And im the executive director. We will also be joined by representatives from the city departments. We expect joseph duffy, senior building inspector, representing department inspection. We have the analyst with San Francisco public works and we expect carlo short and chris buck, forester from San Francisco public works. The board requests that you turn off all phones and other electronic devices. Please carry on conversations in the hallway. Appellates, permit holders, and respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. Members of the public who are not affiliated with their parties have three minutes each and no rebuttal. Please people into the microphone. The board reserves the right to not call an item after 10 00 p. M. Please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or visit the office if you have additional contents. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv. The video is available on our website and can be downloaded from sfgovtv. Org. If you intend to testify at any of the proceedings and wish to have your testimony given weight, please stand and say i do after you have been sworn or affirmed. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . Yes. We are on item number 1. General Public Comment. If anyone is here for the 24th street tree removal cases, those are rescheduled to january 8. Is anyone here for those cases . Those four cases were moved to january 8 on the agenda. I apologize, we posted that information on our website. Unless you want to stay in here for the rest of the items, you should leave. Thank you. Item 1 is general Public Comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who wants to speak to a matter in the boards jurisdiction but is not on tonights calendar. Please approach. Good evening and welcome. Thank you for letting me speak today. Is there a way to make the clock show me how much time is left for my time . Three minutes, please. Thank you. Im here to speak just on the overwhelming problem of this city being deforested right now by department of public works and department of urban forestry. We have a huge problem going on right now. 2,500 trees were removed, public trees, in frisk in this past year. There is 100 trees slated for removal by parks and rec over at lake mersed. Its happening all over the city, trees removed. Its the polite way of saying removing and killing. These trees provide a lot of benefit for our communities, especially during the air quality problems caused by the recent fires. Bureau of urban forestry has not done their part in responding to the public. It took almost a year to get them to come into a. D. A. Compliance with notification for these tree removals. It took almost three months to get a reply from them just over email. Chris buck and other people at that department simply reply to the public whenever they feel like it and they dont reply in a timely fashion. Even after i involved the Mayors Office on disability, i still couldnt get a reply from them. A lot of times they say these trees are being removed, but well plant new ones. It took five years to get four replacement trees for 3500 mission street. Thats five years after i wrote numerous emails and spoke in person. The amount of work it takes to get these replacement trees is wild. I dont believe theres been a sufficient budget for replanting of new trees. Also, according to the United States department of agricultures report from 2016, over 17 of urban trees dont live past two years. A lot of the trees that are replanted get sick, theyre not cared for. Theres no budgeting to water them and put proper Irrigation Systems and mulch and pruning and they die. Our city is quickly becoming an urban desert. We have the smallest urban canopy, we fall behind chicago, new york, los angeles, and its getting worse in a climate crisis. Parks and rec doesnt have a successful notification system for people with disabilities, those who cant leave their homes and canvass parks to look for tree notices. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Clerk is there any other general Public Comment . Seeing none, we will move on to item number 2. Commissioner comments and questions. Next monday is veterans day. Thinking of all the folks who served in our armed forces or are currently serving. I would also like to thank all the people who participated last night in our voting process and to the people that have successfully got new jobs and retained their jobs. Clerk is there any Public Comment on that item . Okay. Seeing none, well move on to item number 3, commissioners before you, discussion and possible adoption of the october 23, 2019, minutes. Do i hear a motion. [ indiscernible ] clerk we have a motion from the developed to adopt the minutes. [roll call vote]. Clerk to motion carries 50 the minutes are adopted. We are now moving onto item number 4, this is appeal number 19096, Maureen Maring versus San Francisco public works. 1653 17th avenue. Appealing the issue. Announcer on august 14, 2019, to extenet systems, llc, of a personal Wireless Service facility site permit. Installation of a box facility in a planning protected location. This is permit number 18 wr0195. Welcome. Clerk you can move the microphone down. Thank you. Im Maureen Maring and i live at 1653 17th avenue, frisk, our family home. Im here to present my appeal in opposition to the wireless cell set up. I would like to mention in all the information first of all, i would like to thank you all for being here and letting us talk. Our home is right by this the pictures dont depict it accurately, its closer. And in the information sent to us, it would be slightly defective. Truly, our block has no wires. Thats why families and people live here, moved on the block. Theres families, my neighbors paid hundred thousand dollars, millions in mortgages. My neighbors have families and children and they work at home. This wireless cell in front of our home would really, truly detract when we see other places down the street what it looks like. Also, i just wanted to say some of my neighbors didnt come here tonight because theyre working. Also, they feel defeated. They say no ones listening to us. We had to pay a 300 fee to come here again to ask for someone to listen to us. I just say, if you had your home and you paid all of this and then someone, a Large Company comes along and say they theyre going to put this in front of your home without any say so, i wasnt informed. I do have the date when i got it in the mail, but it was posted on a pole in front of us before we ever heard about this. So i think thats what i wanted to say. Thank you for listening to me and my neighbors and families. Thank you. Thank you, ms. Maring. You have all that pg e work going on . But thats necessary and theyre doing a good job. Clerk thank you. We will now hear from the permit holder. Good evening and welcome. Thank you very much. Im joseph kanisha with x and f systems. We are the permit holders. You, im sure, read the brief and visited the neighborhood. I will be brief in my summary of what i consider the primary issues with this appeal. They are the assertion that public notification did not occur properly, that the planning determination planning approval determination was made in error and that the planning approval determination was made in error. In each case we believe that they were correctly done. We believe that the applicable agencies correctly approved the proposals. Real quickly, id like to demonstrate how these things were true. Regarding public notice, article 25 requires that we both post notices in a variety of locations around the subject proposed installation. We did that. We actually posted six notices on 17th between lot and maraga. We were also required to mail notices to all owners and occupants within 150 feet of the proposal, which we did. We also mailed notices to all neighborhood groups or all contacts on the neighborhood Groups Associated with the inner sunset neighborhood. We uploaded affidavits confirming that both the postings and the mailings were done correctly. Public works reviewed those and confirmed that everything had been done correctly when the tentative approval was issued. That was protected which is some evidence that somebody received some notification, but in any case we did upload affidavits proving that we adhered to all the elements of article 25. Moving on to the planning approval determination, the Planning Department reviewed and ultimately approved the proposal in its april 5, 2019, memo. They specifically cited that the proposal would not detract from neighborhood character. They actually subsequently rereviewed their approval during the protest stage and reconfirmed that they agreed that it met all the comrapplica standards. We believe the Planning Department has taken all these factors into consideration and correctly approved the installation. Finally, the department of Public Health also approved and reviewed the proposal. Their review is based on a few factors, the operation of the antennas, the proximity to adjacent recipients, residences are about 17 feet away. Daniel roe of hammond medicine which is a third party can discuss the human exposure to radiofrequency. The highest exposure levels that would result from this installation were 2. 5 of the f. C. C. s limit. 40 times below the limit. The exposure levels for anyone on the ground for folks walking by on the sidewalk is less than 1 . Its pretty clear that these levels are well below anything that would be beyond noncompliance with f. C. C. s limits. Barring any other evidence that these determinations were made in error, we respectfully request that this board deny the appeal and uphold the decision. What happened to the regular counsel . That was verizons counsel. Even though weve had quite a few of these cases before us, what is the overall reason of the upgrade on the antenna poles . Upgrade . I mean, what is the purpose of the installation. Oh, what are these for, why are we installing these . Extenet is a provider. We work with all the major providers in the United States. We work with our clients to help them improve our wireless networks. As technology evolves, im sure youve heard this many times, the sites go from being way up in the day, now you need smaller facilities dotted throughout the landscape so all the users have the ability to be able to be using the system at the same time. We helped the wireless carries install those facilities to continue to improve wireless capacity. Are these 5g capable or just 4g . This is just 4g. This particular installation does not include the new technology. We dont know if and when in this case this client is sprint for this particular installation. We dont know when they might want to start looking at 5g technology. We expect it will happen, but we dont know what their plans are. Given the situation that we had recently in kinkaid with the fires, the older Cellular Technology had huge tower backups. These would not be functioning if the power to them is cut. There are no backup generators. They are large and loud. One of the deficits for having slim line. Yes. Clerk thank you. Well now hear from the department of public works. Welcome back. Hello. Good afternoon, president , Vice President , and members of the board. Im leo palasios representing public works. We believe this permit was issued in compliance with the public works code 25 for personal wireless facilities. Article 25 requires wireless application to be submitted to the department of Public Health and the Planning Department. Public works subsequently issued a tentative approval in the applicant mail and posted notice of this approval. Public works posted a public hearing. Following the hearing, the director of public works approved the permit and notice of this was distributed to the public. The Planning Department is in attendance and can speak more about plannings review if it has questions. The Health Department isnt in attendance, but is available to respond by email. Youre getting good at this. So as of june the regulations have changed and a permit like this would no longer be a permit but a license. Is that correct . Yes, our jurisdiction regarding poles, pg e and the other poles, this falls back to the pole owner. And i dont know if youre the right person to answer this, but if for some reason we upheld this appeal, would it have any significance, given that the applicant is now entitled to go and seek a license directly from the p. U. C. . All i can say is at the time of issuance it did follow the article. Any decisions made under your jurisdiction is up to you guys. If there is a modification to this, that it would have to go through sfpuc for installation of 5g, for example. Clerk thank you. Mr. Sanchez. We will now hear from the Planning Department. Scott sanchez Planning Department staff. Before you is an image of the plan for this district. This is a planning protected location because its on a street with good street views. The Planning Department did properly review this and their analysis is consistent with past practice for similar applications. Also, its my understanding that given the law that is in effect today, this permit would not be required and Planning Department review would not be required in this case, given the current state of the wireless controls. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . How many people are here for Public Comment, if you could raise your hand. Okay. Please, someone, approach. Maybe if you could just line up on the side over here. Sir, do you have a speaker card . No, i do not. Clerk maybe if after you speak you could write your name down. I live at 1647 17 avenue. My neighbor is maureen. I would like to present an objection for a violation and an infringement on california penal code 372 and 373 p. C. Which gives citizens in our neighborhood and our community the right to appeal and reject any infringement on our senses, specifically sight is involved. I dont know if youve seen these devices that they plan to put in, but they are ugly. In our neighborhood, we have a beautiful neighborhood. These homes are milliondollar homes and we have a beautiful view of the hills and everything and they will obstruct our view. They are despicable looking and they give boxes and signs to give warnings to be around this energy. Thats number one. Number two, the poles in our neighborhood are not wood. Theyre concrete. Okay. So whoever is stating whatever theyre saying has nothing to do with those poles. All right. Weve been told that, my neighbor and i polled the neighborhood. 52 neighbors. 49 signed signatures that they oppose this because it is an obstruction of their views. It is an infringement on their rights for their senses. That is just a sampling. So the majority of the neighborhood oppose this. I think it is gross negligence on the part of the planners and other people for not taking into consideration these our benefit of having a neighborhood that is a beautiful neighborhood and our sense of beauty. San francisco is known about its culture and its sophistication. This is just being obliterated by a company thats installing it. Theyre not even from the United States. Theyre from britain. All right. So esthetic sensibility to them means nothing. Its the bottom line for 5g which they say is 4g. There is a doctor from israel, a genius, who has shown that these short waves are dangerous to health. Clerk you have 30 seconds. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. We approach that we can in some way utilize the law, the penal codes that protect us and our community to have the esthetic life that we live. Next speaker, please. Clerk there should be a speaker card on the podium. Next speaker, please. Im sorry, maam, youre the appellant. Clerk youll have an opportunity to come up during rebuttal. Were taking Public Comment for your item right now. Thank you. You can come up. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening and welcome. Thank you. Im a resident at 1657 17th avenue. We the residents of 1657 17th avenue have checked installation on the personal wireless facility next to our home. Were raising children along with other neighbors on our block. The alleged study does not address at effects on children. Children have more permanentable skulls and bones, nor does the f. C. C. Study address the cumulative effects. This will be emitting radiofrequency nonstop to cumulative radiation leaving us with no choice. Even those with cigarette smoking had a choice. Erection of a wireless antenna next to our home will be a forced, not concelebritied to exposure to harmful e. M. F. S. Densefied 4g or 5g will result in child endangerment. Its beyond any rational dispute that a childs skull is thinner. It is also beyond rational dispute that due to this frai y frailty, childrens brains are more at risk of nonionizing radiation. This is of concern from the American Academy of pediatrics, as can be seen at the following link. Overhead, please. Thank you. This is the letter electric the American Academy of pediatrics, f. C. C. , demanding for asking for more studies regarding children. This is consistent with other scientific findings showing that kids are more at risk, as shown in the other link. Its all going to be in this letter that i will leave. Allowance of dense urban distribution of 4g antennas cannot avoid the placement of these towers immediately adjacent, as in the case where i live, to peoples sleeping quarters, including children. Respectfully and including as to the use of the penal statute as a template for the civil liability, such placement appears to violate the spirit and intent and likely the letter of law of california penal code 273