It was brought up that the home values will start to be neglect impacted by this whole thing. There has been studies in multiple institutions. There were surveys by the National Institute of science law and public policy, where 94 of home buyers were just not interested in moving into areas with telephone wires and power poles and lines and antennas, and so on and so forth. As far as the public works response in their brief, the precautionary principle ordinance, it only seems like its a guideline now. Its put in print, but it doesnt hold any water. Its misleading and fraudulent. The people that pay taxes and constantly taxes do go up every year because i know, i pay the taxes. When it comes down to actually enforcing this, theyre saying they dont have to do anything. Thank you for your time this evening. Clerk if you could write your name down on a speaker card, i would appreciate it. Next speaker, please. Thank you for listening to us. I live at 1647 17th avenue. To your point, i never received anything in the mail about this going up. The first i heard about it was a notice on the pole that you could barely read because it was covered over with tape and it was barely legible because of rain and fog. Luckily one of your neighbors looked at this and said whats going on. The second point is i work at home, im a reader, i constantly research on the internet. Our internet is fine. We dont need anything faster. Everything is working fine in this location. We dont need anything faster or better. The second point is this proposed location would directly impact one of the citys cultural icons, which is the 16th avenue stairs. Trip adviser lists 770 things to do in San Francisco. This is number 30. There are people who come from all over the world to see those stairs. This would directly impact the beauty of that neighborhood. There are no wires on this street. Our wires are in our back yard. Theyre not in the front. Its a lovely street with arts and craft style homes. Its a real esthetic problem. I know in april the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that esthetics alone are enough to reject the 5g infrastructure. Dennis herrera agreed that the poles could take away from the citys beauty. Also i would like to make a point around this. Other cities around the world are saying no and rejecting this rush to force 5g on local governments and communities. Mill valley has blocked this. Ross and salselmo have passed similar ordinances. Dozens of cities are fighting this rush to limit local control. People in belgium, italy, germany, switzerland are calling for bans on this 5g. The congresswoman who represents Silicon Valley introduced a legislation toe overturn this policy. There is a removal of some small cell deployments and removes safeguards that are outlined in the National Environmental policy act. Finally, were asking San Francisco to fight back and be on the right side of this. Los angeles, seattle, and 22 other cities and counties have already filed lawsuits to overturn the f. C. C. Order. I thank you for your time and your consideration. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Next sfooepeaker, please. Is there any other Public Comment . Yes. Please approach. Good evening, welcome. Hello. Hello, Board Members and president. At the september 25 board of appeals meeting, there was an appeal to stop the placement of a cellular antenna and it was denied by the board. During that meeting, a most important and imperative argument was presented by ron ratner on the precautioner principle. A rule of law and an ordinance of the city of San Francisco. The precautionary principle cannot be preempted nor is it conditional. It is there to protect the citizens from danger. We have a situation where we citizens are not warranted, protected, informed, or giving our consent to this addition of a pollutant, additional elect electromagnetic radio waves. Our residences are peaceful abodes. We now encounter 24houraday exposure with no relief. Everything is protected to do other side at the protection of the cautionary ordinance. The president in his authority requested the San Francisco department of Public Health to update their 2010 statement on cell towers and antennas. That is now in process. Therefore, all applications and approvals should be held in abeyance until such time as the rates of exposure and resting can be determined for the placement of towers and antennas related to their impact on health. Number two, president swig requested guidance from the Legal Counsel regarding the precautionary ordinance and how it must relate to article 25 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and overriding it. His response was, im not prepared to do so. 42 days have passed. So for the Public Record and to follow up president swigs request, the question is, what guidance can you now give to the board of appeals regarding that question . At the september 25 meeting, it was also stated that there was no manifest in justice. How can the board make such a statement when people are bombarded with levels of radiation hundreds of thousands of times higher than normal and pulses continuously that affect the health of people, plants, insects, even rain. Injustice abounds here. Just a little bit more for the overhead. In the united states, these are the comparisons. If you do 10 , youre still 100 which is higher than anything imaginable throughout other parts of the world. Clerk thank you, sir. Will you fill out a speaker card, please. Thank you. Clerk is there any other Public Comment . Okay. We will move on to rebuttal. Ms. Maring, you have three minutes. Thank you. I just wanted to mention. I have the envelope that was mailed to me that said it was mailed from santa anna two or three days before that. I noticed the light pole in front of our home. All of this planning was going on and then we get the note in the mail. And also it was said there would be a 4foot dome on top of the light pole and they said not distractive boxes. My neighbors and i live here. We dont want this radiofrequency in front of our homes. If they want to put it on 17th avenue they can put it on lotten and maraga where there are no windows on the corners. My neighbors work at home and have families and children. Thank you for listening to me. Im grateful for my neighbors being here to support me. Theres other places that could locate it on 19th avenue, a thorou thoroughfare, not in front of family homes. Clerk thank you. Do you need this anymore . Clerk thank you. Well hear from the permit holder. Would that last public speaker, do you have your card to turn . Thank you. It helps us keep accurate track of the minutes. Thank you. Public comment. Okay. You have three minutes. Thank you. More than anything, id like to be here to answer any questions that you have after youve heard some other folks. I would like to highlight, at the risk of being repetitive, we did follow the notification requirements. Youve actually heard from some folks. Youve heard that that was true. You heard from folks that did get the mailer. You heard that there were notices posted. Again, we uploaded the affidavits proving as much. As far as the design, this is as sleek and as small of a design we installed for San Francisco. Weve worked for the Planning Department for several years to try to make these as small and unobtrusive as possible. Installations that might occur on lotten would be on larger poles with communication lines. Those installations require large separation from power lines and communication lines. They just result in bigger, more obvious installations. While its true in some locations it might be better to go to one location over another, it would result in bigger installations. Thats true here with what would be required if we went to a different location. I want to highlight those things and answer any questions. The question was really just to try to explain why this location is important. Like what is the reason. I understand the size difference if youre further away, but why do you need to be here at this particular location . The best way i can answer that is sprint has decided, via reviewing their Network Performance than this location would help performance in the neighborhood. This we chose this part of 17th because they have concrete light poles, whereas a lot of the neighborhood has the wooden larger utility poles. Did you look at specific alternatives . Normally in these cases there are alternative poles which are considered and that actually has become part of the dialog with the community, as opposed to, okay, were putting it here because it suits us. Did you have any options in alternatives on any part of the street, even though a more obtrusive box may have resulted . Yes, i think there are options and other poles that may have resulted in an installation. There are other concrete poles on 17th, but i dont think that would satisfy any of the folks here tonight. It would still be on 17th and still be roughly equivalent locations to homes. I dont know that those are better alternatives. The other alternatives are almost entirely wood poles. Some of those poles are not possible at all just because theres so much stuff on them that we wouldnt be able to install a facility that would comply with state law that governs how and where utilities relate to each other. Some arent options at all, but others might be. We determined those are lesser options because they would result in bigger and more obvious installations. Would you like to respond to the publics question as to why there is this urgency to put these boxes. Im not picking on sprint, but you might want to generically answer because we get this question. Why is there the sense of urgency to populate so dramatically the light poles, et cetera, of San Francisco by these boxes with all of these by all the telecommunication Wireless Companies . Sure. Thats a question that we could talk about for a long time. To try to be brief, as technology as evolved over time, the antennas and the radios need to be closer to the severs because of the huge data usage. If you only have one site that serves 10,000 people, the experience of those people trying to use it at the same time will be really awful. If you have three or four sites scattered, each location can better serve the population. Thats why youre seeing the evolution over time. In the very early days of wireless networks, you may have only had one or two sites in a metropolitan area. Youve seen it from being on top of a mountain to on top of a Tall Building to on top of a smaller building to antennas in the streets. Thats why, the networks need more facilities to process all of the data. Thank you. Any other questions . Clerk thank you. Anything further, mr. Palasius. If you can come forward. Im got a few brief questions. Weve talked in the past about Customer Service and customer sensitivity. Its an item for me at least. Was there an initiative to have dialog with the community and look proactively at alternative sites and discuss with the community why this site might not be their first choice or explain to the community that alternative sites would just end up being the same issue or worse . Yeah. Theres a prior to the application well, we have a hearing we did have a hearing for this item where the public could say theyre concerned, their comments, and the applicant is there stating the reasons they chose this location. But prior to the installation, we do have a section in our new order which was also in the previous order Encouraging Community meetings. It is encouraged in order that they do have Community Meetings, but its not required. To your knowledge, did extenet have a sense of Community Service and simulate a Community Meeting on this subject . As far as my knowledge, im not aware of one. In your public meetings, did anybody from the Community Show up or were they notified that they had the option of showing up at a Community Meeting to or not a Community Meeting, your hearing, to voice their concern. Yes, we had people show up to the hearing. Okay. Great. How many, out of interest . I think i saw the checkin sheet today, i think roughly nine or ten. I would like to understand the process for folks who may not be engaged. The process has changed now. They would work with you, public works, to have their application which is reviewed by planning, has this public hearing process. Then after that hearing assume the permit is tentatively issued, assuming there is a notice that goes out. Is that what happens . Thats where people see the notice cards and the posting on the pole itself . Yes. Then they have a time to appeal which brings them here. They have time to protest and there is another notice for the appeal, yes. Just to try limit that isnt the old order. So just to try to help folks understand that what happens is the notice on the pole and the notice to your home is the notice that this is potenti potentialally going to be a process that brings you here to us for the board of appeals. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. So, mr. Rossi, i hate to throw this at you. You can come up with the same answer. On the issue of the precautionary issue, i have a sense this is going to come up again and again and again. How do we get a reading on this so that the public has some comfort about is there a precautionary principle number one, what is the theory behind it, what is the impact of that on cases like this. Can we move forward on that or have you done some further research . I think i answered the question at one of the meetings on these prior permits. Article 25 limits the boards review of these permits to compliance with article 25. Its not the broader review that you have under other kinds of permits. Article 25 provides that the standard is set by the federal comooucketss commission. So themunications commission. So the city cant create their own. This ordinance does not place any binding obligation on you as a board to create anything that you believe violates that principle. We found that those of you who attended our hearing before, the aforementioned article 25 was really well crafted by the legislators in tying our hands. There are very strict guidelines, and that we has a board have to adhere to. If there are i think that we have found exceptions and denied sorry, found for appellants when there are clear view streets, like a street would have a beautiful view of the Golden Gate Bridge and this big box would block that and weve been able to use that as a way to find for an appeal. We have found a way in the past where there has been notice that was improper. We have upheld an appeal on that. We have been frustrated on the health issue. There is no doubt that there is stacks and stacks and stacks, et cetera, of medical findings that imply that these things are being put on our street poles are harming citizens. We are not medical professionals. We read the documents, but were not medical professionals. We cannot opine on that and we cannot find because article 25 yet again binds our hands. We made a request to the department of Public Health to update their findings from 2010. We have yet to hear from the department of Public Health. When we do, im not sure that will have any bearing either, but just for the publics knowledge, its not that we sit here rubber stamping and finding objection to your points of view. This law is significantly restraining our ability to find for appellants in these types of cases. So unfortunately i would suggest that yet again we deny the appeal on the grounds that the permit was properly issued according to article 25. If anybody else wants to comment on it, im no, i just want to concur with my president. Weve heard hundreds and hundreds of these cases. Besides being commissioners, we also are residents and homeowners in the city as well. I too have a cellular antenna on my block. I was thinking about appealing it, but that wouldnt work out so well. We are extremely sympathetic and not just to say our hands are tied. We have tried several times in the past, to the point where our board has lost litigation for the decisions that we made. To the people that are there, one, if you guys are living on the up side of the street, you have great views. Im surprised keith and his little dog is not with you guys. The other thing was the block before you is kind of famous. John burke was raised on that block. I would add one thing. I think these processes and city processes can be confusing a lot of times. Theres a lot of moving parts. Were one of the last stops, the board of appeals. Our job is to determine whether a decision was issued and that it was right and correct. This is the purview of the board of supervisors. We decide if the permits were issued in accordance with the laws that were set out in the way that the laws set out. In this case we have even more challenges. Article 25 is not just on its own but according to federal law that supersedes the federal law. Its to give you a Bigger Picture of where we derive our authority from and where this law and permit derives its authority from. I think i made a motion unless anybody wants to adjustility. We have a motion from the president to uphold the appeal. [roll call vote]. Clerk that motion carries. We are moving on to item number 5, appeal no. 190. William hassebrock versus department of building inspection. This is an appealing the issuance on july 19, 2019, to coyote walnut creek. There is a certificate of completion requested legalizing the rear building. My name is bill hassebrock. This is my card. Thank you for allowing me to appear before you this evening. I first want to acknowledge i believe my there. I am coowner in a t. I. C. In the process of converting condo a twounit property. Mr. Apolos is my coowner. I want to ask that you consider that mr. Apolos, my partner, felt that he did not want to be mentioned as a party to my actual brief. I thought in good faith that we were in