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 fel1996 telecommunicationst can stand behind a precautionary principle resolution and have faith in the recent Court Decisions in recent to win their day in court for all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is page hudson. Im happy to be here tonight. I am have prepared comments so im just going to speak to you from my heart as a very concerned citizen who has been very steeped in this process of trying to educate our communities here in california and across the nation about the dangers of small cell closerange cellular towers. I often ponder why were still having this conversation when there are over 2,000 peer review studies that show the dramatic impact that even lower levels of three and four g are having on our population. Ranging from headaches and discomfort and sleeping to the most severe which is of course glioblastoma and brain tumors. As a cancer survive or myself, my son is a cancer survivor and my friend is battling glioblastoma and her doctors have advised her it was a result of wireless routers and cell phone towers in her neighborhood. Im asking the question about why were still having this conversation because with this evidence at lower levels, our population is at risk for serious modifications in their d. N. A. And the answer is because of a very outdated, unjust Telecommunications Act in 1996 that says that we as a population cannot resist the roll out of these highlevel small cell towers based on selfconcerns. I cant imagine a reason more important than our health to do so and the burden of proof should not fall on us to say its dangerous when the Telecommunications Companies were before the Senate Hearings and were asked how much money they had spent in determining the safety of these higher level radiation small cell towers. The answer was not one single dollar. So, we are going to be used as guinea pigs as they rolled us out without your help to protect us. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Were going to move on to rebuttal. Two minutes or thro three mi. Three minutes. Ok. Here i thought i was just going to be all by myself today, little did i know. Thank you t. Everyone who made comments. I think youve totally freaked me out. Just so you know how i came here, i actually started as just a person who had this thing posted on the pole right outside my house. I wanted to find more information, honestly, wanted to find more information. I used my phone, i like it. I have heard these things are controversial. I wanted to understand what was being proposed. There were questions about the directional nature and what was shared. This may be on the overhead. Overhead . Thank you. The only thing i could see was this, this arrow pointing at my house. Thats how this started, honestly. And, actually, the second antenna more powerful pole top, i wasnt worried about it at first because i could get no information on that. I contacted the same time i asked about the rs measuring and i asked for all the measure. Should i even file a protest. I have no idea. I didnt get the information until after the protest dates. So i did file a protest. The reason i wasnt freaked out was because of this. It said that this is the Planning Department s. A. Q. S are published on small cells and it says that theyre rounded but theyre directional and they primarily are focused up and down the streets and not directly into the residents behind the pole. So im look ok, thats cool. That sounds pretty good to me. Im going to be able to live with this thing 12 feet outside my bedroom window. It wasnt until after the protests were filed that i saw the memo that described the omni directional antenna on top, which i did have to go to websters and make sure i knew what it meant. Twentyninth an telthe second ad east. They emailed xnet to get clarified. Cue leave that on the overhead. I didnt mean to interrupt. So thats kind of how i ended up here. This is a little schematic for you. When i did start to get a little freaked out about the omni directional pole, this is our building. This is the pole. This is the bedroom. And this is my home office. So i was like whoa, this is, you know, weird. I dont know about this. But i get it. Its fcc and were not allowed to talk about it. What i want to say at the end of the day, im really talking about a process here. Obviously these are super controversial and the i should be dotted and t should be crossed and the information should be provided and i dont think they should be approved if that information isnt correct and after t after it to the res. Thank you and your brief was very well done for a first timer. Thank you. Well now hear from the permit holder. Joe again with x net systems. I wanted to comment on a couple of comments that weve heard over the last few minutes. There was a gentleman that referenced that what you are seeing here on these quoteunquote small shells on street lights and utility poles are the sale thing you see on roof tops on macro sites. Its true that some of the equipment used is the same but they are most definitely not the same thing. He referenced something about a site with an erp of 7,000 watts. It has a site of 154 watts. As a result, the exposure levels are very small. We mentioned in this particular report, they note the highest level of exposure would be 18 of the fccs limit. Which again is five times below the maximum allowable standard. So, i dont believe theres any error in our documentation. I dont believe d. P. H. Made errors in this documentation. There may have been uncertainty about exactly what this antenna is. Is that direction right. The report is correct. The documentation we provided is correct. And weve tried to clarify that at the protest stage and again tonight. I cant shes right that i did not communicate all of this well or on time. None of that results in non compliance with any of the conditions of approval. I have apologized to her for being six months late in the response about exactly how she should go about obtaining readings when the site is installed. She has that information now. I think the board is familiar with how that process works. Im happy to answer questions about that if there are still questions. I do believe that we have satisfied our requirements and the permit was rightfully issued. Question. 5g or 4g. 4g. Thank you. Second question. What is the process to convert 4g to 5g . Is it the equipment the same and is it the permitting process for that . A lot of that is still in the works. From what weve seen so far the equipment is not the same. In fact it has a different form factor. Weve worked with city agencies over the last several months. Public works and publichealth the puc, mta, the Planning Department, the department of technology and weve all sort of reviewed what 5g might look like Going Forward. And it has a different form factor. You cant just flip a switch and converting it, is it administrative or is there a permit process involved . Well, thats a complicated question. The answer to that question is complicated by the action the board of supervisors took recently where this type of facility would no longer require a permit regardless of whether its 4g or 5g. The people involved should contact their legislators if they want a voice in this . Agreed. Last question, are you the only person that responds or is there a team and when you are out of town or on vacation, is there an out of town or vacation message . I wonder if i can table that. I did want to respond that if a carrier wanted to upgrade a sito 5g or its an upgrade or change in the way the site operates, we would have to have an additional review by publichealth. Even if no other permits are actually required. The publichealth theres an additional process, its not just administrative. Yes, we are required to notify youve seen the conditions of approval. Theyve been drawn into question as part of this appeal. We have conditions of approval that require if we change something, it has to be reviewed by publichealth to ensure that change does not result in conditions that would exceed the exposure limits. Theres still a requirement to work with d. P. H. On that. Are you the only person that responds . No. This is sort of a perfect storm in that i was working with a small team of people, one of which was just let go right before this happened in may. I happened to be out of town. We hadnt really put into place how this should work Going Forward. Murphys law. It slipped through the cracks. I should have done better and i should have followed up by i didnt and i apologize for that. I hope we have a plan in place where that wouldnt happen Going Forward and we demonstrated in our time working with San Francisco that we have been responsive to requests like that. This one fell through the cracks. Thank you for being honest. Thank you. Thank you. Anything further . Mr. Sanchez, anything further . Commissioners, this matter is submitted. Commissioners. I have to say i consider this matter somewhat moot. I agree. As my Vice President has indicated prior, with the current recent legislation from the San Francisco board of supervisors, this would not no long are be heard in front of this particular forum. Permits not required. Its administrative through the p. U. C. At this point. Just as a side note, i mean, weve heard quite a few cases on this. We are very concerned. Weve asked publichealth to step up. We understand this is just for me personally, i feel that this is just like the Tobacco Industry in the 50s and as one person stated, i too am a stage 4 cancer surviver, my son is a cancer survivor and my daughter had kidney failure. I get it more than most people. At this point, was the permit issued properly . I believe it was. Again, Going Forward, this will not be in front of our body. I want to make a motion. Just from a housekeeping purposes, and because it was brought up and this is sen ovo, id like to ask our council why or why not the precautionary principle that was mentioned is valid or invalid in todays hearing . You have answered it in the past. Why think it was brought up to this particular case. That is a in Public Comment it was. It does not provide it does not put any duty on the board to take action and it compiles with article 25 of the public works code. Thank you. Motion. Move to denial the appeal that the permit was properly issued and the permit is no longer required. We have a motion from Vice President lazarus to denial the appeal and on the basis that its a permit is no longer required for this type of pole. That motion commissioner aye. Honda. Aye. Tanner. Aye. President swig. Aye. So that motion carries 50 and the appeal is denied. Were going to take a brief how many minutes you need . Fiveminute break, please. Well be back here at 7 25. Thank welcome back to the regular meeting of the board of appeals. Todays november 20th, 2019. We are now on items 7a, 7b and 7b. Appeals number 19071, 072 and 073. Ingrid evans, gissel and kay lean versus San Francisco public works, bureau of street use and mapping subject property 2735 green city on june 14th, 2019 to gte mobile net of california lp of a personal Wireless Service facility site permit. Construction of a personal Wireless Service facility and this is permit number 18wr0185 and we will hear from ms. Evans first. You have seven minutes. Good evening, ingrid evans. For the record, all appellants, evans, klein pa tell would like to join in the brief and arguments of the others for appeal. The public works ordinance 19019 that you talked about making a lot of these appeals moot. And i would argue in this situation, it is not moot. The reason why it is not moot is because permit 18wr0185 was applied for and issued and appealed all before july 1st, 2019 and that is before the ordinance was enacted which was august 9th, 2019, ok. Ordinances are not applied retroactively unless the ordinance law expressly says so. This ordinance does not allow for it to be retroactive and it is not applicable and does not moot this appeal. That is a California Supreme Court decision that says that these laws cannot be retroactive. Myers versus Phillip Morris company 8282002 case. Notice is a procedural due process requirement that is required under the california constitution and california state law. The California Supreme Court requires procedural due process to be strictly complied with and notice is shall requirement under 1512 of San Francisco public works code. Here, the notice must go to the residents of 150 feet to the cow hallow Association Posted inconspicuously. I would argue that the brief addresses all the issue of notice, however the Association Notice i want to take on a little more details here. What we requested when we wrote to verizon we did not get a mailing list from them as to what addresses they sent the notice to. And we learned in the opposition for the first time, from d. P. W. And verizon that the mailing list included old addresses for the cal hallow association. It did not encloud the current president or the cal hallow association p. O. Box. They are required to adhere to that requirement of notice and if they dont, this permit is procedurally flawed and cannot be granted. Next issue is i would like to submit the evidence of the cal hallow Association Website that shows the proper address that should have been served in this situation and in administrative hearings like this. Theres no procedure for a reply brief but the California Supreme Court and superior court allows for reply briefs and its required if there are new issues raised. Both the issues of 19019 and the issue of notice which was different than the notice packet that we were provided when i requested notice from the subcontractor verizon are new issues that came up first on opposition so im entitled to reply of those issues and id ask the board to consider my supplemental evidence as a late submission. I have peeved approved and verizon so it asked the court some place that for the notice issue. Can you go on notice verbally. Its by the rules of this bod its too late to sub submit anything further . There were two pictures i believe its often procedurally they have not complied with the rule. Lastly, the issues of health and specifically the issues of public and private nuisance. The briefs verizon claimed that public and private nuisance are preempted and the Health Issues are preempted. Specifically in california, common law is not pre elemented and theyre common law remedies that are not preempted and can be brought. So there are fcc regulation thats preempt the cities and counties from doing certain things regarding health and safety and we know that and we know that is a common issue but i dont believe the private citizen has been raised and i believe that is a proper remedy that can be brought to stop these permits from being issued. Lastly, the case that i raised earlier requiring a nipa and Environmental Impact. The united versus fcc case which was decided by the d. C. Circuit, i think mandates in this situation that the board hold off on issuing anymore of these permits or allowing these permits to go forward until theres been a comprehensive Environmental Impact and until theres been a study as president swig as requested from d. P. H. Weve been waiting for that for a while and i not seen anything come out and we would be the find of the health and safety of these issues. Well hear from the next appellant. Good evening. Good evening. My name is ashley breakfield. I represent gissel who is here with me tonight on her appeal. We have a disclosure from president swig stop the time. Represent me on unrelated issues and prior and their presence will not impact my view in anyway, shape or form on this item. My apologies. No problem, thank you. Start the time. At the outset, i want to recognize that this board and its already been said tonight, everyone stole my thunder has heard hundreds of these kinds of appeals before. We understand that youve heard many if not all of the same arguments before. Ive watched hearings and preparation for today and i know that despite the number of times youll all phased these issues youve given thoughtful consideration to them and its appreciated. The number of these appeals youve seen speaks to something important and thats the Community Members continue to be concerned about the facilities. And they feel uniformed, left without recourse to have their concerns addressed and they look for whatever avenue they can find that allows them to alert the city about problems with the process and issues with potential Health Impacts. That avenue leads directly to this board. And i know you have also expressed some concerns. I know on the june 19th hearing the board engage in lengthy discussion about this at the june 26th hearing you asked officially for dph to update its 2010 memo and it was spoken about and they have not yet done it. I feel before getting into the merits because its important to play my clients appeal and the other appeal well have into context. We recognize that your hands are tied when it comes to the over all regulatory process concerning Wireless Service facilities. Community members including my client are concerned about the lack of transparency and communication between city agencies, the fcc and the public. Whether its regarding updates to help impact studies or changes to the permitting process. They feel left in the dark and theyre made aware of changes when they find out an insulation is happening outside their bedroom window. These are concerns and the context is important. Onto the merits. As stated in our brief our appeal has forming arguments and see