me. one is the possible safety to the battery and that has been brought up over the years and it is something that obviously at least is not really covered directly in the legislation. and the other, i take exception to a comment that was made a few moments ago that we should continue using, if my quote is right, the existing clutter in our streets. i believe that this commission and the entire city should do away with the existing clutter as much as possible and not add to it and i take direct exception to that statement. commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i amgenly supportive of this situation,

but there are a lot of safety issue t not addressed and i thought an earlier version went to the health commission. is that not the case? it goes to the health department in general, but one of the things we discussed is having a hearing at the health commission and that seems like an appropriate place to discuss the r.f. and the safety issues and has come up quite a bit at this commission. some of my concerns, though s that i feel like there are a lot of unknown factors and we had an earlier wireless facility that came up and that is not clear to me what the impact on the existing and the private wireless facilities with this legislation. and the concern of the overall existing sites and it is not clear how that would not happen if we are redirecting the antennas to private property away from public property. am i wrong in understanding that? >> well, there are two different process and they are for similar

types of service, but i believe the private property installations will continue to be the primary forms of macroinstallations because the public utility poles cannot us a tan a macro facility. however, this is a way for the carriers to provide service and to increase their ability to handle capacity in residential neighborhoods that are quite honestly difficult to find appropriate private property locations. commissioner borden: this legislation deals with n.c.'s, but only public -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt, but just to clarify, this legislation is exclusive to the public right-of-way. so this has nothing to do with the private property >> on the building if they design a building, it is still permitted? >> it could be permitted under both circumstances. this legislation only deals with public right-of-way.

and any service provider can submit an application to row kate on a public utility -- to locate on a public utility pole and on private property. commissioner borden: right, but the only concern is if it's perceived that it is easier to do it on the private property and i don't want people to think we are eliminating it from the neighborhood, but it's still going to be there. >> it makes it easier to locate it on the public right-of-way which is why the carriers fought so vehemently to get the rights to install them. >> existing, right, and this is the process, how would it impact that? >> it would bring it closer to par with how we regulate on private property, but we also encourage through the tier one process a standard by which it is ar aesthetically pleasing to carriers to strive towards. commissioner borden: my question

is there was debate about the antenna size which how did the number and the antenna size that was come up with in this legislation, was that based upon what the existing antennas or trying to figure out and the industry people are saying they don't fit the size we're luthing and i wanted to understand how the number came up. >> what we did is -- first of all, the background information. the tier system emerged at the request of the carriers themselves, maybe not in the form they had desired, but it was to create a nonsubjective format where they can go to look at where to place the antennas. we looked at what the arts commission in new york city approved and we really strived towards that standard and so the tier one dimensions came out of that approval in new york city.

and in the workshops it was told very clearly to us that it would not allow for certain carriers to install their types of equipment, so we said, okay, well, since it is -- somebody is able to do it now and in the future more will be able to make smaller antennas and smaller utility boxes, so that we will streamline that process to go anywhere in the city without administrative review. however, the tier two process so if you don't fit in tier one, it doesn't mean you can't go in, but you have more in the planning process. and if you don't fit in that criteria, those dimensional requirements, we're still not saying you can't go in. you simply have to go through a tier three process. so the arguments that are being presented by the carriers are frustrating for me to hear

because they really initiated this standardization of dimensions and thresholds of where we can go and how big we can go. commissioner borden: and i wasn't clear on this issue of f.c.c. versus non-f.c.c. approved. i am very confused about that. >> i am a little bit of a layman on this as well, but my understanding is there are individual carriers and the verizon's, at&t's, t-mobiles that have f.c.c. issued licenses and a bandwidth to propagate their -- >> is there a safety advantage by having an f.c.c. approved antenna versus a nonone? >> i believe they are all approved by the f.c.c.. i'm sorry, maybe i misunderstood the xhe. >> there is some non-f.c.c. approved antennas that would fit and so in this systems not

regulated by the f.c.c.. they don't provide the service. they provide the infrastructure. commissioner borden: maybe the person who said it can explain the difference. they made an example of this and inferior antennas would be allowed basically over the approved federal antennas. maybe that gentleman can explain that to me. i am at a loss to what that meant. >> commissioner borden, brad calhoun representing t-mobile. the distinguish is that as was explained, there are basically four carriers that use f.c.c.-approved equipment under the f.c.c. license. there are other types of providers that are not in the

personal wireless service space that operate equipment that's not regulated by the f.c.c.. i wasn't implying that there's some difference in safety at all. it's just the fact that one is f.c.c. approved and the other is not. and the way this tier system has been proposed is there's a distinction on how each is being treated here under the tier system. commissioner borden: i don't know if it's any clearer now. >> right now there are no f.c.c. approved carriers that can fit within tier one. >> the f.c.c. is not required to approve these facilitys? >> the point we have been advancing is that in the second court of appeals case, there was a similar scheme that was struck

down because it relegated f.c.c. approved equipment to an inferior status and a more complex approval process than nonf.c.c. approved equipment. and that was just a legal situation where the court held that that particular ordinance was preempted by federal law because the f.c.c. occupies that field of operations and service. commissioner borden: and i was try ing trying to have a legal argument and i was trying to determine whether or not the impact was antennas potentially facility that are not as safe because they are not approved by the f.c.c..

>> i was not making that point. >> just getting more confusing talking about it and the difference is different kinds of technology or different kinds of carriers that have different requirements. i did want to speak to the question about the safety and two commissioners had brought it up. we wanted to separate that issue away from this one and this legislation wanted to address noticing and aesthetic and we actually do have a sit down meeting planned with d.p.w. as well as the city attorney's office to discuss concerns about safety and seeing if there is a separate piece of legislation that might be able to address the safety concerns and we wanted to separate it out and make this legislation clear in terms of what we are trying to address and not cloud wit a series of other things and make it more complicated for the public to understand and for committees and elected officials to understand. >> thank you. commissioner antonini.

commissioner antonini: thank you. that was one of the points i was going to bring up, i think, and correct me if i am misspeak iin. the first thing that was brought up is there are already antennas on public property. what we're doing here is we're adding the regulation from the protected areas to neighborhood, commercial, and residential which expands that area and expanding the noticing and talking about tree street buffers and setting up tiers. to it's not like we're encouraging this but basically saying that since it is here already and will be used more in the future, we need regulation. and as you said, this is on the issues i just brought up not on the safety issue and not that they are not of concern and also very much of concern for private

installations, too. and that is something we want to know about and if there are hazards, we want to safeguard against them as much as possible. one other thing that came up and i think it was answered and brought up by representatives from the industry and that is that the categorizing of the sizes they have to confirm and what we are saying in the legislation if i am not mistaking it is in order to fit into tier one, you have to be in the sizes and if you are larger, you go into a tier two and then if you are larger, you go into tier three. and there are various different processes. it seems to me that it is not say i saying unless there is something i am missing, you will fit into a different category and actually having the tier one makes it simpler because those

would more or less be approved as a right probably and that makes a lot of sense to me. there is the question about the clutter issue and things will never underground would be traffic light poles. they have to be above ground to see them and the same with street lights because you can't see the light if it's underground and you may be able to put unobtrusive antennas and that is an efficient method as long as people know what is coming and are noticed. the legislation generally in my opinion looks pretty good at this point. see what the other commissioners

have to say. >> commissioner moore? >> i am strongly interested in the legislation. however, i can not separate aesthetics from safety and i strongly suggest that the safety aspects are being fast tracked and issued at the same time and the better streets plan and there is a convergence of ideas around the larger issues that address it in a more comprehensive way. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? we have a motion. commissioner borden. >> i didn't make a motion. president miguel: okay. is there a motion? >> i'll make one if that's okay. i move to recommend to

supervisor avalos to continue forward with this legislation working with industry representatives and other concerned members of the public to craft it in the best possible way and understanding that it is dealing with the issues spelled out and future legislation or concerns about the safety aspect which i think is separate from this. that is my motion. >> i'll second but i have a follow-up question to the supervisor. is the separation between what we are looking at here and your comment with respect to looking separately at the safety issue because it is based on concerns by the city that safety issues which have to deal with equipment may be preempted by

f.c.c.? >> no, i think the only reason we are planning to separate it out is there has been a lot of interest in this legislation as it stands and how we presented it. and i think unfair to folks to throw something and really substantive in importance in at the 11th hour and have the new piece of legislation. and i would rather give it the attention that it demands and have its own process and really make sure that there is a lot of opportunity for public comment. i think it wouldn't serve the public good to throw in a weighty issue so late in the game. >> i don't have any problem with it. just asking why. >> that is our thinking. president miguel: commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i am going to vote for the motion but what is frustrating is that the legislation is provide parity and means we have more hearings on wireless facilities and it doesn't address a lot of the issues that we have been discussing here at the commission on the wire leless

facilities and the aesthetic issues have work to be done on figuring that out along with the safety. >> commissioner moore, i need to clarify that this legislation and the current legislation and proposed legislation would have no impact on the hearings that come before you. no hearings or appeals that would come before the planning commission it. and this is separate from the facilities that go on private property. >> commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: my understanding is that most of this would be heard by planning staff or by d.p.w. and perhaps park and rec depending on the jurisdiction and would be rare to be involved in the hearings on one of these type of installations and not to dismiss the concerns and safety but the same issue exists on private property. and i think you have an issue to look at and not just for public

installations and in fact, probably it is more of a concern on private property than it would be on public property in the middle of the street might be less of a hazard. you have to look at that issue separate from this issue. ceremony rr there is a motion -- secretary avery: there is a motion to approve this. secretary avery: thank you, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously.

president miguel: why don't we take a 15-minute break. secretary avery: commissioners have a 15-minute recess.