Said it is useful to appeal youll lose i hate to hear that she said her little girl is more in direct line mine has to go through bimboss night club not a wooden building i cant get bimbos bimbos night club and the thinking accurate notification what can i say ive getting gotten two separate responses one from dpw and one from a fancy my god their documents are foldout on the foldout a man supposed to show where i live it omitted the street called houston street light 0 sloppy work they know theyre going to win and people have been two polite to mention the chagrin and leavenworth address huge white caulk marks they knew they were going to win weve written to you thank you very much for listening. Thank you, mr. Albertson. Thank you, again paul Outdoor Council and representative youve heard the appeals based on the Health Effects and as described we meet the federal standards of department of Public Health and the check list of the department of Public Health the test well do in this particular case i think this is valuable to know that 11 feet even though site which is the closet building the site will be 50 percent above grade below it and the appellant said hundred and 35 feet from the antenna through a building so you can the rfp conditions will be less than slight to in any case we comply with the standards and federal law and encourage you to support the permit and deny the appeal and ill be happy to answer any questions about this application thank you. Mr. Chang. Public works are basis is concerned of ours and as explained earlier throughout this whole everything the city cant deny an application bus of emissions article 35 establishes as long as it meets the health and Public Safety standard the permit can be approved a report from the register professional engineer submitted establishing the facility will meet the Health Standard Public Health department confirmed, however, it allows the department to ask for proof of compliance with the 3b9 and if out of compliance we can ask them to bring it back into compliance in this case Public Health Department Asks proof. Any questions ill take. Thank you. Is there a Public Comment on this item please step forward. You know me at that point so ill go first i dont know we know the longer effects being exposed to the low rfp emissions 7 days a week its in front of our house so we need to be cautious and they is the fcc has the standards but to theyve been wrong i manage my familys property and know i need to be worried about buys and paint and smokers and as we all live together those are the things i have to be concerned about for the environment for might have and the tenants and im concerned that is going to come a bigger problem thats why i think we should be cautiousus thats my comments thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im by the name berry bark i want to applaud the folks the City Government needs to hear this but the World Health Organization side the research for the long term effects in finding evidence this is cancer risks most sdaurjz to children because theyll be exposed over a long period of time i have 5 grandchildren my two greatly grateful fully in ending their english and this is flound in ending both on refraining a Elementary School and nick low angelo park the longer effects are the continuingus longterm blasting of the low range emissions those are children those are our children those are our grandchildren i must applaud joan by the way we will come to that as asbestos as we came to red die 5 and to that was shot into my children in the hospital and we will come to this in time and San Francisco and the country are behind the times. Thank you. Next speaker, please you know me as well im here to support joans appeal i think the board could really learn about courage from a least of that age spent four and a half hours in the room listening to this understand also discussion go with the board ruling on the word obstruct in a clearcut case of this from the folks where you front yard it sets a persistence that obstructs what is to difficult to understand even the firefighters dont want cell phone mntsz on their buildings this is our neighborhood look at the different antenna planned around Michael Angelo playground each assessment by the department of Public Health is done in isolation in custody activist rfp emissions ive heard this directly from patrick at the did you want for San Francisco if you want to be on the right did of history board of appeals do something brave like joan is doing tonight thank you. Next speaker my name is jason boards deference to verizon trump cards contrasting is against the language in the city conditions stipulating no lights and view way meaning also i believe the gentleman is an expert those antenna cpa up our city from the worker to north beach are not the least intrusive alternative your uninterested the board asked inform explorey questions a San Francisco ordinance was noektd the principle ordinance not a mention no questions no discussion on the boards part the hallowed justice take care of the process provides insult to injure the reflects nothing but sews at an for this ill not thank you. Any other. Seeing none, ms. Wood you have 3 minutes of rebuttal if you want to use it ms. Wood . Guaranteeing i wasnt going to play that age card im 67 and a half 8 pretty much ive sent in hundred and 24 studies all of which 3 were critical of radio frequency emissions a long time they were low frequency but come out of car it is an awful love of the studies from o3 to 02 of the emissions in children and adolescents is concentration problems. 015 i dont know what that means it is counting emissions radio frequency emissions linked to nuru cancer risk in 2010 study and i forgot to mention the regulation in the middleincome person take reform act how did they get radio frequency it was 19 years ago i dont think i had a cell phone and didnt have a computer maybe you did because youre more sophisticated than i perhaps but in those days in 19did 6 what do they know and none has the money or confined to a pro bono a classaction suit to counteract that 1996 law why has inform not licensed to the federal rules on marijuana and protested say the vietnam war which is Risky Business i think why has california and San Francisco in particular had the courage to go forward with those big thanks or e things this could end up killing all of us. Thank you. We have rebuttal from the permit holder. Thank you. Ill be brief im not happy the radio frequency brings out the emissions i want to say the federal standard is theyre ruling evaluating and continuing to review the emissions standards an ongoing importance this particular kind of network ive told you the radios are 16 watts you know that the phone itself has to talk to the antennas if you look at the information from the phone itself youll see that when this is so 5 millimeter your 80 percent of the standards and the phone can ramp up 9 times to 4 hundred and 50 milling waits so the antennas reduce the managers from the phone and have the impact of improving the situation the testing is tim cumulative not a way to do tests would without that it is taking a look at all the emissions from any source on the ground where we do the testing are the residents if they request a test in their residents as i said we feel that verizon facilities fully comply many safeguards put in place on the federal and local level that we feel allow you to approve that permit and deny the appeal ill be happy to answer any questions and mr. Chang. The department does have anything to add. Commissioners the matter is submittednhave anything to add. Commissioners the matter is submittedohave anything to add. Commissioners the matter is submittedthave anything to add. Commissioners the matter is submitted have anything to add. Commissioners the matter is submitted submitted. Because on the lateness of the hour ill ask we deny the appeal. Mr. Pacheco. The point has made a motion to uphold this it is code compliant commissioner fung commissioner Vice President honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig thank you. The vote is 5 to zero the permit is upheld well return to items 11 ab theyve been called this is for eureka street and well start with the appellant mr. Sanchez are you working on getting mr. Duffy back into the room. Yeah. He wouldnt mind thank you. Okay. You can begin. Good evening Board Members my name is gordon this is ms. Angela cross were the residents on the street before you before we were discussing the permits that is a permit that goes along with the alteration permit we discussed in our last appeal we want you to not uphold this it didnt if you can have the orderly the 89 permits are required application for a permit the permit appellants shall file the permit application shows a proposed electrical installation and correct address this simply refers to the alteration permit and says work requires as of permit and then mentioned the alteration permit not the second reason in our home we have a sub panel our apartment is served by a sub Electrical Panel one marked lower unit and one upper this permit will not revert the building to its original conversion we have screw fuses and they come from the 1940s era that was put in then it is not part of original condition of the home so basically, the work noted to revert the unit or the home to its original continue condition will not be can you think and ms. Cross wants to address the permitting permit. Ill start up off with the plumbing with a picture if you guys could look at this i dont know if youll be able to see. Exhibit f of our belief. Im sure youre familiar with if it is the water permit the two wash baseline and the two baseline two kitchen sinks and one sink into the boom in 1891 this permit was ordered on the back of the permit the example of our house and also things here that are inspection it is 1897 there was an inspection that was okayd and in sf 01 an inspection okayed no evidence of those inspections in record i dont believe interest is an existence of the records because of the fire that happened i wanted that to be clear in everybodys minds due to the several reasons were asking for you to revoke this the plumbing permit would actually remove a legal kitchen if this permit is allowed to through the pictures the dining room on the ground floor adjacent to our kitchen and had people come over and look at that and Allen Davidson who wrote it will agree that he ever or was going to do reflect this we dont have evidence of the nov im asking this broadly wait until we have the nov that this permit was drawn on i understand this house is confuse that was you know built in 1891 based on this as evidence and theres some determination it wasnt built as a two family unit theres no original Construction Permit i understand that is confusing the legality of this but the evidence this kitchen is a legal unsubstantiated two kitchens went in this house in 1891 whats been used to determine the legality of our residentscy is a couple of permit that installed windows i want to find those and roofing permit that was expired and a permit to put in a garage which actually didnt specific the usage at all the fact that is the original kitchen that mr. Davidson arrested is in is reason that the board show should at least wait until the nov is in to review this information but before this board allows the removal of that legal kitchen we ask this board to look at the assessor errors report from sf thirty i dont know if youre familiar but in sf thirty an inspector looked at the codes they were unclear; right . The records were lost 1906 theres been knowledge the laws lack of evidence about housing that was built before 1906 so im asking that the board take note and the seriousness of this issue and find out what is the going up before you remove legal unit but according the charter the board any adjust this is pleaded this board this is not an illegal unit or kitchen and the determination need review according to the chapter im asking you to take into consideration this is especially important because i think inclusive evidence removing tenants from a protected class im on sdrablth and Social Security this didnt comply with the law based on legal issues can only be capped as this permit is in order to cap thats all it says just a cap but if legal it everything needs to be removed. The fact is this kitchen has been in this unit as long as the building has been built allen who wrote the nova said he was writing a restriction of this nov that permit is based on no inclusive evidence it is illegal and in planning code it says that no unit should be removed without proper review and without from the evidence is in inclusive were asking not only for an extension but this case be sent back to planning this property shows who families living there since sf 05 hoarse a cross decorationy from sf 07 i dont know if you can see that sf 07 cross directory this was the original personalized on the Water Department as going to live there and the other person that lives will in sf 07 your removing a unit an illegal kitchen a legal kitchen from a unit since in use sf 07 minimally so i ask if any City Attorney open staff mr. Ryan im asking you mr. Ryan im speaking to you hi. Hello im not your council. Oh did you hear me to consider the litigation reconcussions for the removal of units for people with disabilities the fact no original Construction Permit inquisitive theres no fact no way the stay can say this unit was not a two unit prior to 1906 in 189170 didnt have the permits and you you know the records were destroyed please send this back to planning to have access to the due process that was denied us because we didnt know the sf rent codes give us that right we were denied this right. I ask you to consider that we missed a step in the administration review were asking could i for this board to recognize the legality of the unit and after speaking and sharing the photos of our living room with the chief of the department of building inspection this is the original dining room that was common in 1891 so have the dining room adjacent to the it will remove the kitchen this fact is acknowledged by mr. Davidson and rewriting the nov we ask the board to wait for the nov and ask the board to recognize only that this permit will not meet its stated purpose for the removal were asking for your serious attention this kitchen is legal a way i mean, the board has the power to acknowledge this situation is not correct that the situation could be you guys are actually kicking someone out of a legal house and i wanted to clarify a couple of points mr. Cross meant to say the legality of this unit is in question she stated that different and when she was referred to the units shes referring to the 3r report one for the garage one more windows and one for the roof and another one i believe for windows. It says nothing about. This is a sf 27 percent for the garage. Yeah. And we were referring to 3r there were 4 permit and pretty i think substantial. Those were the permits. It is a permit for installing 3 aluminum windows and existing frames in sf 89 pretty minor alteration to base a determination on and we had a meeting with rosemary and mr. Allen davidson and discussed this matter they were in agreement it is likely we have the kitchen that was legal since 1891 since the wash trays in the report and hopefully spoke to mr. Duffy as mr. Davidson said he would and i hope mr. Duffy has something to add and take into account the points. This is one story on the original record from 1891 and interests a lot of skrrgsz i beg you find out
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.