good evening and welcome to the june 13th, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. board president frank fung will be the presiding officer tonight. he is joined by commission eee

ann lazarus, commissioner darryl honda and bobby wilson. commissioner rick swig is out today.cbobby wilson. commissioner rick swig is out today.obobby wilson. commissioner rick swig is out todambobby wilson. commissioner rick swig is out todambobby wilson. commissioner rick swig is out todaibobby wilson. commissioner rick swig is out todasbobby wilson. commissioner rick swig is out todasbobby wilson. commissioner rick swig is out todaibobby wilson. commissioner rick swig is out todaobobby wilson. commissioner rick swig is out today.commissionbocommissioner bobby wilson. commissioner rick swig is out today. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board requests that you turn off or silence phones and

electronic devices. please carry on conversations in the hallway. and excuse me, if you could keep the door clear. we need it clear for fire code reasons, thank you. the board's rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders and department respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttarebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone. you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forums on the podium for your convenience. if you have questioning about requesting a re-hearing, the board rules or hearing schedules, please speak to the board staff on a break or after the meeting. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv, cable channel 78 and will be re-broadcast on

friday's at 4:00 p.m. on channel 6. dvd's are available for purchase. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordnance. if you wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, stand if you are able, raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in and affirmed. do you swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. okay, we will now move on to item number one which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but that is not on tonight's calendar. please take a speaker card and line up against the wall. anyone here for general public comment? you need to come up to the

microphone and identify yourself, please. david on general public comment. i have an appeal pending that's kind of been in limbo for the last couple months. i am attempting to meet with dpw and pg&e to resolve it. i am working on that. since i have not been here in a while, i just wanted to appreciate the good work that cynthia did. i communicated that to her privately, but i wanted to say so publicly and also appreciate the good work that julie has been doing along with gary and the rest of the staff. finally, if i could inquire, i note that there are a number of us here on different sides of 7a and 7b. if you could give an estimate of when that might be heard so that we can plan our evening, that would be excellent. that's the last item on the agenda. it just really depends on how quickly the other cases are going forward.

at least a couple hours? well, i understand that one case may be withdrawn, so we'll see. all right. thank you very much. hello, thank you for the opportunity. stop me if this isn't within the subject matter. trees, there's trees, those huge big ones that are totally overgrown and they don't get trimmed. i input the request. it's actually very dangerous. one fell down on the car and the other one is blowing in my window glass, old glass under which i sleep. i'm inspiring those tree issues to be taken care of. it's actually very dangerous. thank you. you might want to state the location that you're speaking about. 646 laguna. those huge bushy trees that get overgrown. 646 laguna. thank you. any other general public comment? please approach. okay, you'll have your time

later. any other general public comment? i'm here for item 7. but i've noticed that we have great emotional interest in these things. i just want to thank you for your service and being able to compartmentalize. thank you. seeing no other public comment, we'll move on to item number 2. commissioner comments and questions? i'd like to congratulate the warriors. [laughter] two, our new mayor, london breed. here, here. thank you. any other commissioner comments? no. okay, is there any public comment on item number two? seeing none, we'll move on to item number three, the adoption of minutes. before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the june 6th, 2018 meeting. any corrections or

additions? move adoption. okay. is there any public comment on that motion to adopt the minutes? seeing none, on that motion. [roll call] that motion passes and the minutes are adopted. we will now move on to item number four. this is appeal number 18-053. the subject address is 685 northpoint street. this is the mirkovic royal thai spa versus the deputy of public health. this is dph hearing case no. msg 18-02. we do have some objections that have been lodged. i'm representing the

appellant, royal thai spa. i might add that this place is located at 685 northpoint. excuse me, sir -- can we have a point of order before we start to the actual case? do you have an objection that you've raised? thank you, mr. president. we did have a couple of objections. for the record, can we clarify the time that we need if you're gonna give them. three minutes is fine. three minutes. the objections, principally. speak in the mic, sir. we believe that dph used a 16 page brief instead of a 12 page brief. they apparently had two declarations. one of them wasn't an exhibit. i think as an after thought, they included a second decoration as an exhibit to get around the 12 page limit. however, you look in the actual brief itself, the brief does not reference any exhibit, it just references the declaration

of jorge. we also have an objection in that it is a fake declaration. every first year law student knows that at the end of every declaration is the statement, "i declare under penalty of perjury that the fore going is true and correct." sometimes i see in administrative law, not so much in superior court because the judge will take your head off. you see a lawyer who has some doubts about the credibility of the declarant, so they will misplace this phrase i just told you and put it at the top of the so-called declaration whereby the declarant is declaring that the caption and the asset are correct and not the body. this is what the case was in this declaration. for reasons i don't know, could have been an accident, but i've

never seen it happen before in a long time. he put that key phrase at the top of the statement to make the declaration totally meaningless. i made a timely objection because i was afraid that the board would read that and get a false impression. also, that declaration itself is referenced 18 times by the brief filed by dph, when makes it also the declaration and the brief, both fake, contaminated, tainted and fake. thank you. okay. i think you've asked the question whether this conforms to our rules. when i looked at the case, i noted that the brief was seven panls t. proof of service was one page and the declaration was four pages, a total of 12.

the others were listed as exhibitss t. proof of service page and the declaration was four pages, a total of 12. the others were listed as exhibitsas t. of service was oe page and the declaration was four pages, a total of 12. the others were listed as exhibigs t.n of service was one page and the declaration was four pages, a total of 12. the others were listed as exhibies t. proof of service w one page and the declaration was four pages, a total of 12. the others were listed as exhibits. p of service was one page and the declaration was four pages, a total of 12. the others were listed as exhibi. proof of service was oe page and the declaration was four pages, a total of 12. the others were listed as exhibitsproof of service was o and the declaration was four pages, a total of 12. the others were listed as exhibits customarily, we don't count the declarations as part of the page limit. good to know that.part of . good to know that.the decle page limit. good to know that. would you please note that that is not a true declaration, it's a fraud. you've brought that point. it's in the record. do you want to start your case? we represent the appellant. i just want to state from the outset that this particular establishment at royal thai spa is located at 685 northpoint in fisherman's wharf. it's a very well known establishment. it's been in existence now for eight years.

it's licensed by the department of public health. and at no time during the eight years that its been in existence has it ever been used as an outlet for sex trade. nor has there been any finding for human trafficking, nor violation of human rights, nor elicit of prostitution activity. i just want you to be aware of that. there are two minor violations that occurred on february 23, 2018. one of the violations is that at about 9:25 p.m. on february 23 this year, the department of public health conducted an inspection. and it's alleged that the front doors, double doors were locked because the business was still open as an establishment having customers on site. we submit that that's not true. and we submit that if you look

at exhibit f, we will show that the evidence by these exhibits, exhibit f is a posted sign. it's been the custom and practice that this sign is always on the exterior of the door. and it lists the hours of operation. and the hours of operation on the 23rd of february on a friday evening are from 10:00 in the morning to 9:00 p.m. the place was closed prior to 9:00. it was closed about maybe ten minutes before 9:00. the raid that they conducted was at 9:25, 9:26 p.m. that's listed as exhibit f on our brief. exhibit j, which is item number two. it shows that about 8:56 p.m., the appellant will show you

exhibit j. there was a male who stood outside requesting if the place was still open. the massage establishment. 8:56, he was turned away and told by the receptionist that the place was closed. play that. excuse me, for the people by the door, can you move away from the door? for fire code reasons, thank you. the video captures a male standing outside, a very large male. and he's requesting if the place is still open. that was about 8:56 p.m. exhibit g which is attached to the appellate's brief captures inside of the establishment at about 9:24, 9:25 p.m.

there's a female, you can show that on the video. she's in the office area. and she's reaching into her purse and she's reaching in to pull out some money to give a t tip. and you'll see her leaning towards the front door of the premises. contrary to what the investigator put in his declaration that that lady appeared to be reaching into her purse, pulling out a debit credit card. drawing the inference that he wants you to believe that this lady was arriving at the establishment after hours with a locked door at 9:25 p.m. in hopes of getting a massage. that's not true. the place was closed and she's

leaving. that exhibit g is a photo of what was depicted on the screen. and she's wearing a black down jacket. it's play that?

and that student had been instruct ed as a trainee to clean the oil off this individual, which she had done. if you look at one of the exhibits, the photographs there, you'll see that she's exiting that massage room. at no time was that student providing a massage. the point of this is issue number one is there was no violation of 29.31-g of the health code. that door was locked and it was

locked just before 9:00. i submit there was no violation of that code section. item no. 2 is whether or not an unlicensed massage practitioner was present on the premises at that particular date and time. and i submit, and i'll be short on this, there's no evidence any massage practitioner at 9:25, when they conducted the inspection, had been present on the premises that was hired by the establishment, nor contracted by the establishment to provide massage services. there was a trainee on the premises, her name is annie. your time is up. time is up. finish your last statement. there's lack of evidence to establish that this trainee had been compensated, paid for my massage service at that establishment at that

particular date and time. you'll have more time in rebuttal, sir. okay. i have a couple questions. so, in your brief, you said that the officer rifled through the front counter and went on the computer. you actually have footage of that as well? we have footage of that. he not only went into the office area, he ordered a receptionist to leave behind the counter -- can we get that on the screen? there's a computer to your left where he's bending down. that's a computer that he --

okay, and then the next question -- you can turn that off, sir. he not only snooped into it -- the next question i have, s sir, is in regards to there was a calendar brought up regarding times and fees for massages that were done. i think that's page five of their brief. how do you respond to that? commissioner, those are minutes, not dollars. hold on one second, let me find that again ch. they're the minutes. 60, 30, 90 minutes. they're not prices. commissioner, i just wanted to point out you mentioned on the computer. there was a computerized document that was downloaded and he took pictures of.

the cold requires reasonable inspections during reasonable hours. this was after hours when doors were locked. that's fine. thank you, counselor. i'm gonna direct that question to the department as well. thank you. okay. thank you, you can be seated now. thank you. we will now hear from the department. good evening, i'm anne pearson appearing on behalf of the department of public health. tonight you're gonna hear from two dph staff. as you hear from them, when they arrived at the establishment, the front door was locked even though customers were inside on the massage table, were inside paying for massages or tipping people by their own admission. the massage parlor was open so that these things could occur. you'll also hear from them that when they asked the people on staff to produce their massage practitioner's cards, none of them had them so they were not produced. these were unlicensed massage

practitioners. these are not the establishment's first violations. it's in, fact, the fourth time they've been found to employ unlicensed massage practitioners and the second time they've been found to have a locked door in just a matter of months. the suggestion that the woman was found leaving a massage room with a client on the bed while she was a student is just not credible. what kind of a school instructs people without an instructor anywhere on the premises. as you'll hear from the investigator, this school bears no resemblance to any of the legitimate schools he has inspected. but even if they are operating a school, and even if she was a student, they are charging customers by massages given by students, making them massages for compensation. we know that. by their own admission, they said somebody in that video was tipping somebody. and the customer who was photographed on the massage bed told the inspectors he was charged about $60. these are massages for

compensation that require a licensed massage practitioner and there was no one on the premises. let me now turn to inspector flores. good evening, i'm senior inspector flores. i wanted to mention that royal thai has a long history of using unlicensed practitioners since 2011. and this is the fourth occurrence of using unlicensed practitioners. this is also the second occurrence of having the exterior doors locked during operating hours. i was one of the inspectors who conducted the inspection on february 23rd. and when we did arrive, the neon sign outside was lit and it was open. so when we buzzed in, the receptionist opened the door for us. so when we entered, i preceded towards the right and we examined the room and i noticed

that the practitioner came out of one of the rooms. when i looked inside the room, the customer was still laying on the bed with a towel or linen over him. so i don't think he was finished at all. that same customer eventually came out and i overheard him saying that he was charged about $60 for the massage. and that is consistent with documents that we saw on site about $60 for maybe a thai massage or aromatherapy. the practitioner who came out, i asked her for her massage license and she did not have one at that time. and during this whole time, there was no licensed massage practitioner on site.

good evening, my name is jorge. i am an investigator with the department of public health. and i was one of four investigators present that night on february 23rd, 2018. we conducted an inspection, a follow up inspection because of a complaint regarding unlicensed massage practitioners. we observed a brightly lit sign that showed that the premises was open. we attempted to open the door, but it was locked, so we knocked on the door. it took a while for the receptionist to come. we told her what we were doing. we came in. two inspectors went to the right and one to have the left. i was called to the location where the two senior inspectors were to photograph that there was an unlicensed practitioner conducting a massage. so i observed that coming out, i took a picture. and then i observed a customer inside the premises receiving a

massage. i asked him to put his clothes on and identify the person that gave him the massage. he stated that the -- the person that gave him the massage. he pointed at her and we later identified her. i would also like to state that the area where the office is is very narrow. you can only fit one person. i observed the receptionist deleting what she had on the screen. i asked her to come out so i could photograph what it was in plain view. i photographed everything, all the documents that were on top. and we normally photograph the ledger. we presented that evidence to you. and it's very common for us to do that, whatever it is. the ledger, the name of the

practitioners, the license, the permits we photograph. we do it in every inspection. i would also like to state that i know there has been a question whether this is a school or not. i have inspected schools and i have never seen a school where they don't have an area for lectures. they don't have any instructors. we have twice that we've been there in the last year. we have never seen anybody either with a license, a certificate or somebody identifying themselves as an instructor. thank you very much. thank you. you still have 48 seconds. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay, we will move on to rebuttal. we will hear from the appellants. you have three minutes. thank you. the customer that was lying on the bed was not getting a

massage. he had entered the premises at about 8:00 that evening and his massage had been over with just before dph had entered the premises. there's no masseuse therapist in that room. annie p., i won't pronounce her last name, it's really long, was the thai student who was just left that room under the guidance of an instructor that told her to wipe off the oil and the lotion that was on that customer. that's why you see the customer depicted in the photograph fully clothed. he'd been wiped down. i don't think they've established that this annie p., this student had been compensated or hired or contracted by the establishment. as far as the delayed entry by the receptionist, that photograph that was played

earlier that you saw in the video, the receptionist immediately responded to the front door when they saw dph try to come in. at that point in time, you saw an elderly lady, blond haired lady leaving at the time that they were there. there was no delayed entry. this establishment is legitimate and does not have a long, long history of violations. the prior violation that they referenced was one that occurred back in october. and that was a confidential settlement that the establishment reached with dph and they were informed it would be confidential. and they did not contest it, they were fined and that was the end of it. the two issues here are the ones on the locked door and whether there was an unlicensed practitioner on the premises providing a massage when the

owner should have known that and that's absolutely not true. is there something you want to add? real quickly, for the purpose of this impeachment of his testimony and so-called declaration, you get the impression he's an expert on massage schools. in fact, he touted the world school of massage and holistic healing arts. i did an independent investigation today and found that that school has been denied. if you can give that to the board, that would be great. thank you. we will now hear from the department. i just have to say i think this story that the massage customer is lying there having just received a massage from a student who was instructed to remove the oil is just incredible. it is incredible that that scenario would have occurred. that the instructor would have given those instructions and

then left the premises. in fact, we haven't heard from her. she could have come today. she is, i believe, one of the owners of this establishment but is not here today to tell you the story herself -- or has not chosen to tell you that story herself. but even if it's true, even if it's true, we have ample evidence that there was massage for compensation. the man on that table said he paid about $60 for the massage. we also have a videotape of a woman tipping somebody while the establishment is open. so i think there's no question that there was massage for compensation at a time when there was no licensed massage practitioners on the premises. i do want to say that i think there is an extensive history of these violations. this would be the fourth violation of using unlicensed massage practitioners. the most recent one was only a couple months prior and it was the subject of a settlement. it's not a confidential settlement. there are no such things. these are documents subject to the sunshine ordnance. thank you. i have a question.

are you finished? yeah. there their brief, they indicate that he testified or gave testimony that there was five so-called unlicensed massage practitioners dated 10-18-2017. but the settlement agreement only indicates two. can you explain that? i don't recall how many there were. i'm not sure if i was even involved in that settlement. well the reason why is they gave testimony at the hearing that there were five. if it was two, then it was false testimony. i don't know how many there were. maybe you can ask your staff right now. i can ask them. i will say though -- why don't you ask your staff first. okay.

good evening. for the record, what we normally do is let's say we identify five individuals that are there for the reason to provide massage. but in order to be fair, we only site the ones that we can -- that we believe we can bring a case to a hearing officer and 100% prove that were giving massage. in this case, we have two customers actively giving massage. even if we identify five, we only site two. okay, so the question i had is why would you state that there were five unlicensed practitioners when you're only serving two and you only have evidence of two. well, we believe there was five because in our interactions we say, what are you doing here. they're saying we're here to give massage. even if they were not actively

giving massage, we're only gonna site two even if we i.d. five. okay. i have two more questions. the other question is in their statement, it indicated that you don't have an environmental health specialist credentialing. what is the difference between having that and not having that? well, the difference -- i don't know if you want me to address that or the director? the director can probably -- good evening, i'm patrick, director of the environmental health branch. the registered environmental health specialist is required for certain inspection positions that we have in our branch. if, for instance, you're going to be an inspector of a food establishment or housing, you're required to have this certification to do that.

they have requirements around education and experience. so it's not required? it's not required. his designation is a 6108. 6108's do not require that certification. thank you for clearing that up. is he allowed to go on to the computers of the business? yes. what they're tasked with doing is in a very short period of time, sizing up what is taking place in these massage establishments. typical typically, what we will do, is take photographs, as he indicated, of open computer screens which quite often have ledgers that have the names listed. they said he went through the computer, not just what was posted on the screen. i think that was alleged.

he did not -- is he allowed to do that? he would not have downloaded information off of the computer. okay, and then the last question according to their brief, despite multiple detailed and documented complaints over approximately the last 18 months to dph environmental health director stephanie cushing -- what are they talking about? what alleged accusations are they talking about? i'm not sure. can you repeat that. that was kind of a lot there. yeah, sorry, hold on here. despite multiple detailed and documented complaints over approximately the last 18 months to dph, the environmental health director and deputy director about his alleged false testimony and declarations, unauthorized

negative referrals to camtc. can you go into detail what those allegations are? so, the camtc is the state organization that licenses practitioners here in california. san francisco dph can do that as well. but if you want to practice massage throughout the state of california, you need a cmtc practitioner permit. requirements to get that are very similar to what we have here in san francisco. but it is a separate license issued by the state of california. we don't have jurisdiction over that license, the state does. so if during the course of an inspection we came across a cmtc certified practitioner, massage practitioner and we found violations that we felt they were liable for, we would make a referral to the state and it's up to the state then to determine whether or not they want to take action, conduct an investigation or

whatever they want to do with that. so it wouldn't be unusual for him or any of the other inspectors following an inspection where they found violations to have taken place or following a director's hearing where a finding of liability is found to make a referral to the cmtc if those licenses were held by the state. so you're not aware of any outstanding complaints against the inspector? no, i'm not aware of any outstanding complaints. thank you. i have a question for ms. flores.

did you check all the other rooms? yes, we did. there was nobody else on the premises? no, sir. thank you. i'm sorry, who was the lady in the black puffer jacket? was she the cleaning lady? she was the one who claimed that she was the cleaning lady, yes, sir. in the black brownish uniform jacket. the girl with the black

down jacket in the photo. the one in the photo was a brownish shirt jacket and she was the one who claims she was a cleaning lady. no, i'm talking about the black down jacket. oh, that must have been investigator christina lee. there was four of us. she was at the front. it was a customer. okay, all right. okay, thank you. if i may say one last thing, i appreciate that businesses probably don't like inspections and maybe don't like the inspectors who conduct them, but their treatment of mr. monteil has gone too far. they had on their web page a page that impersonated him, that had his picture and his credentia

credentials. but this attack on him has just gone too far. are you finished? thank you. commissioners? i haven't heard anything or seen anything that attempts to document that this is a teaching establishment. it was hardly even addressed during the presentation. and that, to me, is the crux of it. there's two issues, the locked door and the non-licensed practitioner versus the school issue. we may never know what the school issue is.

it will take longer. it will take longer? yeah. okay, then i will withdraw the appeal and let the process take its course within the

department. okay, and the department will act expeditiously, as i /assume. i'm gonna move to continue this for one week. is there any public comment on the motion to move this for one week? seeing none on that motion, commissioner lazarus? iowa -- aye. commissioner honda? aye. commissioner wilson?

aye. good afternoon president fung and commissioners. i'm in front of you today to let you know that verizon and the myriad subcontractors that they employ, perhaps unbeknownst to them, improperly put forth their case to attain a tentative permit for the cell phone tower to go up across the street from my house at 443 haight street. we thank you for your service and for taking the concerns of

the residents seriously. this permit should be denied for three reasons. the first, notice was faulty and ultimately given in bad faith. second, inadequate consideration was given to historical preservation. third, the bad faith, the shoddy paper work, the complete lack of interest and outreach to this very day points to an unreliable partner in verizon. we know that you have heard a lot of these cases and more are coming down the line. this is not a frivolous case. we have lived here for almost 20 years and have worked hard to make the 400 block of haight street a better place. notice was not given to tenants. article 25 states that notice must be given to any person

owning property or residing within 150 feet of their proposed location. this was not done. only property owners were given notice. oh, we have an exhibit. if we can turn mostly to the exhibit and not to me, that would be great. this is the exhibit of the owners who were notified. the vast majority of people living in our neighborhood are renters. yet none of the tenants that we spoke with received any notice. notice was not given to the neighborhood association

there's another exhibit there for you. it is not reasonable to expect lawrence lee to fulfill his duties if correspondence is not properly marked. notice was never posted to the actual location of 443 haight street. nobody ever saw it. the affidavit of james boyer dated 12-21-17 states only the vicinity of 443 haight street. the ordnance requires this notification to be posted at the actual site. finally, notice was not timely. when the department of public health came out in january at our request and not before, as referenced in the materials given by verizon, we were told that notice should have been given when the process was initiated in august. we should be entitled to rely

on the department of public health's considerations. there are two separate documents to review here, both provided by verizon. the first is a document that allows verizon to ignore any considerations. please note that the address and cell phone tower to which this waiver sits along is empty. it is not clear to the naked eye or even to the iphone zoomed camera who this person is, what they did or how they determined that these two boxes should be checked. what is clear is that if the person who signed the waiver relied only on the photograph taken by verizon, they would be sorely misled. the photo deliberately seems to obscure the fact that there are three victorians in a row

directly behind the proposed cell phone tower. the angle of verizon's photograph does not show the three historic pre-earthquake victorian styles. let's dig a little deeper into this thorough review that the various apartments and consultants hired by verizon did to -- was 1 hour and 45 minutes. those are often in 15 minute increments. we were directly informed that

we were the first people to request review of the site and to ask for readings. in conclusion, it's not possible to exempt the site. it's also true that dps did not visit the site after the tentative permit was approved. the full effect of studying verizon's work is that there is no there there. thicks have come to light, even since filing the appeal. we now understand the permit has tried directional instead of bydirectional. and there's no possibility of you not hitting a window if you're tridirectional. how can we be confident this antenna will be installed and operated correctly?

that it will not be directed at us. that is the question squarely before you. is verizon free to ignore the already minimal notice requirements, we think not. if i could finish, i ask you to deny the permit or alternatively that virus be required to start the project from beginning. give everybody, renters and property owners, the required notice. not in the dead of night that is the week between christmas and new year's, post notice in the proper way at the site itself, engage in outreach with the community, come to a meeting. planning should come to the site and look at the pole and the surrounding pavement. look at the stand of victorian houses and decide whether or not the exemption is actually warranted. this is a very modest request. ma'am -- we're asking for a fair,

methodical and transparent process. you'll have three minutes in rebuttal. thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. good evening, outside counsel for verizon wireless. thank you so much for taking the time to review our presentation in this appeal. once again, verizon wireless has been working diligently on this project as it has with all of these wireless facilities over the last three years in san francisco. and we take every step of the project extremely seriously. from noticing to emission studies, to our analysis of which poles to select to the photo simulations that we provide. all of it prepared to the potential that it may be evidence in a court case some day. everything that we do, we try and cross every t and dot every i. with respect to the issue of

notice in this case, it's clear that the lower haight merchants and neighborhood association received notice. two of the protestors who filed a protestors are members, a member at large and secretary of membership for the people who file d. they clearly asked and got an excellent review by the department of public health of the current status. in fact, virus went beyond required notice by putting a sticker on that said verizon wireless, wireless facility, time sensitive, open immediately in order to call attention to the fact that this is an important notice. article 25 says owners or

tenan tenants. this went to owners. every post down the block has a notice on it so that people see it in addition to the poll that is to have the facility. the poll has the notice, not the address. we used an address that's an proximate location of the poles because the poles don't have an address. this is really the only article 25 issue before you today. whether this was properly noticed. we think that the evidence clearly confirms that it was properly noticed. the other issues raised about verizon wireless and the veracity of verizon wireless and its consultant and so forth don't fall into the article 25 decision that you need to make. the department of public health did a careful review of the emissions document provided by

our registered engineer. bill is here again to speak to the actual emissions from this facility, which are extremely low, once again, like all the other facilities. the department of planning, i think, gave a very thorough review of how this complies with their general plan concerns with respect to this facility. the department of public works issued a brief and made it very clear that they filed all the requirements for the approval of this facility. we do everything we can to make sure that we've crossed every t, dotted every i. come up with an acceptable design that's approved.

there are other issues that were raised by the appellant. there's a condition of approval of facilities installed. there's be post installation testing and that any neighbor can request post installation testing.right-of-way.

>> two are activated and then you'll review if you look at the department of public health we're required to go back if ever that