Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 10, 2015 5:30pm-6:01pm PDT

5:30 pm
all. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> yes. well again, i'm john and still live at the foot of russian hill this morning i came across on interesting document it stated that mark 17 are 2011 that's well over four years ago from nancy a land use lawyer you know her she's writing to me and said the san francisco board of appeals denies an antenna permit good news the first time in the city's history the san francisco board of appeals has denied a permit from a wilson e wireless facility in wednesday night life night life night mark 16 of 2011 the permit was roadwork from the
5:31 pm
wireless facility instead of on a utility pole in a public right-of-way on 27th avenue in the richmond district the board found that predate the current al loss decision the public works dpw should have referred to the planning department for review because 27th avenue is identified in the city's general plan as a street with good or excellent views since dpw didn't do that the boards found this to be grounds for revocation and the number one compliance with conditions of approval and the next pg&e regulations around the city as
5:32 pm
the first of its kind by the board of appeals this starbucks an important persistent for any future appeals brought by the residents for the public right-of-way think about it. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is ann brubaker you know where i live i'm puc to support a appeal o-74 i have watched as the verizon council has veered the conversation away from condition 10 of the permit which he did mention condition 10 clearly states no condition without obstruction this permit holder has
5:33 pm
demonstrated amply there is an obstruction i think all the permit holders will demonstrate amply the permit palates will demonstrate amply there is obstruction and that the condition of the permit has not been met quality of window cleanliness, quality of the view quantity of the view was not part of the permit condition i think that is being aside while we discussed from the poles are ugly if our windows are criterion, if we don't have a view of the golden gate bridge this is not an issue and by the way i was born on
5:34 pm
russian hill in 1947 and still here. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i used to live in the baldwin flat i'm a friend of the family first off those are rental flats so the ridiculousness by verizon about the flags didn't apply to the appellant it is how the people living in the flat except them the view has to be protected from the long term secondly the purpose of the now 10 statement was a statement to protect people from having i assume it is readsing that way protect people from having those
5:35 pm
things outside avenue their windows directly outside of their windows there's no other purpose in putting number ten in the thing unless it was to do that when it was pointed out this thing was inner appropriate designed the city recognized that and asked for changes from verizon verizon recognized that and moved the pole all around the pole several times unfortunately it still is right out the second floor window and the first floor window there is another pole for the cell phone system there is no standard patent that one used to lay this out you can move those
5:36 pm
cell sites not on a specific pole we have good 9-1-1 services the this is to address capacity not to provide 9-1-1 service so basically, what they're saying to you is we want to use it pole because it is the cheapest way of implementing the system and your time is up thank you. >> thank you. >> capability. >> is there any additional public comment we'll take rebuttal starting with the appellant. >> to put that picture back up here the other one showed the first one better it is what the
5:37 pm
horizon is that effects the view you can't do according to condition 10 this is from the window not from the flat this year's the existing horizon and that impacts the view and this is condition steno don't obstruct and here as the city mentioned no other polls they can go to here the down street picture of the 4 poles own this left hand there's no if there's an office there's a pole across the street they'd use that pole why do very this to use that pole they have to use it still under condition 10 and impacts the view the reason the last person mentions why is condition 10 there to protect the individuals viewers
5:38 pm
this permit should be denied it impacts the views not only from the ground floor unit and make is it for the record to have boxes across the top and again on the middle view right here where the existing bottom halves exist and second hash an open space nonexisting poles or infrastructure it will be impacted from the crossbeam that's required for the additional infrastructure here the pole here current hash will be moved up from the simulations you can't see outside the window you're seeing the flat the fact they're using this simulation they're trying to hide something it clearly shows it obstructs the view if
5:39 pm
they didn't want they should i'm soouchl those simulations were professional they show you what it looks like look at the pictures you can hardly see to look at those pictures the top floor the middle floor and you can't see where those will be right there obviously. >> okay. we'll hear rebuttal from the permit holder. >> paul adversary council for verizon wireless just a couple of quick points not 24 inches wide it is 6 inches deep 10
5:40 pm
inches wide and 17 inches tall it is designed is to be for a tier one administrative approval taking away from the ordinance this year and the antenna is revolted towards the street by the portfolio of the pole that is intentional we'll show you more but the planning department reviewed the photo simulations and verified the property and the planning department was able to make a determinations that it didn't significantly impair the views of open spaces or structures and we respect that opinion and the - i don't know if you have any further questions there were negative responses to o a text megabit 15 hundred negative
5:41 pm
responses two zip codes and 6 hundred supporters with respect reflected we feel the planning department was able to make it's finding based on the photo simulation they've delivered and we've doing every thing we can to minimize the obstructions from the facility as i mention the code protects private views and an approval for significant brksz of this view we concur with the planning department no significant obstructions and therefore it will survive the conditions if in the future there can restrictions we very much appreciate the time and effort and i'm available to answer any
5:42 pm
questions. >> question counselor. >> yes. >> is there a different unit on this one i believe you stated it was 24 inches high and 15 inches wide you're saying this measures what. >> i apologize if i created a confirmation an antenna canister that is 24 inches tall and 16 inches in diameter on a side bracket and geothe p for what gets mounted open a pole allows the alignment of the pole which is why we can't mount it the canister it is 24 inches high and 15 in diameter two captain stares and mandatory meter for
5:43 pm
pacific gas & electric and omar asked for a smaller meter and that meter hesitate a disconnect switch its required law and that's actually owned by pg&e a requirement. >> thank you. >> further follow-up question so in the last case p there were 4 boxes on and on that one 3. >> each destine is the same their mediations and the disconnect there are m m r u the minimum it is your rate units 6 inches by 17 inches and the misrepresent which is 24-hour inches tall and 15 in diameter that cantonese antennas within the antenna their can antennas.
5:44 pm
>> so it is compared to the tiechtz facilities installed on poles it is the absolute smallest it is 17 cubit foot and each of those boxes total combined is extremely small thank you. >> thank you very much. we appreciate your time. >> any rebuttal from the department? >> i don't have anything more to add. >> i have a question for the gentleman. >> oh that's right. >> i think i'm new a little bit confused you issue a letter in which you
5:45 pm
approve in this case february 27th height recommendations and i think almost all of them came with conditions an one of the conditions not obstruct the view or light into any adjacent residential windows. >> correct. >> at the moment we approve it we assume it is residential but don't know if there was an office it has less the case. >> wait i don't know when you approve those what they're sitting in front of. >> i don't know if that dwelling is converted to an office presume it's a residential window we add a condition in this case. >> but now i feel like i'm in a chicken and egg situation there are people that feel it is obstructing a view. >> we concurred when we looked
5:46 pm
at the design that was approved when we visited the site and in the approval letter of the letter that went out to the approval of residents we believe there's act obstruction please let us know. >> there's a belief there's an obstruction. >> we circulated there was an obstruction we asked them to either abandon the site or come back with a plan for a plan they came back with instead of putting the pole in front of the window they're using a shorter pole thirty inches turn around did other pole that was increased and putting the antenna in front of the pole city of chicago out in a sidearm. >> the view of yours the
5:47 pm
obstructions has been mitigated. >> through the redesign. >> a followup so is the standard an objective standard is that in your opinion. >> it comes down to us going out to the site and kruger with the appellant we don't - >> the appellant knows or think that. >> hypothetically they can the permit is upheld and the second floor neighbors say the way it got pitted on the pole didn't comply with the condition we may say you can center the permit away. >> go back go back go back. >> does the objection because it didn't meet the standard and
5:48 pm
the initial objections the pole top puts the pole closer to the residents pull up the slide - okay. so if you put the antenna up here then you're going to be about two feet closer to the residents if you move the antenna here and anti your moving to 14 feet away from the window it introduces a new elements that most folks in the room don't want to see it didn't rise to the level of obstructing the view that's the sort of challenge we have to course. >> isn't there a quality active view that is significant. >> the code didn't say significantly. >> but the folks with looking at it.
5:49 pm
>> when we think of obstructs it blocks the view we translated that as much that's correct. >> so there's obviously a spectrum between obstructing between obstructing we feel the new design does obstruct. >> do you have a volume it is new to the pole that would obstruct. >> correct. >> we're looking at the phrase obstruct the view and the total outlet of the verify okay. the new design didn't truly obstruct the view you wouldn't say a humming bird would obstruct. >> it is distracting but the code before us we have to comply. >> it is a completely substantive standard. >> i can provide an example one
5:50 pm
element that came into play when this was written would be the new antenna or enclosure be so close to come cast shadows and impair light and air that's a standard held up for many challenges that wouldn't sorry you wouldn't want what's being introduced in the environmentalist to impact light and air. >> how do you maintain consistency then. >> when it is so subjective you used the example of humming bird. >> that's that's much installer in comparison unfortunately, one of the challenges we have you have carriers arguing they have the right to be treated as a utility and another challenge well, if penguin came in and add
5:51 pm
an transformser would we block about or pg&e has a larger pole sewe have to tread the needle the examples we've said no have been where the pole is closer to the window you're looking at a 6 foot not 14 foot range. >> were you referencing the code what you were talking about the significant or standard. >> the code didn't reference significant when it comes to obstructing it uses the same language i added to the condition of approval. >> can you - >> we have not that a adjudicated. >> so it's tough. >> i have a view of the ocean
5:52 pm
that's lovely and the two blocks before me that pine tree is a living pine tree but can't see the islands whereas my friend 3 doors down can see it, it is only one tree at this point i'm having a hard time there's no implicitly as to its pretty clear personal wireless facility not to obstruct the view of light into an adjacent window effectively it is obstructing some light from an adjacent window. >> just as a current pole is as well. >> there's a current pole. >> that's correct. >> let you know the case before this was no different and that's right. >> we're taking taking into
5:53 pm
account the situation where the tenant has multiple bay windows and offends a panoramic view we're not looking a situation on the other hand one small window and this window has all this residents has and your introducing a mountain with the new impact is substantial. >> okay. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> would it be - i'm dovetailing on commissioner fung's comment that it is no different than the last case in the last case you had a birds nest of a pole. >> uh-huh. >> it is arguable that a birds
5:54 pm
nest of wires was obstructing verifies like crazy and the addition of to we'll wasn't going to amount to a hill of beans it is already a mess in this one the difference no birds nest of garbage out there in the first place and this is an element which is creating blockage of a view so it is slightly different than the birds nest that was in the previous case i wanted to point that out. >> absolutely although like the case before there is another cross that brukdz looking at just the technical matt haney of the word obstruct. >> obstruct. >> commissioners the matter is
5:55 pm
submitted. >> before we - i want to respond to one of the points that was race by one of the - in the. the case we undertook on 27th avenue was one of many and it was the only one that we felt there was a basis to be able to create a further dialog with what those types of installations were adding to the neighborhood so it was not resist of every case i think the issue of legal standards plays heavy into this
5:56 pm
issue you recall that the discussions related to health have not considered tonight yet but one that was reoccurring feature at every cell sites i wanted to bring that forgot that was not representative that one case was one we felt we could have done something where others we felt our hands were tied >> and the question around that. >> i was there. >> with reference to that do you have any information whether i've not heard of next g it wasn't related to at&t or verizon is next g still around is that box still around it is
5:57 pm
is it become garbage it just hangs around the pole. >> next g is around and in fact the slide is a 12 they've proposed that box is still there and it became it's understanding new crown castle filed against the city we went to court and even though court said city i r you get to apply second and crown castle tried to august that the state preempted the process we required new permits every two years the judge said you can't do that we also added rules for administrations the judge said that clefs with the carriers to make certain changes and they
5:58 pm
have a federal right to do that and our city attorney helps them if that case currently my understanding in that case the procedures in the public works codes for relevant to planning if occur so that was among other things the reason the board of appeals denied the permit commissioner swig we actually won and lost that case we won the case when it came to the issue we felt that the planning review was necessary and didn't happen but we lost the case ultimately because the court felt that the board took late jurisdiction on that appeal after the 15 day appeal period by mistake we were not allowed because no, in fact no mistake made on the part of the city that would have given us the basis for late jurisdiction. >> it was a knock out on
5:59 pm
technicality. >> we revised the public works code we used to have a tier code tier one verizon tried to agree to apply that it was a last minute issue but there tier one if the site is much smaller no letter to the neighbors no provision to allow the free trees to each site and as a result the lawsuit under 64 the law reference our concern was the 43 tier one and then the next day modify them and all of a sudden the neighbors had no chance to provide impact for something much like a tier 3 we're left with the getting all sites referring to planning i'm sorry all to notify the
6:00 pm
neighbors. >> okay so commissioners. >> one second are we doing done this concluded i haven't submitted. >> i tried - and okay refer the question. >> so sorry me. >> so - given the fact that this will probably not be the last verizon case before us and i'd rather not each of case individual but given the conditions here the personal wireless service facility noted obstruct the view or light into any adjacent arranged window to me is extremely vague there's no basis and no clarity and so to help us later on, i mean i