Yes we went to the Neighborhood Association and went to the protests and fiber in pg e people were getting ahead of themselves and were called back. The at t project im sure you know about their project light speed fiber project. Those are the large refridge ratersized boxes that go into the street. There was a lawsuit about it, but that is not our diminutive wireless facilities. Pleatly different project and structure. Different note with small cells. In San Francisco and throughout the country, the wire rlsless countries around the world they have an overlay of broad service. It gives you signal but not necessarily the capacity to provide inhad home and other serve ition our customers demand every year and it doubles every year. The small cell provides Service Within 500 feet on either sield of the pole in order to provide capacity on top of a macro network. You need both. You cant replace the Small Cell Network with the macro network. That is why we cant put them on an apartment build organize anywhere else. Were machinei think you know and i dont want to get na into it we have the right to be there. If there is no pole, we have the right to put our own pole, to place a new pole in the street. Obviously we work with San Francisco to use existing facilities. We cant have trees that grow up around the antennas because its line of sight second knowledge. The alternative to a tree that we have to go through urban forestry and pay a fee in lieu of a tree. I can answer other questions but i appear to have run out of time unless you have questions. I do. So one of the appellants stated you install them at 2 00 in the morning . They werent our workers. I dont know the time, they were the fiber permit is separate. Is it the same company . Different company . I dont know, it may have been extinate or comcast but those are the fiber providers. And pg e provides power as well and a cutoff switch. They put a cutoff switch in the handhold. I understand there was confusion on when this protest period began and ended. Thats because we filed the paperwork for protest period for the appeal period to begin but it wasnt actually posted and mailed by the department until 28 days lais later, Something Like that. There was confusion 28 days dayer Something Like that. There was confusion that caught the countries. They didnt realize that the appeal period was continuing and it was because of a difference in time when we up loaded the information to begin the field process and when it was actually sent out, the final determination by the department. Is there a time constraint that your workers can insaul equipment . I feel that 2 00 a. M. Is not appropriate. I would agree with you. They should be complying with the what is the time slot that theyre supposed to install equipment . Do you know . Maybe you can look it up. I believe thats 7 00 to 5 00 and short on weekends. Because 2 00 a. M. Is crazy. I would agree with you. Thats the first i heard that have incident. Quiet, please. I guess well be seeing you a lot since sb 349 got beat out by the governor. Yes. And last point is that you probably know that this whole issue of the esthetic rights of the city in subject of tmobile versus San Francisco which is going to the california supreme court. Upon my advice, tapt and verizon are not party to that lawsuit but the issue of your rights to esthetics is being reviewed by the supreme court. We can be in the rate of way but its a question of esthetic rights. Dont run away so fast. Will this Technology Change from line of sight . Wireless technology . I have our he might be able to answer that question. Its line of site technology. It it doesnt it only travels so far. The frequencies that were using today are higher frequencies, 5g and 4g they carry more data, but dont travel as far. Thats why we put the small cells closer to the end user to provide more data. The original analogue went out to sea but newest technologies, higher frequencies and dont travel very far at all. Bill, do you want to say anything . Good evening, bill hammett president of consultive engineers. The behavior of the frequencies in the bands is line of site. It goes through trees but not Building Materials. It bounces around. It will work down a street and bounce off the buildings and works its way down the street. Penetration is it notis not good for Building Materials or other things. Thank you. I believe commissioner swig had a question. Can you tell us about the alternative sites you review before settling on this . Kevin modas can speak to that. This particular pole is unique. At its height, it actually sees over the building 3400. Its at a corner and im sorry quiet please in the back. It was designed specifically do that whereas other poles around corner are lower and would not provide the necessary propagation. Kevin, i dont know if you can answer that. Basically im kevin moda swrks verizon. Verizon r. F. Engineer says i need a site at this intersection. We go to the intersection with architects. And look at different poles to see is it blocking windows . Is it in front of windows . Is there a tree blocking the site . Here we looked at this is the first pole we looked at. We thought it was the best location at that intersection because the antenna would be above where the windows were on adjacent property. That building is about 22 feet away from the rightofway. While the other poles on that street in the immediate area are closer to buildings. If you go, i think west, the street starts to go down in elevation. Sow would lose some signal going west because of that. So that was kind of the reasoning behind this pole selection. What about placing it on buildings instead of poles . Its tough with the zoning in san San Francisco. That is preference seven, the Planning Department can go to that. Its hard at the get these on residential lots. Residentialzoned properties, i should say weve heard in past, Residential Properties could provide an alternative to placing them on the pole if Comparable Service if the service is acceptable. We hear more of that from planning or would you like to i would speak to that. We want them at street level. If youre on a building, the signal is gettingget going to get to that street area that we want. You said the light pole, even though you got objection from the gallery in the back, that the light pole is taller than the building in which it stands you contradicted yourself. That is that subject building. There are other buildings abutting those that are taller than the pole. Do you want to speak . In 1998, we began an accessory use process in are San Francisco where we were allowed to put smaller facilities within a particular design configuration on Residential Properties. That was recently converted through a code change to allow certain small cell facilities through the planning process. But i have two comments and one is the network is designed in order to provide this network the necessary small cell service with the least number of nodes or poles when you move one pole, you end up having to move other poles because of the limited 500foot radius basically of seiveis provide. Service provided. When you move the facility off of poles and into building ide 0 areas you affect the network an how its designed. There are two comments i have to say about that. One, as i mentioned, we have the right to be if the rieft of rightofway. We have negotiated with the city for this particular design to be in the rightofway. Telephone equipment on poles in the rightofway. And so we have the right to be there without demonstrating need. Secondly is clearly our network is designed in order to provide the most Reliable Network and service in the most efficient way that is the design that verizon is bringing forward. The city is not in a position to dictate the technology we use. I have to say, yes, we use small cells in certain circumstances. In order to provide the coverage up and down the street and this is a bidirectional antenna, this is the design that the Network Engineers worked out to provide the service were trying to provide. In that spirit, this implies that there will be permits being requested for other poles and as we heard from i cant remember whether it was Public Comment or the appellant who said, okay, now theyre working with the dpw and planning to put more of these things on other poles which will further impact what weve worked for decades to achieve which is a continuity and cleanliness of getting away from stuff on poles. So if and if this were a house and this type of permitting activity would happen, i think the permitting would surface in the conversation. So rather than being accused of serial permitting and doing something that is less than transparent, whats the issue about just doing it the right way or doing it the ore, that would be a judgment doing it the way the neighborhood who invested a tremendous effort in money to do it in a respectful way and sit down with the Neighborhood Association and create a proper notice that youre going to put material that youre going to request permits for material all over the neighborhood and that you would like to work out a plan. Why not do it that way so were not here in20 times hearing appeals from the Presidio Heights neighborhood . Thanks for letting me answer that question. First, i want to say that the entire project the larger project initially went through a ceqa analysis. That ceqa analysis included an analysis of cumulative impact. Those issues were reviewed. There is in fact a San Francisco case regarding the cumulative impact of these types of facilities where the court determined that where you couldnt see one facility from the next, there wasnt impact from one facility to the next there was no cumulative impact. Regarding the overall planning process, we dont apply for these. It sounds like were going in every week or month or something and applying for one of these poles. I think you know theyre over 400 poles and theyre applied in batches for an entire neighborhood which receives hundreds, thousands of notices. We notice within 150 feet of every pole and notice every Neighborhood Association twice. We notice any protestor twice. We post the poles twice. This is not in a vacuum. We dont post just the pole but the entire street face block with the notices and thats going on p for all the other facilitieses in a polygon. San francisco is certainly one of the most processladen locations, jurisdictions for this kind of work. So i have to i really want to say that there is has been a very long and involved and publicly transparent process to where we are today. That there is substantial notice to, by mail, by posting of these facilities within a neighborhood, there is substantial opportunity for comment and review. Dpw dos does tell us to move poles. They tell us there is is not a good pole. Among the hundreds approved, there is only a dozen that have been of the verizon facilities of this style that come to you. We always experience the concern of immediate neighbors to what i would call public infrastructure. If you were putting this light standard in for a first time or a stop sign there where people gun their engines, that stop sign is important for everyone of the community where the neighbors are concerned. Youve answered his question. I have a couple more. How many exition poles do you have in that particular district right now . Existing poles in that district . Yes. I think were in the process of applying and moving forward. A lot of the poles in the pac heights area are concrete holes. I think its recently was executed but i would say right now weve probably installed 10 to 12 in the pac heights area. And spated or slated what is the number anticipated or slated, what is the number of figure youre looking at . I dont know because thats is verizons r. F. Proprietary information. That number is probably can you answer that question . I wish i could. I honestly cannot. I believe there are approximately 30 in the area that are currently i mean because what i think commissioner swig was alluding to is the communication with the neighborhood and yet, we understand that San Francisco is one of the toughest places. Weve had over 2000 wireless facility appeals in this body and we were sued as youre probably aware of. As the members of the public in that neighborhood that have spent a lot of time effort and energy in thes eses in the esthetics of the neighborhood. Instead of you being in front of us 20 or 30 more times, if you can get a map together with the locations and speak with the neighborhood, theyre not going to be happy anyway, but the anticipation knowing that these are where the locations are slated to go. And proprietary or not if someone showed up at 2 00 a. M. In front of my house yeah. Yeah. I agree, we have web sites, we have information that we try to push out. We had press campaigns to push out im asking at this point, since you know there is further stuff, please have further communication with the Presidio Heights neighborhood because those are the questions that im sure youll be in front of this body at least one more time, that 649 did not pass. At which point, those are the questions that were going to ask and why werent there communication. Ill take to heart and to verizon wireless. Well discuss open line of communication. Yes. Thank you. Miss higgens, no rebuttal . Okay. And mr. Teague, anything further . Commissioners unless you have questions for the departments, the matter is submitted. Were in deliberation already at this point. Thank you. I guess you know its my opinion that the case that was before us on sacramento street was worse than this in terms of you know, the impact. However the designation of sacramento street was no designation. The street has this area has the goodview designation. The question is not so much, i think, the blockage or changing of the views either toward presidio or anywhere else. I think the other portion of that is whether this fixture on a light pole affects the character of that area and i think it does. Its too bad that this particular technology has created a lot of issues in quite a few neighborhoods. Its obviously unnecessary technology, but its one that i think has not promulgated itself in a conciliatory way. Im prepared to not support the issuance of this permit. I would agree for the same reason. And i also think there is i think there is a noticing issue. And ive spoken about this with regard to the City Department in charge of working with the utilities. That i think that they are negligent until their bee may havier and sensitivity to specific neighborhoods. This is a historic neighborhood. This is a neighborhood that has taken above and beyond action and subsidized subsidized out of their own pockets the city of San Francisco to continue the beautification and specific personality of their neighborhood. And the City Department turns their back and absolutely turns a blind eye to what is a rather heroic effort or certainly a city patriotic effort to keep San Francisco a pry San Francisco neighborhood at primary San Francisco neighborhood at a distinctive level. The success of the light poles was there because there was proper noticing. It involved the city sorry the Presidio HeightsNeighborhood Organization who testified in front of us just now that they are not opposed to this is not a slam dunk. Theyre not opposed to having verizon installations in the neighborhood. He said that. But hed like to Work Together in a sense to get that there will so the personality of the neighborhood so the branding of the neighborhood, so the historic nature of the neighborhood may be preserved. On that extestimony extemporaneous diatribe i support commissioner fung for the same reason. So ive been on the board a little longer than rick. In five years ive seen thousands of these cases. As the counselor explained at t boxs were extremely intrusive. We have fought timelessly on behalf of the citizens to the point where we were litigated against. I believe we lost that. I commend this neighborhood for the ability for having the esthetics, Beautiful Homes and having the resources to put their services underground. But at the same time, you know, our city is 170 years old. I think every house in every district is actually precious. And not all districts have the ability to put their services underground. Im kind of torn. I think that if there is a facility that goes on top of a pole this is probably the least intrusive in compares ton what ive seen over the last five years. So im at this point not sure which way ill go. I would is that a question of the attorney . Is it correct that verizon has the right to put a pole lets say a pole wasnt there, that they have a right to put a pole there and put it up on their pole is that right . I have not researched that specific question. But i trust the councils opinion on that topic. They have a right to be in the rate v rightofway. The law allows them to be if the public rightofway. Yes. I would suggest that, again there is not pushback from the appeal ant. Appellant. The appellant is commenting on this one pole and he indicated that as with other developers of buildings and technology that the neighborhood is open and willing to accommodate a the Reasonable Development of new technologies. That would be an organized way to put a grid of these devices throughout Presidio Heights. I think what were what i would like to and that requires proper noticing of the entire neighborhood, really the macro neighborhood and a plan so it doesnt become health scelter. And defeat the purpose of what what helterske