I attest and affirm the following statements are true, accurate and within my personal knowledge. In october 22, 2019 email to thomas, Health OfficerSan Francisco department of Public Health. One great solution is to set a maximum effective radiated power limit from the face of the antenna shroud at 40mili watts by adding the article to article 25. For Wireless Telecommunications facility that is installed in the public rightsofway or attached to any building or antennas installed at heights lower than 100 feet off the ground, the applicant must install only antennas radios and other supporting equipment that have no chance of exceeding the total of 40 milliwatts of effective radiated power from all the equipment operating at or connected to the specific wtf Wireless Telecommunications facility. 40 watts provides four main benefits. It provides coverage for Telecommunication Service for about onehalf mile from the source antenna. Two, does not effectively prohibit Telecommunication Service three, adds the speed limit seat belts and air bags regulations that San Franciscos need to protect the quiet enjoyment of San Francisco streets which is part of the aesthetics. Four it is compliant with fcc guidelines. I have expressed no matter of mere concern but solely matters of substance, fact and law. Thats it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Her speaker card is right there on the ledge. Next speaker please. Hello, again. Rachael gold. I want to address a couple of what seem to me like alternative facts from the previous speaker. The hollow area, green street and broderick street, there is already plenty of cell phone coverage five bars. We dont need the additional to add more coverage. In a disaster like a fire and earthquake, the small cells go down more easily. The bigger ones stay and last longer. So i disagree with his representation of those facts. If i sent you the Scientific American article a month after the article hes talking about he would have a comprehensive rebuttal of everything in that article by Professor John from Berkeley School of medicine. So i would be happy to review the article as well. I just feel sorry for the people who are up here appealing it. Its like a lottery. Put these things outside their bedroom and maybe yours, for example. And youve got grandchildren staying over or children and maybe an aging mother who needs extra support. The whole process is unfair. Why these people are scrambling spending on lawyers, trying to barricade their houses because something got put outside their bedroom window with no recourse. I could no more go outside your house, for example, and put a very, very strong light or a very noisy 24 7 and that would get taken down immediately. You would not tolerate that. Why are we tolerating something that is in our view, ten times more powerful and destructive to the human body . Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, again. Page hudson. Like most things that we know in our current life, if you follow the money trail youll get lots of answers. So it was equally painful as my colleague rachael mentioned to hear the gentleman from verizon speaking about the need for this emergency situations. You heard from neighbors who said that they dont need or want this. So why is technology being rammed down our throats to the detriment of our families . Its because comcast has monopolized the market for residential and at t and other carriers are none too happy. It is a marketing ploy to be packaged in a way that says we need this for Emergency Services and better communication, which is sum apply not the case. You still have simply not the case. You still have access to your cell phone. We are not against technology. We are not against cell phones. They have great value for all of us. Thats not the point. The point is we are being conned into believing we need this small cell towers next to our homes. Distance is your friend when it comes to radiation exposure. And to have these powerful cell towers right next to our childrens bedrooms, its bordering on child engagement. We all can agree that childrens skulls are much thinner and the fcc regulations are based on a 250pound adult man. This is not something we want near our childrens bedrooms. Lastly i know you are all very aware of the precautionary principle but im a little perplexed as to why this is not being used here. As a reminder the precautionary principle that the induction of a new product or process effects are disputed should be resisted. Theres not a single dollar being spent proving that 5g is safe. So why are we allowing it to be rolled out . Thank you. Please give a speaker card to ms. Sullivan. Thanks. Hi. Thanks for having me here. I moved to the city when i was 22 years old. I lived here for the next 17 years. Currently i live in paluma. Im one of the founders of my street my choice where we did ban putting these towers in residential areas successfully so i beg to differ with mr. Verizon. What i want to put on the record here today is there was a California Law ab57 that banned these towers by any firefighters in the state. You cant put it near a fire station. So that means theyre perfectly safe. So the firefighters won but we didnt. These companies cant get Liability Insurance because they dont want to insure them because theyre not comfortable being able to do that for the liability. So why isnt that being mentioned by mr. Verizon . So this is what i want to draw your attention to today. I attest and affirm the following statements are true, accurate and within my personal knowledge. This is from an october 24, 2019 email to thomas argon the Health Officer at the department of health. At a Sonoma Planning Commission meeting a consultant from ctc exposure from antenna. Theres statements in here, i dont want to take too much time. But you have the video. Please refer to the comments in minute 3, 10 seconds, 24 and the comments in minute 3, 22. The bottom line is this. Ill summarize it for you. It basically says that its the proximity thaterts. I that matters. Its about the power and its about the proximity and how that raises the power. This is not my first rodeo. Here we are with corporations and citizens. Havent we been down this road before . What do we have to do . We have to wait for more brain cancer and go oops, we are sorry. Thank you maam your time is up. Thank you. I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate and within my personal knowledge. You are giving a slick sales job by the Wireless Industry. I hope you can figure out the real answer here. These people are telling you things that are not true. Im here to tell you we have put into the Public Record you have here the actual key. It was not just tried. It was also interveners that were fully recognized. And those people live in neighborhoods montgomery county, maryland, and that ruling applies to the entire United States. That is up held by the judges by the dc court of appeals. The Wireless Industry is being painted into a corner. They are desperate. They are going to tell you whatever story they want to tell you. Read the case. All you need to do it its your Public Record. What im saying to you is that you are also being misinformed about all these things about guess what, if you are compliant with a guideline that implies safety. It does not. You cant get binders like this. You cant get people getting injured after two weeks of exposure in sacramento where they have to move the kids out of the front room into a back room and shield the house and spend thousands of dollars to protect themselves. And get verizon in a room last thursday with five representatives to figure out how they are going to fix the problem quietly. This is a real problem. People are really getting sick across the United States right now. And all you have to do is look at the actual information. Its all in your Public Record. You have it now. And you have every reason to strike down support all these appeals tonight waiting for the nepa environmental assessment. It is higher than ceqa. Come on folks. Take the ring, do something for your people. You got your out. You dont have to wait for the department of health. You got what you need from the dc circuit of appeals yet you rubber stamp them, rubber stamp them rubber stamp them. What are you doing . Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. Im jess warner. Im just want to introduce myself to you because i didnt get to last time and say a few things. I want to say that based on the knowledge that i have that i can share with you the data i have and the tremendous amount of information that many of us have, mr. Alberton misleading you tremendously and theres a ton of data i encourage you to read to be fully informed about the truth. So again, im here right now because ive been working on this issue partly because im also electrically sensitive. I discovered this when i was in grad school at brown for Environmental Science and i have been aware that i get headaches and cant sleep around wireless. Thats why i dont live in San Francisco. I came from an hour away. I probably would be living somewhere in the city if i could but i physically cant. I can tell you anyone thats been through Health Concerns as you were speaking about earlier that what is more important than our health . Nothing. Cant really do anything without your health. So i want to ask how can health and safety and the precautionary principle not come first . So i agree with pausing until the review is done. I agree with listening to local control which is what a lot of people in the north bay have been talking about. I hope you can catch up and get educated about. I know its an issue you dont know a lot about because the industry has been so successful at strategically silencing and suppressing all the data and information that you dont want to know and that you dont need to know for them to get cash in their pockets. It isnt about emergency connectedness. This wont help in an emergency. 5g is about cash. When the public says we dont want it here i urge you and ask you to listen to what the public says rather than forcing radiation on the public thats saying no. Thank you. Thank you. Please provide a speaker card. Thank you. Is there any other Public Comment . Okay. So well move onto rebuttal. You have three minutes. Thank you. Given proper notice is incumbent upon the permit holder and thats the responsibility of verizon. Verizon did not meet that obligation of notice. And like i said earlier strict compliance. They are required in the statute shall give notice to the association. They did not do it properly. The statute actually says any Neighborhood Association identified by the Planning Department for any neighborhood within 300 feet of the proposed personal Wireless Service facility it does not say the Planning Department has to keep an updated list. Mr. Albright attempted to put the ownness on the Planning Department. It says the Planning Department has to identify the associations, and it does. It keeps a general list of the associations in San Francisco. But it is not incumbent upon them to keep an updated list. They didnt meet the requirement. There was no diligence by them. They could have easily gone to the hollow website its a public website as mr. Sanchez just did. It clearly says who the president is. Its lori brook and it has a p. O. Box on that website. For that reason alone this permit needs to be denied. And the other reason, as i went into detail earlier is 190 19 is not effective, it is not retroactive, it is not appropriate here. Thank you. Well now hear from ms. Patel. Im sorry. Ms. Court you heard from my lawyer before. The reason i felt i had to bring a lawyer was the last time a came to the public hearing i found it very difficult to speak. I found it very intimidating to talk to all of you. Im an mba. Ive had a professional career for a long time but its extremely scary and hard to come forward. But i feel very passionately about a wireless antenna outside my home that is 20 feet away from the bedroom of my children. I have a oneyearold, a fouryearold and a sevenyearold. The i live at 2740 green street. It is literally the closest thing possible to my childrens bedroom window. And when i came to appeal, i appealed because i the street has no aboveground utilities at all. They are going to introduce for the first time an aboveground utility on a street that is historic. These buildings are all classified. For me to remodel is painful to get applications to remodel my home. Every single home on that street is completely classified as one of Historic Site historic neighborhood so why introduce an aboveground utility is beyond me. The second is that i am fearful of the Health Concerns. But i was told i cant bring those up because the federal laws overrule, which seems crazy, because this is the only place where i can come and talk to you to try to stop this. But when you voted on the last appeal, on broderick street, broderick street is half a block away from my house. Theres a 4g antenna going up with sprint half a block away and one right in front of my house. Also 4g which i have been told up until today that that was 5g. So i dont know what is true now. And on top of it, we were told in the last hearings that the direction does matter and its going to run up and down green street and not be directly to your house but broderick is perpendicular to my street so which antenna is going to go which way . Is ours going to go this way and arent we in the center of all that because its four houses away. Doesnt make sense to me. If you are going to sit here and say its moot because the laws changed before we were able to cancel this then i would ask you to consider returning our 300 we had to pay to come here to talk to you. And also my legal fees because i feel like the process is so scary that i cant come and talk to you directly but i need to hire a lawyer because its so complicated and for you to ask Health Questions of a legal representative of verizon i think is not correct. Ask a professional. Thank you thank you. We will now hear from ms. Patel. You have three minutes. Hi. I just wanted to say a few things that the verizon representative said obviously we are not in favor of getting rid of cellular but the reason we have these stories of having saved someones life or having a phone help us is because it already works. We dont need 5g. We have coverage. Its fine. We dont need this new technology. But even if we do decide to go that route we need the testing done on the technology. And what i would say is that youre not assigntist im not a scientist, nobody in this room can listen to this and determine what is the correct answer as far as if this is causing a health problem. But we can determine that more studies need to be done and that the constituents who would benefit from this technology are choosing to forego it, because out of precaution. So if the people that would be benefiting from it say no, thank you then why is it being forced upon them . And your job in the city is to reflect your constituents, is to speak for them, to hear their voice and to represent them. As far as you can legally. And i know that in many ways, your hands are tied but i also hope that you can find a way to do so and to be able to get authority back to san franciscans for our own codes and ordinances similar to how San Francisco adopted gay marriage and medical marijuana early on. I do not believe that putting in the ordinance would be a feelgood option. Obviously it might be overruled later on. But it would send a message. And it would apply pressure for more studies to be done. And it would lead the way as we have done before. And i feel that its really important. I hope that you can take time to take all of this under consideration. I know that you see so many of these. I know that this is just one more. But i can also tell that you are very compassionate and empathetic and you have your own stories and are dealing with things that you are concerned about in this regard. And i hope you can take all this under submission instead of deciding tonight. Maybe take time to talk as a quorum and find out if theres a legal way that you can push forward in representing your constituents. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Anything further . Sounded like maybe i shouldnt talk very much. I wont. Counsel for verizon. I just want to touch on a couple of quick things. I mentioned why small cells. Ill say what ive always said to you and you know you can look up in your phone what the emissions from from your phone by going to general and legal and looking and see that the phone adjacent to your head is close to 100 percent of the fcc standards. When it has to talk to a cell phone tower thats a mile away it can ramp up in power a thousand times and the Small Cell Network provides low wattage facilities so the cell phone doesnt have to work as hard to talk to the tower. And thats not the reason for the Small Cell Network but it provides these facilities closer to the end user. I want to point out there is post installation testing and i hope everyone here who is nearby one of these facilities you can either call or email the department of public works. Thats how it works. Thats the system. And we will make sure that your home wherever you want, we will test that location at the time that we to the post installation testing. That should be something that i hope is somewhat reassuring to the people this evening. You do have a professional who reviews these issues, and thats your department of Public Health. You have Health Professionals, one of the few communities in the state, theres a Health Professional reviewing these analyses. And thats here to be commended for that. And i think i noted that several years ago, d. P. H. Went and got their meter so they can measure the impact from these facilities. And when we do a post installation testing it is key to sprint and everybody else. On ab57, it doesnt prohibit facilities on fire stations. Ab57 i wrote the first drafts of that. It deems an application approved if a community doesnt act on it within the fcc periods. That deemed approved, the automatic approval without Community Review doesnt apply to fire stations, and thats because of the importance of ingress from fire stations and that the Fire Departments arent the reviewing entity for those kinds of facilities. Its an exemption from deemed approval for Planning Facilities on fire facilities. With respect to sonoma and mr. Lee he represents municipalities and i commend him to you. Hes very qualified. All of our facilities comply. And thats what he said in his statements. I wanted to first you commended our briefs and i wanted to congratulate my colleague melanie who actually drafts those briefs and i get to review them. But she reminded me that it it nepa does apply nationwide. All our facilities go through nepa and anything express to that case, saying we dont have review. Our silts are either categorically exempt or go through the review. Weve been doing that since 1984. Its a standard part of the process. As i mentioned through this agreement thats been reached between the epa fcc and the carriers. I dont want to take up any more of your time. I was going to respond to some of the other questions. Unless you want me to respond to some of the other inquiries. I guess with respect to cal hollow, the code says its a Neighborhood Association identified by the Planning Department. I think you heard from the Planning Department that the cal Hollow Association does receive notification on a regular basis. With that, i will sit down unless you have further questions. And thank you for your time. Is it your responsibility it would seem under the notice item it would be verizons responsibility versus the Planning Departments responsibility to notice the cal Hollow Association given that its not exactly a ceqa, your firm is a very knowledgeable can i finish. Yes. Your firm is a knowledgeable, seasoned firm. They know about Neighborhood Associations and the detail that an address may be obsolete on a website should not be would seem a barrier or burden to provide proper notice to a very wellknown and highprofile Neighborhood Association. Do you agree . I would respond by saying that as mr. Sanchez pointed out, in working with Neighborhood Associations, i know that most of them do have committees. They have a land use committee. So its not the chair or the president of the association that you contact. The people who are responsible for land use and the Committee Makes a report to the general association. With respect. So there were three cal Hollow Association names i understand from mr. Sanchez this evening, those continue to be the three names registered with the Planning Department. So as far as i know we, in addition to complying with article 25, have complied with the wishes of the cal hollow Neighborhood Association, other Neighborhood Associations and Business Associations that are listed in our addresses. So we rely on that information. And they are obligated to do their own self reporting. But i think it would be a mistake if we had sent a notice to the president but not noticed their identified individuals on a committee then we would be remiss. But we are following the letter of the law and in a practice that we continue to carry. And we do work with Neighborhood Associations. Do you honestly believe, you are under oath that you did the most diligent job in noticing the cal Hollow Association regardless of whether the address was correct or not on the website, given that they are a known association and given your level of sophistication in noticing associations . I think the question is did we comply with the noticing requirements and did obviously i dont review every notice that goes out. Theres a contractor that then contracts out to an approved noticing agency for San Francisco that professionally does this and signs an affidavit and provides you with that affidavit that they have complied with all the requirements under the code. And i think i would be remiss to try to second guess personally i would be remiss to second guess that process which has been well institutionalized in San Francisco. And one of the reasons San Francisco has such a careful and rigorous process is its because been institutionalized over the last 11 years. Is it not ultimately verizons responsibility to ensure that a neighborhood the appropriate Neighborhood Association is notified whether it be the committee, whether it be the president , just as being responsive and responsible to the neighbors in that neighborhood . I think i would agree with you that we need to not follow the letter and the spirit of the law. And as far as i know, we have done that in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Well now hear from the department. Mr. Sanchez, anything further . Saved 18 minutes commissioners, this matter is submitted. Okay. Commissioners . I dont mind starting. I want to speak to the appellants and some of the members. Public that have come out to speak tonight. Thank you for your time and sincerely this city doesnt work if our citizens dont work. So thank you for all the effort that youve put into participating. And i know its been a long night. But i really appreciate all the work that youve put into this evening. One thing about our body, and ive only served, this is my one Year Anniversary recently. Happy anniversary. Thank you. Being on this board. Our role is to determine whether permits have been properly issued according to the rules. So in this case, article 25 governs how these permits are issued and we look at rigorously as you have presented evidence as perhaps that wasnt followed with regard to noticing other items that are in that article, which is what governors us. Thats the question before us. So when it can be confusing, why arent we considering heather why are we not doing things, thats the role our body plays. The board of supervisors this year passed legislation which then becomes law which then becomes the other way to look at and determine, that changes the way that cell towers and wireless facilities are permitted in the city. And so when we say the issue is moot as Vice President lazarus said in the last case, it means they already have a permit to put a facility at this location under that other process. So even if we were to find this permit was not properly issued, a separate permit under a different process has already been issued for a facility at this location so i wouldnt want you to be under the impression that upholding your appeal would lead to the elimination of this facility thats near to your home that you are appealing. So i encourage you if you want to keep active, continue to think about contacting your members of the board of supervisors, other folks who are organizing to change the policies which are governing this which then this board is subject to really thinking through was this permit properly issued. So we are listening we are hearing every word. We really care deeply about the things before you but we also have a duty we need to uphold in terms of what are the bounds and the role we have to play here. So with that said, i would submit, i have not heard evidence that would persuade me this permit has not been properly issued. I agree. I believe that was a wonderful comment. That was wonderful. We do care a lot. I had a doctor say you should get affairs in order. I have seen my children go through lifethreatening illnesses when no one five generations before me has ever had these illnesses. So i constantly say profit over humanity humanity. I believe in this particular case, that is so. Weve had hundreds of cases. Shes been on for a year. My Vice President and i have been here over seven years. Weve heard hundreds of cases with many many really bright attorneys and appellants and public that have come before us giving personal statements legal argument and at the end of the day, even after this legislation, we are still here, and we are not able to break that code. We are extremely extremely sympathetic. As i mentioned in the last hearing, you know we all lived in San Francisco. Most of us have families. Most of us have a cell tower on our block. I do. And so extremely sympathetic. And i hope in the future that in the very near future that well get a handle on this 4g and 5 go but as my commissioner put, what is before us, we dont, at this point theres nothing that says that we should overturn this particular permit. Anybody else . So i would like to say had i had the chance, i would have been before the motion was offered, i would have offered another motion which i probably would have got slapped down for or we would have ended up in court, i would love to continue this item until we had my motion would have been to continue the item until we had a clear view from the department of health only take three votes to pass that motion. And so that would be my motion. I would support that. My City Attorney might not like that very much. But that would be my alternative motion that we continue this case until because we have my point on this is nobody knows. And the Health Department has been dragging their feet, really. I mean weve requested over and over again. So, you know the call of the chair would be let us continue this until the department of health responds to us, to our request and comes to the city to you the citizens of San Francisco they do their job. We are not scientists. And we get resolution on this. And then i dont know whether disclosure theres closure but at least something further. You can make that motion. I just said i didnt see anything but i would be willing to support that motion. I want to say i dont understand the Practical Impact considering they have a license and they want to go forward. You know thats my comment. I absolutely agree with you 100 percent. And ill continue to make my motion. If i get shot down i get shot down. Make your motion, mr. President. My motion is to continue this item until the department of health come comes forth with their requested update of the 2010 of the 2010 opinion on the subject of the health and welfare of cell towers and other telecommunication devices. Okay. So we have a motion from president swig to continue this matter until the department of Public Health updates their memo and responds to the boards request regarding the Health Effects of wireless networks. That motion. [roll call vote] okay that motion carries with three votes. Applaud applaud. The matter[applause] no clapping in the chamber. Sorry. Item 8 appeal 19110 the empire group versus San Francisco public works, subject property, 301 pine street, appealing to San Franciscos hometown creamery, sells ice cream and waffle cones. This is permit number 18mff0113. Madame executive director, i have to recuse myself on this item because of a conflict of interest that i might have because of some ownership on a property very close to the subject. Okay. We will wait for president swig to exit the room before we start this matter. Lucky dog. Thank you very much for your patience. Whatever. Exactly. Lets get this going please. Go. Do we need the services of the Sheriffs Office at this point . Or are we were good. Thank you so much. Thank you. My favorite sheriff. Bye, rick. Good night. We will hear from the appellants first. Mr. Gladstone. Good evening and welcome good evening. Thank you for being patient. We had some long cases. Thank you. Of course. Good evening. I havent been here in a long time. I would like to introduce my colleague another attorney, allan lynch who is helping me tonight. I, of course representing the empire group the owner of 301 pine street. As you probably saw from the pictures, its one of the most Historic Buildings in town. The former stock exchange. And it has in it houses the Equinox Health club and the earth bar restaurant. As you can see from the columns in the facade, its one of the more beautiful places to hang out on the big steps below. And we believe the location is not compliant with the public works code and that d. P. W. s permit issuance should be reversed. The most simple violation is not adhering to the 75foot radius rule. The rule says that no food trucks can be within 75foot radius of any restaurant as measured from the center line of the primary entrance to the restaurant. There is an exception to this rule stating the rule shall not apply if the restaurant does not have direct street access to its primary entrance. Additional rule states that no mff may park within 50 street of the active street facing facade of a restaurant if the streetfacing if a said extends beyond 75 feet from the restaurants primary entrance. The code doesnt define active streetfacing facade. We are certain however, that the 301 pine street steps qualify. They are actively and again the word is actively used by the public all day for sunning and eating and meeting friends. And i just want to point out that this can be a basis of revocation alone setting aside whether you agree with us later that well setting aside whether there are other grounds tonight. So lets talk about the 75foot radius issue for a minute. Neither d. P. W. Nor permit holder disputes tonight that earth bar is a restaurant. And you can figure that out by reading their letters to you in which they call it a restaurant. Also tonight theres no dispute that earth bar operating at the same time of day as the food truck would operate. And nobody else nobody disputes the proposed mobile food facility is within 75 feet of the front of 301 pine. What is being disputed tonight is whether or not the entrance to the restaurant the same entrance as the entrance to the health club, is in fact its, quote primary entrance. Any suggestion, however, this is not the primary entrance we think is unreasonable. First the front door to the 301 pine street is the only entrance to the restaurant. The applicant points to a small sod door on a side ally and says that this is the primary entrance. In fact, it is a location that only serves several purposes. Its for wheelchair access. Its for emergency egress. And its locked at all times for security reasons. Second, there is external signage stating the earth bar is open to the public. If you look here at the bottom of the material it says open to the public. And an entrance is primary or not without regard to where signage happens to be located. Signage has nothing to do with whats a primary entrance. Even if it was relevant to what the primary entrance may be, our client could not put signage on the front door nor can the health club as its a historic feature of a Historic Building. Likewise as seen here the health club again no signage on the front door. I would like to go through what you see as a member of the public walking toward that front door. When you walk up the stairs, you begin to see that massive front door and you go through the door and you have a choice. And let me point this out to you by looking at this plan. This plan shows an entrance that you just saw there to that historic door. Then you walk a step or two here and you are now in whats called the lounge area of the restaurant where food is served back here. Here is the emergency exit and the handicap elevator. When you walk through this door you dont have to go by a concierge. Theres a concierge here at this entrance who checks your id to go into the health club which is here. Many people simply walk through here and go straight to the lounge area of the health club, which is right here. The 2014 Building Permit the applicants site in their favor actually supports our case in that it shows the tenant improvements for the restaurant includes the lounge. And its an area where people can be seen consuming items and well show you some photos of that, that is consuming the items they buy at the restaurant. The proximity to the gym front checkin is not relevant. Again, there is direct access and theres no barrier or other item that is an impediment to walking into the restaurant. D. P. W. Says that generally public works considers a primary entrance to be one that clearly labels the front. That is a rule of thumb. Its generally true. They admit its not always true. The most important thing i i wanted to mention and i seem to be running out of time is that phils coffee also tried to get a food truck permit around the corner from here in front of the club known as the city club. It was turned down. It was turned down for the same reason. You have time for rebuttal. We will now hear from the permit holders. Thank you for being patient. Welcome back. I remember you guys from two years ago now or is it a year and a half . About a year and a half. May i get the projections . Overhead, please good evening commissioners. My brother and i own San Franciscos hometown creamery. We are going to start off by going line by line on what the appellant put forward. The first claim the appellant has raised the 75foot requirement only applies to restaurants that have direct street access to its primary entrance. This can be found in section e93 of the code. The requirement shall apply only if the restaurant has direct street access to its primary entrance. At this location immediately upon walking into the primary entrance of 301 pine street you enter a front desk check in area of the gymnasium. Looking and moving westward within the building theres a designated retail pro shop. After walking within the building further westward through the designated pro shop you arrive at a juice bar referred to as the restaurant. This is consistent with the layouts the appellants submitted for their permit in 2014, building department. I would like to point out the sign that reads earth bar open to the public is not located at the front of 301 pine street. Instead its located down an ally where general pedestrians would be most likely unable to see it on century. Even if a pedestrian managed to spot the sign, theres no way for them to know how to access the juice bar. The sign hangs above a door down an ally way. Then you walk up the stairs into a door that is locked. Further more, there is no signage or directions to get to the juice bar in the ally, just outside of 301 pine, or even once enter the gymnasium check in area. And i would like to touch on the fact that they said there are no signage because its a Historic Building in the front. In the brief i submitted there are two distinct signs that show equinox and four that promote the brand of equinox a health facility. It is worth noting that the door and the sign from where mff is located is 181 feet from where the sign the door is placed in front of. The second concern they raised, we have obtained all requisites including thereth room portion. We have no desire to jump into the sandbox. We have been told the appellant has pressured neighboring landlords and businesses within 200 feet to prohibit them from allowing mff operators to utilize the restrooms. Which if true, i personally feel undermined the entire code and is an act of bad faith. We were fortunate to find someone with the authority with the authority to provide access to their restroom. However, we are in no hurry to put them in an awkward position. We plan to submit it just prior to operating. In regards to the past experience with phils coffee, there are two distinctions between us that situation and ours. One is that we are operating at a different location. Phils coffee operated at 155 pine. Im sorry 155 samson street where the sidewalk widthth is ten feet. Our location and its important to point that this was where phils coffee operated. It never operated where we will be, which our location is at 301 pine street where the sidewalk width is over 16 feet. Another distinction is our operation. Our operation is a fast grab and go operation where our offerings are limited and prepared beforehand. Patrons are able to order pay and be provided their ice cream in under 60 seconds. Phils coffee has an array of options. This operation involving placing a specified order with many different modifiers. A preparation time of at least five minutes. In regards to the fire hydrant, the appellant is correct the red zone distance from the fire hydrant is 6 feet and 7 inches. The appellant fails to note the parking meter is 24 feet from the fire hydrant and the length of our fff is 14 feet providing potential for a tenfoot clearance between our mff and the fire hydrant. To give an example of the small footprint our mff has. There you see a Standard Food truck and then you see the mff we are operating out of, our vw ice cream. In conclusion, we would like to say we followed all the requirements set forth in the code. We respectfully ask the board to not overturn our permit and allow my brother and me to continue our pursuit in growing our business. Thank you. Im happy to answer any questions. I have a couple. First of all. According to the brief, a wash basin is not required for your facility. I believe i read in the brief they wash station is not required for your facility . Is that true . A wash station . Like a handwashing station in the facility itself maybe ill ask the department. Are you asking if we have a hand washing station in the truck . We do. Okay. And then this body allowed your permit to go forward in front of macys a year and a half ago. Is that food truck up and running . Yes. Weve had zero issues. Weve made a lot of friends. And we get a lot of people from there that have become big fans. We have had zero issues. Thank you. That was my question. That was it. Thank you. No more questions. We will hear from the department. Good evening president swig, Vice President lazarus and members of the board. My name is nicholas representing San FranciscoPublic Works Bureau of streets and mapping. Just to back up a step quickly and give a quick overview of this permit application the applicant San Francisco creamery first submitted an application on december 28, 2018 for two locations. The first being 301 pine street the second being 2298 post street. After reviewing the application it was found the post street location was not in compliance with the location requirement in the public works code. According to the applicant voluntarily withdrew the location on march 20 of 2019. Public works accepted the site plan for the remaining 301 pine street location which is before you today. On march 22, 2019 for operation on mondays wednesdays and fridays from 11 to 3 p. M. Public works proceeded to send out a notification as required by the public works codon april 10,. They posted a notification in 2019. In response the public notification, public works received ten letters in support and two letters of objection before the deadline of may 10, 2019 to submit comments. It led to a directors hearing to hear comments on this permit. Following the public hearing director granted conditional approval to San Franciscos hometown creamery and the permit was approved by the department of september 6 of 2019. Having thoroughly reviewed the application against article 5. 8 of the public works code, public works does believe this permit was issued in compliance with the outlined permit proceduring of these documents. I believe our departments brief was to the point. Im more than happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the permit application of this appeal. Two questions. Yeah. So the primary argument for the appellant is that they are saying primary entrance. And both briefs were done very well. The permit holders says its direct access. So does the direct access negate the primary entrance . If the Side Entrance is only for emergency use, that is not a primary entrance. Yes so it would have to meet two conditions. It would have to have direct access and be a primary entrance. So it has one but doesnt meet the other. Its a primary entrance but doesnt have direct access. Correct. The second question is its required to have a bathroom. Where is the bathroom at . The restroom verification within 200 feet . Correct so that is a department of Public Health requirement. To be a bit more specific how can a permit be issued if theres been no verification of where that bathroom is located . Overhead please. Overhead, please. So the california statute that essentially outlines the policy is the California Health and safety code section 114315 and that essentially requires it shall be operated within the00 feet travel distance of an approved toilet and hand washing facility or otherwise approved by the Enforcement Agency to ensure facilities are available to the employees or wherever it is as to whiched to conduct business for more than a onehour period. In San Francisco the appropriate Enforcement Agency is the department of Public Health for issuing the department of Public Health permit. Our public works order which granted them approval of this permit does state that once the permit is approved, they are required to get all relevant approval it is within a 90day period. In addition when the permit is renewed we will ask to see an updated copy of their Public Health permit, advising they are allowed to operate and Public Health will not grant that permit unless they have submitted that. Doesnt require the restroom be indicated prior. Correct. Theres nothing in the code. We did advise the applicant of the requirement very clearly. They did not want to give us the form. But they said they have the location and we will take them at their word and review their permit upon renewal each year. Thank you. Thank you. So im just ive been studying this public works order and i keep going around on it in circles. But since you are public works and these are your guideline its, maybe you can help me. It says measure from the center line of the entrance to the restaurant. The exclusion under c is the requirement the 75foot requirement applies only if restaurant has direct street access to i assume you meant its primary entrance. So its not really two conditions. Isnt the question whether the primary entrance of the restaurant has street access . So it would be direct. So the issue in this case is that as you enter that primary entrance you get into a lobby, you have to go through benches various aparol thats for sale before you actually get to the restaurant. I dont think thats quite right. So imagine so theres two situations. Theres a restaurant where the door, just a regular restaurant. The door is set back from the street. Okay. Imagine theres like a pedestrian walkway or prom nod and its 100 feet back from the street and theres adoor and thats the restaurant. Then theres a situation where its in a mall, theres a bunch of restaurants upstairs and downstairs. And in those situations, the primary entrance to those restaurants doesnt have direct street access. The primary entrance is inside the mall. Right . Isnt that what this means . In which case if you are saying the primary entrance is the door to the exchange, then theres a problem with the food truck. In my problem the entrance is the three feet in front of the juice bar. But what are you saying the primary entrance is . The way we have interpreted that code section is essentially two things we mention in our brief. The door should be labeled that its for the restaurant and it should take you directly from the public right of way to the restaurant. Public works has seen this before. This board of appeals has seen this before with this applicant for example in front of macys which has a restaurant in it. That permit was proximate to the macys entrance when theres the Cheesecake Factory in macys. So essentially the way we view it is if theres any type of gap between the door to the building and where the actual restaurant begins it wouldnt be subject to the 75foot restaurant requirement. Period . Period so the restaurant has no protection from a food truck outside of the building where the restaurant is essentially. You are saying its completely outside of the scope. Because its further inside the building. Okay. And theres a gap. Im not convinced thats what this means but thats how you are saying you interpret it thats fine but i dont think thats what this means. I think this means that the primary entrance is the way you get to the restaurant. And if that entrance is more than doesnt have direct street access then this doesnt apply. Does that make sense . So you know the big double doors at Cheesecake Factory thats the primary entrance. Doesnt have direct street access so it doesnt apply. As i read this, thats what these words mean. I agree. Might want to go back and talk to whoever at public works drafted it. I agree. Its in the ordinance . Yeah, i mean so. Anyway. Probably none of that matters. The ordinance is different. So why is the language different between these two things brad, our City Attorney . I cant say why its different but there is an ordinance that has the same restriction its just worded differently. It says the prohicks set forth in section 4 shall on prohibition set forth in section 4 shall only apply