>> good evening and welcome to the november 6, 2019, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president rick swig will be the presiding officer. at the control is the board's legal assistant, katie sullivan

and i'm the executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments. we expect joseph duffy, senior building inspector, representing department inspection. we have the analyst with san francisco public works and we expect carlo short and chris buck, forester from san francisco public works. the board requests that you turn off all phones and other electronic devices. please carry on conversations in the hallway. appellates, permit holders, and respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated with their

parties have three minutes each and no rebuttal. please people into the microphone. the board reserves the right to not call an item after 10:00 p.m. please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or visit the office if you have additional contents. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv. the video is available on our website and can be downloaded from sfgovtv.org. if you intend to testify at any of the proceedings and wish to

have your testimony given weight, please stand and say "i do" after you have been sworn or affirmed. do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> yes. >> we are on item number 1. general public comment. if anyone is here for the 24th street tree removal cases, those are rescheduled to january 8. is anyone here for those cases? those four cases were moved to january 8 on the agenda. i apologize, we posted that information on our website. unless you want to stay in here for the rest of the items, you should leave. thank you. item 1 is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who wants to speak to a matter in the board's

jurisdiction but is not on tonight's calendar. please approach. >> good evening and welcome. thank you for letting me speak today. is there a way to make the clock show me how much time is left for my time? >> three minutes, please. >> thank you. i'm here to speak just on the overwhelming problem of this city being deforested right now by department of public works and department of urban forestry. we have a huge problem going on right now. 2,500 trees were removed, public trees, in frisk in this past year. there is 100 trees slated for removal by parks and rec over at

lake mersed. it's happening all over the city, trees removed. it's the polite way of saying removing and killing. these trees provide a lot of benefit for our communities, especially during the air quality problems caused by the recent fires. bureau of urban forestry has not done their part in responding to the public. it took almost a year to get them to come into a.d.a. compliance with notification for these tree removals. it took almost three months to get a reply from them just over e-mail. chris buck and other people at that department simply reply to the public whenever they feel like it and they don't reply in a timely fashion. even after i involved the mayor's office on disability, i still couldn't get a reply from them. a lot of times they say these

trees are being removed, but we'll plant new ones. it took five years to get four replacement trees for 3500 mission street. that's five years after i wrote numerous e-mails and spoke in person. the amount of work it takes to get these replacement trees is wild. i don't believe there's been a sufficient budget for replanting of new trees. also, according to the united states department of agriculture's report from 2016, over 17% of urban trees don't live past two years. a lot of the trees that are replanted get sick, they're not cared for. there's no budgeting to water them and put proper irrigation systems and mulch and pruning and they die. our city is quickly becoming an urban desert. we have the smallest urban

canopy, we fall behind chicago, new york, los angeles, and it's getting worse in a climate crisis. parks and rec doesn't have a successful notification system for people with disabilities, those who can't leave their homes and canvass parks to look for tree notices. thank you for your time. >> thank you, sir. >> clerk: is there any other general public comment? seeing none, we will move on to item number 2. commissioner comments and questions. >> next monday is veterans' day. thinking of all the folks who served in our armed forces or are currently serving. >> i would also like to thank all the people who participated last night in our voting process and to the people that have successfully got new jobs and retained their jobs. >> clerk: is there any public comment on that item? okay. seeing none, we'll move on to

item number 3, commissioners before you, discussion and possible adoption of the october 23, 2019, minutes. >> do i hear a motion. >> [ indiscernible ] -- >> clerk: we have a motion from the developed to adopt the minutes. [roll call vote]. >> clerk: to motion carries 5-0 the minutes are adopted. we are now moving onto item number 4, this is appeal number 19-096, maureen maring versus san francisco public works. 1653 17th avenue. appealing the issue. >> announcer: on august 14, 2019, to extenet systems, llc, of a personal wireless service facility site permit. installation of a box facility in a planning protected

location. this is permit number 18 wr-0195. >> welcome. >> clerk: you can move the microphone down. >> thank you. i'm maureen maring and i live at 1653 17th avenue, frisk, our family home. i'm here to present my appeal in opposition to the wireless cell set up. i would like to mention in all the information -- first of all, i would like to thank you all for being here and letting us talk. our home is right by this -- the pictures don't depict it accurately, it's closer. and in the information sent to us, it would be slightly defective. truly, our block has no wires. that's why families and people live here, moved on the block. there's families, my neighbors paid hundred thousand dollars,

millions in mortgages. my neighbors have families and children and they work at home. this wireless cell in front of our home would really, truly detract when we see other places down the street what it looks like. also, i just wanted to say some of my neighbors didn't come here tonight because they're working. also, they feel defeated. they say no one's listening to us. we had to pay a $300 fee to come here again to ask for someone to listen to us. i just say, if you had your home and you paid all of this and then someone, a large company comes along and say they they're going to put this in front of your home without any say so, i wasn't informed. i do have the date when i got it in the mail, but it was posted on a pole in front of us before we ever heard about this.

so i think that's what i wanted to say. thank you for listening to me and my neighbors and families. >> thank you. >> thank you, ms. maring. >> you have all that pg&e work going on? >> but that's necessary and they're doing a good job. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> good evening and welcome. >> thank you very much. i'm joseph kanisha with x and f systems. we are the permit holders. you, i'm sure, read the brief and visited the neighborhood. i will be brief in my summary of what i consider the primary issues with this appeal.

they are the assertion that public notification did not occur properly, that the planning determination -- planning approval determination was made in error and that the planning approval determination was made in error. in each case we believe that they were correctly done. we believe that the applicable agencies correctly approved the proposals. real quickly, i'd like to demonstrate how these things were true. regarding public notice, article 25 requires that we both post notices in a variety of locations around the subject proposed installation. we did that. we actually posted six notices on 17th between lot and maraga. we were also required to mail notices to all owners and occupants within 150 feet of the proposal, which we did. we also mailed notices to all neighborhood groups or all contacts on the neighborhood groups associated with the inner sunset neighborhood. we uploaded affidavits

confirming that both the postings and the mailings were done correctly. public works reviewed those and confirmed that everything had been done correctly when the tentative approval was issued. that was protected which is some evidence that somebody received some notification, but in any case we did upload affidavits proving that we adhered to all the elements of article 25. moving on to the planning approval determination, the planning department reviewed and ultimately approved the proposal in its april 5, 2019, memo. they specifically cited that the proposal would not detract from neighborhood character. they actually subsequently re-reviewed their approval during the protest stage and reconfirmed that they agreed that it met all the comrapplica

standards. we believe the planning department has taken all these factors into consideration and correctly approved the installation. finally, the department of public health also approved and reviewed the proposal. their review is based on a few factors, the operation of the antennas, the proximity to adjacent recipients, residences are about 17 feet away. daniel roe of hammond medicine which is a third party can discuss the human exposure to radiofrequency. the highest exposure levels that would result from this installation were 2.5% of the f.c.c.'s limit. 40 times below the limit. the exposure levels for anyone on the ground for folks walking by on the sidewalk is less than 1%. it's pretty clear that these

levels are well below anything that would be beyond non-compliance with f.c.c.'s limits. barring any other evidence that these determinations were made in error, we respectfully request that this board deny the appeal and uphold the decision. >> what happened to the regular counsel? >> that was verizon's counsel. >> even though we've had quite a few of these cases before us, what is the overall reason of the upgrade on the antenna poles? >> upgrade? >> i mean, what is the purpose of the installation. >> oh, what are these for, why are we installing these? extenet is a provider. we work with all the major

providers in the united states. we work with our clients to help them improve our wireless networks. as technology evolves, i'm sure you've heard this many times, the sites go from being way up in the day, now you need smaller facilities dotted throughout the landscape so all the users have the ability to be able to be using the system at the same time. we helped the wireless carries install those facilities to continue to improve wireless capacity. >> are these 5g capable or just 4g? >> this is just 4g. this particular installation does not include the new technology. we don't know if and when -- in this case this client is sprint for this particular installation. we don't know when they might

want to start looking at 5g technology. we expect it will happen, but we don't know what their plans are. >> given the situation that we had recently in kinkaid with the fires, the older cellular technology had huge tower backups. >> these would not be functioning if the power to them is cut. there are no backup generators. they are large and loud. >> one of the deficits for having slim line. >> yes. >> clerk: thank you. we'll now hear from the department of public works. >> welcome back. >> hello. good afternoon, president, vice president, and members of the

board. i'm leo palasios representing public works. we believe this permit was issued in compliance with the public works code 25 for personal wireless facilities. article 25 requires wireless application to be submitted to the department of public health and the planning department. public works subsequently issued a tentative approval in the applicant mail and posted notice of this approval. public works posted a public hearing. following the hearing, the director of public works approved the permit and notice of this was distributed to the public. the planning department is in attendance and can speak more about planning's review if it has questions. the health department isn't in attendance, but is available to respond by e-mail. >> you're getting good at this.

>> so as of june the regulations have changed and a permit like this would no longer be a permit but a license. is that correct? >> yes, our jurisdiction regarding poles, pg&e and the other poles, this falls back to the pole owner. >> and i don't know if you're the right person to answer this, but if for some reason we upheld this appeal, would it have any significance, given that the applicant is now entitled to go and seek a license directly from the p.u.c.? >> all i can say is at the time of issuance it did follow the article. any decisions made under your jurisdiction is up to you guys. if there is a modification to

this, that it would have to go through sfpuc for installation of 5g, for example. >> clerk: thank you. mr. sanchez. we will now hear from the planning department. >> scott sanchez planning department staff. before you is an image of the plan for this district. this is a planning protected location because it's on a street with good street views. the planning department did properly review this and their analysis is consistent with past practice for similar applications. also, it's my understanding that given the law that is in effect today, this permit would not be required and planning department review would not be required in this case, given the current state of the wireless controls. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on

this item? how many people are here for public comment, if you could raise your hand. okay. please, someone, approach. maybe if you could just line up on the side over here. sir, do you have a speaker card? >> no, i do not. >> clerk: maybe if after you speak you could write your name down. >> i live at 1647 17 avenue. my neighbor is maureen. i would like to present an objection for a violation and an infringement on california penal code 372 and 373 p.c. which gives citizens in our neighborhood and our community the right to appeal and reject any infringement on our senses, specifically sight is involved. i don't know if you've seen these devices that they plan to put in, but they are ugly. in our neighborhood, we have a

beautiful neighborhood. these homes are million-dollar homes and we have a beautiful view of the hills and everything and they will obstruct our view. they are despicable looking and they give boxes and signs to give warnings to be around this energy. that's number one. number two, the poles in our neighborhood are not wood. they're concrete. okay. so whoever is stating whatever they're saying has nothing to do with those poles. all right. we've been told that, my neighbor and i polled the neighborhood. 52 neighbors. 49 signed signatures that they oppose this because it is an obstruction of their views. it is an infringement on their rights for their senses. that is just a sampling. so the majority of the neighborhood oppose this.

i think it is gross negligence on the part of the planners and other people for not taking into consideration these -- our benefit of having a neighborhood that is a beautiful neighborhood and our sense of beauty. san francisco is known about its culture and its sophistication. this is just being obliterated by a company that's installing it. they're not even from the united states. they're from britain. all right. so esthetic sensibility to them means nothing. it's the bottom line for 5g which they say is 4g. there is a doctor from israel, a genius, who has shown that these short waves are dangerous to health. >> clerk: you have 30 seconds. >> thank you so much. i appreciate it. we approach that we can in some way utilize the law, the penal

codes that protect us and our community to have the esthetic life that we live. >> next speaker, please. >> clerk: there should be a speaker card on the podium. >> next speaker, please. i'm sorry, ma'am, you're the appellant. >> clerk: you'll have an opportunity to come up during rebuttal. we're taking public comment for your item right now. thank you. you can come up. thank you. >> next speaker, please. good evening and welcome. >> thank you. i'm a resident at 1657 17th avenue. we the residents of 1657 17th avenue have checked installation on the personal wireless facility next to our home. we're raising children along with other neighbors on our block. the alleged study does not address at effects on children. children have more permanentable

skulls and bones, nor does the f.c.c. study address the cumulative effects. this will be emitting radiofrequency non-stop to cumulative radiation leaving us with no choice. even those with cigarette smoking had a choice. erection of a wireless antenna next to our home will be a forced, not concelebritied to exposure to harmful e.m.f.s. densefied 4g or 5g will result in child endangerment. it's beyond any rational dispute that a child's skull is thinner. it is also beyond rational dispute that due to this frai y frailty, children's brains are

more at risk of non-ionizing radiation. this is of concern from the american academy of pediatrics, as can be seen at the following link. >> overhead, please. thank you. >> this is the letter electric the american academy of pediatrics, f.c.c., demanding for asking for more studies regarding children. this is consistent with other scientific findings showing that kids are more at risk, as shown in the other link. it's all going to be in this letter that i will leave. allowance of dense urban distribution of 4g antennas cannot avoid the placement of these towers immediately adjacent, as in the case where i live, to people's sleeping

quarters, including children. respectfully and including as to the use of the penal statute as a template for the civil liability, such placement appears to violate the spirit and intent and likely the letter of law of california penal code 273 a. we have heard you giving advice to residents contacting state legislators and the health department. we have done this a number of times just to get a standard reply from the governor and other staff to -- >> thank you, ma'am. >> no resolve. thank you. >> clerk: if you could write your name on a speaker card. next speaker, please. >> i live in 1661 17th avenue.

it seems like everybody who is here tonight, i don't have any graphs or charts and i'm not going to bore you with this mickey mouse. it seems like everyone who is here is one or two or three doors away from this antenna. i was born and raised in san francisco. i've lived here my whole life. i lived in this house for over 35 years. the other neighbors have been 30, 20, and the newest one in the back has been there about two years and he has a little boy about 8 years old. cutest little guy. we were never asked or notified of anything except when the person decided to apply for a permit, came before you, came before you folks. in all my years here in san francisco, i never had an

incident to come down to city hall. but i think i've been here a couple times now and it's quite unusual for something like this. i just wanted you guys to know that our neighbors weren't in favor of this antenna and didn't want to take that much of your time. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> can i ask you a question. how far away do you live from the antenna site? >> two stores. >> within 150 feet? >> right. >> so you received nothing in the mail? >> no, i received the notice. what i was stating is in all my years of living in san francisco, i understand the gentleman that they went through the process, we were sent the notices. but we were never asked prior to installing this antenna. as a matter of fact, since you asked me that, my neighbor one day saw a guy in a hoodie

standing over in the front. he was looking at the site and he ran out to ask him what he was doing there and the guy just kind of ran off. the next thing you know, we got a notice for this antenna. just a little bit of incite there. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is edward braznikoff. we have two children. we live at 1567, pretty much outside of the light pole, which is a light pole, not a power pole, for the installation. i bought this place 20 years ago or so because of the location. i was looking for residential, single-family area that had a classic, historic look, appeal,

views. i found it in the golden gate heights neighborhood. the installation of this antenna would take away of the appeal from the wireless street that we have and also basically it just -- it looks as if it's just a monstrosity put onto a pole. sure, it's dressed up to make it look less obvious than the installation down the street. looking up at the pole would be a constant reminder that there's radiation coming off the pole. i'm concerned about my neighbors and my children, the whole residential character of the whole historic neighborhood of golden gate heights. it's a quiet neighborhood. i don't understand why this

isn't put into a place like a galleria where you can buy cellphones and try them. we live in a quiet residential neighborhood. i spoke to about 80 neighbors in our area and only about two wanted this antenna. everyone else said we have internet, we don't need this and don't want this on our street and on our poles. it was brought up that the home values will start to be neglect impacted by this whole thing. there has been studies in multiple institutions. there were surveys by the national institute of science law and public policy, where 94% of home buyers were just not interested in moving into areas with telephone wires and power poles and lines and antennas, and so on and so forth. as far as the public works response in their brief, the

precautionary principle ordinance, it only seems like it's a guideline now. it's put in print, but it doesn't hold any water. it's misleading and fraudulent. the people that pay taxes and constantly taxes do go up every year because i know, i pay the taxes. when it comes down to actually enforcing this, they're saying they don't have to do anything. thank you for your time this evening. >> clerk: if you could write your name down on a speaker card, i would appreciate it. next speaker, please. >> thank you for listening to us. i live at 1647 17th avenue. to your point, i never received anything in the mail about this going up. the first i heard about it was a notice on the pole that you could barely read because it was covered over with tape and it was barely legible because of rain and fog.

luckily one of your neighbors looked at this and said what's going on. the second point is i work at home, i'm a reader, i constantly research on the internet. our internet is fine. we don't need anything faster. everything is working fine in this location. we don't need anything faster or better. the second point is this proposed location would directly impact one of the city's cultural icons, which is the 16th avenue stairs. trip adviser lists 770 things to do in san francisco. this is number 30. there are people who come from all over the world to see those stairs. this would directly impact the beauty of that neighborhood. there are no wires on this street. our wires are in our back yard. they're not in the front. it's a lovely street with arts and craft style homes. it's a real esthetic problem. i know in april the california supreme court ruled unanimously

that esthetics alone are enough to reject the 5g infrastructure. dennis herrera agreed that the poles could take away from the city's beauty. also i would like to make a point around this. other cities around the world are saying no and rejecting this rush to force 5g on local governments and communities. mill valley has blocked this. ross and salselmo have passed similar ordinances. dozens of cities are fighting this rush to limit local control. people in belgium, italy, germany, switzerland are calling for bans on this 5g. the congresswoman who represents silicon valley introduced a

legislation toe overturn this policy. there is a removal of some small cell deployments and removes safeguards that are outlined in the national environmental policy act. finally, we're asking san francisco to fight back and be on the right side of this. los angeles, seattle, and 22 other cities and counties have already filed lawsuits to overturn the f.c.c. order. i thank you for your time and your consideration. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next sfooepeaker, please. is there any other public comment? yes. please approach. >> good evening, welcome. >> hello. hello, board members and

president. at the september 25 board of appeals meeting, there was an appeal to stop the placement of a cellular antenna and it was denied by the board. during that meeting, a most important and imperative argument was presented by ron ratner on the precautioner principle. a rule of law and an ordinance of the city of san francisco. the precautionary principle cannot be pre-empted nor is it conditional. it is there to protect the citizens from danger. we have a situation where we citizens are not warranted, protected, informed, or giving our consent to this addition of a pollutant, additional elect electromagnetic radio waves. our residences are peaceful abodes. we now encounter 24-hour-a-day

exposure with no relief. everything is protected to do other side at the protection of the cautionary ordinance. the president in his authority requested the san francisco department of public health to update their 2010 statement on cell towers and antennas. that is now in process. therefore, all applications and approvals should be held in abeyance until such time as the rates of exposure and resting can be determined for the placement of towers and antennas related to their impact on health. number two, president swig requested guidance from the legal counsel regarding the precautionary ordinance and how it must relate to article 25 of the 1996 telecommunications act and overriding it.

his response was, i'm not prepared to do so. 42 days have passed. so for the public record and to follow up president swig's request, the question is, what guidance can you now give to the board of appeals regarding that question? at the september 25 meeting, it was also stated that there was no manifest in justice. how can the board make such a statement when people are bombarded with levels of radiation hundreds of thousands of times higher than normal and pulses continuously that affect the health of people, plants, insects, even rain. injustice abounds here. just a little bit more for the overhead. in the united states, these are the comparisons. if you do 10%, you're still 100 which is higher than anything imaginable throughout other parts of the world.

>> clerk: thank you, sir. will you fill out a speaker card, please. >> thank you. >> clerk: is there any other public comment? okay. we will move on to rebuttal. ms. maring, you have three minutes. >> thank you. i just wanted to mention. i have the envelope that was mailed to me that said it was mailed from santa anna two or three days before that. i noticed the light pole in front of our home. all of this planning was going on and then we get the note in the mail. and also it was said there would be a 4-foot dome on top of the light pole and they said not distractive boxes. my neighbors and i live here.

we don't want this radiofrequency in front of our homes. if they want to put it on 17th avenue they can put it on lotten and maraga where there are no windows on the corners. my neighbors work at home and have families and children. thank you for listening to me. i'm grateful for my neighbors being here to support me. there's other places that could locate it on 19th avenue, a thorou thoroughfare, not in front of family homes. >> clerk: thank you. >> do you need this anymore? >> clerk: thank you. we'll hear from the permit holder. would that last public speaker, do you have your card to turn?

thank you. it helps us keep accurate track of the minutes. thank you. public comment. okay. you have three minutes. >> thank you. more than anything, i'd like to be here to answer any questions that you have after you've heard some other folks. i would like to highlight, at the risk of being repetitive, we did follow the notification requirements. you've actually heard from some folks. you've heard that that was true. you heard from folks that did get the mailer. you heard that there were notices posted. again, we uploaded the affidavits proving as much. as far as the design, this is as sleek and as small of a design we installed for san francisco.

we've worked for the planning department for several years to try to make these as small and unobtrusive as possible. installations that might occur on lotten would be on larger poles with communication lines. those installations require large separation from power lines and communication lines. they just result in bigger, more obvious installations. while it's true in some locations it might be better to go to one location over another, it would result in bigger installations. that's true here with what would be required if we went to a different location. i want to highlight those things and answer any questions. >> the question was really just to try to explain why this location is important. like what is the reason.

i understand the size difference if you're further away, but why do you need to be here at this particular location? >> the best way i can answer that is sprint has decided, via reviewing their network performance than this location would help performance in the neighborhood. this -- we chose this part of 17th because they have concrete light poles, whereas a lot of the neighborhood has the wooden larger utility poles. >> did you look at specific alternatives? normally in these cases there are alternative poles which are considered and that actually has become part of the dialog with the community, as opposed to, okay, we're putting it here because it suits us. did you have any options in

alternatives on any part of the street, even though a more obtrusive box may have resulted? >>yes, i think there are options and other poles that may have resulted in an installation. there are other concrete poles on 17th, but i don't think that would satisfy any of the folks here tonight. it would still be on 17th and still be roughly equivalent locations to homes. i don't know that those are better alternatives. the other alternatives are almost entirely wood poles. some of those poles are not possible at all just because there's so much stuff on them that we wouldn't be able to install a facility that would comply with state law that governs how and where utilities relate to each other. some aren't options at all, but others might be. we determined those are lesser options because they would

result in bigger and more obvious installations. >> would you like to respond to the public's question as to why there is this urgency to put these boxes. i'm not picking on sprint, but you might want to generically answer because we get this question. why is there the sense of urgency to populate so dramatically the light poles, et cetera, of san francisco by these boxes with all of these -- by all the telecommunication wireless companies? >> sure. that's a question that we could talk about for a long time. to try to be brief, as technology as evolved over time, the antennas and the radios need to be closer to the severs because of the huge data usage. if you only have one site that serves 10,000 people, the experience of those people trying to use it at the same time will be really awful. if you have three or four sites

scattered, each location can better serve the population. that's why you're seeing the evolution over time. in the very early days of wireless networks, you may have only had one or two sites in a metropolitan area. you've seen it from being on top of a mountain to on top of a tall building to on top of a smaller building to antennas in the streets. that's why, the networks need more facilities to process all of the data. >> thank you. any other questions? >> clerk: thank you. anything further, mr. palasius. >> if you can come forward. i'm got a few brief questions. >> we've talked in the past about customer service and customer sensitivity. it's an item for me at least. was there an initiative to have

dialog with the community and look proactively at alternative sites and discuss with the community why this site might not be their first choice or explain to the community that alternative sites would just end up being the same issue or worse? >> yeah. there's a -- prior to the application -- well, we have a hearing -- we did have a hearing for this item where the public could say they're concerned, their comments, and the applicant is there stating the reasons they chose this location. but prior to the installation, we do have a section in our new order which was also in the previous order encouraging community meetings. it is encouraged in order that they do have community meetings, but it's not required. >> to your knowledge, did extenet have a sense of

community service and simulate a community meeting on this subject? >> as far as my knowledge, i'm not aware of one. >> in your public meetings, did anybody from the community show up or were they notified that they had the option of showing up at a community meeting to -- or not a community meeting, your hearing, to voice their concern. >> yes, we had people show up to the hearing. >> okay. great. how many, out of interest? >> i think i saw the check-in sheet today, i think roughly nine or ten. >> i would like to understand the process for folks who may not be engaged. the process has changed now. they would work with you, public works, to have their application which is reviewed by planning, has this public hearing process. then after that hearing assume

the permit is tentatively issued, assuming there is a notice that goes out. is that what happens? that's where people see the notice cards and the posting on the pole itself? >> yes. >> then they have a time to appeal which brings them here. >> they have time to protest and there is another notice for the appeal, yes. >> just to try limit -- >> that isn't the old order. >> so just to try to help folks understand that what happens is the notice on the pole and the notice to your home is the notice that this is potenti potentialally going to be a process that brings you here to us for the board of appeals. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> so, mr. rossi, i hate to throw this at you. you can come up with the same answer. on the issue of the precautionary issue, i have a

sense this is going to come up again and again and again. how do we get a reading on this so that the public has some comfort about is there a precautionary principle number one, what is the theory behind it, what is the impact of that on cases like this. can we move forward on that or have you done some further research? >> i think i answered the question at one of the meetings on these prior permits. article 25 limits the board's review of these permits to compliance with article 25. it's not the broader review that you have under other kinds of permits. article 25 provides that the standard is set by the federal comooucketss commission. so themunications commission. so the city can't create their own. this ordinance does not place any binding obligation on you as

a board to create anything that you believe violates that principle. >> we found that those of you who attended our hearing before, the aforementioned article 25 was really well crafted by the legislators in tying our hands. there are very strict guidelines, and -- that we has a board have to adhere to. if there are -- i think that we have found exceptions and denied -- sorry, found for appellants when there are clear view streets, like a street would have a beautiful view of the golden gate bridge and this big box would block that and we've been able to use that as a

way to find for an appeal. we have found a way in the past where there has been notice that was improper. we have upheld an appeal on that. we have been frustrated on the health issue. there is no doubt that there is stacks and stacks and stacks, et cetera, of medical findings that imply that these things are being put on our street poles are harming citizens. we are not medical professionals. we read the documents, but we're not medical professionals. we cannot opine on that and we cannot find because article 25 yet again binds our hands. we made a request to the department of public health to update their findings from 2010. we have yet to hear from the department of public health. when we do, i'm not sure that will have any bearing either,

but just for the public's knowledge, it's not that we sit here rubber stamping and finding objection to your points of view. this law is significantly restraining our ability to find for appellants in these types of cases. so unfortunately i would suggest that yet again we deny the appeal on the grounds that the permit was properly issued according to article 25. if anybody else wants to comment on it, i'm -- >> no, i just want to concur with my president. we've heard hundreds and hundreds of these cases. besides being commissioners, we also are residents and homeowners in the city as well.

i too have a cellular antenna on my block. i was thinking about appealing it, but that wouldn't work out so well. we are extremely sympathetic and not just to say our hands are tied. we have tried several times in the past, to the point where our board has lost litigation for the decisions that we made. to the people that are there, one, if you guys are living on the up side of the street, you have great views. i'm surprised keith and his little dog is not with you guys. the other thing was the block before you is kind of famous. john burke was raised on that block. >> i would add one thing. i think these processes and city processes can be confusing a lot of times. there's a lot of moving parts.

we're one of the last stops, the board of appeals. our job is to determine whether a decision was issued and that it was right and correct. this is the purview of the board of supervisors. we decide if the permits were issued in accordance with the laws that were set out in the way that the laws set out. in this case we have even more challenges. article 25 is not just on its own but according to federal law that supersedes the federal law. it's to give you a bigger picture of where we derive our authority from and where this law and permit derives its authority from. >> i think i made a motion unless anybody wants to adjustility.

>> we have a motion from the president to uphold the appeal. [roll call vote]. >> clerk: that motion carries. we are moving on to item number 5, appeal no. 19-0 # #. william hassebrock versus department of building inspection. this is an appealing the issuance on july 19, 2019, to coyote walnut creek.

there is a certificate of completion requested legalizing the rear building. >> my name is bill hassebrock. this is my card. thank you for allowing me to appear before you this evening. i first want to acknowledge i believe my -- there. i am co-owner in a t.i.c. in the process of converting condo a two-unit property. mr. apolos is my co-owner. i want to ask that you consider that mr. apolos, my partner, felt that he did not want to be mentioned as a party to my actual brief. i thought in good faith that we were in sync, but on a couple of matters he was not in agreement. so i apologize for that and ask

that you consider this request for an appeal from me personally. in particular, that you disregard my statement in my brief that he briefs, as i do, to have the address issue reversed when, in fact, he is merely indifferent to it. he's not opposing it and not supporting it. thank you for that. my apologies, doug. in 1991, i purchased a property on the hill, 616 carolina street. at the time it had two buildings on it, the main house and a small cottage in the back. in the ensuing couple of years, i appeared, in fact, before your board and was granted permission to legalize that as a rental unit. i was told that -- at that time

there was no need to go through an address change because we were not dividing the property. it was still my eire property. i owned both units and rented the back unit. the d.b.i. told me just to go to the post office and for almost 30 years the address has been 616 carolina street in the infantry house and a for the back house. i decided that i wanted to divide my property in preparation for my own retirement and to travel and i would sell the front house as a condo and keep the tottage at the front as my own law firm. i got a law firm to represent