Do expect commissioner swig and will not hear any bills but were going to start with some of the housekeeping items this evening. Commissioner swig will be absent tonight. To my left is debbie attorney, here. And will provide legal advice to get at the controls is gary can terrorist could use the board legal assistant and him cynthia cole stained executive director. Also joined by representatives of the city department. Sitting in the front row is amanda hagans without San Francisco public works of cities and mapping and at the tables cory t assistant Zoning Administrator is also representing the Planning DepartmentPlanning Commission. We will be joined shortly i believe by senior building inspector joseph duffy will be representing the department of building inspection. The board request you turn off or silence all phones or other Electronic Devices will not disturb the proceedings. These carry on conversations in the hallway. The portables presentation are as follows the pounds permit holders and Department Responds each are given 7 min. To present their case and 3 min. For rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seventhreeminute periods. Numbers of the public not affiliated have up to 3 min. Each to address the board and no rebuttal. Please speak into the microphone. You are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to board staff when you come up to speed. Speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. The board welcomes your comments and suggestions and we have Customer Satisfaction forms on the podium for your convenience. If you questions about requesting a hearing the book boards rules please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office. We are located at 1650 mission st. In room 304 and is between dubois street and south bend happen. This meeting is broadcast live on speed tv cable channel 78 and rebroadcast on fridays, 4 pm on channel 26. Dvds of this meeting are available for purchase from sfgov tv. We will now swear in or from all those who intend to testify. Please note any member of the public a speak without taking an oath pursuant to the right under the sunshine beaded. If you intend to testify at tonights hearings and was to give the board your testimony evidentiary weight please stand if youre able raise your right hand and say i do after you been sworn in or from. Please, stand up. Raise your right hand. [oath repeated] thank you very much. Item 1, tonights calendar general Public Comments. This is for anyone who wishes to speak to the board on an item within the board subject matter jurisdiction but not on tonights agenda. Is there anyone here for general Public Comment . Are you speaking under Public Comment, sir . Yes. I just want to say i see the close captioning up now. Which is great. Just a very important it up because one of my colleagues who are hard of hearing is very important so thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . General Public Comment . Seeing none, second item on the calendar is commissioner comments and questions. Commissioners . No. Nothing. The third item is the board consideration of the minutes of the meeting of august 17. Unless we have any additions or changes to those minutes may have a motion to adopt . Moved and seconded. Is there any Public Comment on the minutes . Seeing none, we have a motion from the Vice President to adopt the minutes. On a motion lessers aye honda aye wilson is absent and that motion does kerry with a vote of 30. So, if you would like commissioner, i can call the next item. I can do it slowly. See if commissioner wilson bingo. Good timing. I will call item for which is appeal number 16118. David lau and kevin yen versus the department of public works. Bureau street use and mapping. The property is 758 and 787 the 33rd ave. Protesting the issuance on june 14, 2016 to Crown Castle Angie west llc. The wireless box permit construction of a personal Wireless Service facility. We will start with the appellants who has 7 min to present good evening. Welcome. Hi. Good evening everybody. My name is kevin yen did i live on 33rd ave. This is regarding the wireless box in the [inaudible] avenue. The violation of article 25 in the way down comcast handled this case. The first one, theyre using an old picture in notification. It needs to be updated because the new, it has been changed. Theyre using the old i would say probably a year and four months at least, old, picture. Which is not [inaudible] the neighborhood in. I can show you a picture. This is the one that notification from the comcast. You see the tree . [inaudible]. The whole building. As of today, the tree has been like this. So, is that the picture doesnt really show. Theyre using the old picture to show the people and when people look at it, they dont know whats going on with this. Also, the second item is the final notice on the telephone pole, which is small and difficult to read, and someone you have to using the tool to open the envelope and in order to read it. They never mailed any final notification to all the 33rd ave. , in that area. Within 150. I can show you an example with the post look like. Okay. This is the one, the post on the 33rd ave. On one of the telephone poles. This, they stapled it in. In order to take it out you need a screwdriver or something. Its hard to get it out to read it. Basically, they did not send all the notifications 2 33rd ave. And eight posted a difficult to read notification. I can give you an example. When thiswhen they send, they send a big one, like this. And very clearly, it says whats the purpose, but comcast they just try to mislead you. They sent a letter like you like junk mail. One, two, people just throw it away. They did not mention any purpose at all which is misleading. They try to fool people. Also, we started last year, i see scrabble required. They took [inaudible] but now they dont even show the diagram. In order to install something on the telephone pole, you are required, by having you install something you need to say the size. If you want to buy something or install something you need to state the socket when they started, they show the background. Overhead, please the second time, this is 2015, [inaudible] no diagram submitted. The newest application they dont even show it. Last, but not least, when we filed an appeal for this is a letter we received from the board of appeals. This is the letter we received. This is the letter they send the board of appeals, the board of appeals sent to comcast and i can read you some part of the letter. Dear comcast or angie west llc this is to notify you that an appeal has been filed with this office protesting the issuance of the above referenced wireless box permit. Pursuant to article ieight of San Francisco business and text regulations goes. The subject permit is thereby suspended. This is all capitals. Until the board of appeals decides this matter and the release and notice of this decision and order. Okay. So, within that comcast would abide by this but actually they are not. Comcast totally ignored this injunction and [inaudible]. By replacing the existing working telephone pole in front of 877 33rd ave. Which is the wireless box to be posted. With an extended poll, telephone call to prepare for the installation of the antenna. This poll was replaced on the weekend of august 1314. Saturday and sunday about week. About two weeks after board of appeals sent this letter. I can show youi have it here. This is the new poll. This is the old one. So, we strongly appeal that the board of appeals to reject the permit. Thank you very much thank you very much. We can hear from the permit holder, now. Good evening. Welcome. Good evening, thank you. Honorable president and members of the board of appeals, i Martin Feinberg in am here on behalf of the permit holder which is Crown Castle Angie west and llc. The permit granted was for a wireless box permit a wireless facility permits, located on 700 block of 33rd ave. Between balboa and cabrillo in vinton the permit application met all of the criteria for a wireless facilities permit. All of the applications notice and posting requirements were met in the permit was properly issued. A protest of the preliminary approval was filed in proper public hearing was held before a hearing officer. That hearing officer confirmed the permit with its conditions of approval, was properly granted and fully complied with the requirements of article 25 of the administrative code. I know approval was thereafter granted in the individuals present tonight, filed an appeal with this board. The appellants brief in support of a appeal was perfunctory inconsistent of just three sentences. This board has heard a number of appeals and so i just want to briefly remind about the standard for hearing and appeals such as this. The boards positioned according to article 25, is limited to simply i will quote whether the final determination maybe by dpw was correct under the provisions of article 25. So, the test is whether the application met the criterion of article 35. A digit other factors outside of our article 25 or not a matter for this appeal. The appellants asserted three bases for the appeal in the written brief and id like to address those briefly and then ill also respond to the comments made verbally tonight. The first issue raised in the appeal appellants claimed the crown castle did not provide the description of the dimension of the antenna in the box. That make up the equipment thats at issue. That assertion is incorrect. The application contains that information. In addition, the males and posted notice contained photo simulation, actually ellen show that photo simulation of the proposed visit. The requirements of article 25 have been fully met in that regard. Secondly, the appellants questioned whether the noticing records of article 25 were met. They were. Copies of the notice were mailed out to the Property Owners, all of the Property Owners within 150 feet above the pole that would contain the antenna as well as the pole that would contain the battery e units. Copies of the notices were also posted on the polls, on the block with the facility would be placed. You have amongst the materials submitted to you by my brief and also actually also by the dpw, a copy of the affidavit attesting to the proper mailed and posted notice having been given. The appellants are definitely in the appellants tonight, the filed the appeal were definitely among those who received the mailed notice. It is clear that appellants did receive notice, as they filed a timely protest in also a timely appeal. So theres no issue as to notice. It was given. There is proof and furthermore, they filed an appeal so honestly they did receive that notice. Third, the appellants claim and im going to just quote again from the appeal brief. The dpw failed to protect the interests of the residents of San Francisco and instead sides with big corporations. That was the assertion. I realize that emotions sometimes run high in these hearings but theres no place, frankly, for conspiracy theories or wild accusations of that nature. Whether the appellant seem to be arguing about is that the alleged Health Effects of radiofrequency emissions from wireless equipment. However, crown castle provided proof of compliance with all federal emissions standards. The report that we filed from an rf engineer and dr. Has been reviewed and approved by the department of Public Health. The radiofrequency admissions will be well within the standards that are allowable under federal law. Beyond that, federal law prohibits and especially for busy denying a permit for Wireless Telecommunications is only based on concern regarding the effects of rf emissions. So, that response to the issue brought up in writing. I would just like to briefly respond to the comments that were made this evening. By mr. Yan. First, he asserts that the photo simulation that was submitted was old. And i just trust it is in the month since the application was filed, there is a tree in the area thats been trans, but the standard is, we have to file a photo simulation at the time of the application. This no requirements continuously update that with trees growing entries cutting trends and houses getting painted and what happened. We file the proper application containing a photo simulation from that time. Second, mr. Yan on several occasions referred to some something being done by contest it has the contest is a part of this. As you know im here on behalf of crown castle. This uncle he has nothing to do with comcast. Third, mr. Yan well questioned about the posting of the notice on the polls and i think of already addressed that. Fourth, he asserts that while this appeal has been pending, one of the polls had at issue has been replaced. That was not done by crown castle. It was done by pg e and he ordered at t by no comment about that but i can assure the board was not done by crown castle. I think that response to what was raised this evening as. I will be happy to respond to any questions the board may have. Otherwise, i would just think the board for its attention and urge the appeal be denied and the permit be upheld. Thank you. We can hear from the department now. Amanda Higgins Crown public works. Good evening pres. Honda and fellow commissioners. So, i will start by giving an overview of the wireless program. Its governed by public works code article 25. And public works order 184504. The process begins with receiving the application. Once we receive it we reviewed for completeness. If it is complete we referred to the health and Planning Departments. Once these agencies sign off public works and approve the application, which allows the applicant to post and mail notice to any person residing or owning property within 150 feet. If anyone submits an objection we convene a hearing and her article 25, the director of public works can only grant protest were denied a permit if the director finds the Health Department incorrectly determine the application, snuggle a Public Health center or the Planning Department needs to be applicable to your compatibility standard. Or, the application does not comply with the requirements for sending department. When the evidence shows that the applicant tends to apply for modification permit after the permit has been approved and the modification would not comply with the applicable compatibility standards. So when the appeal on todays agenda the director found that none of the protest supported any one of the following of the aforementioned reasons in either permit so we approved it. This permits, the facility will be on to polls and with primary equipment at 758 33rd ave. And the second will would have a battery backup and 750 33rd ave. Both polls are pg e utility poles. The application was amended on november 18, 2015. Tentative approval was posted on april 8, 2016. Public works can have convened a hearing on the 23rd 2016 and the permit was approved on june 14, 2016. The final approval was posted on june 16, 2016. So, in the appellants brief the kind of makes three reasons for his appeal, which i will kind of discussed in more detail. So the first reason for the appeal is that crown castle did not provide any description of dimension of the proposed wireless antenna and the battery backup units. So, article 25 does not say any commissions must be provided in Public Notice notification under section 1512 article 25, what is required is that her description and photo simulation to termination and conditions from city departments, the procedure of submitting a protest an expiration of how a person may obtain Additional Information about the application. So, in this case, crown castle did comply with these requirements. The permit for approval said the facility would be installed at [inaudible] 33rd ave. It said the intent of battery backup unit double with a disconnect switch the cabling would all be painted the paint color by sherman williams. The simulation of both an note battery backup all. There instructions on how cement a timely protest in the ground for submitting a protest. All the conditions of approval and was to Contact Information for both public works and crown castle for further questions. Another reason for the appellants appeal is that crown counsel did not notify and deliver it termination letter to residence within 150 feet of the proposed polls. So, article 25 does not require the applicant to deliver any final determination notice. It only requires the applicant to post it. In section 15, 14 of the article states [inaudible] the notice and we did that on june 15, 2016. So we only required to some contact neighborhood groups or protesters or people come to hear his. We did all that june 15. The third reason for the appellants appeal is that public works failed to protect residents by siding with corporations to do ploy wireless facilities which cause Health Hazards. So, wireless facilities do emit radiofrequency emissions but under federal law the city cannot deny an application if the applicant shows it complies with the federal Communications Commissions rf standards. So, this application received further dph and required to make a determination entity that on january 20, 2016. So, wei want to go briefly into the verbal comments the appellants made. In the simulation, the crown castle did send out, it did comply with the notice requirements of article 25. Even though the tree has leaves here, i think kind of clear where the location is because there is an address right here and then, also, you can kind of tell where the location is based on the buildings. Another appellant claimed tonight was that