>> to my left as a deputy city attorney who would provide the board with any legal advice. i am julie rosenberg, the executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board this evening. we expect scott sanchez, acting deputy zoning administrator, also representing the planning department and planning commission, and we have joe duffy, senior building inspector representing the department of building inspector -- inspection and jillian gillett, and leon, an analyst with the san francisco public works your of streets and mapping.

the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board request to turn off or silence all cell phones and electronic devices so that they will not disturb the proceedings please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders and department respondents were given seven minutes to present their case in three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or three minute periods. members of the public were not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone to assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked but not required to submit a speaker carter business card to board staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules, or hearing schedules, speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office.

this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government t.v. , cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. the video is available on our website and can be downloaded from a san francisco government t.v. we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking the oath pursuant to the rights under this sentient ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of the proceeding tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary wait, please stand if you are able, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. if you're giving testimony, please rise. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth thank you. we will move on to item number 1 , which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board charge of jurisdiction but is not on the calendar. is there anyone here for general public comment?

okay, we will move on to item number 2, commissioner comments and questions. >> no. >> we will move on to item number 3, which is the adoption of the minutes. before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the march 27th, 2019 board meeting. >> any corrections or additions? >> no. >> adopt as submitted. >> is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, on the motion to adopt the minutes by commissioner lazarus... [roll call] >> okay. , the minutes are adopted 5-0. we will now move on to item number 4, this is appeal number 19-012, beer of street use and mapping subject property is 698 page street, appealing the issuance of every 21st, 2019 to verizon where --

wireless of a personal wireless facility site permits. the construction of the personal service facility in a zoning protected location. this is permit number 17 w. are -0319, and we will hear from the appellant first. you have seven minutes, his or. >> overhead, please. overhead, thank you. good evening, members of the board. i am located -- as a said in my brief, one of them is the aesthetics, as you can see, this will be basically -- [indiscernible] all these apparatuses will be

right in front of the kitchen windows, so it will be obstructing the view. some of the other reasons, there will be the possibility of loss of value in the property due to the fact that this cut out his emitting radiation constantly, and the third issue will be the health issue. regarding the health issue, the argument is that this antenna is safe, and they have provided no evidence because it is basically impossible to provide that, they don't really have the evidence pick furthermore, my belief is there is more reasons to believe that it is unsafe every single organization says that these containers emit radiation. the question is here, what is safe, and what is not safe for us. so that will take me to --

[indiscernible] in february, assembly member bill kirk said that we are allowing companies to give the permit -- get the permit easier and it will make it harder for seduce to fight the installations and the antenna, in one of his comments was you will -- he wouldn't have to go to the planning commission and through the city council, but international firefighters disagree. firefighters complained of health problems. they developed symptoms says a dr., who conducted a study on firefighters with stations close to these towers. symptoms included problems with memory, problems with memory. in their brain scans suggested even low-level of radiation frequency that caused cell

damage. he works with vulnerable kids as well. we found a normal brain function and all the firefighters we examined, so following the firefighters, the assemblyman exempt the fire stations from their bill, so this is the first piece of legislation that anyone is aware of what somebody got an exception because they weren't concerned about their health. this is also our case. as you can see here, the building itself is 12 feet away from the antenna. if you look at the building in itself, it is a three unit building and it has a deck. this antenna will be shortened. basically where the red line is. therefore, it will be straightforward to anyone using the deck. furthermore, below, there are

three units and families living on it. this will be emitting radiation 24/7, and i don't think, at this close distance, it might be unacceptable. if you look at all the studies that have been happening, this two main reasons. one is how close you are to the antenna, and how long you are exposed to it. in this particular case, they will be exposed up to 12 hours a day, every single day, you can see the distance is 12 feet away , basically. if this was a public space, the minimum distance would be 30 feet away, if you are in a park you or maybe in a park once a week, twice a week, maybe two hours. we are 12 feet away, ten hours a day, i think it is really extreme. there is another case that

proved this isn't safe. it was an ongoing case of a school, and the cell phone towers of the local schoolyard is to blame with cancer -- for blame for cancer at an elementary school. in the last, i think it was last month, you can see here, spring -- [indiscernible] , if they are issues that people are taking matters into their own hands and forced to take these towers off. there are many other studies that point out to the interest in technology, and i will let you know about these. we can provide many studies, but none is conclusive. the truth is that we need more data, especially with five g., it is a new technology and

nobody knows. i will ask this board to at least the minimum, just put it on hold and think about what the consequences are for this. but on a moratorium. if nothing happens, put it up, no problem, but at this point, we do not have sufficient data that these are not safe, everybody can agree, being exposed to any level of radiation can't be good for your health. this particular unit will be there at ten of the 12 hours a day if you are not home, it could even be 24 hours a day. i asked this board to revert -- revoke the permit and put a moratorium until everything gets sorted out. at this point, again, they don't know, we don't know what the truth is this 5g, okay?

thank you. >> are you finished? >> i think, yes. >> okay. , because you still have 28 seconds. >> let me see what they say? >> i have two questions. first question, were you aware that this board is not allowed to make a decision based on the health consequences due to article 25? our decision cannot be based on a lot of what you have represented. >> the firefighters got an exception. why can't we? >> the second question is, i enjoyed your brief, and one of the questions was that the bill that that gentleman was trying to pass, our governor vetoes, but where did you get your information on that it was altered because of the

firefighters and why? >> this is online, i just got it online. i don't have the means to start to hire a specialist. i am a regular person. i lived there, unfortunately, i was out of the country at the first meeting and somebody supposed to -- here we are today >> also, of these other studies, you can read about the fire failure. >> i agree, but unfortunately, those are not really what we can take a look at, but i was asking where you got your information, thank you. >> all right. >> thank you. we will now hear from the attorney from the permit holder. >> good evening, members of the boards. i am outside council for verizon wireless, thank you for the

attention to our project tonight we have a representative of the c.p.r. group. who worked on the plans in the background if you have any questions about that. we also brought a man from -- from an organization that conducted the emission studies. this is a rigourous process that verizon wireless has been involved in for over five years. we have nearly 400 small cells in san francisco trying to provide four g service to keep up with the demands of the city pick verizon wireless has worked with the department of public works, public health and the planning department to come up with the designs to minimize the a static impact of these facilities and to comply with every aspect of article 25 and all of the noticing and meeting obligations and there was a protest hearing on this particular facility where materials were provided for protest, and verizon will continue to do that, i want to focus for a moment on the appellant's concerns. you raised the concern of a statics, and as part of the

planning review, we actually are replacing the pole and reducing the height of the pole by about -- about a foot and a half so the impacts will be reduced for this particular poll. the radios are rotated towards the screening trees that are adjacent to the pole in the screening tree is used to help camouflage of radios. i think i told you in the past, they have been designed not like the old square radios that were narrow, they are taller to fit the verticality of the pole, and in an effort to have them disappear as you pass down the street and are looking at the poles themselves. we are not unsympathetic to the health concerns of the public, as you probably know, i have been doing this for 30 years, and we continue to have the same concern, and verizon wireless remains vigilant, to remain in compliance with sec guidelines which are reviewed on a regular basis. this particular facility complies fully with the f.c.c.

guidelines and is below the f.c.c. guidelines. the appellant to refer to it as a tower, and these facilities are far less -- have far less wattage and are far less powerful then the towers we used to have, and the whole idea of the small cells is to have a lower wattage facility to provide the signal closer to the phone so the phone doesn't have to work as hard to get it signal to the small cell and vice versa we are really moving in the right direction and we are sympathetic to the health concerns. because of that, there is condition number 4 and the d.p.h. conditions which says that we will test the facility once it has been installed to confirm that it complies with health effects and verizon wireless will also voluntarily test within the apartments themselves to show what the readings are within the apartments, which will also be even less than what we have stated.

i asked him to come and calculate the exposure at the kitchen windows, because that was a concern of the appellant. if i can ask him to come up and speak with you just for a moment , that would conclude our remarks. i may have surprised him. >> good evening. i am with hammett and edison. we are a independent consulting engineering firm and i am a licensed professional electrical engineer in the state of california. our job is to evaluate sites like these for radiofrequency exposure compliance with the f.c.c. standard. we have completed that evaluation for this site. we find it will comply with the f.c.c. limits. the maximum calculated exposure level at the top floor where the kitchen is his three-point 5% of the f.c.c. limit. it means that the levels are

about 25 times below the limit. the maximum level anywhere on the building is on the roof deck as you are standing on the edge of the roof deck, 12 feet away from the antenna. the maximum level there is also below the f.c.c. limit, and the maximum rf exposure level at ground as well below the f.c.c. limit at 1.8%. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i will conclude -- i know you have one new member, but as you stated earlier, once we are in compliance with the f.c.c. guidelines, then the federal law doesn't allow for a denial based on the rf emissions are health effects. i will answer any questions or otherwise we will sit down. >> i have a question, councillor your brief was very well done, too. i like the fact you don't give us a boilerplate brief and he responded to the appellant's questions. one question i had in regards to the firefighters, in your brief,

it says, this is government code section 659 mandates that a wireless application that is not approved or disapproved by the state and county within a reasonable amount of time is deemed approved. however, due to unique duties and infrastructure requirements for a swift and effective deployment of firefighters, wireless facilities propose replacement on -- it cannot be deemed approved. simply put, facilities cannot be located on or near fire stations but to accommodate fire departments unique egress and ingress needs. the facility cannot be deemed approved. i don't really get that. are they allowed at a fire station, or are they not allowed to? >> thank you for the asking that question. i had it in my notes and i did not follow up. ab 649, which is referenced in the materials was not signed by the governor, but the law that we are citing, ab 57 was signed

by the governor, and contains the same language as was proposed for s.b. 649. i worked on ab 57. the purpose of ab 57 or government code 659 is to make the f.c.c. shot? deadlines a mandatory or executory so that if a local jurisdiction exceeds the f.c.c. shot guideline which is 90 days or hundred 50 days for a new construction, the application is deemed approved, and we can send a letter and say it is deemed approved. at the time, the firefighters were concerned that if an application were deemed approved without any government oversight or any review of the application , they would be the potential that a facility would be placed in a manner that it might obstruct the egress and ingress of the firemen as he exited the building. they conferred with the author, we conferred with the firefighters and we are willing to create that exception.

so if you go through the process and get a permit, you can put a facility on a firehouse. the the only thing that bill excludes is we can't bypass that process and put a facility in front of a fire house without it going through some kind of review, and that is explicitly, as it states in the legislation, was to take -- make sure that the first responders could ingress and egress the building as a result. that is the reason it was accepted by the author and by the legislature and exists in the bill today. but we have many, many, many facilities on firehouses and it is one of the more popular locations for putting wireless facilities, and that is because firefighters rely on wireless facilities to communicate, to receive 911 calls and from many other reasons, but there are many. >> that's what i imagined. when he was reading this, assess

it is allowed and not allowed, which pretty much says what the appellant was saying that there was preferential treatment because of their profession. i would imagine that an ambulance leaving a hospital or a law enforcement officer leaving a police station would require the same amount of ingress and egress as far as time and safety. >> that's a great question. i know that firefighters in particular are timed on their responses and it affects the insurance rates for fire. the fire ' union is one that is active and outgoing and requested this change of the time. i'm sure if you've been involved in legislation you know that it is frequently something of sausage, and that was the effect in this particular circumstance. >> it seemed to me that it was preferential, preferential, but the next question i have, which we have gone over before, you mentioned earlier that the antenna is directed towards the tree.

>> i said the equipment is directed towards the tree. this particular facility -- >> is that a triangle did tunnel -- is that a triangle antenna? >> it is facing in three directions. this particular facility, unlike the streetlight facilities which are lower at shooting up and down the street, this is a much taller facility. it is a 4-foot antenna, and it provides service to an area approximately 1500 feet radius, and i relate stand facilities only provide service to about a 500-foot radius. in an effort to minimize the number of small cells and using the availability of the utility pole is that where they are, we are using a slightly different facility then we would use on the light standards we tend to shoot -- to send the signal up and down the street. this will be going in all three directions to provide greater coverage so we can only use the minimum number of utility poles to provide that service.

>> thank you, councillor. >> i have a couple of questions. would you enlighten me or give me -- give us a brief tutorial? article 25, when it comes to health stuff, it harkens back to a 1996 study. correct? >> i love tutorials, i will try to be brief, but the research, the basic research, and my friend is better than this, maybe i could call him up, the basic research goes way back to the forties. the research that the initial f.c.c. standards is based on his from the eighties. congress made it part of the f.c.c. to adopt the standards. so the nrc p. -- >> you better come up, he is

floundering. >> roche is on the aaa committee that reviews the standard and they have reviewed it this year. the standard is reviewed on a regular basis. the congress and the f.c.c., realizing that their primary goal was not health, turned to the e.p.a. and other organizations. >> we will let your friend try to explain this. >> that standard was approved in 1998, and this standard, you can further explain. >> just to clarify from the accident -- acronyms and timelines, the f.c.c. standard combines a two existing standards of the times in 1996. it combines the national radiation protection standard, and the electronic engineer standard. since that time, the standards have been updated many times.

the most recent update is coming in a couple of months. i am part of the subcommittee that sets the standard, and our standard is unchanged from that time from 1996. we are continuously looking at new literature, but all that points to the fact that the standard is well established, the standard is effectively the same in almost -- across all the developed countries, and there's no reason to change that. >> and that standard is a standard that says fundamentally that's the amount of radiation that comes out of these equipped -- this equipment is not harmful to the health of human beings within a certain radius, correct >> correct. there is a large safety factor in the standards. where the sign shows that there maybe an effective to humans, the standard is set 50 times below that level. there is a massive safety factor built into the standard.

>> thank you. what is counterintuitive to me, because i don't know anything, is especially when it comes to this technology, is in 1996, was there three g? i see where you are going with that. >> and we have gone from three g to four g, 25 g., and what is counterintuitive to me is that the standard or what we are now talking about 5g installations, where when i came on this commission two years ago, time flies when you have a good time, the installations were just emerging into four g. so now we are at 5g, but we are still relying on the same standards, and what my intuition is is that when you get to 5g versus three g, you are dealing with a lot more power, but the

standard seems to stay the same. >> that is a great question. the standard is independent of technology. the standard is based on frequencies, so the frequency which is emitted by t.v. stations, radio stations, cell phones, that frequency is what governs what the f.c.c. limit is , and it changes depending on the frequency, but it is independent of the technology or what is called the modulation of how you change, had you modulate or codes that frequency to transmit. there's various ways of doing that, and 5g is a new way of coding or modulating the signal, but it is the same frequency that is already part of the f.c.c. standard, if that makes sense. >> so the amount of radiation, you know, we see each other

regularly, not necessarily yourself, but we see you. that maybe stretching it, from his point of view, and we hear from the public that they are scared to death of getting killed from radiation. that, fundamentally, that is what the appellant is saying today. yet the cell towers serve more and more powerful -- these. make me feel comfortable here. wide, as we are getting more comfortable with these, more powerful with of these are we getting up to 5g and god knows, there will be a six g. and a ten g., and a 20 g. why should be -- why should i be comfortable that the amount of radiation coming from the cell towers is not more and is not being more perilous to the health of consumers and the various appellants who stand in

front of us? >> the power is getting lower. so these small cells and notes that you see are, in this case if we take this as an example, it is 1010 to 15 times lower power then a traditional verizon macro sight with multiple antennas and tall towers, the same is true for your cell phone at the older cell phones, they were actually more powerful in terms of the antennas and the power. the power is being scaled back dramatically on the phones. they are capable of going up to the high-level level the old phones were. when you're further away from a cell phone site, the phone can do that. what has happened with newer phones is when you are closer to the site, they don't have to try as hard to communicate, and so they are much, much better now it operating at a lower power level if you are closer to a site without having to transmit at the higher power level. on the whole, actually the power levels and the exposure levels

have consequently come down. >> so the radiation, you're testifying that these towers that you are putting in now have less radiation coming out of them then ever before? >> this is four g., it is not a 5g. this is about ten to 15 times lower power then a traditional verizon macro. >> and therefore lower radiation >> yeah, potentially apt ground, it is lower, if you own an adjacent building and you're standing on the deck, maybe it is higher. it is also situational to has -- how close you can get to it it is a lower exposure level than you would get at a macro site. >> thank you. >> i would just add, my first phone was a briefcase with a handle on it and he was about five or 6 watts with an intent on it.

my second phone was a motorola brick. these are a watt or less and they wrapped up 1,000 times to talk to a further cell towers. >> do you use verizon? >> yes. [laughter] >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i have to say, i will quick -- i will quit. >> verizon launched in 1985 in san francisco. >> you will have time in rebuttal. >> he still has time on the? >> i am done, but i want to say that they say it is new technology but we have had cell phones for 30 years in the bay area. i am done. thank you. >> thank you. we have now here from public works. >> commissioners, thank you for this opportunity to address you. i am representing public works. we believe that this permit was issued in compliance with the permitting procedure that is defined in the public works code , article 25 for personal wireless facilities.

it requires public wares to refer permit applications to the department of public health and to the planning department so they are -- for their determinations. both departments determine to this application complies with article 25. public works subsequently issued a tentative approval as is required by article 25 on october 9th of 2018, and at&t -- a verizon posted notice of this approval on october 19th 2019 and mailed notice of this approval on october 19th of 2018. public works held a public hearing on december 10th of last year to consider protest to the approval, following the hearing, the director of public works the permit and noticed this determination -- and notice of this determination was distributed to the public on february 21st of last year. scott sanchez is also here, and address any questions or comments you have. thank you so much.

>> i have a question. perhaps for mr. sanchez unless you want to answer it. i did not see much information on how they address to protect the streets. >> i'm sorry, can you repeat the question? >> i did not see a lot of information in the brief that related to planning chapter determination that the protected street has been addressed. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. is located within a zoning protected location but not on a designated view street. there is no view designation for this street. thank you. >> may i ask a related question, there is a pole there already. with that affects the determination in any way. >> no, they're replacing the pole as part of the project, and as the applicant stated, the height will be reduced, but this

is a very -- fairly typical streamlined deciding, visually, it is minimally obtrusive, and it is not on on a few designated street under the general plan. >> does that mean that the department staff, when they review it, there's one comment in there that there's something about -- this doesn't impact views or something related to protected streets, or is that a general comment? >> it does not impact views overall, the further it is not on a few designated street. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay, please come forward. is there anyone else here for public comment, can you raise your hand?

>> good evening. radiation, you can't see it, you can't touch it kept , cat , you can't even feel it. it can go right through walls and windows unimpeded and penetrate our very selves, changing, mutating and permanently damaging our our d.n.a. forever. under the california exemption for firefighters, no one involved is allowed to acknowledge the terms of agreement even though it was well documented that emr radiation emanating from such antenna wreaked havoc with the health and well-being of the firefighters in question. a myriad of serious short-term health problems resulted, skin rashes, memory loss, fatigue, mood swings, headaches, and confusion that led to basic and abilities to perform their

required tasks, all all firefighters reported profound memory loss and their brain scans resulted in abnormal scans i have detailed documentation on that right here, pages of it by doctors. these antenna are so effective, but the very strongest and healthiest among us are prevented from carrying out their lifesaving responsibilities, and yet it is perfectly legal to place them in close proximity to pregnant women, infants, the infirm, and the elderly. this is criminal conduct in any civilized nation, criminal conduct that was paid for and condoned on the state and federal level. by placing these antenna atop city owned property, will position companies like verizon to argue that when people do develop health complications due to long-term emr exposure, it

will be the fiscal responsibility of the city of san francisco, not to their company, to deal with. the tobacco companies repeatedly reassured us that there project was, in fact,, safe and nonaddictive, and public alarm, both unnecessary and alarmist. trust us, they said. we would not what your health at risk. our studies don't lie, our researchers don't lie, and we, the company executives, would certainly never lied. studies in reality proved otherwise. the pharmaceutical companies told us that opiates such as oxycontin and oxycodone were safe as prescribed and also nonaddictive. once again, profit and propaganda triumph over truth and science. verizon says it will take emr readings and that naturally they will be well within safety limits. there readings, however, will in no way whatsoever reflect the real dosage of what we will absorb, 24/7, from right across

our street, into our bedrooms, kitchens, living rooms, day after day, week after week, year after year as we eat, rest, and go about our lives at home. radiation will continuously penetrate our skin, organs, skull, and brain tissue while we sleep. >> server, your time is up. >> radiation damage is cumulative. >> your time is up. >> trust us, they say. >> your time is up, thank you. >> would you like my documentation? >> i hope someone will bother to look at it and read it. >> is there any other public comment on this item? seeing then, we will move on to rebuttal. we will hear from the appellant. you have three minutes. >> i don't know, what can i say. i have to say close distance to

this particular building, again, we don't know, they don't know, so let's give it some time. let's figure out what is going to happen with it because we can only gloat -- go to the rules. it was a public area, it would not be a problem. i'm am also a citizen. why won't they protect me and my family or anybody else in there, it is just a way too close, and verizon cheshire council appointed the f.c.c. the f.c.c., as you have heard, they are calling the rules like the clinton era. they are completely updated. they take their readings from norway, sweden, i think if i don't -- if i am correct, the united states and japan have higher levels -- the highest levels allowed, and exhibit c.,

again, we started at almost a 90 1% of the maximum allowance in this country, and there will be -- that will be 24/7 for us, so i don't know how else to put it. i don't want to insult anybody, but this is a no-brainer. again, i am not against antenna, but to be safe, if it is safe, fine, prove it to us, they can't , and you and the state tried to say the firefighters, but not anybody else, go higher, give us -- i don't know what else to tell you. he mentioned another thing, but

he says that you, the board, are not even basically the right -- the appellant has submitted additional studies linked to cell phone footage that has health effects. this board is not the proper agency to -- [indiscernible] >> how to analyse those studies from the f.c.c. perhaps you can analyse that, but you will have the power to just stop this, because in many cases, the boards have ruled -- had ruled that the safety of citizens was for most priority, and concluded that it should be other council. if there is still answer the question, but not enough information. this is one of the cases. i strongly urge you to revoke this permit or put a moratorium or come up with some other stuff

acceptable in my view. thank you. >> thank you. we will now here from mr. albritton. >> you have been very generous with your time. i will repeat that we will do postinstallation testing. if the appellant e-mails the department of public works, will test inside his apartment following installation. thank you for your time this evening. >> councillor? can you refresh my memory, at what time the metric 15 feet was brought up? was that a design standard for -- >> the facility, the pole is 12 feet away from the building, if that is your question. the kitchen windows are actually further away. i don't remember 15 feet as a metric, i'm sorry. >> in terms of design for these,

in terms of location of design. >> my colleagues, 15 feet, i said 1500 feet, 1,500 feet. >> i'm talking about previous cases here. >> oh, my colleague, he believes we are talking about view obstruction and condition numbee can't -- condition number 10, which says we can't obscure the light or view into windows, and that distance is 8 feet, and if the facility is less than 20 inches in diameter of inches wide, then under order 184, 504, you cannot -- it does not fall into the definition of escaping view and light, but that is 8 feet distance from a window or 6 feet if it is a side arm, but

i am apologizing if i am blanking the 15-foot reference. >> for some reason, 15 feet, at one time. >> i will research it and let you know. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now here from public works, nothing further. anything further from the planning department? >> commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners. >> okay. , i will start. >> after doing hundreds of cases , i am definitely moved. to be honest, somewhat upset. i feel we are on the wrong side of this, but the rules that govern this body indicate that the information that was before us that this permit was properly issued, at the same time, if someone brought up, regarding

tobacco and alcohol, tobacco companies were saying these things. one of my fellow commissioners reminded me that during his term there was smoking allowed in this building, in fact the commissioners here regularly had cigarettes before them. we have now realized how many years later how wrong that is. the city doesn't allow you to buy plastic bottles, we blight -- we buy glass bottles now, unfortunately, from where we are now, i would have to deny the appeal on the basis it was properly issued. >> the public hearing is closed, his or. >> do we have a motion? we have a motion to deny the appeal and appeal -- i pulled the permit on the basis it was properly issued. on that motion... [roll call]

>> that motion carries and the appeal is denied. we will now move on to item number 5, this is appeal number 19-011. plenty department approval, subject property 75,927,676th avenue, processing the issuance off every 20th, 2019 to s.f. multifamily one l.l.c. of a site permit. four units at ground floor per the ordinance, convert existing storage space to a new dwelling units road then existing envelope, new kitchens, baths and entry doors, sprinklers and fire alarm under separate application. we will hear from the appellants first. >> you are happy to be here. >> me? no, the projector, i'm technically challenged and i'm

grateful he is here. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> good evening, everyone. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you all regarding our concerns. many of them his robin, and i am a tenant for the last almost 16 years in which i share the apartment with my son who has been born and raised in the same apartment. i'm here with michael appellant and neighbor who has been in the same building for almost four years now. today we are asking you to take consideration around putting out an appeal that we are majorly concerned with losing our garage which we believe is being done unlawfully. it has been brought to our attention that the owners have submitted a permit. >> excuse me, for a minute. is the permit holder here? in the back, okay. >> sorry. we will be highlighting details

to the brief that we did sent to you a few weeks ago. thank you again for your time tonight. >> good evening. thank you for the time for us to speak here. we just wanted to give some background to this. >> overhead, please. >> overhead to, please it is a property. we are mostly concerned -- it was on march 2017 that the last acquisition l.l.c. brought to the property and they are basically virtually -- in a vertically integrated corporation that has their own in-house management firm and we

provided the plan. their website also shows that they have a deep understanding of local legislation. it was in 2016 that the previous landlord had applied for a permit for it seismically retrofitting the building, which we all supported. all the tenants were glad to hear that. we thought, let's go on with that. and on january 28th, 2019, the current landlord with a lawyer provided a notification asking us to vacate the garage and the storage unit for exactly that purpose of retrofitting. it was then on february 22nd where we were getting ready to vacate the areas that we were just looking at building i..com

and notice there is also a permit -- a charge of the different permit for the site. basically one that would change the garage unit into a do you, and there was nothing that was mentioned in the notice that we had received so we were surprised. upon visiting the d.b.i., we basically verify that that was going to be the case, and this drawing here basically shows that that would remove all of the housing units, this is a direct violation with the tenant 's at least. it is in violation with the san francisco board ordinances, and it also, there was no 30 day notice provided for us, and even then, this would have to be with just cause, which this project

does not categorize, and it is also our belief that this would have to be, be provided to us prior to the issuance of the permit. furthermore, the whole permit was issued in fraud, the information sheet basically provides that the landlord his have signed an affidavit that they say that no housing services would be removed. this project does exactly that. now knowing that the rental board has no jurisdiction over the project and that we could only go to the rental board once this has actually occurred, we had no other way other than coming here to you and asking for an appeal. we are basically here asking to revoke the permit under its current form, and until a

properly revised drawing, a proper description of the work, and a proper permit package is submitted, that will grant us our parking spots and storage units. a couple days after our appeal, individuals contact at -- contacted us separately. we wanted -- they wanted to talk to us. we met together. two days later on march 8th they provided with us a drawing from march sixth, and it showed the changes that they proposed, and we agreed. we provided a few additional edits and those were incorporated on march 8th. the conditions that the landlord asked as we pull the appeal. given the way everything had transpired over the course, we

felt hesitant without proper agreement to go ahead and pull the appeal. we are really looking for a mechanism that is put in place and assures that a proposed change is basically implemented. with that in mind, we have had discussions with the landlord, but so far, we have not come to a final consensus that basically guarantees for us, in no refutable way, that the changes will be implemented. with that in mind, and concluding, we ask you that you revoke the permit under its current form, under the conditions that a revised plan is submitted, that guarantee our parking spots. thank you for your time.

>> i have a question, his or. >> sure. the plan you showed us that you agreed on, he would be happy if this board memorialize those plans. can you put them on the overhead , please. >> number 7. >> and face it as you were looking at it. no worries. could you show me. >> this one here. here we go. >> so where is your parking and storage in this, and he can you tell me where it was prior? i have highlighted that. if you bring the first one. here we go. this is how the garage and storage unit currently look.

the storage unit is located in this area here. the parking spots, there are actually three of them, but only a neighbor and i are appealing and we have those two parking spots. the proposed project as it was approved would basically remove all of that, and we were basically blindsided. now, the revised project, which we would support, would have the storage unit in this area, and then the two garage spots here, and we would be supports that -- and we would be in support of that. >> what you are ultimately seeking is that you have parking spaces and storage, this is not a monetary settlement, correct? >> no, we just want what is legally right based on the lease is that we have signed with the

landlord. >> thank you. >> just for clarity, what is the page number with the revisions? >> i don't understand what you mean. >> i want to make sure it later if it is adopted, what page number is that on the plans? >> that is a 150 from march 8th , 2019. >> can you push it up so i can see it on the screen? thank you. perfect thank you, you can be seated. >> has this been submitted? is this only a diagram which has been discussed between you and the project sponsor, or has this been submitted to planning or building? >> my understanding is that so far this has been -- the last

acquisitions and asked, and i am not aware that any revision was submitted to d.b.i. >> thanks. >> thank you, you can be seated. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> hello, my name is thomas. >> you can lift that up, you are a tall guy. >> thank you. i'm here on behalf of the landlord and the permit holder, thank you for taking the time, honestly, we are on the same page as them. i have a set of plans which restores the parking and the storage. we're happy to submit them and to will do it tomorrow. we asked if you will allow us to do that. i can get the overhead and i can place them there, but it is the same copy they provided. >> place it like you are looking at it, sir,.

after you finish this, you're just asking us to memorialize it my commissioner brought up that there are two separate drawings with the same page markings. >> continue and we will address it at the end. >> we are on the same page, there is no more to say, really, if you have any questions i'm happy to answer them, but that is all we want. >> the only question i think and to make sure as we make our deliberation we can be clear and give clear direction is that in your brief staple tear in the 8.5 by 11 size, you have an a 201, which is what the appellant shared with us which shows two parking spaces retained and a storage area, and then in the larger set of plans, there's another one which looks like the last revision was on march 22nd

, 2018, and it was approved november 20th, 2019 and stance from the department of building inspection, and that page does not show the revisions , so i want to make sure we're understanding if this smaller version is something that has been discussed but has not been submitted to the department yet, and so it is here, and this larger version is what was approved, but you want to change to the smaller version >> correct. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> the sheet that they at represented was a 150. >> that is another page number that is different. i just want to make sure we understand that we are on the same page and whether we are proving a specific plan or a plan that achieves a specific goal, i guess that is for us to decide, perhaps. >> yep. >> thank you. >> argue with the permit holder, because you still have time.

is a some if you were sitting with? >> no, that is the architect, we are fine. >> do you know the page numbers we should look at? >> come on up. >> i am the architect. i would like to clarify the sheet numbers for the board. >> speak into the microphone more. >> the approved permit that you have in front of you which references those pages are both of the original permit applications which has not been revised, of those do not show the two parking spaces or the storage space. exhibit j and the appellant's brief it's reflecting what we show in exhibit a of our brief which is to restore the parking spaces and to the storage space and i like to clarify that the approved set as a side permit. we intend to submit an addendum before we can start any work a