Appeal Number: 15-077 Appeal Title: Fessel & Mars vs. DPW-BSM Subject Property: 2151 Jones Street Permit Type: Wireless Box Permit Permit Number: 14WR-0023
To:
The President and Members of the San Francisco Board of Appeals,
cc:
Julie Christensen Gene Chan Omar Masri Patrick Fosdahl
We will argue that the City's decision to permit a pole-mounted cell antenna (#14WR-0023) at
2151 Jones, and other antennae similarly located very close to homes, must be reversed by this
Board for multiple compelling reasons both substantive and procedural.
.
The bases for our appeal are the following:
1) The inadequacy and procedural flaws in the consultation process
2) Misrepresentation of the level of community opposition
3) Aesthetic considerations
4) Structural integrity of the wooden pole
5) San Francisco’s democratic traditions
1
1) The inadequacy and procedural flaws in the consultation process
• The consultation time of 20 days was unreasonably short given the complexity of what
was proposed.
• The language of the announcement was opaque, lacked context and the permit address
was misleading.
• No information was provided to residents indicating that any single antenna was part of a
dense network of antenna throughout the neighborhood.
• Only a few neighbors were able to carve out enough time to research what was actually
meant by “TIER III PERSONAL WIRELESS FACILITY”, make necessary clarifying
phone calls, and research the many concerns associated with this technology.
• Verizon has an army of consultants, lawyers and public relations professional on their
payroll to support its agenda and a long lead time ahead of the community’s awareness.
On the other hand, concerned neighbors have to take time from work and childcare to
decipher the DPW notices, make clarifying phone calls, learn about what's going on,
research the science, organize with neighbors, etc. While Verizon’s specialists divide up
their labor according to their areas of expertise, people in the community face an
overwhelming learning curve in each area under unreasonable time pressure.
2
• We were due to be out of the country on the day of the hearing and requested a date
change but received no reply. None of the concerns raised in our letters was addressed at
the hearing.
2) Misrepresentation of the level of community opposition
• Visiting a single side of 1 block of Jones Street one evening, we sought signatures to a
petition. Every single person we approached signed the petition and expressed concern
about the planned antenna (Exhibit A, pages 1 and 2). With more time and resources,
many more signatories and opposition would likely have been revealed.
• In the permit hearings, we know of at least two cases where opposition has been under-
reported in Verizon’s favor. In the case of 2151 Jones Street, the number of letters of
protest were halved at the hearing (from 4 to 2) and in the case of 2215 Leavenworth
Street’s proposed antenna, no letters of protest were acknowledged except those for
which a personal appearance was made at the hearing.
• When we pointed out the discrepancy in the case of 2151 Jones, we were informed that
the record would be changed to correct this but by then the permit had already been
awarded so the amendment was irrelevant (see Exhibit B, pages 2 and 3).
• Both these antenna permits and possibly others nearby were therefore improperly
granted.
3
We suspect a systematic under-representation of opposition to the proposed antennae. Sarah
Mars has written to Gene Chan at the Department of Public Works on two occasions (June
5th and June 10th 2015) asking for a recount of the letters of protest received in the cases of
nearby antenna permits but has so far received no reply (see Exhibit B, page 1). We
therefore consider that the whole consultation process is in violation of the San Francisco
City’s Sunshine Ordinance.
3) Aesthetic considerations
Our block – Jones Street to the East, Leavenworth to the West, Filbert to the South and
Greenwich to the North, is designated an ‘Excellent view’ street on the “SF Wireless Exception”
Map (see Exhibit C pages 1 and 2). From our block where the 2151 Jones antenna is proposed we currently enjoy views of Coit Tower (Exhibit D - photo taken from directly outside our home) to the East and Alcatraz to the North, Telegraph Hill, St Peter and St Paul’s Church, and a bit of the Bay. These views are already blighted by the hairball of heavy gauge wires along and across the street (see Exhibits E - view from home office window & F taken from under wooden pole) strung from a dilapidated, leaning pole covered in metal boxes – see Exhibit G - note angle of leaning pole).
Neighbors have been looking forward to the resumption of undergrounding for years. We were told that City's efforts were at a standstill due to dried up funds. Now that business is booming for the City, not only is City not moving forward with undergrounding, it is exacerbating the
4
problem by permitting new overhead utility infrastructure which cannot be undergrounded.
Verizon will argue that the antennae are necessary. This may be true from the point of view of
their business plan but it is not true from the point of view of users making phone calls.
The Department of Public Works may claim that there are not current plans for undergrounding utility wiring but there is strong support for the project in San Francisco.
Supervisors Katy Tang, London Breed among other supervisors support undergrounding of utility wiring in San Francisco as well as many city residents.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/sf-to-study-how-to-speed-up-underground-utility-
installations/Content?oid=2898659
Almost 1000 people have signed a petition to Mayor Ed Lee to underground San Francisco’s
utility wires.
https://www.change.org/p/the-mayor-of-san-francisco-the-city-should-complete-the-
undergrounding-of-utility-wires
Views are spoiled both from windows and street by the horrible spiders web of wires overhead.
These wires can be undergrounded but a cell phone antenna cannot. Once 53 cell phone
antennae are attached to these poles throughout Russian Hill, how likely is that these ugly utility
poles and wires will ever be removed?
5
4) Structural Integrity of the 2151 Jones Street Pole
As the Board will see from the photograph (Exhibit G), the wooden pole in question is
dilapidated, leaning to left and is already overloaded with wires, metal boxes and a street light.
We are concerned that further overloading by the addition of a cell antenna to this pole could pose a threat to public safety.
Other health and safety concerns
Since the City seems unwilling to challenge Federal authority over RF safety standards, despite abundant scientific evidence showing their gross inadequacy, we have not made health a basis for this appeal. However, members of the Board should be aware of these issues of concern to residents.
At the hearing on April 13th 2015, the Department of Public Works dismissed our protest against
2151 Jones Street antenna and responded to our health and visual impact concerns by stating
“Both were addressed by planning approval and the FCC guidelines under the health”.
[Transcript of audio recording].
However, at least 53 cell antenna are planned within the borders of Russian Hill and each antenna is assessed for its health impact in isolation instead of cumulatively. Here is a map with
just a few of the cell antennae planned around Michelangelo Playground and Yick Wo
Elementary school where young children spend many hours of each day (Exhibit H). The health
risks have therefore not been calculated to residents as claimed.
6
The argument that the hills make such saturation necessary for ‘safety’ and ‘emergencies’ is specious and only serves Verizon’s corporate agenda. We have perfectly good cell phone coverage at present. Indeed the unidentified man who appeared in favor of the three antennae considered on April 13th on this basis reported that he had successfully called an ambulance by cell phone while suffering a stroke. While we are happy that he received prompt medical care through the cell phone network, this would seem to contradict the argument that cell phone coverage is impeded by the hills and currently insufficient.
The proposed antenna will be directly outside the windows of our home approximately 11 feet away from my home office where I work most days and our living room where we spend time as a family and close to our 8 year old daughter’s bedroom.
Per Verizon’s subcontracted modelling, the projected exposures fall within Federal guidelines.
However, FCC limits are based on the assumption that people are at ground level and therefore receive a lower exposure:
"An ERP (effective radiated power) of 100 watts corresponds to an actual radiated power of 5-10 watts, depending on the type of antenna used. In urban areas, cell sites commonly emit an ERP of 10 watts per channel or less. For PCS cell sites, even lower ERPs are typical. As with all forms of electromagnetic energy, the power density from a cellular or PCS transmitter rapidly decreases as distance from the antenna increases. Consequently, normal ground exposure is
7 much less than the exposure that might be encountered if one were very close to the antenna and its main transmitter beam." (My emphasis)
Source: Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites www.fcc.gov
We live on the second floor, not on ground level, and the proposed antenna would be directly outside the four windows of the rooms where my wife and I work all day in our home offices and where our family relaxes in the evening and on weekends. By permitting this proposed antenna, you would be submitting us and our many immediate neighbors to a continuous close proximity dose of RF microwave radiation for many, many years to come.
The second problem with the FCC guidelines is that they are based upon appallingly insufficient evidence. There simply are no statistically meaningful epidemiological data showing that it is safe to expose a human population to this constant RF dose over a lifetime. Indeed there is much evidence to the contrary. For example, recent scientific peer reviewed evidence states:
¨Crucial deficits in current EMF exposure assessment and monitoring have to be overcome. The key deficit relates to the determination of personal exposure levels. Little reliable data about personal exposure levels and patterns is available and nothing is known about (potential) lifetime exposure of young people. This lack of knowledge...impedes effective exposure policies including appropriate risk communication."
8
Source: Durrenberger, G, Frohlich, J, Roosli, M and Mattsson, M-O. (2014) EMF Monitoring -
Concepts, Activities, Gaps and Options, International Journal of Research and Public Health,
11, 9460-9479.
The FCC guidelines are even subject to criticism from within the Federal government. The U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency stated in a July 16, 2002, letter, “Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, non-thermal
exposures. The FCC’s exposure guideline is considered protective of effects arising from a
thermal mechanism (RF radiation from cell towers is non-thermal) but not from all possible
mechanisms. Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protecting human beings
from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified”.
Even the World Health Organization, not known for holding tin foil hat positions, evaluated
radio frequency electromagnetic fields as a possible human carcinogen in 2011 (see International
Agency for Research on Cancer at WHO).
The kind of dose exposure emitted from this antenna is new in our lifetimes, and there is no
reason at all to be confident in its long term safety (on the contrary), making this in effect a large
scale non-consensual experiment on a human population. California firefighters have taken a
stand against this kind of unwise, unethical human trial, and so should San Francisco.
While protecting corporate interests, the FCC guidelines are harmful to communities and their
sovereign authority, granted by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, can only be challenged by a
well-positioned local government like San Francisco.
9
5) San Francisco’s democratic traditions
Those awarding permits to cell phone carriers over the protests of residents may wring their hands and say that it is out of their jurisdiction due to Federal regulations. However, the City has a clear history of resisting wireless carriers' unfettered access to its public rights of way and
responding to public opposition, starting with the Planning Commission's outright rejection of
NextG Networks (now Crown Castle). Tens of thousands of San Francisco residents have signed
petitions against wireless facilities in their residential neighborhoods and successfully challenged
their installation over the past 15 years.
This permitting process has been flawed from the very beginning and the blanketing of our
small, internationally famous and historic neighborhood, with 53 cell antennae is an
exploitation of our community for corporate profit and an affront to representative
democracy. We hope you will uphold our appeal.
10
MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 220 SANSOME STREET, 14TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TELEPHONE 415/ 288-4000 FACSIMILE 415/ 288-4010
June 25, 2015
Hand Delivered
Ann Lazarus, President Darryl Honda, Vice President Frank Fung, Commissioner Rick Swig, Commissioner Bobbie Wilson, Commissioner San Francisco Board of Appeals 1650 Mission Street, Suite 304 San Francisco, CA 94103
Re: Appeal No. 15-077, Fessel & Mars v. DPW-BSM, 2151 Jones Street, Wireless Box Permit No. 14WR-0023
Dear President Lazarus, Vice President Honda, and Board Members:
We submit this letter as the reply brief of our client Verizon Wireless in response to the appeal referenced above.1 The appeal challenges Wireless Site Permit No. 14WR-
0023 (the “Permit”), which authorized Verizon Wireless’s contractor, Extenet Systems, to install an unobtrusive small-cell facility on a replacement utility pole at 2151 Jones
Street (the “Project”). As we explain below, the Project has been carefully designed to avoid any significant adverse impacts, and has been thoroughly reviewed by multiple departments of the City, which correctly found that it meets all standards for approval.
The appeal has no merit, as it is based primarily on concerns about radio-frequency
(“RF”) emissions, a subject that is preempted by federal law and thus irrelevant to the
City’s review of the Permit. The other stated concerns are merely window dressing for
1 Verizon Wireless submits this reply brief on behalf of its contractor, Extenet Systems, permittee for the above-captioned permit. Board of Appeals (No. 15-077) Thursday, June 25, 2015 Page 2 of 7
the preempted RF issue, and in any event have no factual basis. We respectfully ask that you deny the appeal and allow Verizon Wireless’s contractor, Extenet Systems, to install this badly needed communications infrastructure.
I. Project Description
To provide reliable wireless service, Verizon Wireless needs to install small-cell facilities in various locations around San Francisco in order to fill localized gaps in coverage or capacity. One such gap is in the area surrounding the intersection of Jones and Valparaiso Streets. The approved location at 2151 Jones Street is ideal because it allows the use of an existing utility pole (which will be replaced for structural reasons), thus avoiding the visual impact of a new pole, and also meets the coverage and capacity needs the Project is designed to serve.
While meeting this vital communications need, the Project has been carefully designed to be as unobtrusive as possible and avoid any adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. As approved by the Department of Public Works (“DPW”), the Project consists of a replacement 34-foot wooden utility pole in its existing location mounted with two radio boxes no larger than 17 inches tall, 10 inches wide and 6 inches deep. A single 15-inch diameter by 24-inch tall antenna will be mounted on top of the pole. An electric utility meter and safety switch will be mounted at 7 feet in compliance with state law. Project plans are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The Project will not generate any noise, and the RF emissions will be well below limits established by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). A report dated
May 21, 2014, by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers (the “H&E Study”), a
Board of Appeals (No. 15-077) Thursday, June 25, 2015 Page 3 of 7
true copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, confirmed that RF emissions from the Project will be far less than 1% of the FCC public limit at ground level, and only 3% of the FCC public limit at the nearest residence. As illustrated in the photosimulations attached as
Exhibit C, the Project will have no significant visual impact. In short, the Project is well designed, unobtrusive, and will have no significant adverse impacts of any kind.
II. The City’s Thorough Review of the Project
Before DPW issued the Permit, the Project was thoroughly reviewed by other
City departments pursuant to Article 25 of the Public Works Code. This includes: the
Department of Public Health, which found that the Project will comply with the City’s
Public Health Compliance Standard and will not generate any noise (see attached Exhibit
D); the Planning Department, which found that the Project does not significantly detract from the character of the residential zoning as shown in attached Exhibit E (see attached
Exhibit E); and the DPW, which rejected appellant’s prior protest raising virtually identical issues and issued the Permit. These decisions were all based on substantial evidence, consistent with applicable law, including Article 25 and other applicable provisions of the San Francisco Municipal Code, and should be upheld.
III. The Appeal Has No Merit
The appeal presents no legitimate grounds for overturning the Permit. While appellant claims that “we have not made health a basis for this appeal,” this is disingenuous, as they then proceed to devote nearly half of the appeal to the alleged health impacts of RF emissions. As discussed above (and confirmed by the H&E Study), those emissions will be far below the limits established by the FCC. Given that, the issue of RF emissions is expressly preempted by the federal Telecommunications Act, which Board of Appeals (No. 15-077) Thursday, June 25, 2015 Page 4 of 7
provides in relevant part: “No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.” (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).)
Moreover, federal preemption applies not only to regulation that is explicitly based on RF emissions, but also to efforts to circumvent such preemption through some proxy such as aesthetics or property values. See, e.g., AT&T Wireless Servs. of Cal. LLC v. City of Carlsbad (S.D. Cal. 2003) 308 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1159 (in light of federal preemption, “concern over the decrease in property values may not be considered as substantial evidence if the fear of property value depreciation is based on concern over the health effects caused by RF emissions”); Calif. RSA No. 4, d/b/a Verizon Wireless v.
Madera County (E.D. Cal. 2003) 332 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1311 (“complaints about property values were really a proxy for concerns about possible environmental effects of
RF [emissions], which cannot provide the basis to support a decision”).
Appellant devotes over four pages of the appeal expressly to such preempted concerns (see pages 6-9 of Appellant’s brief), and the remaining issues are just transparent proxies for this underlying – preempted – concern. This is readily apparent because the other stated concerns are completely lacking in any factual basis. The alleged “procedural flaws” all boil down to the frivolous claim that appellant did not realize that the Project involved a wireless facility or did not have time to research “the many concerns associated with this technology” – an obvious reference to their preempted concern about RF emissions. Nowhere does appellant suggest that with more Board of Appeals (No. 15-077) Thursday, June 25, 2015 Page 5 of 7
time, or a different notice, they would have been able to provide substantial evidence to support denial of the application.
The alleged “misrepresentation of the level of community opposition” – even if it actually occurred – is not relevant to the City’s decision on the Project. Whether there were 2, 4, or 10 opponents has no bearing on whether the City should have approved the
Project. That issue turns on whether it meets applicable standards under the City’s codes, as three different Departments found it does.
Appellant’s purported aesthetic concerns are belied by their own exhibits. As those exhibits illustrate, the Project will not be located in an area with pristine views, but in a dense urban area where similar utility structures (traditional utility poles with telephone and electrical equipment) are already abundant. While appellant may prefer to have these existing utilities placed underground, as they concede, that request has languished for years for lack of the money to pay for it, and in any event is irrelevant to the approval of a single antenna on top of a single pole. Further, the permit specifically states that if the location is included in a legislated underground utility district, the facility must be removed. In any case, the appeal is notably silent about any actual aesthetic impact of the Project itself.
Finally, appellant’s newfound concern about the structural integrity of the existing pole is also irrelevant. The approved plans call for this pole to be replaced with a new wooden pole, which will, of course, have to meet current structural standards.
Conclusion
The Project is well-designed, unobtrusive, and will have no significant adverse impacts on the neighborhood. It will, however, have significant benefits in providing Board of Appeals (No. 15-077) Thursday, June 25, 2015 Page 6 of 7
those who live in, work in, or travel through the area with more reliable wireless service.
Mobile phones are far more than a simple convenience, as they are used for a majority of
911 calls, and increasingly used by police officers and fire fighters responding to those calls. The need for enhanced service is evidenced by the 625 Russian Hill residents who are customers of Verizon Wireless and wrote in support of Verizon Wireless’s Russian
Hill small cell network. (See Exhibit F) The appeal raises no legitimate issues as the only alleged grounds are preempted by federal law. We respectfully ask that you deny the appeal and allow Verizon Wireless’s contractor, Extenet Systems, to move forward with the Project as previously approved by the Public Health, Planning, and Public
Works Departments.
Sincerely,
Paul B. Albritton
Exhibits:
A – Project plans (11 x 17)
B – Hammett & Edison report
C – Photosimulations
D – Dept. of Public Health certification
E – Planning Department approval
F – Evidence of 625 Supporters for Verizon Wireless Russian Hill small cell network Board of Appeals (No. 15-077) Thursday, June 25, 2015 Page 7 of 7
cc: William Sanders, Esq. ISSUE DATE: 04-09-14 ENGINEERED BY: C.E.S. DRAFTED BY: C.E.S. NO. DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY:
SITE NUMBER: NW-CA-MTAPOLY-VZW NODE 149 SITE ADDRESS: ADJACENT TO 2151 JONES ST. (P.R.O.W.) SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133 PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPROVALS PROJECT DATA SHEET INDEX CLIENT THESE DRAWINGS DEPICT A PORTION OF A DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM(DAS) TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK, TO BE CONSTRUCTED, T-1 OWNED AND OPERATED BY EXTENET SYSTEMS CA, LLC, IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES T-2 COMMISSION (CPUC). A-1 A-2 D-1 PREPARED BY: D-2 E-1
E-2 10640 Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA 91345 Phone No.: (818)898-2352 Fax No.: (818)898-9186 G-1 STAMP: VICINITY MAP SITE INFORMATION CODE COMPLIANCE
SITE NUMBER:
NW-CA-MTA POLY-VZW NODE 149 SITE LOCATION SITE COMPLETION CHECKLIST (NW-CA-MTAPOLY-VZW NODE 149) LOCATION: ADJACENT TO 2151 JONES ST. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133
HUB LOCATION:
BEKINS (STOCKTON/GREEN SYSTEM)
LATITUDE: 37.801039 N. LONGITUDE: -122.416142 W. APPL TYPE:
DRIVING DIRECTIONS 100% ZONING DRAWING
TITLE: TITLE SHEET
SHEET NUMBER: REVISION: T-1 ISSUE DATE: 04-09-14 ENGINEERED BY: C.E.S. DRAFTED BY: C.E.S. NO. DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY:
CLIENT
PREPARED BY:
10640 Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA 91345 Phone No.: (818)898-2352 Fax No.: (818)898-9186
STAMP:
SITE NUMBER:
NW-CA-MTA POLY-VZW NODE 149
LOCATION: ADJACENT TO 2151 JONES ST. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133
HUB LOCATION:
BEKINS (STOCKTON/GREEN SYSTEM)
APPL TYPE:
1 100% ZONING DRAWING
TITLE: X X-X GENERAL NOTES &
before you SYMBOLOGY SHEET NUMBER: REVISION:
GENERAL NOTES & SYMBOLOGY 1 T-2 ISSUE DATE: 04-09-14 ENGINEERED BY: C.E.S. DRAFTED BY: C.E.S. NO. DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY:
15' 13'-6" 1'-6"
4
' ± CLIENT
13'-6" PREPARED BY: 1'-6"
SITE PLAN CLOSE UP 2 10640 Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA 91345 Phone No.: (818)898-2352 Fax No.: (818)898-9186
STAMP:
8 D-1
. A I D SITE NUMBER: P . 7 T O S T D-1 E E " L NW-CA-MTA POLY-VZW NODE 149 5 . O 7 8 P D-1 LOCATION: 8 ADJACENT TO D-1 2151 JONES ST. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133
HUB LOCATION:
. NOTE:
A ALL RISERS AND STANDOFF I EQUIPMENT TO MAINTAIN 1" D CLEARANCE TO COMM WIRES. BEKINS "
6 . (STOCKTON/GREEN SYSTEM)
4
1
APPL TYPE:
100% ZONING DRAWING
5 TITLE: D-2 before you SUBSTRUCTURE SITE PLAN SHEET NUMBER: REVISION: VECTOR DETAIL 3 SITE PLAN 1 A-1 Node Pole and Power Make Ready Notes ( POLE #0017CL) ISSUE DATE: 04-09-14 NOTE: NOTE: A. PG&E APPROVED CONTRACTOR TO CUT SWAP AND REPLACE OLD POLE BASE. ENGINEERED BY: C.E.S. WEATHER & CORROSION RESISTANT B. PG&E APPROVED CONTRACTOR TO PLACE NEW 40' CLASS (1) DF POLE. (SAME HOLE SET) SIGNS PER G.O. 95 RULE 94.5 (MARKING) C. PG&E APPROVED CONTRACTOR TO TRANSFER SECONDARY ROLLER AND CONDUCTOR TO N/S/O NEW POLE AT SAME GRADE 29'0" . DRAFTED BY: C.E.S. D. PG&E APPROVED CONTRACTOR TO TRANSFER STREET LIGHT TO NEW POLE AT SAME GRADE 27'10". REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE AFFIXED TO E. PG&E APPROVED CONTRACTOR TO TRANSFER SECONDARY OVERHEAD GUY FROM 23'8" TO NEW POLE AT 24'0". NO. DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY: THE SITE POLE NO LESS THAN THREE (3) F. PG&E APPROVED CONTRACTOR TO TRANSFER SECONDARY OVERHEAD GUY FROM 22'10" TO NEW POLE AT 23'0". FEET BELOW THE ANTENNA(S) G. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO TRANSFER FIRE ALARM (ARM AND CONDUCTORS) FROM 25'4" TO 25'0" AGL ON N/S/O NEW POLE. BUILDING PROFILE/ELEMENTS H. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO REPLACE EXISTING 4' COMM ARM WITH NEW 6' COMM ARM AND ATTACH AT 22'0" AGL ON N/S/O NEW POLE. (MEASURED FROM THE TOP OF THE NOT SHOWN TO SCALE I. TRANSFER TELCO TO NEW COMM ARM BOTTOM OUTSIDE POSITION - FIELD SIDE. SIGN) AND NO LESS THAN NINE (9) FEET J. TRANSFER EXISTING CATV TO NEW COMM ARM BOTTOM MIDDLE POSITION - STREET SIDE. K. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO TRANSFER EXISTING TELCO (EAST) TO E/S/O NEW POLE AT 20'0" AGL. ABOVE THE GROUND LINE (MEASURED L. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO TRANSFER EXISTING CATV (EAST) TO E/S/O NEW POLE AT 21'0" AGL. FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN). M. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO TRANSFER EXISTING TELCO EQUIPMENT (pmt) AND SERVICE DROPS TO NEW POLE OUT OF CLIMB SPACE - PER DESIGN. N. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO LOWER TRANSPORT AND DISPOSE OF OLD POLE. O. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO ATTACH NEW FIBER TO COMM ARM AT 22'0" AGL TOP OUTSIDE POSITION - STREET SIDE. P. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO PLACE NEW POLE TOP ANTENNA - PER DESIGN. Q. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO PLACE NEW STANDOFF BRACKETS TO ACCOMMODATE NEW RISER. R. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO PLACE NEW 4" SCH 80 PVC RISER FOR NEW EXTENET FIBER AND COAXIAL CABLES - PER RISER DETAIL. S. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO CUT IN NEW WYE-TAP AT 21'6" TO IMPORT NEW FIBER INTO COAXIAL RISER . T. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO PLACE NEW 1" SCH 80 PVC RISER AT 6:00 FOR POWER SERVICE FROM 1' BELOW SECONDARY TO NEW POWER METER . U. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO PLACE NEW 2" X 6" X 56" POLE MOUNTED EQUIPMENT CHANNEL AT 7:30 ON 4" STANDOFF BOLTS FOR EXTENET EQUIPMENT . (BOTTOM AT 6'± 11'2" AGL) V. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO MOUNT BOTTOM OF 1 MRRU AND ALUMINUM BACKPLATE TO NEW EQUIPMENT CHANNEL AT 11'6" AGL. W. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO MOUNT BOTTOM OF 1 MRRU AND ALUMINUM BACKPLATE TO NEW EQUIPMENT CHANNEL AT 14'2" AGL. X. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO PLACE NEW 2" X 6" X 46" POLE MOUNTED EQUIPMENT CHANNEL AT 7:30 ON 4" STANDOFF BOLTS FOR NEW POWER METER AND (N) 2 3X3 HYBRID COUPLERS 5 6 INSIDE ANTENNA SKIRT DISCONNECT SWITCH. (BOTTOM AT 6'8" AGL) D-2 D-1 Y. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO PLACE BOTTOM OF NEW METER ON NEW EQUIPMENT CHANNEL AT 7'0" AGL. (BACK TO BACK) Z. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO PLACE BOTTOM OF NEW FUSED DISCONNECT SWITCH ON NEW EQUIPMENT CHANNEL AT 9'10" AGL. 4' MIN. CLEARANCE FROM BOTTOM AA. PLACE NEW 8' COPPER GROUND ROD 12" BELOW GRADE AND 24" FROM POLE FOR EXTENET EQUIPMENT. BB. PLACE #2 COVERED GROUND WIRE FROM EXTENET EQUIPMENT TO NEW EQUIPMENT GROUND ROD. OF ANTENNA MOUNTING BRACKET CC. PLACE NEW 8' COPPER GROUND ROD 12" BELOW GRADE AND 24" FROM POLE FOR NEW POWER METER. TO NEAREST SECONDARY SUPPLY DD. PLACE #2 COVERED GROUND WIRE FROM METER TO NEW METER GROUND ROD . 1 5 INTERMEDIATE GROUND BUS MOUNTED 8.5" EST. DIA. CONDUCTOR. (GO95-RULE 94.4 A) EE. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO QUARTER STEP POLE AT 3:00 AND 6:00 FOR CLIMBING SPACE. G-1 D-2 INSIDE OF ANTENNA MOUNTING BRACKET POLE TOP FF. EXTENET CONTRACTOR TO PLACE ALL RULE 94 SIGNAGE AS REQUIRED BY LAW. CLIENT
4 D-2 7.3"EST. DIA. POLE TOP
PREPARED BY:
10640 Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA 91345 Phone No.: (818)898-2352 Fax No.: (818)898-9186
STAMP: PROPOSED 4" SCH. 80 PVC RISER FOR EXTENET COAX/FIBER CABLES ON STANDOFF (2) PROPOSED MRRU'S 7 5 NEW EQUIPMENT CHANNEL FOR MRRUS D-1 D-1
NEW GROUND BUS TO BE MOUNTED AT BOTTOM ON INSIDE OF EQUIPMENT CHANNEL 4 8 1 NEW EQUIPMENT CHANNEL FOR POWER D-1 D-1 G-1 METER AND FUSED DISCONNECT SWITCH 3 8 SITE NUMBER: D-1 D-1 5.4.1. POLE-MOUNTED COMMUNICATION SERVICE AND METER EQUIPMENT NW-CA-MTA POLY-VZW NODE 149
1 LOCATION: G-1 ADJACENT TO 2151 JONES ST. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133
HUB LOCATION:
BEKINS (STOCKTON/GREEN SYSTEM)
APPL TYPE:
1'-6" 1'-6" 12.4" EST. DIA. 13" EST. DIA. 100% ZONING DRAWING
TITLE: ELEVATIONS
SHEET NUMBER: REVISION: PROPOSED ELEVATION 1 EXISTING ELEVATION 2 A-2 NOTE: ISSUE DATE: 04-09-14 HANDLES & FEET TO BE REMOVED ENGINEERED BY: C.E.S. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. DRAFTED BY: C.E.S. NO. DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY:
POLE MOUNTED METER 3 CLIENT
PREPARED BY:
10640 Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA 91345 Phone No.: (818)898-2352 Fax No.: (818)898-9186 CANISTER ANTENNA DETAIL 1 WIRE DIAGRAM DETAIL 2 POLE MOUNTED DISCONNECT SWITCH 4 MRRU DETAILS 5 STAMP:
SITE NUMBER:
NW-CA-MTA POLY-VZW NODE 149
LOCATION: ADJACENT TO 2151 JONES ST. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133
HUB LOCATION:
BEKINS (STOCKTON/GREEN SYSTEM)
APPL TYPE:
POLE MOUNTING EQUIPMENT CHANNEL 100% ZONING DRAWING
11"L x 10" W MRRU ALUMINUM BACK PLATE TITLE: FOR MOUNTING TO CHANNEL EQUIPMENT 10.2" L x 9.45" W MRRU MANUFACTURERS MOUNTING BRACKET POLE MOUNTING EQUIPMENT CHANNEL DETAILS 5/8" x 24" THRU BOLT (TRIM AS NECESSARY) 5/8"x24" THRU BOLT (TRIM AS NECESSARY) SHEET NUMBER: REVISION:
3X3 HYBRID COUPLER 6 MRRU-POLE MOUNTING DETAILS 7 METER/DISCONNECT DETAIL 8 D-1 ISSUE DATE: 04-09-14 ENGINEERED BY: C.E.S. DRAFTED BY: C.E.S. NO. DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY:
NW-CA-MTAPOLY-VZW NODE 149
CLIENT TYPICAL BRACKET, RISER & SPACER STANDOFF DETAILS 4
PREPARED BY:
10640 Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA 91345 NOTICE SIGNAGE 2 Phone No.: (818)898-2352 Fax No.: (818)898-9186
STAMP:
SITE NUMBER:
NW-CA-MTA POLY-VZW NODE 149
LOCATION: ADJACENT TO 2151 JONES ST. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133
HUB LOCATION:
BEKINS NOTE: (STOCKTON/GREEN SYSTEM)
APPL TYPE:
100% ZONING DRAWING
TITLE: EQUIPMENT DETAILS SHEET NUMBER: REVISION:
TYPICAL RISER STANDOFF RISER REDUCER (TYPICAL) TYPICAL CANISTER MOUNTING DETAIL BRACKET DETAIL 1 3 5 D-2 ISSUE DATE: 04-09-14 ENGINEERED BY: C.E.S. DRAFTED BY: C.E.S. NO. DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY:
CLIENT
PREPARED BY:
10640 Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA 91345 Phone No.: (818)898-2352 Fax No.: (818)898-9186
STAMP:
SITE PLAN 3
PANEL SITE NUMBER:
NW-CA-MTA POLY-VZW NODE 149
LOCATION: ADJACENT TO 2151 JONES ST. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133
HUB LOCATION:
BEKINS (STOCKTON/GREEN SYSTEM)
APPL TYPE:
100% ZONING DRAWING
TITLE: SITE PLAN & SINGLE LINE SHEET NUMBER: REVISION:
NOTES 4 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM 2 PANEL SCHEDULE 1 E-1 ISSUE DATE: 04-09-14 ENGINEERED BY: C.E.S. DRAFTED BY: C.E.S. NO. DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY:
CLIENT
PREPARED BY:
10640 Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA 91345 Phone No.: (818)898-2352 Fax No.: (818)898-9186
STAMP: CS
SITE NUMBER:
NW-CA-MTA POLY-VZW NODE 149
LOCATION: ADJACENT TO 2151 JONES ST. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133
HUB LOCATION:
BEKINS (STOCKTON/GREEN SYSTEM)
APPL TYPE:
100% ZONING DRAWING
TITLE: PG&E POWER DESIGN SHEET NUMBER: REVISION: E-2 ISSUE DATE: 04-09-14 ENGINEERED BY: C.E.S. DRAFTED BY: C.E.S. NO. DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY:
CLIENT
PREPARED BY:
2-HOLE LB GROUNDING LUG 10640 Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1, Mission Hills, CA 91345 2 Phone No.: (818)898-2352 Fax No.: (818)898-9186
STAMP:
SITE NUMBER:
NW-CA-MTA POLY-VZW NODE 149
LOCATION: ADJACENT TO 2151 JONES ST. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133
HUB LOCATION:
BEKINS (STOCKTON/GREEN SYSTEM)
APPL TYPE:
100% ZONING DRAWING
TITLE: GROUNDING DETAILS SHEET NUMBER: REVISION:
TYPICAL WOOD POLE GROUNDING DETAIL 1 TYPICAL GROUND BAR 3 GROUND ROD DETAIL 4 G-1
Existing
Proposed
Proposed Extenet Antennas & Equipment
Proposed Extenet Antenna
view from Jones Street looking north at site MTAPOLY-VZW Node 149 2151 Jones Street, San Francisco, CA Contact ( 925 ) 202-8507 Photosims Produced On 3-3-2015 view from Jones Street looking south at site MTAPOLY-VZW Node 149 Existing 2151 Jones Street, San Francisco, CA Proposed Photosims Produced On 3-3-2015
Proposed Extenet Antennas & Equipment
Contact ( 925 ) 202-8507
MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 220 SANSOME STREET, 14TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000 FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010
March 31, 2015
VIA EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
Hearing Officer c/o Rassendyll Dennis Department of Public Works 1155 Market Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, California 94103
Re: 276 Supporters for ExteNet Systems Personal Wireless Service Facilities Providing Verizon Wireless Service, North Beach Area Applications 14WR-0020, 14WR-0039, 14WR-0048, 14WR-0052, 14WR-0065, 14WR-0069 and 14WR-0108 Public Works Hearing, April 8, 2015
Dear Hearing Officer:
Verizon Wireless has received 249 text messages and 27 emails supporting the proposed personal wireless service facilities in the North Beach area. A letter from Verizon Wireless Marketing Director Ross Bennett dated March 16, 2015, evidencing the 249 support text messages received, is attached to this letter. Also attached are 27 support emails received since February 25, 2015 for your review. In total, 276 residents have sent text messages and emails of support. These emails and text messages evidence the need of residents to improve Verizon Wireless service in the North Beach area from the proposed small cell facilities. Thank you for your careful consideration.
Very truly yours,
Paul B. Albritton
Attachments
Letter from Verizon Wireless Marketing Director Ross Bennett 27 Emails of Support
Ue1'fwireless Verizon Wireless 15505 Sand Canyon Ave, Bldg. E Irvine, CA 92618 March 16, 2015
Hearing Officer c/o Rassendyll Dennis Department of Public Works 1155 Market Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, California 94103
Re: ExteNet Personal Wireless Facility Site Permit Applications Providing Verizon Wireless Service North Beach Area
Dear Hearing Officer:
I am the Verizon Wireless Marketing Director. I maintain authority over the team that maintains and manages all data and information messages that are sent to Verizon Wireless customers in California. In connection with the application referred to above, Verizon Wireless arranged for a text message to be sent to customers with billing addresses within San Francisco area ZIP code 94133. The entire text message sent reads as follows:
Free message from Verizon: We're working hard to improve service in North Beach. Reply YES to show your support for Verizon Wireless small cells on select North Beach utility poles. Visit www.verizonwireless.com/mobile-living/inside/SUPPORTnorthbeach to learn more and to tell the City you support better wireless service in North Beach.
The text message above was sent on February 25, 2015. As of March 12, 2015, we have received 249 affirmative text responses indicating support for the facilities proposed in the North Beach area and 5 respondents opposed. Text messages received confirmed the need to provide improved Verizon Wireless network service in the North Beach area, including comments such as "Yes. I support having good service at north beach,""Yes better service in North Beach. Thank you!" and "Yes I support the idea for small cells in North Beach for Verizon Wireless thank you."
I am available to verify the above information as you may require.
Sincerely,
ic~~~~,.~c~ o Bennett Marketing Director Loyalty Marketing &Operations Zip Select any of the message options below to include to Custom Message Date/Time Name City Code your email to the City. 02/25/2015 7:04 Corey Williams San Francisco 94123 I support improved coverage for everyday use and The Marina District also has PM EST emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped terrible service. I am considering calls; data delays or poor cell phone reception. Please leaving for another provider. support Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/25/2015 7:04 Ronald Reneau San Francisco 94133 My schedule may not allow me to attend a public I am a condo owner that also has PM EST hearing. Please accept this email as a show of my to work from home. Please strong support for Verizon Wireless's small cell improve services. proposals for North Beach. 02/25/2015 7:13 Weiwen Yu San francisco 94133 Please support better wireless service in North Beach. PM EST This is important for my family and friends. We want to be able to use our cell phones during emergencies and for 911 calls. 02/25/2015 7:19 Richard Slota San Francisco 94133 I support improved coverage for everyday use and PM EST emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls; data delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/25/2015 7:20 Barry Prager San Francisco 94133 My schedule may not allow me to attend a public PM EST hearing. Please accept this email as a show of my strong support for Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/25/2015 7:21 Mark Sterne San Francisco 94133 My schedule may not allow me to attend a public PM EST hearing. Please accept this email as a show of my strong support for Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/25/2015 7:22 Gary Tokuyoshi San Francisco 94133 I support improved coverage for everyday use and PM EST emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls; data delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/25/2015 7:25 Shermann Min San Francisco 94133 I support improved coverage for everyday use and PM EST emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls; data delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/25/2015 7:28 Raul Perez San Francisco 94133 My schedule may not allow me to attend a public PM EST hearing. Please accept this email as a show of my strong support for Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/25/2015 7:31 William Folkerth San Fancisco 94133 I support improved coverage for everyday use and PM EST emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls; data delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/25/2015 7:35 Donn Tice San Francisco 94133 My schedule may not allow me to attend a public PM EST hearing. Please accept this email as a show of my strong support for Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/25/2015 7:45 Judith Calson San Francisco 94133 My schedule may not allow me to attend a public PM EST hearing. Please accept this email as a show of my strong support for Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/25/2015 7:52 Ryan Rosenberg San Francisco 94133 My schedule may not allow me to attend a public PM EST hearing. Please accept this email as a show of my strong support for Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/25/2015 Kathleen Burch San Francisco 94133 Please support better wireless service in North Beach. 10:02 PM EST This is important for my family and friends. We want to be able to use our cell phones during emergencies and for 911 calls. 02/25/2015 Michael Robotham San Francisco 94133 I support improved coverage for everyday use and 10:02 PM EST emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls; data delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/25/2015 Sean Pate San Francisco 94133 I support improved coverage for everyday use and 10:20 PM EST emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls; data delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/25/2015 Norman Bouton San francisco 94123 Please support better wireless service in North Beach. 11:15 PM EST This is important for my family and friends. We want to be able to use our cell phones during emergencies and for 911 calls. 02/25/2015 ms. c. fong San Francisco 94133 My schedule may not allow me to attend a public 11:31 PM EST hearing. Please accept this email as a show of my strong support for Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/26/2015 Andrew Wong San Francisco 94133 My schedule may not allow me to attend a public 12:39 AM EST hearing. Please accept this email as a show of my strong support for Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/26/2015 1:21 Eric Schwartz San Francisco 94143 I support improved coverage for everyday use and AM EST emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls; data delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/26/2015 2:43 Caitlin McCloskey San Francisco 94133 I support improved coverage for everyday use and AM EST emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls; data delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/26/2015 9:43 Matthew Bunner San Francisco 94133 I support improved coverage for everyday use and AM EST emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls; data delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/26/2015 Ron Boring San Francisco 94133 My schedule may not allow me to attend a public 11:08 AM EST hearing. Please accept this email as a show of my strong support for Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 02/26/2015 Nancy Yu San Francisco 94133 Please support better wireless service in North Beach. 12:56 PM EST This is important for my family and friends. We want to be able to use our cell phones during emergencies and for 911 calls. 02/26/2015 6:13 Charles Linder San francisco 94133 I support improved coverage for everyday use and PM EST emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls; data delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 03/03/2015 2:07 Sean Campbell San Francisco 94133 I support improved coverage for everyday use and AM EST emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls; data delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach. 03/04/2015 6:09 Doug Harrison San Francisco 94133 I support improved coverage for everyday use and PM EST emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls; data delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless's small cell proposals for North Beach.