chestnut street. please vote to deny t-mobile a permit for this location. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i testified at the hearing before it was continued last time. we stand by the arguments made last month against this proposal. it shouldn't be treated annan accessry use. their needs are in no way served by this industrial construction. we stand by the field test that show no significant gap in coverage for t-mobile subscribers in the area. we are interested in hearing their response. this being a preference five

location they were ocbliged to submit an alternative site analysis but none was ever performed. t-mobile claims the antennas do not address gaps in coverage as well as a station makes puzzling the choice to such antennas so far from the areas they claim in which they need coverage. we suspect they are trying to establish a foothold on chestnut street by a low building in order to install more powerful antennas. it is not the city's job to

assist in such machinery. lacking any concrete plans, the city presents the prospect of intrusive and dangerous upgrades described as maintenance and/or neglect resulting in the increased risk of fire and other safety hazards. no easy task for a renter to have a landlord or aggressive building manager can -- t-mobile did no outreach to the community. comes at no surprise that they are being investigated for illegal placing of antennas throughout northern california. the community expressed concerns. on the 18th the board of supervisors overturned the commissions approval. it is time for the planning

commission to look hard at these proposals and discourage these abuses for the concerns of the city. please deny this permit and take d.r., thank you very much. >> we provided you with alternative sites, valid ones. they did not even try for one month to go and look at them. i talked to -- they would love to have them at the lokes we suggested. they came in with an arrogant response, not one piece of paper to our arguments. just came and said we know it all. you don't.

well, this is the case. rental tenants providing cell phone technology. it shows on all of their maps that they have more than saturated where these antennas are intended to go. we gave them alternative sites, not next to a house or anyone's living room. hay did not even bother to go and look. i firmly believe that an alternative site for this, also something i just discovered. this building is a candidate for land harking. -- landmarking. it was done in the 1980's research. this information literally came to me 30 minutes ago.

thank you very much. please deny this application. >> thank you. are there additional speakers in favor of the d.r.? >> hello. i am a 20-year resident of san francisco and i am here to speak on behalf of my former neighbors. i would like to talk about how t-mobiles proposed antennas are not necessary for this neighborhood to provide service in the events of a natural disaster or other major emergency. page 5 of the emergency response plan communications annex which was established in 2008 makes clear that cellular communications are disfavored in emergencies. cellular services in general are prone to disruption due to

user overload and system 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 siting and have they made requests for that? project sponsor, have you heard anything? >> i can't speak to the exact distances but i know that we have had multiple meetings with this markede group. he offered to do any of those measurements. the one thing that he did take measurement of is the distance between the column to which the antennas will be affixed and the wall of the closest building. if you give me a second i can look up the exact level that he -- >> i just need a distance. >> i don't have the distance off the top of my head. >> and then it would be 25 feet within the building. i guess it says that they are

to do it after 10 days of the project's completion. that would be a condition, i think. it is something that is required by the regulations. that is something that happens after the fact. we have to see about that later on. then there is a question of backup batteries. project sponsor, you can answer that? they want to know about backup batteries. >> there are none proposed here. >> none. >> but they are not proposed on any of your other installations. >> there are some that are po posed. >> why would you not say here? >> most of our microcell facilities, none generally have back up batteries. some of the larger facilities cover a much larger area do

have back up batteries. >> ok. i guess that is a decision that you have to make within your business. i will comment on that later. thank you. >> to your point about taking measurements, we are happy to take any measurements that any neighbors request. >> ok. thank you. i am not sure that we have ever looked at real estate valuations as a factor in site s. i don't know we would do that now. the height of these is 24 inches. you have a 30-foot setback from the street. a seven-foot height at the elevator shaft. i am not sure it would have any effect on the rating of the building historically. and finally, the last thing and this may not be applicable for this particular installation, but law enforcement officials brought up, they are not

relying on these for their transmissions or for emergency transmissions. but to the effect that a user has a cell phone walking down chestnut street and is being mugged or whatever the crime may be. a lot of times they just have time to go 911 but not talk. one of the problems law enforcement is running into is trianxietyulation. you know, you have to have the ability to pick up where the victim is exactly located and so that is a reason why -- not the only reason, but it is a reason that even though there may be relatively good transmission in some of the areas, there are voids and it is important that we have enough because they have to be able to triangulate. anyway, i will see what the other commissioners have to say

on this. >> i have a more general question that someone from the cell phone industry can enlighten me on. looking at some san francisco data that t-mobile has 200 plus antennas around the city and at&t has 177 or something like that. could someone answer a question as to -- it is generally understood that at&t and verizon have better coverage than t-mobile. i am not a t-mobile user. coverage is not frankly very good. i am puzzled by the fact that a company that has fewer antennas can have larger coverage. can someone answer that question?

>> good afternoon commissioners. the reason for that is they have the 700 megahertz spectrum. t-mobile has higher. if it is lower frequency it penetrates more. so it penetrates more in the walls of buildings. so you probably -- you know if a t-mobile site and at&t site with 700 megahertz transmit at the same place, the at&t site would cover more. that is basically what it is.

>> commissioners, it is also part of the business plan as well. verizon has the least number of wireless telecommunication sites in san francisco, however based on their frequency and business program of installing almost entirely macro cells, larger facilities, that is part of the reason as well. if they were installing a larger number of sites with larger antennas, requires more antennas but not as much coverage. >> that is why we have not seen as much activity from say verizon. >> correct. you will though. >> i am sure. i am looking for the next increase in speed here from somebody. >> could you clarify the issue of accessries?

>> i believe commissioners clearly understand it. the findings needed to be made today is if there is an extraordinary circumstance to deny the permit. a conditional use, the commission would have to find a condition of necessity and desire ability. it is slightly different. what is before them is made by the zoning administrator and has been a long-standing policy by the planning department since 1998. and that written determination for t-mobile and for all of the carriers for accessry use determinations has been affirmed and acknowledged by the board of supervisors

requiring the notification. so, that is all. i just wanted to make that clarification for the public and the commissioners. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> well, based upon what we have known all along, we have a lot of these that come before us. i don't believe that any of the conditions here are unusual or extraordinary that allows us to take d.r. we had a number of earlier ones today. not to say the issues raised are not interesting oneses and ones that need further discussion but i would move to not take d.r. and approve the project. >> i will second. >> i am personally left uncomfortable of going through this process.

when it comes to residential buildings, rental buildings, i feel i don't have the technical knowledge. i also do not have comparative data to other cities in terms of frequency in the number of facilities that would make me more comfortable. the one thing i always wondered about it and i just want to say it without influencing anything we do, i would be more comfortable if san francisco in general had a standard for coverage irrespective of who owns the antennas. i wish we had a network of antennas overlaid over the city and particular companies can buy into owning and the rest is all based on roaming that we don't get ourselves more and more frequently how much is

correct and how much is starting to be questionable. because what we areñ is startine questionable? the reality is that competing markets are trying to be the best and the brightest and the most covered. they are playing customers against customers. that is basically all they are doing. the effect of what it means or doesn't mean, speaking for myself, i don't. i would be more comfortable if i had a standard that is basically coverage, and everything else is companies competing within getting their share of whatever there is to be had. but to sprinkle every rooftop with these increasing numbers of spikes, i am getting less and less comfortable to be asked to make that determination.

commissioner sugaya: i would like to acknowledge commissioner moore's approach. the way that technology is heading, by the time we got around to figuring out locations, we are going to be on to the next technology. we're already seeing clear wire coming to us over the last several weeks with a different technology in cellphone data transmission. they are not using the standard kinds of things that we are talking about on this issue. it is similar, but it is a different approach, a different kind of technology they are using. it is not voice oriented. but with the proliferation of data, i think the increasing desire for data on cellphone and what will be an increasing number of tablets type devices,

they seem to have a plan in mind that will capture some portion of that market. we just approved an antenna today, but that was one kind of -- i don't know how you characterize it, but it is quite different that than me -- than the t-mobiles and at&t's of the world. >> it really ties into the type of technology they will allow you to move into the next generation. we have the apple 4g now, and you have to have a frequency depending on how much wavelength is available and enough energy to balance it through.

it gets very complex. the public doesn't understand that our hands are really tied. i think the public knows that partially, they are concerned about the way it looks. but there are smaller types of relays that produce less energy. that is more protective than these large sites that have more energy. the question is, we are basically bombarded with satellite relays, people who either watched movies by radar, you have a dish out there that would be bombarded with radiofrequency. it is a complex area. part of it is that my understanding