Influence at the federal and state levels to tie local governments hands and our ability to regulate this industry responsibly and commence rat with the desires of our citizens. Beginning when i was twoyearsold, with the federal Telecommunications Act, im sorry, i just missed that by 32 years. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, it was the first overhaul of Telecom Regulations in a half century and extending to changes to our state Public Utilities code and Public Utilities commission which even went further than the federal f. C. C. Our ability here in San Francisco has been con trained as it relates to regulation of publichealth and safety matters. Over the past several months, my office has undertaken a review to understand the difference between what is required of us relative to federal and state law pre emion and where we may have done more as required for us and where we con trained our authority to regulate in this area. Some have contended weve gone above and beyond what is required by federal and state law. Others contend that the city has reaped certain benefits such as the fact that the city charges rent for cell sites and Telecom Companies are obligated to replace utilities polls in exchange for the ability to install on these facilities. I also want to recognize the Public Policy imperative to ensure that all of our citizens and residents have adequate access to the entertainment. Which has become an indistance able commodity in our Society Daily lives but i believe that 5g, the fifth generation of cells in smartphones is more than just cell phone Internet Access is about an explosion of Network Devices that are and continue to be part of every facet of our lives. In as much as the Health Concerns maybe real relative to use of devices these wireless cell sites enable i have concerns about wireless devices in our homes and our public rights of way from selfdriving cars to Wireless Security and wireless household a compliance. Its not just health. They are also about privacy implications and ive noted, for instance, that ring security cameras were the subject of controversy for being to subject to widespread hacking. Even the federal government has banned a chinese 5g infrastructure because of cybersecurity and privacy concerns. I want to acknowledge staff in a number of departments starting with public works and ms. Debra ludsky and john scarpula, the health department, dr. Thomas aragon who have been revisiting a almost 10yearold study that was undertaken by the Planning Department and marcel boudreau, the city administrator office, mr. Bill barnes and of course the City Attorneys Office bill sanders who unfortunately cannot be here today which will lead me to ask that this item be continued to the call of the chair because i think he is important to this conversation and i want to thank you for meeting with my office and my staff, to further understand and get to the bottom of this regulatory arena. Thank you in particular to public works for agreeing to hold off on adoption of your objective standards while we create this space for this hearing today and any followup that will come from it and thank you to that has indicated within the next quarter, they will present their updates to their 2010 recommend dumb which i just referenced and i also note the board of appeals in july of this year also requested that update from publichealth. While much of this boils down to a very frustrating legal conundrum that is the result of federal and state pre emion i want to turn this over members of the public who wait merchandise time for this hearing and despite my frustration, at having most of our well intentioned ideas rejected based on pre emion, im hoping this hearing might facilitate new creative thinking about how to protect the health and Public Interest including im sorry she couldnt be here shes out of town and thats how peoples schedules work. So colleagues, if you have no comments or objections i would like to open this item for Public Comment for good ideas and public testimony. Please feel free to testify. Good afternoon, thank you so much for having this hearing. A lot of our people are coming at 2 30. We underestimated your speed today. Hopefully you can hear some of the other speakers. Im going to go through some talking points that i hope that you all received supervisors safai and haney. It would be great if you want to take a look at them as im going through them. Multiple small cell installations within the public rightofway will negatively impact property values, pose a threat to the publichealth safety and welfare, create traffic and Pedestrian Safety homicide address, impact tree health and where i where trimmif branches or require removal of roots create visual lights, and potential safety hazards in extreme weather and as San Francisco is what of the destinations in the united states, to live and work and visit we want to make sure the leaders design laws. Everything you have in front of you are fully within the s. E. C. Order and prior regulation. I i want to be very clear on that. Whatever other folks are telling you this is vetted and all the ideas are within the bounds. The very first thing im going to ask you to do is there are different, as we learned, thank you, to bill barnes, actually, this is an easterly year ordinance governing all polls in the city and county of San Francisco and we urge the board of supervisors to write a resolution requiring the Public Utilities commission and the municipal transportation authorities who have another polls to amend their contracts and standards to be consistent with those that were requesting to be made. Thank you. Thank you for your work on this matter. Next speaker, please. Thank you so much. Im going to continue with the talking points. Ironically, on my phone. So option one is do not implement 19019 until marc march 15th. The court of appeal will act between january 1st and march 15th. If the court rules in our favor we dont have to implement this and we should vacate 195019. We respectly request that you wait to consider to implement 19019 until after march 15th. If the court rules the f satisfy guard San Franciscos and the beauty of San Francisco. We need to make sure the ordinance has the possibility of being voided if the court of appeals rules against the fcc. It will be vacated if the federal court rules the local municipalities are not subject to the scc orders of september 2018 or the telecom act of 1996 or middleclass tax relief and Job Opportunities act of 2012. At that time, all personal wireless facilities slash small laws and regulation as prove the date relating to personal wireless facilities and cellular an ten as. If theyre vacated, the Planning Department, the department of environment and the health department, the department of public works shall add to the general plan ensuring the safety and wellbeing of all who live, work and visit San Francisco. They should not be and to maximum towers for safety. They should be no closer than 1. They should be by directional and down the street. The towers are going up all over town and yet the new standards are not in place whom is approving these permits . Will you commit to getting them to stop. Telecom vendors must have Liability Insurance protecting the city. Thank you for some of those very helpful commentses it relates to the litigation in march. Good afternoon. I have a pitch here. Its with graphics here. Do you hear about what i hear do you hear what i hear telecom soaring in the night remember dont give up the fight and make this item turnout right turnout right see the light. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Wooding, please ex forward. Good after, supervisors, coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods and why rush to sell off San Francisco. They have significantly over reached their authority and threatening San Francisco sovereignty to keep up with chinas 5g program. More than a dozen u. S. Cities are challenging federal regulators in court over a recent decision that gives Telecom Companies millions in financial and other breaks. As they race to built next Generation Wireless Network powered by 5g mobile data. Officials from los angeles, portland oregon, bell. Interview washington among others, asked the u. S. Court of appeals of the ninth Circuit Court to review and rule change by the federal Communications Decision which restricts citys ability to charge. And this is what i really want to make is that you have a fiduciary responsibility to the city as well as the health. Under the sccs new policy, Telecom Carrier seeking permits to install the Network Equipment on Public Infrastructure must have their request reviewed more quickly by city officials. They are also regard to charge carriers 270 per year and access fees. Before the new policy carriers would expect to say more than 500 annually. Why rush to sell us San Francisco. Thank you, mr. Speaker, please. Thank you, my name is dr. Thomas kouwenber cowen and d and worked in San Francisco for 15 years. I dont know much about politics or ordinances. I dont know a lot about the Health Ramifications of wireless radiation. In 2000, a man named neil cherry analyzed the rate of Childhood Cancer compared to the distance the children lived from sutro towers. The children who live within a mile of the tower have nine times the rates of cu lukemia, 5 times the rate of lymphoma, 31 times the rate of brain cancer, and 18 times the rate of total cancer as children who lived more than a mile from the towers. It will increase the disease rate in the population of San Francisco. This includes heart disease, diabetes, cancer and a host of neurological diseases in children and adults including particularly the rate of. Al in San Francisco. We are at a ross roads in San Francisco. We can either reject this roll out and lay the foundation for a safe wired city or we will risk being one of the most toxic cities in the world. I urge you to take the first step to blocking this ordinance. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. My name is linda smith and i lived in San Francisco since 1985 and im a former editor of the San Francisco chronicle. I have a different story for you today. Earlier this year, seven neighbors got together to impose the permitted installation of a wireless antenna on a light pole outside their building at pacific avenue and webster street. In their appeal, which i have here, and will leave with the clerk, they documented the dpw and Planning Department made incorrect determinations regard north permit. As a result, the neighbors won their appeal and the installation was blocked. All owe verizon and Telecom Companies are required bylaw to document radio frequency emissions after antennas are installed, the company has never done so. Not once. Although d. P. W. Is required to track and assess such documentation, before issuing permits, it has never done so. Going forward, with the deployment of 5g and more 4g antenna within the city, how can residents have trust these radiation antennas are not creating harm when no safety testing has been done and no one is holding these tole com companies or d. P. W. A count able for their unlawful acts. Such unlawful instillations violate the principle ordinance enacted in the 2003 in San Francisco. Did states where threats of serious or i a irreversible, laf full scientific certainty about cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for this city to postpone Cost Effective measures to present the degradation of the environment. Next speaker, please. My name is roxanne and im a resident here in San Francisco who has been affected by ordinance 19019. I have a wireless proposed 12 feet in line outside my bedroom window. Its not through the noticed materials but only through filing a protest and a records act request i could learn about the facility and uncover some errors within the application. My application is still being reviewed including at appeals. During this process, ordinance 19019 was adopted and now the city and Wireless Companies are saying theres no public row view or input. Theres no permit necessary anymore for this. And they rely on the master license with sfpuc which is an outdated agreement and that agreement contemplates regulatory process that has been removed through the adoption of ordinance 19019. Its obviously problematic to remove the public process entirely from fighting these facilities that effect the estheticses of the city and are quite controversial in terms of their Health Effects and all one has to do is drive around the city to see the proliferation of them and the conversion of many of them from 4g to 5g. So the status quo relying on an outdated master agreement that is not paired with a permitting process is flawed. I surgery the board of supervisors to rescind ordinance 19019 and replace with another process and allows the public to have a say in how the facilities are cited. I support many of the comments made at beginning of the public process and straight forward commonsense items that could be included to help protect the aesthetics and the wellbeing of San Francisco. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, my name is robert johnson. I would like to use my time to highlight the importance of preserving some form of notification in your legislation. You know, its already tar from a fair fight. The more we allow this to proceed in secrecy, the more trouble we will have. If you read through board avenue peels against cell phone towers every person there alleges that they were given improper notification. I dont think its a winning argument because i dont think the board of appeals has overturned a permit on improper notice. I think its true. Verizon in particular has gone to great length to avoid giving notice to people and notice was required to be given to owners or tenants and you have mr. Albred here today. Verizons position was they could chose to notify owners or tenants but not both. Right. If i have in charge of running a race and i say, person who comes in first or second gets a medal. I dont ex fact you to chose the person and not give the person a medal. Its unreasonable interpretation. Hundreds of permits were issued with this background. So, i just want to highlight we need to have notice. If neighbors dont know what is going on, they cant fight back. When we go to our politicians, they always say, well, you know, you need come up and influence the legislation. We cant do that if we dont know what is going on. I would appreciate if you could keep that in mind. Thank you so much. Thank you, next speaker. Hello board members. Its the biggest thing and you are requested to stop permitting pervasively poison usous pollution from unsafe and untested 4g, 5g Wireless Communications telecommunications facilities. And 5g broadcasting in the city of San Francisco. Thousand dollars of scientific studies reveal irreversible microwave health and safety dangers. To 9 residents of San Francisco. Especially children pregnant women, helderly persons in others. The burden of liability weighs heavy on the city. They should have back by insurance policies by the Wireless Industry in escape clauses in the w. T. F. Contracts that they possess. Joe moscow wits published an article in Scientific American and he advocated an immediate moratorium on the 5g and demanded our government adopt protecting our health and safety. The 2003 precautionary principle ordinance is a rule of of law that requires per have a len peo protect people and the environment. Upon these grounds, it is mandatory to preserve publichealth and safety by enacting moratorium begins activation of San FranciscoWireless Telecommunications facilities. You also have the tmobile versus San Francisco case which gives you the trite do this. Its all on your shoulders and im sure that you have the right decision. Thank you. Thank you. Its also on our state and federal officials shoulders that they preempt our ability. Next speaker, please. Next speaker. Hello. My name is Karen Jackson and im a student at San FranciscoState University and im here to commissioner vaughn nottati on of the 5g