tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 28, 2018 5:00pm-6:01pm PDT
>> let me know when you're ready. >> good evening, and welcome to the may 23rd, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. board president frank fung will be the presiding offer. to my left is deputy city attorney who'll provide the board with legal advice. at controls gary. we'll be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board. acting zoning administrator,
joseph duffy, syrian building inspector. we expect him later. and amanda higgins from department of public works. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. we request that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. a each are given 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated must include their comments within these periods. members of the public are not a failiated and have up to 3 minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak in the microphone to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, you're asked to present a speaker card. cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions.
there are customer satisfaction survey forms for your convenience. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules, please speak to the board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office at 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv. dvds are available for purchase. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note any member of the public may speak without taking an oath. if you intend to testify at any of the proceedings and you wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, stand if you are able, raise your hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or been affirmed. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth? thank you. please b seated. we have house keeping items. three matters have been withdrawn. item number 5, this is appeal number 18-044 concerning the subject property at 9 freelon street. this is regarding the issuance by the zoning administrator on march 23rd, 2018 of a notice of violation and penalty decision to sf freelon holdings llc alleging violations of the planning code for the unpermitted office use. complaint number 2017-008013enf. item number 7 has been withdrawn. this is appeal number 18-015 concerning the subject property at 99 st. germain avenue asking dbi to revoke number 2017 [indiscernible] to allow the
planning department to process bpa to address the correct scope of work. finally item 8 is withdrawn number 18-047 concerning 1973 broadway street. protesting the issuance on march 22nd, 2018 to chris porter of an alteration permit revision to structural design for bpa2015-04153728 due to existing site conditions. this is application number 2018-03193985. so this will be a short meeting tonight. so we'll move on to the next item. item number one is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the jurisdiction but not on the calendar. is there anyone here for public comment? seeing none, we'll move on to
item 2. commissioner comments and questions. okay. seeing none, we will move on to item number 3, the adoption of the minutes. before you commissioners, for discussion and possible a deposition are the minutes of may 9, 2018 board meeting. >> are there any corrections or additions. >> so moved. >> moved by commissioner honda. >> okay. commission honda moves to adopt the minutes of may 9th, 2018, board meeting. is there any public comment on that motion? being none, we have a motion from commissioner honda. on that motion, president fung. [ roll call ] >> that motions passes. much the minutes are adopted. okay. our next item is number 4, it's a rehearing request. this concerns the subject property or the 330 presidio
avenue. they are requesting a rehearing of 10-010 paxton versus dbi. the board voted 5-0 to grant the appealishand issue the permit. there after, the permit would be issued. the permit holder is 330 presidio avenue llc and the project is the addition of two accessory dwelling units on the first floor of an existing 6 unit building per ordinance 30-15. seismic application is on 201509046211. application number 201601116829. so for the rehearing request, we'll hear from mr. paxton, and you have three minutes, sir.
>> is this working? here we go. i would like you to consider that there are two pieces of information which i could not present at the continued hearing, but if you had had them, either could have swayed how you ruled on appeal. after the original hearing and before the continued hearing, i object entertained a memo from the red board relying on the information i had provided to them, the red board's memo to the project applicant states the following: the report of alleged wrongful severance filed by your tenants indicates that the notice to sever the housing service is defective, & because it fails to state a just cause for removal of the housing service or the landlord failed to meet the requirements for severance or removal of housing service. president fung communicated he would not allow the memo to be stepped for consideration by the
board at the continued hearing. if the board had the benefit of the memo, it could be instrumental and way how the board voted. secondly, the board was deprived of an accurate information regarding the nature of the space severed from my tennancy. in his testimony before the board, he stated it is our position that there have been no severance of housing services. when cornered by commissioner honda, if they were like kind, he responded, we believe they are. yes. his statements are false. the project applicant is proposing or take space leased to me and allegedly replace it with space which is already leased to me. under the hearing rules, i had no opportunity to rebut his inaccurate testimony. accordingly, the board relied on
his inaccurate testimony and approved the project which wrongly takes place leased to me. i assert that a manifest injustice would occur if the project applicant were allowed to proceed. finally, he wrongly asserts that the project applicant cannot assert a just cause until it has a permit. he is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the board by citing a section which pertains to eviction when's a property owner proposes to demolish a residential building. clearly, that's not appropriate in this situation. furthermore, there are none of the just causes which he could assert since he he is contract exclude. based upon the information i presented, i encourage the board to grant my request for
rehearing. thank you. >> thank you. >> madam executive director, i neglected to make a disclosure that the -- that they are 'participant in this matter. i have done business with them in the past. however, it has no effect on my ability to make a clear decision. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. so let's hear from the permit holder. we have mr. steven betle, attorney for the permit holder. >> thank you, commissioners. just briefly, the new information that mr. paxton is asserting is merely a form memorandum from the rent board acknowledging receiving a report that mr. paxton himself filed, the memorandum which is exhibit a to mr. paxton's request
doesn't validate the allegations made in the report. it's simply affirming and noticing that a report and a complaint was filed with the rent board by mr. paxton. that information was known to the board on april 25th when this matter was decided. mr. paxton testified to the fact that he had filed a report of alleged wrongful severance with the rent board. that was before the board. the fact he did acknowledge receipt of that information is not new information that would affect the outcome of the hearing. secondly, mr. paxton continues to take the position that the relocation of housing services that we proposed are not like kind and that they do constitute a severance of some of his housing services. that was discussed at both hearings before the board. it was discussed before the
board that mr. paxton does have a remedy at the rent board if he believes that to be the case that he can file a petition to have his rent adjusted accordingly. not new information. that was known. that was discussed at both hearings. that's really all i have. there is no grounds, no information to justify a rehearing. there's no injustice that this board caused by affirming the permits. the adu permits were done prunted to city policy and city ordinances but encourage the creation of new dwelling units in existing buildings. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the zoning administrator. >> good evening, president fung, commissioners. just briefly, it appears that the issues that are raised in
the rehearing request by the appellant all seem to fall under the represent ordinance and the rent board regarding the memo that was mailed to the property owner, it does appear to be simply a notice of filing to make that property owner aware that that had been filed. it does not appear to make any time of determination on that issue. additionally, the appellant's brief indicates that language in dbi's info sheet, g23, regarding severing housing services, that that somehow creates a mandatory condition or some kind of requirement that must be met prior to the issuance of a permit. however, that's not the case. that language is advisory to the applicant. they can be aware that if they are going to pro advise to remove any housing services, that they would need to contact the rent board and they need to
seek legal assistance, but there's nothing related to that issue specifically addressed in the building code or the planning code. again, that is all the per view of the rent board per the rent ordinance. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. mr. duffy, did you want to weigh in? okay. is there any public comment on this matter? okay. seeing none, commissioners, this rehearing request is submitted. >> commissioners. >> well, it's a hard bar for rehearing. it requires manifest injust or new information that was not available. the information going over that was supplied in the brief in regards to the form for the rent board, i found that it indicated acknowledgment but did not affirm or take a position. so i feel that i would not
sponsor a rehearing. >> any other comments? is there a motion? >> that would be my motion to deny the rehearing request. >> okay. a motion to deny the rehearing request because -- >> there's no manifest injustice. >> or new evidence? >> right. >> on that motion, president fung. [ roll call ] >> okay. motion passes, the rehearing request, not accepted. so we will now move on to item number six. item number six is appeal number
18-045 concerning the subject property at 1599 haight street. clayton street neighbors versus san francisco public works bureau of street use and mapping for verizon wireless of a personal wireless service facility site permit construction of a personal wireless service facility in a zoning protected location. this is permit number 17wr0315. we'll hear from the appellant. the attorney for the appellant, you have 7 minutes, sir. >> thank you very much. i've prepared a letter responding to some of the issues in the briefs that i would like to offer for the record. is this acceptable to the commission? in any event, i'll move on to the points of the arguments that i would like to address. i would like to specifically
address 4 points tonight. first and foremost, i would like to address the issue of fcc compliance. it is important to address this issue because this wireless facility was not subject to environmental review under ceqa. it was exempt. so there was no fcc compliance done at the ceqa level. verizon in their brief misstates that the fcc requirement only look at cumulative impacts when facilities are colocated. that's not true. the plain language of bulletin 65 on page 233 says when performing an evaluation, all significant contributors to the ambient environment should be considered. that means all facilities. no matter where they are. 100 feet away, 150 feet away, 750 feet away. in fact, on may 9th, the attorney for verizon testified
that the range of the 120 watt facilities are in fact 750 feet. so ultimately, we don't know whether this facility complies with the cumulative impacts of the fcc guidelines because facilities more than 150 feet away weren't included in the study. he with just don't know if this complies with the fcc guidelines. i also want to point out that the fcc at page 53 also requires an analysis of continuous exposure over a long period of time. it's especially important to do that to analyze exposure over a lifetime for people living in nearby apartments over many years. this point was not addressed in the briefs. again, this is page 53 that you have to address continuous exposure. that wasn't done in health
analysis in this case. second, i also want to point out that the findings under section 1511 in article 25 were not complied with. the findings here are just too short. four sentences is not enough to inform the public of how they reached this conclusion. you can't do sentences. it's not possible. third, i want to touch on the conflict of interest here with respect to the fact that the health studies were done by an organization that was paid by verizon. i know this is done all the time in many circumstances, but just think about this in terms of common sense. here, the health analysis is done by a company whose paycheck
depends on verizon receiving successful permits here. i know it happens all the time. think about it in terms of common sense. it's a conflict of interest. then finally, no matter what the law says with respect to fcc guidelines, this board should not abandon common sense. the guidelines are 20 years old. science is fast evolving. this board should not abandon the fact that you have to look at the most up to date science. with that, i would like to introduce the president of clayton street neighbors, richard fall, to say a few words. >> good evening. thank you for hearing us. i would like to talk about habitability in the case where these tenants are in close proximity to living quarters. i'm worried down the pike, the rent board or the board of supervisors will adopt stronger standards, at which point a tenant will call in the health department. the health department would look at the new standard and make a determination and say the apartment is not healthy, at
which point the landlord, property owner will have to solve it. he might go to dpw or some other authority and ask that it be closed down or ask verizon to fix it. they will defer to the federal standard and say they're preempted from that rule. the landlord can't solve the problem the tenant claims breach of contract. the landlord is compelled to pay the moving allowance 4700 per head, maybe more. the te tenant leaves, and then e property is basically quarantined because you can't rent it if it's going to be harmful to -- or if it's uninhabitable. so i would like to see the -- some sort of indemnification for
the property owner in terms of protection from loss. that's all i have. thanks. >> excuse me, sir. are you done? >> yeah. >> are you saying that you have a tenant that you had to pay because they had -- >> i haven't yet. i'm just worried this will come out down the road. i'm projecting a scenario. >> i wanted to clear that up. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the attorney for the permit holder, verizon wireless, mr. paul. >> welcome back. >> thank you. good evening, president fung and members of the board. i want to say first of all, that verizon wireless takes the rf emissions seriously. not only because it's the right thing to do but, of course, because they have billion dollar licenses that depend upon their compliance with the regulations. these sites were designed for an
urban environment where they have extremely low wattage and extremely low emissions. so the whole concept behind this system is to provide a safe network and reliable service. i have bill with me and i'm going to let him come up and talk to you about cumulative impacts, how that's built into your standard in terms of the 100 foot limitation that the department of public health includes in their reviews and 10-point checklists. i'm going to have him talk to you about the testing that occurs and the fact this is -- these facilities are around 100 watts and extremely low emissions. addressing the second point raised by the appellants, if you look at the department of public health review, it's a two-page review. they go carefully through the actual wattage, the emissions, the 10 points that they review in every one of these cases and coming to the conclusions they make. they reach that topanga requirement of an analysis that
reaches a conclusion before it's given to the department of public health. there was a concern about paid consultants. i think that is a standard. that's the norm. the saving grace here is that the engineers -- article 25 requires professional engineers who have an oath who have a duty to their office to perform professional engineering and you're going to hear similar results, the same results from hamet medicine who prepares the reports in this particular situation. the last issue is the fcc standard correct. i'm going to defer to bill to answer the question about cumulative impacts and the standard. thank you. >> good evening, president hound a members of the board. i'm a registered professional engineer in the state of california. i've been before you several times before. my firm did not do the analysis that is part of the original record here, but what i've done is an independent review of that
analysis. i can confirm the results, which is that the facility will comply with the fcc standard. in fact, by factsers of 50 times or more. that's for anybody at ground level or on top of the building and first or second floor of the building. all of those locations. the cumulative is the test, and in fact, these facilities are tested after they go on air, it's a condition of approval. if we're hired to do the testing, we come out with a truck and measure at the antenna, at the house. we measure at ground to confirm all those locations it is compliance. the issue was raised that, perhaps, if the standard is tightened in the future, then this might be out of compliance. the answer is that the carriers, as fcc license others have an ongoing -- regardless of whether
the standard tightens, they have to follow whatever the current standard is. if that means reducing power, shutting down, whatever it is. at this facility, it would have to be tightened by an order of 50 times before it became an issue. they're showing nothing on the horizon that would suggest that's the likelihood. i want to make sure you get the message that i'm confirming the analysis that is part of the record and that is that this facility will comply with the fcc standard. i'm happy to answer any questions you have. yes. >> i have a question. >> go ahead. >> so it occurs to me as not an engineer, but if you're positioned with your truck or whatever it is at a particular facility and you're measuring, aren't you then picking up whatever else might be nearby? >> exactly right. >> so you're getting the cumulative -- >> we're getting the cumulative. all the measurements are
cumulative. the 100 foot designation that the department of public health has used is kind of a threshold for whether you need to include them in the calculations is based often the fact that the power level from a facility drops by the square of the distance much it's dropping rapidly. when you get more than 100 feet away from a similar site, the levels are going to be insignificant compared to what you're getting from this one. >> thank you. >> go ahead. >> yeah. i think the point that is coming from the appellant is whether this, i'll call it bulletin 65 mandates, a calculation of cumulative effect as part of the entitlement process. >> you want to respond to that? >> i'm happy to. we were part of the development commenting on drafts as the fcc was adopting that back in the 1990s. it's a collection of guidelines for how to demonstrate how to
calculate whether a facility is in compliance or not. it relies on the judgment of a professional who is doing that analysis, whether you include something or not. we're not going to include things from san bruno mountain in the calculations because we know what that huge distance, even though they're higher power. they don't have any significant contribution to exposure levels at this facility. similarly, if it's more than 100 feet away, we know based on thousands of measurements in san francisco over decades, that it doesn't have significant contributing effect. >> so your point is that that's up to the professional consultant then to make that determination? >> exactly. and that's also the purpose of the condition of approval for measurements is to determine, are the calculations correct? is it indeed below the limits? these are common facilities in the city. so we've measured literally
thousands of times and never have found anything that exceeded what has been calculated. >> any questions? >> either for you or counselor, you didn't do those reports? >> i did not do this report. they hired a different firm to do. it was stamped by an engineer. we did a fresh analysis to determine based on our independent calculations, do we agree. we agree that it does comply with the standards. >> my question would be and counselor would answer that, why isn't the people that did the analysis representing their numbers. >> i can speak to that. well, for the first part, they're on the east coast. the second part, bill has written the book on this issue, and -- >> they're issuing analysis for stuff that's not on the east coast. it's here in san francisco. correct? >> that's right. >> so they don't have anybody here that represents them in
northern california? >> i believe ebi has opened up an office in long beach. generally -- and bill can speak to this -- the calculations are based on the plans and the distance in the plans, the radios, the wattage of the radios, and the gain from the radios in terms of the distance much it's a set formula to calculate the predicted emissions from the facility to various distances around it and to the ground. so it is done by outside firms who calculate the -- what the fcc -- whether it complies with the fcc calculations. many calculations are done remotely. >> my question was answered. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. nothing further? we will hear from san francisco public works bureau of use and
mapping. >> so we followed the article 25 process in issuing this permit. if you have questions for the health department, they're here and so is the planning department. thank you. >> any questions for planning or health. >> i have questions for both. >> okay. >> start with planning. this, only one part of the brief that was provided to us, this is a zoning protected location. what does that mean for this particular location? >> sure. so the proposed wireless facility is located in zoning protected location as defined under article 25 because it's located in a neighborhood commercial district. >> when i read your -- the --
when i read the approval letter from planning, it doesn't respond to that very much. >> i believe at the time the approval letter was issued, that was before we had developed a more robust letter that has a little bit more explanation and justification as to how we came to our determination. >> i should go from the letter that was issued. >> there was not a second letter reissued. >> no. no. the case two weeks ago. >> oh. >> when you were last here. >> yes. >> thank you. dph, i have a question similar to what i asked mr. hammond. just to get me hands around it, appellant is saying that it's a mandatory requirement to do a calculation on the cumulative. do you guys disagree with that?
>> no. i think that what is essential is that what you arrive at after doing the calculation is a conservative -- a very conservative calculation prior to the intent of being installed. in order to do that, you need ts are nearby transmitters or antennas. as mr. hammond pointed out, in order for a nearby antenna to contribute to the level of radio frequency energy, it needs to be proximal to the antenna that's being installed. the energy from the antenna does fall the inverse square law. every time you double the distance, there's about a 75% drop in the energy. these antennas being installed are direc directional.
in order to be a contribution, you would need to have a an antenna has aligned with the direction, if you will, that the antenna is pointed out. these are low powered antennas being installed. we took the time to do background measurements in this neighborhood to determine what the ambient level is right now. it's extremely low. there's not -- it's at the lowest level that our instrument will measure. >> i guess the question that is in my mind is purely a procedural question. that is, i'm not disputing the fact that, perhaps, they don't contribute any other sources given the distance factor.
however, there are -- in our city, there are many procedural forms and processes, whether it's planning, whether it's at building or other places. if the answer is 0, you have to put a 0. is that done here in this case? >> i didn't actually do the review of the report. i can -- i have the inspector who did the review of the report who can comment on that field that was filled out. but yeah, procedurally, we want the ambient level of energy, if it contributes, to the proposed installation to be considered in the report, which is why there's that 100 foot rule that has been the standard for -- since the late 1990s when the planning -- wireless planning code was --
guidelines were first implemented. when article 25 was adopted, they just took that same standard that had been in place, i think, since 1996. so that if there is an antenna located within 100 feet of the installation, that needs to be considered as part of the calculation. >> is the wattage from -- for equipment today different than the wattage in 1996? >> that's a question i'm not sure i'm completely qualified to answer. >> well, i'll ask him that question when we go to -- >> okay. i can tell you anecdotally looking at reports, i was involved in this program, i think, around 2008, that the bay stations that are installed on rooftops, the large ones, have increased in power during that time, absolutely.
>> a little bit of history, i sat in on the hearings. >> there you go. that was richard lee. that was my predecessor. the antennas that are installed on light poles have always had relatively low energy. i don't think there's been an increase in those at all. they've kind of stayed relatively low energy. you're talking about 100 watts versus thousands of watts in a rooftop bay station kind of installation. these have always been in that range, 100 to 200 watts. >> thank you. any other questions? is it. >> you're pretty good at. this i was about to call you the omar. >> omar is a good guy. >> he got a certificate of honor yesterday, i believe. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. is there any public comment on this item? being none, we will move on to rebuttal. we'll hear from the appellant
first. you have three minutes. >> a few points. first, addressing the failure to follow fcc disclosure guidelines, first of all, as commissioner fung alluded to, there is a procedural requirement to disclose the location of other facilities that do contribute to the total emissions. in this case, that wasn't done. in fact, there's a large rooftop facility halfway down clayton street that is could no contribg emissions here that wasn't disclosed. there are two failures, the continuous exposure over a period of years. mr. albert and his consultant did not address that issue. it wasn't in the report. the public just doesn't know what the impacts of continuous exposure over years is going to be in this case. that's a significant did he efficiency that was not addressed at all in this case. second, as he mentioned earlier, there's a potential that the
rent board can make a separate determination of habitablity. that issue isn't preempted under the fcc and if in fact it's determined that an apartment unit and in this case that's one 7 feet away isn't inhabitable when there's a housing shortage in the city, that's something we're going to have to address. mr. fall suggested we had a condition of approval that verizon indemnify property owners that have affected by rf exposure in this case. so if this board is in fact inclined to go ahead and approve this permit, we would ask that you add as a condition of approve that verizon indemnify property owners that are affected. i want to mention something that commissioner lazarus pointed to, which is the fact that, yes, they will be post talk measurements where people will go in after the fact and measure rf emissions on site. that's not stuff under article
25. article 25 requires that before you make the approval, you have to disclose what the total sources -- what the total exposure is going to be so the decision makers can make an informed decision. even if after the fact you find out that it complies, that's totally irrelevant to article 25 compliance. you have to follow the disclose you're requirements, and that wasn't done anything. thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the attorney for the permit holder. >> i'm going to let bill come back up here. first of all, as you know, if we comply with the fcc guidelines, then the telecommunications act said it's not a decision for the city of san francisco to make. that i think applies to the health inspector. the health inspector doesn't establish the rf h emissions.
the federal government does. there's an indemnity. this is on a city street. we're leasing this space from the city and there's an indemnity in the master license agreement for the city. article 25, we've complied with the requirements of 25 with respect to this public health compatibility standard and with the requirements that the department of public health ha had for 20 years regarding addressing the 100 foot requirement. the citation that appellant's counsel raised says this is for significant contributions. there are no significant contributions from any nearby facility. i want bill to have an opportunity to answer some of the other questions that were raised during the question period. >> thank you. i'm sorry i failed to address the continuous question that had been raised. the standards include safety factor intended to protect for continuous exposure.
so there's not an additional factor that comes into play for exposure to might be continuous. that's already built in. the standards adoptedded by the fcc are applied for 24 hour exposure 7 days a week. so there's no additional research or something or factor that has to be taken into account. that's already built into the standard with 50 fold safety factor. the issue was disclosure. that's the very first question that is asked by the department of public health in their 11-point checklist that summarizes the applications. number one, all the operating facilities at the site. number two all the facilities within 100 feet. so that's the disclosure. that's the procedure that's followed when we do a study, confirm that's the case here, there's nothing within 100 feet. that question is asked and then answered as part of that process. i don't know that there are
other issues. i think you may have had a question for me. >> just a question about the wattage of equipment. >> oh, yes, thank you. >> versus the wattage of equipment in 1996. >> thank you. we've been analyzing facilities in the city of san francisco fo. you're right. there's been a progression of facilities getting more and more powerful. those are the ones up on rooftops and tall towers, down by the freeway. those have gotten additional bands for their operations. those have gone up in power. in this new system, the new design of serving people right where they are because of the capacity needs, people have a high demand for the service that the larger facilities run out of capacity. so these low power facilities are lower than they were in the 1990s. these are on the art of 100 watts.
so very low power facilities do serve the immediate areas. i hope that addresses your question. >> it does. but an aside question would be, are these primarily geared toward the 5g? >> >> no, they're not. this is expanding 4g service. 5g is going to operate in a different frequency band. these antennas wouldn't support 5g. so when that comes -- and i think it's a question of when, not if. it will be a whole separate analysis process for what those facilities are going to be. still, the carriers just what i read, are testing in certain markets to see the effectiveness of it because its function is different from the 2g, 3g, 4g that this service provides. >> okay. thank you. anybody else. >> thank you. >> i have a question for counsel.
>> yes, sir. >> you talked about the indemnity the city has because you're using -- you're leasing the space. does that cover a building owner which is 7 feet away in case of a lawsuit created by a renter against that building owner? >> well, it's not a direct -- of course, the master license agreement is an agreement between the city and -- >> the answer is no? >> well, no. i would expect the property owner would name the city in any action that they were -- where they were trying to seek some kind of liability, particularly if the health inspector were -- >> in this case, would verizon voluntarily indemnify the building owner against any problem he might have with renters since the impact is not caused by the city but it would be caused by verizon? >> verizon isn't generally in the practice of offering those kinds of indemnities. it tends to invite litigation
rather than -- but at the same time, verizon wireless would obviously be liable for any violation of any kind of law or code. i think the bottom line is that there is no violation here. these cell phones have been around for 30 years. there continues to be a concern with b. radiation. we're required under the license agreement and the fcc to comply. that's what verizon wireless will do. >> only the future will tell. >> thank you very much. >> i did want to say that bill has been testing since 1996, san francisco is requiring testing every two years of the facility and bill has been conducting those tests. san francisco is one of the most rigorous in terms of maintaining vigilance ove over the emissionn the city. >> thank you. ms. higgins, anything to add?
okay. so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i have a last question for public health. this goes to the 100 feet. that came from -- is it dpw pulling that in as a standard, or was that suggested or required by public health? >> yeah. that was, as i said -- >> 25 was for? >> it was originally in the planning code -- planning department's wireless guidelines is where that started when article 25 of the dpw was passe2 maybe, 2013, something like that. i think things were gleaned from what had been done with planning in that 100 from the requirement as well as having the health department review the reports was i think in large part taken
from that existing review. >> i remember also from the last hearing, a different location, that it was brought up that the radius is something like 750 feet in terms of coverage. >> oh, yeah. so i think the coverage discussion is very different than the cumulative discussion. these low power utility pole mounted antennas are designed, as described, to cover a smaller sort of cell or zone. that would be that 750 feet. you're picking up the signal certainly within that 750 foot zone, but the measurement of the energy that is there is relatively small as soon as you
get any distance from the antenna. of the fcc public health standard may be reached 7 or 8 feet, 4 feet from the face of where the antenna is mounted, but the distance that antenna covers is going to be 750 or 1,000 or whatever it's designed for. in this case, you would have to be at the height of the antenna, which is about 30 feet off the ground, in the direction that the antenna is facing, and then i think the distance was calculated to be about 5 feet or something like that, from the antenna, that that public health standard would be met. so the difference between the you can public health standard and the coverage are two different things. >> okay. thank you. >> i've got a question. so we've heard hundreds of cases from this and thousands from at&t. this is the first time that
someone has brought up the cumulative and continuous exposure and what they're claiming is -- i don't quite understand because the cellular company got up and said they're under full disclosure and they're doing what's required from article 25. but the appellant here indicated that there's an additional processor procedure or report or additional certification. he's saying they're not complying with that cumulative and continuous, whereas the cellular company says that they are. >> yeah. >> and president fung kind of asked that, like i said, whether it's a 0, whether it's a 5, there's -- if it says it's required, then, you know -- >> right. so the fcc standard is designed to be for that continuous exposure. so they assume 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, regardless of your age or physical health or whatever, that standard has been set for continuous exposure. they've got a standard for the public, which is people like you and me and they've got a standard for occupational which are for people that work on antennas. what we're looking at is to ensure that fcc standard for public exposure is never exceeded. not even for a second. that's what we want is not to have the public in a situation where there's ever an exceedance of that public standard. as i said, that's your continuous 24-hour, 7 day a week assumption for that standard. >> sorry to interrupt. so is that an assumption made by the department, or is there an additional measurement that should be required to allow that permit. >> the fcc sets that standard
and then the pre-installation calculation that the engineering firm does is to determine when and where it will be exceeded. almost any antenna that you install is going to exceed the standard at some distance from the antenna. there's some that are considered compliant, meaning you can touch it and never exceed the standard, but not in situations like this. there's some distance from the antenna that the fcc standard for that public standard is going to be met or exceeded. what we're doing those pre-installation calculations is to determine where that standard is exceeded and is there an opportunity or chance for the public to be inside of that area where it will be exceeded. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners. >> commissioners.
what would like to start? >> i have not heard anything to lead me to believe it was not -- >> i'll just confirm. i am of a similar opinion. again, repeating myself, we've heard many, many of these cases, and it was nice to hear a question that had not come up prior. but i'm sure we're going to hear lots and lots of other cases continuing. i am in agreement with my fellow
commissioners. there are no further comments, do you have a motion. >> the only thing i would -- the thing this was interesting to me is that -- and i don't know if this body can do it is an issue of indemnification. when a unit is 7 feet away from an apartment, when with all due respect to the counsel, to counsel's esteemed engineer, we don't know -- we really don't know the long-term effects of all the garbage that's in the air in general. the issue of indim occasion especially when there is a unit so close to a window starts to get me thinking that maybe we, although we might approve the appeal -- sorry -- we might approve the permit, one of the days we might attach an endem
occasion priorment onto it for -- indemnification on to the provider. i'm thinking about doing it today, but i don't know. i was going to ask the city attorney, is that in our per pu? >> i probably have to research that to give you a definitive answer. it certainly is something beyond the norm. >> yeah. i would -- i'm not going to ask for it today, but i would like to ask the question that in circumstances where the placement of one of these units is within 10 feet of an apartment, a rental unit, and if there's any question by this board, do we have the opportunity to suggest an
indemnification. thank you. i won't do it today. i would like to get an answer. >> i did find one thing that was a little bit further thought provoking for myself. that is, when you have standards that are 20 years old or over 20 years old, they're probably obsolete. so it's interesting that we haven't heard that particular argument very often, but, you know, it's something, perhaps, the department may want to continue to look at because things never stay the same. you know, standards should always be continually changing. >> okay. do we have a motion? is. >> to deny the appeal and approve the permit on the basis it was issued. >> a motion to deny the appeal and issue the permit on the