We welcome, in her own right for her first trial by fire experience is Land Use Committee deputy City Attorney anne pearson. Do you have any announcements . Clerk silence all cellphones and electronic devices. Completed speaker cards and copies of any documents that include as part of a file should be submitted to the clerk. Items will appear on the januarf supervisors agenda less otherwise stated. We are joined momentarily to my right by vicechair of the Committee Supervisor ahsha safai who rightfully comments that it is quite warm in these chambers so, ms. Major, when you have a second after you read item number 1, if you could ask them to cool this place down you can ask them through the chair. Send some heat to my office since i dont have any right now. That would be great. Sure thing transfer the heat from the board chambers to room 256. Clerk item number 1 entitled regulating the width of sidewalks to reduce the sidewalk width of certain locations along the westerly side of pierce street in front of the maxime Health Center at 1301 pierce street sidewalks are important which is precisely why these instruments come to the board of exercises. This is a proposal to actually reduce sidewalk widths but, apparently, in the Public Interest, in supervisor haneys district on behalf of the department of public works, which i guess we now call public works, which one of you is here to testify. Please come forward. Good afternoon. Im kevin jensen, Disability Access coordinator with public works. Yes, the for examplio for fri remember you coming back with another one. This is the Health Center across the street from Kimball Playground city clinic. Were proposing a fully compliant Building Code and a. D. A. Compliant passenger loading zone at the front of that facility which includes a street level passenger loading aisle. That street level passenger loading aisle is alongside the passenger side of the vehicle pullup space which is the best way to do accessible passenger loading zones. Which we feel is important this being a clinic and all. As planning also agreed with our position on this, it doesnt effectively reduce the pedestrian through way zone in the sidewalks so its consistent with the better streets plan in as much as the pedestrian capacity of the sidewalk is uneffected. I have slides if that would be helpful. Please proceed. The location of that clinic. Kimball playground is the large patch to the right of the subject site. This is the facade with the building as it stands today. You can see the existing sidewalk has cross which were correcting with this work. Headon shot there. Looking back the other way. Its about a 4 grade down the street. Official legislated sidewalk with its 15 feet. Rendering of the project. Weve done some remodeling including putting in an elevator which is a longstanding need in this clinic. The site plan. You can see the indented passenger loading zone with the curb ramp to the rear of the vehicle space. Its directly opposite the entrance ramp and stair at the primary entrance at the main entrance. This is a drawing of the working drawing of the plan which shows dimensions. You can zoom on that in a little bit here. Im sorry this has slopes. The next exhibit has dimensions. One has slopes. Here is the dimensions here. Here are the exhibits if theres any questions. Thank you mr. Jenson. If there are no comments from committee members, are there any members of the public who would like to testify on item number 1 . If theres no objection and it will be one heard on the seventh day of january 2020. Without objection that will be the order. Colleagues, id like to skip over item number 2 pending some amendments that deputy City Attorney is working on and madam clerk, call item number 3 out of soareorder clerk to receive public input on the appropriate periods to implement the Hotel Conversion updates. Thank you, i want to thank my colleagues and city staff and the Owner Community and members of the Advocacy Community for sitting through last weeks Long Committee hearing. Given the length of that meeting we continued this meeting after receiving brief presentations from city departments. This is to receive input from stakeholders to implement our 2017h. C. O. Update Hotel Conversion ordinance update in order to ensure that any Property Owners wh owners who ny recoup investments they may have made relying on a tourist versus residential use. The amortization ordinance continues to after that it raises it to 30 days to provide staple residential uses instead of short term tourist uses. The purpose of the citys law has been that residential s. R. O. Units are intended for residents and not for tourists. The definitions have not been as clear as they could have been. Todays discussion is focused on trying to provide an appropriate buffer for those s. R. O. Owners who have been running on a Tourist Hotel model and rendering for short term use. The purpose is to restore s. R. O. S who what they have been and immigrant families and those living on fixed low incomes. A request to contain this meeting can be convened. I still a intend to amend the legislation and get back to the original policy intent that existed since 1981 that all residential rooms are ended for residential uses not seven day tourists and i will ask it in the beginning of the year persuade opursued on a parallel. Well ask questions as well as take Public Comment and then i intend to make a motion if you colleagues will continue to t to the call of the chair. We heard a brief presentation on the background of the h. C. O. But id like to ask Joseph Barber from d. B. I. To come up and lets see if we can get at sometime of the things we cannot have the chance to discuss last week. Thank you. I will not make any comments about where to put your jacket. On ton of the vilers leasing to tourists for nightly stays and operating a hotel they found an additional 13 hotels that were specifically being advertised toe tourists to tour. It is in the northeast corn of the city represented by this supervisor and the supervisor to my left and a hotel that was supposed to be 75 residential and 25 tourist. That listed 100 of all of the units as tourist rentals and another couple of buildings and listed a number of rooms for tourists so the question s. How does the city enforce listings and ensure that residential rooms are not going to tourists . I say that in light of the fact that our short term rental ordinance does not cover s. R. O. S. I mean, just broadly, we generally respond to complaints and Different Hotels suspected of unlawful conversion. There are usual suspects that come up every now and then. We respond to complaints. We go down in the hotels and check records and as of now were enforcing the seven will have dadayminimum and its lime can discover who say tourist or not we stipulate today that you know, if we find theyre not keeping their records correctly, we can find them and we do so a problem we do encounter is it sees theretheres not daily loo us. While were on that subject. I was actually going to raise that, which is mr. Lutins did refer to quote cooking the books in two sets of books. And can you state from your experience what impediments there are to d. B. I. S ability to enforce the h. C. O. Is Record Keeping a problem and have you ever caught an operator or operators not keeping correct books or keeping two sets of books as you said theres a problem with cooking the books to reflect the number of tourist rooms and vacancies. Can you address that . Yeah, i mean, we have caught a few but its sort of anxiety that theres a lot more out there we dont know because its hard to go after additional records. The legislation that you passed including supervis subpoena powd its not showing us the true occupancy of the hotel by giving us the daily logs that they fill out and having a Computer System or something that tells who is in the hotel and who pays for rooms the administrative supervisor power i continue to hear from folks in the community that the practice of keeping units vacant or as its commonly referred to as warehousing, its prevalent, particularly in certain neighborhoods like lower knob hill, the tenderloin. Do you have a sense of how many vacancies are out there and why Property Owners are holding them off the market. Given that the practice of warehousing of precious residential units in the midst of a housing crisis seems to be at odds with the contention that some Property Owners are making that they are trying to make back their frontend investments and hence our am terrization comments i know it does happen. Many units are kept vacant for extended periods and im not sure why that would be if you are trying to make money off of those units. I see it where wore just processing our annual unit usage report inform. We havent completely assembled the data base but its also selfreported and theres some data there as to how many vacancies there are. Its a snapshot when what we have asks for data from one day throughout the year. And weve looked at that before and we can certainly look at it again whats that snapshot tell you overtime if you can produce that out of . In terms of having sa vacancy units are occupied in october 15th of the year. They turned it in on november 1st so they have information from that one day. I can tell you it does happen. Im sorry if this seems obvious but its important, which is the difference between a residential unit and a tourist units. Are there different amenities provided . Are they market seconddegree d . Do some come with bathrooms and some not come with bathrooms . How does that work . Really, it depends. They can be exactly the same. Im been in buildings mix tourist and residential designated rooms and theres no difference between two rooms m will keep their tourist designated room on a different floor and i dont know for what purposes, for cleaning the rooms and after people move out but theres no nessie difference between the rooms. Theres not any enforceable the room has to be this versus that. What are some of the indicators that a room may have been unlawfully convert. Im aware of one s. R. O. Hotel that hired a artist to do to cater to a hipper, class of tourist demo graphics that the boutique industry billed itself around and got rid of a beauty salon to usher in a International Art bar and pride and permit on top of a Liquor License transfer meaning they had to get sign off from the tenants above. Only it turned out there were no tenants left. They were only renting out to tourists. I know of another s. R. O. That actively advertises personal tours of local and regional attractions ranging from monterey, carmel, yo sem tee. Are these amenities in line with a tourist use or residential use . Generally its tourist rather than residential. Are adding these amenities consistent with a residential hotel, do you think . Its up to the owner. Due have to. Its not necessary. Can you rent the rooms out for seven days at a time and advertise online. As far as advertising for the rooms, they used some of the same services basically where at least most testify is done online anyways so you are on airbnb getting a temporary unit or craigslist for more prominent listing for the s. R. O. Housing stock. I would agree with that dough know if s. R. O. Owners make a profit from the operation and maintenance from the s. R. O. S without adding these types of tourist amenities . Sure, i dont see why not. The Housing Market such that it is you can charge quite a bit and per room understood. And is there a component that makes payment options. I know that some low income residents who dont have credit cards or wish to pate their installments were concerned clarifying the definition might mean they would no longer be able to pay on a weekly basis or pay in cash. Is that accurate . No. We thought about that a while back when this was discussed before and i dont think so. As long as it shows me this person has stayed there for a long period of time or they have rent receipt 0 that person paying theres no reason why they shouldnt be able to pay on whatsoever basis they want. They can bay in advance, by week, however they want. Just as long as theyre a resident. Thats what were looking for in terms of this law. So they can rely on the same Business Model theyve take weekly payments from tenants for lodging and make a reasonable return on their investment in that way yes, from our enforcement standpoint, yes. Thank you. Id like to tell the story a i was sitting in this chamber in a hearing that then Supervisor Scott Wiener called back in early 2016, in february, when kelly, who was then with the department of publichealth before we created the department of homelessness and Supportive Housing stated in a span of four years, the city had gone from 360 stabilization rooms to 65 and im hearing its been further reduce today 53. At the time she cited factors from illegal conversions by the academy of art to little tourist conversions and can you tell us what obstacles the city has come up with against with respect to acquiring buildings and master Lease Agreement witcity agreeme . Im not sure i would able to the department of publichealth. I havent been involved in those so thats not its not in your wheel house. The chief housing record wanted me to read a comment in the record. The floor is yours. Of course i moved it. Take your time. I would be remised if i didnt include my boss remarks. Thats important. So, wed like to thank you supervisor peskin for your tireless work in the preservation of Affordable Housing regarding the Hotel Conversion ordinance. We call had the h. C. O. Thank you to sunny, your legislative aid, kristen jenson, andrea reece, in the City Attorneys office. Were all grateful for the work theyve done. The consensus theyve achieved was solved a problem that effects department for some years and the problem being some hotels would rent the same room to a different person each week regardless of their being a resident or a tourist on holiday. Even if it was a residential room for some 40 years or so and they could claim protection for this use of the exception of seven day exception. Clearly theyre not occupied as residential or a way that most of us under the word residential and to mean it so it became basically a loophole. And you know, many hotel owners follow the spirit and letter of the law but theres some that are available themselves of the loophole and its not fair to them either and its also defleeting our Housing Stock in a time we dont need that. And you are unanimous legislation was seen as closing the loophole in a way that would prevent it from being exploited in the future. Its a tax loop hope if you have a tax loophole that someone a veils themselves of and Congress Passes a law to close that loophole, do we really owe them something Going Forward because we close the loophole that it doesnt exist anymore . What about the people that never got the chance to take advantage of it . What about the other hotel owners who never vile eight the law. So, basically its a consideration is how do we balance the interests of hotel owners through seeking the versus fairness to owners and operators who are actually complying with the spirit o spie law and have residential hotels. Thank you for your boss events. Lets it open to Public Comment. I have one speaker card from ryan padder son and if you would like to testify on item number 3, if you are line to my left your right, mr. Patterson. Thank you on behalf of the San Francisco s. R. O. Hotel coalition. I want to thank you for working together with the hotel owners to try to find a resolution to this. Snag we are definitely interested in talking about. And you have asked for the s. R. O. Owners assistance with what we seem to be an unconstitutional taking of their business. Specifically, you are asking for constitutionally protected private financial information. While we want to work with the city, this needs to be done in a way that protects the privilege and confidentiality of that information that you are requested. We reiterate our suggestion for a continuance of this matter until were able to work with the City Attorney to have that discussion in a privileged and confidential sitting. Before doing anything, the city does need to come into compliance with the courts order of september 24th, 2019. Thank you very much. Thank you mr. Patterson. As i indicated at the beginning of this meeting in my opening remarks, we will continue this item to the call of the chair and if you turned your head to the left you will see Christian Jenson who you know and you are welcome to speak and set. We are speaking about the h. C. O. Thank you. I just want to say here comes santa claus, right down santa claus land use lane. I know you are glad he came. Bells are ringing, children singing. Everything is merry and bright. I hope this hotel hits the highest high. Happy holidays. Welcome to the San Francisco board of supervisors, next speaker, please. Good afternoon, im the senior director of Housing Development with tndc. Im thankful to have a second day and i missed the main events that were offered last week. We own several s. R. O. Hotels in the tenderloin. We were founded in 1981 to protect and preserve existing housing serving low income people in the tenderloin recognize pressures on the neighborhood with the extension of union square and the financial district. Ive lived in San Francisco since 2003 but i began working here in 2012 and i was really impressed when i first got here around the strength of the housing conversion law and how effective it was in effectively preserving this Housing Stock to serve to low income people and as weve seen over the last five to 12 years pressures are so strong and the income potential so high its happening. Im very grateful to the supervisor and the other folks throughout the city who have worked to close loopholes, things working in the past that arent working now to protect this Housing Stock so i want to express gratitude and we are ready to think through policy or implementation or anything like that to continue to preserve the stock. Thank you. Thank you mr. Lamont. Are there any other speakers on item number 3 who would like to offer public testimony . Seeing none. Public comment is closed and colleagues, if theres no objection, we will continue this item to. Call of the chair. Amendments to item number two are not approved as to form by deputy city. Clerk the hearing on the implementation of ordinance number 19019 personal Wireless Service facility site permits. Thank you. Every since this board of supervisors passed legislation earlier this year to bring San Francisco in a further compliance with federal and state law regarding wireless cell site regulation, weve all heard from countless individuals in the public about their concerns ranging from Health Concerns, anesthetic concerns, underground conditions and private concerns and i think many of these are quite legitimate expressions to members of this board. Its been a frustrating topic of discussion. Ive had the pleasure and pain of participating in these discussion and appeals over the last two decades. Largely in part because the Telecom Industry has, as i said to ms. Blackstone, fairly and squarely purchased a lot of influence at the federal and state levels to tie local governments hands and our ability to regulate this industry responsibly and commence rat with the desires of our citizens. Beginning when i was twoyearsold, with the federal Telecommunications Act, im sorry, i just missed that by 32 years. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, it was the first overhaul of Telecom Regulations in a half century and extending to changes to our state Public Utilities code and Public Utilities commission which even went further than the federal f. C. C. Our ability here in San Francisco has been con trained as it relates to regulation of publichealth and safety matters. Over the past several months, my office has undertaken a review to understand the difference between what is required of us relative to federal and state law pre emion and where we may have done more as required for us and where we con trained our authority to regulate in this area. Some have contended weve gone above and beyond what is required by federal and state law. Others contend that the city has reaped certain benefits such as the fact that the city charges rent for cell sites and Telecom Companies are obligated to replace utilities polls in exchange for the ability to install on these facilities. I also want to recognize the Public Policy imperative to ensure that all of our citizens and residents have adequate access to the entertainment. Which has become an indistance able commodity in our Society Daily lives but i believe that 5g, the fifth generation of cells in smartphones is more than just cell phone Internet Access is about an explosion of Network Devices that are and continue to be part of every facet of our lives. In as much as the Health Concerns maybe real relative to use of devices these wireless cell sites enable i have concerns about wireless devices in our homes and our public rights of way from selfdriving cars to Wireless Security and wireless household a compliance. Its not just health. They are also about privacy implications and ive noted, for instance, that ring security cameras were the subject of controversy for being to subject to widespread hacking. Even the federal government has banned a chinese 5g infrastructure because of cybersecurity and privacy concerns. I want to acknowledge staff in a number of departments starting with public works and ms. Debra ludsky and john scarpula, the health department, dr. Thomas aragon who have been revisiting a almost 10yearold study that was undertaken by the Planning Department and marcel boudreau, the city administrator office, mr. Bill barnes and of course the City Attorneys office bill sanders who unfortunately cannot be here today which will lead me to ask that this item be continued to the call of the chair because i think he is important to this conversation and i want to thank you for meeting with my office and my staff, to further understand and get to the bottom of this regulatory arena. Thank you in particular to public works for agreeing to hold off on adoption of your objective standards while we create this space for this hearing today and any followup that will come from it and thank you to that has indicated within the next quarter, they will present their updates to their 2010 recommend dumb which i just referenced and i also note the board of appeals in july of this year also requested that update from publichealth. While much of this boils down to a very frustrating legal conundrum that is the result of federal and state pre emion i want to turn this over members of the public who wait merchandise time for this hearing and despite my frustration, at having most of our well intentioned ideas rejected based on pre emion, im hoping this hearing might facilitate new creative thinking about how to protect the health and Public Interest including im sorry she couldnt be here shes out of town and thats how peoples schedules work. So colleagues, if you have no comments or objections i would like to open this item for Public Comment for good ideas and public testimony. Please feel free to testify. Good afternoon, thank you so much for having this hearing. A lot of our people are coming at 2 30. We underestimated your speed today. Hopefully you can hear some of the other speakers. Im going to go through some talking points that i hope that you all received supervisors safai and haney. It would be great if you want to take a look at them as im going through them. Multiple small cell installations within the public rightofway will negatively impact property values, pose a threat to the publichealth safety and welfare, create traffic and Pedestrian Safety homicide address, impact tree health and where i where trimmif branches or require removal of roots create visual lights, and potential safety hazards in extreme weather and as San Francisco is what of the destinations in the united states, to live and work and visit we want to make sure the leaders design laws. Everything you have in front of you are fully within the s. E. C. Order and prior regulation. I i want to be very clear on that. Whatever other folks are telling you this is vetted and all the ideas are within the bounds. The very first thing im going to ask you to do is there are different, as we learned, thank you, to bill barnes, actually, this is an easterly year ordinance governing all polls in the city and county of San Francisco and we urge the board of supervisors to write a resolution requiring the Public Utilities commission and the municipal transportation authorities who have another polls to amend their contracts and standards to be consistent with those that were requesting to be made. Thank you. Thank you for your work on this matter. Next speaker, please. Thank you so much. Im going to continue with the talking points. Ironically, on my phone. So option one is do not implement 19019 until marc march 15th. The court of appeal will act between january 1st and march 15th. If the court rules in our favor we dont have to implement this and we should vacate 195019. We respectly request that you wait to consider to implement 19019 until after march 15th. If the court rules the f satisfy guard San Franciscos and the beauty of San Francisco. We need to make sure the ordinance has the possibility of being voided if the court of appeals rules against the fcc. It will be vacated if the federal court rules the local municipalities are not subject to the scc orders of september 2018 or the telecom act of 1996 or middleclass tax relief and Job Opportunities act of 2012. At that time, all personal wireless facilities slash small laws and regulation as prove the date relating to personal wireless facilities and cellular an ten as. If theyre vacated, the Planning Department, the department of environment and the health department, the department of public works shall add to the general plan ensuring the safety and wellbeing of all who live, work and visit San Francisco. They should not be and to maximum towers for safety. They should be no closer than 1. They should be by directional and down the street. The towers are going up all over town and yet the new standards are not in place whom is approving these permits . Will you commit to getting them to stop. Telecom vendors must have Liability Insurance protecting the city. Thank you for some of those very helpful commentses it relates to the litigation in march. Good afternoon. I have a pitch here. Its with graphics here. Do you hear about what i hear do you hear what i hear telecom soaring in the night remember dont give up the fight and make this item turnout right turnout right see the light. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Wooding, please ex forward. Good after, supervisors, coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods and why rush to sell off San Francisco. They have significantly over reached their authority and threatening San Francisco sovereignty to keep up with chinas 5g program. More than a dozen u. S. Cities are challenging federal regulators in court over a recent decision that gives Telecom Companies millions in financial and other breaks. As they race to built next Generation Wireless Network powered by 5g mobile data. Officials from los angeles, portland oregon, bell. Interview washington among others, asked the u. S. Court of appeals of the ninth Circuit Court to review and rule change by the federal Communications Decision which restricts citys ability to charge. And this is what i really want to make is that you have a fiduciary responsibility to the city as well as the health. Under the sccs new policy, Telecom Carrier seeking permits to install the Network Equipment on Public Infrastructure must have their request reviewed more quickly by city officials. They are also regard to charge carriers 270 per year and access fees. Before the new policy carriers would expect to say more than 500 annually. Why rush to sell us San Francisco. Thank you, mr. Speaker, please. Thank you, my name is dr. Thomas kouwenber cowen and d and worked in San Francisco for 15 years. I dont know much about politics or ordinances. I dont know a lot about the Health Ramifications of wireless radiation. In 2000, a man named neil cherry analyzed the rate of Childhood Cancer compared to the distance the children lived from sutro towers. The children who live within a mile of the tower have nine times the rates of cu lukemia, 5 times the rate of lymphoma, 31 times the rate of brain cancer, and 18 times the rate of total cancer as children who lived more than a mile from the towers. It will increase the disease rate in the population of San Francisco. This includes heart disease, diabetes, cancer and a host of neurological diseases in children and adults including particularly the rate of. Al in San Francisco. We are at a ross roads in San Francisco. We can either reject this roll out and lay the foundation for a safe wired city or we will risk being one of the most toxic cities in the world. I urge you to take the first step to blocking this ordinance. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. My name is linda smith and i lived in San Francisco since 1985 and im a former editor of the San Francisco chronicle. I have a different story for you today. Earlier this year, seven neighbors got together to impose the permitted installation of a wireless antenna on a light pole outside their building at pacific avenue and webster street. In their appeal, which i have here, and will leave with the clerk, they documented the dpw and Planning Department made incorrect determinations regard north permit. As a result, the neighbors won their appeal and the installation was blocked. All owe verizon and Telecom Companies are required bylaw to document radio frequency emissions after antennas are installed, the company has never done so. Not once. Although d. P. W. Is required to track and assess such documentation, before issuing permits, it has never done so. Going forward, with the deployment of 5g and more 4g antenna within the city, how can residents have trust these radiation antennas are not creating harm when no safety testing has been done and no one is holding these tole com companies or d. P. W. A count able for their unlawful acts. Such unlawful instillations violate the principle ordinance enacted in the 2003 in San Francisco. Did states where threats of serious or i a irreversible, laf full scientific certainty about cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for this city to postpone Cost Effective measures to present the degradation of the environment. Next speaker, please. My name is roxanne and im a resident here in San Francisco who has been affected by ordinance 19019. I have a wireless proposed 12 feet in line outside my bedroom window. Its not through the noticed materials but only through filing a protest and a records act request i could learn about the facility and uncover some errors within the application. My application is still being reviewed including at appeals. During this process, ordinance 19019 was adopted and now the city and Wireless Companies are saying theres no public row view or input. Theres no permit necessary anymore for this. And they rely on the master license with sfpuc which is an outdated agreement and that agreement contemplates regulatory process that has been removed through the adoption of ordinance 19019. Its obviously problematic to remove the public process entirely from fighting these facilities that effect the estheticses of the city and are quite controversial in terms of their Health Effects and all one has to do is drive around the city to see the proliferation of them and the conversion of many of them from 4g to 5g. So the status quo relying on an outdated master agreement that is not paired with a permitting process is flawed. I surgery the board of supervisors to rescind ordinance 19019 and replace with another process and allows the public to have a say in how the facilities are cited. I support many of the comments made at beginning of the public process and straight forward commonsense items that could be included to help protect the aesthetics and the wellbeing of San Francisco. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, my name is robert johnson. I would like to use my time to highlight the importance of preserving some form of notification in your legislation. You know, its already tar from a fair fight. The more we allow this to proceed in secrecy, the more trouble we will have. If you read through board avenue peels against cell phone towers every person there alleges that they were given improper notification. I dont think its a winning argument because i dont think the board of appeals has overturned a permit on improper notice. I think its true. Verizon in particular has gone to great length to avoid giving notice to people and notice was required to be given to owners or tenants and you have mr. Albred here today. Verizons position was they could chose to notify owners or tenants but not both. Right. If i have in charge of running a race and i say, person who comes in first or second gets a medal. I dont ex fact you to chose the person and not give the person a medal. Its unreasonable interpretation. Hundreds of permits were issued with this background. So, i just want to highlight we need to have notice. If neighbors dont know what is going on, they cant fight back. When we go to our politicians, they always say, well, you know, you need come up and influence the legislation. We cant do that if we dont know what is going on. I would appreciate if you could keep that in mind. Thank you so much. Thank you, next speaker. Hello board members. Its the biggest thing and you are requested to stop permitting pervasively poison usous pollution from unsafe and untested 4g, 5g Wireless Communications telecommunications facilities. And 5g broadcasting in the city of San Francisco. Thousand dollars of scientific studies reveal irreversible microwave health and safety dangers. To 9 residents of San Francisco. Especially children pregnant women, helderly persons in others. The burden of liability weighs heavy on the city. They should have back by insurance policies by the Wireless Industry in escape clauses in the w. T. F. Contracts that they possess. Joe moscow wits published an article in Scientific American and he advocated an immediate moratorium on the 5g and demanded our government adopt protecting our health and safety. The 2003 precautionary principle ordinance is a rule of of law that requires per have a len peo protect people and the environment. Upon these grounds, it is mandatory to preserve publichealth and safety by enacting moratorium begins activation of San FranciscoWireless Telecommunications facilities. You also have the tmobile versus San Francisco case which gives you the trite do this. Its all on your shoulders and im sure that you have the right decision. Thank you. Thank you. Its also on our state and federal officials shoulders that they preempt our ability. Next speaker, please. Next speaker. Hello. My name is Karen Jackson and im a student at San FranciscoState University and im here to commissioner vaughn nottati on of the 5g cell phone towers and theres a lot of stuff we dont know about the effects of this kind of technology and what we know is that so many people are sensitive to the type of radiation and i just improper you to wait until we know more. There are multiple countries across the whole entire planet that have banned 5g in their countries and due to not only people sensitivities to this type of radiation but also the fact that the frequency of this radiation can also be harnessed as a crowdcontrol weapon using frequency of you waves. Many people have spoken and told you what you need to just halt on this and theres nothing more i can say but lets just wait. Thank you. Next speaker, please. If you will lineup. My name is betsy russellmanning and i compiled a book on 5g is coming. Its here in parts of San Francisco. Its coming to our home, our schools, our libraries, our parks and towns and to your children. Its linked to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, alzheimers, cataracts and immune dysfunction, antibiotic resistance, immune suppression and birth defects. Here are there are over 240 scientists around the world who warn about the dangers of these millimeters waves to all of us. Ill get you a copy of this soon. Thank you. Thank you, maam. Seeing no other members of the public for Public Comment, we will close Public Comment. Ms. Letswski, do you want to come up . Or mr. Spits . There we go. I believe supervisor haney has a question for you. You are also welcome to respond to anything that i said or that you have heard in the public or any other things that you as a subject Matter Expert and regulate or may want to add to this conversation. Thank you supervisor peskin. There was a couple things that came up from the public that i wonder if you can respond to. One, is sort of this question of the timing of implementation and whether theres some possibility of waiting and there are Court Decisions coming down and such and what your response is there. The point go notice and who is given notice. It does seem like it would be important to let tenants know and in addition to owners if you can respond to those two things. Absolutely. So last year, a lot of work was put together to respond to the scc requirement thats we meet the sixday shot clock. Its something all the city departments got together to figure out within the process that we had set in place and with what we need today do in order to allow processing of permits to occur, meet the time lines, go through all the of the different departments for the proper reviews. [please stand by] issues or determination that both the noise and rf emission standards set by the fcc are met. And that the pg e pole would be posted and within 300 feet, poles would be as well. The public can come out and engage in the public process. If theyre interested, through appealing to the board of appeals. So that does remain in the current legislation. For the puc and the mta, they have a whole separate thing they do that doesnt have the same