contribution. >> thank you thanks alex and then again, a point of clarification with public comment we can't say engage in conversation with an individual in public comment if there's a clarification needed but not engage in a conversation so information. >> that's what i had i had a technical question. >> so just so you know heed invited the office and had a conversation about a set schedule we're meeting in producing the minutes. >> yeah. okay. >> so a matter of public record and the status of our projects to get permits. >> and, of course, our meeting he attended is televised and he

certainly is adept at the tools and utility that mechanism as well. >> so we inform mr. washington he can assess those minutes sfgovtv. >> not did minutes but his section of meeting. >> he should know that. >> okay since he started. >> so then i'm not going to take too much time we're getting close to our time in the room but we have had our first meeting with the company that is working on the logo from the office so we hope to be bringing forward projecting within a couple of months time some logo for the commission to see and i think with that i'm just to leave it at that in terms of for the sake of time and the

director's report and any questions you may have i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> any questions commissioners okay public comment on this item. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. on to item number 12. >> opportunity. >> item 12 commissioners report allows the point and vice president and commissioner to report on small business commission activities and make announcements to the continuities i have nothing to report. >> i have nothing to report. >> commissioners anybody anything to report? okay nothing to report anyone else have any public comment on this item seeing none, public comment is closed. on to item 13 >> item 13 new business allows the commissions to introduce new agenda items by the commission duration item. >> anybody.

>> no, but pubically change e thank commissioner ortiz-cartagena for your presentation earlier today thank you for that that is the kind of stuff that effects businesses i want to thank you for that letter that was on - >> thanks because she evaluated in helping me draft most of it. >> (laughter) all right. so any new business no anyone wish to comment on new business scenes on to item 14 do we have something to report. >> before item 14 and our slide we do have an in memoriam we commissioiner vice president adams would like to journey the meeting. >> i'd like to journey the

meeting in honor of pat krishgs son she was a small business advocate and served on this at the didn't serve on the commission but on the small business advisory council prior to this commission being formed so we wouldn't be here in this commission if that wasn't for pat sheriff hennessy one of the people behind the formation of the small business commission and tonight i'd like to adjourned this meeting. >> point and her husband chris were the appropriations bill of the de bois neighborhood before the de bois triangle association and in the late san jose pat host a sunday morning talk show

that focused on working we've got a long ways to go and local politics a passionate writer and pat founded and created the visitacion valley newspaper and she was active in that neighborhood even though she didn't live in the neighborhood sherry she was active and a regular column i thought for the san francisco independent and - she ran ore own public relations and worked tireless to preserve the unique neighborhoods ever san francisco she's gotten many, many awards from stat senators and city leaders and mayor willie brown

proclaimed pat christensen day and the pats christensen lifetime chouchl award on award that small business network has founded and in her memory about he did a few years ago so that's really good so i'd like to adjourn the meeting in honor of small business advocate pat christensen. >> anybody has anything we want to commend say. >> i want to say when i started with the small business commission pat provided did history starting at the commission and historical legacy with all the business owners and individuals that spent a long time they were advocates i want

to in memoriam appreciate her mentorship to me. >> outstanding a motion for adjournment. >> slowing show and >> i want to as our custom, we begin the small business commission with a reminder that the office of small business is the only new or existing business. and it is the policies and projects and issues that effect the economic vitality of the small businesses in the county of san francisco. so if you need assistance with small business matters start here. the office of the small business commission. >> do we have a motion to adjourn. >> i move i second okay in favor. >> i 50, 2 absent the meeting is adjourned at

>> welcome to july 27, 2016 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals, the board's president is presiding tonight, that is darryl honda and he's joined by frank

fung, commissioner ann lazarus, commissioner bob wilson and rick swig, we will be joined by our deputy city attorney, bob owen, at the control iss the board's legal assistant, gary and i'm cynthia goldstein, the board's executive director w.' ear groined by representatives of the city departments that have cases before the board this evening, [inaudible] and next to him is scott sanchez, the zoning administrator who's also represent thing planning department and planning commission, and in the front row is [inaudible] shaw representing the public works bureau of streets use and mapping and chris buck also representing san francisco public works and he's with the bureau of urban forestry, the board requests that you silence all phone and is all electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings, please carry on conversation dms the hallway, the board's rule of presentation, appellant, permit holders and

department responders are given 7 min touts to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal, they must include their comments within the 7 or three minute period, members of the public have up to 3 minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the end of the microphone, to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, you're asked but not required the submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions and there are customer satisfaction survey forms at the podium for your convenience, if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board's rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting, we're located at 1650 mission street. this meeting is broadcast life on sf gov tv, channel 78 and rebroadcast at 4 p.m. on

khal nel 26, dvd's of this meeting are available for purchase from sf gov tv, now we will swear in or affirm all those who plan to testify. all members of tub mrik may speak without taking an oath under the sunshine ordinance f you intend to testify on any of tonight's hear advising give your testimony evidentiary rate, please stand and raise your hand and say i do after you have been wormed or affirmed ( swearing-in of testifiers ) >> objection, so item number 1 is general public comment, this is an opportunity for people to speak to the board on matters within the board's subject matter jurisdiction but that are not on tonight's calendar, is there any general public comment tonight? okay, seeing none, then item 2 is commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? >> i would like to congratulate commissioner

rick swig and frank fung on their reappointment to this body for the next four years. sxfrjts we can congratulate darryl honda on his reappointment. okay, is there any other commissioner comments? okay, any public comment? okay, then we'll move on to item 3 which is the board's consideration and possible adoption of the minutes of the july 20, 2016 meeting. >> do i have any additions or changes from my fellow commissioners? if not, may i have a motion? >> i would recommend one change, on appeal 16080, item number 8, under action, the fourth line after elevator wall, delete does not exceed and insert with is a minimum of, after 54, delete dba and

insert stc, i think it will be clearer that way. >> do you mean minimum or do you mean maximum? >> no, minimum of the sound transmission rating. >> okay. >> and vice-president, would you find saying what stc stands for >> >> sound truncation coefficients. >> co-efficient. any other revisions to these? is there any public comment on the minutes? okay, so i think we still need a motion. >> move adoption with the amendment. >> thank you. on that motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes as amended, vice-president fung ?frjts aye. >> president honda >> aye. >> commissioner wilson, commissioner swig? >> aye. >> that carries with a vote of 5-0. president honda, there was a

suggestion that we may want to take one of the items out of order tonight and i don't know if you want to consider that. this would be item number 8, appeal number 16-106 which was continued just so that there could be another vote taken, the hearing has been held. >> why don't we go ahead and proceed with that. >> okay. so, we will take that item out of order, this is item 8, appeal number 16-106, steven ganz versus the zoning m*ins rate torx the property is 425 brannan street, appeal thing is wans on may 27, 2016 of a letter of determination regarding whether the second floor was legally converted to the office space prior to the property being subject to the current sli zoning, this was heard on july 6 20, 16 and is on for further consideration today. this matter was continued to allow commissioner wilson to participate in the final so*et. on july 6, 2016,

vice-president fung mover today grant the appeal and overdetermined the letter of the determination on the basis that the zoning determination eared in determines the 199 permit was not reflective of an office use, that was 3-1-1, the vice-president moved the appeal to allow another vote to be taken with commissioner wilson's participation sx, commissioner wilson has indicated that she has reviewed the file and the video. >> i have. >> and that you're prepared to participate in a vote. >> i'm prepared. >> okay, and unless there are any board members would wish to ask questions of a party, we can move into deliberation and entertain a new motion. >> madam executive direct torx i want to reiterate that i have used mar tell and brawn in the past for unrelated items and the use of them would noted have any impact on my ability to make

fair judgment today. >> okay. so, again, if there are no commissioner questions for the party, we are back into deliberation and the board can make -- a board member may make a motion or otherwise move forward. >> i don't need more, i listened to the deliberations. >> okay. >> do we need another motion? >> we need a motion, yeah. >> i'll reiterate my original motion. >> okay. >> which was that the zoning administrator eared in determining that the permit was not reflective of the office use. >> okay, so on that motion from the vice-president to grant the appeal and overturn the letter of determination

on the basis of the zoning administrator e r-r ed in determined the 1999 perments was not reflective of an office use? >> commissioner lazarus >> >> no. >> commissioner lond da >>abilities aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> commissioner swig? >> aye. >> that carry widths a vote of 4-1. >> so, then president honda websinger eel move back to item 4, mitchell which is appeal number 16-092, mitchell kemp versus san francisco public works, 1590 sacramento street, protesting the is you wans on april 19, 2016 to extenet s*m systems, this was heard on july, 2016 and continue today have the department of public health appear before the board of

their review of wireless box permits, i would ask if there is someone here from public health to please step forward and president, shall we give them three minutes then to the board? >> >> three minutes. >> good eve anyones my name is patrick foal, i'm the principal inspector currently managing the sale antenna program for public health, to my right is [inaudible] tes l*er, senior inspector with our program and serving as the technical lead. i understand there were questions raised concerning the utility pole installation of the extenet antenna, we're here to answer your questions. >> we've heard so many of these, which one was -- commissioner swig? >> so, in this -- in the documentation, there were notes that said the standard

is 6 feet, and that was at 100 watts, then there was a change of the equipment and it went to 120 watts and then suddenly the standard moved to four feet. and so i'm not a technologist, i have no idea what i'm talking about but it just -- i found it strange that a more powerful piece of equipment suddenly had a radius that was smaller thab a previous piece of equipment and the inconsistencies were very confusing. >> yeah, i think that's a vl lid question, we had the same question when we looked at both reports as well. just for clarity, the stc standard for these frequencies is one mill watt per centimeter squared, that's the public standard, so for that power density,

one mitt watt per centimeter swearbacker scared, that would be the limit of any public exposure in the area, so we're looking at in the review of these reports to make a determination whether or not preinstallation, we're going to exceed bha*fr the level is and its *f it's frequency depend, the public would occupy, the initial report that was prepared and i think we have an illustration of this, yeah. so, the initial report that we received was based on -- i don't want to get into too much technical here, it was a far field calculation which is approved by the fcc as a calculation you can use to determine these. what it provides is an extremely conservative limit that that one millimeter

would be reached at that and's the doted line that is directed here, these are intentional an ten nas, so the height of the antenna, 30 feet, east and west on sacramento at the height of the antenna, that original calculation would be the dotted line. that's where you would -- that bubble or balloon if you will pointing in each direction is where we would expect that limit to be. the calculation that was revised was using the near field calculation which would give a more precise measurement of where we would anticipate to see those levels exceeded, and that's the blue one, and that's the four feet limit. the difference between those two is the calculation that was used to make that determination, one was using a far field calculation, the other's oozing the near field

calculation which is a more precise measurement of what's there. i should point out that it's still pretty conservative. we would anticipate that the actual measured meter red levels of rf energy there would be somewhat less than four feet and that's pretty much what has been the proof in the pudding so far with these utility pole, three feet or less. >> these studies are not made by the department of public health but you received these studies from third party, evaluate these based as an example and based on those studies and your calculations, you affirm what is the guideline? >> correct, so the health department doesn't spend the

hundred of hours to do the actual modeling on these. what we ask is that those models be done by license engineer who is are experts in the field, which is the case here, sms somebody who's done a lot of these. what we're looking for is to make sure a licensed engineer is doing them and they're using models based on the calculations that have been approved by the fcc. we've developed sort of an 11 point bunch list of the things we want to see included, a lot of engineers provide more information than those but these are sort of what we feel having done this with planning since 1996 is -- are the appropriate things we should be looking for when evaluating these reports. >> so, when we see in the future this as it was presented because it wasn't presented with the elegance in which you just explained

it, it was just a matter, we did 100 watt and it was 6 and it was 120 watts and it was four and that's it and it was approved. it's good to know you're doing these behind every single one of these. >> we are and this is a pre-installation calculation, so really the proof is in the post installation measurements, if it's messed up, we're going to find out then and then it's an expensive removal and taking down the antenna and going through the process all over again so there's some incentive of getting it right. >> the product will have a fail safe and there will be a post installation -- or same criteria and hopefully it will in the same parameters? >> there you go, and we have calibrated meters for doing that sort of verification, we would be happy to do that in this case. >> thank you very much for that explanation. >> you test every

installation? >> no, so every installation is required to be tested by a third party. the ones that we get involved in are the ones where there are either complaints or issues that are raised periodically. we'll hear that neighborhood people do not trust the third party that was hired to do the measurements in which case we're happy to come out and either do side by side measurements at the same time or do them independent to verify what's going on in the actual environment, we don't test them all but we do bh we're asked to. >> the third party tester, is it usually the same one would did the calcs? >> it can be and in many case, it is but it doesn't have to be. it needs to be again a licensed engineer in the state of california and somebody who's an expert in the field. even in the field of engineering and electrical engineering, this is a

specialized field of rf, there's not a lot of people that are doing radio frequency energy, the take-off of the cell phone industry has pushed that a little bit and in the last 12* 10, 12 years, they are getting involved in all of this but it's a specialized piece of engineering. >> go ahead. >> okay, i have a question, so roughly how many installations has your department overseen or done in san francisco so far? >> you're talking about dpw utility poles? >> these boosters for the cellular. er >> there's a couple of broad categories of cell antenna installation, you have the ones that the planning department oversees and those are the ones that basically are overseen by the wireless guideline that is the planning department came out with in 1996. those are the large macro

installations that go on top of buildings, what dpw are involved in are the utility pole installations that we're talk about this evening and that's overseen by the public works code, that's a special category that was carved out. >> i know that article very well. >> i'm sure you do. and the exact numbers, i don't know larry if you know, there's hundreds of these things. >> and out of the hundreds that have been installed, have any been in non-compliance? >> none that we have gone out and tested and have seen and none that are not in compliance. these are -- and you guys haven't been able to see the larger ones and the reports that get submitted for these, but on the relative scale, these are fairly low power an ten nas, 100, 122 watts compared to tens of thousands of watts for the installations on buildings. >> okay, thank you. >> i have a question, a

pretty naive one, where it says ensure there's no publicly occupied areas within 4 feet, 6 feet, what is the definition of publicly occupied means, is that somebody on the street or behind the window in their residence? >> that's a good question, the way we interpret it is anybody in the public, if it's somebody from the public to be exposed. that would be include the fire escape, even though that's not some place somebody's going to be living 24 hours, there's a potential for someone to be in that space so we want to make sure that complies with the standard. this provides a very conservative way of looking at compliance with the fcc. so, yeah, we're looking at basically on the street, people passing by, any of those places, even in the case of rooftop installation, rooftops where the public may have access even if the

rooftop isn't designed for public access, it may not have a parapet but the public may be there. we want to comply with those standards as well. >> okay. >> now we know. >> thank you very much. >> alright, you're welcome. >> president honda, i think that the zoning administrator also wanted *fed to address the board on this appeal if that's acceptable. >> that's fine, plus i have a question for the permit holder as well after. >> we should give time to the rest of the parties to speak given that we've had this additional testimony. >> scott sanchez, planning department, the planning department does support the design of this proposal as well as the proposal on the next case, i just wanted to bring to light some recent information for the board of appeals for your information. extenet, we have approved other facility ins san francisco, it has come to our attention that those facility ares not in compliance with

the conditions of approval, that the planning department has required for those and in particular, the size of the shroud, we aproved it 10 and a half inch, ne aoerp arguing at 14.5 inches, the switch boxes on there seem to be different than what we had approved and some of the cables were painted and there may be cases with additional meters that were o*ersz approved. we've discussed this with the department of public work, they are initiating enforcement to bring those properties into compliance. one of the features of the public works code in section 1517 does allow for the public works code -- public works department if they've exercised all their reasonable effort tos bring someone into compliance, they're still hesitant to do so. public works has the ability to deny other permits for other facility and is we're sure with these tool, we'll be able to bring them into compliance, but i did want to make sure the board of appeals had that information as we are aware they have

other sights which are not in compliance and we would assume that these sites are going to be built in full compliance with the plans that we have approved. >> i've got a question, mr. sanchez, so do you know approximately how many unit ares not in compliance? >> it's my understanding that it may be as many as 23 sites. >> have any of those particular sites been before this board? >> i do not know that information, no. >> i'll ask the permit holder that. thank you. >> scott, out of 20-something site, out of how many does extenet have? >> i think that's all that they have. >> every one of them ?frjts dhe can address that, my understanding is that it's the sites that have been approved but perhaps it's not all of the sites. >> thank you. >> should we hear from the department next? okay.

mr. shaw? >> goods evening, rahal shaw with public would besinger, just to speak on what scott mentioned, yes, so we did become recently aware of 23 wireless installations which are different from the approved plans and it's what mr. sanchez testified to, it's the switch boxes i believe, they're a little larger than what was on the proposed plans, so pursuant to section 1517, pub lib works issued notices of deficiency earlier this week on the 25th and then whait allows them to do is 30 calendar days to bring the sites into compliance and then if it's not done within that timely fashion, then the department can take further action if needed. >> how did you become aware of this? >> so, i believe we are -- our department was contacted by the planning department originally and then we followed up with specific inspections and then we were able to go out and confirm.

>> so, my same question to you would be, if they only have 23 sites, are the sites we heard prior on this board on those -- are those applicable? >> i did not research if those were previously at the board, i'm hoping extenet can testify to that, i can also get back and confirm which ones exactly, i have a list of all the permit numbers so i can go back and check which ones, if any have gone to the board. >> thank you. >> so, mr. shaw, how many sites does extenet have? >> i don't have that information handy with me. >> if you could find that? >> absolutely, yes. >> thank you. >> so, we can hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, commissioners, matthew urgavih on behalf of the permit holder, extenet, it's been brought to our attention this week that a number of

sites are out of compliance, the non-compliance focus is primarily on an emergency shut-off switch t emergency shut-off switch that was permitted is approximately 9 inches long i believe, i forget the exact dimensioned what was installed was volume metrically smaller but the face is approximately half of an inch longer and two inches wider i believe, so we're working to resolve that issue by swapping out the cut-off switch and replaced that was actually permitted. regarding the shroud, it's a difference between a 10 inch shroud that was permitted and approximately i think 14.5 inch shroud that was

deployed. it has to do with fitting a certain wireless meter under the shroud and the extra space was needed to fit that wireless meter so that no meter needed to be deployed on the pole itself. i think there was a misunderstanding that occurred with planning and dpw and we are working dpw and planning to resolve that issue immediately. >> i have a question. >> are you finished? >> yes. >> if i may, it's a little odd, we want you to answer the questions and i'll say with respect to the permit at hand, we hope that your questions have been answered regarding the presentation by dph and that in that particular case, we went through the process of refiling and having a second

round of protests, the conditions remain consistent with the tentative approval to the final determination to the actual notice, so we would ask you to proceed with following the recommendation of the department on that and now i'll let you continue your questions. >> okay. so, one, is this the cab bet completely sdmrient is the case that's before us completely compliant? >> correct, the case that's before you will be installed as permitted. >> as permitted. >> correct. >> and then the other question i have is when did you become aware that your equipment was non-compliant? >> i became aware, i was asked about it last week by dpw and so i personally investigated it last week and dug into it and found, you

know, exactly what occurred, the difference in sizes of the cut-off switch and the shroud. >> and then the same question i had presented before the other two is how many cases had been heard in front of this board have non-compliant equipment on them? >> there were 23 sites that were referenced in the letter by dpw and i don't know yet if any of those came before you all. >> could you research that and find that out for us? >> yes, i will research that. >> and do you know how many sites extenet has in the city? >> currently constructed? i would say approximately 250, give or take.

>> and these that are non-compliant are all recent ones? >> recent within the last two years, yes. and i think that, again, part of the non-compliance has to do with facilitating pg&e's requirements, particularly with regard to the emergency shut-off switch and this wireless meter that fits under the shroud. >> thank you. >> if i may, this is the first i am aware of this violation but i am aware of another situation and that was that a number of pole that is puc thought they owned that were light standards in fact it turned out belonged to pg&e, so when the process went forward, the design of the puc pole doesn't require a meter because power is obtained from the puc for the city,

while the power was obtain framed pg&e, they said they beneath needed a meter and a full glass meter with a light standard and pge came up with a hockey puck meter which filets on top of a light standard which is a shroud, so this is a surprise that what were thought to be puc light standards turned out to be pg&e and now require a meter instead of a cut-off switch and that's the source of the confusion on these limited number of poles. >> and you became aware of this now? >> i personally became aware of -- i'm not sure what this is. >> like today. >> i'm verizon's attorney, i was not aware of this extenet solution, of the violations, i was aware of the hockey puck meter situation but only

in terms of legal aspects i have to say and not in terms of technical space or other aspects. >> okay, thank you, do you have a question? >> i have a question of mr. sanchez. >> thank you. >> if this information had been known at the beginning and the design had been presented, i guess as it should have been, would that have been approved? do you sort of have to go with what's required for the installation? >> well, our wireless staff is here and maybe she can answer in more detail, it's my understanding that staff went -- staff from puc as well as pg&e and viewed mock ups of the slimmer stealth and that was acceptable to everyone, they were confused as to why that is no longer acceptable to pg&e and it's

possible na the larger stealth may be acceptable, but i think they need to show that there really is no way to accomplish the narrow proposal xh seemed to have worked for everyone at some point in time. >> in other words, there's a possibility that you would have disapproved those? >> or sought other alternatives that would have a slimmer profile. there's a lot of creative ways to address these situations. >> i realize it's not relevant to the permit but i wanted to ask it anyway. >> does your staff want to say anything? >> i'm here to answer any questions. woe are currently work witching other carriers to come up with a better solution for these pg&e poles. there are a number of allege tern tiffs that could be utilized. the issue here is the conditions of approval indicated that if any changes were to be made to the design, they would come back through us through the planning department. >> all 23 that is under

examination now are pg&e poles? >> from what i understand, yeah, and there are 23 that were cited but not necessarily, we haven't bedecked all extenet pole, pg&e poles and extenet installed on, so 23 known violations. >> you say there could be other pg&e poles previously >> yes. >> wow. >> i hear a lot of rehearing requests. >> i have another question for mr. shaw. >> and would you find out if the closed captioning could be turned on, if you could wo

several issues, the first issue is that -- >> go ahead. >> if first issue is that

the facility under which this conversation discussion had surrounded is inadequately -- inaccurately described. there are no drawings that show the bay window, none, none were ever taken, no measured drawings. the description in the engineering reports describing the physical circumstances of the site in relation to the building is wrong. it was wrong in the first edison report, it was wrong in the second one, it was wrong in the third one. the description does not exist. it doesn't exist, the kind of measurements calculated to the pole to these non-existent features have no meaning, and also there are several issues here with the way the health department has treated this, again, we saw a drawing but a drawing based

on something that they had no measured drawings, no plans or anything to indicate the location of the facilities rather of the elements and the site to the pole, okay, so they were winging it. after my remarks, i have a new set of photographs here that show the relation of the pole to the window and the fire esskaip. the off sited fire escape, it get all the radiation, the fire escape ta doesn't exist, the fire escape that has been cited in every single document, briefs, letters, engineering documents, it doesn't exist, and this is what it's been based on. here we have a sloppy, indefensible way of doing business, and the whole argument for it is somehow because this is publicly good, somehow it's good for

everybody, it really doesn't matter if we pay much attention to what we're doing. so, i would like to cite beside the 4-6 feet change the public requirement, or another issue here that came up in the department of public health conditions, and that is extenet should have in place a mechanism for taking rf power density levels nearby buildings when requested by members of the general public, i took that up with hamot and edison and they already fogged in whether or not this existed, you can ask hamot and edison about it, i think this reflects the general lack of thought, procedure, and concern with these applications. >> thank you. >> photographs, anyone? >> is there any public comment on this item?

can you *f can i see a show of hands how many people plan to speak on this item? i see two hands, is that right? >> this is the second time for this so i think two minutes -- >> we're going to limit public comment to two minutes. >> good evening, my name is leora, i'm with sf faction for cell phone technology, cellular technology in our neighborhoods, this site in particular is important to myself and some of my cohorts because it is directly around the corner of a local business called [inaudible] patinskies and they have been hosting our campaigns, particularly the campaign last fall, so with we were

canvassing and we were doing voter registration and turning out folks for that election, we really relied on our cell phones to text each other, to make sure we knew where every was, to organize, so for this neighborhood, for the people that work there, it's easy to get caught up in the details of the poles and the meters and all of the things that they require, but at the end of the day, we're talking about cell phone reception and providing a service for thousands of people throughout the city. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> may i ask her a question. >> yes, question, please. >> i'm interested in your organization, you've been in front of us a couple of times, who funds your organization? >> we have a variety of individuals and other organizations that fund us. >> are you fund at all by cell phone companies or cell phone installation companies? >> i would have to check.

>> okay, next time you come by, i would love to get a clear answer whether you're funded by cell phone companies or cell phone installation companies. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is dick allen, i live in golden gate heights neighborhood, i serve on the golden gate heights neighborhood association board and also on the sharp board and my specialty is neighborhood zoning and discretionary review issues. i've been involved in this sort of thing for many years. my main concern is that san francisco continues to keep up with the demand for cellular technology. also i want to thank the health department for being here today and clearing up any concerns that some of you may have had. i hope their answers were

satisfactory. so, i'm encouraging at least the majority of you to support the two projects, this one and the one following, and that's -- those are my remarks, thank you. >> sir, do you miss the planning commission? >> my hearing isn't working tonight. >> do you miss the planning commission? >> did i miss the -- >> do you miss being on the planning commission? >> i was really having a good time up until a few seconds ago. >> thank you, sir. >> that was a buzz saw, thank you. >> see in the block pic, thank you. >> next speaker. >> hello, i'm [inaudible] pentacostas and i'm a s*int that's a heavy consumer of cellular and media in

general. whenever i come into the city, i go around quite a bit, i confess that i'm a pokemon go player, around the city, cellular reception varies loudly, if it's not all working as it should be the best that it can be, not only can some people not find the pokemon they want, sometimes we cannot reach our friends and families and e-mail my teachers perhaps about my essays or assignment that is are due. my father would works as a taxi driver in the city and works off of his phone experiences issues in certain parts, and as time progresses, the issue of a lack of cellular power

people's devices will not simply sit there, it will get worse and worse unless more infrastructure is provided. thank you. >> thank you. >> are there any other public comments? seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> is there somebody else, madam director? >> i'm sorry? other member of the public? >> somebody raised his hand. >> is there someone who wants to speak on this item, we're on item 4, this is appeal 16-092. >> [inaudible]. >> please come to the podium prior to speaking. >> hi, so my name's diego, i live in berkeley but you live in san francisco and this would greatly benefit me in

those places since my rush to go through here, [inaudible] it definitely would help to get greater cell service in san francisco where i occasionally volunteer in political campaigns and i can tell you phone banking, that makes all the difference between the faster and success, however, i want to address the potential actual concerns that people may have about the risk of cancer, so i brought two studies for -- well a study and an editorial that cites a study for you all, from the conclusion of the danish cohort study, i'll read the first paragraph of the conclusions, more than 420 thousand cellular telephone users found tumor of the brain and salivary gland tumors that are a primary issue that already

had cancer or most expected on the general population, there was no evidence for a response relationship with these cancers based on the [inaudible] as a subscriber, they saw no unusual clusters to undue exposures to rf, the cancer risks applied equally to analog and digital systems, so some editorial here citing it from a fizz v*is from the university of maryland which i ran out of time to read, but this explain it is science why this particular form of radiation could not provide the energy needed to mutate cells to create cancer. thank you. >> question for you, osier since you're from berkeley, how did you hear of this hearing? >> i look at agendas for various boards and commissions, i work as a journalist out here. >> i know you're -- are you

part f of the group that has spoken earlier prior to? >> no. >> okay, thank you. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i think they need to address their issues with the department on the wide range of whether it's misunderstandings or not in compliance before we act upon a permit. >> so what are you suggesting, vice-president? >> i'm suggesting a continuance at the call of the chair. >> i don't agree. i think this was just discovered, they barely had a chance to respond and this is a separate pole and a

separate permit. >> i'm somewhat in agreement. i think it's a pretty large company, they know what they're doing. they evidently have a lot of professional help in doing what they do, and if they're at this point just finding out months and months later that this is a problem, and i believe that they were aware of this the last time they came before this board and did not disclose it and i'm especially concerned about that because they know that the information that was withheld was, i would imagine, important information, so i would say -- i would agree with vice-president fung's recommendation to hold this off or continue this to the call of the chair until their bugs get worked out. >> commissioner fung, are

you subjectinging that this specific item and other items as well that may come in front of us before these issues are resolved, that we just so continue them all, are we going to run into this? >> i would suggest that. >> you would suggest that? >> yes. >> okay, thanks. >> i mean -- >> i have a question. for this particular one before us is in compliance, no? we don't know. >> according to them. >> well, if you listen to the appellate, he says the documentation on the design was inadequate. >> the missing fire escape? >> the missing profile of the building is not as per the actual. what you saw in this

diagram is much more accurate than anything in their lamentation. >> can i ask the rep sedative from the health department come up. you put a picture on to the overhead earlier. was that information given to the appellant prior, part of the information package that goes out because we have never seen that and the illustrations that i saw personally were really poor. but that is very descriptive and what was that done and was it done specifically for this case? >> it was done specifically for this case in anticipation of the questions that were raised last wednesday, so i don't believe that was a part of the original package. i didn't see quau *f what you guys got though. >> being from the department and as concerned as people are whether they have a rightful concern or not or article 25 gives them the right or not, i feel that those type of disbursements

should be included in the package that is are sent out and given them information because evidently the appellant here felt as i said by looking at these drawings that it went from 2 feet as commissioner swig said to 6 feet to 4 feet and looking at the cement square nas are two feet, they didn't jog for me either, okay, so they were not given to the appellant prior, they were made specifically for this hearing, correct? >> that is my understanding, yes. >> okay, thank you, that was my question. any other questions? >> thank you. >> thank you. >> further comments? if not, i'll make a motion. >> motion, vice-president ?frjts move to continue this item to the call of the

chair pending resolution of permit holder's non-compliance issues with the department of public works. >> thank you, vice-president on that motion of the vice-president to continue this item to the call of the chair to allow time for the permit holder to resolve their non-compliance issues with the san francisco public works, commissioner lazarus? >> no. president honda? >> aye. >> commissioner wilson?

>> sorry, i'm still thinking. >> no worries. >> aye. >> thank you, and commissioner swig? >> aye. >> that motion does carry with a vote of 4-1, this item will be sent to the board's call of the chair calendar. thank you. move on them to item number 5, appeal number 16-099, mary mccausland versus san francisco public works bureau of street use and mapping, 1278 jackson street, protesting the issuance on may 3, 2016 to extenet systems of a wireless box

permit, construction of a pyrexes wireless service facility, this is permit number 15wr-0414, and we will start with the applicant ms. mccausland, you have 7 minutes to present your case to the board. >> my name is mary mccausland and i'm a retired labor and delivery room nurse, i reside at 1278 jackson street. my appeal was the pole is right outside my window and it's there and i see it and the second pole is going to be a lot taller and there was attachments made and my concern was that it would cause more darkness into my apartment and i spend a fair amount of time now in my apartment and i was

concerned about the amount of light that would come in, and i know there has been -- a letter was sent out to me saying there's no reason or no legal reason why i should be appealing this, and i'm not technical at all, but i just -- i know that there hasn't been any shadow studies done to say how much light would be blocked or not and that's the thing i would like to address, you know. i mean, is it going to be thrown up there and i will have to accept it? i've stayed in that apartment for quite a long time now since 85, and once it's up, that's it, or is there something like getting a study done to see how much light will actually be

blocked? and, i mean, that's my concern, so i'm not technical, and also they're going to add parts on to that pole, so thank you very much for allowing me to come here and voice my concern. thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you, so we can hear from the perm holder. >> good evening, faubl outside council for verizon wireless and representing extenet this evening, this particular pole was applied for june of last year and it is a pg&e pole, it's a ewe filt pole, it's a jpa pole so it's partly owned by all of the utilities, as you probably looked at, it's a stand-off antenna, about 2 feet by 14 .5 inches in diameter, when the planning department reviewed this

application, they came back to extenet and said, can you please put the antenna a minimum of 10 feet away from the building, that required the design of a custom extension bar to hold the antenna about three feet away from the pole. we're required to put the an nen na a distance of the pole under general order 95 which allows alignment to climb up behind the antenna, extenet designed a custom extension bracket so that the antenna would be further away from the build, it required wind loading and strauk churl calculations in order to satisfy pg&e with respect to the structural integrity of placing this bracket on and that was then reviewed and approved by the planning department, notice was provided and the planning department did not recommend any condition regarding obstructing light and view

with respect to this particular application, so there's no condition regarding obstructing light and view. as you know, a part of your careful representation, the department also passed a new order earlier in this year which defined what obstructing light and view is and in that case with a stand-off bracket, it's anything 6 feet from the build hating's more than 20 inches in diameter, this particular antenna will be 10 feet from the building and 14.5 inch ins diameter so it doesn't meet the obstruction definition under the order or are there any conditions regarding obstruction, i wanted you to have that mystery that verizon and extenet tried to resolve any esthetic conditions as it relates to this building and has tried to do that in this case and different from those poles that turned out to belong to pg&e, it requires

boxes and part of the approvals went through and went through the tenant of approval final determination and permit of the department as well as a protest hearing of february 22 of this year. we feel the application fully complies with all requirements, we've gone beyond and beyond to try to remove any kind of obstruction and the planning conditions don't include any obstruction of views or lighting and we ask that you follow the reck m dashing of the department of public works and approve the application. thank you. >> counselor? >> yes? >> this also has an extension to the pole, doesn't it? >> pg&e is replacing the pole, so the pole will increase in height from 34 feet to 43. pg&e separately identified in reviewing this, what they said were conditions that didn't currently satisfy

go95, i believe it is that the secondary power is too close to the existing light, so pg&e in reviewing this pole decided to extend to modify, move the secondary power higher and in consequence increase the height of the pole by 9 feet. >> so, line ares also being raised, power lines? >> in relation to the light standard i believe, yes. and that's pg&e and we *f we have no control over that, they have the ability to replace that pole any time under their franchise, but dha's correct. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and we can hear from the department. >> good evening, commissioners, [inaudible] with public works, just to start off again, so per article 25, section 1513, public works may only deny wireless service facilities, the site permits for these wireless service facilities if evidence supports any one

of the following findings harbinger the public health determined the application complies with public health compliance standard, that the planning department incorrectly determine that the application meets applicable tier a or tier b compatibility standards, the application does not comply with any other requirement for obtaining a personal wireless facility site permit or it shows the applicant apply tos apply for a modification permit after the permit is issued, it will not comply with applicable xlieblt standard, none of these criteria were met so public works moved forward with the issuance of the permit so, the appellant's main case was that this would impact the light and the personal views, so under public works codes section 1509b2, public works may not deny an application based on blocked light or personal views instead they may add conditions to the permit it

would substantially block light or views into a residential window and as stated earlier before public works order, it does create a definition for substantial obstruction of view and is in that definition, it states that the mounting of equipment enclosures either 8 feet away fwr a window if attach today a top of the pole or attach today a side arm mount as measure today the nearest portion would typically not be expected to result in substantial impairment provided the diameter of equipment is not more than 20 inch, it is 14.6 inches and the pole -- the equipment on the arm would be further than 6 feet away and so i can just give kind of a brief simulation or show a diagram demonstrating, so

this is what the proposal would look like, the arm would extend -- the arm is 47 and 7/8 inches long extending away from the building towards jackson street in this case. and so we also ran this by the planning department and in exhibit e in the planning department letter, the planning department did consider all aspects of the installation and recommended approval of the permit with also the condition that this arm was placed -- it was originally proposed at about a 3 foot extension towards jock son and it was agreed they would go closer to four feet to try to mitigate the loss of light or views and i'm available for any questions. >> just as a side note, if

we were to uphold this permit, is this one of the installations that would be affected by what we spoke about in the previous case that it wouldn't be allowed to be installed until everything else was fixed? >> yes, so public works per section 1517, public works does have to grant the permit holder adequate time to correct the notice of deficiency and that's 30 days, so if they don't complete it within that time limit, then public works can start imposing conditions to deny future applications. >> so, but if we uphold the permit, the permit's been issued. >> yes. >> this isn't -- is this an application or is this past the application point and has this been permitted and will be installed?

>> if you uphold the permit, it will be permitted and installed. >> so, even if the other stuff is going on that we talked about before, this one will go forward anyway? >> that's correct, in this case, it will be based on the dates of the issuance. >> and this box, is this box in -- is this the box na was permitted? i'm sensing that it's only because i heard that it was a pg&e pole and you told us in the previous item that the box on the pg&e poles specifically had been changed since they were permitted, so is this one of the boxes that was -- is this the box that was permitted originally or is this -- has this box been

changed since the permit was issued? >> so, if i understand correctly, the box shown on their plans and currently on the simulations, this is qua would be permitted -- i think i'm not quite understanding. >> what i heard occurred and what is the underpinnings of all this other conversation that we had before was that permits were issued for specific boxes that also include pg&e poles. and those boxes as it turned out were not going to be allowed by pg&e because they have other standards for their poles. >> can i interrupt for a second, you're asking, is this box fully compliant? >> is this box the same box that was permitted or is this also not going -- is this box going to be a different box than was permitted? >> i see, so believe the

other boxes are -- they're all different, if i'm correct. if you can help me out. >> the notices of violation are -- [inaudible] planning department, the issue for the boxes na you're speaking of are on pg&e steel poles, these are wooden poles so it's not the same design. er >> okay, thanks, that's what my point was. >> any other questions for mr. shaw? alright, thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll take public comment on this item. anyone who wishes to speak, please step forward. >> do we offer planning -- no? >> is there any questions for mr. san xhez? no, okay. >> madam director. >> two minutes for public comment, if there are multiple speakers, if you could line up, you can

start, someone needs to go first. >> hi, [inaudible] i'm speaking on the sites on the condition that they're compliant, so i know that there's a lot of sort of drama about that right now, but i ask you to reject these appeals if these sites are compliant and to just really think about how a lot of social connections happen with these phones and a lot of safety issues, so many people don't have land lines anymore and when something comes up, when you need to talk and get a hold of someone, you need to make sure there's not an obsolete system. this is for future generations, for people that are live ining a society now where data demands are, they're going through the roof and we really have to think about how we're going

to accommodate that. the idea that the light to a private residence is something that should be protected by the government or a committee is something that's really difficult to argue in a city, in a city where you need to have buildings, where you need to have infrastructure, where it needs to be dense so that people can even live here. i am also a housing advocate and i spend a lot of time talking to people about the views coming out of their living room windows and how valuable those are, but also how valuable and even more valuable it is to build a city that has places or people to live and that's a whole other crisis that i won't talk about here, but i ask that you approve the site and also continue your diligence in making sure they're all compliant.

i think that's important, once they are compliant and all through, all the holds, you need to make sure they are approved. thank you. >> nester speaker. >> diego, i realize after rushing into the room all confused and speaking after a lobbyist, i should clarify my sbekt, i'm here from my own valysing, i'm a journalist in the air ya, i research a lot of secret litigation, i'm foregoing the ability to write about this and speak on my own behalf, i won't talk about cancer this time since it doesn't seem the appeal is a concern for life but the right to reserve any view of natural light from a permanent residence regarded from needed public infrastruck khufrment i think this board should approve this small cell antenna

there because otherwise it would be setting a precedent that would be impossible to apply equitably, if the government is there to protect people's views of natural light at any time of day from any perspective, then theoretically, any building that block's anyone's view should be lowered and nothing above anyone's view should ever be built and obviously don't think anybody in the san francisco government would be capable of doing that except for people who would have the resources to do very resource costly appeal, so i trust that you guys know what to do. thanks. >> thank you, next speaker. >> [inaudible] citizen up here once again to reiterate my point from earlier. cellular data usage is becoming more and more

pertinent among people all over america but especially if larger cities, and larger more dense cities like san francisco especially and especially for perhaps the younger generations which may not be as well represent ined this room now, but the sometimes incredibly poor service in this city is a very large issue for those who not only want to stay in contact with friends and family but also want to get work done on the go, many people work from their phones all around the city and so that all the people in sf, old or young, whether they work from their phones or for entertainment or a hobby need access to quality cellular data s*frs. -- tvs. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment?

okay, seeing none, then ms. mccausland, you have three minutes of rebuttal if you have anything further as the appellant, if you have anything further to say. >> yeah, my comment is, okay, i mean, so i'm one person and i'm complaining about -- i'm just saying i'm going to lose some light. has there been a study done for the shadows to see exactly how much light i'm going to lose and does it matter that one person -- i mean, who cares if one person complains or whatever? i don't particularly -- i think we all matter and san francisco is a place where i've been living for a long, long time, and i just -- you know, for the sake if we

start thinking about, well, the good of everybody, you know, but i mean, i do think we have to take into consideration things like city, is it clean, is there light, is it going to be a city that represents people or is it just going to be a city that big business will take over every aspect or somebody who's got more power than somebody else can just take that over, i mean, that's my reaction to it. i just feel some of the comments that were made, you know, for sake of progress, that somebody protesting about light getting into their apartment is like kind of to some people kind of stupid, you know, because, you know, progress is progress, but i mean, i think we have to balance that whole thing off and that's what i'm looking at, so thank you. >> thank you.

>> mr. albreton? >> thank you, outside counsel for verizon, i know it sometimes thinks the large corporations are taking over san francisco, but in this particular case, article 25 i think you know regulates the right-of-way and there is no protection for public views nr the right of way. the code is written to protect public views but not private views and there is no such protection. the public views are protected through the review by the planning department that has to determine because this is a zoned protected district that there's no significant detraction fa the defining characteristics of this zoning district so they look at public views of towers to determine if there's any impact. private views are addressed in article 25 if a condition is added and voluntarily semite by the company that

there not be any obstruction or view or light, the planning department didn't ask us to put that condition in, there's no protection under this prerment.er private views, there is for public views, ver advise son wireless and extenet do take people into account with their view and is their windows and for that reason took an extra 6-8 months to create a custom extender that would push this antenna 10 feet away from the window, we can't solve every individual problem and providing this infrahave you beening khu, dpw in its exercise on its rights and putting the facility ins the right-of-way has to pay attention to public views but not necessarily private views, so i wanted to clarify that one point. lastly, just to clarify the other point about the confusion of poles, those

pg&e poles look just like san francisco light standards, they have no electrical power or anything on them and that's the confusion, they were thought to be puc poles but turned out to be pg&e poles, the amta pole that is we used which was the last site, we know those are mta poles but there was an honest confusion in the city of naoez poles that looked like standards that tuned out to be pg&e instead of puc, with that, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. shaw? >> [inaudible] shaw, public work, i have no further comments, public works believes it did issue the permit in accordance with the current regulations and i'm available for any further questions. >> we've heard many, many case and is you probably explained this to me before, but how does it determine

when the -- bh the apparatus or the machinery is in a public view of a landmark or historical space like golden gate bridge? in this instance, when you look at the pick khu, you evidently see that there are cable car tracks there and the cable car is a national and historic landmark, the only moving landmark in the country, i believe, right. >> yes. >> so, how does the department make that determination? >> so, in our process, that gets deferred to planning and planning helps us with the determination and if they would like to speak to that, but then the order to set the criteria about the substantial obstruction of the view, so we did go off of that criteria as well in termser of the distance from the building and the size, the diameter of the actual

facility. in terms of determining what is a view corridor, we do defer to the planning department and request for their assistance. >> thank you. >> yes. >> would you like to hear from someone from planning? >> oh, sure. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. there are a variety of things we would look at, one of the appeals we had on lombard, that appeal was the result aof a denial that we took on a location across columbus which we felt impaktded the view look up at lombard, we look to see if there has been a historic district, is there a landmark, note historic resources, certainly the cable cars are obviously a known historic resource, but having the fact that it is maybe -- it's not obstructing

the views of the tracks, with *f we didn't feel that would be appropriate. if it was in another scenic vista impacting views of public parks, it's -- but it's the same for -- not only for how we look at these but also in section 101.1 of the planning code, it's something that we consider citywide for all projects, so -- and that's really looking at the impacts of the public vistas and in this case, i did not feel it had a negative impact. staff had requested an additional setback from the building because we felt it was just a little bit too close and so it is sticking out a little bit more in the public right of way because of that, we felt that gave some adequate relief to that building and that's why it's perhaps sitting -- obstructing more -- >> sorry to put you in the hot seat, we heard in previous cases it's blocking a historic landmark or

obstructing a historic landmark, how do you address a moving landmark, that would be the question, right. >> yes, and i think we would have to look at, is it along a vista, looking up at the cable car tracks going up california, so i think that would be how we would address something like a cable car, is it impacting the vista looking up at california would be my best answer: >> perhaps you could refresh our memories on what the department did on the clarification of obstruction of light and view, clarification that occurred earlier this year. >> i will leave it to our wireless specialist. >> [inaudible] planning department, could you repeat your question again, i didn't understand. >> i believe the planning department issued some

further definition or clarification on the light blockage or obstructions of views. >> yeah. when we look at these wireless facility, we not only take account what pole they're in but any relocation of poles so last week, you saw a case before you where the initial propose salt was not supported and it was moved on to another pole because of the scenic view of lombard street so, there's been instances like that where we take the overall massing of the pole, the equipment and the type of pole it is and what kind of technology -- or design we preapproved and try to determine what would be least intrusive, of course, we're limited on how much we can ask for based on fcc standards but we can, which is why when modifications are done to the design, we take it seriously that we're

notified prior. >> thank you. >> thank, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i'll go. you know, it's very difficult in these cases because if it was me and i had a situation like ms. mccausland, i would be upset too or deeply concerned that there was something being constructed in front of my window. and we on this board are sensitive to that i think unless anybody wants to disagree. the issue that we have here is that we're here to fulfill what is the law and what is legislation, there's legislation article 25 and it was stated by the permit holder's counsel, it was reaffirmed by planning and

there really aren't any view corridors that are ob -- obstructed here. it doesn't impact the overall feeling of neighborhood, so in fact it seems to be in compliance with article 25 and therefore it would be my feeling that the permit holder has every right to -- for this installation. >> and i would agree with my -- you're going should be shocked, aren't you, with my fellow commissioner, i would like to say to the appellant, you know, it does matter to us, it matters to me and your concerns about your light and your enjoyment of your place is not trivial and unfortunately sometimes in a city as dense as san francisco, the individuals' rights give way sometimes to

the rights of others, but there's always a trade-off, but make no mistake with respect to the board and myself, that your concerns are not pr*if yal and you should not be made to feel that they were. >> i would approach this similarly to my response to commissioner swig earlier, but whether i felt the permit holder should resolve all of their issues before they're allowed any further [inaudible] permits and i would continue with that approach in this instance. >> in this particular instance, i feel that extenet or the permit holder went above and beyond, i do like the design that they did in comparison to some of the other ones i've seen. it seems this is -- has gone on for a long time. i do also agree with my fellow commissioner in

regards to consistency but on this particular pole, i would agree with -- i'm going to the left, so who would like to make a motion. >> so, my motion is to not deny the appeal, uphold the permit on the basis that it was issued properly. >> okay, thank you. we have a motion from commissioner swig to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that it was properly issued. on that motion, vice-president fung? >> no. >> commissioner lazarus? >> aye. >> president honda? >> aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> so, that motion does carry with a vote of 4-1, the permit is upheld. we will move to item number 6 xhs a rehearing request, project location is long the van ness avenue corridor, the board received a letter from

daoe yan delbridge requesting a rehearing of appeal number 16-057 delbridge versus sfpw-buf, they voted 3-1-1, commissioner swig absent to up hold the permit, it is -- the project is the removal of 86 trees in the median and four street trees with replacement of 210 median trees and commissioner swig ma reviewed the paip and he iser sen the video so she's available to participate torrent and we can start with ms. delbridge who has three minutes to present her request to the board. >> good evening, commissioners, and i'm daoe -- deanne delbridge, i want to present you with four new facts which are the reasons, the most important reasons i

feel for a rehearing and all of these facts are in the brief and more but i just wanted to highlight these. okay, because a decision to give marijuana patients two minutes instead of one at the last meeting when there were more than 100 wait tog speak meant we lost over half our supporters with facts to state, plus the news coverage that would have better informed the public of what's going on. none of them could stay to give their comments after midnight as we were forced to do. this constitutes a manifest in justice in my opinion. new fact number 2, in june, the sfmta removed almost half the bus stops on van ness avenue, the resulting increased bus speed virtually eliminates the need to destroy all the median trees.

new fact number 3, the draft environmental impact report which was circulated by the sfmta for public comment did not include the alternative that was ultimately chosen to run the brt down the center of van ness instead of curb side and remove all the trees. that alternative combined element from the draft eir which deprive ted public from the opportunity of comment, the process was flawed. a june 21 which was the day before our hearing, court ruling ukiy citizens for safety versus versus the city of ukia supports our claim that we need a subsequent eir issued by the sf m,z ta, the failure to address many cqa

issues was triggered by the city's failure to choose an alternative with a less severe impact. the subsequent eir is needed to adequately measure, analyze and mitigate the full destructive impact of this project and the final new fact, the city must prove that they have the money for this project at least before they cut down all the trees as they said they were doing in october. they should not -- because they will not know how much money they might receive from the november ballot measure that has yet to be approved. they should not get approval if they don't have the 313 million dollars in funds. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening,

commissioners, thank, president honda and commissioners, i'm bob mace si with the county transportation authority on behalf of the van ness project, we request the board deny of the rehearing tree planting that was upheld before this board last month, contrary to appellant's brief, it was not based on any new facts but relies on factual and legal errors, the appellant raises 7 is use on their brief, number one, incorrectly stating additional sidewalk trees will be removed and replaced as part of this permit, only four sidewalk tree ares included in this permit and no further tree replacements are required fwr the van ness project, any further tree replacements mrb on a separate decision and the assessment of tree conditions, it's not information that the public works is considering these separate replacements as this information was include ined the dpw notices, discussed

in the appeal briefings and the appeal hearing last month. the appellant incorrectly stated the project's preferred alternative did not receive public review. the public review was described in detail including several public hearings on the locally preferred alternative. the time of the appeal decision to approve the project with the locally preferred alternative has passed. number 3, the appellant made various replacements that are not new such as the time of replacement term tos reach maturity or are incorrect. number 4, the appellant statement about bus stop changes on van ness are irrelevant to the tree permit. the bus stop changes are an integral part of the approved project, not a stand alone change. number 5, the appellant misinterprets a recent legal case to argue the project needs additional environmental review. the project's use of an

addendum is consistent with explicit ceqa guidelines on what type of review is required in this instance, this instance is very different from the fact ins the case cited by the appellant and it is not relevant. the appellant misunderstands the city's clarification that it falls under permit code 806 and not 810, the earl yapper appeal briefs address thirsted and the appellant had the opportunity to address it at the time. the appeal hearing was conducted improperly, it was conducted in accordance with all the rules of the board. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. buck, do you care to speak on this? >> good evening, chris buck with san francisco public works bureau urban forestry. i reviewed bob macy's statement representing sfcta and would concur with all of his statements that was just

presented to you. this original tree hearing was held on august 24th of last year, about 11 months ago, it followed our established process and all of our steps were adhered to. there'll really no information that wasn't considered at the previous hearing. kate mccarthy, the public information officer and other contacts at public work, she's with sfmta, several folks at public work, landscape architecture, bureau of urban forestry provided information over the course of nearly a year to the public about the project. it even included several requests for information including all files and e-mails. so, again, we believe the process was thorough and robust as is typical of our process and we believe that there's really no new information to consider at this point. thank you. >> mr. buck, sort of an

aside question, i don't recall in all the documentation that we saw related to the replanting plan and whether it's sequenced serially as the hard skaip and infrastructure is completed and not to wait then until everything is then before you come in and plant at one time? >> so, i believe i understand the question is about the planting plan and how would that happen, would it happen serially and i would probably have bob mace si or another project come up and speak to that. >> greetings, commissioners, my name is peter [inaudible], iem the sfmta project manager on the van ness improvement project. the -- part of the reason that the trees have to come

down early in the project is because the space is needed, it's -- the improvement project is a major infrastructure project, we're not only rebuilding bu rapid transit system but rebuilding all the watt and her sewer along van ness after. we need additional space to route traffic and keep van ness open while this work is going on, so essentially, since we're rebuilding the center of the street anyway, the plan is to take down the existing median and put down temporary roadways so that the infrastructure work can go on on either side to have street to accelerate the construction and minimize impacts. as soon as that utility work is done, we will move out of the scented of the street and build a new median and bus route anyways but that will be the latter third of the

project. >> there is no contractor in town that could build the entire thing at one time. they're going to work on it in sections and you're going to demolish everything at once and then -- >> the work will go on in sections but essentially the initial phase of the project will start -- well, the -- and the initial phase of the project would start at the project and move down the corridor dwards the other. we will be working with the neighborhoods and the businesses and other organizations along the van ness corridor to schedule the work, so to minimize the impact. for example, we don't want

to do a lot of construction in front of symphony hall during the opening of the symphony season, so that work will be scheduled to minimize its conflict with the symphony, the hospital project is going on also, so we're going to be working with them to schedule our work to minimize impact to that area as we proceed, but at a high level, yes, we're going to have two main construction headways starting at one part of the corridor, starting in the north of the core dar and moving south and starting in the middle of the core dar and moving south. we did consider the idea of building -- of trying to build the whole median but the difficulty again is there's going to be utility work going on on either side of the street for the first couple of years of the project and we really need the space to move trafficker in and out. the contractors are going to

come through the first sub coming through trenching followed by the sewer contractor running the sewer lines followed by the water contractor running the water lines, then a paving contractor will come in and pave that, that way we can begin moving traffic back to the outside but only then can we start rebuilding the middle of the lane or the middle of the roadway. we did at one point look at the idea of doing complete construction on a couple of blocks at a time, we went into a lot of difficulty widths traffic weaving in and out as we try to maneuver from the sent r of the street back to the outside back to the center demandbacker paneling where the construction is going on, so for the sake of speed and safety, we decided we would isolate sections of the road -- larger sections of the corridor for construction and put the traffic out of the

way of conflict for the construction areas. >> i hope yomore successful than the central subway. >> so do i. >> our term is up before they get to city hall? [laughter]. >> okay, we can take public comment. would anyone like to speak on this item, please step forward. and if you could line up on that side of the room, that would be helpful, those of you who are waiting to speak. >> okay, we're going the give three minutes to each speaker because of what happened with the late hearing the last time. >> correct. >> okay, good evening, members of the board of appeal, my name is robert bardel, i was here and testified at the last one, i should have a button saying i was there, and i have to say for the late hour, the appellants turned out an awful lot of people, it was

22, and that includes the bald eagle man, the defendant of the permit, we just had three, and i really believed that their arguments were given a fair hearing by the board of appeals and they don't have any reason to say that more like unconvincing arguments are going to be made more convincing by repetition, i don't think that's the case and i think you decided rightly and we should move forward with this, so do not support a rehearing. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> don savoy, i also was at the last hearing but i had to leave, so i was prevented from testifying for the project, so i can say the same thing that was said by the other side, i'm here to support the project, i'm looking forward to at least

it moving forward sometime in my lifetime, it's been a long time in the works, it's been many hearings, many discussion, the public noticing has been going on for at least four years that i can be aware of, so the last minute nitpicking over some things that have been discussed over and over again is getting to be a little frustrating for all of us who are work on the project. i'm on the community advisory committee on that project and i just think that the hearing that happened, you stayed up until 1 a.m. to make sure that you came up with a decision and i don't think there's any reason to question the decision you made, so thank you. er >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi, everyone, i'm sue see, i'm a resident of the neighborhood near the van ness corridor, i'm here just to speak in favor of the van ness brt project and by

extension for the removal of the trees, i think it's essential to get the work done in a timely manner and i'm excites about the new *f new tree that is are going to be brought in, more than two-fold are going to be brought in and we'll have a cohesive identity to the corridor that i'm excited about, so i hope you will support this project and reject the appeal, thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i'm peter strous from the san francisco transit riders, yes, we were hire until all hours of the morning but as someone else said, there were dozens of people who also stayed the course for that and i think you've heard all the material discussions on this. i don't think anything new has been introduced and i really think it's time to get on with this and i urge you to -- and as other speakers

have, i urge you to deny the appeal, thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> thank you, i'm mary miles, i'm an attorney for coalition for etiquette and view, i have commented on this project several times now. i do ceqa, nepa and other land use law, i do that every day and i'd like to think i know what i'm talking about. i've been to scores of hearings and i have never ever seen a hearing like the june 22 hearing before this board. i thought it was a -- appalling, the way the appellant was treated. i thought this board did not give process in any sense of the term as i understand it and i think it was a manifest in justice just the way the

hearing was conducted. i don't know how mr. strous and the others who have -- support and he iser work with mta on this project. i have no idea how they know what could have been said by the people who weren't able to stay until after midnight and i don't know how you can surmise what might have been said by them either. i think you need to conduct a rehearing on this to hopefully allow those people to come here and speak before this board. it's your job to hear them. it's the public right to be heard, to have the opportunity to be heard. that is manifest and justice, you have many new issues that weren't cover ined this request for rehearing. i strongly urge you to grant the rehearing. i heard several speakers

claim that there were no new items. the fantastic announcement that another 106 trees would be cut along the sidewalks is news, that's new information. all the items that ms. delbridge enumerated, that was all new information. as far as your ceqa issues, you didn't cover them at all at the june 22 hearing. you have issues, serious issues under ceqa that would cause all kinds of problems for you in a court. one of the problems i had there and continue to have is you allow city seemingly to have a parade of speakers that went on for an hour at

least while everybody else had to wait for their one minute. really, you need to have a rehearing on this. i think it was a travesty. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i'll start. so, after reviewing the brief and participating in that particular hearing which went to 1:40 i believe, you know, we do apologize that people have other plans, they have to go home, but all cases before us, they all have an equal right to speak as being part of the public. yesterday, me and several other of my fellow commissioners had a matter before the board of supervisors. i waited over three and a half hours, it was going to

be ten hours before i got heard. that was my option whether i wanted to stay or whether i wanted to leave. it was important to me but i left. i did have the opportunity to speak but it was going to be at 9:30 in the evening. i made that conscious decision of whether i was going to wait there for nine hours or not. i believed that to have a rehearing, it would be due to manifest and just, i don't see it here, i think that manifest and just is a high bar, i believe the information that was provided in this brief has been presented and vetted properly at the last hearing and i would not support a rehearing. >> i'm in agreement. >> i haven't heard anything new. >> so, that would be my motion to deny the rehearing? >> on the motion from the president to deny the

rehearing request, vice-president fung? >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> no. >> commissioner swig? >> aye. >> that motion carries with a vote of 4-1 and no rehearing request will be granted. next item is item number 7, appeal number 16-102, yemil rivera emmy versus san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry, 371 silver avenue, appealing the denial on may 9, 2016 of a tree removal permit, remove one privately maintained street tree and replacement of one tree adjacent to the subject property. and we will start with the appellant, you have 7 minutes. . erbacker >> i'm here again because i've been denied the removal of a tree, it was a city maintained tree which became -- it was given to the property owner, now, and first of all, i think that's

wrong. .it was supposed to be a city maintained tree, they never really maintained it. about six years ago, this same tree, the roots broke through my main drain and thank god it was city maintained because it was over 10 thousand dollars. i got reimbursed, but this is going to happen again. i provided some pictures where the roots are already raising the sidewalk and that's how it started the last time, and i really cannot afford this to happen again, so i mean, i'm asking that -- i first started asking they take the tree back and they said no, so my next option was, okay, i need to remove this tree. the other problem with this tree is that the branches, they are weak, it looks like a sick tree, and whenever there's high winds, branches break, they fall on a car, they recently fell the last time we had high winds, they

fell on my aunt's car, it broke the little side window, i replaced it, no big deal, but it could fall on a person. what am i going to do, you know. i need this tree to be removed so i'm asking to please allow me to remove this tree or if dpw claims that it's so healthy, why don't they take it back, you know, that way they can be happy and i can be happy. this is not a healthy tree. it was never healthy and it's just wrong just because they say, we don't have money to maintain it, we're going to dump it on the property owner, that's just wrong, that's trampling over our rights, they should have thought about a better way to deal with this, it's not right. i don't have the finances to maintain a tree, this needs to be pruned constantly. when it was city maintained, i used to call. sometimes they would come and prune it, sometimes they wouldn't, so it's really uir