sure, it's dressed up to make it look less obvious than the installation down the street. looking up at the pole would be a constant reminder that there's radiation coming off the pole. i'm concerned about my neighbors and my children, the whole residential character of the whole historic neighborhood of golden gate heights. it's a quiet neighborhood. i don't understand why this isn't put into a place like a galleria where you can buy cellphones and try them. we live in a quiet residential neighborhood. i spoke to about 80 neighbors in our area and only about two wanted this antenna. everyone else said we have internet, we don't need this and don't want this on our street and on our poles.

it was brought up that the home values will start to be neglect impacted by this whole thing. there has been studies in multiple institutions. there were surveys by the national institute of science law and public policy, where 94% of home buyers were just not interested in moving into areas with telephone wires and power poles and lines and antennas, and so on and so forth. as far as the public works response in their brief, the precautionary principle ordinance, it only seems like it's a guideline now. it's put in print, but it doesn't hold any water. it's misleading and fraudulent. the people that pay taxes and constantly taxes do go up every year because i know, i pay the taxes. when it comes down to actually enforcing this, they're saying they don't have to do anything.

thank you for your time this evening. >> clerk: if you could write your name down on a speaker card, i would appreciate it. next speaker, please. >> thank you for listening to us. i live at 1647 17th avenue. to your point, i never received anything in the mail about this going up. the first i heard about it was a notice on the pole that you could barely read because it was covered over with tape and it was barely legible because of rain and fog. luckily one of your neighbors looked at this and said what's going on. the second point is i work at home, i'm a reader, i constantly research on the internet. our internet is fine. we don't need anything faster. everything is working fine in this location. we don't need anything faster or better. the second point is this proposed location would directly impact one of the city's

cultural icons, which is the 16th avenue stairs. trip adviser lists 770 things to do in san francisco. this is number 30. there are people who come from all over the world to see those stairs. this would directly impact the beauty of that neighborhood. there are no wires on this street. our wires are in our back yard. they're not in the front. it's a lovely street with arts and craft style homes. it's a real esthetic problem. i know in april the california supreme court ruled unanimously that esthetics alone are enough to reject the 5g infrastructure. dennis herrera agreed that the poles could take away from the city's beauty. also i would like to make a point around this. other cities around the world are saying no and rejecting this

rush to force 5g on local governments and communities. mill valley has blocked this. ross and salselmo have passed similar ordinances. dozens of cities are fighting this rush to limit local control. people in belgium, italy, germany, switzerland are calling for bans on this 5g. the congresswoman who represents silicon valley introduced a legislation toe overturn this policy. there is a removal of some small cell deployments and removes safeguards that are outlined in the national environmental policy act. finally, we're asking san francisco to fight back and be on the right side of this. los angeles, seattle, and 22

other cities and counties have already filed lawsuits to overturn the f.c.c. order. i thank you for your time and your consideration. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next sfooepeaker, please. is there any other public comment? yes. please approach. >> good evening, welcome. >> hello. hello, board members and president. at the september 25 board of appeals meeting, there was an appeal to stop the placement of a cellular antenna and it was denied by the board. during that meeting, a most important and imperative argument was presented by ron ratner on the precautioner principle. a rule of law and an ordinance of the city of san francisco.

the precautionary principle cannot be pre-empted nor is it conditional. it is there to protect the citizens from danger. we have a situation where we citizens are not warranted, protected, informed, or giving our consent to this addition of a pollutant, additional elect electromagnetic radio waves. our residences are peaceful abodes. we now encounter 24-hour-a-day exposure with no relief. everything is protected to do other side at the protection of the cautionary ordinance. the president in his authority requested the san francisco department of public health to update their 2010 statement on cell towers and antennas.

that is now in process. therefore, all applications and approvals should be held in abeyance until such time as the rates of exposure and resting can be determined for the placement of towers and antennas related to their impact on health. number two, president swig requested guidance from the legal counsel regarding the precautionary ordinance and how it must relate to article 25 of the 1996 telecommunications act and overriding it. his response was, i'm not prepared to do so. 42 days have passed. so for the public record and to follow up president swig's request, the question is, what guidance can you now give to the board of appeals regarding that question? at the september 25 meeting, it was also stated that there was no manifest in justice. how can the board make such a

statement when people are bombarded with levels of radiation hundreds of thousands of times higher than normal and pulses continuously that affect the health of people, plants, insects, even rain. injustice abounds here. just a little bit more for the overhead. in the united states, these are the comparisons. if you do 10%, you're still 100 which is higher than anything imaginable throughout other parts of the world. >> clerk: thank you, sir. will you fill out a speaker card, please. >> thank you. >> clerk: is there any other public comment? okay. we will move on to rebuttal. ms. maring, you have three minutes. >> thank you. i just wanted to mention. i have the envelope that was

mailed to me that said it was mailed from santa anna two or three days before that. i noticed the light pole in front of our home. all of this planning was going on and then we get the note in the mail. and also it was said there would be a 4-foot dome on top of the light pole and they said not distractive boxes. my neighbors and i live here. we don't want this radiofrequency in front of our homes. if they want to put it on 17th avenue they can put it on lotten and maraga where there are no windows on the corners. my neighbors work at home and have families and children. thank you for listening to me.

i'm grateful for my neighbors being here to support me. there's other places that could locate it on 19th avenue, a thorou thoroughfare, not in front of family homes. >> clerk: thank you. >> do you need this anymore? >> clerk: thank you. we'll hear from the permit holder. would that last public speaker, do you have your card to turn? thank you. it helps us keep accurate track of the minutes. thank you. public comment. okay. you have three minutes. >> thank you. more than anything, i'd like to be here to answer any questions

that you have after you've heard some other folks. i would like to highlight, at the risk of being repetitive, we did follow the notification requirements. you've actually heard from some folks. you've heard that that was true. you heard from folks that did get the mailer. you heard that there were notices posted. again, we uploaded the affidavits proving as much. as far as the design, this is as sleek and as small of a design we installed for san francisco. we've worked for the planning department for several years to try to make these as small and unobtrusive as possible. installations that might occur on lotten would be on larger poles with communication lines. those installations require large separation from power lines and communication lines.

they just result in bigger, more obvious installations. while it's true in some locations it might be better to go to one location over another, it would result in bigger installations. that's true here with what would be required if we went to a different location. i want to highlight those things and answer any questions. >> the question was really just to try to explain why this location is important. like what is the reason. i understand the size difference if you're further away, but why do you need to be here at this particular location? >> the best way i can answer that is sprint has decided, via reviewing their network performance than this location would help performance in the neighborhood. this -- we chose this part of

17th because they have concrete light poles, whereas a lot of the neighborhood has the wooden larger utility poles. >> did you look at specific alternatives? normally in these cases there are alternative poles which are considered and that actually has become part of the dialog with the community, as opposed to, okay, we're putting it here because it suits us. did you have any options in alternatives on any part of the street, even though a more obtrusive box may have resulted? >>yes, i think there are options and other poles that may have resulted in an installation. there are other concrete poles on 17th, but i don't think that would satisfy any of the folks here tonight. it would still be on 17th and

still be roughly equivalent locations to homes. i don't know that those are better alternatives. the other alternatives are almost entirely wood poles. some of those poles are not possible at all just because there's so much stuff on them that we wouldn't be able to install a facility that would comply with state law that governs how and where utilities relate to each other. some aren't options at all, but others might be. we determined those are lesser options because they would result in bigger and more obvious installations. >> would you like to respond to the public's question as to why there is this urgency to put these boxes. i'm not picking on sprint, but you might want to generically answer because we get this question. why is there the sense of urgency to populate so dramatically the light poles, et cetera, of san francisco by these boxes with all of these --

by all the telecommunication wireless companies? >> sure. that's a question that we could talk about for a long time. to try to be brief, as technology as evolved over time, the antennas and the radios need to be closer to the severs because of the huge data usage. if you only have one site that serves 10,000 people, the experience of those people trying to use it at the same time will be really awful. if you have three or four sites scattered, each location can better serve the population. that's why you're seeing the evolution over time. in the very early days of wireless networks, you may have only had one or two sites in a metropolitan area. you've seen it from being on top of a mountain to on top of a tall building to on top of a

smaller building to antennas in the streets. that's why, the networks need more facilities to process all of the data. >> thank you. any other questions? >> clerk: thank you. anything further, mr. palasius. >> if you can come forward. i'm got a few brief questions. >> we've talked in the past about customer service and customer sensitivity. it's an item for me at least. was there an initiative to have dialog with the community and look proactively at alternative sites and discuss with the community why this site might not be their first choice or explain to the community that alternative sites would just end up being the same issue or worse? >> yeah.

there's a -- prior to the application -- well, we have a hearing -- we did have a hearing for this item where the public could say they're concerned, their comments, and the applicant is there stating the reasons they chose this location. but prior to the installation, we do have a section in our new order which was also in the previous order encouraging community meetings. it is encouraged in order that they do have community meetings, but it's not required. >> to your knowledge, did extenet have a sense of community service and simulate a community meeting on this subject? >> as far as my knowledge, i'm not aware of one. >> in your public meetings, did anybody from the community show up or were they notified that they had the option of showing up at a community meeting to -- or not a community meeting, your hearing, to voice their concern. >> yes, we had people show up to

the hearing. >> okay. great. how many, out of interest? >> i think i saw the check-in sheet today, i think roughly nine or ten. >> i would like to understand the process for folks who may not be engaged. the process has changed now. they would work with you, public works, to have their application which is reviewed by planning, has this public hearing process. then after that hearing assume the permit is tentatively issued, assuming there is a notice that goes out. is that what happens? that's where people see the notice cards and the posting on the pole itself? >> yes. >> then they have a time to appeal which brings them here. >> they have time to protest and there is another notice for the appeal, yes. >> just to try limit -- >> that isn't the old order. >> so just to try to help folks

understand that what happens is the notice on the pole and the notice to your home is the notice that this is potenti potentialally going to be a process that brings you here to us for the board of appeals. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> so, mr. rossi, i hate to throw this at you. you can come up with the same answer. on the issue of the precautionary issue, i have a sense this is going to come up again and again and again. how do we get a reading on this so that the public has some comfort about is there a precautionary principle number one, what is the theory behind it, what is the impact of that on cases like this. can we move forward on that or have you done some further research?

>> i think i answered the question at one of the meetings on these prior permits. article 25 limits the board's review of these permits to compliance with article 25. it's not the broader review that you have under other kinds of permits. article 25 provides that the standard is set by the federal comooucketss commission. so themunications commission. so the city can't create their own. this ordinance does not place any binding obligation on you as a board to create anything that you believe violates that principle. >> we found that those of you who attended our hearing before, the aforementioned article 25

was really well crafted by the legislators in tying our hands. there are very strict guidelines, and -- that we has a board have to adhere to. if there are -- i think that we have found exceptions and denied -- sorry, found for appellants when there are clear view streets, like a street would have a beautiful view of the golden gate bridge and this big box would block that and we've been able to use that as a way to find for an appeal. we have found a way in the past where there has been notice that was improper. we have upheld an appeal on that. we have been frustrated on the health issue. there is no doubt that there is stacks and stacks and stacks, et cetera, of medical findings

that imply that these things are being put on our street poles are harming citizens. we are not medical professionals. we read the documents, but we're not medical professionals. we cannot opine on that and we cannot find because article 25 yet again binds our hands. we made a request to the department of public health to update their findings from 2010. we have yet to hear from the department of public health. when we do, i'm not sure that will have any bearing either, but just for the public's knowledge, it's not that we sit here rubber stamping and finding objection to your points of view. this law is significantly restraining our ability to find for appellants in these types of

cases. so unfortunately i would suggest that yet again we deny the appeal on the grounds that the permit was properly issued according to article 25. if anybody else wants to comment on it, i'm -- >> no, i just want to concur with my president. we've heard hundreds and hundreds of these cases. besides being commissioners, we also are residents and homeowners in the city as well. i too have a cellular antenna on my block. i was thinking about appealing it, but that wouldn't work out so well. we are extremely sympathetic and not just to say our hands are tied. we have tried several times in the past, to the point where our

board has lost litigation for the decisions that we made. to the people that are there, one, if you guys are living on the up side of the street, you have great views. i'm surprised keith and his little dog is not with you guys. the other thing was the block before you is kind of famous. john burke was raised on that block. >> i would add one thing. i think these processes and city processes can be confusing a lot of times. there's a lot of moving parts. we're one of the last stops, the board of appeals. our job is to determine whether a decision was issued and that it was right and correct. this is the purview of the board of supervisors. we decide if the permits were issued in accordance with the

laws that were set out in the way that the laws set out. in this case we have even more challenges. article 25 is not just on its own but according to federal law that supersedes the federal law. it's to give you a bigger picture of where we derive our authority from and where this law and permit derives its authority from. >> i think i made a motion unless anybody wants to adjustility. >> we have a motion from the president to uphold the appeal. [roll call vote]. >> clerk: that motion carries. we are moving on to item number

5, appeal no. 19-0 # #. william hassebrock versus department of building inspection. this is an appealing the issuance on july 19, 2019, to coyote walnut creek. there is a certificate of completion requested legalizing the rear building. >> my name is bill hassebrock. this is my card. thank you for allowing me to appear before you this evening. i first want to acknowledge i believe my -- there. i am co-owner in a t.i.c. in the

process of converting condo a two-unit property. mr. apolos is my co-owner. i want to ask that you consider that mr. apolos, my partner, felt that he did not want to be mentioned as a party to my actual brief. i thought in good faith that we were in sync, but on a couple of matters he was not in agreement. so i apologize for that and ask that you consider this request for an appeal from me personally. in particular, that you disregard my statement in my brief that he briefs, as i do, to have the address issue reversed when, in fact, he is merely indifferent to it.

he's not opposing it and not supporting it. thank you for that. my apologies, doug. in 1991, i purchased a property on the hill, 616 carolina street. at the time it had two buildings on it, the main house and a small cottage in the back. in the ensuing couple of years, i appeared, in fact, before your board and was granted permission to legalize that as a rental unit. i was told that -- at that time there was no need to go through an address change because we were not dividing the property. it was still my eire property. i owned both units and rented the back unit. the d.b.i. told me just to go to the post office and for almost 30 years the address has been

616 carolina street in the infantry house and a for the back house. i decided that i wanted to divide my property in preparation for my own retirement and to travel and i would sell the front house as a condo and keep the tottage at the front as my own law firm. i got a law firm to represent me. we came to an agreement and the agreement was i would keep the cottage in the back and 614, the other available number on the street would be assigned to the front of the property, the front house on the property. at the time, the entire property was 616 carolina street had not been twooieded.

so no building in particular according to san francisco has the 616 as the actual address. so the law firm felt that was appropriate to use this numbering when we went through the condominium process. mr. apalos purchased the front house in 2018, signed the t.h.c. agreement. we assumed all along that this would be the street driveways numbering, but a couple of months ago when mr. apalos went to the d.b.i., we were informed that because you cannot have a new street address for a new building -- you can't have a new address for an existing building

that the 616 would go to the front building. my feeling was that was a misinterpretation of the guidelines from the d.b.i. it says exactly that, you cannot reassign a new address to an existing building, but we were subdividing the property which had an address, but none of the individual buildings had an address. this has been my property for almost 30 years. this is where i vote, it's my passport, my driver's license, it's where everybody i know knows my address. all my credit cards, everything. i just feel that it would be very little opposition from anyone, certainly not the neighbors. there's no safety or security issue. i would like to retain 616 carolina street for my own

personal address. it feels like me and it is me. my co-owner has no objection. as a result, i was hoping that we could reverse the decision and allow me to keep 616 carolina street as my condo address for the future, as it has been for the last almost 30 years. one small thing, it appears that the -- i'm not sure where this comes from because i have not seen it in writing, but there appears to be a sense in numbering of new street addresses, that the numbering should proceed according to the furthest property up the street. in our case, that doesn't apply because the cottage is back of the house.

they are equidistant from the house. i don't have have a problem with e.b.i. they tried their best to interpret the rules. i'm asking in this particular case, there seems to be no reason whatsoever to not allow me to retain the address that has been my home in san francisco for almost 30 years. >> sir, i have a question. can you clarify before we hear from d.b.i., where exactly are the mailboxes for the two? >> right now there is and there only has been for these 30 years is one mailbox. the post office has always put all the mail into this 616 and 616 a. that's the agreement we have in the post office for the last 30

years. the tenant has sorted his mail and i've sorted my mail. it's not a divided property. that's the reason we have to go through this new street numbering is we have to go through the condominium process and that's one of the last steps. i very much would like to retain the 616 carolina address. it's in the t.i.c. agreement. it would cost us money to change it and there doesn't seem to be a good reason. >> clerk: we will hear from an agent for the permit holder. >> i am a co-owner of the t.i.c. i actually bought the property in the end of april and may of 2017. i own 70% of the t.i.c. i would like to address the fact that the appeal that was written was written out my knowledge and without my beneficiary of

reading the appeal before it was submitted and it was completely a misrepresentation of my thoughts, ideas, and anything i may or may not believe on that currently. i've been there since first week of may 2018 and my address, credit cards, voting, everything is also 616 carolina street, san francisco. forensic pathologist the building inspectors, that's up to you and i will leave it to you to decide on the address. >> one question. you don't mind either or? >> the t.i.c. agreement addresses that the one in the front will be 616 and 614 in the back. >> when you moved in, when you signed that agreement, you basically said that you would be at the other address? >> at that point, i was okay

with being 614. unfortunately the building department has not allowed 614. so i've kept -- or everything has become 616 for me now. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> welcome back, senior inspector duffy. >> hello. the permit is an m permit. it's in our system that way. legalized rear building into a single house at block 4071, lot 002. assign address to parcel number 4071-002 as 614 carolina street. just as you read in the brief. this is a process that is done by central permit bureau and

d.b.i. you set up an appointment and meet with a lady who is the manager of a central permit bureau. she sits down and before that we had different people do it. once you say "address," we refer you to this lady. she does her job as assigning the addresses. in this case, that's what was done. i don't think there was anything improper done. people come in every day of the week. you set up your appointment. you're required to have the two numbers. i hope i can ask your questions. it's not a process i deal with, but we could have the lady here and talk to you about it.

>> having dealt with weh fung, that is a fun experience. is there a problem with switching the numbers? i mean -- >> i don't know. there -- >> what's the big deal? >> i'm not too sure. she's got her rules. i don't know whether that got -- whether that was appealed to anybody higher up than her. we've got a director and a deputy director. there are probably people they could have went to rather than the board of appeals. i saw in the brief her reasoning for doing that. i do remember this project actually when the building was going on and i met that gentleman a few years ago as well. there were other issues that we got through. his satisfaction, he wasn't that satisfied at the start. if you go down there and you get something and you don't agree with it, your first order would

be to go to someone higher up there to see if something could be done. it didn't look like she has done anything or made any errors in what she had done. >> fine. thank you, joe. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, we will move on to rebuttal. mr. hassebrock, you have three minutes. >> i actually did go in to see the lady and even had a chance to talk to her superior. they said because that's an administrative permit, actually it was complete. and the only way it could be changed would be to go through the appeals process. that's why i did that. as for mr. apolos' address, it surprises me that he claims that since may of last year he was

putting 616 carolina street as his address on everything because until two months ago we both thought that the addresses would be reversed according to the t.i.c. agreement. so that surprises me. also, there is a structural issue with the permit. the permit addresses my t.i.c. unit, the cottage, and yet the permit that mr. apolos took out without informing me of the process all by himself lists him as the owner of that t.i.c. unit or his l.l. c. that owns actually the front unit. so the permit -- the whole thing i feel was completely mismanaged. and in opposition to the t.i.c.

agreement which we had all accepted for more than a year. i appreciate doug may have put 616 on some of his addresses, but why he would do so prior to having this reversal issue come up is a surprise to me. and certainly my 30-year investment in being 616 carolina street and part of the neighborhood and having literally the whole world know that is my address for the last 30 years is something that means a lot more to me, i believe, than it does to doug. he wrote a letter where he said he was indifferent and would honor any decision you made.

he sounds less than indifferent tonight, but that's what he wrote in his letter to me. so i can produce that if you'd like. it was meant to be submitted to the board of appeals, but he missed the deadline. but i have a copy of it if you would like to see what he has to say. in any case, i would love to be -- continue to be the resident of 616 carolina street, as has been my address for most of my adult life. >> clerk: thank you. >> can i ask you a quick question? >> sure. >> you live there? >> i've lived there for 30 years, yes. >> does the other gentleman live there? >> yes. >> you're both residents? >> it's our primary residence and it's a t.i.c. going to a condo. >> clerk: thank you. dr. apolos. >> the address 614 never really

existed. the t.i.c. agreement said 614 for me and 616 for mr mr. hassebrock. i did pull a permit for some of the modifications i need to make it for a conversion. the building department said 614 didn't exist and so on and so on. i met with the woman you were speaking of, and i think she indicated the issue was that because the way the building was, the edge of the building was more north of the entrance, versus my building which is the 616 main building as opposed to the cottage was more south on carolina street, it related to that. i'll leave it to you guys for that. >> it looks like you did some surgery. you still have the ink on your arm. >> yes, all day. >> and you still have the ink on your arm.

i'm glad it wasn't me. >> thank you. >> commissioners, sorry, if the commissioners want to change it, i don't think anyone at d.b.i. would have any problem with it. it's entirely up to yourselves. it's not going to offend anyone if it makes -- if it's something you wish to do, i don't think we'll lose any sleep over it. there is a process that was followed and that's where we're at. >> you have a two-unit building, 614 and 616. does the building department label each of those units or -- >> i imagine 614 would be below and 616 would be above it. the northerly point or to use something on the maps to decide it and obviously she's done that and she's done it for a long

time. >> i don't like arguing with her. she always wins. >> no comment. >> can i ask a question of council while mr. duffy is up there. did the sweeping powers of the board of appeals allow us to request a change of numbers? >> i don't see why not. they haven't provided the reason. i haven't heard the reason why it needs to be this way. >> before we go one way or the other -- >> we have broad and widening powers. haven't you heard that? >> the broad and widening powers allow us to broadly and widen the miracle -- >> add a couple more numbers just for fun. >> i was confused as to whether both parties had agreed, but it would be better if they could agr

agree. >> what rings in my mind is why doesn't it stay the same as where it is 616 a and b. >> but that's the condo conversion process, you have to establish something. >> there must be a real reason. >> when you go condos, it's the people. >> its ju -- it just happened i the process. >> clerk: commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> after hearing both parties and there was an agreement prior, although this board isn't to uphold prior agreements, i would move to grant the appeal and condition it that the front property be 614 and that the rear cottage be 616 and that the building department would help us address that.

>> clerk: i'm sorry, on what basis? >> on the basis -- >> clerk: represents the agreement of the parties. >> there you go. >> and the building department does not object. >> clerk: okay. >> joint motion. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant the appeal on the condition that it be revised to assign 614 to the front building and 616 to the rear building on the basis that the parties agreed to this arrangement and that the building department does not object. on that motion. [roll call vote]. >> clerk: so that motion carries 5-0. >> don't tell weh fung that i did that, please. >> the process for special conditions permits is a permit application number, but in this case this is not a permit

application number, it's an m permit. we haven't done this for an address. it's a scope of work permit. we may need to work this out with central bureau how we're going to do this. would this be a special permit m. i'm just thinking out loud. we've never had this in my experience when an address changed. maybe we want to add something to comply with d.b.i. requirements as well. we would need to be involved. it's not going to be a special conditions permit, is it? >> clerk: i mean, it would have to be. we're revising the permit. >> i can work with you on that. >> clerk: thank you. >> i just want to put it out there. >> sure, come on up. >> seeming as it does go through

614 and 616 front and rear, how does the postal service get acknowledged that it is the new address. >> you might want to ask the department about that after. sorry about that, doc. >> clerk: we are now moving on to item -- >> anyone want to take a break or one more item? >> clerk: we're now moving on to item 6. this is appeal no. 19-074, amy and marco rodriguez against the department of building inspection. this is appealing the issue. >> announcer: on june 20, 2019, to s.v.c. corporation of a site permit, horizontal addition first and second level, new 9 foot high wood deck, new bath at

second level enlarge bathroom convert existing garage into new accessory dwelling unit with two bedrooms and three paths per ordinance no. 95-17. on august 28, 2019, the board voted 3-0-#, to continue this matter at the request of the parties. >> we've met the parties only once. they assured us this will be a minor construction and a member of their family will move into the home. neither was true. the owners were not truthful in their application. they failed to disclose what they referred to as storage is an occupied two-bed/one-bath dwelling unit. the new plans admit to the u.d.u. which existed before 2013. so the permits should be filed

under dwelling units constructed without a permit and any work would require separate permits. the missing u.d.u. is not the only thing missing. the drawings for the proposed plan said they would be creating three bedrooms and two bathrooms. the tenants would seem to get quite an upgrade. here are the drawings of the studio that the other party provided the tenants and here are the drawings submitted to the planning department. you'll notice were highlighted that this studio lines up with the kitchen, living, and dining room that they were going to build in the space. the owners will profit from valuing three separate rentals

on the floor than one. they state the a.d.u. would support their affordable housing. they state that providing affordable housing outweighs the status quo. the construction would at least displace all of our other tenants. according to the new drawings, they would not create new housing. are they creating an addition or are we to believe they will expanding the current unit only to move the tenants back in as they claim. the law protects the tenants so they would be relocated from construction. i work from home and i would not be able to conduct my work due to the description.

this project involves extensive excavation. they submitted misleading drawings to the planning department. in their application, they obscured the fact that there is a separate u.d.u. they have plans to have a separate studio unit. you can understand our concern by allowing such excavation be performed by a team who is clearly not abiding by the rules. our home, our largest investment we've ever been made, would be at risk of landslides and cave-ins. here we can see some of the existing footings and underpinning and their foundation touches ours. they're proposing to excavate 5 to 6' under the foundation. no one can guarantee this

project will not affect the integrity of our foundation. allowing this project to proceed, even if we were dealing with a team that is not circumventing and cutting corners. it could harm or kill us and lead to a domino affect to other abutting homes on the block. here you can see there is a deteriorating retaining wall in their yard. here is a page on their permit application where they claim that the amount of excavation is less than what would be required for a soil engineer to do tests which is necessary to conduct a soil integrity test. we had an soil engineer validate our concerns who said this would require more excavation. he also pointed out that their

pans didn't include any allowance for the addition or the deck. would anyone want their home or their family's lives to be hunged on risk like this. they should not be permitted to perform excavation that will put the land and lives of their neighbors at risk. we're all familiar with the parking constraints in san francisco. they've already rented out the three rooms to additional renters. the new drawings would demolish the existing parking. the subject property was built in 1907 which makes this historical single-family

residence over 112 years old. the s.v.b. organization wants to keep this loto say can turn it into an apartment building. we're asking that in light of the uncovered deceit, the falsified drawings, the huge risk to the abutting properties, and the negative impact the project will have on the character and community of the historic neighborhood, let alone the petting effect on the existing tenants living in the homes for the separate occupied rentals, that the appeals board deny this application. >> thank you. i have a question. i read a brief that there was a vehicle with someone living in it in front of the house. is that true?

>> at one point there was. >> that didn't bother you as a safety concern? >> no, we spoke to the man. he was friends with the previous owners. >> thank you. >> but also i would like to say that anybody who bought the house would have taken care of that as well. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> good evening. welcome. >> good evening. we are partners on this house. we already have a briefing i believe to review. the statement from the appellant -- >> could you speak into the microphone. >> as you can hear a lot of those assumptions, there was a van living in front of the house for almost a year. the guy lived there with everything and that is not a concern to our appellant.

we met the household the way it is now. we included some pictures you can see. before it is like a junk yard. and now it is a house that everyone sees we can appreciate. so we think we have done things to increase the value of the neighborhood. now our intent is to make a good neighborhood. we just want to do our own project. so a lot of assumption in a complaint based on assumption, not something already happened. so i will have my partner, david, address the rest. >> yeah, appellant is asking the board to find us guilty of actions that as we see have never committed and does not intend to commit. based on the appellants' belief

that we will commit these unlawful options. so most of the complaints are talking about what things we're going to do in the future, not things that we have done or committed back. we inherited a property with garbage up to the ceiling in each room. there was mice, rats, bats. this situation was ongoing for years. there was somebody living in a van in front of the property for more than one year. within that also were dealing with drugs and stuff. we inherited the property with a lot of problems. what we want to do is improve the neighborhood and that's what we did. when we did the neighborhood

notification, that was the the moment when we meet our neighborhoods. the main concern was about the privacy. they told us that they like to do parties on their jacuzzi, some kind of parties with the neighbors, and that would be affected some way if we do some kind of improvements to the property or we extend the property to the back. that was their main concern at the time. so we agreed that was still some kind of concern. maybe we can raise the retaining wall or the fence of the property. maybe that would address those concerns. and then they are also bringing, like, tenant issues here that we will here in the future. we have an agreement wi