i would likethis agreement -- green dots an alleyway. this is a case where i would not mind it being in the backyard. all of the alleys have similar utility poles. commissioner hwang: good luck, president garcia. president garcia: thank you. director goldstein: next speaker, please. >> my name is charles, a homeowner in san francisco. we have a power installation across from us. this power is directly in my view looking south across the hills. i question how they have determined the standards

necessarily. i am in the process of appealing line, but there are no trees around it whatsoever. it is squarely in the view of my street. my neighbor looked out and the boxes are directly in front of his window. the tower is close to the neighborhood until i speculate there are some problems as well. on multiple occasions, nextg has had its contractors in the neighborhood. they show up with no notice, there are no barricades according to san francisco administrative code. on multiple occasions, they worked in the middle of the street, they park their equipment on gardens. when i asked for their sign it, i get no answer from them. i have incident reports that have been issued. april 5, may 1, may 8, asking them to be safe when they work

and have proper barricades set up. they can't get to their polls, it is creating an unsafe work environment and a situation where children are working -- walking around the street. it is a qualitative difference, an alien spaceship that distracts from homeowner value and the decor of the street. i question the major coverage that is being put forward. i have looked of the major carrier's sites, and allt he tr excellent to good. other spots show good coverage as opposed to excellent coverage in glen canyon. there was one point where we had inappropriate coverage, but i think this is a land grabs of

that they can get into the nextg g4 generation. president garcia: i think your time is up. >> they are not taking into consideration existing technologies out there. how they can use the same polls to get these types of coverage is. -- poles to get these types of coverages. president gdirector goldstein: s there any further public comment? please step forward? . >> thank you for letting me speak. i have always found this incursion on our street to be detrimental. it seems to me that nextg wants to serve the neighborhood because they can't get coverage there. because of the right of way rule that they cited. the only way they can do that is

by putting coverage on our streets. the pole that the previous gentleman said, it is qualitatively different. it does affect mr. cooper's view and our own view from our roof. there are questions about when they did the installation and how they did the installation of a year ago, whenever they put it up. he would come out after 5:00 on friday night. my view is that these guys are a company that will put it in and make it difficult for the neighbors to get it out. i appreciate you hearing my concerns, and good luck in your deliberations. director goldstein: would you like to state your name? >> ravi mojan.

director goldstein: any other public comment? we'll move into rebuttal. mr. cooper, we will start with you. three minutes. >> great, thanks. just a couple quick items. we explore the issue of why none of the polls have been used when there are a number in the back alley ways and we had extensive dialogue with the d p w on this issue. she says that she has reached out to pg&e and found in a legal difference between those poles and -- no legal difference between those poles and our poles. those poles are half a block away, closer to the neighborhood, and could be potential sites. it would be nice if that member had had one antenna in their neighborhood given that there is over ten that have been

installed and the surrounding areas. another issue, the antenna that natasha showed was on fell street. that is a very different street and i used to live half a block away from that antenna. it would not have bothered me there, it is a very different environment from 27th avenue. the antenna that the appeal d-- it did go to the court of appeals, we thought it was a little bit in bad faith that they bothered to turn it off. we filed the appeal before they finished construction. and yet, they still moved to finish construction, turn on the antenna throughout the process, and it has been operating for a year-and-a-half on no permit.

i guess they get a free be there -- freebie there. one of the issues that our residents are concerned about that become clear, nextg will argue that once a valid permit has been issued, they have the vested rights to that site. when undergrounding starts to occur again, we put no faith that they will up and move. it will be a headache for everyone involved. finally, on their offer of dealing a-- doing a flush- mount designed to minimize the impact, they promised to do flush-mounts before and didn't. i have nice before and after pictures. it really doesn't make a difference. this is before, this is after. it doesn't make a difference,

the planning department might feel that this is a little bit better. it doesn't make a difference to me. president garccommissioner fung, when they stayed the removal of the equipment, did they stay operations? >> never. the court, you're saying? i was not part of that lawsuit. sorry. president garcia: thank you. -- director goldstein: thank you. >> again, commissioners, thank you. a lot of issues. and building infrastructure in the city of san francisco can be quite intense. in my rebuttal, i wanted to give a little bit of information for some of the new were board members that have not seen the

as many of these appeals. in the state of california, there is public utilities code section 79 no one that treats -- 7901 that treats telecom corporations differently. there is a state wide franchise rather than a city franchise. because telephone services are competitive, there is a state wide franchise. there is also 7901.1 which gave cities the right to have management of the public right of way for telephone corporations. they had to treat all entities, not just a telephone corporations, but all entities in the public right of way equally. before 11.9b, before article

25, we said that we wanted to be treated equal in the public right of way. as we saw in the photo, there is a six-foot cubic inch battery backup unit that supports cable television. there is no site-specific permit for that. you can go to work and come back, there will be that box, 38 inches, 36 inches, and 13 inches deep with no permit ofrom the city. if they wanted to pass 110 pages, we ask that they remove the word "wireless." i don't know why they did not, but they did not. there is a lawsuit pending about that. we would like to be treated

equal, but that is not the case. with regards to alleyways, it becomes slightly more difficult. we tried to build an alleyway in supervisor elsbernd's area. it is not a matter of the dpw, it is a matter of the planning department. i looked at city code, it is definitely not a public right of way. it is probably the same for pg&e because they have a historic peace meant. they are individual property rights, not something that extends to all companies. that gives you a little more detail. dpw doesn't deal with alleyways. [chime] thank you again. president garcia: counselor, you indicated that there was removal of the equipment? >> yes, and functionality.

how have the text of that if anybody is interested. president garcia: since the statement was made having to do with the congestion of the wires, how many of those were yours? >> one. the fiber wire goes -- no, across the street? across the street, there is a power wire that belongs to pg&e and it is a service truck. when you see all those wires down the street, their service drops for landline, cable, and power. service drop for pg&e, we ha ve that same service drop. ours for power, and the fiber cable drop as well. our network, why you see the

small antennas, they are connected by fiber-optic cable. that is how we can avoid having a 200-foot tower covering the same geographic area. we can have an antenna system connected by fiber. we use the existing infrastructure, so you need to connect that equipment to the fiber running across the line. president garcia: the short answer is one? >> yes, one is ours, the other is pg&e's. >> i have a question. at the box can fit two units? >> yes. >> it was the only source of coverage for this area? in other words, if you did not have this unit, there would not be coverage in this area? >> exactly.

>> i am having trouble understanding that there are nine other antennas, how was that possible? >> the fctc does auctions for spectrum. they sell to a multitude of carriers. we are a carrier's carrier. we built equipment and sensitive to our customers from the ftc. we built in different and does the service different customers. similar as you see the street, each one of the antennas is there for nationwide customers. we have different types of antennas that are tuned, if you will, to pick up on their specific spectrum.

they are relatively small, two feet. a lot of it has to do with the planning code that discourages the tower and the taller structures in the residential areas. again, the alleyway, because it is private property, it is heavily discouraged for any other type of carrier that wanted to build a site where you have a caller installation that covers a broader area. >> you know the map with the dots that was put up? do those dots reflect antennas that your company owns and installed? >> i don't know, i am not familiar with that exact route. i have not been able to analyze id. i know that we have a handful. i can do quite a close comparison, these are the ones i can confirm.

these are different customers, not necessarily all the same. seven. there are seven known sites in this area that provide a different types of coverage to the residents there, they are on existing utility poles and i believe some of them are on excellent view streets that went under the old regime of 11.9b. later on, the renewals will go through the article 25 -- and not planning commission, sorry, the planning department for review. they have review streets for the same type of instrumentation. how those are being approved every day. commissioner fung: does each site service only one carrier? >> not necessarily. commissioner fung: is it

multiple with one antenna? >> that is partly why we have the larger trout, you can have the different equipment in size. you might be seeing the difference between 3g and 4g. there is a difference of spectrum auctioned off in 2006 versus 2011. you can have more functionality and pickup more of the spectrum with additional equipment. it can serve multiple or sometimes increase levels of functionality. commissioner fung: when you service multiple carriers, each piece of the equipment would be correlated to each carrier? >> you have amplifiers that are designated to work with the customer's and equipment. -- that customer's equipment.

it will go to the customers hubble can be plugged into the equipment. -- customer's hub and be plugged into the equipment. it is essentially the same location with the internal electronics that i am not an expert in. >> is there any merit to the concern that this neighborhood street is being treated differently, unfairly? you spoke at the fairness that nextg is getting. i would like to hear your response to that. >> as we all know, companies go places and business providers go places because there is a need. richmond, sunset, there is a dearth of infrastructure that

supports wireless services. the increase since marco usage has a lot of demand. -- in smartphone usage has a lot of demand. the utilities will go to help those customers. this is not new development in the traditional sense, but is new infrastructure that needs to be constructed because of demands on the network. we were sending text messages and talking on the phone, now we are streaming hd video from netflix. and the maount -- amount of usage and capacity is much greater, which is why we see the small antennas go into the residential areas and a lack of rooftops. my company does not build rooftops sites, necessarily. there are to those locations where you can put up nine and has -- antennas.

>> do you anticipate the technology addressing the issues of the aesthetics? i personally find them pretty ugly. i don't know where your company is going with that. >> i was in front of the state council in davis and we had a completely different design. we worked with the city on the design, but it had deconstruction -- the construction where we will buy a new pole, it has everything in sight of it, and it is metal. -- inside of it, it is metal. the city of san francisco does not allow that type of configuration, it only allows attachment to existing wood and infrastructure. that is why we heesee this kind of construction. president garcia: who pays for

that pole? >how much does it cost? >> i think $15,000, but don't quote me on that. director goldstein: thank you. >> john from the department of public works once again. i think i need to provide some clarity. does the information i have in front of me, it appears that the area is a subdivision. the development team decided on underground facilities. he also provided these utility easement with in the subdivision map to allow companies to place -- pg&e, at&t, at that point. i am not sure whether you can pick it up or not.

barely. on this mattep, it is defined an easement. and based upon that, it is the jurisdiction of the department of public works. the jurisdiction will fall to the planning department and from my understanding, these wireless facilities require a permit at that point. i believe, just a quick discussion -- mr. sanchez there said the planning department would be highly unlikely to approve that kind of conditional use. about comcast installing new posts in davis, right now, crown castle nextg is a member of the committee. this is from the states.

he's currently are operated and maintained by pg&e. it would need to be reviewed by the department and others, but it is possible. i cannot speak to that. going back to the discussion about the appellant about the argument -- because nextg's networks are a number, they are obligated by law. the requirements under that, if it is underground, they will need to be removed and as appropriate, undergrounded. there has been some discussion with the public utilities commission and others related to streetlights. possibly at some point in the future, placing them on the street lights that will provide

some relief to those areas that are not underground. that discussion is in the infancy stage and hasn't really moved forward at this point. [chime] these questions had specific cancers that explain why it cannot be done. i am here to answer any questions you might have. commissioner hwang: is it true that this particular installation is the only one on good or excellent view street since article 25 went into effect? >> i don't know because i don't have the information in front of me. since article 25, it is

renewals. if it is on a good or excellent view sttreet, they have to go back to planning for an additional review. i can't speak to whether it is the first, but i know that there will be more moving forward. director goldstein: commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i can start on this. i think that given the number of new equipment and seemingly large-scale equipment on the street that this is clearly a residential street, a quiet

neighborhood streets and it does not meet the compatibility standards of article 25. it is adding light to that street, and just because there are boxes on the street, i don't think we should continue to add to that. we have to kind to send the message that we need to look at alternatives as well as high technology to minimize the blame. i would grant the appeal. >> i think i agree with commissioner hillis. looking at the photograph, i think it is pretty plain to see that it is substantially impairs the view. i don't think that -- unfortunately, i understand that there is not the possibility of installing different type of equipment at this moment in san francisco.

if you have a view like that and you are categorized, however subjective as that may be, there should be more thought and more protection of that. as a homeowner, that as a pretty important value. you are playing -- paying for the views you are able to purchase. it is substantially impaired by this monstrosity, and i would move to grant the appeal. >> i would echo my fellow commissioner's sentiments. on a view street or not, these are problematic for our city, city-wide. commissioner fung: i'm in a

quandary. i accept my fellow commissioners' comments related to this infrastructure. i'm not sure i would accep tthat that the department aird,s ed -- i'm not sure yet where i'm going to go with this. president garcia: i think you are at a severe disadvantage if you live near a neighborhood that has underground wiring. it appears you have to and accept more in your neighborhood or not exceaccept, because they have underground wiring. i remember we had near hague

street, an issue having to do with someone putting solar panels on their roof. part of the appeal had to do with the fact that it was unsightly. the homes are lovely, the views are beautiful. what is unsightly as all those wires overhead. i of this adds to that. -- don't think this adds to that. does this equipment, in some way, affect that view? for the public -- i don't know that it has to do with the individual homeowner. i don't think it does that. we have rules having to do with -- or once in awhi