intent of the precautionary principle ordinance in numerous respects. for example, their decision-making process for approvalling the cell tower was not made in an open and transparent manner with public participation. instead, it was decided during an 18-month private communications between city departments and verizon attorneys and engineers which completely excluded any required citizen participation or notification. before deciding to grant the permit, they failed to inform the public about potential human health and environmental dangers of the proposed cell tower. instead, they accepted biased health and safety opinions of verizon engineers and attorneys without consulting independent emf experts to evaluate dangers or needs for the proposed cell

tower or possible alternatives like fiber optics which can provide fastest internet in the u.s.a. instead of proving health and safety of the cell tower project, on verizon, they improper hoisted upon vulnerable a joining residents and owners the unfair burden of challenging health and safety of the agency's pre determined, private approval decision. they failed to acknowledge or inform the public that thousands of highly credible independent worldwide scientific studies have overwhelmingly contradicted and invalue dated 1996, fcc thermal safety guidelines which have become completely outdated and extraordinarily dangerous. independent studies have long

shown that microwave cell towers cause cancer clusters and other diseases and may seriously threaten not just san franciscans but people in nature everywhere. for many years, not even the likes of london have issued product liability insurance on cellphones and wifi products. too dangerous. and while it's induce tremendous cooperations like verizon, confirm those dangers in mandatory s.e.c. disclosure to their shareholders. so, improving this cell tower project the article 25 city departments violated the most fundamental precautionary principle. threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exist, lack of full scientific certainty of our cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for the city to prevent the

degradation of the environment or protect the health of its citizens. closed quote. in san francisco, this board of appeal is the last hope for most ordinary people. hardly anyone can afford to litigate against giant corporations so tonight, you have an unprecedented opportunity of conscientiously reversing the cell tower permit on health and safety grounds. such conscientious and ground-breaking board of appeals decisions can lead san francisco and our nation in protecting against further and prude use of dangerous wireless technologies which seriously or i remember reversi rememberi rememberrebleo and nature.

>> thank you. >> hearing from the attorney. >> welcome back, councilor. >> good evening. mr. president, members of the board, paul, outside council for verizon wireless. we're sympathetic obviously to his concerns about the health and safety. i think you know article 25 is one of the most robust regulations really in the country for these types of facilities to be placed in urban environments. article 25 was upheld by the california supreme court in t mobile verse san francisco and it requires a rigorous review of the public-health of the

omissions from the verizon wireless facilities. for that reason, we submit consulting engineers report and we have a representative here if you'd like to ask any questions that shows the emissions from this facility are less than half than what is allowed under the fcc standards at the nearest building. the department of public-health took that report, which it's anna proved engineer by the city of san francisco and also represents other cities and confirmed in their report that this site will comply with the fcc standards, there by complying with article 25 and the federal law such that that issue is resolved with respect to the city, code and respect to the federal law. and testing which will be done

in order to absolutely confirm the emissions comply with the f.c.c. standards. the city included announcement from the f.c.c. earlier this month that they are reconfirming the same levels of emissions that are in place for the last decade. we would argue in really has been a public and transparent process not a secret process. i think you are aware that there are notices that go out to allow for a protest hearing with the tentative approval. that includes the d.p.h. and information that is available from the department as well. there's another notice that goes out with the final determination that allows two levels of protest before public hearing officer and then here again. we feel it's a very transparent process. so we encourage you to approve this facility as approved by the department of public-health and of course reviewed by the

department of planning and the department of public works, three departments that have recommended approval of the site. >> i have a question, councilor and thank you. can you explain the difference between this antenna and the antenna that is generally before us. we're hearing the ones on the pole top. this is a more robust system. >> yes, so, as you heard me go on before, right now verizon is using three different types of radios in san francisco. the site that will be coming up later is on a light standard and that's a five-watt radio. on utilities polls we're using 40-watt radios. thes the same we're putting on every utility pole in 70 in north beach and elsewhere throughout the city. we have afour-foot- antenna and the difference here is that we're using only one of the directions. because of that, the radio

signal is then concentrated in that one antenna giving us a higher effective radiated power than you would have. i spoke to the engineer and she explained that this is a very cluttered environment. if you look at the photo, you will see they're very tall buildings all around this pole. we're able to get up to nearly 640 feet with this pole. the antenna is focusing uphill to provide up laguna and get through this urban clutter and providing its signal. the site is not focused in three directions but one. so it's really the same radios, same antenna but the fact that the energy from the radios is being focused in one direction rather than two or three directions. >> was that in the a pa appellas grief they stated 7,000 watts? >> that's right. that's taking -- i can have the

engineer better explain. you have two bands, p.c.s. and a.w.s., the shorter bands but carry more information and you have that 40 watts times two times two and the a ten a which is 15 gets you to the 7,000 watts. it's 60 feet up in the air and off to the side of the building that's about 12 to 15 feet away. >> the other question was, they had mentioned the april 4th, 2019 decision regarding t-mobile west versus san francisco. could you go into that a little bit as to what? >> absolutely. i'll try and be brief.

>> t-mobile and a company name next g brought by crown castle were not comfortable with article 25 so they sued and the principle argument was under california public utility code section 79.01 cities could not regulate aesthetics and they could only regulate under 79.01 they have the right to put information on telephone polls and in the right-of-way and they argued there was no control over aesthetic and they lost that argument. article 25 went from the lower courts to the appeal court to the supreme court each time

demote and subject t, soyou cane corporation from putting facilities in the right of away but you can and that is basically the ruling in that case and it upheld article 25 so what was upheld, is the you can't detract a characteristics of the neighborhood and impair the anesthetic attributes to create a historic director average or excellent view. those are average, they are all standards that we can.

>> we will now hear from the relevant department and from public works. >> usually sitting on the other side. hello, good evening, president and members of the board. leo, representing public works. we believe is issued and in article 25 for service facilities. article 25 requires public works to refer wireless application to the department of public-health and the planning department. both departments determine this application complies with the health article 25. public works accidentally issued a tentative approval and the applicant male and post notice of this approval. public works held a public hearing. following the director of public works approved the permit and noticed this determination was

distributed to the public. the planning department isn't s in attendance and speak more regarding the process if the board has questions that the department of public-health is in attendance and can speak more regarding the health review. >> i have a question, sir. in all the cases we've heard i've never heard the term precautionary principle. can you explain that? >> yes, so it's sent out for all city agencies if they're the health reason or public-health and there's a ceqa process required and we have them a noise study and it is rioux video by the department of public speak and we can have the

department of public-health to make sure it's still within compliance. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the individual from the public of health. >> would you like her to speak? >> >> we have sent amounts of information to the department of public-health this board. i say copious but it's nothing in comparison to what we've sent

you. there's data on data presented by the public it's harmful to the public. in the spirit, and we are not scientists and we're not ta assisted and we're not engineers and we're members of the public about we have sent this information to the department of and requested the department of public-health and that was several months ago. when are we to expect the sponsor department of health after giving you all this information provided to us from the public that kids we're poisoning the public when we take an action to approve these

transmitters. >> we did receive the request through dr. eric on our health officer. he has received a request to respond to the 2010 memo. it was written by the formal environmental health director and health officer and so i have met with the doctor and he is currently reviewing the documents as well as doing his due till against and research and we will be able to create an updated memo similar to dr. to respond to the current research and the department of public-health position on radio frequency emissions and the standards set bstooped -- iwoulo

months. i would say that's roughly an idea through some conversation with him and that is totally doable. like you said, i've seen the stack and i agree. it's a lot of information and we have to be sure that we're looking atri search that is connected to the a ten a research and it's also repeatable done through peer review so there are these checklists we have to go through and the doctor is committed to making sure that he is thorough in that so it will take him some time with his schedule but i can skim three to four months is doable for him. >> you can understand our sense of urge see because week after

week we have hearings and we have members of the public come up and address important items. we have others, you didn't get that stack from us, it came from the public and their health is at stake and we on this board are very concerned with the health of the citizens of san francisco as a result of these items and we want to put to rest and we'll talk about that later but at the same time, the precautionary principle weighs heavily on hour minds because we don't want them moving something forward knowing that we may be causing harm to the citizen. >> i hope you hear our sense of urgency and.

>> we as a department, we're not doing the research as well so and we're definitely going to be diving into the research that they used to make that determination so we can see the va livalidity of that. >> san francisco feels otherwise other than the f.c.c. feels which san francisco quite often feels differently when the federal feels on certain ideas and i hope they challenge the fcc and what might be an obsolete point of view in 1996. >> they are not the ones that are the scientists. they are heavily relying on health organizations and american cancer society research and the world health organization as well as the f.d.a. >> thank you, very much. >> >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for your hard work. >> we'll hear from mr. sanchez.

>> hold on -- >> i'm just kidding. i'lling brief. i review material that the application was properly reviewed by the planning department. the site is in both the zoning protected location because it's been in rtc zoning district and a planning protected because it's a street with excellent view ratings. given the context of the site, as well as the design of the site we find it complies with our requirements and most of the issues and concerns that were raised in the appeal related to health and not the planning department's approval but we did review this and find that it does comply with our requirements and i'm available for my questions. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? please approach the microphone.

>> thank you. i'm going to speak off the cuff, if you will. there is enough research to show that radiation effects human cells but it effects wildlife, birds, piece and putter flies. i'm not a scientist, i'm not an environmentalist i'm just a very conscientious human being and i believe strongly that if we don't, as a human race, make decisions to protect everything that we're involved with, the environment, our air, our oceans, the wildlife, we are going to be in deep trouble. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? please approach the microphone.

>> hello board members. hello president swig. i'm just going to start off this way. these are the times and of course so begin comes the letter to george washington at valley george the winter is 1776 and preserve the fight for independence and freedom. and we are faced with the crisis right now of extreme danger and doctors, telecommunications specialists, they recognize the perm upon all ages of people by wifi and it's extreme proliferation and economic hazards. if this continues forward, in

the essence nhl general welfare society is being ab regated. government has a mandatory role to protect society and government must not chose a separate role of its own in har morph legislation the federal communications act of 1996, article 15, basically has engineers deciding whether or not something is harmful. they are not really looking at the world health organization and they're not looking at many medical societies, the american medical association as well as everybody is saying, medically, this is a danger and it was only effecting 10% of the population 10 years ago. presently, all the research i've read says its effecting 50% of

the population. as it continues it can effect more people. i just want to read you something real quick here. in the largest settlement from electro magnetic injury the boeing company will pay $500,000 to one of its employees who claim he developed lukemia during his work with electro magnetic radiation. he was charged with knowing of the health risk but failed to warn it's employs' and not precautions to protect them. >> you have 30 seconds, sir. >> the court ruled in favor of the client and this was done in 1990. so keep in mind that 1995 the office of technical technology assessment was defunded in 1996 we ended up with this.

how big wire lus made us think that cell phone made a special investigation. >> your time suppose. >> >> the capture of the agency. >> your time suppose. >> is there any other public comment? >> good evening, welcome back. >> i want to thank you all commissioners because i can tell you've been really listening and i really appreciate it. and i'm going to cut some of what i was going to say out just because you are focusing on health. i want to address that. if i want to present a meta for i can story. timing is an important variable when climbing mount everest. climbers must begin their assent on time and must observe strict turn a lot times. if they don't reach the summit

by 2:00 p.m. they must turn around or the afternoon blizzards and early darkness will bring certain death. despite this knowledge, many climbers continue to the summit and never make it home home alive. christopher kay states we can be lured into our destruction by our passion for our goals. and make it a part of our identity and it's increasingly difficult to change direction. people despite accumulating evidence that the goal is unwise or determination and commitment to continue becomes hardened. the s.c.c. did not begin on time they failed to order 5g precautionary health and safety tests and relied on the 1996 telecommunications rack and illegal law based solely on industry sponsored health studies. the fact that congress passed this dow gem on straits capture at best or outright corruption

and fraud lens on the part of the federal government and the telecom industry. the climb towards 5g has been more arduous than expected. through out the world citizens are pushing back. citizens, seitz and counties in california have passed our our din ans banning 56. there have been 400 peels against 5g permits with testimony from numerous keys from smart people according to rick swig, president of the board of appeals here. think about it who in their right mind would want a cell tower in front of their residents. it's five minutes to two, are you going to turn around and start your dissent or is 5g going to be a suicidal mission for the people of san francisco? already, you have asked the director of the san francisco public-health department to read studies compiled by dr. joel moscowwits. u.s. berkeley public-health

researcher and they responded today and if it's going to take them three or four months i say there should be a moratorium on my more permits. ron radner has given you a reprieve by citing san francisco's precautionary principle ordinance. it's five minutes to two, follow your heart and internet collect and take the road less traveled. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none. we'll move on to rebuttal. >> i've been a frequent flyer.

>> it's hard to hear you. if you can speak into the microphone. please. >> thank you. i conclude with these ver bait um excerpts from the principal ordinance which are not reempted and not discretionary quote every san francisco an has an equal right to a healthy and safe environment while officers, boards, commissions, and departments of the city and county shall implement the principal and conducting the city and counties affairs. bun of the goals is to include citizens as equal partners in decisions effecting their environment. public participation and its open and transparent decision-making process are critical to finding and collecting alternatives. the community has a right to know complete and accurate

information on human health and environmental impacts associated with the selection of products services and operations or plans. bids on the best available science, the precautionary principle requires the collection of the alternative that presents the least potential threat to human health and the city natural systems including the alternative doing nothing. where threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exists, lack of full scientific certainty of cause and i shaland effect shall notis the derogation of the environment or protect the health of its citizens. there is a duty to prevent harm. i haven't yet met a single san francisco an who wants to live

next to a cell tower. this is a crucial time for this board to stop rubber stamping article 25 permits based on long outdated and scientifically knee dated fcc health guidelines which help the wireless induce tremendous but seriously harm i'mance and our precious environment. it's urgent now since we are threatened by microwaves to be beamed from antennas and drones and satellites. i respectfully urge this board to protect the health and safety of citizens by following the principle ordinance now and honoring your conscience and your public duty to prevent environmental harm. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from mr.albritain.

>> thank you, again, president situation members of the board. outside council for verizon. i know that it's uncomfort and i apologize you are asked to make these moral judgments when these facilities come before you each time. the precautionary principal is certainly the law of san francisco it specifically says it doesn't impose any specific action or duty on any board or other body in the city and in this case as you know, the federal law has been governing this area for nearly 30 years and as i mentioned, exhibit h contains the statement by the fcc they'll readopt the standards that exist today. in that statement, there's a quote from the secretary of the

food and drug administration where and i also want to say that the triple-e has take not a rereview and come up with the draft and they're voting on the approval of that draft at this time. the standard is reviewed and it was just reviewed recently. we respect the concerns of the community and i have to say that the verizon wireless trying to provide a service that they believe saved lives and the cellphones have saved more lives than have been threatened over the, they were turned on in 1985 so they've been around for a long time providing the services that we provide. happy to answer questions and happy for your question. >> sorry, councilor. >> >> understanding that the

process is reviewed and rereviewed, why is it that we're still base particular off a 1996, if it's been reviewed and rewritten? >> the code was 1996. the fcc established the standards in 1998 based on -- i should let the hamot and edson come up and explain it further. it's based on the aieee and the -- i miss this up. and those standards are continually rereviewed and reviewed. the fcc has not readopted it. >> not just the stand arrest, i just want to know why the code still has 1996 and it doesn't say code 1996 but rereviewed and updated in 2017? >> it's a legal question you mean?

>> >> the communications act of 1996 was anna mend many o an ame communications act of 1932. the laws have a great longevity and they all continue to have the same year of the act but there are other actions that take place. >> when there's a legal document or legal form and it was created in 1932, there's a stamp on any legal form that says revised and a certain date on it? >> the initial act remains the same. >> that's what i'm asking you is there a specific amendment that you can show that this 1996 was

amended in 2015, 2017, 2018. >> the act was an mended but it charges the fcc to come up with a stand sa standard. they worked with the f.d.a. and the e.p.a. to come up with a standard based on the health scientists available and other departments that deal with the e.p.a. >> at what year? >> 1998. and then the agencies that came up with those standards i've continued to review their own standards. >> good evening, welcome. >> so for reference, the standards set have been reviewed in 2013 as paul said, this past two months. in 2013, they released notice of rulemaking detailing and clarifying some of the methods that people have been determining as fcc compliance would have to determine. >> sorry to interrupt. that was 2013. we did not have 5g at that time

and i don't believe we had 4g. given the standard has for the equipment has changed so drastically, in recent years, why isn't there something that is -- in 2013 my daughter was in third grade. it's not a new generation because it isn't based on generation. back in 1996, we were just around 2g area. the center is based on frequency. the actual part of the electro magnetic spectrum that the cell carries operate and that

>> the frequent stays the same. the technology modifies how daytona is carried by the frequents but the frequents stay the same. >> it's not the name thrown about can you clarify, a.i. triple-e is a lobbying organization which represents the electrical engineers of this country as opposed to a -- >> so, it's actually an old name nowadays they describe it i triple-e. it's electronics and electrical engineer and it's just a professional engineering organization. most engineers -- >> it's for the benefit of supporting the electrical engineers? >> they're a standard sitting body. they have the expertise to set

standards -- >> their self-interest does with electrical engineers and the promotion of that? >> well, as a professional engineering body, the first tenant of the professional engineering code is the health and welfare of the public. they probably would not say that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> >> thank you. anything further? >> mr. sanchez? >> commissioners, i want to start. >> this matter is submitted. >> president r. swig: let's let our new commissioner start here. i want to hear from that. i'd like to hear his input as far as from law background. >> sure. >> president r. swig: sorry to put you on the spot. >> it's finement i'm just refilling my water here. while there's a couple of legal issues that come up, obviously i'm not here in the capacity as a lawyer. i have reviewed the t-mobile

case and i think that our discretion here is circum circud by federal pre 'emion and they need to be directed by the federal government until the california supreme court changes its mind. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> that was really good. that was exactly what the bottom line is here. we can sit here all daylong unfortunately. what i would like to do and i won't be able to do is i would like to put this case on hold until the d.p.h. comes up with their findings. i can't do that. i've been advised by the city attorney that would not be a legal act and we would probably find ourselves in court thanks to mr. al britain, who i respect

and he has to do his job. i really throw the burden on this to the department of health to do their homework and come back and look the citizens of the city of san francisco in the eye and say these cell towers and all these insulations put forward, they're all healthy and don't worry about it, kids. if not, if they don't find it that way to stand up and make san francisco a leader in maybe telling a truth and that it isn't being told, according to research that is being provided by many of our whether they're the public commentators. at that point, maybe the precautionary principle will be invoked. at this point, unfortunately, as much i would like to place a

moratorium as suggested by one of our public commentators, we cannot do that. we're held to the standard of article 25 and unless one of my fellow commissioners finds the face of our first commissioner's comments, wants to move otherwise, i think that we have to deny the appeal based on the fact that the permit was properly issued under the code and under the jurisdiction of article 25. so, as the commissioner that's probably on here before anyone else here, tonight, i've heard the most cases. unfortunately, to kind of answer what the appellant said, we have gone against many of the cell towers that have come before us. some successfully. most of it has gone to litigation, which this body has

lost. it's not that we're scared to go forward or that we're rubber stamping it. that's far from the case. we spend hours reading these briefs. we all have jobs that we do for our real money. we have children, we have families. we spend hours and hours a week going over these briefs trying to make sense of all the scientific, the appellant side, the scientist side and the permit side. i'm very -- i mean, i've been on this body when we made those decisions and that litigated. so, i am extremely sympathetic. extremely. so much so that even i am tempted to continue this case. i don't have the votes here tonight. that's probably not going to happen. this body has requested from the san francisco health department

to produce some new numbers. now, at which point, whether we like those numbers or don't like those numbers, those are going to be what we're dealing with. and again, no one wants to have a cell tower eight feet from the window. we've seen them as close as four feet. we've seen tons of wires. i mean, we have had hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cases come before us with as many concerned citizens as you are today. unfortunately, as my new colleague has said, not trying to be chicken shit here but our hands are tied. >> you said that on tv? >> i'm sorry, ma'am. and so, at this point, i'm going to -- [please stand by]

>> thank you. >> welcome, vice president. so now we are moving on. as i mentioned before, we're going to have a slight change in the order. the parties for item number 11, this is appeal number 19-016 have come to an agreement and they would like to address the board on this agreement. this is andrew rabinovich and irina strigo opposing the

department of building inspection. this is for 157 marview way. this is appealing the issuance of march 6, 2019, to andrew rabinovich of an alteration permit to memorialise the replacement of the exterior facade from existing siding and also replacement of the garage door with new glass roll-up garage door. >> so the subject permit that is before you for 157 marview way is the result of an enforcement action for work on the facade that was done without benefit of the permit and the permit is attempting to correct that. i won't go into full consideration of the board's

calendar, but we have reached a compromise agreement on a project that may move forward. i have them in a green folder and i think we have copies for all members. the changes to the facade, we would allow for the wood siding that has been installed to remain, for a garage alteration to occur change in materials and glazing to occur, and also window replacement in line with what they've outlined in the plans here. there was also some other details that were removed, and we would allow legalization of that through this permit. so i'll put it over to the permit holder and request that the bothered uphold the permit of these plans. >> good evening, i am the attorney for the owner here and we agree with everything scott sanchez has said. i don't often say that, but tonight we're very pleased we were able to come to an agreement. we would like to thank all of

the planning staff for the time they've devoted to helping us reach this and also to julie rozenburg. so we're asking the board to sign off on this compromise proposal that we have reached and we do have copies of the revised plans. i'll give you one at least for the record. >> okay. thank you. >> alec, if you could accept the plans. what's the date on the plans? >> august 28, 2019. >> okay. and so you just want the board to adopt the plans; correct? >> well, i think we would need to allow the appeal to be revised -- >> okay. i just wanted to confirm. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? so the parties are requesting that we -- you grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the condition that it be revised to adopt the plans dated august 28,

2019. >> are we going to go the other way and deny the appeal and uphold the permit with the stipulation that the current plans are adopted? >> well, if there's any change to the permit, we have to grant the appeal. >> thank you. >> do we have a motion? >> i'll make that motion to grant that appeal. >> i could repeat it for the record. >> that's fine. you did it eloquently. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the condition that it be revised to require the adoption of the plan submitted at the hearing today and dated august 28, 2019. on that motion, commissioners. [vote]. >> so that motion carries 4-0. thank you. okay. we are now moving back to item number 6 jumping all over today.

this is appeal no. 19-076. guy burdick versus department of building inspection. the property in question is 50 sussex street. appealing the issue. >> announcer: on june 26, 2019, to john and debrafburton of an alteration permit rear building change storage shed to accessory dwelling unit add a kitchen, bicycle storage and heating in compliance with title 24 report per ordinance no. 95-17. >> would you like to use the overhead? >> i would. thank you for hearing our concerns about 50 sussex street. the property is here. first of all, 50 sussex does not

require an accessory dwelling permit. 50 sussex already has a commercial use type of two dellings four units or less. use types as you probably know are tax and occupancy codes. having a two-dwelling use type already qualifies both struct e structur structures to be dwellings and occupiable. having both an adu and commercial multi-family use type is unnecessary and redundant. it would also be confusing in terms of regulation, which i'm going to talk about here. now, this is -- >> face it as if you're looking at it, sir. >> there we go. so this is from the 50 sussex use type. two dwellings on one parcel. it already has the rights of two

dwellings. now, it would be confusing in terms of regulation is the rear structure and adu or is it as john burton states on his 2016 building application, single-family. there are very different rules and regulations for each. this graphic shows a portion of our rh-1 residential neighborhood and 50 sussex you'll notice is the only property with a commercial multi-dwelling tax and occupancy code. why 50 sussex has a commercial multi-family use type is unknown. no one in city government has ever been able to explain this to us.

so enter the notice of special restrictions. the notice of special restrictions was placed on that rear structure in 1996. the burton's purchases a property in 1984 and there was this structure apparently from 1906, although i'm not sure if that's accurate. so let's say it was 1906. in 1996 they wanted to build a home up front. so they had to transfer the occupancy from the rear unit, the one occupancy that 50 sussex is allowed, to the front building that john burton would build. so they had a restriction saying no one would live there, no services.

you're only allowed one family dwelling, no other services or doorbells are out. that's just for storage. but as the 1999 building was finished, front home, the burtons -- >> overhead, please. >> overhead. the burtons immediately broke the n.s.r. or violated it and put a doorbell for the cottage in back. there's a neighbor that complained. he sent a letter to b.b.i., complaining that even though it's a storage shed, no one's going to live in there, it has an n.s.r. p.g.e. came out to install an electric meter also in violation of the n.s.r. now, that brings us to the rear

building a.d.u. permit in which the burtons claim this rear house is from 1902 -- >> can you please adjust the overhead so we can see the entire picture. just, if you minimize it. thank you. >> so someone is supposed to come out and check if that's from 1902. it's not. it's a building that was built in 2016 to 2018. it started out -- >> face it as if you're looking at it. thank you. >> yes, sir. i forget that. so it may have started out as a building from 1902, but in 2016, john burton raised it off of the primitive foundation it had, excavated all the way out

underneath and installed a new foundation which is not allowed. it's impossible to get a permit for that foundation. but he installed one. and i watched it happen with my own eyes. so how did he do it? how did we get really to a new building that's not from 1902? in february of 2016, john burton submits a building permit application over the counter. he calls that rear storage shed which has no special restriction on it. it's codified as an accessory structure, but here in 2016 he's gone back to say it's occupied. it wasn't and hasn't been used as an occupancy since that notice of special restrictions went on it in 1996. he says it's an r-3 occupancy

code and it's a dwelling and occupation won't change. but what he's attempting to do there is -- oh, 30 seconds? >> 30 seconds. >> you've got to be kidding me. there's so much to get through. what he's attempting to get through -- i should have spoken faster. is take the existing storage shed, this is from the 1996 plans, and he's trying to launder the occupancy through the permit and this is in an effort to disregard the notice of special restrictions and match the use type of two dwellings on the parcel -- >> you'll be able to speak again in rebuttal and at which point after the departments have their time we'll probably have questions. >> okay. great. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the

permit holders. good evening and welcome. >> i have a process question. we want to share our time. so i'll speak -- >> you have the time you have been allotted. >> excuse me, we'll share our seven minutes. i am a native of san francisco and permit and co-owner of 50 and 58 sussex. tonight we respectfully request the board of appeals reinstate the permit, plan as approved, with no new conditions. my husband and i have abided by all the requirements of city departments throughout this process and we ask you to uphold

this permit. we're not building hotels or playing monopoly, as alleged. tonight we want to bring to the table some transparency about ordinance 95-17. there's been some bizarre attacks on us, vicious, slanderous, and dangerous as you read in the brief i hope. this is about an a.d.u. a california and san francisco housing initiative for a beautiful rear a.d.u. cottage that blocks no one's view or blocks anyone's light. it has foliage creating privacy. it was a small home back in 1902 and it existed when we built our house in front. i think it's a poster child of prototype f of a.d.u.s. this is of the a.d.u. exact same dimensions existed, but now it's habitable. there were no over-the