they are on -- they're 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. that's why we're doing this. >> okay. i had a question. i'm 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. >> i'm sorry. >> okay. >> yes, we did. and we've done those two alternatives and we have two additional alternatives that also didn't work. one due to height, with lower profile, we wouldn't 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 don't have agreement with mta to go on mta poles. >> i have another question. i'm not sure where it is in the appellants brief. the visual that was put on the overhead that you said was grossly out of pro/porbgs. portion. >> yeah. >> which i think was to toe shopped. can i get a reference to the exhibit if your brief of the visual that was put on the overhead? photoshopped. can i get a reference to the exhibit if your brief of the visual that was put on the overhead? or you can just put it on the overhead and talk about it. i'm looking at exhibit 8 in your brief. what's on the overhead right now? >> that was what the additional photograph. >> and then exhibit 8 is a box or is it the one underneath. >> what is in exhibit 8 is currently existing? >> correct. >> that currently exists. can i get at&t's -- i forgot your name, i'm sorry. >> teddy. >> you like me to leave that? >> yes. /tha*bg you. thank you. if you could address why this is grossly out of proportion? >> well, first of all it's not our box. and number two, it's taken about probably -- it's zoomed in. it's taken about a foot from -- i mean, it's their box and they're misrepresenting it so maybe getting the correct dimensions from them would be -- >> what would it look like? let's do it this way. how different would the box that you're proposing for your permit, how would it look different from this one? >> i'm not implied this room or this living room, so i can't speak to that -- >> can your technical people? >> perhaps commissioner hwang, i believe the dimensions of the box, but she didn't indicate the width. >> if you want to take this box and compare it to this photo, you need to use -- >> is this the same? yeah, can you blow this up a little bit? what exhibit number is it in your brief? do you have the exhibit in yours? >> this particular one wasn't part of the brief. mr. rudich and i went back and forth a bit and these were his suggestions as for as rotating the equipment towards the street and lifting it up and then also i suggested we could move one of the boxes off the pole and he said that would definitely be better. >> that's the battery box. it's 22 inches wide. >> we can put it across the street and impact other people. >> you can see -- >> i can't see. i don't have that exhibit so -- i don't know if it's a vacant lot, but right behind the pole right there. >> uh-huh. >> until somebody buildses one. >> and i don't know the impact of that on the corner units of /t-p one to the left. >> i'm wondering if it putting across the street is just going to have a consequence for others that are not in the room. >> it could be lower on the pole and facing the other direction as well. >> what do you mean? >> it could be turned around on the pole. that was just the suggestion was to put it up that high, but you could turn it the other direction and lower it. >> okay. should we hear from the -- >> department, yes. >> thank you. >> before you start, do we need to talk to it about the flickering screen? >> we have. they're working on trying to replace these monitors, but i was told the remote control you have on your desk there might be usable to stop the flickering. you don't see it, but on these monitors here they're flipping back and forth. >> we have to use the overhead. >> i don't know, maybe next time we have media services here we ca >> good evening john from the department of public works. i want to talk about the presentations the first one is the necessity they're requesting questioning and the second whether it was appropriately decided by planning and the third one was relate to proper notice nicole. obviously the department can't speak to the level of necessity in this case ultimately the size of the facility is delicate by at&t but based on the needs and equipment it does fall under tier 3 requirement so we consider tier 3 necessary. the applicant is correct this is in a kourlt of law a good view and planning made a decision on august 12th of 2013 some of the conditions were to put the policies in line to minimize the protrusions so it is to be panted to a match the color of pole and they'll need to work with the property owners to see if at the, put in a tree and also to work with the upper forestry to make sure this can happen and at&t is working on that aspect of it. we don't believe in this case that as suggested by the appellant that there was anything define in error by the department those are planning conditions and those were part of the approval processes. finally let's go specifically to the question of noticing. as part of the notification process we have an affidavit from an individual that the mailing information is correct and properly sent and we also received and did provide the appellant with a notice in october for a directors hearing in november in this situation where the appellant was an active participant. the question came up over the height of the facility will maybe i can explain that. the city requirement must be 8 feet off the ground on the situation part and 4 off the groin on the street site so people won't hit those boxed with vehicles and at&t based on their requirement put it significantly higher. there were questions about the box that was photo showed up i believe that box maybe a comcast battery back up unit i'll see in the sunset their nooems we recognition that they were up to 3 feet in width. and right now we believe in those kind of cases the health department made the approval based on the approval and there were certain requirements that at&t is required to a follow. during the public notification we did a public hearing and some of the issues related to the relocation of the facility was discussed at the public hearing and ultimately the director made a decision this was an appropriate request and we granted the approval and it was sent to the board. i'm here to answer any additional questions but i don't think there are any board questions >> the department holder states in their brief and we've heard argument the alternatives that were proposed by the appellant were not appropriate due to the views would you agree on the alternatives proposed for placement? if it is correct that the alternative locations put the facilities in a higher corridor i'll have to rely on the planning department whether there are additional conditions >> so that's planning okay. thank you. >> will it be placed inside the tree canopies. >> it's a good question i will have to rely on at&t to answer that i do know commissioner one of the bigst observations is the battery back up it's very, very big and hayek that's one of the biggest complaints. >> what's the size relative to the com cast box. >> i think the comcast box doesn't quote me maybe 3 feet by 2 and a half and 3 feet. >> what's the dimensionss. >> 20 by 22. >> 10 inches. >> is there any public comment on this item take rub89sz from the project people. >> city for listening to our appeal. this is has been a learning can i ever on behalf of all of us we didn't mean to depict anything that's not it is pretty close 27 inches. with regard to what was discussed by at&t we appreciate at&t discussing the issue. the permitting process has been going on for weeks and months ease, in fact, i had a telephone conversation with at&t about the alternatives we appreciate that and if the board is going to grant the permit we - i would ask that it be granted with those conditions it's important to put the box across the way but to emphasize in terms of the alternative sites we are especially suggesting this by us weeks and months ago we didn't hear any reasons why at&t turned us down it was denied saying it's not viable we doesn't know why they were not viable we didn't find out the reasons they were not viable annihilate at filed their brief last thursday we tried to find conditions and i believe as mentioned there are a couple of places but those discussions should have been had weeks and months ago we shouldn't be he hearing here, you know, wasting our time in terms of coming up with alternatives that he he feel there might be alternatives and we're willing to work with at&t we understand there are street ratings that could interfere we understand there are trees in the areas that maybe blocking any windows and the final point at&t mentioned that one of the reasons they picked this particular pole the house is low and steve and diane's house therefore they would have a problem at&t would have a problem so i submit to the board those discussions should have been had a long time ago ago i'll submit there's other polls that are less instructive not in front of windows but we appreciate the suggestion of the box across the street and at&t indicated it's a vacant lot not to block any windows or something like that >> okay. thank you. you have also 3 minutes >> good evening commissioners ted why with at&t. so i think we have a permit that's been granted by dpw we've shown that through our california public utilities commission we have by right the ability to be in the public right-of-way. we prefer to work with the community to find a solution that will be amenable. those are tough areas to get coverage we admit that it's a challenge for us but it doesn't mitigate the fact the net is there. we've love to operate tier one but we have the frequency we have and we have many of them the customers are riffling on the frequencies and we have an obliteration to make sure those r gaps are minimized. we have a permit brow. we do ask you support dpw in that but we're willing to take on a condition to move the equipment. we do not have any additional alternatives they've been achieved. we ask you support dpw in their decision this evening. thank you >> sir anything further? commissioners the matter is submitted >> the planning department we reviewed the aesthetic of the nature did they look at those. >> i don't have much talk on those but i spoke with our wireless planner and he reviewed the previous approved proposal and the revised proposal and buildings those satisfy our requirements. >> what do you mean the revised proposal. >> the one that was proposed as an alternative. >> that was submitted by your department. >> he asked us to look at other antenna types there was another appeal that was looks like an extension of the telephone pole i believe and they indicated that was not feasible because of the property for the antenna that's what i was told by the gentleman. >> thank you. >> you know we've been mitigated so many times i'll trying to remember what's for us to discuss. >> i'm wondering if your interested in considering the alternative design their i maybe another permit needed it would be something to consider. >> may i respond to that and if i may typically, it had a wireless company 3 wanted to put up separate proposals, however, in situations where the condition is persuade by the planning department or rec and park department required a relocation or a back up situation for the pole we understand that's a condition to require an additional permit so we normally try to issue one permit to identify both facilities. >> and looukts the proposed alternative to sort of split the equipment you're saying a no new permit would be required. >> we've identified both sites as part of that permit. >> okay. >> may i just alert mr. quan and the commission maybe mr. quan can respond. the notice for one hundred and 50 seats under the proposed location so we - you should consider whether or not a new notice maybe required if anyone is caught in the new envelope >> you're right we'll have to show the city attorney but if there's a change based on the city department if it what happened before as part of the conditions of approval we'll need another permit. >> well, what how many days notice would be required? >> i'm not sure. >> do we know up here robert what's the variance notice. >> the notification period is 20 days. 20 days >> and with the proposed split equipment people in 9 room might have a problem with that okay. >> does that make sense to continue this. >> i'm leading that way the reason being we've had similar cases in the past when the notification has in question and the alternative location has also been in question so i think if the parties are willing to extend and that notifications on the second pole maybe it will have viable alternatives. >> i'm not sure i'm going to agree with that for the following reason the ability of our board and planning to address the issues of a lot of those types of installations is primarily limited to aesthetic types of concerns. i don't see how switching a huge box like that from one side to the other changes the aesthetics of the situation. i'm bothered by the fact that we would be guessing that the people on the one side of the street would have no issues >> less objection. >> i'm wondering if there's a way to craft this time period. one of the things when the appellant was suggesting there might be other poles obviously no one wants this in front of of their window. i'm sure people who have the permits wouldn't want this in front of their windows. i live in an area right in front of my house i have at&t i'll put that out there i don't have what i need from at&t. so but i think one of my problems here is and i'd like to get creative up here there's a way to provide the notice and i wonder in we can provide anyone the opportunity to weigh in and insure villaraigosa the notice of the possibility which an alternative location. it may not be in our capacity to do that but to work with the people for the community i don't agree to put that in front of someone's house i san diego are that alternative >> one of the alternatives is to provide the permit and ask them to go back out. >> i also am disappointed that the corporation with enormous resources not to be in conversation and talking about alternatives sooner than on the way over here. i don't especially appreciate that given the resources available. you don't have the team and the resources to do that mates one thing but under those conditions if under those circumstances they should >> at&t came to the department just now proposing the alternative conditions i want to i'm going to turn it over to at&t. >> i don't know if this helps i see at issue here if it would help you to approve the permit that dpw granted this evening we'll be happy to take the battery as a separate permit so approving that permit we remove the battery from that pole and go get a permit for that box at least we would have solved the noticing issue and giving people due process. >> i like that. >> thank you. >> you want to formulate late the motion. >> sure grant the appeal and uphold the portion of the permit can we do that a partial. >> your conditioning the permit on the removal from the permit. >> the battery box. >> the battery part of the permit. >> and have a separate permit. >> if they want to bring a separate permit they can. >> would you be amenable to on the basis of the permit holders proposed the resolution. >> i like that. >> we have a motion from commissioner fong to withhold this that the battery pack be deleted from the scope of that permit and this is on the appellate condition. >> president fong. vice president is absent. commissioner lazarus. commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is 4 to zero this permit is upheld on that condition and on that basis thank you. we're going to take

Related Keywords

California , United States , San Diego , San Francisco , ,