Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  July 19, 2019 4:00pm-5:01pm PDT

4:00 pm
there was existing affordable housing that was financed through a former bonds or loans that have been expired after 30 years. the bond will continue to fund that work through the preservation category. >> excellent. anyone on staff like to comment? >> this is nicole, thank you for coming. i would make a suggestion, while were talking about the bond specifically, and how it impacts disabilities, we might want to think about the different categories, and maybe adding a column that helps people understand especially when were
4:01 pm
paying attention to accessibility for people with disabilities. i don't know that the general public would assume that senior housing, for instance, also as accessibility components within it, assuming that as our population's age, they also have mobility and other communication changes in their life. we can maybe think about how to present that in away that the public can more easily digest the options that are available. >> that is great feedback. thank you. >> anyone else on staff? >> all right. i just want to thank you for your presentation. a lot of great information, and we will be going through that, and i do hope that we will be able to continue to cooperate
4:02 pm
with you in the future, especially if the bond passes. we don't have any more questions of you. are there any speaker cards? no speaker cards, okay. anyone on the bridge line? no one. okay. all right, we finished that presentation. thank you everyone for commenting, and asking questions. that's outstanding. all right, we are right on 4:00 p.m., let's go with public comment, items but within the jurisdiction of the mdc. any speaker cards? no. okay. number ten, information item, correspondence. staff, do we have any correspondence? none today. all right. very good. okay. so, number 11, councilmember comments and announcements.
4:03 pm
any one of my colleagues want to make any announcements or comments? going once. twice. three times. all right. so, we are to number 12, adjournment. do i hear a call for adjournment >> adjourned. >> moved and seconded. my guide dog sec. it. we are adjourned.
4:04 pm
4:05 pm
>> my son and i was living in my car. we was in and out of shelters in san francisco for almost about 3.5 years. i would take my son to school. we would use a public rest room just for him to brush his teeth and do a quick little wipe-off so it seemed he could take a shower every day. it was a very stressful time that i wish for no one. my name is mario, and i have lived in san francisco for almost 42 years. born here in hayes valley. i applied for the san francisco affordable housing lottery three times. my son and i were having to have a great -- happened to
4:06 pm
have a great lottery number because of the neighborhood preference. i moved into my home in 2014. the neighborhood preference goal was what really allowed me to stay in san francisco. my favorite thing is the view. on a clear day, i'm able to see city hall, and on a really clear day, i can see salesforce tower. we just have a wonderful neighborhood that we enjoy living in. being back in the neighborhood that i grew up in, it's a wonderful, wonderful experience. now, we can hopefully reach our goals, not only single mothers, but single fathers, as well, who are living that. live your dream, live your life,
4:07 pm
>> the hon. london breed: good morning, everyone. i'm london breed, and i'm the mayor of san francisco, and i'm so excited to be here with you today to talk about what we are doing to provide more affordable housing to the residents of san francisco. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: when i first became mayor last year, i noticed that in the capital plan for the city and county of san francisco, there were no plans for affordable housing, and that was not okay. we made changes, we made adjustments, and we started off with a $300 million affordable housing bond, and that $300 million has turned into $600 million, the largest affordable
4:08 pm
housing bond in the history of this city. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: without raising property taxes. we did this in a collaborative way. we did this with the leadership of the president of the board of supervisors, norman yee. we did this with our community partners, including four amazing people who led the community working group consisting of so many stakeholders. folks from labor were at the table. people from the community were at the table. folks from the housing community, from public housing, from all sectors of the community from this city because when we know we need to do something this big, we need to come together. and yes, it was not easy, but i want to thank everyone because the people at the table were open-minded, provided feedback, fought for what they believe in, and now we are here united
4:09 pm
to make sure that the voters pat this bond in november november. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you so much to the folks who led this effort, including myrna melgar, tamika moss, malcolm young, and annie chung. because we knew how much money we had, but we also had to make sure that we provided the resources for the things that we needed the most. and as someone who grew up in public housing in this city, there was no way that i was going to allow an affordable housing bond to happen without providing the kind of support that would help residents of public housing, and i want to thank all of you for being unwaivering in your public support for delivering public
4:10 pm
housing in san francisco. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: this affordable housing bond has something for everyone, including our seniors. and president yee was such a true advocate, not because he's a senior himself, but because -- [laughter]. >> the hon. london breed: i thought you were proud of that, president yee? >> president yee: i am. >> the hon. london breed: but let me tell you, no one does salsa like president yee. but he knew it was important, that fact. you knee it was important that we do good investments, and that's what we're doing with this bond. in addition to providing senior support, we'll be providing housing for our teachers, for
4:11 pm
down payment assistance, so there's something for everyone. it was a compromise. and again, i want to thank all those on the working group who came together to help make this possible. but you know what? there's also a need to make sure that these affordable housing units that preservation and the rehabilitation of affordable housing are done with our brothers and sisters of labor. and so i want to thank the labor community, including the leadership of larry mazzola, jr. who sat at the table to make sure that labor was an important part of this effort. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: so many amazing people, so much incredible work and time went into this effort. thank you to president yee again and all the members of the board of supervisors who are very supportive of this affordable housing bond. as i said, this is the largest affordable housing bond in the
4:12 pm
history of the city without raising property taxes, and so now, the real work begins. once the board passes this bond and places it on the ballot for november, we're going to be looking to all of you and the voters of san francisco to make sure that we pass this ballot measure. we need at least two thirds of the votes of san franciscans, and so we're going to be working out there and stomping and doing everything we can to get it done, and i'm going to be counting on each and every one of you. thank you all so much for being here today, and now i want to turn the mic over to my partner in this amazing effort, president of the board of supervisors, norman yee. [applause] >> president yee: thank you very much, mayor breed. this has truly been a partnership. it's almost like a model where we start with another end, and another end, we talked to everybody we could talk to, we
4:13 pm
figured it out. what is the collaboration that we need? what are the elements that we need? how do we serve all the people in san francisco? whether you're a teacher, whether you're a senior, whether you're someone who lives in public housing, whether you just simply can't make it because of the salary that you're living on, well, i think we've done it. we've done it. it's a start. is this going to answer every question? probably not, but this is going to be a big, big achievement for san francisco for us to put $600 million for affordable housing for our residents. [applause] >> president yee: i'll tell you this right now. i won't outline what mayor breed -- what she had already outlined. it was a battle. we had to fight, we had to claw, we had to prove our point. this came from labor, it came from everybody. even the middle-income folks to
4:14 pm
came in and say we need help also, we hear you. we will put something in there for the middle-income, as well as low-income. i am so proud of the process that we -- that we took to get to where we are today. today is going to be a historical vote where the board of supervisors will vote on this bond measure, this measure for housing in san francisco. and then, once we get it on the ballot, it's going to be another historical moment in november, because all of us, all of you will fight for this and make sure that we get 17%, right? and i can't thank the staff and the supervisors enough for
4:15 pm
their part because the community weighed in early, and we needed to figure out what are the issues that we needed to address. all my supervisors weighed in on the whole process. i want to thank them personally. almost every one of them. thank you supervisors. give them a hand. [applause] >> president yee: and i really want to thank their staff who did a lot of work. please join myself, mayor breed up here, labor, and just say to you -- just talk to 20 people, all your neighbors, and say this is the most important
4:16 pm
thing you can do to help our residents in san francisco. we need affordable housing, yes! we need affordable housing, right? thank you very much. >> the hon. london breed: thank you. thank you, president yee. and as he said, this was a collaborative effort, and i just want to recognize, there's so many people here today. i can't start naming names because you guys will get mad at me if i forget somebody. but i do want to say to the nonprofit housing developers here that work in the community, whether it's tndc, mission housing and others, who continue to provide this much-needed affordable housing, ccdc and others, thank you so much for being here today for your advocacy and affordable housing in san francisco. thank you to the yimbys in san francisco. it means a lot. now i want to bring up one of the cochairs of the committee to help bring forth this
4:17 pm
amazing $600 million affordable housing bond. tamika moss spear headed the effort. i remember a couple years back when we discovered we had empty public housing units. we worked with then-mayor ed lee to come up with $200 million to rehabilitate those units. and because of those services, we were able to place 179 formerly homeless families in public housing, and so tamika moss, come on up [applause] >> thank you so much, mayor breed. good morning! we are here on this momentous occasion to acknowledge the leadership of our mayor and our president of this board of
4:18 pm
supervisors, mayor breed and president yee. i have had the incredible opportunity of leading one of the working groups with my cochairs, malcolm young, annie chung, and myrna melgar to make sure how the community has a voice in this bond? how do we make sure that every single san franciscan has access to permanent, supportive, affordable housing in their communities? and we have been able to come together and bring folks together around this bond, and i am so honored to be a part of it. this bond, as the mayor said, as the president said, is something for everyone. we have to make sure that the residents of public housing are supported. we need to make sure that the seniors in our community have a place to age with respect. we have a responsibility to make sure that we take care of our first responders and our teachers. the mayor and the board of supervisors didn't just talk
4:19 pm
about an affordable housing crisis, they did something about it, and i am so excited to stand with them and support this and get this over the finish line in november. guess what, folks? we have a lot more work to do. this is our first attempt to making sure we have affordable housing in san francisco. we have a lot of work to do. let's get to work. thank you so much. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you, tamika. now many of you know this, when we talk about affordable housing, often times when we found in the past in san francisco, you basically make too much for affordable housing but not enough for market rate in san francisco. a couple years -- well, not even a couple years. maybe two years, we worked with a number of folks to change the affordability rates to level the playing field because i wanted to make sure that
4:20 pm
teachers and people of our labor community were able to have access to the affordable housing that we build in san francis francisco, to the down payment assistance loans and other things, because that's what makes san francisco a great place is when we have true diversity from various economic levels. so what i'm really excited about in this bond is the amount of support it will provide for affordable housing for middle-income residents. we have here someone who is a beneficiary of the teacher next door program who provides down payment assistance to teachers for the purpose of purchasing housing in san francisco. with us is a seven-year employee of the san francisco unified school district, and she has been working as an educator in our schools with our kids. and now because of this program, she's going to be
4:21 pm
within a short walking distance of the school that she works at. and so ladies and gentlemen, please welcome cheryl lu. [applause] >> hello, everyone. thank you for letting me share my story with you today? as mayor breed mentioned, i am an educator, i am a teacher, and i have actually been teaching for 13 years now. eight years of it -- seven, eight years of it was in san francisco, out at star king elementary school, which is out in potrero hill. it's always been my dream to live in the city that i serve and to eventually buy a home. and because of the down payment assistance loan program and the mayor's office of housing and community and development, i am actually living the impossible san francisco dream right now. as of last week, i closed on a property in san francisco,
4:22 pm
yeah. [applause] >> pretty exciting, and it all worked out. and as with any buying process, you face a couple of challenges. along the way, we made it happen, and -- there was low inventories when we were looking we were getting out bit. but thank you to the mayor's office of housing and community development and assistance -- down payment assistance loan program, i was able to -- i was able to buy a place, and i'm a teacher, so it's pretty amazing. so i really do thank the support for what the we can do on the low-income,
4:23 pm
middle-inco middle-income, teachers, first responders, and the labor industry. if i can do it, and i can live the impossible san francisco dream, many of you can, also. thank you. [applaus [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you, cheryl. and our final speaker is someone who grew up in the bayview-hunters point community. she started as a carpenter and is now working as a plumber. she's in fact working at 1950 mission street on that project, and this is why this program was created to make sure that local residents of our city have access to the trades so they could provide the opportunity to help to build this city and also get good wages in the process. but more importantly, she has a daughter entering college this fall. we are so proud of the work that she's doing to help build the city.
4:24 pm
and so ladies and gentlemen, please welcome stacey provost. [applause] >> thank you, mayor london breed, for having me. i am a proud member of the pipe fitters and plumbers union local 38. [applause] >> i was born and raised in hunters point, and i began making my living as a cosmetologist. i owned my own business. i opened a hair salon, which i had to close due to rising rent. being a single mother with a daughter going to college, i needed to find a more stable career. at that point, i had found the city build program. throughout city build, i learned the skills required to be a -- to have a successful construction career. i have benefited from
4:25 pm
affordable housing which is how i was able to provide and support my daughter during the city build process. after i graduated, i became a carpenter, working for carpenter's union local 22. before having the opportunity and the blessing of joining local 38, which is the plumbers and pipefitters union of san francisco. living here in san francisco in the 94124 has given me the benefit and a stable career to be in and pay rent in san francisco. that's why we need more affordable housing. we need more affordable housing for all of the reasons stated above. we also need this bond to create union jobs for all unions to build more affordable housing. right now, i'm working for o'brien mechanical in the mission street housing at 1950
4:26 pm
mission where we are building 157 100% affordable housing units. [applause] >> so what i'm really trying to say is we need to build this housing so we can support more people like me, more stacey provosts. >> the hon. london breed: thank you, stacey, and thiank you to all the members who came out today. and thank you to all the supervisors who came out today. i know you've got to run back to get back to business. i know we are all looking for a unanimous vote at the board. right, supervisor mandelman? you heard it from supervisor mandelman and president yee first. we're going to get a unanimous vote and we're going to get it on the ballot.
4:27 pm
we're going to knock on doors and talk to people so they know how important this is for the future of san francisco. we know we have a number of challenges, and the longer we wait to get this housing built, the more delay it is for so many people we know are struggling in san francisco. yes, sadly, people who are homeless but also people who are living paycheck to paycheck, people who are losing their housing. this is more than just building affordable housing, this is also about preserving our existing affordable housing for the people who are here who are struggling to survive. thank you all so much, and let's get this ballot measure passed! [applause]
4:28 pm
>> good evening, and welcome to the july 17th, 2019 meeting at the san francisco board of appeals. to my left is as the deputy city attorney who will provide the board and then he needed legal advice this evening. at the controls is the board's legal assistant and i am julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board this evening. in the front we have scott sanchez, the acting deputy building minister. we expect joseph duffy, senior building inspector representing the department of building inspection. we also have jacob, senior planner, special projects and policies for though working for the planning department.
4:29 pm
dan adams, deputy director of housing from the mayor's office of housing and community development, and we expect chris buck, urban forest or from the san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. the board request that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they'll not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders and apartment respondents each are given seven minutes four to present their case in two minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include the comments within the seven or three minute period. members of the public were not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone for rehearing and jurisdiction request, the parties have three minutes each with no rebuttal. to assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, your aspen are required to submit a speaker carter business card or business card to staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. given that we have a vacancy on
4:30 pm
the board, only three votes are required to grant an appeal, jurisdiction request or rehearing request. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing or anything else, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting, or call or visit the board office. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government t.v. , cable channel 78, and will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. the video is available on our website and can be downloaded online. now we will swear in or affirm all those who attend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary wait, stand if you are able, raise your right hand and say, i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. do swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth thank you.
4:31 pm
please be seated. okay. we will now move on to item number 1. this is an general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who like to speak on the matter of the board's jurisdiction but is not on tonight's calendar. as you anyone here for general public comment? okay. please approach the microphone. you are not here for an item on the calendar? okay. that is fine. when your item comes up, there will be an opportunity to give public comment on the item. so you will get a speaker card, you can fill it out after you speak and give it to gary. thank you. so since there is no public comment, we will move on to item number 2, which is the election of officers. former president frank fung moved to the planning commission , so we have a vacant seat for the position of
4:32 pm
president. vice presidents wake has been acting president since mr. funk left and i would like to thank him for his service. so we will start with the office of the president. are there any members of the board would like to know make a colleague or themselves for the office of the president? >> i like to nominate our acting president, rick swig for the office. >> okay. are there any other nominations? okay. are you willing to serve? >> i am willing to serve, thank you very much. >> is there any public comment? okay, so we have a motion from commissioner honda to elect rick swig to the position of president. on that motion... [roll call] [laughter]
4:33 pm
>> that motion carries. now that mr. swig is the president, we have a vacant seat in the vice president seat so we will move on to that election. are there any members of the board would like to nominate a colleague or themselves for the office of vice president? >> i would like to nominate and lazarus for the position of vice president, please. >> okay. we have a motion to nominate and lazarus. any other motion? okay. is there any public comment on that motion? okay. seeing none, on the motion to elect -- >> are you going to ask me if i'm willing to serve? >> i know you are. >> she has only done this twice. [laughter]. >> for the record, are you willing to serve? >> i did have a question. [laughter]. >> i am assuming yes. on that motion,... [roll call] that motion carries 4-0. congratulations.
4:34 pm
okay, we will now move on to item number 3, commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioners, anything? >> it seems like we haven't been hearing quite a while. >> we are back. >> we are back. >> two things. thank you very much for electing me to finish out this term as president. i deeply appreciate it and consider it an honor, and i just -- one piece of business that i have is we sent a note to the department of health on the subject of an update on their position on the safety of current technologies. can we ask them for a response as to whether they are going to -- >> the timeframe for a response? yes, i will reach out. >> i think we should go on the record that we sent the letter and we would also -- i would like to go on the record to request a response to our
4:35 pm
request. >> okay. thank you. are there any other commissioner comments? is there any public comment on this item? okay. we will move on to item number 4 , the adoption of the minutes before you for discussion the possible adoption are the minutes of the june 26 th, 2019 board meeting. >> any comments or changes? >> moved to adopt as submitted. >> okay. on the motion to adopt, is there any public comment on that motion? seeing none, on the motion to adopt the june 26th minutes from commissioner lazarus... [roll call] that motion carries 4-0. okay, we are now moving on to item number 5. this is a jurisdiction request. the subject property on the sidewalk adjacent to the premises of folsom street and
4:36 pm
second street at revenue as folsom street from second street to beal street. joshua clip is the requester and asking the board take jurisdiction over tree removal permit number 778941, which was issued on july 11th, 2017 by the san francisco public works, bureau of urban forestry, with a revision date of june 26th, 2019. the appeal period ended on july 26, 2017 and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on june 28 th, 2019. the permit holders the office of community investment in infrastructure. the project description, per san francisco public works order 186056, approval of request to remove 25 trees.
4:37 pm
replacement shall be permitted under tree planting permit number 778940. revision notes, permit renewed as of june 26, 2019, courtesy postings were posted on june 20 th, 2019. >> madame director, i don't see chris in the audience yet, so maybe we should -- >> first of all, on this item i have to recuse myself. there was an interest i have a 633 folsom. however, do we have the appellant in the audience? >> the requester is present. at this point, you should probably recuse yourself, and then we will call you when the item is over. >> that's why we elected the vice president. [laughter]. >> are we going to hear the next case if the department is not
4:38 pm
here? >> okay. , i see, the bureau of urban forestry is not here and no one is here from o.c.i. i. >> correct. i guess we could do that. the requester is here. would you like to delay it and go into the next item. >> why don't we go into the next item. i appreciate the requester's patients. >> but you shouldn't be involved in deciding whether or not the case -- arms adjusting the vice president in the two other commissioners -- do you want to hear in our given opportunity for the other departments to be present? >> i am of two mines because there is no response from the department in the material, so i wonder if they are going to be present or not. they know it was the first item on the agenda, i mean. >> it is 5:12 p.m. >> frankly i think we should go ahead and here it. >> okay.
4:39 pm
>> would you like me to text chris back? >> he generally lets me know if he is going to be late. >> okay. we will go ahead and here it. president swig will let you know when it is finished. okay. we will hear from the requester. >> good evening. again, hello. article 16 governs the permits for how tree removal is permitted. it is good for six months. article 16 only addresses extensions. the extension of -- [indiscernible] here, this is not an extended permit, it says on the face of its permit that it is revised and there is no provision for
4:40 pm
revising a permit under article 16. in plain language, plain meaning of the word revision is something that is changed from a previous iteration then that is simply not the case here. my understanding is the city's position is these sorts of things just happen all the time, but number 1, that is not what the law states, a number 2, if that is true, that is not how the city consistently behaves. specifically, i am going to reference a decision that came out on the tree removal hearing today, effective today, the public works order 201535, permit number 72905, issued effective today, and i believe it involves the same city office doing a project down on third street. the removal of several trees that were previously approved and in fact, the decision stacy's trees had already been approved for removal, for the permit had expired. as a result, it went through the removal process all over again, including notice, the hearing,
4:41 pm
and a decision, and an opportunity to appeal. so regardless of what the city says about this being an extension, that is not how they behave in all cases, and that is certainly not what the law states on its face. as a practical matter, if we imagine all permits could be revived on an ad hoc basis, this would throw city management into chaos. and effectively negate any requirement that work be completed within a certain amount of time. just to be clear, i realize there is a lot of at stake here. there's a project that has been a decade in the making and i'm not trying to throw a wrench in the works for the sake of it. what i'm asking and what i've asked of urban forestry is there be a serious discussion about the relocation of the viable trees that exist there rather than simply cutting them down. ten years ago when this all started, there was no climate crisis that we were at least acknowledging and there is today we're scrabbling as a city to find ways to sequester carbon and rather than cutting down the instruments that do that, we should be doing everything that we can to preserve those.
4:42 pm
thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. i understand the permit holder and the bureau of urban forestry is not present so i'm going to ask if there is any public comment on this matter. okay. seeing none, commissioners, this matter is submitted. thank you. >> so, going over the brief, the concern is that the permit was issued july 11th, 2017, at which point it says that if an extension is provided prior to the expiration, it would be okay , but there was no extension prior to their permit expiring, so i see that the city has no grounds to extend it. also, i am happy -- in my
4:43 pm
opinion, we can take the appeal. >> can i ask the attorney, i corresponded with you earlier and it says to cite the relevant part of article 16. do you mind sharing that are what the relevant part was? i have a meeting -- a reading here that all has to do with a street permit that has to be completed within six month and a lesson extension has been granted by the department. i think that is kind of the subject of whether or not there was an extension, having no brief from the department and having no representatives from the department that holds a permit or issue the permit, it is not clear to me whether or not that extension was granted. to be have any education or new orleans -- knowledge? >> i have no information that an extension was granted before the expiration of the appellant. they have contended that it is not. that is probably why the department didn't show up. >> i think there is a distinction between extended and
4:44 pm
revised and i think that is important. i think there is no way to answer those questions right now because we don't have the information to even no. >> i think it was pretty clear that if no extension was given within six months -- >> i and i am not sure what extension process is. i don't know if they're publicized, again, i don't know what that process is. i have not gone through it so i don't know what we should seek to find. since her as no one here from the department, how would we know? in that regard, i think i would be supportive of granting jurisdiction. i think we would maybe have to reschedule the time because there's no department here to speak to it. that is just my plein air thoughts of it. >> what happens if there's three commissioners? >> you could -- because that's fine, we would just need three to grant or deny. >> you are saying you want to continue this? >> i am just saying that i think
4:45 pm
my assumption, again, i don't know the information, and is maybe the department did grant an exemption. i don't know what that process is like. i don't know how one would know if it is extended. the department said that the permit was revised. i didn't have any indication from brad that there was a revision process in article 16, so if that is indeed what the department did, that would seem to fall out of line with the code. that is my understanding of that , which would incline me to grant the appeal, however, if we grant it today, would we hear the case and would we hear it without -- >> the way the process would work is if you grant jurisdiction, the jurisdiction requester has five days to go down to the department and actually file an appeal. >> okay. >> which is then separately heard. >> so that's my thoughts. i don't know what you are thinking.
4:46 pm
>> don't get carried away. if i'm understanding, you would vote to grant the jurisdiction request? i am fine with that. >> okay. >> okay. >> i make a motion to grant the jurisdiction request on the basis that the permit was -- >> it is not valid. >> the permit is not valid or that the permit is subject to appeal. >> yeah, this is a really odd case, actually. the basis could be that the department's decision to revise the permit and reinstate the permit would amount to a new permit being issued by the department. >> the revision could be an error, right? >> i don't thank you have to find that there was an error. i think what they have done here , arguably, is issue a new apartment because the other one expired. >> and they might say that new permit is subject to appeal. >> i moved to grant the appeal
4:47 pm
-- to grant the jurisdiction request on the basis that the revised permit is subject to appeal to this body. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner tanner to grant the jurisdiction request on the basis that the revised permit is tantamount to a new permit and subject to appeal. on that motion... [roll call] >> that motion carries. the jurisdiction request is granted and you have until next monday to come in and file an appeal of the permit. thank you. we will now wait for president swig. >> all hail. [laughter]. >> sorry, i have been on vacation. >> now you are loopy. >> i have not quite caught up yet.
4:48 pm
>> we are now on item number 6. this is a rehearing request for the subject property at 3529 sacramento street. cheryl hogan, the appellant, is requesting a rehearing of appeal number 19-040 decided june 19th , 2019. at that time, the board voted 4- 0 to deny the appeal and uphold the personal wireless service facility site permit the basis that was properly issued. the determination holder is gte mobile net of california, l.p. the project description is construction of a personal wireless service facility in his own and protected location. miss hogan, you have three minutes. >> good evening, welcome back. >> i thought i had seven minutes >> that is for a regular appeal. rehearing request, the timing is three minutes. >> okay. i was misinformed. i dress you tonight to seek your reconsideration and reevaluation of its june 19th, 2019 denial
4:49 pm
of my appeal against the department of public works, the approval of a verizon personal wireless facility at 3529 sacramento street supposedly compliant with d.p.w. article 25 and 1996 f.c.c. safety guidelines, although i present a voluminous evidence that 1996 s.c.c. thermal safety guidelines have been outdated by rapidly changing digital technology and by authoritative persuasive worldwide independent scientific account studies. the board decided article 25 did not permit consideration by health and safety concerns. however, at the june 19th hearing, president swig sincerely expressed his conscientiousness at his concern about being legally precluded from considering health and safety worries, which various wireless facility appellants repeatedly raised and he suggested that the health department's prior 2010 evaluation of wireless can occasion health risks be updated at the board board's request to reevaluate -- to evaluate recent
4:50 pm
science and technology advances, but on june 19th, may peel was unanimously appeal was unanimously denied without board action on the president reevaluation suggestion. only after june 19th, i learned from the public records and from a sympathetic long retired san francisco attorney about important new facts and circumstances which have been known in the original hearing and could have affected the outcome of my appeal. i learned on june 26, 2019 the board officially requested that the health department review and updated the 2010 memorandum regarding the health effects and regulation of wireless communication networks. i also learned for the first time that the san francisco environment code declares the precautionary principle as official city county policy and it requires all commissions, boards, departments to prioritize health and environmental safety to prevent harm so that when science is possible but still uncertain, lack of full scientific
4:51 pm
certainty about cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reasons for the city to prevent the degradation of the environmental protection of its citizens. i'm not an attorney and cannot explain to subs -- such complex legal issues nor am i in a position to hire expensive lawyers. without a pro bono lawyer to speak for me, i'm unable to tell the board tonight how the precautionary period and the health department anticipated wireless risk update can support a favourable outcome of my appeal for your review. i have attached these documents. i immediately filed a hearing date, rescheduling request from july 17th to october 23rd after the board's administrative scheduled my hearing request for tonight. however, there lawyer refused my scheduling refuse my scheduling request and they decided against changing the hearing today to date -- hearing date.
4:52 pm
>> thank you. thank you. your time is up. thank you. >> yes, i see that. >> okay. >> thank you. we will now hear from the attorney for the department holder. >> good evening, councilors. >> good evening, if only our national elections could be so civil and straightforward and honest. >> they are not? [laughter]. >> they are not. we will see. thank you for your time this evening. once again, we didn't hear any new evidence that was not available at the prior hearing. indeed, your request for d.b.h. to renew its 2010 memo was announced at that meeting, and again, that also would not be new evidence, would be obviously informing about d.b.h. review and would not change the federal standards that we have confirmed compliance -- compliance with at
4:53 pm
that time. and to halt all approvals as requested in the brief, well that we wait for that momo it would be essentially moratorium and wireless facilities. it would not be enforceable. we don't think there is any manifest injustice in the case. we have seen many, many of these applications, and you have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly and i thank you have made the appropriate decision in this case. i will save you time and sit down. >> thank you, councillor. >> thank you. mr. sanchez, would you like to add anything? okay. as a representative from public works? okay. is there any public comment on this item. okay. please approach the microphone. >> good evening, welcome. i am here to urge you to support
4:54 pm
miss cheryl hogan's request for an attorney and rescheduling rehearing regarding installation of a tower which is in the vicinity of her residence. it -- radiation exposure effects everyone. this is from an epidemiologist. children and pregnant women are most vulnerable to the effects of wireless radiation. research repeatedly shows that a child's brain and body absorbs more radiation then an adult brain due to a child's skull and unique physiology. there are decades of peer-reviewed studies demonstrating serious biological health effects from low-level microwave radiation including neurological damage, d.n.a. breaks, oxidative stress and immune dysfunction, sleep and memory disturbances, adhd, inc. normal behavior, sperm dysfunction and brain tumours.
4:55 pm
these effects of occurred at exposure levels far lower then the standard dorsal safety standards that most governments use. children will have a lifetime of exposure. children require special protection. due to these health concerns, the american academy of pediatrics has issued recommendations to reduce wireless exposure to children. we should have the right to protect our health and the health of our children. please give cheryl hogan an attorney and a rescheduling of a rehearing and also please consider adopting the county and mill valley's ordinance for banning 5g in a residential areas. i thank you so very much. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? if you are here for public comment, move forward so we can keep it going. thank you.
4:56 pm
>> good evening. >> good evening. bear with me because i have a cough that sometimes happens. i live in san francisco. i am a licensed marriage and family services -- service -- the widespread use of cell phones on an alarming percentage of my clients receive a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder. anxiety is not so much a matter of low self-esteem or trauma, with physical some stations of health -- heart pulse that -- [indiscernible] there has been an increase in suicide. much is blamed on social media and peer pressure, but it is toxic to our psychological health, lowering the production of serotonin, or feel good hormone and adversely increasing the production of cortisol. the toxicology program study conclusively linked it to cancer so much so that david from the medical director of american
4:57 pm
cancer society stated that this marks the paradigm shift, much like what happens with smoking and cancer. his statement, which i give to you today has been wait watched. in the same way that studies done in the sixties and then -- and nineties looking cancer with e.n.f. were never released to the public. the telecommunication act bans the public -- the industry knows that it will be adversely affected. cancer has been on the rise. according to a 2013 wall street journal article, one in two americans will face life-threatening cancer. now 2019, i know and know of 33 people with cancer and i have two family members with stage four. i believe the epidemic has begun in conclusion, our forefathers, who wrote -- as they wrote the constitution intended for the
4:58 pm
government to protect its people and to promote the pursuit of happiness with justice and equality for all. slavery, and ultimate injustice, was abolished and gained an equal right to vote. just as we stand up to laws that were considered legal at the time, we need to stand up in defiance against the telecommunication act and by extension, 5g small cell in tennis. san francisco needs to oppose and accept this. just as it has done with a federal government and immigration policies, no law should be allowed to condone proven physical harm. i am in treatment for breast cancer and and i am e.n.f. sensitive." have to leave my residents of 36 years if 5g comes to my neighborhood. san francisco has an ordinance much like marin county that bends 5g and residential areas. cheryl hogan should be able to reschedule her rehearing and have her attorney president --
4:59 pm
present. thank you very much. here's the information i wanted to give you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> welcome. >> thank you. i live in marin county but i live -- >> you'll need to speak more into the microphone. >> i am an electrical count -- contractor. i work around electricity all day long. i recently got a microwave meter and it was shocking to me to realize how much microwaves were under, and i feel there needs to be a lot more study in this and i feel that the telecommunication bill has placed a lot of focus on a ramp out and a movement of something with an economic need to proceed and i think the problem is that -- and i am just studying four g. right now, and it is prevalent around us and i
5:00 pm
personally have trouble sleeping at night. i turn my router off, i can sleep. i'm concerned with 5g because it is everywhere and it will be purveyed around us. i feel there needs to be more study on this and somebody has to do it. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public speakers? >> good evening. >> thank you. i live in san francisco. i am severely impacted by e.n.f. in our field. i have been studying them for a while. i don't know how many of you are familiar with the ota, the office of technology assessment. it was used by congress extensively up until 1995, and 1995, the republican --