out of town. pending the decision of the board, we would be available to help advise some of the staff to hopefully correctly trim these trees in the future. commissioner peterson: before this evening, had you heard from the appellant, with respect to a possible compromise? >> no. commissioner peterson: thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. vice commissioner garcia: i will start of. it is hard not to but admire and be sympathetic to the neighbors who live right there. it is less than totally attractive, the building. that might sometimes be the nature of public housing. i cannot contemplate having neighbors decide what should go on on another property they do not occupy. just in general, and also because there would be many complications to do such an arrangement. i think one very favorable outcome of tonight's hearing and this movement to have these trees removed would be if ms. bright and mr. hastings were to try to arrange a meeting and say there are people in the neighborhood who are very concerned about the appearance of the building, about the safety issues. how can we as members get involved in and do things that are beneficial to the residents of that particular building, the building itself, and the general appearance of the street? beyond that, i do not know what else could be done. i am not in favor of overturning the department are granting the appeal. commissioner peterson: i would concur with those sentiments. it sounded to me it like a resounding, "we would raise money to do the maintenance and care." i am wondering if there are other opportunities of beautifying the building itself that the neighbors might want to pitch in to do. these are just -- i think what vice president garcia suggested is very good. i am similarly disinclined to overturn the department position on this. commissioner fung: i have always supported the renewal of our flora in the city. i do not think it has to stay constant throughout. in this instance, we are being asked to pick the desires, the concepts of what is appropriate as the text, -- appropriate aesthetics of one sive v -- side versus the othe rr side. commissioner peterson: i think the complication is the change by the planning department, -- by the housing authority, which is the permit holder. i had thought to see the impact if there is to take in these particular trees, but that is a long way out. i guess i would suggest more discussion. the housing authority are the ones with the ultimate liability. i urge the housing authority to look at the impact of the cape over the next two seasons. otherwise, i would feel uncomfortable overturning the department in this. commissioner hwang: i will make the motion to deny the appeal. a poll the department. -- uphold the department. commissioner fung: aye. vice commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. >> the motion carries 4-0. calling item 6, appeal 11-004, jeff and nicole cooper, protesting the issuance on september 8, 2010 to nextg network a wireless box permit. it is on the calendar today. starting with the appellants. >> my name is jeff cooper. my wife and i own a home. we are appealing the permit that allowed nextg to install wireless equipment on our block. in our jurisdiction and request a hearing on generic of 2011, nextg said, "we are a nation of laws." it said is heard -- it said it is her job -- she said it was her job to make sure the law was followed. the law was not perfect but followed in this instance. the p.w. made a statement affirming a mistake was made. this is a good view street. as a result, the planning department review is required. this review did not happen. what does this mean? it means that nextg has partly constructed an antenna at a location where the permit was issued incorrectly. this is exactly when notification needs to occur. if there had been minimum outreach, we would have had the opportunity to research these issues before the end tunnel was built. -- the antenna was built. the general plan is on the department website. nextg's position is that they did not have a duty to translate the general plan to the wireless map. the wireless map is only for convenience. they did have a legal requirement to follow the city codes, all of which reference the general plan. the permit application included an exhibit a in their written response. they initially highlighted that the location was unprotected. is it too much to ask nextg do its homework? their actversely impacted my home and its surroundings. carelessness is not an excuse to sidestep the requirements of the law. what am i asking? first, the error needs to be rectified. the initial permit approval should be deemed invalid and they should remove their equipment immediately. all of the laws should be followed fully and completely. this means taking down the equipment and starting over. any new permits should fall under the recently affected -- effected avalos legislation, which attempts to regulate the placement of antennas to protect the city pair of beauty. it also provides language protecting private views, which is new. the antenna is large, a tier 3 facility. it is in a protected location on a quiet street with good views of the bay. it impedes not only street views, but neighborhood views of the golden gate bridge. the antenna is also installed right outside of residences. hopefully, the pictures i have provided give you a sense of how interested the installation is. nextg asserts that this is a deceptive close-up on the antenna taken with a telescopic lens without perspective. the city view is distorted or misleading. this is false. no telescopic lens was utilized in taking this photograph. unfortunately, the pictures depict exactly how the and tunnel looks. if anything, they do not reveal how intrusive this facility actually is. i respectfully ask the board to revoke the permit and require that they shut down and remove the equipment installed on our block. if them what to reapply for a permit at this location, they should comply with the current laws. with my remaining time, i would like to address nextg's written submission to the board. the mentioned the size of the antenna is a fraction the size of a tier 2. this is misleading, because it omits any mention of the supporting equipment. the site is clearly a tier 3 sites. dpw confirms there has been no response. had nextg properly notified residents, we could have commented before they started building the site. it was determined the appellant did not have a vested rights. they did not have a valid building permit to the site. if the board determines this permit is invalid, that would lead the board to conclude that nextg does not have a vested rights. nextg says there are no suitable alternative locations. this is an overstatement. there are aboveground utilities in many back alleyways that support never garages. these alleyways are still in the right of way and could be potential locations for an antenna. last year, there were seven and 10 does -- seven antennas installed within three blocks, but not on the streets. personally, i believe the members of that community would also rather preserve the beauty lake st. is a fairly busy street. the box is set down further from the windows and does not impede the view. as i state, i would find it hardly possible. but>> do you have a response toe permit holder's offered to provide an installation which they would be passed through playing review. >> thank you for this opportunity to speak. be this far. largest owner and operators of the antenna systems across the country. -- these are the largest owner operators of the antenna systems across the country. the distributed antenna system network allows large geographic areas to be covered by have seen numerous numbers of smaller antenna. what you can get from a 150 foot tower with nine antennas on it would be covered on the ground by using existing infrastructures such as utility poles and street lights with one and 10 that, sometimes to depending on the area that needs coverage. this poll was specifically chosen because there is a large street tree and we are trying to cover this portion of the richmond area. these are in fact alleyways and are covered under a different type of law. those are not able to be fully utilized. this is not cluttered and has a tree that would guard it. the question of the math which was raised in february was five months after the permit was issued. they have been relying on that and acting in good faith and constructing the side. because of this confusion, we are very willing to modify the site to fit with the planning department's approved configuration. we have seven sides in this area that had either the internet at a single site. or two. lowering the antennas to be a flash amount on the extension was the preferred configuration rather than having it on a pipe amount. that would have been the condition in the permit if that had gone to the planning department. we have prepared photo simulations to give you an idea of what it would look like if it was modified for what the planning department approved. you have seen it lower on the poll extension. this is necessary in order to maintain the clearances from the street light attachment on the wooden pole and and her under legislation supporting equipment that is under law for safety reasons is exempt. >> could you say that again? >> yes, under the new legislation supporting equipment such as brackets and poll extensions are not considered for the purposes of dimensions of the wireless equipment or necessary to comply with the technical specifications. >> thank you. >> here we have a view of the streets. as mentioned, there is larger equipment in this area. you also see the large primary distribution poll running out the west side of the street. when judging the street or whether or not the utility infrastructure fits in to the community, you can look and see what other types of infrastructure is there. on the street you see transformers and lines and some boxes. there are also some pull- mounted terminals used by the provider. we have prepared a focus in relation to give you an idea of how the view would be minimized. also with the configuration that the planning department approved on the other good an excellent streets and all over the city of san francisco. you see here again that this will not extend over the full extension. finally, while there is this can future over -- this confusion over the discrepancy, it was revealed very late into the process. because we are a utility company with the right to be in the right of way, it is our position that these were properly tested because we relied on good faith without error and we are asking that we have instructions to modify the site which is within your jurisdiction rather than a complete repeal. removing the equipment will cause a near complete loss of service. we would like to modify the site. also, in the alternative, we are willing to reapplied but under the new law, if the box was two inches more narrow, it would be a -- box. it will fit not only the equipment for 3 g that it will also fit equipment for four-g. we are expecting this next year. that is one of the justifications for having the large boxes. they could be smaller. if we made its smaller, we would have to put another site in the exact proximity across the street, for example. witt ask you to modify the permit to impose a condition that would have been imposed if they had seen this last summer. think you very much. the engineers and the implementations director will take your questions. >> touching on what you just said. should you reapply for a permit to replace what you currently have should this board invalidate the permit at issue? you could get two boxes slightly smaller that would comply with the new legislation. >> this technically complies with the new legislation but this is considered to three. >> they would go through a different process. >> you could comply. and. >> this would be a tear two. even under those circumstances, the board has allowed the insulation to remain in place while the process is going through. >> a quick question on page 11 of your submission. you showed a photo simulation of the exhibit. the current design verses the proposed design, this is the modification you are requesting as an alternative. what is the difference from the company's perspective? is this a greater reach? >> well, there are two perspectives. >> that is the antenna. this need to be above the clutter line. my radiofrequency engineer can answer this better. this needs to be above the houses and the trees so that this signal propagates to the coverage area. you do need it for height but if you lowered it so that was plush -- flush with the poll extension, we have looked at it and we don't think that it would be that much of a loss of a signal because this is only two foot or so. sometimes, it looks better when it is hire because it would be wider than other advantages to have it on the side rather than on the top. it would be effectively hidden. in this situation, flush mounting seems to be the clear configuration. >> thank you. >> how many pieces of equipment go with this permit? the antenna and one in closure? >> yes. >> under the ordinance, only one internet and one ordinance. >> maybe you said what i'm getting ready to s p but my impression is right now the box under the current law or maybe even under the whole law would not conform to the proper dimensions. this is about two inches unless you can justify because of switches and other things. with the technology you have, it would not be legal. you are asking that we leave it out because when this new technology comes along, it would then be justifiable. "this is legal under the old and new law. this has a different review process. this has a long review process. this is not prohibited. >> it takes it to a tier 3. >> ok. >> thank you. >> now we can hear from the department. >> good evening, commissioners. the position is fairly simple. the coopers were correct in that this has a good view per the planning documentation. during the department review process, the data set we are using did not identify the street segment. once this information was provided, we have gone back and contacted planning to verify the data to ensure that these kind of errors were not happening in the future. from a process viewpoint, the department did go through the proposed process. the situation is on the process of four previous legislation. on the streets with good views, excellent reviews, or when there are buildings adjacent. a referral would be made to the planning department. the planning department would either approve, deny, or proof with modifications based upon their evaluation of the facility. in this particular case, one of the possible remedies this board can do given that of the permit has been suspended, it is to direct the department to submit a plan referral in this case as we would normally do during the standard process for their review and they would then come up with a specific recommendation and finding. please recognize that the new legislation as established triggers a re-evaluation of these facilities upon renewal. these permits are issued for a two-year cycle and are required to be renewed. a term of up to four additional permits would give them a 10- year cycle. upon renewal in two years, after the approval process, when it comes to an appeal, this specific facility false under the tier 3. this would be identified in the brief which would require a greater level of notification and scrutiny by both the planning department and public works. i am here to answer the questions. >> if you were to turn the clock back and not have made that mistake, how would it go? you would run into the department because of the street? "that would be correct. the department would refer this package to planning for review and recommendation. >> this did not happen. >> the data did not show this to be a good deal. >> thanks. >> i want to be clear what you're closing comments were. are you suggesting that we leave this alone since they will have to reapply for renewal in two years? >> there are several options. the easiest one to be since the department failed because of the day the issue. you can't hit a referral and get this suspended. this would be evaluated and we would make a recommendation. the permits would be approved for a two-year term. the conditions of the revised permit would be set up based upon planning's recommendation. at the end of that cycle, the applicant can do a variety of things including modifying the recommendation or maintaining and being subject to tier 3 notifications and review. >> just a clarification, the permit that is currently before you, the board does not have the power to remand this to planning to conduct review. the board needs to overturn the permit, denied a permit, or modify it or grant the permit. you cannot send it to conduct further review. >> because of the mistake, madam city attorney, they would not be barred from reapplying.