y're right more services t is needed what's the alternative everybody is talking i've not been offenders on alternative. >> i'm not in the business i'm not a telephone communications expert this is what we're going to get no, no i appreciate that that's fine. >> i don't know. >> okay i'm not that person. >> okay. >> i'm the person that lives there and come on down just come on down it's a treat it is really - >> thank you. >> we'll take rebuttal from permit holder. >> good afternoon, president and supervisors commissioners i'm nicole mason with the permit holder and we're going the

installation for the verizon and the benefit to the public the benefits to the public are jd safeties as well as more reliability for little calls personal and business whatever as well as data and as was previously stated this technology that can't be achieved the service that can't be achieved by attaching rooftops is is different type of service we need to attach to those poles at this level in order to provide the extra data capacity that is why you heard council for verizon an over and under this is under it is about capacitate so with that said, i want to straighten out it needs to be replaced to consultant in this with the geo95 a regulation

by the department of public works it requires the facing requirements between everything on a utility pole in other words to meet those safety driven specifications in order to meet those the pole needs to be increased in height by 4 feet and it here on behalf of the appellant you should know that extra net is a 12 copy we're a co-owner the reason we're attaching to the light poles no other poles in the neighborhood to attach to some people in the audience have called out attached to street lights no medal street lights that is not an underground district an overhead utility district with only those poles and are, in fact, the least intrusive installations on a utility pole

when we're working on street light pole we can do more awe authentically please carry on conversations out in the hallway. but only on a utility pole only this i'll show you oh, great, thank you as you can see those are the photo semesters are done by a technician who is looking at the engineering drawings and they are 20 to scale they reflect exactly what is in the engineering drawings the somersaults use to do the installation in the field as you can see the views are hardly all the evidence and certainly no to the standard this board needs to look at it the significant depredation and here i'll let the council. >> your time is up.

>> questions. >> for her. >> thank you. >> so when you are looking at when i say there's no significance to the view is it the view from the ground or the folks home and both from their house their right now looking at a pole they're looking at a light poles they'll be looking at a utility 0 pole. >> overhead. >> as you can see that the antenna is street facing behind the pole from the vantage point. >> the pole will be replaced by a taller pole. >> right. >> and have that piece city of chicago but out of that. >> it will look exactly like this picture here. >> okay. thank you. >> the antenna.

>> is roe rotated towards the street first of all i disagree and this is my personal opinion you serve the public who pays verizon a fee to provide telephone and internet service if you were serving the public you'll not be making a public it's a gross misrepresentation you provide you refuse to buy the service i think that is a gross misrepresentation okay. >> i'd love your comment on that one you want to give it to the public for free go for it that's the point of view, and, secondly, on that picture you shown and put it back up there there's a difference between that photo and photo that was

shown by mr. black and blue bark is it one box or 4 boxes. >> as the photo simulation. >> is there 4 or 3. >> 3. >> there's a meter box it is for pg&e associated with this site. >> so the photo simulator is noticing not going to show from the home that is blocking the view not from the prospective of where the complaints with coming from. >> we can't get into someone's home the photo semesters. >> the rule is. >> let me read the rule

actually it says for public right-of-way the general plan is designated as having views so for the ethical standard for the proposed facility will significantly impair the views of the important buildings landmarks, open spaces or parks that were the basis of the designation so it's a view of any of the important buildings parts it's a view of the building and parks. >> from the buildings or of the building autopsy of the building of the important building landmarks, open spaces or parks. >> so the representation that was shown by the project sponsor one box is all they have to show versus the view from brubaker that was significantly more inner truthful.

>> it says of the property class a historic property they don't show a view of the property that's a side view not a direct view the clarification they should show a picture from the street to the class a historic property and so yeah, so the semesters we do give the most accurate view that's why we had two views one from one street and the other view for the corridor because the view corridor we have to show down the other side so where you don't see the boxes looking at one direction the poles obstructs the views of the boxes when you look at the other direction i have that on the screen you see the boxes we're not trying to hide anything the

drawings clearly with all the specs and everything states exactly what we're putting on the pole and the dimensions and my next question council said based on the system this is the opportunity that the presents itself for the boxess i'm going to ask the same question from the representative from the city is there another way - forget the system i want to put in is there another system that provides adequacy service less intrusive provokes less harm to the bli barks so might as well get it on the table did there another system less confident to verizon more expensive to verizon that is not convention to the city less harmful to the

citizens and in this case, the brubakers i have to begin this is the most expensive system. >> i don't care about expenses. >> is there a less intrusive. >> it costs about 3 times as much as a normal macro system it is in the eyes of beholder whether a at all macro site disguise as a tree is more intrusive as boxes on a telephone pole up and down the state one community choose one over the other in this particular case those antennas are actually extensively sophisticated contain 3 antennas within the container each of those antennas contain 2 antennas that carry two frequencies their positions out in the street for shooting

up and down the street. >> sorry this is obstruction this is very important i'm sure if you replace that with roof mounted antennas and small sell secell you have to place the antennas opposite the corner in 3 sets of 3 antennas you end up with 6 or 9 chimneys or 3 boxes on the corners you have to shot over the edge of the building if there's a set back we have to have a one-on-one ratio to signal to have it shoot over the roofline i've got two for north beach that led to enormous opposition for chimney tops in the north beach owe appealed up to the board of supervisors and people asked for falls on light

poles so in further services being provided the capacity verizon wireless buildings this network using light poles minimize the number of canisters to provide the level of capacitate service they're trying to provide again beauty is in the eyes of the beholder they have the right to be in the right-of-way by state law that was challenged in 2006 but we have the right to be in the right-of-way and have the right to put telephone equipment on top of telephone poles different standards versus what is on a planning facilities their apples and oranges for the planning sites on a rooftop we

have to show is it the sdshl we don't have to meet that standard for the public works we have to meet time and place and banner standards for the section 90 one what's less intrusive the way the federal law the least number of hurdles within a local jurisdiction that's where the local jurisdiction times you to say no various or continental uses in my opinion those are the least intrusive in terms of federal and state law and technology to provide the services that verizon wants to talk about. >> i think the brubakers disagree with you you. >> i have to say in any public

infrastructure try loeths a sanction equipment there are public benefits the immediate adjacent neighbor is effected because of the public benefits it is the same request street lights people want lighted sidewalks and highways and on ramps any kinds of utility that is a service to the public. >> i think there is a i'm going to finish up there's a great concern the domino effect my fellow commissioner noted an x number of installations from at&t that is going in and verizon is putting in numbers thrown out i don't recall. >> 43 other provides of wireless services that now based on this persistent possibly or based on

at&t installations will because they want to be competitive and make more money and sell important obeyed are going to be on the next utilizing the same lose laws your stating on the next pole and the opportunity in san francisco on every pole 9 trillion boxes hiding under the law that you so eloquently stated our concern is while we're supporting public the public by providing them with more band width i'm a verizon subscribeer i'm wrestling with what we're doing with a public disstiffer by creating an ugly situation in front of people's homes i'm not pick on verizon it

could be a exert. >> the gentleman has a chance of r at rebuttal. >> this is not gone unnoticed to the city of san francisco article 25 of the code specifically drafted to deal with antennas in the right-of-way they have been lawsuits this is the third one under art 25 it is the touch i toughest right-of-way ordinances in the state of california so we are abiding by and taking a year to come up with eloquent facilities with minimal impact your concern is not unnoticed by the city and gone before the board of supervisors and the committees and the city attorney's office to make this regulation that was amended one of the toughest in the state the city is protected.

>> i'm reminded that dpw is the respondent we should hear from. them and if there are questions or things to add specific give this further thought part of the rules under article 25 keep in mind that and this was actually part of the proceedings article before amended the conditions that the city imposed my may not say a company use part of the - >> could you speak up on that. >> yes. this is relates to the conditions that the city may impose on the permit therefore you can impose and it says conditions is any additional the

city reviews a placement to determine are necessary for the application to comply with the article 25 that within the departments purview provides that no such conditions may require an application for the personal services we can't get into the feel of dictating what kind of technology to be used to get the equipment. >> through the chair the reading i couldn't tell the applicant from a scope antenna i can answer. >> - >> actually premiering we should hear from dpw first if any rebuttal. >> okay. >> so we think of wireless technology as different tools in the toolbox in san francisco we think this is not the best tools

if we are in another county and i have a choice opposing poles versus hundred metal towers i'll take the wooden poles but, however, of they work with us are they going to get enough sites between russian hill to cover their network no so the answer about part down the middle they've - they'll stop any pursuit especially in the low lying residential spaces if you see the antenna there is did bridges you have to find a place in the small residential building the wireless citing is not just about the antennas

at&t is an example is proposing a number of wooden pole sites as a result of seeing more support is from the board of supervisors they got 25 sites approved they stopped with the wooden sites will they innovate come back with one but we hope that the folks at verizon take that to hearted and look at that example and base that on working on rooftop sites and the lows intrusive of the wooden poles so win the spectrum of wooden pole sites this is more intrusive in terms of large panel antennas and large cabinets with noise and cooling fans we have challenges with the proposal we acknowledge within the spectrum of the polls that is probably on the least

intrusive side of the gotten on to wooden poles you have at driveway and the spaces between homes. >> you have a question. >> how many installations does verizon have planned you're aware of. >> 43 for the northeast and in addition 3 hundred and 20 on steel poles owned by the city of san francisco and steel poles owned by anothers those can be streamlined and we think they're actually a viable product so in a way that didn't 83 track from the landscapes. >> scott wiener we should hear from them shortly. >> hopefully not. >> thank you. >> i - if we were to uphold

this appeal. >> uh-huh and for the purpose for reason that it is for the view reasons it detracts from the quality of life from the neighborhood i can list a bunch of them. >> uh-huh. >> but most importantly to find a better way to force verizon i'm not picking on verizon; right? arrest there is a hole bay area in that area but do we had a what i'm wrestling with while maybe doing a disservice in the short term for those who testified they're concerned about their security do we provide a service potentially by forcing verizon to look at an

aeflth technology this is going to be less obtaining truthful and create messing less public harm through the issues stayed by the appellants that's harder to just especially there is no commercial building down the street there is an obvious site next door does that answer your question. >> that's what i'm - brown be fully transparent i wrestle with that and see your challenge with all the numbers of all the boxes and providers of services we'll have ever pole in san francisco with ugly boxes but also will turn streetscapes into garbage.

>> we share your concerns. >> i wish you were here last year. >> are we complete with this. >> the matter is submitted then commissioners. >> i want to respond in part that while i understand your prospective you were real alledgedly a public policy and that's not what we're here for we're here because there's a challenge to 0 specific permit issued under the state and city and county of san francisco so if we deny every permit because it ultimately will result in a lot of poles that is not the appropriate approach so far as i am concerned. >> having sat through a full

year of multiple multiple case we're taking 6 fo by 4 feet massive in front of someone's property and given that we have gone through this process last year and started from training wheels and by the time we were done had a pretty good handle i believe that unfortunately it is not the best situation for the property owners that have to look at those sites by overall given the equipment size i've seen in the past presented before this board many times it is probably the better option. >> i'm not sure we have a proper handle on the situation i am concerned about the virtual

blight and concerned we have the authority to undertake if you look at the case and we have the results recently is this week last year there was a change in the ordinance related to concern boxes and it introduced the second layer of a process to deal with the neighborhoods well, we got handed it back to us back to the department you're talking about thirty some permits the department has and we upheld that but unfortunately, the courts feel every time we've taken this to a concern direction the utilities feel no compunction to stack it to litigation and many most

cases won. >> the homeowners we've spent hours and hours and hours of fighting hours and hours and hours of fighting to no avail our decisions were basically handed back to us you know so this is the lesson we've the process we come to after dealing with this for over a year now. >> i don't have that history but i do think we are somewhat constrained by the article; right? article 25 so i don't think we have as much room to move as the public may want us to given the constraint. >> i'm afraid that's the case. >> and the i'm not sure commissioners increase blight aid it would be nice if we all had underground that would be awesome but in comparison to

what we've seen in the recent past as far as wireless utility boxes those are really small. >> so i appreciate the feedback from my fellow commissioners and my education because you had before you obviously taken the aggressive position i took as a rock i didn't so i'm playing our role this year and i'm willing to acknowledge you're good wisdom with recognize to the problems that those people living in front of those boxes face and recognizing we're governed by a southern law it's important ♪ forum? public forum that is broadcast and with the city departments in front of us we

service those issues aggressively and send a strong message that okay. you can do that because it is what the law is but the risk by continuing this behavior is that you may turn our beautiful san francisco into a blighted environment with the lovely boxes all over the place and hamper although increasing the quality of life that we are also ham petersburg our quality of life by providing those are poles with boxes and but the benefits those can't be graffitied and trash didn't consultant so while people open up their car door without hitting the box >> 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. >>