Im cynthia goldstein. We have corey teague, assistant Zoning Administrator, who is here representing the Planning Department and commission. We should be joined shortly by senior building inspector joseph duffy. And perhaps somewhere in the room im not seeing is Amanda Higgins with San Francisco public works. If not, she will be here momentarily, representing their bureau of street use and mapping. The board requests that you turn off our silence phones or Electronic Devices and carry on conversations in the hallway. Rules of presentation are as followed. Appellants, permit holders and respondents have 7 minutes to present and 3 minutes rebuttal. People affiliated with the parties must be in the 7 and 3minute parties. Public members have 3 minutes each and no rebuttal. We ask that you please speak into the microphone. To assist the board, you are asked but not required, to submit a speaker card or Business Card to staff when you come up to speak and we have speaker cards on the mode yum for your use. We also have Customer Satisfaction surveys and welcome your comments and suggestions. If you have questions about reque requesting a hearing or rules, call us. Were at 1650 mission street, room 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv and will be rebroadcast on friday on channel 26. There are dvds of the meeting available for purchase. Well swear or affirm all those who intend to testify. Any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. If you do intend to testify at any of tonights proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, stand, if able, raise your right hand and say i do or i affirm. Stand now. Thank you. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth . Thank you very much. Vice president fung, two housekeeping items. First is item 10 ch. The parties have jointly requested that the matter be rescheduled to january 10, 2018, to give them more time to come to a settlement agreement. So moved. Thank you. Any Public Comment . Last time people were not aware that the case had been continued and waited for a significant amount of time. Want to be sure that they are aware that this case is up for continuance. 21 rosemont place will be moved it our january 10 calendar. Okay. On that motion from commissioner lazarus to move item 10, Vice President fung . Vice president fung aye. Commissioner lazarus aye. Commissioner swig aye. Commissioner wilson aye. And commissioner honda . President honda sure, aye. Motion passes and well move that item as requested. The second housekeeping testimony is 12, 17166, 100 and 122 rivoli street. That has been withdrawn. Item 1 there is general Public Comment, an opportunity for anyone here to speak on a matter within the board subject matter jurisdiction but not on tonights agenda. Any general Public Comment . Seeing none, we have commissioner comments and questions. Commissioners, anything . President honda i apologize for being late. I would just say that im truly saddened and heartbroken over the sudden passing of our 43rd mayor, edwin m. Lee. I would like to offer my condolences to the lee family, anita and their daughters. Its been my extreme pleasure to work with you and your administration and i will try to continue the dream for fairness and equality and i hopefully will not disappoint you. Because we were friends, i saw how tirelessly and dedicated you were. After 40 years of service in the city, this is not how i saw you riding into the sunset. I know in my heart that you are already at a tee box, so hit em far, hit em straight. Thank you. Anything else, commissioners . Is there any Public Comment on this item . Okay. Seeing none, well move to item 3, board consideration of the minutes of the december 6, 2017, meeting. Unless we have changes or deletions, may i have a motion . So moved. Thank you. Any Public Comment on the minutes . Seeing none. We have a commission from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes. Vice president fung aye. Commissioner swig aye. Commissioner lazarus aye. Commissioner wilson aye. President honda aye. Adopted. This is to discuss and possible action to approve procedures for selecting an executive director of the board of appeals. I have informed you that i plan to retire next year and that i edge occ encourage you to takn the recruitment process and get someone in place to support you and the efforts and work of the staff at the departments office. I have some suggestions for now you can move forward with that process. And we also have Heather James here from the department of Human Resources who can answer any questions and go over a timeline that shes put together for what a recruitment effort might look like. My hope is that you will consider either adopting a draft Job Announcement or delegate the authority to me and or someone on the board to approve such a Job Description. And also the authority to have that Job Description published through the citys portal and through publication in newspapers and online sites that cater to the Legal Community and those individuals that mate be will be able to place those advertisements. Ive suggested to you also. That someone can act as a liason to move this forward and authorize the department of Human Resources to screen candidates and also to come back to you in january if they think that pool is sufficient or if additional recruitment efforts are required. If so, you could consider engaging the services of a firm. Theres a prequalified pool of recruiting firm that the city uses. You can engage the services of such a firm to expand the search and do more targeted outreach. Im not recommending that you do that at the out set because it would delay the process and im worried it would not give you an opportunity to have a candidate in place by the time i leave the seat. And then you need to make some decisions about how you want to conduct interviews and if you would like to have a panel peerreview panel. Sometimes departments will tap individuals from other departments, for instance, Zoning Administrator would take someone from building inspection. People that come to the board regularly to help with nonbinding advice to you about possible candidates that are in the pool. So some of those decisions you could make at a later date, but i would hope that you would discuss and take on some Decision Making tonight for the initial steps so we can get the Job Announcement out and start soliciting applicants. Heather, if you wouldnt mind stepping forward and walking the board through the timeline that you put together, which you should have with you. Im heather johnson. Im with department of Human Resources. Could you speak into the mike, please . Sure. Im heather johnson, department of Human Resources Client Services division. Im happy to answer any questions or get more information if you need it. So just running through the timeline that is was provided t you. Assuming some assuming the Job Announcement is approved shortly, this week or early next, we could get the job posted immediately. We would want today or in the notsodistant future, if we want to meet the timeline of mid march, to approve the timeline and decide on what steps to take as far as recruiting. The next thing to do is, like i said, post the Job Announcement. We can also decide where to post externally and if there is any other outreach that we would like to do. As far as your own networks, might want to reach out to people that would being interested in the position. Im happy to help with ideas for moving that forward. Through the start of the new year, i can review the applications, if you would like me to, for initial screening and come back to you in early january to let you know about how many applicants we have. How many meet the minimum qualifications and look like if theyre suitable candidates or if we have to take more time gathering applicants before we find someone. At that point, we can reassess our timeline and confirm whether or not you would like me or someone else to do a phone screening. And we can start scheduling interviews at that point in time. At that point, it will either move through another screening process or schedule interviews with the board. How long it will take to get a candidate depends on how difficult it is to get the board scheduled for interviews if you all want to participate in all the interviews and how many candidates we decide to take to an inperson interview. Any questions or anything you would like more information i would suggest that we dont close it. Never over until its over. Along those lines, if we get down to the date of ms. Goldsteins retirement and we havent found a suitable candidate, what happens then . Id have to check, but the board is responsible for choosing cynthias replacement so, wed have to work with you on what to do next, but its generally in your discretion as to cynthias replacement. Theres been times in other city departments where somebody sits temporary, deputy city attorney, or someone else until the recruitment process is finalized. I dont think its a good idea to have a board official pushed into a decision thats not the right one. I would recommend we look at you have a range of dates. I would look at trying to hit the earlier ones because something always happens. Of course. Or cynthia will continue to stay on. Somehow thats not in the material presented here. [laughter] can anybody float a motion to deny retirement . Its occurred to all of us. That motion fails. [laughter] you didnt do a roll call. Can we run down cynthia, you have listed a whole bunch of things that we you would like us to consider tonight. Could you go over those for us slower people one by one so we can address each one separately to make sure that theyre all considered and commented upon . Yes. I would be happy to. The first thing is for the board to decide who among you wants to be involved and in what way starting with, do you want to pick somebody to be your point of contact, somebody that i can work with, that heather can work with, as we move forward with the process . As a board liaison . Yes. I would volunteer. Okay. I would also volunteer. If somebody feels strongly about it, you know, i will pass. Well, the good thing is, i think, Vice President fung, you have gone through this process during the change of guard at the board of appeals prior, havent you . Vice president fung i was going to make a statement saying i never expected that i would have to go through this process twice in my lifetime. Perhaps ive been here too long. I would defer to your experience and withdraw. Vice president fung let me state that the Decision Making and review process and Decision Making will be by the entire board. Its only acting as a liaison and perhaps a focus to make sure that it moves along. Thats how i see it. And one thing i would state is if you look at the job descripti description, the both in terms of experience and qualifications, this process is further along than we were the previous time. We were the Board Members were inventing things when we went through it before. Well, weve had the luxury of having excellent leadership over the last decade. Thats going to be tough some big shoes to fill. So board liaison is commissioner fung, since i defer to him. If you like, we can make a list of things and take a motion at that point. And next, Job Announcement. If you are satisfied with the draft or if you want to delegate to the Vice President and to finalize it or how you would like to finalize it . Commissioner lazarus i was fine with it. One minor edit, but i can convey that later to our liaison. Vice president fung i was fine with it, but if Board Members have any, bring forth your changes within the next day or so and well go forward. I read it and thought it was fine. Okay. Then approval to post the Job Announcement as described, win of would mean on the citys portal and also to engage the services of dhrs recruitment and Advertising Firm to place the Job Announcement in publications. That would be likely to engage people who are interested in this type of position. So that involves spending some money. And we can work with the Vice President to determine exactly which publications to use. The board does have sufficient funds to cover that type of an expense. May i ask a question this is a job that requires a legal degree . Yes, it does. And experience in land use preferably. Yes. And so may we ask the Human Resource department to place special effort in calling to the attention of the city departments who have people on their staffs that have legal degrees and also participate in land use to place extra emphasis or call the attention of those folks in the departments of the availability of this job . That was my only recommendation. Absolutely. And i think we will be doing some of that informally as well, you know, reaching out to various departments that have that type of population. And then the next item would be the authorizing department of Human Resources to do the initial screening of candidates, to decide who meets the minimum qualifications and report back to the board in january about the quality of that pool. There are other items that are later on in the process that we can decide now, authorizing the department to engage services of a recruiting firm, if deemed necessary, and that would be something that would either we could come back to the board with or we could have dhr and the Vice President , you know, look at to make a decision about whether additional recruitment is necessary. I guess would i like to have that maybe come back. Okay. I agree. Okay. And in terms of the interviewing process, whether we want dhr to do some initial screening by phone and or if we want a peer review panel. We can also have some of that decided in january if you would like us to come back with that information and then you can also make a decision then about who among you will participate in the interviewing process, if you all want to do it, and we can bring you some potential questions that you may consider asking. Does that sound like something to defer to january . I think that makes sense. I would ask all of the Board Members to participate if theyre able to. Okay. So i think that ticks the boxes. Maybe i can propose a motion for you to consider and we need to take Public Comment, but the motion would be then to delegate or nominate Vice President fung as the boards liaison for this process. To authorize the use of the draft Job Description with the minor revisions that commissioner lazarus has identified and then to authorize the posting of that announcement and the use of dhrs Recruitment Firm and Advertising Firm to place the announcement in some publications and authorize dhr to do the initial screening for minimum qualifications and come back in january with a report on the quality of the pool. I would make one comment and i think it supports what commissioner lazarus said. Lets stay focused and take advantage of the maximum time recommended in the timeline so we capture as many qualified candidates as possible, and so that the review of applications after initial screening would be between january 22 and january 29 and thats lets be very diligent and thoughtful and purposeful about this process and not rush into it, because there are huge shoes to fill. Weve been spoiled and we want to be sure that your successor is equal to the task. Okay. Thank you. Before we call roll on that motion, is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, then with that motion so moved. Thank you. On that motion then, as previously stated, Vice President fung. Vice president fung aye. President honda aye. Commissioner wilson aye. Commissioner swig aye. Thank you so much, commissioners. Item number 5, item number 5 is divided into two parts, part a and part b. I will call part a now and talk to you about what is happening. This is a boardinitiated hearing request possible reconsideration of denial of mobile food facility permit for 401 divisadero street, 17117. The board voted 311 to grant the appeal and overturn the appeal on the basis that the impact on parking in that area would be minimal and on the condition that the mobile food facility would comply with the parking restrictions in effect on fridays between 4 00 p. M. And 6 00 p. M. With no further motion made, denial of the 401 dividadero street was upheld by operation of law. This is being returned to you at the president s consent because the vote was 311. And because commissioner swigs lack of participation, his conflict, had to do with the other location, not with the 401 dividadero street location. So it seemed appropriate for the board to decide if they want to hear the appeal with commissioner swigs participation and only focused on this 401 divisadero street site. The first item would be to hear from the appellant and the public on if were going to rehear the case. If you decide not to rehear it sh, we can look at the motion. Well hear from the appaeople appellant, mr. Anyarin. And this is if we are going to rehear the case. Im going to try to speak by myself and if i have anything technical word that i dont understand, theres a person here to help me. Okay. Good evening. Please reconsider this case. Bringing more evidence than already provided to you in my last piece. And also witnesses that can give more clarifications of a full track being part of the buildings. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We can hear from the department. Good evening. Brent cohen, representing public works. I believe most of the information or all the information was presented at the last hearing. So as you stated, i guess, it would be up to you whether the voting was something to consider. Is there any Public Comment on the issue of the rehearing request . Step forward. Welcome back. Hi. Mark brennan. I object to the rehearing request. One, its been adjudicated. Its been under consideration for over a year. December 5, 2016, we received notice of intent. We objected and a hearing was scheduled and heard by dpw on march 29, 2016. There were four letters of opposition and two Public Comments against. The applicants didnt show up and no one spoke in favor. Dpw denied the application. The reasons were clearly articulated, mainly being that the food program exists to provide and expand the range of convenient and interesting food opportunities for mobile food to less congested areas of the city. It was then appealed. And now were back again. The appellant in his brief states it was arbitrary and inconsistent, the original decision by dpw. He also spends time talking about south of market, 2nd street, and 10th and mission. We would oppose them if they had an application here as well. This decision was not arbitrary and it was not contradictory. Furthermore, there is no new evidence presented and no evidence of manifest injustice. As i stated to the board and the dpw hearing officer, this location is saturated with affordable, convenient, and interesting varied food options. You have 17 options within two blocks. It is a difficult area because its a major thoroughfare north to south on oak and a major eastwest, which is divisadero. This is 93 feet north of divisadero. It means its 425, not 401. The appellant talked about the services he used to send out notification. I guess this is where he is planning to be. This is where our driveway is. 75 feet in every direction, you have a gas station and us. Not even the gas stations across the street were notified about this. Again, to reiterate, no new evidence or manifest injustice. Please do not re hear this. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Evening, commissioners. Im andrew smith. I believe its fairly disrespectful to the public to keep having them show up to hearings over and over again. A lot of people have spoken on this issue already. Theres been a chance for people to say what they think about it. You voted once on this. No new information has been presented. The applicant had a chance to go juryshopping to wait until the commissioners were here. You should not hear this twice. Its been decided. There is no good reason to hear this again. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Hi. My name is allison. I live in San Francisco. Downstairs theres a food truck and i if you are worried that they will have fumes or noise, i never hear any noises or fumes or anything like that. And i really think you should reconsider letting him be there. So, yeah. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . [speaking spanish] [speaking spanish] i will interpret the statement. My name is carmen. I live in San Francisco. And i would since the case was denied, i would urge you to reconsider. There are many food trucks and some laws are work for them and some work against. And the food truck is an opportunity to give other people work. I urge you to reconsider. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Commissioners, joe donahue. As we know, this is a rehearing and its been many years, so maybe alzheimers has set in, but i understood when the rehearing is requested, there has to be new evidence put in place or evidence that was not possible at the time of the original hearings. So the case has been heard twice at different hearings, two hearings, dpw and here before you. So the appellant has put in no new evidence whatsoever. The evidence that he has has been decided on. So you cant get an opportunity to kick the can three times down the road. You had two shots already and the third one has to come in with new evidence. And certainly we dont want to rehash it. Since interest is no new evidence and the evidence he talked about was discussed already, his appeal should be denied. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Seeing none. Commissioners, the question of rehearing is before you and perhaps before you take any action, commissioner swig, i failed to ask you to state i was going to bring that up. I think the proper protocol is for me to disclose that i did review the information related to this item and i did watch the broadcast of the hearing for the divisadero portion of the item when it was heard a couple weeks ago. So the answer is, im prepared. Thank you very much. Commissioners, i would point out that the normal rule for rehearing requests, requesting a new hearing to show new evidence, does not apply when a motion is made at the boards own initiative, like this one was. I think there was confusion that there was two separate questions. This is a procedural question. So the question of the rehearing, whether to grant one or not. I dont see that its necessary based on my review and then hearing what i heard today and how i feel about it. My statement was going to be, leaving it up to commissioner swig, to a certain extent. Would you like to make a motion . To deny the rehearing request on the basis there is no new evidence or you dont need to state a basis for this type of motion, but and i think then that the motion might be just to not rehear the appeal since its boardinitiated. The motion is to not rehear the item. Okay. On that motion from commissioner swig, Vice President fung . Vice president fung aye. Commissioner lazarus aye. President honda aye. Commissioner wilson aye. This matter will not be reheard. We will not move on to 5b. We will move on to item 6. Item 6 is 17141. Michael chisek versus San Francisco Public Works Bureau of street use and mapping. Leavenworth street between greenwich and lurmont terrace. Appealing august 17, 2017, Extenet Systems of a personal Wireless Service facility site permit in a zoning protected location. We can start with the appellant. Good evening. And welcome. Does anybody want this . Okay. President honda, members of the board, first of all, would like to thank you for the opportunity to express the neighbors view of this permit. Were here to ask you in your capacity to revoke the permit, 16wr0423, to construct a personal Wireless Service facility. I apologize for my prominent bandaid on my head here. I bumped into a personal wireless facility on the way here and got banged up. So the core of our issue here is that we believe that the city and the department of public works gave insufficient consideration to the degradation of excellent views. I had some evidence to talk about that, but i dont want to spend too much time, because extenet in their submission allowed that these are excellent views. This is under the map of excellent views of the city. Similarly, its a sheet that shows how much tourists pass by each day. Those facts have been allowed by extenet, so we agree on that. This is my effort to show a picture. This is standing in front of said telephone pole looking at coit tower. It has the view of coit tower. And it sits in what is called greenwich staircase, which if it were a park, this issue would never come to rest, because you are not allowed to put these facilities in a park. This is a parklike structure, which is privately maintained, saving the city money, but it looks and acts like a park. You can see tourists walking by, looking up at the telephone pole. Theres a constant stream of tourists in the neighborhood. That being allowed, its an area with excellent views. And according to the code, when an area is designated to having excellent views, its incumbent upon anyone proposing to construct a personal wireless facility to demonstrate that it will not degrade the views from that location. Now extenet will argue, and degradation is like beauty in the eye of the beholder. Who can say . But i think there is something to consider here. First of all, these permits are given, requested in a oneoff basis, but theres a cumulative effect that needs to be brought to mind. I will talk about it in a minute, but there was another permit asked for three months ago at 2215 leavenworth, less than 100 feet away from 2001. That permit the board revoked for now, but there is still litigation going on about that. So i think whats important to look at is not only what this is done in isolation, but the effect of adding things to the telephone pole. I borrowed a slide from extenets presentation to the board. This shows its difficult to see, but its a photo simulation of what the difference would be before and after with the construction of the personal wireless facility. First of all, oddly enough, the color of the facility is identical to the house, which happens to be my house, so that diminishes the impact that it will have, but you can see in this already the overburdened telephone poles. There are telephone lines and circles and all kinds of things hanging from these poles. You could get a Tipping Point which would lead to significant degradation of what is an important tourist attraction for the city. Moreover, we think theres been inconsistency in approving these facilities. Here we have from 2015, a summary of the department of public works view on constructing personal wireless facilities in the area. There were two turned down. One on lombard, next to leavenworth, and the other down lombard next to columbus. This is 2 1 2 blocks away and its significantly lower grade than the crookedest street, but dpw thought it was inconsistent. If that view would be degraded, i fail to understand why this wouldnt have the same effect. It is an excellent view. Moving right along, we have overburdened telephone poles, which i can show here, but im running out of time, so i want to move on to the more important issue, that the similarity of appeal of 17073. The board heard this appeal a few months ago and decided to revoke the permit because they found and you cant read this probably but it says that the board decided there was not sufficient given to the degradation of the view. We think its very important to be consistent on this. Since the board revoked that permit, verizon has complained anticompetitiveness if they dont get their permit if at t, who is applying for this, gets theirs. So i think its important to be consistent in this regard. Finally, i argue that alternatives exist for this. This is a case where one side has all the technical capability. I cant argue there are other ways to do this. All i know is that people talk on their cell phones all the time and not everyone has garbage cans hanging from their telephone poles, so there must be other ways. The city has gone beyond the point to burying the poles to expose our view. When you have buried the view, its amazing how much Better Things look. While its not under the purview of the board, its important to quit adding hightech equipment to poles or we would never be in a position to bury them. So i have 14 seconds left, so i want to thank you for your consideration, but urge you to be consistent and revoke this permit to be consistent with the findings you had three months ago. Thank you. Thank you. We can hear from the department. Commissioners, i want to remind you that the boards action on the prior case was a tentative action, a tentative decision, to deny the permit and to have findings brought back to you on that basis, but then the case was continued and now its on your call of the chair calendar because the parties are working on a settlement, so the board has not denied that permit or adopted any findings to that effect. Thank you. Department . Im sorry. I should be asking for the permit holder next. My apologies. Welcome. We have a Different Team up here this time. Thank you. If you would give us a moment. We have a few of the photos. We have a few of the photos that the appellant was trying to share and i think we can show them in a clearer fashion. If you can give us a minute here. When you are ready, would you identify yourself for the record . Will do. Thank you. I think were ready to go, so feel free to flash over to the presentation. Im joe kamisha on behalf of Extenet Systems. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here tonight. I want to go through a brief overview of how we got to this point, why this pole, and really want i want to highlight is its been a collaboration with the Planning Department for a number of years. I first started working in San Francisco with tmobile since 2009 and have been involved in a lot of the iterations that the department has gone through, when utility poles became prominent. Weve had the opportunity to provide our input as to what the form factor should look like, what are appropriate locations, what spacing there should be between an installation and adjacent residence. So i have some background in that. It has abouten a process thats been many years in the making. The goal of all of that is to design and locate installation the as small and unobtrusive as possible. This is part of a more than threeyear process that we started with omar masri, working on telecommunications infrastructure. We came to him with a problem. We said, a number of our place in the have complained, crooked part of lombard and leavenworth, is a very hightraffic area. There are millions of tourists. There are many people that like to walk up and down the streets and up and down the crooked part of lombard and greenwich path. That taxes existing networks. There is not enough in the area to serve their customers. At t came to us with the problem and we approached planning with trying to find a solution to that problem. We first started with installations at the intersection, which obvious now, Planning Department wasnt a big fan of. They directed us to avoid lombard between leavenworth and jones. So we did. We canceled out the poles on that block and started to look at t at the alternatives on leavenworth street, which is what the Planning Department advised us to do. This is where they wanted us to go. Thats why were here. We evaluated a total of 18 alternative locations and i think we have a slide here, which is a map view showing those locations go back a few. In any case, there were 18 alternative locations that we analyzed. Weve highlighted the box in the red is all of those locations that the Planning Department directed us to avoid. They wanted to keep us out of the tourist part of lombard. They directed us to go north and south on lombard and we identified the poles in yellow. Commission rules govern where you can install facilities, differences between power conductors and things of that nature. So just want to emphasize the extraordinary level of collaboration weve had with the Planning Department, puc and other regulatory bodies to try to find an appropriate location for this facility, which is intended to approve capacity at a hightraffic location in San Francisco. The design here is intended to be small and unobtrusive and is identical to many other facilities. The antenna shroud is 10 inches tall, 14 inches in diameter. Small, ancillary equipment to the bottom. And all the equipment will be painted to match the pole. Heres the photo simulation and there was an implication that we tried to fanagle this photo to make it look better. Its the point of painting it. Thats the entire point and planning conditions require us to do that. All of that is an effort to try to minimize the visual impact. And its true, leavenworth is an excellent view street. And all streets in all directions for at least 500 streets are similarly designated. Theres no way to improve that if were to improve the coverage of that intersection. Wireless installations are not prohibited. They require a finding that they would not significantly impair the views of the important buildings, landmarks, open spaces, parks, that were the demonstration of the streets. And i think its important to 5 differentiate between something in this corridor and something significantly degrading the views in that area. It would be visible, obviously, but whether it degrades the views is up for discussion there. And ive highlighted a couple of photos there. This is looking up greenwich path. This is a photo of an existing installation two blocks up on chestnut. Theres an antenna facility there which is exactly what were proposing here. You barely notice it. It doesnt add much bulk. You dont really notice it. Its not a significant impact. I took photos from all around. Thats the photo from i started to hike my way up greenwich path. I think you get the point. There is a difference between it being visible and it being significant impact. It does not rise to the level of the degradation of views. Dpw184504 defines view obstruction that 6 feet from a window would not result in substantial impairment, provided that the diameter does not exceed 14 inches. In this case, its more than than amount away from the window. It does not rise to the level of what codifies view obstruction. Im running out of time. Im here and can answer any questions that you have. Thank you. Thank you. Now well hear from the department. Hi. Im Amanda Higgins from San Francisco public works. We believe that this permit was issued in compliance with the personal Wireless Service facility permitting procedure defined in public works code article 25. The department of Public Health confirmed that this facility would be in compliance with the article 25 Public Health compliance standard the Planning Department found that this project complies with the compatibility standards of article 25. Public works then issued a notice of tentative approval, which notices were mailed and posted by extenet. Following the public works hearing, the director of public works granted the permit and notice was distributed to the public. In addition to public works, Public Health and Planning Department are here for the boards questions. Thank you. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . You can give it to mr. Cantera. Welcome. Hello. My name is sara tabor. And i happen to be the we call it dizzy lou, Design Committee of russian hill neighbors. Ive been down here three times for three separate telecommunication things that they want to put on this block of leavenworth. Russian hill neighbors are concerned about the number of requests to go on wooden poles. Of course the wooden poles are free because of state laws and so all the Telecommunication Companies are fighting to get every wooden pole they can get to put them on. Its a concern of russian hill neighbors. Were concerned about still more equipment on these poles, on top of the wires and boxes that are already there. This is it looks like what one of our Committee Members calls another garbage can in the sky in front of them. And the only other point i want to make besides the fact that two pieces of equipment have been asked for within very close proximity and that its ugly is that exhibit a, i want to show you my very hightech phone equipment that i carry around with me. Very hightech. And on that block of leavenworth i can call my husband very easily and have excellent reception. This happens to be a tmobile phone, but ive had verizon phones, because i tend to lose these little things. I lose them all the time, which is another reason why i dont have a smart phone. If i lost it, it would be expensive, but i get excellent reception from this little, typey thing. Tiny thing. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. Im janet crane. I live at lombard and jones. I have a wooden pole outside my house, which looks as ugly as any of those youve seen in the photographs. Ive never had a problem with Internet Service in that area and im a at t customer. I strongly support this appeal as its time to stop rubber stamping adding equipment to wooden poles insignificant view corridors in this random sequence. Its as if dpw and planning have a blindspot about the degradation of street scapes. It would not be looked at in international cities, in which San Francisco compares itself. We should come up with a master plan for wireless installations and facilitate the underground hearings. Commissioner swig was the first person i ever heard to look at this situation and say, there is something wrong here, to assume this is normal and lovely and suitable for tourists. The issue of safety was raised by Wireless Company representatives, but clearly its a diversionary tactic, since there are examples of cities that solve these issues successfully without having hardware displays in the public realm. I have a feeling that this has to do with competition between the carriers trying to claim the poles. But there are so many comparable situations that are handled without all this hardware in the streets that there has to be another way. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Welcome. Good evening. My name is charles ferguson. And just to make this very clear. Im here in my individual capacity. I was not asked to come here by anybody, but it turns out that i lived in the beginning of my professional career at 2200 leavenworth, directly opposite this pole. I lived on the 2nd floor above the main door. So i had a perfect view of this particular pole. I also lived down the street at 1703 for several years as well
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.