and on advice on the procedure by the attorney, we just kept on moving. we just made sure that the applications that needs to be referred to other agencies were referred, that the ceqa approval was approved prior to our issuance of the permit, that the response from the department of public health with regard to the specific pieces of equipment that were proposed were also approved in writing, so we just followed the process. commissioner garcia: commissioner garcia: something has occurred to me, it has been suggested that the jurisdiction requestor -- i will not suggest it is nefarious, it may be business practice -- greatly stepped up the degree to which they were applying for permits

commack and the suggestion was they were doing this --, and the suggestion was there were doing this prior to the notification. does that fly with your experience? >> i cannot speculate. and i know that the number of applications we have received from many different carriers were stepped up in the last year. commissioner garcia: so it may not have to do with the law. am i cannot speculate on that. -->> i cannot speculate on that. commissioner hwang: commissioner garcia was asking about whether they took this into an support shouldn't in the processing of the permit that legislation was pending. with your department aware of the supervisor -- what is your department aware of supervisor avalos' legislation?

>> yes, we were. commissioner hwang: is so where you testified there was no slowdown to your process of the permit, was the race speed up? >> no, when you come to look at a very small permit bureau and we get bombarded with permits from various types, whether public right of way or other permits, we just keep the machine moving as fast as we can. there was no concerted effort one way or another to slow or speed up. commissioner hwang: are you restricted to a timeline to process the permit, notwithstanding the floodgates being open for these permits?

did you have to increase staff to meet time lines or just deal with what you had? >> we had no more staff to had the, mining being what it is. if we had the authority to increase staff, we would increase the whole world of permits, not necessarily a certain group of permits. commissioner hwang: no, i was not suggesting that, just that if you have higher volume, you are not required to meet certain time frames? >> no. vice president goh: you mentioned being involved in the legislation. how long ago did those discussions begin? >> i actually moved out of my role as bureau manager. the discussions on the legislation began over a year

ago. vice president goh: okay, thank you. >> any further questions? >> commissioners? commissioner garcia: i will go first. were you ready? commissioner fung: no. commissioner garcia: we all want good cellphone reception. none of us wants the power for that reception in our own -- in front of our road home. does that make us unreasonable? probably not. it was said about one of the speakers that this particular equipment is relatively benign or modest compared to the equipment that might typically be put on a pole without the public being noticed. and given the heat, the way people feel about this, there

are real or imagined the safety issues having to do with arc or radiation or the weight of the equipment on the poll and heavy wind. if i were a good citizen and i am nextg, it would seem that i do the minimum amount of out of reach, and the minimum amount about reach would be to have people -- i don't know the minimum fee, but i would say anybody who lives within 10 houses of this equipment certainly would have the right to know we're going to be working on a pole in front of your house, it may and may issue because you will be able to park there, and concerns about safety issues and let me dispel those concerns if that is possible.

i am leaning heavily -- i do not know where i will hang my hat on how we get there -- but i am leaning heavily toward allowing jurisdiction, because i think it is reasonable that when equipment is placed in front of your house or a proximate to your house that you have the right to know about it. and i am worried about the retroactivity issue. but it seems like very good legislation that supervisor avalos is proposing. it is possibly known to nextg that was in the pipeline, and there is a little sense there is some rush to judgment, but if they had reached out to neighbors, i would not even think about granting jurisdiction. those are my thoughts right now.

commissioner fung: there are some limitations on what we can or cannot deal with in terms of permits for wireless carriers. however, visual blight, structural integrity are items which come within that permit, and as far as i am concerned are appealable. given the fact that legislation is forthcoming, and i am assuming it will be passed, i see no reason not to allow the citizens to have an ability to speak to something that will become part of our process. so i would support granting the jurisdiction request. commissioner hwang: i don't want to repeat what my fellow

commissioners have stated, because i agree with many of the sentiments articulate it. i think the principle of having a process is really important, and i think in this case, -- well, i don't to repeat it, so i am definitely leaning toward granting as well. vice president goh: i agree with what has been said and would move to grant the jurisdiction request. >> thank you, commissioners. if you could call the roll, please? >> on that motion from the vice president goh to grant the jurisdiction request -- [roll call vote] thank you, the vote is 4-0 to

grant jurisdiction. jurisdiction is granted under the board's new rule, mr. torn time will have five days to appeal this permit. it is no longer 15 days. >> thank you. we can move on to item 4b, please? >>: item forb, another item jurisdiction request, 156 27th avenue, letter from jeff and nicole cooper, requestor, asking that the board take jurisdiction over wireless box permit number 10 w war-0021, issued on september 8, 2010. the appeal time expired

september 23, 2010, and the jurisdiction request was received at the board office on december 22, 2010. >> thank you. we start with the requestor, mr. cooper? >> all right, thank you very much for taking the time. i spoke previously about making sure that citizens have the right to appeal, and my strong feeling is without notification, we are denied that right. no need to rehash my previous comments, but i can talk a little about some of the differences in my case to the previous case. i am a recent homeowner in the richmond district, and i currently live at 156 27th avenue. this equipment is being installed right in front of my house. the poll where it is being

installed previously had no equipment. it was a small, simple light post. in our case, which is a little different, i think based on the permits i have reviewed there is a battery backup supply at one another pole across the street, which means additional overhead wiring between the poles. my understanding, and i am no expert on this, but it is one of those larger, 350-pound backup battery poles on a post across the street. we have that as well. other things, i would urge the board to review how these things are constructed. it has the feel of a rush job. i have a stand that sprint is rolling out there 4-g network. the device on our poll happens

to be an at&t wireless antenna, but we live on a very quiet, residential street with nice views of the day, -- of the bay, and it is basically a four by four poll that has been strapped on top of a fragile light post. it looks like a band-aid approach, lots of visual blight, and the equipment is large and it is probably 20, 30 feet outside of my bedroom window. that is the new view that i wake up to. with that, that is all i have to say. >> thank you. >> again, thank you, board, i am here on behalf of the nextg network, director of relations. we are a nation of laws, and as

somebody -- where i practice law, i would like to follow the law. i have been reading the legislation in all of its different incarnations all of the sheer. i actually started several years ago, and my responsibility is to make sure the law is followed. but this is the law that was followed, in every ounce of both of these. i walked the streets personally without implementation team, cards in hand, handing them out to everyone. i give them toward construction crews to give out if anybody has an inquiry. and this pole particularly i recommend it. while i cannot see out the windows of every single resident, there are street trees that would hide the equipment box. there is an equipment box. there is not a metered panel on

this because it has a battery backup which is, yes, across the street. these are built in compliance with many laws. according to this, we get all the radiofrequency stuff done to make sure that it complies with the fcc law governing radiofrequency. all of that is approved by the san francisco department of health. we also comply with a number of cpuc laws, which govern us directly. we make sure that all of the wind and isolation is done. i have that for this location specifically because that was raised. i went there, i looked at what was mentioned about shoddy installations. there was some wreckage of the concrete, which was intentional because of ground wires to follow the law that needs to be installed. it has been fixed. it is painted to match. we did not have an instant of

equipment becoming detached on any of our polls -- poles during the when the last year. -- during the wind at last year. so i encourage you to recognize that there was law, and it is of course going to undergo a change now, but when these were constructed and applied for, they were in full compliance with the law. thank you. commissioner garcia: you said that you went around the neighborhood, not only on this particular case but others, when the equipment was going to be installed and handed out cards to people informing them of what was wrong to take place? than anybody who was on the street. -- >> anybody who was on the street. commissioner garcia: during the appeal period? >> we did that during

installation. we're trying to stay away from protracted -- protected street views. i would go with them and say, ok, this looks like the lowest visual impact, i like these trees, and talk to our engineers to design the networke. we know there is going to be some impact, but so that it would be minimized. commissioner garcia: you went way beyond the question. >> that was when we were selecting the poles. commissioner garcia: what did the card say? >> my business card. commissioner garcia: you gave them a card with your name on it. what information did you provide as you gave them the car? bam of verbal information about what the network was -- >> verbal information about what the network was. i sent them the radio frequency studies, public information,

drawings. it answered whatever questions they had. everybody has different questions. commissioner garcia: and you'd knock at door to door, or people on the streets? >> these are people who came out to the workers. when i was not there personally, the workers had my card and give them to hundreds of people. commissioner garcia: and they would have them when they are installing the equipment or when it was proposed it would be installed? >> when it would doing any testing, to do analysis to make sure the site would work, and also with the widow of the construction. whenever the war on the streets, they had my card. commissioner garcia: people were aware of this potential pole would have equipment that could be small, medium, or large, and don't worry about this affect or that effect, don't worry about radiation because those are things that need not be worried

about? >> all i can do is comply with the law. commissioner garcia: you understand what this evening is about. this evening is not about conforming with the law, it has to do with the fact that people are here asking for jurisdiction because they feel as though, whether provided by law or not, they feel as though they were due some process and that they were left out of the process that had to do with understanding what was going to happen in front of their house, what potential or real effect that might have on their lives. >> let me explain that the warning sticker is on the meter panel which talks about arcing. it is required on any type of leader panel, including inside of residences. i would provide the radio frequency information if that was what had specific concerns about, or the wind and isolating

information. commissioner garcia: okay, thank you. >> any more questions? thank you very much. >> i am with public works again. i think you probably had the same questions which have been answered, but you may have more. i don't know if you want me to make a statement? commissioner garcia: i would want to know if anybody could join the pole association? >> i think i need to. commissioner garcia: what do they need to do? i have no question. it's hard to be silly. vice president goh: in this question there were questions about street views, rated excellent to good. it is that with the p w?

-- is that with dpw? >> it is with planning. >> any other questions? commissioner hwang: i do. i am curious about where other placements are for these types of devices. is that within your purview? where else could they put these equipment boxes, and have they done? >> i think the only two places i know of are on buildings or all poles. commissioner hwang: and the buildings are within the planning department? >> correct. >> any other questions? vice president goh: but there are different requirements made if they are placed on residential or commercial areas? >> there are requirements if you are on a scenic or certain type

of street, planning code. there are requirements if you are adjacent to a recreational facility, like a playground. there are restrictions there. vice president goh: why would there be restrictions that to a playground? >> that is the way the legislation was written. vice president goh: and you don't know why? >> i personally do not know why. i presume it is about esthetics and beauty. vice president goh: and not about risk or safety? >> i don't think the board of supervisors would compromise that. i doubt that it has to do with safety. vice president goh: okay, thank you. commissioner hwang: i have a question for planning. can you talk about street views being rated excellent or good

and who makes that determination, where is it recorded? >> under the general plan, there are certain streets that are designated scenic corridors. i think that was embedded into the legislation which dpw and forces for the permits for wireless facilities. otherwise the planning department would not have jurisdiction given that it is the public right of way, we would have purview over public property not in the public right of way. it could be neighborhood notification or additional use. vice president goh: if someone were interested in finding out there street view, where would one look? >> i think the place to start is online. you confined the planning code, the general plan, -- you can find the planning code, the general plan, and maps. there actually was another

appeal that had been scheduled before this board. i doubt that it was ever heard, 40 mobile facilities on a highway, -- fort t-mobile facilities on the highway. vice president goh: okay, thank you. >> is their public comment on this item? please step forward. -- is there public comment on this item? how many people intend to speak on this item? vice president goh: i am sorry, i will set the time for three minutes. but please don't repeat, there is no need to repeat what you said it on the last item. >> good evening, i live at 1555 27th avenue. i live directly across the

street from the pole. right in front of my house, where there are no large trees, there are small trees, it is the equipment that i think is related to the antenna across the street, and it is large equipment that was installed in december, over a number of weeks, late at night, in the rain, and marked trucks. there was so much activity going on with installation on our block -- un-marked trucks. everyone was appalled at what was going on. when we approached the installers of the equipment, and said, who are you? is this comcast, at&t? they gave us the card that had the woman who spoke earlier, her name and phone number.

we were able to reach her and get information about what was being installed, but there was no notification prior to the equipment being up there, and that is when we were able to get some information about our concerns. one other thing i want to say, a number of us spoke at a hearing on the legislation, and there was some comment at that time by the nextg rep that it would be a burden on them that if anything is retroactive for removal of this equipment, but i honestly -- i even have numbers, apparently 128 permits have been issued since 2008, 97 since august of 2010. in our district, these things have been going up very, very quickly. there are antennas everywhere,

and the blight is obvious to everyone. this happened really quickly, and i feel that our ability to have been put on this process has been limited. we would very much appreciate your granting jurisdiction on the first item and i hope you do so on this one, also. thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> hi, my name is christie, and i live at 158 26th avenue, across from the previous person. i have complained for years about not having cell phone coverage in my neighborhood. i am an at&t customer, and it has always been a thorn in the richmond district to not have that. i have two small children that i am concerned about their health, for many reasons.

for this particular tower, as much as i would like cell phone coverage, i would have liked to have participated more in the process. hindsight is 20/20. i can remember either it in the summer or indian summer time frame seeing the people, the weekends to photograph the poles and look at them. i am a stay at home mom and i talked to some of the people when they were picking the location. it was not anybody on a suit. it was a weekend, regular clothes, on marked trucks. -- unmarked trucks. they came out one week and with very large bucket trucks with men to test for the best place. again i ask what is going on. they said it is at&t, you will

get self-service. i said great. i actually kugel -- googled the logo on the truck. i am in good faith thought this would benefit me as a customer and resident. but since then, the installation is just -- is really ridiculous to look at. we had a very nice utility pole that they have put a to buy for on top of -- they have put a two-by-four on top of. i have put solar panels on my house, not many work that i have got a permit and all my neighbors about, and i just wish we had the chance to talk about it. i am not against a utility pole, but the fashion it has been installed is not acceptable. i feel like as a resident we are not being treated the same way that we are expected to treat

our neighbors. thank you. commissioner fung: madame president, can we remind the audience, this is a procedural question, we're not talking to the merits of the case and your feelings. we're trying to ascertain if there is a procedure basis for either accepting jurisdiction or not accepting jurisdiction. >> next speaker? >> hi, david tornheim. thank you so much for granting jurisdiction at 36 ashbury. for the neighbors who live close to the antenna, i live on the corner of that blocke. let's talk about this.