[ gavel ]. >> clerk: good evening and welcome to the december 12, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of apaelz. vice president rick swig will be the presiding officer tonight. president frank fung will be absent tonight. to my left is deputy city attorney brad russey who will

provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. at the control is the board's legal assistant, gary quintara, and i'm the executive director. we expect joseph duffy, senior inspector, department of building inspection. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board requests that you turnoff or silence all phones or electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. deputy head and appellants and responders are given three or seven minutes to present their cases. members of the parties who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes to

address the board and no rebuttal. to assist the boa if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff before or after a meeting or call or visit the board office. we are located at 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is rebroadcast on sfgovtv and cable channel 46. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any members of the public may speak pursuant -- without testifying pursuant to the sunshine ordinance. if you would like the board to

give your statements evidentiary weight please stand, raise your ha-- if you e able, raise your right hand and repeat after me. do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth. >> clerk: okay. we have a couple of housekeeping matters. since we won't have a quorum, we need to continue items six and seven. [agenda item six read] >> commissioner honda: motion. >> commissioner lazarus: move to continue. >> clerk: are you a party?

[inaudible] >> vice president swig: yes, yes, yes. >> clerk: we have public comment coming up, so if we have a motion to move it -- >> vice president swig: no, he should talk and then we'll have public comment. >> thank you. we are -- understand that you guys are losing a quorum tonight and appreciate that. we would just ask the board if you could consider a continuance to either january 9 or january 23 hearings. this is a relatively minor case. this is about an expansion of a sidewalk by 2 feet. it's the process of a city project in the last six months. we've got a building that's been built that is not get a certificate of occupancy until this matter is resolved. that's why a delay of another 1.5 months is unfortunate and so that's why we'd ask that you consider a date for a hearing

in january . >> >> vice president swig: what's our schedule? >> commissioner honda: january is completely booked. >> commissioner lazarus: what about the appellants? >> clerk: i don't know if the appellants are available. we could try for the 23rd, but when we spoke, i spoke to the representative from s.i. s.i.a. corp reza, so i don't know if the appellant is available on that day or not, on the 23rd. >> commissioner honda: can we try for the 23rd? >> clerk: is one week going to make a big difference for the project? >> vice president swig: when you're sitting with a complete building, every week counts. why don't we do it with the intent of the 23rd, pending the availability of the appellant and if the appellant -- i mean, sorry --

>> clerk: that's right. >> vice president swig: yes. pending availability of both parties, that's better. we will move it to the 30th if one of them is not available on the 23rd. is that okay, commissioner? okay. >> clerk: okay. so is that a motion, then? >> commissioner lazarus: i'll amend my motion. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to continue item number six to january 23rd, provided both party -- all parties are available, and if not, to january 30, 2018. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, and we'll plan for the 23rd, and i'll reach out to the appellant tomorrow, and you, as well. okay. so the next item to be proposed

to be continued is appeal number 18-140. [agenda item seven read] >> clerk: so -- >> commissioner honda: make that motion to continue. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from commissioner honda to continue this matter to january 30. is there any public comment on that motion? okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, and that item goes to january 30. so we will now move onto item number one, public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the board on items of interest that are not on tonight's agenda. is there any member -- is there any public comment this evening? no? okay. seeing none, we will move onto

item dwo, commissioner comments and questions. >> vice president swig: commissioners, anybody? >> commissioner honda: actually, i would like to acknowledge that today is the anniversary of our last mayor, edwin mah lee passing. >> vice president swig: thank you. on a happier note, since this is your last meeting, i'd like to thank the members of the public who have joined us in the process thisary and hopefully found it constructive -- this year, and hopefully found it constructive, and they have a happy new year. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on item number two? okay. seeing none, we'll move onto item number three, the adoption of the minutes. before you for possible adoption are the minutes of december 5, 2018 board meeting. >> commissioner lazarus: adoption. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from

commissioner lazarus to adopt the december 5, 2018 minutes. is there any public comment on that motion? seeing none, on the motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so the minutes are adopted. we will now move onto item number four. this is appeal 18-130. [agenda item four read] >> clerk: note, on november 14, 2018, the board votes 3-2, commissioner lazarus and commissioner tanner dissented to continue the matter to december 12, 2018 so that san francisco public works can verify that public notification for the issuance of the permit was properly performed in compliance with the law.

and since we had a full hearing on this, each party will get three minutes. how many people are here for public comment. >> vice president swig: and also i request sticking to the subject matter and not rehearing the case. we're only dealing with one item, and that would be the notice issue, okay? >> clerk: and how many people are here for public comment? okay. so given -- that's fine. okay. so we'll hear from public works first, please. >> vice president swig and commissioners, thank you. i'm jillian gillette, department of public works. you asked me to come back and walk us through the portion of our process that has to do with notification. >> commissioner honda: i'm sorry. could you bring the mic closer to you. >> sure. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> so you asked us to come

before you to show you the documents that pertained to notification. would you like me to read each piece of code into the record? so in front of you, commissioners and members of the public is our code sections of article 25 of the public works code. so under section 1512 and subsection that begins to deal with the notification and notice that's required to notify the public and everyone of the tentative approval. so we are required to provide -- and in this case, that notice was done according to process on may 30. there are two forms of notice that are required under this section of article 25. the first is notice by mail

under 1512-d-1. and in this case, on may 30, luis martinez, network real estate specialist for applicant mobility declared he caused to mail and/or distributed a copy of the notice of tenant approval for application of wireless services facility in compliance with article of public works code title 25. mr. martinez unloaded a copy of one example that was mailed to the department of public works permit tracking system plus the roster of all addresses. for the purposes of ease of viewing for today's hearing, i asked applicant to provide a combined slide that combines the owner occupant list with the radius map, which in your packet you'll see are two documents, but in order to get them on one screen, we put them over. so the inner circle you see on the screen is 150-foot radius,

and the green addresses and names represent all of the mailings of the property owners or residents that were mailed to within that radius. the second types of posting that's required is -- type of notice that's required under this section is notice by po posting. so on may 30, james singleton, who's the manager fore mobility llc attested that he posted a notice in compliance with the public works code. and this next slide is an example of that notice by posting on the subject pole. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there questions? are there any questions? >> commissioner honda: are you -- was your -- was that it for -- for your comment? >> no, i have -- i'm happy to walk you, commissioners, through the rest of the notification process, including

the notice of the next phases, which would be the notice of the public works public hearing date, and i have slides that show notesfication for that process, the subprocess, and then, the final slide is the final determination. >> vice president swig: yeah, commissioners, let's make it proper. would you please continue reading through a complete synopsis of the noticing process? >> thank you very much. i'd be delighted to. >> commissioner honda: i think it would be good for us, any ways. >> so under article 25, section 1513, we're required to provide public notice of our own internal administrative hearing. so that requires public notice at least ten days before the hearing, and the type of process that's delivered is also stated in outright own public works order 184504 section 12-c, and in this case,

the service of notice of our hearing or response is required -- is required to be by e-mail unless a protester has not provided us with an e-mail address, in which case, service to the protester shall be by u.s. post. so this is a screen shot of the department of public work's wireless e-mail to the protesters. and the next screen is notice by e-mail of the applicant to the neighborhood associations on -- and it's a little bit difficult to see on the screen, but that is on june 28, as was our internal e-mail to the protesters. and the final notice that we issued for this -- that was issued for this particular hearing was a notice by mail, by mobility, on june 28 to the

neighborhood association. and moving forward, the next subsection of our notification process is the notice that we givetor the final determination as we move from a tentative approval to the final determination, and that code is addressed in section 1514 ofdes addressed in section 1514 of article 25. approval to the final determination, and that code is addressed in section 1514 of article 25. determination, and that code is addressed in section 1514 of article 25. and also in public works code 184504 section 14. in this case, we noticed that the department issued an e-mail on september 19 of this year to neighborhood associations and protesters, anyone who had protested. and that e-mail was issued on september 19, again. and then, applicant is required under the public works order to

notice by posting. and here's a screen shot of the posting on the subject post in front of 1509. that, i believe, is it for my slides. thank you very much. >> vice president swig: thank you. >> clerk: okay. we'll hear from the permit holder. you have three minutes. >> good evening, vice president swig and commissioners. my name is david nagle from mobility. as you just heard from d.p.w. in regards to the noticing, we mailed our notice of tentative approval on may 30, and also on may 30, posted a tentative approval to two poles in the vicinity. we also, on september 7, posted the notice of final determination on the -- on the same two poles in the vicinity

as required. you know, we -- we e-mailed the neighborhood groups. i believe this neighborhood falls under the haight-ashbury distinction, and so we e-mailed the 11 groups there about the protest hearing as well as the tentative approval, and we also mailed those groups at the same time the notice of tentative approval as was raised last time. the initial mailing document had the soma neighborhood groups on there, so we had to go back and correct that to get the right neighborhood groups there. and as was raised last time, while this is the same -- we can go to the overhead. this is the same map that jilli

jillian just showed you, but this 150-foot radius are the shop owners and residents that have to receive the mailed notice. it's not a big yarks but everything that circle touches, we mailed -- i believe it's about 30 lots and addresses between the owners, so they were all noticed properly under article 25, as stated at the last hearing. so again, mobility followed the process under article 25 also, and especially in regard to public notice, and if the commissioners have any questions, i'm happy to answer them. i also have luis martinez here from mobility who actually prepared these mailings, and you can answer any questions you -- and he can answer any questions you might have. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the

appellant. >> thank you. good evening, vice president swig and commissioners honda, lazarus, and tanner. there were a number of failures to provide proper public notice in this case. the content of the notice is important to that, as well. we talked about some of the serious misleading topography in the notice that went out to the public. we talked about the scale that was shown and what was trying to depict on the sides of the poles. i'd also like to draw your attention to the exhibit that they're talking about. this is -- this is exhibit f

that mobility did their distribution to. this clearly shows that these are not the neighborhood associations that are relevant to this case. they sent them to the south of market neighborhood associations, and that is part of the requirement. so when the important notice went out, it went to the wrong agency -- it went to the wrong neighborhood associations and the wrong district supervisor, as well. the notice was not posted multiple times on the block face and it is required that it be posted multiple times on the block face. the block face is between the curbs, and it was three days late, three days -- after three days. so lots of other issues with this. it was -- -- you can see that mobility did -- did not follow

the planning guidelines to notify where the equipment is, as at&t and verizon do. you can see this notice was relied on by others like planning, so planning used this notice to perform their tier b capability standard check without -- compatiblity check. the size of the equipment which was masked, we heard a lot of misinformation on this, we were told that it was within an inch of the size of the other equipment. you can see it's dramatically larger, including the verizon equipment that one of the commissioners asked about. even when you look at it head on, the equipment's significantly larger, so you got wrong information on that. i'll wrap up. mobility said the nearest poles could not support this

infrastructure. the others can, so we're basically asking of the 115 people that have signed this petition and the 28 letters that have come before you, the failures to provide appropriate notice, there's a multitude of evidence, this contributed to the tier b compatiblity not being checked. the historic streets had not been evaluated and not been protected. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment? how many people are here? five people? okay. please approach. if everyone can come up so we can maybe lineup against the wall, please. and you can go ahead and start speaking and just give a speaker card to mr. quintara after. thank you. >> i'm maggie seter. i live at the 1509 shrader, and i was a little confused about the graph that went up that had the circle of the houses and the notifications they sent because it seemed like on the -- some houses on the top

right were not notified, but the houses across the street on the left were. so it kind of leads me to believe that not everybody was really notified. and then, also, i know that brian had mentioned they sent it to the soma neighborhood association, and they sent it to haight-ashbury, and we're not haight-ashbury, we're cole valley. i didn't hear them say that they had sent it to our neighborhood group. and then also today -- i've never done one of these. >> commissioner honda: overhead, place. >> vice president swig: just put it down and place it like you're looking at it. you're fine. >> i'm fine? i woke up this morning, and that was all whited, like they're already starting work. i don't know if i'm supposed to be notified about that, but i woke up, and i'm like, what's

up with this? i didn't think that everything was final until after we had this meeting. i'm a little bit annoyed by that. that's it. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name's matt bladlin. i'm representing 1504 and 1506 shrader street. i want to thank you all for hearing this appeal. we weren't notified by mail. this is really a point of process, but when i started digging into that, it's a lot more than that. i really believe the city was misled on this installation has brian had pointed out. it's obvious their terms aren't solid in terms of their distribution list and how they're contacting people.

an additional concern in the neighborhood for places that are being rented, and renters are getting an agreement, and they may not care, and they may not pass that information along to the homeowners, so i think that's something that could be used to improve the process. they showed another shot as it affected the tank shed. i see tons of tourists walking down that hill from the house. on your way down, this new tower is going to block golden gate bridge. on the other side, is blocks that church. those are iconic symbols of the city, so i think this is a bad install, but i also think the city needs to take a broader viewpoint of how we're installing these types of towers. i think if we're doing each of these separately, we're not considering the aggregate

impacts of cell phone towers throughout the city. the last point i'd like to make, and again, i thank you guys for your time and for giving me the opportunity to say this. given the obvious flaws in this process, i think the city should be concerned about lawsuits because there's a lot of property impacts to this potentially, and i know the other elephant in the room is potential health impacts. i'm not bringing that up, but i think a lot of people think it's serious. a lot of people are sticking out their necks for this install. >> commissioner honda: excuse me, sir. are you -- >> my wife's name is yinl yinlin xang.

my name is matt fladelin. >> commissioner honda: okay. because your name was on the list that was sent out. >> yeah. if they really wanted to notify us, they could find our real e-mail addresses. so again, i don't think it was followed in good faith. thank you very much. >> commissioner honda: thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm ann macfarland. i'm an occupant of 1505 shrader street. i did not receive notice on behalf of mobility. also speaking on behalf of brett and donna reynolds, they stated they did not receive property notification. >> commissioner honda: your address was? >> 1512 shrader. >> clerk: thank you.

next speaker. >> hello. my name is monica pressly. i did not receive a notice, nor did i receive any posted notice. i walk down that street every day. i don't just drive in and out. i've tracked the noticed that are posted in the neighborhood. i've lived in the neighborhood over 25 years, and i'd just like to let you know that i never received nor saw any notice. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, board members. the failure to follow process from the beginning has been

appalling. quite frankly it makes me question whether there has been a process. the fact that they were out there today painting up the street pole is actually quite angering. i submitted a letter outlining multiple ways in detail in which d.p.w. and the company has been misleading. we're here discussing notification. we have identified at least 15 neighborhoods who never received a notice which was posted more than two days later than stipulated per the d.p.w. requirement. this is not an whoops, one got lost in the mail, this is a significant number of people immediately affected. as you know, you just met a few of those residents tonight. and many of those residents previously e-mailed you at a -- before a previous hearing. furthermore, again, to under

score the district court supervisor, and now mayor london breed did not receive the notice as previously required. i'm the person who videotaped, during the notification on june 13 and also took photos of the affected block, and there was zero notification. i don't know that picture, where it came from, but there's now notice, very recently. perhaps they took a picture recently. i don't know. maybe i shouldn't be saying that. third, well documented, very important requirement for notification, no local neighborhood associations were informed according to mobility's own list. today, it was attested that on june 28, some organizations were e-mailed. again, this is june 28, past that notification period. and in addition, as maggie said, that is not -- most of those are not cole valley associations. i'm here because i feel that there's been a significant failure to follow process, and

i'm asking the board to correct this. my family and i strongly urge you to oppose the appeal. thank you very much. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. anymore public comment? okay. seeing none, commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> i have a question for d.p.w. question for d.p.w. thank you very much for your commentary. >> commissioner honda: i'm sorry, could you step to the side while you fill that out s? thank you. >> vice president swig: so one thing that just came roaring into my mind, the content about the mass e-mails and, you know, you're acting like we're part of the club that didn't affect me. but e-mail in mass form is flawed. i can't tell you the number of calls -- today, there were, like, four e-mails that i

missed because they went into my spam junk file. and is the process -- and i look to the city attorney on this. this process is real life. we cannot control what our technology does, but quite often, if a piece of technology chooses that it's going to go in the spam, it's going to go in the spam, especially mass e-mails from commercial entities or public entities. so how do we read this, and in -- in legislation or in your s.o.p.s -- i'm not doubting they were followed, i'm not doubting anything. but when i heard the testimony tonight, it really rang true based on my daily experience and all of us who have that experience who happens to use e-mail a lot.

we didn't get that e-mail, and we really didn't because we didn't look at our spam folder, because spam is spam. it used to be that u.s. mail was the vehicle, and it was it approved vehicle. when did it become acceptable to use the flawed method -- and it is flawed -- of mass e-mails? >> well, it is a question for the city attorney, also, but my understanding of the way we do the notices, we always have two methods. so in the first section for the tentative approval, we say by mail and by posting because we don't know who anyone is. and what we use is a mailing, so that's physically mailed. we ask the applicants to physically mail, and then, if someone didn't get the physical mailing, we ask them to post on the pole. in the case of the tentative approval, in this case -- sorry. in the case of the notice for

our public internal public hearing, we had three forms of notice. we e-mailed the -- the protesters, and we asked the applicant to send a mailing and an e-mail to the neighborhood associations, and we know that -- i mean, the protesters are here. we know that they got the notice one way or the other, and i think that is why that -- we try today have more than one method for each step. and in the case of the final determination, we e-mailed the protesters, but we also require a physical posting. and i think it's in part to address those kinds of concerns. that's what's in the legislation, and that's what we did. but i understand the question that one way might not be enough, so we try to do two because it's -- >> vice president swig: except for those that only go out by e-mail, and that would undermine the whole process because all you've got to do is blow one communication.

i'm not blaming the department, it's technology, it's real life. so -- >> right. i will say in our process, there are always two -- each step has two forms of notice that are required. it's never just e-mail. >> vice president swig: yeah, i understand that. the pole -- you know, the pole -- one little 8 by 11 piece of paper on the pole -- i like the usps way, and i'm just noting the electronic way is flawed. who would have thought that the usps -- any way. >> i don't work for the usps. i'd love to hear -- >> vice president swig: mr. city attorney, is that an issue that should be reviewed with regard to noticing and the use of e-mail and mass e-mails that

have a high risk of falling into spam and other irretrievable methods? >> by whom? >> i think the rules -- d.p.w. rules or the process. >> oh, i mean, it certainly would be something they could consider. >> vice president swig: you know, because if you have people who are coming in here and saying yeah, it says right here you sent me an e-mail, but i never got the e-mail, and we all know that e-mail is flawed, and we have -- then, we have a flawed process. so i don't know how to read that. but we have a flawed process. >> i don't know that there's any contention that public works didn't actually send the e-mails or didn't comply with their own rules in something that they were supposed to do in terms of sending the e-mails. >> vice president swig: well, i mean, that's my point.

i'm not accusing them of making a mistake, of not trying, but if technology is such that this happens, everybody's experience in this room that uses e-mail on a regular basis, is that the process is flawed and the restriction should be to a more reliable source like the u.s. postal service. >> i certainly think would be -- think it would be up to the policy makers. >> vice president swig: question. >> commissioner lazarus: so you put together this. >> i did. >> commissioner lazarus: was this all documentation that was provided to you as a part of this process so that you see yes, the process was followed. so every application has all this in the file or you have to just sort of retrieve it and put it together? >> yes. >> commissioner lazarus: so

that's good, but you show a list of neighborhood associations that they're saying were not the ones that got mailed. >> so in this case, in the initial mailing -- and we can ask appellant to what they did. so in this case, initial posting -- i'm sorry, notification of the tenant approval, we're required to provide one. the physical postings on the pole and then the mail. so in this case, the mailing was mailed to the residents within that small circle on the radius map, the residents or owners within that 150 foot radius, and then, the outer circle is what's supposed to be for the neighborhood associations. in this case, the neighborhood associations that were made to -- for the tentative approval itself were the wrong neighborhood groups. the department caught that, and when we made public notice for our public hearing our

administrative process -- and we had by then already received protests, we asked the appellant -- the applicant, my apologies, to correct that and make sure that the -- that the neighborhood associations were doubly noticed in that case. so in advance of our own public hearing, the neighborhood associations were e-mailed because we have e-mail addresses for them, and they were directly mailed, too. >> commissioner lazarus: and if you do get this documentation, does anybody look to make sure it's all in there, and if something's missing, you say we can't move forward because we don't have x in the files. >> yes. that's the bureau of u.s. streets and mapping. when they're assigned a case, their job is to look at all of the procedures and look at all of the documents required are

uplo uploaded to our permit tracking system, and those are all subject to sunshine ordinance and freedom of information act, and they're on-line and publicly available. >> commissioner honda: i have one last question. is it allowable under article 25 to let the district supervisor know or is that a courtesy? >> we ask the applicants to use the notification public service for neighborhood groups, and i believe, but i don't know the answer to your question, but i believe that each district supervisor is in each of those. >> commissioner honda: because as of theirs, it's jane kim, and jane is not the supervisor for that particular district as per their mailing list. >> correct, which is -- that's the error that the department caught. and to make sure that we had -- that there was ample notice of the public process, we asked the applicant to both mail and e-mail the correct neighborhood

associations. >> commissioner honda: okay. but that is not what's in our package. what's in our package is the incorrect mailing. >> i believe that's in your packet, but it is one of the screen shots that i sent up, and i'm certainly happy to get you that mailing. >> commissioner honda: okay. that's fine. >> okay. >> clerk: okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. so this matter's submitted. >> vice president swig: commissioners? >> commissioner lazarus: i'm prepared to deny the appeal. >> vice president swig: commissioner honda? >> commissioner honda: as i've been corrected, we've only heard hundreds of these cases, but it feels to me they are

thousands. but it does feel to me that a lot of this is boilerplate, and as our vice president has indicated, if their address is on there, i have to assume it was mailed to the address. at the same time, it does appear that it's fast-tracked, to a certain degree. i don't know if there's enough here for me to hold this particular permit up, but i'm just mentioning that to the -- so that the applicants are aware of it. >> vice president swig: commissioner? >> commissioner tanner: i can certainly understand the residents being frustrated and the error of the wrong neighborhood associations being noticed the first time, but a credit to the department, they did catch that and asked for notification to be sent double at the next opportunity in time, which the residents had

opportunity to lodge their protests. i don't do as well as commissioner honda explaining the rights that residents have to protest to meet those standards, and i would not support the appeal. >> vice president swig: okay. again, there's always -- not always, but about 90% of the time, a lot of frustration when somebody puts up a big piece of machinery in front of your window. i am sympathetic, it is a big piece of machinery, but it is according to the article 25 rules, so this is what we're hamstrung by. with regard to the notice, i would ask d.b.i. to be a little bit more careful and assist the applicant for the permit to

make sure that -- make sure that they are noticing the right neighborhood associations, that they are noticing the right supervisor, and also take more care in looking out for those real life pitfalls like spam filters and maybe a postal service red redundancy is warranted. but find enough merited in this motion to up hold an appeal. a motion, please. >> commissioner lazarus: i move to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion by commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued.

so on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. that motion is upheld, and the appeal is denied. okay. we'll move onto item five. [agenda item five read] >> clerk: so we will hear from the appellant first. and you have seven minutes, miss peters. >> thank you. everybody hear me? good evening. my name is paula peters, and i've lived at 1945 clay street

since 2005. i became aware of the mandatory seismic retrofit work that needed to be done to my building in october 2017. i reached out to my landlady, the owner's sister, for information about it via phone calls, certified letters, and memos on my rent checks that she received throughout the year. so date, she has yet to get back to me on it, so i am here. going forward, i will refer to them as my landlords. the work permit became approved on october 18, 2018, and a job card has already been issued. i viewed the plans at d.b.i. on october 22 and saw that they would be doing work to my unit on the interior walls, shearing and putting straps into my ceiling. after taking detailed notes, i passed them by an architect who is familiar with my place and

eventually saw the plans. i also hired a private building inspector. both of them came to the conclusion that i would have to be moved out of my small unit for these invasive repairs. in my landlord's brief, the plans for my unit had changed from the plans that i saw at d.b.i. in october and that i also double-checked on yesterday. sheet s-3.0 of their exhibit plans shows the original, whereas sheets r 1.3 and r-1.4 of the entire plans are the revised. less straps are being inserted in my ceiling, and other changes have been made to the units surrounding mine, the laundry room area, and the light well area to makeup for it. i forwarded my landlord's brief

to my architect who said these revisions are not prepared to be a d.b.i. submittal set as they do not have the revision number or date, nor are the revision notes included. no one at d.b.i. yesterday could find a record of a revision in the system. furthermore, these revisions have the date of september 18 on them. that is before the original plans were even approved on september 20 by d.b.i. the architect also noted that my back bedroom wall where the shearing symbol of s-3 is located, has a measurement of 6 feet between the two bedroom windows on the original and the revised plans. that measurement is wrong. the length is 5 feet between the windows. the architect says this raises questions, if the s-3 symbol is correct. perhaps is should be s-4, and that the contractor should catch that during the remodel, but since the contractor is also the structural engineer

who created these plans, perhaps they would not. it made us wonder how correct both sets of plans are. what else is incident correct on these plans? bottom line, if they decide to go with the original or the revised plan, i will need to be moved out of my apartment either way because my apartment will be rendered unhabitable by the -- uninhabitable by the architect and building inspector. because they have other empty units in the building, it should not be hard to move me into another unit. as mentioned, she never responded to me. therefore, i request the board of appeals to please not grant the permit to them until it is figured out which plans will be used, and the validity of them, and they either properly serve a notice of eviction as

required by the sf rent ordinance or offer me one of the vacant units not affected by the construction work. thank you for your time and consideration. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. is mr. wendell here? [inaudible] >> clerk: okay. if you could please approach and -- okay. you have seven minutes, sir. >> okay. thank you, board members. my name is daniel mack. i'm representing david wendell. in response to miss peters' response to move her out of her apartment, there was never any plans to move her out of her apartment or evict her, as she states, or anything else. that's why we have not informed her that she has to move out of her apartment. as far as the engineering parts

of it go, i have my engineer here, my -- our architect. he will speak to those as far as the habitablity of miss peters' apartment, and i don't think we're going to have to move her out of her apartment. no more consideration than any of the other tenants in the building. that's why -- as soon as we understood that the plan would be approved -- the initial plan, there are -- it's kind of a fluid situation, so there were revisions in the plan that we were working on diligently to try and change the engineering so that tenants would be less inconvenienced. we did, as she states, we're guilty of posting the 30-day notice before the permit was actually pulled.

as soon as the plans were approved and all of the applicable agencies in d.b.i. approved the plans, we posted the plans so the tenants would be on notice that we were going to be beginning the retrofit work. that's all i have. [inaudible] >> yes. as far as habitablity of the apartment during the retrofit. >> clerk: yes. you have five minutes. >> good evening, board. thank you for your time. my name is lau. i'm the general contractor and the architect and the engineer, as well. so we -- our office prepared the plans and submitted the

plans and also pulled the permit on this project. the owners asked us to review the plans and offered them alternatives so that apartment number 1, which is the apartment in question, will not be affected by the work. so that's how we basically went to the drawing board with our engineer, and we prepared those revisions, and we made sure the elements that were affecting that apartment are moved out into other apartments on the same floor that were vacant -- that are vacant now, and they're kept vacant by the landlord to perform this work.

all the work is moved outside that apartment, and the revisions that were given to the landlord have not been submitted. they're in the -- they were just produced in the past few weeks. the intention of that is to basically relocate all the work that was in her apartment. if you have any other question, i can answer to that. >> commissioner honda: sorry. so the work that's being done in unit 1, you don't feel that the tenant would have to relocate for that work? >> no. >> commissioner honda: so can you describe exactly what would that work entail? >> so the work involved installing some shear walls, and the shear walls can be

installed from the interior or the exterior of the building. so we're going to install them from the exterior. we're going to have to remove the finish and install the shear walls on the outside. there were some straps that were going to be installed on the ceiling, and we also moved the straps outside the building and outside her apartment and adjusted the work that we're doing in other parts of the building to make that happen. we redesigned the work that take place in that particular area. >> commissioner honda: so that particular area's not going to require any strong walls or moment frames? >> no. the moment frames are in another part of the building. they're in the garage. there was an element that's kind of horizontal that had to be installed in the ceiling of the bathroom. we moved that out of the

bathroom, and we're going to install it from the outside. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. >> commissioner tanner: can you help me understand the timeline, sir, that you had the plans into d.b.i. for review. you have a set of plans that were reviewed, and you have a building permit issued. and you have an additional set of plans that have not been submit snd. >> have not been submitted. we prepared them for the owner just recently. >> commissioner tanner: okay. great. thank you. >> vice president swig: so these plans which we have in our packet are invalid? >> pardon? >> vice president swig: these plans which we have in our packet are not the plan. >> the plans are valid. they're revised and amended. so only the sheets -- only the work that will change will be required to be submitted as a revision. the rest of the documents are still valid. so when we submit a revision, a new permit is issued and linked

to the old permit, and the new permit only is for the revised work. 'cause you know there's a substantial amount of documents. we don't want to reproduce all the old documents. we amend the original permits and revise the sheets that are being revised. >> commissioner honda: and i think we can probably get better explanation from the department. >> commissioner tanner: can i ask you another question. with the plans that are approved for the permit, would the tenant have to vacate her apartment if those plans were implemented? >> probably. probably. >> commissioner tanner: so it's accurate when she said she was -- the project sponsor states in their brief letter, at no time did we inform his peters that she'd have to vacate her apartment, which is clear, but you suggest she would in fact have to vacate her apartment if those plans were implemented? >> so we have done work in

apartments that have had tenants stay in the unit. i've never been to her unit, so i don't know exactly what the -- what the amount of furniture or storage items that she has. but the work is limited. it's not, like, the entire unit. it's only a section of the unit. >> commissioner tanner: and can you describe what that work entails so that miss peters can understand, what would that work of having shear walls installed or the straps in the roof, what she's appealing, what would that work involve in the apartment, demolition or things like that. >> sure. so the shear walls, we were going to do them from the outside from the beginning, any way. because those are harder to do from the inside in the beginning in this situation. the roof straps, they were planned to be installed -- you see that molding up there?

it's kind of like the molding on there. it's right next to the wall on the ceiling, so it requires us to strip a section of the ceiling, maybe about 1.5 feet wide along the entire length of the building, entire length of the wall, install the strap and close it back up. so in situations like that, we build a barricade wall, and we separate that section of the room from the rest of the room, and we do that work and finish it and remove the barricade. [please stand by]