they want to put up as many as possible before legislation is passed. the evidence that you are looking at right now -- it is from the tracking site, and it shows the next three networks. starting in november 2008, they have had 128 permits. you can see that going from 2008 until the present. 97 of those permits are since august 30 of this year.

multiplied that by the number of wireless companies that are doing the same thing. we will be having these hideous contractions -- contraptions on every utility pole in the city. the wireless companies should be required to notify homeowners have our right to now and should have an opportunity to oppose the legislation. supervisor maxwell: thank you. good poitnt at the end. next speaker. >> i think you all carry one of these. most of us do.

without a system of wireless communication and internet access that works. we all have dropped calls, you all have had entered access that you can't get on your phones. this legislation is not the solution. we have some of the worst wireless coverage in the bay area in san francisco. the system in this ordinance is probably illegal, as you have heard. it will perhaps -- i urge the board to consider an alternative to get the departments that are involved to reconvene the wireless telecommunications facilities that have been in place on private property determination's going back to

square one, in those pictures, and those were not wireless communications equipment. those are electrical equipment, telephone equipment, current cable television equipment, old broadband wired equipment. let's not throw everything into the bathtub and say it is part of this wireless growth. if we are going to have the -- i urge you to continue this matter and have the department said down with the parties. thank you.

>> i'm wendy robinson. when i open my front door, this is what i see. [inaudible] just as described, i came home one day, and it was installed. it is monstrous. it is much worse than the

pictures of other equipment that we were shown. this is my view from the front door. if you look at it from this side, [inaudible] it is not only all of these boxes that stick out quite a ways from the poll, -- pole. you've got it sticking out, very large boxes. what they did here, they attach this big, long cage thing to hold the cords. there is an extension on top as well. it does a 24-7, sometimes louder

than other times. they are hazardous. you heard about the fire hazard. the realtors have explained to me, and it impacts the houses surrounding me. if you're wondering why we are having to lay people off, look no further. the revenue impact is going to be tremendous when it is 8 feet. [chime] i think this legislation is a good step in the right direction as has been voiced. i worry about how it will help anyone retroactively that is having to live with a buy -- blight like this. thank you. >> supervisors, first let me

state something. we, the city, should have an expert that gives us critical data on the electromagnetic field radio waves that are in close proximity to the constituents whom the pay their taxes. what we have heard here from the business people is that we can spend millions of dollars, and they do it here in san francisco. what happens in washington, millions of dollars are given to congress people by the lobbyists. they come over here and they tell us, they are discriminating.

are they discriminating? who is being discriminated against? the so-called inspectors or advocates, how many poor people are being affected by radio magnetic waves, by radio waves and in very close proximity. they do not like legislation that by to them in the butt. we need to have stronger legislation to address the situation. there is a way to do it.

thank you very much. >> i want to thank you for the legislation. i want to make sure there is understanding here. so many people who don't have home phones, they just have so funds -- cell phones. i want to know when the permitting of those devices comes up, will they have to stop those devices? does that impact service that those devices were providing? i know most people are in contact with their kids and everybody else that uses those devices.

everything under the sun, his xbox is wifi. all of these things -- as much as there is an economy being produced about it. in that area, it is the underpinning of the economy that is based on. we are not holding things up for years and years. if we are going to have people plant trees, we need to make sure that they take care of them. last but not least, the closest legislation i have heard about this, that is about 90,000 people. there is a million people using

these resources. we want to make sure we don't coincidentally impact it in a negative way. >> i am a resident and homeowner in belleville at terrace. i like to thank the supervisors that are tackling the issue. i want to speak in favor of the legislation for the placement of wireless antenna and supporting apparatus that is needed. they are very real and can impact property values. this is a real installation just

west of west portal. it certainly is very visible and it impacts the value of the property there. the installations as referenced earlier are not unobtrusive. they are typically quite large. this is the t-mobile one. it is basically two sails on top of the mast. this is the bottom part of it. some companies will report that these are baby monitors. you would have to have a baby stroller and was assigned by caterpillar to be able to support it and carry it.

it is a very real issue. there was a meeting at the planning commission where they took up this issue and unanimously approved it. there was an individual that is here today and i will paraphrase this. use of the right of way makes sense because using [chime] using existing clutter is in the streets today, and we are just adding to it. i urge you to support this legislation and these amendments. >> i am somewhat surprised that this thing about the polls and everything, they are cutting down their polls.

concerns about the beautification, i appreciate the legislation of the staff. we have the worst cellphone service around. i guess because we don't have these devices much anymore because everything is underground. everything about it, we have a hard time calling the police. i am hoping you are considering this legislation and consulting in all of the emergency people that need to be involved with this conversation concerning the areas that don't have these devices. it is hard for us to get a phone

call. it is not just a poor neighborhood since we started all of this underground, everything is bouncing off of the mountain of the twin peaks, we lose calls all the time. sometimes they're very important. there are a lot of other considerations that need to be considered when you talk about this cut of legislation. and we try to improve the quality of the cell phones and everything else. most people who don't even have the old phone anymore. it is cheaper to go out and get another one. it is easier. >> before my time starts, i need

to ask the procedural question. we received an item -- an e-mail that said this item would be coming back next week. do i understand that this item will be coming back? supervisor maxwell: if you want clarification, the item will be coming back. >> we received that this morning when they came out with this last draft. supervisor maxwell: yes, your understanding is correct. >> it sounds like your agenda on the thirteenth is very busy, he may consider taking this up in january or some other time. the wireless industry is very interested in using the right of way. i have been trying to figure out ways to work with the city to

work with other agencies. both verizon and at&t -- it requires a permit for every poll. there is a first services wireless facility in every poll. if the work was done by the different departments, you would have aesthetically acceptable facilities. we feel the legislation began to tighten up the legislation. it was introduced to a brand new item in 2010. the working group that met in 2009 has nothing to do with the working group in 2010. we feel they need some additional help.

how does it provide for a permit when the state law requires a 10-year permit? with the dimensions of antennas and radios, that is all regulated by the fcc. how do you allow for facilities that don't have backup? it argues much better than i can. it includes st. anthony's and others. supervisor maxwell: public comment is closed. i believe you have some pictures. you had some photos they wanted to show us.

do they show what people are doing in other jurisdictions? you mentioned n.y., i believe? supervisor avalos. -- avalos: essentially, we are talking about a much smaller box, perhaps it would be in greater number. i am not sure if you have to build more of these boxes, but it is much less conspicuous in the public right of way than the boxes we have seen that our actual telecommunications equipment. i think about the times we have actually regulated industry and a look at regulations, cars, and

there was a resistance. this is not regulatory, but we are trying to put standards in place. the auto-industry resisted. the telecommunications industry has the capacity to build smaller boxes and will resist this as well. we need to make sure that we can set a standard for other municipalities about how we can prevent the proliferation of boxes backlog the public right of way. the radio emissions is a completely separate matter. my enjoyment of the sidewalks is harmed when oecd's boxes of the way they are with a real and difference to what the quality

of life is like in san francisco. i think this legislation goes very far to have some accountability about what we're going to put in the public right of way. supervisor maxwell: i remember we had a big, clunky funds. -- phones. now we have small phones. maybe the boxes can correspond to the size of the phones. to the attorney, don't we regulate boxes? i don't want to say it was at&t, but there were big utility boxes in the right of way. and it seems to me that we have legislation that someone talks about that? the big boxes that were dealing

with cable, they could not put it underground? >> it was a ceqa issue for the at&t boxes. it was through that that really came to the supervisors, and the department of public works and other members have what they call a surface-mounted facilities order. they regulate how companies can place large boxes in public rights of way. it is through the excavation co- head where all the boxes require some sort of excavation to be able to set them and the concrete. there is regulation of those facilities.

supervisor maxwell: i have a hard time getting internet consistently. like anything else, i think we can do it better, and we regulate. and we have an obligation in the city. this is a beautiful city and we are known for our duty. we are known for how gorgeous is and what you can see in our neighborhoods. we have an obligation and responsibility to make sure that we understand that. our tourist dollars depend on our duty. it is about finance and it is about our city and the fact that it is a lovely city. we have to do everything we can to make sure that people respected ha. -- it.

w tha is what this is about -- that is what this is about. >> i think the amendment today was substantive. i didn't know the e-mail went out announcing that it was. i wanted to confirm whether it truly is >> kate stacey, a city attorney's office. it the city moves in these amendments, we believe they should hold off in moving them to the full board. chairperson maxwell: again, we will have a week. maybe during that time you all can talk again. i know supervisor avalos normally does a very thorough job of trying to represent everybody. thank you for that. colleagues, any further comments

or questions? the seeing none, we shall continue this item to -- why do we move the amendments first? we will move the amendments. without objection, we moved the amendments. we will continue the legislation as amended for one week. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. chairperson maxwell: well, finally, items nine, 10, 11 -- will you please read together items nine, 10 and 11? >> item 9, hearing on the status of the public utilities commission community benefits program. i contend -- the se taskforce recognition of the biosolids

digester. item 11, commending the benefits program. chairperson maxwell: this is part of our continued exploration. may i please ask you to hold it down a little bit? this is an exploration of critically important work at the public utilities commission. over the past several months, we have heard updates on the puc benefits program, the sewer system improvement, and the relationship between the efforts. i wanted to provide the opportunity for staff to report back on questions we had during previous committee discussions and to offer resolutions related to these projects. the first piece of legislation and knowledge is the hard work of the -- acknowledges the hard work of the digester task force in finding a potential site for the facility. the puc has worked on the community benefits program and

we urge them to integrate that within its core functions. within that, if you remember some of the questions we ask were related to the amount that thep spends, what formula that is based on -- the amount the puc spends and what formula that is based on. >> i am the general manager for public affairs at the utilities commission. we are excited to be back in front of you as you consider the community benefits and digester taskforce recommendations. we're here to answer some of the questions raised at the meeting in october and to provide additional and permission at this point. the main questions and take away that the meeting on october 80 -- that was around how much money the -- on october 8 -- that was around how much money was spent on puc programs around community benefits. as part of the commission's

efforts to develop the community benefits policy and program, we have inventoried all of the programs and a parts under way at the puc and identified over 80 projects and free enterprise is that demonstrate our commitment to education, jobs, art, equitable and use, etc. -- equitable land use, etc. they are everything from regional experts such as supporting community gardening in alameda county to employment opportunities for san francisco residents, to local efforts like a project which provides high school students with internship opportunities and connects those young people with public utilities commission mentors. we currently do not have a methodology in place where we are attracting the aggregate financial and non-financial investments of the community

benefits programs that are being offered. part of supervisor maxwell, your question around how much is the puc spending, and what is the process for determining those types of expenditures -- what we found with the catalog we were able to develop with our consultants is we apart -- we are spending tens of millions of dollars in community benefit efforts, whether it is employment opportunities, partnerships we're doing with the school district -- we have not been as methodical or intentional around that we have a community benefits program. in the short term from our last meeting in october, it is hard to come up with a concrete number of we are spending exactly this much money on community benefits. chairperson maxwell: maybe not concrete, but it has spent almost a month and a half.