forth rightly notify residents of the scale of the work's plan. the photo simulations, commercial photographer across the street from the site cries them as deaccept tiffly photographed, the angles carefully chosen to mask rather than show the scope and scale. this is one of the mobility photos here. it makes it look like mount sutro is on our street. you have to be down at bumper level to get that photograph. this is what the street looks by to resident. the equipment block was blended into a window in another one of the photos. mobility ignored a significant san francisco guideline for cellular companies to call out those large enclosures for equipment. we've done that in our equipment, so you see that very

large equipment box that was not called out in the mobility photo before. there are other -- other things that have changed. this equipment box is huge, by the way, by far the largest of any cellular company design. you can see this is large equipment. the 5 foot antenna. the equipment box is 35 inches tall, and the scale of it in terms of -- begin larger than any other cellular company, four times the volume of at&t's design. this is right down the street at 17th and stannion. the red shows what the sprint box looks like, and then, you can look at the diagram to show it in a direct downward profile. it's a very large box. we were told there was one antenna. later turns out to be two

antennas. told there was no noise, no fans, later turns out to be three fans. third item, we believe this application does not comply with planning condition item number ten, shall not obstruct lighting or views in any residential window. later proved totally meaningless for all of our neighbors. planning tells us later but leaves out of the notice that private residential views are not considered. thee views that i'm showing here are neighborhood views. these are right-of-way views. you can see why this is an attractive site to sprint mobility, the sweeping views of the city. you can see that even from the street level, the pole and the 7 foot addition on it, the big white antenna and that huge box will definitely impact those views, as well. that's one of the residences, you can see the tower there, you can see a number of views that

are affected from homes, but also from people outside. planning also says that because all of san francisco cellular designs from been so stream lined that any residential view by definition cannot be obstructed, this misled residences receiving the notice. we wanted to show you the box differences that i did previously. item four, the application does not comply with public works condition number two, the notice explicitly assures residents no new poles can be elected or placed in underground districts. why is this one condition so important? it effectively prevents telecom companies from installing larger, higher poles for their

equipment. we had our utilities decluttered. we' we've paid for these in the 90's, and we've paid substantial fees for this. summing up, the 25 criteria to grant a permit is that mobility must comply with all the requirements. you can see that they've not. they did not comply with noticing requirements, they failed to forth rightly notify our residents of the scale of the work proposed. we believe this is not criteria ten, condition ten, and most importantly does not conform with the condition number -- number two. >>clerk: okay. thank you, sir, your time is up. >> okay. no new poles. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. >> president fung: sir, you said something you wasn't quite sure i heard earlier. >> yes, i'm sorry. >> president fung: you said something about the -- that these devices would not be allowed on light poles. i'm not sure i heard that

statement correctly. >> the condition that we're claiming is no new poles are to be erected in underground utility corridors. >> president fung: you're proposing that. >> no, that's the condition of approval, and in fact they are installing a larger tower. it's 3 feet taller than the existing -- excuse me, 2'3" taller than the existing pole that was there. >> president fung: you're saying it was a condition of the permit? >> it was a condition of the permit. clear condition of the permit. no new poles in underground utility districts. here is the diagram. it's clear that they're installing a new pole. >>clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> good evening. my name is david nagle.

i authored the brief for mobility, l.l.c. thank you for your attention tonight. i know it's been a long one. i have several people with me from mobility tonight. by way of background, mobility is a wireless infrastructure provider that works with other major carriers to improve their wireless networks. in this case, we are working on behalf of our client, sprint, and we are improving the networks where there is a need for additional data capacity. sprint is having active and ongoing failures in this neighborhood, so we've worked with them to identify this location as a location for a small unobtrusive antenna to

improve their existing network. as you know there is a robust process for these permits. d.p.w. reviewed the permit application and other submittals in accordance with article 25, d.p.h. reviewed the r.f. study and the noise study. in accordance with article 25 and f.c.c. guidelines, planning approved and reviewed the aesthetics according to article 25 and city policy, and all found mobility to be in compliance with the rules and regulations of the city. as to the specific complaints, here to address them briefly, the noticing, mobility mailed notice of the ten at thattive approval to all required parties as stated in the declaration. that's part of the permitting process and was included in the brief. we also posted the notice on the subject pole and on an

additional pole on the block face perthe declaration in city requirements. the final determination of the permit was also posted on the subject pole and an additional pole on the block face as evidenced by the multitude of respondents and protesters, it's clear the residents were informed. you know, i can't speak to a perfect reliability of the u.s. postal service, but between mailing and posting, it's clear that the message got out there that we had proposed the small cell site. as to the planning aesthetic views issues, planning found based on our submittals and the photo simulations that the equipment would not detract from the characteristics of the neighborhood. the photo simulations show that no important buildings, open spaces, parks, no new poles, ths

seems to just be a mistake in

appellant's interpretation. this is not a new pole. a new pole would be if mobility erected its own utility pole or other pole somewhere along the right-of-way. this is a replacement pole, which it's my understanding now that this is same height as the existing pole that's there. you know, frequently, these poles are replaced for structural reasons or other reasons as the city may dictate. open of the pole remains with the city -- of this replacement pole remains with the city perour master agreement license with the city, so it is not a new pole, it is a replacement of the existing pole. as to the concerns about r.f. emissions that appellant raised, d.p.h. -- the d.p.h. letter had a clerical error in one paragraph that incorrectly referenced a different piece of equipment instead of the u.e.

relay, which is the secondary antenna that's in the rectangular equipment rectangular equipment cl you e are -- enclosure. it was the report reviewed by d.p.h., so in short, d.p.h. found that the report showed this equipment was in compliance with city policies, which is, in turn, limited by the scope of federal law and the f.c.c. standards. you know, appellant raised a litany of other issues that are really outside the purview of board, including -- of this board, including mobility provides the city -- perother city regulations, and we carry

an insurance policy perour master license agreement that covers property damage should any of that occur at any point. so in short, this permit was properly issued, it was reviewed by all -- all relevant city departments. they found we are in substantial compliance with city policy, so mobility respectfully requests you deny this appeal and allow the project to proceed as originally permitted. >> commissioner honda: i have a question, sir. so how many permits has sprint taken out for this type of application? >> i can't speak for sprint in general because they use other companies like mobility for these deployments. mobility has, at this point, i believe, received perhaps a dozen permits, but -- and we have more applications in, and

hopefully more permit approvals to come. >> commissioner honda: so how many permits do you have in at this point? >> my colleague -- about 25. >> commissioner honda: and regarding the notification. this board has hears thousands, with -- heard thousands, with at&t, thousands, and then, with verizon, a substantial amount, as well. they've claimed that a good portion of the neighbors were not notified. have you cross checked personally those addresses, and if so, were they mailed or not mailed? >> i have not cross checked. mobility hired a mailing service that generated mailing list that required anyone to be notified within the 100 feet radius. >> commissioner honda: so is anyone in the audience that did those cross-references? you brought a staff of how many with you? >> a staff of two from mobility.

that wasn't their responsibility, but i assure you it's in the declaration that the addresses for that neighborhood was the ones that the mailings went to. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. >> commissioner lazarus: i have a question. >> yes. >> commissioner lazarus: is there a substantive difference between the equipment that you're using and at&t are using? >> they all have different spectrums, different radios, different antennas, so i can't speak to any other location cited by the appellant. but what we're installing for sprint is standard across most of california, certainly standard across a large part of the country where we're doing this. >> commissioner lazarus: so you don't know if it's larger, wider in circumference. >> it's probably larger than some, it may be smaller than others. it's a broad question that i don't have the specifics for every other carrier. >> vice president swig: how many other sites in this

neighborhood did you review as alternatives to this site and if there were other sites that were reviewed, why were those sites deficient to this site? >> right. so the city has no alternative site analysis for these small cells, and perstate law, telephone corporations are entitled to access to the right-of-way. it's a limited right to access pursuant to following all of their other city regulations, so where we have a need, you know, to address services like we do at this particular location, you know, there's no other law or regulation that requires us to examine alternative sites. we of course try to look at other locations to see if we have other access sites. we can't do other poles in san francisco. we have a license with the city. so we on look at sprint, who

says we're having issues in this area, and we look at the area, and this pole was near the center of that area and -- >> vice president swig: yeah, i think i'm going to question your wisdom on that. not because i have any special knowledge, it's just that we -- as commissioner honda said, we have had many, many, many, many of these, and in just about every one of them, somebody on this panel will ask that question, and answer has been yes, we looked at many, many sites, and nobody except yourself has answered that no, we don't have to do that. so i'm going to ask that to d.p.w. because i question your wisdom on that. >> please do. it's frequently a requirement for larger macrotowers or

rooftop. >> vice president swig: yours is the largest that we've seen. it's really large, but of -- you know, we've been through this horse -- this little rodeo before, and this is the first time that anybody has resisted a conversation to did you look at any alternatives, so we'll ask about that. >> we did, and we can't do new poles, so something of speaking of poling was out of -- so speaking of poling was out of our control, and this location was in the city near where they needed it. >> vice president swig: i'm going to plead ignorance along with experience at the same time, and i think we've had dialogue about placing units on top of buildings, and other places, but i'm going to talk to d.p.w. about that, because you don't have that -- you have a

one view. okay. thanks. >>clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the departmental representative. >> president fung: so when did you leave the mayor's office? >> i left the mayor's office at the end of july. good evening, president fung and members of the board. i'm julian 2kgilette, representg public works. article 25 requires public works to refer wireless applications to the department of public health and to the planning department. both departments determined that this application complies with article 25 of the public works code. public works subsequently issued a tentative approval on may 25, 2018 and mobility mail posted

this tentative approval on may 30 of 2018. public works held a public hearing on july 9, 2018 to consider protests to the tentative approval. following the public hearing, the director of public works approved the permit and notice of this determination was distributed to the public on september 19 of 2018. the planning department is in attendance and can speak more regarding planning's review process if the board has questions chl the health department is not in attendance but is able to take questions and answers via e-mails. >> president fung: i have a question. you're now with public works, right? >> i am. >> president fung: can i have the first question? >> commissioner honda: yes.

>> president fung: i usually allow the others to go first. it it's interesting, and something i didn't catch at first, but your brief in response to an issue raised by the appellants was that this is not a new pole, but a replacement. >> correct. >> president fung: how do you differentiate that? they're putting in a new cement foundation. they're newly installed. how is it not new? >> well, it's a pole that's owned by the public utilities commission, and i can't really speak on behalf of them. they're not here this evening, however, they have told us it is a replacement pole, and it is their pole, and the public utilities commission has a standard pole that they use throughout the city, and this is a replacement of that pole. >> president fung: when i read that, i was going to chide the department a little bit, they're word smithing on that, because i

said how can this not be a new pole? but now, i see that it has some consequences. okay. >> commissioner honda: go ahead. >> commissioner lazarus: you have a noticed requirement, do you not, once the decision's been made? >> we do. >> commissioner lazarus: and is that the same radius requirement that the applicant has? in other words, do the neighbors get two notices, one that the permit's been applied for, and two, that the approval's been given? >> there are two mailings. the first is to open up the protest period, and the final is done for the application. >> one is done by the department and one by the applicant. >> no, they're both done by the applicant. >> commissioner lazarus: so there's a chance that the neighbors didn't get them because it would have been same

mailing list, radius, etc. >> commissioner honda: same question as earlier. there are neighbors that say they're within the 150 feet required that were not mailed. has your department cross checked addresses to see if they were on the mailing list? >> if you look at exhibit d on our brief, we rely on the appellant's subcontractor and the packet that's produced is is in accordance with the stipulations provided by the planning department code and the san francisco department of building inspection. >> so what happens if there is residents that are within that 150 that were not on that mailing list? does that make it deficient if they're within the 150 feet? >> no. the code requires there not

mailing to residents and owners. >> commissioner honda: but if they're not to, that makes it a deficient notice. >> what we point to in our brief is that we received timely applications or timely protests, and we received some protests prior to the close of the protest period. >> commissioner honda: and you know being on this board for a little bit, we had where there was errors in the mailings from these companies, and the question is is that if the permittee is supposed to send out notification, and it's a third party, and they don't send out that notification, in my eyes, that would make it deficient. >> i can't speak to that. the department relies on the affidavit of the subcontractor under penalty of perjury. >> commissioner honda: so that was my question. so what happens if you're relied

on the contract subcontractor, and the subcontractor has not performed. so what's the next process for the city at that point? >> i believe that, you know, i would have to get back to you on the answer -- that's a process question, generally, that we would have to i think respond to subsequently on that. but my understanding is what we rely on is procedure that's consistent under the planning code and by the department of building inspections. it's the same process that all of the other agencies use in their notifications. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. >> commissioner lazarus: i have one other question, and i can't remember if this is for you or your planning. but again, i think we've had predominantly lately verizon cases, and there was some discussion that there had been some effort to collaborate on the smallest piece of equipment that would suit their purposes. is that something that would have been d.p.w. or was that more likely planning that was -- >> that's much more in planning.

our processes is focused on the public notice. >> commissioner lazarus: okay. thank you. >> vice president swig: can you address my question that i offered to the gentleman from mobility. >> i'd be happy to, if you could ask it again. sorry, it slipped my mind. >> vice president swig: sure. it's in past hearings, there's always -- the public is generally upset about this. nothing new, but always a question is raised, always, 100% of the time, a question is raised, did you seek another site in for example, we had a -- one on clay street between spruce and walnut or spruce and laurel, and very clearly, verizon said oh, yes we did. we went to great lengths. we found one a half a block away, we found one on top of the

highest building in the neighborhood, and really, we found that those were deficient, but we tried, okay? and that, i promise you, was not an exceptional answer, that was consistent with our experience 100% of the time, not most of the time. were there any other sites that were investigated as alternatives to this site? >> so i couldn't answer that question because the public works process -- we come in at the tail end of that process, so the applicants do their process -- you know technical process on where they want to put the pole or where they want to put the facility. they have the right under state and federal law, and they have a license agreement whether it's with the m.t.a. pole or a p.u.c. or pg&e. they make that determination with the pole owner, you know,

about which pole they want, whether that pole works technically, and that determination's already been made by the time they come to public works. public work's process under title 25 is entirely under notification process. >> vice president swig: and that is done by whom in the city? >> so there are three pole owners in the city and county of san francisco. there are -- there is pg&e, there is san francisco public utilities commission, and there is the m.t.a. so many of the m.t.a.'s poles are also p.u.c. poles because the m.t.a. strings its infrastructure off those poles, but there are poles that the m.t.a. has, and it contracts those with the carriers. >> vice president swig: but this is beyond that. somebody can comment on this so

i'm not hung out to dry too badly, but we had another one on fulton street, and i recall this. they look at a building, not a pole, a building down the street because there was furious disagreement from the community. there always is. they looked at a building down the street, they looked at a pole down the street, and again, the same consensus from verizon, this is the only place we could put it. it wasn't an m.t.a. decision, it wasn't a p.u.c. decision -- >> commissioner honda: commissioner swig, can i interrupt for a second? >> vice president swig: what am i missing? >> commissioner honda: no, no. is it required to look for alternative sites? so that's the thing. i think prior, because verizon and at&t had so many cases

before us so that they did not -- they tried not to come to the board of appeals, that they did alternative sites. >> vice president swig: so you're telling me you like verizon to at&t. >> commissioner lazarus: buildings -- these do not go on buildings, they go on poles because it's a completely different facility. >> it's not required under article 25. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> vice president swig: and one more short one, to follow up on commissioner honda's question -- i think it was commissioner honda. it's late, and my short-term memory is going to heck. it wouldn't be the first time that a third party vendor made a boo boo, and that we have had several occasions where there has been bad noticing. they just -- bad noticing.

it's a mistake, but in my past experience at least, again, i'll rely on the panel to support or deny my position, public works really was on the case and said no, we looked at the -- you know, we validated that this -- you know, the mailing list was done correctly, and so i'm finding a different story from any -- you are new to us, in front of us, but i'm finding a new story from this person and less reconciliation of what did or did not happen, which i'm finding a dangerous precedent or a dangerous direction because we really don't know if they made a boo boo or they made it right. so -- >> is that a question? >> vice president swig: yeah. >> can i have a question? >> vice president swig: yeah. so what happened to follow up? what happened to -- i mean, your predecessors, both who have

tangled with us all with these types of questions, why -- why the change -- why the change in position with the change in position, that you don't look after and follow up on was the mailing done correctly? >> well, so i will rebut your comment, i guess, or in partial answer to your question, i think, for one thing, for us to follow up, we would -- how do we do that? we're not -- we would have to go to every single homeowner. >> vice president swig: no, it's as simple as can you provide us a list of those you went to and you eyeballed that at least they were in the right citizensh zip code? >> so that, we do as a matter of practice. all of us do that in all of the mailings and look at the mailings, and make sure that they're in the radius area. i will say that an additional item that we mention in our brief on page six is that in this instance, we looked at

the -- we looked at the mailing, and we felt that we agreed that mobility should add the haight-ashbury neighborhood association, and so they did, which is -- let's see...in exhibit k. we added that -- we added the haight-ashbury neighborhood groups to the -- both sets of the mailings. >> vice president swig: thank you. >> to try to partially address that issue. >> vice president swig: thank you. >> president fung: did planning want to say anything? >> commissioner honda: we'd like to get our money's worth here. >> thank you. i will be quick. it's late. marselle boudreaux, planning department. so quickly, i'll just read our determination.

the planning department determined that the proposed personal wireless facility would not significantly detract from the irk ka of the adjacent residential district or potential or known historic buildings, and we approved this with conditions. i think there were a few points maybe i could just quickly reference. this facility is generally a facility that you have seen pretty frequently. it's the consistent design that the city approves on our city owned poles, so it is the most stream lined design that we have approved. it's what we have determined to be one of the more minimally visible root kind of pole top appendages that the city departments have come to an agreement on. they are a stream lined design. they are painted to match the pole. in addition to the antenna, there's also the equipment.

so this particular site as was pointed out by the appellant in different photographs has a different -- a type of equipment. they showed another carrier that had maybe two pieces of equipment on the pole. this particular carrier chooses to shroud theirs into one particular component. overall, we've seen that this particular equipment is about 1 inch larger than kind of the other carriers on average. so we feel that's pretty minimal as far as comparison, and as a perception, we feel that's deminimous. so overall, we feel the pole itself is pretty distinct from the residential feelings. it's close to 14 feet, 15 feet from the actual building itself.

so if something is done about the six to 8 foot distance from the building, residential windows, we do tart sto look at those dimensions. they are -- we do start to look at those dimensions. this far exceeding that distance, we determined that the equipment would not significantly detract. in addition, in looking at the actual plans, the placement of the equipment on the pole is actually kind of directly in between the two floors, so it's kind of at that floor level, so not directly -- kind of outside of one of the residential windows? so lastly in closing, as i think we often note, we are not reviewing these for impacts to, you know -- or otherwise not reviewing these for impacts to private property owners? we will look at impacts to

public views on significant streets. this street was designated as a significant street, however, we felt that, you know, this very minimal design would not impede any views. >> commissioner honda: so -- are you finished? >> i am. thank you. >> commissioner honda: very info informative. [inaudible] >> president fung: with one on top. >> the antenna? >> commissioner honda: the antenna. >> oh . >> commissioner honda: is it the box? well, she said it's only 1 inch more because they decided to combine two units into one,

right? [inaudible] >> commissioner honda: sorry. sorry. >> sorry. so just pointing here. so this -- kind of the radio equipment and -- sorry, radio equipment, and then, further up, the antenna? the top equipment is what's larger. the bottom equipment is about the same size. >> commissioner honda: so it's not four times larger. >> i don't believe so. i don't have the other carrier specifications with me? but we have been poling the equipment on city owned poles to be pretty consistent. >> commissioner honda: thank you very much. >> vice president swig: question. the subject of excellent view and notable street, you know, we -- i think about a year ago or so, we bounced one of these

because it had a gorgeous view of golden gate park, which i would consider this view significantly better than the one that we bounced. so how do you qualify significant street and excellent view and validate that because clearly, you know, the views from the streets are -- they're pretty nice. we saw nice, pretty pictures, and you've already said this is a significant street. so where's the -- where's the convenience factor or the justification factor? the convenience factor is my sarcastic way of dealing with it, but the justification factor is probably the more convenient way of saying that it is a significant street and it does have excellent views. >> sure. thank you for the question. if i could have the projector, please. sorry. let me just adjust this. so -- thank you on providing the

example that the carrier provided that we were able to review. and so, you know, what i would have everyone keep in mind is that -- keep in mind is that this is one snapshot along the street, and so this street has other views along the public right-of-way? and so we are taking that in mind, as well. >> vice president swig: you know what i said about convenient versus -- i'll now go back to convenient. i think it's very convenient what you are putting up there, and kind of insulting, actually, when there's an alternative which was presented by the appellant, but i'll let it go. >>clerk: okay. any other questions? >> okay. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. how many people? okay. if you can lineup against the wall. two minutes, right? and given the volume of, public

comment will be limit toded to minutes. someone can start speaking right now. yes, the woman with the baby can go forward. there's no question. >> commissioner honda: thank you again for being so patient with us. first person please come up and speak. thank you, sorry. >>clerk: two minutes, every -- thank you. >> thank you very much. good evening, board members -- sort of -- sorry. board of appeals. i just wanted to clarify one quick thing, which is about the second notice. so the second notice is only e-mailed to those who protested, so other people did not receive information then about the cell site. >>clerk: is it possible for you to speak into that microphone? it's difficult to hear you. >> i am disturbed and upset about the handling and lack of public information about the

proposed wireless facility in front of 1509 shrader which will be located 45 feet from the bedroom of my four-year-old girl and six month old girl. it has been clear there has been a concerted effort to conceal and hide information about the installation of this tower because it is now an even taller tower housing an obnoxious equipment box. in early summer, i walked every adjacent street regularly with my then newborn for exercise, and i did not find a sings will notice about this potential cell site. i finally documented this on june 13 with both photos and a video of the entire 1500 block of shrader. and i have submitted this for your evidence. in addition, not a single cole valley organization was notified, not even the three schools that were located within three blocks of this potential cell site. instead, mobility notified a bunch of organizations in soma,

miles from cole valley. i'm absolutely appalled by the failure to follow process and the deceit. furthermore, some of the most upsetting errors include first, it was stated that there was to be only one antenna. that is absolutely clear, second paragraph, i believe. now i fund out there were two. there was no mention of the new, taller pole. the equipment box as we've discussed is pretty significant in size and the antenna is almost my height. >>clerk: thank you, ma'am. >> commissioner honda: i'm sorry. did you receive the original notice by mail? >> i did. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is kirsten patterson, and i don't have anything prepared, but i'm a neighbor of them. i live about a block away on the

1400 block of shrader street? it's like the picture that the woman showed you that looks up the street with no view, i can basically view the pole that's there. i -- i'm here in support of my neighbors and against the -- the installation of this new cell tower because it's so huge, it's almost -- it's basically -- it's 2 inches shorter than me, and i've lived there for ten years. i've never had any problem with cell service or anything like that? i don't really see any need to put, like, obstruct our views and make this more of a unhealthy environment? and, yeah, that's basically what i have to say about it. i'm very against it. but yeah. thank you for your time and everything. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please.

[inaudible] >>clerk: okay. >> there's obviously

two separate devices on the tower. and also just a health risk of putting cell towers right next to people's bedrooms, especially children that are right there in that bedroom. we don't live there, but we know that if they plan to leave there because of the health or because of diminished value of the house, and they try to sell their house, what potential homeowner is not going to come in and say rk hey, that's my

potential kid's room and walk right out, so i want to mention the diminishment of the price of the house and any surrounding houses because of the cell tower. >>clerk: okay. thank you. [inaudible] >>clerk: okay. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name's elizabeth mcdonald. i'm a long time resident of cole valley. i live at 1516 shrader across the street from 1509 and 1515. i'm hear to ask that you support the appeal and deny the permit to install a wireless communication facility on top of a new pole in the 1500 block of shrader. the block of shrader is an underground utility district. my primary objection is that the proposed communication facility would include construction of a new taller utility pole within our underground utility district. the initial notice from public

works dated may 25 described the project as equipment to be installed at this location: one antenna, one equipment enclosure, and the permit conditions from public works stated no new poles shall be erected or placed in underground districts. our neighborhood appealed the decision to approve the permit, and in mobility's letter dated november 5, responding to the appeal, they said that the approved location is ideal because it allows the use of an existing steel street light pole owned by the sfpuc, avoiding the visual impact of a new utilities pole. however, mobility's project plans supplied with their response letter specify in a call out in the drawing for

mobility's contractor to remove existing streetlight pole and foundation contractor to place new 28'6" light pole. additionally, on top of the new 28.5 foot pole, there is to be a new enclosure, so the new structure will be over 7 feet taller than the existing pole. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioner honda: and just f.y.i. recording notification, it's -- regarding notification, it's 150 feet, so that's six houses from where the pole is being installed. >> good evening. my name is sean foley. i live at 4903 17th street. i live above my neighbor, bridget, who was the first person to speak. i live approximately 30 to 40 feet away from where this pole is.

i purchased my unit in 2004, and a big reason why i bought where i did was because of the underground utilities and the views and the aesthetics. i'm very concerned that this pole is going up. it will impact the aesthetics. i know that wasn't clear from the upward looking view, but it is clear when you look from the downward looking view. i'm concerned that this is being positioned as a replacement pole. there is nothing wrong with the existing pole that would require it to be replaced. it's clearly a new pole that's being inserted for a new utility in an underground utilities district. so i have concerns about that. the second issue is around notification. i did receive a first notification through the mail, but it was not clear to the level of all the things we talked about, this new height of the pole, there was going to be two pieces of equipment on this. it mentioned one. generally, i feel mobility has

not respected us as neighbors by ensuring that the right people are getting communication in the first place, number one, and number two, we're getting accurate information. the gentleman here tonight wasn't even clear himself how tall this pole was going to be, and he's representing the company, so i just feel very disrespected on top of that, for what that's worth. thanks. >>clerk: thank you. >> good evening, and thank you for your endurance. my name is burt shen, certainly no enemy of technology. i've worked for at&t, intel, qualcomm. i think my objections are three. number one, due process. mobility was -- and sprint were fined $11.6 million in april of this year for very similar issue, going ahead with putting up poles without first checking for impact, and then, we've noted other problems with their mailing and other procedures. number two is risk to property

and to property values. and then, number three is risk to health. i know that it may not be the primary purview of this board to think about health issues. to first approximation, the risk is proportional to the dose and the duration of the exposure so that even if it's a one time measurement is fairly low, if somebody's actually sleeping there for eight hours a night for ten or 15 years, the cumulative health risks may be quite high. in finally, because we've been talking about poles, if the equipment is to unobtrusive, what's the need for a bigger pole with a deeper foundation? thank you. >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. my name's randall swanson. i live about 30 feet uphill from the pole, and i did realize that

you guys have heard 100 much these case -- of these cases before. >> commissioner honda: thousands. >> you've heard that long-term expoufr to electromagnetic radiation effects are still under known. but i would like to show this photo. when they first noticed, they highlight the little bulb thing here up in the pole, but the equipment they make it look like it's part of the house at 1509, so this is kind of deceptive in their presentation to us. so thank you very much for your time, and for sending me this postcard, inviting me over here. really appreciate it. >>clerk: thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >>clerk: i'm sorry. next speaker, please.

okay. we'll get it later. >> good evening. >>clerk: if that works for you as long as we can hear you. >> i'm toshina redmon young. we just got up a box near us that i wish i had paid more attention to. i'm here in support of my neighbor who has a baby and a small girl. on a side note, i know we're not supposed to talk about health, but i have two children and they're four houses away from the box near 17th and stan i don't know -- stannion, and i'm very concerned about it. i'm going to share some of the concerns of my friend. from everything that i've heard, it does sound like there's been negligence in terms of the third party provider and that some of the homeowners indeed were not

notified properly. she says that over 100 of us were clearly misled and informed by mobility. this does not comply with the very clear conditions of the permit. mobility must follow the city's process and permit process or we would have no public process or protection. this is why we're here asking you this please. >>clerk: next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is mali patterson, and i'm the homeowner on the block before 1400. and i never received mail from public works or anything about this, only last night, this gentleman put it in my door. and so i told my daughter and

her boyfriend to come here tonight because that is a lie. we never received any notice about, you know, they probably send it to market street or somewhere else. and it looks -- it looks to ugly. i mean here, yes, it's -- it's -- it's going to look ugly. if you have a nice view, it looks ugly. they denied it in the middle valley -- no, midvalley, they denied to put up the cell towers because it has issue, and so -- and everywhere, they put it up, and i can't believe it that --

you should deny it because it's ugly and it's a health issue. and also, besides, we never got any notice. that's the first one, last night. and nobody really discussed it, but i discuss it that -- that was a lie that they said they mailed out anything. and i'm there, i'm looking every day at the mail. and also, my daughter didn't get it, and nobody, no. and we wouldn't have noticed it if we hadn't have gotten it last night. and that's why i'm here, and i'm here for six years, otherwise, i wouldn't be here. >>clerk: thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner honda: ma'am, do you live -- how many houses away do you live from the proposed pole? >> i live 1426 shrader street? >> commissioner honda: so more than six houses away. >> yeah, but also, we have the

view. [inaudible] >>clerk: okay. thank you. okay. next speaker. >> i'm going to take advantage of this mic here, too. my name is tate cedar. this is actually a box size of part of the actual apparatus just to bring up and compare. and if you do look, you know at the diagram -- >>clerk: overhead, please. >> -- you'll see. okay. you'll see that it does come in contact with the bedroom, and that's my sister's room. she's not able to be here right now, but also, they did replace the bulb with a much brighter light, and it has been harder for her to sleep with that pole. i'm not going to lie, her bed's kind of comfy, and when she's out of town, she's like sure, you can sleep in there.

the light is really bright, and i can't imagine what it's going to be like when the apparatus is added. i work in marketing and i give fliers and posters to retail. when it comes to notice for the city, we have to check the rules about what poles you can post, and whatnot. if not, seeking a comment to you, v.p. swig, i do check the alternatives, if i can check what poles to post, and this large corporation and organization can't, then i wonder. >>clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, we'll move onto rebuttal. we'll hear from the appellant. you have three minutes. >> all right. thank you folks see that? i can't see it on the screen.

>>clerk: overhead. thank you. >> i'm really surprised at the misinformation that we got from the three other agencies tonight. i'm disappointed by it. i expected more honest answers for you and complete answers. you were told a number of things that were just flat out incorrect or they didn't have the information for you. both organizations didn't know that the pole was taller. it's 2'3" taller. you can see that. the planning has told you how big the equipment is. there were 34 sites on the homt and edison mobility list for sprint. i have it, and got it through discovery, as well. it was just information through information here. this notion that these are

one-inch different in size, i have the dimensions here. i hope you can see them. i'll read them out to you. the box on the lower left, 15.5 inches wide, the at&t mobility box, 8 inches wide. the box on the lower left is the -- i'm sorry, the box on the left is the sprint box. it is 11 inches deep. the box on the right from mobility is 5.5 inches deep. the box itself is more than twice the size in that dimension, and it is 32 inches tall. vice president swig, you were correct, it is a big box. to not be marking it out for following the planning guidelines to do that is another -- was another, you know, misleading by these organizations. i think i've got most of them. i just want to recap. mobility did not comply with noticing. they did not notice any