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 frustrating on behalf of

ourselves. we are not scientists. for us to review a bible like this or to review -- that's nice, i'll accept the data. i don't know. maybe you're suggestion is correct one. as we sit right now with the advice that you are projecting to us, i'm not dismissing your advice and counsel. i know the law because we experience on a weekly basis. we might as well save the public the filing fee for the appeals if it's the appeal includes any identifications as health is an issue. we can just dismiss it because wash our hands and by saying, f.e.c., we're not in control.

my personal conscious won't allow me to do that. again, we can tell the chances are slim or none because san francisco health department, this is not an attack, does not want to take up this issue and does not want to fight federal statute. you can understand the position. >> sure. >> president swig: we want to protect people. >> i hear what you're coming from. i will take issue with your statement that the health department doesn't want to take on the federal government. we've done it but we're happy to do. we made comments previously. >> president swig: your advice we want to take it to another level which will not include today, maybe, we would ask the health department to review and update 2010 study which you

referred. >> sure. >> president swig: very helpful. any further questions? >> thank you. you can be seated. did you have questions commissioners for the planning department related to this permit? >> maybe we should hear his comments. >> welcome scott mccrory. good evening president and commissioners. i was going to come up and say that no issues regarding the planning department's review of determination were raised in the appeal. i'm available for any questions you may have otherwise. >> thank you. we will move on to public comment. how many people here for public comment on this item? someone can please approach the podium. >> welcome, good evening.

>> good evening. thank you very much. president swig, commissioners, attorney for the board. i really want to convey something that is very clear to me after hearing the conversations that i've heard. it is clear that you want to do the right thing. it is clear that you are listening and for that, i thank you from the bottom of my heart. i'm going to also make a comment that even though we are told that we can do nothing about this because the f.e.c. said we can't, i don't believe that. i will continue not to believe that. this technology, microwave technology, is extremely bad for

the human body. it sets up inflammatory response to the cellular level. opens up the calcium gate channels. there's new research connecting it to the proliferation of alzheimer's. there are many chronic degeneraive diseases that have established in scientifically sound studies to be connected cd with this microwave technology. parkinson's, you name it. the people hat harm are the children. that's why i reviewed ms. hogan's document, her letter, she mentioned child endangerment, i said that's

brilliant because that is what we have to keep in our minds. we must protect our children. that is the reason we must dig in. you can stand up to these people. i believe you're going to find a way. this is an untested technology. london breed and the city council just as you said, i thank you for your comments commissioner honda, as you said, just band e-cigarettes. that's all? we can do this. it's an invasion of our privacy. it is a trespass. it has multiple safety hazards. it's a fire hazard. it affects the migration of birds and butterflies and whales and all kinds of animals.

these we depend upon. i really thank you all for listening this evening. thank you so much for your time that you spent here. >> thank you. >> next speaker please. >> good evening and welcome. >> thank you. as we can now see there are many documented health concerns from close proximity to 5g transmitters. i'm opposed to the installation of 5g transmitters in residential neighborhoods. that's all. >> thank you. >> happy birthday once again.

farewell spring and here comes summer. i have so many papers accumulated over so many years against the telecommunication company. i couldn't get through the front doors of city hall. i given all my research to katherine stephanie. of late i think the world health organization there's a probable cause with this technology coming at us quickly. when my neighbors have a problem, i come out and support them. as i'm supporting ms. hogan. there was a telecommunication company that tried to get into the building where i live and we had to fight them for two years. sorry to use the word fight. i told them it's not going to happen in this building because it would change the interestingty of the building.

a.m., f.m., whatever your frequency, it all goes through the human body. what i'm really concerned about is who's making the equipment. sorry to say this in the city, i support president trump on this issue of the chinese communist party and the military behind 5g. there's some counties and states that are not accepting this. what's happening in hong kong and taiwan and communist party i'm concerned about. this is the ruthless gang that wants to control the world. one of the safeguards is to defend our independence, our internal freedoms and our liberties here in the united states. this is big concern about 5g.

i really don't know where this is going, there's surveillance and it's coming. there's a new global surveillance that's watching the whole planet. i question who's watching from what reasons. i think that we have to preserve our liberties, our freedoms especially internally. the feel that the proliferation of the technology, their going ton consequences to pay. long live freedom and thank you for my three minutes of democracy. >> thank you. >> you have 18 more seconds of democracy if you like. >> i appreciate coming in front of all of you as commissioners. i'm throwing up a flag. i was going to demonstrate in front of the chinese consulate with a yellow umbrella dressed in black with a chinese flag hanging upside down.

china is not paying attention to its constitution and we're not paying attention to the constitution of the united states. that's what we have to defend. thank you for the 18 seconds. >> any other public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll move on to rebuttal. ms. hogan, you have three minutes. >> i have a copy of the letter. i hope you read it. i'm going to go on then. now let's talk about what happens if the board of appeals grants the appeal. it seems from reading these two documents that the department of public health and verizon and their attorneys they are all together. is that how you see it? if the appeal is granted, then verizon might sue the city of san francisco. so, what then motivates the board of appeals of san francisco to grant the appeal. perhaps the board is motivated to grant the appeal by concern

for liability issues for the city of san francisco. san francisco is now liable for health damages for any electromagnetic radiation frequencies. i'm talking about not the public exposure. i'm talking about continuous and cumulative exposure. that is not part of what the f.e.c. is talking about. continuous cumulative exposure to e.m.f. affects the heart and near logica -- neurological parf the body. you are aware, i'm sure, the insurance carriers insuring the telecommunication companies will not protect in their insurance policies for the telecommunications companies against any damages to citizens from electromagnetic radiation radiation frequency produced by

microwave cell towers. the city seem to believe the federal telecommunication system. that they the city must observe the f.e.c. outdated emissions standard. see the quote. which then may hand all of the liability from hazards of our emissions over to city. liability will abound. will it be the city of san francisco which will be liable? i think so. will you the board of appeals be liable depending on your

decision today? will it be the apartment owner who is liable when he installs a microwave cell four on his apartment building. who is liable when telecommunication pay a landlord to install cell tours on building that the landlord owns? >> thank you very much. i'm sorry for interrupting you. sorry -- >> i have to quote the child endangerment law. >> your time is up. pleaplease be seated. >> i'm going to read one paragraph. >> please turn off the

microphone. this is really inappropriate. you need to be seated now. you neat to be seated right now. please be seated ms. hogan. now we'll hear from the permitholder's attorney, mr mr. albritton. >> this is a 4g facility not 5g facility. you should not be put in this position. there's a reason there's a federal standard. it was established because

you're not expected to have the expertise to wade through those thousands of pages. federal standard that was based on review by the e.p.a. and food and drug administration looked at the science of this. one of the reasons was taken off the table. it's because of the expertise that has been applied and is required and the fact that we flood a -- need federal standard. i apologize these issues are brought before you. the fire station facility are allowed on fire stations. i've gone through the issue. i can go through that again if you wish. the facilities have been in san francisco for 35 years. there was some question about

this being some kind of new technology that hasn't been evaluated over a long period of time. verizon wireless indemnifies the city from liability. the department of public health, i have to concur, has the most rigorous process in the country. actually started by luis renny back in the 1996. there's an evaluation every three years. there's a checklist that third party engineers supposed to provide. i think really, your department of public health gone above and beyond any other jurisdiction

that i'm aware of to the point buying their own meter. they have done this, they need to go to the neighborhood and evaluate it themselves. they can do that. i think that you are well represented in this issue. i encourage comment to the federal government regarding this standard. >> do i have a question for the representative. in the material supplied by the permitholder, they referenced in this instance the facility calculated to be .046% and slightly higher 2.8% of the

calculated level. i don't recall ever seeing very large numbers in these studies. as i recall, they tend to be low. can you comment on that and what the highest percentage of the standard is? >> sure. these cites on utility poles who are called small cells or nodes. these are kind of different breed of wireless station from the larger macro stationings. in these dense areas like san francisco, a small cell network is able to have better service. small cells typically operate at many magnitudes lower power. this is one of the reasons carriers like to use them because it's so easier to comply with the f.e.c.

for reference a large macro site might run 20,000 plus for the city. >> would you say the types of installations are low percentages? >> i can't speak to what the carriers will do. >> i'm talking about what we have seen up to now? >> yes in the past three or four years. they are proven to be pretty effective providing coverage. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from public works. >> i'll be here if you have any questions. >> i'll make sure i get the right department next time >> did you have any further

questions for department of public health. this matter is submitted. >> well, i told commissioners, it was suggested by public health at some point, we wanted to have an update from the health department responsible for this area. at some point, the public health department has to go on record they've done recent due diligence to at least inform the public that they're familiar with the issue and support an f.e.c. position. even though it's recognized they don't have control over that. my first question is, does

anybody have the inclination to do a continuance waiting for the public health officer to affirm -- to do an update from 2010 and then we can take this up. we're going to get this again or does anybody have the inclination to at least request that the department of public health review this copious amount of information from a professional standpoint and provide feedback so at least the appellant who took the time to assemble it and was diligent and bring to our attention will have satisfaction that she has been leader and her data has been professionally analyzed? i'm asking that question related to a continuance. >> i would support getting

information from the department so we as a board have a better understanding as what we're hearing on a regular basis. in regards to the continuance for this item, i would not support that. i think that no matter what the department says, that due diligence was done. there's nothing that is appealable that this board can personally hear. if you don't mind, everyone gets really upset. it's very personal when it's in front of their house. i get it. i got one on my block as well. the guidelines that this body hears are very specific son what we can hear. not just on personal wireless we're talking on permits for your garage door as well as night clubs as well as tobacco. there's guidelines that we have to follow ourselves. it's not that we're afraid we're

not willing to challenge anyone. there's rules when speed limit says 55, you don't get to go 60. that's how that works. this board has challenged those rules several times. it has not worked out in all those cases. i would support the latter, hearing something from the department of public health. i would deny the appeal. >> can we make a note executive director, can we agendize the opportunity to discuss making a formal request and appropriate health officer to update findings from 2010, not today obviously it has to be agendized with full presentation, public comment, etcetera. any other comments? >> i would not support a

continuance. part of the information that might be forthcoming it's not going to affect article 25 of the f.e.c. >> last comment those who came out to speak, to continue to work with the policymakers. we do hear each case. we are not policymakers. we are assessing whether or not a permit issued by the city is properly issued. whether or not we support those regulations, you can hear this commission has some serious concerns about what the federal government has laid down and what as a city and state and other communities follow. continue to reach out to the elected official who are policymakers behind the policy at the national level.

>> ms. hogan, i'm really sorry you were cut off. we have these rules in place. if we give you three more seconds, please sit down, you can't talk. it's over. we don't mean to stifle conversation obviously. you heard today that we are deeply concerned on this issue and we want to continue the dialogue on this issue. i apologize if you're feelings were hurt. these are the rules. you got 30 more seconds, mr. albritton gets 30 more seconds. may i call for a motion? >> i'll make that motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. >> on that motion from commissioner honda to deny the appeal uphold the permit on that it was proper issued. [roll call]

the appeal is denied 4-0. we are now moving on to item 6. thiwilliam mcleod and katherine miller versus department of building inspection. [agenda item read] we had will hear from the appellants first. >> thank you. can you give us one second to start? i want to make sure.

>> thank you so much for hearing our appeal. happy birthday. i'm sorry we're this is taking up your item.time.

here is the block we live on. our house is in the middle here. and mr. lee's house is on the right. this is the first subdivision in san francisco. we made good effort to solve

this problem with mr. lee. he has been unwilling to compromise or find a solution. he says he needs a window for ventilation and as a fire exit. both are which are illegal uses of property line window. this is the property line window. our goal is to treat the permit like a new window. for several years that's what i was told would happen by the preservation folks at the planning department. here's the permit. you see the permit. unfortunately you don't see this on the screen. these are joe duffy's notes about the permit. when i heard it was happening it was crazy. we filed a complaint with d.b.i. mr. lee was able to walk down

the dbi to get a permit to change the window. mr. duffy made all kinds of note about this. he circled that it's not a slider. it's an existing slider. it's not a slider. it's a window -- one of the problems is the minor problem is wings out into our property, 2 1/2 feet in our garden. the window is locked. the problem is when it gets open. it's our kitchen, dining room and bedroom. even if it's open, you can see we're exposed. i can see in and they can

obviously see out. with planning we're hoping the design guidelines are taken into conversation -- consideration. what we've been asking for years, i thought this was a very compromise to put a fixed frosted window in. that's the suspension request from the planning department. here's the view from the sidewalk. you can see right away, there's one window.

this is the second window. sorry you can't see it. it's further just moving in. you can see the second window. you can see the panes on the second window what kind of window it is. this is visible from the sidewalk and the street. this is the av009 which talks about light wells and fire exits. you can't use it as ventilation and you have to record a statement that it's a property line window. none of that has happened in this permit. this is the fire code about fire rating and this was also not included. here's our block. you can see, hopefully you can see this, our block -- everyone has the same house.

the exact same house. both sides of the street and on the street behind us, which is now called san carlos. except for the one in the middle, this was the subdivision. you can see your neighbors have the exact same layout, the exact same details. it's easy to see if windows there or not. there's a lot of historical documents about lexington san carlos. the planning commission stay it supposed to be routed through planning despite that it wasn't. this is in pacific heights. the thing about paper from the '70s about the buildings. the way they were built they really value -- very simple design. they valued light and privacy.

here's the documents from the liberty hill historic district about mr. lee's home. he denies it was built in the 1870s. he said it was built in the 1900s. here's our house again and here are other houses on the block. the exact same thing but they have siding. there was not a window on the north side except the second floor bathroom window that nation in your -- looked into nothing. >> you'll have more time for rebuttal. thank you.

>> we'll now hear from the permitholder. mr. lee. you have seven minutes, sir. >> good evening everybody. >> good evening. >> i'm chel lee. i'm owner at 339 lexington. since mr. mcleod moved there, he nonstop complained that the property line window should not open in air space. we agree. mr. mcleod said it's not acceptable because he wants privacy. we agree. since we mostly need it for light and ventilation. for years, the tenants get along with mr. mcleod until the last tenant. when mr. mcleod block the window from opening.

after the tenants protested, mre blockage. we cannot tolerate this. we filed an elder abuse claim to get the window block to remove. the court hearing was on april 10, 2019. the judge ordered him to remove the blockage. i told the judge that i filed an application to change the existing window into a sliding window and it was approved by the san francisco building department. he said that the permit application was flawed. mr. mcleod read it and ask to take a photo of it. the judge denied the request. on april 17, 2019, mr. mcleod filed appeal for window permit. saying window is not an original window. occupants cannot use the window

in case of exits in case of fire. mostly in his brief, he did not provide any written supporting documentation for his claims of privacy, noise, safety or fire escape. the historical building materials claims presented for window not been original window it's not firsthand information. also, historical claims are not specific with regards to specific building, specific ye year. furthermore in 1900s there were many more small builders than small builders.

nobody really knows exactly how the homes were built. the san francisco department building inspector told me if it's approved, the existing side window has not been changed 20 years or more. if this is true, they have satisfied the requirement according to the san francisco assessors report. mr. mcleod bought 333 lexington. mr. mcleod complaint dated 4/1/19 he's open to complaints property. he stated his goal for this is ideal we should put back the

siding for window and he is possibly willing to compromise on the frosted window that he can help us choose. since mr. mcleod brought attention of the problems associated with the window, it as applicable in reverse such as privacy, safety, noise and fire. we want mr. mcleod to work with us to replace the side windows. we feel that it is fair that it should be the same. we should not ask for anything more. that was our concern for the privacy, noise, safety. that's it. >> thank you mr. lee. i have a question. not knowing the outcome of what this hearing is, are you suggesting replace with frosted sliding? are you planning to put an obscured privacy glass?

>> no. that's the problem. mr. mcleod complaint -- >> when it's open. my question is, at the end of the day, this board is going to make the decision. are you willing to put privacy glass or frosted glass? >> i ordered the window already. >> is it frosted glass? >> no it's clear glass. >> thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening and welcome. department of building inspection here. there's couple things that look little funny. just on the face of it, it's not a correct description. that in and of itself also the size of that window, if you figure these houses were built

in 1800s, a window that size made out of wood, probably would not have existed. i will say just based on its face value, this permit should probably be turned down. if the permitholder wants to have more time to do some forensic discovery and prove that the window was there originally, i would be open to that. maybe if you want to have somebody come out and look at it after removing some of the covering inside. we can't make him do that. i believe this window is not original. based on its face value, it should be turned down. abe009, doesn't come in play. when the appellant moved in, the window was already there. ab0009 is for a new hole. you want to find out when this window was put in, we might have

a case for that. ab009 is usually when you're trying to put a property line window and next to your neighbor, you have to get their written consent and it has to be fire rated window. that's a new opening. this is an existing opening whether it was original and legal or not, remains to be seen. >> i got a question. do we have a definite date of year built on this property? >> somewhere in the late 1800s. >> is it 1900s. >> there's still not going to be a window that size. >> not to argue, i have two 1900 properties and they've got really big windows in them. one of my properties the windows there was a house next to it. the tenant opens the window.

>> these all appear to be built around the same time. they are very close in architecture to each other. the same builder quite possibly built all of these. >> we have one right now that has really large patio that i never seen last 500 homes. >> it could have been built originally. i have no way of knowing that. it's on the permitholder to give us little more information or backgrounding in that regard. we want to open up the wall, we can look at the framing and tell you. >> unless there's information otherwise to prove that it was not -- we have cases where the department shows pictureses of the property 1992 without that window. we have definite that opening was not there. it's been there forgive. in this particular case, if

there's no evidence that the window was there, i'm looking at the pictures, the casings and the style looks similar to the original windows in the bathrooms. >> it does look similar. i have no way of knowing that. only way of knowing is opening up the inside and see what the framing consist of. if you can see framing consist with the original built. yes. >> that process you described is that what we do in cases where we aren't sure when a window is created? >> i haven't run across this before. this is the first one that i've seen that there's not some record that it was done illegally or originally. >> can you walk us through the

permitting process that happened with this. now you're saying the permit was not properly issued. whenever it was issued it seem to be proper. >> the description is not correct. they're not replacing a sliding glass. they're replacing a casement. which wings out over the property line which is kind of rare. i'm not saying it doesn't happen. we don't have those situations somewhere in the city. especially if one building was built quite a few years prior to the adjacent building could happen. that being said, the ab009 will come in play if we deem that's a new opening. that's an original opening, then ab009 doesn't come in play. >> thank you. >> follow-up question to that. we talked about property line

windows periodically. what about the fire safety issue in that as it is being replaced and as it is a new window, does it has to be replaced up a current code standard? >> as far as i know, you can replace it with the same type of window as long as you're not increasing the opening. >> this is not the same type of window. >> you're not changing the size. >> the conditions for to change the -- for the life fire safety issue, it would be changing the size of the window, not have that window works? >> correct. if you had a two foot opening, now you have a 4-foot opening.

that would trigger it. you're increasing the size of the window area. >> the current deputy the window, it opens into the neighbor's property completely off limits. >> that would not happen. >> today you would have to have a fire rated window there. >> the issue that we are grappling with, if the owner can prove that window was in place originally, the only issue that we are grappling with really is the issue of privacy and whether that window should be permanently closed and whether that window should be opaque. >> they didn't go through planning, planning probably should have looked at this also. that being said, if it is proven to be original, they can put in a sliding window and it should be fine.

>> whether it's opaque or otherwise or can we -- we can ask that. >> it wasn't built with opaque glass. >> we have that issue come up quite a bit. >> last question. let's assume that it was original and the replacing in kind. it does not need to be fire rated win that happens? >> no. if you're not increasing the size of the window, you don't have to make it a fire window.

>> thank you. we'll hear from the planning department. >> good evening. cory teague planning department staff. planning department recommends that the commission grant the appeal and deny this permit for various reasons. the subject permit was filed and issued on april 4th this year. however, it was in aid when it was submitted. which means it never came to the planning department for review. it does require planning department review additionally replacing windows even though that have not visible by the street. it requires certificate of appropriateness from the historic preservation commission. additionally, in october of last

year, the appellant filed a black book notation on this property to be notified any permits that were submitted for this property. because the permit did not come planning department and we did not provide that innovation to th--notification to the neighbo. as you seen, just address this issue as well, it appears the glass of the existing window is to some degree, privacy glass. this was they do talk about certain types of issues with privacy. i feel confident in this situation from the planning department, we want to see that replaced with privacy glass as well. for all those reasons, we would recommend that the permit be --

appeal be granted and permit be denied. i know there's piece of information relative to the date when this buildings was constructed. i was looking we do have very specific dates of years of construction. for many buildings, it's sometime prior to 1900. we don't know. those that are pre1900 and we don't have an exact date for it, it's rounded up, it kind of give the impression that the actual year when actually catch all for 1900 or earlier. i'm available for any questions. >> i got a couple. >> i want to know little bit more about the process to figure out if this is or not an

original window. can you talk about the research and maybe how that would or wouldn't coincide to opening up the window to see what it looks like so we'll be able to tell by workmanship. >> because this would require certificate of appropriateness, there will be certain amount of information we would acquire about the existing window. there are number of ways you can go by doing that. you can general -- that is something we would ask property owner to do. it may involve opening up the window and looking at the construction methodology and material. it's possible we'll have that work to be done. whether or not that window was original to the building. we would probably pull a

complete permit history. >> just to understand what would happen if the applicant were to not move forward with the permit and continue with the window as is. that would be allowed. >> from permitting perspective. correct. there's nothing here that was requiring the property owner to replace this window. there's nothing on the record now that would require them to take that action and replace this window. >> okay. i think that's all the questions i have for now. >> cory. there's no notice of violation on the property now? >> no. there was a complaint filed by the appellant recently part of

of this process overall. when this was when the permit was issued, there was no complaint with planning and there's not any of the issue on this case. >> other thing is, the 6 1/2 years i've been on this board, usually it's never come up that someone had to prove that was an original piece on the property. i've not heard that in all the many cases that we're here. to me that's quite a bit of process for a homeowner to undertake. i think the city should have the record to substantiate that. >> i wasn't trying to insinuate

we would require them to date when that window was added. if that was a piece of information that was relevant being issued, we would have to go through the process with property owner of doing the best. we could with a documentation and consulting available to make that determination. if dating when that window was added is not relevant, only thing is relevant what you're putting in. we would not require them to go through that. >> can you talk more about that. let's say they can't figure out when the window was put in. what is the planning department looking for? what is the factors that influence either receiving or not having certificate of appropriateness. >> i'll do the best i can. i'm not a preservation planner. we want to look at what's being proposed to be put into that opening. what the new window that's being provide and how is that relate

to the existing historic resource. >> if it was decided, the type of window you're proposing is not -- this style of window is the more appropriate window given the age, whatever design of your building. >> correct. we're legatee's thet looing atd materials. it will be required to be fire rated etcetera would be under the purview the department of building inspection. >> when the opening happening, -- >> sorry. are there any historic photos of this property from the department? >> i don't know if we have any from the department.

while we were here, i did check the information we have available online for the liberty hill historic district. the vary that was done in that area. for certain buildings they do have files that include pictures and information and documentation about when it was constructed. we did not have that for this building. >> do you know what that room is? is that a living room or bedroom? >> i believe that was mentioned in the briefs that i don't know off top of my head. i thought it was a bedroom. i'm not positive. >> thank you. >> did i hear you affirmatively that this permit was improperly issued by the planning department >> no. it was not reviewed by the planning department. it should have been routed to the planning department for