They are on theyre a different manufacturer but the boxes are slightly larger, but very similar. And we have of this particular equipment, i believe we have approved maybe eight permits already approved, and a couple are under instruction. Are they all in residential neighborhoods . Typically, yes. Thats why were doing this. Okay. I had a question. Im not sure you really get addressed questions about that neighborhood. We did look at quite a few alternate sites and we looked at 4875 17th street. Both locations are at the street corner. Placing at t wireless facilities at either intersection with little street cover would only increase the visual impact of the facilities, but more importantly, the city has designated those streets as excellent, as opposed to good, which has a different level of review and our specially protected under article 25 in order to prevent obstruction in those areas. I think you meant views not trees. Im sorry. Okay. Yes, we did. And weve done those two alterna
One the reasons to direct at t to work with other to get a new location. As you heard from the retinas and the membership there was not a robust outreach and discussion with that group as suggested. If you have any questions, ill be happy to answer them mr. Quan actually rec and park theyve shared the pain as the rest of our citizens the question is there was an interesting Public Comment made you know for a fact this radius still applies. We dont because technology continued to change and. Im recalling in some of the wireless appeals weve heard that radius is much larger for those types of technology. Youre correct what the department are not experts as it relates to the copper wiring and the copper facility. We should direct that question. The commissioner is correct mostly balk to the at t and engineering group. Okay. Thank you. Did you want to if you dont mind to the appellant id like to ask a technical question on your equipment radius which effects the location. Commissioner fung
3 as well i hope your ventsdz result in the same outcome of your decision and id appreciate that greatly. Just other points to clarify who we had our meeting we made it clear that most of the a team that submitted that protest work thats upper available for that the day they scheduled it for 11 00 oclock a week day theres no attempt to get the real input. Clearly as the gentleman from glen park the protest that were invited it seems straightforward you could send out an easy document are you available weekends theres never a perfect time but there are ways to do this this shouldnt be the ability of at t. Those are some of the concerns just specific my experience are the walk i got to the 11 oclock meeting probably 1110 or 1115 i didnt see anybody there thought they were running late and when i decided i missed that i called the number that set up the appointment and email i was told i missed that the community turned out and they found angle alternative site and i could wait until the
Hi, im japanese with the San Francisco Public Utilities combination sometime people call me sewer girl our systems has served the area for 1 hundred and 50 years were planning you understand Public Health and our environment dont think that so come in down and see how good o to the San Francisco board of supervisors land use and economic development. Im scott wiener and supervisor david chiu will be joining us shortly our clerk is lisa miller i want to thank sf tv. Miss miller are there any announcements . Items acted to know today will appear on the november 19th board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you madam clerk can you start by calling item number 2 . Extend existing roadway. Okay john from the department of public works. Good afternoon. The department received a request from an applicant to reconstruct that portion to install a privately maintained drive way that will lead to his new garage. At that point the applicant was not ready he was working with neigh
Im not sure you really get addressed questions about that neighborhood. We did look at quite a few alternate sites and we looked at 4875 17th street. Both locations are at the street corner. Placing at t wireless facilities at either intersection with little street cover would only increase the visual impact of the facilities, but more importantly, the city has designated those streets as excellent, as opposed to good, which has a different level of review and our specially protected under article 25 in order to prevent obstruction in those areas. I think you meant views not trees. Im sorry. Okay. Yes, we did. And weve done those two alternatives and we have two additional alternatives that also didnt work. One due to height, with lower profile, we wouldnt be able to get up over the houses where the antennas need to be to have a clear line of sight. And i mean, i can give you those specific if you want. Four in total we considered. One is on an mta pole and we dont have agreement with