Tower or possible alternatives like fiber optics which can provide Fastest Internet in the u. S. A. Instead of proving health and safety of the cell tower project, on verizon, they improper hoisted upon vulnerable a joining residents and owners the unfair burden of Challenging Health and safety of the agencys pre determined, private approval decision. They failed to acknowledge or inform the public that thousands of highly credible independent worldwide scientific studies have overwhelmingly contradicted and invalue dated 1996, fcc thermal safety guidelines which have become completely outdated and extraordinarily dangerous. Independent studies have long shown that microwave cell towers cause cancer clusters and other diseases and may seriously threaten not just san franciscans but people in nature everywhere. For many years, not even the likes of london have issued Product Liability insurance on cellphones and wifi products. Too dangerous. And while its induce tremendous cooperations like verizon, confirm those dangers in mandatory s. E. C. Disclosure to their shareholders. So, improving this cell tower project the article 25 city departments violated the most fundamental precautionary principle. Threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exist, lack of full scientific certainty of our cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for the city to prevent the degradation of the environment or protect the health of its citizens. Closed quote. In San Francisco, this board of appeal is the last hope for most ordinary people. Hardly anyone can afford to litigate against giant corporations so tonight, you have an unprecedented opportunity of conscientiously reversing the cell tower permit on health and safety grounds. Such conscientious and groundbreaking board of appeals decisions can lead San Francisco and our nation in protecting against further and prude use of dangerous Wireless Technologies which seriously or i remember reversi rememberi rememberrebleo and nature. Thank you. Hearing from the attorney. Welcome back, councilor. Good evening. Mr. President , members of the board, paul, outside council for Verizon Wireless. Were sympathetic obviously to his concerns about the health and safety. I think you know article 25 is one of the most robust regulations really in the country for these types of facilities to be placed in urban environments. Article 25 was upheld by the California Supreme Court in t mobile verse San Francisco and it requires a rigorous review of the publichealth of the omissions from the Verizon Wireless facilities. For that reason, we submit Consulting Engineers report and we have a representative here if youd like to ask any questions that shows the emissions from this facility are less than half than what is allowed under the fcc standards at the nearest building. The department of publichealth took that report, which its anna proved engineer by the city of San Francisco and also represents other cities and confirmed in their report that this site will comply with the fcc standards, there by complying with article 25 and the federal law such that that issue is resolved with respect to the city, code and respect to the federal law. And testing which will be done in order to absolutely confirm the emissions comply with the f. C. C. Standards. The city included announcement from the f. C. C. Earlier this month that they are reconfirming the same levels of emissions that are in place for the last decade. We would argue in really has been a public and transparent process not a secret process. I think you are aware that there are notices that go out to allow for a protest hearing with the tentative approval. That includes the d. P. H. And information that is available from the department as well. Theres another notice that goes out with the final determination that allows two levels of protest before public hearing officer and then here again. We feel its a very transparent process. So we encourage you to approve this facility as approved by the department of publichealth and of course reviewed by the department of planning and the department of public works, three departments that have recommended approval of the site. I have a question, councilor and thank you. Can you explain the difference between this antenna and the antenna that is generally before us. Were hearing the ones on the pole top. This is a more robust system. Yes, so, as you heard me go on before, right now verizon is using three different types of radios in San Francisco. The site that will be coming up later is on a light standard and thats a fivewatt radio. On utilities polls were using 40watt radios. Thes the same were putting on every utility pole in 70 in north beach and elsewhere throughout the city. We have afourfoot antenna and the difference here is that were using only one of the directions. Because of that, the radio signal is then concentrated in that one antenna giving us a higher effective radiated power than you would have. I spoke to the engineer and she explained that this is a very cluttered environment. If you look at the photo, you will see theyre very Tall Buildings all around this pole. Were able to get up to nearly 640 feet with this pole. The antenna is focusing uphill to provide up laguna and get through this urban clutter and providing its signal. The site is not focused in three directions but one. So its really the same radios, same antenna but the fact that the energy from the radios is being focused in one direction rather than two or three directions. Was that in the a pa appellas grief they stated 7,000 watts . Thats right. Thats taking i can have the engineer better explain. You have two bands, p. C. S. And a. W. S. , the shorter bands but carry more information and you have that 40 watts times two times two and the a ten a which is 15 gets you to the 7,000 watts. Its 60 feet up in the air and off to the side of the building thats about 12 to 15 feet away. The other question was, they had mentioned the april 4th, 2019 decision regarding tmobile west versus San Francisco. Could you go into that a little bit as to what . Absolutely. Ill try and be brief. Tmobile and a company name next g brought by crown castle were not comfortable with article 25 so they sued and the principle argument was under California Public utility code section 79. 01 cities could not regulate aesthetics and they could only regulate under 79. 01 they have the right to put information on telephone polls and in the rightofway and they argued there was no control over aesthetic and they lost that argument. Article 25 went from the lower courts to the appeal court to the Supreme Court each time demote and subject t, soyou cane corporation from putting facilities in the right of away but you can and that is basically the ruling in that case and it upheld article 25 so what was upheld, is the you cant detract a characteristics of the neighborhood and impair the anesthetic attributes to create a historic director average or excellent view. Those are average, they are all standards that we can. We will now hear from the Relevant Department and from public works. Usually sitting on the other side. Hello, good evening, president and members of the board. Leo, representing public works. We believe is issued and in article 25 for service facilities. Article 25 requires public works to refer wireless application to the department of publichealth and the Planning Department. Both departments determine this application complies with the Health Article 25. Public works accidentally issued a tentative approval and the applicant male and post notice of this approval. Public works held a public hearing. Following the director of public works approved the permit and noticed this determination was distributed to the public. The Planning Department isnt s in attendance and speak more regarding the process if the board has questions that the department of publichealth is in attendance and can speak more regarding the health review. I have a question, sir. In all the cases weve heard ive never heard the term precautionary principle. Can you explain that . Yes, so its sent out for all city agencies if theyre the Health Reason or publichealth and theres a ceqa process required and we have them a noise study and it is rioux video by the department of public speak and we can have the department of publichealth to make sure its still within compliance. Thank you. Thank you. The individual from the public of health. Would you like her to speak . We have sent amounts of information to the department of publichealth this board. I say copious but its nothing in comparison to what weve sent you. Theres data on data presented by the public its harmful to the public. In the spirit, and we are not scientists and were not ta assisted and were not engineers and were members of the public about we have sent this information to the department of and requested the department of publichealth and that was several months ago. When are we to expect the sponsor department of health after giving you all this information provided to us from the public that kids were poisoning the public when we take an action to approve these transmitters. We did receive the request through dr. Eric on our Health Officer. He has received a request to respond to the 2010 memo. It was written by the formal Environmental Health director and Health Officer and so i have met with the doctor and he is currently reviewing the documents as well as doing his due till against and research and we will be able to create an updated memo similar to dr. To respond to the Current Research and the department of publichealth position on radio frequency emissions and the standards set bstooped iwoulo months. I would say thats roughly an idea through some conversation with him and that is totally doable. Like you said, ive seen the stack and i agree. Its a lot of information and we have to be sure that were looking atri search that is connected to the a ten a research and its also repeatable done through peer review so there are these checklists we have to go through and the doctor is committed to making sure that he is thorough in that so it will take him some time with his schedule but i can skim three to four months is doable for him. You can understand our sense of urge see because week after week we have hearings and we have members of the public come up and address important items. We have others, you didnt get that stack from us, it came from the public and their health is at stake and we on this board are very concerned with the health of the citizens of San Francisco as a result of these items and we want to put to rest and well talk about that later but at the same time, the precautionary principle weighs heavily on hour minds because we dont want them moving something forward knowing that we may be causing harm to the citizen. I hope you hear our sense of urgency and. We as a department, were not doing the research as well so and were definitely going to be diving into the research that they used to make that determination so we can see the va livalidity of that. San francisco feels otherwise other than the f. C. C. Feels which San Francisco quite often feels differently when the federal feels on certain ideas and i hope they challenge the fcc and what might be an obsolete point of view in 1996. They are not the ones that are the scientists. They are heavily relying on Health Organizations and American Cancer Society research and the World Health Organization as well as the f. D. A. Thank you, very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your hard work. Well hear from mr. Sanchez. Hold on im just kidding. Illing brief. I review material that the application was properly reviewed by the Planning Department. The site is in both the zoning protected location because its been in rtc Zoning District and a planning protected because its a street with excellent view ratings. Given the context of the site, as well as the design of the site we find it complies with our requirements and most of the issues and concerns that were raised in the appeal related to health and not the Planning Departments approval but we did review this and find that it does comply with our requirements and im available for my questions. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Please approach the microphone. Thank you. Im going to speak off the cuff, if you will. There is enough research to show that radiation effects human cells but it effects wildlife, birds, piece and putter flies. Im not a scientist, im not an environmentalist im just a very conscientious human being and i believe strongly that if we dont, as a human race, make decisions to protect everything that were involved with, the environment, our air, our oceans, the wildlife, we are going to be in deep trouble. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other Public Comment on this item . Please approach the microphone. Hello board members. Hello president swig. Im just going to start off this way. These are the times and of course so begin comes the letter to George Washington at valley george the winter is 1776 and preserve the fight for independence and freedom. And we are faced with the crisis right now of extreme danger and doctors, telecommunications specialists, they recognize the perm upon all ages of people by wifi and its extreme proliferation and economic hazards. If this continues forward, in the essence nhl general Welfare Society is being ab regated. Government has a mandatory role to protect society and government must not chose a separate role of its own in har morph legislation the federal Communications Act of 1996, article 15, basically has engineers deciding whether or not something is harmful. They are not really looking at the World Health Organization and theyre not looking at many medical societies, the American Medical Association as well as everybody is saying, medically, this is a danger and it was only effecting 10 of the population 10 years ago. Presently, all the research ive read says its effecting 50 of the population. As it continues it can effect more people. I just want to read you Something Real quick here. In the largest settlement from electro magnetic injury the boeing company will pay 500,000 to one of its employees who claim he developed lukemia during his work with electro magnetic radiation. He was charged with knowing of the health risk but failed to warn its employs and not precautions to protect them. You have 30 seconds, sir. The court ruled in favor of the client and this was done in 1990. So keep in mind that 1995 the office of Technical Technology assessment was defunded in 1996 we ended up with this. How big wire lus made us think that cell phone made a special investigation. Your time suppose. The capture of the agency. Your time suppose. Is there any other Public Comment . Good evening, welcome back. I want to thank you all commissioners because i can tell youve been really listening and i really appreciate it. And im going to cut some of what i was going to say out just because you are focusing on health. I want to address that. If i want to present a meta for i can story. Timing is an important variable when climbing mount everest. Climbers must begin their assent on time and must observe strict turn a lot times. If they dont reach the summit by 2 00 p. M. They must turn around or the afternoon blizzards and early darkness will bring certain death. Despite this knowledge, many climbers continue to the summit and never make it home home alive. Christopher kay states we can be lured into our destruction by our passion for our goals. And make it a part of our identity and its increasingly difficult to change direction. People despite accumulating evidence that the goal is unwise or determination and commitment to continue becomes hardened. The s. C. C. Did not begin on time they failed to order 5g Precautionary Health and safety tests and relied on the 1996 telecommunications rack and illegal law based solely on industry sponsored health studies. The fact that Congress Passed this dow gem on straits capture at best or outright corruption and fraud lens on the part of the federal government and the telecom industry. The climb towards 5g has been more arduous than expected. Through out the world citizens are pushing back. Citizens, seitz and counties in california have passed our our din ans banning 56. There have been 400 peels against 5g permits with testimony from numerous keys from smart people according to rick swig, president of the board of appeals here. Think about it who in their right mind would want a cell tower in front of their residents. Its five minutes to two, are you going to turn around and start your dissent or is 5g going to be a Suicidal Mission for the people of San Francisco . Already, you have asked the director of the San FranciscoPublichealth Department to read studies c