The sgrlz the presiding officer is commissioner honda and joined by commissioner fung and commissioner ann lazarus and commissioner swig we expect commissioner bobby wilson to be here tonight to my left is thomas owen for legal advice and gary boards executive director. Were joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. We expect Senior Citizen builder inspector joe duffy dbi and Scott Sanchez representing the Planning Department and Planning Commission and joined by from the public works the public works of mapping please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other Electronic Devices are prohibited. Out in the hallway. Permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. Have up to 3 minutes no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to the clerk. Speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. The board welcomes your comments. There are Customer Satisfaction forms available. If you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. Dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. Thank you for your attention. Well conduct our swearing in process. If you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. Please note any of the members may speak without taking do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Okay. Thank you so first item is general Public Comment for people that wish to address the boards on an item not on tonights calendar any general Public Comment please step forward. Good evening, commissioners my name is georgia swedish im going to speak about the informational hearing an february 24th for mr. Jolene about the residential Design Guidelines i watched it other than the website and it was very interesting and the thing that caught my attention was a q and a with commissioner swig about roof decks and i want to brought to your attention Planning Commission action think a dr i was not the requester i i am an immediate neighbor that was da the action memo was issued excuse me december 22, 2014, and the hearing think the question is 11 at that hearing the commission does take dr and they action included rove the proposed deck on the revolver of three story addition and the basis for the recommendation if i may ill read it the roof deck was found to be incongruous encompassed with the development on the block that he dont exist on any property other than the adjacent house this project is at 4 61, 27th and so i thought that was interesting in the context of the commissioners conversation with the staff in terms of what it means it a privacy or neighborhood character ill add one more thing the dr requester and none of the neighbors asked for the roof deck to be removed that was totally at the discretion of the Planning Commission they took that action on their on hyatt i thats my statement if youre interested thank you very much have a good evening. Thank you there it is right up there. Thank you admit other general Public Comment okay. Seeing none move on to item number 2 commissioners questions or comments. Commissioners optimistically warriors get to close us out did anyone note the giants win thank you. Okay on item 3 for you considerations of the minutes of the april 27, 2016. If no additions, deletions, or changes may i have a motion to accept. Move to adopt. Any Public Comment on the minutes seeing none, then on Vice President motion to adopt the minutes commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig okay. That motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero thank you moving on to item 4 which is the appeal case versus the San Francisco public works of mapping an lombard street appealing the issuance to system inc. Of abdomen wireless box permit a personal wireless facility and because i know there is issues getting into the building tonight can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak on the people is that appellant and permit Holder Council well begin with the appellant. Thank you. Good evening commissioner honda and commissioners ryan partnering son it is a installation facility on a street pole in front of any clients property that street pole will be placed in front of of residential bedroom and ill show you an image on the overhead. This is why my client is concerned about this were here tonight not to make a giant fight about the law regarding wireless facilities were here as a matter of inhibit to ask for a conversation for verizon as Good Neighbors to talk about this installation across the street or further down the block not right in a residence face verizon has to their council just a few moments ago ago since i have a map and actually on the computer would be better this map shows the proposed location with the green pen and as well as a handful of other approval of the minutes theyre not suitable to locate the installation the issue if we can georgia back to the overhead there are a lot more poles in the immediate facility we want to look at it and talk with them about we have utilities that people went out to the area and it is doable to relocation this proposal weve not had an opportunity to work through that it maybe not another site buses dozens and dozens of poles in the immediate vicinity must be a place better he request you to get the next available date to sit down with verizon and talk about Public School id like to give my client a chance to speak that is important here at this location as compared to others. My my name is vince young represents the tenants and the ownership of lombard street and i just wanted to voice any concerns offering over the impact the pole with the reduction of light and views clearly from the adjacent windows as well as the impact that could have been some of the children a daycare down below in the commercial space and im not sure if there has been studies in regards i know there has been studies but studies in regards to the effect upon children and longterm exposure for the wireless retireeers the children will probably be under 8 to 10 hours a day it could impact them so i dont know if those studies is were done in regards specifically to children id like to request that if possible given the fact across the street a library with many children present all during the day as well the windows that face the library are both the childrens section and teens section of the library and a playground up the block so i ask you take those factors into consideration thank you. If i could direction the boards attention to exhibit h of the permit holders brief those are photos from the residential window showing the location of the pole and this is going to be a canister 18 inches diameter by 3 inches placed on top of the law we know about the limiting of the jurisdictions ability to do anything about that but beyond if issue there is a Property Value, in fact, simply from having the canister in front of the window and so we again are simply asking for a week or so to talk with them to see if there is another solution and interested in these contributing to the cost if there is any of reengineering for two different locations t. Thank you counselor. Well hear from the permit holder now. Representative. Good evening inspections jim heard with the Law Enforcement representing Verizon Wireless with me tonight on behalf of the verizons contractor and agent fixing the systems is mason and has here in case you have questions about compliance with the standards bill Housing Element of the Housing Element and edison hes more than wellversed on the subject auto ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. With that, said id like to remind the board what it is were talking about were talking about a small canister on top of a steel muni pole those pictures are what is already there theyre looking at a steel pole out of this window and by the way, hes over stated the size of canister not 18 inches feinstein inches in diameter thats one of the thresholds of the dpw definition to obstruct light and view we tenderloin attached a set of plans to our brief you have a copy. But the bottom line here this is similar to equipment that you see on light poles in San Francisco including on this very Street Corner not clear from any of the paragraphs but if you look at intersection on google earth youll see a utility pole right around the corner no further than the pole were talking about it operationally is were talking about visual impact the second thing keep in mind this it is reviewed by 3 departments planning and public works and Public Health department all included it meets all the standards under the citys code ill submit to you those finding with correct and more substantial evidence and should be upheld this is a moving target in their brief they raised a single contributor issue notice not a word about that tonight and hope they abandoned it as we pivoted in our brief tonight they want to ask you for time to give them time reengineer our Clients Network well, that is thats not something that board some entertain for several reasons in the first place not mentioned in the brief and therefore raise saviors due process questions, and, secondly, no reason to look at alternating sites unless code compliant issues there isnt and finally as ms. Mason will explain none of the poles we looked at the poles in the area and ruled out by city staff or under some regulation so this is really not a serious issue is it so really just an effort another delay and in theyve explicitly appealed to the radio waves that is what this is about the appellants declaration it was designed it is about radio waves now hes dressed it up but the alleged impacts on the property because of third partys supposedly afraid of radio waves and the courts held that was preempted as preempted he came in here and said i to deny this i dont want to imposed to radio waves no merit to this appeal with that said, im going to turn it over to to ms. Mason unless you have questions for me. Thank you. Im going to put that map back up on the overhead so nicole mason good evening first, i also want to point out that we have tried to have meetings with the appellant and his representatives and to discuss the answer questions they have to explain in further detail we already have in phone conversations with the appellants representative why no other pole can be used weve had those conversations by phone, however, where the representatives not only myself i personally have had such conversation but two other people from my office give given the same information to the representative and two representatives from the Law Enforcement verizons Law Enforcement had that conversation so for 40 that reason no need for more time to discuss we have discussed and offered to sit down and further discuss what can possibly be done unfortunately is nothing we have tried we are submitted previously to the city an application for another pole location to fulfill that service need and it was denied by the city as part of dpw process we suggested yet another what that maps shows actually points out what approval of the minutes were denied by permitting those other sites if you read the text on this map a number of poles in the invented that are off the table the city doesnt allow us to attach the concrete poles more the city allows us to attach to feeder poles the poles that so for all of this myriad of reasons from city discretion to the safety reasons we are not able to use any other pole and then the appellant showed another map with more poles across a larger areas the dots in the leaguer area are outside of the service area those are extremely low power one hundred and 22 rad i cannot wattage and extremely small. Okay your time is up. Ms. Mason on the two poles denied by permitting on what basis. For views both of them. This is no the a view pole. It was not denied by the other locations showed as denied by permitting were denied by the city the reason because of corridors and it was going to you know were those two the balance then not all of those are feeder poles or. They are one is red dots. All the rest of the red dots on the map i pickup i put up Traffic Signals were not allowed to attach to Traffic Signals this is the mta they own those will Traffic Signals were not allowed to attach to a couple translated feeder poles which was talked about the dock active not allowed to attach usually the puc owns the decorative poles theyre not permitted. Weve looked at ever alternative this is an experience thank you. Well hear from the department now. Good evening commissioner honda and fellow commissioners raul with public works ill back up slightly quickly to talk about the permitting process the applicant applied in 2015 after reviewing the documents on november 24th public works issued a stamp of approval in accordance with the public works code too this 0 approval was done after confirming with the location didnt have Significant Impact in terms of light and viability this was after confirming with the go Health Department so after the approval went up they fold the permit as shown in exhibit b approval to all Property Owners and residents within a 100 percent and 50 radius this of the mailing addresses section requires a physical posting within the vicinity and exhibit b shows pictures confirming that was also completed within the allocated timeframe and after so after the notations from public works received the objections to the proposed locations and he would say it on january 11th after the hearing the hearing officer made a recommendation and it was approved on january in 2016 approving the property location and after confirm this approval and after approving the permit the final determination was the copy was posted at the subject location as well just a couple of main complains presented with the accurate studies not done on the radio frequency so as part of progress public works requires a statement in the Health Department xhichl that it meets the fcc standards and Public Health department confirmed the highest diminished frequency was 15 percent of the standards and one of the main issues was that is the aesthetics of it and the effect of the property public works as a requirement confirms with the Planning Department this didnt have adverse impacts in terms of light and public works determined it was this was in compliances with article 25 and allowed the permit im available to answer any questions. Mr. Shaw those two sites across the street were both denied by your department based on the new order. Unfortunately. It was done by planning. So unfortunately i dont have that information specifically for those two poles but for the permit holders statement it was a visibility issue and that comes from planning. This metal pole is a muni pole. An mta. Are those considered a utility pole. Yes. They are considered light poles because of the agency who holds it is a Utility Agency so it is considered a utility pole. Mta is the Utility Agency . I may have miss stated it in some instances they provide services to muni a services and things of that nature. How does it relate to the overwhelming premise on the utilities how they use the public rightofway. Im sorry. Muni and their infrastructure was provided by taxpayers the Utility Companies were allowed to use light poles because of their investment in the infrastructure. Yes. So in this specific case we do require a pole authorization and mta got the authorization for this pole was allowed to be used for this specific facility. And how many objections did you have. I believe 14 total objections. All right. Thank you. Yes. Okay. We can take Public Comment can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak. Or do i want to hear in planning first oh, if planning is ready. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott SanchezPlanning Department so i think we reviewed this and gave me gave me not he noted this was on the scale of mta pole the design was considered appropriate by the Planning Department and the Architectural Review Committee of the historical that is 11 feet from the nearest residential window and not impair light and air or substantially impair from the dwelling only depends when first, we own the pole a majority of steel policy but in this case we own this pole an mta pole the external antenna is 9 feet from the window and the internal antenna is in front of a smallscale window and thats not the case more than 9 feet away given that we approved the site and the planner is familiar with the sited and even though context he noted that was best design alternative to have in relation to other two operations to using suitors and reduces the noise from fans and is exempt erics although i think youve told you everything