The name of it bell that filed a written comment i want to briefly responded to those contempt they were submitted just in the last few days we explicit adapting to respond in writing she raised the question that this particular pole has a lot of wires on it, yes that is the entirely the purpose to support the utility and infrastructure including those telecommunications purposes and at t telephone lines and comcast and sometimes muni lines sometimes their somewhat crowded looking but that is not the standard under the ordinance no ground recognizing the ordinances to rejected a permit on that basis were not over burdening any of the poeltz as you may know as heard by now what can be placed on the poles is comprehensively regulated by the pg e it has been made no assertion more than is lout on the poles she raised a question of notice i added and finally she raised a number of adverse how to appeal to the board of appeals occur and questioning questioned things like the fee that is charged for filing is an appeal and providing 11 copies of open appellate brief those occur at 5 00 p. M. And things of the nature whatever the merit theyre not anything that addresses this particular permit and not constitute thank you for your time i strongly ask you to deny the appeal and allow the granted. Well hear from the gentleman. Gene from public works ill start off by saying this is not one of the permits where the attended the correct tentative approval conditions does not match the conditions that is issued on the permit second thing is that i believe that the affidavits or exhibit c of our brief was left inenvironmentally left out i have it here a radius map i have extra copies if you want that. And then ill go into some of the points again, i do have the affidavit from crown castle and it was sufficient notice to the public according to article three they have stated in their brief and their affidavit previously just first those were mailed and posted. Were getting flickering again on the screen. Can you start by trying to darken it to see if that helps with the flickering. Perfect, thank you. Thank you. And then the appellants brief they say the permit should be the second pole on the second block the code was written this way with no intended harm the notification process worked solicited comes and again, it is hundred and 50 foot of the proposed location which was where the proposed location had the wireless antenna and the computer whereas the second pole that housed the judge the battery back up. Are you finished. Yeah. I have a question. Sure. So as the appellant had mentioned if you have two poles one pole across the street and one pole on the other side and you do a hundred and 50 foot radius from the first pole shouldnt there is notification hundred 50 radius that part of public within hundred and 50 feet radius it is not notified of the work to be plenty and the code ambition because it deals with wireless antennas and the rage or the computer so because the back up cant be located interest but on another pole it is. Maybe we should look at that if i was a homeownership and would hundred and 45 feet and no proper notification that there was work being done the public of San Francisco citizens whether tenants or homeownership being properly notified of work to be implemented additional thats a suggestion but on a legislative level. Thank you. Commissioners id like to ask mr. Chang to clarify the statement of the permit language im not clear if youre saying the Planning Department conditions were correct or incorrect. The conditions are correct this is not one of the cases previously where. Thats not the case in the documents in the file thats why im asking for sclafrgs looking at the departments brief implicit the permit is under exhibit a and the conditions im seeing on page 5. Where are the numbers i dont see any numbers. Oh, here it is. Oh, yes maintain the italian flag as needed the color. Thats incorrect sorry. Thanks for the clarification. Okay. So is the department finished with pits presentation okay. Well call for Public Comment. Who may i ask from dpw about the integrity of the telephone pole the age, etc. , etc. , etc. Mr. Masonry a question for you. The jurisdiction over the wooden policies the safety aspects of those wooden is super seated by the California PublicUtilities Commission the permit holder boldly stated everything is okay with his pole will you produce the engineering study and open this pole that support counsels bold statement that everything is okay with his pole a study it supports the integrity and safety id love to see the support that council has for making the broad statement t this pole can hold all the wires in support anything that is managing to be supportive i dont see that here so do you have that reporter report for me. Okay. This will come up again and again and tb i really dont think that is important to bless safety and Security Issues without broader Due Diligence studies and responsible statement. Understood. Any Public Comment on this item . Number 8 . You can get the microphone. Sorry. Thank you. Im isabel the one that wrote the letters and september you a picture the pole were talking about that has incredible amount of wiring on it and im not as organized as everyone but i was going just to first of all, in article 25 when they have a definition for adjacent we have to adhere to perfectly to the letter thought maybe thats the wrong word i think they should have said everyone effected by the wire in place necessarily will be adjacent but still very much effected i think in instead of taking that as the perfect description of what theyre trying to achieve we should think about what everyone here is talking about a little bit more because adjacent isnt descriptive and also i question that the federal emissions has set a standard that we have to adhere to but like commissioner swig said this is out dated by the wireless communication has expanded i dont think anyone dreamed it one percent of total would be also the commissioner president ann lazardus you suggested the cumulative power emissions i didnt get a clear answer one each one percent of each new contraption or the total of all those power you know high voltage poles that are taxed of the wiring things thats another you know factor in why we cant just you know say oh, this is this and no changing it the cost for the people and for theyre good sorry i didnt get to get to half of when i wanted to thank you for this chance and i was pleased to see how interested all of you are and wellinformed i was expecting i dont know what but im impressed by after all you. Just goofing off. Any other Public Comment in support. Good evening. Im amanda on another permit matter wanted to raise the issue because of the Board Members the issues of Structural Integrity and reading from the attorney for the permit holder he wrote to many about my concerns he says the appellant allegations concerns the safety of wooden poles for their antenna equipment many of the wooden poles are listing and leaning under the weight and bulk the equipment what my condition was mr. Fine man says that appellant safety concerns with urban found and eir relevant the appellants offer nothing more an speculation of the safety and sfrith of the existing poles and not only do they not kind of a safety concern not addressing the poles at issue application those unfounded concerns want support a registryal in the position i bring that up the safety concerns and the Structural Integrity of the polls are unfounded and irrelevant it puts the requirement of the Structural Integrity on the appellants here any other Public Comment please step forward. You can line up if you want to expedite it. Hello, im sandra the first case our first case so in support of the case im talking about the safety the wooden pole now i want to show you you know our view of the Fire Department report from 21 avenue and the street does the fire caught in the same, same, location the same pole this one is from 2000 that is one that pole caught the fire on 2006. Practical talk into the microphone. Those reports showing the pole caught the fire on in 2006 and then this year september in the same pole also caught the fire. So this alert us to safety of the wooden pole and the safety of the public so thats all i want to say thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you, again im jordan canning take care my appeal is next, i want to voice the support of this appellant one thing that came up in the last comments about this idea of who is responsible inform produce the engineering studies that will be relevant for the Structural Integrity of the pole but to the noise of the fans that are associated with the batteries on the second pole that was referred to in the case before it would be very difficult onerous to expect that private citizens that are spend 300 for the opportunity to spend 7 minutes before you to put together an engineering study that stands up to the Expert Witness that a large multi multi Million Dollars company we rely on dpw instead as our representatives to look out for us they does not have an we are answer to the age of each of those poles is they have not done that study given that on enthuse on the individual citizens to produce those engineering reports that is onerous and next slide, please impossible given the permit applicants resources i would offer that dpw has failed us in looking at out for their safety. Is there any additional Public Comment. I know youre tired i want to add a couple of things that the safety on the poles we want to reiterate thats an issue i also am close to the neighborhood i know that a lot of the people in the neighborhood dont speak english very well and for them to understand the notices is difficult and burdensome i think that is the main thing i want to say those things need to be considered sorry one more thing the ore arching thing maybe youp where those are located and how their deny in a way to make the city look good and the health of the residents considered more that might not be the brotherhoods i wanted to say that thank you. Is there any additional Public Comment. Seeing none, well have rebuttal from the appellant. I have two comments the first one exhibit c gene chang submitted that is the paper ive been requesting for calm side dpw on monday and requested this document and it was never sent to me thats one comment the second one that is the final approval of documents they should have no no tag submitted previous the tentative application how the antenna looks like but the final approval not even showing any diagram so whatever they want to see they didnt do it. Thank you thank you we can take rebuttal from the permit holder. Thank you again, it is martin fine man on behalf of crown castle i want to focus if on a few things that were said by the speakers this evening one concern that is express a number of times the safety of the polls and the integrity of the polls and have a burdensome connection we know this is said before i want to be entirely contrary before we go on any poles their owned by the impede o pg e or the joint Pole Association we have to provide them with the engineering support they have the structural Supreme Court and provided weight load and all the engineering back up to support there is not a problem here not a burden not other than the appellants or the citizens or frankly the department of public works it is a burden we carry in connection with getting on the poles has nothing to do with with the polling process we dont get on a penguin pole or a Northern California joint pole without having us with the burden of providing that information excuse me. Yes. Do you ever get could you proud a document with your disclosure from the Pole Association that the pole in question is safe. Matt haney does the Pole Association did an evaluation roster. You just said it i think i dont want to be argumentative i im looking for information you just said your clients provides information with regards to what is going on with the pole and what had weighs and the winds velocity, etc. Etc. But does it go into a void or do you get certification from a body the owner the pole that says weve rectified this weve studies studied this and everything is a okay yes. Yes surely i would suggest you may want to produce that in future things clearly dpw when i grilled them about the specifics on a pole they it has come back we dont know ill suggest the whole graufks e graduation about safety and the pole you may want to bring that back i have a smooek suspicion being calorie have not while see you again on the issues. I appreciate that very much i want to really repeat number one we provide that to the owner the pole we absolutely do that it is not number two not part of ordinance we dont were not requesting them to provide to the city. I understand that and not to be Audubon Society argumentative again bgain butb t you were ill let you finish. The other point made by one of the very last perhaps the last speaker the formula of notice but again, when was argued that people in the neighborhood some of them are not nature English Speakers and arguing that notice should be given in a bunch of languages not specifically which whatever the merits of the contention not has nothing to do with with the notice of ordinance we know notice are required in a variety it boils down to the part we provided the notice in the manner that was provided by the ordinance and dpw. So the objection about notice is without merit and again, i would urge that you deny the appeal and grant the permit. I just like to go back and restate that although you know ordinances are ordinances are ordinances laws and laws are laws but i think we have a responsibility up here as this board to protect the interests of the citizenry thats why were here me the interests the citizenry is clearly safety and security always has been on ever notation ill suggest ordinances aside that i would like to see in the future from the dpw or your client or anyone else client when theyre putting something significant structurally on a pole that proper vesting has been done and proper study and the superior court of the pole has been studied because i wont put it on you if i were a citizen living next to the pole overwhelm putting great faith in dpw and great faith in the owner the pole and any use of pole theyve done Due Diligence and that pole will not fall down on any house in case of who knows what in this world. Heres all im saying what im saying that does happen that happens in the manner in which ive described if you dont get on the pole whether a penguin pole or joint pole number one and number two were here tonight whether or not we compiled with article 25 i think youve heard many, many times from mr. Masonry is didnt required not but certainly we cant be all of the evidence for complying with everything the ordinance calls for youre raising a concern addressed outside of the ordinances. It more than an interesting concern but a critical concern for the protection of any citizen who is living next to a pole that may have your clients or any others yours of poles equipment on it ill let thank you. And im just saying that concern is addressed only addressed outside of the ordinance good and sufficient reasons for the preemption of that by the cd c. I have a question counselor. Taking into account that the permit issued with somewhat contested and he evil the bills in the future if you have two poles and the notification process is slightly ambiguous wouldnt that will to our benefit to go the center yard and make sure the notification of hundred and 50 both proposed poles were to be done. A i want to be misunderstood the point we did. Hold on im still speaking and okay. The question i had was according to the notification process as currently sits is it slightly ambition youre going the microwave wave on one pole and the battery on a second pole. Not a administrative mike wave a. In this particular installation not all. In this particular situation. In particular installation the antenna and some equipment on one pole and the battery back up. Given the battery back up and one equipment and you mailed out notification on the one and 50 yards this is highly contention to your Companies Benefit to make sure the hundred and 50 radius to cover work on both poles quay talking about poles next to each other. No house going to be messed up. Maybe one or two houses. If there were your house would it be important. No, not. Not notification if it were your house. What is important to give the nos required by the ordinance i guess i frankly disagree it is ambiguous thats what dpw did. The second question when may fellow commissioners you indicated that you gave specific engineering to thats required for you to install that equipment on said pole given the assumption that said pole is in Good Condition the question who checks the condition the pole prior to the engineering to the pole this is a question and thats part of admission made to the owner the pole. The question is you saying you have engineering for the pole what were asking for who certifies the actual pole the equipment is in servicesable condition. For the purpose of installing that equipment thats exactly the submission we made to pg e. Your dodge my question and. They give permission to install the equipment not part of article 25 thats my understanding. I think the commissioners question in the first instance who decides that pole is a stabilized pole. None is deciding that until thats submitted theyre doing the analysis my understanding to validate their hypothesis. Yes. We understand that will be the engineering the equipment to be installed it, it is to be approved by somebody and what nike it does the somebody check the condition of the pole or theyre managing the engineering the equipment assuming the pole is in perfect or good shape. Okay. Im not tracking. Sharon james the process we select and pole we think burglary work in preliminary review when we design it we hire an Engineering Firm that does structural loading on the pole if it as joint Northern California joint pole they are an extensive application to the joint Pole Association 20 people that do nothing but on, on those and each utility needs to sign off and see the engineering study we engineer it it takes months to get a final with the sign offices that everyone agrees the information is concreting correct if not then you dont get the approval from the joint policy association and cant attach it that policy solemnly swear with the penguin pole we go through a similar process with pg e the Structural Engineering study and pg e will come back and deny or attach in the case of first site with a new pole replacement it because the it structural failed they find it two old or could not hold the additional weight. That answers my question thank you so much youll be before us a lot in the future so those questions are coming up right now so at least i can have a better understanding has going forward. Thank you for clarifying. And we work in the struggles theyre part of the application and they physically check every single pole. Every pole were attaching fiber and equipment to. Thank you for clearing that up. Thank you. We can take rebuttal from the department. Gene chang public works i dont have anything to add any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. Ill start so besides the flawed conditions i personally have an issue with the notification process as it killer sits thats my you have two poles and theyre not toughing touching it should be a hundred feet in circumference around those two poles. Thats appropriate. Yep. Do we have a motion. The motion was the last one. Move to grant the appeal revoke the permit on the basis that the notice was defective. Commissioner fung on that motion commissioner president lazarus no. Commissioner Vice President honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that motion carries with a votes of 4 to one. Next item is item 9 appeal elizabeth and jordans the mapping on 34 avenue protesting the california inc. Of a wireless box for a personal wireless facility that is application 14 w r dash one 75. Thank you my name is jordan canning take care the appellant in this case. First of all, i want to say thank you guys for your service and this opportunity to file this appeal it is really essential to the democratic process in a situation like this at least i speak personally as david against dba litigated to feel there is power in showing up is really rewarding to me i want to thank you for that first of all, i would say my appeal said my notification was flawed and the other notification and as posted on those grounds i ask you throw out my permit to allow the approval i had i apologize this is an impression a moving target and sitting here paying attention for a long time rehearse my concerns about health and about Noise Pollution and about diminishment of the residential block and the residential views that are vital as the view of Golden Gate Park and that pole stand in a signature view looking at the president of the United States ocean made famous but a paternity and as part of character if our neighborhood it disruption that view and also ill say that takes away my Property Rights pertaining to the resale value of my home if it were disproposed ill be inclined to have a house not in front of it first place shopping in an open market the Health Grounds have been covered sufficiently id like to incorporate that into my own i would like to say that the evidence was presented by the dpw was in the form of a report commissioned by crown castle anyone that is familiar with the expert with the thinkss with the report being presented will present one viewpoint in which competing view points that rebut the permit applicant seems enreasonable and indeed impossible ill august in this particular case the pole is listing and its safety should be questioned and august it sdrurpgz the aesthetic character the ocean and across 35 avenue as. Look at Golden Gate Park and a concept that mr. Swigging bought up the Tipping Point in the changing the character of the neighborhood the Tipping Point question is a self per pelleting the more boxes the less issue it changes the neighborhood character it needs to be addressed i would also say with an the groundbreakings grounds for an appeal that is within our jurisdiction in this case is whether the hearing was conducted properly ill say a number of people in this room i recognize the hearing had the character of a rubber stamping the permits i felt at that particular instances the concerns by a number of appellant were not heard or countered or considered in the determination of the hoff to issue the positive recommendation to the director thats another grounds i believe you have the authority to ask about the blanket approval of those permit what happened at the hearing one point we havent talked about that is important it is related to me by representatives of dpw as well by my own supervisor that it is the citys stated preference those sites be on commercial buildings before theyre in residential neighborhoods and that simply does seem like continuation apple option in this case earlier tonight mr. Masonry said he prefers for example, those towers be placed on large buildings like churches he used it example as churches, in fact, a church less than 5 hundred needed from the proposed site was not adequately considered for this kind of infrastructure ill say why that is important not because im here not in my backyard kind of person by whatever the impact we associated with those poles be it noise or r f that impact is multiplied when youre talking about a resident situation like a as opposed to a commercial locations location thats a building that is occupied 5 days with week that is a different situation from a Residential Home if in a neighborhood are with young people home 7 days a week whether we say that impact is negative or you allow were to talk about the Health Concerns with regards with regard to that purple heart ill august that commercial sites are more than 3 times and youll argue the dpw as shirked their responsibility to find option for this permit ive got a lot for to say ill not waste our time the issue on that ground to reject it thank you for your time. Sir. Im los track of whos turn it is im not i im martin fine man mr. Canning take care the appellant raised several issues that the r f emissions the first thing is something i said before so ill be very brief that is this whole issue of the health or environmental or Property Value or any way with an wants to say it any concern like that is simply out of bounds and simply not something that the city or state or lot lemon it is used for denying the wireless communication facilities permit so thats the friday morning the second thing i want to say is that he questions about the report that gets submitted to the department of Public Health and indeed submitted in this case it was not something that crown castle engineers did it was submitted by dr. Jerold brush beggar an outside engineering expert in the field he professor in this field that is the one that that did the report not something that some employee of crown castle did with the ordinance requires it be done by a registered professional engineer that could, in fact, be an employee of the applicant but we went the extra mile and provided a rotator from the leading experts and what did that show a complete requirement of the fcc and therefore it is simply r f cant be taking into account as you may know further the rest of the conditions require is that not only this testament and retesting after the project is built and then finally the offer the testing upon request by the residents ill say that this particular installation youve seen the photos simulations an installation at the very top the pole that is going to increase the distance from any you know approximate to where people live or work or anything under those an issue that was raised about noise that has been fully addressed in the conditions attached to the approval the permit and the conditions that was attached if requires operation not to exceed 3, 4, 5 decimals and measured 3 feet from the residents facade so the noise issue with the addressed crown castle choose the requirement and the department of Public Health did thats Due Diligence and confirmed that although testing the protocol is 3 feet if the residents facade the installation will be 10 feet so there is a better sound of installation the remarks about aesthetic the Planning Department reviewed that in granting the permit and determined the facility ill quote in all capitals would not would not in all capitals significantly 83 track from the character of the residents and that includes the Planning Department consideration of views the Planning Department investigated and determined this installation will not impact no 1 else street views but private views that determination was based on the locations of the antenna on the pole and the sized of equipment involved and the distance of the station in my nearby residents the Property Value that was alluded to briefly by the appellant in his verbal remarks he talked about it in writing as something about curve appeal and in terms of Property Value if i had to choose between two properties, however, that is statistics two responses number one again your review of this matter is limited to the facts and circumstances so forth in article 25 not allowing the considerations of impact on Property Value but onramp the assertion of the Property Value not by any real estate professional a restatement of the r f of health or Environmental Concerns that is something that as you may know the federal law from keeps you from considering mr. Canning take care made policy argument about the entire sort of article 25 permitting regime the simple answer is absolutely grants corps the right to use those poles and article 25 is recognize and adaptation by the San FranciscoEthics Commission this is the preferable or allowed use of those poles in an allowable location the argument is an argument with the wisdom of state law and article 25 and argument with the board of supervisors with the article 25 finally mr. Canning take care made an argument that he says his supervisor in the department of public works preferred this be played on commercial sites rather than poles thats not correct at all it is a mishmash of certain concepts those one permitting regime calling for conditional use for the macros facilities other than the private property could be a micro cellular it is a complete set of laws and article 25 having to do with the permitting in the right of ways with respect the appellant is mikdz e mixing two regimes with that, ill ask you deny the appeal and grant the permit. Quick question counselor how many proposed applications do you have planned for San Francisco . How many proposed application. It did that minute. Our work is based on contract with carriers as we build the network and we have modification sites 18 of those as far new sites proposals were adding but no applications in process at this point. How many proposed do you expect at this point. Were in the neighborhood of 50 and then out of all those installations have any been proposed on private property. No. Those are rightofway small Cell Technologies and so this application these applications we are working on only addressing rightofway locations okay. Not private property. Thank you. At my convenient of having one as a knowledgeable person i could ask the attorney when did the board of supervisors approve or affirm i guess article 25 or you referred to the board of supervisors as approving all of that which you are talking about what date was that. It was enacted well, im looking for a year not a specific date. 2015. 2015. No, no it was amended in 2015. Youre talking about the amendment. There were several different permitting regimes has to do with with the rightofway a succession of them section 11. 9 and that got repaeldz articular article 25 was enacted about two or three years ago and amended in january or february. It was averted in 2011 but the amendments that changes the way the permit were rectified in the field in 2015. It was affirmed by our report so it is correct. Thanks thank you. Great there was even under article 25 they used to divide up the application according to the sites and this year removed that categorytion. Well hear from the department. Gene chang public works this is one of the sites where the correct conditions on the tentative approvals do not match the conditions on the permit itself article 25 does not require alternative sites and the state code allows Telephone Companies to use the public rightofway rooftop sites are not under the purview of the public works we dieting tried to get them to safe haven for alternative sites on private property before you applying or looking at the public rightofway however, the city was ruled against on that item in a lawsuit. With regards to the diminished value article 25 didnt allow that because based on speculation Planning Department arrested determined that facility will not detract from the Residential District and the r f emissions is in compliance with federal limits the Health Reports you know both the noise and the r f r reviewed bits the department of Public Health vifrdz theyre true and if you dont have any other questions that concludes my presentation. A technical question you know you have a 43d b. A. On the noise is that verified in the fields. We dont require automatic noise testing but if we get complaints the department will address that with the applicants at this time. Eject thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . Im lisa im speaking inform support of my neighbor i live across the street where the box will be installed i have a number of comments one mr. Fine man commends crown castle for above and beyond the call of duty getting an excellent on the other hand, excellence report they paid for the expert this is some influence i think should be noted i do realize your bound by article 25 i feel that crown castle are hiding behind art 25 im offend by his dismissal to the concerns of safety and other Health Concerns the appellants raised this evening and the aesthetic value when we talks about you know the interior how they think notice and how to contempt comment on that this is a constant level of noise this is constant now im living next to a constant running muni or a freeway im a little bit concerned about the dpw that even the what i think are pretty standard should be expecting questions on technical issues theyre unable to answer im lost in their ability to due Due Diligence on our on behalf the notification process was also flawed the letter was dated may 25th i didnt receive it until june 8th it is dubious i intentionally to confuse the appeal process timing none as provided even though it is outside of article 25 at the level where residents are living i think this should be beyond not only the appellants but done by an objective third party dpw cited in an earlier case the r f levels in the European Union they failed to find you know some of the other examples such as a highly technical advanced countries like swemgd sweden their. 1 thank you for the opportunity to speak. Is there any additional Public Comment on this item seeing none, rebuttal mr. Canning take care yoyour first. First ill make 3 points first to mr. Swigz astonishment we were looking at the laws enacted in 1996 for the framework of understanding some of the issues coming up in those cases there are other laws im a lawyer and never written a brief im learning about that i know from my discussions with my periphery supervisor that part of the law that actually by which the city ceded its birth to rely the law is horses and carriages to have that Technology Roll down our streets were dealing with a whole cyou feel youre handcuffed by article 25 that are outofdate with reality that is going on here secondly, to respond to the contentious of the mr. Fine man here he building with all due respect your discount me saying im shading some article ever r f thats not an adequate rebuttal of my position you say it is a mishmash of what im saying the city prefers those poles that those sites be cited on wooden poles not a mishmash or understanding i submitted with my brief several briefs im happy to answer any questions from omar and as well as other officials at the dpw says it is a stated position we prefer alternative locations that is a total misrepresentation of my position i rescinded that ill say on the technical ground the notification being i have seen correct i urge you to reject this proposal thank you for your time. Mr. Fine man. Ill just be brief i think ive responded to most of issues that has been made out on this appeal ill just respond to the last few contentions made the federal telecommunication act was enacted in 1996 not as from the law stopped there it is revised and amended continually and the fcc does its work and study and issues rules and regulations on an ongoing basis the fact theyre the dead lay in 1996 doesnt change the fact that the law is keeping up with the times and just as one example the question that was asked of me when was this article 25 was enacted it was enacted a few years ago and then amend a significant part this year were not dealing with hours and carriages or whatever analogy was maids were dealing with the laws currently on the books the laws and is states legislation and the state board of supervisors and the federal government or the federal agencies review and keep updateed all the time most important the law 25 thats the current operative law and amended as recently as this year the last point it was made by the appellant is this contention that there is some kind of a perch for private property again, this is just a matter of mixing together two things that are two separate issues two different regulationy regimes one has to do with with the replacement of those antenna facilities an private property and theyre the process you go both a district you dont need a permit or a conditional use permit is riverside and follow that set of law and telephone commissioned guidelines that are in terms of selecting those locations thats one entirely spirit into itself permit and separate from that is this were here today article 25 has to do with with the placement in the public rightofway and this is not a matter of a preference of one or another two separate bodies of law in ways to get permit for different kinds of facilities and the Telecommunications Provider can apply to both depending on the facilities necessary for the situation so thank you very much. Any rebuttal from the department. Monopoly okay. Okay commissioners unless you have questions commissioners, the matter is submitted. Comments to be consistent from the permit is flawed it should have the same result. It that a motion. And a yes and commissioner Vice President honda i want to make the same motion then to grant the appeal and deny the appeal on the process that the noticing notice what defective. Commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus no commissioner wilson and commissioner swig. That that motion carries on a vote of 4 to one. Last item on the calendar appeal 10 amanda versus the department of public works at 20th avenue protesting the owners an august 2016 to the california inc. Of a wireless box for the construction of a perm wireless facility applicati application. Reference the overhead reference the overhead. Im sorry do you have a document on the overhead projector. On or before october 21st the ordinance was passed and said ordinance amended the San FranciscoBuilding Code with the section and the amendments were passed in part to require the city departments and dpw and the Planning Department to publish a coffer sheet that advised the residents in multiple languages it it didnt happen my neighborhood is more than almost 50 percent nature English Speaking chinese and my neighbors didnt receive any, no, sir, the check marks represent my neighbors with the first language not english none of them receive any information how to participate process in their native language and theres couple of neighbors what were at t hearing in July Crown Castle was asked it site within hundred and 50 feats of a school it happens to be a school my son attends when crown castle said theyll make considerations where to place the antenna it is the best they can do this right here i dont know can you see this in the the proposed location and if you can see it is right in front of a pole that says school thats where theyll put that hundred and 50 feet and actually, if you can see my sons Basketball Hoops i have concerns about the locations the proximity to my sons school that is right outside of my front window there are has been insufficient information about the information and the superior court of the polls pretty much what everyone has been speaking about it you look at theyre proposed their mock ups to say this does not impact the integrity of the sightlines of our street i dont know if you can say that all see is this pole and the box on top of that i also have another issue im sorry it is late for your and me september 30th the wireless box permit it says wireless tier a and this one is august 5th of 2015 it says wireless tier tier 3 a why are those different maybe someone can explain that to me also this preemptive permit theyre putting a box across the street from the neighborhood according to the notice they didnt take into consideration what commissioner Vice President honda was talking about tonight the additional requirements to notify the other neighbors relative to this where the other pole is going to do hold some of the equipment i also want to talk about the r f exposures you see that little box that is the proposed pole that is my house this is my sons classroom so the proximate of the school i think so inform setback requirements but in our particular case my son is getting deaf twentyfour hour a day i dont know how to better say it than that i meant to come up here with you know a little bit more refined presentation i agree with everybody or everything that everyone said and concerned about the cumulative impact that those boxes are in the neighborhood what theyre doing to the site line and the neighborhood aesthetics and Property Value concerns and im just for the confident the city is doing its part to experience exercise what little authority in article 25 and ask you know for either Better Designs that are at least less i think truthful than what we getting or work with crown castle and verizon to figure out some other way of putting these things in front of peoples houses. Mr. Fine man. Thank you. Im martin fine mary man for the appellant crown castle the fierce issue that im going to combine remarks has to do with what was auditor vertically and by the appellant in here appeal break off brief the appellant argued about the notice not charming the variety of the no, sir that was given the appellant is claiming that notice should have been translated into chinese whatever maybe the merit of that concept the ordinance simply if require that only english be maybe an issue for the appellant or others to take up with the board of supervisors and amend it not required at least in writing accident appellant lazed erased an issue to the Holy Name School notice perhaps having seen our response and dpw response maybe that argument has been band but demonstrated the notice was given the school is owned by the catholic archdiocese and it was given to the owner of that property so there isnt a notice issue a question about a hectic resource but, in fact, Planning Department did explicitly consider the presence of a medic resource and granted the permit properly under article 25 i might add thinking outside the box an argument in writing and alluded to in the hearing this evening about necessity and necessity is a concept that comes in the standard of a grant of a conditional use for any conditional use grant to be permit this is not a conditional use necessity not part of article 25 not proper part of the consideration by this bodies an appeal and the next issue was compatibility with the residential neighborhood again something that Planning Department explicitly examines and specifically found out this will not sixth detract from the character the Residential District and planning making that the condition we plant a tree with actually adding to the aesthetics of the neighborhoods but i want to correct one perhaps misimpression the appellant put a photo and pointed out to the pole dominates in your view the pole were not recollecting the pole only pitting equipment on the pole not the question the pole is existing were not asking to existing the pole it is already there. It has been referenced to a view planning as i mentioned already examined that and made the determination no other condition they required us to plant an additional tree they made the determination based on the boeshgs or locations the equipment and the antenna and the size at issue and the distance of this equipment from any residents there was not an issue in terms of view or are light are any of those issues there was some repeated mention of the proximity of this to the school holy school ill say this is kind of simply and clearly as i can is ordinance which you are aware of sets up categories and standards that came back take into account park locates and it talks about zoning protected locations schools are are not proximity to it school not a factor in connection with grants those permits and cant be take into account in denying it is contrary to this ordinance and let me answer a question that was raised at some point in the permitting process that of a tier 3 a application and then later on it was referenced to this as a tier a application that has to do with with the conversation we had a little bit earlier when the ordinance was enacted it had a 3 tiers 1, 2, 3 depending on the size of equipment then within those tiers there were abc depending on whether there was a park location, a zoning protected location or neither in january or february of this year this ordinance was amend in that tier 1, 2, 3 categorytion was repealed now we have abc categorytion thats why the early point was referenced to 3 a and at the end the reference to tier a there is no mystery it is just that that it is the proper categorytion according to the ordinance as it stands. Ill urge that the board deny the appeal and grant the permit thank you very much. Got a question counselor. Off oh, yes. Like the previous case before you have equipment to be installed on two separate poles. Thats correct. You stated earlier that the occur summer of the hundred and 50 radius probably allude or left out one property thats what youre statement. With respect to the earlier appeal. What do you feel the number of hourly. Im not sure toldz o Attorneys Office that radius map was submitted. Ive gorlg gone through the radius map and recycled and it looks to me roughly there is about 11 residences that didnt receive the notification if on the secondary pole. I would just through score the words if as you under scores that what is riders hundred and 50. I understand. If youre permits are as contentious it would be again repeat myself beneficial for your company to extend that that hand to the folks that would be immediately effected hundred and 50 yards from the secondary pole. I understand youre not i think ive made my point we compiled with the ordinances when it required hundred and 50 feet. I got that thank you. Commissioners what is required hundred and 50 feet from the personal wireless facility. Could you speak into the mike please. Hundred and 50 feet of proposed location of the personal wireless facility and the permanent wireless facilities medians antennas and related facilities i dont think it is clear to say it not incorrect but the antenna and the batteries are part of facilities hundred and 50 feet if the misrepresent and the poles ill not take the council at his words theyve compiled p taking your microphone towards our mouth mr. City attorney could you clarify also the language that notice requirement because i was bordered he brushed you off saying no. Much i dont believe every word out of the councils mouth id rather hear it from you with regards to the language requirements especially in a neighborhood that is not english as a fierce language primarily and i believe that is on the council is correct the article 25 does not require multi lingual notice. I didnt get that hundreds percent as well the appellant came up what was she referencing to regarding she mentioned something about the board of supervisors had combkdz or initiated or potentially are you aware of any such language . Legislation all im not contrary on what the reference was to in some instances notice with the multi languages in them are required instance not so this is not a unique situation sometimes that is sometimes not thanks for the clarification. Well hear from the department. Gwen chang public works last item for tonight this is another one of those situations we corrected the conditions on the approval didnt match the conditions on the permit with regards to the Planning Commission ill hand to offer to omar. Thats 5 not 4. I read it. Second thank you with regards to the aesthetics of the facility we think their entruthful in nature as any large box or element adding two the element of the neighborhood the challenges whether it detracts give me the facility type and location a certain type of the streets so on with regards to the schools the fcc didnt have a stricter standard for younger population or facilities the context purposes we have larger sites more powerful ones on public and private in the San FranciscoEthics Commission as marked on the communities those are, of course, more contentious but not an r f standard and a 10 east at a level for instance, a standards for wifi e wi assess but to the tier question that was addressed we basically addressing the concern whether under the previous regime the tier won their much smaller will nostril require a Public Notice and not require the Planning Department review or review by rec and Park Department our concern is given the new law ive mentioned to come in with a tier one facility and get it built and come and add larger equipment to a tier 3 in the last update we get rid of the smaller tier every site gets notified and generally ask street trees be planted that concludes my remarks. Thank you. Any Public Comment on that item . Okay. Seeing none well start our rebuttal you have 3 minutes. Really quick for the record i didnt abandon the argument of the ohio holy names i understand they serve the archdiocese but not treblg down to the school that is 4 hundred families interested in that process and bhats going on here and the cumulative effect of every thousand physically were seeing large Antenna Networks on poles in the outer sunset one of the commissioners raced an issue the ordinances i was referring to you made a copy of the ordinances that is in with submitted with my brief owners 2015 dash 22 on october 31st we put that in the materials thank you. Mr. Fine man. Yes. Thank you martin fine man once again there is no question on the notice the archdiocese the notice for the Property Owner given to the archdiocese the Property Owner the school and then as to this other ordinance that has been alluded to whatever the case may be whatever was are considered the fact as i believe confirmed by the City Attorney militant lingual notice is not riders in other than everyone the request deny if others languages it address not to this body but the board of supervisors to amend the ordinance this permit was properly granted nothing presented detracts from that ill simply ask you deny the appeal and granted the request. Anything further mr. Chang commissioners, the matter is submitted. This issue of notices is bothersome i think this is an understatement you know the recognize by the City Attorney that it is both the wireless equipment and lastly equipment and the fact that the map that was drawn on was one radicals us of hundred and 50 feet is sloppy and i think that dpw and related city departments should be more careful about that so quickly the City Attorney comes up with a classification that say was improper noticed i again, i take