up a lot of my time this particular building. all of the issues around the building, the effect on the commercial corridor. the issue of vagrants outside, everything. i am excited that we have an adaptive reuse. i think this is beautiful. to your point, commissioner moore, i quickly googled the star aquatic and fitness facilities in saratoga and was pleasantly surprised at how affordable membership is. in fact a little more affordable than the ymca. i live - and you know, as you guys have heard, numerous times i got a bunch of kids at my house, it is such an important part of our lives to be able to go to the pool, to have birthday parties, too, you know, have a place. i cielo my neighbors there. it is great. and then we go out to lunch, you

know, outside and, you know, around the neighborhood we walked there. i think this can be very positive. it meets some of the same things that made neighborhood theaters great. which is to have an entertainment that is family-friendly that people can go to and see their neighbors, the kids can play together with the other neighbor kids. i think this is a win-win. i am sub - excited to support it. i am impressed by the design. i like the skylights that let the light in. i think all of that is a good adaptive reuse. i'm happy to support it. >> i can understand the community may be disappointed of not having a theater as it was discussed in 2011. when the building has been standing that empty for that long, i'm getting very nervous about its future usability. i, unfortunately, witnessed the ill use of the

theater which is an outstanding piece and it really doesn't carry in this particular case. i think we have slightly more options for a more sensitive integrated use and for that very reason i will support it, although i am sensitive to the questions raised by the public about some of the other things. >> i make a motion to approve with conditions. >> second. >> if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. that motion passes number-one with commissioner johnson voting against. we will place us on your discretionary review calendar. [reading items] this is a

discretionary review. >> good evening commissioners, the item before you is a public initiate a request for discretionary review of building permit application 2018, 1213, 8275 to construct a 2' x 7' horizontal extension to an existing second-story rear deck. as a permitted obstruction within the required rear yard. this building is historic resorts status and category a. the reason for the dr, patrick mulligan of 3606 scott st. and adjacent neighbor to the north of the proposed project is concerned with the following issues. the deck will violate a private agreement to preclude a functional deck which will enable cooking that will produce smells to the dr adjacent bedroom window. a public comment to date, the department has received no letters in

opposition of one letter of support for the project as proposed. the departments recommendation is for the residential design advisory team. they reviewed this and confirm that this addition does not present an exceptional or extra ordinary circumstance with the respect to the 2 foot extension of the deck. since it is minimal adding enough space to have reasonable use and setback 8 feet from the lot line is sufficient, and that the 9'5 " from the adjacent neighbor to the south is also sufficient. it is worth noting that six adjacent neighbors to the south enjoying similar decks at the second and third floors. whether or not a legal agreement exists, and is enforceable is not the domain of the planning department which is not. such an agreement. this concludes the departments presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> we will hear from the dra.

>> mr. sec. i have a couple of items here. if i may? my name is patrick mulligan and i live at 3606 scott st. i watched you all day today, you heard a lot of words so i will condense mine basically down to two words. recourse and intent. essentially the question is a philosophic one before you. does a neighborhood agreement, after having met through the neighborhood preconstruction process, having come to an

agreement specifically, in writing, does that override code compliant? if i may, i would like to read the email that i'm talking about. having just finished the report, 448 pages of it, the email is extensive and it and it's obviously an aspect of intent that mr. moeller relied on extensively. it says hi patrick, the owner asked that i send you the attached revised design for his project, in response to your concerns about the rear deck and privacy. we decided to eliminate the rear deck and only keep a minimum 4 foot deep landing area so the owner can exit out of the rear family room glass door and descent down to the rear yard.

the narrow deck will preclude any function or activity on the deck and will only serve as an access path to the rear yard. he also wanted to extend his study room on the second level by the same 4 foot depth so he can get an exit door from his room to the yard as well. hopefully this change, in addition to the other changes made since we first met, will alleviate your concerns and you will be willing to now support the project. i signed a document supporting his project based on this. if i can, i read someplace that pictures are worth 10,000 words, i actually googled it. i want to show you a few pictures if i may. this is

the building, came before you a little while ago not filed by me, but another neighbor. the question at the time was whether if it should be a 4 foot fence or a 6 foot fence. i supported the neighbor, although my neighbor had accepted limits for me a few days before, he hasn't spoken to me since. i came and spoke for the other gentlemen's dr that he filed. mrs. up close, it is a 250 foot deck approximately, maybe a little less. as you can see, there is all sorts of paraphernalia, heating, couches, cooking,

whatever. this is the area we are talking about that is in question. he has put a device down there, cooking device. it is not supposed to be, according to our agreement. nothing was supposed to be on that landing right it was not supposed to be a deck. they cut back a deck and said it would just be a landing. your decision is, as i said, philosophic. you have to decide what has merit. code compliant, or an agreement between neighbors. the core portion of your purpose seems to be the preconstruction meeting among neighbors and that is to head off confrontation. if it doesn't have any value, and 70 can come back again, you know, i take another bite of the apple, we are "all lives matter" one trouble. there is nothing to rely on. i have a few other

pictures. i think my bullet point note make my position clear. it is a simple situation. either you decide one way or the other. i am fine with whatever you decide. it can raise bigger issues long-term down the road if you decide against me. thank you. >> thank you, sir. do we have any public comment in support of the dr requester? okay. we will then hear from the project sponsor. >> good evening. thank you. i'll try to be brief. it is last, i know, for the day. mr. mulligan states that we have an

agreement, not to do anything other than things he permits presumably, on my deck. that is not true. if that would be true, this isn't the right form to decide that. i will talk about the project, and then i will talk about the impacts of this project relative to what mr. mulligan has talked about. and i will give you many reasons why there is not an agreement between me and my neighbor. the project is tiny. it's 2' x 70. we have several existing deck uses. my dog uses it for sunning himself. the use of or access to the backyard. the backyard is not accessible from downstairs when we have occupants in the other unit. this is a two unit building. we also grill on this deck. we have a small grill on

this deck that i use for myself and my partner. we have a bigger grill on the roof and we agreed with mr. mulligan that we would do our entertaining on the roof. the initial design of a very large deck off of our family room that went almost to the lot line. we did agree with him to move it off of the lot line. we did agree to put a small deck. we did not agree to never expand the deck again, and we certainly didn't give my neighbor veto rights over any permit application and the future. permits are governed by the planning code, not by my neighbor. you will notice, look at this photograph, that you will see that mr. mulligan has a large pop out on his home. you will see that my neighbors on the north, who wrote a letter of support for this project have a large pop out on their home. once completed my neighbors to the south will have a 6 foot

extension beyond my buildout. mr. mulligan will have a 3.5 foot extension beyond my buildout. there is no reason this should not be allowed for neighborhood purposes. you will notice, in the circle, this is a teeny little project. this expands what is a 4.5 foot with deck 26.5 feet. it allows me to wield the grill to a different location so people do not bird themselves. that is the only purpose of this. we have been cooking on this deck for almost 2 years, since we moved in. we have not want - one single complaint about cooking orders or any other complaint. the project has no impact on the neighborhood, the project has no impact on mr. mulligan. last time he was here, mr. mulligan asked you to have my roof deck removed even though it had been

constructed in: ordinance with planning department approval and inspections. he is today asking you to do some things to make decisions about the use of my property. you will see, in all of the emails he sent you that he doesn't like the use of my family room. he doesn't like the use of my property. he doesn't like the additions that we have built into the house area mr. mulligan simply does not like the planning code. he wants the planning code to be revised, because he doesn't like - he doesn't like homeowners to build outside of the envelope. so be it. it is a good philosophical decision. i understand there are many people in san francisco that believe that. that is not the planning code. it is my view that a small project like this, which allows the homeowner to

cook more safely, is a minor, minor, minor project that should be approved. i will go through the reasons why mr. mulligan does not have an agreement with me, but i think the primary one is the exact opposite of what he presented to you. the planning process is one of the compromise with many of your neighbors. you will see the letter that was distributed to you of support for my neighbor says that we cooperated with neighbors tremendously in the construction of our project, three years ago. that compromise should not give every one of my neighbors a veto right over changes when we make minor errors or want to adjust those. thank you very much. >> thank you. do we have any public comment in support of the

project sponsor? okay. you get a two minute rebuttal. >> well, the email i showed you wasn't for me, it was from his architect. it said exactly what i read. when he reconfigured his building, he took out the bedrooms and put them up on an extended third floor, and put a family room, tv, the picture i showed you is probably 11 o'clock at night. as far as cooking, i don't think he has cooked there more than four or five times. most times when i go to my bedroom, the window is open, i was small hamburgers and so on, because there is - it is an alcove so nothing is going to blow to the south, everything's going to blow north. that is where i am, 5 feet away. i think he called me a liar, but we will

let that go. it's basically your decision. it's a philosophic point of view. what has merit? you decide. thank you very much. >> project sponsor you have a two minute rebuttal. >> i will be very brief. the previous owners cooked right below his winter, when we remodeled. we know they did. i actually talked to them in the past couple of weeks and asked them if they grilled and they did so. this is not a new use of the property. thank you. >> okay. commissioners? commissioner moore? >> the aspects under which we are to consider is that something is exceptional, and extraordinary, those are the criteria. i've looked at this plan extensively. it was

actually - it wasn't easy to understand because it is so minimal. i personally do not think that this rises to be something that i consider exceptional and extraordinary. i am prepared to support this project as it is proposed. >> took the words right out of my mouth. i >> we have been without a major seismic event for over 20 years now. will happen at a moment's notice [♪] >> today we are practising the activation of our department emergency operations center. >> this is really an exercise for us to train, and we are

using fleet week and the entire -- the italian heritage festival as the exercise. we have four different sections that are working today. there is operations, and operations basically is our contact with people out in the fields. they are finding out how things are going, and if there are problems, they are letting us know and we can identify through our action plan what what resources are needed and dispatch those resources. they will fill out reports and then the report gets to planning you will identify if additional resources need to be happening over a long-term timeframe and then they will provide for that by talking with our logistics staff. the logistic staff logistics staff is the one that will order labor, materials, they will do that, first of all, looking within our own organization, then if we don't have that within our own organization, they will contact the p.o.c. and then they will look at getting resources to us. and then last but importantly as our finance staff.

and they are here to make sure that we first of all fill out all the paperwork so in an actual event, when the federal government will be reimbursing s., then we are following the proper protocol, and they are also making sure the money is there in place. >> today in the field we have the environmental service is following the parade, and doing the final cleanup of the parade. and an emergency situation, they would likely be doing something similar to this, only with debris. also in the field is the inspectors from the mapping. they are doing some live streaming. >> there is an intersection of beach making sure that everything is safe for our public, our visitors, and everyone participating in the event. >> there will be so many different departments working during a seismic event or any other kind of emergency. they will all have a separate

action plan, and we are here making sure that for public works the action plan for that emergency event is actually followed through. >> engineers will likely be doing damage assessment of roads , bridges, overhead passes, architects and engineers as well would be doing damage assessment of facilities and buildings. building repair it would probably be doing some immediate repairs to make facilities operational, especially things like shelters, street and sewer repair, as the urban forestry crew also has big equipment that can help clear the roadways. [♪] >> we have been without a major seismic event for over 20 years now, so it is important that we are ready, we know the roles that we need to play, and we are able to act quickly because it will happen at a moment's notice

so that is one of the reasons why we do this, and again, the more comfortable we feel in our roles, then the better we can respond quickly to emergencies. >> for an emergency planning communication is very important, and so i can't stress enough the importance of figuring out a communication plan for your family, and for the department. that is why we are practising today how we communicate and interact with each other, how we share information, and how we use that information, and then for the city as a whole, so that the city as a halt knows what is going on as well.. >> i just feel like this is what i was born to do when i was a little kid i would make up

performances and daydream it was always performing and doing something i feel if i can't do that than i can't be e me. >> i just get excited and my nickname is x usher my mom calls me i stuck out like a sore thumb for sure hey everybody i'm susan kitten on the keys from there, i working in vintage clothing and chris in the 30's and fosz and aesthetic. >> i think part of the what i did i could have put on my poa

he focus on a lot of different musical eras. >> shirley temple is created as ahsha safai the nation with happens and light heartenness shirley temple my biggest influence i love david boo and el john and may i west coast their flamboyant and show people (singing) can't be unhappy as a dr. murase and it is so fun it is a joyful instrument i learned more about music by playing the piano it was interesting the way i was brought up the youth taught me about music he picked up the a correspond that was so hard

my first performing experience happened as 3-year-old an age i did executive services and also thanks to the lord and sank in youth groups people will be powering grave over their turk i'll be playing better and better back la i worked as places where men make more money than me i was in bands i was treated as other the next thing i know i'm in grants performing for a huge protection with a few of my friends berry elect and new berry elect and can be ray was then and we kept getting invited back you are shows got better we made it to paris in 2005 a famous arc

we ended up getting a months residencey other than an island and he came to our show and started writing a script based on our troop of 6 american burr elect performs in france we were woman of all this angels and shapes and sizes and it was very exciting to be part of the a few lettering elect scene at the time he here he was bay area born and breed braces and with glossaries all of a sudden walking 9 red carpet in i walgreens pedestrian care. >> land for best director that was backpack in 2010 the french

love this music i come back here and because of film was not released in the united states nobody gave a rats ass let's say the music and berry elect and performing doesn't pay very much i definitely feel into a huge depression especially, when it ended i didn't feel kemgd to france anymore he definitely didn't feel connected to the scene i almost feel like i have to beg for tips i hey i'm from the bay area and an artist you don't make a living it changed my represent tar to appeal and the folks that are coming into the wars these days people are not listening they love the idea of having a live musician but don't really

nurture it like having a potted plant if you don't warrant it it dizzy sort of feel like a potted plant (laughter) i'm going to give san francisco one more year i've been here since 1981 born and raised in the bay area i know that is not for me i'll keep on trying and if the struggle becomes too hard i'll have to move on i don't know where that will be but i love here so so much i used to dab he will in substances i don't do that i'm sober and part of the being is an and sober and happy to be able to play music and perform and express myself if i make. >> few people happy of all ages i've gone my job so i have so stay is an i feel

like the piano and music in general with my voice together i

>> good evening. welcome to the june 19, 2019 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president rick swig will be presiding officer tonight. to my left is deputy city attorney who will provide the board with any legal advice. we will also be joined by representatives from city department. sitting up front is corey teague the zoning administrator.

we have burney curran and leo plasios. department of public health, we have patrick and jennifer callworth. the board meeting guidelines are follows. the board request that you turn off and silence all cell phones. please carry on conversations in the hallway. appellants and department respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated with the party have up to three minutes each to address the board. please speak in the microphone. to assist the board and the accurate preparations of minutes you're asked to submit a speaker

card when you come up to speak. if you have questions about the requesting a rehearing the board rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff during break or after the meeting. we're located at 1651 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv, cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on friday at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. now we're swear in all those who intend to testify. any member of the public may speak pursuant to the right of the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify please stand if you're able, raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in. all those who are testifying, please rise.

do you swear or firm that the testimony you give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. please be seated. commissioners we have a few housekeeping items. item number 4, rehearing request for property an guerrero street has been withdrawn by the appellant. for times 8a and b. these are appeals numbers 19-038 and 19-041 concerning subject property at 6 columbus avenue we need a motion vote to move the item. >> so moved. >> we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to continue those to september 11th. any public comment on that motion? seeing none, on that motion -- [roll call]

that motion carries 4-0. we are now moving on to item 5. this is cheryl lea hogan -- >> no, we have item number two. >> sorry. i'm jumping. i apologize. we are moving on to item 1. 2. commissioners comment or questions. item number 1 we have general public and comment. this is for opportunity for anyone to comment on any item not on the agenda. move on to item 2. commissioner comments or

questions. i like to make a comment. i like to congratulate commissioner honda on his birthday. we can catch up and meet. happy birthday. >> any public comment? now we will move on to the adoption of the minutes. minutes of the june 12, 2019 board meeting. >> commissioner fung: motion to adopt? >> any public comment on that motion? on that motion -- [roll call] minutes are adopted 4-0. now we'll move on to item 5.

cheryl lea lee ho began versus san francisco public works bureau of street use and mapping. [agenda item read] we will hear from the appellant first. you have seven minutes. >> i have something i know i don't have enough time for my speech. it's copied here on the thumb drive. i have an international appeal that i have here and also i have signatures for a petition and also an article saying the prime minster -- [indiscernible] this was in the newspaper on the

internet. it's not anything secret. can i give that to you mr. swig? >> president swig: you can give it to us because we won't accept for the hearing. it hasn't been submitted time to share with the permit holder. >> it's my speech. >> good evening. i'm cheryl lea hogan. this situation commenced last august when i awoke by construction workers digging on the sidewalk. the workers were subcontractors from out of state. the workers had no permit with them, the workers said they were preparing to install a microwave cell tower. i'm here to protest the installation of of microwave

cell tower outside the window where i live. have you read the 560 page document and the research that i submitted on may 29, 2019 to board of appeals? >> ma'am, you need to present your case. >> i delivered to board of appeals. i assume that's true. i wondered if any of you have a cell tower if front the house where you live. were you aware that the microwave cell tower are forbidden. you have many of the articles which are in the book and cd that was delivered to the board of appeals may 29, 2019 department of public works and opposing attorney representing verizon and has the copies.

gari like to know about an origl permit. i never saw the original permit. from last summer until the middle of april 2019, i was told by the department of public works that the permit holder was verizon. is that true. on april 22, 2019, i was informed by the board of appeals that the permit holder is g.t.e. mobilnet of california. same address of the permit 3529 sacramento street. can you clarify the permit holder from verizon to g.t.e.

they are is concerned about the issue of non-ionizing electromagnetic field. i gave that document to gary contreras here. it's not at secret document. it's for anybody to see. i have been told these issues that we are discussing today have been brought to the attention of the city of san francisco for over 20 years. is that true? it has been becoming frustrating for the scientists, professors and medical doctors and their attempt to present their research to the lawmaker and have the lawmakers listen. the lawmakers are influenced by the telecommunications lobby and their funding research. there's an interesting quote by my father, harvard physics

professor and microwave of technology before the joint economic committee congress of the united states august 27, 1984. congressional members came to cupertino at that time. his quote was, congress is interested in strengthening the scientific base upon which total is found -- technology is founded, you can remove some of the bureaucratic over the government sponsored research in america's university. he meant industry funded when he used the word government funded. grants from the government are terminated when it doesn't synchronized what the politicians thinks must be revealed. there seems to be a wide gap between industry-funded research and the pursuit of using

scientific method in research. we need to be caution who is funding the research. on june 13, 2019, i received a multipage document from the department of public works. i will comment on the paragraph recommendation findings. number three department of public health and test report. their consultants for verizon, determined that the noise and frequency emitted by the facility meet the public health compliance standard. let me now ask, what are you referring to? is there some city ordinance that preempts another law? i will now the ph.d. researcher at rockwell international, president of apple, dr. emilio

has awarded 15 pa 15 pat 15 pat. dear chairman wheeler, i'm writing to follow up on our meeting april 25, 2016. we need to protect american workers who's jobs require them to come in close proximity transmitters. because the changes in the infrastructure -- >> president swig: your time is up. you're have more time in the rebuttal. you can continue reading in rebuttal. thank you very much. >> i'll give the coach o copy

afterwards. >> we'll hear from the attorney of the permitholder. >> good evening president swig. i'm sure this is the second time we're appearing before you. we do work in difficult sites to try to work with the appellants to come up with solutions and minimize the number of times we have come before you. in this case, this is a life standard facility. what we believe to be the preferred design for this facility is 120 watts. it's 32 feet high. the facility and very small radius. it's been installed 400 providing this 4g wireless network to add capacity and

coverage within the city. under article 25, the planning department as you know, looks to see whether it meets the compatibility standard. they felt this design and location met the standards for this neighborhood. the issue is whether the site complies with the department of public health public works issued the permit.

there was a protest hearing where the appellant was able to speak before hearing officer and have her comments heard. we met those requirements and we urge you to follow and affirm the decisions. i won't take any more of my time. >> the appellant submitted this documentation, copious documentation. did you have a chance to review it and you have a comment the validity and substance reflected here? >> this is great deal of substance. i did take time to read parts the toxicology report. i read some other parts of it. all of these reports are familiar and not only to me but to the sec. which state that is reviewing that's currently informational

docket offere open on this issu. i mentioned last time, the standard as it exist a month ago, all this information was available included in those evaluations. the short answer is yes and we still believe the site fully complies with the sec standard well below of the sec standard. it meets the requirements of article 25. i did take some time to go through that. >> thank you. >> we will hear from public works. >> i'm representing public works. we believe that permit was issued in compliance with the permitting procedure defined in public works code article 25 for personal wireless service facility. article 25 requires wireless

application through the department of public health and planning department. both department determined this application complies with article 25. the planning department is in attendance and can speak more regarding the planning review. the department of public health is in attendance and can speak more of the planning review. >> president swig: as you're aware, we've heard hundreds of these cases. every time that the appellants come up, we hear lot of the same arguments. unfortunately, they're not here more the previous hundreds of cases earlier. this board is pretty much tied by the fact that of this article 25 indicating that we are not allowed to talk about any health issues what so ever regarding the mobile correct? >> yes. we have to meet the federal law.

>> president swig: what was discussed, we understand that criteria was based from 1995 or 1997? when is that going to be updated? you are the public health department? >> we can hear from public health. >> president swig: sorry i apologize. >> can we ask the public health representative? >> good evening. >> as you heard the question is, because we hear these, we're the

heartless people allowing these tenants to be put in front of your house. even though we're not allowed to make comment or actually make a decision based off health, we keep on hearing that the health requirements for this is from 1996. as i mentioned last week, in last week's hearing, we know that a new car, that's made in 2020 is much more safer, it got better technology. yet we still have a d.o.t. and health and safety process to determine that. is there a reason why that this is not updated annually? >> yes. i work for the department of public health and i work for the sec. the sec is one who sets those standards. the standard has been effective the same since it was originated in 1996. as i understand it, it doesn't mean that standard hasn't been

evaluated since 1996. it was previously mentioned that the standards are based on other agency or organizational standards. they look at the standards periodically. they do a review every five years. also the fec in 2013 or 2014, put out a notice of inquiry to solicit comments from anybody regarding the standards and whether or not things need to be reevaluated or changed. i think that is still open. i know the city attorney's office submitted comments on behalf of san francisco at that time. the standard essentially is the same since 1996. it doesn't mean it hasn't been relooked out or being evaluated. >> that's what council

mentioned. since 1996 the technology of cellular -- with that technology, comes up other processes and other issues. understanding that the dagger is not pointed at you because you're public health. i understand it's coming from the federal government. this is san francisco. this is -- we're the first city to ban e-cigarettes and recycle and no plastic bags. steam like this should be something that should be on the radar when we have something that's dated from that period ago. when appellants come before us, they're like you guys are basing this off something from 1996. i don't have a car from 1996 anymore.

that's any question. >> i'm going to pile on. several weeks ago, to continue what commissioner honda talked about, we have to abide by the law. this is for the public. we are all clear on article 25, etcetera. how many dozens of times whether installations were appropriate? >> couple of weeks ago in one of the many, we heard from some smart people, really informed people with really good information about why these cell towers are poisoning us and

poisonin--this week we got thisg binder. i read through it. i didn't read the whole thing. i'm not an engineer. i'm not a physicist or a doctor of health. it's all greek to me. i get the idea. last mr. albright presented us with a high level of briefing. what bugs me is that we have to be here week after week. we're presented with really smart stuff by really smart people that has a consistent trend. these installations are poisoning people and endangering people.

you're the department of public health. my perception born and raised in san francisco, your department is here to protect me. have you hade rea ahead -- read? >> i received that on monday. i'm familiar with some of the studies that are in there. we've got a website that we posted a number of studies on. it's on our website. i'm familiar with the results from that one. >> president swig: what are we to do acknowledging article 25 exist, acknowledging today based on all the things that are presented, most likely our decision will be directed by article 25. meanwhile, i'm holding a bible here of information that may say by paying attention article 25

poisoning people. where are we going to go with this? when is the city going as the responsible party to protect the citizens going to come up, read this material and come up and say, material exist and it's wrong and it's right and it's in between, it's commo conflict wie 1996 sec. we disrupted the world whether it's e-commerce. when is the health department going to read this and give us a reading so even though we might be driven by article 25, at least we can change the path of history or affirm that article 25 is broken? >> okay. i appreciate the comment, appreciate the feedback. the health department has not

had a problem being at the tip of the spear with the number of issues with participating in flavored tobacco ban and so forth. on this issue, there isn't -- i will give you a background. this issue, there isn't a health code in san francisco that addresses this issue particularly. article 25 is department of works code. health department is involved in that, we've been named as the agency that is to review the reports that gets submitted and that dates back to the 1990s. same thing happened with planning department with the wireless guidelines when those were passed. there isn't a health code. there's a wireless guidelines that references the health department involvement and reviewing those reports. that's what we've been tasked with doing for both agencies. we work on a second consultant

to review the reports to determine whether or not they comply with sec standards. san francisco has the most sec reviewing sort of formal mat in the country. it's a three step review process. prior to an installation going in, there needs to be report submitted that is done by a licensed engineer that determines the distances and the amount of energy that will be coming out the antenna so determination can be made whether or not if it was installed. once it's installed, measurements are taken to determine whether or not preinstallation calculations were accurate. every two years after that upon permit renewal, additional measures are taken to see whether or not anything changed. nowhere else in the country does this. we are concerned. we are trying to ensure that the

sec standards are complied with. you're right, the federal government has preemption. they will set the standards. the community of san francisco can comment on the standards. in 2013 or 2014, the city attorney put together comments that went to the fec when they opened it up for comment. we have participated in that process. the federal government will preempt us from doing that. we have some limits around what we can do with the subject matter. are we interested in it? are we ensuring that it complied request, absolutely. a number of studies we've been

following and we got them posted on our website. i think in 2010, the health officer was asked to weigh in and take a position from the health department. they put together a paper and did that at that time. this body absolutely could request that the health officer review the information and prepare physician paper on that. be happy to take convey that if that's a desire. again, ultimately it's the f.e.c. who hold the reigns to determine what the standards will be for the country. >> president swig: that request is an agenda item which we can take up separately as a request. what is frustrating for us on behalf of the public and frustratng