Transcripts For SFGTV Board Of Appeals 71316 20160725

Good evening, and welcome to the San Francisco board of appeals. Wednesday, july 13, 2016, meeting of San Francisco board of appeals the peace officer officer is commissioner honda and joined by commissioner fung and commissioner lazarus and commissioner swig commissioner bobby wilson that be late this evening to my left is thomas owen for legal advice tonight at the controls is gary the boards legal assistant were were joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. This evening from the department of public works mapping raul and amanda and also Scott Sanchez the city administrative for the Planning Department and Planning Commission and expecting joe duffy for here representing the please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other Electronic Devices are prohibited. Out in the hallway. Permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. Have up to 3 minutes no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to the clerk. Speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. The board welcomes your comments. There are Customer Satisfaction forms available. If you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. Dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. Thank you for your attention. Well conduct our swearing in process. If you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. Please note any of the members may speak without taking please stand now okay do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Okay. Thank you item number one is general Public Comment this is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on items not on tonight agenda but within the jurisdiction is there any general Public Comment . Okay. Seeing none item 2 is commissioners questioning commissioners anything. Okay item 3 the boards consideration of minutes of the july 6, 2016, board meeting. Additions, deletions, or changes if not may i have is a motion. Move to adopt the minutes any Public Comment on item the minutes okay. Seeing none then we have a motion if commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes on that motion Public School commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero. And then well move on with the president s content we order the calendar due to a request for an accommodation well hear the wireless cases first starting with item 6 which is appeal and this is angelo and john versus the San Francisco public works street use mapping on 30th after the to the, llc for wireless box permit construction of a personal wireless facility it is application number 15 w r dash 92 the appellant for item 6 would step forward. Youll have 7 minutes to present your case. My name is George Birmingham were here again one of the mostly basic requirements of the article is notification i reside on 30th avenue two doors from the proposed site i was never mailed a notice so in my appeal to the permit i asked for a scorn affidavit listing the address mailed two pages long and my address is not on that through in their opinion it pretty much the most basic thing they didnt do their homework on 30th avenue not on this list ive looked one hundred times and my neighborhoods lucid not there so leads me to believe not only this sell sites application to be flawed and maybe look through this anyone that wants to look through that but, sir find my address on it there with that alone ill suggest you deny the permit appeal or the predicament thank you. Thank you, thank you if thats it money mr. Birmingham come forward this is your chance. My name is angela the owner of 2530th, 30th avenue so before give it my statement im going to let people look at the photo i took the last few days. Overhead please. So look at this. Speak into this mike. This pole others larkin and 30th avenue those large cabins you know with the antenna and in this pole is the antenna bounces and wires at 40 avenue and so this one is at the 40 avenue so looking at those messy wires put it on as if youre looking at it please perfect, thank you. Look at those messy wire on the pole so the point im going to say today, the really fact beside on those installations so according to the article 25 section one 502 electricity location compatibility standards y for a public rightofway the general plan has to designated being significant to city patterns defining styrofoam or an important orientation the upper cable public cable standard is whether a proposal personal Wireless Services facility significant degraded the aesthetic atrocity for special potential and under the general plan id like people to look at this the Arts Commission 5 point one 03 according to the charter section 5. One 03 the commission responsibility for the approval of the design of structure on City Property the Committee Also revealed other structures extended over into any street or another public place belong to the city so article states that a cable standard is whether or not a proposal personal Wireless Service facility was significantly degrade the aesthetics attribute those installations obviously have significant degraded the street of San Francisco the Wireless Company putting the antenna on street owned property like light poles and light poles the Arts Commission has the responsible for approval for those sites of structures on city project it has to go through the commission and the chapter section should apply to everyone the Wireless Company also have the to comply with the law dpw shouldnt approve any application until the Arts Commission reviews the wireless sites in San Francisco thank you. Thank you. Okay if were done hearing in the appellants well hear from the permit holders now. Bless you. Good Evening Community college commissioner honda and members of the board im martin with the davis Law Enforcement i represent the applicant that is crown castle and g west crown castle from the records filed an application for the permit met all the requirements for the permit the permit got antenna active approval the protest hearing. Speak into the mike please. Pardon a protest hearing was held and the considerations given to the argument by the protest the protest were denied and the will final approval was given we filed a brief opposing the appeal in this case so has the department of public works i want to emphasize the issue before the board this evening with not only this appeal before you the other appeals according to section 1515 c of article c for the articles of the rightofway box permit the board of appeals to determine whether the final determination was correct under the article 25 so this is true both as a matter of City Ordinance as well as federal law this honorable boards decision tonight is limited to one thing whether the decision by the department of public works go was correct under the provisions in the standards of this so forth in article 25 not based on arguments issued out of article 25 for the Arts Commission or some other city agency not authorized under article 25 to weigh in on the issues those appellants made a number of argument not valid both in their papers responded to tie in the brief this evening first mr. Birmingham through rent his residence whether or not he got a mailed notice and makes a different argument this evening in the papers in his papers he explicit admitted that he is a renter and his owner did receive the mailed papers and in turn the owners provided the mail to him with the ordinance requires is that notice may be given to the persons who either own property or reside with one and 50 feet of site not requires both and submitted by the mr. Birmingham in the documents the owner the property got the notice and gave it to him i guess ill do add that it is clear that mr. Birmingham emigrate the appeal so not as if that is a matter of genuine substance and claim the posted notice on one particular pole on the block, however, the affidavit of posting part ever record shows clearly it was, in fact, posted not only on the pole that was in question but on 7 poles along that block and in any case the legally requirement the notice to be posted and posted opening not on guess easter on the block pursue third, the appellants argue the description was not in the notice, however, the affidavit posting showed it was and the appellants admit that the notice included a photo simulation a mock of what it looks like so there was not only a verbal go description by in fact, a photo picture description fourth argument the appellants claim an existing tree an existing tree next to the pole that will contain the equipment the ordinance requires that dpw came in its discretion require an applicant for one of the boxes to put in a new tree or choose to pay a fee in lui but not make the applicant responsible for the maintenance of the trees thats the responsibility of the Property Owner that owns the tree interest fifth the appellants raised an issue i think what well hear this a number of times about the Structural Integrity of the pole the short answer is that for this application for all the application youll hear the pole that has the intent is replaced with a brand new pole that issue the integrity is not an issue that is by us and by the city staff that subtly establishes a comprehensive set of rules about pole safety and there is other pole safety guarantees in terms of satisfying the requirements of pg e so those are the issues that have been presented we firmly believe that this application is a good one it is in complete compliance with the law and appellants had a fair opportunity to present their argument but that the appeal should be denied the permit upheld thank you. Counselor. Yeah. In your brief you have a map which appears to be accurate in the rad radius and the address of parcels. Right. Reflective of the block of that particular address the two page list you provided which those services normally provide for mailers theyre all in the 24 hundred i dont believe that is correct. If the brief you gave us. Perhaps you want to come back ill take into account i dont believe that is correct. Thank you. Thank you well hear from the department now. Good evening commissioner hondas and fellow commissioners im and i manned from selfpublic works i want to back up by beginning with an overview of the permitting process which applies to the agenda the Wireless Program is governed by public works article 25 and public works order the process begins with public works receiving an application these 4 applications were submitted to us on november 18, 2005, once we received an application we review it for completeness insuring all the relevant documents and drawings each permits on todays agenda one pole being a node pole with the antenna and the other pole a battery back up pole all the poles are owned by the Northern California joint Postal Association and after confirming an application that complete it is received to the Planning Department and once the public works tentatively approves that and sends notices to pertains council performs this on january 27, 2016, if anyone submits an objection within 20 days public works holds a public hearings on march 14 in article 25 section 1513 the public works director may on this protest in the director finds one of 4 things that the Health Department incorrectly looked at the standards or the Planning Department incorrectly determined the application applicable standards or the application did not comply with the permit the wireless permit or the evidence shows the applicant intended to apply after an application is issued with the standards and in the case before a wireless appeal agenda the director found it none of the protests supported any thoughts following afshdz aufshs they approved it and posted on april 18, 2016, in regards to the appeal the appellants birmingham made 3 claims the first as mr. Fineman pointed out that castle with the article of 25 in response to that the public works said that crown castle filed an application and contains a list and photos of these each pole where crown castle posted their notice and morph per the affidavit crown castle described the facility and did include a photo the second claim the appellants made the existing street tree on the avenue gone over the pole where it is snuffed and as the gentleman states the approval for this permit requires crown castle to plant and maintain a street tree on 30th avenue but no permit conditions require crown castle to maintain the tree and under the section have been public works code this tree is the responsibility of the fronting Property Owner the thirds point appellants make it can result in an unsafe condition the proposed facility is similar to others of crown castle that public works approved that have been operating safely without incident and in terms of safety crown castle they may comply with the California Public Utilities Commission general order that has a detailed one hundred pages long of requirements for installing utilities to telephone poles and as mr. Simon stated the Planning Department crown castle will be replacing the pole at the 25, 30th with a brand new telephone people in conclusion public works buildings we filed one the article 25 and urge the board to deny the appeal ill be here to answer questions. Ms. Im sorry, i didnt hear our name and higgins. What this is the first time ive heard the argument our city has jurisdiction over a wireless boxes on Street Properties on public Street Properties. Well the wireless facility will be installed on public rightofway that is where the wooden poles are you think thats how the permit came i understand my question to you has your department run it to legal whether this requires our Commission Review because it is City Property. Well, actually those poles are owned by the new orleans joint Pole Association give you an idea of what they are basically an alliance or association with the various like counties and also like Utilities Companies that including crown castle and verizon that are the permit holder not city jurisdiction. Does that answer your question. Sort of. No. No. But thank you. Comment. Public works article 25 no requirement that the Arts Commission has to review this is it is strictly the Planning Department and public works in the planning review. Thank you. Okay. Well take Public Comment can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak. On this item okay. If you havent filed out a speaker card please do so and hand to the clerk and line up on the other side of room that would be helpful. Theyll move their cases before other peoples cases. Im bob, i come to ask you to oppose the appeal but for Different Reasons previously when i talked ive offered abstract reasons for safety now im coming this is personal one of amongst those items 6, 7 and 8 near where my younger son lives with his own h p rather than the parents in a household no landline so not reliable cell phone coverage that can you see me trouble hes helped me when im hospitalized in 2012 and 2013 without landlines the cell phone is the basis for him to get information about whether or not i need help hes going to be helping me with direct care end of life those scenarios you should consider why can be a basis to approve those permits to make sure that people family, relatives, can be communicated when there is a problem ill say one felt colleagues from the communities was going to come but have a Health Condition i believe he overwhelmed some go to the executive director and just to give you an idea that important people disabilities communication that is reliable is important for our health and safety and for this one for me that is pencil im asking you for items 7, 8, 9 and 6 to reject the appeal. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Im andrew on west portal im also a verizon customer i think that very much rely on communication the world as viewed text communication is central to the way we communicate one of the things ive gotten involved weve got a huge increase no property crime on the west side im finds that textmessaging is central to that effort we have a beat cop officer he carries and cell phone and been four or five times ive texted him and hes be able to respond from that stand up the Text Communications and the ability for that to happen is important not to mention the whole 911 and what the previous speaker spoke of landlines are together from that stand point of that ive seen a deterioration in Verizon Service ill ask you to deny the appeal thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello thank you for having us. Im corey smith a resident and an employee in San Francisco and encouraging you to reject the appeal and grant the permits we live in one of the most advanced cities in the world we are continuing to be the leaders in where we are going this is an infrastructure argument in my opinion and making sure we have the best possible tools to operate as a city i really want to echo one of the previous comments i dont own a landline none of my peers ill guess thats the way of future and putting in the pieces with the taxpayers dollars to make sure we have the ability to communicate to the highest possible level professionally i work all over the city im constantly in merging with groups and individuals and really make sure that the direction are confusing and to an house or apartment complex that is vital for me to communicate with people and the public frankly the reasons for rejecting make sense we need to investing in what makes our city fantastic thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yeah my name is jim im a long time resident between 40 and 50 years i run across people i was here before you were born so that is kind of the thing ive given up my landline also and i need that communication in order to talk with any doctors and caregivers my family thats really important to me im you know ive give up on aesthetics as something that is important in the city i think that communication is a lot more important im a sprint customer if that makes any difference i would urge you to deny the appeals and approve the permit. Permits. Permit thank you. Thank you. Next speaker come to the podium please. Hi, my name is cleveland a local business persona sales person out on the streets anticipate and thank heavens to have any portable device it allows me to stay in touch with any office and have customers, with my family and these boxes that going on already in the public rightofway their existing facilities are you cant put them Something Else not in the site of Everything Else and i feel simple good smart Public Policy to augment what is already in the place to improve the communications because my daily life has my daughter cross pond bridge and my wife cross the other bridge in 1989 not a good analogy he wasnt married with a kid but at that same scenario were to come up i kind of want us to have the most robust and strong and reliable system out there so i urge you to deny the appeal thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Excuse me, sir. Are you relate to the appellant mr. Angela low your time to speak is the time allotted to her as a party. Yes. Okay not now. Excuse me your time to speak with our wife because you are the appellant here this is for Public Comment. Okay. So if youre wife choose on are you able to give up her time to you, you can speak on rebuttal. Okay. Any other Public Comment please step forward. This is for rebuttal okay. The appellants. I didnt thank you my name is george im an appellant on a different permit and representing another neighbor and standing in his instead in a second but voice any neighbors objections and ask that you uphold or that you reject the permit approval as it comes forward it is great wireless in the city i want my cell phone to work and Everyone Wants infrastructure has nothing to do with with verizon or no Wireless Company has demonstrated a need for increased growth were dealing with in the big picture an explicit growth im ill have exhibits this is not a question whether that he want cell phones in the city not a question of whether to call our children when an earthquake are son when we fall and cant get up this is a question of the corporation of public space im sorry to hear that somebody came up to speak and given up on the aesthetics of the city their germane theyre part of purview of what dpw is populated to be doing as article 25 and the public works arguments youll hear super seeds it hsa has to do with with the city charter and any doubt lets be conservative and hold back on the appeal. Next speaker, please. Im here on behalf of sf action a group of one thousand members that signed petitions in support of those wireless antennas most of us were younger millennials and make our living through the lifeblood of San Francisco i work in the city and will say that sometimes when i cross to the west side my phone is completely useless a lot of data demands in recent Technology One of them being a lot of people using videos for their taxi drivers and eats up the data and the infrastructure we need to keep up with that technology it is not going to donna diminish the data demands are going to grow we have to figure out a way to meet them to me and a lot of people in any cohorts not something we want to compromise there have been a lot of points will aesthetics i know that those have been approved by the Planning Department and i know there is a lot of work in making sure that there you know already attached to poles sorry attached to existing poles; right . And making use of current infrastructure and streamlined and come pack and so you know, i think a lot of attention a lot of time to the design and the aesthetics part of this problem so i dont see any further need to dwell on that thank you very much please reject the appeal thank you. Any other. Seeing none, are you able to the parties starting with the appellant 3 minutes im John Birmingham number 1 if you drive around the sunset and looking at look at the poles theres a lot of them a lot of cell sites i dont have any problems with any cell providers im having a hard time my point is proper notification again, mr. Fine man never anything mailed to 2530th avenue ive lived for 14 years if you send it to another property it is not their responsibility to telling me tell me. Anything else from the appellants. Well take rebuttal from the permit holder. Are you is there time still, sir. Overhead please. Good evening, sir this. Face it as if youre looking at it. I want to say your life is important for us but you build an antenna in any window and you build antenna in any window and you cant get a signal too and that good idea is a crown castle and build antenna near your house. Do you want to state your name, sir. My name is cart. Thank you very much. Now well take rebuttal from the permit holder. Thank you again my name is Martin Fineman on behalf of the crown castle ill be brief and try to respond to a few points and not repeat what i said before one question from commissioner fung was whether only notice was sent to folks on 29 avenue in you look at the affidavit posting what was i believe exhibit a to our submission i think that was c or d to the citys submission that shows i know that notice was given to people on 30th avenue as well what may have captured our attention the first few addresses but several pages notice was to 30th avenue the soak question i want to address the concept the Arts Commission has put into this article 25 is a very eloquent ordinance and the implementing regulations as well and it provides for input by a number of city agencies by the department of public works, but by planning and certain instances by rec and park in certain instances by the department of health but Arts Commission is really has no part to play and this is maybe a perfect example i spoke about when i rose before to see that according to article 25 the decision to be made today whether or not the application and the termination complies with the standard of article 25 not other hey lets rewrite the article and give other arguments outside of article 25 with all due respect not any part of procedure involved in the applications there has been discussion about aesthetics i think i did address that before i will make one point in response to what was said verbally thaevengz is not a matter of obstruction but the conditions with respect to which of the permits i think their glogz over applications were made complete with all the plans and descriptions with all the photo simulations and reviewed by dwp and planning protests were about made in each of the cases and evidence was presented and that was heard specific finding that were made in connection with the permits it complied with all the standards and conditions of approvals addressing size, addressing colors, addressing mass and addressing locations you know addressing all factors those are appropriate my point not on abstract discussion has to do with with those are in the public rightofways with all the structures of pg e comcast at t and all the rest this is exactly from a aesthetic stand point for the utility to be clear thank you very much. Okay rebuttal from the dep amanda in public works in regards to our question commissioner fung before the Arts Commission there is no role of the Arts Commission in governing and permitting wireless facilities not involved in legislation of article 25 and also want to clarify my statement about the j pa owning the pole it is pg e owns the poles public works didnt have jurisdiction over these j pa poles thank you. If i may just to look at that one issue of the streets i remember when i was at planning when the advertising and outdoor Bathrooms Program came up and started at planning but required Arts Commission review and approval that is on the city city streets your assessing because the poles are owned by pg e or something that is the fact that article 25 didnt specifically relate to review by the Arts Commission therefore it is not necessary . Public works did run the same question to legal and legal did say that the Arts Commission has no jurisdiction over light poles and Scott Sanchez Planning Department offered to provide information about this if youre willing to take it. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department. I did distrust that q with omar and the understanding that the Arts Commission didnt have any jurisdiction over the light poles by the city youre correct commissioner fung that the Arts Commission will review Street Furniture like the newspaper racks and present bus shelters, etc. I reviewed the materials on the website no indication mentioned about their review of utility infrastructure the purpose was to allow for Design Review of Capital Improvement plan Capital Improvement projects to insure the design is appropriate north americas the significant costs was the reason this was initially added sounds like the Arts Commission has a limited capacity and omar reported to me because they have reviewed some decorative poles in mission bay when the application was so you get to add an utility to one of the polls it required the Arts Commission review they approved the design identical to that we approved throughout the city. You know, i remember the Arts Commission on the embarcadero Improvement Project you know they doubled the number of lights that are on the embarcadero. Yes. Theyve reviewed the street lights and certain Street Furniture those light poles not owned by the city they didnt review in the jurisdiction over further even all the utilities like wireless is even further limited theyve only been reviewing those on fixtures theyve previously approved. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. Ill start. I mean its been pointed out specific criteria by which were speed limit to evaluate the permit application and article 25 i appreciate the comments about possible need for additional facilities this is not what were here to debate it is specific to this facility at that location and whether the requirements were met and from everything ive heard and seen they have been. Im in agreement the dpw didnt error based on the review of this permit where respect to the criteria of article 25. Someone care to make a motion. Move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that was prove or disprove reviewed and issued. On 3 motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly reviewed and issued commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig. That motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero. Thank you so well move on to item 7 appeal verse the selfpublic works mapping on 27th avenue protesting the issuance to crown castle of a wireless box construction of a personal Wireless Service facility application number 15 plus well start with the appellant. Thank you so as we discussed before the hearing began the person couldnt be here im an appellant on a similar appeal with similar argument i dont know if it makes sense to move backgrounds allison park oh, i talked to omar the commission does have a jurisdiction it is a gray area i have brought in a printout of exact language that applies in this case not whether or not cell phone calls makes it seem like this would be part of jurisdiction and what i want to read to you seems like a question whether this was jurisdiction over what was happening on the poles for the Arts Commission the city charter this section has been quoted gives power to the Arts Commission for the review and approval of both the design of all public structures and private structure for upon any public property and any yards towards setbacks with open spaces the point that is relevant in the last permit as in the permit as in the subsequent permit overseeing boxes overhang public space not theyre attached to a pole that the city has jurisdictions so the public space what is effected by these installation of of the installation how it relates to article 25 it complicate did counsel castle will have you believe your jurisdiction is a solely limited to what is listed an article 25 what is explicit in article 25 the dpw has done Due Diligence and correctly have the permit application approved before it gets to the point of the hearing when you identified as we have that the city charter was avoid by dpw not running the permit by the Arts Commission youve expand the scope of the conversation beyond article 25 so i dont know if it makes sense to go back to the last permit but for this permit testimony and the one subsequent ill point out the point were trying to make the offer hang in the public space thats the relevant point not whether the city itself owns the pole it is our understanding their owned by the joint association were in this super technical conversation because crown castle put this in the xhchgs on the limited and technical grounds this is a mustache bigger story i hope you can listen to and be sympathetic about the success and growth of Wireless Infrastructure in the city up until this year you may recognize the numbers from the last time we remember here up until this year the average number of application were between thirty and 50 a year and over the last year from 20162017 up to three hundred and 71 my impression that was related to claims about the verizon maids on the occasion of superbowl that has to do with with other kind of Corporate Strategy to make claims for coverage in the city the point im making whatever the reasoning this is excess an excess there and is it so gone totally unchecked and the new we as citizens to challenge this is it so narrowly because the provisions under article 25 are to small and restrictive and as crown castle not limited to in the brief a at least submitted in my permit theyre challenging article 25 in our jurisdiction to oversee article 25 through separate lobbying and legislation that is a Bigger Picture ill ask to consider yes nitpick i didnt issues but Bigger Pictures of david and goliath and about questions of how much is too much and when it is enough is enough and those are the kind of big pictures im immr. Monroe you to consider when were talking about those permit applications weve been worn down by the corporate aggressive legislation we are just people here fighting for our neighborhoods now i dont know why a bunch of people here to find out about the hearing they dont live in those blocks if you dont come up noticed o on the western area that is 5 feet from where my kids hang out and your complaining about cell service i believe the dpw violated article 25 on the notice of application they specified the postings set by the commission to set the protest and the first thing on the block didnt and the climb conditions and part of his brief made that posting illegible a mail was not sent and received the mail hes the homeowner at the location of the tower and the email that was sent on 4, 13 failed to conduct a photo simulation and instructions how to file an appeal ill spend the last 5 two seconds of my time to make my claim that none of the permit conform to the city charter 3 charter super seeds implied through the agency and others dpw mandates the San Francisco Arts Commission approve the condition the public space dpw has failed to follow the recusal of the city charter and going to a flaw in all the applications ill say as any last point the number one reason the Arts Commission was founded to prevent the degradation of the city thats why their empowered to police those applications in dpw is not going to follow the procedure and what those procedures theyll have to live with the fact they especially\fulfill the requirements of article 25 and that their permits are revoked i urge you to row revoke this thank you for your time and consideration. Quiet please. Well hear from the permit holders now. Thank you honorable board im martin on behalf of the, llc as youve seen in the papers that are submitted to you this permit was properly granted and fully compliant with the regulations as i discussions previously ill just going to alluded to is this boards review of this matter is limited and it is just two whether or not the final determination was correct under the provision of article 25 they were and it was and other arguments outside of article 25 cannot be grounds for an appeal a number of arguments made ive touch this argument about the Arts Commission thats an argument not made in any of the briefs something that is a last minute argument that is just being launched now ive heard not only from me but the city the structure of article 25 involves a lot of input by a variety of city Agencies Department of public works, department of health, rec and park, planning, and so forth but no roll in it for the Arts Commission to turn to the argument that have been made on the appeal the appellant note that in earlier appeal was granted for this location that appeal was granted on one specific ground only has to do with with kind of a mix up within the department of public works the wrong conditions of approval were attached to a permit thats behind us we made a new application Nolo Contendere tension anything incorrect about the tentative or final approval and second the appellant asks whether a notice was given it was notice was mailed to all addresses within one and 50 feet of the polls at issue and notice was posted and an affidavit both filed as part of record third, the appellant for the appellant claims that part of the notice explaining how to take a protest was somehow confusing the notice was given using a form by the department of public works that tracks the language of ownerships and furthermore how hard could it have been trying to interject the real world not that hard to understand the proper and timing protest was issued and the proper you know appeal was taken here so thats why were here tonight ill respective submit the notice was comprehensive enough that people did what we need to do and fourth the appellant exclaims he received notice by email that was kind of over instead stated in his brief he got notice by email and whether this is sufficient and needs to get mail he got timing notice, and, secondly, most importantly the regulation under article 25 specifically allows the notice by mail fifth the appellant argues about the view i think i addressed this in context with the last appeal the deducting and planning reviewed the application and concluded that with the newcomers conditions that were attached to this permit the proposed facility is aesthetically impartial with urging streetscape that exist and take into consideration the view on that street and beyond that conclusion by dpw photo simulations are part of record you see that conclusion was correct and 6 the appellant makes a mention of noise dph the durability reviewed the application and. 7 the appellant raise concerns about the pole onehalf talked about that quite a bit and this pole is in fact, being replaced with a brand new pole and all the other issues that were discussed with the requirements and any pg e requirements addressed the intermit of the pole the appellant claims the facility is quote unquote not needed and i guess the most important thing florida under federal law this is not the board or any city in the country is allowed to take into account in deciding those permits but i just think im looking for my notice how it was put by the appellant said something about people from the outlet side of town want to have good communication and that 80 want to be in touch with their families and access to medical services they can stay out of my public town maybe that was said in a heat of passion but not sounds like policies and procedures i dont want this on my streets stay out of my part of town that is not good policy there was a confused discussion in brief about at least intrusive alternatives that is plucking a phrase and thank you for the opportunity that upside down theres laws ill be happy to talk about the conditions under a permit can be denied those standards quoted in the brief are not standards their constraints for the cities and counties not some kind of a requirement so the last thing ill touch on in 20 seconds or less arguments about the radio frequency conditions the consideration of that issue whether it is a Health Issues or anything else it striking prohibited for the city to take into consideration under federal law thank you, very much. Thank you. Okay well hear from the department now. Amanda higgins from public works i want to start by discussing some of the comments from the gentleman about the Arts Commission role so the reason why the Arts Commission reviews like shelters and kiosk because those are not governed by i did state of california the reason why the Arts Commission reviewed the light poles in the embarcadero was because the city owns those light poles in the embarcadero, however, the 8 poles in question the Northern California joint california poles owned by pg e those poles are governed by the state of california so the city does have the hole role we have article 25 but more limited with the state of California Public works overrides a lot of our role and authority. So on to appeal 16 a2 so appellant makes 6 proclaims in his brief we want to commend talk about the first is that we claims that crown castle didnt perform the notification for approval the notice didnt describe the procedure for timing protests or the grounds of protesting and in response to public works saying that crown castle provided a form declaration for the postings with one and 50 feet of battery back up poles and other poles and protects from the weather crown castle posted their claims and another claim the appellant makes is that public works didnt comply with section 114 when provided notice of termination to the protester and says that art 25 requires the department to mail the notice and that he received the notice through email so public works order actually says public works may provide notice upon termination through email if it is known in public works we did this nicole and then appellant claims that the department didnt consider the impact on the streets under those role plan as part of 37th avenue under article 25 due to the proximity of the gg park and the Pacific Ocean before making a recommendation determine whether or not the facility will impair and in our where we live brief the Planning Department manmade the determination the installation will not significantly 83 track and apply with the another claim the appellant makes the proposed installation is a safety hazard to crown castle will be installing a replacing a the pole with a new telephone pole and another exclaim not necessary to the neighborhood 25 looks to again under the state Public Utilities commission that the state has nor jurisdiction over this area and so Public Works Authority to regulate the wireless facilities into whether or not it is necessary under article 25 and the last claim the appellant makes the radio frequency is proposing a Health Hazard under article 25 he demonstrate the proposed facility complies with the federal guidelines for exposure to emissions and crown castle showed the application would comply with those standards and dph verifies it was try and thats q with j and k in our brief in conclusion we believed we processed that in corners with art deny the appeal. You indicated our respective City Attorney gave you an Arts Commission jurisdiction is that in a written form. Can i get back to you in rebuttal. Okay. I have a similar question the Arts Commission it says whether it is public or private steps outside the box over any public sergeants or open space i ive heard from you article 25 excludes us from looking at this this is in our city charter should have been that dpw made that part of the process i see it maybe when you come back in rebuttal youll have a written statement from our City Attorney okay. Thank you. Okay Public Comment again, people want to speak line up on the far side of the room first person to the microphone and give a speaker card to our clerk that would be helpful. First person please come to the mike. Anyone going to speak. Im mat on outdoor Richard Richmond and work companionly on balboa park a block and a half away from the proposed site i want to echo the coverage in the uttering richmond and the place i work i get a signal in the back it rims me of the old days ill run around my apartment looking for the signal in reference to messy wires or is aesthetics that would be a down side of putting the site up i choose to live in a city not a gated community and id rather rely on utility than worry about you know the landscape ive accident on the avenue my whole life never been a pristine landscaper and plenty of wires boxes up i see like a wireless utility as vital as electricity for those utilities but id like better coverage out there and i would like ask you to deny the appeal. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is elizabeth i live in the Outer Richmond i know you mentioned this argument is not again, the needs of improvement and coverage and service in the area it comes down to article 240 im not familiar with but the professionals will work out im up here to share some piece of mind an interest of my fellow Community Residents im a Small Business owners i live and work on the Outer Richmonds and in technology approves and changed over the years and has been a success i also volunteer and i like to meet with my learn out in balboa park cafe we work on our Technology Skills and literacy and have a hard time getting cell phone connections on balboa park bottle and kwif balboa on the quality of life and my name ising e isabel i want to say first of all, it is pathic we protesters have to rely on technicality of mailing or not mailing to have our side heard they want a radius of one and 50 feet why do they need to mail those people they can say if at the protest if they wish to now under protesting we have to rely not the reasons for protesting really but a technicality and a complicated process of filing permits i think that is, we should consider the spirits why they needed to be informed by mail of this occurrence theyll put more wires on our poles and also this is one point and the next one is were not against progress we realize that communication is only maybe a baby in what it is going to be were saying ios poles were made two hundred years ago for light and power maybe telephone they were not made for endless need for power for wireless so i think that the point they need to background and find a way to draw power not in the existing power poles were not designed for that anyways thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening i Barbara Garcia has seen the wireless antenna on 67 taylor about 15 or 20 feet from anywhere apartment and recently noticed a half block away a big wireless misrepresent on an apartment 3 rectangle structures with a health of a parking meters i contacted the Planning Department and was told no record of a planning application then when i requested it can removed i am told the site has a permit to operate and thanks to the super bowl their surrounded by every utility pole one or several of the devices to meet the none of them were removed if things are are having several dptz attached to the same pole not allowed in europe, i. E. , companies will share the antennas and placed away from human habitation and that e admitted a decrease in damage and the weakening of the immune system and the first focus on the Wireless Technology was given in berkley and a Tech Employee for the engineering began to feel the negative impacts to wireless installation as hyper sensitivity hundreds of thousands of people have recorded problems and a critical times were seeing a role out of blanket neighborhoods with wifi and i got to stop there thats it for now thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. James walk again. Yeah. No i did not live in those neighborhoods under permitting i live near San Francisco General Hospital and i dont like the aesthetics of the new emergency building but like the idea well be able to deter of our citizens and our visitors you know in the future i dont like theres a lot of things i dont like the looks of if youre talking about aesthetics and you know the issue is Service Infrastructure versus aesthetics and i would vote for the infrastructure any day of the week we found even with the development that weve had in the city were hurting in a lot of ways and lets not make this another way we come up short through the service for the citizens thank you. Sir, i have a question i present our comment if you guarantee didnt get notification how did you hear. I got a telephone call not an immediate area but. Just a question. I also monitored the agendas various committees public committees yes, thats one of things i do. Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im clifford i heard beforehand something say the cell phone coverage is fine and it might be fine for that person but i mean, my business a based like reading the San Francisco chronicle the amount of people using smart phones into the future is just going to increase more and more and i then the network being built now is building for the future thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, my name is sergio lopez my work takes me around the city in reference to previous comments i want to say in a world that is getting more and more connected not feasible to say that some parts of city are not welcome to residents and have inadequate service from someone from at the working class background i want to point out the economic and social justice as the previous speakers said the Communication Infrastructure is an essential as gas or electric and he cant have areas less defined a Public Safety issue we need to have Strong Communications and then finally id like to point out that the way that the wireless antennas are being set up on existing poles means that any impact on aesthetics or the existing environment will be minimal thats all thank you. Next speaker, please. Andy assessing gal west side resident for the last comments i have a concern about the comments into the review service this is an antenna a minor thing about to become an Arts Commission issue strikes me as something that is bad policy in any home ugly wires that will not Pass Commission approval im willing to live with those a matter of Public Policy is a bad way to go. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi again, i wanted to clarify that sf action is a grassroots Advocacy Group and i come to city hall today speaking in favor of things i believe in wireless servicing one of them and increased housing so objective when im advocating for a building i think that we should build for housing that people want to live in San Francisco and so i really think this the light and views about the antennas are very, very minor we live in a dense place we need robust infrastructure and something that we value for our quality of life you guys pretty much know everything i stands for that and all my peers how we feel and we urge you to reject those principles of law thats an example of corporate i guess power being exerted over a communities i wanted to point out if you gathered all the residents and the employees in San Francisco who want you know fast reliable Cell Phone Services that will greatly outnumber of people that fit in city hall there are people that are members of sf action that used their aging in place to fight for social justice in the way they on the world should be approved and the textmessaging service that alerts undocumented workers before an immigration raid and one of my friends the ceo of up trust that is a texting device that helps people awaiting trial to make sure they get their paperwork in and things like that so a lot of movements that are corelated to the cell phone issues thanks. Any other Public Comment. Good afternoon, commissioners my name is dan anyone i want to appoint that you know there are a lot of mechanisms in the city that supposed to prevent the installations and you know the city whether the planning ments or the building inspection theyre not following their own Due Diligence and want to point out that the Planning Department general plans specificly states as policy one 3. 3 strive for the high standards of design structures placed in the public rightofway ; right . And you know and this whole policy even mentioned the Arts Commission and the support and supports the creation and the purpose of the Arts Commission and as the Arts Commission reviews the design and the design of public buildings and structures on City Property that is really you know it is part of general plan and if they dont follow it than what can we say about our City Government not following their own rules thank you. Any other Public Comment. Okay. Seeing none well have rebuttal starting with the appellant if you have anything furthers, sir. Thank you, again i just wanted to try i forgot any pen i was not able to pen notes but to the are you able to my testimony number one the appellant was not objecting to the idea that he will be notified by email not the problem that he was no evidence by email the problem the timely was supposed to include the documentation and instructions how to file a profit not received in the email so just to just to be clear that i was trying to say not communicating by email the second thing about the Arts Commission is ufos our citizens are diverse priorities has to do with with infrastructure and aesthetics and good cases with made in the situation in which good cases for the bodies of the argument i prefer my box pink and some my box blue a Arts Commission that decides elected through its own appointment and expertise so neighbors that be quibble who is willing to tolerate wireless things across their background can do that privately and the fact the Arts Commission their authorities was not consulted i think taints the process and again im sorry were stuck in that narrow technical considerations i think that there are bigger issues here just with my last minute i want to say those issues i fulfill admit im concerned about Health Issues and the fcc regulations they needed to demonstrate they center come applied to part of flax from 1996 i dont know if you know that i beg you didnt have a smart phone in your pocket those laws pertain two levels of radiation 0 out mooted the survives has changed since the prior laws as has the implosion of use of those things and much more explicit links to Health Concerns in newer science do the citizens band together an expert reports to bend the science to our corporate interests compete with crown castle were dealing with a multi billiards corporation dwindles the citizens didnt mean ios Health Concerns are not important or part of our argument ill fully willing to admit it please reject this. Mr. Simon. Ill be very belief in just address a few points and not make a new arguments the first issue raise on behalf of the appellant has to do with are rfp emissions i think the speakers have been candid what theyre concerned with theyre raising their concerns about rfp manages and Health Effects the law is very, very clear the last speaker anytime as much fair law clearly delicate those consideration may not be take into account by cities and granting or rejecting these permits and that is just very, very clear and fundamental part of law that relates to this project Something Else was raised a different point has to do with with the email notice is now sort of evolved from the complaint about that he received notice by email rather than mail now being well within the mail the email was provided as part of record by the city as part of dpw submission shows exactly what was in complaint that was included in the attachment so the gentleman received the information hes complaining about and the final pointed the Arts Commission issue that is discussed and length and clear there is involvement by quite a few of the city agencies with the Arts Commission theyre not one of them and not something that sort of in the under the mantel of appeals well create a process not part of the progress that was carefully laid out here thank you very much ill urge you to not grant the appeal and uphold this. Thank you well hear from the department now. Amanda from public works and in terms of the Arts Commission so we cant object a written statement from the attorney this about the Arts Commission role but per previous discussions with our City Attorney although the city chapters states the Arts Commission required the city jurisdiction cant overrule state jurisdiction and in general order 95 the state the California Public Utilities Commission it sets regulations for the light poles and dictated the roles to the jurisdictions that the legal jurisdiction the Arts Commission was not having full jurisdiction over review and want to see bring some things lets see so in looking at overhead from looking at the San Francisco charter section 5. One 03 the intent is that the Arts Commission revenue structures not replacements or installation on exist poles additionally i also want to bring up a document from the Arts Commission website one second please. So this is from the Arts Commission website it is overall of their guidelines their statement the Arts Commission reviews Capital Projects and this is it is a Capital Project the Capital Projects are City Projects okay. So next thing i wanted to kind of talk about mr. Can tours or the gentlemans claim about notice of termination and to introduce the public works brief is the declaration that crown castle comply with the notice of affidavit and on the second page have notice of foils of determination with the application and then on the second page it says within 1 calendar days days of issuance with any personal loyalty utilities to the board of appeals and get the boards answers and phone number and the same notice emailed to the gentleman thank you. Are you finished. Yes. I have a question you were reading off your phone a specific statement if the City Attorney or an interpretation from you and your colleagues. I believe an interpretation we can get a written statements. Were going to request that. I was clarifying that thank you. Okay commissioners the matter is yours. Im not going im not sure you know where im going. Okay sorry. I guess i was going to talk a little bit about the well organized the Public Comment process is however, i better not. The issue of before us is this whether dpw the issuing agency erred in their ordinance of that permit with respect to article 25 i did not finds they erred. Wow. This is like the i believe 5 hundred or 6 hundred case an wireless facilities in the 3 and a half years ive been on the board earlier 25 to hogtie a lot of the decision that body has made in the past we have been an advocate for San Francisco citizens weve been given specific and strict premiers my personable feelings hey does big brother always 0 do the right thing given the information before us i think even if we were to add the the Arts Commission to that that had been a temporary stay until theyre able to prepare that but i think the process is flawed i think that the permit was issued in error because of that process. I want to say this may be naive but again hundreds of these issued tsf statement from the department i think that if the Arts Commission thought they have a role somehow assert the jurisdiction that didnt happen im not persuaded and finds on the specific this case and not any other issues the permits was issued properly. So moniker to make a motion mine will fail. Last comment im still requesting that the dpw provides us with a written so either support of position or put it to rest okay. So whats the motion. No. Okay ill move to deny the appeal and uphold the permitted on the basis it was properly issued. To deny it was properly issued commissioner fung. Commissioner honda nay. Commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig that item passes with a vote of 3 to one with one absent. Well move on to item 8 to the appeal elizabeth versus the mapping the properties on the avenue protesting the issuance in 2016 to crown castle west, llc of a wireless box permit construction of a wireless personal be wireless facility that is application number 15 plus and hear from the appellant. Thank you for your time i know that seems like im up here this is for my house im so sad right now i feel like you guys know there bigger issues and you doesnt have our backs i want you to have our back and i want you to hear the stories were telling because its a relentless fight against the coalition of our city none of us are lawyers and we find failures here in process you yourself asked for more information and yet it goes no more ill take a stay of execution over an execution any day maybe that balanced out if the permit is denied today and may come back without changing any language of the briefs and changing the application fired we have to knock thirty by 30 to gather 300 to put together the appeal from working people that live in the western part of city well be here and maybe losses and maybe wont other challenges lose in the next 6 months we get our stay one thing that goes on was tower that is not coming down it is getting worse in their own belief theyve told us hey across the street that are wires and boxes whats the problem the logic is your neighborhood sucks this will wont make that worse that is insulting and patronizing i dont want a box for aesthetic reasons for Health Reasons proven or unproven or suspected or unproven 8 feet out were any young childrens are growing you have the power within article 25 to see a place where the dpw didnt do their Due Diligence with regards to the if so is a legal technicality garbage thats the world we live in i ask you to find courage and empathy to take the technical language back to the technical argument i have technical raenlz i didnt, argue my permit was denied and it would not behove me not to show them ill show you. Overhead please. This here is the document which has i believe on the third page instructions of how to file a protest this is stand to the pole it is illegal nor me to touch that to separate that so i can open the plastic to get to the thirds page and read about my legal right to protest this application now crown castle lawyer understand the right to protest yeah, im speaking for a lot of people that dont know who is that and cant put it together and couldnt read the thing im speaking for them such for me clearly i understand a protest its taken a good parts of my year frankly secondly, we like the previous appellant received and then email notifications of the permit didnt include a mockup of the proposed site and not instructions to file a protest thats a technical flaw and thirdly, im sorry if i dont have color images for i hope the tone of that image will be sufficient can we zoom in closely on this the simulation they did submit one pole that thing shown in this dark color and in the second simulation on the odds shows on invisible in another color the differs visual in black and white but youll notice that the difference in color is even more remarkable now last time we remember here we had our support that the