i'll agree i place the motion to not recognize the appeal or vote against the appeal. >> are you moving to deny the appeal. >> i'm moving to deny the appeal. >> for the benefit of this item and the next several items that are coming up if we deny the appeal i'm sorry if we denied the permit let me put it this way the federal law requires us to have written finding and substantial basis for denying the permit but generally speaking to on the ordinance what we'll focus on the significant degradation to the attributes or the views of the buildings the parks, etc. we'll point those to the record

that was presented tonight. >> i am moving to deny the appeal. >> to support the permit. >> therefore don't worry about that. >> that's correct. >> so commissioners on your motion it would be good to state a basis is that because it is code compliant. >> under the jest of the laws if good afternoon this behavior and this process from the city. >> okay. >> can i summarize that. >> (laughter). >> yes code compliant. >> thank you sorry. >> that's quite all right. >> mr. pacheco. >> there's a motion on the floor from commissioner swig to deny this appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it is code

compliant commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda. >> commissioner l. riley vote is 5 to zero this permit is you would on that basis. >> all right. we'll move on to item 7 meagerly a versus the public works mapping properties on vallejo street to the system inc. of a wireless box for a personal wireless facility for the application and we will start with the appellant here. >> hi, good evening. i'm speaking on behalf of marge a

basically we're arguing similar idea that number ten felt conditions that the facility should not obstruct the view of light adjacent to the windows look at one they have the simulation from this is the side view of the pole if he could go here this is the - >> this is the existing pole here on the left and those are the additions two changes one the height change and additional horizon crossbar and the canister and the multiple boxes on the side told her the condition must be met by the permit holder it didn't obstruct the building in questioning i in question is this building as you can see the

stairs going up 3 pictures from the bottom floor i think the first one you'll notice about the pole it is unmissouri leftdz a bare pole anything adams again obstruct the view either tenants or whoever else from the bottom here you'll have box these on the right side that obstructs the view and moving to the middle that is the most substantial in this picture you'll see the current horizon according is just kind of meets the top of roof like that this was the area that had a good view to break that good view it obstructed the open space so if we looked at the proposal again

put this back up on the right you see the poles is moved up in height and from the view of the second unit here you'll see on additional cross added in the open skyline by definition obstruct that view here the top unit you'll see the existing pole with the cross here will be heightened and the second cross added we did provide access to tend expend to do a simulation from the top and middle the top as you can see has probably the lows our obstruction and choose to do a simulation not from the top this is where you'll you will have the top obstruction in terms of the addition of a connect cross above the roofline

and an open space that is the argument we'll put forth to the board here. >> with regards to the process as well with the spent e stent they came with one proposal that is twice as high three or four feet the current height is 3 feet but the arithmetic of that top horizon beam it significantly impacts the view additionally the fact they gave us only the simulation for the top unit as opposed to the middle unit there's is a little bit disingenious we believe the roof should have access to 9-1-1 cell phone access and if someone can't get a video faster that's not a concern i think and again

the main point is that stent pole to the conditions again shall not obstruct i think clearly looking at this pole here how can the addition of the extended height of the pole and the crossbeam somewhere in this range not obstruct it is a clear violation of what it of the supposed the conditions of the permit basically multiple other poles that have more hardware and the least obstruct active is in front of the context with that, i think it speaks for itself just it has impaired the view and especially with that picture it is a good view and encroaching to the open space

that's all i have >> thank you. we'll hear from the permit holder. >> good evening and thank you for that prior lively discussion this is one opportunity that we had to work with the appellant and try to resolve the issues with respect to the view the originally the height of the pole was that 9 feet at the dpw protest level we've shifted to a top antenna in other words, to reduce the height to put-down the antenna in front of the window we've revised that once again and reduced this so it will be a side mounted antenna and the increased pole will only

be 2 and a half feet in this case, the appellant invited us in and we took photos and the photos simulation are shown to you now we essentially have been able to reduce the height of the polls to 2 and a half feet it is 10 inches below the top of her window line otherwise the pole and the antenna will be rotated away from the pole at a lower height i want to say quickly that with the code protects our public not private view when you talk about views the standard is whether it significantly obstructs the element the building landmark open space or park that make it a scenic view that's a public view in terms of the private

view the verizon wireless have agreed to condition 10 not obstructing the lighted or view from the private view and that the condition of approval that was expressed if we violate that there can be a followup remadeline of the permit it is the condition of the permit your protecting private views i want nicole to go through the photo simulation those are the plans reviewed by the planning department you see a letter from the planning department recommending use the right words approving their review of this design as complying with the planning standards that are required so maybe nicole can go through those. >> so just so you know the timing of all those photos we do

our standard photos with the application in the previous application that was discussed those were special the appellant invited us into her home to take photos from inside her home and asked us to do that on tuesday morning obviously it does take time they were given to me this afternoon in electronic form i'm going to step away and stop talking so the words don't block our view on the screen the first view is existing. >> ms. mason the words don't block the view on the monitors we have here. >> i don't know okay. >> here is the view with the

slight pole increase. >> so you raise up the ipad a touch. >> is that better. >> yes. thank you. >> that's our proposed installation and again existing view. >> if you receive the planning department brief those are in hardcopy in the planning department. >> yeah. subsequent to that i got the rest because in the appellants brief she only displaced a view from they are third-story window but when our person was out there she asked him to take photos from every store this afternoon i got the balance i'll show you what it looks like from the one story

and second-story. >> so here's the hopefully you can see that on your screen existing view on the top as you can see there's signage on the middle or lower part of the pole that is what this is a sign that currently exists on the pole and this is what it looks like after we install from the first floor and that's from incidentally when our photo person was out there he indicated when we returned that in order to make those views available they actually had to remove a flag attached to the window and remove glass from the window when the glass is in the window on a day to day basis it is

dirty and obstructs the view from outside the window those are not necessarily accurate from the standpoint of what they actually sees from inside her home she sees a flag on one window a a dirty one a window. >> and finally - no one more. >> finally this view so existing sorry and that's what it looks like on the install on the bottom. >> so in conclusion thank you. i did want to obviously the points we've made are equally relevant there was a mention of the text campaign that the developing verizon and we have over 6 hundred residents that

are in favor of the network and russian hill we have 9 hundred customers in the background on that in the e-mails and text messaging for the facilities really the point of our comments to show we're doing our best to minimize the impacts. >> i have a question. >> i think it effects. >> you made reference to changes in that particular installation the height of the - which arguably has made it less intrusive why would you not have come in with that proposal first place. >> that's a good question and i think there is some impairment in the signal of quality that verizon wanted to achieve but frankly when i saw the photo simulations provided we

discussed going back and trying to eliminate the impact that was mentioned 48 sites down to 4 appealed before you under concern circumstances circumstances are compelling and we're able to rise but i have to begin by saying we went up to 9 top mount and were working from the side to the top mount and this was through the protest process once we got those we discovered that perhaps that was worse we went back to the on the other model to reduce it in this case it was relating a bitter process of the majority of poles we go out of our way to match the aesthetics with the requirements we have. >> i got a question so you showed the photos and the appellant said there was not one

taken from the second-story was there a first and third taken. >> speak into the mike. >> there's a second floor and she's going to show us the reason the city didn't file a breefrp diligently working as you recall we were able to withdraw at the last minute wherever those appeals occur. >> overhead please. with the neighbors. >> this is the second floor via our looking. >> i'm old i can't see. >> how you want me to move it. >> it you actually fine that's helpful thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners shall we hear from the department now okay. >> public works public works

have a brief appeal we're under the impressions that the matter would be settled i have a copy of briefs from the board will accept it we'll provide a copy to you. >> yeah. i think- >> we have more time to read it. >> make our arguments. >> the greater is impacts but what was brought up the views maine and so i'll hand that over to the planning department. >> omar. >> obviously this site is the design challenges as many sites did when we were made aware that the protests were a view item amongst other areas of concerns we asked verizon to look at a different pole design so we went

through a tall somewhat gangly design with the sidearm and at all with 8 feet plus with a sidearm on top of the pole that would not comply what the conditions of approval we larry last week asked verizon to look at the site and went to the ladies house to look from the third floor and saw is it fair to say plaza the antenna at window level we redesigned it came to a lower height in terms of bringing the antenna both down and in front of the pole the pole is between the antenna and the windows we'll reduce the impairment that will occur. >> i have a question i think that maybe with the appellant

mentioned there were other poles on the block. >> there are other poles on the block but every one has their challenges the one pole that is less intrusive was fairly further way at the end of the block and the pole across the street i would be inclined to say look at that pole it would actually raise the same issue. >> okay. we'll take public comment moniker to speak on this item okay. we'll had had same thing if you would line up against the far wall and the first pope person can speak if you have speaker cards that would be helpful please come forward. >> hi, i'm nancy crane a thirty years residents of san francisco i've participated in

any neighborhood is hearings before i'm familiar with the process i have - i'm a friend of the van gourldz been in their living room i'm aware of the view issue and in support of appeal because i feel that the view will be impaired and i am grateful to verizon for all they've done and the reason i as a professional am aware that when i would work on hearings for pg&e as a technical expert we needed options at least 3 and many projects were rejected and we had to go back and find new sites rejected for many reasons this is a view issue i think that is impaired even though verizon has tried hard i building that it is still their restriction of the plan to try to deal with the view is still a

problem so that's my concern and i wish you would listen to that thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> to you hearing my comments i'm karen burns a 15 year residents of san francisco i came to san francisco for a health care opportunity thinking i would be here two years but feel in front of with the city its beauty and because of the views i'm a friend of martha and been in here living room i support the appeal i believe this obstructs the view for the units it was hard from the verizon provided photos they were small but knowing this is 24 inches

wide it takes up a significant part of the windowpane i'm a health care worker i am vociferated o devoted to the profession 9-1-1 works well and i'm a verizon customer and my service is excellent i don't have dropped calls and don't believe there's a night for this i support the appeal thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is a sarah i've lived in in which russian hill for 12 years i'd like to pointed out that velgz representatives themselves said that for the wooden poles they don't need to show the provision is necessary

and desirable for the rooftop installation he said himself clearly why they've chosen the wooden poles i support the appeals but it is since it will obstruct the view from the appellants window there's no way it can't if it is wider and bigger in the window it is quite clear it is going to contradict the condition that verizon agreed to for the permit which is not this significant issue but the question whether there should be any obstruction of light or verify is he it is clearly going to be obstruction of light or view whether or not her window is dirty i'd like to bring up the point the verizon text i'd like to ask

what liability survey gives only a yes option as a response someone mentioned they were unable to so okay so the survey fails to say home people were polled altogether who a 90 or one percent support they've claimed only text for 933 but other data showing zip codes that were responded as well so they clearly got the other zip codes at least that's my opinion in support. >> next speaker >> i'm jason i'm supporting the appellant i would like to mention that

arguing with the last speaker no possible way this project would not obstruct views and light and i'd like to also point out that verizons contemptuous regard for the viewers of the people that are being injured by their project which is not just the appellants by the way, it is the public in general i also want to mention that there text blast is kind of a joke first of all in their are you able to our case in the introduction they site 6 hundred respondents which is what the gentleman referred to a few

minutes ago and site exhibit s if you turn to that exhibit is it cantonese a typed letter saying we have received 2 hundred and 49 or whatever it is responses in the affirmative first of all, how is that evidence that is what they're saying second of all it is inconsistent with 6 hundred respondents 3rd of all if you read the text that people received it is a joke i mean, if they sent if text to 5 hundred thousand people we have why'd how many received it we've requested it, it is a disingenious rely we have no way to use that position if any way aside from

dismissing that as you know, an insult to opinion thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi i'm the graduate student from hastings i purchased a cell phone in 2010 and i got verizon wireless service and when i went to put the service on i thought to myself well, it might be akin to going to law school what imagines and pictures appeared on the phone like i have on leather so i asked them to put the name jesus christ on the service i think this is appropriate this is the reason ami i've not given you my name i want to find out how this room and how you members of san

francisco board of supervisors and commission what sort of response one needs to present themselves to jesus christ in city hall oh, by the way, my cell phone service is not working or i've overpaid my minutes or something like that thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> you've heard from me before i'm furious that is my first time at a meeting your gsr the condition of the permit i can't believe that is happening i mean those people are having their views obstructed this is what it's all about. >> you're saying it's okay verizon and attica walk over san franciscans and put their

junctions openly on all poles i'm furious this is not justice at all. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> yes. well again, i'm john and still live at the foot of russian hill this morning i came across on interesting document it stated that mark 17 are 2011 that's well over four years ago from nancy a land use lawyer you know her she's writing to me and said the san francisco board of appeals denies an antenna permit good news the first time in the city's history the san francisco board of appeals has denied a