Welcome to july 27, 2016 meeting of the San Francisco board of appeals, the boards president is presiding tonight, that is darryl honda and hes joined by frank fung, commissioner ann lazarus, commissioner bob wilson and rick swig, we will be joined by our deputy city attorney, bob owen, at the control iss the boards legal assistant, gary and im cynthia goldstein, the boards executive director w. ear groined by representatives of the city departments that have cases before the board this evening, [inaudible] and next to him is scott sanchez, the Zoning Administrator whos also represent thing Planning Department and Planning Commission, and in the front row is [inaudible] shaw representing the Public Works Bureau of streets use and mapping and chris buck also representing San Francisco public works and hes with the bureau of urban forestry, the board requests that you silence all phone and is all Electronic Devices so they will not disturb the proceedings, please carry on conversation dms the hallway, the boards rule of presentation, appellant, permit holders and department responders are given 7 min touts to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal, they must include their comments within the 7 or three minute period, members of the public have up to 3 minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. Please speak into the end of the microphone, to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, youre asked but not required the submit a speaker card or Business Card to board staff when you come up to speak. Speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. The board welcomes your comments and suggestions and there are Customer Satisfaction survey forms at the podium for your convenience, if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the boards rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting, were located at 1650 mission street. This meeting is broadcast life on sf gov tv, channel 78 and rebroadcast at 4 p. M. On khal nel 26, dvds of this meeting are available for purchase from sf gov tv, now we will swear in or affirm all those who plan to testify. All members of tub mrik may speak without taking an oath under the sunshine ordinance f you intend to testify on any of tonights hear advising give your testimony evidentiary rate, please stand and raise your hand and say i do after you have been wormed or affirmed swearingin of testifiers objection, so item number 1 is general Public Comment, this is an opportunity for people to speak to the board on matters within the boards subject matter jurisdiction but that are not on tonights calendar, is there any general Public Comment tonight . Okay, seeing none, then item 2 is commissioner comments and questions. Commissioners . I would like to congratulate commissioner rick swig and frank fung on their reappointment to this body for the next four years. Sxfrjts we can congratulate darryl honda on his reappointment. Okay, is there any other commissioner comments . Okay, any Public Comment . Okay, then well move on to item 3 which is the boards consideration and possible adoption of the minutes of the july 20, 2016 meeting. Do i have any additions or changes from my fellow commissioners . If not, may i have a motion . I would recommend one change, on appeal 16080, item number 8, under action, the fourth line after elevator wall, delete does not exceed and insert with is a minimum of, after 54, delete dba and insert stc, i think it will be clearer that way. Do you mean minimum or do you mean maximum . No, minimum of the sound transmission rating. Okay. And vicepresident , would you find saying what stc stands for sound truncation coefficients. Coefficient. Any other revisions to these . Is there any Public Comment on the minutes . Okay, so i think we still need a motion. Move adoption with the amendment. Thank you. On that motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes as amended, vicepresident fung . Frjts aye. President honda aye. Commissioner wilson, commissioner swig . Aye. That carries with a vote of 50. President honda, there was a suggestion that we may want to take one of the items out of order tonight and i dont know if you want to consider that. This would be item number 8, appeal number 16106 which was continued just so that there could be another vote taken, the hearing has been held. Why dont we go ahead and proceed with that. Okay. So, we will take that item out of order, this is item 8, appeal number 16106, steven ganz versus the zoning m ins rate torx the property is 425 brannan street, appeal thing is wans on may 27, 2016 of a letter of determination regarding whether the second floor was legally converted to the office space prior to the property being subject to the current sli zoning, this was heard on july 6 20, 16 and is on for further consideration today. This matter was continued to allow commissioner wilson to participate in the final so et. On july 6, 2016, vicepresident fung mover today grant the appeal and overdetermined the letter of the determination on the basis that the zoning determination eared in determines the 199 permit was not reflective of an office use, that was 311, the vicepresident moved the appeal to allow another vote to be taken with commissioner wilsons participation sx, commissioner wilson has indicated that she has reviewed the file and the video. I have. And that youre prepared to participate in a vote. Im prepared. Okay, and unless there are any Board Members would wish to ask questions of a party, we can move into deliberation and entertain a new motion. Madam executive direct torx i want to reiterate that i have used mar tell and brawn in the past for unrelated items and the use of them would noted have any impact on my ability to make fair judgment today. Okay. So, again, if there are no commissioner questions for the party, we are back into deliberation and the board can make a board member may make a motion or otherwise move forward. I dont need more, i listened to the deliberations. Okay. Do we need another motion . We need a motion, yeah. Ill reiterate my original motion. Okay. Which was that the Zoning Administrator eared in determining that the permit was not reflective of the office use. Okay, so on that motion from the vicepresident to grant the appeal and overturn the letter of determination on the basis of the Zoning Administrator e rr ed in determined the 1999 perments was not reflective of an office use . Commissioner lazarus no. Commissioner lond da abilities aye. Commissioner wilson . Aye. Commissioner swig . Aye. That carry widths a vote of 41. So, then president honda websinger eel move back to item 4, mitchell which is appeal number 16092, Mitchell Kemp versus San Francisco public works, 1590 sacramento street, protesting the is you wans on april 19, 2016 to extenet s m systems, this was heard on july, 2016 and continue today have the department of Public Health appear before the board of their review of wireless box permits, i would ask if there is someone here from Public Health to please step forward and president , shall we give them three minutes then to the board . Three minutes. Good eve anyones my name is patrick foal, im the principal inspector currently managing the sale antenna program for Public Health, to my right is [inaudible] tes l er, Senior Inspector with our program and serving as the technical lead. I understand there were questions raised concerning the utility pole installation of the extenet antenna, were here to answer your questions. Weve heard so many of these, which one was commissioner swig . So, in this in the documentation, there were notes that said the standard is 6 feet, and that was at 100 watts, then there was a change of the equipment and it went to 120 watts and then suddenly the standard moved to four feet. And so im not a technologist, i have no idea what im talking about but it just i found it strange that a more powerful piece of equipment suddenly had a radius that was smaller thab a previous piece of equipment and the inconsistencies were very confusing. Yeah, i think thats a vl lid question, we had the same question when we looked at both reports as well. Just for clarity, the stc standard for these frequencies is one mill watt per centimeter squared, thats the public standard, so for that power density, one mitt watt per centimeter swearbacker scared, that would be the limit of any public exposure in the area, so were looking at in the review of these reports to make a determination whether or not preinstallation, were going to exceed bha fr the level is and its f its frequency depend, the public would occupy, the initial report that was prepared and i think we have an illustration of this, yeah. So, the initial report that we received was based on i dont want to get into too much technical here, it was a far field calculation which is approved by the fcc as a calculation you can use to determine these. What it provides is an extremely conservative limit that that one millimeter would be reached at that ands the doted line that is directed here, these are intentional an ten nas, so the height of the antenna, 30 feet, east and west on sacramento at the height of the antenna, that original calculation would be the dotted line. Thats where you would that bubble or balloon if you will pointing in each direction is where we would expect that limit to be. The calculation that was revised was using the near field calculation which would give a more precise measurement of where we would anticipate to see those levels exceeded, and thats the blue one, and thats the four feet limit. The difference between those two is the calculation that was used to make that determination, one was using a far field calculation, the others oozing the near field calculation which is a more precise measurement of whats there. I should point out that its still pretty conservative. We would anticipate that the actual measured meter red levels of rf energy there would be somewhat less than four feet and thats pretty much what has been the proof in the pudding so far with these utility pole, three feet or less. These studies are not made by the department of Public Health but you received these studies from third party, evaluate these based as an example and based on those studies and your calculations, you affirm what is the guideline . Correct, so the Health Department doesnt spend the hundred of hours to do the actual modeling on these. What we ask is that those models be done by license engineer who is are experts in the field, which is the case here, sms somebody whos done a lot of these. What were looking for is to make sure a licensed engineer is doing them and theyre using models based on the calculations that have been approved by the fcc. Weve developed sort of an 11 point bunch list of the things we want to see included, a lot of engineers provide more information than those but these are sort of what we feel having done this with planning since 1996 is are the appropriate things we should be looking for when evaluating these reports. So, when we see in the future this as it was presented because it wasnt presented with the elegance in which you just explained it, it was just a matter, we did 100 watt and it was 6 and it was 120 watts and it was four and thats it and it was approved. Its good to know youre doing these behind every single one of these. We are and this is a preinstallation calculation, so really the proof is in the post installation measurements, if its messed up, were going to find out then and then its an expensive removal and taking down the antenna and going through the process all over again so theres some incentive of getting it right. The product will have a fail safe and there will be a post installation or same criteria and hopefully it will in the same parameters . There you go, and we have calibrated meters for doing that sort of verification, we would be happy to do that in this case. Thank you very much for that explanation. You test every installation . No, so every installation is required to be tested by a third party. The ones that we get involved in are the ones where there are either complaints or issues that are raised periodically. Well hear that neighborhood people do not trust the third party that was hired to do the measurements in which case were happy to come out and either do side by side measurements at the same time or do them independent to verify whats going on in the actual environment, we dont test them all but we do bh were asked to. The third party tester, is it usually the same one would did the calcs . It can be and in many case, it is but it doesnt have to be. It needs to be again a licensed engineer in the state of california and somebody whos an expert in the field. Even in the field of engineering and electrical engineering, this is a specialized field of rf, theres not a lot of people that are doing radio frequency energy, the takeoff of the cell phone industry has pushed that a little bit and in the last 12 10, 12 years, they are getting involved in all of this but its a specialized piece of engineering. Go ahead. Okay, i have a question, so roughly how many installations has your department overseen or done in San Francisco so far . Youre talking about dpw utility poles . These boosters for the cellular. Er theres a couple of broad categories of cell antenna installation, you have the ones that the Planning Department oversees and those are the ones that basically are overseen by the wireless guideline that is the Planning Department came out with in 1996. Those are the large macro installations that go on top of buildings, what dpw are involved in are the utility pole installations that were talk about this evening and thats overseen by the public works code, thats a special category that was carved out. I know that article very well. Im sure you do. And the exact numbers, i dont know larry if you know, theres hundreds of these things. And out of the hundreds that have been installed, have any been in noncompliance . None that we have gone out and tested and have seen and none that are not in compliance. These are and you guys havent been able to see the larger ones and the reports that get submitted for these, but on the relative scale, these are fairly low power an ten nas, 100, 122 watts compared to tens of thousands of watts for the installations on buildings. Okay, thank you. I have a question, a pretty naive one, where it says ensure theres no publicly occupied areas within 4 feet, 6 feet, what is the definition of publicly occupied means, is that somebody on the street or behind the window in their residence . Thats a good question, the way we interpret it is anybody in the public, if its somebody from the public to be exposed. That would be include the fire escape, even though thats not some place somebodys going to be living 24 hours, theres a potential for someone to be in that space so we want to make sure that complies with the standard. This provides a very conservative way of looking at compliance with the fcc. So, yeah, were looking at basically on the street, people passing by, any of those places, even in the case of rooftop installation, rooftops where the public may have access even if the rooftop isnt designed for public access, it may not have a parapet but the public may be there. We want to comply with those standards as well. Okay. Now we know. Thank you very much. Alright, youre welcome. President honda, i think that the Zoning Administrator also wanted fed to address the board on this appeal if thats acceptable. Thats fine, plus i have a question for the permit holder as well after. We should give time to the rest of the parties to speak given that weve had this additional testimony. Scott sanchez, Planning Department, the Planning Department does support the design of this proposal as well as the proposal on the next case, i just wanted to bring to light some recent information for the board of appeals for your information. Extenet, we have approved other facility ins San Francisco, it has come to our attention that those facility ares not in compliance with the conditions of approval, that the Planning Department has required for those and in particular, the size of the shroud, we aproved it 10 and a half inch, ne aoerp arguing at 14. 5 inches, the switch boxes on there seem to be different than what we had approved and some of the cables were painted and there may be cases with additional meters that were o ersz approved. Weve discussed this with the department of public work, they are initiating enforcement to bring those properties into compliance. One of the features of the public works code in section 1517 does allow for the public works code Public Works Department if theyve exercised all their reasonable effort tos bring someone into compliance, theyre still hesitant to do so. Public works has the ability to deny other permits for other facility and is were sure with these tool, well be able to bring them into compliance, but i did want to make sure the board of appeals had that information as we are aware they have other sights which are not in compliance and we would assume that these sites are going to be built in full compliance with the plans that we have approved. Ive got a question, mr. Sanchez, so do you know approximately how many unit ares not in compliance . Its my understanding that it may be as many as 23 sites. Have any of those particular sites been before this board . I do not know that information, no. Ill ask the permit holder that. Thank you. Scott, out of 20something site, out of how many does extenet have . I think thats all that they have. Every one of them . Frjts dhe can address that, my understanding is that its the sites that have been approved but perhaps its not all of the sites. Thank you. Should we hear from the Department Next . Okay