to notify the neighbors. >> okay so commissioners. >> one second are we doing done this concluded i haven't submitted. >> i tried - and okay refer the question. >> so sorry me. >> so - given the fact that this will probably not be the last verizon case before us and i'd rather not each of case individual but given the conditions here the personal wireless service facility noted obstruct the view or light into any adjacent arranged window to me is extremely vague there's no basis and no clarity and so to help us later on, i

mean i personally feel that - >> commissioner on that note we are trying to find that language moving forward and i'm wondering if planning can help us in the code. >> maybe we should ask planning that question. >> so the question i have really is to have dpfks in the code of planning yards in regards to temple item 12 i'm sure. >> so the desire of the board to see the public works can provide the clarity on the item. >> no right now something on the bingo it defines number tentatively. >> they'd our challenge and my concern as well so, i mean i don't know my how other commissioners feel.

>> address the question to dpw. >> if one of you want to - >> i'm the big boss in the how house. >> mr. bryan the question is unclear that's a code requirement or something that can be negotiated because there are conditions that the appellant the permit holder can agree to the code requirement is contrary that significantly impairs the view of discern thanks that's what you're looking at but this is something different perhaps the parties negotiate after all we've with offer concur there could be an instance where this board makes the finding of the permit - >> i need some kind of clarity so the board of supervisors or the barack obama's ever anyone else this is clarity according to this language it blocks someone's light those are the

conditions arrested agreed on dpw do you have language regarding that and good evening commissioners carli short department of public works with the code it requires that we refer this to the planning department to make those determinations that mr. bryan outlined that have to do with the indemnification of good use and excellent views and looking at these those public views in this case that was a volunteery continue placed upon the permit. >> can you read the specific language in your code that deals with the criteria as of now. >> well, the specific language. >> that deals with planning looking at the view. >> i didn't want to look for it

here for the discussion did you bay went from live trees to middle trees. >> well, i was going to point out that commissioner vice president honda has a behalf view of the trees. >> a.d. hocks and a.d. hocks. >> this is the highlight of the language of the code. >> the planning department determination that an application - whoops. >> is there a way to blow that up there you go. >> okay. the planning department determinations that an application for a tier for the permit safer the protective

condition that the kwierls service facility not obstruct the view or the light into any adjacent residential window. >> that didn't help (laughter). >> from who's point of view because if i am- okay. so if i'm the apartment dweller or the owner of the building and i say that is obstructing my view does that count or is it the city's point of view that it is an obstruction who point of view who gets to obstruct the measure of obstruction. >> the code spectacles asked public works to defer to the planning department the planning department it is the planning

department's determination. >> so in this case if i'm the are apartment dweller and i say i'm obstructed and planning comes back and says no. there's no obstruction then planning triumphs dweller. >> through i'm trying to get clarity. >> who gets to say that's an obstruction. >> or is it me sitting here as a commissioner looking at a photo saying sure looks like an obstruction therefore i move to you would would uphold the appeal and i. >> the challenge the bon appetit department is relying on the condition and planning interpretation of whether or not this condition has been met. >> it says the planning can

make - the planning can include the condition not determines if it is met with an unambiguous constitute. >> but the department of public works the reason this gets deferred to the planning department they have the expertise presumably and so we defer to them we would defer to them if someone were arguing that condition, in fact, had not been met. >> what is troubling i was talking about earlier which is the after the fact planning can get out and inspect and say no. you didn't meet the conditions it gets sticky because a it's in. >> one the utilities invested the money and put up the tower

it is a funny condition. >> that's the risk when we voluntarily take that position. >> project sponsor. >> so it's a whole different ball park not a but a new ball park it didn't meet the condition then our going to answer each other on that basis or the. >> robert. >> but does the board get to substitute it's judgment versus the planning in other words do we have to find that in his determination it explicit obstruct. >> we could. >> are you speaking as a lawyer. >> i'll let robert. >> counselor counselor (laughter). >> so, so we're on the same

page this is not a determination it is blocking the condition it is simply a condition so as you could make a determination that is blocking views sixth enough views to not warrant an issuance of the permit. >> there is no indication of the significance. >> that's a completely different thing all this does is authorize what is in the permit it is an enforcement issue if it you are not to they're blocking the permit department can say your blocking and not in compliance with this condition. >> it's my understanding the board wouldn't be able to deny

based on this condition other items but planning could come back and say to the permit holder you voluntarily agreed and - >> i don't know if it is the case the department is relying on our determination we can reject that. >> right we're trying to reach to the - >> sorry to check this out >> yeah. he think we're going to take a break and come back and get - >> we are back to the item 7. >> and want would you like to hear from our council.

>> thank you for your time to look at the code sorry standard for denying or granting a profit of 0 permit this is fairly limited and my understanding this is a tier b permit and so in the case of an application of a or b for the planning department you could grant the protest if you see that was determined it meets the capability standards and the tier b comparability means an applicant for a wireless facilities on a public right-of-way that is either within or adjacent to a planning electricity or zoning protected

the wireless will not significantly detract from the divenl i defining protected location or zoning electricity location i'm assume we're talking about a planning electricity location not a zone protected location. >> permit me to pull up the definitions. >> the zone is correct the utility from the street light pole within the reciprocal would apply as a remain. >> residential. >> so then the zoning standard means an applicant for a site permit on the public right-of-way has demonstrated that the wireless facility will not significantly detract from

the residential or can he recall zoning district if we are talking about a zoning standards then that would be the test for whether it appeal should be grant the wireless facility will not detract if the residential or commercial zoning district so big it is looking at the permit overall to see what impact it has on the characteristics of the zone district we couldn't deny based on the initial subject that led to this for that is the continuing condition on the permit not a condition. >> for clarity so the language that has been written in the brief on item twelve which we've

discussing quite a bit we don't meet to codify what that actually makes sense. >> right that's not the enforcements standard for the permit and the planning department came in it's discretion add it but we have to look at the bigger picture of the impact to the zoning district. >> is it that to say that the view obstruction from an individual apartment point of view is less important than the note a factor by comparison to the impact of the installation will have within the zone area is that what you're saying and i and the zoning issue is the issue. >> so we would have to determine that the impact of this installation was

significantly negative in the context of the zoning area as opposed to the view from the apartment. >> that's right. >> okay. thank you. >> that's important. >> uh-huh. >> it is. >> so the matter is before us we have the ta information anybody have further decision or are motion to be made? >> i think the motion is we deny the appeal based on the information that was presented and i don't know how to make that is a that succinctly so i'll refer to the executive director. >> may i suggest the code be code compliant or the critical element which is why i think we've brought it up

earlier the term significant. >> i just don't see it to be honest motion. >> that will be the motion then deny the appeal based on the code okay. >> thank you. >> there's a motion on the floor to uphold it is code compliant commissioner fung and commissioner president lazarus commissioner president lazarus no commissioner wilson. >> the voted is 4 to one that permit is on that basis thank you. >> commissioner president lazarus there was some

discussion about the possibility of spec a and b out of orders an finish use of resources for the city representatives to go home and stop being on the city's clock and to the parties that are here (laughter) so if you'd like i can read those slowly with the expectation that the and senior inspector will be here they'll be here in a moment. >> that's fine we'll skip to items 11 ab and item a b 1572 both filed by folks against the department of building inspection on u correct street to charley the plumbing permit to remove a stove and the

second protesting the issuance on april 27th to charles of app an electrical permit for correction and project as per violation and we will take both of those items together starting with the appellants i will have 14 minutes combined if you need it to present your case you get rebuttal time as well. >> hold on one second is is inspector duffy.

>> you're not getting anything back. >> i'm sorry commissioner president lazarus i was under the wrong impression should we need to wait.

>> let's do 8 and 9 a shall we go back. >> my apologies we need the inspector here we'll move to the item 8 versus the p&g for the mapping on john's streets protesting the issuance to the ink of a wireless box for the construction of a wireless service c and d and start with the appellants. >> i think they walked out.

>> you ready? >> just to introduce yourselves i was borden and lived in refraining since 1991 and together we have an 8-year-old daughter introshl reduction of views and light access and flaws in the process and misrepresentation of the level of community

opposition we want to stress that health concerns are not a basis of this appeal, however, we are consolidate by principle to notice the offend in this room with respect to the public health it in the citywide community we shouldn't have to pretend we want to state your name for the record that be informing the city decisions per the 2003 precautionary principle ordinances and contra the telecommunications act with that said the damage this project does to the character of our street is a real and serious complaint as our frustration with the unfairness of the public hearing process authentic light and procedural

failures will think grounds for supporting this appeal taken together thus doubling made those are the formal basis on which we're asking you to judge our case verizon asserts our aesthetics grounds are disingenious and smoke gene this is entirely false health is an additional serious part of the record above and beyond but want to punish on the issue etch it opens it costs us time and opens us to attacks to begin ascetical considerations this antenna will

block buildings assess from our front stairs and neighbors toufrtsz and passersby the city rejected velgz application because the street has excellent views and we're indeed fortunate to enjoy those verizon was successful a second time it complies with the list of conditioning including the conditions the permanent facility shall not obstruct the light into any adjacent windows this antenna committing equipment and the necessary pole extension will obviously obscure light voigt one the dpws only permit conditions adds bulky

equipment this appeal should be uphold this will detrack from the block and dpws rebuttals jerry tried to show that dpw did everything by the book regardless in the public misunderstood and had their verifies represented regarding the misleading permit on john's address he relies instead of 2137 he said the photos to capture they depict the facilities that satisfied the codes of article 25 from the map and street address are in conflict who is addressed regarding the misrepresentation of the community opposition a

single side of 1 john street we signatures every person expressed concerns of the antenna with more time and resources rae sorely lack with verizon which has teams of flying monkeys to do their bidding and many options will likely to be readily in the permit hearings we know opposition has been under recorded in verizon favor in the case of 2151 jones street the letters in the case ever 2214 r will will 4 will will will will will - dpw incorrectly claims our argument is factually inaccurate and jerry provides a

hearing of the hearing officers report that was corrected after mr. chang's attention and the permit was made we're happy to provide more detailed evidence from the board wants to ask us questions we hope that expelling is not intentionally misleading by putting forth a document as if it were the document provided h at the hearing there were enrolling granted and our appeal should be upheld and the relevance of our appeal is if there's a pattern of under reporting that the city bias and in favor of velgz interests they failed to provide the records

for the letters of other sites in a timely manner that was adapted in 2003 it requires the city to error on the side of preventing harm to public health and it's disconnections in the absence of scientific certainty i did the burden of proof is on verizon the positions for the precautionary should be informed by the relevant information and the fcc are ousted dated and are the post and by skyline preincluding - it violates common descentcy thank and by skyline preincluding - it violates common descentcy thank by skyline preincluding - it

violates common descentcy thank and by skyline preincluding - it violates common descentcy thank you. >> city we'll hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, council for verizon we've covered many of the issues this is one case i think the appellants are clearly concerned about health effects of the facility and i know you're familiar with the federal law imitations one of the two standards for the department of public works the did you want has to review and comply with the department of public health standards that reason our jerking statements are prepared showing the compliance with the fcc standards and the department of public health has a 10 part check list they've issued their

approval that compiles with the federal standards those are 60 we can't facilities and the closet facility in the neighborhood the standard is we will be thirty times below the level that will be allowed by the federal government i understand that people have fears about those issues with san francisco's own standards with respect to and i authenticates i understand the standard now and there are two there's the zoning protected standard that applies that detracts from the significantly from the defining characteristics of the neighborhood if if is a street of excellent view then the planning standard i was reciting earlier it will significantly