Amanda Higgins - SFgov [PDF]

Jun 23, 2016 - 6 a null concept) doesn't necessarily mean that harmful effects cannot later manifest. In the absence of

0 downloads 4 Views 11MB Size

Recommend Stories


Higgins Boats
Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that

higgins jig
The only limits you see are the ones you impose on yourself. Dr. Wayne Dyer

ESTRELLA Amanda Conegundes 2013.pdf
What we think, what we become. Buddha

Higgins Boats
How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world. Anne

Kevin Higgins
It always seems impossible until it is done. Nelson Mandela

Amanda Peralta
Don’t grieve. Anything you lose comes round in another form. Rumi

Amanda Hamilton
Sorrow prepares you for joy. It violently sweeps everything out of your house, so that new joy can find

Ryan T. Higgins
What you seek is seeking you. Rumi

Amanda Peralta
The greatest of richness is the richness of the soul. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)

Amanda Strong
In the end only three things matter: how much you loved, how gently you lived, and how gracefully you

Idea Transcript


J. Kantor

Board of Appeals City & County of San Francisco 1650 Mission Street, Room 304 San Francisco, CA 94103 June 23, 2016 Re. Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit Application 15WR-0599 at 1394 35th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a request that the Board of Appeals overturn the decision by Mohammed Nuru, Director of the Department of Public Works (DPW) to issue a Personal Wireless Service Facility Permit to Crown Castle at 1394 35th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122 (Exhibit A). The grounds for this request are three-fold: firstly, the concerns raised at the Hearing on March 14, 2016 by citizens opposing the permit were not adequately considered in the determination to grant the permit due to a failure of procedure pursuant to Article 25 of the San Francisco Public Works Code; secondly, that the City itself does not favor the site of the proposed facility and, while professing it has no recourse, in fact, has not yet exhausted its options to oppose, or work with Crown Castle to pursue alternate acceptable locations or designs on behalf of residents who Appellate Brief re. Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit Application 15WR-0599 at 1394 35th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122

2 oppose the granting of this permit, even though the Board of Appeals has already overturned a previous approval of permits for this site; and thirdly, that the notifications do not comply with the “Contents and Form of Notice” described in the aforementioned Article 25.

I respectfully request, on behalf of the community and neighbors of 35th Avenue, that the Board of Appeals reverse the DPW’s approval of this permit for a second time. Additionally, I request that the Board of Appeals issues a final decision on these sites and directs Crown Castle and the Department of Public Works to come to an agreement with the citizens to find other appropriate and mutually agreeable sites for these devices, as per DPW policy.

II. ARGUMENTS 1. Failure to follow procedure pursuant to Article 25 at the public hearing on March 14, 2016

The Department of Public Works (also known as “the DPW”) held a public hearing on March 14, 2016 to consider resident opposition to a group of proposed permit sites for the installation of Personal Wireless Service Facilities by Crown Castle throughout the residential neighborhoods of the Sunset and Richmond Districts of San Francisco. Among these proposed sites is the permit in question here for an installation outside the single-family home at 1394 35th Avenue (Permit Application 15WR-0599). While only one citizen is officially listed as the sponsor of each appeal, many citizens were in attendance to voice their opposition to the proposed sites. The procedure Appellate Brief re. Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit Application 15WR-0599 at 1394 35th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122

3 allows for the sponsor to speak for an allotted time, the other official parties to speak for an allotted time (in this case the DPW and representatives for Crown Castle), and then the floor is to be open for individually shorter, but collectively unlimited, public comment. When members of the community who were in attendance stood to speak in support or opposition of the protest, the Hearing Officer for this case explicitly told such members of the public who attempted to speak during this period to limit their comments to the permit applications for which they were the primary sponsor so the hearing could proceed at a faster pace. (See taped video hearing on March 14, 2016, available on the DPW wesbite: http://www.sfpublicworks.org) This statement by the Hearing Officer was a clear violation of the rights of the citizens of San Francisco and a procedural failure of the hearing process. Some of these citizens signed in to officially register their presence, while others did not, having been denied a voice by the Hearing Officer.

Further, the opposition of at least three hundred additional residents of areas affected by these permit applications was represented in proxy, in the form of a signed petition (subsequently submitted to the Hearing Officer). Despite the wide variety of reasons for opposition voiced by the residents living on the blocks affected by the potential wireless sites, the Hearing Officer uniformly recommended a blanket approval of all the sites, include the one in question at 1394 35th Avenue. The Director of Public Works subsequently ratified this recommendation, and the permits were provisionally granted. These permits are being approved with no regard for the voices of the citizens who live in these neighborhoods. We ask that the Board of Appeals overturn the approval of this permit on these grounds alone. Appellate Brief re. Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit Application 15WR-0599 at 1394 35th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122

4

2. Failure to work with citizens and the City of San Francisco to find mutually agreeable sites. Since it seemed that the Hearing Officer’s decision was based solely on procedural grounds—ruling that Crown Castle’s application complies with Article 25 of the Public works code—and did not respond to any of the specific grounds for protest filed in writing and written testimony by home owners and other residents with regard to this Site Permit Application, I will outline some of those grounds here, specifically pertaining to the site in question at 1394 35th Avenue. These grounds are threefold, and include health concerns, concern about noise pollution, diminishment of the aesthetic character of the residential block and the ocean-oriented view out the front windows of my home, property rights pertaining to home value and potential resale, and process.

Firstly, we oppose this site on health grounds. The boxes Crown Castle deploys at its sites have been shown to have significant, measurable, radio frequency (RF) emissions. We are worried about the potential health risks associated with these emissions. We are aware that the Department of Public Works claims it cannot deny a wireless facility based on health concerns per Federal law, but we do not accept this rationale for not challenging this placement.

The potential health risks with wireless radiation are a widespread concern among the public, irrespective of Federal guidelines or Department policy. There are many young children living on this block and quite simply there is no scientific proof that long-term Appellate Brief re. Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit Application 15WR-0599 at 1394 35th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122

5 exposure to wireless radiation has no effect on developing children. In the absence of such proof, common sense and civic responsibility demand erring on the side of caution. If there is no RF exposure risk, then why has the DPW recommended that they not be placed near schools? Children spend more consistent time at home than at any one school over their childhood, therefore the logic of this safety measure is grossly flawed.

Crown Castle is clearly aware of the real (and perceived) health risks associated with RF emissions, having commissioned their own expert report on the matter. This report was circulated by Omar Masry, Wireless Planner at the DPW, in an attempt to assuage citizen concern on this matter (See Exhibit D, “RF Safety Report” previous appeal filing for 14WR-0175). The expert responsible for authoring this report, Jerrold T Bushberg, preemptively dismisses claims about the safety of RF emissions using a fallacious argument, writing:

"No panel of experts can guarantee safe levels of exposure because safety is a null concept, and negatives are not susceptible to proof. What a dispassionate scientific assessment can offer is the presumption of safety when RF-field conditions do not give rise to a demonstrable harmful effect." p.3 This argument reads as one might expect from one written by an expert commissioned by a corporation seeking safety clearance, and rests of fallacious logic. While it may be that in experimental science, negatives are not susceptible to proof, it is the case that these boxes emit RF, and, further, that RF exposure has been seen to do harm. The idea that no demonstrable harmful effect at the proposed levels has been yet proven (which this expert testimony itself ironically categorically precludes by introducing the idea of Appellate Brief re. Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit Application 15WR-0599 at 1394 35th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122

6 a null concept) doesn't necessarily mean that harmful effects cannot later manifest. In the absence of proof of safety, the City should err on the side of conservative precaution. There is enough scientific, not to mention anecdotal, concern about RF exposure from Personal Wireless Facilities for Crown Castle to commission this expert report. Its very existence acknowledges wide spread skepticism about the safety of RF emissions exposure.

Additionally, it bears mentioning that at the Hearing on July 8, 2015, for the permit to install a wireless antenna at the same site, which the Board of Appeals denied by overturning the DPW ruling, DPW Wireless Planner, Omar Masry, suggested that one way in which RF from the proposed boxes could be dangerous to human health would be if someone were “floating up in the air” near the box at the height at which it attaches to the wooden pole. This sounds like a fanciful conjecture, but, in fact, but the reality of the build environment of this residential neighborhood, in which primary living quarters are located on the second story above a garage, exhibits precisely this condition. “Floating up in the air” next to the box at the proposed location is exactly where the main front windows are for our home—at eye-level. It is the inescapable condition of living at this site. Were we to wish to create a greater distance between our children and the RF emissions of these boxes, we would have to not use our living room. This seems manifestly and unduly unfair.

The second ground of opposition to the site pertains to noise pollution. The 1300 Block of 35th Avenue is a noisy place. With MUNI’s N-Judah tram line rumbling down the street less than 50 ft. from the proposed site, and the flight path for the largest jets Appellate Brief re. Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit Application 15WR-0599 at 1394 35th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122

7 departing for Europe and Asia from SFO overhead, residents of the block already endure more than our fair share of noise pollution in the name of public benefit. Crown Castle itself admits that the Personal Wireless Boxes proposed to be sited at this location emit noise. While they compare the droning buzz of their boxes as equivalent in volume to that of chirping birds, even this amount of noise emission must be placed in the larger context of existing noise pollution of this specific block as a whole. While the sound of birds chirping in an otherwise silent place may evoke a bucolic picture, a similar amount of noise added to an already cacophonous aural environment on this block—which includes round the clock rumblings of the N-Judah (which cause doors and windows to shake in the homes effected by the proposed wireless box) as well as the noise emissions of wide-body jets that roar overhead—is unpleasant and disruptive. This box will add unwelcome volume to this noisy environment.

The third specific ground of opposition to this concerns site aesthetics. The boxes are proposed to be installed on wooden poles positioned directly before residential facades and are of an obtrusive design. All the houses on the side of the street effected by the proposed site face the Pacific Ocean and have views of Golden Gate Park as well as the Marin Headlands. The proposed equipment cabinets will enter this field of vision, creating a visual pollution of the view that we cherish. In addition to the view from inside our home, the proposed box also disrupts the aesthetics of our home from the outside, taking away from its “curb appeal.” This not only unjustly diminishes our own aesthetic enjoyment of our home, but also degrades its potential resale value.

Appellate Brief re. Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit Application 15WR-0599 at 1394 35th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122

8 Aside from visual aesthetics, the proposed presence of this box would potentially reduce my property value because of concerns about RF emissions among the public. Were I to wish to sell my home at the proposed site, the presence of this facility is something I would be legally obliged to disclose to any potential buyers. Whether the City takes the health concerns of wireless radiation seriously is moot, since a significant percentage of the population does. Any disclosure of this facility would likely diminish the pool of potential buyers of my home, and therefore lower its value. In fact, a citizen who was part of the previous round of appeal has since moved, and had to disclose the DPW permit re-application in the middle of selling her home. She reported that this caused the buyer to insist on a $16,000 discount on the previously agreed upon sale price. (See Exhibit B) This is an unjust byproduct of the permission to install on this site. The city maintains its jurisdiction extends to the design of these Wireless Boxes, and has demonstrably shown, it prefers Rooftop boxes mounted on Commercial Buildings, rather than on wooden poles in front of residences. We need the City to exercise its right to reject these corporate interests in favor of the interests of the citizenry.

Lastly, in regard to the concerns of the citizens presented at the DPW Hearing, I would like to introduce a larger ground of opposition to these permits pertinent to both the specific permit in question, as well as the larger number of permits granted to deploy these boxes in residential areas, more generally. Such grounds for opposition are fundamentally concerned with City policy. It is a grave concern that the City has abdicated its jurisdiction over the wooden poles on its own sidewalks. It is unclear what the civic benefit of granting a multi-billion dollar corporation the use of this Appellate Brief re. Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit Application 15WR-0599 at 1394 35th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122

9 infrastructure. No one on our block has come forward to support more robust wireless service, which would necessitate additional boxes. While the City remains a stake holder in such decisions—not only in its responsibility to represent its tax-paying citizens, but also by virtue of its membership in the Joint Pole Association, which does hold jurisdiction over these poles—it has not demonstrated an effective plan to oppose what amounts to the wholesale selling of public space to private corporations, which by virtue of the very logic of their for-profit pursuit, privileges short term economic gain over long term public good. If the adage “possession is nine-tenths of the law” has any traction, then we strongly encourage the Board of Appeals to exercise its authority to demand more research on alternate sites before turning over “possession” of these poles. If the right were to be granted now, what recourse would the City ever have to oppose any potential expansion of Crown Castle’s installations at the site? In granting these permits, the City is effectively permanently abdicating public space of this block to a corporation. This is patently against the interests of the residents of this block.

The City maintains that it prefers installing wireless boxes on the roofs of commercial buildings as opposed to on wooden poles before residential houses (Exhibits C, D). Strictly from an impact perspective this makes sense on several counts. Commercial buildings are occupied 8 hours a day 5 days a week, while residential homes inhabited by the elderly and young children (such as our own, directly before the proposed site), are occupied 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Whatever health or aesthetic impact would be admitted as an effect of the installation of the box at this location, this distinction should be kept in mind: A commercial site has 40 week-hours of impact, while a residential site has 168 week-hours of impact. A residential site has more than four Appellate Brief re. Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit Application 15WR-0599 at 1394 35th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122

10 times the aggregate impact as a commercial site. Further, a siting on a commercial roof assuages almost all of the aesthetic disruption of a pole placement. We believe that, in provisionally granting the permits, the DPW has failed to exhaust its pursuit of its selfstated preference of siting of wireless boxes on commercial buildings (Exhibit D: Masry: “Our preference is that wireless carriers work with community and Planning on welldesigned and scale-appropriate rooftop-mounted sites (which require relatively fewer overall sites compared to wooden poles for similar coverage & capacity)).

The proposed site in question is on a block that is 100% residential. There are commercially zoned sites within 200 feet of the proposed location, and the City has not shown that it has worked with Crown Castle to see if such alternate locations on, or before, commercial buildings in the area would suffice to serve its wireless needs. Another site we believe has not been exhaustively considered is one block west, on Sunset Blvd., a large avenue with some commercial zoning as well as light poles which are 4-5 times further from residential house facades, compared to the proposed site. It is our hope that, by overturning the decision to approve this specific permit, the Board of Appeals could encourage DPW to continue to work with Crown Castle to find less disruptive sites for its boxes.

3. Failure to adequately notify the citizens living in the affected zone pursuant to Article 25.

Appellate Brief re. Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit Application 15WR-0599 at 1394 35th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122

11 The Department of Public Works (DPW) failed to provide clear plans to the citizens affected by these boxes as outlined in Article 25, Section 1512 c “Contents and Form of Notice.” The signs posted on the 1300 block of 35th Avenue do not meet the following conditions of Article 25, Section 1512, that notification give clear instructions to: “State that any Person seeking to protest the Application must submit a protest to the Department within twenty (20) days of the date the notice was mailed and posted; Describe the procedure for submitting a timely protest; Specify the applicable grounds for protesting the Application under this Article 25; and Explain how any interested Person may obtain additional information and documents related to the Application.” The notifications posted on the poles of this block do not meet these standards. (See Exhibit E.) I respectfully ask that the Board of Appeals recognize that the notification procedure outlined in Article 25, Section 1512, c.4-7, has not been followed, and therefore overturn the DPW’s approval of this permit application.

The DPW also failed to provide clear plans following the final determination, as outlined in Article 25, Section 1514. In an email sent by the DPW Wireless Program on April 18, 2016, the DPW attached the photographic plan for the proposed battery unit on the pole at the location specified in Permit Application 15WR-0599. (See Exhibit F: Email from DPW-Wireless-Program; Subject Line: Personal Wireless Service Facility Permit 15WR-0599; dated 4/18/2016) The view of the proposed equipment labeled “Looking South from 35th Avenue” shows proposed equipment painted one color. Also attached is a view of the proposed equipment labeled “Looking North from 35th Avenue,” which shows proposed equipment painted a different color. This is confusing to residents who can not have a clear idea of what the equipment will look like, based Appellate Brief re. Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit Application 15WR-0599 at 1394 35th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122

12 on these two very different photographic plans sent in the same email from the DPW. I respectfully ask that the Board of Appeals recognize that the notification procedure outlined in Article 25, Section 1514, as to “Content and Form of Notice” has not been followed, and therefore overturn DPW’s approval of this permit application.

III. CONCLUSION On the specific and cumulative effects of all these grounds presented, we respectfully request that the Board of Appeals overturn the decision by the DPW to grant Crown Castle the permit to install a Personal Wireless Device at 1394 35th Avenue, and if the Board of Appeals sees fit, to make this decision final so that the tax-paying citizens of San Francisco who have been fighting for the betterment of their residential neighborhoods can at last be free of this corporate intrusion into public space.

Thank you for your consideration.

Appellate Brief re. Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit Application 15WR-0599 at 1394 35th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122

EXHIBIT A

NOTICE OF FINAL DETERMINATION TO APPROVE A PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY SITE PERMIT Date: 04/13/2016 Application No.: 15WR-0599 Applicant Name: Crown Castle NG West LLC Location: 1394 35th Ave and 1378 35th Ave San Francisco Public Works has finally approved the above-referenced Application for a Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit in the vicinity of 1394 35th Ave and 1378 35th Ave. A photo-simulation of the approved Personal Wireless Service Facility is attached hereto. Each of the following City departments made a determination that the Application satisfied the applicable requirements of the Public Works Code. San Francisco Public Works/ Bureau of Street Use & Mapping San Francisco Department of Health Planning Department

The final approval includes the following condition(s): Public Works Conditions: 1. This recommendation based on no variation from the depicted drawings and/or photo simulation; if a variation is different a re-submittal is required. Should the installation vary from said conditions, it should be resubmitted to Department(s) for further review and comment 2. New Poles: no new poles shall be erected or placed in underground districts. 3. Down Guys: Follow all excavation codes to obtain the necessary permits for placement of down guys. Down guy shall avoid crossing conflicting areas but not limited to driveways, curb ramps. 4. Comply with ADA code requirements for Federal, State, local laws. Make sure path of minimum required clear width for accessible path of travel is four feet. 5. At the conclusion of the work, provide a set of as built photos of the installation to the Bureau Street Use & Mapping Permit Office. 6. Maintain a valid certification of insurance annually and forward a copy to the Bureau of Street Use & Mapping Permit Office. Department of Public Health Conditions: 1. Ensure that there continues to be no publicly accessible areas within eight (8) feet of the antenna. 2. Ensure that the ION units installed at this location are at least 10 feet from the nearest building façade. Also, any equipment associated with the pole installation of this antenna should not produce a noise in excess of 45 dBA as measured at three (3) feet from the nearest residential building façade. This condition would include the backup batteries installed at 1378 35th Avenue. 3. In accordance with the DPW Art. 25 requirements, once the new ION equipment is installed, Crown Castle must take RF power density measurements with the antenna operating at full power to verify the level reported in the Jerrold T. Bushberg, Health and Medical Physics Consulting report and to ensure that the

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO Customer Service

Teamwork

Continuous Improvement

4.

5.

6.

FCC public exposure level is not exceeded in any publicly accessible area. This measurement must also be taken again at the time of the permit renewal. Crown Castle should be aware that the general public may have concerns about the antenna and potential RF source near their dwellings. Crown Castle should have in place a mechanism for taking RF power density levels in nearby dwellings when requested by the members of the general public. In accordance with the San Francisco Public Works Code, Art. 25, Sec. 1527 (a)(2)(C) Crown Castle is responsible for paying a fee of $181.00 to the San Francisco Department of Public Health for this review. Crown Castle will be invoiced by the Department for any outstanding fees during January of each year. Please note that this approval and any conditions apply only to the equipment and installation as described. If any changes in the equipment or any increase in the effective radiated power described above are made, a new review by the Department of Public Health must be conducted.

Planning Department Conditions: 1. Paint antennas, brackets, cable kit cover, cabling, conduit, and equipment enclosures “Sable” by Sherwin Williams (non-glossy) or equivalent. Paint battery backup unit, cabling, conduit, disconnect, and electric meter “Ponder” by Sherwin-Williams (non-glossy) or equivalent. 2. Replace the existing wooden pole for those poles where the primary equipment enclosure and antennas are proposed. 3. Plant and maintain an appropriate street tree. 4. Utilize the narrowest offset (e.g. 4 inches) between the equipment enclosures and pole as allowed by utility regulation. 5. Cabling on pole (including ground buss bar) to be installed in a neat and orderly condition, and without excess loops. 6. Remove raised equipment signage (including filling in manufacturer logo indentations on radio relay units/cabinets) and equipment decals that may be visible from sidewalk and dwellings, unless required by government regulation. 7. Utilize smallest RF warning signage allowed; and place the warning sticker facing out toward street, at a location as close to antenna as is feasible. Sticker shall face away from street, when not facing a nearby window within 15 feet. 8. Remove raised signage (including filling in manufacturer logo indentations on cabinets) and equipment decals that may be visible from sidewalk and dwellings, unless required by government or electric utility regulation. Site (node) identification sticker to use smallest size and lowest visibility location possible (e.g. underside of enclosures using tan background and white lettering). 9. Stack equipment enclosures (not including antenna) as close as allowed by applicable regulation and manufacturer equipment standards. 10. Not utilize any visible flashing indicator lights or similar. 11. Utilize narrowest electric meter (or line drop or wireless metering) allowed.

Within fifteen (15) calendar days from date of the issuance of this notice, any person may appeal the issuance of this permit to the Board of Appeals. Appeals must be filed in person by either the appellant or the appellant’s agent. Generally, the Board of Appeals requires that an appointment be made to file an appeal. For further information regarding the appeal process, or to schedule an appointment, please contact the Board of Appeals in person at 1650 Mission Street, Suite 304 or call 415-575-6880. To obtain additional information concerning the Application and final approval you may contact Sharon James representative of Crown Castle NG West LLC at (408) 468-5553 and [email protected]. You may also contact Public Works at 415-554-5810.

Amanda Higgins Public Works Wireless Program

EXHIBIT B

From: Subject: Date: To: Cc:

A da Re: SUPPORT April 28, 2016 at 10:40 AM L C [email protected] Zhuo Luo [email protected], Lisa Arjes [email protected], Mrolague [email protected], Frank [email protected], Lily Fong [email protected], Estelle Garis [email protected], Jack Kiernan [email protected], Jade Wong [email protected], Jane Hutchinson [email protected], Janis Mercer [email protected], Michael Secour [email protected], Jean & Pat Driscoll [email protected], Randy Cheng [email protected], Gaby Kr [email protected], Susan Ryan [email protected], [email protected], Denis Whitebook [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Lori Jear [email protected], Danforth, Christopher [email protected], Raina Cohen [email protected], [email protected],

.com, keiming

, Lana L

Hello everyone, I was involved in opposing the antenna proposed for with me and also addressed the board.

40th Ave. and attended the hearings with some of you last year. My son attended

This past January, I sold my home. Clean offer, no contingencies, as is. About 5 days after escrow opened, Verizon/Crown Castle posted their current notices seeking new permits for the same site. As required by law, I notified my realtor so she could disclose the information to the buyers' agent The new tentative permit for installation of an antenna outside my window created a situation where I had to accept a price cut of $16,000 in order to keep the deal together. Not a small amount of money for most of us. I share this because this is a real situation where the antenna decreased the value of a home. I no longer live in San Francisco but will follow your appeals via emails and attend the hearings in support of all of you. Keep fighting! Am

Sent from my iPhone On Apr 28, 2016, at 9:30 AM, L C <

Dear%All, I%know%all%of%you%have%busy%lives,%but%ge8ng%your%neighbors%to%come%to%the%appeal%and%even%a=ending the%appeals%of%others%can%be%very%useful%for%all%of%our%efforts.%;) Thanks,

EXHIBIT C

From: Subject: Fwd: application for personal wireless facility 14WR 0175 Date: September 16 2015 20:47:49 PDT

From: "Masry Omar (CPC)" Subject: Re: application for personal wireless facility - 14WR-0175 Date: June 11 2015 19:15:35 PDT To: Jordan Hi

The city disfavors these sites as well.

will forward you an email Please take a look and let me know what questions you have

OMAR MASRY A CP W RELESS PLANNER San Francisco Planning Department omar masry@sfgov org P 415 575 9116 l F 415 558 6409 1650 Mission Street 4th Floor San Francisco CA 94103 On Jun 11 2015 at 7:13 PM Jordan

t> wrote:

Dear Mr Masry Today received notification of the tentative approval of an application by NextG Networks of California nc to install a Personal Wireless Service Facility at 1394 35th Avenue in San Francisco am a homeowner and the proposed location of this facility is in front of my home and directly visible from my front window am strongly opposed to the proposed installation of this facility for several reasons 1 Process: was not aware that there was any measure of public debate about this before this moment As such challenge the fact that this has already been "tentatively approved " s approval the normal condition of application and refusal the exception? What is the process by which this application advanced to this stage and received approval? Who approved it? 2 Health: am worried about the potential health risks associated with this facility am aware that the City claims it cannot deny a wireless facility based on health concerns per Federal law but do not accept this rationale for not challenging this placement The potential health risks associated with wireless radiation are a widespread concern among the public irrespective of Federal guidelines (You are undoubtedly aware of this) There are many children living on this block including my own and quite simply there is no scientific proof that long term exposure to wireless radiation has no effect on developing children n the absence of such proof common sense demands erring on the side of caution 3 Property Rights: Were to wish to sell my home the presence of this facility is something would be legally obliged to disclose to any potential buyers Whether the City takes the health concerns of wireless radiation seriously is moot since a significant percentage of the population does Any disclosure of this facility would likely diminish the pool of potential buyers of my home and therefore lower its value Does the City intend to compensate me for this diminished value? 4 Aesthetics: The placement of this facility in front of my home diminishes the "curb appeal" of my home as well as disrupting the view out my front window This unfairly changes my enjoyment of my home both from without and within 5 Politics: Are the wooden poles the property of the City? f so why is the City granting a multi billion dollar corporation use of this infrastructure? While understand this is accepted policy for profit telephone and cable providers use these poles the process by which these companies get access to this City infrastructure is opaque to me Can you please let me know what the City is getting out of letting NextG use its infrastructure in this way? Are they leasing the space? f so for how much money? How was this contract awarded? Thank you in advance for taking the time to respond to my queries t is the task of City government to represent the interests of its citizens and appreciate the opportunity to register my opposition to this application hope that you can represent my interests in this matter Sincerely

EXHIBIT D

Proposed Crown Caste Verizon Facilities Richmond & Sunset Date: September 16 2015 21:00:01 PDT

From: "Masry, Omar (CPC)" Subject: Fwd: Wireless Antenna in Front of My House | Proposed Crown Caste-Verizon Facilities | Richmond & Sunset Date: June 11, 2015 19:29:57 PDT To:

OMAR MASRY, AICP | WIRELESS PLANNER San Francisco Planning Department [email protected] P. 415.575.9116 l F. 415.558.6409 1650 Mission Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco | CA 94103 Begin forwarded message: From: "Masry, Omar (CPC)" To: Cc: "Mar, Eric (BOS)" , "Chan, Gene (DPW)" Subject: RE: Wireless Antenna in Front of My House | Proposed Crown Caste-Verizon Facilities | Richmond & Sunset

Hi Dr.

I’m the Wireless Planner who reviews wireless facilities whether on wooden poles or rooftops.

I understand your concerns about process and outreach. In fact, due in part to a recent lawsuit brought by NextG-Crown Castle (the company currently proposing 12 sites in the Sunset & Richmond on behalf of Verizon Wireless. in this instance); we expanded public notification for any type of wireless facility on a wood pole (notifying residents within 150 feet, and neighborhood groups registered with Planning Department).

I would also note that while you copied members of the Planning Commission in your email; they do not review wireless facilities within the public right-of-way (e.g. wood and steel poles along streets). Those permits are administered by the Department of Public Works. The Planning Commission would review wireless facilities in your neighborhood if proposed on buildings.

Appeals | If you, or your neighbors have only seen the notices posted on poles, but haven’t yet received a notice by mail yet, you should shortly. You are able to request a Department of Public Works hearing to protest a specific DPW site permit by informing Mr. Chan via email. If a permit is actually issued (only a tentative approval has been granted), the permit issuance can be appealed to the Board of Appeals. However, appeals of the environmental exemption (CEQA), if you so desire, would need to be filed separately, with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

Pending Board Action |Tomorrow, the full Board of Supervisors will consider a resolution to convey their (potential) opposition to a proposed State law (AB 57) which could further diminish the City’s review of these facilities. See attached (AB 57.pdf). The City has conveyed our concerns already to our State Senator and State Assembly members. The bill is currently headed to the State Senate.

Health Concerns | The City is prohibited by Federal law from denying a wireless facility based on health concerns, as long as the facility will fall within the public radio-frequency exposure limits set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). These 12 facilities (8 in Sunset and 4 in Richmond) would fall well below such limits as they are relatively lower power sites using directional antennas. If a site is approved the carrier must pay for testing for residents, at no charge, if requested. Sites must also be reviewed by the City’s Department of Public Health. See attached RF Safety Report. The SF Department of Public Health also reviewed noise emissions (created by cooling fans for computers) for these sites as well.

City Jurisdiction | Wireless Facilities on wooden poles are strongly disfavored in San Francisco. Unfortunately, current State law prohibits the City from denying these facilities wholesale. This is an issue that came up in recent litigation with NextG-Crown Castle. Our preference is that wireless carriers work with community and Planning on well-designed and scale-appropriate rooftop-mounted sites (which require relatively fewer overall sites compared to wooden poles for similar coverage & capacity).

Wireless Carrier Challenges | Supervisors Mar and Tang recently worked with me on a letter to Verizon/Crown to convey our concerns. See attached (15.2.25 file).

City Actions | The Mayor’s office and the Board of Supervisors, has also weighed in on the related concern that the State may require new rules which could affect some of the equipment cabinets that normally go on the pole itself. As those rules may instead require that they be mounted on the ground; which raises concerns over pedestrian safety. The Board previously weighed in unanimously to convey their concerns (resolution link).

* Recent NBC News Story on SF poles * Recent news article for context * Frequently Asked Questions about Wireless Facilities on Wooden Poles: http://www.sfplanning.org/ftp/files/currentplanning/wireless/FAQ Wireless Facilities on Poles.pdf * Link to a document (legislative digest) that was prepared as part of an update to the City's code (in response to litigation brought by NextG-Crown Castle) which covers wireless facilities on wooden poles: Link to Digest of Revised Ordinance. * Video of our testimony at the California State Assembly hearing (scroll to AB 57 at minute mark 01:12:45): http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php? view id=7&clip id=2867&meta id=71738

Original sample design submitted for the 12 proposed Verizon sites in the Richmond and Sunset (image does not include a separate box used for batteries on a pole across the street from each pole): [cid:8f7f7944-33d8-42eb-8d82-1a67eb116f59] Revised design as a result of continued engagement by Planning with Crown Castle and Verizon (does not reflect uniform grey paint color request or slimmer battery backup cabinet on pole across street): [cid:82ae4639-a551-4549-a31b-a85346cffe55] OMAR MASRY, AICP | WIRELESS PLANNER San Francisco Planning Department [email protected] P. 415.575.9116 l F. 415.558.6409 1650 Mission Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco | CA 94103 ________________________________

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT F

From: DPW-Wireless-Program [email protected] Subject: Personal Wireless Service Facility Permit 15WR-0599 Date: April 18, 2016 at 9:23 AM To:

Good$Morning, A,ached$is$the$photo$sim$for$Personal$Wireless$Service$Facility$Permit$15WR@0599 $ $ $ $ $

Bureau of Street Use and Mapping San Francisco Public Works City and County of San Francisco 1155 Market Street- 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 554-5810 sfpublicworks.org · twitter.com/sfpublicworks

$

Suite 800 505 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-6533 Martin L. Fineman (415) 276-6575 tel (415) 276-6599 fax [email protected]

July 7, 2016 San Francisco Board of Appeals 1650 Mission Street, Suite 304 San Francisco, CA 94103 [email protected] Re:

Respondent’s Brief Appeal Number 16-083 (Kantor) (1394 35th Avenue) Crown Castle Wireless Facility Permit Number 15WR-0599

To the Honorable President Lazarus and Members of the Board of Appeals: I am writing on behalf of Crown Castle NG West LLC, Respondent in this appeal. Article 25 of the San Francisco Public Works Code (“Article 25”) governs the permitting process for deploying personal wireless communications facilities in the public rights of way in the City of San Francisco. Pursuant to the requirements of Article 25, Crown Castle NG West LLC (f/k/a NextG Networks of California, Inc.) (“Crown Castle”) seeks to deploy a network of wireless communications facilities to serve the Richmond and Sunset Districts. At a basic level, Crown Castle’s network consists of a series of “nodes” that are connected by fiber optic cable. These nodes typically consist of an antenna, equipment boxes, and a battery back-up (for emergency power supply) attached to an existing pole in the public right of way. Frequently, the battery back-up unit is installed on a different pole than the antenna and equipment boxes. As required by Article 25, the specific equipment used for each node is identified in Crown Castle’s application for what the City calls a “Wireless Box Permit.” In order to construct its planned network in the Richmond and Sunset Districts, Crown Castle initially applied for 12 Wireless Box Permits. In 2015, the Department of Public Works

San Francisco Board of Appeals July 7, 2016 Page 2

(“DPW”) processed and tentatively approved each of Crown Castle’s applications pursuant to the requirements set forth in Article 25 and DPW Order No. 183,440. 1 In the summer of 2015, five of those approvals, including one for a facility at the instant site, were appealed and overturned by the Board of Appeals. The Board’s reason for overturning DPW’s prior approval of a wireless box permit at the instant site was limited to its finding that the approval suffered from defective notice. Specifically, the defective notice was due to a clerical error by DPW staff. When issuing the final approval for the node at this site, DPW staff mistakenly copied the conditions of approval from a wireless permit from another part of the City, rather than copying the conditions of approval attached to the tentative approval issued for the facility at the instant site. The Board did not find that Crown Castle’s application failed to comply with Article 25. Nor did it find that the proposed facility would not comply with Article 25. The sole reason for the Board’s action was the mistake by DPW staff. In October 2015, Crown Castle petitioned for rehearing. On November 5, 2015, the Board denied rehearing. After being denied rehearing, Crown Castle began anew the Article 25 permitting process for the five wireless box permits that were overturned, including an application for a wireless box permit for the proposed facility that is the subject of the instant appeal. DPW issued a tentative approval of wireless box permit number 15WR-0599. On March 14, 2016, after a citizen protest, DPW held a public hearing as required by Section 1513 of the Public Works Code. The Hearing Officer found that, with the conditions imposed by DPW, the Department of Public Health, and the Planning Department, the applications fully complied with the requirements of Article 25. On April 13, 2016, DPW issued final approval for this application. On April 27, 2016, pursuant to Section 1515, Appellants Elizabeth and Jordan Kantor

1

On January 29, 2016, DPW adopted Order No. 184,504 “correcting, amending, and clarifying various aspects of Department of Public Works Order No. 183,440,” and superseding and replacing Order No. 183,440 in its entirety.

San Francisco Board of Appeals July 7, 2016 Page 3

(“Appellants”) appealed DPW’s approval of Wireless Box Permit No. 15WR-0599 for a node at 1394 35th Avenue. It is important to identify the scope of the Board’s review. Section 1515(c) of Article 25 states that “the Board of Appeals shall determine whether the final determination was correct under the provisions of this Article 25.” (emphasis added). Indeed, Section 332(c)(7) of the federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7), also mandates that any decision to deny the proposed facility must be based on substantial evidence of non-compliance with the local requirements articulated in Article 25. See MetroPCS, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 723-24 (9th Cir. 2005) (substantial evidence review “evaluate[s] the City decision’s evidentiary support (or lack thereof) relative to” applicable state and local regulations); T-Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte County, 546 F.3d 1299, 1307-08 (10th Cir. 2008) (“By inventing criterion for which the applicable local ordinances did not provide, the Board failed to act on the basis of substantial evidence.”). Accordingly, the Board’s review is limited to evaluate compliance with Article 25, and is unlike other permits the Board considers because there is a special body of both state and federal law that constrains what the Board may consider. Therefore, any argument, complaint, or protest not related to compliance with Article 25 is irrelevant and cannot be grounds to overturn DPW’s determination of compliance with Article 25 and final approval. Furthermore, the Board is evaluating DPW’s decision that approval was properly granted. With that standard in mind, Crown Castle submits that the application complies with Article 25, the final approval of Wireless Box Permit No. 15WR-0599 is correct, and this Board should uphold DPW’s decision. As explained above, in its prior decision overturning the issuance of a wireless box permit for a facility at this location, the sole reason for the Board’s decision was the discrepancy between the conditions contained in DPW’s tentative approval and the conditions contained in

San Francisco Board of Appeals July 7, 2016 Page 4

DPW’s final approval. That fact is of critical importance in this appeal for two reasons. First, DPW committed no such clerical error in this instance. Second, Appellants in this appeal are the same individuals who filed the prior appeal, and indeed, make the same arguments in support of this appeal as they advanced last summer. Last summer, the Board did not find any of the reasons advanced by Appellants sufficient to overturn DPW’s approval. Those same arguments fare no better this time around. Appellants’ new arguments are similarly meritless. First, Appellants allege that the Hearing Officer who conducted the public hearing on March 14, 2016 failed to “follow procedure pursuant to Article 25.” (See Kantor Appeal at 2-3.) Specifically, Appellants allege that the Hearing Officer violated “the rights of the citizens of San Francisco” when he requested that public comment from persons who were sponsors of protests be limited to the applications they were protesting. (See Kantor Appeal at 3.) Appellants can point to no specific right violated or any specific procedure mandated by either Article 25 or DPW Order 184,504. Indeed, Article 25 does not establish any specific requirements for the conduct of hearings for tentative approvals that are protested. Section 12(E) of DPW Order 184,504, however, does. Notably, Appellants do not identify Section 12(E), or any particular requirement therein, in their appeal. Section 12(E) grants the Hearing Officer considerable discretion in the conduct of the hearing and permits the hearing officer to determine “how much time shall be allotted to each Person seeking to testify.” (DPW Order 184,504 § 12(E)(1)(c).) Ultimately, Appellants vague complaints about the hearing process do not demonstrate any failure to comply with the requirements in Article 25 or DPW Order 184,504 on the part of the Hearing Officer. Next, Appellants complain that: the Hearing Officer’s decision was based solely on procedural grounds – ruling that Crown Castle’s application complies with Article 25 of the Public Works Code – and did not respond to any

San Francisco Board of Appeals July 7, 2016 Page 5

of the specific grounds for protest filed in writing and written testimony by home owners and other residents with regard to this Site Permit Application… (Kantor Appeal at 4.) To the contrary, all the Hearing Officer is allowed to consider – and all this Board can consider – is whether Crown Castle’s application complies with the requirements of Article 25. None of Appellants’ objections establishes any evidence to support a finding that the application does not comply with Article 25. Accordingly, Crown Castle submits that the final approval of Wireless Box Permit No. 15WR-0599 is correct, and this Board should uphold DPW’s decision. Appellants protest the proposed facility based on (1) health concerns, (2) concerns regarding possible noise pollution, (3) aesthetic concerns, (4) the City policy to allow use of the public rights of way for wireless deployment, and (5) alleged “failure to adequately notify the citizens living in the affected zone.” These objections are unfounded, irrelevant, or both. In the absence of evidence to support a specific allegation of non-compliance with the requirements of Article 25, there is no basis on which to overturn DPW’s decision. 1. A Denial Cannot Be Based On Concerns Related To Health Effects From Radio Frequency Emissions Appellants acknowledge that “the Department of Public Works claims it cannot deny a wireless facility based on health concerns per Federal law.” (Kantor Appeal at 4.) Nevertheless, Appellants spend three pages of their brief arguing that the proposed facility should be denied based on “the potential health risks associated with [radio frequency (“RF”)] emissions,” because they do not accept DPW’s desire to comply with federal law. (Kantor Appeal at 4-6.) Crown Castle submitted proof of compliance with federal RF standards, and the Department of Public Health imposed conditions requiring continued proof of compliance with

San Francisco Board of Appeals July 7, 2016 Page 6

such standards. (See Crown Castle Exh. A - Notice of Final Determination to Approve a Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit.) As DPW has acknowledged, the City is federally preempted from considering RF emissions or perceived health effects related thereto. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); see T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors, 903 F. Supp. 2d 385, 409-11 (E.D. Va. 2012). Appellants’ entire discussion of health concerns is irrelevant to the Board’s determination and cannot be considered. 2. A Denial Cannot Be Based On Noise Emissions From The Proposed Facility Appellants next seek to overturn the approval of the proposed facility based on the noise the equipment will produce. Appellants do not assert that the equipment will exceed allowable noise limits. In fact, the approval includes a condition imposed by the Department of Public Health that “any equipment associated with the pole installation of this antenna should not produce a noise in excess of 45dBA as measured at three (3) feet from the nearest building façade.” (Crown Castle Exh. A.) The proposed facility will comply with that condition. Instead the Appellants object to the noise emitted by the proposed facility because their block is already “a noisy place” and the “residents of the block already endure more than our fair share of noise pollution in the name of public benefit.” (Kantor Appeal at 6-7.) It appears that Appellants’ real objection is to the existing noise on their block and not the proposed Crown Castle facility. Regardless, they present no evidence that the noise emitted from the proposed facility will exceed allowable limits and therefor offer no justification to overturn the approval based on possible noise pollution. 3. The Proposed Facility is Aesthetically Appropriate As the Board is aware, Crown Castle is a party to a lawsuit challenging the validity of Article 25. One of Crown Castle’s contentions in that lawsuit is that the City lacks the authority to regulate the aesthetics of Crown Castle’s facilities installed in the public rights of way. The

San Francisco Board of Appeals July 7, 2016 Page 7

City takes the position that it has such authority, and that Article 25 is a lawful exercise of its authority to regulate aesthetics of wireless facilities installed in the public rights of way. While the litigation is pending, Crown Castle has continued to apply for permits under Article 25 and to comply with the City’s aesthetic oversight so that it may continue to operate its business and deploy networks in San Francisco. That background is useful because it highlights that the City’s primary focus in reviewing applications under Article 25 is an evaluation of aesthetics. Although Appellants argue that the proposed facility should be denied because it will create “visual pollution of the view[s]” in the neighborhood (Kantor Appeal at 7), both DPW and the Planning Department reviewed Crown Castle’s application and concluded that, with the numerous conditions each of those departments imposed, the proposed facility is aesthetically compatible with the urban residential streetscape. (See Crown Castle Exh. A.) In fact, many of the conditions imposed by the Planning Department are aimed directly at minimizing the visual impact of the proposed facility. (Id.) Indeed, a virtual visit to the neighborhood demonstrates that the proposed facility is not out of place. As shown by the photo-simulations Crown Castle submitted and the images attached hereto as Crown Castle Exhibit B 2 there are numerous telephone and light poles on 35th Avenue near Judah Street. In fact, the pole immediately to the south of the pole at issue, across Judah Street, includes a cylindrical electric transformer. (See Crown Castle Exh. B.) Such equipment is a common site throughout the City and a demonstration of the need to balance aesthetics with functional utility, which is what the conditions imposed on the approval of the proposed facility achieve. Fundamentally, what Crown Castle has proposed is the addition of telecommunications utility equipment to existing utility infrastructure.

2

Images taken from Google Street View on July 5, 2016.

San Francisco Board of Appeals July 7, 2016 Page 8

Appellants also express concern that the proposed facility will diminish the potential resale value of Appellants’ property due to public concerns related to RF emissions. First, whether couched as property value concerns or health concerns, the City is prohibited from denying a wireless facility based on concerns related to RF emissions. See AT&T Wireless Services of California LLC v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1159-60 (S.D. Cal. 2003). Second, Appellants’ concerns are unsubstantiated speculation 3 that is completely irrelevant to a consideration of whether Crown Castle’s application complies with the requirements of Article 25. Nothing in Article 25 requires an applicant to prove that the proposed facility will not impact property values. Thus, whether the Appellants’ unfounded claims are legitimate or not, they cannot form the basis for denial. Ultimately, in the absence of any evidence demonstrating a violation of Article 25, DPW’s final approval cannot be overturned based on Appellant’s aesthetic objections. 4. The City Cannot Prohibit Crown Castle From Using The Public Rights Of Way Appellants oppose the City’s general policy regarding wireless facilities installed in the public rights of way. Appellants admit that this ground for its opposition is “fundamentally concerned with City policy,” and is thus not legitimate grounds for the Board’s denial of the proposed facility applied for under the current City policy – Article 25. Nevertheless, the policy Appellants advocate for is premised on a misunderstanding of state law and the City’s role with respect to the infrastructure in the public rights of way. Section 7901 of the California Public Utilities Code provides Crown Castle a statewide franchise to install wireless facilities in the public rights of way. See City of Huntington Beach v. Pub. Util.

3

Appellants assert that a former neighbor disclosed that Crown Castle had applied for a permit to install the proposed facility and “she reported that this caused the buyer to insist on a $16,000 discount on the previously agreed upon sale price.” This hearsay upon hearsay anecdote is unverifiable and does not substantiate Appellants’ claims.

San Francisco Board of Appeals July 7, 2016 Page 9

Comm’n, 214 Cal. App. 4th 566, 587-88 (2013); GTE Mobilenet of Cal. Ltd. P’ship v. City & County of San Francisco, 440 F. Supp. 2d 1097, 1102-03 (N.D. Cal. 2006). The City simply does not have the authority to deprive Crown Castle of that right. In addition, most of the poles in the public rights of way in the City are not owned by the City. Thus, Appellants’ complaint that the City is allowing corporations to use the City’s infrastructure and their request that “the Board of Appeals [ ] exercise its authority to demand more research on alternate sites before turning over ‘possession’ of these poles” fundamentally misconstrues the law and the facts. 5. Crown Castle And DPW Provided Notice As Required By Article 25 Finally, Appellants complain that the notice provided by DPW did not comply with the standards set forth in Article 25. Again, Appellants’ complaints are unsubstantiated. First, without any specific complaint, Appellants’ simply assert that the notifications posted on the poles on their block do not meet the Section 1512(c) requirements regarding notification that the tentative approval can be challenged by any Person wishing to protest the approval. (See Kantor Appeal at 11.) The only proof Appellants offer of this alleged noncompliance is a photo of one of the notices posted on a pole, but all that can be seen of that notice is the page explaining how to obtain assistance in interpreting the notice into a variety of languages. (See Kantor Exh. E.) The actual notice of tentative approval did in fact include all of the information required under Section 1512(c) regarding notice of the right to protest the tentative approval. (See Crown Castle Exh. C – Notice of Tentative Approval of Application for a Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit.) Next, Appellants claim that photo-simulations of the proposed battery backup unit that will support the proposed facility from a nearby pole provided by DPW are “confusing to residents.” (Kantor Appeal at 11-12.) The source of this alleged confusion is that one view of the proposed equipment shows it painted one color and another view of the proposed equipment

San Francisco Board of Appeals July 7, 2016 Page 10

shows it painted another color. (Id.) Appellants’ claim of confusion is unfounded. The color of the proposed equipment is dictated by the conditions imposed by the Planning Department. (See Kantor Exh. A (“Planning Department Conditions: 1. Paint antennas, brackets, cable kit cover, conduit, and equipment enclosures ‘Sable’ by Sherwin Williams (non-glossy) or equivalent. Paint battery backup unit, cabling, conduit, disconnect, and electric meter ‘Ponder’ by SherwinWilliams (non-glossy) or equivalent.”); see also, Crown Castle Exh. A at 3 (same); Crown Castle Exh. C at 7 (same).) Moreover, the photo-simulations in both the Tentative Approval and the Final Approval are consistent and do not allow for any such confusion. (See Crown Castle Exh. A at 13-14; Crown Castle Exh. C at 10-11. Appellants received the final approval with the Planning Department’s conditions, to claim confusion regarding the color of the proposed facility is disingenuous. Ultimately, it is quite clear that the Appellants received sufficient notice to file a protest, participate in a public hearing, and file this appeal. The purpose of the public notice requirements in Article 25 is to inform the residents and general public surrounding a proposed site of a wireless facility that an application has been made and advise them of their opportunity to voice their opinions regarding such an application. This is the Appellants’ second time appealing a proposed facility at this location and the second time Appellants have raised substantially similar notice issues. There is no credible argument that Appellants – and the general public – did not receive adequate notice in compliance with of the public notice requirements adopted in Article 25. 4 Accordingly, Crown Castle respectfully submits that Appellants’ appeal should be denied and DPW’s approval should be affirmed.

4

Indeed, as Appellants asserts, many residents participated in the protest hearing addressing this site and several other Crown Castle permit applications. (See Kantor Appeal at 2-4.)

San Francisco Board of Appeals Re: Respondent’s Brief Crown Castle Wireless Facility Permit Number 15WR-0599 Response to Elizabeth and Jordon Kantor EXHIBITS INDEX DOCUMENT

EXHIBIT TAB

Final Approval

A

Street View Images

B

Tentative Approval and Notices

C

EXHIBIT A

NOTICE OF FINAL DETERMINATION TO APPROVE A PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY SITE PERMIT Date: 04/13/2016 Application No.: 15WR-0599 Applicant Name: Crown Castle NG West LLC Location: 1394 35th Ave and 1378 35th Ave San Francisco Public Works has finally approved the above-referenced Application for a Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit in the vicinity of 1394 35th Ave and 1378 35th Ave. A photo-simulation of the approved Personal Wireless Service Facility is attached hereto. Each of the following City departments made a determination that the Application satisfied the applicable requirements of the Public Works Code. San Francisco Public Works/ Bureau of Street Use & Mapping San Francisco Department of Health Planning Department

The final approval includes the following condition(s): Public Works Conditions: 1. This recommendation based on no variation from the depicted drawings and/or photo simulation; if a variation is different a re-submittal is required. Should the installation vary from said conditions, it should be resubmitted to Department(s) for further review and comment 2. New Poles: no new poles shall be erected or placed in underground districts. 3. Down Guys: Follow all excavation codes to obtain the necessary permits for placement of down guys. Down guy shall avoid crossing conflicting areas but not limited to driveways, curb ramps. 4. Comply with ADA code requirements for Federal, State, local laws. Make sure path of minimum required clear width for accessible path of travel is four feet. 5. At the conclusion of the work, provide a set of as built photos of the installation to the Bureau Street Use & Mapping Permit Office. 6. Maintain a valid certification of insurance annually and forward a copy to the Bureau of Street Use & Mapping Permit Office. Department of Public Health Conditions: 1. Ensure that there continues to be no publicly accessible areas within eight (8) feet of the antenna. 2. Ensure that the ION units installed at this location are at least 10 feet from the nearest building façade. Also, any equipment associated with the pole installation of this antenna should not produce a noise in excess of 45 dBA as measured at three (3) feet from the nearest residential building façade. This condition would include the backup batteries installed at 1378 35th Avenue. 3. In accordance with the DPW Art. 25 requirements, once the new ION equipment is installed, Crown Castle must take RF power density measurements with the antenna operating at full power to verify the level reported in the Jerrold T. Bushberg, Health and Medical Physics Consulting report and to ensure that the

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO Customer Service

Teamwork

Continuous Improvement

4.

5.

6.

FCC public exposure level is not exceeded in any publicly accessible area. This measurement must also be taken again at the time of the permit renewal. Crown Castle should be aware that the general public may have concerns about the antenna and potential RF source near their dwellings. Crown Castle should have in place a mechanism for taking RF power density levels in nearby dwellings when requested by the members of the general public. In accordance with the San Francisco Public Works Code, Art. 25, Sec. 1527 (a)(2)(C) Crown Castle is responsible for paying a fee of $181.00 to the San Francisco Department of Public Health for this review. Crown Castle will be invoiced by the Department for any outstanding fees during January of each year. Please note that this approval and any conditions apply only to the equipment and installation as described. If any changes in the equipment or any increase in the effective radiated power described above are made, a new review by the Department of Public Health must be conducted.

Planning Department Conditions: 1. Paint antennas, brackets, cable kit cover, cabling, conduit, and equipment enclosures “Sable” by Sherwin Williams (non-glossy) or equivalent. Paint battery backup unit, cabling, conduit, disconnect, and electric meter “Ponder” by Sherwin-Williams (non-glossy) or equivalent. 2. Replace the existing wooden pole for those poles where the primary equipment enclosure and antennas are proposed. 3. Plant and maintain an appropriate street tree. 4. Utilize the narrowest offset (e.g. 4 inches) between the equipment enclosures and pole as allowed by utility regulation. 5. Cabling on pole (including ground buss bar) to be installed in a neat and orderly condition, and without excess loops. 6. Remove raised equipment signage (including filling in manufacturer logo indentations on radio relay units/cabinets) and equipment decals that may be visible from sidewalk and dwellings, unless required by government regulation. 7. Utilize smallest RF warning signage allowed; and place the warning sticker facing out toward street, at a location as close to antenna as is feasible. Sticker shall face away from street, when not facing a nearby window within 15 feet. 8. Remove raised signage (including filling in manufacturer logo indentations on cabinets) and equipment decals that may be visible from sidewalk and dwellings, unless required by government or electric utility regulation. Site (node) identification sticker to use smallest size and lowest visibility location possible (e.g. underside of enclosures using tan background and white lettering). 9. Stack equipment enclosures (not including antenna) as close as allowed by applicable regulation and manufacturer equipment standards. 10. Not utilize any visible flashing indicator lights or similar. 11. Utilize narrowest electric meter (or line drop or wireless metering) allowed.

Within fifteen (15) calendar days from date of the issuance of this notice, any person may appeal the issuance of this permit to the Board of Appeals. Appeals must be filed in person by either the appellant or the appellant’s agent. Generally, the Board of Appeals requires that an appointment be made to file an appeal. For further information regarding the appeal process, or to schedule an appointment, please contact the Board of Appeals in person at 1650 Mission Street, Suite 304 or call 415-575-6880. To obtain additional information concerning the Application and final approval you may contact Sharon James representative of Crown Castle NG West LLC at (408) 468-5553 and [email protected]. You may also contact Public Works at 415-554-5810.

Amanda Higgins Public Works Wireless Program

English: If you need assistance in interpreting this notification, please contact SF311 by calling 3-1-1 (within San Francisco) or at (415) 701-2311 (if outside of San Francisco).

Spanish: Si usted necesita ayuda en la interpretación de esta notificación, por favor ponerse en contacto con SF311 marcando el número 3-1-1 (si está en San Francisco) o al (415) 701-2311 (si está fuera de San Francisco).

Chinese: 如果您需要協助翻译此通知的内容,請致電聯繫SF311,在舊金山内請致電3-11或(415)701-2311(如果舊金山以外)。

Filipino: Kung kailangan ninyo ng tulong sa pag-unawa sa kahulugan ng abisong ito, mangyaring makipag-ugnayan sa SF311 sa pamamagitan ng pagtawag sa 3-1-1 (kung sa loob ng San Francisco) o sa (415) 701-2311 (kung sa labas ng San Francisco).

Aviso de determinación definitiva para aprobar un emplazamiento de la instalación inalámbrica personal SERVICIO DE PERMISO Fecha: 04/13/2016 Solicitud nº .: 15WR-0599 Nombre del solicitante: Crown Castle GN West LLC Ubicación: 1394 35th Ave y 1378 35th Ave San Francisco de Obras Públicas ha aprobado finalmente la solicitud antes mencionada para un alojamiento Zona de Servicio Inalámbrico Personal Permiso en el entorno de 1394 35th Ave y 1378 35th Ave. Una foto en la simulación del Fondo para el Servicio de Telefonía Móvil Personal aprobada se adjunta a la presente. Cada uno de los siguientes departamentos de la Ciudad hizo una determinación de que la solicitud ha cumplido los requisitos aplicables del Código de Obras Públicas. San Francisco Obras Públicas / Oficina de la calle de Uso y Cartografía Departamento de Salud de San Francisco Departamento de Planificación La aprobación final incluye lo siguiente (s): Condiciones de Obras Públicas: 1. Esta recomendación basada en ninguna variación de los dibujos representados y / o simulación de la foto; si una variación es diferente se requiere una nueva presentación. En caso de que la instalación variar de dichas condiciones, se debe volver a someter al Departamento (s) para su posterior revisión y comentarios 2. Los nuevos polos: no hay nuevos polos deben ser montados o colocados en los distritos subterráneas. 3. Abajo Guys: Siga todos los códigos de excavación para obtener los permisos necesarios para la colocación de los chicos abajo. Abajo chico deberá evitar cruzar zonas en conflicto, pero no limitado a las calzadas, frenar rampas. 4. Cumplir con los requisitos del código ADA de federales, estatales, las leyes locales. Asegúrese de camino de la mínima requerida para la anchura libre Ruta de viaje es de cuatro pies. 5. A la conclusión de la obra, proporcionan un conjunto de fotos como construida de la instalación de la oficina de la calle de Uso y Oficina de Permisos Mapping. 6. Mantener una certificación válida de seguros anual y enviará una copia a la Oficina de la calle de Uso y Oficina de Permisos Mapping. Departamento de Condiciones de Salud Pública: 1. Asegúrese de que sigue existiendo no hay áreas de acceso público dentro de los ocho (8) pies de la antena. 2. Asegúrese de que las unidades ION instalados en este lugar son por lo menos 10 pies de distancia de la fachada del edificio más cercano. Además, cualquier equipo asociado con la instalación de polos de esta antena no debe producir un ruido superior a 45 dBA, medido en tres (3) pies de la fachada del edificio residencial más cercana. Esta condición incluiría las baterías de emergencia instalados en 1378 35th Avenue. 3. De conformidad con el Art DPW. 25 requisitos, una vez instalado el nuevo equipo ION, Crown Castle deben tomar medidas de densidad de potencia de RF con la antena que funciona

a plena potencia para verificar el nivel reportado en el Jerrold T. Bushberg, la Salud y el informe de Física Médica Consulting y para asegurar que la FCC nivel de exposición pública no se exceda en cualquier área de acceso público. Esta medida también se debe tomar de nuevo en el momento de la renovación del permiso. 4. Castillo Corona debe ser consciente de que el público en general puede tener preocupaciones acerca de la antena y la fuente de RF potencial de cerca de sus viviendas. Castillo de la corona debe tener un mecanismo para la toma de los niveles de densidad de potencia de RF en las viviendas cercanas cuando sea solicitado por los miembros del público en general. 5. De conformidad con el Código de Obras Públicas de San Francisco, art. 25, Sec. 1527 (a) (2) (C) Castillo Corona es responsable de pagar una cuota de $ 181.00 al Departamento de Salud Pública de San Francisco para esta revisión. Crown Castle será facturado por el Departamento de cualquier tarifa en circulación durante enero de cada año. 6. Tenga en cuenta que esta aprobación y las condiciones que se aplican sólo a los equipos y la instalación como se describe. Si se realiza algún cambio en el equipo o el aumento de la potencia radiada efectiva se ha descrito anteriormente, una nueva revisión por parte del Departamento de Salud Pública debe llevarse a cabo. Planificación del Departamento de Condiciones: 1. antenas pintura, soportes, cubierta de cable del kit, cableado, conductos y cajas de equipo "Sable" de Sherwin Williams (no brillante) o equivalente. Pintar unidad de batería, cables, conductos, desconectar, y medidor de electricidad "Ponder" de Sherwin-Williams (no brillante) o equivalente. 2. Vuelva a colocar el poste de madera existente para esos polos donde se proponen el recinto equipos primarios y antenas. 3. Planta y mantener un árbol de la calle apropiada. 4. Utilizar los estrechos de compensación (por ejemplo 4 pulgadas) entre las carcasas de los equipos y los polos como lo permite la regulación de los servicios. 5. Cableado en la pole (incluidas las aguas subterráneas barra colectora) que se instalará en una condición limpia y ordenada, y sin exceso de bucles. 6. Retire el equipo en relieve (incluyendo el llenado de las muescas del logotipo del fabricante en unidades de radioenlace / gabinetes) y calcomanías de equipos que pueden ser visibles desde la acera y viviendas, menos que sea requerido por la regulación gubernamental. 7. Utilizar más pequeño señalización de advertencia RF permitido; y colocar la etiqueta de advertencia hacia afuera hacia la calle, en un lugar lo más cercano a la antena como sea posible. Etiqueta se la cara lejos de la calle, sin estar frente a una ventana cercana a 15 pies. 8. Quitar elevó señalización (incluyendo el llenado de las muescas del logotipo del fabricante en los armarios) y calcomanías de equipos que pueden ser visibles desde la acera y viviendas, menos que sea requerido por el gobierno o la regulación de servicios eléctricos. El sitio (nodo) pegatina de identificación para utilizar el tamaño más pequeño y el más bajo lugar visibilidad posible (por ejemplo inferior de recintos utilizando tan de fondo y letras blancas). 9. Pila carcasas de los equipos (no incluyendo la antena) tan cerca como sea permitido por las normas de regulación y equipos fabricante aplicables. 10. No utilizar cualquier indicador intermitente visibles o similar. 11. Utilizar más estrecho medidor de electricidad (o caída de línea o la medición inalámbrica)

permitido. Dentro de los quince (15) días calendario a partir de la fecha de la emisión de este aviso, cualquier persona puede apelar la emisión de este permiso a la Junta de Apelaciones. Las apelaciones deben presentarse en persona ya sea por el recurrente o el agente del recurrente. En general, la Junta de Apelaciones requiere que el nombramiento se haga a presentar una apelación. Para más información sobre el proceso de apelación, o para programar una cita, por favor, póngase en contacto con la Junta de Apelaciones en persona en 1650 Mission Street, Suite 304 o llame al 415-575-6880. Para obtener información adicional relativa a la aprobación definitiva de aplicaciones y puede comunicarse con Sharon James representante de Crown Castle GN West LLC al (408) 468 a 5553 y [email protected]. También puede comunicarse con Obras Públicas al 415-554-5810.

PAUNAWA NG FINAL pagpapasiya upang aprubahan ng isang PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY SITE PERMISO Petsa: 2016/04/13 Application No .: 15WR-0599 Pangalan ng Aplikante: Crown Castle NG West LLC Lokasyon: 1394 35th Ave at 1378 35th Ave San Francisco Public Works ay sa wakas naaprubahan ang itaas-reference Application para sa isang Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit sa paligid ng 1394 35th Ave at 1378 35th Ave. A photo-simulation ng mga inaprobahang Personal Wireless Service Facility ay kalakip dito. Ang bawat isa sa mga sumusunod na kagawaran City na ginawa ng isang pagpapasiya na ang Application nasiyahan ang mga naaangkop na mga kinakailangan ng ang Public Works Code. San Francisco Public Works / Bureau of Street Gamitin & Mapping San Francisco Department of Health Planning Department Ang huling pag-apruba ay kinabibilangan ng mga sumusunod na kondisyon (s): Public Works Kundisyon: 1. Ito rekomendasyon batay sa walang pagkakaiba sa kung itinatanghal guhit at / o larawan simulation; kung ang isang pagkakaiba-iba ay iba isang re-submittal ay kinakailangan. Dapat ang pag-install mag-iba mula sinabi kondisyon, dapat itong muling maisusumite sa Kagawaran (s) para sa karagdagang pagsusuri at komento 2. Bagong Poles: walang bagong poles ay erected o inilagay sa ilalim ng lupa mga distrito. 3. Down Guys: Sundin ang lahat excavation code upang makuha ang mga kinakailangang mga pahintulot para sa paglalagay ng pababa guys. Down guy ay kailangang umiwas sa tumatawid magkakasalungat lugar ngunit hindi limitado sa driveways, pigilan ramps. 4. Sumunod sa mga kinakailangan ADA code para Federal, Estado, lokal na batas. Siguraduhin landas ng minimum na kinakailangang malinaw na lapad para sa accessible landas ng paglalakbay ay apat na paa. 5. Sa pagtatapos ng trabaho, magbigay ng isang hanay ng mga bilang built mga larawan ng ang pag-install sa Bureau Street Gamitin & Mapping Permit Office. 6. Panatilihin ang isang may-bisang sertipikasyon ng insurance taun-taon at magpasa ng isang kopya sa Bureau of Street Gamitin & Mapping Permit Office. Department of Public Kundisyon Health: 1. Tiyakin na patuloy na maging walang mga pampublikong lugar sa loob ng walong (8) mga paa ng mga antenna. 2. Tiyakin na ang ION yunit-install sa lokasyon na ito ay hindi bababa sa 10 mga paa mula sa pinakamalapit na gusali façade. Gayundin, ang anumang kagamitan na kaugnay sa ang poste pag-install ng antena na ito ay hindi dapat gumawa ng isang ingay na higit sa 45 dBA bilang sinusukat sa tatlong (3) mga paa mula sa pinakamalapit na tirahan gusali façade. Kondisyon na ito ay isama ang backup baterya-install sa 1378 35th Avenue. 3. Alinsunod sa DPW Art. 25 mga kinakailangan, sa sandaling ang bagong ION kagamitan ay nai-install, Crown Castle ay dapat kumuha ng RF measurements kapangyarihan density na may antena operating sa buong kapangyarihan upang i-verify ang antas na naiulat sa sa Jerrold T. Bushberg, Kalusugan at Medikal Physics Consulting ulat at upang matiyak na ang FCC

pampublikong exposure level ay hindi lumampas sa anumang pampublikong ligar. Pagsukat na ito ay dapat din ay dadalhin muli sa panahon ng pag-renew permit. 4. Crown Castle dapat magkaroon ng kamalayan na ang pangkalahatang publiko ay maaaring magkaroon ng mga alalahanin tungkol sa antena at potensyal RF pinagmulan malapit sa kanilang mga tahanan. Crown Castle ay dapat magkaroon sa lugar ng isang mekanismo para sa pagkuha ng RF antas ng kapangyarihan density sa kalapit dwellings kapag hiniling ng mga miyembro ng pangkalahatang publiko. 5. Alinsunod sa San Francisco Public Works Code, Art. 25, Sec. 1527 (a) (2) (C) Crown Castle ay responsable para sa pagbabayad ng isang bayad na $ 181,00 sa San Francisco Kagawaran ng Pampublikong Kalusugan para sa pagsusuri. Crown Castle ay invoice ng Kagawaran para sa anumang natitirang mga bayad sa panahon ng Enero ng bawat taon. 6. Mangyaring tandaan na ito approval at anumang mga kondisyon na angkop lamang sa mga kagamitan at pag-install tulad ng inilarawan. Kung ang anumang mga pagbabago sa mga kagamitan o anumang pagtaas sa ang epektibong radiated kapangyarihan na inilarawan sa itaas ay ginawa, ang isang bagong pagsusuri sa pamamagitan ng Department of Public Health ay dapat isagawa. Planning Kundisyon Department: 1. Paint antennas, bracket, cable kit cover, paglalagay ng kable, padaluyan, at kagamitan enclosures "Sable" by Sherwin Williams (non-glossy) o katumbas. Kulayan battery backup unit, paglalagay ng kable, conduit, idiskonekta, at electric meter "Magmuni-muni" sa pamamagitan ng Sherwin-Williams (non-glossy) o katumbas. 2. Palitan ang umiiral na kahoy na poste para sa mga poles kung saan ang pangunahing kagamitan enclosure at antennas ay iminungkahi. 3. Plant at mapanatili ang isang naaangkop na puno ng kalye. 4. Gamitin ang narrowest offset (halimbawa 4 pulgada) sa pagitan ng enclosures kagamitan at poste gaya ng ipinahihintulot ng utility regulasyon. 5. Paglalagay ng kable sa poste (kabilang ang lupa maghalikan bar) upang mai-install sa isang kapong baka at maayos na kondisyon, at walang labis loops. 6. Alisin itinaas equipment signage (kabilang pagpuno sa tagagawa logo indentations sa radio relay yunit / cabinets) at kagamitan decals na maaaring makikita mula sidewalk at dwellings, maliban kung kinakailangan ng pamahalaan regulasyon. 7. Gamitin pinakamaliit RF babala signage pinapayagan; at ilagay ang babala sticker nakaharap sa dakong kalye, sa isang lokasyon na malapit sa antena bilang ay magagawa. Sticker ay mukha ang layo mula sa kalye, kapag hindi nakaharap sa isang kalapit na window sa loob ng 15 mga paa. 8. Alisin itinaas signage (kabilang pagpuno sa tagagawa logo indentations sa cabinets) at kagamitan decals na maaaring makikita mula sidewalk at dwellings, maliban kung kinakailangan ng pamahalaan o electric utility regulasyon. Site (node) identification sticker gamitin pinakamaliit na laki at pinakamababang lokasyon visibility posibleng (halimbawa underside ng enclosures gamit tan na background at puting pagkakasulat). 9. Stack kagamitan enclosures (hindi kabilang ang antena) mas malapit hangga't pinapayagan ng naaangkop na regulasyon at tagagawa ng kagamitan pamantayan. 10. Hindi bumuo ng anumang nakikitang kumikislap indicator lights o katulad na. 11. Gamitin narrowest electric meter (o linya drop o wireless sumusukat) pinapayagan.

Sa loob ng labinlimang araw (15) kalendaryo mula sa petsa ng pag-isyu ng paunawang ito, ang anumang mga tao ay maaaring mag-apela sa pagpapalabas ng permit sa Board of Appeals. Appeals ay dapat isampa sa tao sa pamamagitan ng alinman sa appellant o ahente ang appellant ni. Sa pangkalahatan, ang Board of Appeals ay nangangailangan na ng appointment na ginawa upang maghain ng apela. Para sa karagdagang impormasyon tungkol sa proseso ng apela, o mag-iskedyul ng appointment, tumawag sa Board of Appeals nang personal sa 1650 Mission Street, Suite 304 o tumawag 415-575-6880. Upang makakuha ng karagdagang impormasyon tungkol sa Application at final approval maaari mong kontakin Sharon James kinatawan ng Crown Castle NG West LLC sa (408) 468-5553 at [email protected]. Maaari mo ring kontakin Public Works sa 415-554-5810.

最后决定的公告,批准个人无线服务设施用地许可证 日期:2016年4月13日 申请号:15WR-0599 申请人名称:冠城NG西LLC 位置:1394第35大街和第35届1378大道 旧金山公共工程终于批准于1394年第35大街和第35届1378大道附近的个人无线服务设施本站允 许上面引用的应用 经批准的个人无线服务设施的照片模拟附后。 下面的每个城市部门作出的应用满足了公共工程规则的适用要求的决心。 使用街测绘与旧金山公共工程/局 卫生旧金山系 企划部 最终批准包括以下条件(S): 公共建设条件: 1.根据没有从所描述的附图和/或照片的仿真变化这一建议;如果变化是不同的,需要重新提交。如 果安装从上述条件不同,应重新提交给部(S)作进一步审查和评论 2.新的波兰人:没有新的电线杆应竖立或放置在地下的地区。 3.打倒家伙:遵循所有开挖代码以获得必要的许可证下来的家伙位置。向下家伙应避免穿越冲突 的领域,但不限于车道,遏制坡道。 4.与联邦,州,地方法律ADA代码要求。制作所需的最小净宽确保路径有无障碍通道为四脚。 5.在工作结束,提供一整套的安装主席团街用途及测绘许可证办公室的竣工照片。 6.每年维持保险的有效证明,并转发一份给街用途及测绘许可证办公室的局。 公共卫生条件的部门: 1.确保继续在八(8)脚天线没有开放的领域。 2.确保安装在该位置的ION单位距离最近的建筑立面至少有10英尺。另外,作为在三(3)脚从最 近住宅建筑外墙测量与磁极安装这种天线的相关联的任何设备不应该产生超过45分贝的噪声。这 种情况将包括安装在1378第35大道上的备用电池。 3.根据DPW艺术。 25的要求,一旦安装了新的离子设备,冠城必须采取的RF功率密度测量与天 线在满功率,以验证在杰罗尔德T. Bushberg报告的水平运行,健康与医学物理学咨询报告,并确 保在FCC公众暴露水平是不以任何公开访问面积突破。这种测量方法也必须在换证的时候再取。 4.冠城应该知道,一般公众可能对天线和潜在的RF源附近其住所的关注。冠城应该有地方时,受 到广大市民的成员要求采取在附近的住所RF功率密度水平的机制。 5.根据旧金山公共工程典艺术。 25秒。 1527(A)(2)(C),Crown Castle公司负责支付的 $ 181.00的费用,以公共卫生的旧金山部门对本次审查。冠城将由部门任何拖欠费用每年一月份 开具发票。 6.请注意,这批准,任何条件的描述只适用于设备和安装。如果设备或上述的有效辐射功率的增 加任何更改,公共卫生部新的审查必须进行。 企划部条件:

1.涂料天线,支架,电缆套件盖,电缆,管道和设备外壳“紫貂”由宣威 - 威廉姆斯(非光面) 或同等学历。由宣威(非光面)或同等涂料电池备份单元,电缆,管道,断开连接,电表“思 考”。 2.更换为其中主设备外壳和天线提出了那些极现有的木柱。 3.植物和保持适当的行道树。 4.利用最窄抵消设备外壳和极之间(例如4英寸)所允许的公用事业监管。 被安装在一个整齐有序状态5.布线上极(包括地面汇流条),而没有过量环路。 6.取下凸起标志的设备(包括无线电中继台/机柜制造商中的标志压痕灌装)和设备贴花,可能是 从人行道和住宅可见的,如非特别需要政府的监管。 7.利用允许最小RF警示标牌;并放置警告标签朝外对着街道上,尽量靠近天线,是可行的位置。贴 纸将面临来自街之隔,当第15英尺的范围内没有面临附近的窗口。 8.拆下凸起的标志(包括橱柜制造商的标志凹陷填充)和设备贴花,可能是从人行道和住宅可见 的,除非因政府和电力监管。网站(节点)的识别贴纸用最小的规模和能见度最低位置可能(例 如,使用棕褐色背景,白色字体机箱底部)。 9.栈设备罩(不包括天线)接近所允许的适用法规和制造商的设备标准。 10.不利用任何可见闪烁的指示灯或相似。 11.利用最窄电表(或线路压降或无线测光)允许的。 在十五,从发行该通知之日起15个日历日内,任何人可以提出上诉本次发行许可证上诉委员会。 上诉必须亲自由上诉人或上诉人的代理人提出。一般来说,上诉委员会要求预约提出,要提起上 诉。有关上诉程序的更多信息,或预约,请与上诉委员会的人在1650团街,304套房或致电415575-6880。 要获取有关应用程序和最终批准您可以联系沙龙詹姆斯代表冠城NG西LLC(408)468-5553,并 [email protected]的附加信息。您也可以在415-554-5810联系公共工程。

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C

1789 -016 KEVIN & CHUNG SUSIE M ROMANO 1379 34TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -017 CURTIS C & PEARL C LIN 1383 34TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -018C JOSE B & NINA R DELGADO 2920 JUDAH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -018D GEK K LOGAN 2926 JUDAH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -018E GONZALO D & VICTORIANA TOLENTINO 2932 JUDAH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -018F SAM S S & JEANNIE H J WOO 2938 JUDAH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -018G BENJAMIN P DURBIN 2944 JUDAH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -018H LOUIS FAI MING LAM 810 AHWANEE DR MILBRAE CA 94030

1789 -018H OCCUPANT 1394 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -018H OCCUPANT 1396 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -018I SUI YING CHIN 1386 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -018I OCCUPANT 1388 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -019 ROSARIO FAMILY LIVING TRUST 1382 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -021 JORDAN & ELIZABETH MANG KANTOR 1374 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -022 PAN FAMILY REVOC TR 2004 1370 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -022 OCCUPANT 1372 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1790 -010 BEN YOUNG LEE 1379 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1790 -010A CONRAD CUONG TRAN 1383 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1790 -010B REVOCABLE TRUST OF JUNE 13, 20 1387 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1790 -010C LAURETA C VENENCIANO 1391 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1790 -010D ZHUN YONG HUO 3000 JUDAH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1790 -010D OCCUPANT 3010 JUDAH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1790 -010N KWONG T & WENDY CHAN 1371 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1790 -010O LISA J ARJES 1375 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1818 -001 SAMUEL & CATHERINE LUK 944 MONTEREY BLVD SAN FRANCISCO CA 94127

1818 -001 OCCUPANT 3001 JUDAH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1818 -001 OCCUPANT 3001A JUDAH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1818 -001 OCCUPANT 3015 JUDAH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1818 -001 OCCUPANT 3015A JUDAH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1818 -001A JOHN & MOORE SHANNA GUMINA 1407 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1818 -001B BRIAN C CHO 1614 25TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1818 -001B OCCUPANT 1411 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1819 -038 JIMMY M & GRACE LEUNG PO BOX 1467 OAKLAND CA 94604

1819 -038 OCCUPANT 1412 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1819 -038 OCCUPANT 1414 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1819 -039 SABRINA ROYCE 2636 JUDAH ST #110 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1819 -039 OCCUPANT 1406 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1819 -039 OCCUPANT 1408 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1819 -039A IRENE BORNELEIT 188 CROMWELL RD LONDON UK

1819 -039A OCCUPANT 1400 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1819 -039A OCCUPANT 1402 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1819 -039A OCCUPANT 2951 JUDAH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1819 -040 KENNETH PENG 2939 JUDAH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94123

1819 -040 OCCUPANT 2941 JUDAH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1819 -041 JOHNSON L & MARGARET WONG 80 VALDEZ AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94112

1819 -041 OCCUPANT 2933 JUDAH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1819 -041 OCCUPANT 2935 JUDAH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1819 -042 PAC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 1 MARKET SPEAR TOWER #40 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105

1789 -012 ELBERT M LEWIS 1363 34TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -013 WINIFRED R GLYNN 5010 GEARY BLVD SAN FRANCISCO CA 94118

1789 -014 BING & YIHUAN CHEN 1371 34TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -015 SUSIE M CHUNG 1379 34TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -018H LOUIS FAI MING LAM 810 AHWAHNEE DR MILLBRAE CA 94030

1789 -020 SHARON C MCCARTHY 306 24TH ST HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254

1789 -023 KEVITT R DAY 3813 DRAKESHIRE DR MODESTO CA 95356

1789 -024 VICTORIA & WANG JONATHAN H ZHU 1322 26TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -025 NORMAN & HUTCHINSON BREND TUCK 1358 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -026 DEA FAMILY TRUST 134 19TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121

1790 -009B CHI MING & LAI SHAN TSE 1355 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1790 -009C GRACE YAT-MUN CHAN 1359 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1790 -009D ERIC D HASSMAN 211 STEWART ST GREENVILLE SC 29605

1790 -010M CHRISTOS & LISA K KONSTANTINID 1367 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -013 TENANT 1367 34TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -015 TENANT 1375 34TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -018H TENANT 1394 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -020 TENANT 1378 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -025 TENANT 1358 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1789 -026 TENANT 1354 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1790 -009D TENANT 1363 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

1790 -010M TENANT 1367 35TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

PRESIDENT GREATER WEST PORTAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN PO BOX 27116 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94127

ANNI CHUNG SELF-HELP FOR THE ELDERLY 407 SANSOME ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111

KATY TANG BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIST 4 1 DR CARLTON B GOODLETT PL RM 244 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102

MARY ANNE MILLER SPEAK (SUNSET-PARKSIDE EDUCATION & ACTION COMMITTEE 1329 7TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

BRENT PLATER WILD EQUITY INSTITUTE 474 VALENCIA ST SUITE 295 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103

FLO KIMMERLING MIS-SUNSET NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC 1282 26TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR A PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY SITE PERMIT Date: 1/20/2016 Application No.: 15WR-0599 Applicant Name: Crown Castle NG West LLC th th Location: 1394 35 Ave and 1378 35 Ave Public Works has tentatively approved the Application by Crown Castle NG West LLC for a th th Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit in the vicinity of: 1394 35 Ave and 1378 35 Ave. If approved, the Applicant may install a Personal Wireless Service Facility at this location. A photo-simulation of the proposed Personal Wireless Service Facility is attached hereto. Pursuant to San Francisco Public Works Code § 1513, you have 20 calendar days from the later of the date of this letter or the postmark to file a protest of the Application to Public Works. Your protest will be rejected it if is not filed on time. If a timely protest is submitted, Public Works will hold a public hearing to determine whether to grant the Application. Public Works will notify you at a later date of the date and time for the hearing. Your protest may include a claim that the Planning Department should impose as a condition on the issuance of the permit that the proposed Personal Wireless Service Facility not obstruct the view from or light into any adjacent residential windows. (See Public Works Code § 1509(b)(2).) If your protest contains such a claim, please include with your protest photographs depicting the potential obstruction of the view or light from your windows so that the Planning Department can evaluate this aspect of your protest. Approval of the proposed Personal Wireless Services Facility has been recommended by: San Francisco Public Works/ Bureau Street Use & Mapping San Francisco Department of Health San Francisco Planning Department The tentative approval includes the following condition(s) that have been accepted by Applicant: San Francisco Public Works Conditions: 1. This recommendation is based on no variation from the depicted drawings and/or photo simulation; if a variation is different a re-submittal is required. Should the installation vary from said conditions, it should be resubmitted to Department(s) for further review and comment 2. New Poles: no new poles shall be erected or placed in underground districts. 3. Down Guys: Follow all excavation codes to obtain the necessary permits for placement of down guys. Down guy shall avoid crossing conflicting areas but not limited to driveways, curb ramps. 4. Comply with ADA code requirements for Federal, State, local laws. Make sure path of minimum required clear width for accessible path of travel is four feet. 5. At the conclusion of the work, provide a set of as built photos of the installation to the Bureau Street Use & Mapping Permit Office. 6. Maintain a valid certification of insurance annually and forward a copy to the Bureau Street Use & Mapping Permit Office.

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO Customer Service

Teamwork

Continuous Improvement

Department of Public Health Conditions: 1. Ensure that there continues to be no publicly accessible areas within eight (8) feet of the antenna. 2. Ensure that the ION units installed at this location are at least 10 feet from the nearest building façade. Also, any equipment associated with the pole installation of this antenna should not produce a noise in excess of 45 dBA as measured at three (3) feet from the nearest residential building façade. This condition would include the backup batteries installed at 1378 35th Avenue. 3. In accordance with the DPW Art. 25 requirements, once the new ION equipment is installed, Crown Castle must take RF power density measurements with the antenna operating at full power to verify the level reported in the Jerrold T. Bushberg, Health and Medical Physics Consulting report and to ensure that the FCC public exposure level is not exceeded in any publicly accessible area. This measurement must also be taken again at the time of the permit renewal. 4. Crown Castle should be aware that the general public may have concerns about the antenna and potential RF source near their dwellings. Crown Castle should have in place a mechanism for taking RF power density levels in nearby dwellings when requested by the members of the general public. 5. In accordance with the San Francisco Public Works Code, Art. 25, Sec. 1527 (a)(2)(C) Crown Castle is responsible for paying a fee of $181.00 to the San Francisco Department of Public Health for this review. Crown Castle will be invoiced by the Department for any outstanding fees during January of each year. 6. Please note that this approval and any conditions apply only to the equipment and installation as described. If any changes in the equipment or any increase in the effective radiated power described above are made, a new review by the Department of Public Health must be conducted. Planning Department Conditions: 1. Paint antennas, brackets, cable kit cover, cabling, conduit, and equipment enclosures “Sable” by Sherwin Williams (non-glossy) or equivalent. Paint battery backup unit, cabling, conduit, disconnect, and electric meter “Ponder” by Sherwin-Williams (non-glossy) or equivalent. 2. Replace the existing wooden pole for those poles where the primary equipment enclosure and antennas are proposed. 3. Plant and maintain an appropriate street tree. 4. Utilize the narrowest offset (e.g. 4 inches) between the equipment enclosures and pole as allowed by utility regulation. 5. Cabling on pole (including ground buss bar) to be installed in a neat and orderly condition, and without excess loops. 6. Remove raised equipment signage (including filling in manufacturer logo indentations on radio relay units/cabinets) and equipment decals that may be visible from sidewalk and dwellings, unless required by government regulation. 7. Utilize smallest RF warning signage allowed; and place the warning sticker facing out toward street, at a location as close to antenna as is feasible. Sticker shall face away from street, when not facing a nearby window within 15 feet. 8. Remove raised signage (including filling in manufacturer logo indentations on cabinets) and equipment decals that may be visible from sidewalk and dwellings, unless required by government or electric utility regulation. Site (node) identification sticker to use smallest size and lowest visibility location possible (e.g. underside of enclosures using tan background and white lettering). 9. Stack equipment enclosures (not including antenna) as close as allowed by applicable regulation and manufacturer equipment standards. 10. Not utilize any visible flashing indicator lights or similar. 11. Utilize narrowest electric meter (or line drop or wireless metering) allowed.

The Applicant does not know at this time whether it will file an Application for a permit to modify the proposed Personal Wireless Service Facility at any time during the term of the Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit. Any protest must be based on one or more of the following grounds: 1. The Department of Public Health incorrectly determined that the Application complies with the Public Health Compliance Standard (see Public Works Code § 1507). 2. The Planning Department incorrectly determined that the Application meets the applicable Compatibility Standard (see Public Works Code § 1509).

3. The Application does not comply with any other requirement for obtaining a Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permit. 4. The Applicant intends to modify the Personal Wireless Service Facility after the permit is issued in a manner that would not comply with the applicable Compatibility Standard. For frequently asked questions, please visit www.sf-planning.org/wireless. To obtain additional information concerning the Application, you may contact any of the following: Applicant Sharon James Office: (408) 468-5553 Cell: (408) 426-6629 [email protected]

Public Works Amanda Higgins (415) 554-5343

To submit comments, support, or protest, please visit the Public Works website at the following address: bsm.sfdpw.org and click “Comment on Permit” and enter “15wr-0599.” Alternatively, you can send written comments to: San Francisco Public Works Bureau of Street-use and Mapping rd 1155 Market Street, 3 Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Attention: Amanda Higgins In order to receive correspondence from Public Works, the Applicant, and other interested parties, please include with your protest all of the following information: Street address, daytime telephone number, and electronic mail address [if available].

Amanda Higgins Public Works Wireless Program

English: If you need assistance in interpreting this notification, please contact SF311 by calling 3-1-1 (within San Francisco) or at (415) 701-2311 (if outside of San Francisco).

Spanish: Si usted necesita ayuda en la interpretación de esta notificación, por favor ponerse en contacto con SF311 marcando el número 3-1-1 (si está en San Francisco) o al (415) 701-2311 (si está fuera de San Francisco).

Chinese: 如果您需要協助翻译此通知的内容,請致電聯繫SF311,在舊金山内請致電3-11或(415)701-2311(如果舊金山以外)。

Filipino: Kung kailangan ninyo ng tulong sa pag-unawa sa kahulugan ng abisong ito, mangyaring makipag-ugnayan sa SF311 sa pamamagitan ng pagtawag sa 3-1-1 (kung sa loob ng San Francisco) o sa (415) 701-2311 (kung sa labas ng San Francisco).

15wr‐0599 TA  Spanish:  AVISO DE APROBACIÓN PROVISIONAL DE SOLICITUD DE PERSONAL DE SERVICIO INALÁMBRICO DE SITIO INSTALACIONES DEL PERMISO  Fecha: 01/20/2016 Solicitud No .: 15WR-0599 Nombre del solicitante: Crown Castle GN West LLC Ubicación: 1394 35th Ave y 1378 35th Ave Obras Públicas ha aprobado provisionalmente la solicitud por Crown Castle GN West LLC por un Permiso de Instalación Servicios Móviles Personales Sitio en la vecindad de: 1394 35th Ave y 1378 35th Ave. Si es aprobado, el solicitante podrá instalar un Centro de Servicios Móviles Personales en este lugar. Una foto en la simulación del Fondo para Servicios Móviles Personales propuesta se adjunta. De conformidad con San Francisco de Obras Públicas Code § 1513, usted tiene 20 días calendario a partir de la tarde de la fecha de esta carta o el matasellos de presentar una protesta por la aplicación de Obras Públicas. Su protesta será rechazada si no se presente a tiempo. Si se presenta una protesta oportuna, Obras Públicas llevará a cabo una audiencia pública para determinar si se concede la aplicación. Obras Públicas le notificarán en una fecha posterior a la fecha y hora para la audiencia. Su protesta puede incluir una alegación de que el Departamento de Planificación debe imponer como condición de la emisión del permiso de que el Fondo para Servicios Móviles Personales propuesta no obstruya la vista desde o luz en las ventanas residenciales adyacentes. (Véase Obras Públicas Code § 1509 (b) (2)). Si su protesta contiene tal afirmación, por favor incluya con tus fotografías de protesta representan la obstrucción potencial de la vista o la luz de las ventanas para que el Departamento de Planificación puede evaluar este aspecto de su protesta. La aprobación del Fondo para Servicios Wireless Personal propuesto ha sido recomendado por: San Francisco Obras Públicas / Oficina Calle Uso y Cartografía Departamento de Salud de San Francisco Departamento de Planificación de San Francisco La aprobación provisional incluye la siguiente condición (s) que han sido aceptadas por el solicitante: San Francisco de Obras Públicas Condiciones: 1. Esta recomendación se basa en ninguna variación en los dibujos representados y / o simulación de la foto; si una variación es diferente se requiere una re-presentación. En caso de que la instalación varían de dichas condiciones, se debe volver a presentarse a Departamento (s) para su posterior revisión y comentarios 2. Nuevos polos: no hay nuevos polos se erigirán o colocados en los distritos subterráneas. 3. Abajo Chicos: Siga todos los códigos de excavación para obtener los permisos necesarios para la colocación de los chicos abajo. Abajo chico evitarán cruzar las zonas en conflicto, pero no limitado a las calzadas, frenar rampas.

4. Cumplir con los requisitos del código ADA para Federal, Estado, las leyes locales. Asegúrese de camino de la mínima requerida anchura libre para la Ruta de viaje es de cuatro pies. 5. A la conclusión de la obra, proporcionan un conjunto de fotos como construida de la instalación de la Oficina de la calle de Uso y Cartografía Oficina de Permisos. 6. Mantener una certificación válida de seguros anualmente y enviar una copia a la Oficina de la calle de Uso y Cartografía Oficina de Permisos. Departamento de Condiciones de Salud Pública: 1. Asegúrese de que sigue existiendo sin áreas de acceso público dentro de los ocho (8) pies de la antena. 2. Asegúrese de que las unidades ION instalados en este lugar son por lo menos 10 pies de distancia de la fachada del edificio más cercano. Además, cualquier equipo asociado con la instalación de polos de esta antena no debe producir un ruido superior a 45 dBA, medido en tres (3) pies de la fachada del edificio residencial más cercana. Esta condición incluiría las baterías de emergencia instalados en 1378 35th Avenue. 3. De conformidad con el Art DPW. 25 requisitos, una vez instalado el nuevo equipo ION, Crown Castle deben tomar mediciones de densidad de potencia de RF con la antena que funciona a plena potencia para verificar el nivel reportado en el Jerrold T. Bushberg, Salud y el informe Física Médica Asesoramiento y para asegurar que la FCC nivel de exposición pública no se supere en cualquier área de acceso público. Esta medida también se debe tomar de nuevo en el momento de la renovación del permiso. 4. Castillo Corona debe ser consciente de que el público en general puede tener preocupaciones acerca de la antena y la fuente de RF potencial de cerca de sus viviendas. Crown Castle debe contar con un mecanismo para la toma de los niveles de densidad de potencia de RF en las viviendas cercanas cuando sea solicitado por los miembros del público en general. 5. De conformidad con el Código de Obras Públicas de San Francisco, art. 25, Sec. 1.527 (a) (2) (C) Castillo Corona es responsable de pagar una cuota de $ 181.00 para el Departamento de Salud Pública de San Francisco para esta revisión. Crown Castle se facturará por el Departamento de las cuotas pendientes en enero de cada año. 6. Tenga en cuenta que esta aprobación y las condiciones que se aplican sólo a los equipos y la instalación como se describe. Si se realizan cambios en el equipo o el aumento de la potencia radiada efectiva descrito anteriormente, una nueva revisión por parte del Departamento de Salud Pública debe llevarse a cabo. Planificación del Departamento de Condiciones: 1. Pinte las antenas, soportes, cubierta de cable kit, cableado, conductos y recintos de equipos "Sable" de Sherwin Williams (sin brillo) o equivalente. Pintar unidad de batería, cables, conductos, desconectar, y medidor de electricidad "Ponder" de Sherwin-Williams (sin brillo) o equivalente. 2. Vuelva a colocar el poste de madera existente para esos polos donde se proponen el recinto y antenas equipo primario. 3. Planta y mantener un árbol de la calle correspondiente. 4. Utilizar los estrechos de compensación (por ejemplo, 4 pulgadas) entre los gabinetes de equipos y polo de lo permitido por la regulación de servicios públicos.

5. El cableado en la pole (incluyendo barra colectora de tierra) que se instalará en un estado limpio y ordenado, y sin exceso de bucles. 6. Retire la señalización equipos elevada (incluyendo rellenar fabricante logo hendiduras en las unidades de radioenlaces / gabinetes) y calcomanías de equipos que pueden ser visibles desde la acera y viviendas, a menos que requerido por la regulación gubernamental. 7. Utilizar más pequeño señalización de advertencia RF permitido; y colocar la pegatina de advertencia hacia afuera hacia la calle, en un lugar lo más próximo a la antena como sea posible. Pegatina será la cara lejos de la calle, cuando no está frente a una ventana cercana a 15 pies. 8. Retire levantó señalización (incluyendo rellenar logo fabricante muescas en armarios) y calcomanías de equipos que pueden ser visibles desde la acera y viviendas, a no ser requerido por el gobierno o la regulación de servicios eléctricos. Sitio (nodo) etiqueta de identificación para utilizar el tamaño más pequeño y más bajo posible ubicación visibilidad (por ejemplo inferior de recintos utilizando fondo bronceado y letras blancas). 9. recintos equipos Stack (sin incluir la antena) tan cerca como sea permitido por las normas de regulación y equipos fabricante aplicables. 10. No utilizan ningún indicador intermitente visibles o similar. 11. Utilizar estrecho medidor eléctrico (o caída de línea o la medición inalámbrica) permitió. El solicitante no sabe en este momento si va a presentar una solicitud de un permiso para modificar el proyecto de Fondo para Servicios Móviles Personales en cualquier momento durante la vigencia del servicio Wireless Personal Fondo Permiso Sitio. Cualquier protesta debe basarse en uno o más de los siguientes motivos: 1. El Departamento de Salud Pública determinó incorrectamente que la solicitud cumple los Cumplimiento Estándar Salud Pública (ver Obras Públicas Code § 1507). 2. El Departamento de Planificación determinó incorrectamente que la solicitud cumple los Compatibilidad Norma aplicable (ver Obras Públicas Code § 1509). 3. La solicitud no cumple con cualquier otro requisito para la obtención de un Permiso de Instalación Servicios Móviles Personales Sitio. 4. El solicitante tiene la intención de modificar el Fondo para Servicios Móviles personal después del permiso es expedido de manera que no se cumple con la compatibilidad estándar aplicable. Para las preguntas más frecuentes, por favor visite www.sf-planning.org/wireless. Para obtener información adicional sobre la aplicación, puede comunicarse con cualquiera de los siguientes: Solicitante Sharon James Oficina: (408) 468-5553 Celular: (408) 426-6629 Trabajos públicos Amanda Higgins (415) 554-5343 [email protected] Para enviar comentarios, soporte, o protestar, por favor visite el sitio web de Obras Públicas en

la siguiente dirección: bsm.sfdpw.org y haga clic en "Opina sobre Permiso" y escriba "15wr-0599." Alternativamente, usted puede enviar sus comentarios por escrito a: San Francisco Obras Públicas Oficina de la calle de uso y Cartografía 1155 Market Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Atención: Amanda Higgins Con el fin de recibir correspondencia de Obras Públicas, el solicitante, y otras partes interesadas, por favor incluya con su protesta toda la siguiente información: la dirección de la calle, número de teléfono durante el día, y la dirección de correo electrónico [si está disponible].

Chinese:  应用研究在个人无线服务设施用地许可证暂定核准通知书  日期:2016年1月20日 申请号:15WR-0599 申请人名称:冠城吴西有限责任公司 地点:1394第35大道和第35届1378大道 公共建设已初步批准了冠城吴西有限责任公司的个人无线服务设施用地许可证在附近的应用:13 94第35大道和第35届1378大道如果获得批准,申请人可在此位置安装一个个人无线服务设施。 一种光模拟所提出的个人无线服务设施附后。 根据旧金山公共工程代码§1513,你必须从后来这封信或文件的应用程序,以公共工程的抗议邮 戳之日起20个日历天。你的抗议将被拒绝,如果没有申请上的时 间。如果及时抗议被提交,公共工程将举行公开听证会,以决定是否批准申请。公共工程将在日 期和时间为听证日后通知您。 你的抗议可能包括规划部门应当对作为条件的发行,所提出的个人无线服务设施不得妨碍从视图 或轻到任何相邻的住宅窗户许可证的索赔。 (参见公共工程代码§1509(B)(2)。)如果你的抗议包含了这样的要求,请在您抗议的照片 描绘的观点的潜在障碍或灯光从你的窗口,以便规划部门可以评估这个方面你的抗议。 批准所提出的个人无线服务设施已建议: 旧金山公共工程/局街用途及制图 卫生旧金山系 旧金山企划部 暂定批准包括以下条件(S)已接受申请: 旧金山公共建设条件: 1.本建议是基于没有从描绘图纸和/或照片的模拟变化;如果一个变化是不同的重新提交是必需的。 如果安装从上述条件而异,应重新提交部(S)作进一步审查和评论 2.新的波兰人:没有新的电线杆应竖立或放置在地下的地区。 3.向下家伙:遵循所有开挖代码以获得必要的许可下来球员的位置。向下家伙应避免穿越冲突的 领域,但不限于车道,遏制坡道。 4.符合ADA规范要求联邦,州,地方法律。确保所需的最小净宽路径无障碍通道为四脚。 5.在工作结束时,提供了一组如内置照片安装主席团街用途及测绘许可证的Office。 6.每年维持保险的有效证明及复印件转发给局街用途及测绘许可证办公室。 公共卫生条件的部门: 1.确保继续在八(8)脚的天线没有公众开放地区。 2.确保安装在该位置的ION单元至少10英尺距离最近的建筑立面。另外,在三(3)英尺测量距离 最近的住宅楼的外观和极安装这种天线相关的任何设备不得产生超过45分贝的噪声。这种情况将 包括安装在1378第35大道上的备用电池。

3.根据DPW艺术。 25的要求,一旦新的离子设备被安装,冠城必须采取RF功率密度测量,以全功率,以验证报告在 杰罗尔德T. Bushberg水平天线工作时,健康与医学物理咨询报告,并确保在FCC公开曝光水平不超过任何可 公开访问的区域。这种测量方法也必须在换证的时候再取。 4.冠城应该知道,一般公众可能对天线和潜在的RF源接近其住所的关注。冠城应该有一个适当的 机制,在广大市民的成员要求采取的射频功率密度水平附近的住所。 5.根据旧金山公共工程代码,艺术。 25秒。 1527(A)(2)(C),Crown Castle公司负责支付的$ 181.00的费用,以公共卫生的旧金山部门对本次审查。冠城将由部门任何拖欠费用每年一月份开 具发票。 6.请注意,这个核准和任何条件如所述仅适用于设备和安装。如果在设备或在上述有效辐射功率 的增加作出任何改变,公共卫生署一个新的审查必须进行。 企划部的条件: 1.涂料天线,支架,电缆套件盖板,电缆,管道和设备外壳“紫貂”由宣威 威廉姆斯(非镜面)或同等学历。由宣威(非镜面)或同等涂料电池备份单元,布线,管道,断 开连接,电表“思考”。 2.更换现有的木棍为那些极的主设备外壳和天线提出了哪里。 3.植物和保持适当的行道树。 4.利用最窄抵消设备外壳和杆之间(如4英寸)所允许的公用事业监管。 被安装在一个整齐有序状态5.布线上极(包括地面汇流条),而没有多余的循环。 6.卸下提高了设备 的标志(包括无线电中继台/柜填补了制造商的标志凹陷)和设备贴花可从人行道和住宅可见的, 如非特别需要政府调控。 7.利用允许的最小的射频警示标牌;并放置警示标签朝外对着街道,在一个位置靠近天线是可行的 。贴纸将面临远离街头,在15英尺内没有面向附近的一个窗口。 8.删除活动场所(包括填充在橱柜制造商的标志凹陷)和设备贴花可从人行道和住宅可见的,如 非特别需要政府和电力监管。网站(节点)标识贴纸用最小的尺寸和最低能见度的位置可能的( 使用棕褐色的背景和白色字体外壳如下面)。 9.堆叠设备的外壳(不含天线)所允许的适用法规和制造商设备的标准接近。 10.没有利用任何可见闪烁的指示灯或相似。 11.利用最窄电表(或线路压降或无线计量)允许的。 申请人不知道在这个时候是否会提出申请的许可证个人无线服务设施用地许可证期限内修改建议 的个人无线服务设施在任何时间。 任何抗议必须基于以下一个理由或多个: 1.公共卫生部错误地判断出申请符合公共卫生符合标准(参见公共工程代码§1507)。 2.规划署错误地确定应用程序符合适用的兼容标准(参见公共工程代码§1509)。

3.应用程序不符合任何其他要求获得个人无线服务设施用地许可证。 4.申请人拟修改个人无线服务设施在不符合适用的兼容标准的方式发出许可证后。 对于常见问题,请访问www.sf-planning.org/wireless。 要获取有关应用程序的更多信息,您可以联系以下任何一项: 申请人 莎朗∙詹姆斯 办公室:(408)468-5553 手机:(408)426-6629 公共工程 阿曼达∙希金斯 (415)554-5343 [email protected] 要提交意见,支持或抗议,请访问公共工程网站,地址如下: bsm.sfdpw.org,然后点击“评论许可证”,进入“15wr-0599”。 另外,您也可以将书面意见: 旧金山公共工程 街使用和测绘局 市场街1155号3楼 旧金山,CA 94103 注意:阿曼达∙希金斯 为了从公共工程,申请人和其他有关各方收发信件,请在您的抗议所有的以下信息:街道地址, 日间电话号码和电子邮件地址[(如果可用)。

Tagalog:  PAUNAWA NG Pansamantala apruba ng APLIKASYON PARA SA PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY SITE Permit  Date: 2016/1/20 Application No .: 15WR-0599 Pangalan ng Aplikante: Crown Castle NG West LLC Lokasyon: 1394 35th Ave at 1378 35th Ave Public Works ay pansamantalang inaprubahan ang Application sa pamamagitan ng Crown Castle NG West LLC para sa isang Permit Service Personal Wireless Pasilidad Site sa paligid ng: 1394 35th Ave at 1378 35th Ave. Kung naaprubahan, ang Aplikante ay maaaring i-install ng Service Personal Wireless Pasilidad sa lokasyon na ito. Isang photo-simulation ng ipinanukalang Service Personal Wireless Pasilidad ay nakalakip mula dito. Alinsunod sa San Francisco Public Works Code § 1513, mayroon kang 20 araw ng kalendaryo mula sa ibang pagkakataon mula sa petsa ng sulat na ito o ang tatak-koreo upang maghain ng pagtutol ng Application sa Public Works. Ang iyong isumpa ay tatanggihan ito kung ito ay hindi nai-file sa oras. Kung ang isang napapanahong protesta ay isinumite, Public Works ay humawak ng isang pampublikong pagdinig upang matukoy kung upang bigyan ang mga Application. Aabisuhan ka ng Public Works sa ibang araw ng petsa at oras para sa pagdinig. Ang iyong isumpa ay maaaring magsama ng isang paghahabol na Planning Department ang dapat magpataw bilang isang kondisyon sa pagpapalabas ng permit na hindi maging sagabal sa view mula sa o ilaw sa anumang katabi residential bintana ang ipinanukalang Service Personal Wireless Pasilidad. (Tingnan ang Public Works Code § 1509 (b) (2).) Kung ang iyong isumpa ay naglalaman ng ganoong paghahabol, mangyaring isama sa iyong lumaban litrato na naglalarawan ng mga potensyal na bara ng view o liwanag mula sa iyong mga bintana upang ang Planning Department ang maaaring suriin ito aspeto ng iyong mga protesta. Pag-apruba ng ipinanukalang Personal Wireless Services Pasilidad ay inirerekomenda sa pamamagitan ng: San Francisco Public Works / Bureau Street Gamitin & Mapping San Francisco Department of Health San Francisco Planning Department Kasama sa pansamantala apruba sa (mga) sumusunod na kondisyon na ay natanggap sa pamamagitan ng Aplikante: Public Works Kundisyon San Francisco: 1. Ang rekomendasyon na ito ay batay sa walang pagkakaiba-iba mula sa mga itinatanghal guhit at / o mga photo simulation; kung ang isang pagkakaiba-iba ay iba isang muling pagsusumite ay kinakailangan. Dapat mag-iba ang pag-install mula sa sinabi na mga kondisyon, ito ay dapat na muling maisusumite sa (mga) Department para sa karagdagang

pagsusuri at puna 2. Bagong pole: walang bagong pole ay itinayo o inilagay sa ilalim ng lupa distrito. 3. Down Guys: Sundin ang lahat ng paghuhukay code upang makuha ang mga kinakailangang mga pahintulot para sa paglalagay ng pababa guys. Down guy dapat iwasan ang pagtawid magkakasalungat na mga lugar ngunit hindi limitado sa driveways, pigilan rampa. 4. Sumunod sa mga kinakailangan ADA code para sa mga Pederal, Estado, lokal na batas. Siguraduhin landas ng minimum na kinakailangang malinaw na lapad para accessible landas ng paglalakbay ay apat na paa. 5. Sa pagtatapos ng gawain, magbigay ng isang hanay ng mga bilang built mga larawan ng ang pag-install sa Bureau Street Gamitin & Mapping Permit Office. 6. Panatilihin ang isang wastong sertipikasyon ng insurance taun-taon at magpasa ng isang kopya sa Bureau Street Gamitin & Mapping Permit Office. Department of Kundisyon Public Health: 1. Tiyakin na may patuloy na walang mga pampublikong lugar sa loob ng walong (8) mga paa ng antena. 2. Tiyakin na ang naka-install sa lokasyon na ito units ION ay hindi bababa sa 10 feet mula sa pinakamalapit na façade ng gusali. Gayundin, anumang kagamitan na kaugnay sa mga poste ng pag-install ng antena ay hindi dapat gumawa ng isang ingay na higit sa 45 dBA bilang sinusukat sa tatlong (3) mga paa mula sa pinakamalapit na residential building façade. Ang kondisyon na ito ay isama ang mga baterya backup na naka-install sa 1378 35th Avenue. 3. Sa alinsunod sa DPW Art. 25 mga kinakailangan, sa sandaling ang bagong ION kagamitan ay naka-install, dapat kumuha Crown Castle RF measurements kapangyarihan density sa antenna operating sa buong kapangyarihan upang i-verify ang antas iniulat sa Jerrold T. Bushberg, ulat Medical Physics Consulting Health and at upang matiyak na ang FCC antas ng pampublikong exposure ay hindi lumampas sa anumang lugar na mapupuntahan ng publiko. Pagsukat na ito ay dapat na kinuha muli sa oras ng pag-renew permit. 4. Crown Castle ay dapat na malaman na ang pangkalahatang publiko ay maaaring magkaroon ng mga alalahanin tungkol sa antena at potensyal na mapagkukunan RF malapit sa kanilang mga tahanan. Crown Castle dapat magkaroon sa lugar ng isang mekanismo para sa pagkuha ng RF antas ng kapangyarihan density sa kalapit na tahanan kapag hiniling ng mga miyembro ng pangkalahatang publiko. 5. Alinsunod sa San Francisco Public Works Code, Art. 25, Sec. 1527 (a) (2) (C) Crown Castle ay responsable para sa pagbabayad ng isang fee na $ 181.00 sa Kagawaran ng Pampublikong Kalusugan ng San Francisco para sa review na ito. Crown Castle ay invoice sa pamamagitan ng Department para sa anumang natitirang mga bayarin sa panahon ng Enero ng bawat taon. 6. Mangyaring tandaan na ito ng pag-apruba at ang anumang mga kondisyon na angkop lamang sa mga kagamitan at pag-install tulad ng inilarawan. Kung ang anumang mga pagbabago sa mga kagamitan o anumang pagtaas sa ang epektibong radiated kapangyarihan na inilarawan sa itaas ay ginawa, ang isang bagong pagsusuri sa pamamagitan ng Kagawaran ng Pampublikong Kalusugan ay dapat isagawa. Planning Department Kundisyon: 1. Paint antenna, bracket, kit pabalat cable, kable, tubo, at kagamitan enclosures "Sable" by Sherwin Williams (di-makintab) o katumbas. Kulayan baterya backup unit, paglalagay ng kable,

tubo, idiskonekta, at electric meter "Pag-isipang mabuti" by Sherwin-Williams (di-makintab) o katumbas. 2. Palitan ang umiiral na kahoy na poste para sa mga pole na kung saan ang pangunahing enclosure kagamitan at antennas ay iminungkahi. 3. Plant at mapanatili ang isang naaangkop na puno ng kalye. 4. Magamit ang narrowest offset (eg 4 na pulgada) sa pagitan ng mga bakuran kagamitan at pol gaya ng ipinahihintulot ng utility regulasyon. 5. Paglalagay ng kable sa poste (kasama na ang lupa buss bar) na naka-install sa isang malinis at maayos na kalagayan, at nang walang labis na loop. 6. Alisin na itinaas kagamitan signage (kabilang ang pagpuno sa logo tagagawa indentations sa relay radio units / cabinet) at mga kagamitan decals na maaaring makita mula sa sidewalk at tahanan, maliban kung kinakailangan ng pamahalaan regulasyon. 7. Gamitin ang pinakamaliit na babala RF signage pinapayagan; at ilagay ang mga babala sticker nakaharap sa labas papunta sa kalye, sa isang lokasyon bilang malapit sa antena bilang ay magagawa. Sticker ay harapin ang layo mula sa kalye, hindi kapag nakaharap sa isang kalapit na window sa loob ng 15 talampakan. Itinaas 8. Alisin na signage (kabilang ang pagpuno sa logo tagagawa indentations sa cabinet) at mga kagamitan decals na maaaring makita mula sa sidewalk at tahanan, maliban kung kinakailangan ng pamahalaan o electric utility regulasyon. Site (node) identification sticker gamitin pinakamaliit na laki at pinakamababang lokasyon posibleng visibility (eg underside ng kulungan gamit background tan at puting pagkakasulat). 9. enclosures stack kagamitan (hindi kabilang ang antenna) mas malapit hangga't pinapayagan ng naaangkop na pamantayan ng mga regulasyon at mga kagamitan sa gumawa. 10. Hindi magamit ang anumang nakikita kumikislap na ilaw indicator o katulad. 11. Magamit narrowest meter electric (o linya drop o wireless sumusukat) pinapayagan. Ang aplikante ay hindi alam sa oras na ito kung ito ay file ng isang Application para sa isang pinahihintulutan upang baguhin ang ipinanukalang Service Personal Wireless Pasilidad sa anumang oras sa panahon ng termino ng Permit Service Personal Wireless Pasilidad Site. Anumang pagtutol ay dapat na batay sa isa o higit pa sa mga sumusunod na dahilan: 1. Ang Kagawaran ng Pampublikong Kalusugan ng hindi tama natukoy na ang Application ay sumusunod sa mga Public Health Compliance Standard (tingnan Public Works Code § 1507). 2. Ang Planning Department mali ang natukoy na ang Application ay nakakatugon sa mga naaangkop Compatibility Standard (tingnan Public Works Code § 1509). 3. Application ay hindi sumunod sa anumang iba pang mga kinakailangan para sa pagkuha ng Permit Service Personal Wireless Pasilidad Site. 4. Ang Aplikante nagnanais na baguhin ang Service Personal Wireless Pasilidad pagkatapos ng permit ay ibinibigay sa isang paraan na hindi sumunod sa mga naaangkop na Compatibility Standard. Para sa mga madalas itanong, mangyaring bisitahin www.sf-planning.org/wireless. Upang makakuha ng karagdagang impormasyon tungkol sa Application, maaari kang makipagugnayan sa alinman sa mga sumusunod: Applicant Sharon James

Office: (408) 468-5553 Cell: (408) 426-6629 Publikong gawain Amanda Higgins (415) 554-5343 [email protected] Upang magsumite ng mga komento, suporta, o lumaban, pakibisita ang website ng Public Works sa sumusunod na address: bsm.sfdpw.org at i-click ang "puna Permit" at ipasok ang "15wr-0599." Bilang kahalili, maaari mong ipadala ang mga nakasulat na mga komento sa: San Francisco Public Works Bureau of Street-gamitin at Mapping 1155 Market Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Attention: Amanda Higgins Upang makatanggap ng sulat mula sa Public Works, ang Aplikante, at iba pang interesadong partido, mangyaring isama sa iyong isumpa ang lahat ng sumusunod na impormasyon: address Street, araw na numero ng telepono, at electronic mail address [kung magagamit].   

Smile Life

When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have a thousand reasons to smile

Get in touch

© Copyright 2015 - 2024 PDFFOX.COM - All rights reserved.