Commissioner santacana. Commissioner tanner is absent tonight. Im julie rosenberg, the boards executive director. Well also be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board this evening. Up front, we have scott sanchez, acting deputy zoning administrator, representing the Planning Department and excision. We expect joseph duffy, representing the building inspection. Leo is here for San Francisco public works. And we expect chris buck, irvin forester with San Francisco public works, urban forestry. The Board Meeting guidelines are as follows. The board request that you silence all phones and electronic devices. Please carry on conversations in the hallway. The rules of the presentation are follows. People affiliated with the parties must include their comments within the 7 or 3minute period. Members not affiliated have up to three minutes and no rebuttal. Please speak into the microphone. You are asked but not required to submit a speaker card to board staff when you come up to speak. Theyre available on the left side of the podium. Four votes are required to grant an appeal or jurisdiction request. If you have questions about questioning a rehearing, speak to the board staff during the break, after the meeting or call the board office. Were at 1650 mission street, room 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv, cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast friday. The video is available on our website and can be down loaded from sfgovtv. Org. Please note that any member of the public may speak. If you intend to testify at any of tonights proceedings and have the board give your testimony evidencery weight, stand and say i do. Do you swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you, please be seated. Okay. We are moving to item number 1 which is general Public Comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the boards jurisdiction, but that is not on tonights calendar. Is there anyone here for general Public Comment . Okay. Well move onto item number 2. Commissioner comments and questions . President swig commissioners, anything . Propose that we adjourn the meeting in memory of those who died on september 11th. I agree. Thank you very much, commissioner. Any Public Comment on that motion . Please approach the microphone. Good evening. My name is nancy star and i would like my husband dan kreps to stand up. He was in the next building on 9 11 in new york city and five blocks away when the first tower fell. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other Public Comment on that . Okay. Seeing none, we move onto item number 3, the adoption of the minutes. Commissioners, before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the august 28, 2019 meeting. I would like to make two additions. For item number 10 i would like to add that the basis for the decision to prevent intrusion into the common area. And for item number 11, i would like to add that the basis for the decision was that the parties agreed to the revised plans. President swig thank you. Any other comments . Motion . Move to adopt the minutes as amended. Okay. We have a motion from Vice President lazarus to adopt the minutes as amended. On that motion, commissioner . So that motion carries. 40. The minutes are adopted. Well move to item number 4. This is jurisdiction request number 19005. Subject property at 15 nobles alley, marc bruno is asking that the board take jurisdiction over the alteration permit which was issued on march 27, 2019. The appeal period ended on april 11, 2019. And the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on august 23, 2019. The determination holder is paul boschetti. Its to comply with violation, reference approved application. Renovation of existing bath and kitchen in unit 2 on the third floor. So for jurisdiction requests, each party gets three minutes with no rebuttal. Well hear from mr. Bruno first. I think we have to wait for joe. Okay, were going to have wait for the representative from Building Department of inspections. Hes like the key people. Move onto item number 5 . If we could, please. So item number 5 is daniel kreps versus San FranciscoPublic Works Bureau of street use and mapping, subject probably, 2035 laguna street. Of personal Wireless Service permit. Construction so far a personal Wireless Service facility in a zoning protected location. This is permit 18wr0130. On june 12, 2019, the board voted 40 to reschedule the appeal at the request of the parties. Good evening, welcome. Good evening, president swig. Vice president lazarus. Commissioners. Overhead, please. And just face it as were looking at it, sir. Thank you. Okay. This is just for like a point of reference. Ill refer to it in a moment. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this evening and make our case regarding the applicant permit to install a personal wireless facility outside your home at 2035 laguna street. This is my wife nancy star. Our appeal is not based on radio frequency emissions. Contrary to the claim in the applicants brief and to the inaccurate report of d. P. W. s hearing officer who recommended denial of our appeal to d. P. W. In a hearing exactly seven months ago on this incorrect basis. However, we were not provided a copy of the hearing officers conclusion until last week when they delivered the brief and exhibits for this hearing. The hearing officers conclusion 0 can be found buried on the 130page submission. What i argue exactly said months ago today, the evaluation contained not one statement of fact based on actual analysis or testing. And that its opinion that the operation of the node proposed by Verizon Wireless, that it will comply with the standards for limiting public Radio Frequency Energy is without merit. We contend this is still the case and further more additionally contend that our appeal to d. P. W. Was improper denied. However, as made clear in our written submissions for this hearing, were not requesting that you deny the applicants permit, but you approve it with certain reasonable conditions. We were pleased to read in the brief on age 2 and 6, that the proposed facility is to cover localized gaps in 4g service. And that the facility at 2035 laguna street serves 4g, not 5g. Further more on page 6, the applicant states the facility cannot be altered without further review by the city. This condition is totally acceptable to us. But we request the board of appeals make it clear in this ruling that the proposed facility will not be used to transmit 5g without a new application that would be subject to appropriate safety regulations relevant to 5g. As the worthless boilerplate statement by edison, as worthless as it is, it contains one key assumption that deserves to be noted. Item 6 states that verizon proposes to operate the facility up to 220 watts. We would prefer to see the statement more clearly and forcefully stated as verizon will not operate from this facility with a radiant power greater than 220 watts. We would note that they confirmed Verizon Wireless must comply with all terms and conditions of the permit and for any increase in the effective power, a new review must be conducted. Again, we concur. But finally, we raised the issue of actually measuring the r. F. Emissions from verizon facilities. The applicants brief states on page 6 that pursuant to longstanding requirements of the city, the actual r. F. Emission will be measured after the facility is installed and is online. Our question is, why not now . As you can see from the overhead, there are already 10 operating facilities within about a threeblock radius of the proposed facility outside our house. In fact, weve taken it on ourselves to look at a few of these using this device. Which we purchased. It is an r. F. Radio frequency measurer. And wed like to play a video of just a few seconds. If you can plug it in here . Is that well, it wont have the sound. If we can put it on here, it would be better. Can you stop the clock for him . Were going to plug it in over here. I dont know how to do this. Again, there are two facilities, both verizon hold on, we stopped the clock while were trying to get this working. Okay. Okay, the hearing is resuming. Im about half a block away. Two sites. Now we dont claim to be experts. Or that this represents any really scientific analysis or results, however, if you take this thing or any of these things, it lights up. So its clear that these facilities are already producing significant radio frequency emissions. Whether they are within the outdated fcc guidelines or not, we cant say. However, according to the manufacturer of this device, the frequency emissions that we recorded from currently emanating facilities are within the range of what they consider extreme concern. Therefore, prior to the applicants permit being granted we request that the board require an independent studiy analyzing to determine whether the assumptions about the level of emissions are accurate. Our appeal regarding this permit is not and [bell ringing] its about whether the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that their facilities will actually comply with the guidelines. We strongly believe that the applicant that not demonstrated this case and independent analysis of the existing emissions is called for. Thank you very much. President swig thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the attorney for the permit holder. Welcome back. Good evening. Outside council for Verizon Wireless, i have hammond edison, if you have questions about meet understand and testing, he may be able to respond. This really is about r. F. Emissions and concerns about r. F. Emissions. And we understand the important need and its one of the conditions to have Verizon Wireless available to provide or educate with respect to r. F. Emissions. And thats certainly one of the reasons that the test is prepared, the d. P. H. Does the careful review and the reason we do post installation testing and all of that information is readily available. I think the appellant reduced his concerns to two points. Sounded like he was not concerned about the 220 watt facility going above 220 watts for going to 5g without further review by the city. Thats correct. That is contained in the approval for the department of Public Health and department of public works, any modifications approved has to be reviewed by both of those agencies. The other issue i think is what is the current ambient r. F. Level, the current levels at the site prior to the installation of our facility. And under the guidelines created in 1996, based on 30,000 without macro sites, the city determined that 100 feet was a substantial distance where you would not have any appreciable r. F. Emissions. As you know thats because of the inverse square rule. The power of the density of the signal depletes by a square factor, a distance of two depletes the r. F. By four. And as a consequence, in order for there to be any measurable amount that would be relevant to this facility, you would have to have something, because this facility only puts out 20 times below the r. F. Level at their house, something that was 95 of the standard in order to get anywhere near to the fcc limit. And thats why its physically impossible to have facilities that are farther away that would create that situation. Thats why the rule exists today. The meter, i have to confess my wife has one of those meters. I shouldnt keep talking about my family. The kids use it too to look for ghosts around the house. It will go off at any number of things, some of the sources are the sun. I want daniel to Say Something about the meter. Wed ask you to please recognize that this is related to r. F. Emissions, to confirm d. P. H. s review and uphold the permit by d. P. W. I dont know if you have questions for daniel about the meter. Hello, daniel, engineer at hammond edison, we prepared the report. Familiar with the meter that the appellant brought up. One of the issues, weve bought several of these meters, as experts we feel we should understand the i. Q. One of equipment. One of the key problems with that meter is doesnt measure exposure at the level that the fcc sets. The manufacturer uses an arbitrary much lower level and it beeps erratically as it goes over the much lower limit. As they brought the meter out and measured the exposure level, i have doubt that the actual measures levels were below 1 of the fcc exposure limits. Any questions . President swig are you done . I have a couple of questions. So the antenna in question, its capability is 4g, does it have the capacity to do 5g . It does not. It would be have to be a whole new antenna . Yes. Regarding testing, i believe that you upon a request, you will send engineers in to test. Explain that process. Sure, not even upon request. Just after verizon installs the site, our firm and other firms involved in the work will measure the r. F. Exposure levels and go up to the antenna and measure the levels at the antenna. See how far away it is. Its usually less than a foot. Upon request we go into someones house to measure there. President swig so if someone wanted to find out what the r. F. Exposure is from their particular are the . Right. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the department. Welcome. Hello. Good afternoon, president , Vice President and members of the board. Im leo, representing public works. We believe that this permit was issued in compliance with the permitting procedures defined public works code for wireless facilities at the time of issuance both departments determine if this article complies. Public works subsequently issued an approval and then posted notice of the approval. Public works held a public hearing to consider protests. Following the hearing, the director approved the permit and notice of the determination was distributed to the public. If the board has questions, the Health Department is not in attendance, but is available to take questions and respond through email. Commissioner honda question. So the appellant had said in their comments that according to the permit, that if verizon wanted to upgrade to 5g or increase the power of the wattage, explain that process. What would they have to do . So, its an interesting process. Due to well if they wanted to do it now, they would have to actually go to the pole owner and speak to them regarding the process for modification to include a 5g antenna. As of effective monday, we actually do not have jurisdiction over metal antennas. Over cityowned poles. Puc streetlight poles. If this was a pg and e pole, it would be reviewed. One of the requirements for the permit is a radio frequency study to make sure it meets the hub health compliant standard. Since you reminded me as of monday, a lot of these permits are no longer appealable to this body, correct . Well, there are a few permits that have been appealed that are puc poles. I think its up to your discretion. You have jurisdiction over those. If you guys wish to uphold or deny those permits. Okay. Thank you. I just want to formalize and wrap the issue. So the appellant said everything is fine except we want to be assured that this is not automatically upgraded to a 5g or over 200 yes. So what i want to hear it from you. Weve heard from counsel, but i want to hear it from you. So it seems there is no need for us, if we if we agree with the appellant, because theyre saying its fine with him now as long as. We dont have to condition it because the condition is built into the legal statute as it is today . Yes. So we dont have to condition. Good, thank you. Mr. Sanchez . Is there any Public Comment on the item . Please approach. How many people are here for Public Comment . Two . Okay, please, sir, come up to the podium and start speaking. Welcome. My name is barry hermanson, im a Small Business owner and homeowner on the west side. I know nothing about this particular project, but my question with all of this is, really to the process. Is the city reviewing a study or measurement that the industry is providing to you . Or is there an independent study that is actually going on . And as a concerned citizen, i would hope that would be an independent study. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Sir, do you mind filling out a speaker card . Mr. Hermanson, if you dont mind, so we can get your spelling correct. Thank you. If you could give it to us. Welcome. Hello. Board members, president swig, just about the ghost meter. The meters are set for international standards. Thats why they beep at much higher level. So august 28, the board of appeals meeting denied your request by ron ragner having to do with a cell tower being placed. And the reason by board member santacana, it was preempted by the Supreme Court upholding article 25. However, we are aware that imminent harm is possible and further determination is being made by the department of Public Health as expressed by the board of appeals. So the precautionary principle has two rules. One, it is not preemptive. Therefore, article 25 cannot stand in its way. Second, it is not conditional. Therefore, there are no conditions restraining its action. Its there for the sole purpose of protecting society from harm. And e. P. A. Consider wifi a polluta pollutant. We recognize the the authorities recognize it as a thousandfold too high. So there is also confusion regarding evidence. First of all, there is a difference between human effects and biological effects. Biological effects, you find by biological studies and humans effects are defined by health studies. So the studies require certain protocol. The health studies. And that is you have to have a control group and then you have to have a group that is exposed to the pollutant. And what has happening is that the biological studies have already proven over 17,000 biological studies recognized that the exposure produces leukemia, cancer, dna damage, major cellular leakage and mental and suicidal problems. Therefore, no formal Human Health Study can be performed since its already proven that it causes cancer. So its forbidden by law. Fortunately, we have amassed a large database o