commissioner garcia: if you just knew off of the top of your head. vice president goh: i had the same question. commissioner garcia: 150 feet in every direction? >> for the neighborhood residents, 300 feet for the neighborhood association. commissioner garcia: in my last question would be, are you familiar enough with the legislation proposed on this to know whether or not there is provision for retroactivity? >> there is -- i am trying to make sure it understand your question. commissioner garcia: if they were to sign it tomorrow, is there any provision that things

that have already been installed, things opposed to be installed, that would be installed prior to the enactment of the warrants, that they would be subject to this? >> -- and stock prior to the enactment of the ordinance? -- installed prior? >> two years from now, when the one-year permit expires, you would be subject to the new rules. commissioner garcia: ok, thank you. >> and that is the only reach but -- back to previously approved applications. i hope i answered your question. commissioner garcia: it did. thank you. commissioner fung: there are some limitations as to what municipal agencies and appeal groups like ours can deal with

the permit for wireless devices. you know, i remember more recent cases where those wireless devices that were on private property, i could not quite remember the case that occurred in the private right of way, which i believe it is different -- which i believe is different with what one could appeal. >> may i just clarify? are you meeting on private property? commissioner fung: yes. >> those are questions for the planning department. commissioner fung: you just give up the permits? >> yes. commissioner fung: yes. there are some guidelines that we have to follow. until the new law is passed.

commissioner hwang: may i? vice president goh: go ahead. commissioner hwang: how long is the appeal window period? >> hold on, please. two weeks on the notice. and, commissioner hwang, it appeals to the department. commissioner hwang: yes, and then whatever the director decides. it would only be the notice. and then it would go up. >> correct. the notice would cut out when there is a tentative approval, so is prior to installation. -- it is prior to installation. commissioner hwang: we heard

from the requester that the jurisdiction requester is down the street. do you know? >> no. commissioner hwang: so you would not know if requester falls within 100 feet, should this legislation be retroactively applicable? >> i think we could probably figure that out. commissioner hwang: i was just curious. vice president goh: we heard something about undergrounding. what is going on with the undergrounding of the boxes? >> declaring an underground district, with enough equipment on a pole or not, -- with the and put on a pole or not, --

with the equipment on a pole or not, the ones that are underground, they have to move it. obviously, there is pg&e equipment. vice president goh: so a neighborhood cannot decide to foot the bill for undergrounding? >> the board of supervisors would also love to declare underground. >> yes. vice president goh: we heard something about wind tolerance in the request for jurisdiction. >> the safety matter is for any utility pole. it is governed not by the city but by the california puc, so if there are any issues, as far as i understand it, any concerns about safety, it would have to be brought to the california

public utilities commission. general orders the rct orders, a believe those are called general orders. vice president goh: ok, and can you tell us what else emanates from the box? what else? >> i am certainly not a wireless technician. there are electromagnetic fields that are generated. just to clarify, any permit that the issue, the equipment also has to be passed by the department of health. vice president goh: thank you. commissioner hwang: i have one more question. commissioner fung: go ahead. i have one, too. commissioner hwang: we have this data for equipment on a jurisdiction request, and one question i have, only two people of this point in time have brought appeals on this

question. the measure office received complaints from other members of the public on this type of issue? >> yes. commissioner hwang: and what would you estimate the volume in any given week or month? anytime period of your choosing -- any time period of your choosing. >> i would say five or 10 per month. commissioner hwang: 5 or 10 per month. >> not knowing that there was equipment. replaced on the poll, in the right of way in front of their home -- there was equipment that was going to be placed on the pole, in the right of way in front of their home. a lot of it has to deal with blight.

ugly. some of them are about some noise, and in that case, we get in touch as best as we can with the people and work to do with any extraneous noise. there could be equipment malfunctions, and typically, those get rectified, but oftentimes, the majority of complaints have to deal with the unsightly this of a couple of boxes of equipment on the pollp -- ole. -- pole. commissioner hwang: thank you. one more question, i think. the boxes described as the permit holder, presumably, are from other companies. are those companies required to -- are they subjected to the same approval process as the ones that are before us today? >> there are some companies that have franchise rights that are

not wireless companies, which this law is governing. and there are no public notification requirements to make that a requirement. commissioner hwang: so franchise rights outside of the permitting process, they can do whatever they want? commissioner fung: who owns the pole? >> the poles, generally, are owned by pg&e, but the people who put things on them are part of an association. you know the department telecommunications puts equipment on their occasionally -- on there occasionally, and i am talking about power poles, and others have a right to use those through the association. commissioner fung: are fees

charged and given to the owner of the pole? >> i do not know the arrangements between utilities and the owner of the pole. in this case, for example, being a power pole, whether pg&e charges anything. nor whether at&t would, in turn, charge of the utilities to use about -- a charge of the utilities to use the -- whether they would, in turn, charge other utilities to use the pole. i think the groundswell has been within the last year. vice president goh: yeahr, ok, thank you.

commissioner garcia: i have to take you basically where i do not want to go myself, but, basically, everything with this equipment was done according to standards set forth by dpw? >> correct. commissioner garcia: 80. >> is there any public comment on this item? step forward. vice president goh? vice president goh: how many people are planning to speak? >> my name is -- i live in one area. this issue came up before the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods, the coalition for seven. -- san francisco neighborhoods. 35 or 40 organizations belong to it.

the pictures were very third world. they were upset about the ugliness of the whole plane. -- thing. and it is getting bigger. it is not the end of it. and what about neighborhoods that do not have these poles? are they pasted on to the buildings? or they do not get that kind of service? it only goes to those who have that kind of service? pg&e does charge their users. anybody who does put equipment on, they do pay pg&e. i have one more thing. oh, as far as undergrounding,

utility undergrounding, there was the last thing in the existing program. right now, there is no existing programs. i know there is a group of neighbors who want to form a little neighborhood group or a boundary, protrero. but there is no city connected underground. all of the moneys have been used up. thank you. >> next speaker. >> i do not have a card.

ok. i would like to ask you to grant this appeal. i have to say that when i heard about nextg's equipment, installing these before the law changed, i was pretty disgusting. while there was no laws requiring them to notify the neighborhood, their future potential clients, customers, they obviously could have done it on their own, and, instead, they chose to send in executives who loitered in the neighborhood and ask people randomly if it bothered them. i think that that haphazard interest in the wants and needs and concerns of the neighborhood shows a real -- is really concerned, because these of the people who are installing and are in charge of

maintaining this equipment in a residential neighborhood, near people's houses, and if there is that negligence in the neighborhood with residents, how can you a expect them to maintain the neighborhood and assure that the equipment is safe? and so, that is about it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is chris. i appreciate you guys taking in interest on our concerns. i thought i would use the overhead to show something more than blight. we heard from the dpw that they are beginning to hear more and more from residents with concerns about blood, but i

think if we look closer at the word "blight" -- more and more from residents with concerns about blight. you go outside, and you see a box, and you do not know what it is or what it is doing there, and you find out that you are not entitled to hear about it. i would love the commissioners to take notes that while i am speaking, and the woman before me who spoke, both of us citizens of the city, -- to demonstrate their bad faith, they have expedited their permit pulli, knowing that this legislation was going into effect -- they have expedited their permit polling -- pulling. i see a general bad faith situation. i hope that you make it so they do not get away so they can not get away with presenting an

internal evidence -- presenting anecdotal evidence. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. my name is fay, and i am here to support the residents in the request to appeal this permit. for antennas and wireless facility in their neighborhood, on a public right of way. and i note that this particular pole has signs posted on it that talk about "safety hazard," "danger of arcing." i have protested something, back in 2003, and because of the process, the board of appeals put some conditions on the facility that made the residents

feel safer about having it there. i feel it is important that residents have the right to appeal these and to state their concerns. i would agree that these facilities create numerous hazards as well as obviously being a nuisance visually, but the hazards themselves relate to fire as well as the pole overloading, and i sail regularly in the day, and we have days where there are unusually high winds. -- i still regularlys -- ail -- sail regularly in the bay. we do have these conditions

here. again, i just also want to erase that i am sure that if i owned property in this area, i would be concerned about the value of my property being degraded, so thank you. commissioner fung: ma'am? is that sign related to the wireless box, or is it related to other elements on that pole? >> no, it is posted on the wireless box. yes. >> next speaker. >> my name is gay. i came on behalf of someone, whose jurisdiction request is next.

the way one goes is maybe the way the other is going to go. this is from janet, who lives across the street from me and a couple of doors down from the other gentleman. commissioner fung: are you going to read the next -- >> no. we residents of 27th avenue request that the board of appeals grant us the same review process that is now city and county law. the opportunity for review of proposed wireless facilities in front of our home. these devices were rushed into place by nextg even when it something was going to be enacted. we ask only that our concerns be heard through the appeal process. thank you. >> next speaker. >> hi. my name is jeff cooper. i am also note actually be

requester. because the cars are so intertwined, i thought i would take time to comment. -- because our causes are so intertwined. the request here is based on common sense. without any sort of notification, we were effectively denied our right for an appeal. an analogy that i have been thinking of is that it is like telling the psittacine you have a right to vote, but we are not going to tell you when the election is -- is that it is like telling a citizen and you have a right to vote. "hello, has there been a permanent pulled on my dress -- my address?" i just feel that our rights as citizens to appeal a permit that is on our street or our address should be done.

>> next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is joseph. think you for listening to us this evening. i live at 40 ashbury, which is the property next to this address. primarily, we did not receive any notice. i actually return home on the day this device was installed, and there were six neighbors in the streets, wondering what was going on. we did not know. i would have read mr. avalos' said the four-page ordinance, and clearly, this device would be covered by this ordinance, because this is a purely

residential block. there are nearby blocks, with san francisco city college 1/2 blocks away, but this is purely a block consisting of roadhouses, edwardian roadhouses. -- rowhouses, edwardian row houses. this is actually composed of three parts. an antenna, which was mounted on an addendum to the light pole, about 8 feet higher than the light pole. this is not a power pole. it is a light pole. then there are two devices at approximately 8 ft. height. the dimensions that she said,

clearly that is one of the devices, but there is another device there. it is approximately -- if you look at the picture that she showed you, you can see that this is not just a 25 by 15 device. it definitely adds to visual blight. when i looked out my window, i look at it. where nothing previously was, because, of course, it was added to the height of the light pole. there is noise. i cannot open the front window of my house without my front room being full of this buzzing noise. i do not know who told the young lady that there was no noise. it is a buzzing sound, similar to a transformer. i am also concerned about that. and i do not really know what

the hazard is. i know that mr. thornheim has done some research. i am concerned about this. >> next speaker, please. >> at thank you. my name is stephanie. i lived in the valley. in my neighborhood, there must be 25 or 30 boxes now. they started to be very small. there are 10 in one area. the boxes are larger and larger. i feel i cannot even walk in my neighborhood without being

bombarded with the boxes. i do not alone and actually would not buy in san francisco with these, -- i do not own and actually would not buy in san francisco with these. i am a health rider. it is a concern to me. they are in front of people's schools and homes. i think another thing i found really troubling is i feel that they are put up surreptitiously. they are on sunday afternoon. we do not know they are being put up, and when i asked people who they are working for, they sort of shrug their shoulders, so i do not know who was installing them. -- is installing them. my concern is that they are a health hazard, and thank you. >> is there any other public comment? ok, seeing none, commissioners,

the matter is before you. commissioner garcia: can i asked dpwa -- sk dpw a question? >> hello. commissioner garcia: are you familiar that the fact that planning as a process, and my question would be is does dpw have something similar? bbn. what that basically means is someone who is concerned about the fact that a permit might be issued in their neighborhood that might not require notification would require that somehow they might be missed to file with the city, pay a fee, and every time a permit is drawn within that certain perimeter of their home, they get noticed. and so, i am assuming that since

you do not know about this, dpw does not have that. if i were to tell you my address, i could call dpw and say that anything that dpw is going to grant a permit for in my neighborhood, could i please be notified? >> we would do that if a member of the public requested notification. we do not know how we would address it if there was a groundswell of such requests. that is a very good point. i could talk to the planning department and the rest of our department. commissioner garcia: and then my last question would have to do with, and i do not have the exact date in front of me, but i think it was in october, when approval was granted, and the appeal period ended in november, something like that, but, anyway, the question, was there any thought given ever, or has there ever been any thought

given to this legislation is in the pipeline, so let's slow down granting permits that would be affected by this legislation, so as to, assuming it is good legislation, benefit the public? >> we did not consider that at all, because, typically, we do not know if it applies here, but we try to continue on with business and not let the politics and the public hearings -- commissioner garcia: i am not being argumentative. it is not a question of politics. it is a question that the public gets the process that they all deserve. >> i think that is always our objective, but whether the laws and rules that come down from the state and federal level allow us to have that discretion. so within the confines of the law,