should have brought it in. but sometimes a neighbor who is just a neighbor and who is living with concern and doesn't have the experience to know every rock to look under, so in this case, i'm a little bit more sympathetic i , i'm going go through with the recommendation, but somebody who filed a report, they're not experts, although i absolutely support the direction this is going. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner tanner based on the fact that there's no new evidence on manifest injustice. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay.

so that motion carries, 5-0, and the request is denied. we are now moving on to item number six. this is appeal number 18-127, carolyn duffy versus department of building inspection. subject property, 50 alta street number 5, protesting the issuance on september 25, 2018 to union properties of an alteration property. this is application number 201809241235. note on november 14, 2018, the board voted 5-0 to continue this matter to allow time for the board to -- [inaudible]

>> -- to allow time for the permit holder to provide a brief which includes copies of all permit applications and drawings for 40 and 50 alta street and which addresses the full scope of work at the property. so as a preliminary matter, and also, miss duffy, we're going to hear from the permit holder first, so if you could have a seat, we'll be hearing from the permit holder first. >> okay. >> clerk: so as a preliminary matter, commissioner lazarus, did you have the opportunity to review the video and the materials on april 17, 2019? >> i have, and i'm prepared to proceed. >> clerk: so we will hear from the permit holder. you have three minutes. >> good evening,