box and then the battery box will go on the pole. if i can show you -- >> yeah. >> that would be the only box on that pole across the street. >> can it go higher? >> we run into those cables and it's used with that so there's a lot of things going on on a utility pole. so we've got those sky wires, we've got the overhead cable so we're pretty much -- >> it's just a battery though, right? >> they're just back up batteries in case power goes down? >> what about down low? >> we can perhaps, we just have to make sure if there are large, high trucks, we'd have to make sure there's proper clearance.

>> are you finished with your presentation? >> i am, so i leave that alternate decision for you to -- >> thank you. >> i have questions. commission hwang, are you finished? >> if you split it to another pole, isn't that a separate permit? >> i think i'd ask you if you have within your jurisdiction to be able to make that as a con dition to your permit. >> that wasn't my primary question, but the -- your

diagrams for gaps in the coverage, is that predicated on streaming media and other things that you folks are now offering? >> so -- >> which requires a lot more band width. >> it's really based on the changing customer needs in terms of what customers are using mobile. laptops and , readers and cell phones and smart phones. it's an excess /tkpapbd /tkpapbd /tphapbd on the network. we have been upgrading our system through san francisco, mostly where we put macro facilities -- 9 panel and 12 panel. there are these areas in san

francisco without service or compromised service so this is an opportunity to be able to do that with a different type of technology. >> okay. you call my question to the appellants related to their depiction of the boxes on the pole. i don't recall when i studied your drawings -- what is the width for the -- that main, long enclosure? >> the photo that was shown to you is actually not our box. i'm not sure where that came from and it was grossly out of proportion. so that is -- that's not our box. let me pull up the dimensions for you. i'll ask judy roland to grab the dimensions. >> my name is judy roland, i'm

the project manage /-r. r. the lower box that was shown -- i believe they were depicting the bbu /pwhrobgs. box. the dimensions on that box are 27 inches high. it has to be a minimum 17 feet from the street -- if it's on the street side of the pole and has to clear, like, high profile vehicles that would come up the street. >> how many feet? >> 17 feet above the ground. if we turn it the other way, we could turn it the other way, but we are limited to how close we can be to the existing utilities on the pole. >> in one of our previous hearings i recall there was some discussion, and it may not have been your company, but one of the other companies that the technology is changing a little bit in terms of some of the

equipment getting a little smaller and thinner. is this the thinnest equipment that you can provide? >> this is the only technology that's available to us that's vast technology that does what we need it to as far as the frequencies, the capacity that -- to carry at /t*rbg's service. we actually look all the time to do something smaller, more streamlined, and this is the technology that is available to us that's been approved for our use. there's other things coming out all the time, but so far none of them meet our needs and are not approved for our use. >> are there locations throughout the city with the same equipment? >> at&t has desks throughout the city. >> i mean, is this considered an upgrade for purposes of -- i guess, is this a new design?

that's your best -- >> this is a new design. we just put this in silicon valley, mountain view, and others. we're also doing this in -- >> in san francisco. >> in san francisco, at&t has other desks, there are desk providers in the city that at&t leases service from them. i believe the equipment is similar, i'm not sure if it's the exact same. but this is the at&t equipment we're deployed in various places throughout the city. /stkpwh . >> i'm wondering if this new development in san francisco, is this of a larger scale than others currently existing? i'm talking about the design of the equipment. >> in comparison to other carriers? >> no. your own. what currently exists in san francisco relative to what is -- >> we have what we have throughout that goes through

the planning department, which is our conditional use macro sites between nine panel antenna is to 12 and 16 panel antennas which are 2 feet by 4 feet. we have wi-fi, we have indoor wi-fi. >> my question isn't well put to you because you're not answering it. >> i'm sorry. >> i want to know how many -- this equipment that is issued today -- >> yeah. >> -- are these equipment boxes -- i'm sorry because i'm speaking really simply but that's how i'm thinking about it. are they peppered throughout the city or is that sort of the current state of -- i'm just wondering if that is what you currently have or if this is something new, bigger, better. >> so we are just now moving into das deployment in san francisco.

what we do is we -- if i might show you a picture of the node that is -- >> is this your first box you're putting up in this city of this design? >> no. i think we have one or two more that we have permits for. they're at different various sages of permitting and construction. again, this is a very early deployment for das so yes, there will be more. >> that will be the second question. how many das systems do you have planned for san francisco? >> we have between three and four das nodes, depends on how -- networks. so they're distributed antenna system works kind of like a small network where it hands

off telecommunications traffic from node to node to node so it's kind of this circular /stk*rb -- >> yeah. , i saw your diagram. >> yeah, so this is the das node for this area. and it -- let me see if i can -- it's targeting a specific area that maybe is a target seven, which means it's a fully residential area so -- >> so commonly, back to the question, you only have one or two similar systems that are installed in san francisco at this point? >> i know of two networks that we already have in existence and i just checked with my colleague and it turns outs they are on -- they're a different manufacturer but the

boxes are slightly larger, but very similar. and we have of this particular equipment, i believe we have approved maybe eight permits already approved, and a couple are under instruction. >> are they all in residential neighborhoods? >> typically, yes. that's why we're doing this. >> okay. i had a question. i'm not sure you really get addressed questions about that neighborhood. >> we did look at quite a few alternate sites and we looked

at 4875 17th street. both locations are at the street corner. placing at&t wireless facilities at either intersection with little street cover would only increase the visual impact of the facilities, but more importantly, the city has designated those streets as excellent, as opposed to good, which has a different level of review and our specially protected under article 25 in order to prevent obstruction in those areas. >> i think you meant views not trees. >> i'm sorry. >> okay. >> yes, we did. and we've done those two alternatives and we have two additional alternatives that also didn't work. one due to height, with lower

profile, we wouldn't be able to get up over the houses where the antennas need to be to have a clear line of sight. and i mean, i can give you those specific if you want. four in total we considered. one is on an mta pole and we don't have agreement with mta to go on mta poles. >> i have another question. i'm not sure where it is in the appellants brief. the visual that was put on the overhead that you said was grossly out of pro/porbgs. portion. >> yeah. >> which i think was to toe shopped. can i get a reference to the exhibit if your brief of the visual that was put on the overhead? photoshopped.

can i get a reference to the exhibit if your brief of the visual that was put on the overhead? or you can just put it on the overhead and talk about it. i'm looking at exhibit 8 in your brief. what's on the overhead right now? >> that was what the additional photograph. >> and then exhibit 8 is a box or is it the one underneath. >> what is in exhibit 8 is currently existing? >> correct. >> that currently exists. can i get at&t's -- i forgot

your name, i'm sorry. >> teddy. >> you like me to leave that? >> yes. /tha*bg you. thank you. if you could address why this is grossly out of proportion? >> well, first of all it's not our box. and number two, it's taken about probably -- it's zoomed in. it's taken about a foot from -- i mean, it's their box and they're misrepresenting it so maybe getting the correct dimensions from them would be -- >> what would it look like? let's do it this way. how different would the box that you're proposing for your permit, how would it look different from this one? >> i'm not implied this room or this living room, so i can't speak to that -- >> can your technical people? >> perhaps commissioner hwang,

i believe the dimensions of the box, but she didn't indicate the width. >> if you want to take this box and compare it to this photo, you need to use -- >> is this the same? yeah, can you blow this up a little bit? what exhibit number is it in your brief? do you have the exhibit in yours? >> this particular one wasn't part of the brief. mr. rudich and i went back and forth a bit and these were his suggestions as for as rotating the equipment towards the street and lifting it up and then also i suggested we could

move one of the boxes off the pole and he said that would definitely be better. >> that's the battery box. it's 22 inches wide. >> we can put it across the street and impact other people. >> you can see -- >> i can't see. i don't have that exhibit so -- i don't know if it's a vacant lot, but right behind the pole right there. >> uh-huh. >> until somebody buildses one. >> and i don't know the impact of that on the corner units of /t-p one to the left. >> i'm wondering if it putting across the street is just going to have a consequence for others that are not in the room. >> it could be lower on the pole and facing the other direction as well. >> what do you mean? >> it could be turned around on

the pole. that was just the suggestion was to put it up that high, but you could turn it the other direction and lower it. >> okay. should we hear from the -- >> department, yes. >> thank you. >> before you start, do we need to talk to it about the flickering screen? >> we have. they're working on trying to replace these monitors, but i was told the remote control you have on your desk there might be usable to stop the flickering. you don't see it, but on these monitors here they're flipping back and forth. >> we have to use the overhead. >> i don't know, maybe next time we have media services here we ca

>> good evening john from the department of public works. i want to talk about the presentations the first one is the necessity they're requesting questioning and the second whether it was appropriately decided by planning and the third one was relate to proper notice nicole. obviously the department can't speak to the level of necessity in this case ultimately the size of the facility is delicate by at&t but based on the needs and equipment it does fall under tier 3 requirement so we consider tier 3 necessary. the applicant is correct this is

in a kourlt of law a good view and planning made a decision on august 12th of 2013 some of the conditions were to put the policies in line to minimize the protrusions so it is to be panted to a match the color of pole and they'll need to work with the property owners to see if at the, put in a tree and also to work with the upper forestry to make sure this can happen and at&t is working on that aspect of it. we don't believe in this case that as suggested by the appellant that there was anything define in error by the department those are planning

conditions and those were part of the approval processes. finally let's go specifically to the question of noticing. as part of the notification process we have an affidavit from an individual that the mailing information is correct and properly sent and we also received and did provide the appellant with a notice in october for a directors hearing in november in this situation where the appellant was an active participant. the question came up over the height of the facility will maybe i can explain that. the city requirement must be 8 feet off the ground on the situation part and 4 off the groin on the street site so

people won't hit those boxed with vehicles and at&t based on their requirement put it significantly higher. there were questions about the box that was photo showed up i believe that box maybe a comcast battery back up unit i'll see in the sunset their nooems we recognition that they were up to 3 feet in width. and right now we believe in those kind of cases the health department made the approval based on the approval and there were certain requirements that at&t is required to a follow. during the public notification we did a public hearing and some of the issues related to the

relocation of the facility was discussed at the public hearing and ultimately the director made a decision this was an appropriate request and we granted the approval and it was sent to the board. i'm here to answer any additional questions but i don't think there are any board questions >> the department holder states in their brief and we've heard argument the alternatives that were proposed by the appellant were not appropriate due to the views would you agree on the alternatives proposed for placement? if it is correct that the alternative locations put the facilities in a higher corridor

i'll have to rely on the planning department whether there are additional conditions >> so that's planning okay. thank you. >> will it be placed inside the tree canopies. >> it's a good question i will have to rely on at&t to answer that i do know commissioner one of the biggest observations is the battery back up it's very, very big and hayek that's one of the biggest complaints. >> what's the size relative to the com cast box. >> i think the comcast box doesn't quote me maybe 3 feet by 2 and a half and 3 feet. >> what's the dimensionss. >> 20 by 22.

>> 10 inches. >> is there any public comment on this item take rub89sz from the project people. >> city for listening to our appeal. this is has been a learning can i ever on behalf of all of us we didn't mean to depict anything that's not it is pretty close 27 inches. with regard to what was

discussed by at&t we appreciate at&t discussing the issue. the permitting process has been going on for weeks and months ease, in fact, i had a telephone conversation with at&t about the alternatives we appreciate that and if the board is going to grant the permit we - i would ask that it be granted with those conditions it's important to put the box across the way but to emphasize in terms of the alternative sites we are especially suggesting this by us weeks and months ago we didn't hear any reasons why at&t turned us down it was denied saying it's not viable we doesn't kno why they were not viable we

didn't find out the reasons they were not viable annihilate at filed their brief last thursday we tried to find conditions and i believe as mentioned there are a couple of places but those discussions should have been had weeks and months ago we shouldn't be he hearing here, you know, wasting our time in terms of coming up with alternatives that he he feel there might be alternatives and we're willing to work with at&t we understand there are street ratings that could interfere we understand there are trees in the areas that maybe blocking any windows and the final point at&t mentioned that one of the reasons they picked this particular pole the house is low

and steve and diane's house therefore they would have a problem at&t would have a problem so i submit to the board those discussions should have been had a long time ago ago i'll submit there's other polls that are less instructive not in front of windows but we appreciate the suggestion of the box across the street and at&t indicated it's a vacant lot not to block any windows or something like that >> okay. thank you. you have also 3 minutes >> good evening commissioners ted why with at&t. so i think we have a permit

that's been granted by dpw we've shown that through our california public utilities commission we have by right the ability to be in the public right-of-way. we prefer to work with the community to find a solution that will be amenable. those are tough areas to get coverage we admit that it's a challenge for us but it doesn't mitigate the fact the net is there. we've love to operate tier one but we have the frequency we have and we have many of them the customers are riffling on the frequencies and we have an obliteration to make sure those r gaps are minimized. we have a permit brow. we do ask you support dpw in that but we're willing to take

on a condition to move the equipment. we do not have any additional alternatives they've been achieved. we ask you support dpw in their decision this evening. thank you >> sir anything further? commissioners the matter is submitted >> the planning department we reviewed the aesthetic of the nature did they look at those. >> i don't have much talk on those but i spoke with our wireless planner and he reviewed the previous approved proposal and the revised proposal and buildings those satisfy our requirements. >> what do you mean the revised proposal. >> the one that was proposed as

an alternative. >> that was submitted by your department. >> he asked us to look at other antenna types there was another appeal that was looks like an extension of the telephone pole i believe and they indicated that was not feasible because of the property for the antenna that's what i was told by the gentleman. >> thank you. >> you know we've been mitigated so many times i'll trying to remember what's for us to discuss. >> i'm wondering if your interested in considering the alternative design their i maybe anotr