installed within three blocks, but not on the streets. personally, i believe the members of that community would also rather preserve the beauty lake st. is a fairly busy street. the box is set down further from the windows and does not impede the view. as i state, i would find it hardly possible. but>> do you have a response toe

permit holder's offered to provide an installation which they would be passed through playing review. >> thank you for this opportunity to speak.

be this far. largest owner and operators of the antenna systems across the country. -- these are the largest owner operators of the antenna systems across the country. the distributed antenna system network allows large geographic areas to be covered by have seen numerous numbers of smaller antenna. what you can get from a 150 foot tower with nine antennas on it would be covered on the ground by using existing infrastructures such as utility poles and street lights with one and 10 that, sometimes to depending on the area that needs coverage. this poll was specifically chosen because there is a large

street tree and we are trying to cover this portion of the richmond area. these are in fact alleyways and are covered under a different type of law. those are not able to be fully utilized. this is not cluttered and has a tree that would guard it. the question of the math which was raised in february was five months after the permit was issued. they have been relying on that and acting in good faith and constructing the side. because of this confusion, we are very willing to modify the site to fit with the planning department's approved configuration. we have seven sides in this area that had either the

internet at a single site. or two. lowering the antennas to be a flash amount on the extension was the preferred configuration rather than having it on a pipe amount. that would have been the condition in the permit if that had gone to the planning department. we have prepared photo simulations to give you an idea of what it would look like if it was modified for what the planning department approved. you have seen it lower on the poll extension. this is necessary in order to maintain the clearances from the street light attachment on the wooden pole and and her

under legislation supporting equipment that is under law for safety reasons is exempt. >> could you say that again? >> yes, under the new legislation supporting equipment such as brackets and poll extensions are not considered for the purposes of dimensions of the wireless equipment or necessary to comply with the technical specifications. >> thank you. >> here we have a view of the streets. as mentioned, there is larger equipment in this area. you also see the large primary distribution poll running out the west side of the street. when judging the street or whether or not the utility infrastructure fits in to the

community, you can look and see what other types of infrastructure is there. on the street you see transformers and lines and some boxes. there are also some pull- mounted terminals used by the provider. we have prepared a focus in relation to give you an idea of how the view would be minimized. also with the configuration that the planning department approved on the other good an excellent streets and all over the city of san francisco. you see here again that this will not extend over the full extension. finally, while there is this can future over -- this confusion over the discrepancy, it was

revealed very late into the process. because we are a utility company with the right to be in the right of way, it is our position that these were properly tested because we relied on good faith without error and we are asking that we have instructions to modify the site which is within your jurisdiction rather than a complete repeal. removing the equipment will cause a near complete loss of service. we would like to modify the site. also, in the alternative, we are willing to reapplied but under the new law, if the box was two inches more narrow, it would be a -- box.

it will fit not only the equipment for 3 g that it will also fit equipment for four-g. we are expecting this next year. that is one of the justifications for having the large boxes. they could be smaller. if we made its smaller, we would have to put another site in the exact proximity across the street, for example. witt ask you to modify the permit to impose a condition that would have been imposed if they had seen this last summer. think you very much. the engineers and the implementations director will take your questions. >> touching on what you just said. should you reapply for a permit to replace what you currently

have should this board invalidate the permit at issue? you could get two boxes slightly smaller that would comply with the new legislation. >> this technically complies with the new legislation but this is considered to three. >> they would go through a different process. >> you could comply. and. >> this would be a tear two. even under those circumstances, the board has allowed the insulation to remain in place while the process is going through. >> a quick question on page 11 of your submission. you showed a photo simulation of the exhibit. the current design verses the proposed design, this is the modification you are requesting

as an alternative. what is the difference from the company's perspective? is this a greater reach? >> well, there are two perspectives. >> that is the antenna. this need to be above the clutter line. my radiofrequency engineer can answer this better. this needs to be above the houses and the trees so that this signal propagates to the coverage area. you do need it for height but if you lowered it so that was plush -- flush with the poll extension, we have looked at it and we don't think that it would be that much of a loss of a signal because this is only two foot or so. sometimes, it looks better when it is hire because it would be

wider than other advantages to have it on the side rather than on the top. it would be effectively hidden. in this situation, flush mounting seems to be the clear configuration. >> thank you. >> how many pieces of equipment go with this permit? the antenna and one in closure? >> yes. >> under the ordinance, only one internet and one ordinance. >> maybe you said what i'm getting ready to s p but my impression is right now the box under the current law or maybe even under the whole law would not conform to the proper dimensions. this is about two inches unless you can justify because of switches and other things.

with the technology you have, it would not be legal. you are asking that we leave it out because when this new technology comes along, it would then be justifiable. "this is legal under the old and new law. this has a different review process. this has a long review process. this is not prohibited. >> it takes it to a tier 3. >> ok. >> thank you. >> now we can hear from the department. >> good evening, commissioners. the position is fairly simple. the coopers were correct in that this has a good view per the

planning documentation. during the department review process, the data set we are using did not identify the street segment. once this information was provided, we have gone back and contacted planning to verify the data to ensure that these kind of errors were not happening in the future. from a process viewpoint, the department did go through the proposed process. the situation is on the process of four previous legislation. on the streets with good views, excellent reviews, or when there are buildings adjacent. a referral would be made to the planning department. the planning department would either approve, deny, or proof

with modifications based upon their evaluation of the facility. in this particular case, one of the possible remedies this board can do given that of the permit has been suspended, it is to direct the department to submit a plan referral in this case as we would normally do during the standard process for their review and they would then come up with a specific recommendation and finding. please recognize that the new legislation as established triggers a re-evaluation of these facilities upon renewal. these permits are issued for a two-year cycle and are required to be renewed. a term of up to four additional permits would give them a 10-

year cycle. upon renewal in two years, after the approval process, when it comes to an appeal, this specific facility false under the tier 3. this would be identified in the brief which would require a greater level of notification and scrutiny by both the planning department and public works. i am here to answer the questions. >> if you were to turn the clock back and not have made that mistake, how would it go? you would run into the department because of the street? "that would be correct. the department would refer this package to planning for review and recommendation. >> this did not happen. >> the data did not show this to be a good deal. >> thanks.

>> i want to be clear what you're closing comments were. are you suggesting that we leave this alone since they will have to reapply for renewal in two years? >> there are several options. the easiest one to be since the department failed because of the day the issue. you can't hit a referral and get this suspended. this would be evaluated and we would make a recommendation. the permits would be approved for a two-year term. the conditions of the revised permit would be set up based upon planning's recommendation. at the end of that cycle, the applicant can do a variety of things including modifying the

recommendation or maintaining and being subject to tier 3 notifications and review. >> just a clarification, the permit that is currently before you, the board does not have the power to remand this to planning to conduct review. the board needs to overturn the permit, denied a permit, or modify it or grant the permit. you cannot send it to conduct further review. >> because of the mistake, madam city attorney, they would not be barred from reapplying. they don't have that year. >> that is correct.

>> maybe we can hear from the planning department. >> in regards to whether or not these are vested rights, i would refer to the city attorney. this is not route to the planning department for review. this was an honest mistake. there was an honest mistake. that is how the mistake was made. in regards to whether or not the department would approve of the project as revised as suggested by the permit holder, we have not reviewed the application or all of the materials and we cannot make a determination at this time. the plane apart and has been responsible for reviewing these. there has been in this is where we have approved. there are instances where we

have denied. there are conditions on many of them. there have been problems with the provider complying with the conditions of approval. we would like a facility that would comply with any conditions of approval. we would prefer to see this. i can discuss the matter with the department's staff if the matter is continued and see if that is a suitable alternative. i did not have the opportunity to discuss that with staff today. thank you. >> is to any public comment on this item? >> one minute, madam >> please step forward.

>> i apologize. we have several cases after this. course i have been working on this for the past 11 years. we will provide some brief legal background in context of this issue. we began seeking permission to install these in san francisco. the planning commission unanimously denied the request. they filed a lawsuit a month later in federal court. they filed two lawsuits. both lawsuits for determined against the city based on a ninth circuit decision which was overturned in its entirety in 2008 by the night circuit. as a result, you can have a hearing saying yes or no under

federal law which would allow the decision. the state's is unresolved at the california supreme court level. this does not preclude you from voting against this permit. >> i live across the street from the coopers. i ask that you repeal the permit for the facility and make them start over using the guidelines from the legislation. it is important for the residents to have the ability to make comments to the planning department. i have no problem gathering 29 signatures and could have gathered more. there was universal support. we are tired of the snarl of

wires and boxes that we are living under. it seems that we're further burdened with equipment. this is not about a question of a lack of neighborliness. they said that they should not be penalized for the city's mistakes. it seems that they have benefited from the lack of regulation and oversight. human beings make a mistake, especially given how quickly things go through the city. this should be considered part of doing business. >> thank you. >> i am speaking in support of the appellant. we have the jurisdiction request on this matter. what came up was that they were

accelerating the installation of these devices because it was before the avalos legislation that had gone into effect. i was working with john avalos on this and was aware of this. i asked them about the devices that were being put up and i asked for information and i got it. it was accelerated here at the end right before the legislation. you can see in this chart here up until 2010 and this month is september for the legislation. >> next speaker, please. >> i own a property where there

is a similar antenna put up and we were not notified. i feel like almost everything that i do that affects our view needs to be reviewed by the city. i am very surprised that the boxes that are this large, not just the antenna, but equipment that goes with these boxes take up the entire view of the window. >> next speaker, please. >> i wanted to amplify the comments about neighborliness which they threw at all of the residents of the block. i just wanted to give you an

idea of how neighborly they were and when they were installing the equipment on the block. much of it was done to beat the clock. it was done under cover of darkness. they broke and dropped tree limbs on cars. they left cones on the streets. one of their trucks blocked access to a sunday garages sale. you want to talk about being neighborly. i don't think that this meets the definition of being a good neighbor or a good corporate citizens who seeks to gauge the conversation with us back there. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal.

>> i would like to make minor cosmetic alterations. they have offered a very minor change that does not alter any of the supporting equipment boxes at st. levels and is not have an impact on air grievances. we found it hard to take the side modifications too seriously because they don't seem to take the planning conditions seriously.they had seven piecesh identical requirements reviewed by the planning department. in an attempt to understand what the design might look like, i have visited the antenna. this was the example that was referenced in the written response.

i also visited four other locations in the richmond district that had a similar condition. after five visits, i saw five antennas that did not comply with the condition of approval. they all had a pipe amount antenna. please note that they would have to these conditions before they started construction. it would appear that this is not in compliance with conditions of approval. the example case that they reference in the appeals.

i urge the city of san francisco to carefully inspect their work. currently no inspections have happened. currently, we have a system where there's very little oversight into the permit reprocess and really know oversight into the actual construction of sites. i believe that this trust has been violated. we cannot feel that our streets which have been used in -- is separate. i hope that the petition that my neighbors signed reinforces the fact that our community wants this equipment moved. we asked the board to repeal the permit and to tell -- to shut down and remove the equipment. they would need to follow the

current city law. thank you. >> can we put them on the overhead? is that possible? >> i went to go see what the design would look like. this is the current installation at my house. as you can see, they are exactly the same. it is hard to believe that they will not follow through with this proposed modification