three are dead and have not been replaced. even if they live, they do not screen the eyesore of this site or make it have anything like a park-like atmosphere, as would be appropriate for the middle of a park. we have approached this matter in negotiations with american tower. they did present a plan, but the plan did not offer a firm commitment for a firm, clear plan to remedy their landscaping plans as we have asked. thankfully, a few days ago, american tower patch the huge holes in their offense, which we elected them to more than once, holes big enough for an adult to easily walk through, as you can see when you are up there. up until this morning, there was graffiti. people are walking on. as a mom with a kid who is just beginning to explore a wonderful residential neighborhood on his own. these gaps in the fence have literally kept me awake at

night. it is really scary. and it took atc almost two weeks to fix these gaps in the fence. defense is an aluminum fence. it is corroded. it is very easy to bend and break. we have asked them to commit to replacing the fence, and they have refused to do so. the plan presented did not present a firm commitment with a firm date to replace the fence. the plan it presented also upset in the future there would address life safety issues within 15 days. that is interesting. life safety issues addressed within two weeks. i do not think that is being a very good neighbor, quite honestly. i think if their power went off and there were not able to use their transmitters, they would be up there within an hour. we feel this shows a serious as

regard to the community, and i feel it is inappropriate to reward this illegality in this regard with permits that allow these companies to do business as usual. i think that they should be forced to give firm commitments and change their site, renovate their site, so it is appropriate for residential neighborhoods and open space. in closing, we feel atc is in violation of their 2009 permit and have been irresponsible when loners -- landowners. the should not be able to install more transmitters on their power. we hope the supervisors will suspend or revoke their 2009 permit at least until the conditions laid out in it have been met. in the past, the planning commission has chided act for the state of their property and asked them to take minimal

actions regarding the esthetics of the site. however, we feel more drastic measures should be taken since this situation is really dire. we hope you will work with us to bring atc into compliance in a meaningful way. not a slap on the wrist, but a meaningful way. we think the way to do that is to deny them more business as usual. thank you. president chiu: thank you. at this time, why don't we move to any members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant with regards to the appeal of the cu authorization. we ask you to hopefully not repeat any other comments to previously made. please step up. first speaker, please. >> good evening, president chiu and supervisors. i think it is illustrated we do not see these towers on the plaza or the southeast corner of

the presidio, or even in st. francis park. i think that is something. i would not want these eyesores in those neighborhoods, actually, but i think it really says something. just because they have been there for 50 years, they need to be addressed. i think it is a disaster. we have seen these pictures. a think it is a real indication that these are relics of the past that have been placed in parts of the city that perhaps do not get their due. i am very concerned about the aesthetic as well as the health issue. i think there is a real question there. it is not placed in a part of the city where people of means could oppose it and removed. >> my name is robin mackey. i am a resident of north bernal heights. i am also a teacher at city college of san francisco. i teach english as a second

language. i told them about our hearing today and our problem up there with graffiti. my students actually were teaching me. they told me that when they had graffiti on their property that they clean it up very quickly, because they are afraid of getting fined or ticketed. yet up there on our hill, the american tower corporation site has been covered with graffiti four years with no fines. it would lead one to believe there are too laws -- one for corporations like them and one for ordinary citizens. i ask that you deny atc all permits until all the antennas are properly permitted and until they fully comply with the 2009 cu permit. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is christine olsen.

i live at 300 san bernito way in balboa terrace. i am in supervisor elsbernd's district. my husband and i own a home there. we have lived there for 23 years. i am here to support my neighbors across town in asking for this reversal of the planning commission's approval of the conditional use permit for the antennas in bernal heights park, and i ask the supervisors to vote in favor of the appeal. for me, it is an aesthetic issue. when guests from out of town come to visit, i take them to this beautiful, charming area of bernal heights. i find it a quick and charming neighborhood. i take them to see the views, but instead of looking at the views over the bay, they look up

to see the top of the hill. they look at the cluster of antennas up there, these deteriorating antennas. and they looked at me and say, "in america, your government allows installations like this in the middle of a public park? you should be ashamed." and i am. i am ashamed, disappointed, and embarrassed. it is a visual blight and and as the catastrophe for the city. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i represent the presidio heights residents for public safety and public policy. we do not have one in san francisco. we do not have one in the nation. but i would like to bring in another agency which has failed

us as a nation and as a county of san francisco. that is the epa. the environmental protection agency has a sub clause in their regulations for our nation. these are called the nuisance caused. if your neighbor or someone near you, or some corporation with which you are experiencing corporate imperialism in san francisco -- if they do something which affect your health, your property value, your family, where there is danger and so forth, you have the right under the environmental protection agency to protest this and make a claim against that particular person who is making your life hazardous. the potential of having cumulative damage such as cancer, leukemia, and other health disorders. please address the epa or have them look into these issues locally, nationally, and globally, and the impact on the

people of san francisco. i can hear to support the other side of town. let us support the city and put a blockage, a barrier, to the telecommunications companies who are coming into the city and suppressing what we do not want. we know what is best for our city. we live here. they do not. stop fascism. stop this kind of imperialism that is dominating our people. they have the money. they have the lawyers. they have the time. we have the sincerity. we have the health of our city at stake. thank you. president chiu: next speaker, please. >> my name is chris houston. i am currently involved with the push back against tmobile and similar income is being installed haphazardly across our city. i want to make a quick

observation from the few moments that have passed. i thought it was interesting that the defense actually mentioned that the paint which is covering the graffiti around the proposed site for antenna upgrade it -- the paint is still trying. it is interesting that this is a corporation that runs out in the middle of the night and besides maybe it is time to clean up the graffiti, because we are looking for an exemption. that is all i can say on that one. i want to point out the use of cumulative. often we use the word cumulative and people ask about cumulative effect. typically, the health department or the people looking say we did measurements and are counting cumulative effect of all the antennas combined. cumulative also have to do with time. if you are wonder one of these 10 tennis -- if you are under one of these in tennis, you are being exposed -- if you are

under one of these antennas, you are being exposed without a time horizon. people in this room are afraid to use the word radiation, but that is what it is. i wanted to make a clarification on cumulative. i want to add that i in general think you should deny -- i guess the exception passed. but we should really look closely at these permits and look at who is applying for them, and their past behavior. thank you. >> david swarheim. i would like you to deny this conditional use permit and support the appeal. i want to think, with regard to rfr, the fellow who spoke from the health department about all the studies that are being done. this is not a closed case. i know we are not here to argue or not argue whether the standards are okay or not.

we can only argue with what the standards are. i think supervisor mirkarimi for the possibility of going further than what we have no, which is not sufficient and gives us antennas like this one. i want to say maggie earlier mentioned about the double standards. there is the issue of how much property tax are they paying for this site, which is making them tons of money off of all the stuff involved. they are paying $0 in property tax. that is pretty unreasonable. the residents nearby pay their property taxes. the corporation pays zero. i wanted to also talk a little bit about the emergency response. sulfone carriers like to say you need the cell phones in case of emergency. what they do not tell you is when there is an emergency the cell phone is the first thing to

go. the land lines are what people will live on. the talk about some of the city guidelines about it. the town has previously submitted excerpts of the city's emergency response plan. what it says is that cellular services in general are prone to disruption due to user overload, system failures at times of emergencies and large events, and may not be wholly reliable at all times. the city side several other types of communications. thank you. >> frank neiger. 79 waltham street here in san francisco. on the ceqa issue, i served seven times as mayor of fairfax county. there is no one at cellphone

antenna in fairfax. a number of carriers have applied at fairfax. the have always conditioned the approval with the completion of an environmental impact report. they have done that for over a dozen years. to this day, not one carrier has provided that in our mental impact report for fairfax. today, they are challenging pg&e is smart meters. the town council may be a little to the left of the san francisco board of supervisors, but that is ok. i appreciate the good work you do here in san francisco. i hike on the hill with my grandparents -- i hiked on the hill with my grandparents, and today i hiked on the hill with my grandchildren. five generations of us have lived on the hill, a couple of feet west. it is time to make up for all the previous mistakes, and it is time to do what is right by our neighborhood. please reject this project.

thank you very much. president chiu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is bill mieto. president chiu: i want to remind people again the rule in the board chamber is not to express support through applause or criticism or opposition to commons. we need to abide by that in order to get to these proceedings, so i ask you to respect the rule. >> my name is bill nieto. i am glad i came today because the do not understand a lot what is going on. i hear the people from clear channel saying it is only -- i did not write these number down -- it is only a small percentage when you look at it. i did not find out how many antennas are up there. when there are 60 or 70 antennas, do you multiply that by the 1% you talk about?

instead of 1%, you are talking about 50%. like you were asked over here, they do not have 50 environmental studies. that tells me something. you can come to my house from over here. you can check it out. i do not care. why are they -- we don't have to do this, so we are not going to do it. they are not telling us. i am a little uneasy with that feeling, you know? you do not have to worry. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> terry brooks, representing san francisco green party. we took a position on this a few months ago, that it basically boils down to if there are other ways for people to get access then broadcasting like this, if

existing coverage is ok or there is another way to get access without doing of this kind of a big broadcast project, it should be done. i am not seeing that. it is unnecessary to do things like this when there are other ways for people to get the same bandwidth and ease of access. thanks. president chiu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this side of the appellant? >> yes. i used to live in bernal heights. there is a beautiful view at the park. , i think is anyone connected with the fcc? without telephones, we could not talk. we know tmobile, in the city, oftentimes their antennas -- we would be without service, but would have to pay a bill. get it or not, you had to pay

for it. we need to make sure that these antennas and the people are getting their share for the little guy. sometimes they get something by it. thank you. president chiu: and the other members of the public wish to speak on this appeal of the cu? if not, let us move to planning. >> i am from the planning department, here with erica jackson, the planner for the project. i am not going to go into a lot of detail. i know time is tight. i went into the background about how the power came to what it is today. i want to reiterate and remind the supervisors of two things. the 2008 conditional use authorization which legalized and permitted 71 antennas still stands. if this conditional use authorization is by any chance overturned today, clear why're will still be able to put up several of their dish antennas

as long as they do not exceed the 14 cap that was set by the planning commission. in addition, there can be the 71. it is still applicable for antennas to go on the property. however, we do want to get compliance for the owner. like i mentioned earlier, there is a three-year window. currently, they have pulled the building permit for the landscape plan. it was reviewed for the zoning administrator. it was partially installed, or installed as planned. unfortunately, it sounds like some of the trees and plants did die. we would vigorously follow up on that. but in terms of the clear why're application, the planning commission did find it necessary and desirable for several reasons. one is that it is on a project location site which is basically an existing power that consists

solely of antennas. this would be a small swap out of the antennas. the planning department and commission view is this is a perfect site for antennas. second, they found it to be necessary and desirable because it will provide adequate data service, adequate coverage as well, and adequate capacity not just for the neighborhood but for the entire city and county of san francisco. this is a new type of technology and it is needed for this company to actually exist and provide the services. with that, if there are questions, i am here. i would be pleased to answer them. president chiu: colleagues, any questions for planning staff? supervisor campos: if i may, just briefly, i am wondering if in the conditional use determination -- the extent to which failure to comply with the conditions of the 2009 approval -- to what extent was that taken

into consideration by planning? >> planning did take that into consideration. the planning commission did as well. as i mentioned, when this application came through and went for the planning commission in july, we did look through our system and we did see -- and erica worked with the ca to approve the landscape plan. dbi did issue permits for the landscape plan. as far as planning was concerned, the earlier conditional use conditions were in the process of being complied with. in terms of the existing conditional use on appeal today, we have the building permit sitting upstairs. that could always be held and will be held if this is upheld until the earlier compliance issues with the overall site are taken care of. supervisor campos: if i may, through the chair -- specifically, did you consider whether or not they comply with section 10 of the 2009

conditional use, which required the preparation and submission of the project implementation report? >> are you referring to the 2000 -- the early see cu? supervisor campos: the earlier cu. >> the maintenance schedule? supervisor campos: the project implementation report which is on page 12. >> give me one second. supervisor campos: exhibit a, conditions of approval. >> i do not believe -- i will talk to erica jackson -- that they have submitted a project implementation report. tmobile did receive their building permit after the initial building permit for the underlying was taking care of, but we do not believe this has been taken care of. supervisor campos: ok.

did you take into consideration -- and based on that, i assume you did not confirm compliance with section 13, which is notification of the project implementation report. i imagine that is also the case. >> that is a dpw notification check, and i do not know. i can ask patrick if he did inform -- this is a standard condition that is in every single conditional use for a cellular installation. >> the question is where the residents notified. that modification is done by the

cellular carrier. generally speaking, they have a third-party engineering firm that does that notification, and they go out and take measurements in anybody's dwelling that is interested. my guess is that there is not anybody located within 25 feet of that. i am guessing a few hundred feet is the closest residents. supervisor campos: do you know if a community liaison was appointed for the conditional use? >> tara sullivan. the community liaison has been established. it is in their five-year report. it is part of all of their community liaisons'. it is bill stevens. there is a number on file with our department. supervisor campos: there are a number of issues, just a final set of questions in terms of the conditions of the site. there were some requirements that were supposed to ensure the

safety of the site, including the condition of the fence, graffiti, landscaping, lighting , response procedures in the event of complaints. was that verified -- compliance of that verified by the planning commission prior to issuing the cu? >> i do not believe it was, because the existing permit was still out pending. i think the department believed they were coming into compliance. supervisor campos: thank you. president chiu: colleagues, any additional questions? when we can now move to the real party of interest for a presentation of up to two minutes. >> bill stevens from clear wire. i will try not to be redundant, but i did want to make a couple of comments. clear wire has stated it is a

federally licensed wireless broadband service provider. we do data service only. it is very high speed data that requires a lot of capacity. i bring that point to your attention. that is the basis for our requirement. we do microwave 0.2 point shot so we can get enough capacity over distance to connect the data signals onto a sonic rain -- ring. it is a business model where we can sustain competitive pricing for our potential customer base, which is public, private, commercial, institutional. our service is to offer high- speed wireless service to anybody who wants it. hopefully that starts to bridge

some of the digital divide in this country as well as offering convenience of a wireless network. i will restrict the rest of my comments. i just want to call your attention to the staff report from planning. it is comprehensive. it does address our priority one status for selection of this site. these points remain eloquently put. i will ask bill to make a few additional comments on our behalf. thank you. >> good afternoon, mr. president, members of the board. it is a pleasure to be appear before you. i do want to encourage you or urge you to uphold the unanimous decision of the planning commission. i am going to put up on the lightboard the tower we are talking about, which has existed since 1960. although there are issues of fencing or graffiti, which i will address in a minute, the trees around it now were planted back a long time ago.

as you can see, it is on the top of the hill and quite a distance away from all of the residence. this is a before and after picture and you cannot see any difference. there is before. there is after. the issues that face the planning commission are essentially is this necessary and desirable for the community. as you heard, this is a new service that will be provided, 10 megabytes per second wirelessly to anybody's home. it is an alternative to comcast and uverse. it bridges the digital divide. it is part of the broadband division. some of our federal funding is trying to reinvigorate our economy. i see item 51 on tonight's agenda is a broad band initiative. this is an important issue for getting people back to work and getting people into home offices. it is desirable not only for this committee -- for this

community, but the entire city. there are several telecom updates and so forth in the past that indicate the importance of this. i can say personally that when the earthquake occurred in 1989 my cellphone worked when my land lines went down. there are backup power and other facilities that keep networks running. i have to emphasize this is not a cell phone network. this is broadband internet that is being provided to all sorts of devices. the potential is phenomenal. the second part of the determination made by the planning commission is whether it is compatible with the neighborhood, whether it is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare. again, the planning commission unanimously agreed it was compatible. it is hard to say that those four 1 ft. microwave antennas are somehow going to make this facility incompatible with the neighborhood. it stretches the imagination. their decis