overload at times of disaster and are therefore may not typically be fully reliable, dependable at such times. the city reports several more reliable communication systems, including the government emergency telecommunication system, the mayor's emergency telephone system, the national warning alert system, california warning alert system. the plain old telephone system, satellite phones, voice over internet protocol. several radio communication systems. the argument raised that new sites are necessary to provide emergency communications in the event of a disaster overlooks the vast cellular network already installed within the city.

631 antenna sites are operational within the city limits. in the city of only 46.7 square miles, that averages 13.5 cell antenna installulations per square mile. t-mobile leads the list. 39 more than at&t which is in second place at 173. t-mobile has the largest number of proposed cell antenna sites. in short the few antennas they want to install are not needed during a natural disaster or other emergency. please vote to deny their permit. thank you for listening.

is there any additional public comment from the d.r.? if not speakers in favor of the project. >> good afternoon. agent for t-mobile where my colleague left off. the customer complaints coupled with the data from the tests clearly demonstrates that there is a verifiable gap in coverage. alternative sites, staff will verify an analysis is not required for an accessry use application. but i can provide a brief description of the other sites that were contemplated in the area. it should be noted in looking

at the zoning map that virtually the entire area north of chestnut street is zoned for residential use. because the neighborhood is primarily residential building its immediately limits the higher preference sites in the area. there are two schools that are zoned marina midand he will an elementary school, both within the san francisco district which has a blanket policy against leasing space to wireless providers. the space within is san francisco parks and recreation property. t-mobile made numerous attempts to work with the sf parks and rec on a number of facilities, but to date none have been approved on their property. t-mobile will continue to work on a site in this area, however, even if a site is approved at this location it would augment coverage along

marina green, boulevard and the northern portions of the marina neighborhood. it wouldn't eliminate the need for the subject site at 2016 chestnut. back to the zoning map you will notice that it is zoned neighborhood commercial zoning district. most of the buildings are from a location exactly the same as the subject building at 2016 chestnut. mixed use building with commercial space on the ground floor and a few spaces of residential above. during our search in the area we looked at other buildings along chestnut but they were all the same preference level. since the subject building provides a height advantage around its surrounding buildings, it was deemed the best candidate of the options within the same preference level. as discussed in the staff report it is consistent with all accessry use findings and

priority general plan policies due to compliance with all applicable local, state and federal guidelines, t-mobile respectfully requests that the planning commission approves the project as proposed. we are available to answer any questions. we also have a representative here as well as an engineer from t-mobile. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. are there additional speakers in favor of the project? if not d.r. requester, you have 10 minutes. >> i would just like to mention that we gave them viable sites that were not checked. and the t-mobile worked with parks and rec in the past two years but seemingly not for this case. and our field tests confirmed that t-mobile has coverage in the neighborhood. thank you.

>> project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> i want to let the commission know i am happy to answer any questions they may have about the way the data is gathered, about how the dry test data is done and the maps and answer anything and hopefully let you understand how t-mobile goes about identifying areas that require additional service. i want you to know i am here to answer any of the questions that you have. >> thank you. >> thank you. i have a few questions and comments. i guess there were a lot of

comments about the possibility of fire hazard from the installation. i believe it is probably something that would be dealt with by the fire department and d.b.i. i don't believe it is something that we take up in our entitlements for cell phone installations and antennas or other. in terms of alternative, i tend to agree with the project sponsor being familiar with the area, it is almost entirely residential. any higher structures in the area would be similar to this one expect the schools which have passed legislation that doesn't allow them to put antennas on school buildings. i don't know whether that is a local or state ordinance. i would think it is local. maybe one of the d.r. requesters can tell me where

you think it can be sited that would meet the requirements for coverage? >> if you look at the maps that they submitted, the coverage, the alleged coverage is needed down near marina boulevard. it is odd that they would place these small antennas where they are proposing to place them. they got very vague when they talked about the chestnut corridor. if you look at their maps, the proposal site does not make sense. >> i understand. i looked at the maps closely too. there are some vacant areas closer to the water. i agree with you. however that may be a hearing for another site at a different day because the site, believing their maps are accurate, does

increase the coverage significantly around the area in question. it extends their good coverage a few blocks. it does not deal with the problem down by marina boulevard. i am not sure that a site here could be strong enough to cover that. thank you for your comments. what we see in our health effects and regulations from the department of health is that project sponsors, if their neighbors located it within 25 feet of the antenna, they can ask to have measurements taken from inside their buildings. i did not hear too much discussion about that. are there neighbors who are within 25 feet of the