>> good evening, welcome to the august 28th, 2019 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president rig swig will be the presiding officer tonight he is joined my daryl honda and eduardo santacana. we expect vice president shortly and commissioner rachel tanner is absent. to my left is jana clerk who will provide the board with legal advice this evening. at the controls is the boards legal process clerk and i'm julie rosenberg, the executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city department that have cases

befored board this evening. we have in the front, scott sanchez, acting deputy zoning administrator, also representing the planning department and planning commission. we have chief building inspector, mauriceo hernandez and sen erin respec inspector be kernin and we have the environmental health branch of department of public-health. the board meeting guidelines are as follows, the board request you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. carry on conversations in the hallway. appellants. permit holders and department respondents are given seven minutes to present and three minutes for rebuttal. people must include their comments within the three or seven-minute periods. members not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal.

please speak into the microphone. to assist 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. four votes are required to grants and appeal. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office. we're located at 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv and will be row broadcast on channel 26 on friday. the video can be downloaded. now, we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking the oath. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony weight, please stand if you are able, raise your

right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. please be seated. so, commissioners, we have four housekeeping items. the first item is number 7. this is appeal number 19 -- 064 concerning the subject property at 1072filber street and it's been withdrawn by the appellant. next, we have a reordering of the agenda. item number 11. this is 19-016. the parties have reached an agreement so they will address the board after item number 5 is heard. next item number eight, this is appeal number 19-082. the parties would like to continue this matter to novembe. since it is on the publishe pubd

agenda, you would need to vote to continue it. >> i'll make that motion. >> so we have a motion from commissioner honda to continue this matter to november 6th. is there any public comment on this motion? seeing none. on that motion, commissioner santacana. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> so that motion carries. 3-0 and that matter is continued to november 6th. next we have item number 9. this is appeal number 19-074. the parties would like to continue this matter to novembed a vote. >> i make that motion. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to continue that to november 11th. is there any public comment on that item? seeing none. on that motion, commissioner santacana. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries 3-0. so, we will now move on to item number 1 which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak

on a matter but it's not on tonight'tonight's calender. is there anybody here for general public comment? seeing none. there's no public comment. we'll move on to item number 2, commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioners? >> i'd like to congratulate our secretary for retiring. he is not here right now. >> we can do that on item number 4. >> sorry. didn't mean to go out of line. is there any public comment on commissioner honda's comments? so we'll move on on t onto the n of the minutes. the minutes of the august 7th, 2019 board meeting. >> commissioners? motion. so we have a motion -- is there any public comment on that motion to adopt the minutes? we have a motion. on that motion, commissioner

santacana? >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> ok, so that motion carries 3-0. we'll move on to item number 4. this is recognition of the board's legal assistant, gary can atra and gary was not feeling well so he was unable to attend. i want to say briefly it's been a pleasure. i know he will watch the video later so i want to say it's been a pleasure working with gary. he is a hard-working team player and he really taught me a lot when i started this position. he is a person of integrity and provides excellent customer service. is we're really going to miss him. additionally, i received comments from the former executive director, cynthia goldstein, she indicated she wanted to add her congratulations and that she feels very fortunate to have worked with gary. she found him to be a wonderful colleague who provided excellent

service to the public on behalf of the board. at this point, is there any public comment on this item? >> thank you, planning department. i want to reiterate i had enjoyed working with gary. the board staff is excellent and i think the public. he brings out the best and shows the best attributes of a public servant. he is fair, knowledgeable, diligent, responsive and going to miss him but congratulate him and hope his days are retirement are better than his first day. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. >> sarah hoffman, i'm an attorney who appears every now and then i would love to echo the thoughts from julie and scott that gary is very much going to be missed. what i was starting in this area he was a wealth of knowledge to me and for any of my colleagues.

we do wish him all the best. we thank him for his years of service. >> thank you. >> paul britain. i worked with gary for over a decade and we're going to miss him. every step of every appeal before the board. he has been a tremendous a help in-person and over the phone and with documents of my staff all a dooadore him. we wish him well and appreciate all he has done to help the city and help the process move forward over the last decade plus. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? any commissioner comments? >> sure. i'd like to lead off, you know i have something from the mayor. i'll upstage the mayor. we get weekly basis, this is only half of it, all the people work though comes in from the

public. we as commissioners, we serve the public and the city. we serve the appellants and we serve the permit holder and anybody else that needs assistance in pushing their agenda forward. the person who actually pushes the agenda forward is the staff. gary has been amazing because he has to sort through all the stuff and there's a ton of it. literally, this will go about 2. and it's really hard work and gary has made my life tremendo tremendously more easy, helping me get through my work and therefore he has made the public's work easier and we appreciate his support. i would like to read a

certificate of honor august 28th, 2019 whereas behalf of the city and county of san francisco i'm pleased to recognize and honor gary for more than 13 years of service to the city and county of san francisco. your dedication to the operations and success of the san francisco boar board of apps is commendable. your support has been integral to the efficiency, equity and development of the san francisco board of appeals and our city therefore i have set my hand and caused the seal of the city and the county of san francisco to be affixed london breed, mayor of san francisco. congratulations, gary. thank you for all your service to all of us. commissioners -- >> yes, i also would like to reiterate the same. gary has been great over the years that i've been here.

he has been the second person had that seat since i've been here for seven years and he will be missed. >> thank you. we're going to move on to item number 5. this is appeal number 19-070 ron ratner versus san francisco public works, street use and mapping subject property 2620 la laguna street and a personal wireless service facility site permit. construction of a personal wireless service facility in a zoning-protected location. this is number 17wr -- 0252. >> thank you, very much. i think this will be fine. my vision is such that i'll be able to read my paper but i mean, i would be able to read the names of the commissioners.

i see that vice president lazarus isn't here. maybe we can raise her from the absence. i have her name written down in my presentation. >> you can go ahead and begin, sir. >> good evening. welcome. >> thank you, very much. commissioners honda and san francisco has thousands of microwave antennas and south hours and until now, guidelines

pre-empted of all state and local u.s. heath and safety regulations. this appeal is filed on unprecedented grounds that contrary to alleged 1996 federal pre exception san francisco has retained local health and safety jurisdiction over potentially dangerous wireless inflation pursuit to its precautionary principal ordinance as well as under the recent california supreme court team oval decision which upheld san francisco's local regulation of lines or equipment on public rights of way that might cause negative health consequences or create safety concerns. it's a universal law of morality like a golden rule which pertains to every adult everywhere. if you don't harm others in ways

we don't want to be harmed ourselves, we don't harm our precious planet's environment because what we do to it we do to ourselves. surprisingly, despite international recognition of the precautionary principle, the city and county of san francisco is the only world metropolis and the only large u.s. political entity which has legislated the precautionary principle as its official environmental policy. san francisco's environmental code applies to precautionary principle to all san francisco officers, boards, commission and departments including public works, health and planning departments. they're also advised to this board's consideration of environmental health and safety issues. and approving a cell tour site

permitted 2620 laguna street, the article 25 city departments violated the clear language and intent of the precautionary principle ordinance in numerous respects. for example, their decision-making process for approvalling the cell tower was not made in an open and transparent manner with public participation. instead, it was decided during an 18-month private communications between city departments and verizon attorneys and engineers which completely excluded any required citizen participation or notification. before deciding to grant the permit, they failed to inform the public about potential human health and environmental dangers of the proposed cell tower. instead, they accepted biased health and safety opinions of verizon engineers and attorneys without consulting independent

emf experts to evaluate dangers or needs for the proposed cell tower or possible alternatives like fiber optics which can provide fastest internet in the u.s.a. instead of proving health and safety of the cell tower project, on verizon, they improper hoisted upon vulnerable a joining residents and owners the unfair burden of challenging health and safety of the agency's pre determined, private approval decision. they failed to acknowledge or inform the public that thousands of highly credible independent worldwide scientific studies have overwhelmingly contradicted and invalue dated 1996, fcc thermal safety guidelines which have become completely outdated

and extraordinarily dangerous. independent studies have long shown that microwave cell towers cause cancer clusters and other diseases and may seriously threaten not just san franciscans but people in nature everywhere. for many years, not even the likes of london have issued product liability insurance on cellphones and wifi products. too dangerous. and while it's induce tremendous cooperations like verizon, confirm those dangers in mandatory s.e.c. disclosure to their shareholders. so, improving this cell tower project the article 25 city departments violated the most fundamental precautionary principle. threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exist, lack of full scientific certainty of our cause and effect shall not be

viewed as sufficient reason for the city to prevent the degradation of the environment or protect the health of its citizens. closed quote. in san francisco, this board of appeal is the last hope for most ordinary people. hardly anyone can afford to litigate against giant corporations so tonight, you have an unprecedented opportunity of conscientiously reversing the cell tower permit on health and safety grounds. such conscientious and ground-breaking board of appeals decisions can lead san francisco and our nation in protecting against further and prude use of dangerous wireless technologies which seriously or i remember reversi rememberi rememberrebleo

and nature. >> thank you. >> hearing from the attorney. >> welcome back, councilor. >> good evening. mr. president, members of the board, paul, outside council for verizon wireless. we're sympathetic obviously to his concerns about the health and safety. i think you know article 25 is one of the most robust regulations really in the country for these types of facilities to be placed in urban environments. article 25 was upheld by the california supreme court in t

mobile verse san francisco and it requires a rigorous review of the public-health of the omissions from the verizon wireless facilities. for that reason, we submit consulting engineers report and we have a representative here if you'd like to ask any questions that shows the emissions from this facility are less than half than what is allowed under the fcc standards at the nearest building. the department of public-health took that report, which it's anna proved engineer by the city of san francisco and also represents other cities and confirmed in their report that this site will comply with the fcc standards, there by complying with article 25 and the federal law such that that issue is resolved with respect to the city, code and respect to the federal law.

and testing which will be done in order to absolutely confirm the emissions comply with the f.c.c. standards. the city included announcement from the f.c.c. earlier this month that they are reconfirming the same levels of emissions that are in place for the last decade. we would argue in really has been a public and transparent process not a secret process. i think you are aware that there are notices that go out to allow for a protest hearing with the tentative approval. that includes the d.p.h. and information that is available from the department as well. there's another notice that goes out with the final determination that allows two levels of protest before public hearing officer and then here again. we feel it's a very transparent

process. so we encourage you to approve this facility as approved by the department of public-health and of course reviewed by the department of planning and the department of public works, three departments that have recommended approval of the site. >> i have a question, councilor and thank you. can you explain the difference between this antenna and the antenna that is generally before us. we're hearing the ones on the pole top. this is a more robust system. >> yes, so, as you heard me go on before, right now verizon is using three different types of radios in san francisco. the site that will be coming up later is on a light standard and that's a five-watt radio. on utilities polls we're using 40-watt radios. thes the same we're putting on every utility pole in 70 in north beach and elsewhere throughout the city. we have afour-foot- antenna and

the difference here is that we're using only one of the directions. because of that, the radio signal is then concentrated in that one antenna giving us a higher effective radiated power than you would have. i spoke to the engineer and she explained that this is a very cluttered environment. if you look at the photo, you will see they're very tall buildings all around this pole. we're able to get up to nearly 640 feet with this pole. the antenna is focusing uphill to provide up laguna and get through this urban clutter and providing its signal. the site is not focused in three directions but one. so it's really the same radios, same antenna but the fact that the energy from the radios is being focused in one direction rather than two or three directions. >> was that in the a pa appellas

grief they stated 7,000 watts? >> that's right. that's taking -- i can have the engineer better explain. you have two bands, p.c.s. and a.w.s., the shorter bands but carry more information and you have that 40 watts times two times two and the a ten a which is 15 gets you to the 7,000 watts. it's 60 feet up in the air and off to the side of the building that's about 12 to 15 feet away. >> the other question was, they had mentioned the april 4th, 2019 decision regarding t-mobile west versus san francisco. could you go into that a little bit as to what? >> absolutely. i'll try and be brief.

>> t-mobile and a company name next g brought by crown castle were not comfortable with article 25 so they sued and the principle argument was under california public utility code section 79.01 cities could not regulate aesthetics and they could only regulate under 79.01 they have the right to put information on telephone polls and in the right-of-way and they argued there was no control over aesthetic and they lost that

argument. article 25 went from the lower courts to the appeal court to the supreme court each time demote and subject t, soyou cane corporation from putting facilities in the right of away but you can and that is basically the ruling in that case and it upheld article 25 so what was upheld, is the you can't detract a characteristics of the neighborhood and impair the anesthetic attributes to create a historic director average or excellent view. those are average, they are all

standards that we can. >> we will now hear from the relevant department and from public works. >> usually sitting on the other side. hello, good evening, president and members of the board. leo, representing public works. we believe is issued and in article 25 for service facilities. article 25 requires public works to refer wireless application to the department of public-health and the planning department. both departments determine this application complies with the health article 25. public works accidentally issued a tentative approval and the applicant male and post notice of this approval. public works held a public

hearing. following the director of public works approved the permit and noticed this determination was distributed to the public. the planning department isn't s in attendance and speak more regarding the process if the board has questions that the department of public-health is in attendance and can speak more regarding the health review. >> i have a question, sir. in all the cases we've heard i've never heard the term precautionary principle. can you explain that? >> yes, so it's sent out for all city agencies if they're the health reason or public-health and there's a ceqa process required and we have them a noise study and it is rioux

video by the department of public speak and we can have the department of public-health to make sure it's still within compliance. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the individual from the public of health. >> would you like her to speak? >> >> we have sent amounts of information to the department of public-health this board.

i say copious but it's nothing in comparison to what we've sent you. there's data on data presented by the public it's harmful to the public. in the spirit, and we are not scientists and we're not ta assisted and we're not engineers and we're members of the public about we have sent this information to the department of and requested the department of public-health and that was several months ago. when are we to expect the sponsor department of health after giving you all this information provided to us from the public that kids we're poisoning the public when we

take an action to approve these transmitters. >> we did receive the request through dr. eric on our health officer. he has received a request to respond to the 2010 memo. it was written by the formal environmental health director and health officer and so i have met with the doctor and he is currently reviewing the documents as well as doing his due till against and research and we will be able to create an updated memo similar to dr. to respond to the current research and the department of public-health position on radio frequency emissions and the standards set bstooped -- iwoulo

months. i would say that's roughly an idea through some conversation with him and that is totally doable. like you said, i've seen the stack and i agree. it's a lot of information and we have to be sure that we're looking atri search that is connected to the a ten a research and it's also repeatable done through peer review so there are these checklists we have to go through and the doctor is committed to making sure that he is thorough in that so it will take him some time with his schedule but i can skim three to four months is doable for him.

>> you can understand our sense of urge see because week after week we have hearings and we have members of the public come up and address important items. we have others, you didn't get that stack from us, it came from the public and their health is at stake and we on this board are very concerned with the health of the citizens of san francisco as a result of these items and we want to put to rest and we'll talk about that later but at the same time, the precautionary principle weighs heavily on hour minds because we don't want them moving something forward knowing that we may be causing harm to the citizen. >> i hope you hear our sense of

urgency and. >> we as a department, we're not doing the research as well so and we're definitely going to be diving into the research that they used to make that determination so we can see the va livalidity of that. >> san francisco feels otherwise other than the f.c.c. feels which san francisco quite often feels differently when the federal feels on certain ideas and i hope they challenge the fcc and what might be an obsolete point of view in 1996. >> they are not the ones that are the scientists. they are heavily relying on health organizations and american cancer society research and the world health organization as well as the f.d.a.

>> thank you, very much. >> >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for your hard work. >> we'll hear from mr. sanchez. >> hold on -- >> i'm just kidding. i'lling brief. i review material that the application was properly reviewed by the planning department. the site is in both the zoning protected location because it's been in rtc zoning district and a planning protected because it's a street with excellent view ratings. given the context of the site, as well as the design of the site we find it complies with our requirements and most of the issues and concerns that were raised in the appeal related to health and not the planning department's approval but we did review this and find that it does comply with our requirements and i'm available for my questions. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? please approach the microphone.

>> thank you. i'm going to speak off the cuff, if you will. there is enough research to show that radiation effects human cells but it effects wildlife, birds, piece and putter flies. i'm not a scientist, i'm not an environmentalist i'm just a very conscientious human being and i believe strongly that if we don't, as a human race, make decisions to protect everything that we're involved with, the environment, our air, our oceans, the wildlife, we are going to be in deep trouble. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> is there any other public comment on this item? please approach the microphone. >> hello board members. hello president swig. i'm just going to start off this way. these are the times and of course so begin comes the letter to george washington at valley george the winter is 1776 and preserve the fight for independence and freedom. and we are faced with the crisis right now of extreme danger and doctors, telecommunications specialists, they recognize the perm upon all ages of people by wifi and it's extreme

proliferation and economic hazards. if this continues forward, in the essence nhl general welfare society is being ab regated. government has a mandatory role to protect society and government must not chose a separate role of its own in har morph legislation the federal communications act of 1996, article 15, basically has engineers deciding whether or not something is harmful. they are not really looking at the world health organization and they're not looking at many medical societies, the american medical association as well as everybody is saying, medically, this is a danger and it was only effecting 10% of the population

10 years ago. presently, all the research i've read says its effecting 50% of the population. as it continues it can effect more people. i just want to read you something real quick here. in the largest settlement from electro magnetic injury the boeing company will pay $500,000 to one of its employees who claim he developed lukemia during his work with electro magnetic radiation. he was charged with knowing of the health risk but failed to warn it's employs' and not precautions to protect them. >> you have 30 seconds, sir. >> the court ruled in favor of the client and this was done in 1990. so keep in mind that 1995 the office of technical technology assessment was defunded in 1996

we ended up with this. how big wire lus made us think that cell phone made a special investigation. >> your time suppose. >> >> the capture of the agency. >> your time suppose. >> is there any other public comment? >> good evening, welcome back. >> i want to thank you all commissioners because i can tell you've been really listening and i really appreciate it. and i'm going to cut some of what i was going to say out just because you are focusing on health. i want to address that. if i want to present a meta for i can story. timing is an important variable when climbing mount everest.

climbers must begin their assent on time and must observe strict turn a lot times. if they don't reach the summit by 2:00 p.m. they must turn around or the afternoon blizzards and early darkness will bring certain death. despite this knowledge, many climbers continue to the summit and never make it home home alive. christopher kay states we can be lured into our destruction by our passion for our goals. and make it a part of our identity and it's increasingly difficult to change direction. people despite accumulating evidence that the goal is unwise or determination and commitment to continue becomes hardened. the s.c.c. did not begin on time they failed to order 5g precautionary health and safety tests and relied on the 1996 telecommunications rack and illegal law based solely on industry sponsored health studies.

the fact that congress passed this dow gem on straits capture at best or outright corruption and fraud lens on the part of the federal government and the telecom industry. the climb towards 5g has been more arduous than expected. through out the world citizens are pushing back. citizens, seitz and counties in california have passed our our din ans banning 56. there have been 400 peels against 5g permits with testimony from numerous keys from smart people according to rick swig, president of the board of appeals here. think about it who in their right mind would want a cell tower in front of their residents. it's five minutes to two, are you going to turn around and start your dissent or is 5g going to be a suicidal mission for the people of san francisco? already, you have asked the director of the san francisco public-health department to read studies compiled by dr. joel

moscowwits. u.s. berkeley public-health researcher and they responded today and if it's going to take them three or four months i say there should be a moratorium on my more permits. ron radner has given you a reprieve by citing san francisco's precautionary principle ordinance. it's five minutes to two, follow your heart and internet collect and take the road less traveled. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none. we'll move on to rebuttal.

>> i've been a frequent flyer. >> it's hard to hear you. if you can speak into the microphone. please. >> thank you. i conclude with these ver bait um excerpts from the principal ordinance which are not reempted and not discretionary quote every san francisco an has an equal right to a healthy and safe environment while officers, boards, commissions, and departments of the city and county shall implement the principal and conducting the city and counties affairs. bun of the goals is to include citizens as equal partners in decisions effecting their environment. public participation and its open and transparent decision-making process are

critical to finding and collecting alternatives. the community has a right to know complete and accurate information on human health and environmental impacts associated with the selection of products services and operations or plans. bids on the best available science, the precautionary principle requires the collection of the alternative that presents the least potential threat to human health and the city natural systems including the alternative doing nothing. where threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exists, lack of full scientific certainty of cause and i shaland effect shall notis the derogation of the environment or protect the health of its citizens. there is a duty to prevent harm.

i haven't yet met a single san francisco an who wants to live next to a cell tower. this is a crucial time for this board to stop rubber stamping article 25 permits based on long outdated and scientifically knee dated fcc health guidelines which help the wireless induce tremendous but seriously harm i'mance and our precious environment. it's urgent now since we are threatened by microwaves to be beamed from antennas and drones and satellites. i respectfully urge this board to protect the health and safety of citizens by following the principle ordinance now and honoring your conscience and your public duty to prevent

environmental harm. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from mr.albritain. >> thank you, again, president situation members of the board. outside council for verizon. i know that it's uncomfort and i apologize you are asked to make these moral judgments when these facilities come before you each time. the precautionary principal is certainly the law of san francisco it specifically says it doesn't impose any specific action or duty on any board or other body in the city and in this case as you know, the federal law has been governing this area for nearly 30 years and as i mentioned, exhibit h contains the statement by the fcc they'll readopt the standards that exist today.

in that statement, there's a quote from the secretary of the food and drug administration where and i also want to say that the triple-e has take not a rereview and come up with the draft and they're voting on the approval of that draft at this time. the standard is reviewed and it was just reviewed recently. we respect the concerns of the community and i have to say that the verizon wireless trying to provide a service that they believe saved lives and the cellphones have saved more lives than have been threatened over the, they were turned on in 1985 so they've been around for a long time providing the services that we provide. happy to answer questions and happy for your question.

>> sorry, councilor. >> >> understanding that the process is reviewed and rereviewed, why is it that we're still base particular off a 1996, if it's been reviewed and rewritten? >> the code was 1996. the fcc established the standards in 1998 based on -- i should let the hamot and edson come up and explain it further. it's based on the aieee and the -- i miss this up. and those standards are continually rereviewed and reviewed. the fcc has not readopted it. >> not just the stand arrest, i just want to know why the code still has 1996 and it doesn't say code 1996 but rereviewed and

updated in 2017? >> it's a legal question you mean? >> >> the communications act of 1996 was anna mend many o an ame communications act of 1932. the laws have a great longevity and they all continue to have the same year of the act but there are other actions that take place. >> when there's a legal document or legal form and it was created in 1932, there's a stamp on any legal form that says revised and a certain date on it? >> the initial act remains the same. >> that's what i'm asking you is

there a specific amendment that you can show that this 1996 was amended in 2015, 2017, 2018. >> the act was an mended but it charges the fcc to come up with a stand sa standard. they worked with the f.d.a. and the e.p.a. to come up with a standard based on the health scientists available and other departments that deal with the e.p.a. >> at what year? >> 1998. and then the agencies that came up with those standards i've continued to review their own standards. >> good evening, welcome. >> so for reference, the standards set have been reviewed in 2013 as paul said, this past two months. in 2013, they released notice of rulemaking detailing and clarifying some of the methods that people have been determining as fcc compliance

would have to determine. >> sorry to interrupt. that was 2013. we did not have 5g at that time and i don't believe we had 4g. given the standard has for the equipment has changed so drastically, in recent years, why isn't there something that is -- in 2013 my daughter was in third grade. it's not a new generation because it isn't based on generation. back in 1996, we were just around 2g area. the center is based on frequency. the actual part of the electro magnetic spectrum that the cell carries operate and that

>> the frequent stays the same. the technology modifies how daytona is carried by the frequents but the frequents stay the same. >> it's not the name thrown about can you clarify, a.i. triple-e is a lobbying organization which represents the electrical engineers of this country as opposed to a -- >> so, it's actually an old name nowadays they describe it i triple-e. it's electronics and electrical engineer and it's just a professional engineering organization. most engineers -- >> it's for the benefit of

supporting the electrical engineers? >> they're a standard sitting body. they have the expertise to set standards -- >> their self-interest does with electrical engineers and the promotion of that? >> well, as a professional engineering body, the first tenant of the professional engineering code is the health and welfare of the public. they probably would not say that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> >> thank you. anything further? >> mr. sanchez? >> commissioners, i want to start. >> this matter is submitted. >> president r. swig: let's let our new commissioner start here. i want to hear from that. i'd like to hear his input as far as from law background. >> sure. >> president r. swig: sorry to put you on the spot. >> it's finement i'm just refilling my water here.

while there's a couple of legal issues that come up, obviously i'm not here in the capacity as a lawyer. i have reviewed the t-mobile case and i think that our discretion here is circum circud by federal pre 'emion and they need to be directed by the federal government until the california supreme court changes its mind. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> that was really good. that was exactly what the bottom line is here. we can sit here all daylong unfortunately. what i would like to do and i won't be able to do is i would like to put this case on hold until the d.p.h. comes up with their findings. i can't do that. i've been advised by the city attorney that would not be a legal act and we would probably

find ourselves in court thanks to mr. al britain, who i respect and he has to do his job. i really throw the burden on this to the department of health to do their homework and come back and look the citizens of the city of san francisco in the eye and say these cell towers and all these insulations put forward, they're all healthy and don't worry about it, kids. if not, if they don't find it that way to stand up and make san francisco a leader in maybe telling a truth and that it isn't being told, according to research that is being provided by many of our whether they're the public commentators. at that point, maybe the

precautionary principle will be invoked. at this point, unfortunately, as much i would like to place a moratorium as suggested by one of our public commentators, we cannot do that. we're held to the standard of article 25 and unless one of my fellow commissioners finds the face of our first commissioner's comments, wants to move otherwise, i think that we have to deny the appeal based on the fact that the permit was properly issued under the code and under the jurisdiction of article 25. so, as the commissioner that's probably on here before anyone else here, tonight, i've heard the most cases. unfortunately, to kind of answer what the appellant said, we have gone against many of the cell towers that have come before us.

some successfully. most of it has gone to litigation, which this body has lost. it's not that we're scared to go forward or that we're rubber stamping it. that's far from the case. we spend hours reading these briefs. we all have jobs that we do for our real money. we have children, we have families. we spend hours and hours a week going over these briefs trying to make sense of all the scientific, the appellant side, the scientist side and the permit side. i'm very -- i mean, i've been on this body when we made those decisions and that litigated. so, i am extremely sympathetic. extremely. so much so that even i am tempted to continue this case. i don't have the votes here

tonight. that's probably not going to happen. this body has requested from the san francisco health department to produce some new numbers. now, at which point, whether we like those numbers or don't like those numbers, those are going to be what we're dealing with. and again, no one wants to have a cell tower eight feet from the window. we've seen them as close as four feet. we've seen tons of wires. i mean, we have had hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cases come before us with as many concerned citizens as you are today. unfortunately, as my new colleague has said, not trying to be chicken shit here but our hands are tied. >> you said that on tv? >> i'm sorry, ma'am. and so, at this point, i'm going to -- [please stand by]