[♪] >> good evening. welcome to the june 12th, 2019 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president rick swig is joined by commissioner anne lazarus, darrell honda and rachel tanner. at the controls is the board's legal assistant gary conterra. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board this evening. scott sanchez, aking deputy zoning add straight t administr.

representing the building inspections and leo pelios from san francisco public works. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board request that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows -- appellants each are given seven minutes to present their case and throw minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or three-minute periods. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to throw minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone. for rehearing request the parties get three minutes each and no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, 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. given that we have a vacancy on

the board, only three votes are required. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing the board rules are hearing schedule speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visits the board office. we're located at 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv cable channel 78 and rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. the video is available on our website and be downloaded from sfgov it v.org. we'll affirm all those who intend to testify. any member of the public can speak without taking an oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony weight, stand if you are able, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. so those people testifying please stand. do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth and the whole truth

and nothing but the truth. thank you. commissioners, we have -- please be seated. thank you. commissioners, we have one housekeeping item. this is item number 6, the parties have requested a continuance to september 11th, 2019. this is appeal 19-033. we request regard august protest of the issuance of a wireless service facility site permit for a facility at 2035 laguna street. because it was on the published calender we need a motion and a vote in order to move that to september 11th. >> so moved. >> second. >> so we have a motion from commissioner lazarus. any public comment? seeing none, on that motion, commissioner honda. that motion carries 4-0 and the item is moved. women now move on to item number

1. which is public comment. general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but it's not on tonight's calender. is anybody here for general public comment? seeing that no one is here for that we'll move on to item number 2. commissioner comments and questions. >> customers? anything? thank you, very much. >> we'll move on to item number 3. commissioners before you for discussion possible adoption or the minutes of the may 22nd, 2019 board meeting. adoption of the minutes. >> you move to adopt minutes? is there any public comment on that motion? seeing none. we have a motion from commissioner tanner to adopt the minutes.

so that motion carries 4-0. we will now move on to item number 4. this is say rehearing request for the subject property at 3751-3753 20th street. the a requester is requesting a rehearing decided may eighth, 2019. at that time the board voted for to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. the determination holder is justin mack bain and the project is to provide temporary shoring to facilitate excavation. in the permit at issue tonight is 2018-08177643. we will hear from the requester first. you have three minutes. >> good evening, welcome back.

>> here i am again. president swig, members period of timof theboard. i am here for a rehearing because i thought that the decision that was made four weeks ago was not just. i had asked to postpone the beginning of the excavation just a few months and one of the reasons was my small airbnb business, i had early in the year booked people until the end of august because i didn't know that this was coming my way. i had no idea. i would like to give these people a chance to get what they booked. a quiet retreat in san francisco. i know the construction will affect my airbnb business quite a bit. i had already a cancellation after i sent out a warning.

as i say before, the income is very important for me. i'm asking you to please postpone the beginning of the excavation until september 1st. the other thing that came out of that hearing four weeks ago was that the excavation will take eight months. the shoring engineer said eight months and if he says so, i'm afraid it will take even longer. it was also said that it's unusual to do this kind of deep digging in historic districts. i can tell you all the garages on my street and i live on 20th street, are accessible to street level. no one has a garage that goes deep down. let alone in a unit on top of that garage.

so, the construction i'm afraid will set a precedent for greedy developers and "the washington post" said the other day that the wealth train is steam rolling san francisco neighborhoods and already stopped there. you can imagine how i am dreading this. i am retired. i work at home. i write. to have this contract next to my house in front of my door steps, will be very disturbing. it's very detrimental to our health and it's been used for torture and all i'm asking you for now is to please have the developer build a sound barrier between the excavations and my

house. so please make my life a little bit easier for these years. i'm asking you for these two things. a sound barrier and to postpone the beginning of the digging. >> thank you. is there a representative for the permit holder here? >> welcome back. >> members of the board, i'm shane the architects for the project. respectfully the board has already heard a great deal about the project and acted on that three times already. this is the fourth time. if you have any questions about the shoring permit, the appeal i'm happy to answer. just to address a couple of things that were said, eight months duration for the excavation, these are hand-dug tiers so they have to be dug by hand bucket load by bucket load. the next is the house

immediately to the west of the subject property has an ex ka ratrateaanexcavated garage. there's many times to discuss the sound barrier but it's never brought up and this is the first time we've heard of it. >> it's eight months for the excavation, is that -- >> it takes a while because the tiers arefour-foot- byfour-foot- and you can't get machinery. it's one person passing a bucket up. it's very old school. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, did you want to add anything to this? there curin? is there any public comment on this item? seeing none. the matter is submitted. >> i ask the city attorney can remind us and the public what the standard of review for a rehearing request? >> let me find the rules so i

don't miss state it. >> you don't have that memorized? >> he wants to get it exactly right. >> i don't want to be wrong about it. here we are. we'll provide that accept in exn ordinary cases. only upon showing new or different material facts or circumstances have a risen where such facts or circumstances if at the time could have effected the outcome of the original hearing. another relevant provision is the failure to exercise due diligence to pro the new facts and circumstances at the previously hearing shalling deemed grounds for denial of the request. >> thank you. >> given that, and notwithstanding the appellant's hardships she will endure during the construction, i haven't heard new evidence that differenterdiffersfrom the prevd

this case so i would not be prepared to grant the hearing request. >> i also agree with my fellow commissioner. the bar for a rehearing is quite high and requires manifest and just i believe there's no new material brought before this board this evening that would meet that criteria. >> any comments? >> just moving forward, i agree with my fellow commissioners. i think personally i would speak for all of us. we understand the hardship that potentially exists. we understand the circumstances. it's not merit for a rehearing but we would ask the permit holder would be sensitive that -- the bad news is for you have to hand dig and the good news it's not going to require noisy, heavy equipment. at the same time, there will be disruption and if you can do

anything that is -- that has a reasonable cost to it, respecting your neighbors' privacy, we would ask you to do that. we can't order you to do that. it's common courtesy. we have to live with our neighbors. if you can do that, that would be great. there's no merit for a rehearing. someone would like to make a motion. >> i will make the motion to deny the request for rehearings on the ground there was no manifest and just. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to did not eye the request on the basis that there is no manifest injustice. on that motion, commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> tanner. >> aye. >> swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries 4-0 and the request is denied. we are now moving on to item number 5a and 5b. they shall be heard together. these are appeal numbers 19-036 and 19-037.

eliza nemser versus san francisco public works street use and mapping. we will hear from the appellants first. each appellant gets seven minutes and the permit holder will get 14 minutes given that they are responding to two appellants and we also will hear from the department representative. ms. nemzer, did you want to go first? you have seven minutes. >> good evening and welcome. >> um -- hi. i stand here today to appeal the march 2019 approval of a personal wireless service facility site permit at 2 gratton street. the facility does not satisfy the tier 2 compatibility standard. the permit was denied for that reason based on the determination in march 2018 by the planning department that recommended disapproval. and no relevant modifications

were made prior to a revised recommendation by the planning department to approve the permit in july of 2018. at the outset, i would like to state i'm not a professional paid attorney, i am a concerned citizen. i will make one statement about the public-healt public-health . i understand you have to look to be the fcc for health compliance standards. the fcc is doing you a disservice because they have not provided updated standards relevant to 4g technology. i reject the term frivolous used by verizon attorneys to characterize my valid and true spaced argument that the guide lins were established in 1996 before the development of 4g technology and there are no existing health protective fcc guidelines that pertain to 4g technology. in the department of public works brief they admitted the fcc standards are outdated. wireless antennas pose a non

zero increase in radiation exposure and a non zero increase in cancer risk. that i they pose an increase in that risk. the size is not well understood. i'm pointing out to you that these 4g sighting determinations are made to health and safety standards that are not relevant to 4g technology. and the fact that as pointed out by the verizon attorneys, they have been applied to the facilities for many years and does not make them relevant or health pro peck tive. i will spend the majority of my time addressing the non compliance with a tier 2 com pat ability standard and making the case the approval should be overturned. the march 2018 determination by the planning department raised three points of non compliance. the height. the addition of 10 feet to the 30-foot pole in an area where the surrounding buildings are 3.

the determination was made based on architec architect. on page 4 of the department public works brief they state, the planning department recommended disapproval of the application because in its initial plans verizon said the pole would be 42 feet 2 inches and they referenced verizon wireless plan dated august 2017. 2017. they go on to say the public works department disapproved the application and verizon wireless amended plans to reduce the height from 42 feet two inches to 40 feet and they referenced verizon wireless plans dated june 2018. this statement is erroneous and misleading. the designed reduction in height

from 42 feet 2 inches to 20 feet in fact took place before february 2018 prior to both the initial disapproval and the subsequent approval of this permit. to be clear, the march 2018 planning determination referenced architect actual plans dated february 2018 showing the 40-inch in height. and the july 2018 determination recommended approval based on architect actual plans dated june 2018 that also showed unchanged height of 40 feet. the height of antenna didn't change an inch only the language describing the surrounding buildings relative to the antenna which the buildings are 30 feet tall to quote structures usually do not exceed 40 feet in height. i will note that for some reason

and i think an error on page 9 of the department of public works brief they state the height of the antenna will be 3o plans referenced showing a height of 38 feet. i think it was an error. the determination recommended disapproval based on quote the size of the pole mounted equipment with the pole. i will show a comparison between a disapproved and approved plan dated february 2018 and june 2018 respectively and you can see there was no change whatsoever with respect to streamlining the cluttering elements. the march 201 2018 determination recommended disapproval. the pole itself isn't a historic resource but the building

adjacent is a historic resource. a crucial importance here the verizon attorney miss characterized the distance along belvedere street from where the facility would be visible stating it's setback from the corner of street and that's only visible for a few feet along belvedere street. i will show you a video it's visible. there's a big difference between a few feet and 180 feet.

>> i am south of the next with grass street and i'm standing in front of the address 466468 belvedere street. i can see the pole. i am on the sidewalk where i can start seeing as i walk north and i have my tape measure and i measured the distance over where i can still see the pole ace walk north. let's do that. i'm still walking along belvedere with a clear view of the pole. there's a total of 180 feet along belvedere street. from which i can see the pole in clear view. so walking along belvedere street. i'm at the intersection with greaten and north of the intersection and i am still in

full view of the pole. and i can still see the pole. you can stop the video, please. thank you. we will now hear from the next appellant. >> thank you. good evening and welcome. >> good evening. for the record my name is francis. also, a clarification for the record. is this better? >> i want to hear every word you say. >> yes, thank you. >> there is an omission in the brief foray peel number 19-037 submitted on may 23rd, 2019 on page six line 11 the number 456

was omitted and should be inserted between the numbers 444 and 460. this omission was unintentional. this appeal is submitted on behalf of the neighbors and friends of 2 graten street to rerequest the san francisco board of appeals deny permit number 17wr0285 due to the significant negative impact the personal wireless service facility installation will have on the charter and estheticses of the neighborhood. grattan street is a main walking pathway to a public school on the next block and a transit hub. the accessible street grade low traffic street without buses, sunny tree less, open space, serves as a front yard to locals of all ages at all times of the day and night. the proposed facility site on an existing wooden utility pole and an addition of a tree in the public right-of-way adjacent to two grattan street will obstruct

the views of the four residentses adjacent to the site as well as from the public right-of-way and it will diminish the views of seven residentses immediately surrounding and facing the proposed site at the t intersection of belvedere streets. this impacts street views of mount olympus, the interior greenbelt, the proposed facility with a support request box is hanging from the existing pole. the pole extension and antenna for the architectural plan dated june 19, 2018, plan a3 and a4 and referenced in the july 2nd, 2018 approval with conditions from the planning department will add unsightly clutter to the t-intersection of grattan and belvedere streets. the resources have gone into neighborhood beautification projects led by neighborhood residents since the early

1980s. these included undergrounding the utilities and adding vintage street light poles creating an open space use for neighborhood and community interactions such as the annual belvadere street halloween party. the existing pole is 30 feet in height and has no equipment boxes hanging from it or around it and for the architectural and they will be mounted seven feet to the height of 18 feet or a total of 11 feet of equipment. the equipment boxes will be up to 14 inches wide and eight inches deep. as a pole is on a slope downhill 30 feet 11 inches from the vintage street light pole on the grattan street corner the equipment box will be in direct side line view for pedestrians in the public rights of way along grattan street and the t-intersection of belvedere and the residents at the four units

residents in three of the four units both live and work in their units and will have to look at the equipment night and day. we submit to the board that installation of the same or similar equipment to the 2grattan location would degrade the efforts and resources that the community has spent to beautify and enhance the neighborhood. we submit to the board that this does not meet the standards of sleek, well designed and unobtrusive and have negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. this was distributed by the verizon c. b.r. group in december of 2018 and again in march-april of 2019.

this is an inlargement from the same item. you can see the equipment boxes along the pole. it will be 40 feet tall and hover over the three-storey neighborhood buildings, many of which are classic residents over 100-years-old, will lower property values in the surrounding neighborhoods. this is a picture of the square that is public square in the neighborhood. and here is a picture of the graten belvedere intersection and one of the events that is held there. the city has the legal right to deny permits based on aesthetic and based on the april 2019

california supreme court decision and clearly the verizon personal wireless service facility has currently designed for 2gratten street will significantly detract from the characteristics of this tier b zoning or planning protected location. detract and degrade the street views from the public rights of way and impact our public open space not in keeping welcome back b.p. w. order number 184504 regulations implementing requirements of san francisco public works code article 25. this site is located within the rh2 district. we hope the facility does not meet the requirements and policy 4.14 under the objective four of the general plan compliance one urban design element which states remove and obscure distracting and cluttering elements. the entire facility is distracting and cluttering. the proposed tier 3 is in a

public right-of-way in a residential zoning projected location rh-2 adjacent to 2grattan street. on a street with average street views. this week with the principle planner city wide planning division and the planning department the quality of street views map dates from the original urban design element drafted in the late 1960s and adopted in 1971. as far as it's known today the map has not been updated since it was originally created. so the map does not take into consideration neighborhood beautification projects in the early 1980s. the belvedere projects should be recognized today and not penalized by an out-of-date classification. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the attorney from the permit holder. you have 14 minutes.

>> our frequent flyer. welcome councilor. >> at this, paul outside council for verizon wireless. i will not need 14 minutes but i appreciate the generous offer of time. i have with me this evening representatives who can answer questions about rf emissions if you wish and we also have the c.b.r. group who has been working on this project actually since october of 2017. we do our best to try and not appear before you with contentious sites and i'm sure you know there are hundreds of sites that are being approved in san francisco without concerns being raised. and we have groups like c.b.r. and our own attorneys answering protest questions and trying to work with people concerned about the facilities to try and bring the best that we can in terms of facilities for this city. this particular facility has been in process for a year-and-a-half. i actually met with the planning group about a year ago, over a

year ago in order to talk about this facility and these types of facilities. these are different of course than the street light facilities. they're slightly -- they have a medium sized radio as opposed to the tiny radios on the light standards. they have a larger antenna and they cover a larger area. when we design the network, we design it in a way that use thee and minimizes the number of total polls and there's an extensive analysis for this particular facility covering several sites that arrived at this particular pole. as you heard, the other poles in this neighborhoods are ornamental, metallic poles that are not high enough or don't work for this so this is why we arrived at this particular location over about a year and a half period. planning was not happy with the design initially and they focused on the define are characteristics of the neighborhoods and the standard is this facility can't significantly detract from the

defining characteristics of the neighborhood. they focused on the height and so we did go back and we did c.b.r. work and able to reduce the height of the facility and we feel that is the appropriate characteristic we met. in doing so, that cascaded down to planning determination it did not block views, it did not impair other potential characteristics and that was over an extension an extensivee that we reviewed that. the question before you is did the planning department improperly determine that this complies with the department standards in article 25 standards and we think it did accurately did based on a careful review of the charter assessment of the neighborhood and whether this significantly detracted from the characteristics of the neighborhood. we hear a lot about clutter but clutter is not one of the characteristics of the

neighborhood. it's whether it impedes the pedestrian experience and in this case the design the radios are 12 to 18 feet in the air so they're above the pedestrian view line. the pieces that have to be below the level are the disconnect switch which pg&e requires to be between seven and eight feet and the meter that pg&e requires to be at that height so in that way we are minimizing any impact on that characteristics of the pedestrian access -- and that are pass blee cold so there's no noise.

these have been done in order to place these facilities in an esthetics manner in neighborhoods where we need to provide service in these residential neighborhoods. you heard about view blockage and i have to say, when article 25 was written, there was a question of whether we should protect excellent view streets, good view streets or average view streets. average streets were not included and so, average view streets are not part of a planning protected district. this is not a planning-protected facility as to where we look if we're blocking views of building lights or open space or parks, it's not part of the review that went into this by the planning department. planning department looked if it was a zoning protected district meaning it can't detract from the defining characteristics. there was discussion about view and the video that was being played was dealing with the view but it's not part of this particular review. to review aesthetics absolutely.

you review aesthetics within the confines of article 25 and it was article 25 upheld by the supreme court in t-mobile versus san francisco and the standards under that article 25. are there any appellant points. i guess i'm close by saying that the frequencies that are used for, and this is a 4g site. the frequencies used for 4g and 5g have been part o and so thata erroneous statement that it is not and the i.a.eee this year reaffirmed the standards within the last month and so it's constantly being reviewed by the agencies that advised the fcc on this issue and so it's erroneous to say that those technologies have not been reviewed and with that, i won't touch otherwise the rf issue and i think you are fully versed and it's when we show we comply it's not

something that you can make a decision on. there was a side comment about property values but that is actually the same issue. i think i have covered the appellant's concerns. we would be happy to answer questions and i'll come up on rebuttal. >> any questions? >> i have a couple. what was the original height of the pole when presented for permitting? >> 42. the pole was 30 feet going up to 42 feet with the bay inet mount and the antenna and extension bracket. they were actually able to reduce the size of the mount from seven feet to five feet. >> and then it went from 42 to 40 and 40 to 38? >> no. the center of the antenna is 38 and the bottom is at 36 feet. >> and then -- >> there's a bracket, a two-foot bracket that holds the cabling so you can't see it going into

the antenna and a five-foot wooden fold required by pg&e to separate the a antenna so a lineman can work there without being in danger. >> granted you did well explaining and answering the questions in your brief, one of the questions that was a risen in the brief, 4g and 5g, when this technology was involve devn 1996, it was only 2g and 3g. how can you say or how is it determined that it's 4g and it's still compatible when there's no new testing that's been done. >> sure. the gs are technologies. so you have radio frequencies that you send mobile phone call over. so 1g was analog.

one call per frequency. 2g was something called tdma or time delay. so it same frequency. same radio frequency but the call is every third bit and they're able to code the call and then your phone is able to pick up every third bit so they're able to get three calls per frequency. 3g moved into cdma which is code division access mobile access. and that allowed started with 20 calls per frequency because they used digital technology. 4glte service is a form of cdma or a form of code division that allows multiple sites to carry the same call on a phone call. 5g is another technology to use radio frequencies. the same radio frequencies to aggregate the amount of bands that can be september and received at the same time.

it's called multiple in and multiple out and that can accelerate by a factor of 10. each time we increase a factor of 1067 the data through put ane laten see which is the amount of time the signal has to go and come back. the frequency that is 5g, verizon and at&t bought 23 gig a hertz frequency but it's the same that's been used for a long time for microwave and many uses. that millimeters way of frequency already has established exposure guidelines. those established exposure guidelines go all the way back to 1996. so, the gs are technology. so sprint and t-mobile will use traditional cellular frequencies for 5g where as at&t and verizon

has purchased the new frequencies in order to provide the 5g and we have to buy the frequencies. >> that's why the phone calls have the phone line. and the other companies are using your previous lines and the technology and that is correct? >> in all fairness, te t-mobile will run it on 600 megahertz frequency. >> the other question is that -- >> sprint will use 2.6 gig a hertz which is the aws frequency. >> if there's constant checking on it, why isn't there an updated report since 1996? >> the fcc adopted the standard but they adopted a standard based on studies done bit aieee and the ncrs and so because the

fcc and they were revised by ep a and oscha and -- >> i understand that. we understand that 2020 new car probably has more technology and hope of thely is safer than something from 1996. but yet epa-dot tests they will regularly and gives out new reports. >> what i'm trying to tell you is the fcc hasn't opened information docket on the exposure limits and they put the standards themselves, not reviewed by fcc because they don't have scientists. they're using the aieee, which is the american institute of electric engineers to review the standard and they just reviewed the standard one more time and it came out in march and they confirmed the existing standard

so the standard is regularly reviewed. actually i've got -- >> you did better than your technology guys. i got it. thank you, very much. >> i really appreciate your time and i appreciate your interest. >> i got a lesson today. it's all good. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the department of public works. you have 14 minutes. >> welcome. >> hello. i'm leo representing public works. we believe that this permit was issued in compliance with the permitting procedures applied in public works code article 25 for personal wireless facilities. article 25 requires public works to refer wireless applications to the department of public-health and the planning department. both departments determined this application complies with article 25. the planning department is in attendance and can speak more regarding the review process if

the board has questions. the department of public-health is not in attendance but can take questions and respond through e-mail. thank you. >> thank you. >> they just passed the buck to you, mr. sanchez. >> welcome, scott. >> thank you. good afternoon or good evening. scott sanchez planning department staff. the proposal for you is a wireless permit facility and it was reviewed by the planning department. i think there are some questions raised about the planning department's require review of the permit. the result and the recommendation of disapproval. the property is located within a zoning protected location and it is not historic. it is not on a good or excellent street view it's an average street view so it's not subject to scrutiny under the public works code.

speaking with staff who reviewed all of the proposals here, they did state that the reason that the original application was denied was because of the height and the original proposal had over all maximum height of 42 feet 2 inches and a zoning district with a high of 40 feet. antennas can go a above the height limit but staff did recommend disapproval of that. the revised application and it's my understanding that was the result of staff working with the project sponsor and with city attorney's office and public works on alternative designs knowing there would be other similar facilities that would be coming about. they did agree on a revised design that had a maximum height of 40 feet resulting in different ways of achieving that whether it's replacement of the pole or in this case the final proposal is trimming down the height of the pole slightly and putting an extension and then

putting the proposed antenna and staff felt that complied with our requirements and then approved the revised. there are some issues that has been raised about the dates. my conversations with staff is that the reason for the initial disapproval was the height. i do note that the disapproval cited plans which had the lower height. i think that is correct as raised by the appellant. i think it may be an error on staff's part and preparing the disapproval letter. in the conversations that i had with staff, the reason was the height. the height has been addressed. the height has been lowered to the 40 feet and the staff then felt that was approve able but speaking with staff who did review and deny and then approve the applications, the difference was the over all height of the facility. that is all i'm available to answer any questions if you have

question. >> of course i have one. if it was 40 feet and disapproved and it was 40 feet and approved. kind of an issue there? >> staff's disapproval was based on a taller -- this is what i have been told by staff. their disapproval resulted from the higher project. i understand that the disapproval quotes plans that show a lower height but i think that is -- >> is there a date? if it was -- if the department asked the verizon to lower the height, there should have been a date of when that plan was taken in. now if the dates are -- if it pre dates their rejection and their acceptance, then, i don't see how that can work because they didn't really lower it if their proposed height is 40 feet. >> i can only re late to the board what staff has relayed to

me which is the basis of their denial. the plans were submitted before the denial. the plans with the lower height were submitted before the denial. it does show the -- >> they were denied on the 40 feet and accepted at the 40 feet. >> staff told me they denied it based on the higher height. this is what staff has related to me. those plans are dated february 7th, 2018. those plans actually do have the 40-foot height limit and that's referenced in the disapproval. but staff has told me that they're reviewing analysis based on the higher height and maybe they can -- maybe i misunderstood something in what was relayed to me. what i understood from staff was that the disapproval was based on a higher proposal and there was subsequent review and discussion and recognition that the lower height was approveable

under our standards. >> going through the brief it was confusing because that's what they had stated on there. maybe i'll ask the permit holder. >> the board can make the decision they feel is appropriate and it's up to the board whether it complies with the standards. >> thank you. >> a really fundamental, silly question. who is going to measure the pole? >> who is going to measure the pole? >> it would be the permitting agency would be responsible for in surinforin suring compliance? >> what wrong with 38 feet? >> that can be problem for the project sponsor to address why 38 feet may or may not work for them. it might be a separation. they've lowered it to the -- understate law they have a separation between the power line and the antenna and i think that this is the minimum they can have. i don't think that 38 feet bob

allowed. >> so the 40 feet was not arbitrary it's really a metric which is created by the distance between the power lines and the equipment? >> it's my understanding they trimmed it as much as they could and still in compliance with state law and that's what we have in the current proposal. >> that is a 40-foot height limit in that neighborhood? >> it is. the planning code antennas are allowed to go above the height limit. >> there's reference in one of the appellant's materials about the surrounding buildings that ararethree-storeys and 30 feet . >> i can take a look but not off the top of my head. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on these appeals? please approach.

>> i put my name into talk. >> this is the time. >> thank you. >> how many people are here for public comment. can you raise your hand? so everyone has three minutes each. go ahead, sir. >> i moved in the neighborhood 41 years ago. at the time, there were few trees. there was electric polls all over. everything was there. i went through the neighborhood and i got a petition by everybody to sign and we all signed it and we planted trees. i went to the regional council and got pg&e to put us at the top of the pin line to put the s underground. and then the city was putting the lamp post this is and we didn't like the lights. there's overhead lights that go like this so i collected $200 from all the neighbors, some gave me a hundred dollars. some gave me nothing but we paid for the city lights. we paid for the lights.

these lights you can see here -- you see the city lights. turn it like you are looking at it yourself, sir. thank you. all those lights were paid for by the neighbors. not by the city. what they're doing with this new pole is they're taking our neighborhood that we spent a lot of time trying to change and they're trying to make it trashy again and put the overhead lights. there will be another one that comes on because they're only a block or two away now. there are plenty of poles and electricity lines and they can put their pole there and you will get -- nobody will object to putting it on parnasis because they're already there. this is a street with nothing on t the people have paid for it. i've lived there 41 years.

i've collected the money and only a letter from, he is probably retired by now from mre person, the one person that required because it didn't cost $200 per person and i give them back $6.93 he asked for his money back. that the $200. i am asking you, please, don't take the neighborhood back to where it was with overhead wires and everything else. these are not overhead but it's just the beginning. please consider our neighborhood and keep it the way it is. thank you, very much. >> thank you. 41 years, huh. short timer. >> i was in the marine core, i was a short timer in the marine core. >> thank you. >> next person, please. >> thank you for your time today. i want to make two points.

overhead, please. the first is that the applicant has gone out of their way to misrepresent certain things about this antenna. this is the diagram they provided to the neighborhood to show the height to try to make it look like it's really no taller than the existing old pole you just heard about. but taken from a different angle, you can see the old light pole and the new pole so it is already significantly taller. they didn't want to represent it that way because it doesn't help their case but this is the true reality of what we're going to see. additionally, in fran's communication, she said that the lowest box would be at 5'6". the lawyer for verizon and their brief said no it's going to be seven feet but i can assure thaw i measured today and the top of those three reflective stripes is 5'3" so the bottom of that is 5'6". they misrepresent sented that.

in their brief, they talked about two boxes you can certainly see there are more boxes on the pole than that. i don't think they want the truth out because they know the truth doesn't help this antenna permit. now more importantly, there's been some discussion about what type of street this is on. this is the city's -- can you zoom in on that, please. this is the city's map that shows good, excellent and average streets. there's a -- there's a red circle around the intersection in question. and there's a little bit of glare there but you can see that neither belvedere nor grattan is a good or excellent street. it's rated average. have you been to belvedere street on the commission? trick-or-treating. so this is what belvedere street looks like. can you zoom out now, please. so this is what the city is claiming is an average street according to that map and from what we've heard today from a couple different people, the fact that the street is not good or excellent is one of the key

things that the city relied upon in approving this antenna. i don't know how that's possible. here is nearby parnasis. it's rated good. if anyone looked at the pictures, they would say i would prefer to live on belvedere bele street. so i urge you to think about this. to regular the city map is outdated and it's significant strength of the argument that the applicant is based on is the fact that belvedere nor grattan are rated good or excellent but if the city updated those maps, they both would be good or excellent. excellent for belvedere and this antenna would be denied a second time. i urge you to make that choice. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> thank you. >> thank you folks for your time. i appreciate it. very briefly, i would just like to take a moment to respond to some of the comments from the verizon council who in response to mr. honda's question about health and the differences between previous generations and later generations of wireless taught us a lot about frequency. i would just like to point out that frequency is not in fact the issue at hand. power density is the issue at hand when it comes to -- if we can activate the overhead. as this commission approved its final determination .5 which is highlighted here. i know it's difficult to read on the screen.

verizon wireless should be aware that the general public may have concerns about the an ten r.f. source near their dwellings. verizon wireless should have a procedure for taking rf power density levels in nearby dwellings when requested by the members of the general public. so that is in the final determination that you guys issued and i just wanted to point out the prior discussion about frequency is a bit of a red herring. what i would also like to share with you is that. >> mitch: nammy name is adamandt immediately above. although i agree 100% with all the of the comments made previously, i would just like to take one moment to share with you an image from the interior of my unit. this is my bedroom. you can see the place where the

pole is outside of my window that's about 15 feet from the pole to where my pillow is on my bed. and this is the view out of that window that the addition of equipment such as this on that pole will be a significant detraction from the over all anesthetic qualities of the view out of that window. again, that's the current view. and this is the additional equipment that would appear on the pole. i do believe that the aesthetic changes that this introduces us to the neighborhood are significant detracting factor, especially for those of us who work from home and are there most of the day everyday. thank you for your time again and i appreciate your services. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else here for

public comment? seeing no more public comment, we will move on to rebuttal. we will hear from ms. nemser first. you have throw minutes. >> thank you, again. just spend a moment on the f.c.c. regulars. i'm not sure if you are aware in 2018 there was an f.c.c. order that allowed them to by pass state and local authorities when citing these facilities, these small cell facilities. this is a brand new untested technology. it's obviously a newer generation of older technologies. it's a new and untested technology that uses a new part of the spectrum. there is legislation in the federal government right now to overturn the 2018f.c.c. order. it's representative from california who has a bill called accelerating wireless broadband

development by empowering local communities act. it calls for overturning the f.c.c c. 5g order and overturn the regulation that's allow the f.c.c. to pre-empt local rules and governments in the deployment of these facilities. there are a ton of signa tories over 90 local government officials who have added a letter of support including our mayor. mayor breed has added her name to a letter of support for this legislation. i'm aware having spoken with staffers that they are also supporting this legislation and preparing to drop a senate version of this bill to overturn the f.c.c. order. also, the nrdc has challenged the f.c.c. in court and i was actually in d.c. to hear the oral arguments in the court of appeals. they are challenging the f.c.c. order on the basis of the fact it was a