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 decisions were absolutely accurate, and we encourage you to follow their unanimous decision. that does not ignore the concerns of the neighborhood, and i went to the site and i walked around the site. and there were two were a coupls where the bar was pulled far enough apart that i could climb through. it is obviously an attractive nuisance. there are security cameras on a

24/7. one of the building permits is from the san francisco police department. in order to try and address those neighborhood concerns, we met with the neighbors on a number of occasions. there was an action plan about what they were going to do. i have got copies of you that i can show you. it says specifically that if they fail to perform this action plan, that it will be a violation of the conditional use permit and will be grounds for revocation of their permits. they signed and put their name on the line. they put the deadline out in january because they wanted an agreement amongst the neighbors about what kind of things will

go up there. they have moved forward and already painted and directed defense issue. it is one of those unfortunate situations where there are graffiti artists that will go to great lengths to try to tag a particular location. we will continue to work with the neighbors. you met the san francisco resident who is ready, willing, and able. we very much encourage you to uphold the unanimous decision of the planning commission. this kind of service is absolutely necessary for the future of san francisco. there are only five small antennas that are added to the facility. one point i hope you take away with you is that it is because

they applied for this application that all of this is beginning to be accelerated. if you deny this application -- to uphold this application, they're going to be pushing to get his building permit. they can't get the building permit until these conditions begin to be complied with. if you take away that incentive, they will continue to comply, but i encourage you to approve the application and allow these conditions behalf -- allow them to put up the antenna so they can provide the new opportunity for broadband service. i will answer any questions. president chiu: at this time, why don't we hear from members

of the public that wish to support the party of interesting. >> we are committed to completing the conditional use permit that we put together a plan to accelerate those conditions. thank you very much for your time. president chiu: any other members of the public? why don't we move to rebuttal by the appellant? three minutes. >> thank you.

the tower. there is the tower. it is not going to change it that much. it is already incredibly ugly and does not belong in that part. we have looked over the action plan they gave us. it absolutely does not require the landowner to replace the fence. the only thing that it requires in a binding way is slapping up a coat of paint and replacing a lie. we requested a renovation plan, and requested a new fence. none of those requests were

addressed in the action plan. that is why we are here today. we spent a lot of time going to meetings and it was like we were talking to the wall. i would ask you to please reject the application. i know that if you try to do some building in your house without a permit, one of your neighbors will call you in. the building department will be there in a matter of hours. if you have not gotten your permits and have started work without a permit, we will pay lots of money and fees, penalties and fees. there are 50 transmitters that have not been permitted and if the fees have not been paid, the penalties have not been paid. they should be required to comply with the city laws just

like the residence. it is true that i discovered that they had not paid property taxes on this for almost 10 years. and they informed me that they were supposed to have been paying taxes. i think it is time to pull the plug, and i really implore you to please reject any new permits until the old permits are complied with. president chiu: unless there are any additional questions at this time, the hearing is now closed. these items are in the hands of the board. supervisor campos: as i indicated with respect to the environmental issues, i do not believe that there was sufficient basis to put the

commission planning how's findings on the exemption. that said, i have a problem with the fact that this conditional use was issued. i came in here with an open mind thinking there was a way for us to get to a resolution. the fact remains that the october 15, 2009 conditional use required the american power to do a number of things on the very basic level for the safety of this site. there was a requirement and along the lines that has been indicated that appropriate permits be obtained and all of those have been obtained which is problematic. at the same time, they were supposed to provide certain plans as was noted by the

planning department, there was no confirmation and no project implementation report to require to ensure the safety of the site. there was no assurance that basic public safety, things like the conditions, issues a graffiti and a number of things that point to a lack of performance with the very basic conditions upon which the 2009 conditional use was granted. in light of that, i don't think it makes sense for us to approve an additional conditional use. if they haven't been able to comply with something that they should have complied with over a year ago, i think that is problematic. i will make a motion to move

forward item 43 disapproving the planning commission's position relating to a conditional use and item 44 which directs the board to procure findings relating to the conditional use application. president chiu: supervisor campos has made a motion, tabling item 42. seconded by supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor elsbernd: i just want to make sure that the findings, this is a simplistic way to say it, the violation of the previous conditional use. the findings are not about -- we are talking about the maintenance standards. is that the motion? president chiu: what the

political rollcall vote? -- why don't we take a roll call vote? [roll call vote] >> there are 10 aye's. president chiu: decertification has been reversed and at this time, items 43 and 44 are approved. colleagues, if we can now move to roll call for introductions. >> supervisor maxwell is first. president chiu: if we take special order, we have to go to general public comment.

>> but a special order is a special order. we call it even if there is public comment on the item. >> i defer to the clerk. >> we need to go first two items -- of a. -- we need to go first to items -- ok. we need to give them a moment to do that.

there are 4 items for the 4:00 special order. madame clerk, those two items? >> item 54 is to propose an nomination for the successor to the mayor. the board as the committee meet to consider the appointment of a successor for the mayor.

supervisor mirkarimi: supervisor daly, you have the floor. supervisor daly: i will defer to the sponsors. supervisor avalos: item 55, they're both called together. president chiu: if we soulc speak on item 54, then item 55 and continue the discussion. supervisor mirkarimi: you are not on the roster. >> i want to thank my colleagues for taking part in what is obviously going to be an important discussion