Brief was filed and for the first time after the hearing we got to know dpw legal argument this of the manifestly unfair and it is the only way to serve the brief and i will note the board ultimately september dpws legal argument in preference to the legal argument about the interpretation of public works code we were placed at a distinct distantly and another issue that cries out the issue of indemnify indication as i put in my letter requesting a rehearing the testimony from dpw this position was common following the hearing he sent a shedding request and asked for the sites as of this date theyve not identified one single one sdwoer three weeks later they sent over a reference to 751 carolyn avenue that involves City Property attached to the brief you can see the property is owned by the city and county of San Francisco its a completely flat area and completely development i have pictures the roadwork being down on carolyn avenue i can submit those as you can see no similarity to th
Distantly and another issue that cries out the issue of indemnify indication as i put in my letter requesting a rehearing the testimony from dpw this position was common following the hearing he sent a shedding request and asked for the sites as of this date theyve not identified one single one sdwoer three weeks later they sent over a reference to 751 carolyn avenue that involves City Property attached to the brief you can see the property is owned by the city and county of San Francisco its a completely flat area and completely development i have pictures the roadwork being down on carolyn avenue i can submit those as you can see no similarity to the stan i dont think street situation and certainly nothing involve the indemnify indication it is they have to contact their Homeowners Insurance and have the responsibility of the maintenance and the situation exclusively inclusive to the owners building. Your time is up mr. Williams. Im sorry were asking for a rehearing i have a quick qu