number, would this number show up anywhere? >> i've never tried that, to be honest with you. the building permit, we would use our permit tracking system and it gives you a permit details report. i have never seen them show up on a permit details report from our permit tracking system. the only time i've seen it is on an actual permit tracking system. i imagine it would show up on the receipt, probably would show up there. but the permit, anything that is on appeal is done by permit application number, is your number. i'm wondering how we got this appealed then, if it's not an actual permit number? >> well the permit was done through the application number, as all of them are. >> and that's standard, all the

fee permit application numbers. it's confusing. i'm always wondering why we have a permit number and then an application number. it's something i have never liked as well, to be honest, but sometimes people will reference that and you say no it's the one that starts with a year that is the actual permit application number. >> okay, thank you. mr. teague, do you have further information for us? >> i'm sorry, for further clarification, i think part of the confusion, it may be challenging without the screen, the appellant uses the other

number also titled permit number. here is the permit number which is really more of the receipt number and here in this corner, you could see is where the application number is listed. so i think that's where the confusion came between what was actually being appealed and why it was listed that way in her actual written statement. >> thank you. >> we are now on public comment. there's no rebuttal. public comment on this item? 5a? seeing no public comment, commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president f. fung: gentlemen, ladies?

>> are we reaffirming our position, we're not from the last hearing and have to support -- i'm looking at our city attorney. >> commissioners -- >> i want some instruction, please, sir. >> sure. my advice would be, if you want to have a discussion whether there could possibly be the votes to grant the rehearing now -- what i don't want to have happen is for you to deny the rehearing because you would lose jurisdiction over this matter. >> can you please -- i can't hear you. >> sure. what i would want to avoid happening tonight is for you to deny the rehearing because then you would lose jurisdiction over the matter in order to enter findings. but if you wanted to have a discussion now to gauge support for possible regranting of the rehearing, then the findings wouldn't be necessary until the rehearing actually happens.

if you want to determine whether there are four votes for granting the rehearing, that would reduce any risk associated with the prior decision not having any findings to support it. does that make sense? >> president f. fung: i think commissioner swig's question was related to the first item whether we are willing to schedule a hearing to adopt fiendings. and the purpose of that is to provide greater detail versus the oral comments that were made at our hearing previously. >> yeah, so if i were to make a motion to have a rehearing to adopt -- >> 5a regards direction and preparation of findings to support the prior decision.

>> right. so someone help me with a motion in that direction, please. >> i have a question. >> i have a question for the city attorney. the permit holder i brought up at the appellant numerous times had entered in her evidence that she used a different number. is that an issue at all at this point? >> i don't see it as a legal issue, no. >> i'm just going to state. i'm going to oppose a motion to call for findings because i was the lone vote on this anyway and i still am very concerned that we upheld a variance, denied a rehearing on the variance request. we got plans that conformed and then we said no. we gave ourselves another bite at the apple, which i don't think is appropriate and i

don't remember that precedent. >> and i will concur. i voted for the variance and voted against it on the last hearing, after hearing the information before me. it's very rare this board overturns after a site permit has been done. and i am with commissioner lazarus as well. >> does someone want to make a motion? >> i will make that motion knowing i will probably get defeated. could somebody please give me some language for that motion? which is to have a hearing to develop -- >> [off mic] >> correct. >> i think the motion would be you move to direct the preparation of written findings to support the board's decision from the march 7th, 2018 hearing. >> that sounds like a perfectly marvelous motion to me. thank you. you are so good at that.

vice president. >> okay. let me interject, the vote required for this is a majority vote. >> vice president swig has made a motion to direct the preparation of written findings to support the decision made at the march 7th, 2018 hearing on this matter. president fung? >> president f. fung: aye. >> commissioner lazarus? >> no. >> commissioner honda? >> no. >> commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> okay, so we have three votes. and that means that the motion passes and to direct the preparation of written findings. so we will be in contact with the parties. you will have an opportunity to

comment on the propose findings prior to their proposed adoption at a subsequent hearing. so given that 5a has passed, we will not consider 5b at this time. so let's move onto item 6. this is appeal number 17-193. concerning the subject property at 566 29th avenue. anthony tam versus department of building inspection, respondent planning department approval. protesting the issuance on november 27th, 2017 to steve huang of the site permit, 2 story horizontal a decision, total addition 689 square feet, interior remodel at second floor and third floor add a

second unit to the existing building x application number 201308235160s for further consider today. february 21st, 2018 the board voted 4-1-1 commissioner wilson absent to continue to the appeal to march 7th 2018 to allow time for the planning department to verify what plans were sent to the neighbors as part of the neighborhood notification mailing. march 7th, the board voted 5-0 to continue this appeal to april 11th to a time for the permit holder to submit revised plans reflecting the elimination of the 4th floor. commissioner wilson was absent. did you have the opportunity to review the video and the materials prior to the hearing tonight? >> [off mic] >> i'm sorry? >> [off mic] i am ready. >> thank you.

president fung, i believe has set the order, or the time is three minutes for each party. the permit holder, since he is submitting the revised plans, he can address the board first, please. >> if you could identify yourself for the record and speak in the microphone. >> my name is john long, i'm the project architect. i just wanted to give you the copy of the letter we submitted which basically addresses issues that you would ask just to address. specifically we have removed the entire fourth floor in the living space in this building. that includes about 386 square feet of interior living space,

rear balcony and railings. >> excuse me. did you provide a copy of this for the appellants? >> i have a copy for them. >> why don't you give them a copy before you finish your presentation. >> sorry. sorry about that. we have moved an entire 4th floor. 386 square feet of additional

living space. restored to the current building profile, the profile remain the same as existing. the former fourth floor space has been converted back to attic, storage, mechanical space, the staircase leading up to the fourth floor has been removed and replaced with an access hatch in the ceiling of the third floor. i believe these changes are exactly what you asked us to do. we did submit them in time for planning and d.b.i. to review them. >> thank you. >> president f. fung: and you are requesting, should the board accept these, to grant you a special conditions permit? >> yes. thank you very much. >> okay. now we will hear from the appellant. anthony tam.

>> i know he just gave you the drawings. do you need a little more time? >> yeah. >> why don't you take the time. we will hear from the departments first. >> president fung, commissioners, cory teague from the planning department. i have had a chance to review, it does appear to remove the fourth floor as directed by the board and otherwise appears to be consistent with the planning code. >> quick question on that. just to confirm that the other floors remained exactly the same? >> correct. the massing, those levels stayed the same. >> no comment from commissioner

duffy. >> president f. fung: mr. tam, do you need more time? >> yeah, is that okay [off mic] >> president f. fung: okay. perhaps we should -- >> take a 5-minute break? >> president f. fung: take a 5-minute break. >> okay, welcome back to the regular meeting of the board of appeals. today is april 11th, 2018. and we were on item number 6 on the agenda. we were giving the appellant time to review the newly submitted plans. mr. tam, are you ready to address the board? >> president f. fung: please come forward.

>> for the record my name is vincent tam, i'm the son of anthony tam who is unavailable to make it to today's meeting. so good evening, president fung, commissioners. for the 5-6 minutes i was able to review, i still want to fight for the rear because, as you can see, there's a large gap for the neighbors property right here. so the neighbor is free and clear of any air quality and privacy. but on this side, we have no privacy. but the neighbors do. i feel that's not fair to us and i feel like maybe they can do some revision and make it equally fair for both sides. judging from the space right

here. i'm open to any comments or questions. >> president f. fung: thank you. >> okay. is there any public comment on this item? okay, being none, the matter is submitted to the board. >> president f. fung: commissioners? >> i think the project sponsor has responsibly made the adjustments that seem to be the major issues under consideration. >> i'm in agreement. in reviewing the drawings, the issue that the appellant

brought up tonight, the same issue they had brought up previously, i think we took that into consideration regarding the pattern of buildings and thought it was a reasonable compromise to remove the fourth floor. >> i'm in agreement. >> we should make the motion, if you want to. >> move to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the adoption of the revised drawings under special conditions, showing the removal of the third -- fourth floor. and dated april 4th, 2018.

>> okay, on what basis, president fung? >> president f. fung: on the basis that the reduced volume of the building is in greater context with the existing neighborhood. >> okay, thank you. president fung has made a motion to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the plans submitted by the project sponsor, reflecting the changes requested by the board, elimination of the fourth floor. those plans are dated april 4th. [please stand by...]

>> i'm going to say a few things and pass this onto my attorney. for the record, i want to mention for the past three years i've been recovering from a brain hemorrhage, due to stress and this is causing problems in my recovery. just want to proceed now. the photos from crown counsel of the cell tower do not show a clear picture of the equipment being mounted to the poll. can you see these? ok.

this doesn't beautify the city. it's detrimental to the city. this proposed cell tower goes up on the street, it's going to ruin my neighborhood. there has been numerous polls. this is making me consider taking my family and business out of city. i read that it comes under the federal guidelines where the telecommunications industry and it's no concern, health hazards. i read that cancer rates increase with people living

close to cell towers. who am i supposed to believe here? i can't take a chance with my little girls. if there was an option to put this somewhere else away from homes, i think they should do this. i'm a native here, business for 30 years, i'm on the verge of leaving if this goes up. i don't want this in front of my house, my little girls, 9 and 12, i can't have a chance five or ten years from now they get cancer. i can't take that chance. i just can't. so if you can help me out here, it's greatly appreciated. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, president fung and commissioners, i'm appearing

on behalf of the appellant who resides at 759 second avenue and owns the building adjacent with his family at 765. and so the proposed cell tower would actually be adjacent, right in the middle of both properties that they owned. i'm sure that you've had an opportunity to read the briefs prepared by crown castle and dpw. i have to note for the average resident, the playing field is not level as you heard from a prior appellant a little while ago. the process is daunting. the legal costs to seek review of arbitrary decisions made by large corporations can be exorbitant. in the case of crown castle and dpw they've had the benefit of having legal counsel throughout the process, where as mr.

daigian was only able to recently secure counsel. he hasn't had the opportunity to scrutinize if all the requirements have been met through the process. i'll note that one of the area residents who will speak later today receive an incomplete package and what i believe would be a defective notice. crown castle and dpw, they cite article 25 of the public works code, telecommunications act, which relies on very dated scientific data, the adverse health impact to frequent exposure. and they can pride themselves on advancing policies that serve the residents, however because telecom companies have spent

millions of dollars lobbying congress to adopt federal laws that allow them to install devices with minimal restrictions, it may be detrimental to residents both financially and with respect to their health, without any recourse. with a mission of serving the public interest, i ask you to examine the policy implications of capitulating to every demand without considering the impact on our residents. we contend that the character of the neighbor won't be impacted is erroneous, but i need to point out a couple of additional factors particular to this application. one is acknowledged by crown castle and city employees on numerous occasion, the primary purpose of the installation is to provide better service in

golden gate park, why install it in front of several homes impacting residents, when that's not the intended target. for some reason, and what appears to be largely cost saving measure, rather than installing it in the park or adjacent to it on fulton street further away from homes, where no residents have to suffer, constant around the clock exposure, they opted to save a few dollars by installing it directly in front of my client's two properties, where he, his wife, two young children, tenants and neighbors reside. if i could have -- >> 30 seconds. >> another issue which doesn't seem to deter the telecom companies is evidence that property values could be negatively impacted by 20% or more. so that's something else to bear in mind. in conclusion, i appeal to you, no pun intended, to respect the rightful concerns of the daigian

family and their neighbors and deny the issuance of this permit. thank you so much. appellants also get rebuttal. >> thank you, now we can hear from the permit holder? good evening, i'm martin fineman and here to speak to you on behalf of the permit holder, crown castle. as you know, this is a challenge to a permit that was properly granted for a wireless box permit to install a personal wireless service facility on an existing pole on 2nd avenue in the richmond district.

this particular facility we're talking about tonight is part of the network that was designed to provide improved voice text and data services in the area. including the park. these services are vital for personal business as well as emergency services, and will improve those services in the 2nd avenue area as well as a portion of the park. just in terms of further word about the description of the facility at issue, both in the papers that were submitted by the appellant and again this evening, you heard reference to this being a tower. i want to stress, this is not a tower. there is no tower involved here, this is simply adding some equipment and a small antenna extension on an existing utility pole, there is no pole being added and there is certainly no

tower at issue involved in this whatsoever, it's just a little bit more equipment on a utility pole that already exists precisely for utility and structure purposes. there is a process for the wireless box permits as this board well knows and it was followed very carefully by the city, and by my client crown castle in connection with this application. the application was submitted containing all the necessary information and it was reviewed carefully by the planning department, the department of public health and by the department of public works and approved. proper notice was given and both posted and mailed. and in fact, those who opposed it had the opportunity which they took advantage of to have a protest hearing where the evidence was presented and the protest was denied and the approval was upheld.

these wireless box permits are governed by article 25 of the san francisco public works code as well as by federal law that relates to wireless telecommunications facility permits and the review that this honorable board undertakes in connection with this is quite limited in fact. i would just like to stress or remind that under article 25, the review here is simply whether the final determination in this case by the department of public works was correct under the provisions of article 25. and it was. and no argument has been presented in writing or verbally tonight otherwise. the appellant raised three issues on appeal. he actually labelled them as four, but two of them were essentially just recasting the same argument, so there is really three issues here. the first issue that the appellant argues is that the planning department, they assert

inkrthly found this installation does not meet the compatibility standards or is inconsistent with the neighborhood. the planning defendant did its review of the application and determined this facility fully meets all compatibility standards and is consistent with the neighborhood. in fact, this facility was the product of discussion and negotiation with the planning department, with the city, which resulted in the approval of this facility, which in fact was a reduction, very significantly in size and bulk from the original proposal. in addition, i would just stress, and this is something that the appellant has ignored in their submissions and again tonight. the planning department added 16 conditions to the approval that directly address esthetics,

compatibility with the neighborhood, all the issues mentioned by the appellant. and crown castle has accepted those conditions. and just very briefly, crown castle was required to and has -- is abiding with removing certain cabling and other equipment that was already on the pole in order to address any concerns about compatibility and esthetics. they've agreed to plant a street tree which will be a lovely addition to the street and neighborhood. they will not add any exposed metering equipment. they will paint the equipment to match the existing pole. they will stack the equipment as closely as possible. they will reduce the visibility of any screws or bolts or seams or anything of that nature. and they will not use any

flashing lights. it's a much longer list and i'm not going to read it all off to you, but these are conditions imposed by the planning department directly to address the issues that appellant has raised, but has not addressed the existence of these conditions. appellant doesn't address or even mention these. appellant also makes the suggestion that the wireless facility, they believe, will be placed in the park, however, we presented evidence, exhibits attached to our briefing, that is simply not possible. i don't know where they get this notion it was somehow a cost saving measure. it is simply not possible. the recreation and parks department has jurisdiction over placement of any such facilities in the park and they have taken the position they will only allow at&t and no other carrier

to place their facilities in the park. appellant next claims that the photo simulations that were attached are incorrect or somehow intended to deceive. they simply are not. appellant's only support is a photograph they took of some other facility in some other place. the equipment in our photo simulations is exactly that, a simulation of the exact equipment that would be placed. in fact --... [bell ringing] that was submitted by the appellant shows a facility only partially constructed. in one sentence, if i could. there were arguments made this evening about radio frequency emissions. federal law says that cannot be taken into account, so long as there is compliance with the

federal standards for rf emissions. the department of public health -- >> that's more than one sentence. >> i'm sorry. >> councillor, i have a question? could you put on the overhead what the pole looks like now and what it will look like. maybe that will give the gallery a visual. >> yes. at the top is existing and the bottom is what is proposed. >> ok, thank you, counselor. >> i had a question. the alternatives that were

shown, all focused on the north side of fulton into the richmond area. couldn't one alternative have been the south side of fulton adjacent to the park, and wouldn't be in the park? >> i'm sorry, yes, that falls under what i said earlier. that part of fulton falls under the recreation and parks department jurisdiction. they will not allow us to do that. >> that's golden gate park, this is a city street. not park and rec. >> maybe your technician wants to come forward, please? >> with your permission, dovetail on the question, what other sites in the neighborhood were considered that were less

obtrusive and more acceptable? please. >> please identify yourself for the record. >> government relations for crown castle. first i'll address the south side of fulton. when we submitted this project to public works, we designed it on poles on the south side of fulton, on the sidewalk, thinking the same thing they were in the public right-of-way. we were advised by public works and planning those were in the jurisdiction of recreation and parks and we would not be allowed to attach to them. we looked at alternatives on the other side of fulton and on the side streets up the streets, and i don't have the specific alternatives with me, but -- >> it was in the packet. >> in any event, we tried to pick the poles that have the best scenario for being able to shoot into the park to provide additional coverage there and

had the least impact in the neighborhood. >> there was a second question. >> that was covered. >> what were the specific alternatives that would have been -- what were the specific sites which would have been the alternative to this site? >> i don't have the specific sites with me tonight, but we look at every pole in the vicinity that allows us to provide the coverage. so they're eliminated for multiple reasons, sometimes it's a structural issue, sometimes they're overcrowded and we try to pick the one that, as i said before, would work for us to add the equipment to and still achieve coverage objective. >> thank you. >> is there someone from the department of public works here? my name is amanda higgins, from

san francisco public works. we believe this permit was issued in compliance with the personal wireless service facility permitting procedure defined in article 25. the department of public health confirmed this facility would be in compliance with the article 25 public health compliance standard. the planning department found this project complies with the compatibility standards of article 25. based on this, public works issued a notice of approval which notices were mailed and posted by crown castle. protests were heard by a hearing officer at a public works hearing. following the hearing, the director of public works granted the permit and notice of this determination was distributed to the public. and this is actually crown castle's second proposal for a

wireless facility on the utility pole fronting 765 2nd avenue. on may 12, 2017, public works denied crown castle's original permit application, 17-wr 011 because the planning department found that proposal would not meet the article 25 compatibility standard. crown castle then redesigned the proposal and filed a new application. and the planning department determined that this new application complied with the tier b compatibility standard so public works continued with the permitting process that has led us here today. the department of public health, and the planning department prepared talking points. >> ms. higgins, the one that was originally denied by planning,

was that the one on the south side of fulton? >> so, no, actually the one that i was referring to earlier was for the same exact pole. and i -- >> i see, i remember reading that. i wanted to make clear that didn't relate to park and rec. >> ms. higgins, who has the documentation so we can see it's documented as opposed to hearsay on the placement of the pole on the south side of fulton? >> we did receive a permit application from crown castle. i don't have the number here, the e-mails with me in which public works stated that was under rec park jurisdiction, but that did happen, so we told crown castle at the time to contact the recreation and park department for that proposal. >> i would like to see that.

i think it's very important that you present that as evidence to this board as opposed to some arbitrary hearsay or somebody tells you, no, that belongs to park and rec. i would very much like to see the statute. i'd like to see the official paperwork associated with that, please. because i don't think that's it's fair to the neighborhood for us to accept hearsay. and what i'm getting here is somebody at park and rec said to somebody at dpw, well that's park and rk rec. that's not good enough for me and i don't feel good about that. unless the city attorney has that. >> this is a question really for the permit holder, but there are e-mails exhibit 4 to the brief

that with rec and park, you might want to ask the permit holder if there was any in that exhibit? >> president fung, commissioners, department staff. i am joined this evening by our wireless facility planner ashley lindsay and her supervisor, and ashley will speak to the item. thank you. >> good evening, president fung and commissioners, i'm ashley lindsey on behalf of the planning department. as amanda mentioned public works approved application, subject of an earlier application that public works denied. on may 11, 2017, the planning

department for a personal wireless service facility permit at the same location. planning determined that the proposed equipment was too massive in size and created unnecessary view obstructions per plans dated march 6, 2017. crown castle then revised the plans and submitted the present application for a proposed wireless facility on the same wood pole which planning determined was a significant improvement over the initial design. the proposed application are approximately half the side and width and depth than the units proposed in the prior application. and the antenna would be mounted on top of an existing pole. the proposed wireless facility would not obstruct view or light into residential windows and not detract from the defining

characteristics of the residential zoning district. for these reasons, planning found that the proposed wireless facility met the zoning protected compatibility standards. planning reviews each proposed wireless facility site permit application on a project by project basis. to guide esthetic review for article 25, planning relies on article 25, the planning code and general plans. planning applies to these design guidelines in a uniform manner when providing recommendations to public works as to whether the applicable standards have been satisfied. it meets guidelines and satisfies article 25 compatibility standards. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. >> thank you. >> we will -- is there any public comment on this item? please.

you'll get rebuttal after public comment. if you could line up on that side of the wall, so we don't block access. thank you. >> good evening. i live on the block. >> your name. >> anail, 708 second avenue. i went through the e-mails between city officials and crown castle. i've been trying to e-mail the city officials for two months. my first question is, why are you putting this in the neighborhood when the express purpose of this is for the golden gate park? two, i asked the same question that commissioner swig asked? what about the south side? nobody gave me a straight answer. that was first thing. and when i looked through the

e-mails, i found how responsive they were to crown castle. it was as if we, residents don't exist for these people. the e-mails were responded to within 10, 15 minutes. i would e-mail them and there would be no response for a month. that's point number one. point number two, the intense interest in the e-mail exchanges in what they call the shot clock, and that is the fcc regulation that i read, which gave them a certain time to prove it and they were trying to push these approvals just to meet the short clock. one instance, and this is important, they didn't even do a sound study on this. and three, they called our site a problematic site. this is between crown castle and the city officials, they're calling us a problematic site.

this is not something they should be saying that sort of derisively. there was no study done, and there is no justification for them to approve this. i hope you guys take this into consideration. we are residents of the city. and we deserve the city officials working for us, not for the corporations. thank you. >> who did you e-mail your questions to? specifically? >> this is a public e-mail request to mr. weinberg, i don't know what his name was, request for public documentation of all the e-mails between crown castle and city officials. i don't know if all of them were sent to me. >> hello, i'm mike sizemore. i'm engineer and scientist and i

fricking love science. and i'm here to calm your fears about the radiation coming off the cell tower. >> can i just say -- >> no, you're done, sir, thank you. >> you're done. >> i brought something that is more dangerous than the radiation of the cell tower. i brought it for us all to see on the projector. it is orange. you're lucky i didn't bring a banana that has four times the potassium that lets off more than what is emitted by this cell antenna. i want to calm people's fear. i live on treasure island underneath a cell tower. i deal with this all the time. i've researched well the radiation on treasure island, coming off the radioactive deposits from the old navy base and the cell tower and these

things are not dangerous to us. they're not dangerous to the human body. the radio frequentry waves are too long to excite the atoms inside human cells. the radio frequency rays are been an inch long. it's not small enough to focus in on the molecule size of the atoms to disrupt the dna. >> that's wrong! >> excuse us -- [interjections] >> if you want cites from the american cancer research organization, there has been no documented case -- there are very, very loose documented cases of effect on cancer from radio frequency. the only documented case from the american cancer society has been a study where mice and rats were tested over the course of

two years. the only population to see a change in physical attributes was the male mice. and they actually showcased longer livelihoods than the male rats that did not get exposed to radio frequency. we need to support science. this is a time science is not supported and i'm here to support science. i love it. i want to support our culture. we use these towers to make our grid more sustainable. we use them to make society healthier and live more prosperously. so please support the installation of this as quickly as possible and not give advantage to at&t by making this a cumbersome process. >> i have a question, sir.

>> for -- >> excuse us, will you call the sheriff, please? >> sure. >> i'm asking this out of curiosity, not because i think it's pertinent. but the studies that you talked about, has there been sufficient amount of time to study this? >> i think that's the biggest qualm about the whole thing, there has been multiple studies, it's fairly hard because there is turnover in the types of technologies that get implemented, so we're moving from 4g to 5g, the explanation is 5g is safer, but the longitudinal study we've seen is a pregnancy study, so kids that were close to cell towers were -- the mothers were

documented across those -- >> how long of a period? >> it's just -- it was a nine-month period. >> that's not long. >> well, the thing is, we don't have -- >> you've answered my question. >> thank you. >> the study was three years. >> thank you. >> hello, my name is jason anderson and all the studies that my neighbor has shown me, over the course of ten years, the gentleman who just spoke said wasn't true. i'm not here to talk about that. i have no knowledge about radiation or the fcc. one of the people who spoke earlier did say there is sort of rush that is happening on the permits. and just to underscore that, after the permit was halted, i came home to find men installing the device after it was

supposedly put on hold. i told them the permit had been put on hold because of the appeal and asked them to stop work and they did not stop work. my main point for coming today is to show you the notice. the notice on the screen is a notice i was sent on 11-2 -- >> overhead, please. >> telling me about the tentative approval of the application. i want to draw your attention to the fact that -- i assume what i received is the same as what my neighbors received. if i turn the page to the actual drawing, you see here a sheet index, indicates there should be six pages. what i received was page 1. and page 3. i did not receive any of the other pages sent to me and i believe none of the other neighbors received it either. i responded to this by saying i did not think there was enough information in here for anyone to make an educated decision on

whether or not this permit should be granted. as you can see here, there is little documentation about dimensions, size or bulk of equipment on this pole. as a result, i submitted my protests and i believe that this packet which was sent to me is intentionally deceptive showing you pictures and angles which obscure the nature of the equipment, if you go to look at it, admittedly other sites, you will see there is a tremendous amount of bulk, or other cabling and excessive additions to the pole that are not described in the packet that was sent out. and is not documented in the materials sent to us. >> thank you. >> hi, my name is ben .

i'm here to speak in favor of this cell tower. sorry. so site on a pole. so, i've spent a lot of time in golden gate park throughout my life. i used it to a lot. i was there pretty much every day after school, throughout high school, training, and frankly, the cell service in golden gate park was iffy and still is. and for that reason, my parents were uncomfortable with letting me go to the park, especially during the winter when it got dark earlier, because they were afraid if something happened i wouldn't be able to get in touch with them. this is sort of a common thing i've heard from friends. i have a friend who commutes through golden gate park on foot. and she does not walk -- she has

to leave work earlier when it gets dark earlier, because she doesn't feel safe in the park. part of that is there is spotty cell service and if something happened, the likelihood of being able to contact police or ambulance is low. i have many friends. i used to ride bikes quite a lot. i have many friends who have gotten into accidents and when that happens, you're at the mercy of either a passerby who is willing to walk to find signal to call an ambulance, or to find a car to transport you to hospital, or you're at the mercy of someone who happens to have at&t and their cell service provider, which is frankly, ridiculous. i was just talking to a resident of the bayview district two weeks ago and she was complaining about the fact that her neighborhood has extremely spotty cell service. and she wishes that she had the

opportunity to have more cell sites in her neighborhood. i think you know, it's sort of silly that people are now opposing cell service especially for a space that is public space. you know, golden gate park is an important part of the city. there are lots of events there. all year round. and so i think having it being like a cell dead zone is -- in fact, they bring in temporary cell installations when they have big events, but not everyone makes as much as money and can pay for the temporary cell installations for their events. i would encourage you to continue this approval and thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> hello, my name is nick. i live at 4th avenue in the

richmond district and i go to golden gate park just about every day. the cell service is already kind of spotty there. and cell phones are becoming more and more important in our daily lives. they're important for coordination, navigation, and transportation. just getting around. so i ask you to please approve this antenna and get it up as soon as possible. a couple of months ago i had to call 911 from within golden gate park and i was fortunate enough to be in one of the areas where the call went through, but if i was over by the horseshoe pits, it could have been a bad situation. i want to acknowledge the is at the time tick concerns, but i ask you to balance that concern with the utility that thousands of people will get in the park every day by having the antenna.

thank you for your time. >> president fung: thank you. i'm here to speak in support of the wireless facility. i haven't had a home phone in over 15 years. this is what i use every day. and many people like me use it every day. my generation depends on reliable mobile service for work and play. for emergencies, to connect with family and friends, to make last-minute plans to enjoy a day in the park. we need reliable mobile service to do that. everyone i know has a mobile home. it's vital to ensure we have quality access to mobile service. god forbid i'm in a bike crash in golden gate park, or witness a collision, i w