but we did have four notices on the block, in addition to the fence. i understand that may have been torn off, but the skinny telephone pole, the no parking sign pole was also posted. so to answer your question, we feel that adequate posting has occurred here. it's a development site. my initial responses to the concerned members of the public was just a little surprised that this hadn't come up. that the trees on third street we didn't receive any protest. my understanding the site's being developed just a little surprised that this has come up. >> question, let's say there was no fence and you posted the trees, would there have been additional postings as well at that site? >> no. we would -- as long as those trees were visually accessible,

with'd we'd just post the notices on the trunks of the trees and four pole locations on that block so we'd post four notices on the block, on telephone poles spread throughout and also on the trunks of the trees when they're accessible. >> thank you. questions? i'll start. i'm persuaded by the requester that the notice was inadequate. i think i heard from the department that there was an effort to make sure it was accessible. i'd be in favor of granting the request. when i walk around and see actual trees with posting on them it does make me stop and look at them. if i walk by a pole i'm not

thinking about a tree so that's where i'm going. >> i would agree, but slightly different verbiage i would use. i think that the department did do quite a bit of notice. unfortunately they didn't quite conform specifically to the code and on that basis i would support that. >> i agree. >> i'm going to move to grant the jurisdiction request. >> mr. >> we have a motion to grant this jurisdiction request. commissioner fung. >> i. >> vice president is absent.

president lazarus. >> i. >> commissioner honda. >> i. >> thank you. the vote is four, zero. jurisdiction is granted and these requestors now have a five day appeal permit to appeal this permit, which end this coming monday. thank you. >> thank you. item number five was dismissed, we now move on to item number six. this is for the property at 4848 17th street. we'll start with the

appellants, who have seven minutes. >> good evening board. thank you for hearing our appeal. my name is kevin rudich and i live at 4846 17th street. i'm accompanied by michael cruise who lives there with me as well, and steve and diane, who live at 4848 17th street. we are asking the board to deny at&t to be able to build their tier three wireless facility on a pole that is right in front of both of our houses. just to give you a brief background, this is in coal valley. we moved to coal valley for particular reasons. it's a nice residential neighborhood, treelined, lots of light and air and we've been there for ten years.

i believe steve and diane have been there for 30 years and have had no issues until this particular point. so again, we'd ask the board not to grant at&t their application for the building of this tier three wireless facility. i've outlined -- in a brief that we filed, we've outlined the reasons for our arguments and i just want to point out a few of those at this point. as the board knows, tier three wireless is the biggest wireless facility that can be built. in at&t's brief they seem to suggest that the board and other city agents says have little control over what is built as far as three tier three wire /res facilities are called for and i'd submit to the board that that is not the case. that the board has the right

and other city agencies have the right to deny a permit or to submit conditions with that permit. and i know i'm running out of time here. just a couple of the most important arguments is that at&t failed to satisfy the tier three wireless standard from article 25 of the san francisco public works code. in that section, it states that there should be less obtrusive areas looked at. in addition, there should be coverage issues shown or lack of coverage. and in our brief submitted to the board we've shown for this area there is no lack of coverage. we've submitted a couple of maps showing, again, that there is no coverage problem.

at&t, one of those maps was from metrics. at&t submits that is none an accurate coverage of that area, yet, we have an article that was written by a miss wynn submitted in january 14, 2014, where at&t relies on the rude metrics map, showing that there is good coverage in that area. as i said before in our brief, we show there is good coverage in that area. moving on, the other argument is that at&t must satisfy a compatibility standard and that is pursuant to a public works code section 25. in this particular case they did not satisfy that combat

ability. . if you look to those code sections you can see that what is looked at as the blocking of light and air, we've submitted it in our brief. again, pictures of how this would block the light and air. there is an additional photo not included in the brief that shows what a hastive project this is. this is looking out a window at 4848 17th street at the southeastern exposure. there's much light and air that comes into this area in the afternoon and in the morning s as well. we'd also argue that, again, it didn't -- at&t didn't satisfy the compatibility standards.

it recommends the city should reduce clutter and show look towards the undergrounding of overhead wires. in this case, this goes against that general plan and i would submit to the board that they did not follow that. again, in addressing adequately alternative sites, they did not address those adequately. we were hit with a situation where what was -- we had suggested to at&t weeks ago as to their possible viable alternative sites and we did not hear back regarding those particularities of that until their brief was filed on thursday of last week. i think this still is opportunity for discussion. again, we did not have the opportunity to vet to see if there are other alternative sites, but at&t did not contact

us regarding that particular issue until last thursday and i would submit to the board that there are other alternative sites. there 's one on be riverly street, which is very similar to the project that we have here at 4846 17th street, but it's an area with little or no coverage. there is alternative sites available. at&t failed to give proper notice, we did not get mailed notice. we found out through our neighbors. there was no notice given to the improvement association of coal valley pursuant to section 1612 and there were no community meetings that suggested in dpw 1800222 in regard to this project in the hopes of possibly being able to resolve or come up with a compromise, we did not have the

opportunity to do that so i just submit to ask the board not to allow at&t to build this project. >> who questions for you. first is, where in the overall schedule for undergrounding is your neighborhood? >> i'm not sure about that. i do not know, but we've had discussions amongst the neighbors that that is something we'd like to facilitate, but i'm not sure where. >> okay, the photo that you showed -- is that an actual installation somewhere? >> it is not. >> is the photoshop -- >> again, i'm -- we're catching up -- >> it is a photoshop, but -- my name is steve, 4848 17th street. okay, the pole is an actual

picture that were represented in the model that was sent to us by at&t. >> okay. >> is it at the height of other facilities. >> yes, in the height that was proposed in the model by at&t. >> okay. >> yes. >> thank you. we can hear from the permit holder now.

>> good afternoon, my name is teddy, and i'm director of external affairs for at&t california. joining me is our project manager for this installation, and at&t's radio access in/skwre near and dave with at&t's legal department.

and are approved or denied by the planning, through the conditional use process. these are less intrusive and allow at&t to provide high quality coverage where macro facilities may not be feasible. we rely on our 7901 california public utilities code to install these small wireless nodes in the public right of way, just like other place

their telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, in such points to in article 25 of the public works code wireless carriers to deploy congresswomen in the public right of way, including utility poles. tier one, tier two or tee three. tier three. the tier classification is based upon the number and size of antennas and the equipment it proposed to install. at&t submitted an application for a tier three facility on an existing pole at 4848 17th street. this is classified as a tier three because we propose to install two antennas that are

greater than 3 inches in diameter, which is tier one facility, and that are not sill lynn /tkreu cal, which would categorize it as a tier two, but as a tier three because it needs three equipment enclosures in order to satisfy the frequencies that at&t /k*us /phers and network rides on. after the required public notice and hearing, appellants challenged that permit contended at&t failed to comply with article 25. i have two minutes left and i can go on and sort of share with you what else is in our -- what is already in our brief, or i can share with you that we have worked -- our team has worked with mr. rudich, who i believe he didn't say this this evening, to try to find a alternate design where we have agreed to split the equipment. so if i may show you, so the

design is on top with the pole as it is, the design proposed below. it has an equipment box, it has an rru unit and the antenna. >> can you say that again into the microphone? >> it basically has the antennas on the top of the box, it has the rru equipment and a [inaudible]. so we have agreed to -- we've worked with them to try to take that long box, face it towards the street and take the battery box and place it across the street on the other poles to minimize the equipment that's on this one pole that would be near estest their home.

we have proposed that. we have shared those photos with the appellant and so i'm happy to continue on my comments as to why the permits should be -- >> what happened to those discussions? >> we provided them to them, but didn't get an affirmative answer. >> okay. >> so if we -- we are happy to make those changes as a condition this evening, to that permit and/or, move forward with the design as proposed, but we would -- we place that out there for -- >> did you get any inputs before making that proposal? >> oh yes. our team has done, i think, a very good job of going out, looking at alternate locations, trying to find a way -- the proposal they've asked us to look at for

alternative sites. in article 25 there's no obligation on the right of the carrier to find alternate sites. we're happy to do that. we get it. we want to be good corporate citizens. we think we have found a solution to help to redesign that, to help mitigate what's there, but again, i don't want to speak for them so i'd put that out there -- >> alternative sites, what about alternative designs. if one you've suggested is the one you're proposing, but as far as other design alternatives, were those brought forward to you by the appellants? >> alternative designed meaning different size of equipment? >> different size, different placement, sort of out of visual -- >> yeah, one of the changes in moving that or rotating that equipment around so it's street facing is to move it up 7 feet

as well and we're able to do that. so that will help with the long 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 colleaan