Use cellphones in the world. Cellular antennas in california, 2019, 2,023,382 and climbing. The wealth creates aspects at 20 to 30 trillion in the next few years. Wealth is the major influencer and motivator for this technology. Wealth can create agreed that ignores wisdom and interrupts the essence of lifes pulsation within the universe and eternity. Just to support the appeal stance behind article 25 of the 1996 fel1996 telecommunicationst can stand behind a precautionary principle resolution and have faith in the recent Court Decisions in recent to win their day in court for all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is page hudson. Im happy to be here tonight. I am have prepared comments so im just going to speak to you from my heart as a very concerned citizen who has been very steeped in this process of trying to educate our communities here in california and across the nation about the dangers of small cell closerange cellular towers. I often ponder why were still having this conversation when there are over 2,000 peer review studies that show the dramatic impact that even lower levels of three and four g are having on our population. Ranging from headaches and discomfort and sleeping to the most severe which is of course glioblastoma and brain tumors. As a cancer survive or myself, my son is a cancer survivor and my friend is battling glioblastoma and her doctors have advised her it was a result of wireless routers and cell phone towers in her neighborhood. Im asking the question about why were still having this conversation because with this evidence at lower levels, our population is at risk for serious modifications in their d. N. A. And the answer is because of a very outdated, unjust Telecommunications Act in 1996 that says that we as a population cannot resist the roll out of these highlevel small cell towers based on selfconcerns. I cant imagine a reason more important than our health to do so and the burden of proof should not fall on us to say its dangerous when the Telecommunications Companies were before the Senate Hearings and were asked how much money they had spent in determining the safety of these higher level radiation small cell towers. The answer was not one single dollar. So, we are going to be used as guinea pigs as they rolled us out without your help to protect us. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Were going to move on to rebuttal. Two minutes or thro three mi. Three minutes. Ok. Here i thought i was just going to be all by myself today, little did i know. Thank you t. Everyone who made comments. I think youve totally freaked me out. Just so you know how i came here, i actually started as just a person who had this thing posted on the pole right outside my house. I wanted to find more information, honestly, wanted to find more information. I used my phone, i like it. I have heard these things are controversial. I wanted to understand what was being proposed. There were questions about the directional nature and what was shared. This may be on the overhead. Overhead . Thank you. The only thing i could see was this, this arrow pointing at my house. Thats how this started, honestly. And, actually, the second antenna more powerful pole top, i wasnt worried about it at first because i could get no information on that. I contacted the same time i asked about the rs measuring and i asked for all the measure. Should i even file a protest. I have no idea. I didnt get the information until after the protest dates. So i did file a protest. The reason i wasnt freaked out was because of this. It said that this is the Planning Department s. A. Q. S are published on small cells and it says that theyre rounded but theyre directional and they primarily are focused up and down the streets and not directly into the residents behind the pole. So im look ok, thats cool. That sounds pretty good to me. Im going to be able to live with this thing 12 feet outside my bedroom window. It wasnt until after the protests were filed that i saw the memo that described the omni directional antenna on top, which i did have to go to websters and make sure i knew what it meant. Twentyninth an telthe second ad east. They emailed xnet to get clarified. Cue leave that on the overhead. I didnt mean to interrupt. So thats kind of how i ended up here. This is a little schematic for you. When i did start to get a little freaked out about the omni directional pole, this is our building. This is the pole. This is the bedroom. And this is my home office. So i was like whoa, this is, you know, weird. I dont know about this. But i get it. Its fcc and were not allowed to talk about it. What i want to say at the end of the day, im really talking about a process here. Obviously these are super controversial and the i should be dotted and t should be crossed and the information should be provided and i dont think they should be approved if that information isnt correct and after t after it to the res. Thank you and your brief was very well done for a first timer. Thank you. Well now hear from the permit holder. Joe again with x net systems. I wanted to comment on a couple of comments that weve heard over the last few minutes. There was a gentleman that referenced that what you are seeing here on these quoteunquote small shells on street lights and utility poles are the sale thing you see on roof tops on macro sites. Its true that some of the equipment used is the same but they are most definitely not the same thing. He referenced something about a site with an erp of 7,000 watts. It has a site of 154 watts. As a result, the exposure levels are very small. We mentioned in this particular report, they note the highest level of exposure would be 18 of the fccs limit. Which again is five times below the maximum allowable standard. So, i dont believe theres any error in our documentation. I dont believe d. P. H. Made errors in this documentation. There may have been uncertainty about exactly what this antenna is. Is that direction right. The report is correct. The documentation we provided is correct. And weve tried to clarify that at the protest stage and again tonight. I cant shes right that i did not communicate all of this well or on time. None of that results in non compliance with any of the conditions of approval. I have apologized to her for being six months late in the response about exactly how she should go about obtaining readings when the site is installed. She has that information now. I think the board is familiar with how that process works. Im happy to answer questions about that if there are still questions. I do believe that we have satisfied our requirements and the permit was rightfully issued. Question. 5g or 4g. 4g. Thank you. Second question. What is the process to convert 4g to 5g . Is it the equipment the same and is it the permitting process for that . A lot of that is still in the works. From what weve seen so far the equipment is not the same. In fact it has a different form factor. Weve worked with city agencies over the last several months. Public works and publichealth the puc, mta, the Planning Department, the department of technology and weve all sort of reviewed what 5g might look like Going Forward. And it has a different form factor. You cant just flip a switch and converting it, is it administrative or is there a permit process involved . Well, thats a complicated question. The answer to that question is complicated by the action the board of supervisors took recently where this type of facility would no longer require a permit regardless of whether its 4g or 5g. The people involved should contact their legislators if they want a voice in this . Agreed. Last question, are you the only person that responds or is there a team and when you are out of town or on vacation, is there an out of town or vacation message . I wonder if i can table that. I did want to respond that if a carrier wanted to upgrade a sito 5g or its an upgrade or change in the way the site operates, we would have to have an additional review by publichealth. Even if no other permits are actually required. The publichealth theres an additional process, its not just administrative. Yes, we are required to notify youve seen the conditions of approval. Theyve been drawn into question as part of this appeal. We have conditions of approval that require if we change something, it has to be reviewed by publichealth to ensure that change does not result in conditions that would exceed the exposure limits. Theres still a requirement to work with d. P. H. On that. Are you the only person that responds . No. This is sort of a perfect storm in that i was working with a small team of people, one of which was just let go right before this happened in may. I happened to be out of town. We hadnt really put into place how this should work Going Forward. Murphys law. It slipped through the cracks. I should have done better and i should have followed up by i didnt and i apologize for that. I hope we have a plan in place where that wouldnt happen Going Forward and we demonstrated in our time working with San Francisco that we have been responsive to requests like that. This one fell through the cracks. Thank you for being honest. Thank you. Thank you. Anything further . Mr. Sanchez, anything further . Commissioners, this matter is submitted. Commissioners. I have to say i consider this matter somewhat moot. I agree. As my Vice President has indicated prior, with the current recent legislation from the San Francisco board of supervisors, this would not no long are be heard in front of this particular forum. Permits not required. Its administrative through the p. U. C. At this point. Just as a side note, i mean, weve heard quite a few cases on this. We are very concerned. Weve asked publichealth to step up. We understand this is just for me personally, i feel that this is just like the Tobacco Industry in the 50s and as one person stated, i too am a stage 4 cancer surviver, my son is a cancer survivor and my daughter had kidney failure. I get it more than most people. At this point, was the permit issued properly . I believe it was. Again, Going Forward, this will not be in front of our body. I want to make a motion. Just from a housekeeping purposes, and because it was brought up and this is sen ovo, id like to ask our council why or why not the precautionary principle that was mentioned is valid or invalid in todays hearing . You have answered it in the past. Why think it was brought up to this particular case. That is a in Public Comment it was. It does not provide it does not put any duty on the board to take action and it compiles with article 25 of the public works code. Thank you. Motion. Move to denial the appeal that the permit was properly issued and the permit is no longer required. We have a motion from Vice President lazarus to denial the appeal and on the basis that its a permit is no longer required for this type of pole. That motion commissioner aye. Honda. Aye. Tanner. Aye. President swig. Aye. So that motion carries 50 and the appeal is denied. Were going to take a brief how many minutes you need . Fiveminute break, please. Well be back here at 7 25. Thank welcome back to the regular meeting of the board of appeals. Todays november 20th, 2019. We are now on items 7a, 7b and 7b. Appeals number 19071, 072 and 073. Ingrid evans, gissel and kay lean versus San Francisco public works, bureau of street use and mapping subject property 2735 green city on june 14th, 2019 to gte mobile net of california lp of a personal Wireless Service facility site permit. Construction of a personal Wireless Service facility and this is permit number 18wr0185 and we will hear from ms. Evans first. You have seven minutes. Good evening, ingrid evans. For the record, all appellants, evans, klein pa tell would like to join in the brief and arguments of the others for appeal. The public works ordinance 19019 that you talked about making a lot of these appeals moot. And i would argue in this situation, it is not moot. The reason why it is not moot is because permit 18wr0185 was applied for and issued and appealed all before july 1st, 2019 and that is before the ordinance was enacted which was august 9th, 2019, ok. Ordinances are not applied retroactively unless the ordinance law expressly says so. This ordinance does not allow for it to be retroactive and it is not applicable and does not moot this appeal. That is a California Supreme Court decision that says that these laws cannot be retroactive. Myers versus Phillip Morris company 8282002 case. Notice is a procedural due process requirement that is required under the california constitution and california state law. The California Supreme Court requires procedural due process to be strictly complied with and notice is shall requirement under 1512 of San Francisco public works code. Here, the notice must go to the residents of 150 feet to the cow hallow Association Posted inconspicuously. I would argue that the brief addresses all the issue of notice, however the Association Notice i want to take on a little more details here. What we requested when we wrote to verizon we did not get a mailing list from them as to what addresses they sent the notice to. And we learned in the opposition for the first time, from d. P. W. And verizon that the mailing list included old addresses for the cal hallow association. It did not encloud the current president or the cal hallow association p. O. Box. They are required to adhere to that requirement of notice and if they dont, this permit is procedurally flawed and cannot be granted. Next issue is i would like to submit the evidence of the cal hallow Association Website that shows the proper address that should have been served in this situation and in administrative hearings like this. Theres no procedure for a reply brief but the California Supreme Court and superior court allows for reply briefs and its required if there are new issues raised. Both the issues of 19019 and the issue of notice which was different than the notice packet that we were provided when i requested notice from the subcontractor verizon are new issues that came up first on opposition so im entitled to reply of those issues and id ask the board to consider my supplemental evidence as a late submission. I have peeved approved and verizon so it asked the court some place that for the notice issue. Can you go on notice verbally. Its by the rules of this bod its too late to sub submit anything further . There were two pictures i believe its often procedurally they have not complied with the rule. Lastly, the issues of health and specifically the issues of public and private nuisance. The briefs verizon claimed that public and private nuisance are preempted and the Health Issues are preempted. Specifically in california, common law is not pre elemented and theyre common law remedies that are not preempted and can be brought. So there are fcc regulation thats preempt the cities and counties from doing certain things regarding health and safety and we know that and we know that is a common issue but i dont believe the private citizen has been raised and i believe that is a proper remedy that can be brought to stop these permits from being issued. Lastly, the case that i raised earlier requiring a nipa and Environmental Impact. The united versus fcc case which was decided by the d. C. Circuit, i think mandates in this situation that the board hold off on issuing anymore of these permits or allowing these permits to go forward until theres been a comprehensive Environmental Impact and until theres been a study as president swig as requested from d. P. H. Weve been waiting for that for a while and i not seen anything come out and we would be the find of the health and safety of these issues. Well hear from the next appellant. Good evening. Good evening. My name is ashley breakfield. I represent gissel who is here with me tonight on her appeal. We have a disclosure from president swig stop the time. Represent me on unrelated issues and prior and their presence will not impact my view in anyway, shape or form on this item. My apologies. No problem, thank you. Start the time. At the outset, i want to recognize that this board and its already been said tonight, everyone stole my thunder has heard hundreds of these kinds of appeals before. We understand that youve heard many if not all of the same arguments before. Ive watched hearings and preparation for today and i know that despite the number of times youll all phased these issues youve given thoughtful consideration to them and its appreciated. The number of these appeals youve seen speaks to something important and thats the Community Members continue to be concerned about the facilities. And they feel uniformed, left without recourse to have their concerns addressed and they look for whatever avenue they can find that allows them to alert the city about problems with the process and issues with potential Health Impacts. That avenue leads directly to this board. And i know you have also expressed some concerns. I know on the june 19th hearing the board engage in lengthy discussion about this at the june 26th hearing you asked officially for dph to update its 2010 memo and it was spoken about and they have not yet done it. I feel before getting into the merits because its important to play my clients appeal and the other appeal well have into context. We recognize that your hands are tied when it comes to the over all regulatory process concerning Wireless Service facilities. Community members including my client are concerned about the lack of transparency and communication between city agencies, the fcc and the public. Whether its regarding updates to help impact studies or changes to the permitting process. They feel left in the dark and theyre made aware of changes when they find out an insulation is happening outside their bedroom window. These are concerns and the context is important. Onto the merits. As stated in our brief our appeal has forming arguments and see if the other appellants tonight. The project is in violation of the d. P. W. Condition that no polls are placed. The project is in violation of the condition that the personal Wireless Service facility not obstruct views. Planning incorrectly determined the application meets the compatibility standard and the d. P. H. Determined that the application complies with the publichealth compliance standard. I was amused half heart touchdown remind medicine of my dark days in litigation and i would argue their response doesnt address the issue. This is a poll thats not there and its not a replica of the existing polls. My client didnt write the language and d. P. W. Did. Contrary that the basis this argument is not public works section 1500, stated in our brief d. P. W. Notice for this project which went out to members of the public for providing members with information relevant to their concerns, stated to no but polls be erected or placed in underground distance. They take it in face value and rely it and it goes to the heart of what i spoke about earlier the public is frustrated by a back door process. They dont provide critical information and theres a clear condition it would not obstruct views. Nothing cites the other d. P. W. Orders. Thats all the language says and thats all the public has to rely on when theyre reviewing these notices they get. In particular a copy or reference of 184504 is nowhere in the final determination. D. P. W. Cites to a single email so its unclear what got the email that does recover to these orders. Its not the same as the Planning Department staff explaining in their approval how they concluded that a particular project will meet or not meet the various conditions of approval. On the third issue, both verizon and d. P. W. Dismiss the argument the project is on a site based on statements. Both claim the Wireless TelecommunicationsServices Guidance cited by my client yet nowhere does it say that. Either do d. P. W. Or verizon cites any evidence in support of their statement. They ignore the city planning data for wireless permit project cited on page 5foot note 3. As noted, there are other streets named excellent for wireless and the Planning Department approval failed to discuss alternative locations proved indicating that none were considered. On the issue of publichealth which is what weve heard about tonight, i circle back to my comments at the beginning. As this board discussed in several hearings, d. P. H. Based on an incredibly outdated 1996 study. Although several organizations have reviewed the effect of emissions from transmitters, no formal updates have been made. Given pre emion issues, dph is not able to fully address potential health and safety issues. Further, ftc has not provided the public with studies or reports explaining the longterm Health Impacts associated with human exposure and radio frequently energy and in an argument, dpw charges my client that emissions from the proposed wireless would exceed fcc limits. I believe it falls on city agencies while its true that post insulation and operations verizon is required to test r. F. Emissions the board that can imagine the residents of the this city, my client are weary of trusting a process that they feel has not been transparent. This is particularly so when d. P. W. In just a the prior brass essentially told the resident to do their work for them. As i noted at the outset you hear these appeals because there are a lot of concerns. And while the track record for these appeals is not good, concerned residents will continue to feel to bring these issues to this board. And to the attention of whatever city body will hear them. In the hope that these issues can be corrected, the process can be transparent and improperly approved to determinations like this one can be overturned. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the next appellant. Hi, there. My name is kayle patel. I list at the address of the pole. Overhead, please. Its right outside of my childrens bedroom window. When you find out this is going up you start doing research as much as you can. Your disturbed to learn that yes, it is very outdated reserve and that it refers to things being below the horizontal beam where this is directly in line with it. It feels very discouraging to know that theres no further Health Studies in that there dont seem to be any fourth coming whatever health study have been done are not longterm and do not include the current technology. Youve heard all this before. The thing that yao understand why why are there so many . Why are there so many permits for these antennas. If you look at a map, its like measles. Roxanne lives around the corner from me theres another one going down a block away at lion and green. I dont understand why this is being pushed on us. These are Service Providers and we dont want this service. Its continue a case of nimby because this is not a cell tower. These are antennas that only benefit the block its on the but no one on the block wants it. The cell reception is fine. In fact its a lot better now that the russians are gone. You live on that block. They were scrambling. Its not necessary and especially in this magnitude. So the only thing that made sense to me after i thought about it is this is a land grab. The fcc is determined that you cant say no to them putting it on a pole. So of course verizon is going to be an idiot if they dont try to stick their flag on it because someone else will. It makes sense because theres no discipline imposed on how many antennas can be put up in the city. Its just a free for all. Theyre going to ask for as many permits. Even though its not needed. Theres a cell tower on the hill above lion street that gives us great reception. I would beg that there would be some discipline imposed on the necessity for these towers. I know that your hands are tied. In a lot of ways. I think that its important for the municipalities to have control over what their constituents want. For health concerns, for property values, for just lack of any benefits, these should be revisited and hopefully theres a way that San Francisco can reassert its authority to decide what it wants based on what its citizens want. And i think that what you are hearing is the citizens do not want this. They do not need it. And that their concerns are much greater than any benefit that comes from having these. So i beg that whatever discretion that you have, please use it towards an act of reason imposing discipline and finding someway to mandate more studies. If you can please use your position and power to find ways to do this and hopefully allow San Francisco to have more control over its regulations. I would appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Well hear from the permit holder. We havent seen you in a bit, counselor. Presence swig and Vice President las lazarus, we do our best to avoid bringing appeals facilities up before you and there are many applications Going Forward and i know youve seen many of them. I was counting, weve had two or three dozen come before you and weve been doing this for about 10 years and have hundreds of sites throughout San Francisco. Theres careful attention to that. With respect to the history, i was renewing this sixth twoyear utility condition permit for Verizon Wireless for small cells in San Francisco. Our First Utility condition permit in 2008 includes the indemnity tee and insurance provisions required under the code for a separate permit for all of our facilities in addition to these individual permits. You probably remember that this whole process went before the board of supervisors. They looked at the design and they eliminated some design and allowed this design and we have to go through the San FranciscoPublic Utility Commission to get a master lease for these facilities and an individual site license which weve done for this facility as well. The design itself, you all remember, omar mastry. I use the old name of ieee. I have not called you guys the board of permit appeals for a long time. We went through with omar mass re, careful, long twoyear process coming up with this design which was ultimately copied by at t. We took the design before the Historic Commission in order for those facilities in front of historic locations in order to come up with a process that has been carefully worked through with the department of public works and the Planning Department in terms of their level of review and the department of publichealth, you have some of the most rigorous review of any community that i know of with respect to these applications and 11point point checklist and information reviewed by a publichealth officer at the rig or and transparent see in San Francisco is superb and San Francisco has that reputation and it deserves to have that kind of process. As a result, we do have over 400 small cells in San Francisco now that are operating providing an extremely vital service. You probably heard of the recent test of the earthquake Warning System which will send text message moments before an earthquake and thats the kind of robust capacity that Verizon Wireless and other carriers have to have to reach every member of the community with a moments notice of an earthquake. The reason for our facilities are close to neighborhoods and theyre low wattage, this facility the lowest we get to 122 watts is designed to provide that kind of capacity and service in the time of crisis and in generally put the types of services that people demand. I want to quickly run through some of the issues raised. There was a notice issue raised in the briefing this evening that those arguments were cut back substantially. Because ms. Evans is not in the notice radius the initial information did not provide all the address notices. It is subsequently in the brief submitted by d. P. W. And Verizon Wireless and it led to some of the confusion with respect to the cal hallow Neighborhood Association section 1512 of article 25, requires that we provide notice to the Neighborhood Associations at the address identified by the Planning Department. So the process is we go to a contractor who then goes to the Planning Department web page and down loads the addresses to be provided and thats the address we use. This particularly facility was noticed in september of 2018 and also in march of 2019 on the list there are throw representatives from the cal hallow association and on the Planning Department web page it says the Neighborhood Associations are responsible for insuring the address they provide to the Planning Department is uptodate and thats the address we use for the cal hallow Neighborhood Association and we also notified the marina cal hallow Neighborhood Association so there were two Neighborhood Association thats were identified. With respect to the photographs of the pole that appears in this september photograph, they consultant had two of the same polls and didnt plan the photographs. As the d. P. W. Brief reveals, all three are photographed in the march notice that went out and the notices were there and the photograph was mixed up. That is the issue of notice. There was an issue of sims. It wasnt raised this evening. We hadnt pointed the arrow. And i just have to say that d. P. W. Says in this brief the radios are a parent from the sims. These radios are only 10 inches wife, five inches deep and unless you look closely you dont realize theyre there and thats the concept behind this facility. The antenna is the height of the pole by two feet. With these narrow radios next to it. Its clear and d. P. W. And their brief that a replacement pole is not a new pole and i dont think its ground district thats a question. If d. P. W. Sun able or ever able to replace a broken light standard, after its been hit by a car was it was a new pole instead of a replacement pole we would be missing light standards in San Francisco. There was also the claim that we didnt meet the compatibility standard somehow this block used. Ive just got with you many times the Planning Department did a very careful review and they have to determine whether and they conclude this does not significantly detract from the defining characteristics of the residential neighborhood and its clear. You have made that determination many times and thats based on that very careful design and we have no exposed cables and we have tight conditions in terms of the angle of the conduit that enters into the pole and the kinds of what the design must look like with respect to views, you know that the code does not protect private views and there is a condition of approval that we agreed to that says we wont obstruct lighter view and then the definition of it under order 184504 which is in order to obstruct the view it has to be within eight feet of a window and 20 inches in diameter and in this case i believe were 33 feet away from the closest window and there isnt anyway we can obstruct views and we also believe that the Planning Department accurately confirmed that theres no significant impairment of any anesthetic attributes of any Historic Resource in the area. We dont think theres with this type of facility, this light standard type of facility any concern in that regard. With respect to r. F. Theres been a substantial discussion about the Health Effects. This facility lowest wattage, 122 watts. On the ground it will be. 054 of the. 056 of the fcc standards that is about 2,000 times pel owe the fcc standard. At the window you are looking at which is 33 feet away from the pole, its less than half a percent. 2,000 times below the window. In this case the antennas are directional, 80 and 260 looking up and down the street so theres no antenna thats facing that building. I guess i should add also in response to some of the comments that i mentioned raj of the hemet and Edson Company was on the subcommittee for the ieee which just concluded their review, they review the standards every seven years and concluded earlier this year and confirmed that the standard should remain at the level that its at with respect to emissions. The fcc has had since 2013 a review process regarding the standards and they announced earlier this summer they were going to reaffirm the standards. Thats because the physics has not changed. The frequencies have not changed. Theyve been around for a long time. And the standards are adequate and are what they should be and they are constantly reviewed. There was the discussion of nuisance and the appellant in that case cites the civil code section that this would be a nuisance and it particularly refers she says that a nuisance that causes injury to health and shes clearly referring to the rf emissions and the rf emissions constituting a nuisance and because were within the fcc standards this is not an issue thats within your purview it would be a civil matter and as she pointed out as well as the d. P. W. Brief points out and an issue if there is a nuisance that she would have that issue with Verizon Wireless. There isnt any because of the Health Effects of the one case thats cited regarding anesthetic impacts for nuisance and its only the impact is unreasonable and were 33 feet away from a window. The case that is cite soldier dealing with a macro tmobile site next to a home and your own order, your own language suggests theres no way this could be considered to be some kind of anesthetic nuisance. There was a question by appellant regarding whether [please stand by] theres no exemption for histord historic preservation. There is in addition to the ceqe already gone through, gone thro, the verizon has to comply with. That review under fcc theres ac that allow certain facilities t. Any facility thats 33 feet, te. And there are other categorical. It took the categorical exemptir small cell facilities and said l lands and you cant do it in th. That review has nothing to do w. Totally different. The review done by fcc in terms. And it puts you through a diffee you have to go through further c but has nothing to do with an e. These are co categorically and e because of its low wattage. I think somebody is having a co. I believe that there was i tl issues. I would be happy to answer any. I personally continue to believ, tremendously. Ive been going through a numbed so forth and the cell phone is y number of alerts that people re, particularly Verizon Wireless, t penetration of generators so wes operating. With all the concerns you hear s facilities i hope you bear in ma situation where a cell phone cat potentially saved their lives oe potential harm or discomfort. With that ill sit down or answ. Ill be back for reboughtal. 4g or 5g . Short answer or long answer . This is a 4g facility. It could not be converted to 5g. Review. As well as obtain the licensr this site . We already have the license right. Which raises the question of i know. Yeah. We go through rigorous analysis. Do you have any . Go ahead. This is the most time youve. I apologize. The attorneys were very good. And as usual, your brief is wele appellants question. Your briefs are very concise. And they do answer it. You mention in time of crisis, l towers. So in that type of situation, al towers were not working. Theres no backup battery for t. So during a major crisis, are ty working . There are a lot of crises thr remains up. We recently had a shooting for. You mentioned specifically e. In earthquakes as in 89 when ia couple days and a good portion. So without power, does this tow . This particular individual st putting battery backup on these. We could put battery backup but. But there are many emergencies. I was also here in 1989 and my. Not mine. Maybe you should consider ve. [laughter] and so like i said, when youf crisis, as in the fires, a lot t working, especially small towerp battery and to answer a questioe its a small tower without a huf wattage, correct . I think youre asking me a ci promise. And verizon had a very good rec. We had 97 percent of our facilih bay fires and they were all bac. In the last instance, we had on. We had statewide 188 running on. So it was verizon remained very. The Small Cell Network is very. 72 percent of homes now. 72 percent of homes dont have. So there isnt another way to rf emergency. And in that earthquake warning e earthquake. So your power is going to be on. I heard interesting discussionsy about pg e and main tearing p maintaining power in the city, y supports. How many cities or counties f technology if any . Ban this type of technology . There are a couple cities. The north bay seems to be a hotg moratoriums or if you review thu will find that buried in the cot allowed unless it would violate. And the state and federal law ae corporations to place wireless , subject to the cities and countn the t mobile San Francisco case. The federal law doesnt allow ay regulation that would prohibit. So all of those, any ban would. So no city or county in cali . Thats correct. And ive heard i think it was te can adopt that find of feelgoot thats all it is. When push comes to shove and wee have the right to provide that. Thats because the state said i. And the nation said its in int. That people have the ability tow york, las vegas. Thank you. You are a wealth of information. Its terrible to hear. But you are a wealth of informa. Ive been doing this too lon. Always appreciate being in fron. This may be appropriate for s going to come in Public Comment. You might want to answer this ia shot to answer it now. Thank you. So ive been here for a coup. So you have witnessed stacks anf documentation which has been prs been forwarded to the d. P. H. Fow technology, these technologies y causing grievous harm to people. When you stand up, you confuse t me. Im easy to confuse. Im not so smart. But i eee is electronic, electre organization as well as the this communications, federal departm. But what i never hear is where l association, where is the natios something that has to do with h. Yet we come with these reams oft all the people that are being h. Can you tell me how many arey be class action, whether they be ones that rereferenced, the tob, there was some reference. Are there any outstanding lawsun behalf of individuals who are cd from cell towers from cellulary telecommunications use whatsoev . I am sure there are. I have not ever had to defend od im not aware of any successful. I may be wrong but im not awars confirmed or created confirmr liability between cell phones a. Youre asking for information. There is information on the nih. Theres information on the amer. Theres information on the worls well as the fccs web page thatt have occurred and show that then cell phone, cell phone towers a. And i have to say in reverse, tl phones have saved lives. Im sure youve heard of many o. We all remember the that wasnt the question. I was looking for and in the shortterm, if yo, and i respect your desire for a. I would direct you to the scienn october 23 last month, somethink of wireless activities. October 23, scientific american. I would invite you i donk to counsel, but you may want toh that article for our interest ai dont have to ask you dumb ques. Or maybe its a smart question. I dont know. Well, ill confess that we d. With you you, theres plenty oft there, and we are not trying tot particular issue. We feel very strongly that the d and is the right course for the. You can see, however. Yes. The concern of the public wht know if i had a cell phone in 1. 1998. But, you know, when you see e fcc hasnt updated it yet. As a corona dictate, i know thal phone addict, i know ive had n understand the concern of the pd the times with regard to study. And also you can understand i hn francisco in its wisdom has nows almost ten years old and a few. So since 2010. So thats why i ask the questio. With all these reams of stuff te there been any lawsuits . Have there been any confirmed ee heard one tonight, i dont knowe thats for study tonight, we. But are people in fact dying frn front of their homes . And are there any lawsuits rela . I dont want to take your ti. I can speak at length and if yof forum on how to best address tho participate or with d. P. H. The ada was written in 1990 and. The 1996 act created certain po. And those the fcc has just ga review of the standards and it. They announced they were going e standard the same. At the same time there have beeh respect to this effect. Its ongoing and compendiums off studies and the smoking gun isn. People relate it to asbestos an. But these rules are reviewed byg administration and a lot of othe back in those days. And we are happy to have d. P. H. D thoroughly. Thank you for answering the r letting me take so much time. Thank you. We will now hear from the depar. You have 21 minutes. [laughter] if you choose to use it, youg next time. [laughter] good afternoon president , vie board. Im representing public works. We believe this permit was in cg procedures defined in article 2e time of issuance. Article 25 requires public works to the department of public hea. Health department determined thh article 25. Public works subsequently issuee applicant mailed and posted not. Public works held a public hear. Following the hearing the direce permit and noticed termination. The Planning Department is in Ah Department is not in attendancee questions and respond through e. You have 20 minutes left. Any questions . Are you done . I am done any questions, commissioners . The officer in the back, we r you guys so just in case thank you. We will now hear from the plann. How many minutes does scott . 21 minutes turn the mic off. [laughter] i intend to use them all. Can i tell you a story . Similar to the last case, i bels properly viewed by the planning. Also similar to the last cases d location, planning protected loe same eligibility first bay trad. Unlike the last one, it is not. Its a nondid i go natee natee. The material is generally the rg department