so the complaint was filed with dbi on the 1st of november, 2017. and on the 2nd of november, we issued a notice of violation. and the notice of violation read, complaint has been filed with this department regarding a structure built on top of the roof. a site inspection revealed third storey addition. this exceeds the scope of the permit. no access was provided. work was visible from the street. approximate size of addition is 1600 square feet. permit with plans and planning department approval, provide full scope of work at time of filing, separate plumbing and electrical permits are required. and it was assessed a penalty. so it looks like the building inspector did view it from the street and had limited access, but did want to get it on notice. and in addition to the appellant and the lawyer's concerns, they could file a new complaint -- if the permit was upheld and the appeal rejected. the dbi could take a complaint on it to make sure what they have up there is what is in the plans, including the use and size and what they're going to do. the

filed a lawsuit against the department of building inspection and the city of san francisco claiming dbi inspectors tried to derail a project richards was involved in on 22nd street to send him a message. >> then you have an anonymous complaint made, and within hours of the anonymous complaint you have a senior building inspector rushing down to try to find something wrong with this building. a building that had been inspected nine to twelve times before with no problems? >> reporter: attorney scott emblage says an inspector even tried to interfere with the sale of the property. >> building inspectors showed up at the broker's open, loudly saying -- speaking about alleged violations and -- >> reporter: emblage says the retaliation led richards to take leave from a planning commission. we asked for reaction to the lawsuit from the city attorney's office. tonight it says it hasn't seen that lawsuit and has no comment at this point. reporting live in san francisco, jean elle, nbc bay area news. >> jean, thank you. >>> tonight a federal judge is demanding answers on how pg&e's inspectors mis

dispensary use and the permitee has complied with all applicable codes and the planning department, dbi's disability and office of cannabis review and inspect a new location to report to the director and only the director can determine whether the permitee has satisfied the requirements. i'm introducings an amendment which all of you should have which further restricts to exclude any location where there is a judgment, finding that the landlord or other than of the new location has wrongfully evicted another permitee from the new location. this is legislation that applies to a very narrow set of businesses, ones that are not already under the article 16 and still continue to be under article 33, yet, have experienced an eviction or faced an eviction and need to move to another location with narrow requirements and very specific apoliticcability. i appreciate everyone who has weighed into this and the amendments which have specified who we want to support with this legislation and i hope that you all will vote to support this. >> supervisor peskin? >> thank you, president yi. i would like

dispensary use and the permitee has complied with all applicable codes and the planning department, dbi's disability and office of cannabis review and inspect a new location to report to the director and only the director can determine whether the permitee has satisfied the requirements. i'm introducings an amendment which all of you should have which further restricts to exclude any location where there is a judgment, finding that the landlord or other than of the new location has wrongfully evicted another permitee from the new location. this is legislation that applies to a very narrow set of businesses, ones that are not already under the article 16 and still continue to be under article 33, yet, have experienced an eviction or faced an eviction and need to move to another location with narrow requirements and very specific apolitbility i appreciate everyone who has weighed into this and the amendments which have specified who we want to support with this legislation and i hope that you all will vote to support this. >> supervisor peskin? >> thank you, president yi. i would like to ri