Board with any legal advice. We will also be joined by representatives from the City Department that have cases bf the board this evening. Up front we have scott sanchez, also representing the Planning Department and planning commission. We expect joseph duffy, senior building inspector. And we have leo polosis. And we expect chris buck, urban forest forester. We also expect charles shehan, San Francisco department of environment. And the project manager with the sfmta. The please carry on conversations in the hallway and turn off your devices. Each applicants and respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttals. Members with the public have three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked to submit a Business Card to board staff when you come up to speak. Speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. Four votes are required to grant an appeal. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please speak to board staff during the break or after the meeting. This meeting is broadcast life on sfgov tv and will be rebroadcast on fridays. The video is available on our website and can also be downloaded. Now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath. If you intend to testify at any of todays proceedings and have the board give your testimony weight, please raise your right hand and say i do after youve been sworn or affirmed. Do you swear or affirm that the truth you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Number 1 is an opportunity for people to speak on anything in the boards jurisdiction but not on the calendar. Well move on to number 2, which is commissioner comments and questions. Seeing none we will move on to item number 3, which is the adoption of the minutes before you. That is the minutes of september 11, 2019, board meeting. Comments or a motion, please. Is there any Public Comment on this item . We have a motion from the Vice President to adopt the minutes. [vote]. That motion carries 50 and the minutes are adopted. We are now moving on to item number 4. This is appeal no. 19069. Ruth krumbhaar vs. San francisco public works, bureau of street use mapping. The subject property is 428 amatury loop. Appealing the issuance on june 18, 2019, to gte mobilnet of california, lp, of a personal Wireless Service facility site permit. Construction of a personal Wireless Service facility in a planning protected location. Permit no. 18 wr0372. On august 28, 2019, the board voted 302 commissioner santacana and commissioner tanner absent to continue the appeal to september 18, 2019, so that the absent commissioners can vote on the matter. So commissioner santacana and tanner, have you had an opportunity to review the materials and video of the hearing . I have. Yes, i have. Thank you. For this case, since it is continued, we will hear at the president s direction from the parties. Each party has three minutes each, no rebuttal, and there will be an opportunity for Public Comments. Is ms. Krumbhaar present . Okay. Hi, my name is cathy yu. Im also an appellant. Members of the board, we have submitted substantial evidence to you about the constant stream of everyday passersby who walk by to see historic homes. We have provided numerous photos and firsthand testimony of those with direct knowledge of the visitors who walk daily. Our evidence of the popularity of this landmark is unrefuted. The appellant even considered that they never visited the site, except for an engineer that was sent to that address to conduct technical tests. Without such a visit, they could not make the required individualized assessment of the esthetics. Visitors dont get dropped off by helicopters at the top of the li lions steps. They walk up and down and look up and down the corridor. Visitors walk up and down from union to broadway to enjoy the spectacular scenery, to see the historic homes, the trees, movie Landmark Homes and gorgeous gardens on the route. So that is a similar pole and if you go this way, you will see there is additional two boxes. The top extension and the additional boxes are wider and taller than the original pole. How this will impact the lion propos proposal. Heres what the pole looks like. Sorry about that. There is the lions desk and thats the pole today. Here is a photo simulation of what the completed proposal would look like. This would significantly impede the esthetics of a corridor that is otherwise uncluttered with electrical wiring. All wiring is undergrounded along the entire corridor. We ask you to protect the esthetics, which we believe the ordinance requires. As per the note, the only official who visited the site was the engineer who was sent to the poles. If that engineer had gone to the 428 address 2 miles away he would have been pretty far. Thank you. Your time is up. I have two paragraphs. Can i no, im sorry, your time is up. Well now hear from the attorney for the permit holder. Good evening. Thank you for your time on that. Ill put up our photo simulation of the site. First i need to point out that since the adoption of the ordinance as of september 9 of this month, permits are no longer required for these facilities. So your actions as you voted last week with respect to the the laguna facility in essence is moot. The limited esthetic impact of these facilities has led the board of supervisors to no longer require a permit, but a San Francisco p. U. C. License for these facilities. So we would ask that you consider this to be moot. Be that as it may, the address that was provided to us was provided to us by the department of public works and planning. There is no address for this, and the principal concern was that somehow the notice was misleading. We feel that the notice was not misleading. There is no prejudice. There are three grounds for a notice to lead to some sort of change in a decision, if there is prejudice and injury, it would change the result. We would argue that there is no prejudice here because the appellants all appeared at the public works hearing. They have appeared here now twice as well. So theyve been able to express their concerns. Theres no injury because theyve had that opportunity for their due process to be heard. This design, as you know, was reviewed by the historic commission, Architectural Review Committee to be compatible with historic locations, the consultant combed these areas to try to find poles that would have the least esthetic impact. In this case we feel there is none. The pole is not adjacent to a home. It does not affect the steps that are further up. We think that the esthetic argument is exaggerated to say nothing of the least. And i think the board of supervisors could agree because theres no longer a permit required for these facilities. So we would encourage you to approve this wellconceived design thats been used throughout San Francisco. I think in a very appropriate location, as you know. Some of these have been 4 and 5 feet in front of peoples homes. This is across the street from homes and views. It only raises the height by 2 feet and we dont think theres any esthetic impact created by this facility. Thank you. Thank you. In terms of of your mootness argument, if we grant the appeal are you saying that verizon will move forward with this regardless . I never make categoric statements, but all that would be required is the license that already exists for this facility. So that sfpuc has already acted in a capacity that would grant us the right to place this facility on the pole. Understood. We would encourage you not to grant the appeal. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the department. Good afternoon, president , Vice President , and members of the board. We believe this was issued in compliance. If the permitting procedure at the time of issuance was right. The Health Department is not here, but they are available to take any questions and respond through email. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez, anything to add . Okay. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Well, its kind of more interesting. My name is julie nice. Im a professor of constitutional law at the university of San Francisco. I am here because im an avid walker of the lions steps corridor. And i do not believe members of the public have received sufficient notice in this particular instance. I do find these issues interesting. These are issues of federalism which is a division of powers between nation, state, and local government. There are issues of due process and mootness. I want to say a few words about this in my view after having done research. The residents have it right under the law which is an application to this case, not what might have happened with any changes. The federal law established federal authority over the radiofrequency aspects of these of these towers. Whether the standard is met, thats a matter of the data and scientific evidence. But state and local governments were left to regulate the standards of land use, which is an inherent local police power that is part of our federalism system. The Wireless Companies as you all know argued this all the way to the california supreme court, saying local governments do not have this power and they lost in a pretty powerful unanimous decision, confirming the local governments to protect the land use. Now with the local power affirmed, San Franciscos ordinance governs and it was the ordinance that was in effect, as this case has gone forward, not any changes that have happened since that time. In my reading of the ordinance, it requires an affirmative demonstration by the appellant that there will be no impairment here. There wasnt a side visit of assessi assessing esthetics. Based on the record in this case, it appears to me that there was not sufficient demonstration by either the appellant or a determination by the department. I understand that [ indiscernible ] is more efficient, but there is a law that applies here and it requires this determination of esthetics. Again, having been up and down the steps many times, the esthetics there are amazing and people come for the walk and the visuals. As for the due process in this issue, it is hard to imagine a more egregious failure of giving notice to something 2 miles away from where it is to occur. San francisco sought to protect its inherent power, and its the boards duty to make it so. Thank you for your attention. Thank you. Ms. Nice, can you please give the speaker write your name down on a speaker card. Thank you so much. Come on up. Well hear from the next speaker. Welcome back. Good evening, commissioners. The quintessential allgovernment agency that follows the National Toxicology study studied by the National Institute of health, a study. It was so comprehensive that it cost 30 million. All of the studys rats were housed in cages. The rats were exposeded to 2g for two years. And 1 in 12 rats got cancer. The scientists doubled the exposure to microwave exposure and the numbers doubled. Because of the shield, the control rats were not exposed to wireless technology. The study also found evidence of d. N. A. Damage. This study represents a paradigm shift much like smoking and cancer. Of course the Telecom Industry states more studies need to be done. This is the same play the tobacco used to fool the public into thijing that smoking was not detrimental to your health. It should not come as any surprise about this study. All our cells all communicate via small pulses finetuned to keep our bodies in a state of homiostasis. We see gun violence, suicidality, and 6 and 7yearsolds in wified schools with pace makers. 2 million cancer treatments. E. M. F. Refugees deserting their beloved homes to live far from this microwave madness. A client of mine sympathized with my sensitivity. He admitted his workmen get microwave sickness when the company failed to turn off a cell tower when they didnt need to work on or near it. The ordinance was passed six years after the telecommunications act. This law was not a discretionary law, but one to protect the public from harm. Sanctionary laws supercede i know that changes. I want you at least to grant this appeal and additionally i want you to put pressure on the board of supervisors to pass residential ordinances banning 5g much like other counties and cities in california. Thank you, maam. Here are copies of the studies thank you, maam. Yeah, im just telling you what i have. May i ask you to do us a favor. Sure. Or serve your own purpose. Would you please send that study to the head of the department of health who is updating, at the request of this body i dont have a computer or nothing. I have no way of doing it. You can do it in the mail. Can somebody give me an address . Somebody can. Thank you so much. Maam, if you give your email address you dont email . I dont. Im e. M. F. Sensitive. If you give your address, you can mail and your name. Is there any other Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, this matter is submitted. Okay, commissioners. Comments and or a motion. Id like to understand from the City Attorney whether the new ordinance applies to this case. I think as i said last week the ordinance was amended to remove the poles. The board of appeals is required to apply the law in place at the time it considers a case. Law of the day. The law of the day. Yes. Ill start. So i feel that the notification process was deficient and the fact of the address, i put it simple if sfmpa were to site a vehicle parking in the same spot, i doubt if the address would be the same. So i think its very presumptuous to figure out that the neighborhood would understand and do that math as well. I agree with the commissioner. I dont think the notice is sufficient. I understand the reasoning by which the Public Works Department went around to determine the address. However, if a little more work had been done to look at all the addresses that are assigned to the parcel, a closer address could have been found that would not have been 2 miles away from the subject pole. Yours truly made a real snarky comment which unfortunately was interpreted as a semiattack or maybe a direct attack on the speakerer from b. P. W. , for which i apologize. It will probably happen again because i get emotional about these things because i care. I agree with my fellow commissioners on this issue. Its all about a standard of care, as well as notice. Because i asked the representative at that time, was a site visit done . And the answer was no. That led to my snarky comment with regard to the use of only a computer to do your work. Again, i apologize. But you hear tonight from the public, and the public comes up and says all you should do is make a site visit and youd see. So with that and with the standard of care to make sure that notice is therefore proper. I think that the public should be served in that fashion. Its only fair. Its a golden rule. Do unto others what you would do to yourself. So i dont think the standard of care was there. I dont think that the notice was proper. Again, i apologize for my snarky comment, but i really care. Thats why sometimes this mouth gets into gear before the brain does. Thats my thought. Any motion . I would move to grant the appeal on the basis that the permit was not roller issued, due to inadequate noticing. Okay. We have a motion from commissioner tanner to grant the appeal on the basis that inadequate notice was provided. [vot [vote]. So that motion fails, it lacks four votes. So is there another motion on the table . So that means that the underlying departmental action holds. So the permits issued. Okay. Thank you. We will now move on to item number 5. This is appeal 19066. Xu chen vs. Department of building inspection Planning Department approval. Appealing the issuance on june 18, 2019, to e b no. 3, llc, of an alteration permit. On august 7, 2019 the board voted 401 to continue this matter to september 18,2019 to allow time for d. B. I. And the Planning Department, if necessary, to inspect the property to determine what work might require further permitting. So as a preliminary matter, commissioner honda i watched the exciting video, and i am willing and able to participate in tonights hearing. Wonderful. So we will hear first from mr. Duffy. Joe, you look really good on film, just so you know. Thank you. Is there a time limit for mr. Duffy or is it just unlimited because each party gets three minutes. Thank you, commissioners, joe duffy. I did, indeed, follow up with a site visit on august 14. I met the Property Owner and the permit holder. I reviewed the work that had been done and the drawings. Ill just put up if i could have the overhead. Yeah, i think its a picture. Its pixelated. The Building Permit that was appealed was to comply with the notice of violation, adding new posts and installing new fence boards. That work had been completed and that work would be the work you see around the perimeter with the fence right on the site property and ends on the back property lane. Its like a city street, a laneway. Theres a gate at the top of the stairs there that opens up onto that. So the only thing that wasnt covered on the Building Permit that i could see was this, like, real patio area. There had been a previous retaining wall there that we noticed from the maps. It got sort of maybe taken out. This concrete got poured in here, this raised area. There are steps going up. There would have been access up to this before, but i think it all got redone. There was a guard rail and these three steps. That wasnt covered on the Building Permit that was issued by d. B. I. Then this deck here is less than 30 inches from grade so it doesnt need a Building Permit. It doesnt cover under its exempt from a Building Permit. So what i did is i spoke to the Property Owner and we agreed i would write a notice of violation for the work without a permit. It said inspection has revealed that work was performed without the benefit of a Building Permit. A low permit application was issued for work in the rear yard which included work at existing Property Line fence. Additional work at the rear of the yard with a retaining wall of 4 feet. Obtain a Building Permit to document the work noted above and also plans shall show the Property Lines of this property with all work, including work to be done inside the property. I added a couple of comments because the plans last night didnt have the Property Lines shown correctly defined as we would like them. Also, they added some height to the fence that was probably not shown on the plans. It could have been shown better. The work is that i could see is all done within the property 194618 avenue. I think the appellant had some concerns about the area of responsibility of the fence. From my i have a photograph of that, actually. Ill put it on the overhead here. I maybe could have done a better photo. This is a fence running from the rear of the property towards the property. This is the subject property where theyre doing the work. This fence is all attached to the trim of 194618 avenue. It doesnt go over the Property Line that i can see. Theres no survey and we wouldnt require one because it was from what we can see, it is all inside the property. That was a concern i think of the appellant. Hes welcome to get a survey and go after that in a civil case if he wishes, but if he provided that to d. B. I. If it was over the Property Line for some reason, we could take action in the future. From what i could see, it was all on 1946. Ironically if the appellant or the Property Owner has just decided to reface the property like he did and not raise the 1 foot to make it over 7 feet, it wouldnt have fallen under our review or the Building Permit requirement, because 6 or less, the rear Property Lines do not require a Building Permit at all. Although i issued a notice of violation and just read it out for work without a permit, were finding a db. I. That a lot of these landscaping gardening projects, some people get theyre not clear about the code requirements and go beyond. If we didnt have a permit and we didnt get a complaint, we probably wouldnt see it. But now theres a lot of elaborate work being done. Unfortunately, there is a section in the code that says retaining wall 4 feet in height from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall needs a Building Permit. So weve got this in d. B. I. , if its more than 4 feet, it falls into the category of needing a Building Permit. Had that wall been shorter, i wouldnt even be citing them for that. Although i issued a notice of violation, its not the worst one ive ever written. I had to do it because of the code and the appeal. Here we are. I did advise the Property Owner to get a design professional, get some drawings done. So i think hes in the process of doing that. But thats where were at at the minute. So im available for any questions. What do we do with this . We have the fence is in front of us, not the rear yard area. So what do we do with this . Its a fence that clearly in your opinion, will a retroactive Building Permit be issued in response to the notice of violation based on plans and based on the fact that it is clearly on the owners not the appellants, but the permit holders side . Correct. And actually, i didnt i forgot to mention, i did meet with the appellant as well at d. B. I. And explained from what i could see, it looked like it was all on the other property, but he was saying he would do a civil lawsuit. What i think i would suggest is maybe a special conditions permit to cover all the work on a clean set of plans. That could be done just uphold the permit under special conditions. That may not make the appellant happy, but thats what i think mr. Sanchez thanks, mr. Duffy, thats what i was looking for is your direction and your recommendation on how to handle the finding, should we go in that direction. Its a weird landscaping project that just went over the boundaries of requiring a permit because of the fence height and retaining wall. The plans will need to be reviewed by building and also planning. Of course they have the issue where they poured the concrete without our inspection. We need to talk to them about getting some details. I did have a clear discussion with the owner and the contractor so everyone is clear what we need. Do you have two n. O. V. S . Yes. So youre going to have one for the fence and one for the platform is. Yes. So we dont touch the platform tonight. We touch the fence . I would just put everyone on a special conditions permit. The fence no, not the just the platform and the guard rail and the definition of the Property Lines could go on to a special conditions permit. The fence, its up to you what you wanted. The fence, i dont think anybody had an issue with the fence, apart from we had Property Lines showing. Its up to you on the height. Thanks. The appellant might want to speak to that. The question is just for the poured concrete. What would you do . So those show plans that are in place, but how would you be able to verify that . Radar. If we could do we could give him a job as inspector. Theres ways to do an xray of that or if they had photographs of it before they poured it. Its not going to be the biggest structural issue because its not really retaining a whole lot, but its definitely something. We want to make sure its done right. There is ways to do that, and i did explain that. My question, mr. Duffy, is the 4 feet, is that because of the back wall goes higher, according to the drawing here . It doesnt look where the railing is, that doesnt appear to be 4 feet above the grade. It is. And we measure from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, so you have to go underground to begin your measurements. Its from the bottom of the footing to the top. Thats what gets people. You guys are tricky. Thats what they say. We say its from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall. So we have to go to the support, which you can only see maybe 2 feet above ground, but theres 2 feet underground or more. Thank you. It gets a lot of people because we do get a lot of complaints on these type of things now for some reason. I didnt even know i needed a permit thats what keeps c. T. S. Kind of busy . Yes, exactly. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez, anything to add . Well hear from the permit holder and then the appellant will have the last word. Is mr. Wong here, agent for the permit holder . Good evening, members. My name is john park. I am the resident of 194618 avenue. As a follow up to the august 7 hearing, as the inspector mentioned, he had a site visit on the 14. We have been working closely with the drafter. Our aim today is show the progress made following the previous hearing, as these are the site plans that we are going to submit to d. B. I. In the next few weeks. In the previous hearing, the appeal was issued for the back yard fence. Since then there are two points to clarify which are included in the updated plan. The fence which borders the 1942 and 46 properties was to add 1 foot and 2 inches to the existing north side. All work has been completed within the 194618 avenue Property Line. I have some initial drafts of the designs that we worked with our designer on. If i could get the projector. I dont know if you would see the full design, but this is basically to show that we have been working with the designer to provide existing and proposed, as recommended by the board of appeals. So given that were continuing to comply with the requests from planning and d. B. I. , to provide proper documentation for the special conditions permit, i want to use this form to confirm that we should move forward in this direction as well. Thank you. Thank you. Well now hear from mr. Chen. You have three minutes, sir. Good evening, everyone. I am the appellant. So today i will take the opportunity to talk about why the respondent is a dishonest opponent and also the permit should be revoked. So the respondent is a dishonest person. On april 15, the respondent told [ indiscernible ] about the project. In fact, they dont have a permit. So the respondent told the board he didnt know his back yard and the fence construction needed a permit. This is a lie. First, he lied to the appellant. He got a permit. Second, his contractor would have known this. So the respondent is also not a good citizen. In their brief, the respondent complains that appellant filed complaints which were in response to violations of the law. The respondent was essentially complaining that the law breaking was noticed. The respondent complained they have safety concerns because appellant rang their doorbell and claimed the appellant was aggressive. The fact is the appellant wanted to know why the respondent cut the appellants fence without permission and the respondent accordingly responded with unhappiness. The respondent should consider the neighbors privacy, especially when using privacy as a reason for their own structures heights. So the permit should be revoked. So why i just show this picture. Here is a part of the the new fence. The respondent are in our property. So you can see here this blue color is our house and this gray color is the respondents house. This part is our part. So the owner of 194618 avenue, cut the appellants fence and added new posts without the appellants permission. The appellant initially allowed the cutting of posts due to the respondents lie of having a permit. They didnt respect this and cut the posts. No permission was given to allow this at any point. So you can see here that the new platform is too high. The height of the platform affected our property privacy. You can see here that when you stand there, they can look through all our back yard. So im a very reasonable person. So my aim is to get fairness, respect, and justice. If i cant get them from this appeal, please give me suggestions what next steps i should take. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Okay. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. Commissioners. [ indiscernible ] conditions to the permit. I cant hear you. Is the mic on . Its on. Inspector duffy, was that your recommendation . Sorry, commissioner, start again. You suggested that we grant the appeal and attach a notice of special conditions to the existing permit . Right, with new drawings to add the additional work and add the Property Line that was not showing correctly on the original plans and any other requirements that we would want on the drawings. What we could do is continue this and adopt the after the plans revised plans are approved by planning and d. B. I. , then we could grant the appeal on the condition that the revised plans be adopted. That would probably be the cleanest way. Or we leave it to the hands of the building department. I think thats appropriate. Weve made it clear. I was hoping the plans would have been ready tonight, but weve been talking about it. Hes scrambling to get someone. I can take them. Thank you, joe. I think planning wanted to have a look at them as well. Well, as a resident of sunset for quite a long time, both of you guys are my neighbors by a few blocks. A lot of conflicts that we have are to Property Line disputes and the Public Parking thats in front of your home. Unfortunately, this department thats a borderline dispute. Even though theres a piece of concrete there and you feel that thats your property, until you feel theres an official survey thats been done, we dont really know what side is which. I would agree with the department and with taking the appeal and then put special conditions on it and letting them run with that. Ill venture a motion, i suppose. Motion [ indiscernible ] okay. Did we have what we needed in the motion, julie . Vice president lazarus moves to grant the appeal and issue it on the condition that it be revised so that the plans under the permit address the outstanding issues identified by d. B. I. And the Planning Department. Once approved by those two departments, it would then be properly issued. So is that okay with you . Yes. You make great motions. On that motion. [vot [vote]. That motion carries 50. Thank you. So we will now move on to item number 6, this is appeal no. 19067. Thierry castro vs. Department of building inspection. The subject property is 821, 825, and 829, hampshire street. Appealing the issuance on june 6, 2019, to hampshire flats llc, of an alteration permit. Kitchen and bathroom upgrade, three apartment units, no change to existing wall layouts and life safety equipment. We will hear from the appellant first. Good evening, members. My name is michael zatani and i am the attorney for the appellant and his family. Mr. Castro is here tonight and he will be giving a statement that he has prepared in advance in a couple of minutes. His son and daughter are not here tonight. I hope the board can understand that for a teenage girl and a preteen boy, there are slightly more fun venues to spend a night in San Francisco than the esteemed board of appeals here. Ladies and gentlemen, my client and i are here because all attempts to resolve the issues that our papers document reasonably between a laared and tenant have failed. My client made complaints by phone, email, text message, but in result just saw further negligent work, the premise becoming unsafe, and receiving outright lies from agents, such as a property manager at the time, jennifer jones, who excuse me, when appellant notified them of issue of a theft from breaking into a Side Entrance, that property manager stated respondent didnt use that Side Entrance. But in our papers highlighted s as anyway, highlighted in our papers, not only do they use that Side Entrance area, ladies and gentlemen of the board, they store multiple supplies there. And my client provided photos of that. What about speaking to the contractors directly . My client will be saying in a few minutes that he has some experience working as a contractor before his current job as a clerk at grocery outlet. He spoke to them directly, but rather than getting ruls we still have the continued Security Issues and issues of lackadaisical work including to but not limited to dust and debris in the building. I brought color photos of some of those problems and dust and debris. Heres hoping i can use the tech here. Overhead, please. Thank you. So this is a photo of inside my clients home and the hallway in his apartment. This is a photo of a hole in the ceiling in my clients apartment that was maintained by respondents agents. D for comparison, just to make sure its clear, the space beneath it where dust and debris fell onto the floor, and you can notice the same white wooden material as that hole. My client even tried to make complaints to the city, including one complaint that to my knowledge generated three if not four notices of violation for unlawful construction practices outside the scope of issued permits. But here we are. My clients not here, as respondent alleges, to try and create leverage in some sort of buyout discussion. My client would like to stay in his affordable home as long as he can. My clients not here to harass and frustrate respondents rights or to be a pain in the butt just to spite them. My client is here because hes trying to protect the only Affordable Housing he has and to protect the wellbeing of him and his family while they live there. Now im going to turn the mic over to my client so he can speak. There are three questions i would like to ask the board to keep in mind while my client speaks. First, if respondent has been operating as postal codely as they say, including with a c. E. O. Which the declaration state has 30 years of experience in this field, without even looking at the laundry list of issues my client documents in this paper, why are there three if not four notices of violation and a Building Permit specifically to correct those . If these delays that respondent describes have been so costly, why has respondent been dragging its feet in all the construction prior to the negotiations, including, by the way, even accepting their timeline of the scaffolding going up in april of 2018 and obtaining the permits of that time. You can ask my client the work on those windows still had not been done by the time negotiations started in july. Last, if respondent is taking this property off the rental market, most likely to gut it, renovate it, sell it as t. I. C. S to make a profit, dont they have a pretty strong incentive to force my client, the last rentcontrolled tenant in this Affordable Apartment in the building, out . Thank you. Hello, my name is thierry castro. I currently live with my children at 821 hampshire street. I used to work as foreman doing remodelling jobs in San Francisco for midtohighlevel clients. So i have some understanding as to standards and best practic p based off my experience and all the evidence we have documented, i believe the work performed here has been purposefully substandard to force my family out of our home. Given that all the other autopsies have already left and cited the construction practices as a reason, having the building empty of rentcontrolled tenants, i cant imagine such a reason contractors would perform such substandard work. How much time . 30 seconds. Boy. Im asking here for the board of appeals to condition the permit for them to meet safe, ethical, and reasonable requirements which we have outlined and requested. Finally, i would ask the board and or the building departments guidance on how to ensure the hampshire flats operates legally and ethically. I would like to ensure the safety and quality you have some time in rebuttal. Should i continue to read this . You can use your time in rebuttal. I have one question, is the picture that was shown, that was the hole from the venting or the pipe right there . Yeah. Is that the interior of the house or the tradesmens entrance . Its a sunroom, inside the house, but a sunroom. Thank you. And a question for your counsel. If the property is t. I. C. If its l. S. A. C. Ed can it be t. I. C. . Thats a new thing we have been dealing with recently. To my knowledge, yes, and there are actually other properties, coincidentally involving other parties here where they have done just that while the tenants are still there. Thank you. I have a question for you, counsel. Im looking at the end of your brief where you list the conditions that you would want. Theres 15 of them. Yes, commissioner. The first one is that the permit would be amended to not apply to the appellants apartment, which i understand the respondent is amenable to. The reason i start with that is the fact that in my conversations with respondents counsel, he informed me. I thought that was an easy start. I mean, im not so sure that a lot of these are even within our power, but thats something i think for us to discuss. The second one, though, is essentially to bar any work in the building whatsoever until the eviction is resolved, either because your client leaves or because theres a resolution in court yes. Related to the eviction. Yes. And if you like, commissioner, i know respondent actually cited a couple of Different Cases in their opposition for that case. If it can help the board, i can distinguish those two cases while were having the conversation. No, this isnt a court. If you want to, thats fine. Im having a little trouble with that one because i just dont totally understand if theres no work going on in your clients unit and if the rest of the reasons are aimed at the construction being done in a workmanlike and professional manner why we should issue a condition that bars any work going on on the building whatsoever until the eviction proceedings are resolved. It could take quite a while. What i would say in response to that, commissioner, is the reason why we ask for that hold, that delay, is because of the fact the entire time work has been happening while my client has been living there, we have all the issues we documented in our papers. As i pointed out in our papers, this wasnt the first chance my client had for an appeal. Actually, as a matter of fact, as respondent thoroughly lays out in its papers, this is the second, third permit in the timeline for this particular property. My client actually tried to resolve these issues without coming to a forum and trying to go through these particular channels. But the evidence in front of the board i would argue demonstrates allowing work while my client is there would only result in further issues, while there is this incentive to force my client out. Without being something that were litigating for obvious reasons, it demonstrates a clear intent to empty the building, including my client with his rentcontrolled tenancy and make some kind of money after the fact. Until that incentive is no longer there one way or another, my client is at risk. I understand from the outside looking in, it feels like a large burden. But i would argue that its not. I would argue that as a matter of fact the respondent stands to make quite a lot of money and benefit commissioner, did you get your question answered. I did. Do you have a trial date . No. So the ellis notice expires in november. Then plaintiff can set it for trial. Like early 2020 . Depending. These cases can move at different speeds. If im being entirely honest, ladies and gentlemen of the board, the attorney handling this case in my experience tends to move a little bit slower. So it might be closer to mid2020 if i were to put a timeline on it. You can be seated. Thank you. We will now hear from the attorney for the permit holder. Good evening, members of the board. I represent the owner of the building hampshire flats l. L. C. And the respondent of this appeal. The manager and member of the l. L. C. Is present as well as the g. C. Representative if you have any questions of them. I think that the presentation by the appellant and his attorney have made it clear that this is really not about whats going on at the building, but about the ellis issue and trying to leverage this. Its clear that holding the construction down and having nothing go on in that building will severely impact my client. The cost of construction and delay is huge. Weve already put the construction on hold for two months to try to resolve the issues and address specifically each and every concern that each party expressed. To limit the schedule, even though no code compliant required that, to make sure that any noise issues are met, that theres extra security in the building, to make sure that everything he was concerned about, insurance we provided him evidence of that. Despite all of that, all of that is rejected, which is evidence of delay. There is no incentive for my client to push his client out. We want to complete this construction. Since the beginning mr. Castro has been complaining without basis. The n. O. V. S were started by mr. Castro complaining. There were minimal issues. Some n. O. V. S have been cleared. Construction could have been started. We delayed that to work this out. That was rejected. The point is my client has the right under City Ordinance and state law to complete this work. We will not go into his unit. He can enjoy the quiet enjoyment there. Theres always going to be some concerns for any resident while theres construction. Unfortunately, it cannot be prevented and the codes take that into account. Thats why there are limits on noise and construction time. The fact is we are bending over backwards to meet extra requirements. What is asked from the board limitations, a hold, isnt heard of. It violates my clients rights to his property to work on it. The ellis complaint hasnt been filed. It would delay this until we dont know when at great cost to my client. Other issues the commissioner referred to, it is unlikely you have the authority to do so, but we on our own have proposed alternatives, limiting the schedule, and complying with extra measures, putting security cameras in. Mr. Castro was seen removing pas tick sheeting from the doors where construction is taking place. The lock box has been altered because new holders for the lock box were modified and screwed into the wall. No one would do that to vandalize. The point is he wants to keep his lowcost property. I understand that. But that is not whats happening here. This is not about ellis or not about those impact on housing, as is expressed in their papers. It is about this permit and the conduct of this contractor and this owner. We are complying with the law and have the right to proceed and its already been delayed two mont