Wilson will be absent and brighten will provide the board with any legal advice at the controller is gary the boards legal assistant im Cynthia Goldstein the boards executive director were joined by were joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. Sitting at the table is Scott Sanchez representing the Planning Department and Planning Commission and gene that the department of public works for street use please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other Electronic Devices are prohibited. Out in the hallway. Permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to the clerk. Speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. The board welcomes your comments. There are Customer Satisfaction forms available. If you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. Dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. Thank you for your attention. Well conduct our swearing in process. We will swear in or affirm please note any member intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. Please note any of the members may speak without taking please stand now. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Okay. Thank you very much commissioners a housekeeping matter item 11 appeal at 2518 filbert the parties have jointly requested a continuance for this to allow time for dbi to investigate the permit and the site conditions would have told you this sooner this came late this afternoon. Motion. So moved. Thank you commissioner fung any Public Comment . Moving item number 11 . Okay. Seeing none on that motion to move this 18 of november commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig that motion carries and that item moves to november 18th the nechlt it general Public Comment at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when anyone here want to speak seeing none, item 2 commissioners questions or comments. Commissioners. Okay. Seeing none well move to item 3 commissioners thats the consideration of the boards Meeting Minutes for october 2015. Excuse me. Additions, deletions, or changes to the minutes. No, if not a motion to approve. So moved. Thank you any Public Comment on item the minutes seeing none, we have a motion from the Vice President to adopt the minutes commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus and commissioner swig thank you that motion carries. Then well move toe item number 4 that is a rehearing request the subject properties on 37th avenue a letter from the attorney for the permit holder for the permit gene verse dpw decided at this time the board voted with sdmdz to deny the permit on the basis the notice was defective the project is to constrict a wireless facilities well start with the requester mr. Simon 3 minutes. Thank you. Good evening, members im martin fin man, im the hero on behalf of the permit holder which is crown castle, llc now a number of issues were raised at the original hearing by the appellants and those are not the basis stated at the time for the boards decision to uphold the appeal and didnt think or deny the permit more identified in the agenda as being the grounds for the denial the boards ruling was based on solely on an alleged lack of notice issue so the other issues that were raised paralleled in the postponements response to our rehearing our emissions and asking about next g being a Large Corporation and things like that are simply not relevant to the courts to the boards consideration and would not be a proper ground for having granted the appeal or having denied the permit so ill pass over that and address the issue that is at issue has to do with with notice in the hearing several weeks ago too aspects of notice we discussed at the hearing and by the board was has to do with with the notation of whether notice is to be given for hundred 50 feet around a pole that has antenna also one hundred 50 feet that includes the battery it is not to require noticing for that the pole the entire intention of the ordinance including the provisions has to do with with the placement of antennas and many have antenna including back up on poles and not required in those instance not the interpretation given to the notice by dpw who filed a brief in support of our request the way it was characterized that evening the notice were ambiguous i dont believe so but certain the notice that theyre acting big there is a strong rule of policy and law when a provision is ambiguous it is given the interpretation that is consistent by the Agency Charged with casing that out in this case dpw in the course of granting hundreds of permits 9 notice and provision involves the pole with the antenna and not the battery back up equipment. Thank you. If we can hear from the appellant, sir okay didnt appear he is here oh. Also have 3 minutes. Hi, thank you so i want to first of all, express my gratefulness for protecting the residents and homeownerships of San Francisco i want to thank you for your encourage and especially frank for hills encourage after our decision you gave the Community Hope the amount off people that were it was hopeless had lots of hope believed you cared about the residents and homeowners i thank you for that regarding the specific rehearing request i wrote in my document there are two criteria you used to determine whether the case should be reheard and both of these conditions are not met the first condition i spoke about no manifest injustice in this case and so that one condition is not met not remotely met the second condition is that there are no new or different materials set of circumstances none here by the conditions that the board has set there should be no rehearing oozing i ask do board of appeals to deny this and once again protect the sense of San Francisco i also although i dont think that is necessary newcomers reasons this antenna should not be approved in that particular location failure to notify the residents safeties issues and many others i wont belabor that ill end with this i mentioned previously i put the slide up again there has been a proliferation of antennas in San Francisco the increase in there it or this year alone is sterilized of antennas once again how much is too much it is way, way out of control i once again ask you to please deny this rehearing and thanks for the courage youve shown as far. Well hear from the department now. Good evening gene chang with the public works i dont have anything new to add i do want to say that department of public works supports the request for a rehearing based on the conditions on the permit different from the conditions on the tentative approval the discretionary was not identified as a basis for the appellants the difference in the permit conditions and kind of the approval were noted substantial and proper conditions included the tenant for notification in regards to the insufficient noticing for the battery back up on the second pole public works stands by the initial position the code was ambiguous on that issue, however, were in the process of amending the order to make that clear ill be here to answer any questions you may have. At this point further notification will, off both poles; correct . Looking at to get that into the amend. How much before that process takes place. Im not not totally sure that is in the City Attorneys hands. Okay. Thank you. Any Public Comment step forward. My name is john im here on a different permit i want to point out in article 25 it defines the facility as antennas and related facilities used to facilitate the provision of a Wireless Services so this means both poles should be notified no argument in any book thank you. Is there any additional Public Comment. Hello, again im jordan here on a different appeal like to voice any support for are his appeal here today, i also want to revisit the idea the law is ambiguous nothing ambiguous about that language again to reiterate the antenna and all related facilities are to be notified within one hundred 50 feet not ambiguous times since the last hearing and now part of the work the dpw tightened up the language in the article and change the basis of that is a result of comments solicited from tmobile and verizon having to do with the remarks for the effected corps that is back to lobby and tighten this language it is that work that finally is doing now the work of restricting our jurisdiction over this matter pertaining to issues of notification i want to call your attention this is not something the dpw is doing on their own but coming from interested parties Public Comment that was solicited in this case. Is there any additional Public Comment. Okay sierra club commissioners, the matter is submitted. I dont see the rehearing request matches up with the criteria in our policy and procedures. I agree. I concur the bar for manifest injustice is pretty steep not been met the permit holder didnt provide evidences that will sway that sway my motion. I move to deny the rehearing request. Thank you then on that motion from commissioner fung to deny the request commissioner president lazarus. Commissioner honda commissioner swig that that motion carries 4 to zero and move on to item 5 another rehearing on 33rd after the board got a reserve from the attorney requesting a rehearing verse dpw on september at this time the vote was to deny the permit on the basis the notice was defective the to construct a personal service ms. Fin man. Im martin fin man on behalf of with the party with the permit requesting a hearing crown castle, llc once again there was a lot of argued at the hearing and argued in opposition to the rehearing request it is simply not relevant and or is actually a topic matter that is forbidden for consideration by the cities and states in considering the permit for wireless facilities lets put that aside and focus on the basis it was this bodies reason for upheld the appeal and denying the permit the noticing matter and obviously i heard what the board said in response to the appeal matter that was bruised i would respectfully say i think this is manifest injustice here and there are different sycamores and there was error on behalf of the board with respect to the hundred and 50 foot notice thats not been the interpretation that was give to the ordinance or the regulation and doesnt, in fact, hundred and hearsay of permit were granted to a variety of Telecommunication Companies based on noticing on only antenna that hsa has to do with is wireless facility by defined by the ordinance and not per referral materials that are part of many installations by pg e and tomcast and a variety of people that cup the policies in a rightofway not the interrogation never been a requirement again to the extent that is ambiguous and continent concept in law the interpretation given by an Expert Agency should be were what is debar believed what happens since then finally is going to set forth a new notice within one hundred 50 feet that was not the reminded at the time of that permit that was granted so to enforce a requirement not there indeed is manifest injustice as far as the issue has to do with with different terms of conditions attached to the final approval for the preliminary or tentative approval that is not a noticing issue the notice was the tenors or terms and conditions attached to the tentative approval and dpw and others made a minor request granted over and over and in dozens of hearings to sync of u up the final approval what was given in terms of noticing the conditions for the tentative approval with that, ill ask you to grant the rehearing. Thank you. Well hear from the appellant. Good evening, everybody okay. Im going to show some more evidence on the notification. State your name for the record. Im cammy. Okay. Okay. This is a bigger hole they didnt notify all the residents to this pole and also final even the antenna pole they failed to notify the residents the one on marketrate it is a corner lot they i have the signature from the residents this is all the the residents they say they dont receive any, no, sir, and the second thing i want to show last time we mentioned on the consent of that notification should have those simulation and also the antenna for the protest and the procedure for this protest the comcast attorney denied it question couldnt produce the evidence this time i bring a notice i took from the this is from telephone pole they didnt have any filth simulation okay. This is the only one i took another areas i took to show other streets they didnt have all the photo simulation they violate this content of this notification based on this ill grant ask you to deny deny the hearing appeal you know thank you. Thank you mr. Chin. Gene chin public works. Again public works doesnt have anything new to add to support the request for a rehearing the appeal was granted on the basis the permit deferred on the tentative approval the discretionary was not identified as a basis for the appeal by the appellant, and, secondly, in regards to the noticing for the battery back up pole public works stands by pits initial position that it was ambiguous and i also want to add the order is being amended due to the need to clarify the requirements based on issues that have been brought before the board thank you. Mr. Chin. Yes. The previous person from the public stated no photo simulation on the documents that was attached to the poles is that a requirement of article 25. Let me check. Okay. Take your time we have another case like this too. Okay. Commissioner i think you were saying youre youre willing to have an answer you, you if you want to wait until after Public Comment that would be fine too. Any Public Comment on this item please step forward. Im johnston gay this is should be very clear in article 25 a notice by mail reminder required to give anyone residing workplace one hundred 50 feet of personal wireless facility and then we get the definition of the wireless facility it is as antennas and related facilities used to provide or facilitate provision of personal Wireless Services if you look at the law you shouldnt have to amend it both poles should be notified. Any other Public Comment . Hello, im isabel im speaking on behalf of our community it is really eir resist before it was not required and all the companies didnt do that matters that the whole use of notifying so the community can state their stand on whether or not that is something we will be useful i think that without that notification to i dont see it is okay to it is not notified weve said allowed no enough that is a precedent setting case because that hadnt ever had one box now this is the device that is the last straw that broke the camels back both poles and neighborhood have been oofkd with energy seeking equipment that we have to say no, we cant have any more or cant handle that poles are crying out and the people without notification we have to find a better way to relay our services that is 21st century problem then using 200 year old power poles that were designed to transmit power for the needs at that times need to go back to the drawing board and find a 21st century solution how to relate power without driving on the ancient system that was a wise man that lived many years ago he said you cant put new wine into the old wineskin into the old vessel i think that is useful for us to remember now i also want to say we resent the language that castle crown used to ask for this rehearing we think they were patron ingress and condescending they were arrogant and devious in one sentence they said crown castle has carefully well that he alluded to the fact they were doing it to benefit the community they would realize it not to benefit the community we want them to realize that and thank you. Thank you if you could fill out a speaker that will be helpful is there any additional Public Comment on this item. Hello, again im jordan speaking on behalf of the neighbors an 33 avenue i support their request here i want to say that maybe this is the straw that is breaking the camp he lives back actually totally irrelevant as crown castles attorneys said this ground is not used in literally hundreds of permits by dbi this doesnt matter it matters if it is applied to this case i want to put one thoughtout there as a community as a citizeny here i feel like the only way to be notified what is going on with the poles and with the sxhaugs of new facilities is through the notification vehicle of article 25 therefore the only way we know someone planning on putting a wireless box happens on the conforming of article 25 it is allowed by dpw and green lighted in our only grounds of defense is article 25 the terms are narrowly narrowing and narrowing through the utilization of this provision i want to call your attention it feels helpful were constricted to have our argument within a narrow range of possibility that narrow rage is essentially a negotiation between an Interested Party in the city so thank you very much for your time. Any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, mr. Chang are you ready to come back . Gene changing yes