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 FranciscoPublic 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. So i know this neighborhood 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