Closet facility in the neighborhood the standard is we will be thirty times below the level that will be allowed by the federal government i understand that people have fears about those issues with San Franciscos own standards with respect to and i authenticates i understand the standard now and there are two theres the zoning protected standard that applies that detracts from the significantly from the defining characteristics of the neighborhood if if is a street of excellent view then the planning standard i was reciting earlier it will significantly impair the view the scenic view that is the landmarks building and so for the this particular building of vallejo fails into the planning protected and the Planning Department based on both of those the aesthetics for the small facility didnt supercede those standards and the gun pointing department made the proper recommendation to the did you want and is protested to the public works officer said the standards were accurately met we understand there are complaints about the system itself many in the industry building that Telephone Companies should be able to put equipment on telephone poles and, in fact we provided meows and posted on the post from the block face we send a second notice out when an initial determination and notice these these and obviously the appellants were able to file the appeal if they got enough appeal for the public hearing so we agree with the department all the procedures were met to be met i believe that covers the appeal issues im available to answer any questions you may have and hopefully, this facility compiles with the duplicate and the Planning Department had approved with respect to this facility thank you very much. Mr. Chin. Good evening gene chang public works again appellant argues that the process was not followed see misrepresentation views public works are here to the code 25 and the appellant posted the application and we conducted the hearing during the public hearing they were handed to the department there was a mistake reflected in the records decision of it protest being received, in fact all the protests that were received were handed to the hearing officers so that was a clerical issue we apologize and we corrected it in regards to the petition that was filed with the department 9 days after the public hearing and it resolved around our decision with that said ill pass it on to omar. To elaborate on that ill be happy to answer any questions. What about the address issue. The address issue i cant answer to that i wasnt the one reviewing the plans but i did see that the photo simulations and the actual plans that indicate the actual pole it might have been the actual calling out of the pole locations fronting the address. Were you asking planning to speak. The planning presents the challenges with regards to the original design was a higher pole we recommend disapproved it had a redesign we felt therefore not detracting from the nature of the Residential District within which the pole is locate Public Health is not here generally, we fall within one percent of the ftc and residents brought up how standards are applied not win our jurisdiction we found that in many rights the occ sites with the specific country but also weve done testing for similar sites not noncompliance that exceeds the limits or approaching the estimated strength of the site the report that is generated summoned the worse Case Scenario this is generally not how it is operated unless theres a load on the networks that parade on those streets you might have the antenna but not one of the weve gone out with the rfp meter and approaching the maximum standard thank you. One question so wouldnt having the pole raised be less of a blockage issue that building that type of of building is generally 35 fiat feet and the top it 29 feet original design was a substantial increase we can work with the applicant to move the antenna you were u up higher ill be happy to it appears to be higher than the line of sight. Thank you. We will take Public Comment on this item whoever wishes to speak please come forward if you can line up that lo will be helpful. First person please come to the microphone. Yes. Good evening again, im getting older as i sit there laughter . I dont know if i can make it to my own appeal i dont know how to work this vertical i want to show them what the poles look like before verizon puts on their equipment this is one a couple of blocks away but so you know it is already looking pretty bad id like to encourage you to take the first or second step and approve that appeal San Francisco is known to be front and center in raising doubts of federal policy they were careful to say the main basis is not health but an adorable daughter none has mentioned the risk to children im immune damaged in remission from hotchkins disease and everybody in San Francisco is afraid to touch other jurisdictions are not afraid but Maxine Waters in washington not afraid to do it in her own residents in west chester in Southern California did deny a tower a cell phone tower and nothing terrible happened theres still a tower where Maxine Waters lives also weve been in the forefront marijuana laws is the best clearest example where the freds said no and california said yes and the fact that the voters said, yes remember when we rejected the vietnam war and going back to california its in the went from ill urge you to think that that. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi eye im mary a i thought i should stand up for jason and his wife i think i would reiterate everything theyve said the obstruction of view they have Health Concerns and consider that although were not through to say our federal government says its okay. Thats my comment thank you. Public speaking was just fine really it was. Thank you. Next speaker, please. John and i are going both getting older i continue to ask you to note that regardless of all the other issues verizon and the kind lady at the dpw said it was a volunteery condition they put into what is singularly a legal contract between that verizon and the dpw theyve voluntarily included number ten obstruct it will not obstruct view and light im pretty much and i need to check with my own Outdoor Council i believe this document is a legal contract which verizon entered into volunteer will i and that has been inserted in this contract i also want to support the appeal for the city to step think outside the box i think we all know our city stepped outside the box and began the legalization of gay marriage and the fact that the federal Communications Requirements are obsolete and audited dated is worse our citys considerations thank you. Is there any additional Public Comment seeing none, well have rebuttal from the appellant appellant. I judge have a quick thick to say and sarah will take over given the boards deference to the 1912 Communications Act i find it surprising how little interest in the precautionary board minutes in a direction you dont want to go in im going to turn it over to sarah. A point thats been ignored by developing and dpw is the sunshine ordinance we believe that the whole process is in violation of the San Francisco sunshine ordinance and following the under reporting of protest letters i wrote to mr. Chang at expelling who failed to acknowledge my request for public records within the time limit failed to present the information other incidents of under reporting ever neighborhood to the cell phone antenna so we can determine whether or not a patent systematically patent of under reporting bias in favor by failing to accurately report the letters of opposition theyve received we believe that the process is in violence of the sunshine ordinance and filed a compliment with the Sunshine Ordinance Task force this is only one example of a number of procedural failings by the dpw not least the completely confusing address of the permit as well as the failure to report the protest which maybe the case in other places in the city gentleman requests our under reporting of the proposed sites the relevance that if theres a patent of reporting this could indicate that he has bias against public interests we feel under the sunshine ordinance and the relationship to the appeal it should be grant thank you. Since we have time left maybe ill read some passages from the principle where threats of irreversible damage the lack of uncertainty of causeandeffect not a reason for the city to postpone the degradation of the environment video there are other passages i encourage you to read thank you. Thank you. We take rebuttal from the permit holder. No, we cant im Outdoor Council for verizon we have the same in the packet you have the photo simulation of the facility nicole will do that i broke the mike i wanted to say that is this in this particular circumstance the pole started out excuse me. At 29 feet 10 inches and with those increased to 34 feet slithering above the roofline not to impair views antenna itself wont top out at the center line were above the roofline of the building so it didnt obstruct any views and the pole increased in height didnt impair the view than before i wanted to comment on the address quickly telephone poles donna dont have addresses the address adjacent to the pole is sometime one or two addresses but poles identified by number that is sometimes theres a disagreement of which address the pole is specifically in front of i did want to mention under the conditions of approval weve agreed to post installation testing so once the facility is operational then, in fact, edison take the mutter to make sure their as omar indicated tracer frequently lover or lower than the calculated projections the appellant feels the option was under recorded the numbers of letters of there were letters it is by the law and not by the number of people that get i think i mentioned the procedures theres ample opportunity for that information once again weve worked with the department and came up with a design that doesnt change the views in terms of the poles it expends slightly to allow the antenna above the roofline and encourage you once again to uphold the positions the department. A quick question what is the relationship between next and verizon. Good question Verizon Wireless is a nationwide and owns the willss and the other hired in that circumstance to install that network and they will continue to own the network and Verizon Wireless pays them to run the systems through the this network that is one of the modes that x net has the Telephone Corporation in their own right and has approvals in this circumstance theyll be a provider to wireless verizon and may change the license any other questions thank you. Any departmental rebuttal ms. Short. Carl a short public works i want to clarify the response to consumptions about the addressed what mr. Chang were not sure where the address was used but the pole in questioning in question is the only pole so if someone was using that as a Reference Point that is the closet pole and all the documentation shows the pole in question were not sure why that address although perhaps the permit holders said the number was associated with that hed theres not other pole some place thought they were looking at the wrong pole i wanted to perhaps add clarity to the issue of the clerkal error from the directors decision as stated the hoff got all the letters of oppositions and based on his recommendations on all the information unfortunately, there was a clerical error noted 2 letters of opposition but the decisions were based the full record received prior to this hearing and lastly i want to emphasize we do take public records requests and failed to deliver the information as quickly as we would have liked we went through the records there were acquit a few cases before you and other permits to be progressing but i dont think that is before this board but ill say we substantially provided that information and if find there was a substantial number of case where the department misrepresented the letters of opposition weve received thank you. Commissioners the matter submited. I dont think that board has ever used the county of the opposition a criteria for the Decision Making i guess im of a similar opinion before related to whether this is significantly impacts and i dont find that to be the reason. Unlike i feel this is less obstruct active by even though given the explanation for the City Attorney have an issue with the volunteery language that was put in not being able to consider that but in this case ill confer with my fellow commissioners. Ill move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit based on the fact it is cocompliant. Thank you. Theres a motion on the floor into commissioner fung to uphold this this is code compliant commissioner president lazarus commissioner Vice President honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig that he he the vote is 5 to zero the permit is upheld on this basis. Well move on to item 9 appeal joan wood versus the public works the property on chester nut street for the 2015 of a wireless box for the construction of a personal wireless facility ms. Wood. Amp before your eyes joan wood im the only person braif enough to protest on Health Grounds i want you to feel when you decide against me i have a peripheral notice of notification but ill attack the health issue everybody that has a sixth grade education sees emissions coming out of cell phones and the last study the man carried their cell phones in the hippocket it is safer if you put them in the breast pocket but as human beings the mortality is effected it is very difficult to do good Health Studies good control studies where what are you going to do not shield the people to see if their going to die it shields the the 1996 regulation you dont dare number one, the jurisdictions dare to test us marijuana california choose to test them im asking g i take a step it will be Standard Operating Procedure and be brave even if you have to say your doing the i was wellinformed my first notice was february 19th the letter a single cell phone tower that was located on chestnut ill disagree my one has a metal thats how i found the pole i think it was 17 hours after i filed my appeal the gentleman wrote to me the guy was helpful a guy if wolves clothes guarantee you photographed the wrong pole those are a single pole he didnt know the pole he contradicted but anyway it is on the backside of bimbos night club in a wooden Apartment Building it seems like wood allows for emissions more readily than other im hodgkins disease in remission i have a damaged immune system replaced by chemotherapy but not the one i was Business Owner with a 3yearold child in any building closer to the pole i hope that youll take some kind of first step even though you for february 19th lack of notification i havent the faint it idea i phoned did you get my letter and dennis that is transferred who knows where gave me the wrong phone number yes, they got my letter and had to send a copy to the woman in oakland that is ref mail for permit me no another name excuse me. I phoned her did you get my letter and she said, no and hung up they were testifying about cell phone towers and i stepped up as soon as that person testified they said weve passed yours theres a list of 25 cell towers within russian hill and crossing it also i didnt connect that up with verizon for two or three weeks you have to be talking to the other people that are involved i asked them to put me on the email list i have whyd i was part of a Verizon Network later exchanging information with the other appellants and people that dont want to spend 3 hundred dollars to appeal before you it turns out theres at least 2 other networks verizon with an onestop shop has to do with to alameda street and then i have a friend onion fillmore street they said she tangles over a different location on greenwich street and verizon is taking over San Francisco i think 44 Leonardo Da Vinci the lawyer acknowledged Something Like that and by the way to tell mars and