Skip to main content

tv   Special Joint Planning- Rec and Park Commission 101515  SFGTV  October 23, 2015 6:00pm-7:31pm PDT

6:00 pm
granting the appeal and denying the permit so the last thing i want to come to i'll try to be brief again, we have a fairly you know blunt argument that the permit should be denied based on the public health concerns or punting leakages about frequency issues as you've heard many times that is not a matter that you are allowed to take into account the city is allowed to take into account in denying such a permit the federal government has comprehensively addressed that in section 332 of the communication act something not something this body is allowed to take into account
6:01 pm
so with that, i would be very happy to answer any questions. >> and i would urge i to deny the appeal and affirm the permit. >> okay. we'll hear from the department. >> gene changing public works first of all, f this is one of the permit where the conditions don't match and i'd like to go on to say sufficient notice was provided public works received from crown castle an affidavit saying the ordinance was radius not included the tentative notices provide where it can, filed as stated towards the end of the notice again r f verified by the
6:02 pm
department of public health and in compliance with federal limits referred to the rec and park department was not required for code only required in the proposal locations is on the same side the street and in front of a park so here on golden gate park is not on the adjacent side as for the comments recommending to the good use street and also pole safety i will hand that over to omar if you don't have any questions. >> one, if you say is is for the earlier permit were the conditions in the notice the correct conditions. >> the conditions in the notice to respect the correct, however, when the permit was
6:03 pm
issued. >> i wanted to clarify thank you. >> planning department staff reviewed and taking into account like street use assuming they're a good street view and determined if they detract from the residential district attorney from say a purview of locations thank you. >> sir, were you in the department when it first came up about 5 years ago. >> no, i started 2 and a half years ago. >> can i ask you a question, please. >> what is the age the pole. >> i don't have the information green before me is it agent or safe or dangerous has due diligence been done ton the pole and infrastructure to support the new equipment. >> it will be deferred to on
6:04 pm
the pole - ii bring up the same point i did before it is really irresponsible of us to move forward when our going to put a piece of equipment on a pole and dpw didn't know the age the pole or the structural integrity place a risk ocher the citizens that live in the surrounding neighborhood surrounding the pole i don't know how to factor this in you know your - you've got to suffer the nightmare in the middle of the night great thanks. >> any public comment on this item? step forward. >> thank you
6:05 pm
again, i'm jordan canning take care i have an appeal come on the docket i don't need to come up here and abuse my ability to comment i'd like to use it and support 2, 3, 4 appeal and request the permit be denied one question that i have roadway i have to questions one is i'm wondering given you've set the precedent for rejecting a permitted on faulty language if we might identify other permits have that same problem and willing to exclude those we could speed along this evening i know my permit has one of the problems i don't know if other people know to say ask that question ask that at least four by dpw own admissions if
6:06 pm
you'll precede with the same object on each the questions and the second question about our ability to address health concerns and the repeated allegations by dpw and by the crown castle lawyers those are safe limits they talk about the one percent of acceptable threshold that is a measurement not taken from the street not near the actual dps devices i'll note the architecture place have living quarters on the second floor above the garage the fanciful idea we'll float near the tower is the architecture realty of this architecture in the richmond district we're not talking about the exposure at
6:07 pm
ground floor but the exposure as you face with an the towers in a residential home i building that politics applies to all of the cases here tonight thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> any way to plug this in? no? >> mr. masonry do you know know. >> holding it here. >> oh, i see okay overhead please. >> overhead please. >> testing testing better technology? >> (laughter) is there a wireless devices.
6:08 pm
>> sir, you, call media services. >> they'll call us. >> there we go. >> it was kind of shocking. >> (laughter). >> you can start her time.
6:09 pm
>> okay this is in reference to fire safety and pole safety it is on o farrell street in our san francisco ethics commission i think pg&e would agree their publishing the fact that power lines down are dreadful it says here they are dreadful and that's not going to work. >> it won't go forward. >> yeah. but i can't make that move i need the next picture offering there we go. >> the fire department when lines come down fire department must i think their dangerous they sent 4 fire trucks with lines come down that is the evidence of the fire trucks when
6:10 pm
the lines come down so contrary to crown castles statement is fire safety is not an issue we see clearly fire safety is an issue some of the other people here tonight wanted to know they didn't understand when it might look like in their neighborhood here's a view ever at&t installation this one says how dangerous on the this is the minor at&t installation you'll notice the size of this box and the antenna here's another installation i believe tomcast it looks like on the pole that is what we live with and the minor antenna that is not protruding much and causes none any view issues those are the boxes that are placed on the exist poles or the
6:11 pm
new replaced poles that are very small the word small and square feet is used they're not small and discrete this is an excellent view that references golden gate park where it does matter with the public seize where those discrete installations are being made this is another example this like golden gate park is a national historic district where those are installed and mr. swigging i couldn't do when it is too much i believe we have reached too much. >> that is the view on filbert street that is the wiring that's been strung. >> what we're looking at on filbert street thank you.
6:12 pm
>> too much. >> is there any additional public comment on this item please step forward. >> my name is a cam i'm going to make a comment on this from comcast. >> you see it okay. the reason why this is the residents okay okay. it is telephone self-center in california and the individual from santa fe and the residents is explicit say only occupant whatever the address looks like people want to see this at that time, they'll not on this is coming from you that's why people doesn't even receive this later but don't know anyhow
6:13 pm
thank you. >> is there any additional public comment. >> seeing none, we'll start our rebuttal sir, you have 3 minutes and mr. ken tar you know how to take this off the overhead. >> looks like he want the overhead. >> i also wanted to leave copies of the slide i was told he could leave it. >> does the board want to accept. >> those are signed documents of people who were uninformed i need them back you mentioned he could leave them and get a copy. >> you want to see those. >> great. >> i want to cover a couple of points and respectfully rick's views of article 25 the people were not informed how to protest that was not in the document and not and a violation
6:14 pm
of article 25 even without that people were not informed you say the letter people are not informed i have a lot of signed documents people were not informed the safety of the pole is a huge issue that was a fire about 3 weeks ago i think i referred it in my brief but a big issue and a clause allows the board to step in and when the self-regulation did work tonight we were heard another great statement by a few people the self-reasonable certainty oversees miss bastard on the poles didn't sound like a good answer i be you know i want to mention the fourth point the conditions were inconcrete those are points that relate to power but i want to mention one more
6:15 pm
thing how important you're really is in our society and how important in times when is questionable so i'll put this up this is from 1953 and this does it work? >> overhead please. it is from 1953 a court hearing if we ever see that a court hearing - this is a court hearing the tobacco industry and one of the argument that was used at this time to say that the lawsuit was eir relevant the national cancer institute found no link between cigarette smoking and cancer that was the argument then you maybe familiar with something like this more doctors smoke camels than any other cigarette the reality
6:16 pm
people cement smoking and tobacco companies kept winning it took california another 40 years to changes that this is reminding me of a lot of things similar type of arguments i know this may be out ever article 25 but the importance that people like you play in our society it goes way beyond normal things thank you for your time. >> we can take rebuttal from the permit holder. >> thank you. i will attempt to be brief we want to get a few points that are raised vertically one in comments about the notice that of given and
6:17 pm
with respect to the notice that internal revenue factually incorrect arrest frankly rather hard to accept one of the public commenters brought up didn't say it but the envelope he received notice the first point i'll make that is an admission he received notice but secondly, ontario to it was said from crown castle but that the return address from santa fe and somehow the argument is that that doesn't constitute the value of notice he got it and received it from crown castle nothing in the ordinance saying the return address needed to be san francisco addresses we're being urged that somehow receiving notice but disregarding the
6:18 pm
received notice explicit constitute valid notice i'll respectfully suggest that can't be right and second incorrect assertion somehow the notices received didn't tell people how to pursue an appeal i'll reader within 15 calendar days of the this noticing notice any person may appeal to this the board of appeals they must be filed in person generally the board of appeals requires no appointment to file an appeal for further information to schedule an appointment contact the board of appeals or call by telephone it is just simply incorrect to challenge on that basis and claim that incorrecting that the no didn't tell people how to object and people put up several slides of doubted power lines
6:19 pm
we're talking about here is not power lines we're talking about wireless facilities we're not talking about pg&e transmission lines or distributions lines which is what the photos has to do with with the power lines we're not dealing with our third we come back goldstein to this r f emissions they're just something the federal government has already indicated and all right. been council bids the city attorney can't be basis for denying the permit you've heard from the planning department that the public health department department does its own testing and the facilities generate less than one percent of allowable r f emissions so with that, i would urge you to
6:20 pm
deny the appeal. >> and we'll hear rebuttal from the department. >> gene chang public works i don't have anything to add nonetheless unless you have questions for me commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> handle this similarly. >> yeah. a couple of comments i think that one is that in this instance i did not find that the notification process was defective the documents was provide in the brief we saw the radius map and checked a couple of them the question of the notice itself whether it k3406r78d to what was issued with the actual
6:21 pm
permit was therefore i find that the permit itself is defective. >> would you like to make a motion commissioner agriculture move to. >> before you make our motion let me say there's a lot of discussion about health and federal law and it is hard for lay people to understand that there is a tie-in our hands when federal law says one thing and the city says another usually federal law prevails the custom in san francisco sometimes if not federal to ignore it, it is not that the board is george
6:22 pm
anything if so just the law is quite clear what we can and cannot do so i want to say that as a point of clarification. >> and commissioner i'll let you make your mows motion but i have a reserve if yours fails and i think here we actually have a good view issue and have changing of the overall neighborhood characterization issue it is golden gate park it is one of our city treasures there are views down this street and towards golden gate park and this flooring a it offers and if of a definition of a good view it is a good view and also i think the appearance of those
6:23 pm
needs or cantonese or whatever on top of poles which will obscure that view keeping with article 25 it shouldn't check the character i have that in reserve if you're motion falsehood. >> i'll move to grant the appeal and revoke the permit on the basis that notice was defective. >> okay on that based on that motion by commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus no commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that that motion carries on a vote of 4 to one. >> we'll take a short break.
6:24 pm
>> welcome back to the wednesday, october 7, 2015, meeting the san francisco general hospital we're now calling item number 8 versus the department of public works bureaucracy of street use and mapping on 33 avenue protesting the 2015 to network of inc. of a wireless box for the construction of a personal wireless service this is application you have 7 men's. >> okay. >> yeah. my name is cam none you didn't know i had the same objection of other appellants secondly, tonight is getting late i'll cut to the chase my
6:25 pm
major concerns that a in our case the to telephone pole that is used is more than hundred and 50 feet apart so this is means either using those hundred and have on radius raised in notification is not going to be covering all of them because of the circle and not having any you know can't cover all the area if you use one you can't cover the other residents if you pick one you can't do both of them so it is only 50 percent of the residents that are getting notification didn't get that okay secondly, when they do the posting on the telephone pole they only have 3 pages not photo
6:26 pm
simulation as required by article 25 that means that people go there and don't know what's going on they make act go as i received those later from crown castle he talked to people in the neighborhood i notice that they didn't inventing send any notification to the 8 hundred box i'm on the seven hundred block the house is near the photo so the 800 block explicit receive any notification and also the other pole on the opposite side of the street that is about 6 house apart and also there are a diagonal i
6:27 pm
do the calculation and a side market and all raised in that second pole they don't you know half of them not notification at all so, please on that i request the board to reject this permit thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> sir. >> thank you and indulge martin fine man on behalf of the crown castle the issue raised by the appellant here has to do with notice at this point in the evening you all rekite the notice by heart the notice requirement require noticing to people owners and residents within hundred and 50 feet to neighborhood association
6:28 pm
within three hundred feet and posted on conspicuous place on the poles. >> could you raise the - >> thank you. >> the 3 movies of notice mailed notice to residents within hundred and 50 feet, mailed notice see to neighborhood association and posted on pole on conspicuous place crown castle filed with the notice and have prove and the department of public works concurs that was done properly what is mrapd complained about not part the noticing the gentleman that spoke said that has to do with with the installation potential installation on the seven hundred block and complain what about folks on the 8 hundred blocks the requires requirements
6:29 pm
are hundred and 50 feet not the next blockhead and 50 feats the gentleman last claimed that one or more instances the photos simulation that was posted was vandalized and torn do you think that's certainly not crown castles fault they gave proper notice and obviously someone that protests or outburst to whether wireless box or any kind of a permit simply can't void a permit being issues or issued the notice is the powerful if someone vandalized a notice that didn't defeat the fact the notice was given and we know that again, the the proof is in the pudding that notice was given it is sufficient it generated at least a 4 protests
6:30 pm
to the hoff and the appeal tonight finally the appellant raised within others claim about notice has to do with with an issue of whether you should measure based on one or two poles that's an interesting question but something not it is clear that is required under the ordinance besides the appellant there was another person not appellant by 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
6:31 pm
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 we're 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
6:32 pm
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 they're 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. >> we'll hear from the gentleman. >> gene from public works i'll 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
6:33 pm
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 i'll 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. >> we're getting flickering again on the screen. >> can you start by trying to
6:34 pm
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
6:35 pm
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 shouldn't 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 can't be located interest but on another
6:36 pm
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 that's a suggestion but on a legislative level. >> thank you. >> commissioners i'd like to ask mr. chang to clarify the statement of the permit language i'm not clear if you're saying the planning department conditions were correct or incorrect. >> the conditions are correct this is not one of the cases previously where. >> that's not the case in the documents in the file that's why i'm asking for sclafrgs looking
6:37 pm
at the departments brief implicit the permit is under exhibit a and the conditions i'm seeing on page 5. >> where are the numbers i don't see any numbers. >> oh, here it is. >> oh, yes maintain the italian flag as needed the color. >> that's incorrect sorry. >> thanks for the
6:38 pm
clarification. >> okay. >> so is the department finished with pits presentation okay. we'll 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 public utilities commission the permit holder boldly stated everything is okay with his pole will you produce the engineering study and open this pole that
6:39 pm
support counsels bold statement that everything is okay with his pole a study it supports the integrity and safety i'd 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 don't see that here so do you have that reporter report for me. >> okay. this will come up again and again and tb i really don't think that is important to bless safety and security issues without broader due diligence studies and responsible
6:40 pm
statement. >> understood. >> any public comment on this item? number 8? >> you can get the microphone. >> sorry. >> thank you. >> i'm isabel the one that wrote the letters and september you a picture the pole we're talking about that has incredible amount of wiring on it and i'm 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 that's the wrong word i
6:41 pm
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 they're trying to achieve we should think about what everyone here is talking about a little bit more because adjacent isn't 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
6:42 pm
expanded i don't think anyone dreamed it - one percent of total would be also the commissioner president ann lazardus you suggested the cumulative power emissions i didn't 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 that's another you know factor in why we can't just you know say oh, this is this and no changing it the cost for the people and for they're good sorry i didn't get to get
6:43 pm
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 well-informed i was expecting i don't know what but i'm impressed by after all you. >> just goofing off. >> any other public comment in support. >> good evening. i'm 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
6:44 pm
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
6:45 pm
structural integrity on the appellants here >> any other public comment please step forward. >> you can line up if you want to expedite it. >> hello, i'm sandra the first case our first case so in support of the case i'm 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
6:46 pm
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 that's all i want to say thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, again i'm jordan
6:47 pm
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
6:48 pm
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 you're tired i want to add a couple of things that the safety on the poles we want to reiterate that's an
6:49 pm
issue i also am close to the neighborhood i know that a lot of the people in the neighborhood don't 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, we'll have rebuttal from the appellant.
6:50 pm
>> i have two comments the first one exhibit c gene chang submitted that is the paper i've been requesting for calm side dpw on monday and requested this document and it was never sent to me that's 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
6:51 pm
diagram so whatever they want to see they didn't 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
6:52 pm
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 don't 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
6:53 pm
roster. >> you just said it i think i don't want to be argumentative i i'm 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 we've rectified this we've 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 don't know i'll suggest the whole graufks e graduation about
6:54 pm
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 don't we're not requesting them to provide to the city. >> i understand that and not to be audubon society argumentative again bgain butb t you were i'll let you finish. >> the other point made by one of the very last perhaps the last speaker the formula of
6:55 pm
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
6:56 pm
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 that's why we're here me the interests the citizenry is clearly safety and security always has been on ever notation i'll suggest ordinances aside that i would like to see in the future from the dpw or your client or anyone else client when they're putting something significant structurally on a pole that proper vesting has been done and proper study and
6:57 pm
the superior court of the pole has been studied because i won't 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 they've done due diligence and that pole will not fall down on any house in case of who knows what in this world. >> here's all i'm saying what i'm saying that does happen that happens in the manner in which i've described if you don't get on the pole whether a penguin pole or joint pole number one and number two we're here tonight whether or not we compiled with article 25 i think you've heard many, many
6:58 pm
times from mr. masonry is didn't required not - but certainly we can't be all of the evidence for complying with everything the ordinance calls for you're 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 i'll let - >> thank you. >> and i'm 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
6:59 pm
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 wouldn't 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 i'm still speaking and okay. >> the question i had was according to the notification process as currently sits is it slightly ambition you're going the microwave wave on one pole and the battery on a second
7:00 pm
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
7:01 pm
your house. >> what is important to give the nos required by the ordinance i guess i frankly disagree it is ambiguous that's what dpw did. >> the second question when may fellow commissioners you indicated that you gave specific engineering to that's 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 that's part of admission made to the owner the pole. >> the question is you saying you have engineering for the pole what we're asking for who
7:02 pm
certifies the actual pole the equipment is in servicesable condition. >> for the purpose of installing that equipment that's 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 that's my understanding. >> i think the commissioners question in the first instance who decides that pole is a stabilized pole. >> none is deciding that until that's submitted they're doing the analysis my understanding to validate their hypothesis.
7:03 pm
>> 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 they're managing the engineering the equipment assuming the pole is in perfect or good shape. >> okay. >> i'm 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
7:04 pm
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 don't get the approval from the joint policy association and can't 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
7:05 pm
find it two old or could not hold the additional weight. >> that answers my question thank you so much you'll 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 they're part of the application and they physically check every single pole. >> every pole we're 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 don't have anything to add any questions. >> thank you. >> thank you.
7:06 pm
>> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i'll start so besides the flawed conditions i personally have an issue with the notification process as it killer sits that's my - >> you have two poles and they're not toughing touching it should be a hundred feet in circumference around those two poles. >> that's 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
7:07 pm
honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that motion carries with a votes of 4 to one. >> next item is item 9 appeal elizabeth and jordan's 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
7:08 pm
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
7:09 pm
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 i'll say that takes away my property rights pertaining to the resale value of my home if it were disproposed i'll 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 i'd 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
7:10 pm
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 i'll august in this particular case the pole is listing and it's 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
7:11 pm
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 i'll 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 that's another grounds i believe you have the authority to ask about the blanket approval of those permit what happened at
7:12 pm
the hearing one point we haven't talked about that is important it is related to me by representatives of dpw as well by my own supervisor that it is the city's stated preference those sites be on commercial buildings before they're 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
7:13 pm
i'll say why that is important not because i'm 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 you're talking about a resident situation like a as opposed to a commercial locations location that's 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 we're to talk about the health concerns with regards with regard to that purple heart i'll august that commercial sites are more than 3 times - and you'll argue the dpw as shirked their
7:14 pm
responsibility to find option for this permit i've got a lot for to say i'll not waste our time the issue on that ground to reject it thank you for your time. >> sir. >> i'm los track of who's turn it is i'm not i i'm 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 i'll be very brief that is
7:15 pm
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 that's 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
7:16 pm
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 can't 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
7:17 pm
residents i'll say that this particular installation you've 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 that's due diligence and confirmed that although testing the protocol is 3 feet if the
7:18 pm
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 i'll 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
7:19 pm
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 on-ramp 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
7:20 pm
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 francisco ethics 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
7:21 pm
rather than poles that's 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, i'll ask you deny the appeal and grant the permit. >> quick question counselor how many proposed applications do you have planned for san
7:22 pm
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 we're adding but no applications in process at this point. >> how many proposed do you expect at this point. >> we're in the neighborhood of 50 and then out of all those installations have any been proposed on private property. >> no. those are right-of-way small cell technologies and so this application these applications we are working on only addressing right-of-way
7:23 pm
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, i'm looking for a year not a specific date. >> 2015. >> 2015. >> no, no it was amended in 2015. >> you're talking about the
7:24 pm
amendment. >> there were several different permitting regimes has to do with with the right-of-way 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.
7:25 pm
>> we'll 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 right-of-way 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 right-of-way however, the city was ruled against on that item in a lawsuit. >> with regards to the
7:26 pm
diminished value article 25 didn't 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 they're true and if you don't have any other questions that concludes my presentation. >> a technical question you know you have a 43-d b.a. on the
7:27 pm
noise is that verified in the fields. >> we don't 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? i'm lisa i'm 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
7:28 pm
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 i'm 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 i'm living next to a constant running muni or a
7:29 pm
freeway i'm a little bit concerned about the dpw that even the what i think are pretty standard should be expecting questions on technical issues they're unable to answer i'm 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 didn't 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
7:30 pm
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 i'll make 3 points first to mr. swigz astonishment


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on