tv Government Access Programming SFGTV December 1, 2017 4:00pm-5:01pm PST
>> good evening and welcome to the november 15, 2017 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer this evening is president darryl honda, and also on the dais, we have commissioners. to my left is brad russe. he's a department city attorney and he'll provide any legal assistance. i'm cynthia goldstein, the bored's executive director. we're also joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the boards tonight.
sitting at the table is cory teagu e and amanda shaw and russ higgins. the board requests that you turnoff or silence all phones and electronic devices so that they won't disturb the proceedings and you carrie on conversations in the hallway. participants are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes to present their rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone. to assist the board identify you, you are asked to submit a
card to the board before you speak, we also have customer service survey forms on the podium, and we welcome your comments and suggestions. if you have questions about requesting a hearing, the board's rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff after a break -- ok or after the meeting. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast at 4:00 on friday on channel 26. now, we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may make statements without swearing in under the sunshine ordinance. please stand if you're able and raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirmed. do you solemnly swear or affirm
that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. okay. so we will start with item one, which is general public comment. this is an item for people who have items in the board's subject matter jurisdiction but is not on the calendar. seeing none, then item 2 is commissioner comments and questions, anything, commissioners. and then, item three is the board's consideration of the minutes of our november 8, 2017 meeting. >> unless we have any changes, deletions, may i have a motion to accept those minutes? >> so moved. >> thank you. is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes. president honda?
>>president honda: aye. >> commissioner wilson, minutes? >>commissioner wilson: yes. >> thank you, and commissioner. >>commissioner swig: swig aye. >> okay. thank you very much. that motion passes. so we have a settlement for item number 9 that we're going to call out of order peal number 17-152, appellants are mark hampton and gayle pigatto. protesting the issuance on august 18, 2017 to steve altschuler and lani wu of a site permit exterior modification of parapet, new sun shades, second floor, minor interior alterations, roof level: expansion of stair
penthouse to a 246 square foot mezzanine, shade pergola, enlarge existing roof deck. perhaps we could hear from both sides just to confirm that that represents their agreement. whoever wants to start. >> good evening and welcome. >> so this does represent our agreement. we did want to make one minor notation on the dimensions as a minimum and maximum. >> i'm sorry, could you just speak a little bit closer to the mic. >> this does reflect our agreement. we wanted to make one change on the conditions of the minimum and the maximum. >> we've all agreed in favor of what they were looking for, any way. it just gives us a little bit of flexiblity in the design, so if we all agree then we're
whatever side -- because that's not before us. >> okay. understood. would you like to make a motion? >> before motion's made, i just want to make sure it's just that one sheet. there's no other sheet that reflects the design changes, is that correct. >> this sheet correctly describes the difference between the previously submitted packet, and that's the only change from what was submitted and what's today been approved --
condition the permit on the adoption of the revised plans that were submitted today, and that's on the basis that it reflects the agreement of the parties. >> exactly my words. >> okay. on that motion, commissioner lazar lazarus. >> aye. >> president honda? >> aye. >> and commissioner swig. >> aye. >> and then also calling out of order are items 7 a through d, this is appeal number 17-144,
145, 148, 150. these are appeals that have to do with 255 sea cliff avenue protesting the issuance on august 11, 2017, to ann mao of a site permit to erect three stories one basement, type v.b. single-family residential building. the motion failed with a lack of four votes because that would have conditioned the permit, so on further motion, the board votes to continue the matter to this evening, and this was to allow the permit holder to work with the appellants on a design that removes the penthouse and includes a roof deck no larger than 500 square feet, and the reason this is being called out
of order is i understand the parties request this matter be continued to another night. >> yes. >> so president honda, maybe we can give each side a cup of of minutes just in case they have a couple of other matters they want to raise. >> yeah, but just on the continuance. >> specifically on the continuance? >> yeah. >> okay. so is mr. williams in the room? ah, there you are. okay. why don't we start with mr. williams then. >> good evening. steve williams, and i'm speaking for the four different appellants. we knew that one week wasn't going to be enough, and we appreciated the -- the continuance which was, you know, in order for the parties to negotiate and discuss how the roof deck might look, so i spent a lot of times with the other appellants immediately after the hearing, and i sent an e-mail with ten items that
we wanted on the roof deck the next morning at 10:00. didn't hear a single word from the sponsors, and as -- as late as yesterday, i got an e-mail from mr. tunney, saying the maos haven't even gotten to the point of reviewing your items with this. they are starting from scratch and really don't have any plans on what to do with the deck. so we're a little bit mystified and we don't know how to get the conversation going, because it appears they don't want to discuss the matter, they merely want to prepare it and discuss it with us. my ten items i thought were reasonable and based on the board's comments and the neighbors -- what the neighbors wanted, 500 square feet, no stair or penthouse structure, nothing intrusive a wire or
glass railings kept at the minimum height allowed by the code, a hatch or some sort of recessed stair. no large apertenances, and no large set backs, and no lighting up there, since then a big issue. but i couldn't get responses or affirmation on nearly all of those things, so here we are. >> thank you, mr. williams. >> mr. tunney, and sorry, i forgot to disclose. >> tom tunney on behalf of the permit holder. appreciate the opportunity to address this. we are -- would like more time to come up with a plan for the
roof deck. we have talked about december 13th with the appellants. we have agreed to give them, to provide them with a plan, drawings ten days in advance of the 13th, december 3rd, that's a sunday. we can figure out exactly when to get it to them. they've sent a list of items. i've explained to mr. williams a few times that we're happy to consider all of them. some of them we already acknowledged, the 500 square foot limitation, but we need time to decide what the maos would like to do and then, we need to evaluate the rest of the items that he proposed. >> okay. >> lewis butler, architect for the project. i just wanted to add it was my optimism to push for the one
week, and when we addressed the issue we realized it was a much more complicated design problem on this. it makes no sense for us to rush the roof deck at this point. we'd like to coordinate it with the rest of the design, specifically, the roof access from down below proved to be trickier than expected. it also impacts the floor plan that's down below. we look forward to pushing through with mr. williams, and bringing you an organized presentation on the 13th. that's our goal. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this issue of the continuance? >> elize curran -- >> are you with mr. williams? he said he was representing all of you. >> all right.
okay. >> all right. commissioners then the matter is submitted. >> i'm prepared to grant the continuance to december 13th. so moved. >> and was that with any additional submittals or briefing or just continue to allow them to submit revised plans if they reach -- >> revised plans would be fine. >> okay. bei okay. so then we have a motion have the vice president to continue these matters, four of them to december 13th, 2017. only submittal allowed to be revised plans, and on that motion, commissioner left side russ. >> aye. >> president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> all right. thank you the motion passes, and these items are continued to that date. okay. and we're going to return to our calendar and we'll start
with item number (4) appeal no. 17-157 presidio heights association of neighbors, appellant(s) vs. san francisco public works bureau of street use and mapping, respondent 3400 washington street. appealing the issuance on august 28, 2017, to verizon wireless, of a personal wireless service facility site permit (construction of a personal wireless service facility in a zoning protected location). and we will start with the appellant. >> good evening, and thank you for having given me the opportunity to speak to you. my name is charles ferguson. i'm the president of the heights association of neighbors, the appellant in this proceeding. there are many issues in this matter. i'm going to cut to the heart of the whole thing right away. after all the briefing, one thing is clear. there is absolutely no evidence supporting planning's conclusion placing verizon license at 3400 washington street would not negatively affect the character and he ia
esthetics at that location. there is no evidence that planning considers any of fans concerns. did planning consider the fact that at great expense of presidio residents had put all utilities underground, and t n consider the neighborhood's emphasis on license number street scapes in presidio heights? did planning consider that placing verizon's equipment on a light pole would cause it to stick out like a sore thumb above the tree tops? did planning consider that this particular light pole has no trees around it at all and is highly visible? did planning consider that every residence near this specific light pole and throughout most of presidio heights is classified as class
a for historic preservation purposes, and that the resident individually invest in those homes for posterity? did planning consider we do not want antennas on our light poles drawing attention away from the homes? there is no evidence that planning took any of these characteristics of presidio heights into account. article 25, section 1509, subsection b requires planning to provide reasons in writing as quote of its determination. in other words it was required to put in writing an explanation or justification for its decision. planning failed to supply any written justification for its determination that no significant harm would come to any aspect of the presidio heights neighborhood by
installing verizon's equipment. that's violation of 1509 b and sufficient reason for you to deny this request. dpw, backed by verizon, urges this board don't worry that planning failed to do what it was required by law. instead, both offer an excuse. their excuse is they both believe verizon's wireless equipment is well designed. well designed, carefully designed, or any other type of design is not an express standard embedded in article 25. those words or anything like them cannot be found any article. what is at the heart of article 25 is the principle that it is the neighborhood context into which the equipment is placed that matters. both dpw and verizon leaped to
the conclusion that simply because they think that wireless equipment is well designed, the equipment is automatically unobjetrusive. dpw says this is objective evidence at paging # and 8 of its brief. if planning only needs to determine that a piece of equipment is well designed, that is the only thing it needs to make in decisions for our city, and here, based on this record, the neighborhood context was never taken into account at all. some things can qualify as well designed in and of themselves, a tesla automobile might be a well designed object, but if i stuck it on a light pole at 3400 washington street, would it be unobtrusive?
what if we took verizon's antenna and strapped it on the head of a person in this room, would it be unobtrusive? it's the context in which the equipment is situated. there may be locations in this city where that equipment would fit without disturbing the environment, but this chamber is not the place for that, and neither is the presidio heights neighborhood. most of the houses and buildings are rated class a. that's rare. residents have spent well over a century maintaining their lush lands and tree scapes on each street. they're blessed with sweeping views, and perhaps most important of all, presidio
heights have made the utilities invisible by undergrounding them. the importance of that cannot be 'over emphasized. all utilities are completely out of sight and underground. pg and e required the city and residents on each block to pay them in advance of the work the cost of buying the new street lighting before the work would be done. the fact of the matter is we don't care if verizon's so property is beautiful. what we care about is putting it somewhere where it is invisible from the street or as close to invisible as possible because that is the key component for our ability to showcase our homes, buildings, street scapes and views. we don't have the same problem like the russian neighbor that
are cluttered with poles and wires, but we worked hard to get past it and that is make all utilities become invisible. we don't want to lose what we achieved, but that would happen if you approve this permit. verizon can't be counted onto protect our neighborhood. article 25 does that. >> thank you. your time is up. thank you. >> and we can hear from the permit holder now, mr. albreton. >> welcome back, counselor. >> thank you, chamber honda, members of the board. thank you for your time this evening. i know you have a full agenda, and i will try and keep my remarks short. i'm joined tonight by kevin boyer of modus.
bill hammond is here to answer any questions, as well as melanie singupta who helped prepare the materials for tonight. the appellants raise two issues. one they felt it was not a cooperative process that included the presidio heights neighborhood association in the process and i want to take you back for a minute and say that this truly has been a cooperative process in terms of coming up with that well designed facility that we had. san francisco here exercises its proprietary rights with respect to this design, so three years ago, we began working on a design with the san francisco public utility commission fore them to approve this design in order tfor it t be leased to verizon wireless. it went through ceqa review, and the board, and the board threw out a design to keep this
design. this design was thought to fit into the context of san francisco and to meet those -- to match those poles that they currently are attached to, and that is the cooperative process that began several years ago and then continues with article 25, wherein this situation, presidio heights neighbors received a notice, and they did protest in a timely matter. kevin sent them a response to their protest and invited a conversation with them, and they didn't get into a conversation. they came to the dpw hearing officer's hearing, where he listened to all that they said, and i was asked several questions, including about iran in order to have them and their results heard. very cooperative process in terms of trying to get their positions and understandings before you.
in terms of the second point made by the appellants is this design is destructive to presidio heights and we just have to honestly disagree. the characteristics that are outlined in their brief are their trees and even the cylinderical shape of the poles, and we feel this design in no way is destructive. the facility is small, the facility is designed not to impose. we believe that the department of planning accurately determined that it does not significantly detract from any defining characteristics of the neighborhood, nor does it impair any of the views from any of the buildings. the pro-testers as protests could have submitted photographs have any windows showing any kind of view obstruction and planning under 184504 as required and then
evaluate if there are any set of windows impacted from the facility, and that was not done. we believe that their decision, department of public works decision, planning decision was the right one made and we believe it should be submitted for rhea professional, and we'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> miss higgins. >> thank you. i'm amanda higgins from public work. we believe that this -- [ inaudible ] -- for personal wireless service facilities. article 25 requires public work to refer wireless applications to the department of public health and the planning department. if both departments recommend approval of an application as they did here, public works will issue a tentative
approval, and as required under article 25, verizon mailed and posted notice of the intended approval. public works then held a public hearing to consider protests to the approval, and following the hearing, the director of public works approved the permit and notice of this permit approval was presented to the public. in addition to public works, planning and public health are here for the board's question. >> miss higgins, so the appellants stated that they, at great expense to them, they put all their underground -- all their services underground. what would be the department's response for that. >> well, the city has various legislated underground districts in which there are no wooden telephone poles or overhead telephone lines. you can see that downtown and
in various other locations, but in those locations, wireless facilities are not prohibited. they just go on the steel utility poles owned by the public utility commission of san francisco, so that is what it's going to do in this case. >> so that's not considered a utility. >> we've permitted hundreds in underground districts. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. thank you. commissioners, did you want to hear from the planning department? >> it's so nice to see the acting za. >> good evening, president and commissioners. cory teague representing the planning department. i'll be very brief. i believe the brief from public works was very accurate. the planning department was referred this project. it did provide in writing from
public works our recommendation was it did not significantly impair the aesthetic feel of the neighborhood. that hearing was held and dpw did find that recommendation to be accurate. just for your information, i will provide a map on the overhead of other sites in the pacific heights area -- presidio heights, pardon. let me go -- thank you very much. so this is the project site in the red square, and the other circles are different sites from different agencies just to give you an idea of other sites in the area. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> question, mr. teague. i believe that your conditions
were to plan and maintain an appropriate street tree? >> correct. so one of the recommendations -- or part of the recommendation was 15 kind of conditions of recommendation, and one of those was the planting of a street tree. >> just sort of hard to imagine how a tree's going to obscure it. >> i don't believe the intent was to be tall enough to obscure it, but to provide more objects visually in the area to -- so that this item wouldn't stick out as much. >> thank you. >> mr. teague? >> yes. >> if an area has, outside of street lights, zero infrastructure -- utility infrastructure, how would the department view the context, then, for that area? >> well, i think everything is a case by case situation because the -- the absence or
prevalence of infrastructure and the right of way is one component. we also look at other factors, whether it's the view or historical or residential characteristics of the buildings or the district, so that's just one aspect of it. i think that fact is reflected in the fact that there are so many conditions of recommendation on the approval, and that the design was essentially squeezed down to the small size that it is. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there public comment on this item and i see hands of anyone who wishes to speak? okay. please step forward. is there no public comment? okay. >> good evening and welcome.
>> yes. my name is kay dryden and i'm a neighbor in presidio heights. so this permitting process has been done on a pole-by-pole basis. that means that neighbors were notified that are proximate to the poles. there are multiple poles proposed for this neighborhood. the right thing would have been to do this on a neighborhood basis so that the neighborhood association would have been notified of all the poles that were proposed and that there was an opportunity for planning and for verizon and for the neighborhood to discuss what the impact on the entire neighborhood would be. by doing it on a pole-by-pole basis, number one, there's a presumption that that is the right place to put it. all of our infrastructure is underground. the pole is not the right place to put it.
in fact, verizon considered other locations. they asked the people at 3400 whether they could put the antenna on the roof of their house, but because they're renters, and they're the iranian consulate, they didn't have the authority to do that. this makes it easy for verizon to get an individual permit on a case by case basis, and it makes it easy for dpw and the planning to just look at this on a pole by pole basis, but it's not a pole by pole basis, it's the whole neighborhood, and where is the right place to put this stuff, not necessarily on a pole. and if these installations are put on poles, what comes next? verizon's got a lot of competitors, so is every competitor going to have open season on every pole in this historic neighborhood? we think that's inappropriate, and if it's done in this neighborhood, it can be done
anywhere in the city because this neighborhood is one of the rare highly historic parts of the city, and we know the city, you know, is very focused on its victorians and the class a historic nature of these houses. in contrast, at&t wanted to put some data equipment in boxes around the neighborhood, in contrast to the way this was done, at&t came to the neighborhood association, had consultations, and -- and decisions were made that were compatible with putting things behind greenery, invisible. the place for these well designed antennas is invisible to the street scape of this neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. >> ma'am? ma'am? >> ma'am? >> what do you consider to be alternative locations? skbl yes. we are going to talk about alternative, i think their
plenty of alternative locations. these antennas were previously put on a parking garage roof. that parking garage is going to come down. that's where cpmc was, but cpmc is planning a large structure in the same place where the parking garage was. it could go up there. there's a picture that you're going to see of a high height apartment building that's in view of this proposed pole location. it could go on the roof of this tall apartment building. it's a block away from this particular 3400 washington street location. there are plenty of other places that it could be put. it could be put in the presidio. it could be an artificial tree in the woods in the presidio. it could be at the fire lookout station that's a high point within view in the presidio. and by the way, this apartment building that's a block south of the proposed location is the
tallest point within the whole neighborhood. it could be invisible up there, and there are other locations as well, that i'll let someone else talk about. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good evening and welcome. >> good evening. thank you very much for having us. i'm just here to protest the antenna outside 3400 washington street. you look out of it, you look straight at it out of our bedroom window. you're also required to have a tree there. there is no way you can plant a tree there. you've got nothing but works underneath, you've got all the telephone -- the electrical, telephone wires and things like that. you cannot plant a tree there. you also have a green strip in front of it that has a, you know, watering system, so going through that would be -- would not be a good idea. there are a lot of other places that it can be setup, like on the top of this condominium
building, which is -- towers about 100 feet up, you know, in the air. it would cover the whole area, as far as sending out all the vibes and things like that. and you know, i just -- i just don't understand it. the nearest tree is across the intersection of sentry. the trees are all trimmed and kept neat, and the whole area is kept neatly, and on top of that, i personally have a thing against all these internet systems and what they actually are doing today and what they're going to do later on and for your security and everything. i've had my identity stolen twice. it's a very expensive and long-term thing, and i don't like to have anybody near me that encourages and make -- facilitates it, because any hacker can get into anything from anything, and putting it right outside our window is a threat, and i don't appreciate it, and i'd like to finalize it
with the idea that it's all been done in a cooperative manner, well if it's been done in a cooperative manner, usually, cooperative means you listening, and there's been no sign of anybody listening to us. if somebody says we don't like that, and here are the reasons why, and you go in front of a public hearing to state this, you're clearly serious, and yet it's just been whipped around by saying we looked at it. it's fine, and everyone's going by their own little set of rules and not listening to the public that it's affecting directly, and i think the people that it's affecting directly are the people you should be listening to, and ho hopefully, you will be listening to. >> would you like to state your name for the record ma'am. >> alexandra owen. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good evening, welcome sir. >> good evening. my name is bruce owen, and we are residents at 3400
us being the san, directors on san, and typically, what i do when i'm president of it, i assemble committees of directors -- we have about 20 directors and residents. particularly, the residents who are near what's going to be affected, and then, that little core group talks to whoever it is that is, you know, proposing something in the way of a project for our neighborhood, and we work it out. we work out what works best for everybody. we're not opposed to verizon's antennas, we just want to work out where they would best be situated back in the neighborhood, and the best
place is to keep them as invisible as possible. >> and what prevented your -- you seem very comfortable with the at&t process and the result. what would you have suggested -- what happened in the verizon process and what would you have suggested as an alternative to reach consensus and a happy compromise. >> what happened is verizon and planning were the only ones who talked to one another, so effectively, the two that had a financial interest talked to one another, while those of us who were going to suffer the results never even knew a discussion was going on. when this gentleman from planning put up the dots, that's the first we're getting a look at this. we don't get advanced notice of any of this. that whole discussion all the way up to the issuance of the preliminary permit takes place in a closed loop that excludes
us and insulated them. they talk to one another. they don't talk to us. at&t did it a different way. the developers of 3333 california are doing it a completely different way. the developers in the cpmc project are doing it a completely different way. they talk to us first before they go and talk to planning. >> and finally, what was the -- you know, there must be a noticing process that's -- we've done -- i mean, on this board since i've been on it, and that's a short time, only two years, we've had a dozen and a half, two dozen of these, and there's always been noticing, and noticing is a key issue. that would be noticing to the community. what was the noticing process on this -- that was visible to you? >> first of all, the whole -- the whole issuance of the preliminary permit takes place without us knowing anything or getting any notice, okay?
they were -- and then, when they -- >> we would be -- besides fan, we would be who? >> the people who were affected by the single pole. they sent it to 150 feet around the particular pole, and you know frankly, mr. albriton's brief, he had an attachment that apparently noticed us. this gets into another side issue, but i'll tell you because you asked about it. >> yes i did. >> they have a xerox copy that supposed went to the neighborhood association. it went to -- i happen to know what liv who lives there. it went to 2222 iris avenue, which is not in our neighborhood, and the woman who lives there is cathy david chenzi, and it's the laurel heights neighborhood association. that's what yhe included with
his brief as notice. i don't blame him because planning defines presidio heights as this gigantic neighborhood, so i can understand how that would happen, but we're not hard to find. you know, at&t found us pretty easily, and we're available. i can't tell you the number of discussions i have with people that have projects, big projects like this. obviously, the big building developers or even bigger. we sit and talk all the time. we schedule meetings, and i setup my committees, and we go and talk. the people along sacramento street and california street are vitally interested. i have committees, little groups on those streets who are going to talk about the developers of the two big projects. >> thank you very much.
their project light speed fiber. those are the large, refridge rater-sized boxes that go into e street. there was a lawsuit about it, bt is not our diminutive wireless facilities. pleatly different project and s. different note with small cells. in san francisco and throughoute country, the wire rlless countrd the world they have an overlay d service. it gives you signal but not necy the capacity to provide in-had d other serve ition our customersd every year and it doubles every. the small cell provides servicen 500 feet on either sield of then order to provide capacity on toa macro network. you need both.
you can't replace the small celk with the macro network. that is why we can't put them on apartment build organize anywhe. we're machine-i think you know i don't want to get n into it we e right to be there. if there is no pole, we have tht to put our own pole, to place ae in the street. obviously we work with san frano use existing facilities. we can't have trees that grow ud the antennas because it's line t second knowledge. the alternative to a tree that e to go through urban forestry ana fee in lieu of a tree. i can answer other questions bui appear to have run out of time s you have questions. >> i do. so one of the appellants statedu install them at 2:00 in the mor? >> they weren't our workers.
i don't know the time, they were fiber permit is separate. >> is it the same company? different company? >> i don't know, it may have ben extinate or comcast but those ae fiber providers. and pg&e provides power as wella cutoff switch. they put a cutoff switch in the hand-hold. i understand there was confusion this protest period began and e. that's because we filed the papk for protest period for the apped to begin, but it wasn't actualld and mailed by the department un8 days lais later, something like. there was confusion -- 28 day d, something like that. there was confusion that caughte countries.
they didn't realize that the apl period was continuing and it wae of a difference in time when wep loaded the information to begine field process and when it was ay sent out, the final determinatie department. >> is there a time constraint tr workers can insaul equipment? i feel that 2:00 a.m. is not appropriate. >> i would agree with you. they should be complying with t- >> what is the time slot that te supposed to install equipment? >> do you know? >> maybe you can look it up. >> i believe that's 7:00 to 5:0d short on weekends. >> because 2:00 a.m. is crazy. >> i would agree with you. that's the first i heard that he incident. >> quiet, please. i guess we'll be seeing you a le
sb 349 got beat out by the gove. >> yes. and last point is that you probw that this whole issue of the esc rights of the city in subject of t-mobile versus san francisco ws going to the california supreme. upon my advice, tapt and verizot party to that lawsuit but the if your rights to esthetics is beig reviewed by the supreme court. we can be in the rate of way bua question of esthetic rights. >> don't run away so fast. >> will this technology change e of sight? >> wireless technology? i have our= he might be able to answer that question. it's line of site technology.
it -- it doesn't -- it only trao far. the frequencies that we're usiny are higher frequencies, 5-g and, they carry more data, but don'tl as far. that's why we put the small celr to the end user to provide more. the original analogue went out , but newest technologies, higher frequencies and don't travel vet all. bill, do you want to say anythi? >> good evening, bill hammett pt of consultive engineers. the behavior of the frequenciese bands is line of site. it goes through trees but not bg materials. it bounces around. it will work down a street and e
off the buildings and works itsn the street. penetration is it not-is not gor building materials or other thi. >> thank you. i believe commissioner swig hada question. >> can you tell us about the ale sites you review before settlinn this? >> kevin modas can speak to tha. this particular pole is unique. at its height, it actually seese building 3400. it's at a corner and -- >> i'm sorry, quiet, please in . >> it was designed specificallyt whereas other poles around corne lower and would not provide the necessary propagation. kevin, i don't know if you can r that. >> basically -- i'm kevin moda s verizon.