Representatives from city department. Sitting up front is corey teague the zoning administrator. We have Burney Curran and leo plasios. Department of Public Health, we have patrick and jennifer callworth. The Board Meeting guidelines are follows. The board request that you turn off and silence all cell phones. Please carry on conversations in the hallway. Appellants and Department Respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. Members of the public who are not affiliated with the party have up to three minutes each to address the board. Please speak in the microphone. To assist the board and the accurate preparations of minutes youre asked to submit a speaker card when you come up to speak. If you have questions about the requesting a rehearing the board rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff during break or after the meeting. Were located at 1651 Mission Street room 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv, cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on friday at 4 00 p. M. On channel 26. Now were swear in all those who intend to testify. Any member of the public may speak pursuant to the right of the sunshine ordinance. If you intend to testify please stand if youre able, raise your right hand and say i do after youve been sworn in. All those who are testifying, please rise. Do you swear or firm that the testimony you give will be the truth and nothing but the truth . Thank you. Please be seated. Commissioners we have a few housekeeping items. Item number 4, rehearing request for property an guerrero street has been withdrawn by the appellant. For times 8a and b. These are appeals numbers 19038 and 19041 concerning subject property at 6 columbus avenue we need a motion vote to move the item. So moved. We have a motion from commissioner lazarus to continue those to september 11th. Any Public Comment on that motion . Seeing none, on that motion [roll call] that motion carries 40. We are now moving on to item 5. This is Cheryl Lea Hogan no, we have item number two. Sorry. Im jumping. I apologize. We are moving on to item 1. 2. Commissioners comment or questions. Item number 1 we have general public and comment. This is for opportunity for anyone to comment on any item not on the agenda. Move on to item 2. Commissioner comments or questions. I like to make a comment. I like to congratulate commissioner honda on his birthday. We can catch up and meet. Happy birthday. Any Public Comment . Now we will move on to the adoption of the minutes. Minutes of the june 12, 2019 Board Meeting. Commissioner fung motion to adopt . Any Public Comment on that motion . On that motion [roll call] minutes are adopted 40. Now well move on to item 5. Cheryl lea lee ho began versus San FranciscoPublic Works Bureau of street use and mapping. [agenda item read] we will hear from the appellant first. You have seven minutes. I have something i know i dont have enough time for my speech. Its copied here on the thumb drive. I have an International Appeal that i have here and also i have signatures for a petition and also an article saying the prime minster [indiscernible] this was in the newspaper on the internet. Its not anything secret. Can i give that to you mr. Swig . President swig you can give it to us because we wont accept for the hearing. It hasnt been submitted time to share with the permit holder. Its my speech. Good evening. Im Cheryl Lea Hogan. This situation commenced last august when i awoke by construction workers digging on the sidewalk. The workers were subcontractors from out of state. The workers had no permit with them, the workers said they were preparing to install a microwave cell tower. Im here to protest the installation of of microwave cell tower outside the window where i live. Have you read the 560 page document and the research that i submitted on may 29, 2019 to board of appeals . Maam, you need to present your case. I delivered to board of appeals. I assume thats true. I wondered if any of you have a cell tower if front the house where you live. Were you aware that the microwave cell tower are forbidden. You have many of the articles which are in the book and cd that was delivered to the board of appeals may 29, 2019 department of public works and opposing attorney representing verizon and has the copies. Gari like to know about an origl permit. I never saw the original permit. From last summer until the middle of april 2019, i was told by the department of public works that the permit holder was verizon. Is that true. On april 22, 2019, i was informed by the board of appeals that the permit holder is g. T. E. Mobilnet of california. Same address of the permit 3529 sacramento street. Can you clarify the permit holder from verizon to g. T. E. They are is concerned about the issue of nonionizing electromagnetic field. I gave that document to Gary Contreras here. Its not at secret document. Its for anybody to see. I have been told these issues that we are discussing today have been brought to the attention of the city of San Francisco for over 20 years. Is that true . It has been becoming frustrating for the scientists, professors and medical doctors and their attempt to present their research to the lawmaker and have the lawmakers listen. The lawmakers are influenced by the telecommunications lobby and their funding research. Theres an interesting quote by my father, harvard physics professor and microwave of technology before the joint Economic Committee congress of the United States august 27, 1984. Congressional members came to cupertino at that time. His quote was, congress is interested in strengthening the scientific base upon which total is Found Technology is founded, you can remove some of the bureaucratic over the government sponsored research in americas university. He meant industry funded when he used the word government funded. Grants from the government are terminated when it doesnt synchronized what the politicians thinks must be revealed. There seems to be a wide gap between industryfunded research and the pursuit of using Scientific Method in research. We need to be caution who is funding the research. On june 13, 2019, i received a multipage document from the department of public works. I will comment on the paragraph recommendation findings. Number three department of Public Health and test report. Their consultants for verizon, determined that the noise and frequency emitted by the facility meet the Public Health compliance standard. Let me now ask, what are you referring to . Is there some City Ordinance that preempts another law . I will now the ph. D. Researcher at rockwell international, president of apple, dr. Emilio has awarded 15 pa 15 pat 15 pat. Dear chairman wheeler, im writing to follow up on our meeting april 25, 2016. We need to protect American Workers whos jobs require them to come in close proximity transmitters. Because the changes in the infrastructure president swig your time is up. Youre have more time in the rebuttal. You can continue reading in rebuttal. Thank you very much. Ill give the coach o copy afterwards. Well hear from the attorney of the permitholder. Good evening president swig. Im sure this is the second time were appearing before you. We do work in difficult sites to try to work with the appellants to come up with solutions and minimize the number of times we have come before you. In this case, this is a life standard facility. What we believe to be the preferred design for this facility is 120 watts. Its 32 feet high. The facility and very small radius. Its been installed 400 providing this 4g Wireless Network to add capacity and coverage within the city. Under article 25, the Planning Department as you know, looks to see whether it meets the compatibility standard. They felt this design and location met the standards for this neighborhood. The issue is whether the site complies with the department of Public Health public works issued the permit. There was a protest hearing where the appellant was able to speak before hearing officer and have her comments heard. We met those requirements and we urge you to follow and affirm the decisions. I wont take any more of my time. The appellant submitted this documentation, copious documentation. Did you have a chance to review it and you have a comment the validity and substance reflected here . This is great deal of substance. I did take time to read parts the toxicology report. I read some other parts of it. All of these reports are familiar and not only to me but to the sec. Which state that is reviewing thats currently informational docket offere open on this issu. I mentioned last time, the standard as it exist a month ago, all this information was available included in those evaluations. The short answer is yes and we still believe the site fully complies with the sec standard well below of the sec standard. It meets the requirements of article 25. I did take some time to go through that. Thank you. We will hear from public works. Im representing public works. We believe that permit was issued in compliance with the permitting procedure defined in public works code article 25 for personal Wireless Service facility. Article 25 requires wireless application through the department of Public Health and Planning Department. Both department determined this application complies with article 25. The Planning Department is in attendance and can speak more regarding the planning review. The department of Public Health is in attendance and can speak more of the planning review. President swig as youre aware, weve heard hundreds of these cases. Every time that the appellants come up, we hear lot of the same arguments. Unfortunately, theyre not here more the previous hundreds of cases earlier. This board is pretty much tied by the fact that of this article 25 indicating that we are not allowed to talk about any Health Issues what so ever regarding the mobile correct . Yes. We have to meet the federal law. President swig what was discussed, we understand that criteria was based from 1995 or 1997 . When is that going to be updated . You are the Public Health department . We can hear from Public Health. President swig sorry i apologize. Can we ask the Public Health representative . Good evening. As you heard the question is, because we hear these, were the heartless people allowing these tenants to be put in front of your house. Even though were not allowed to make comment or actually make a decision based off health, we keep on hearing that the Health Requirements for this is from 1996. As i mentioned last week, in last weeks hearing, we know that a new car, thats made in 2020 is much more safer, it got better technology. Yet we still have a d. O. T. And health and safety process to determine that. Is there a reason why that this is not updated annually . Yes. I work for the department of Public Health and i work for the sec. The sec is one who sets those standards. The standard has been effective the same since it was originated in 1996. As i understand it, it doesnt mean that standard hasnt been evaluated since 1996. It was previously mentioned that the standards are based on other agency or organizational standards. They look at the standards periodically. They do a review every five years. Also the fec in 2013 or 2014, put out a notice of inquiry to solicit comments from anybody regarding the standards and whether or not things need to be reevaluated or changed. I think that is still open. I know the City Attorneys Office submitted comments on behalf of San Francisco at that time. The standard essentially is the same since 1996. It doesnt mean it hasnt been relooked out or being evaluated. Thats what council mentioned. Since 1996 the technology of cellular with that technology, comes up other processes and other issues. Understanding that the dagger is not pointed at you because youre Public Health. I understand its coming from the federal government. This is San Francisco. This is were the first city to ban ecigarettes and recycle and no plastic bags. Steam like this should be something that should be on the radar when we have something thats dated from that period ago. When appellants come before us, theyre like you guys are basing this off something from 1996. I dont have a car from 1996 anymore. Thats any question. Im going to pile on. Several weeks ago, to continue what commissioner honda talked about, we have to abide by the law. This is for the public. We are all clear on article 25, etcetera. How many dozens of times whether installations were appropriate . Couple of weeks ago in one of the many, we heard from some smart people, really informed people with really good information about why these cell towers are poisoning us and poisoninthis week we got thisg binder. I read through it. I didnt read the whole thing. Im not an engineer. Im not a physicist or a doctor of health. Its all greek to me. I get the idea. Last mr. Albright presented us with a high level of briefing. What bugs me is that we have to be here week after week. Were presented with really smart stuff by really smart people that has a consistent trend. These installations are poisoning people and endangering people. Youre the department of Public Health. My perception born and raised in San Francisco, your department is here to protect me. Have you hade rea ahead read . I received that on monday. Im familiar with some of the studies that are in there. Weve got a website that we posted a number of studies on. Its on our website. Im familiar with the results from that one. President swig what are we to do acknowledging article 25 exist, acknowledging today based on all the things that are presented, most likely our decision will be directed by article 25. Meanwhile, im holding a bible here of information that may say by paying attention article 25 poisoning people. Where are we going to go with this . When is the city going as the responsible party to protect the citizens going to come up, read this material and come up and say, material exist and its wrong and its right and its in between, its commo conflict wie 1996 sec. We disrupted the world whether its ecommerce. When is the Health Department going to read this and give us a reading so even though we might be driven by article 25, at least we can change the path of history or affirm that article 25 is broken . Okay. I appreciate the comment, appreciate the feedback. The Health Department has not had a problem being at the tip of the spear with the number of issues with participating in flavored tobacco ban and so forth. On this issue, there isnt i will give you a background. This issue, there isnt a health code in San Francisco that addresses this issue particularly. Article 25 is department of works code. Health department is involved in that, weve been named as the agency that is to review the reports that gets submitted and that dates back to the 1990s. Same thing happened with Planning Department with the wireless guidelines when those were passed. There isnt a health code. Theres a wireless guidelines that references the Health Department involvement and reviewing those reports. Thats what weve been tasked with doing for both agencies. We work on a second consultant to review the reports to determine whether or not they comply with sec standards. San francisco has the most sec reviewing sort of formal mat in the country. Its a three step review process. Prior to an installation going in, there needs to be report submitted that is done by a licensed engineer that determines the distances and the amount of energy that will be coming out the antenna so determination can be made whether or not if it was installed. Once its installed, measurements are taken to determine whether or not preinstallation calculations were accurate. Every two years after that upon permit renewal, additional measures are taken to see whether or not anything changed. Nowhere else in the country does this. We are concerned. We are trying to ensure that the sec standards are complied with. Youre right, the federal government has preemption. They will set the standards. The community of San Francisco can comment on the standards. In 2013 or 2014, the City Attorney put together comments that went to the fec when they opened it up for comment. We have participated in that process. The federal government will preempt us from doing that. We have some limits around what we can do with the subject matter. Are we interested in it . Are we ensuring that it complied request, absolutely. A number of studies weve been following and we got them posted on our website. I think in 2010, the Health Officer was asked to weigh in and take a position from the Health Department. They put together a paper and did that at that time. This body absolutely could request that the Health Officer review the information and prepare physician paper on that. Be happy to take convey that if thats a desire. Again, ultimately its the f. E. C. Who hold the reigns to determine what the standards will be for the country. President swig that request is an agenda item which we can take up separately as a request. What is frustrating for us on behalf of the public and frustrating on behalf of ourselves. We are not scientists. For us to review a bible like this or to review thats nice, ill accept the data. I dont know. Maybe youre suggestion is correct one. As we sit right now with the advice that you are projecting to us, im not dismissing your advice and counsel. I know the law because we experience on a weekly basis. We might as well save the public the filing fee for the appeals if its the appeal includes any identifications as health is an issue. We can just dismiss it because wash our hands and by saying, f. E. C. , were not in control. My personal conscious wont allow me to do that. Again, we can tell the chances are slim or none because San FranciscoHealth Department, this is not an attack, does not want to take up this issue and does not want to fight federal statute. You can understand the position. Sure. President swig we want to protect people. I hear what youre coming from. I will take issue with your statement that the Health Department doesnt want to take on the federal government. Weve done it but were happy to do. We made comments previously. President swig your advice we want to take it to another level which will not include today, maybe, we would ask the Health Department to review and update 2010 study which you referred. Sure. President swig very helpful. Any further questions . Thank you. You can be seated. Did you have questions commissioners for the Planning Department related to this permit . Maybe we should hear his comments. Welcome scott mccrory. Good evening president and commissioners. I was going to come up and say that no issues regarding the Planning Departments review of determination were raised in the appeal. Im available for any questions you may have otherwise. Thank you. We will move on to Public Comment. How many people here for Public Comment on this item . Someone can please approach the podium. Welcome, good evening. Good evening. Thank you very much. President swig, commissioners, attorney for the board. I really want to convey something that is very clear to me after hearing the conversations that ive heard. It is clear that you want to do the right thing. It is clear that you are listening and for that, i thank you from the bottom of my heart. Im going to also make a comment that even though we are told that we can do nothing about this because the f. E. C. Said we cant, i dont believe that. I will continue not to believe that. This technology, microwave technology, is extremely bad for the human body. It sets up inflammatory response to the cellular level. Opens up the calcium gate channels. Theres new research connecting it to the proliferation of alzheimers. There are many chronic degeneraive diseases that have established in scientifically sound studies to be connected cd with this microwave technology. Parkinsons, you name it. The people hat harm are the children. Thats why i reviewed ms. Hogans document, her letter, she mentioned child endangerment, i said thats brilliant because that is what we have to keep in our minds. We must protect our children. That is the reason we must dig in. You can stand up to these people. I believe youre going to find a way. This is an untested technology. London breed and the City Council Just as you said, i thank you for your comments commissioner honda, as you said, just band ecigarettes. Thats all . We can do this. Its an invasion of our privacy. It is a trespass. It has multiple safety hazards. Its a fire hazard. It affects the migration of birds and butterflies and whales and all kinds of animals. These we depend upon. I really thank you all for listening this evening. Thank you so much for your time that you spent here. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good evening and welcome. Thank you. As we can now see there are many documented Health Concerns from close proximity to 5g transmitters. Im opposed to the installation of 5g transmitters in residential neighborhoods. Thats all. Thank you. Happy birthday once again. Farewell spring and here comes summer. I have so many papers accumulated over so many years against the Telecommunication Company. I couldnt get through the front doors of city hall. I given all my research to katherine stephanie. Of late i think the World Health Organization theres a probable cause with this technology coming at us quickly. When my neighbors have a problem, i come out and support them. As im supporting ms. Hogan. There was a Telecommunication Company that tried to get into the building where i live and we had to fight them for two years. Sorry to use the word fight. I told them its not going to happen in this building because it would change the interestingty of the building. A. M. , f. M. , whatever your frequency, it all goes through the human body. What im really concerned about is whos making the equipment. Sorry to say this in the city, i support President Trump on this issue of the Chinese Communist party and the military behind 5g. Theres some counties and states that are not accepting this. Whats happening in hong kong and taiwan and communist party im concerned about. This is the ruthless gang that wants to control the world. One of the safeguards is to defend our independence, our internal freedoms and our liberties here in the United States. This is big concern about 5g. I really dont know where this is going, theres surveillance and its coming. Theres a new global surveillance thats watching the whole planet. I question whos watching from what reasons. I think that we have to preserve our liberties, our freedoms especially internally. The feel that the proliferation of the technology, their going ton consequences to pay. Long live freedom and thank you for my three minutes of democracy. Thank you. You have 18 more seconds of democracy if you like. I appreciate coming in front of all of you as commissioners. Im throwing up a flag. I was going to demonstrate in front of the chinese consulate with a yellow umbrella dressed in black with a chinese flag hanging upside down. China is not paying attention to its constitution and were not paying attention to the constitution of the United States. Thats what we have to defend. Thank you for the 18 seconds. Any other Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, well move on to rebuttal. Ms. Hogan, you have three minutes. I have a copy of the letter. I hope you read it. Im going to go on then. Now lets talk about what happens if the board of appeals grants the appeal. It seems from reading these two documents that the department of Public Health and verizon and their attorneys they are all together. Is that how you see it . If the appeal is granted, then verizon might sue the city of San Francisco. So, what then motivates the board of appeals of San Francisco to grant the appeal. Perhaps the board is motivated to grant the appeal by concern for liability issues for the city of San Francisco. San francisco is now liable for Health Damages for any electromagnetic radiation frequencies. Im talking about not the public exposure. Im talking about continuous and cumulative exposure. That is not part of what the f. E. C. Is talking about. Continuous cumulative exposure to e. M. F. Affects the heart and near logica neurological parf the body. You are aware, im sure, the insurance carriers insuring the Telecommunication Companies will not protect in their insurance policies for the Telecommunications Companies against any damages to citizens from electromagnetic radiation radiation frequency produced by microwave cell towers. The city seem to believe the federal telecommunication system. That they the city must observe the f. E. C. Outdated emissions standard. See the quote. Which then may hand all of the liability from hazards of our emissions over to city. Liability will abound. Will it be the city of San Francisco which will be liable . I think so. Will you the board of appeals be liable depending on your decision today . Will it be the apartment owner who is liable when he installs a microwave cell four on his apartment building. Who is liable when telecommunication pay a landlord to install cell tours on building that the landlord owns . Thank you very much. Im sorry for interrupting you. Sorry i have to quote the child endangerment law. Your time is up. Pleaplease be seated. Im going to read one paragraph. Please turn off the microphone. This is really inappropriate. You need to be seated now. You neat to be seated right now. Please be seated ms. Hogan. Now well hear from the permitholders attorney, mr mr. Albritton. This is a 4g facility not 5g facility. You should not be put in this position. Theres a reason theres a federal standard. It was established because youre not expected to have the expertise to wade through those thousands of pages. Federal standard that was based on review by the e. P. A. And food and Drug Administration looked at the science of this. One of the reasons was taken off the table. Its because of the expertise that has been applied and is required and the fact that we flood a need federal standard. I apologize these issues are brought before you. The fire station facility are allowed on fire stations. Ive gone through the issue. I can go through that again if you wish. The facilities have been in San Francisco for 35 years. There was some question about this being some kind of new technology that hasnt been evaluated over a long period of time. Verizon wireless indemnifies the city from liability. The department of Public Health, i have to concur, has the most rigorous process in the country. Actually started by luis renny back in the 1996. Theres an evaluation every three years. Theres a checklist that Third Party Engineers supposed to provide. I think really, your department of Public Health gone above and beyond any other jurisdiction that im aware of to the point buying their own meter. They have done this, they need to go to the neighborhood and evaluate it themselves. They can do that. I think that you are well represented in this issue. I encourage comment to the federal Government Regarding this standard. Do i have a question for the representative. In the material supplied by the permitholder, they referenced in this instance the facility calculated to be. 046 and slightly higher 2. 8 of the calculated level. I dont recall ever seeing very large numbers in these studies. As i recall, they tend to be low. Can you comment on that and what the highest percentage of the standard is . Sure. These cites on utility poles who are called small cells or nodes. These are kind of different breed of wireless station from the larger macro stationings. In these dense areas like San Francisco, a Small Cell Network is able to have better service. Small cells typically operate at many magnitudes lower power. This is one of the reasons carriers like to use them because its so easier to comply with the f. E. C. For reference a large macro site might run 20,000 plus for the city. Would you say the types of installations are low percentages . I cant speak to what the carriers will do. Im talking about what we have seen up to now . Yes in the past three or four years. They are proven to be pretty effective providing coverage. Thank you. Well hear from public works. Ill be here if you have any questions. Ill make sure i get the right Department Next time did you have any further questions for department of Public Health. This matter is submitted. Well, i told commissioners, it was suggested by Public Health at some point, we wanted to have an update from the Health Department responsible for this area. At some point, the Public Health department has to go on record theyve done recent Due Diligence to at least inform the public that theyre familiar with the issue and support an f. E. C. Position. Even though its recognized they dont have control over that. My first question is, does anybody have the inclination to do a continuance waiting for the Public Health officer to affirm to do an update from 2010 and then we can take this up. Were going to get this again or does anybody have the inclination to at least request that the department of Public Health review this copious amount of information from a professional standpoint and provide feedback so at least the appellant who took the time to assemble it and was diligent and bring to our attention will have satisfaction that she has been leader and her data has been professionally analyzed . Im asking that question related to a continuance. I would support getting information from the department so we as a board have a better understanding as what were hearing on a regular basis. In regards to the continuance for this item, i would not support that. I think that no matter what the department says, that Due Diligence was done. Theres nothing that is appealable that this board can personally hear. If you dont mind, everyone gets really upset. Its very personal when its in front of their house. I get it. I got one on my block as well. The guidelines that this body hears are very specific son what we can hear. Not just on personal wireless were talking on permits for your garage door as well as night clubs as well as tobacco. Theres guidelines that we have to follow ourselves. Its not that were afraid were not willing to challenge anyone. Theres rules when speed limit says 55, you dont get to go 60. Thats how that works. This board has challenged those rules several times. It has not worked out in all those cases. I would support the latter, hearing something from the department of Public Health. I would deny the appeal. Can we make a note executive director, can we agendize the opportunity to discuss making a formal request and appropriate Health Officer to update findings from 2010, not today obviously it has to be agendized with full presentation, Public Comment, etcetera. Any other comments . I would not support a continuance. Part of the information that might be forthcoming its not going to affect article 25 of the f. E. C. Last comment those who came out to speak, to continue to work with the policymakers. We do hear each case. We are not policymakers. We are assessing whether or not a permit issued by the city is properly issued. Whether or not we support those regulations, you can hear this commission has some serious concerns about what the federal government has laid down and what as a city and state and other communities follow. Continue to reach out to the elected official who are policymakers behind the policy at the national level. Ms. Hogan, im really sorry you were cut off. We have these rules in place. If we give you three more seconds, please sit down, you cant talk. Its over. We dont mean to stifle conversation obviously. You heard today that we are deeply concerned on this issue and we want to continue the dialogue on this issue. I apologize if youre feelings were hurt. These are the rules. You got 30 more seconds, mr. Albritton gets 30 more seconds. May i call for a motion . Ill make that motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. On that motion from commissioner honda to deny the appeal uphold the permit on that it was proper issued. [roll call] the appeal is denied 40. We are now moving on to item 6. Thiwilliam mcleod and Katherine Miller versus department of building inspection. [agenda item read] we had will hear from the appellants first. Thank you. Can you give us one second to start . I want to make sure