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the dpw says it is a stated position we prefer alternative locations that is a total misrepresentation of my position i rescinded that ill say on the technical ground the notification being i have seen correct i urge you to reject this proposal thank you for your time.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 half to council i understand that in article 25 that that is not required to that multi lingual notice be given but i think that maybe this body should recommend to the board of supervisors given the diversity of San Francisco and given the intensity of some of the ethnicity thank you very much at