Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20240714

Planner, special projects and policies for though working for the Planning Department. Dan adams, Deputy Director of housing from the Mayors Office of housing and community development, and we expect chris buck, urban forest or from the San Francisco Public Works Bureau of urban forestry. The board request that you turn off or silence all phones and other Electronic Devices so theyll not disturb the proceedings. Please carry on conversations in the hallway. The rules of presentation are as follows. Appellants, permit holders and apartment respondents each are given seven minutes four to present their case in two minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must include the comments within the seven or three minute period. Members of the public were not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. Please speak into the microphone for rehearing and jurisdiction request, the parties have three minutes each with no rebuttal. To assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, your aspen are required to submit a speaker carter Business Card or Business Card to staff when you come up to speak. Speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. Given that we have a vacancy on the board, only three votes are required to grant an appeal, jurisdiction request or rehearing request. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing or anything else, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting, or call or visit the board office. This meeting is broadcast live on San Francisco government t. V. , cable channel 78, and will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4 00 p. M. On channel 26. The video is available on our website and can be downloaded online. Now we will swear in or affirm all those who attend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. If you intend to testify at any of tonights proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary wait, stand if you are able, raise your right hand and say, i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. Do swear or affirm that the testimony youre about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth thank you. Please be seated. Okay. We will now move on to item number 1. This is an general Public Comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who like to speak on the matter of the boards jurisdiction but is not on tonights calendar. As you anyone here for general Public Comment . Okay. Please approach the microphone. You are not here for an item on the calendar . Okay. That is fine. When your item comes up, there will be an opportunity to give Public Comment on the item. So you will get a speaker card, you can fill it out after you speak and give it to gary. Thank you. So since there is no Public Comment, we will move on to item number 2, which is the election of officers. Former president frank fung moved to the Planning Commission , so we have a vacant seat for the position of president. Vice president s wake has been acting president since mr. Funk left and i would like to thank him for his service. So we will start with the office of the president. Are there any members of the board would like to know make a colleague or themselves for the office of the president . I like to nominate our acting president , rick swig for the office. Okay. Are there any other nominations . Okay. Are you willing to serve . I am willing to serve, thank you very much. Is there any Public Comment . Okay, so we have a motion from commissioner honda to elect rick swig to the position of president. On that motion. [roll call] [laughter] that motion carries. Now that mr. Swig is the president , we have a vacant seat in the Vice President seat so we will move on to that election. Are there any members of the board would like to nominate a colleague or themselves for the office of Vice President . I would like to nominate and lazarus for the position of Vice President , please. Okay. We have a motion to nominate and lazarus. Any other motion . Okay. Is there any Public Comment on that motion . Okay. Seeing none, on the motion to elect are you going to ask me if im willing to serve . I know you are. She has only done this twice. [laughter]. For the record, are you willing to serve . I did have a question. [laughter]. I am assuming yes. On that motion,. [roll call] that motion carries 40. Congratulations. Okay, we will now move on to item number 3, commissioner comments and questions. Commissioners, anything . It seems like we havent been hearing quite a while. We are back. We are back. Two things. Thank you very much for electing me to finish out this term as president. I deeply appreciate it and consider it an honor, and i just one piece of business that i have is we sent a note to the department of health on the subject of an update on their position on the safety of current technologies. Can we ask them for a response as to whether they are going to the timeframe for a response . Yes, i will reach out. I think we should go on the record that we sent the letter and we would also i would like to go on the record to request a response to our request. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other commissioner comments . Is there any Public Comment on this item . Okay. We will move on to item number 4 , the adoption of the minutes before you for discussion the possible adoption are the minutes of the june 26 th, 2019 board meeting. Any comments or changes . Moved to adopt as submitted. Okay. On the motion to adopt, is there any Public Comment on that motion . Seeing none, on the motion to adopt the june 26th minutes from commissioner lazarus. [roll call] that motion carries 40. Okay, we are now moving on to item number 5. This is a jurisdiction request. The subject property on the sidewalk adjacent to the premises of folsom street and Second Street at revenue as folsom street from Second Street to beal street. Joshua clip is the requester and asking the board take jurisdiction over tree removal permit number 778941, which was issued on july 11th, 2017 by the San Francisco public works, bureau of urban forestry, with a revision date of june 26th, 2019. The appeal period ended on july 26, 2017 and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on june 28 th, 2019. The permit holders the office of Community Investment in infrastructure. The project description, per San Francisco public works order 186056, approval of request to remove 25 trees. Replacement shall be permitted under Tree Planting permit number 778940. Revision notes, permit renewed as of june 26, 2019, courtesy postings were posted on june 20 th, 2019. Madame director, i dont see chris in the audience yet, so maybe we should first of all, on this item i have to recuse myself. There was an interest i have a 633 folsom. However, do we have the appellant in the audience . The requester is present. At this point, you should probably recuse yourself, and then we will call you when the item is over. Thats why we elected the Vice President. [laughter]. Are we going to hear the next case if the department is not here . Okay. , i see, the bureau of urban forestry is not here and no one is here from o. C. I. I. Correct. I guess we could do that. The requester is here. Would you like to delay it and go into the next item. Why dont we go into the next item. I appreciate the requesters patients. But you shouldnt be involved in deciding whether or not the case arms adjusting the Vice President in the two other commissioners do you want to hear in our given opportunity for the other departments to be present . I am of two mines because there is no response from the department in the material, so i wonder if they are going to be present or not. They know it was the first item on the agenda, i mean. It is 5 12 p. M. Frankly i think we should go ahead and here it. Okay. Would you like me to text chris back . He generally lets me know if he is going to be late. Okay. We will go ahead and here it. President swig will let you know when it is finished. Okay. We will hear from the requester. Good evening. Again, hello. Article 16 governs the permits for how tree removal is permitted. It is good for six months. Article 16 only addresses extensions. The extension of [indiscernible] here, this is not an extended permit, it says on the face of its permit that it is revised and there is no provision for revising a permit under article 16. In plain language, plain meaning of the word revision is something that is changed from a previous iteration then that is simply not the case here. My understanding is the citys position is these sorts of things just happen all the time, but number 1, that is not what the law states, a number 2, if that is true, that is not how the city consistently behaves. Specifically, i am going to reference a decision that came out on the tree removal hearing today, effective today, the public works order 201535, permit number 72905, issued effective today, and i believe it involves the same city office doing a project down on third street. The removal of several trees that were previously approved and in fact, the decision stacys trees had already been approved for removal, for the permit had expired. As a result, it went through the removal process all over again, including notice, the hearing, and a decision, and an opportunity to appeal. So regardless of what the city says about this being an extension, that is not how they behave in all cases, and that is certainly not what the law states on its face. As a practical matter, if we imagine all permits could be revived on an ad hoc basis, this would throw City Management into chaos. And effectively negate any requirement that work be completed within a certain amount of time. Just to be clear, i realize there is a lot of at stake here. Theres a project that has been a decade in the making and im not trying to throw a wrench in the works for the sake of it. What im asking and what ive asked of urban forestry is there be a serious discussion about the relocation of the viable trees that exist there rather than simply cutting them down. Ten years ago when this all started, there was no Climate Crisis that we were at least acknowledging and there is today were scrabbling as a city to find ways to sequester carbon and rather than cutting down the instruments that do that, we should be doing everything that we can to preserve those. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I understand the permit holder and the bureau of urban forestry is not present so im going to ask if there is any Public Comment on this matter. Okay. Seeing none, commissioners, this matter is submitted. Thank you. So, going over the brief, the concern is that the permit was issued july 11th, 2017, at which point it says that if an extension is provided prior to the expiration, it would be okay , but there was no extension prior to their permit expiring, so i see that the city has no grounds to extend it. Also, i am happy in my opinion, we can take the appeal. Can i ask the attorney, i corresponded with you earlier and it says to cite the relevant part of article 16. Do you mind sharing that are what the relevant part was . I have a meeting a reading here that all has to do with a street permit that has to be completed within six month and a lesson extension has been granted by the department. I think that is kind of the subject of whether or not there was an extension, having no brief from the department and having no representatives from the department that holds a permit or issue the permit, it is not clear to me whether or not that extension was granted. To be have any education or new orleans knowledge . I have no information that an extension was granted before the expiration of the appellant. They have contended that it is not. That is probably why the department didnt show up. I think there is a distinction between extended and revised and i think that is important. I think there is no way to answer those questions right now because we dont have the information to even no. I think it was pretty clear that if no extension was given within six months i and i am not sure what extension process is. I dont know if theyre publicized, again, i dont know what that process is. I have not gone through it so i dont know what we should seek to find. Since her as no one here from the department, how would we know . In that regard, i think i would be supportive of granting jurisdiction. I think we would maybe have to reschedule the time because theres no department here to speak to it. That is just my plein air thoughts of it. What happens if theres three commissioners . You could because thats fine, we would just need three to grant or deny. You are saying you want to continue this . I am just saying that i think my assumption, again, i dont know the information, and is maybe the department did grant an exemption. I dont know what that process is like. I dont know how one would know if it is extended. The Department Said that the permit was revised. I didnt have any indication from brad that there was a revision process in article 16, so if that is indeed what the department did, that would seem to fall out of line with the code. That is my understanding of that , which would incline me to grant the appeal, however, if we grant it today, would we hear the case and would we hear it without the way the process would work is if you grant jurisdiction, the jurisdiction requester has five days to go down to the department and actually file an appeal. Okay. Which is then separately heard. So thats my thoughts. I dont know what you are thinking. Dont get carried away. If im understanding, you would vote to grant the jurisdiction request . I am fine with that. Okay. Okay. I make a motion to grant the jurisdiction request on the basis that the permit was it is not valid. The permit is not valid or that the permit is subject to appeal. Yeah, this is a really odd case, actually. The basis could be that the departments decision to revise the permit and reinstate the permit would amount to a new permit being issued by the department. The revision could be an error, right . I dont thank you have to find that there was an error. I think what they have done here , arguably, is issue a new apartment because the other one expired. And they might say that new permit is subject to appeal. I moved to grant the appeal to grant the jurisdiction request on the basis that the revised permit is subject to appeal to this body. Okay. We have a motion from commissioner tanner to grant the jurisdiction request on the basis that the revised permit is tantamount to a new permit and subject to appeal. On that motion. [roll call] that motion carries. The jurisdiction request is granted and you have until next monday to come in and file an appeal of the permit. Thank you. We will now wait for president swig. All hail. [laughter]. Sorry, i have been on vacation. Now you are loopy. I have not quite caught up yet. We are now on item number 6. This is a rehearing request for the subject property at 3529 sacramento street. Cheryl hogan, the appellant, is requesting a rehearing of appeal number 19040 decided june 19th , 2019. At that time, the board voted 4 0 to deny the appeal and uphold the personal Wireless Service facility site permit the basis that was properly issued. The determination holder is gte mobile net of california, l. P. The project description is construction of a personal Wireless Service facility in his own and protected location. Miss hogan, you have three minutes. Good evening, welcome back. I thought i had seven minutes that is for a regular appeal. Rehearing request, the timing is three minutes. Okay. I was misinformed. I dress you tonight to seek your reconsideration and reevaluation of its june 19th, 2019 denial of my appeal against the department of public works, the approval of a verizon personal wireless facility at 3529 sacramento street supposedly compliant with d. P. W. Article 25 and 1996 f. C. C. Safety guidelines, although i present a voluminous evidence that 1996 s. C. C. Thermal safety guidelines have been outdated by rapidly changing Digital Technology and by authoritative persuasive worldwide independent scientific account studies. The board decided article 25 did not permit consideration by health and safety concerns. However, at the june 19th hearing, president swig sincerely expressed his conscientiousness at his concern about being legally precluded from considering health and safety worries, which various wireless facility appellants repeatedly raised and he suggested that the Health Departments prior 2010 evaluation of wireless can occasion health risks be updated at the board boards request to reevaluate to evaluate recent science and technology advances, but on june 19th, may peel was unanimously appeal was unanimously denied without board action on the president reevaluation suggestion. Only after june 19th, i learned from the public records and from a sympathetic long retired San Francisco attorney about important new facts and circumstances which have been known in the original hearing and could have affected the outcome of my appeal. I learned on june 26, 2019 the board officially requested that the Health Department review and updated the 2010 memorandum regarding the Health Effects and regulation of wireless communication networks. I also learned for the first time that the San Francisco environment code declares the precautionary principle as official city county policy and it requires all commissions, boards, departments to Prioritize Health and environmental safety to prevent harm so that when science is possible but still uncertain, lack of full scientific certainty about cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reasons for the city to prevent the degradation of the Environmental Protection of its citizens. Im not an attorney and cannot explain to subs such complex legal issues nor am i in a position to hire expensive lawyers. Without a pro bono lawyer to speak for me, im unable to tell the board tonight how the precautionary period and the Health Department anticipated wireless risk update can support a favourable outcome of my appeal for your review. I have attached these documents. I immediately filed a hearing date, rescheduling request from july 17th to october 23rd after the boards administrative scheduled my hearing request for tonight. However, there lawyer refused my scheduling refuse my scheduling request and they decided against changing the hearing today to date hearing date. Thank you. Thank you. Your time is up. Thank you. Yes, i see that. Okay. Thank you. We will now hear from the attorney for the department holder. Good evening, councilors. Good evening, if only our National Elections could be so civil and straightforward and honest. They are not . [laughter]. They are not. We will see. Thank you for your time this evening. Once again, we didnt hear any new evidence that was not available at the prior hearing. Indeed, your request for d. B. H. To renew its 2010 memo was announced at that meeting, and again, that also would not be new evidence, would be obviously informing about d. B. H. Review and would not change the federal standards that we have confirmed compliance compliance with at that time. And to halt all approvals as requested in the brief, well that we wait for that momo it would be essentially moratorium and wireless facilities. It would not be enforceable. We dont think there is any manifest injustice in the case. We have seen many, many of these applications, and you have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly and i thank you have made the appropriate decision in this case. I will save you time and sit down. Thank you, councillor. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez, would you like to add anything . Okay. As a representative from public works . Okay. Is there any Public Comment on this item. Okay. Please approach the microphone. Good evening, welcome. I am here to urge you to support miss cheryl hogans request for an attorney and rescheduling rehearing regarding installation of a tower which is in the vicinity of her residence. It radiation exposure effects everyone. This is from an epidemiologist. Children and pregnant women are most vulnerable to the effects of wireless radiation. Research repeatedly shows that a childs brain and body absorbs more radiation then an adult brain due to a childs skull and unique physiology. There are decades of peerreviewed studies demonstrating serious biological Health Effects from lowlevel microwave radiation including neurological damage, d. N. A. Breaks, oxidative stress and immune dysfunction, sleep and memory disturbances, adhd, inc. Normal behavior, sperm dysfunction and brain tumours. These effects of occurred at exposure levels far lower then the standard dorsal Safety Standards that most governments use. Children will have a lifetime of exposure. Children require special protection. Due to these health concerns, the American Academy of pediatrics has issued recommendations to reduce wireless exposure to children. We should have the right to protect our health and the health of our children. Please give cheryl hogan an attorney and a rescheduling of a rehearing and also please consider adopting the county and mill valleys ordinance for banning 5g in a residential areas. I thank you so very much. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other Public Comment on this item . If you are here for Public Comment, move forward so we can keep it going. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening. Bear with me because i have a cough that sometimes happens. I live in San Francisco. I am a licensed marriage and Family Services service the widespread use of cell phones on an alarming percentage of my clients receive a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder. Anxiety is not so much a matter of low selfesteem or trauma, with physical some stations of health heart pulse that [indiscernible] there has been an increase in suicide. Much is blamed on social media and peer pressure, but it is toxic to our psychological health, lowering the production of serotonin, or feel good hormone and adversely increasing the production of cortisol. The Toxicology Program study conclusively linked it to cancer so much so that david from the medical director of American Cancer Society stated that this marks the paradigm shift, much like what happens with smoking and cancer. His statement, which i give to you today has been wait watched. In the same way that studies done in the sixties and then and nineties looking cancer with e. N. F. Were never released to the public. The telecommunication act bans the public the industry knows that it will be adversely affected. Cancer has been on the rise. According to a 2013 wall street journal article, one in two americans will face lifethreatening cancer. Now 2019, i know and know of 33 people with cancer and i have two family members with stage four. I believe the epidemic has begun in conclusion, our forefathers, who wrote as they wrote the constitution intended for the government to protect its people and to promote the pursuit of happiness with justice and equality for all. Slavery, and ultimate injustice, was abolished and gained an equal right to vote. Just as we stand up to laws that were considered legal at the time, we need to stand up in defiance against the telecommunication act and by extension, 5g small cell in tennis. San francisco needs to oppose and accept this. Just as it has done with a federal government and immigration policies, no law should be allowed to condone proven physical harm. I am in treatment for Breast Cancer and and i am e. N. F. Sensitive. Have to leave my residents of 36 years if 5g comes to my neighborhood. San francisco has an ordinance much like marin county that bends 5g and residential areas. Cheryl hogan should be able to reschedule her rehearing and have her attorney president present. Thank you very much. Heres the information i wanted to give you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Welcome. Thank you. I live in marin county but i live youll need to speak more into the microphone. I am an electrical count contractor. I work around electricity all day long. I recently got a microwave meter and it was shocking to me to realize how much microwaves were under, and i feel there needs to be a lot more study in this and i feel that the telecommunication bill has placed a lot of focus on a ramp out and a movement of something with an economic need to proceed and i think the problem is that and i am just studying four g. Right now, and it is prevalent around us and i personally have trouble sleeping at night. I turn my router off, i can sleep. Im concerned with 5g because it is everywhere and it will be purveyed around us. I feel there needs to be more study on this and somebody has to do it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other public speakers . Good evening. Thank you. I live in San Francisco. I am severely impacted by e. N. F. In our field. I have been studying them for a while. I dont know how many of you are familiar with the ota, the office of technology assessment. It was used by congress extensively up until 1995, and 1995, the republican i am not trying to get into a politics at all, but the Republican Congress decided to defund it. It was considered the arm of congress for technology information. The very next year, within six months, the Telecommunications Act was passed. The passage of it allowed all of the standards to be decided by engineers. So they eliminated the c. D. C. , the e. P. A. , the f. D. A. , the department of human health and services. The result is just that things have been buried for so long. There are now over, believe it or not, 27,000 studies that show the impact and the danger of what we are facing here. This is so dramatic. Birds are dying, bees are dying. They are affected 95 more than humans. We are having great a fax. Just to give you a small example , i do walk around with an rf and e. N. F. Meter. I also have had pg and e. He come to my home. He said that the sidewalk was off scale. That was back, that was six years ago. 5g is now starting to be rolled out in San Francisco, and ive recently found that my feet are burning. The heat is so intense that i have some units that help to absorb the electromagnetic fields. I decided to measure, so i am walking along the street, and the measurements are quite high seconds. Sure. The meter that i have goes from zero to 50 is okay, 50 to 100 is considered not healthy, 100 to 250 is considered severe, over 200 to 500 is considered critical. My measurement, as i went down to the sidewalk and i am measuring it at sidewalk level, it was 2,350. These levels are so dangerous and you have to keep in mind so, your time is up. Okay. Anyway, you get the point. She really needs to have a chance to have an attorney. Thank you. Are there any other Public Comments on this item . Commissioners, this matter is submitted. Go ahead. It sometimes feels like this word is unsympathetic. Hence why our president asked me , and asked the Health Department to come before us and give us a report. At the same time, we have heard hundreds of cases and unfortunately, there is the legislation that we have to follow, you know, prohibits us from taking the information such as the information information that was brought before us and in the last hearing. And trust me, im extremely sympathetic. Im a stage four cancer survivor myself, along with my son. I get it, but in a rehearing, the rehearing bar is extremely, extremely high, and basically it is to cause, it would cause manifest injustice. In this particular case, there was no new information that was not provided at the previous hearing that would have led me to believe that there was manifested injustice. Motion . My motion is to deny the rehearing for the fact there was no manifest injustice. Okay. We have a motion from commissioner haunted to deny the request on the basis that you said there was no new evidence. On that motion. [roll call] that motion carries on the request is denied 40. We are now moving on to item seven a and seven b. There is no rebuttal for rehearing request. The matter is closed. The matter is closed. The request has been denied. Okay. We are now moving on to items seven a and seven b. These are appeal numbers 19036 and 19037. Subject property is two gratin street. On june 12, 2019, the board voted 40 to continue this matter so they can properly follow in their evaluation of the placement of this Wireless Service is services it facility at the site. And the characteristics of the neighborhood. Further, the Planning Department will report back on what the permit holder did subsequent to the initial disapproval of the permit which enabled it to get the permit approved. So we will hear from the Planning Department first and the Planning Department has six minutes given that there are two appellants. Thank you. Congratulations on your promotion today and members of the board and the Planning Department. Thank you for the brief continues to allow us time to further review this matter. I did find that we did not per review this subject permit and our review found that it was in a zoning protected location. However, it is also an eight planning protected location because it is in the eligible valley Historic District. It is not an adopted Historic District but it is eligible for listing and the more stringent review requirement of the planning protected location apply because of the historic character and with that in reviewing and rereviewing the design, the current design is not one that the Planning Department can support. As such, we did not support the planning design. We know that the project sponsor has requested a continuance to allow time to propose a new design. Theyve indicated that due to new technology, they can make something that is smaller and have less of a visual impact. Would be happy to review any such revision. If the board so chooses. We wanted to inform the dog the board of our apologies to all the parties for the error that staff did make in this, we wanted to make sure we had a hearing tonight to get fully informed the board of the status of the permit and so you can make the appropriate decisions. Im available for any questions. What is your recommendation . I forgot to welcome you. We are happy to, it is really what the board prefers. We are happy to review the sponsor. They would be able to reapply. They wouldnt be a bar from them reapplying within one year because they would be submitting a new design that would comply with requirements. Perhaps we would be happy for either of the boards preference can you tells a little bit about the planning protections on this location and how this conflicts with the protections. Given that it was a planning protected location and has a higher level of review and we are looking at whether it may distract from historic character of the neighborhood, there were some concerns in the last hearing and raised about the consistency of our review of this and how we have characterized the overall character and the scale of the districts and we were reviewing the materials and i think it is safe to say this is a threestory district. There are some that have perhaps a fourth story that is in an attic, but it doesnt appear as a fourth story from the streets. It looks like a groundfloor garage, a Community Living level , and an attic area under gabled roof. But it is a 40foot height district. It is probably buildings are generally 30 to 35 feet tall, maybe the peaks of those roofs are up to 40 feet tall, but especially as the project sponsor has indicated, they have the ability to design a better site one that would be smaller and we think that there is the ability to achieve a better design that have less of a visual impact. One of the things that was striking for me on this was the amount of equipment that was going to be on the poll. There were quite a few boxes. If that could be reduced and if the overall height could be reduced, those are things that we would look to the project sponsor to do. Is it practice in the Planning Department to permit or not permit or suspend the size and the character . I guess i am wondering how likely it is for smaller things to get through. We certainly have approved facilities that are in Historic Districts, and so it is not that it cant be done, it would just be up to the project sponsor to design something that would be smaller as they stated they can. Thank you. One last question. Go ahead. In the previous, of the previous hearing, there is excessive clutter. Is that the term that was used. We raise this about the height of the facility but also the amount of equipment that is on the pole. Is that common when permits are issued for the cellular towers . I have never seen excessive clutter. I have never seen that either we called it junk on another street. That is my question. I have never seen the Planning Department actually say excessive clutter. Usually by the time it gets to you on appeal, we have resolved those issues. So they have made it such that there is not excessive clutter. Im going back to when omar was working this program. We miss him, dont we . Part of the struggle was getting the meters removed because pg and he wants to have a meter in every poll so they can get every little drop of activity. Could be nice if we didnt have to have meter rocks. There is ways to reduce the size on the nature of the equipment. Done the stuff level before it gets to the board. It would be a revised project that leads to the denial of the application in the first place. Do you suppose that this new design will become more of a standard for these facilities in your initial view if it equates to less clutter . That is possible. Sometimes we do receive we have seen the variety of applications. This would polls, cityowned poles, so there are usually different design packages that get set up for each style, and that can be replicated on other poles. It could be they have a better technology, better equipment that they could have a new standard for this type of application. You have set the standard before. You have worked with them to say what is acceptable to the department. Yes. I think this is a case where if there is an error on staffs part, that led us to where we are today. Thank you. Thank you. With the Public Works Department like to add anything . Are you guys just getting paid to sit down tonight . We will now hear from mr. Albritton, the attorney for the permit holder. Can i get paid to sit down. Youre getting paid to sit down. I will just put this up here. Do i have three minutes or six minutes . Six. I will try and be quick. You never usually use it also it is okay. Im outside council for verizon wireless. It is hard to believe we have worked with the Planning Department on this application for two years, but we have and we have worked with respect to the review, with respect to the standard, with respect to the redesign and the requirements to try and make this something that would be acceptable. So it is difficult to find that there is a procedural error that was discovered in the last couple of weeks. Our history with working with the Planning Department with omar and with the City Attorney s office goes way back. Unfortunately, we had to sue the city 2006 to go into the right of way but we worked with the city to develop article 25 through all four iterations before it came as a law today. Verizon wireless is not part of the lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court on article 25. We worked very hard on the language of article 25. In fact, bill sanders and i argued about that question about eligible Historic Districts versus Historic Districts and whether that would remain in the ordinance. The other thing we discussed is what is the standard . To this moment, we appreciate working with scott quite a bit, but we have not heard the standard enunciated that is required to view whether this is affecting the effect they Historic District. That standard is that it cannot significantly detract from the a static attributes that are the basis for the special designation of the eligible Historic District. Those words werent chosen lightly. What are the characteristics that make this an eligible Historic District . What are the a static attributes that make it historic . It is obviously the buildings, the Historic Buildings that are there right now. One of the a static attributes . The colours, the balconies, the sizes of the buildings. Does our facility detract from that . As you can see, we need to raise the antenna 6 feet in order to allow firemen to climb up the pole and not touch wires when they are reaching for the antenna. We need to put the equipment 4 inches off the pole in order to allow the alignment the lineman to put his belt behind it. The radios have been designed so there is less with than what the department would consider to not obscure of view if they are 6 feet away. They are narrow, there are quiet , they have no fan. We have done everything we can to make them quiet. Did they detract from the static attributes of the other eligible buildings or the Historic District . And then you need to ask yourself if they detract, do they significantly detract. I dont think theres evidence to suggest that it does. I dont want you to reverse the decision of the Planning Department. The one we heard tonight is that some broad language about how they felt it no longer qualified , but what i would like is for the Planning Department to really take a serious look at the language, the standards that they are supposed to be upholding and how we got to those standards and how they are applied. Clutter comes up often, but that is a general plan characteristic of this residential neighborhood it has nothing to do with the standard that was drafted since article 25. I reason for request for a reddish for additional time to allow the Planning Department to go through that analysis. If there are, if we are somehow significantly detracting from a static attributes, then what can we do to avoid doing that and that is the sort of analysis that we wanted to see. If you move forward this evening , you need to come up with a resolution of denial that will have to come back at another meeting and we will have to look at that resolution of denial and analyse those questions that i just described decide whether we want a rehearing or not because it is new information. Those are the reasons that we thought it would be valuable to allow the department to come up with a clear analysis and for us to address that analysis. It was the purpose for our request. The only reason i can say to you why it maybe better for us to keep this application rather then to come to reapply is that as we have pointed out, the only reason we have been so tenacious with this poll is it is one of two utility poles in this entire area because of the ornamental poles that have been put on belvedere street, so unfortunately, for my engineers, they told me and they said, to go somewhere else, and they said no, they really need something here and that is why we are anxious not to lose it, potentially to a competitor or potentially to lose this application. We understand that the department of public works is currently working on objective standards that we can point to when reviewing this particular type of question, and i assume theyre working with the Planning Department and coming up with those standards. Maybe we will have objective standards and that is one of the reasons we discuss with the department his november date and why it may be more easy for you to make a decision at that time because you have objective standards to look at. That is our review and i guess that took my six minutes. It took five missing 30 seconds, but i have a question. Can we talk about the smaller equipment that you potentially would be using . We dont like to suggest we would do it in every case, but the first thing that has happened is there are you know you will be before us with other cases that are later on. Exactly. We dont want to volunteer that we are going to help. This is a Historic District, this is a situation where we will go the extra mile to come up with something that will allow us to do something to fill this potential gap. The radio this was designed with each had two frequencies. There is now one frequency, and now i two frequency radio. When actually have one radio that has a two frequencies that we had before. We would rather use all four frequencies, but we could potentially reduce that. We could also go there is a new radio out and it is a 20 water radio instead of a 40 water radio. It is narrower, it is a little taller, but it is narrower. There are some other new technologies where we are using smaller radios that use the citizen band radio spectrum and something called laa to provide wifi bubbles around the small cells in order to improve their efficiency. It was a combination of three smaller radios and we can make a better looking design here that will be wide and closer to the facility. We have been working with pg and d. On a smaller meter and it is a combination switch and it only works when we use lowpower radios instead of higher power radios and we are also working on a slightly smaller antenna that is a little over 3 feet instead of 4 feet. So we would try and use all of those new techniques to come up with something that was more acceptable for this location. Every time you do that you reduce that rude wattage of the radios. He reduce the wattage of the radios of itself. If you do that citywide, you end up with more poles overall then the design that we came up with. If you shrink the radios but increase the radios and the wattage we reduce the wattage, but combine the frequencies. The height of the district is around 30 feet. Given the limitations of the pole, if you would be able to stay under the 30 feet, given the wires and the other things you mentioned needing to be cleared out. Between the bottom of the mounting bracket and the wires themselves or get those are things that we would try and look at. It is also possible we can replace the pole and i dont know if that would help us with height also. Thank you, counselor. Thank you for your time this evening. Thank you. We will hear from ms. , eliza nemser. You have three minutes. Good evening, and welcome. Overhead please. Good evening. Article 25 exists and permitting process, compliance standards, veal process exist to protect our city and its residents. Unfortunately verizon has shown a disregard for the integrity of this process to get the fact they sent a sub contractor to string cable to this poll before the permit was even approved. With a foregone conclusion they would obtain the permit. There has been a failure in all levels of this assets. A shadow cast, with a disapproval of a 44 design in march. The approval of the same design in july with no rational basis. And the failure to review this and permits at the planning protected location as part of the Historic District. There have been numerous representations as pivotal it affects you. The board of appeals, tainting these proceedings. Residents have had to spend time and resources to eliminate these failures. This isnt a oneoff project. Our city and its residents deserve a fair and unbiased process, that is not what has unfolded here. Verizon, in their brief standing here, misrepresented the basis for plannings merchant determination. They misled the board to believe that permit was raised originally disappear because it was 42 feet and 2 inches high. It was for a 42foot tall facility. To review the disapproval. It reads, you can look at it now, the total new height of 40 feet. Thank you. For the proposed pole exceeds the height of the surrounding structures. The board of appeals is entitled to a clear and correct picture of the basis of original disapproval. They misrepresented the july planning simply because the pole height was lowered to feed into inches. The 40foot height did not change. A july 2 email from verizons consultant at sf planning reads, i appreciate the confirmation of sticking with the 40foot height i am sure verizon will, too. Verizon misrepresented that the facility is not in a protected location. It should have been evaluated as a planning protected location. As shown in this document that i received in my sunshine ordinance. I would like to add these into the record, they are not in my brief. Knowing this, verizon failed to alert planning. December 13, 2017 letter, planning, back in 2017 when it was 42. Asked verizon for a facility that does not degrade the ascetic attributes. Verizon misrepresented this facility would not detract from views on belvidere street. It would only be visible for a few feet, the pole is a visible for 180 feet along belvidere. Finally, verizon interferes with this appeal process for requesting a postponement to be fasttrack. Im sorry, your time is up. We will now hear from frances dependahl. Good evening