have that happen after they are certified and that there be more substantive projects, mets, or whatever. and rather than having this constraint being a trigger for an appeal, it tends to cause actions to happen in short order after an eir is certified because it can be appealed immediately. supervisor maxwell: i understand that is a concern. with this legislation, how are we dealing with that concern? >> it does not deal with that at all. it continues the conditions and allows other documents to be appealed after an entitlement action.

it does change with respect to categorical exemptions and interruptions by president c hiu. no right to appeal would be forfeited until the discretionary actions are taken. as the attorney said, some actions have nothing on the planning commission. there are different kinds of permits. we would basically say that the last of what ever permit you need is the trigger for shutting off any rights to appeal. supervisor maxwell: any further questions or comments? public comment is closed.

supervisor chiu: in the amendment that i offered, i want to just clarify the first line. it will be no more than 20 days after the final discretionary action. i suggest we substitute the word "after" for "of." supervisor maxwell: without objection, so moved. on the legislation as amended. supervisor mar: i appreciate the work that they have done on this item, but a number of questions have come up hope and i feel uncomfortable hoving this

forward at this time. i want to see more questions raised by a number of advocates addressed before voting on this. supervisor chiu: i feel the same way, but supervisor alioto-pier and her office has worked closely with lot of at activists. they may get a lot better, and i am pretty comfortable where it is right now. i know we have made a lot of changes in the last few minutes, and i think for everyone's say to have a final look at would be helpful. if we continue this and next week, a look like a chance to move it out. supervisor maxwell: you would like to continue this item until next week, december 13? >> i just want to point out the

we have only been the leading most of the provisions. we are not adding anything other than supervisor chiu's amendment. i have been told that they are non-substantive amendments. supervisor maxwell: the way we have amended it, the legislation as amended. we will continue this item until december 13. without objection, so moved. would you read the next item please? hong >> of the ordnance amending the public works co to to establish a new requirements for personal wireless services and increasing certain fees. supervisor maxwell: supervisor avalos has joined us. supervisor avalos: just

grabbing my notes. huwhat we have here before us is legislative -- legislation setting standards for right of way incenses go. it was first introduced last january and has been a very deliberative process working with the city department, the planning department, and stakeholders to come up with this policy. and there is no equivalence for antennas installed on public property. i first got involved with this legislation after receiving numerous complaints from district 11 residents that would come home to see a set of large, metal boxes installed on utility

poles outside their houses. constituents complained about the lack of public notice and the very industrial-like installations. in the past several months, i have met a lot of people that have had this experience overnight. and in the course of one weekend, different cocktail parties, i have talked to many families that are worried. they're always worried about radio emissions. this is really about the aesthetic. if you look at district 11 and district 10, and have the

largest proliferation of utility poles were the have not been underground. that gives us an ample room for wireless technology facilities to be placed on those utility poles. what you have is often what looks like the wild west where holes and boxes are put up. they are a very large apparatus that will stick out and be extended halfway down. it really indicates that there hasn't been a real focus about how we maintain the aesthetic standards in our public right of way. they are not just places to attach boxes for a purely utilitarian purpose. they have to serve a purpose that makes the neighborhood level. it gives a sense that there is

actually a sky in san francisco and provide greater enjoyment. about two months ago, i saw large brown boxes put in. on brazil's street, you have a poll where you see boxes talking about maybe about 2 feet from the toehold. there is a bay window to the opposite side where you are walking through on the sidewalk and it feels like you have very limited room to walk through. it is not always just the style you see where the facilities are causing an imposition. it is actually just the sense of our sidewalks and the space that we have. the legislation does -- it

establishes a review process depending on the proposed size. and based on the visual impact of the facilities. there are three tiers. the first would have a very streamlined process for having those ok'd. the second would have made review process depending on whether these facilities are going to be installed in a protected location, meeting in residential or commercial zone district or in an area adjacent to a historically significant buildings or district. they would also receive a further review about their compatibility determined by the planning department or the recreation and parks department.

the third would be a larger facility, larger than the first to and would require an automatic review by the planning department. the legislation adds and allows the ability to protest before final approval of an application. there are protected areas that would trigger additional review. we are adding language to describe those protected areas to include presidentially zoned districts and commercially zoned districts. we can lead to ensure the historic resources and public parks would also go through an additional review process as well. the legislation also at the section encouraging the planting of trees where it is practical to plant them to increase in greenery and serve as a screen

in front of the equipment. that is to provide a balance in the technology that is being provided. there are numerous and stakeholder meetings to get this legislation together. conversations began in my office, my legislative aide has that wonderful job and i want to thank all of the different stakeholders for their input. the planning department, advocacy groups, neighborhood organizations, we have attempted to address a lot of the concerns. some of been concerns were we are constrained by the telecommunications act of 1996. and where we can put as much effort and legalized standards in place to protect our public

right of way, that is what this legislation has tried to do. city policy is constrained by state and federal law. we cannot address public health impact as long as they are within fcc guidelines. the legislation does not go as far as most parties would like, but we would make the situation and process better if we improve this legislation. the planning commission held a hearing in october and voted to support the legislation. i have an amended version that i am introducing today. the language is that it is the intent of the legislation that all wireless equipment on our public rights of way, under this legislation. this amendment clarifies how that will happen. we can talk about some of the

other specifics we might have in terms of this amendment and other parts of the legislation. i think this presents a real way that the city can be enforceable and could create a good system to approve and move forward on wireless technologies in san francisco. supervisor maxwell: why don't we hear from the city attorney? you wanted to go over some amendments? >> of the amendment as a whole will be the most appropriate one how to address the issue about existing facilities and that there is a renewal process the facilities will have to undergo. there is a way for the facilities that are in place to be able to conform to the standards that they are putting in place.

>> de want me to just address the amendments? there are two amendments that extend to the applicability of this particular ordinance. we have to situations now. there are probably 200 or so that have already been permitted under the existing scheme that would be repealed by the legislation and those permits have be with for renewals available. what this would do is it would take -- he will not review those existing permits, he will bring them into this legislative scheme when the renewal comes up. it will have an order that will institute a process for that. they would be permanent under this scheme for two years with

renewal under the new scheme. it would not have to take them down to apply for the new permits. everything would remain the same. there were a handful of permits that were installed in san francisco before we had a wireless permit at all. the second aspect of this section would bring those into the permitting scheme also. sometime after this ordinance is affected, dpw would be required to apply for permits to maintain those of facilities. there is another small amendment that is section 1522, the modification section. the shot have a modification unless it meets the requirements of article 25.

it is just being added back and make clear that a modification where you might have to go back to square one. >> you have to come under this legislation. would that require you to do something different? >> it could. for example, if you had a facility now that was in a residential district and it was installed under the prior scheme, it would have no review by the planning department or by the public. because it is in a residential district, assuming it is tier 3 , if they apply for the permit and it turns out to be a residential district, it would have to go to the planning

department for review and would have to go through the public notice process. who can say how that would come out, but it would be a very different process for an existing facility. supervisor maxwell: and they would basically be doing only the aesthetics? >> for the most part. supervisor maxwell: thank you. public comment? supervisor avalos: i forgot at that legislation is co-sponsored by supervisors mar and campos. supervisor maxwell: if you hear

your name, please come up. [reads names] >> i represent t-mobile. the company extends their severe appreciation for letting us be a part of this process. 4g is upon us. customers demand coverage everywhere. it requires carriers to install more wireless antennas. attaching equipment to existing polls is a good idea. the idea is to blend into existing infrastructure with which everyone has grown up and become accustomed within the right of way.

with this background, the staff has a knowledge before the planning commission that the amendments are pushing the boundaries of what the telecom act is allowing. the amendments simply go too far. the federal telecom act -- the city cannot create a preference based on size, shape, and number of equipment. on the advice of attorneys, they removed tier 3 necessity standard. the fcc occupies the entire field.

the public-works department cannot second-guess the fcc. [chime] those dimensions have been submitted the staff. t-mobile disagrees because the city would be giving an advantage to a competitor. there are some other issues related to discrimination that i am sure the other carriers will touch upon. supervisor maxwell: please come right on up, we have allowed to do. we distribute -- >> we distributed antenna systems.

we are a competitive local carrier. our biggest request is what we provided with you, in quality. legislation that is motivated towards a certain type of technology violates both state and federal law. if knowledge is the city's right to legislate and to manage the right of way, reasonable control shall be applied to all entities in equivalent manner. the federal telecom after says that local governments may ms. the public right-of-way for use of the public right of way on a nondiscriminatory basis.

if sx is the concern of the board, which we believe it is, it be expanded to all types of a clear and that is and the right of way equally. electric transformers, boxes. we would like all utilities to be treated equally. in addition to that, they will have the effect of prohibition of wireless services unless the city will work with us on working with us. that way ,4g and 3g services could be offered. thanjk you. >> i am speaking as an individual.

i appreciate your legislation, i just wish it went further. most of us have been brainwashed which is to not address the elephant in the room, the health hazards of cellphone technology. it seems that the feds have decided we don't have to worry about it. in san francisco doesn't want to go against that. our state and our city are willing to go against the federal law about marijuana. i don't know why the city is reluctant to address the obvious health hazards. in northbeach, t-mobile and has been trying to put 3 antennas up. i hope that the supervisor is somewhat supportive of your legislation.

the looks of it is not really my concern. it is health. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i live in district 2. i am a member of the presidio heights residents. this is an important step, a first step in protecting our neighborhoods from these types

of industrial facilities. the citizens want to know what is going into their neighborhoods and of well affect their safety. it is crucial that additional legislation be drafted and introduced as soon as possible on the safety hazards presented by wireless facilities and utility poles as these hazards are not addressed by the legislation before you today. as you can see from the news item i'd is headed back of the projector, back in 2007, wild fires were started in malibu because of wireless antenna equipment. the overloaded and broke in 50 mile an hour winds when they are supposed to withstand a 92 mile an hour wind.

developing a new set of rules, governing the wireless equipment. i think we have to have an inspection here. there is no inspection protocol in place. it is therefore essential that san francisco's the ford and use the powers under the constitution to ensure the wireless facilities installed not present a similar hazards to those that resulted in the malibu wild fires. may i finish a supervisor maxwell: please? -- please? supervisor maxwell: no. thank you. gosh i am here on behalf -- hats

off to supervisors mar and campos. this is a critically important step to deal with the serious problem unheard of the proliferating wireless equipment on utility poles. this legislation is a real important multi-base hit. you have the opportunity to make this legislation a home run. there can't be any doubt about the scope of the problem. let me just show you what i did this weekend as i walked through when st. in a different district- -- one street and a half in a different district. this was one area, about --

[inaudible] i live in this neighborhood. . [inaudible] the point of this photograph is, this is the kind of equipment that is electrical. this is the context of which other facilities are being put up. here is another facility. this is a good one. the important thing here is that this is almost at high level. -- eye level. [chime] supervisor maxwell: thank you. >> we will be submitting some

written suggestions. we are voting on that tomorrow night. it's short and sweet. supervisor maxwell: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i want to thank you for being here this afternoon and i want to thank supervisor avalos for sponsoring this legislation. thank you for looking at this issue, everyone. legislation is a great first step, but it needs to be strengthened.