cleanpowersf service. it's good for the environment, it's good for business and it's good for the community. >> good evening, and welcome to the january 9th, 2019 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the president, frank fung will be the presiding officer tonight we expect commissioner anna lazarus after the first appeal is heard. walking up the walkway as deputy

city attorney, brad rossi who will provide any legal advice this evening. at the controls, is the legal assistance. i'm the board his' executive director. will be joined by representatives of the city departments who have cases before the board this evening. we expect scott sanchez kept the deputy zoning administrator representing the planning department and planning commission, mr duffy, chris pratt, urban forester of san francisco -- san francisco public works, joanne gillett, transportation coordinator representing san francisco public works youth and mapping. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board request to turn off or silence all phones, and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders and respondents are given seven minutes to present their case, in three minutes for rebuttal period people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or

three minute periods. members of the public were not affiliated with the party have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone for rehearing and jurisdiction requests, the requesters and responding departments are given three minutes to present testimony and evidence and no rebuttal. to assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speak. cards are available on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules , speak to board staff during the break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government t.v. , cable channel 78, and will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 pm on channel 26. the video is available on our website, and can be down lighted toast downloaded from san francisco government t.v. org. now we will swear in or -- we

will swear in all those who intend to testify. if you intend to testify at any of the proceedings tonight, and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand if you are able, raise your right hand, and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth thank you. president fun, and members of the commission, we have to watch what housekeeping items. item number 12, the parties have requested a continuance to may 8 th, 2019. this is a appeal number 17-184 regarding the issuance of a suspension request. request they be suspended for their three reason condominium of the subject property in 2016 was not completed in accordance with the final approved plans

for the building permitted under the appellant. >> i will make a motion to continue. >> he would like to make a motion? okay. do we have any public comment on moving this item to may 8th costing none, on that motion from commissioner honda, president fung? [roll call] okay. that motion carries. that item is moved. the next housekeeping item is item number 13. this appeal has been withdrawn. so we will now move on to public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but is not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone here for general public comment? we will now move on to commissioner comments and questions. >> i would like to welcome back our president presidents. his comments were surely missed

in the short absence that he had >> thank you. >> thank you. his or any public comment on item number 2? okay. we will move onto item number 3. the adoption of the minutes. before you for discussion, the possible adoption of the minutes of the december 12th, 2018 board meeting. >> any additions or corrections? >> know. >> i entertain a motion to accept. >> motion. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to adopt the december 12th minutes pick on that motion -- [roll call]. >> that motion carries and the minutes are adopted. we will now move on to item number 4. this is appeal number 18-152, anthony murphy -- murphy versus san francisco public works, subject property is 125 anti- vista avenue. protesting the issue is on

october 26, 2018 to at&t mobility of a personal wireless facility site permits. this is permit number 18 wr, zero 56. so we will hear from the appellant first. you have seven minutes. >> do i just place paper on here >> yes. we will call for the overhead. they will show it. do you want something displayed at this point? on the overhead? >> not right now. >> let us know. >> i will be pretty quick to go through my seven minutes. >> president fung, members of the board to, thank you for accommodating my hearing today. i missed the original hearing,

my mother had passed away on september 5th, and her funeral was on the day of the hearing. >> my condolences. >> so i am here to date contesting this permit on a number of different grounds. firstly, i believe it significantly impairs public use number 2, i believe that there was a step missed in the process referencing article 25. i believe that there is some health and safety concerns. i would like you to take a look at them, and i have also mentions there are some failures of at&t to foster a good-faith relationship with the community. so let me start with our volatile -- with marble lane. the views will be significantly

impaired. their views of buildings, landmarks, open spaces, natural vistas and parks, those being a church, a protected church, the panhandle, when avista, our two parts that will be impacted. so here is the -- overhead please. did i do it the wrong way? >> i haven't used one of of these in a few years. this is a picture that at&t presented with their application notice it has taken from a great distance to make the equipment looks smaller. it is taken from the side of the street that doesn't show the actual view from that street. this is a view street as identified by the city of san francisco. it doesn't show the greatest view at this point, which is actually from the lane. i want to show you the lane. this is the view from the lane.

here you can see, even though it is a foggy day, you can see at the top of the view that we have when avista -- way buena vista park. the subject pole points in towards the lane. it is positioned there because of the lane to light it. in my opinion, it is really part of the lane. sorry, here is another view from the same place from the lane. you can actually see the panhandle here. again, the park. i wanted to point out that in the grave from at&t, there are some mentions about this tree basically hiding the antenna that will be placed here. i want to point out that is a pine tree, and it is actually dead. it is about to fall down in the

next storm that we have. you will see there is no bristles or anything on it. again, another photograph of the tree. next i wanted to show you this picture, which again, is a picture of the church. you will notice in the window up there there is actually a cell antenna in the church back in the bell tower, and i am just amazed that we did such a great job when we put that in. you can barely even notice it, unless you know it is there, and yet we are just going to basically impair the view significantly. the second item i wanted to bring up was exhibit g from the d.p.w. document. it is referencing the public work order, which is 188498, and you will notice here it was actually signed -- if you can

see that, you will notice it was signed on october 5th. if you look at article 25, you'll notice that it should be time to within 17 days of the hearing. it was actually signed 19 days after the hearing, and it wasn't even signed by the director. it was signed by somebody as an acting director. if we are going to base our findings on article 25, then we should basically be implementing what is in article 25, and so i would move on these grounds to say the hearing was actually invalid, and i would love to have another shot at getting the hearing. here is a calendar. maybe this is not so important. it shows there is 19 days between the hearing and the document being signed. i have some health and safety concerns.

i have some health and safety concerns. my son suffers from an auditory processing disorder. i worry that with antenna, that has not been significant research done to prove it will not impact my child. my child had to be taken out of public school to care for his deficiency. i don't believe that d.p.h. had their facts when they made this decision. i also point to some of the exhibits that you will see -- you see this in the at&t brief. attachment c. there is no reference to the antenna across the street. so d.p.h., i imagine, did not have that relationship -- that information when they made their decision. i believe that that is wrong. that we ask these questions and we should be able to have folks

answer the questions directly, rather than being vague, and saying, hey, we just don't think it will impact things. with regard to at&t, their relationship with the community, i want to compare some of the facts that they brought up in their brief, or some of the accusations they brought up in their brief. number 1, you will note that number 1 here, they are basically saying i complained about the noise. i made no complaints about the noise from this antenna. you will see i complained about the noise of a box that they installed down the block a couple of years back. secondly here, you will see. >> your time is up. you will have time in rebuttal.

thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the permit holder. >> do you need help? >> gary, do you mind giving her -- here we go. >> sorry. >> good evening fellow commissioners. i and the authorized agent of at&t applicant for this project today. here with me today is kimi

blackstone kami blackstone from at&t external affairs and others they can answer health and safety questions. in front of you, this is an agenda i would like to cover today. i will start with the general wireless facts. in front of you there is general wireless facts and trends showing the need for new infrastructure around 54 u.s. households that are wireless only. in 70% of 911 calls originate from cell phones. the increased data usage has driven the evolution of mobile networks to include small cell solutions, small cells provide capacity relief and upload existing macro sights. they work in densely populated areas such as large metropolitan areas with challenging topography. where a lot of users are demanding the signal.

because they are low radios, the signal distance is shorter than macro facilities with the radius of anywhere between 500 to 1,00n topography. they need to be located closer to the end you and her -- end-user, which is why we are seeing an increase of small said -- cells in residential neighbourhoods. radiofrequency engineers identified a need in this section. they will offload traffic from surrounding sites during current and future peak demand periods which will improve signal quality and data speeds. at&t first identified a need to improve this wireless network in 2017 after a preliminary due diligence was conducted for a few months, we submitted two public works in may, and recommendations for approval from public works planning the health department that were received in june of this year.

the tentative approval was notice to the neighbors on july 18th, afterwards, four protests were deceived just received in july 24th, and we scheduled a hearing for september 10th. at the hearing, the matter was heard and no protest was in attendance and the final determination was subsequently made by the director and the wireless box permit was issued thereafter in october. two appeals were filed. one of which was subsequently withdrawn in december and the matter set for today at the board of appeals hearing. in front of you are the elevations from the plants in your packets. i apologize for the small font. what i want to focus your attention to is the 3-foot 3- inch antenna looking down the top of the existing p.u.c. paul and with equipment located at the height between 11 feet 9 inches and 16 feet, 6 inches.

the facility has minimal visual impact increasing the overall height of the pole by only 30 inches from 29 feet and 10 inches to a height of 31 feet , 4 inches. consisting of two radios which will be mounted to the side of the pole along church street facing the park, and vegetation will help minimize the visual impact. this is the same design being deployed throughout san francisco in commercial and residential areas. in front of you are simulations. looking west along the street, as you can see the facility will be painted to match the existing poll, and appropriately camouflaged using other perspectives. mr murphy had this in his brief. it is the vantage point from where he looks out. identifies that existing vegetation will screen the view.

additionally, as mentioned earlier, the radios will be located on the street side facing away we evaluated six alternative locations in the area. four alternatives were evaluated and were not licensable, for being poles with equalizers. they pose public safety concerns at four wireless facilities pick the other two pulls her wood pole designs. one of which is not permitted by pg nd, and the other is more obtrusive. it is a bulkier design. pursuant to article 25, public health reviewed radiofrequency and emission support and found that the install would be in compliance with the f.c.c. standards and would not produce radiofrequency and engineer

energy exceeding the sec public exposure limits. according to the report, the maximum calculated exposure level at the ground is 0.05 2% of the sec public exposure standard. d.p.h. appropriately found that the facility would meet the public health compliance standards. mr murphy also brought up concerns about the view, by the planning department determines that the proposed facility and design is consistent with article 25 and the general plan would not significantly detract from the character of the adjacent residential commercial mixed mixed-use districts. it satisfies peer be compatibility standards for planning and zoning protected locations with excellent street views. it is at&t's opinion that the small cell site is the least

visually obtrusive design that is technologically available at this time. at&t is committed to quality customer experience and network reliability, and has been working to improve this wireless service and signal quality in and around the street since late 2017. at&t has worked diligently on this application, and it met all of the application requirements under article 25 and the department of public works for placement of wireless facilities in the right-of-way, and submitted the required information to san francisco public works planning and public health departments. of the application before you is the least obtrusive design and location for at&t to service this area, we respectfully request that the board of appeals denied the appeal and uphold public works hearing director his determination for at&t. thank you. >> thank you.

>> relax. i have a question. so going over the brief, and including what was presented to us, it lists the site at 125 vista avenue. and throughout your whole brief, the pictures also say 125 and page 104 indicates 125. having lived at 148, this is not the right location. so given that your information indicates the wrong address from there, is it a problem as far as notification, or process. >> i direct that question to planning and public works, but we typically use the nearest adjacent parcel, which would be 125 vista. >> that would be a little misleading if it is a block away

has right now you are at lion and turk street, whereas the address indicates, according to the information you provided, baker which is more than two blocks away. >> again, i would direct that to the other departments. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the department. >> would you like to hear the answer to your question from planning? >> thank you so much. commissioners, i am representing the department of public works. >> can you speak into the microphone, please. >> sorry. i am representing the department of public works. we believe this permit was issued in compliance with the parenting procedure defined in public works code, article 25 for personal wireless service facilities pick article 25 requires public works refer wireless applications to the

department of public health and the planning department and to the department of recreation and parks if applicable. in this case, both at the department of public health and the department of planning determined this brickwork does application complies with article 25. we subsequently issued a tentative approval on june 28th 2018, and at&t posted notice of this approval on july 5th and mailed notice of the approval on july 18th of last year. public works held a public hearing on september 10th, 2018 to consider protest to the tentative approval. following the hearing, the director director of public works approved the permit and notice of his determination was distributed to the public on november 1st of last year. the planning department is here in attendance and can speak more regarding the review process if the board has questions, and of course, i am here. thank you very much. >> can you address this issue?

>> i beg your pardon. >> i was going to refer to my colleagues with planning. is better suited to them. >> i haven't seen you in such a long time. happy new year. >> haven't seen you since last year. >> is your name santos or sanchez? [laughter] >> scott sanchez, planning departments. so first in regards to the address, 125 vista is the address that is closest, the close doors close as property to this poll. when these applications go in, we go by the closest property. in this case, it is a through lot between turk and there is no address on turk that would correlate to the location of this poll. it further confuse people. if we gave an address on turk, it would be an address across the street. that i can see the confusion here. i cannot speak to the permit holder and the use of baker, but

that is how it got to that convention. which is confusing. i was confused too. i was looking at all the questions at all the pictures. >> we just had an appeal on that block at our last hearing. >> so the planning department, they did properly review the subject application. the tier be noticing it is on an excellent street. i can put on the map on the overhead. could i have the overhead, please. there we go. so the subjects is located right about here. there is a small line which is our arm. it is not actually designated as any specific use street, but when we do have on turk to the east, for several blocks, it has lion to the south. it is also an excellent street. the poll is just right at the corner there on the north side.

we are doing --dash reviewing the design, we found it was minimally obtrusive. he did not detract in any way from the characteristics that led to the designation of the street as an excellent use street. the sighting of the poll itself, even though it is not an excellent dose excellent view street, and views from that would not necessarily be protected, the poll itself is not located directly in front of those stairs. there are very narrow stairs, if i could have the overhead again. they come down. the subject is located just to the east of the stairs, and the equipment would be added at the top and the adjacent unit in the lower levels. it is offset from the stairs, not directly in line with the stairs. we do believe that the planning department review the application. i reviewed it again with staff earlier today and we maintained our approval of the application. i'm available for questions. >> i have one. so this is one of the first times that the addresses come up like this. so i know that there is some

required notification in regards to the installation of this device, so if that radius notification is on a lot that is not literally where that is, doesn't a potentially mean that someone that is within that radius potentially is not notified? >> it is given that it is the through lot, it is the correct dose it is based on the correct property. it is the property that is closest to it. the address is a different side of that property. we can let d.p.w. speak to how they did the details of that notification, but it would be teared off the correct lot, the correct property. >> so it is not where the actual location of the work to be done, it is just on the adjacent property? >> they would base a notice on the closest property, i believe in the closest property is 125. it is a through lot. you could have a turk address. you could probably go into d.b.i. and seek to have an address that would probably confuse people even more. >> i get that, but i -- the question is regarding the

notification. if the work to be done doesn't have an address, and the notification is based on a property that is adjacent, potentially people who should get notification are actually not getting notification. >> i think the same people would get notification. if it is based on the parcel, the same parcel is being referenced, regardless if it hasn't address. if you are tearing it off of that lot, it wouldn't matter what you call that lot, the same people will get noticed. i would refer to d.p.w. >> the question could be answered by d.p.w. and the project sponsors since they have the responsibility for the notification. >> thank you. >> see, we missed you. >> you still have time, the department, if you want to respond to those questions now. >> you have the question of the department. >> if you want. >> why don't you clarify that? >> sure.

our notification process is similar to the other departments and that we have to use a street address. that is a cysto system that are notification standards are based on. it is an interesting question as we move into more of a digital age, if your question is if there is a particular long, could we use a more precise measurement? possibly, that is not our standard at the moment. our standards are based on street address. are notification picks this closest street address and that is where we draw the endpoint of our radiused from. >> i think this is a sticky wicket because if you take the street address, and you put a little pin at the top where the address entry would be, and was at 150, or 500? >> 150. >> in a circle around that -- >> is a whole lot. it is a whole lot.

>> so you get each corner, 150 from each corner, so you have four concentric circles, and then it shouldn't be problematic >> doesn't matter that it says the cross street is baker? >> i don't think so. that is what the application shows, and that is the correct street segment according to our remap. >> that is what i am trying to find out. if it was noticed correctly, if it is noticed off of baker street, then at which point, line is a full block away. >> it is noticed based on the closest parcel address which is 125. >> then how did you get the cross street -- i'm not trying to be argumentative, i'm just trying to figure out, you have 125 across at baker street. >> yes. i don't have a map with me. >> of the project sponsor look at this. >> sorry, we did not mean to be

tough on your first night here. i apologize. >> and i have the overhead please. >> i thank you are just responding -- >> this is our affidavit that we received when we notify. this is the map. we actually did use this for the specific poll, and as you can see, this is 150-foot radius from that pole that we notify all residents and owners. >> it is hard to see that. can we focus in? >> gary, the magic man. >> thank you for clarifying that for me. >> all the blue homes are within that 150-foot radius of the poll , ends then the blue circle is the 300-foot radius that we notify all neighborhood associations.

>> thank you again. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? please approach the microphone. us or anyone else here for public comment? >> fellow commissioners, my name is david morgan steen, i'm a resident of the city of san francisco, and i support the appellant here. i think the information that the commissioners are focused in on regarding whether it is confusion regarding the address and notice, or whether a notice that goes out has an address that is not easily identifiable to the physical location of where this antenna maybe placed, might mean that some of the people who did receive notices would read this and would not be clear whether this proposed antenna was going to affect their view, or their light, or not because the applicant did not make it clear to them exactly where the physical

antenna would go. there maybe pictures that are included to, but i am not sure it is fair to all residents of the city to expect them to be able to look at a picture, and look at an address, and somehow triangulate the two if it isn't crystal clear where they are. i think that in conjunction with some uncertainty regarding whether the signatures for article 25 were achieved would be a required time period, i thank you should look at this, and monitor the appeal here, and if at&t wants to go back through this whole process and clue things out, they may have the right to do that. i don't think he'll be prudent to allow them to move forward given the conversation that everyone has just heard in the next 5-10 years. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> excuse me, are you with the at&t team? >> i am. am i not allowed to speak? >> not in public comment. you can use rebuttal time if you

so wish. >> any public comment? we will move on to rebuttal. we will hear from the appellant. mr murphy, you have three minutes. >> i am just getting my papers in order here. >> so i guess if we look at the map, if i can have the overhead. a couple of observations here. if you were to put the centre of this map somewhere, that is the least number of notifications that you would send out. if that were the little bit more over here, he would be notifying

people in this neighborhood, and if you were further back, you be notifying people back here in the lower neighborhood kicked the other thing that i would note, just on the naming, is that it is a very small, but this laneway has a street sign on it. it actually has a name. it is posted at both ends. so it is how people describe that laneway. and perhaps it should have been on the notification that it was the lane. let me go back to some of the items in the brief from at&t. they pointed out, or they were attempting to point out that i was not being -- that i was attacking them. i just want to go through some of their arguments so they numbered them quite nicely kicked the first one here was they were saying i was talking about the noise of the antenna. i was not talking about the noise of the antenna. this is from my brief right here

is basically about another box that they installed further down online street. the second one here was a question i had about the emissions. you will notice that in their application, they dodged those questions, and they are in attachment of the brief and they are numbered as they are there. number 2, and number 5, i believe. the third thing that they brought up was essentially community meetings, and community outreach. overheads, please. you will see here on the community outreach that community meetings are required, but article 25, pardon me, i'm losing my voice. article 25 does recommend that they have a community meeting. they did eventually reach out to me to organize a community

meeting. it was basically the friday before, the week before the actual hearing. i had been asking since july. this is an item that was brought up by d.p.w.'s report as well that d.p.w. are basically asserting in the line items here that, i'm sorry, this is the wrong one. number 4. alternative site analysis i asked about, what i discovered when i looked at the brief, they kept going back to the same intersection. when if you read, i am done, i guess. >> thank you." time is up. >> complete your thought on that that comment. >> okay thank you.

>> at&t, please. >> you have three minutes. >> can i have this again, please >> while we do notify everybody, all the businesses, and residents, and neighborhood associations, one of which reached out to me and i responded to them. we do post along the entire street. we posted allowing 12 poles

along turk street, 11 poles along turk street with a tentative approval and final determination. in regards to emissions, i would ask joe to come up and speak to that. >> good evening, members of the board. >> welcome back. >> thank you. i am a registered professional engineer in the state of california. we conducted the assessment of the exposure conditions appear cumulative measurements are required once the facility is constructed, which includes all sources in the area. the measurements on record with the department of public health for the facility, and the two facility was mentioned on turk.

those are a matter of record. the most recent measurements that were taken, 0.2 1%. everything from that facility is less than a%. their projected exposure level from this additive -- added new facility are .0 5%. there is no question this facility will comply with the federal exposure standards. i think d.p.h. is a value -- d.b.h.'s evaluation is correctly reflecting our findings. thank you. >> could you remind me to process -- >> let them finish. sorry. >> if you have a minute. >> mr murphy did talk about community outreach as well. during the time we did speak to him from july to december, we reached out and had a back-and-forth e-mail conversation at least nine times four in july and august, twice in september, and three times more in december. we did discuss a handful of

things. from y. and the reasoning why we need to have a pole in this area , a small cell facility in this area. >> okay. >> you have half a minute. >> hello. i just want to address two things about article 25. it does suggest that we hold a community meeting, but because these are not to new facilities, they are all attached to existing poles, d.p.w. and all of the carriers have not really traditionally done community meetings for small cell facility his. and there is a part about the dating of the signature. we would love it if the director would sign things within 14 days typically it takes a lot longer and there is so much happening. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. anything further? >> okay. commissioners, this matter is submitted.

>> just a suggestion for the department in your instructions, it appears that the department and most agencies in the city strive for clarity. if you have not addressed that, perhaps it needs a caveat of some type added to it so that it is quite clear exactly where it is. >> commissioners? >> we missed your public comment you can start. >> i guess not. although we sympathize with the immediate neighbors and the effects that they feel may or may not happen, we have heard hundreds and hundreds of cases here. article 25 is very specific in regards to what we can and cannot do. the concern in regards to the

address and potentially mislabelling was addressed by the permit holder, as well as the department. so i feel this permit was property -- properly issued. >> i am also in agreement. the good view in this instance is not impacted by this and i have no comments on the safety issues. is there a motion? >> i will make that motion. >> okay. your motion is to deny the appeal? >> deny the appeal and that it was properly issued. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued on that motion -- [roll call] --

that motion carries 4-0. >> you sound sick. [laughter] >> gary, can you grab it? can brad have a couple of cough drops? thank you. >> our attorney is dying. are you sick? >> are you sick too. >> i came in at 5:00. i brought back a portuguese

sausage. >> okay. okay, we are moving on to item number 5. this is a rehearing request. the subject property 1509 trader street. the appellant is requesting an eerie -- a rehearing of their appeal. the neighbors of the valley versus san francisco public works, decided december 12, 2018 at that time, the board voted 4- 0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. the permit holder's mobility, and this is permit number... and president fung, did you have the opportunity to review the video materials for the hearing

which took place on december 12 th, 2018? >> i did, and i am prepared to act upon the presentation. >> thank you. we will begin with the agent for the requester. >> thank you. there were a number of new facts and circumstances that arose during the hearing on the 14th . we appreciate your are hearing our request for rehearing. on november 14th, they misled the board that the pole was the same height and the d.p.w. also did not disclose the mobility's approved design and this was a mobility document that was not referred to and didn't in fact have a 2-foot or feet 3-foot increase. that document also forms the basis of your approval.

d.p.w. also did not disclose that there is a definition of a 34 for replacement. in its definition, which is in the lower right-hand column, is the material on? okay. there is a definition for replacement. it would have helped the board to understand what that is. this is a definition required for under the d.p.w. order for implementation of article 25. it says it is equipped -- its equipment must be equal or lesser in size. this is to -- 2-foot 3 inches taller. we thought this would have been relevant for the board in their review of that. there was also the issue of the notice. d.p.w. did catch the error of the wrong neighborhood group and

stayed -- stated on the 14th of november that it was corrected in both mailings. they were two physical mailings. tentative and final. mobility and d.p.w. had done that. why did both mobility and d.p.w. provide certification under penalty of perjury that they had only done one, and to the wrong list. there was no, and still is no signed affidavit of even one, left alone to watch what mailings to the neighborhood group, and we believe the commissioners were deliberately misled at the november hearing on that issue. we support the work that d.p.w., that planning has done to streamline the installations of the equipment, but it was absolute falsehood that was brought up at planning to tell commissioner lazarus on the 14 th that it was an inch larger than at&t and verizon, and that was a misleading fact.

the compatibility standard was never really checked and that came out in the hearing. it was clear that planning had not performed inadequate, or any , of the view from the streets, and that is evidence there are hundreds of people to go up and down the streets and see this view, it was clear they were relying entirely on a photograph coming the other direction. these are the number of reasons that we feel that the board was misled. there was no consideration of alternate sights, and we think this is a fundamental issue if the city has preserved its right to be able to review these applications, if the applicant comes in with a perfect site every time, -- >> sir, your time is up. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the permit holder. >> good evening.

i am from mobility l.l.c. this is a rehearing request for an appeal for a wireless permit issued for a small site 15 '09 trader street. we heard this meeting on december 14th. at which time the board voted 4- 0-1 with president fung absent two deny the appeal and uphold the permit. it is not meet the high standards of the rules of this board for rehearing to be granted. it puts forth no new or different material facts that could have affected the outcome of the original hearing. the appellant uses their brief to reargue the same issues and same facts already presented to this board on november 12th, excuse me, november 14th and december 12th. the appellants again, raises issues about the design of the facility that is approved by planning with the same or similar equipment used in other

parts of the city, already under the small cell program, the appellant again attempts to confer flight a replacement hole for the p.u.c. requirements for the installation of the new utility pole at a location where no pole previously existed. appellants argue about the definition of replacement under article 25, is in reference to the equipment. the provider would install -- it is not about the pole. it is s.f. p.u.c.'s property. s.f. p.u.c., we measured the pole and confirms that the replacement pole will be approximately the same height, and that 28-foot poles that they use across the city and the appellant argues about the appellants noticing and the it was one of the primary focus is at both the november and december hearings. where it was established that mobility corrected the neighborhood group public notice mailings. they make arguments about site

location, analysis, where there is no local state or federal requirement to do so. the appellant also makes the same arguments about underground utility location markings pursuant to a separately issued excavation permit, that the board heard about in december, and there are no new facts before you today that were unknown at the time of previous hearings. the appellant has been heard by the city on these arguments. at the initial protest hearing, and at the november and december hearings, these are arguments the board has heard and a multitude of times before, and other similar cases. this is not an extraordinary case. there is no manifest and justice present. we respectfully ask this board deny the rehearing request. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you for your time. >> i have a question. in the last hearing, we spoke at length in regards to whether or not the pole is a replacement pole, or whether it is a new

poll. but the appellant pulled out a document that indicates if a pole is taller, it has to be smaller in stature or in size then that would constitute as a replacement. is it saying if you're pole is taller, does it mean it is no longer a replacement? >> the definition about replacement under article 25 is mobility or any provider -- >> i'm sorry. can the appellant but that document on the overhead again, please. >> while he is searching, at length, we did speak about it quite a bit, in the bar for a rehearing is quite high. if there is the information that indicates the ponies to be smaller to be a replacement, and if the pole is indeed larger,

than it would not constitute as a replacement. >> that definition of replacement is about the equipment we are installing. if he ever tried to modify in the future and had to go back, or something breaks and we have to fix it, what constitutes a replacement? that pole is not mobility. we have no control over it. it is s.f. p.u.c. that requires every carrier to replace it. >> can we get that -- thank you. >> is about previously permitted equipment. we are not permitting a pole here. it already exists, and the owner of the city is asking for it to be replaced. >> hold on one second. thank you. >> replace means to remove previous permitted equipment, and install new equipment as permitted, personal wireless service facility that is identical in size or smaller than the previous parenting

equipment. so if your pole becomes 3 feet higher, i mean i read that as it is not the same size. >> that is not mobility. that is the city's poll. we just have no control over it. our preference would be we save money and not replace the pole if it is good to go. >> does my city attorney have an opinion on that? >> i read this as referencing the actual wireless equipment that is being installed. not the pole. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the department. >> i am jillian gillett from the department of street mapping. you have a brief in front of you our position is the appellant does not raise new or different facts for circumstances from the previous hearing, and we respectfully request you take this rehearing request. i'm available for questions. >> is there any public comment on this item.

seeing then, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners? comments? >> i am going to end recommending we deny the appeal, but i do so not under protest, but under duress. i don't, here is what bugs me. i like to send this message to d.p.w. and i'd like to send it to mobility, and i would like to send it to at&t, although this has nothing to do with their behaviour, and verizon. as we saw the original presentation of this, it was very upsetting to see the presentation from mobility, because in fact, the photos were misleading, and we are not doing

sales here. we are not selling, we are not in your business of selling a product. what we are doing is taking care of our citizens and taking care of our neighbors, and these issues are very emotional because these are people's homes and to represent, if you look at at&t or verizon's equipment, it is significantly smaller than yours at mobility. i think your installation is ugly, but it is still not illegal. and to see a photo looking up hill at the tower, and trying to get a call just a big sit -- in juxtaposition to sell your position is kind of insulting. i really feel bad about the neighbors. at the same time, i find it -- i can't find anything -- although you are stretching, although it

is stretching a little bit, unfortunately i can't find enough to justify a rehearing, which is where the bar is pretty high. [please stand by] . . . i'm sorry for the neighbor. i can't support rehearing, but

let's have dpw, please, let's try to work better with the neighborhood and be more sensitive. my motion is to edny the rehearing because it doesn't meet the criteria. with that sensitivity. but it means nothing. okay? >> president fung: any other comments? >> we have a motion from vice president swig to deny the request for a rehearing on the basis there is no new evidence. on that motion, president fung. >> aye. >> a commissioner lazarus? >> aye. >> a commissioner honda? >> aye. >> commissioner tanner. >> the rehearing requested is denyed. we will now move on to item number 6. this is appeal numb 18-144, okay chu versus planning department inspection at 521 los palmos