a card. at that point, you can buy medical cannabis that exceeds the state limits for recreational cannabis. >> and this facility, does this apply in terms of who's allowed to access this facility. there's no other restrictions? >> yes. >> and as far as the rooms, the negative pressure, etc., if someone is applying now on-site, they would have to go through all that to have the on-site vaping or smoking, is that what you're saying? >> correct. there's an article 33 permit holder that wasn't specifically -- that now is moving forward on meeting all the regulations for all 8-a, and they are very close to finishing up the buildout for their designated cannabis smoking -- >> and can you share with me,

sometimes the inspectors were out there several times in one year, nso what can be done to make sure that this won't happen in the future? >> i'm making sure that we get every permit required for all dispensaries. in the past, i wasn't part of the program, but from my understanding and the path a referral went to the department until land use was approved, then, the referral came back and it was marked approved or disapproved, but there wasn't specific conditions stated explicitly on that referral. whereas with our referral now, when -- when we sent those referrals over, there was an explanation as to why they denied them and what they would

have to do. >> okay. >> but that -- that's all i can say. what -- i also want to say that i personally spoke to larry kessler, and larry kessler does not remember any phone call with anyone from bloom room authorizing him. at the director's hearing -- >> no, and i appreciate that. i don't think that is as concerning to me as the fact -- >> and i agree with you as far as -- >> and then, the last question, going back to the permits for on-site consumption. now, the application if -- if a facility is grandfathered, do they have to go through all of these controls, designated room, etc., or they're grandfathered into their current facility? >> they are grandfathered into their current facility, and those were the midispensaries that are explicitly designated during the land use hearing for

consumption. so every place you saw today, they checked off yes, they want to. yes, they want to. there were those that said they wanted to, and the planning commission said no. there were those that wanted to, based on how far they were from the schools and all that, so those did not have to. >> thank you. >> i have a question. so going back to my earlier line, do you know how many of those that include smoking on premises, and are there disadvantages in terms of the business, disadvantages in terms of approval? i'm just wondering what motivates a dispensary to go one way or the other? >> are you talking about currently or in the past? >> probably in the past. >> so right now, i'd say there was about eight facilities that are allowed to smoke. there's about 36 storefronts,

and then about 20 something deliveries, so the percentage -- i can't tell you when the initial -- when this all began, and the medical cannabis dispensary program can, and they applied, i can't tell you the percentage. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. no further questions. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: okay. we will now hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. this did not receive a variation from the planning commission, it was a d.r. th they -- when they listed the specific actions that would be taking place on-site, they did not list smoking on-site. we have an excellent working

relationship with public health and find they've done an excellent job over the years with regulating. i think everyone has taken this work and responded very quickly and accurately to the issues that have come up, just as in the case here. but the fact is the applicant -- the appellant in this case, they never asked for and received approval from the planning commission for that. they need to come back and change their application. i don't understand from the point of the appellant what made them think that the permit that was before them would allow them to do on-site smoking when they did not apply for that. and when -- we even have the notice here. very clearly says would not amend on-site smoking, vaporizing or cultivation.

they haven't been able to provide any subsequent documentation or communication that would authorize. that's what led us to our decision here. they have the ability to go back and modify their application if th application. if they would like to change that scope, they can take it back to the planning commission with that. thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> vice president swig: i just want to go on with something very clear because if it's not something that the appellants wish, the appellant still does have very clear options according to the law to go back to planning, make a proper application for a permit to change the use of his facility, correct? >> correct. go back to the planning commission stating their intention to have on-site smoking. they would need to meet all the relevant requirements in place to add that for -- as a new factor or as a new element.

>> vice president swig: so substance of this discussion tonight is we have laws, and we have process. the health department says the law is this. it's being -- we can't allow it to be abused, and also, there is a law that states if you want to do what you want to do, you can't cut the corner, but we'll be happy to talk to you about building a new structure, metaphorically to do what you want to do, maintain your good employees, maintain your good customers, but do dit to the law. that's our discussion tonight. >> yes. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> while i don't enjoy these actions were observed for many years without consequence, which might lead someone to

believe it's okay, the permit does not allow on-site consumption at the bloom room. there is a process to allow on-site consumption. i understand it would have expense and impact on the business, but it doesn't seem that this -- i just can't really see a way to find for the appellant in this case. >> commissioner honda: so as a commissioner, and my fellow vice president has been on this board for seven-plus years, the cannabis appeals were quite long, into the night, sometimes till 1:00 in the morning. in this particular case, similar to my fellow commissioner, you know, the concern i have, to be honest, counselor representing them was displayed as the owner in this particular case. he was quite aware of the terms which he was able -- and back in 2012 rks you've g, you've g

remember, this was a grand thing to get a dispensary license. but he signed on the dotted line of how he would conduct this business. and i'm a little concerned that during this whole time, he's been in violation of his permit. >> vice president swig: do we have a motion? >> i move we would deny the appeal on the basis that the denial was properly issued? >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner tanner to deny the appeal and deny on the basis that it was properly denied. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-0, and the appeal's denied. we will now move on to item number 7. this is appeal 19-089, liliane

and michael silver with department of health. appealing the issuance on august 12, 2019 of an alteration permit, permit for an existing hatch to basement for removal of yard waste via garage in response to complaint 201977121. this and we will appehear from the appellants first. >> commissioner honda: good evening, welcome. >> good evening. thank you. >> i'd like to read from my notes, if that's okay. members of the board, this is very simple. the h.o.a. needs to vote. we're having that meeting on sunday.

the h.o.a. has not been provided a chance to vote on whether to allow the door despite my efforts. in fact they built the door without two of the owners -- two of the four owners knowing about it year ago before it was discovered. the applicant has become president and has resisted holding a meeting before today. we now have an h.o.a. meeting on sunday and this is on the agenda. the c.c. and r.'s do not allow alteration of the common area without consent of the owners. since the first meeting after miss tamez' has been on the h.o.a., she's diverted meeting dates and changed locations off-site. t they have sectioned off the desired area by putting up a wall and designated another,

much smaller area, for the other three owners to have a storage, again, without the knowledge of two out of the four owners. they have built a workshop in "their area," the fumes of which has gotten into the nearby furnace and entered into the small apartment. all owners have recently agreed unanimously to divide the common area equitiablely and divide it into storage spaces. as we planned the area of storage space, they allowed to include the door and square footage to require an "easement" from the door to the garage. [inaudible] >> i deny all other allegations

they put in the brief. i was formally put on to the deed in 2011. my mother and i bought the apartment together. i was always an operating owner. we were the first to buy a unit in the t.i.c. my mother and i purchased it together, and i was there before suna moved in, however, this is irrelevant since they did it without the knowledge of two out of the four owners. my mother, as well as two and four had no idea what was going on in the common area as they built this in the substructure of the common area of the building. i have a question. is there some sort of section on the permit where the h.o.a. has to disclose? >> commissioner honda: i have a question. it it it's a t.i.c. do you have a c.c. and r.'s?

>> we are a condo. >> commissioner honda: okay. so you have converted. congratulations? okay. do you have an h.o.a., and how often do you meet? >> it is very informal at this point. >> clerk: thank you, are you done? >> can i just -- >> clerk: sir, you have four minutes, if you like. >> just briefly, the other party submitted some documentation about other openers. >> commissioner honda: yeah. can you speak into the mic? >> the other owners agreeing and wanting the door to exist. however, that's misleading because they've been postponing the process so long, they just want to expedite and get the process done. i think the board needs to recognize that they just want to get through with the process and not complete the -- i'm sorry. i didn't notes to i'll finish there. >> commissioner honda: and just -- are you done? >> yeah. >> commissioner honda: did you

have any pictures, because there was not in the brief, and it's sometimes hard to imagine what you're talking about because i see the door from the outside and some other space being used. >> i believe the appellant included pictures in their brief? >> commissioner honda: okay. i didn't see any. i'll ask them. >> pictures of the door? >> commissioner honda: i'll ask them. >> it was supplied in the documentation. >> last question -- or not the last question, but building on the point of understanding the layout, there was a garage or a basement area that has enough space to exit out on to the back yard. it's a small -- it's a hatch, as you have described it >> i've checked the dimension and it's 5 feet. >> and it connects on to an area that's going to be storage, correct? and that connected further to

the street or the garage. and the rear yard, are there portions that are common used or portions that are deeded to other units? >> no. it's an e.u.c. for the appellant. >> so it's exclusive use to the permit holder? okay. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. any -- thank you. okay. we will now hear from the permit holder. hon >> commissioner honda: good evening and welcome. >> hello. my name is suma tamez. we became an h.o.a. in december 2019, after i had my lawyer send miss sommers a letter -- >> commissioner honda: i'm sorry, could you stop there

time? i have a question. >> sure. >> commissioner honda: both have referenced photos that are in the brief. >> i have 11 copies here, and we can project them, as well. >> commissioner honda: was this submitted to the office? >> no. >> commissioner honda: okay. we will continue your time, and sorry for the interruption. >> so we are an h.o.a. due to my efforts to move this forward. yes, it will be our first formal h.o.a. meeting on sunday. due to the type -- i don't want this turning into judge judy, so let's say it's hard to get anywhere in the same room with certain people. let's stick to the permits. there's a preexisting hatch before the condo conversion. we have had, based on our c.c. and r.'s, approve the permit of the hatch.

the c.c. and r.'s govern these types of discussions, so i'm sorry it's coming to you to debate some sort of deeper issue. we will also show you photos of the garden, which is my exclusive use, a 1600 square foot garden? there's no access siible entra. our only option would be to go up carpeted stairs, through two 90° angles, and through my complex. miss sommer requested a permit. we obtained the permits, and now she's appealing the permit. so there is a history, i'm just going to call it harassment. with that, i'm going to turn it over to mark sinclair to show the photos. >> thank you.

hopefully, this is a brief appearance here, but i'm the structural engineer and also i live at the address. so i think you have seen the photos. we're happy to provide you copies. the drawings were submitted in response to the -- to the notice of violation, and we responded within the time requirement. i submitted stamped drawings that were approved in an over-the-counter permit on october 14 -- sorry, august 14. and we received the job card and the signoffs, and i got the final inspection done two days later. no construction was required. the -- the hatch is 3 foot by 5 foot. the original construction did show a door in this location. it was never constructed.

that was because there wasn't enough clear height to put a door in, so maybe it was simply an oversight. a full-size door is not required because we do not meet the exiting demands with two exits. this is just a hatch, a little itty bitty hatch so we can bring manure out of the yard and put it in the storage unit. it's something that should have been handled by the h.o.a. and has not. i think that's about it, if you have any questions. >> commissioner honda: i do. how many people is -- >> it is a four-unit h.o.a. >> commissioner honda: and we're here to check the validity of the permit, not necessarily the ownership. you said you had three of the four -- >> yes. with us and with the two

letters of support of the other units, that's three out of four, and if miss sommer would have bothered to check with the other parties, she would have known that. >> commissioner honda: you're keeping us company. it's all entertaining. >> it's fine. am i on t.v.? >> clerk: thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. 12k3w4r now havi 12k3w4r now having sfpd and sffd called on me rks a, and t planning department, i'm doing good. >> clerk: okay. we'll hear from the planning department -- no, the building department. >> commissioner honda: wouldn't be a night without hearing the brogue. >> good evening, commissioners.

joe duffy, d.b.i. just in response, the permit was actually approved by several different divisions within d.b.i. and the planning department, as well over the current exterior work but at the rear of the property. on the -- filed on the 14th of august, issued on august 14. they immediately sought an inspection and that was completed and within the 15 days, an appeal was filed, so we had an issued, completed, and suspended permit within 14 days. the building did go through the condo conversion process in 2015 successfully. we issued a final completion

for that. they have a really good permit history on the building going back. there have been a number of permits completed on the building from the early 2000s to date. we issued a notice of violation for that work, and donald duffy wrote the notice of violation at the rear of property, the

work frame would have -- wood frame would have been removed to accommodate an area of open. new framing installed to accommodate a new opening. file for a permit, which is done, obtain a permit, which is done, and complete all the work, which is done. so that's -- that's what we have. even there's a notice of violation for work without a permit, it may have been preexisting. i'm not sure when the work was done, but when we get these types of complaints, we do have to investigate them, and if it looks like work that should have been a permit, we will issue a notice of violation, and even if it's done five years ago, six years ago, if the inspector feels it was

warranted. in some cases, we will allow the property owner a chance to get a permit. in this case, there were drawings and stuff to do, so some people do get away without getting the n.o.v. if they're off the mark, if they know there's a complaint on the property and they come down and get it. in this case, the inspector did the notice of violation. i will say it's not the most serious violation, the hatch in the back of a building, but i am available for questions. >> commissioner honda: i just have one question. i don't recall on the pink slip, it just says owner's information, it doesn't say h.o.a. or anything like that. >> thank you for the reminder. no, there hadn't anywhere on

the application. that's a different -- but that doesn't involve the department at all. >> commissioner honda: and i would imagine the inspection history is pretty tidy because they were able to convert from t.i.c. to condominium. >> and there was a chance that the hatch was there when the inspector came, and they didn't note it. obviously, they need to get together and sort this out. that would be better. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. we'll now move on to rebuttal, so we'll hear from the appellants. you have three minutes. >> okay. so the hatch was built about

six years ago, and a unanimous vote is required in order to change the common area of the building or any part of the building. would you like me to read the line in the cc a.c. and r.'s t indicate -- >> commissioner honda: it's a civil matter. >> so it's for the courts to decide? >> commissioner honda: correct. >> but it does require a unanimous vote -- i'll read this. actions requiring a 100% vote. these are the c.c. and r.'s that we just signed. the association shall not take the action without 100% approval of the units except

without as defined in this exception. they did not have the authority to apply for a permit, and i would like to see a permit because there must be a checked box somewhere that addresses this and requires the applicant to disclose if they have permit from an h.o.a. is there a copy of the permit available? >> commissioner honda: are you done with your time? you still have 1:20. >> you have anything else to say? >> i think the letters that they submitted, that the majority have approved it is very misleading because they've dragged on the process through the t.i.c. through so long. the other members really just want to be done with any kind of interaction with that party because they've cost the group

a lot of time and effort to get through the process, so they're just looking to get it done without any additional impediments. >> commissioner honda: are you done now? >> clerk: you still have 50 seconds, if you'd like to -- 12k3w >> well, i just hope that everyone heard my argument that i made in the beginning. it's really simple, that they shouldn't have been allowed to get a permit because they didn't have the right to build into the common area. >> clerk: okay. thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. so i will answer one of your questions. the board of appeals, you have the right to appeal a permit that's been issued, but it's not our job to determine who that owner is. and unfortunately, it's -- it's also beyond the scope of this board to go into your h.o.a. and your c.c. and r.'s to determine your ownership. so unfortunately, our job here

is just to determine if the permit was correctly issued and properly done, okay? >> in regards to your question about the application, it's part of the document that we received. this is the permit application that they go into the department of building inspection, they complete this information, so you can see the information that they provided on that application. and as commissioner honda said, part of our role is determining was the permit properly issued by the department with the authority to issue that permit, and their responsibility, which inspector duffy can speak to more if he needs to, and ensure that it's going to be meeting all the codes to ensure that any construction or anything that's built in san francisco is safe for the folks who will be occupying or using the facilities that will be constructed. i know it can be confusing, but the dispute that you're having amongst yourselves is a dispute that you have to handle amongst yourselves and while some folks

may be wanting to get on with the process or whatnot, you guys live there, and you're just getting start on the process that you're going to be going through collectively. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> thank you. so miss sommer asked us to apply for the permit. we applied for the permit of preexisting conditions. there is a process that kept us from meeting, and after we sent a letter to our lawyer for mediation, we will figure it out. at condo conversion, i believe, in 2014, the inspectors walked through. the other owner, mr. john radowski who approves the permits, he called the fire inspectors based where miss sommer was storing her things and the fire exits.

they also inspected the whole thing and didn't raise any concerns. and on the projector, i can show you a picture of my garden because i have some more time. so the size -- the whole background, it's a big garden. if we don't get the permit, if the permit is revoked, we can bring the timber and the -- maybe not the wheelbarrowy and a bunch of things through the common area and impacting the ten people -- sorry, nine people, but it is just structur structurally sound and all those things? thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. duffy, anything further? >> commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. just to add, when you fill in the wlien 15 for ownershi-- lir

permit process, she put herself in, suna tamez, 530 kansas street. sometimes we do get questions on these things, and it's dealt with by permit bureau. we sometimes have to call the city attorney's office on these types of things. it's just very confusing, but when you issue over 60,000 permits a year, and people are coming to you on the lines, the ownership proving you're an owner, and then are you allowed to get a permit for this part of the building, i don't think they get into that much depth. i would say that these appellants maybe still have an option, to go to the department and prove that the permit was improp improperly issued.

they can always -- signed off and improperly issued. there is sections in the san francisco building code where we could revoke a permit if we find that it was improperly issued. but as far as i know that -- on the fifth floor of d.b.i. when you're getting a permit, there is a pretty good check as to who's getting the permit, and as far as know, they thought they were issuing this permit right. there's nothing i've seen that they having. maybe somebody could come in with a ruse, and they could look into that, and we could seek advice from our city attorney where we right the wr work on that. but i think after this process, i think they can sort out their differences. >> mr. duffy, what would be the consequences of revoking that permit? would they have to remove the hatch? >> well, that's the work that was done, revert back to original condition. i don't know what it even was.

and apparently, there was a door opening showing on the original plans which doesn't -- didn't get done, which is pretty astute of them. you can argue that that was just an opening there before. i think that's what the gentleman said earlier on one of the slides that i saw. but yeah, if you're revoked, you would have to revert back to original condition. >> whatever that would be 12k3w 12k3w4r whatever that would be. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> commissioner honda: as i say, unfortunately, this appears to be more of a fellow ownership issue. the permit that was before us i believe was properly issued, so i would deny the -- well, any further comment? >> i agree. >> i agree, as well.

i mean, my only comment is i hope for the benefit of the coowners is they can find mediation or ways to work this out as it seems like it is something that's not going to be resolved here at this body and it's really resolved best amongst yourselves. >> commissioner honda: anybody want to make a motion? >> i would make a motion to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner taylor to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call] >> vice president swig: five >> clerk: okay. welcome back to the october 23, 2019 -- >> president swig: mr. duffy,

could you take all conversations out in the hallway, please? thank you. >> clerk: thank you. welcome back to the october 23, 2019 meeting of the board of appeals. we are now on item number 8. this is appeal 19-091, edward roden versus the department of building inspection. [agenda item read]. >> commissioner honda: good evening and welcome. >> good evening.

thank you. so i live next door at 3508. i've lived there since 1995, so i endured the 20 years of construction for the same permit at that time. the reason i'm appealing this construction permit is i've recently in the last few years have had $45,000 worth of damage in my building to their construction. do you want to show me everything -- >> clerk: i'm sorry. what's your question? >> do you want me to submit pictures of what's in question? >> clerk: if you have it -- >> it's all there. there's a payment from state farm showing the insurance and payment, and a picture showing the damage that was caused, so a lot of concern of what's going on. doors don't open, major cracks. i mean it's not just minor, it's pretty major.

again, over $45,000. unfortunately, there's a loophole with d.b.i. that allows someone to extend building codes indefinitely, and it's been grandfathered. on several occasions, there's been different -- the work has been different than the plans are. with the record keeping over the last 20 years, it's almost impossible to keep straight what's current and what's not. when you ask them which permit to go, it's oh, it's upstairs. when you comment on it, their response is oh, i'm too busy to look at this. i've spent hours and days up there, and i can't tell what's going on. this is where i become more active on this. on march 1, d.b.i. was shown a

copy of remediation, showing concrete to stablize the foundation along our shared property line. for some reason, these plans were never implemented. there were new plans submitted, approved on august 9. the plans that i viewed at d.b.i. are not the same plans that were approved. they're actual paper plans, not these plans. when i reviewed the plans in july, it only showed temporary concrete slabs along my property line, and only extends the work permit for two years. i met with ed sweeney, talked with him. he said he would help schedule a meeting to review the calls. unfortunately, this never happened. there's e-mails that go back over a month trying to get ahold of the correct people at d.b.i. with no success. to conclude, the reasons for

appealing the permit are it appears to be a temporary solution, only extending the permit another two years. as part of the notice of violations, they're supposed to provide an engineering report, showing the structural and stability of the building, which still has not been submitted as of september 27 with my meeting with maricio hernandez, so my question is how can -- the right hand doesn't know what the left-hand's doing all the time, but how can you approve a plan when there's a notice of violation, they've not completed all the steps there, and they're just submitting a plan, so that's one of my main concerns. also, after many attempts, i don't know if there's a soil attempts report. i' i've gone down -- this is all criteria of doing foundation work. so i've done my best to look up the data, to look at the data.

i want the work to be done as quickly as possible, but i want it done with appropriate oversight, which i think has been a little lacking to date. >> commissioner honda: i have a question. you submitted your insurance bill, but there's no detail and no picture 12k3w4r i didn'pict >> i have a full packet with the pictures and the damage. i have a copy of the full engineering report. >> commissioner honda: yeah. if you have copy of the report and pictures, please put them on the overhead. that would be great. >> yeah, sure. they're sort of interspersed with the report. >> clerk: overhead, please. >> commissioner honda: thank

you. so the orientation, north, south, east, west, what would that be? >> so the fence -- [inaudible] >> clerk: i'm sorry. we can't hear you. >> i'm sorry. that -- >> commissioner honda: next picture, please. >> okay. trying to show the ones that are more obvious. so there's major cracks here that were not there before. here's more major cracks and things falling off of my

building from the construction. here's where -- there's a door with a latch, and you can see where the latch is sunken where you can't even cross the latch anymore. those doors don't open. this is a safety issue. because of the buildings moving, both doors -- i had to have them sawed twice because of the movement, and the windows in my upper unit, my tenant, they're boeiwing, and it's a mess. >> commissioner honda: and it's all on the -- >> the only damage is the same side of the building. >> commissioner tanner: i have a few questions for you. as you stated in your brief, and you illustrated, there's damage to your building caused by construction that's going on at the neighboring property. >> right. >> commissioner tanner: you've been unable to get clear on what the plans are -- you just want to know what's happening

at their property so you can understand the process and make sure what's -- >> i'm trying to avoid additional damage to my building and they still have not filed an engineering report in over a year to comply with the notice of violation. i have a copy of that if you want to see it, which -- so -- >> commissioner tanner: and i just want to -- i hear you. i want to just make sure we understand as a board what it is you're seeking in terms of remedy. >> i want a solution. >> you want a long-term solution -- >> this has been going on since 1998, literally. the same permit, the same permit continued. >> commissioner tanner: got it. >> and they're doing other property, the work, that seems to happen also -- >> commissioner honda: thank you, sir. thank you. >> commissioner tanner: thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder.

>> commissioner honda: good evening. welcome. >> mohamed salem. i'm appearing for the permit holder. >> president swig: would you speak into the microphone, please? >> mohamed salem appearing for the permit holder. the engineer board which are the plans -- you have a copy of, were submitted on march 1. and there was extensive review -- it took until august 9 to issue the permit. d.b.i. asked for two letters from me.

so this was submitted at the request of d.b.i. as an additional recommendation. and also, after -- sorry. after the plans were being reviewed by d.b.i., they required technical also to review the plans and required a letter saying that i reviewed the plans and they are compliant with the recommendations. so my opinion and based on d.b.i. review, and you have the permit, reviewed by several departments -- i don't know if you want me to show that quickly here -- >> commissioner honda: it's fine. it's in our brief actually. >> it's in your brief, yeah. okay. engineer's here, reviewed it, and it showed the review. also, there's a safety issue

here. the work required -- this is a limited permit for work to do a 22-foot section for shoring. that shoring is necessary and important for safety because it's not temporary, but the work would allow a retaining wall to be constructed at the boundary between the two properties, and that would actually provide safer conditions for both building, so the appeal should be denied. as far as the work, i'll just mention that the appellant, exhibit 1 himself, that the engineers are provided by exponent, if i may refer to the last page of his exhibit 1 submitted by the appellant. [please stand by]

. . . >> it is a commercial building. >> president swig: maybe your clined would like client would explain this. >> sure. thank you. >> hello. i am margaret rogerson. >> move the mic down so we can hear you, thank you. >> the original permit was issued a long time ago, and this building when i bought it was the tear downer and now it's fire sprinkled and the entire building is sheered. and blocked. we went through every inch of this building and one by one. and this was why for whatever reason. they asked me to keep continuing with the same permit. >> commissioner honda: the

question i have -- >> we didn't start the basement where we are doing the foundation work. we started that about eight years ago. and then there was a period where we did revisions, and that revision took another three years. where we asked to change restrooms and stuff, and that didn't happen. we are at the end of the project now. there is 22 feet of -- all the foundations are done. all the excavation is done. 22 feet left of shore. this permit is to complete because he was concerned and we haven't even touched the second half, so that 22 feet where it is adjacent to his property, we haven't worked there yet. >> commissioner honda: the question i have, is there work that you are doing that would cause settlement or cracking in his property? >> those cracks, if you looked at his property and you can see that the report says that all those note that those cracks were exist. his property is very old.

it's never been fixed. and it is crumbling. >> commissioner honda: ma'am, sorry, excuse me. ma'am. so do you -- your brief was pretty basic. do you have any photos or illustrations indicating that potentially your work did not cause the damage in his property? >> his own report says theres no substantial damage and the cracks are existing. his own engineer's report states that. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? okay. mr. duffy? >> this is interesting. >> it is what it is. commissioners, these types of cases here are cause us many,

many hours and days and weeks and months of stress. i was the inspector for this area the parking issues and the parking spaces. i believe one of the study tried to -- because of the project and the appearance of -- because of the construction and the parking, they were taking up four spaces. the unfortunate part of it is that the building code is for permits and extending and reviewing a permit. we probably -- i know i have another one of these types of projects in another district. you really just have to keep on

people to what is going on. and the store front and probably spoken to the attorney about it. but what do you do? take the permit away and leave it in the middle of the work? and that the cracks weren't caused by her work or whatever. get the project completed. a couple of things from the appellant as well that the

identity from the appellant heard that he had an engineer on board. sometimes we have these situations and we we have them weekly. you have heard me speaking about them before. zero lot lines, excavation, something is undermined, small cracking, sometimes we seen one a few weeks ago with huge voids under someone's foundation they discovered whenever they went to see the depth of their front porch to do work. it is an ongoing issue. what i would say and i like to handle it where if there is an engineer and i heard this gentleman speak. he is a licensed geotechnical engineer. there is a letter in the brief. i don't know how the next door neighbor wasn't given this letter. it describes clearly what he wants to do, what steps he has to take, which is what d.b.i. wants. the only thing i didn't hear him saying maybe he needs an engineer as well to give him

that insurance policy that these guys are going to design this and do it and going to fix it. that is what probably needs to happen. on his side if he's getting cracking on his walkway or whatever part of it is, the work would have to be done at 3516 sacramento and then put in the retaining wall and the temporary shoring and whatever they do and then his area needs to be repaired later. we deal with this a lot. it is unfortunate and it does happen. and normally in these things people are moving pretty quickly. these are like something that if you are in the middle of a project and whether you accidentally or on purpose disturb something at your neighbor's property, well, you want to address that pretty quickly. we find that by encouraging owners to get their engineers on board, and the department can bring an engineer out as well, and i am sure we have in this case, but there is a lot of documents in here that are good. they do describe the work to be done. and so from that point of view, i would say that the permit

itself is properly reviewed and issued. and the work should proceed. and i heard the gentleman saying that he wasn't getting responses from d.b.i. staff. the people that he mentioned and i know i am with emails every day of the week and i do know they respond. i am not sure what happened in the case and i would encourage him to come down to the third floor and set up an appointment with mr. sweeney. you can get time whenever you need it and the relevant people involved in the case will sit down and meet with them. i do it -- that is what we do down there. so when not sure if i want to say anymore. just as i said, there is the geotech letter in the brief, and it does describe the work. i'm available for questions. >> president swig: what is confusing me, forget the 20

years. so it goes. but i was trying to figure out what was going on for the last 20 years and then i hear in testimony tonight from the project sponsor that the last thing she is doing is addressing the foundation issues. so if the last thing that she is addressing is the foundation issues, what would have caused the damage next door if the foundation hasn't been touched until march of this year? this is what is confusing. looking at the permit history, do you see anything other than internal construction, electrical, plumbing, whatever? what might have caused something to occur next door as radical as the slippage of the building? and also, normally when we see

these things, we have photos that show really bad things. like tunnelling under the next door neighbor and kind of obvious there has been an abuse. but this, again, 20 years, too long, and extending a permit probably too long. and the thing that caused the settling is occurring under this permit and i don't understand. maybe you see something doing the research. >> it is a very good question and i am not sure because i don't think there was a lot happening. they might have been going in there. and the inspector quinnland restarted and retired during this project. and i supervised him and go out there and see what is going on, and work for a few hours and leave again. i don't know the sequence of how

they are doing it. if it was an old fixer upper t original permit, i believe, was the main permit and read that one out and the original permit. >> which was not put into the briefs. >> i thought i had it. maybe --. a awe while you look, i have a question for planning anyway. >> yes, i do. >> sorry. it says single dwelling unit t a third floor and new garage for apartment. so it is an alteration permit. there is a possibility, president swig, that they are doing the foundation last. and doing the work inside. i don't know why they are doing it like that. i don't know that -- who knows. i don't know. i am really s