Ill try to. Joe duffy, dbi. The permit under appeal is a commencement of work not started under a previously permit, soft story retrofit under 34b engineering criteria including plywood walls, simpson walls. This is a renewal permit. So back in 2016 went through a process took them about a week to get the permit. And it was maybe 1,000 valued for the soft story retrofit. They got the permit and didnt start the work. The permit got approved until the contractor was chosen until the building got sold. And then the permit could have been issued in which case the plot wasnt but the permit gets issued, 360 days to complete the work. I dont know what happened in between that time. But then when they came back in 2019 as you heard the option is a renewal permit which is appealable which is why we have an appeal. The extensions on the permits, this permit would have extended for a number of years. We just dont they have to write a letter to say why they start the work. So that didnt happen. That would have even they would have probably had an opportunity to do any appeals had they taken advantage of the Building Permit extensions. So here we are with a renewal permit under appeal. And as i said earlier the work if for the soft story and retrofit which is mandatory in San Francisco if you are on the soft story list. So they are i believe on the list. And as you heard the gentleman speak, there was a deadline of september 15 the department issued quite a number of notices of violation to buildings that hadnt applied and those mainly are buildings that havent filed a permit so they are in violation and probably will be moving through the enforcement process until we get them under compliance. The work i printed the plans because i had the same problems i couldnt read them. So i printed them today and had to look at them. The soft Story Program only allows work on the ground floor. So its all ground floor work. The only issue they would have as a tenant is an apartment on a ground floor. There is no work in the apartments that i can say. Obviously when this construction in your building it is going to be disruptive. You might have your gas off, might be a little bit of dust and the contractor will have to comply with any ordinances for led, asbestos, all of that in our Building Code and you hear me talk about that a lot. That will be something theyll have to do. It applies to common areas and theyll need signage and stuff like that. And i would recommend an open line of communication between whoever is doing the work or a representative of the Property Owner and the tenants. If they have an issue they can contact them and rather than just calling our department unless all fails and they need to call us, we are able to go out and investigate complaints if necessary. I believe the ordinance does have a lot of language in there for tenants rights with the rent board and weve talked about that before as well. So thats about all i have. I checked the complaints on the property. There are no open complaints. There has been a number of complaints filed and i suppose 2018 was the last. But right away it looked like they got addressed. There were Housing Inspection Services for some garbage issues, maintenance issues. There was some issue with a stairway. They got a permit to fix it. So all complaints have been addressed in a timely manner, i believe. And there are no currently open complaints on the property. Im available for questions. Mr. Duffy or Senior Inspector duffy. Its okay. The permit for the soft story predates the ownership of this particular owner. Okay. So we are talking as if they forgot and didnt update the permit. But when they purchased the building the previous owners evidently did this. So what is your thoughts about canceling out the permit and having them apply for a new one . Theres no need to do that. The permit runs with the property. It doesnt run with the owner. The Building Permit runs with the property. Permits are a little different, they run with the contractor but the Building Permit runs with the property. So the new owner takes over the permit. The change of ownership is going to show up just as we talked about earlier on the assessors records but theres no need to redo the permit again it qualifies for our renewal process. Its only a 2016 permit. And we dont see why we would have to update anything. Theres a set of plans. Im just trying to make you work a little more. Its okay. Its a good question. Because the permits are confusing sometimes. Thank you for bringing the plans. The way they were described and the sheets that were shown does that entail the main part of the work and location that it is all on the ground floor . Thats what the plans show. They are showing the apartments for reference but its not showing any work on those drawings. Theres no other work on this permit, only soft story work, which needs to get done to get off the list. If the tenants were to observe any of the work not on the scope, they could file a notice or complaint that would lead to an nlv with the building department, correct . The soft story work, the ordinance is only for the ground floor so any other work would be a separate permit. If they start that, let us know. Well investigate. In terms of led and asbestos, what is the process that would happen in terms of discovering there is led or asbestos and dealing with that . Just given the age of the building, it might be likely. What would you tell the tenants who are concerned that dust could be there and even though its not in their unit its present on the property. Our Housing Inspection Department has a program, they can look at that. I doubt its going to be an issue. It generally isnt. The soft story work will take place on the ground floor. What happens is the Housing Inspector thats over the led Abatement Program chris gradey, chris will go out and give them a lesson in what they should be doing and they can do that before they Start Construction but its in the Building Code. If theres any work disrupting led they have to be notified and there has to be notices in common areas. We talk about this a lot in this forum. Obviously the tenants will have to follow all the guidelines. Last question just to emphasize what you said if this permit is not approved, they would be in violation because this is a mandatory soft story retrofit they need to complete the work. Right. So if it doesnt get completed they will be in violation and have to eventually get a permit to complete the work. Well, yeah, either way the building is going to be in the soft story, be in violation if this work isnt done. Thank you. Rough ballpark, how long do you think this project would take to do . Maybe 1,000 on the value, some concrete. It may take up to six months. You could get this work potentially done within six months i would imagine. Even quicker if its a contractor with enough workers and they get it done. The max period these are going really well. You see them all over the city. Theyre happening as we speak. A lot of people are working on them. Its going really well, to be honest with you. At the end of the day and i dont want to be i realize these tenants have been through a lot previously but they are going to be living in a safer building, and thats what its all about. We are making the buildings safer in the event of an earthquake. So the sooner its done the better. Theres good stuff anchor bolts clips. If we get the big one and they are in a building that has been seismically upgraded its going to be a better situation for them as well. So listening to you you seem it seems theres really no reason for anybody to be asked to take a temporary leave from their unit, because its all going to be done on the first floor . Theres no work in the apartments shown on this permit okay. And so it wouldnt it would be a great comfort to the tenants and not cause any inconvenience to the permit holder if we put a condition on this that nobody nobody will be asked to take any absence whatsoever from their apartment . Yeah thats fine to me. I dont know how to enforce it but i think its a rent board issue. I think weve talked about this before. There is going to be an inconvenience because living in a building under construction is not going to be easy for them but i think the end result would be better. Theres a lot of mistrust here and the Building Owner and contractor are going to have to do really well because of obviously a lot of eyes watching it. And they are going to have to be very good at their public relations. Thanks. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Good evening. Welcome. Hi. Im neil danielles. Although im not named at this appeal i live in this building and ive lived there for four years. And as previously said, we recently defeated the eviction. And im very concerned that if this is approved without the restrictions, that some of us or all of us will be displaced during this process, either temporarily or permanently. And so i stand here with my neighbors in support of them that if this is approved, it comes with restrictions as described. Thank you. Thank you. Can you give the speaker card to ms. Sullivan . Is there any other Public Comment . Okay. So im just here, again, as a point of order and to apologize for any interruption on this item. Public comment is to this item. It is affecting this item the fact that there was interruption on the facts. So im here to say that there is a party in the room that is asked the police to come in and speak to me. I do not feel safe that this party is threatening me. And i will be asking the sheriffs to give me an escort if they can out of the meeting so that i can have no interaction with the party that requested the police to come in the first place. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So is there any other Public Comment . We will move onto rebuttal. You have three minutes. Thank you. So just to speak to a few issues that were brought up and the respondent statements. Regarding the Property Management with c d reality the reason why these tenants are confused about who to contact is because only within the past few months did they get a letter saying these people were the Property Management company but didnt provide the name of who they could contact. The letter had the name of the president of the company and the i think chief accountant or bookkeeper of the company. But it didnt state an actual property manager. The reason the letter was confusing and the reason why the tenants didnt know what to do with that information is it made no mention of who the tenants were to pay their rent to. The tenants kept paying their rent to the Previous Company because they didnt have any other information until then out of nowhere the Property Management sent a letter months later saying actually your rent is now late please pay us your rent. Again not stating who at the company is this property manager they are supposed to be speaking to. Im happy to hear that c d realty is a point of contact. Hence the concern about a point of contact with the contractors directly or somebody else more involved. Next point i want to speak to is regarding what is actually in the opposition we actually didnt receive it at our office until friday afternoon after it was due. Our clients i think had some copy served directly at the building despite respondent knowing our clients are represented. But there was actually some confusion about when that came in. Lastly, i just want to make sure add a couple more concerns that my clients have, specifically in response to president swigs earlier question but also in general. One, for the client, there are three clients here that have rights of storage in the building and one client that has rights to the garage itself. If possible those clients would like to have no disruption to their use if its absolutely impossible, have minimal disruption possible and evidence the disruption will be minimal in that regard. Also regarding the utility shut offs because this board correctly observed and thecraticallier andobserved especially given Health Issues of some of these tenants. Lastly, we would ask that if the respondent is open to it, that given the nature of this work and the potential sixmonth timeline that dbi mentioned, we have an inperson meeting to actually outline the terms of this work, go through the conditions that are imposed here tonight and understand how this work is going to affect their lives. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. One question, counselor. As a disclosure, how many were protected class tenants out of the tenant list . When you say protected class, what do you mean . Protected class just in a general . All of them. Either to disability age. Have protected on their he estoppals. Life tenancy. Did they claim they were a protected class tenant . They all claimed additional time and money for the ellis. They claimed protection on that basis due to disability senior status or both. Thank you. We will now hear from the permit holder mr. Phillips. I would be happy to provide our Property Managements Contact Information to the tenants and to their representative. I dont really have another anything else to rebut. So were you aware of the permits for the soft story retrofit when you purchased the property . Yes why didnt you act on them at that time . I guess because we were just in the middle of the ellis and, yeah, i dont know. Not sure. How many projects do you have going on in the city right now currently . Two okay. Thank you. Im sorry. Another llc has one. But, yeah. The project doesnt have any, theres noel i say going on. Thank you. Okay. A question about the storeage. The parking in the garage. If you have begun or intend to begin processes to sever those temporarily i guess, vacate the storage or how you are planning to deal with that. I work with our contractor to figure out what we need to do as far as the tenants car. And we would pay for a parking that is as close as possible if the car needs to be relocated. And im not aware of any storage because we only have access to to the rear garage, theres nothing in there. Its just a garage, theres no Storage Facilities on the ground floor . Ive never been in the other garage that has a car. So i dont know what else is in there. Thank you. Thank you. Too late, joe. Mr. Sanchez. Anything further . Okay. Mr. Duffy . Anything further . There are two storage shown on the plans on the ground floor. So theyll have to, you know whatever the rent board the rent control board, i was just looking up the dbis question on that. A lot of the Services Loss of services, its all in the ordinance. Thank you. So commissioners, this matter is submitted. Commissioners. Whats before us is the permit regarding the required and mandated soft story retrofit of a multiunit building. Its concerning to me that outside nevers invest investors come in buy properties with longterm san franciscans in them and relocate them. But whats before this body is the mandated permit thats required for the soft story retrofit which i believe was issued correctly. Im pretty sure that well have some conditions here. It depends on my other commissioners, and you as tenants have rights to watch this and report this to the departments that are there. What are your thoughts on conditions . Well, and again im not trying to villanies the permit holder. It just seems theres been a lot of mistrust and a lot of things that seem like theyre wrong. And if it looks like a duck and quachs like a duck its generally a duck. So the conditions, the permit holder said he didnt mind the restriction in hours. A specific point of Contact Email and phone number for a person for them to contact in regards to this during Business Hours, notification on specific services to be ideal and whatever else. I think the shut off notice seems pretty reasonable in terms of notice if yule tillties are going to be utilities are going to be shut off. Maybe 24 hours may be more reasonable but im open to 48. Sure. We are going to have a joint motion. Mr. Santacana chime in if he has anything else. Did you do the Construction Authority . The 24hour notice i think is the minimum thats already required. I think 48 hour good and because theres been mistrust and that we can build up trust going forward. Which i doubt but so grant the peel on the condition i want to ask ann. Ill make a comment. Okay. Im going to let the commissioner make the motion. But id like to i think its fair that we establish an even Playing Field here. I want to encourage the project sponsor to understand that we are not picking on him because its an even Playing Field. However, our experience here is that many appellants who are vulnerable and renters are vulnerable and people with special conditions are vulnerable. It is fair to say that they come in here scared to death because their lives are potentially impacted. I think theres 12,000 Homeless People in the streets in San Francisco, many of which have been victims of running out of time, running out of money. So theres a lot of fear in the city. So its not that to pick on the developer or project sponsor. It really is to establish a level Playing Field for you and also to establish for the appellants that they can have more comfort where they are going to trust the project sponsor, thats up to them. But at least they will have more comfort and they have access to some ears up here. So i wanted to make that very clear. Because i dont want the project sponsor to walk out of here saying that was rude or that it was an even Playing Field. Its an even Playing Field but we have to be sympathetic to all parties and we have to look at also history here and how people who are appellants walk in. Well, we understand this naturally. California is a full disclosure state and the buyer bought the building knowing and understanding the current tenant situation. And thats why the price reflected so. So i make a motion to grant the appeal and condition the permit. What are the hours . Monday to friday 8 to 5 for construction monday through friday . Yeah, thats what i heard. Have information provided for the Property Management Company Phone number and email for during Business Hours and after hours and the utility shut off notice of at least 48 hours in advance. Okay. So we have. Sorry. One more thing. The asbestos and leadbased paint abatement be handled by a certified professional. Okay. On what basis are you making this motion . This is why we have frank. Concerns of the tenants. Correct. The permit holder did not object. Ill note before he vote with respect to storage in the garage the permit holder acknowledged that there are regulations that would apply there if the attempts to sever them from the tenancy and permit holder said he would pay for parking if its necessary to move the car. And thats recorded for posterity i think forever so we have that on video. Why we have an attorney on the board. The tenants and the attorney to take it up with the rent board as needed and to use the recording to support. My point is its not a condition but it is on the record. Because its outside our purview but its on the record. We have a motion to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition it be reviewed to require that permit holder provide 48 hours written notice to the tenants in advance of the utilities being shut off and the permit holder provide the tenants can Contact Information for the Property Management company with an email address and afterhours phone number. And lastly that construction work only be performed between 8 00 a. M. And 5 00 p. M. Monday through friday. One more condition. The asbestos and leadbased paint work be done by a certified specialist. Abatement specialist yeah. Pardon. Abatement special it. It addresses some of the concerns of the tenants and permit holder did not object. On that motion. [roll call vote] that motion carries 50. Thank you. So we are now moving onto item number 6. This is appeal number 19090. Roxanne stampon versus public works subject property broderick street, appealing the issuance on august 6, 2019 to Systems Incorporated of a wireless box permit. Construction of a personal Wireless Service facility in the zoningprotected location. 0024. Well hear from the appellants first. Good evening and welcome. Hello. Good evening, president swig and members of the board. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here tonight. My name is roxanne stachon. Im a resident of 2730 broderick street. The basis of my appeal is the city and its departments have not performed their responsibilities to ensure the permitting requirements of the proposed wireless facility at 2736 broderick were met. Theres an error in the department of Public Health determination and the application did not comply with all the department of Public Health permit conditions. The public relies on its government to meet a minimum standard of care in carrying out its duties. A permit shouldnt be approved when errors exist in applications or conditions have not been met. Regarding the error in the Public Health determine nay negotiation memorandum february 22 2019, the memorandum stated the wireless relay unit will be oriented the proposed unit will be oriented in a 98degree direction pointing east along broderick street. 98 degrees is east from the true north. Broderick street runs in the northsouth direction. Along according to websters dictionary means in a line parallel with the length or direction of. So the antenna pointed at 98 degrees east cannot be directed in a line parallel with the length of broderick street. Its not possible. Dpws brief states quote, she claims that dph ered by finding one of the antennas would be pointing in a an easterly direction along broderick. I standby the claim the antenna cannot be pointed in an easterly direction along broderick since the street runs northsouth. At a building that runs 98 degrees, this error was not insignificant. I did research about what the antennas were and read the fa qs and it said they are directional in nature with a signal focused up and down the streets, not as residential buildings. This created some confusion. For these reasons i did contact dph and dpw and asked for clarification. The error was never corrected. And information provided in response to these questions during the protest period did not correct this error. Instead dpw continued to state there is no error. Dpw included exhibit n in their brief. It is a memorandum month from the department of Public Health to the department of public work. It states he contacted the applicant about a possible error during his review on february 22. This is not accurate. The record shows that he contacted the applicant several months after three months after his review was complete and the department had already made its determination. I submitted that email as an exhibit. In the email he asks it looks as though the antenna we directlied toward the building so i wanted to know if this may be an error. He is asking for clarification on what is being proposed after he has made his determination. Exhibit n further undermining the integrity of this process by trying to imply this clarification was sought during his review when in fact it was not. The citizens put their trust in the city to ensure that they know what is being proposed the basis of how it will be cited and making sure the determination is accurate. If this is not the case, the trust in the city in the city is lost and the trust in the process is lost. I dont believe approval should be made where there are errors. The second point i made was regarding the compliance with the permit conditions specifically i outlined in my arguments that they did not comply with the permit requirement the accepted and stated permit requirement and condition that they had in place a procedure for taking our power density levels in nearby dwellings and requested. Very early on in this process i emailed them inquiring about this requirement. I asked quote, please provide details on the procedure that they have in place to meet this requirement. I did this as a resident adjacent to the proposed installation honestly just trying to understand what i could do, what were my rights and how could i understand more about this facility. I never received a response to this request during the entire process until last week, november 14, as part of their preparation for this hearing when they emailed me. In their brief for tonight they state the appellant statement that we failed to explain the procedure is true. That should be the end of the story. This is a procedure that should have been according to the permit conditions in place as part of the permit approval and apparently it was not. After the approval of the permit theres an attempt to correct shortcomings. Theres still plenty of time to ensure compliance with this condition of approval. Basically, we can still provide it even though it should have been done long ago. In conclusion, as a resident of the city i would expect these applications for wireless installations receive more careful examination than has occurred here. Im sure its easy sitting at a desk in an office to approve paperwork but for the residents who are adjacent to these facilities its not easy to understand why they receive such cursory review even when there are documented errors and shortcomings in the application. When mistakes are made, is it not too much to ask the permit be denied so the process can be implemented correctly. Getting the facts correct and ensuring integrity of the process is critical so the public will have trust there is a functioning system in place, especially for evaluating these important proposals. Thank you again for the opportunity. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the permit holder. Good evening. With exnet systems. Theres a few issued i wanted to highlight here many of which this board has seen heard and discussed many times before. In fact i was just here before this board a couple weeks ago talking about similar issues. There are a few more specific comments here, some of which you just heard from the appellant i would like to get into more detail on than we otherwise might. Oftentimes we dont go into a lot of depth about the dph review and approval and thats because its like a Building Permit issuance. You either meet the code or you dont and not a lot of discussion that needs to happen around that. Here the appellant cites what they believe are errors in the report or errors in the review. We disagree obviously. We disagree because number one, the report and the plans have always shown all of the proposed antennas and equipment. They have always correctly shown their locations. Their orientations, directions and dphs report acknowledges all of those. They agreed with the calculations that were submitted as part of the analysis and roe can speak to his analysis and the methodology. All of that happened correctly. All the math works. And in fact the resulting emf exposure levels are well below the fcc standards. All of that happened correctly. The appellant is concerned about a single word the word along, im not sure what to make of that but frankly the math works. The proposal is correct. It was correctly documented in all of our application materials. Department of Public Health correctly reviewed the materials and correctly approved them. So i dont know what you want to do about the report. If you want to remove the word along does that solve the problem . Im not sure. But the analysis was done correctly. And we have met our obligations under the fccs rules to demonstrate our proposal would in fact meet the fcc standards for human exposure to electromagnetic radio frequencies. Finally the discussion about compliance with conditions of approval i agree that the communication could have been better. Thats on me. She did email me. I happened to be out of town. I responded a week or so later and said i got your email, ill get back to you with more information, and i never did. Thats my fault. However, that doesnt result in noncompliance of these conditions. I would like to read the conditions and discuss why. This is for antenna directions listed in a report. I know i skimmed through that quick will you. But a new antenna direction has not been introduced. There are no antennas activated. Everything is as it always has been with this application. That condition has been met and will continue to be met. The other one the appellant went into more detail on is we should be aware the general public may have concerns about the antenna and potential rf source near the dwellings. We are aware. We should have in place a procedure of taking rf power density levels in nearby dwellings when requested by members of the general public. We do have a procedure in place. In fact, as a matter of course, we complied with this condition all the time hundreds of times throughout the installations we have done in San Francisco. Again my communication about what that process looks like should have been better. I should have told her right when she emailed me heres what you need to do and thats why i finally got to it last week when i realized its six months later and i still havent communicated to her what the process is. That doesnt result in noncompliance is. Theres plenty of time to arrange for inhome readings. We are not required to do them before installation but we provide that service when requested. We are required to provide that service after the site is on air to confirm the readings are consistent with the preinstallation modeling weve done. And again theres plenty of time to comply with that condition as well. So i would argue that we are still in compliance with conditions of approval and we strive to continue to be in compliance going forward. We demonstrated over five six years and hundreds of installations in San Francisco. And i think the department of public works and department of Public Health can attest to that. And we strive to continue to do that. So short of any other evidence that dph made a determination in error or that we are in noncompliance of those conditions of approval i would respectfully request that this board deny the appeal and uphold the permit approval. Im happy to answer any questions you might have. I have a question. If im not mistaken, this facility would be eligible for a license under the legislation that was adopted earlier this year by the board of supervisors. Thats right. So we have obtained a license from the Public Utilities commission. So you have the license . We have the license yes and then the other question is regarding the antenna pointing east when the street goes north to south. Does that make a difference . Are you lining against the buildings or down the street . So this antenna i described this in more detail in my responses to protesters at the protest stage and to Public Health when they inquired about it. The antenna on the top of the pole is an omnidirectional antenna. Its not oriented up or down or along a street. It is broadcasting 360 degrees. The antenna thats in question is whats called a uer. And we are going to get way into Technical Details really quickly but the antenna oriented 98 degrees is roughly pointing east, is a relay unit. Its how the individual small cell sites communicate with the larger networks. So in many cases we use fiber, which is placed underground. Some cases its wireless. In this case its wireless and thats what that antenna does. Okay. So it doesnt matter as far as layman terms, doesnt matter if its going north or south or east or west. If it says its going due east but the street is going north to south, it doesnt im not sure i follow your question. I think it matters. The fact matters as the appellant pointed out. Im on board the that. The facts matter. The fact is it will be oriented east, 98 degrees. Okay. Is it true anyway directional is the more did she omnidirectional is the more powerful of the two . Yes. He can go into some of those details if you feel you need them. We have both of you in the same room tonight. Thats a rare event. We need the at t guy. Thank you. We will now hear from the department of public works. Hello. Good afternoon president , Vice President and members of the board. Im leo representing public works. We believe that this permit was issued in compliance with the permitting procedure defined in public works code article 25 for personal wireless facilities at the time of issuance. Article 25 requires public works refer wireless application to the department of Public Health and Planning Department. Both departments determined this application complies with article 25. Public works issued a tentative approval and the applicant mailed and posted notice of this approval. Public works held a hearing to consider protests. Following the hearing the director of public works approved the permit and there was a determination distributed to the public. It is in attendance and can speak more regarding the review process. The department of Public Health is not in attendance but is available to questions and responding to email. Have you heard the president mention this earlier we asked the department to look further into health and to get back to us. Do you know where that is . The department of Public Health, im pretty sure theyre working on it and they will get it as soon as possible why are they not in attendance . I do not know. They are not here for these. The department of Public Health, no. Thank you may i ask a question . Would you please confirm the license has been issued for this particular . The pc license yes thank you. Can i ask a question . Yes who checks whose work . Theres a claim tonight that the Health Department screwed up and then the Health Department came back recognized their screwup and although the timing is arguably late who checks are you responsible for checking healths work . We take healths work for face value. But we are not specialists in that particular sector. We refer to the department of Public Health. If there is an issue after the department of health determination has been made, which i believe happened in this application i do contact the department of Public Health to review that application to make sure it is compliant with federal law. So after there was allegedly a little bit of a mistake did you do that and what was the response and how was the public notified that all was good with the world . I think it is a clarification of the matter not so much a mistake. The department was in communication investigated spoke with the applicants to make sure its still in compliance. Safety is a big concern and we are very serious about that. Thank you. The question regarding the directionality. I think it was indicated by the appellant that she thought the directionality was important, not just to understand where it is pointing and this would be the smaller antenna but to understand if that directionality was in compliance with the rules in the sense of is it pointing towards or away from the building and a residence. Can you speak to whether we do specify the directionality of antenna . Yeah. In their study it points out all equipment that emits rf emissions whether it be the big antenna on the top or the other antenna to make sure it still meets the fcc emission standards for public safety. So even though it may be pointing towards her building, the standard of rf emissions is still met . Yes so the concern for health has been abated . Yes. And again, if there is any concern after the permit has been approved, there are a lot of conditions as i think joe just showed contact the applicant, contact us the department of Public Health, and well have someone read the equipment to make sure it meets the Public Health requirements. If the applicant remains unresponsive to describing the rf measurement procedure and the appellant were to reach out to you what would you do . I would contact the department of Public Health would they send someone out from the city staff to measure the rf . They would send someone out okay. Thank you. Thank you. We will now hear from the Planning Department. To the officer in the back, are you allowed to sit down . Would you like us to bring you a chair . You sure . Please have a seat. Okay. Whichever you feel more comfortable. Thank you. Thank you. The permit was reviewed by Planning Department staff. It is both a planning protected location and a zoning protected location. Its zoning protected because the Residential District and planning protected because it is within for historic matters because its in the eligible first bay tradition district. And it is also a street with excellent views. But Planning Department was asked to review the application. And the design is appropriate. I also note that its my understanding under the laws that are currently in place this permit would not be required and they could use the license to install the facility. Im available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you we are moving onto Public Comment. Is there any Public Comment . If theres any Public Comment could you please line up or can the speakers come up . Line up against the wall. You will have two minutes each. Ms. Sullivan two minutes for each speaker. First person come up. First person that would like to speak. Do we have Public Comment . Somebody come up to the podium and start speaking, please. Thank you. Good evening, welcome. Is there someone going to speak . I need a better screen. Sorry. You have two minutes. My name is liz buchanan. Im speaking for someone i dont see the name on here. Im sorry. Cant hear you. Can you speak into the mic too . Hi. Yes. Sorry. Im speaking for someone else. I attest and affirm the following statements are true accurate and within my personal knowledge. Im reading a statement from knowia davidson who lives in Sacramento California which one of the first 5g test cities in the world. Small cell deployment began in sacramento in october 2018. In late december verizon installed a small cell antenna 45 feet from my familys home at roughly the same height as our second story. The antenna has a 360 radiation pattern and emitting high levels of pulse, data modulated microwave radiation into my nieces bedroom window. Within about a month of the antenna being installed by nieces began experiencing Health Problems including immune suppression manifested as persistent cold symptoms sleep disturbances, headaches and chronic fatigue. We were unaware of the negative Health Consequences of microwave exposure and didnt attribute the Health Problems to this antenna. The problems persisted for one month before we began to consider the possibility that exposures from the antenna could be affecting them. We researched the Topic Authority rely and found an abundance of Peer Reviewed scientific studies with Expert Opinions suggesting the Health Problems my nieces were experiencing could be the result of radiation exposure from the antennas. Im sure much of the data has been provided to you by opponents. My niecest Health Problems persisted before we hired an expert to take readings inside my home. Is that it . Yes. And nice tshirt by the way. A speaker card to ms. Sullivan. Next speaker please. Welcome hello. Im jess warner. And im here to address this issue and i havent been in previous meetings so i apologize for any information i dont have. But in response to some of what you were speaking about i wanted to address directionality and also safety testing and emission standards. You may be aware the fcc has not updated emission standards since 1996 when this technology did not exist and directionality goes in all directions at all times including 3,000 feet which is confirmed by the verizon ceo. So you may already have this information. So right now we know that 5g is not safe, has never been tested for safety on humans and will impact our health. As long as theres no proven harm they may move forward for profit. All over the country cities are revising their ordinances and you have the unique ability to put the brakes on this and protect the Public Health and safety as well as Property Values of those around you and privacy for ma matter. So in terms of what looking at what you can and cant do, you can look at what you can do and there are a lot of tools you can use. So i would urge you to look over the Peer Reviewed literature and scientific Information Available which are conclusive articles about negative impacts. That includes dr. Sharon goldbergs testimony studies by the nih, physicians for Safe Technology and so many more. There are studies that prove harm and we encourage you to review and investigate further. I think that means little time. A few seconds. The fcc is an agency that will do whatever they can to hide data and accelerate their profit. I can send you this research if you dont have access to it and i thank you for taking this seriously in protecting the public. Thank you. Next speaker please. The last speaker did you give a speaker card to ms. Sullivan . If you could come back. Please go ahead, maam. And welcome. Good evening. My name is rachael. Nice to be here. We wouldnt be here sitting around if this technology that we are talking about had a color or a smell or something. Its invisible its an invisible toxin. Its a carcinogen. If you most people, that you are talking about arent aware of the dangers of 5g. They love the technology. If they knew the science, they would think differently. Most dont know about that and if you marry the fact that we have a 1996 federal act that made it illegal to complain about ill effects and you marry that that the allowable levels are 20 years out of date and even the allowable levels are too high its a recipe for a Public Health crisis. And i want to refer you to a town called bern in switzerland. A couple weeks ago had a protest of over 3,000 people in just one city come out and protest. And thats because they rolled out 5g technology in switzerland. These are people who are the gate keepers this technology and they are protesting because they are getting sick. Real life illness symptoms. We are talking about forced radiation on unsupporting public and that makes no sense at all. Particularly if in your office and the oath of office is to protect the health and wellbeing of the people of San Francisco. Thank you very much. Thank you. If you could give a speaker card to ms. Sullivan, please. Thanks. And welcome. I am reading into the Public Record testimony relevant to this appeal. I attest and affirm the following statements are true and accurate and within my personal knowledge. The following is testimony that he will ward myers wrote for a 1919 hearing in Montgomery County maryland. I was an intervener in the dc sun kate case along with the Natural Resources defense counsel. A rule making order to expedite the development of dense if if if id dense if id socalled small cell by the cff. The order attempted exempted all of these facilities from two kinds of previously review. Historic preservation review under the preservation act and environmentally review under the National Environmental policy act, thats significant. On august 2019 the court of appeals for the district of columbia vacated the rule making order the legal effect vacating the rulemaking necessary means the prior rule was reinstated and any actions taken on the basis of vacated rule had to be reconsidered under the terms of the prior rule. The prior rule stated the fcc needed to apply nepa to the construction of 5g facilities. It is not lawful for any fall silts to be constructed without prior review. Any city or county needs to comply with this. So this whole process is moot because you havent done that process. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Just one speaker my daughter wants to stand next to me. Shes been helpful through the whole process. Thank you for being patient. Im going to finish the little testimony that was from noah because the conclusions are important for San Francisco. Excuse my voice, i have a cold. Although small cell antennas use less power exposure can be much higher in resonances and other areas where people are because the antennas are much closer to those areas. They essentially are putting the same macropower antennas and radios literally in San Francisco 6 to 12 feet. Engineer hired by napa, made it known in the Public Record. Its the same equipment. So that is the problem. You have three variables you have to measure. And you have to figure out what you are going to do to get out of the box. You have vertical offset horizontal offset how far away is it from people and then you got the maximum power output level. That is the one that is completely under your control. And all you need to do is provide enough maximum power output for the things the fcc has preemption for. Thats only voice calls. The fcc in october 1 had up held in the dc circuit they no longer regulate the internet. They stepped back. They pulled their teeth. They have no preemption for data frequency. Only voice. And it only means less than. 04 watts from the shroud of the antenna. That will do it. That will get you coverage half a mile down the street. That will get you five bars on a current and that will not endanger your people. The problem is 7,000 watts of radiating power. And Environmental Impact study has been done. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Hello Board Members and president swig. My name is michael lavek. I am electrically sensitive. I have tremendous struggle these last few years maintaining health and relationships. I see this also around me by others effected similarly but not the same. Each individual is different. Thank you for being here. And during these hours of appeals, many hours and especially thank you for asking the department of health to update the 2,010 position on wireless facilities in the city. Its 1982, you answer your phone and never thinking twice about its safety. Its the touch town telephone in the 1990s and the page is fashionfashionable. And in an instant theyre ab so light andandthey have 300 million cellular phone users. Before this age of communication. Now, 2019, over 6 billion people use cellphones in the world. Cellular antennas in california, 2019, 2,023,382 and climbing. The wealth creates aspects at 20 to 30 trillion in the next few years. Wealth is the major influencer and motivator for this technology. Wealth can create agreed that ignores wisdom and interrupts the essence of lifes pulsation within the universe and eternity. Just to support the appeal stance behind article 25 of the 1996 fell1996 Telecommunications Act it
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.