Inside and out. I dont live there anymore, as i think most of you know, but personally, i feel very close to that neighborhood and its worth protecting. What i want to suggest to you is that you should find out from the Planning Department what exactly were the standards that they used . In 17073, you were able to get the Zoning Administrator to explain to you that the reason that he was willing to deny a permit, recommend denying a permit, while he would grant a permit on an excellent street but deny a permit on a good street, namely lombard, is because he thought that the distant views were not as worth protecting as the upclose views of lombard street. I looked at the brief that the City Attorney has filed with the California Supreme Court. The City Attorney uses two types of views throughout that brave. One, the painted ladies, and, two, the murin headlands. I would encourage you to find out whether using the same standard that was used in 17073 that distant views dont show here. It shall be in writing and set forth the reasons therefore. I bet in this record, you dont have any written explanation of what the reasons are for why the Planning Department is recommending this permit be granted. Thank you. Any our Public Comment on this item . Seeing none. We can take rebuttal. Commissioners, i want you to know that there are people here from the Planning Department that are available if you have questions for them. Do you want to hear now or wait lets hear now. Okay. Staff from planning . Corey teague from Planning Department. Im joined by ashley lindsay, who is our Wireless Specialist in the department, and her supervisor, marcel boudreau. I will let ashley address any of your specific questions. Thank you. Thats fine. Welcome. Good evening, commissioners. Im ashley lindsay, as corey mentioned, and im available to answer any questions that you may have. Hi, ashley. I will ask the same question i asked on the previous case nearby this, in the brief i didnt see any details in terms of Planning Department analysis. Can you explain what occurred in your analysis that granted the impact on the street. We wanted to determine if the proposed wireless facility is in line with the compatibility standards. There were two this pole triggered because its planningprotected and zoningprotected. Its located on a street with excellent quality of street views. And we needed to determine if it impaired any views of landmarks or parks. Within a 300foot radius of the pole, there are no landmarks or park spaces in which the proposed facility would impair views. The facility would be in an rh3 zoning district. And the Residential Structures and buildings range from through to three stories and subject pole itself is 36 feet with the antenna being at 26 foot, 1 inch. We determined that it would be compatible and consistent with the height in this zoning district, therefore, recommending approval to the department of public works for this particular pole at 2001 leavenworth street. Can i ask you a question . Yes. One thing that mystifies me is the birds nest effect that exists on that pole. That would be the myriad of wires and other stuff that is on that pole. Is it whose jurisdiction is it to manage the birds nest, that shouldnt exist in the first plates place . If you have gone to india, its like that block after block. Were supposed to have control over our poles, our view areas and who gets to put stuff up in that birds nest. Who, indeed, has jurisdiction . Is it planning . Is it dpw . Is it puc . Is it who is it . How do you control the birds nest . The thing that sets me off tonight is we all saw on that screen that big loop of wire that was just hanging there because probably some worker anticipating that that wire will go somewhere in the distant future leaves it up there because its easier. Meanwhile in one of San Franciscos most important locations for tourism, most important location historically, this loopity loop is hanging as part of the birds nest of this telephone pole. Who manages this . I cannot speak to that particularly, but i would like to defer i knew i would get an answer from somebody. Can i have the overhead . For this pole, its owned by pg e and the California State Public Utilities Commission has the rules for the attachments to these woodening pg eowned poles. So theyre the ones setting the rules for the telephone lines. The wireless facility thats under review under article 25 in planning is just this antenna and the radio transeiver. Article 25 defines a wireless facility as antennas and related equipment for personal wireless service. So wireless is a definition of, without wires, through radio waves. That isnt the question. The question is, if you put that back up on the screen, so we can all see it, is the aggregated impact of mismanagement of the pole, my perception, because it looks like a birds nest. It completely desecrates the excellent view corridors, not my word, your word, its in writing. And the idea i know were here to talk about the antenna, but the aggregate damage and desecration and we keep on adding stuff and no one is taking it away. Would love it find out who is in charge or will another department add Something Else next week . Who says no . Where does it start . And it permeates the entire neighborhood, which will come up later in the discussion. The state law sets the rules for the wooden telephone poles. Under article 25, we only have authority to regulate the wireless antenna. So i will not get the answer to my question. I think she did answer it. No. So every telephone pole owned by pg e in this city can desecrate a neighborhood and we have to go knock on the door of the puc to say, please manage your wires . Is that the answer to your question . I dont know if i would use those terms, but article 25 does allow wireless facilities on streetlight utility and transit poles in the city of San Francisco. Okay. Thank you. Well do our rebuttal now and start with the appellant. Thank you very much. Just to talk about the telephone poles. You will see the tragedy, that when no one is responsible for taking them off, this is the current view out of my neighbors house. There is clearly an accumulation of stuff put on the poles and no one is responsible for taking it off because it never happens. Everything you add to it will be there in perpetuity. Who knows what the next generation of wireless will look like. No reason to think that more stuff wont be added to poles. Apparently no one is responsible for taking it off because it doesnt happen. In summary, one point, clearly at issue here, whether or not this degrades the view in an excellent view area. What i dont understand, even though i respect the hard work done by extenet and the city. Some views are protected and others are not. I dont know the criteria for what is excellentexcellent view versus plain excellent. In our view, this is an excellent view street. The view has been degraded, adding more will only hurt this situation. It wont make it better. And it makes it more difficult to take the wires down. Once again, i plead with the board to revoke this permit and hope to seek for alter attives that are less adulterous to the neighborhood. We can take rebuttal from the permitholder. Slooirn just a minute. Thank you. Just wanted to try to respond to commissioner swigs questions about who is responsible for the wires. Its a complicated question answer, i should say. Easy question. Really that falls to the Northern California joint Pole Association. Its an association of utilities. So extenet is a member of the joint Pole Association, as are the wireless carriers, as is comcast, pg e. So its an organization that we try to work closely with to ensure that we follow the rules that are stipulated by the organization. California Public Utilities commission is the primary governing body over what happens to the poles, but what happens in reality was installed in the way its installed is something that would go through the Northern California joint Pole Association review process. And the photo that the gentleman showed earlier outside of the window was not the subject pole were talking about right now, but it was the one mentioned earlier that we discussed three months ago in front of you and hasnt been resolved yet. In any case, we agreed in that case, and well do the same here going forward, that well try to work more closely with nor Cal Association to figure out whose wires are where and can they be fixed and can some of that slack go away . Its not always easy because we dont have the authority to tell another utility how to go about their business, but we have Close Relationships with the jpa, so we have some ability to try to work with utilities to fix that up a little bit. So weve committed to trying to reach across the table and do a better job of that. I would caution that its difficult for us to force somebody else to do something about them. I know thats probably not the answer you are looking for, but i hope that sheds a little more light about how this happens and where the place to go might be for some of that. One other thing i didnt have a chance to talk about earlier we talked about alternative locations and there were many we analyzed, but also discussed alternative designs with the Planning Department. One of the design factors that they prefer is using streetlight poles instead of utility poles because it allows for a sleek design. Its not possible here because there are not light poles in this area, so all we have are the wood poles. Even then, we investigated using a pole top antenna. Puc requires separation between antennas and you would have to install a 4foot extension and then with the antenna on top of it. We thought it was more impactful and not less, so we went forward with this proposal and we think the Planning Department has reviewed and agreed with us on that. Im available for any more questions. Who does the public call when there is that birds nest . Its nice that the kids are watching the candy shop, but in general, if thats the view that you look out, say that was your window and theres just a tremendous amount of excess wires, who does the public call to remedy that . Thats a good question. I dont know. I really dont know. I think if it were me, i would start with pg e. I say that only because i dont like passing the buck, but i think i would start there only because they have probably a more Robust CustomerService Network that may be able to field questions like that. Or give direction. With the pole, you can see its cable lines and not powerlines. And then the other question, who determined if its a wood pole or steel pole . You said most of the poles are wood, some that come before our board are steel. Oh, sure. The difference is the function of the pole. What i was talking about with metal poles, theyre just light poles. The purpose of the poles is to provide lighting for the street. The wooden poles are typically poles installed 50, 60 years ago by pg e with the intent to string power over them, but now other utility infrastructure is also installed. Most of those types of poles just happen to be wood. And most of the light poles happen to be metal or concrete. Someone from the public had stated that the reason why they choose wood over the metal is because its free. Is that true . Is there a fee for this . Yes and no. Its free in the sense that extenet is a member of the Northern California joint Pole Association and part owner of all wooden utility poles where there are utilities. Thats kind of the function of the joint Pole Association. So if you are a member of the club yeah. You pay a membership fee to be part of that utility group. So its not exactly free, i wouldnt say, but you are you have answered my question. You are correct that theres not a license agreement with the city of San Francisco because its not owned by the city of San Francisco. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Any rebuttal . No rebuttal from the department. Okay. Planning Department Staff, anything . I have a question for the Planning Department. So the designation of these excellent view corridors, good view corridors, in this case, thats that designation is taking into account this pole and the wiring thats there already . My understanding, the designation is because of the location of the street and the views that are visible from this particular street. So its kind of so as it is, including that pole and all the wiring. Thats my understanding. Okay. Thank you. When you talked earlier about the characteristics of a good view street, you mentioned buildings, you mentioned parks. I didnt hear you talk about the farthest views, which i would equate probably to the term open space. Sorry. Can you repeat in your analysis, in the Planning Departments analysis, for a permit that comes before you on an excellent view street, you mentioned certain things that the Department Staff looks for. Adjacent buildings, historical structures. And you mentioned parks. I didnt hear you talk much about distant views. Under article 25, the compatibility standard only discusses important buildings, landmarks, open spaces and parks. My question to you, how do you define open space . I would like to defer to dwp to answer that. And i have a question for you later. All right. So regarding the parks, although this wireless facility is adjacent to a green space, that is not an official city park. I understand that. Lets deal with my question relates to distant views. Okay. Somebody mentioned in the litigation at the California Supreme Court, talking about distant views plus Something Else and they dont differentiate that in their briefs. Okay. I was going to clarify that this was not referred to the recreation and Park Department because it was not adjacent to a city park. Normally the recreation and Park Department will confirm whether or not wireless facility would significantly impair the views of a city park. I dont think you are understanding my question. Perhaps im not being clear. Before you leave, the question i had for you was, you said something earlier about wireless facilities are not on transit pole lights . Article 25 allows wireless facilities to be placed on transit poles, which are poles owned by the San Francisco municipal transportation agency. Theyre also allowed to be installed on light poles i misheard you. I thought you said they werent allowed. I have a followup question on commissioner lazaruss question for the Planning Department. We hear a lot in regards to article 25. And so article 25 allows this and allows that. Is there specific language regarding article 25 and i think thats what commissioner lazarus is alluding to, is one pole viewed the same with the birds nest and one without . Is there a difference when theres additional wiring on that pole already . There is no specific language no articulation of okay. So whether one has 100 wires on, it will be ruled the same as one with two . I see someone else stepping up to the plate. Batter up. Yeah, again there, is no language that references that, but we do take into consideration the pole, area around it and i get the structured around it. But i think that commissioner lazarus was alluding to the amount of specific wires on that existing pole and that should be taken into consideration when you are attempting to add new equipment. We do take the existing wires into consideration during our review. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, matter is submitted. Im in favor of the appellant on this one. Shall i make a motion or i think we should chat. Or is there further conversation . I will take the same position i took last time. I think the determination by planning was incorrect. Commissioners, if you are inclined to overturn the department and deny the permit, i would suggest that you consider written findings and that instead of adopting a motion intent yes. That you consider a motion of intent want me to make a motion . Sure. A motion to uphold the appeal. Just one thing before i make the motion. We come to this point and weve come to this point before. And there has been commentary from the various commissioners about the birds nest effect. And thank you for the explanation of the association that controls all this. And i would really suggest that extenet, i see verizons counsel, and say, you are getting pushback because of birds nest effect. Because it impacts your ability to influence us to be jovial about these things and were going to push back. As a result of, and would i like to make the motion, to uphold the appeal because the determination of the Planning Department was incorrect and in support of that, that there is Significant Impact of an important and worldrecognized landmark neighborhood in San Francisco. That there is significant, negative impact on an excellent view corridor, both with regard to immediate views and longrange views. And, finally, theres a negative impact due to the aggregate effect of like installations throughout this neighborhood. Commissioner, that is your a tentative granting of this and with the adoption of for direction to prepare findings and and the spirit