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>> i do not have. 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.>> 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. --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, local, state, and federal, 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.