>> 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 goin 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