mr. sweeney asked me to send out a letter regarding the issues are brought up. there were a couple of issues that have been going on for over a couple of years. one of the addresses that i did not put in the letter, and this has been going on for almost 25 years is a guy that lives there but his mother owns a house. she passed away. she was so frustrated the house was not being finished but she moved to hurt childrer childre'e and passed away. she used to be a member of our association and asked me several times to write supporting letters in his building permits and i refuse to do so because the neighbors were so frustrated. this is not going as smoothly. one of my board members that was here it did you worry her father just passed away. immediately the new numbers put in a huge picture and paved over the whole front yard. i am really frustrated. i am more frustrated with over the weekend i received to emails from members who are threatening to block the house up for sale and moved out. that is uncalled for. one of our past newsletter editors and his wife were

mrs. sweeney. he goes on to write, having, however, received two anonymous letters to the same effect, i've not presumed to interfere beyond my duties as surveyor of the public buildings and have refrained from entering into the house more than duty requires. in a ps he continues, personally permit me to say i cannot possibly suppose the information i have received to be correct regarding mrs. madison's disfavor for him. you have reason to be dissatisfied with might your carriage, which latrobe designed and ended up breaking the first time she used it. i'm more than sufficiently punished already by my misfortune of uri misfortune of universally good character who deceived me. i leave my cause in your hands. it is humiliating to me to have to defend it, but i know it is a good one. latrobe was extremely sensitive if you can't tell. a true artist and right brained. mrs. madison assured latrobe that he was not at all being held in low regard by herself or the president. for the time being. so the work

mr. sweeney finished the meeting, he should have sent the application downstairs, not only to planning but to mechanical, electrical. the san francisco unified school district needed $1.75 times the square footage to renew. that is a lot of money. none of the other fees were collected by your department. you guys are talking here about $4 million of uncollected permit or fees on vacant buildings, and now within your own department you are passing up fees. there is nothing in the code that gives you that authority. everything that has happened since might have been fine, we do not know that. but how it began, as nancy stated, the facts never change. they cannot ever change. the permit was null and void. the code said that. and permit issuance, application plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the building official. there were no plans. there were no specifications. it shall be reviewed by other departments. planchette, structural, you can submit after the fact calculations that demonstrate in a meet the 2010 building code, but that is supposed to happen in february and march. and th