very competitive. >> but everyone should be encouraged to apply. thank you again for hosting us. >> thank you for including us in "culturewire." ♪ >> good evening and welcome to the wednesday, october 7, 2015, of the san francisco board of appeals the presiding officer is commissioner president ann lazarus and she's joined by the vice president commissioner honda and commissioner swig and commissioner bobbie wilson we expect commissioner fung to be here to my left is the city attorney and at the controls is the boards legal assistant cable car and legal clerk alex i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director we're joined

this evening by we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. and carli short and japanese are here from the department of public works and at the table is scott taylor's the zoning administrator and representing the planning department and planning commission and 0 mar and senior joe duffy is here representing the department of building inspection the electronic devices are prohibited. please carry on conversations out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk.

speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do.

please note: any of the members may speak without taking the oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance, and thank you. please stand now okay do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> okay. thank you now we'll move to item one public comment for those who are here who want to speak to the board on an item not on tonsillitis calendar anyone wants to speak under general public comment. >> please step forward. >> you need to spots microphone if you're going to address the board if you have something to say not on one of the items on the calendar seen item 2 which is commissioners questions or comments commissioners? >> okay.

>> sorry i'm late. >> you're excused item 3 the boards consideration on possible adaptation of september 16, 2015, minutes any additions, deletions, or changes if not may i have a motion to approve. >> so moved. >> thank you. any public comment on the minutes? okay. seeing none then we have a motion by commissioner honda to adopt the minutes commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus commissioner wilson and commissioner swig thank you that motion carries 5 to zero the next item is a jurisdiction request item 4 the subject property on duncan street the board got a letter asking the board take jurisdictions on and on over the application which was issued broadway-sansome apartments on

january 21st by the department of building inspection the appealed period ends on february 2015 and the jurisdiction was filed on september 14th the permit holder is duncan llp and the project so e vehicle a two-story entertainment over the building we'll start with the requester >> excuse me. i have a previous business arrangement that reuben, junius & rose the entity heard will have no bearing on my relationship with them and the item this evening. >> thank you. good evening at the dr hearing the project sponsor said it duncan is dominated by flat roofed building it is surrounded by 8

peeked roof homes the guideline for a stair penthouse is a up to the time u butt wall of an adjacent this is impossible when the peaked roof is by a parapet as the structure next to the stair penalty the commission want the stair penthouse to comply with the project from commissioner moore was quote go through similar residential design review for a stair penthouse mr. jocelyn told commissioner moore he was not involved that the rdt mr. jocelyn and mr. woe failed to let the commissioners know expected stating is would eliminate the penthouse the project sponsor ignored the guidelines for took up gray using guidelines for flat streets to justify a penalty in conjunction with the rendering

that only showed the project from in front of and down the hill not from uphill which would give a complete prospective put the overhead on now, please the commission used the discrepancy to remove the penthouse but u.s. bancorp continuing thought the stair to be minimally visual from the street commissioner moore stated quote the plans did not really match the renderings we are in thin air if commissioner moore was unclear about the site permit given your expertise it is likely other commissioners were here are the comments commissioner moore said quote it should say pulled by the way, back in the visible and commissioner president fong and very, very small modest glass stairwell and commissioner antonini wanted the stair quote in an appropriate place not

visual from the street address commissioner sugaya asked for an appropriate stair house penthouse only 4 of the commissioners spoke on the matter the other 3 were silent it was final listed by staff and not seen by the commission the critical part of hearing when commissioner moore told mr. jocelyn to go though the design review when designing the penthouse due to the original penthouse and the confusion about the project the staff should have reminded the commissioners the alternatives to a stair penthouse on page 38 of the guidelines that was an error as seen in you'll see photos submitted to the board mine as well as the project sponsor it is hard to think this the what the commission wanted please take jurisdiction thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit

holder. >> good evening jody from reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the permit holder the jurisdiction requester has not submitted any evidence that meets the burden to take jurisdiction this is no evidence are paramount that the city intentionally caused to file is an appeal on the stair rich are issue this was looked at multiple times and had an opportunity to object this was previously an appeal and a rehearing request on the same plans we're here about today and no plans changes in the plans the project is being built as so forth self-the plans no basis for the jurisdiction here as you may know the project was

significantly reduced in size on dr a floor that was taken off and significant setback in the roof deck and given that it was made to be capable with the streetscape as found multiple times by the city this was previously a run down home that is now converted into a usable single-family home it is appropriate for the street and the neighborhood and there's no basis for a jurisdiction renderings here i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department i don't have much to add this is a jurisdictions request this was previously discretionary review the planning commission took the discretionary review and removed

did flourth floor a decision it the penthouse should be minimally visible that was appealed by permit holders and the plans that are before you now those same plans which show the stair penthouse has built and i've been out to the site it is conformed the same in the approved plans the minimal size loud for the penthouse with the glass railing ross are all matters that wyoming could have been addressed at the previous hearing with that, i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you mr. duffy. >> good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi nothing to add apart from the building is underway dbi has been out there

for five or six inspectors the building is framed up to the roof level i think we have photos in the beautiful apart from that nothing. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> looking at the photos and looking at the drawings that appears that what is being constructed is very close is to the drawings i did not find there are any error on the part of city to grant jurisdiction. >> i also concur looking at the drawings and the photos supplied by both parties not seeing minimal this could get this is worthy actual plans we look at the last hearing.

>> there's other comments or a motion? >> move to deny the jurisdiction request. >> thank you on that motion by sxhurng commissioner president lazarus commissioner hyland commissioner wilson and commissioner swig thank you that motion to deny the request that motion carries 5 to zero the next item is 5 appeal number 15115 john versus the department of building inspection the street use and mapping on 30th avenue protesting the ordinances on august 5, 2015, to the california inc. a wireless box permit for a personal wireless facility for this and we will start with the appellant. >> ma'am, executive director i don't know if so it appropriate

now or later a series of items that are different but have one overriding similarity that is that they all are effected by article 25 and i think that would be appropriate for the city attorney so give us a brief reminder tutorial of the items related considered in article 25 since this is the offer reaching and binding legal statute we'll be discussing on every one of these is it appropriate for the city attorney to give us that briefly at this point? >> i think by way of of background that will be helpful. >> i want to make sure also that this item is interpreted

so, please do that for this as well. >> well, i'm not quite sure of the particular southern is in the most general way united states wireless permits are governed by article 27 article 25. >> yeah. >> you are required to act in corners with article 25 you expanded steady those requirements with regards to emissions you are limited to the standards set by the scc a permit can't be denied because a as long as on the basis their held - loans the emissions meet the standards by the scc by the dunst and you

have capability standards in article 25 you must comply with those i believe there recent notice requirements or issuance or issues that wish alleged in some of the cases and the notice requirements are set in article 25 as some of the papers have referred to so in essence there are a federal overlay to these kinds of permits we're constrained somewhat in what we can consider on this is not like typical permits where you have you are reviewing them but orlando when you do an overview you're allowed to consider general go health and safety sets up and adjacent properties in evidence strictly to comply

with the standards in the article. >> okay. thank you. >> for explaining that and thank you for asking. >> okay so we can precede with the appellant. >> yeah. >> before you begun are you mr. berringer ham. >> yes. >> is the other appellant planning on speaking. >> i believe so. >> do you know how you'll share the time? >> i think we'll be okay mines not too long. >> normally we set the clock at 7 minutes but because there's an interpreter 0 involved we have to have sufficient amount of time. >> mine will not drag on long it is pretty quick. >> set it for 7 minutes we will see what we use up. >> i'm john birmingham here on

behalf of angela loafing to protest a box permit at 2530, 30th avenue i'm a resident of 30th avenue two doors down from the wireless antenna as an lifelong residents i appealed this wireless box based on several of my concerns after received and filed. the respondents rebuttal no matter what my concerns i'm fighting an uphill like at&t will use hair unlimited sources to shut down those installations i wonder in the crown of the wireless in front of of his house maybe he does are doesn't

the reason for the appeal first an historic resource on the avenue and the rebuttal from the department of public works it states the planning department is not required to consider the impact the proposed wireless facility will have on the historic resource under article 25 the planning department must only consider the potential impacts of the wireless facility on an historic building if adjacent under article 25 adjacent is extended on the same side of the street in front of the building or next to the building on either side is in front of the building really didn't understand clearly it didn't give a distance when you stand in front of the front door or any of the front facing windows you can clearly see the

entire pole where this wireless box that will installed approximately 2 hundred feet from the street the department of public works also stated 29 is around the corner from the installation it is not true 29 is up the block and across the street from the proposed wireless facility not around the corner as stated to reiterate you can clearly see the proposed installation in front of the the street article 25 does not give distance for the word in front of and antenna and equipment, too close to the house while i understand the installation is come compliant with the guidelines i believe the criteria for the 1996 act is outdated telephone growth is 10 feet really enough for residents

structural strictly of the pole if you look at the pole in question it has serious signs of rotting on the pole not out of the possibility a storm will not blow the antenna down where the the prove or assess he want prove in crown castle san francisco superior court decided they have to have proof of necessities forcing the city to amend the article this is under appeal i don't believe the city should approve those while parts are under appeal in conclusion i recommend the permit for wireless site be revoked regardless of the decision to be honest the dpw and city owes to citizens to rewrite article 25

so the copies can't shove this down our throats and not fifth big business thank you for your time (clapping.) >> hi. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> my name is a hawk. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> our residents is at 25 thirty, thirty avenue. >> yeah. yeah. >> (speaking foreign language.) we opposing to the installation of this antenna right in front of our home.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> because the appearance of that box like thing is like a tomb stone. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> bless you. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so installation of such a defense in front of our front door. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> it will reflect like we're living in living in a commentary and destroy our favorable view. >> (speaking foreign language.) and then there's this pole. >> overhead please sorry.

>> (speaking foreign language.) it is an aged and old with wooden post. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> according to brown o crown castle the document that they provide. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> they intend to extend it from the top of this old post and extension of wooden poles. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and then they will connect 3 wire cables from across the row. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so the weight of all this

addition. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> concerns us we expecting a san francisco earthquake. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you we can hear from the permit holder now. >> thank you my name is martin simon's with david llp and on behalf of the permit holders which is crown castle and g west, llc formally known as california inc. you see that name on some of the paperwork involved in this matter i'd like to introduce some folks from crown castle this everybody sharon james the

manager the government relationships and john griffith the project manager for the construction implementation of this project and ernesto a senior radio frequency manager for crown castle and josh one of the council for the company i introduced them also so let you know any member of the board has any questions for example, specific to engineering matters of construction, matters we'll be happy to answer those questions i would just also like to point out we've filed a written brief in opposition to the appeal and you've seen a breech by brief by the department of public works urging the appeal be denied as well so this is a wireless box permit

as your familiar issued under article 25 the municipal code and the history is that crown castle made a proper permit operation that received a tentative approval from the department of public works that in turn was protested and a public hearing was held in this matter the hearing officer dially recommend the protest be denied and a permit granted that under article 25 to the director of public works did his own due diligence and he agreed the issuance the permit was proper under article 25 at this point the final approval was sent to crown castle we're here on the final approval for this before this board i'd like to focus on for a moment the escape scope of

this board inquiry under section 115 of the public works code appeals are allowed but the boards tasks quote from the ordinance is to determine whether the final determination of dpw was correct under the provisions of this article 25 and the importance of that and the reason i read that to you is because it means this honorable board is its decision must be bans the factors in article 25 for granting this permit on appeal it is simply not a proper basis to raise questions not the factors so forth under article 25 for issuance of this sort permit so turning to the arguments the appellants made the first argument there is this

historic resource of building at 29 e low concerned an historic building not one of the factors to be credited in article 25 only historic building that are the verbiage is adjacent to the proposed site to be considered and as the appellant conceded adjacent is a defined term in the ordinance it means in front of or on the same side of the street or one building on either side of the proposed sites the appellant conceded at 29 is the note under the depiction and therefore, it can't be take into consideration not grounds for an appeal secondly, they've raised the issue of revenue emissions you've heard from the city attorney good council that rfp emissions are a matter that are

regulated by federal law and there's a specific statute actually will not allow a city to deny a permit for a wireless facility on the basis of the concerns of the emissions, however, however, this particular ordinance requires the appellant to provide a report from a professional rent-controlled unit i'm saying that backwards a registered engineer that awe tests to the fact this will comply that the fcc standards and crown castle provided that in the packet furthermore after the provision at the time to make sure there is compliance and finally after installed if anyone want to have the test crown castle needs to

do that there's the - there is a matter raised a written appeal has to do with with notice the appellants suggest that crown castle if provide proper notice to the application the notice it a mailed notice to property owners between hundred and 50 feet any neighborhood association and three hundred feet as well as posted notice and crown provided that all those notices required by the ordinance the appellants don't say the proper notices were not given only it needs to be amend and a stricter notice needs to be noted that's not a ground for appeal they august in writing and again, the poles raise questions of the pole safety it is a matter actually much oh,

much regulation it is regulated by the california utility commission and addressed by pg&e and by the joint pole authority and there is no history of any problems with those poles this is common sort of installation throughout san francisco and elsewhere no state of of safety issues that particular pole is, in fact, being replaced with a brand new pole. >> i think we've made our other points in respond to the written appeal in writing and i'll direct you to the dpw there was question raised whether that he need to demonstrate necessity or. >> you'll have time open rebuttal thank you. >> i got a question to you

sworn testimony council. >> yeah. >> i stayed the pole is going to be replaced. >> that's correct. >> can you tell me the condition why that pole is being replied and what replies it and what does not. >> if you don't mind i'll let the project manager. >> hi john crown castle what is determined for the pole we go through a filing that is what we call the joint pole station that has pg&e and other public utility basically the age the pole those are determining factors when we look at the equipment put on there this is demonstrated because of am and condition needs to be replaced.

>> what is can you giving me give me a rough idea of the percentage of poles to be replaced that you've proposed. >> out of 6 tonight just one. >> okay. thank you. >> happy to answer any other questions thank you. >> okay. we'll hear from the department. >> good evening gene chang with the department of public works there was a few points that was raised by mr. birmingham and mr. noel i'd like restats the emissions was verified by the dunst to be in compliance with federal limits to the for the required of the appellant to show that the equipment is

necessary or empowered in alternate locations they have the right to use the public right-of-way under the state code with the poles safety and historic building at 2 nine hundred i can hand that over to my colleague of the planning department. >> speak up please. i'll be happy to wireless planning for the san francisco planning department we'll property a wooden pole we review them as part of environmental review we'll rectify those are the specialist and a long time case by case how the promoted installation will effect the notary republic historic resources in this self-reliance to be heard it will not judge

the facilities will impair or alternate the historic district not present for historic resources at the joining of the buildings where respect to pole safety that's a concern in 2007 the c p looked at issues recommended to fires because the poles fail because of the equipment mount open them there were large settlements paid out and it is under the c puc that houses the infrastructure we work closely with penguin and speaking to staff raising issues like pole safety. >> i have questions please. so on our last point is there due diligence done on every single pole is there a study done on every single pole

to assure that every single pole - which is safe or random. >> we don't conduct an analysis with the department of public works or planning department it is responsibility of the pole owners and reviewed by puc so we don't have a prove that every facility is inspected that's obviously an area of concern 0 for me and members. >> how are we sitting here in good conscious how can we take the leap of faith that we're making right decisions about pole safety when you just passed the buck to the pole owner and the is the pole owner here. >> pg&e are not here. >> we're asking one of the key questions is pole safety we're

being asked to take a leap of faith based on our hearsay and every pole with exception of the one that is replaced an admission of failure every pole is a safe pole and we should take the leap of faith to let the utility put more weight on the pole that might be falling down we'll see that later underground there's a pole that is ridiculous it looks like a pole with a bunch of spaghetti on it wires it was no the intent so many wires are attached and clearly when that pole was placed in the ground no intent a hood would be wireless whatever put on top of i don't know we

should take the leap of faith and that dpw are that the utility is dishonest we're being asked to take a leap of faith hearsay that every pole is safe that's kind of is bothersome. >> that takes away our jurisdictions sorry the state resolute against san francisco to try to have jurisdiction over the wooden pole that's a challenge. >> the second question the in article 25 there and i can't quote i can only paraphrase and maybe the city attorney can provide the quote it has to do with with an installation will not change the character of the

overall region or overall neighborhood in which the installation has is being placed now we have gone over this before when someone has a big ugly boxed that's my janitorial comment placed in front of the window and blocked my view article 25 says it didn't change the neighborhood character and the view space in front therefore it is okay. we have to go along with that but the proliferation of the boxes are it is visual for lack of a better word more and more boxed are being placed in various neighborhoods as we continue this process and maybe we uphold this appeal or overrule this

appeal if we do overrule this appeal not box or two is placed on top of the pole and 6 weeks later we'll see another 6 more in the neighborhood and 6 more and 6 more where does it get to the point where interest is so many tubes and boxes we've braevend the intent of article 25 we've changed allowed in our process changing of the character of a neighborhood not with the first one or the two or three or 4 but 6 through 10 or 10 through 20. >> it is an ongoing challenge now 7 carries now down to 4 many were built of the neglected in the richmond and sunset you have t mobile and at&t and other carriers we tried to convince

the wireless carriers to work with us on our preferable scale and location predicament rooftop mounted sites you need less to cover the same coverage area the challenge in the sunset generally buildings are churches or maybe a 10 unit apartment building generally larger scale buildings would be viable now in terms of cumulative impact we will have to look at it case by case due to the state and federal law but have spacing on the other hand, not create a master plan that size is the biggest notice obnoxious size so recommended to the district on or about we look at based on context for instance, they featured bulky antennas

projector please. guess this in work the bulk i didn't antennas see that on here in problem. >> bulky panel antennas 3 of them the box and the pole had a wider back up box 3 and a half times bigger we raised it we felt that was too out of character with the residential district they came back and by design got it out of 3 down to one antenna we got down to a battery back up it is less likely to impair the view buses still have the noisy box when we are looking at a facility it is a standard whether it detracts our approval is not and your you

aware not an enforcement that with that said, in russian hill you have bay windows overhang the streets it is good ground to deny a facility like this with that said, we this still didn't work older sites were built in 2007 with large hanging building and platinum we couldn't approve that today it is a constant challenge trying to find a way to integrate that in the public right-of-way while still looking at state law that grants this. >> i'd like to know at the point i know i don't know it is a city attorney issue i'd like to know the tipping point as to

when the installation that is going to be the tipping point they change the character to say no to those things automatically giving way there are too many of those tubes and boxes and garbage hanging onto the pole i know that is the law i'd like to know the tipping point and the interpretation of when it is surely effects a general neighborhood as questions in article 25 so come up that that. >> we're working on it. >> i have one question as well so both the appellant and the permit holder had language and dimension regarding when adjacent meant so you specifically in article 25 what does adjacent mean the permit holder said it is one house left or right. i want to know

specifically in the language does it say one house left or right. >> we treat it as the adjacent property line. >> i'm looking at my director. >> you mean providing the building i'm sorry in regards to the building permit. >> yes. >> the language is adjacent means in front of, and on the same side the street when using connection with the city park or open space let's see on the same side the street and in front of the building or the next building on either side when using the connection with the historic landmark. >> so the existence is one building next door thank you for that clarification. >> thank you. >> i had a question for dpw regarding either mr. chang or

ms. short what are under grounding plans for richmond and sunset would you know. >> i speak to the city attorney quite a bit no immediately underground plan the city as recuse u used up our credit at the state level we use to pay for the utility bill it goes into a pot of money we borrowed and the city did a study but not having the funding mechanism. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. we'll take public comment if any on item number 5? >> please step forward. >> when our finished that will be helpful to give us a card with our name. >> i'm jordan one of the appellants of one of the

subsequent permit coming up i wanted to voices my support for the two appellants for these permit appeals they've put foresight it is is an action i'm proud to see that and proud to support them i know it seems like in the first couple of minutes if in hearing to they're setting the terms if one to the other of permit each permit is unique and technique things happening with the appeals there are certain characteristics that override and pertain to each appeals i'd like to speak the attorney in his opening argument said it was whether article 25 was obeyed or not i don't know when you make our decisions each individual permitted i'll ask

you to consider that is the limit of your jurisdiction in this question i'll speak about in the time i have allocated for my own permit i believe that this is a procedural closed occur oar i circle the citizens find out by complying with those procedures i'll say that up front browns the rest of my fellow citizens testify and ask you to consider your own authority it limit by the terms of council in the article thank you. is there any additional public comment please step forward. >> my name is matt i'm a permit appeal my question we never saw any specification for

the size, weight or anything of going on top of those poles as this is we can't argue on any of the things if we are going to do something we should postpone the permit until i look at this stuff and also it says dpw has the authority to recommend to move them, too, and there's a wireless box that is out will in front of our windows an 9th avenue 35 feet away they can move to fulsome street by the park city property they can put it there wouldn't effect anyone in my opinion i'd like to put it out there. >> in quick response. >> on a different issue. >> okay is there any additional public comment please step forward public comment for item 5.

>> hi, i'm ann brand new baker some of you may know me i was interested to hear the gentleman say that as an example that were there is an overhanging window on russian hill that would be an area in which he could deny a permit as you may know that permit would with the offer hanging window was approved we did appeal it was overruled the installation will be going in there is currently a clarification being instituted by the planning department all zoning locations will be eligible which in essence will

eliminate any opportunity for the citizenry to claim a protected location which is in article 25 but the planning department is making an effort to sabotage that part of article 25 as well this board of appeals does have the power within article 25 to make judgements as to the benefit and welfare of the citizenry you do have that power it is in article 25 whatever reason our choosing not to do so when you ask mr. matt questions about undergoing in san francisco feel free to ask me some of the questions too i'm also the chairman of the san francisco coalition to underground utility we've been

working for 3 years to effective effect our supervisors to reopen this issue because, in fact, it is the the only solution because every pole you've commented is going to have this nightmare add to it is added to it pacific heights enjoys under grounding they'll not get is it st. francis woods enjoys undergoing not goes to get this to their pole and dog patch and rapture are going to get worse it is out right discriminations i can answer any questions you might have about under grounding thank you. >> any public comment seeing none, we'll take result starting with the appellants you have - mr. birmingham or mr. low

rebuttal time. >> i don't have much for rebuttal i don't believe we worded article 25 adjacent to my argument was in front of in front of is not defined with in front of is not defined with the district and also nobody told us there was new poll you saw you can't have new poles floug eventually so as 0 mar said erecting a new pole are underground service thank you.

>> there are plenty of poles around our area why choose this one. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> it will increase the cost of construction. >> thank you. >> thank you. we, take rebuttal from the permit holder. >> thank you again, i'm martin fine man, i want to say a few things in rebuttal when is the question was asked about the existence of the term

adjacent next with that historical building that audit of that definition so this comes straight from section 520 a specifically defined term it means on the same side the street and in front of the building or the next building an either side not really any ambiguity but this building at 2 nine hundred as dpw indicated and the statute of the ordinance tells us not within that definition of adjacent the next thing i want to respond to the question that was about the business about the standard this body would apply in terms of it's review tonight and that is not arguing on my part again something that is so forth in

the ordinance this is section 1515 c of the ordinance and it says titled board of appeals review and it says i quote upon such appeal the brotherhoods shall determine whether the final determination was correct under the article 25 that is the limit of the inquiry by the board whether the provisions of article 25 were met or not and frankly you're not allowed to taking into account those matters outside of the boundary more necessity and looking at other locations about thing beyond the distance measurement allowed by the ordinance those are outside of the bodies productive the final issue the matter of the polls in this instance we are going to be

replacing the pole that is a replacement i'll underline not adding a new pole it is corrected in the terms and conditions attached to the permit we're not allowed to craft new polls for the purpose of putting more equipment on this this is an older pole it is being replaced not left to people sort of you know substantive determination but we have to go to pg&e or go to the northern california joint pole association and prove to them with engineering evidence this is going to be safe it will bear the weight and be subject to wind conditions so we have to provide engineering calculations for the people to be sufficient to replace the pole thank you very much. >> on your last point does our

client carry the responsibility if something happens to the pole. >> to a large degree depends on the variety of equipment not owned by us there maybe liability by pg&e or the pole association there is reference to one of the polls that has a lot of lines the reason the whole purpose of section 7901 of the public utility so to encourage the robust use of poles so a given pole in san francisco may have penguin on it or crown can say especially or penguin and others it has a number of wires so there's a number of people using it depending on what the sort of calamity a joint responsibility

not the responsibility of one or the other. >> i have one question regarding the no or notice a member of the public mentioned the dimensions were no, no it in the notification does our company provide that. >> you've seen as part of the i think you've seen the actual notice that is given and it is mailed notice and notice on the poles 0 notice to the neighborhood association it as prescribed verbiage on it and it includes what we call photo simulation a fancy word that means. >> i have it in front of the me now. >> oh, thank you. >> thank you very much. >> we'll take rebuttal from the department.

>> public works i wanted to make a not to the record not referenced by the appellants we did realize that the conditions on the permit itself explicit match those listed on the tenant approvals we would like to ask the board approval to modify those conditions on the permit to match those within the approvals they're not huge it is things like you know there erroneous part for example, the poles be repained to match the area and whereas the correct one on the tentative approval would say you know pink, the attachments either non-glossy to

make it a little bit more pleasant and the conditions were written for a different project to verizon wireless we're prototyping the antenna for city owned transit poles for example, in north beach have a flag conditions to think maintaining that flag to maintain the area we're including those conditions of approval i can respond to the other conditions recommended to the planning code the planning department is looking for the san francisco justice department of the planning code specifically not in the public right-of-way on tops of buildings and so on that planning code discussion is tentative we would have no bearing open is public

right-of-way and article 25 lastly with reference to russian hill the proposal that came in before this board as well in russian hill featured much smaller equipment so the equipment boxes were the size of the binder and as at all as the pole and didn't create noise if this system is opposed with a box much wider than the pole and cooling fans we'll ask for sorry tighter context like parts of russian hill so that's why i was referring to why it was context based or not. >> thank you for the clarification. >> i'm confused about the permit situation is the permit not before us correct. >> the planning department conditions that were included within those permit their including language a different type of facility for instance,

the cable is inside of the pole it is a steel pole. >> but the permit is not accurately written; correct. >> it has an accurate description but the permit were erroneous they referred to some instances they don't refer to the pole. >> the conditions are part of permit. >> we have a small issue. (clapping.) please, please >> not appropriate to this setting. >> other questions. >> no. >> i have a question has planning been suited by itself utilities at all. >> they were challenged basically because of state law their exempt if you will, and no right to look at ceqa a new pole and noise and preservation and also said we have no right to

require a new permit every two years and no right to ply the tentative equipment when the cased concluded the judge said the city get to apply those the residents get letters and the city gets to apply ceqa but not prohibited those facilities we fiat get to apply a segregation in an your honor, area not wanting those areas we don't have that opportunity the court ruled against the city we can't have a permit to 2 years so we misdemeanor it to 10 years every 10 years and the rules regarding modifications complflthd with the federal law section 6409 of the job creation act. >> i'm aware of that but has

planning been suited by a utility by any denial. >> not that i'm aware of one lawsuit. >> where planning denied i know how much time we've been sunday night (laughter) >> not that i'm aware of. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> beyond the scope they've ever denied. >> i could start you know i think advertised interesting because many of the people in this room have not been here before on those particular issues a couple of sites on previous issues but this board

has heard appeals on utility, infrastructure installation so for quite a few years and run the game bet from on poles and on the sidewalks on streets and the evolution of the ability to comment to change on those has been from something more broader to something that is extremely narrow and the reason is that every time something happens that is contrary to the interests of the utilities there was a lawsuit and they have been many lawsuits this board at least during mire tenure has been sued 6 times related to those particular

issues the question is a great question raised by one of the speakers related to how this board views it's ability to evaluate, change, modify are deny con forms with article 25 that is a good question but one that already states ware bound by article 25 and based on the number of lawsuits there is a severe limitation to the board on that basis the - question that most people are raising and i'm not speaking

necessarily to all of the cases as one speaker said, yes every case is individual it is separate, however, the issue is you're bringing up not necessarily ones that can be dealt with by the departmental representatives, the term that is used is an tangled by them is not correct the planning department has tried to do their best in managing the built environment and dpw has done their best workplace the limbs they have the issue is a legislative one one based upon an obsolete law which you know governs everybody it provides tremendous final incentives for free i don't think that is just a personal

not note official position here but one that i think we understand why then lawsuits occur at the drop of a hat in particular instance and case from the conditions are incorrect i don't think we have a valid permit. >> to follow up i actually was going to mention something after someone is from the public that advocates further down the line spoke and as my fellow commissioners so eloquently said a lot of the reasons that a lot of the legislation and reasons why there is a narrow band for the brotherhoods is because of laced several years we've gone directly toe-to-toe for the public and the citizens of san francisco

and on several of the occasions we have lost i understand that i personally will not want a communication whether on the ground or pole in front of my house api i've stated that pubically in hearings past wear limited to what we can do that's why article 25 was amended and legislative powers is strict some of the directs we can go but i understand this is very important we all understand it is very important to every single one of i'm a year here at 3 years it's been the bulk of my time here that we faced other utility companies on a weekly weekly basis times 10 or 15. >> yeah. there was a reason why i asked

the city attorney to give us a synopsis of article 25 it is frustrating for us to sit here and you know if i were sitting in the public and one of the appellants the appellant open this case i would be looking at me and saying oh, he's copying out unfortunately, we're not copying out we're protected by an action this is unfortunate and i think this appellant mentioned the chairman of the installer of those boxes probably didn't have a box in front of their window i concur on that one i'm sure that the would-be upsetting if you want

to volunteer any representatives 5 of them sitting in front of us if they have a box installed in front of their window it would be frustrating to feel like a cop-out but commissioner fung is right until the legislation changes and the law changes we're kind of bound by it i would hope that dpw would fight the fight with the owners of the polls to make sure, in fact, they have structural integrity so which one comes fall down it only takes one to kill somebody i hope that dpw is deliberate

diligent to keep the integrity of those poles when i hear comments of a 1996 fcc guideline i bought this phone looeshg last week it is obsolete today that's technology the fact we're operating under a 1996 fcc guideline sprikz me as somehow behind the robin williams show it is a joke we're unfortunately again, we're subject to the law and legislation here and so also the side your local legislator >> needless i'm preempting commissioner wilson i'm hearing we need to upheld the permit under art 25 but we have a defective shall we ask the city

attorney to have this the continuance what's the course of action. >> the conditions raised more of a noticing requirement than anything else whether the public received notice of conditions of the permit they'll like to approve as opposed to whether or not you on the public this information will have been material to the public and assessment of the permit. >> i think so. >> the italian flags on the poles. >> except nobody raised it. >> but i don't think in a material sense in a substantive sense in terms of the permit article 25 give us the authority to deny the permit based on this unless we have a noticing

problem. >> do we have a noticing problem? >> well. >> perhaps ask the department how they view the validity of their permit. >> i think the key thing primarily or explicitly the paint and carli short department of public works thank you. i think there were a couple of conditions that were basically pulled from the wrong planning conditions permit, however, the conditions that were listed on the tentative approval so the conditions that the public received primary notice these those are the correct conditions we issued the former permit we environmental parts the wrong conditions if this is a noticing problem it is not a problem the

conditions were included all the conditions i think none of them was raised as a concern so none of them were identified from the appellant in my estimation they're relatively minor details for example, they refer paint color so green versus the more neutral in those cases not substantive changes. >> they contained why they're in the pole rather than outside the pole. >> again, the conditions that the public saw doesn't create that. >> your asserting it with no noticing issue. >> no noticing issue. >> i'll disagree with you the fact that the conditions of the issued permit were different than what with was in the original notice creates a notice

issue. >> expect we'll request this board if you, you approve. >> i'm not going to do that i won't accept modified as a special condition of this hearing. >> okay. >> well, of course, that's up to you but our request would be the conditions that were using noticed be the conditions applied to the permit. >> just to clarify that. >> maybe i jumped the gun that's my intent. >> let's talk to to. >> what would you propose commissioner. >> well, they, reapply. >> i would agree with that. >> the permit holder can reapply. >> yep. >> i'm not inclined to go that way.

>> there is a noticing issue the public has a right to see the actual conditions of the permitted are and in the conditions in the original notice whereas when we said and the ones for the issued permit were different that creates a noticing issue. >> i'm going to move that the appeal be denied it conforms with article 25. >> any further discussion? okay >> okay. so a motion from the wanting to deny the appeal and uphold the permit that it compiles and. >> on the order are you incorporating the correct conditions as the modification to the permit. >> yes. >> okay. so if this is the case i would ask those

conditions be submitted to the board because i won't know how to enforce that. >> now you can hand to the clerk thank you. >> so is it clear mr. masonry on that document is the entire document needed to be incorporated into the permit maybe you can put it on the overhead the commissioners don't mind. >> the conditions. >> that is upside down. >> those conditions with the planning department conditions one through 10 applied to this site and no other site. >> wait are you saying that is applicable to every other permit before us tonight. >> four of the 6. >> and is it replacing the mraung u language that all of the items under the planning

department conditions. >> correct. >> all of those are taken out and all those put in. >> that's correct. >> okay. >> just the planning department conditions tdpw and dph are the same. >> that's correct. >> so i think i got lost millennium moving to uphold the permit. >> i know, but i need clarification on the something the conditions that were provided to the public at the time of the notice were different from the conditions that we just saw that are being - >> what happens the correct conditions. >> i guess. >> was sent to the public so the department feels no notification problem. >> what was handed to the clerk are the same conditions

that the public got in their notice. >> oh, okay. >> that's - >> i thought that was. >> that's what the department is saying okay. >> so commissioner president lazarus try to restate. >> mined our motion is to deny the appeal and uphold the permit that complies with article 25 and the condition the permit be revised to replace the planning department conditions in the issued permit with the ones that were submitted tonight. >> i'm sorry no additional public comment at this time were in dilatation and commissioner fung no commissioner vice president honda no commissioner wilson no and commissioner swig no okay. that motion fails on a vote of 1 to four there are any other motion otherwise this permit will be uphold as is by

default. >> i'll make a motion. >> that move it the permit be revoked on the basis that notice was incorrect. >> okay so we have a motion by commissioner fung to grants the appeal and deny the permit on the basis that notice was incorrect. >> on that motion commissioner president lazarus no commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig okay with a vote of 4 to one that motion does pass and this permit is denied on that basis. >> okay so we will move on to the next item item number 6 appeal

elizabeth sale and matthew versus the department of public works for the mapping on 29 avenue protesting the onions on july 30th with the network of california inc. for the construction of a facility application number - and we will start with the appellant. >> 7 minutes. >> i'm a residents on 29 avenue i'm the appellant on this permit many of my arguments are similar to those this evening i'll add more we feel my husband and i a geologist we've been residents

10 east at the location for 10 years this installation will be disrupt active if from and health prospective i'll speak peppering perp i know the regulations of article 25 but some of the research i've done the tower itself will be installed xroos from our deck the deck we used registration for entertaining and hanging out with our neighbors that live enernex nbc to us with our children visually it is disruptive a health concern i submitted a photograph here as you can see right outside our window and according to a company in the bay area the healthy building science they recommend

in the practices of ems for when our building installing items within areas outside of buildings it is recommend that you build in the neighborhood with or without wireless services and building not in the the building is not in direct site of antennas they have research on that regulations i realize those are been towers have been fcc approved but according to council how many are installed in the last few years and installed collectively does that include the amounts we live in one of the biggest tech service plenty of broadband service and plenty of service i did not need more outside of my window my husband said where are decree

being installed in golden gate park or outside of my residence i have a family member that as severe immune problems and known by decreasing mold and electrical and various types of environmental hazards that effects the immune system that effects longevity open health next door they have smaller children and can be effect by those kinds of things i have you know on new evidence from doctors to submit i don't understand why we need more we heard if crown castle more tower in the outer richmond i submit that photo with the deck and

telephone pole installed right outside of our window thank you very much. >> add anything? into i'm sorry. i'm matt we still have not seen the engineering we don't know the weight and size and the effects on the pole we can't verify the engineering they've done what they sent us in the mail a picture nfsz it and really not given us information that is something we need at least for the public to see and i think this is good enough >> thank you, sir as the appellant you received the response brief from permit holder with all the equipment listed. >> it does but not seemed like it had a the weight or anything along that lines. >> thanks.

>> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> thank you again dynamic a martyr fine planning man above of the crown. >> we need you to speak into the mike please. martin fine man on behalf of the permit holder this particular appeal, in fact, the appellant didn't file a brief in supportive of their appeal they have a asserted two grounds tonight the first has to do with with rfp physicians and the second with views as far as r f emission it i think that was a direct statement by the appellants they're asking this body to take

into account r f emissions you've already been counseled by the city attorney's office and heard and read in the briefing ♪ matter it is simply not a matter this body can, in fact, take into account federal law an explicit at this point that cities and states and localities are not allowed to deny permits for the r f emissions if in compliance with the fcc standards. here that is absolutely required it's been submitted a r f certification we'll fully imply with the standards and is going to have to be a second round of dpeems that is erected and installed and third according to conditions attached by the city

to the permit that is further testing requested by any residents so frankly it is actually quite rare to see appellants in a situation like this to be blunt in asking you to do something that is a claim violations for federal laws required under 24 ordinance the other point having to do with views in fact, a reminder once again under section 115 of the ordinance it limits your review here today to what is permit as a standard under the ordinance and section 109 b-2 of the ordinance didn't allow for the concerns about views and light having said that, on the other hand, in this instance for this permit the planning department did review the issues and made a

follower determination that no conditions were necessary in order to address the view or light issues they explained and indicated because of the location on antenna and the distance of the facility from the appellants home i guess i'd like to make one final comment perhaps just a flip slip of the tongue seefrment he heard the appellant describe this as a tower i don't want a understanding on the record by the board no tower involved we're talking about putting a few small pieces of equipment on to telephone pole no tower involved we're not talking about buildings tower one or two like along the freeway only a telephone pole

with other infrastructure on it unless other questions thank you very much >> okay. we'll hear from the department. >> gene chang public works i don't have much to say only the concerns of the r f we the public health department has looked at the reports and some have verified within the federal guidelines on the issues of the visible disruption i'll leave that to my colleague omar. >> thank you planning department staff with respect to the views given the poles are 14 feet away from the nearest windows and the site of the equipment not obstruct of

compare the residential windows it is in a significant matter a.d. to the context we have many sites of workload go poles when our health department few in the country have the sophisticated meter has gone out and done testing in someone's residential tweldz on the 2 and 3 floor the emissions from those wooden poles is about one percent of what the fcc public exposure so a lot of concerns are those sites saying band in berkley and upper europe the european union as similar students and switzerland has more constrictor standards those facilities will generally at the end to comply

with the overseas standard i hope that context maybe of use to the public and board as well. >> is this one have north beach colors. >> what. >> does this permit have north beach colors. >> no. >> the conditions with accurate and the conditions are accurate. >> thank you any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none then we'll have rebuttal. >> you have public comment on this item? okay >> hi i take it leslie. >> could you speak into the mike and i live over 35 avenue near one of the installation i'm a bit concerned in that i guess i need clarification it so you would dpw staff is completing permit applications on behalf of

the castle that feels last week, a conflict of interest if you said there was a paste and copy. >> please direct our comments to the board and not staff. >> it sounds like the dpw staff was involved telegraph hill in filling out the permit not crown castle omar was speaking he said we have 3 hundred and some boxes in the city is it sounds like he is conflicted in terms of his alleviation with crown castle is there any additional public comment seeing none, we'll have rebuttal starting with the

appellants. >> i would add mr. swigs comments of the accumulation of the boxes not from an ascetical point but how many will it take and many per street before there will be absconder everyone of the emission be realized i personally have not seen the comments earlier the size the box and how heavy that had been and how much weight will be resting into the pole and i think we need a little bit more information i heard from crown castle they'll do a series of once those are installed they'll do testing with the residents and i want to see when and how that will happen and that process into action if this

permit is approved thank you. >> okay rebuttal from the permit holder. >> i'll be very brief the appellant is argue that the permit should be denied on the basis that the effects or alleged effect of the r f emissions that's been discussed at length and absolutely something that federal government has removed from your productive has authorize actively protective will i this board is not to use as a basis for the permit the second issue has to do with with views you've heard from the gentleman a matter that was taking into consideration considerable distance from those

facility to the house the size and location of the pole and the distance indicate that is not an issue but it is an issue that was considered it was not deemed to be grounds for denial it has been thoroughly considered all the way up the lard by dpw and planning department the last matter i think some of the appellants have lost sites they've get the notice in the mail posted on the post on another pole that is prescribed by the ordinance but they're told the actual application is on file if he wanted they can go to the dpw as the case maybe and get a copy of the application and satisfy other concerns if they like so with that, i would

respectfully ask that the that i will be denied and the permit uphold. >> and rebuttal from the department any, any. >> mr. chang please come up so there is not further confusion will be explain the fact the permit is issued by your department in conjunction to the permit applicant. >> yes. the permit is issued if fliengs in conjunction with other city department. >> by the department of public works. >> correct. correct. >> the question was also you do not do the application they do the application. >> correct. >> we review the application along with the planning department the public health department and as needed rec and park department. >> thank you. >> i have a question on your

response to those cases some of them show the radius map they include the property that received the mail notice within the hundred and 50 feet some of the briefs have this and some don't say there a reason why. >> i'm not sure why. >> as an example this case there is a letter in there that shows where the nos o notice or so were tacked into the poles no radius map and the list of the properties within hundred and 50 feet that is issued by and in this case an address research i

was not familiar with that's being used in some of the other ones; right? >> i think i can address that in this case we didn't submit no appellant brief typically if there is a question about 90s or issues we'll tried to include that information we didn't respond to an appellant breech a that was not included. >> overhead this is the radius map prepared for the specific pole location. >> okay it is included as part of application but not provided to the board of appeals. >> sir, you referenced we are somebody gone out to test of the r f frequency inside a home would it be a situation there is multiple devices so a cumulative

emission. >> the public health department has a meter not discriminating and looking at those by crown castle by t mobile it will take into emissions by the cell phone or wi assess inside a >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners i'm going to ask for a continuance on this case article 25 i think we all read and studied extensively and one of the things that this board has it's the notable responsibility to verify that notice was proper i can't verify that if i don't see the list of who went to on the radius map to verify i've

heard from both parties that was done, however, i'm not able to verify myself. >> motion? >> i've move to continue this as a mutually acceptable date either the department provides that are the permit holders provides that okay. how long do you need? >> madam director. >> you want to add it to next week's calendar we can do that we need the materials by the end of the day tomorrow is that possible. >> how heavy is our load next

week? >> it is pretty light. >> okay. >> okay. >> so i will state for your information i have to leave around 7 o'clock next and i have so leave at the same time as well. >> we'll not meet past 7 o'clock we need 4 people here so you may want to put it on a different date. >> what would you recommend on. >> on the next meeting the 28. >> okay. >> is that acceptable to the permit holder and the department? october 28th and to the appellant? >> okay overwhelming to move to continue this case for the production of the alleged materials related to

notice to october 28th and that's for the department to provide no other briefings beside what the department provides; is that correct. >> that's correct. >> well on that motion if commissioner fung continue this matter to october 28th to allow time for the department to provide he was the materials to the board commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson no commissioner swig okay. that that motion carries with a vote of 4 to one moving on to item 7 appeal number ludwig versus the department of public works to the mapping the property on 7th avenue protesting the issuance to the california ink of a

wireless box personal wireless facility alters location number 14 plus and we will leo allow the appellant to present. >> hi there i have a lot of slides will they turn on automatically. >> once you reference the overhead well, i'm glad to see you as you may know u as you may know the wireless carries or carriers with rocking u walking over the city and rubber stamping and crown castle doing whatever they president in san francisco there's a slide that rick alluded to this this is too much right now the growth in wire box issued is 5 hundred and 17 percent in 2015 not close to the population growth i'm sorry our monitor are flickering. >> can you try to change the

and pause the time. >> i'll also hand you those in the 3 minute rebuttal so 5 hundred is the growth. >> hold on one second. >> you can start the time if he is going to continue to press the dark bum and turn towards the machine. >> thank you. >> thank you so as you can see there's a tremendous growth i'm here today those folks are trying to in all install an antenna on my street i'm not here pause i'm stronger the opponent the opponent has for resources and time and connects than i vw have i'm not here because i'm smarter then the opponent sbe they have seasoned attorneys that will get what we want i'm not here because i know

the right things to oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light say people don't know how to approach you or don't understand what is happening i'm really here to ask for your help for the homeowners and residents of my neighborhood we need our help and courage unfortunately, the elected officials are trying to satisfy phoney baloney i didn't jobs they're political aspirations of the people they serve here's the secret the power you have is from serving the power the power when you serve the homeowners and owners that allow you to do those jobs you showed tonight how strong dearly i know you're not a phoney baloney i didn't commissioner you curb about the structure and opponent of the city i have to building you ask you've if you're helped the people of san francisco i'm glad

you're one of the people that cares dearly did i know that people were not aware that an antenna was approved in my neighborhood i've signed testimonials from people that never ever received a notice and not knowing a mountain was coming into the neighborhood i'm going to hand you this is one person in the neighborhood who doesn't understand thousand how to file a protest and any of the signs this is another person that never received a letter and never saw anything posted on the polls so dpw agreed they forgot to include how to file a protest it is correct do deny the permit the fact that many of the people in the vicinity of my neighborhoods are still not informed about the antenna and none wools folding informed how to protest dearly i hope you can help us

frank given our background i know you understand the problems with degradation and structure of the neighborhood crown wanted to put an antenna within half of block of the park if strollers introduce the neighborhood and en bloc the park view this is our neighborhood as you can see even a stroller would be blocked by the antenna there and here's the clarified view of how the park a blocked because of impaired blocks on a good street we must deny the project we are not sure that was a good street we should deny the permit frank we need your help in putting a first name only verizon and crown castle and other wireless carriers i know that you care about the health and prosperity

of people you work for penguin and know about safety dangers on poles due to the lack of testing there are more and more fires on utility policies poles evidence the current system is not working just one recent new story about how power lines may have caused the sierra fires the good news you're not loan in worry about the safety pole in 2010, the commission voiced strong support in article 25 those are all the commissioners that approved amazing the additional safety procedures should have been added and i'm asking for your help in the absence of any board of supervisors follow-up on this issue it is in the board of appeals hands and help with the

approval open 7 finding avenue rick and bobby i know you, you must be commissioners the people your time is very valuable to you i can only imagine you helped the people imagine with the people from the city they're walking down the street hey, let's put one in front of rick's house and acting like the homeownership's don't matter three hundred plus residents signed documents against the antenna please help us to deny this until they work with us to get a better location lastly we're not supposed to discuss health i'll repeat one person in the planning department said you'll never win a case with you discuss health that loan is rid we're in san francisco we're not in the city of phoney baloney the reality is

this may cause cancer or other effects firefighters are so worried about the effects they band them on their roofs i'll show you this here. >> and so i'm asking you once again for various reasons to deny this permit there are a lot of concerns requiring to adequately give notice to residents in the spirit of the law and the landscape and failure to protect the public safety and even health concerns i hope you can help us. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening once again i'm martin fine man

on behalf of of the permit holder crown castle the first issue that was raised by the appellant this evening has to do with with adequate notice crown castle fully compiled with all the notice and nolo contendere tension otherwise as you may know by now from previous discussion what is riders mailed notice to property owners and residents within hundred and 50 feet mailed no, no is to neighborhood organizations recognized by planning within three hundred feet and posts by in the effected neighborhood that happened the evidence of that the demonstration of that the cooperation collaboration has been submitted crown did and filed prove in the brief that was filed by the city it concurs that proper notice was given

in fact, just sort the the proof is in the pudding sufficient notice people filed protests before the hoff and have an appeal again tonight in genuine issue before notice only frankly on argument that the ordinance ought to be amended and the appellant requires a different notice and, secondly, an issue raised in the paper that was submitted about whether dpw prospering recommended approval the appellant simply proclaims the the planning department in take into account this was the street that was designated by the city as having a great view view, however, there is plenty of documents in the reader record this shows the planning department did in fact, do the review and did care consider and made the determination it was not a significant issue has to

do with with views with the characterization of the neighborhood third at least in the brief that was filed though not repeated tonight there was a question raise about referral to the rec and park department this is not under this is not come under the provision of the owners that required a referral to the rec and park department there is a defined term park protected location this is not quality as a park protected location that is a defined term means similar to a discussion earlier if under recent a park that is in front of and on the same side the street as the pole that is the subject of application that is not and, in fact, not frankly a photo that was shown by the appellant this is no diego doubt

near golden gate park this was raised in the brief a question of the safety of the pole no evidence at all of any safety issue regarding the pole here the safety of the poles is a matter that is comprehensively regulated and occurred by the california utility commission in its general order of 1995 and policed speaks for itself by the jointly i joint pole and pg&e depending on who owns the pole that is an issue. >> this is similar to many installations that are already existing here in san francisco and else existed on poles without safety incidents whatsoever in the briefing this appellant raised a question about whether a review was done for whether in

the the least intrusive means with all respect the appellant mixed up the standards it is out of a different statute and has to do with with federal law relating to the facility but didn't relate to this particular application the standards at issue those so forth in article 25 and didn't require the at least intrusive analysis similarly there was an argument in the brief whether an analysis was done if necessary it and again necessity is anything that the appellant pass mistakenly deducted from the conditional use permit a larger antenna facility might be placed on

private property necessity is not part of article 25 and therefore under section 115 is not even allowable ground for granting the appeal and denying the permit so the last thing i want to come to i'll try to be brief again, we have a fairly you know blunt argument that the permit should be denied based on the public health concerns or punting leakages about frequency issues as you've heard many times that is not a matter that you are allowed to take into account the city is allowed to take into account in denying such a permit the federal government has comprehensively addressed that in section 332 of the

communication act something not something this body is allowed to take into account so with that, i would be very happy to answer any questions. >> and i would urge i to deny the appeal and affirm the permit. >> okay. we'll hear from the department. >> gene changing public works first of all, f this is one of the permit where the conditions don't match and i'd like to go on to say sufficient notice was provided public works received from crown castle an affidavit saying the ordinance was radius not included the tentative notices

provide where it can, filed as stated towards the end of the notice again r f verified by the department of public health and in compliance with federal limits referred to the rec and park department was not required for code only required in the proposal locations is on the same side the street and in front of a park so here on golden gate park is not on the adjacent side as for the comments recommending to the good use street and also pole safety i will hand that over to omar if you don't have any questions. >> one, if you say is is for the earlier permit were the

conditions in the notice the correct conditions. >> the conditions in the notice to respect the correct, however, when the permit was issued. >> i wanted to clarify thank you. >> planning department staff reviewed and taking into account like street use assuming they're a good street view and determined if they detract from the residential district attorney from say a purview of locations thank you. >> sir, were you in the department when it first came up about 5 years ago. >> no, i started 2 and a half years ago. >> can i ask you a question, please. >> what is the age the pole. >> i don't have the information green before me is it agent or safe or dangerous

has due diligence been done ton the pole and infrastructure to support the new equipment. >> it will be deferred to on the pole - ii bring up the same point i did before it is really irresponsible of us to move forward when our going to put a piece of equipment on a pole and dpw didn't know the age the pole or the structural integrity place a risk ocher the citizens that live in the surrounding neighborhood surrounding the pole i don't know how to factor this in you know your - you've got to suffer the nightmare in the middle of the night great thanks. >> any public comment on this

item? step forward. >> thank you again, i'm jordan canning take care i have an appeal come on the docket i don't need to come up here and abuse my ability to comment i'd like to use it and support 2, 3, 4 appeal and request the permit be denied one question that i have roadway i have to questions one is i'm wondering given you've set the precedent for rejecting a permitted on faulty language if we might identify other permits have that same problem and willing to exclude those we could speed along this evening i know my permit has one of the problems i don't know if

other people know to say ask that question ask that at least four by dpw own admissions if you'll precede with the same object on each the questions and the second question about our ability to address health concerns and the repeated allegations by dpw and by the crown castle lawyers those are safe limits they talk about the one percent of acceptable threshold that is a measurement not taken from the street not near the actual dps devices i'll note the architecture place have living quarters on the second floor above the garage the fanciful idea we'll float near

the tower is the architecture realty of this architecture in the richmond district we're not talking about the exposure at ground floor but the exposure as you face with an the towers in a residential home i building that politics applies to all of the cases here tonight thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> any way to plug this in? no? >> mr. masonry do you know know. >> holding it here. >> oh, i see okay overhead please. >> overhead please.

>> testing testing better technology? >> (laughter) is there a wireless devices. >> sir, you, call media services. >> they'll call us. >> there we go. >> it was kind of shocking.

>> (laughter). >> you can start her time. >> okay this is in reference to fire safety and pole safety it is on o farrell street in our san francisco ethics commission i think pg&e would agree their publishing the fact that power lines down are dreadful it says here they are dreadful and that's not going to work. >> it won't go forward. >> yeah. but i can't make that move i need the next picture offering there we go. >> the fire department when

lines come down fire department must i think their dangerous they sent 4 fire trucks with lines come down that is the evidence of the fire trucks when the lines come down so contrary to crown castles statement is fire safety is not an issue we see clearly fire safety is an issue some of the other people here tonight wanted to know they didn't understand when it might look like in their neighborhood here's a view ever at&t installation this one says how dangerous on the this is the minor at&t installation you'll notice the size of this box and the antenna here's another installation i believe tomcast it looks like on the pole that is what we live with and the minor antenna that

is not protruding much and causes none any view issues those are the boxes that are placed on the exist poles or the new replaced poles that are very small the word small and square feet is used they're not small and discrete this is an excellent view that references golden gate park where it does matter with the public seize where those discrete installations are being made this is another example this like golden gate park is a national historic district where those are installed and mr. swigging i couldn't do when it is too much i believe we have reached too much. >> that is the view on filbert

street that is the wiring that's been strung. >> what we're looking at on filbert street thank you. >> too much. >> is there any additional public comment on this item please step forward. >> my name is a cam i'm going to make a comment on this from comcast. >> you see it okay. the reason why this is the residents okay okay. it is telephone self-center in california and the individual from santa fe and the residents is explicit say only occupant whatever the address looks like people want to see this at that time, they'll not on this is coming

from you that's why people doesn't even receive this later but don't know anyhow thank you. >> is there any additional public comment. >> seeing none, we'll start our rebuttal sir, you have 3 minutes and mr. ken tar you know how to take this off the overhead. >> looks like he want the overhead. >> i also wanted to leave copies of the slide i was told he could leave it. >> does the board want to accept. >> those are signed documents of people who were uninformed i need them back you mentioned he could leave them and get a copy. >> you want to see those. >> great. >> i want to cover a couple of

points and respectfully rick's views of article 25 the people were not informed how to protest that was not in the document and not and a violation of article 25 even without that people were not informed you say the letter people are not informed i have a lot of signed documents people were not informed the safety of the pole is a huge issue that was a fire about 3 weeks ago i think i referred it in my brief but a big issue and a clause allows the board to step in and when the self-regulation did work tonight we were heard another great statement by a few people the self-reasonable certainty oversees miss bastard on the poles didn't sound like a good answer i be you know i want to mention the fourth point the

conditions were inconcrete those are points that relate to power but i want to mention one more thing how important you're really is in our society and how important in times when is questionable so i'll put this up this is from 1953 and this does it work? >> overhead please. it is from 1953 a court hearing if we ever see that a court hearing - this is a court hearing the tobacco industry and one of the argument that was used at this time to say that the lawsuit was eir relevant the national cancer institute found no link between cigarette smoking and cancer that was the argument then you maybe familiar

with something like this more doctors smoke camels than any other cigarette the reality people cement smoking and tobacco companies kept winning it took california another 40 years to changes that this is reminding me of a lot of things similar type of arguments i know this may be out ever article 25 but the importance that people like you play in our society it goes way beyond normal things thank you for your time. >> we can take rebuttal from the permit holder. >> thank you. i will attempt to be brief we want to get a few points that are raised

vertically one in comments about the notice that of given and with respect to the notice that internal revenue factually incorrect arrest frankly rather hard to accept one of the public commenters brought up didn't say it but the envelope he received notice the first point i'll make that is an admission he received notice but secondly, ontario to it was said from crown castle but that the return address from santa fe and somehow the argument is that that doesn't constitute the value of notice he got it and received it from crown castle nothing in the ordinance saying the return address needed to be san

francisco addresses we're being urged that somehow receiving notice but disregarding the received notice explicit constitute valid notice i'll respectfully suggest that can't be right and second incorrect assertion somehow the notices received didn't tell people how to pursue an appeal i'll reader within 15 calendar days of the this noticing notice any person may appeal to this the board of appeals they must be filed in person generally the board of appeals requires no appointment to file an appeal for further information to schedule an appointment contact the board of appeals or call by telephone it is just simply incorrect to challenge on that basis and claim that incorrecting that the

no didn't tell people how to object and people put up several slides of doubted power lines we're talking about here is not power lines we're talking about wireless facilities we're not talking about pg&e transmission lines or distributions lines which is what the photos has to do with with the power lines we're not dealing with our third we come back goldstein to this r f emissions they're just something the federal government has already indicated and all right. been council bids the city attorney can't be basis for denying the permit you've heard from the planning department that the public health department department does its own testing and the facilities

generate less than one percent of allowable r f emissions so with that, i would urge you to deny the appeal. >> and we'll hear rebuttal from the department. >> gene chang public works i don't have anything to add nonetheless unless you have questions for me commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> handle this similarly. >> yeah. a couple of comments i think that one is that in this instance i did not find that the notification process was defective the documents was provide in the brief we saw the radius map and checked a couple of them

the question of the notice itself whether it k3406r78d to what was issued with the actual permit was therefore i find that the permit itself is defective. >> would you like to make a motion commissioner agriculture move to. >> before you make our motion let me say there's a lot of discussion about health and federal law and it is hard for lay people to understand that there is a tie-in our hands when federal law says one thing and the city says another usually federal law prevails the custom

in san francisco sometimes if not federal to ignore it, it is not that the board is george anything if so just the law is quite clear what we can and cannot do so i want to say that as a point of clarification. >> and commissioner i'll let you make your mows motion but i have a reserve if yours fails and i think here we actually have a good view issue and have changing of the overall neighborhood characterization issue it is golden gate park it is one of our city treasures there are views down this street and towards golden gate park and this flooring a it offers and if of a definition of a good view

it is a good view and also i think the appearance of those needs or cantonese or whatever on top of poles which will obscure that view keeping with article 25 it shouldn't check the character i have that in reserve if you're motion falsehood. >> i'll move to grant the appeal and revoke the permit on the basis that notice was defective. >> okay on that based on that motion by commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus no commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that that motion carries on a

vote of 4 to one. >> we'll take a short break. >> welcome back to the wednesday, october 7, 2015, meeting the san francisco general hospital we're now calling item number 8 versus the department of public works bureaucracy of street use and mapping on 33 avenue protesting the 2015 to network of inc. of a wireless box for the construction of a personal wireless service this is application you have 7 men's. >> okay. >> yeah. my name is cam none you didn't know i had the same

objection of other appellants secondly, tonight is getting late i'll cut to the chase my major concerns that a in our case the to telephone pole that is used is more than hundred and 50 feet apart so this is means either using those hundred and have on radius raised in notification is not going to be covering all of them because of the circle and not having any you know can't cover all the area if you use one you can't cover the other residents if you pick one you can't do both of them so it is only 50 percent of the residents that are getting notification didn't get that

okay secondly, when they do the posting on the telephone pole they only have 3 pages not photo simulation as required by article 25 that means that people go there and don't know what's going on they make act go as i received those later from crown castle he talked to people in the neighborhood i notice that they didn't inventing send any notification to the 8 hundred box i'm on the seven hundred block the house is near the photo so the 800 block explicit receive any notification and also the other pole on the

opposite side of the street that is about 6 house apart and also there are a diagonal i do the calculation and a side market and all raised in that second pole they don't you know half of them not notification at all so, please on that i request the board to reject this permit thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> sir. >> thank you and indulge martin fine man on behalf of the crown castle the issue raised by the appellant here has to do with notice at this point in the evening you all rekite the notice by heart

the notice requirement require noticing to people owners and residents within hundred and 50 feet to neighborhood association within three hundred feet and posted on conspicuous place on the poles. >> could you raise the - >> thank you. >> the 3 movies of notice mailed notice to residents within hundred and 50 feet, mailed notice see to neighborhood association and posted on pole on conspicuous place crown castle filed with the notice and have prove and the department of public works concurs that was done properly what is mrapd complained about not part the noticing the gentleman that spoke said that

has to do with with the installation potential installation on the seven hundred block and complain what about folks on the 8 hundred blocks the requires requirements are hundred and 50 feet not the next blockhead and 50 feats the gentleman last claimed that one or more instances the photos simulation that was posted was vandalized and torn do you think that's certainly not crown castles fault they gave proper notice and obviously someone that protests or outburst to whether wireless box or any kind of a permit simply can't void a permit being issues or issued the notice is the powerful if someone vandalized a notice that didn't defeat the fact the notice was given and we know

that again, the the proof is in the pudding that notice was given it is sufficient it generated at least a 4 protests to the hoff and the appeal tonight finally the appellant raised within others claim about notice has to do with with an issue of whether you should measure based on one or two poles that's an interesting question but something not it is clear that is required under the ordinance besides the appellant there was another person not appellant by the name of it bell that filed a written comment i want to briefly responded to those contempt they were submitted just in the last few days we explicit adapting to respond in writing she raised the question

that this particular pole has a lot of wires on it, yes that is the entirely the purpose to support the utility and infrastructure including those telecommunications purposes and at&t telephone lines and comcast and sometimes muni lines sometimes their somewhat crowded looking but that is not the standard under the ordinance no ground recognizing the ordinances to rejected a permit on that basis we're not over burdening any of the poeltz as you may know as heard by now what can be placed on the poles is comprehensively regulated by the pg&e it has been made no assertion more than is lout on the poles she raised a question of notice i added and finally she raised a number of

adverse how to appeal to the board of appeals occur and questioning questioned things like the fee that is charged for filing is an appeal and providing 11 copies of open appellate brief those occur at 5:00 p.m. and things of the nature whatever the merit they're not anything that addresses this particular permit and not constitute thank you for your time i strongly ask you to deny the appeal and allow the granted. >> we'll hear from the gentleman. >> gene from public works i'll start off by saying this is not one of the permits where the attended the correct tentative

approval conditions does not match the conditions that is issued on the permit second thing is that i believe that the affidavits or exhibit c of our brief was left inenvironmentally left out i have it here a radius map i have extra copies if you want that. >> and then i'll go into some of the points again, i do have the affidavit from crown castle and it was sufficient notice to the public according to article three they have stated in their brief and their affidavit previously just first those were mailed and

posted. >> we're getting flickering again on the screen. >> can you start by trying to darken it to see if that helps with the flickering. >> perfect, thank you. >> thank you. >> and then the appellants brief they say the permit should be - the second pole on the second block the code was written this way with no intended harm the notification process worked solicited comes and again, it is hundred and 50 foot of the proposed location which was where the proposed location had

the wireless antenna and the computer whereas the second pole that housed the judge the battery back up. >> are you finished. >> yeah. >> i have a question. >> sure. >> so as the appellant had mentioned if you have two poles one pole across the street and one pole on the other side and you do a hundred and 50 foot radius from the first pole shouldn't there is notification hundred 50 radius that part of public within hundred and 50 feet radius it is not notified of the work to be plenty and the code ambition because it deals with wireless antennas and the rage or the computer

so because the back up can't be located interest but on another pole it is. >> maybe we should look at that if i was a homeownership and would hundred and 45 feet and no proper notification that there was work being done the public of san francisco citizens whether tenants or homeownership being properly notified of work to be implemented additional that's a suggestion but on a legislative level. >> thank you. >> commissioners i'd like to ask mr. chang to clarify the statement of the permit language i'm not clear if you're saying the planning department conditions were correct or incorrect. >> the conditions are correct this is not one of the cases previously where.

>> that's not the case in the documents in the file that's why i'm asking for sclafrgs looking at the departments brief implicit the permit is under exhibit a and the conditions i'm seeing on page 5. >> where are the numbers i don't see any numbers. >> oh, here it is. >> oh, yes maintain the italian flag as needed the

color. >> that's incorrect sorry. >> thanks for the clarification. >> okay. >> so is the department finished with pits presentation okay. we'll call for public comment. >> who may i ask from dpw about the integrity of the telephone pole the age, etc., etc., etc. >> mr. masonry a question for you. >> the jurisdiction over the wooden policies the safety aspects of those wooden is super seated by the california public utilities commission the permit holder boldly stated

everything is okay with his pole will you produce the engineering study and open this pole that support counsels bold statement that everything is okay with his pole a study it supports the integrity and safety i'd love to see the support that council has for making the broad statement t this pole can hold all the wires in support anything that is managing to be supportive i don't see that here so do you have that reporter report for me. >> okay. this will come up again and again and tb i really don't think that is important to

bless safety and security issues without broader due diligence studies and responsible statement. >> understood. >> any public comment on this item? number 8? >> you can get the microphone. >> sorry. >> thank you. >> i'm isabel the one that wrote the letters and september you a picture the pole we're talking about that has incredible amount of wiring on it and i'm not as organized as everyone but i was going just to - >> first of all, in article 25 when they have a definition for

adjacent we have to adhere to perfectly to the letter thought maybe that's the wrong word i think they should have said everyone effected by the wire in place necessarily will be adjacent but still very much effected i think in instead of taking that as the perfect description of what they're trying to achieve we should think about what everyone here is talking about a little bit more because adjacent isn't descriptive and also i question that the federal emissions has set a standard that we have to adhere to but like commissioner swig said this is out dated by

the wireless communication has expanded i don't think anyone dreamed it - one percent of total would be also the commissioner president ann lazardus you suggested the cumulative power emissions i didn't get a clear answer one each one percent of each new contraption or the total of all those power you know high voltage poles that are taxed of the wiring things that's another you know factor in why we can't just you know say oh, this is

this and no changing it the cost for the people and for they're good sorry i didn't get to get to half of when i wanted to thank you for this chance and i was pleased to see how interested all of you are and well-informed i was expecting i don't know what but i'm impressed by after all you. >> just goofing off. >> any other public comment in support. >> good evening. i'm amanda on another permit matter wanted to raise the issue because of the board members the issues of structural integrity and reading from the attorney for the permit holder he wrote to many about my

concerns he says the appellant allegations concerns the safety of wooden poles for their antenna equipment many of the wooden poles are listing and leaning under the weight and bulk the equipment what my condition was mr. fine man says that appellant safety concerns with urban found and eir relevant the appellants offer nothing more an speculation of the safety and sfrith of the existing poles and not only do they not kind of a safety concern not addressing the poles at issue ♪ application those unfounded concerns want support a registryal in the position i bring that up the safety concerns and the structural integrity of the polls are

unfounded and irrelevant it puts the requirement of the structural integrity on the appellants here >> any other public comment please step forward. >> you can line up if you want to expedite it. >> hello, i'm sandra the first case our first case so in support of the case i'm talking about the safety the wooden pole now i want to show you you know our view of the fire department report from 21 avenue and the street does the

fire caught in the same, same, location the same pole this one is from 2000 - that is one that pole caught the fire on 2006. >> practical talk into the microphone. >> those reports showing the pole caught the fire on in 2006 and then this year september in the same pole also caught the fire. >> so this alert us to safety of the wooden pole and the safety of the public so that's all i want to say

thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, again i'm jordan canning take care my appeal is next, i want to voice the support of this appellant one thing that came up in the last comments about this idea of who is responsible inform produce the engineering studies that will be relevant for the structural integrity of the pole but to the noise of the fans that are associated with the batteries on the second pole that was referred to in the case before it would be very difficult onerous to expect that private citizens that are spend $300 for the opportunity to spend 7 minutes before you to put together an engineering study that stands up to the expert witness that a large

multi multi million dollars company we rely on dpw instead as our representatives to look out for us they does not have an we are answer to the age of each of those poles is they have not done that study given that on enthuse on the individual citizens to produce those engineering reports that is onerous and next slide, please impossible given the permit applicants resources i would offer that dpw has failed us in looking at out for their safety. >> is there any additional public comment. >> i know you're tired i want

to add a couple of things that the safety on the poles we want to reiterate that's an issue i also am close to the neighborhood i know that a lot of the people in the neighborhood don't speak english very well and for them to understand the notices is difficult and burdensome i think that is the main thing i want to say those things need to be considered sorry one more thing the ore arching thing maybe youp where those are located and how their deny in a way to make the city look good and the health of the residents considered more that might not be the brotherhoods i wanted to say

that thank you. >> is there any additional public comment. >> seeing none, we'll have rebuttal from the appellant. >> i have two comments the first one exhibit c gene chang submitted that is the paper i've been requesting for calm side dpw on monday and requested this document and it was never sent to me that's one comment the second one that is the final approval of documents they should have no - no tag submitted previous the tentative

application how the antenna looks like but the final approval not even showing any diagram so whatever they want to see they didn't do it. >> thank you >> thank you we can take rebuttal from the permit holder. >> thank you again, it is martin fine man on behalf of crown castle i want to focus if on a few things that were said by the speakers this evening one concern that is express a number of times the safety of the polls and the integrity of the polls and have a burdensome connection we know this is said before i want to be entirely contrary before we go

on any poles their owned by the impede o pg&e or the joint pole association we have to provide them with the engineering support they have the structural supreme court and provided weight load and all the engineering back up to support there is not a problem here not a burden not other than the appellants or the citizens or frankly the department of public works it is a burden we carry in connection with getting on the poles has nothing to do with with the polling process we don't get on a penguin pole or a northern california joint pole without having us with the burden of providing that information excuse me. >> yes. >> do you ever get could you proud a document with your

disclosure from the pole association that the pole in question is safe. >> matt haney does the pole association did an evaluation roster. >> you just said it i think i don't want to be argumentative i i'm looking for information you just said your clients provides information with regards to what is going on with the pole and what had weighs and the winds velocity, etc. etc. but does it go into a void or do you get certification from a body the owner the pole that says we've rectified this we've studies studied this and everything is a okay >> yes. yes surely i would suggest you may want to produce that in future things clearly dpw when i grilled them about the specifics on a pole

they it has come back we don't know i'll suggest the whole graufks e graduation about safety and the pole you may want to bring that back i have a smooek suspicion being calorie have not while see you again on the issues. >> i appreciate that very much i want to really repeat number one we provide that to the owner the pole we absolutely do that it is not number two not part of ordinance we don't we're not requesting them to provide to the city. >> i understand that and not to be audubon society argumentative again bgain butb t you were i'll let you finish.

>> the other point made by one of the very last perhaps the last speaker the formula of notice but again, when was argued that people in the neighborhood some of them are not nature english speakers and arguing that notice should be given in a bunch of languages not specifically which whatever the merits of the contention not has nothing to do with with the notice of ordinance we know notice are required in a variety it boils down to the part we provided the notice in the manner that was provided by the ordinance and dpw. >> so the objection about notice is without merit and again, i would urge that you

deny the appeal and grant the permit. >> i just like to go back and restate that although you know ordinances are ordinances are ordinances laws and laws are laws but i think we have a responsibility up here as this board to protect the interests of the citizenry that's why we're here me the interests the citizenry is clearly safety and security always has been on ever notation i'll suggest ordinances aside that i would like to see in the future from the dpw or your client or anyone else client

when they're putting something significant structurally on a pole that proper vesting has been done and proper study and the superior court of the pole has been studied because i won't put it on you if i were a citizen living next to the pole overwhelm putting great faith in dpw and great faith in the owner the pole and any use of pole they've done due diligence and that pole will not fall down on any house in case of who knows what in this world. >> here's all i'm saying what i'm saying that does happen that happens in the manner in which i've described if you don't get on the pole whether a penguin pole or joint pole number one

and number two we're here tonight whether or not we compiled with article 25 i think you've heard many, many times from mr. masonry is didn't required not - but certainly we can't be all of the evidence for complying with everything the ordinance calls for you're raising a concern addressed outside of the ordinances. >> it more than an interesting concern but a critical concern for the protection of any citizen who is living next to a pole that may have your clients or any others yours of poles equipment on it i'll let - >> thank you. >> and i'm just saying that concern is addressed only addressed outside of the ordinance good and sufficient

reasons for the preemption of that by the cd c. >> i have a question counselor. >> taking into account that the permit issued with somewhat contested and he evil the bills in the future if you have two poles and the notification process is slightly ambiguous wouldn't that will to our benefit to go the center yard and make sure the notification of hundred and 50 both proposed poles were to be done. >> a i want to be misunderstood the point we did. >> hold on i'm still speaking and okay. >> the question i had was according to the notification process as currently sits is it

slightly ambition you're going the microwave wave on one pole and the battery on a second pole. >> not a administrative mike wave a. >> in this particular installation not all. >> in this particular situation. >> in particular installation the antenna and some equipment on one pole and the battery back up. >> given the battery back up and one equipment and you mailed out notification on the one and 50 yards this is highly contention to your companies benefit to make sure the hundred and 50 radius to cover work on both poles quay talking about poles next to each other. >> no house going to be messed up.

>> maybe one or two houses. >> if there were your house would it be important. >> no, not. >> - >> not notification if it were your house. >> what is important to give the nos required by the ordinance i guess i frankly disagree it is ambiguous that's what dpw did. >> the second question when may fellow commissioners you indicated that you gave specific engineering to that's required for you to install that equipment on said pole given the assumption that said pole is in good condition the question who checks the condition the pole prior to the engineering to the pole this is a question and

that's part of admission made to the owner the pole. >> the question is you saying you have engineering for the pole what we're asking for who certifies the actual pole the equipment is in servicesable condition. >> for the purpose of installing that equipment that's exactly the submission we made to pg&e. >> your dodge my question and. >> they give permission to install the equipment not part of article 25 that's my understanding. >> i think the commissioners question in the first instance who decides that pole is a stabilized pole. >> none is deciding that until

that's submitted they're doing the analysis my understanding to validate their hypothesis. >> yes. we understand that will be the engineering the equipment to be installed it, it is to be approved by somebody and what nike it does the somebody check the condition of the pole or they're managing the engineering the equipment assuming the pole is in perfect or good shape. >> okay. >> i'm not tracking. >> sharon james the process we select and pole we think burglary work in preliminary review when we design it we hire an engineering firm that does structural loading on the pole

if it as joint northern california joint pole they are an extensive application to the joint pole association 20 people that do nothing but on, on those and each utility needs to sign off and see the engineering study we engineer it it takes months to get a final with the sign offices that everyone agrees the information is concreting correct if not then you don't get the approval from the joint policy association and can't attach it that policy solemnly swear with the penguin pole we go through a similar process with pg&e the structural engineering study and pg&e will come back and deny or attach in

the case of first site with a new pole replacement it because the it structural failed they find it two old or could not hold the additional weight. >> that answers my question thank you so much you'll be before us a lot in the future so those questions are coming up right now so at least i can have a better understanding has going forward. >> thank you for clarifying. >> and we work in the struggles they're part of the application and they physically check every single pole. >> every pole we're attaching fiber and equipment to. >> thank you for clearing that up. >> thank you. >> we can take rebuttal from the department. >> gene chang public works i

don't have anything to add any questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i'll start so besides the flawed conditions i personally have an issue with the notification process as it killer sits that's my - >> you have two poles and they're not toughing touching it should be a hundred feet in circumference around those two poles. >> that's appropriate. >> yep. >> do we have a motion. >> the motion was the last one. >> move to grant the appeal revoke the permit on the basis

that the notice was defective. >> commissioner fung on that motion commissioner president lazarus no. >> commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that motion carries with a votes of 4 to one. >> next item is item 9 appeal elizabeth and jordan's the mapping on 34 avenue protesting the california inc. of a wireless box for a personal wireless facility that is application 14 w r dash one 75. >> thank you my name is jordan canning take care the appellant in this case. first of all, i want to say thank you guys for your service and this opportunity to file this appeal it is really

essential to the democratic process in a situation like this at least i speak personally as david against dba litigated to feel there is power in showing up is really rewarding to me i want to thank you for that >> first of all, i would say my appeal said my notification was flawed and the other notification and as posted on those grounds i ask you throw out my permit to allow the approval i had i apologize this is an impression a moving target and sitting here paying attention for a long time rehearse my concerns about health and about noise pollution and about

diminishment of the residential block and the residential views that are vital as the view of golden gate park and that pole stand in a signature view looking at the president of the united states ocean made famous but a paternity and as part of character if our neighborhood it disruption that view and also i'll say that takes away my property rights pertaining to the resale value of my home if it were disproposed i'll be inclined to have a house not in front of it first place shopping in an open market the health grounds have been covered sufficiently i'd like to incorporate that into my own i would like to say that the

evidence was presented by the dpw was in the form of a report commissioned by crown castle anyone that is familiar with the expert with the thinkss with the report being presented will present one viewpoint in which competing view points that rebut the permit applicant seems enreasonable and indeed impossible i'll august in this particular case the pole is listing and it's safety should be questioned and august it sdrurpgz the aesthetic character the ocean and across 35 avenue as. >> look at golden gate park and a concept that mr. swigging

bought up the tipping point in the changing the character of the neighborhood the tipping point question is a self per pelleting the more boxes the less issue it changes the neighborhood character it needs to be addressed i would also say with an the groundbreakings grounds for an appeal that is within our jurisdiction in this case is whether the hearing was conducted properly i'll say a number of people in this room i recognize the hearing had the character of a rubber stamping the permits i felt at that particular instances the concerns by a number of appellant were not heard or countered or considered in the determination of the hoff to issue the positive recommendation to the director

that's another grounds i believe you have the authority to ask about the blanket approval of those permit what happened at the hearing one point we haven't talked about that is important it is related to me by representatives of dpw as well by my own supervisor that it is the city's stated preference those sites be on commercial buildings before they're in residential neighborhoods and that simply does seem like continuation apple option in this case earlier tonight mr. masonry said he prefers for example, those towers be placed on large buildings like churches he used it example as churches, in fact, a church less than 5 hundred needed from the proposed site

was not adequately considered for this kind of infrastructure i'll say why that is important not because i'm here not in my backyard kind of person by whatever the impact we associated with those poles be it noise or r f that impact is multiplied when you're talking about a resident situation like a as opposed to a commercial locations location that's a building that is occupied 5 days with week that is a different situation from a residential home if in a neighborhood are with young people home 7 days a week whether we say that impact is negative or you allow we're to talk about the health concerns with regards with regard to that purple heart i'll august that commercial sites are

more than 3 times - and you'll argue the dpw as shirked their responsibility to find option for this permit i've got a lot for to say i'll not waste our time the issue on that ground to reject it thank you for your time. >> sir. >> i'm los track of who's turn it is i'm not i i'm martin fine man mr. canning take care the appellant raised several issues

that the r f emissions the first thing is something i said before so i'll be very brief that is this whole issue of the health or environmental or property value or any way with an wants to say it any concern like that is simply out of bounds and simply not something that the city or state or lot lemon it is used for denying the wireless communication facilities permit so that's the friday morning the second thing i want to say is that he questions about the report that gets submitted to the department of public health and indeed submitted in this case it was not something that crown castle engineers did it was submitted by dr. jerold

brush beggar an outside engineering expert in the field he professor in this field that is the one that that did the report not something that some employee of crown castle did with the ordinance requires it be done by a registered professional engineer that could, in fact, be an employee of the applicant but we went the extra mile and provided a rotator from the leading experts and what did that show a complete requirement of the fcc and therefore it is simply r f can't be taking into account as you may know further the rest of the conditions require is that not only this testament and

retesting after the project is built and then finally the offer the testing upon request by the residents i'll say that this particular installation you've seen the photos simulations an installation at the very top the pole that is going to increase the distance from any you know approximate to where people live or work or anything under those an issue that was raised about noise that has been fully addressed in the conditions attached to the approval the permit and the conditions that was attached if requires operation not to exceed 3, 4, 5 decimals and measured 3 feet from the residents facade so the noise issue with the addressed crown castle choose the requirement and the

department of public health did that's due diligence and confirmed that although testing the protocol is 3 feet if the residents facade the installation will be 10 feet so there is a better sound of installation the remarks about aesthetic the planning department reviewed that in granting the permit and determined the facility i'll quote in all capitals would not would not in all capitals significantly 83 track from the character of the residents and that includes the planning department consideration of views the planning department investigated and determined this installation will not impact no 1 else street views but private views that determination was based on the locations of the antenna on the pole and the sized of

equipment involved and the distance of the station in my nearby residents the property value that was alluded to briefly by the appellant in his verbal remarks he talked about it in writing as something about curve appeal and in terms of property value if i had to choose between two properties, however, that is statistics two responses number one again your review of this matter is limited to the facts and circumstances so forth in article 25 not allowing the considerations of impact on property value but on-ramp the assertion of the property value not by any real estate professional a restatement of the r f of health or environmental concerns that is something that as you may know

the federal law from keeps you from considering mr. canning take care made policy argument about the entire sort of article 25 permitting regime the simple answer is absolutely grants corps the right to use those poles and article 25 is recognize and adaptation by the san francisco ethics commission this is the preferable or allowed use of those poles in an allowable location the argument is an argument with the wisdom of state law and article 25 and argument with the board of supervisors with the article 25 finally mr. canning take care made an argument that he says

his supervisor in the department of public works preferred this be played on commercial sites rather than poles that's not correct at all it is a mishmash of certain concepts those one permitting regime calling for conditional use for the macros facilities other than the private property could be a micro cellular it is a complete set of laws and article 25 having to do with the permitting in the right of ways with respect the appellant is mikdz e mixing two regimes with that, i'll ask you deny the appeal and grant the permit. >> quick question counselor

how many proposed applications do you have planned for san francisco? >> how many proposed application. >> it did that minute. >> our work is based on contract with carriers as we build the network and we have modification sites 18 of those as far new sites proposals we're adding but no applications in process at this point. >> how many proposed do you expect at this point. >> we're in the neighborhood of 50 and then out of all those installations have any been proposed on private property. >> no. those are right-of-way

small cell technologies and so this application these applications we are working on only addressing right-of-way locations okay. >> not private property. >> thank you. >> at my convenient of having one as a knowledgeable person i could ask the attorney when did the board of supervisors approve or affirm i guess article 25 or you referred to the board of supervisors as approving all of that which you are talking about what date was that. >> it was enacted well, i'm looking for a year not a specific date. >> 2015. >> 2015. >> no, no it was amended in

2015. >> you're talking about the amendment. >> there were several different permitting regimes has to do with with the right-of-way a succession of them section 11.9 and that got repaeldz articular article 25 was enacted about two or three years ago and amended in january or february. >> it was averted in 2011 but the amendments that changes the way the permit were rectified in the field in 2015. >> it was affirmed by our report so it is correct. >> thanks thank you. >> great there was even under article 25 they used to divide

up the application according to the sites and this year removed that categorytion. >> we'll hear from the department. >> gene chang public works this is one of the sites where the correct conditions on the tentative approvals do not match the conditions on the permit itself article 25 does not require alternative sites and the state code allows telephone companies to use the public right-of-way rooftop sites are not under the purview of the public works we dieting tried to get them to safe haven for alternative sites on private property before you applying or looking at the

public right-of-way however, the city was ruled against on that item in a lawsuit. >> with regards to the diminished value article 25 didn't allow that because based on speculation planning department arrested determined that facility will not detract from the residential district and the r f emissions is in compliance with federal limits the health reports you know both the noise and the r f r reviewed bits the department of public health vifrdz they're true and if you don't have any other

questions that concludes my presentation. >> a technical question you know you have a 43-d b.a. on the noise is that verified in the fields. >> we don't require automatic noise testing but if we get complaints the department will address that with the applicants at this time. >> eject thank you. >> any public comment on this item? i'm lisa i'm speaking inform support of my neighbor i live

across the street where the box will be installed i have a number of comments one mr. fine man commends crown castle for above and beyond the call of duty getting an excellent on the other hand, excellence report they paid for the expert this is some influence i think should be noted i do realize your bound by article 25 i feel that crown castle are hiding behind art 25 i'm offend by his dismissal to the concerns of safety and other health concerns the appellants raised this evening and the aesthetic value when we talks about you know the interior how they think notice and how to contempt comment on that this is a constant level of noise this

is constant now i'm living next to a constant running muni or a freeway i'm a little bit concerned about the dpw that even the what i think are pretty standard should be expecting questions on technical issues they're unable to answer i'm lost in their ability to due due diligence on our on behalf the notification process was also flawed the letter was dated may 25th i didn't receive it until june 8th it is dubious i intentionally to confuse the appeal process timing none as provided even though it is outside of article 25 at the level where residents are living i think this should be beyond

not only the appellants but done by an objective third party dpw cited in an earlier case the r f levels in the european union they failed to find you know some of the other examples such as a highly technical advanced countries like swemgd sweden their .1 thank you for the opportunity to speak. >> is there any additional public comment on this item seeing none, rebuttal mr. canning take care yoyour first. >> first i'll make 3 points

first to mr. swigz astonishment we were looking at the laws enacted in 1996 for the framework of understanding some of the issues coming up in those cases there are other laws i'm a lawyer and never written a brief i'm learning about that i know from my discussions with my periphery supervisor that part of the law that actually by which the city ceded its birth to rely the law is horses and carriages to have that technology roll down our streets we're dealing with a whole cyou feel you're handcuffed by article 25 that are out-of-date with reality that is going on

here secondly, to respond to the contentious of the mr. fine man here he building with all due respect your discount me saying i'm shading some article ever r f that's not an adequate rebuttal of my position you say it is a mishmash of what i'm saying the city prefers those poles that those sites be cited on wooden poles not a mishmash or understanding i submitted with my brief several briefs i'm happy to answer any questions from omar and as well as other officials at the dpw says it is

a stated position we prefer alternative locations that is a total misrepresentation of my position i rescinded that i'll say on the technical ground the notification being i have seen correct i urge you to reject this proposal thank you for your time. >> mr. fine man. >> i'll just be brief i think i've responded to most of issues that has been made out on this appeal i'll just respond to the last few contentions made the federal telecommunication act was enacted in 1996 not as from the law stopped there it is revised and amended continually and the fcc does its work and

study and issues rules and regulations on an ongoing basis the fact they're the dead lay in 1996 doesn't change the fact that the law is keeping up with the times and just as one example the question that was asked of me when was this article 25 was enacted it was enacted a few years ago and then amend a significant part this year we're not dealing with hours and carriages or whatever analogy was maids we're dealing with the laws currently on the books the laws and is states legislation and the state board of supervisors and the federal government or the federal agencies review and keep updateed all the time

most important the law 25 that's the current operative law and amended as recently as this year the last point it was made by the appellant is this contention that there is some kind of a perch for private property again, this is just a matter of mixing together two things that are two separate issues two different regulationy regimes one has to do with with the replacement of those antenna facilities an private property and they're the process you go both a district you don't need a permit or a conditional use permit is riverside and follow that set of law and telephone commissioned guidelines that are in terms of selecting those

locations that's one entirely spirit into itself permit and separate from that is this we're here today article 25 has to do with with the placement in the public right-of-way and this is not a matter of a preference of one or another two separate bodies of law in ways to get permit for different kinds of facilities and the telecommunications provider can apply to both depending on the facilities necessary for the situation so thank you very much. >> any rebuttal from the department. >> monopoly okay. okay commissioners unless you have questions commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> comments to be consistent from the permit is flawed it should have the

same result. >> it that a motion. >> and a yes and commissioner vice president honda i want to make the same motion then to grant the appeal and deny the appeal on the process that the noticing notice what defective. >> commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus no commissioner wilson and commissioner swig. >> that that motion carries on a vote of 4 to one. >> last item on the calendar appeal 10 amanda versus the department of public works at 20th avenue protesting the owners an august 2016 to the california inc. of a wireless box for the construction of a perm wireless facility applicati

application. >> reference the overhead reference the overhead. >> i'm sorry do you have a document on the overhead projector. >> on or before october 21st the ordinance was passed and said ordinance amended the san francisco building code with the section and the amendments were passed in part to require the city departments and dpw and the planning department to publish a coffer sheet that advised the residents in multiple languages it it didn't happen my neighborhood is more than almost 50 percent nature english

speaking chinese and my neighbors didn't receive any, no, sir, the check marks represent my neighbors with the first language not english none of them receive any information how to participate ♪ process in their native language and there's couple of neighbors what were at&t hearing in july crown castle was asked it site within hundred and 50 feats of a school it happens to be a school my son attends when crown castle said they'll make considerations where to place the antenna it is the best they can do this right here i don't know can you see this

in the the proposed location and if you can see it is right in front of a pole that says school that's where they'll put that hundred and 50 feet and actually, if you can see my sons basketball hoops i have concerns about the locations the proximity to my sons school that is right outside of my front window there are has been insufficient information about the information and the superior court of the polls pretty much what everyone has been speaking about it you look at they're proposed their mock ups to say this does not impact the integrity of the sightlines of our street i don't know if you can say that all see is this pole and the box on top of that i also have another issue i'm

sorry it is late for your and me september 30th the wireless box permit it says wireless tier a and this one is august 5th of 2015 it says wireless tier tier 3 a why are those different maybe someone can explain that to me >> also this preemptive permit they're putting a box across the street from the neighborhood according to the notice they didn't take into consideration what commissioner vice president honda was talking about tonight the additional requirements to notify the other neighbors relative to this where the other pole is going to do hold some of the equipment

i also want to talk about the r f exposures you see that little box that is the proposed pole that is my house this is my sons classroom so the proximate of the school i think so inform setback requirements but in our particular case my son is getting deaf twenty-four hour a day i don't know how to better say it than that i meant to come up here with you know a little bit more refined presentation i agree with everybody or everything that everyone said and concerned about the cumulative impact that those boxes are in the neighborhood what they're doing to the site line and the neighborhood aesthetics and property value concerns and i'm just for the confident the city is doing it's

part to experience exercise what little authority in article 25 and ask you know for either better designs that are at least less i think truthful than what we getting or work with crown castle and verizon to figure out some other way of putting these things in front of people's houses. >> mr. fine man. >> thank you. i'm martin fine mary man for the appellant crown castle the fierce issue that i'm going to combine remarks has to do with what was auditor vertically and by the appellant in here

appeal break off brief the appellant argued about the notice not charming the variety of the no, sir that was given the appellant is claiming that notice should have been translated into chinese whatever maybe the merit of that concept the ordinance simply if require that only english be maybe an issue for the appellant or others to take up with the board of supervisors and amend it not required at least in writing accident appellant lazed erased an issue to the holy name school notice perhaps having seen our response and dpw response maybe that argument has been band but demonstrated the notice was

given the school is owned by the catholic archdiocese and it was given to the owner of that property so there isn't a notice issue a question about a hectic resource but, in fact, planning department did explicitly consider the presence of a medic resource and granted the permit properly under article 25 i might add thinking outside the box an argument in writing and alluded to in the hearing this evening about necessity and necessity is a concept that comes in the standard of a grant of a conditional use for any conditional use grant to be permit this is not a conditional use necessity not part of article 25 not proper part of the consideration by this bodies

an appeal and the next issue was compatibility with the residential neighborhood again something that planning department explicitly examines and specifically found out this will not sixth detract from the character the residential district and planning making that the condition we plant a tree with actually adding to the aesthetics of the neighborhoods but i want to correct one perhaps misimpression the appellant put a photo and pointed out to the pole dominates in your view the pole we're not recollecting the pole only pitting equipment on the

pole not the question the pole is existing we're not asking to existing the pole it is already there. >> it has been referenced to a view planning as i mentioned already examined that and made the determination no other condition they required us to plant an additional tree they made the determination based on the boeshgs or locations the equipment and the antenna and the size at issue and the distance of this equipment from any residents there was not an issue in terms of view or are light are any of those issues there was some repeated mention of the proximity of this to the school holy school i'll say this is kind of simply and clearly as

i can is ordinance which you are aware of sets up categories and standards that came back take into account park locates and it talks about zoning protected locations schools are are not proximity to it school not a factor in connection with grant's those permits and can't be take into account in denying it is contrary to this ordinance and let me answer a question that was raised at some point in the permitting process that of a tier 3 a application and then later on it was referenced to this as a tier a application that has to do with with the conversation we had a little bit earlier when the ordinance was enacted it had a 3 tiers 1, 2, 3

depending on the size of equipment then within those tiers there were abc depending on whether there was a park location, a zoning protected location or neither in january or february of this year this ordinance was amend in that tier 1, 2, 3 categorytion was repealed now we have abc categorytion that's why the early point was referenced to 3 a and at the end the reference to tier a there is no mystery it is just that that it is the proper categorytion according to the ordinance as it stands. >> i'll urge that the board deny the appeal and grant the permit thank you very much. >> got a question counselor. >> off oh, yes.

>> like the previous case before you have equipment to be installed on two separate poles. >> that's correct. >> you stated earlier that the occur summer of the hundred and 50 radius probably allude or left out one property that's what you're statement. >> with respect to the earlier appeal. >> what do you feel the number of hourly. >> i'm not sure toldz o attorney's office that radius map was submitted. >> i've gorlg gone through the radius map and recycled and it looks to me roughly there is about 11 residences that didn't receive the notification if on the secondary pole. >> i would just through score

the words if as you under scores that what is riders hundred and 50. >> i understand. >> if you're permits are as contentious it would be again repeat myself beneficial for your company to extend that that hand to the folks that would be immediately effected hundred and 50 yards from the secondary pole. >> i understand you're not i think i've made my point we compiled with the ordinances when it required hundred and 50 feet. >> i got that thank you. >> commissioners what is required hundred and 50 feet from the personal wireless facility. >> could you speak into the mike please.

>> hundred and 50 feet of proposed location of the personal wireless facility and the permanent wireless facilities medians antennas and related facilities i don't think it is clear to say it not incorrect but the antenna and the batteries are part of facilities hundred and 50 feet if the misrepresent and the poles i'll not take the council at his words they've compiled

p taking your microphone towards our mouth mr. city attorney could you clarify also the language that notice requirement because i was bordered he brushed you off saying no. much i don't believe every word out of the councils mouth i'd rather hear it from you with regards to the language requirements especially in a neighborhood that is not english as a fierce language primarily and i believe that is on the council is

correct the article 25 does not require multi lingual notice. >> i didn't get that hundreds percent as well the appellant came up what was she referencing to regarding she mentioned something about the board of supervisors had combkdz or initiated or potentially are you aware of any such language? legislation all i'm not contrary on what the reference was to in some instances notice with the multi languages in them are required ♪ instance not so this is not a unique situation sometimes that is sometimes not >> thanks for the clarification. >> we'll hear from the

department. >> gwen chang public works last item for tonight this is another one of those situations we corrected the conditions on the approval didn't match the conditions on the permit with regards to the planning commission i'll hand to offer to omar. >> that's 5 not 4. >> i read it. >> second thank you with regards to the aesthetics of the facility we think their entruthful in nature as any large box or element adding two the element of the neighborhood the challenges whether it detracts give me the facility type and location a certain type of the streets so on with regards to the schools the

fcc didn't have a stricter standard for younger population or facilities the context purposes we have larger sites more powerful ones on public and private in the san francisco ethics commission as marked on the communities those are, of course, more contentious but not an r f standard and a 10 east at a level for instance, a standards for wifi e wi assess but to the tier question that was addressed we basically addressing the concern whether under the previous regime the tier won their much smaller will nostril require a public notice and not require the planning department review or review by rec and park department our concern is given the new law i've mentioned to come in with a

tier one facility and get it built and come and add larger equipment to a tier 3 in the last update we get rid of the smaller tier every site gets notified and generally ask street trees be planted that concludes my remarks. >> thank you. >> any public comment on that item? >> okay. seeing none we'll start our rebuttal you have 3 minutes. >> really quick for the record i didn't abandon the argument of the ohio holy names i understand they serve the archdiocese but not treblg down to the school that is 4 hundred families interested in that process and bhats going on here and the cumulative effect of every

thousand physically we're seeing large antenna networks on poles in the outer sunset one of the commissioners raced an issue the ordinances i was referring to you made a copy of the ordinances that is in with submitted with my brief owners 2015 dash 22 on october 31st we put that in the materials thank you. >> mr. fine man. >> yes. thank you martin fine man once again there is no question on the notice the archdiocese the notice for the property owner given to the archdiocese the property owner the school and then as to this other ordinance that has been alluded to whatever the case may

be whatever was are considered the fact as i believe confirmed by the city attorney militant lingual notice is not riders in other than everyone the request deny if others languages it address not to this body but the board of supervisors to amend the ordinance this permit was properly granted nothing presented detracts from that i'll simply ask you deny the appeal and granted the request. >> anything further mr. chang commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> >> this issue of notices is bothersome i think this is an understatement you know the recognize by the

city attorney that it is both the wireless equipment and lastly equipment and the fact that the map that was drawn on was one radicals us of hundred and 50 feet is sloppy and i think that dpw and related city departments should be more careful about that so quickly the city attorney comes up with a classification that say was improper noticed i again, i take half to council i understand that in article 25 that that is not required to that multi lingual notice be given but i think that maybe this body should recommend to the board of supervisors given the diversity of san francisco and