at this facility is what we are asking for today. you are requiring that we continue to be an individual project. piecemeal and does not make sense. cumulative impact does not make sense. one last point about microwave antennas -- the project has been there for 50 years. those are big microwaves and little microwaves without incident. when microscope offline, they shut down. -- when microwaves go offline, the shutdown. in tv gulch, they are all over. each path is regulated by the fcc. we realize this issue and the other issues raised in cup perhaps were not the core issue. clear wire recognized we wanted to make sure the neighborhood was heard. through the officers of supervisor campos, we were

able to bring the property owners to the table. they sat down and executed a document which sets forth a plan to remedial the graffiti and the gaps in the fence. they have already run mediated the gaps and are today painting the graffiti. i think this is a good thing for the neighborhood and would not have been accomplished without the good offices of the supervisor. clearwater was happy to influence american -- clear wire was happy to influence american tower to do that. the wireless industry tries not to bring appeals before you. we did everything we could to directly address the issues the neighborhood was concerned about. we were only able to find that through meetings with neighbors and supervisor campos. there is an executed document now. american tower is stepping up to clean up that side. we think the ceqa issue is a red

herring. we encourage you not to require an eir, to allow the categorical exemption to stand, and to go on to the second part of this permit. president chiu: colleagues, any questions to the real party of interest? seeing non-, let me ask for individuals who wish to speak -- seeing none, let me ask for individuals who wish to speak to step up to the microphone. >> board members, i am in recent residents. i moved to san francisco recently. i think you all for your time today. -- thank you all for your time today. we recently, over the last four to six weeks, through supervisor

campos's office as well as clear wire and the neighbors in the area -- i apologize. can you hear me? through supervisor campos and clearwater, we repeated some of the issues that have been brought up and address here today. one of the things we have done very recently is created a site maintenance compliance relation plan to enforce the issues we talked about here today. the issues were the fencing, which we have already fixed the gaps in the fence in which were brought up. we initially addressed the landscaping. we already installed the landscaping. those are issues that have occurred. we plan to replace the dead trees that are there now, as well as looking at a longer term

plan to address, potentially, some other landscaping. it is something that is not required as part of the cup. it is not something we are legally required to do, but it is something we are looking at to see if we can make it less intrusive. we have looked at improving the security at that location. we have increased the number of visits we make to the site to help mediate the issues we see up there. as was brought up today, the painting has already started. all the graffiti. with that, thank you very much. president chiu: are there other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the real party of interest? seeing none, we go to the final rebuttal argument by the appellant. you have up to 3 minutes. >> good afternoon, supervisors. mining is terry mills. i would just like to restate the

point of our ceqa appeal. we think there is a cumulative effect of five antennas in five different directions from this hill that should have an eir investigation. we think that because of the size of the installation it is not a minuscule thing and no one would notice. in fact, it is a new use for the installation that has a different technology than the other antennas that are up there. and it is going to be spread across various parts of the city, so we think it in fact is bigger than just five antennas. the other thing. it is an expansion of use, and i would like to say in relation to

the conditional use situation there it has been our experience that a grievance reached outside of chambers, particularly in the planning commission, among people who have some contentions about a project, are totally unenforceable unless a city body votes on them. that is you guys today. if anybody is offering mitigation, fixing up our hill, pointing out things -- unless somebody like you guys votes on it, next week it is unenforceable. and we heard about how the planning department takes care of this. 82-year-old conditional use -- they still have another year to go -- a to-year-old conditional use -- they still have another year to go and are not going to do anything. president chiu: colleagues, any final questions to the parties

or city departments? seeing none, item 37. this hearing has been held and closed. supervisor campos? supervisor campos: my apologies. thank you very much, mr. president. and again, thank you to the appellants and the respondents and everyone who came here today. with respect to action today, there are essentially two issues we have to address. there is the issue of the ceqa exception and the issue of the conditional use. i do have concerns about some of the public health implications of these projects, and i think that the suggestion that supervisor mirkarimi made about the city having a master plan, if you will, that deals with that, makes sense. that said, we do have very

strict guidelines that govern whether or not we redact or approve the findings of the planning commission. and based on the evidence that is presented, i think that with respect to items 38 and 39 that there is no basis legally to reverse the exemption determination on ceqa. so i would make a motion to approve item 38. with respect to the conditional use, however, i do have concerns about what the planning commission did with respect to the prior conditional use. i do think it is important for us to make sure that there is compliance with the conditions that were previously issued, and that basic safety concerns are addressed. i would move that we --

president chiu: at this time, we are only considering the eir. >supervisor campos: with respect to the eir, i would make a motion to affirm the exemption determination. president chiu: that would move item 38, cabling item 40. there is a second by supervisor maxwell. supervisor daly: i would like a roll call on this item. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: no. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: no. supervisor dufty: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: no.

>> there are eight ayes and three nos. president chiu: the environmental review exemption is affirmed. it is time to take up the appeal on the conditional use authorization. we have an appeal on the see you authorization for 10 -- cu authorization for 10 bernal heights. we will continue as we have just done. there will be up to 10 minutes for a presentation by the appellants, up to two minutes in support of the appeal, up to two minutes for presentation from planning, up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor presentation, up to two minutes for speakers, and up to two minutes for a rebuttal. colleagues, unless there is any

objection to proceed in this way, let me ask supervisor campos to give the opening remarks. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi: -- -- supervisor mirkarimi: on process, a point of order, we could not have called these concurrently? president chiu: that is what i was advised. supervisor mirkarimi: sometimes we do these concurrently. president chiu: that was what i was advised by the city attorney. >> deputy city attorney cheryl atoms. the board could consider the public comment on these items together, but would have to take up consideration of the ceqa item per se. -- item first. president chiu: i would ask members of the public -- we have heard the comments you made and ask you to keep your comments as brief as possible.

any additional introductory comments? with that, again, why don't we hear first from the appellant on the specific issue of the cu authorization. >> thank you. i am sylvia mellonson, and i still live in bernal hei ghts. we believe it clear on wire's application should be denied as american tower has made its property dangerous and an ugly i cite that disrupts the park atmosphere of our open space on top of bernal heights. the permit granted allowed tmobile to install nine new receivers on the tower and other receivers were allowed

that had been installed illegally without building permits or conditional use permits. adxc has never applied to the planning commission for those, or the building commission. the 2009 permit laid out certain conditions for atc. no. 5 red, "the property owner is responsible for filing building permit applications or requiring tenants to file building permit applications to legalize existing antennas and all future antennas on the site." i heard today that for the first time that the. they have to do that is three years. -- i heard today for the first time that the period they have to do that is three years. they have not applied for one of those building permits. it has been over a year. while they may have three years, the purpose of those building permits is to make the site safe. it is supposed to be inspected by building inspectors, health

inspectors, fire inspectors. myself, my neighbors, and my child are currently walking underneath a 50 foot tower with over 50 transmitters that could be affecting us, for all we know. we feel these building permits should be applied for and approved before any new permits are given to the site owners to put up large transmitters and make more profit off of the site. thank you. president chiu: i am sorry. you are presenting on behalf of the appellant. you have up to 10 minutes, if you wish to keep speaking. >> i was having so much fun. [laughter] we also believe that atc is out of compliance on condition seven of the 2009 permit which reads, "prior to planning department

approval of the building permit application, the project's sponsor shall submit a landscaping plan subject to approval by the zoning administrator prior to permit issuance. they shall apply landscaping per the approved plan. such landscaping plan, including species, shall include tree planting sufficient to screen the base tower and the building from distant use overtime. landscaping shall be maintained, and as trees reach maturity or die of disease they shall be replaced." atc has planted in the last year tien spindly trees. 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.