about a random sampling. at some point, large and small businesses will be affected in each year. the only question is whether we allow that lottery to stretch out so that a couple of lucky buildings do not have to do anything until years four and five. from my perspective, these initial audits are going to occur by the end of year for. that makes sense. but i am obviously open to feedback. chairperson maxwell: i think it has been mentioned how important what we do and how we do it -- the longer we delay, i think the more problems are we -- we're going to have. i think within this legislation, supervisor chiu outlined that if people are in distress we can deal with that. we are looking in some cases from 12 months to 18 months, from six years to four years.

a lot happens within that time. two years makes a difference, looking at energy. we are looking at our carbon footprint. colleagues, with that, i am concerned and i certainly feel for those businesses. but i think they have had a while. we have been working on this for a number of years, so they have had a while to know that something was coming down the pike. with that, why don't we accept the amendments? without objection. and the legislation as amended without objection. and colleagues, we need to go back to item -- supervisor mar: i am happy to add my name as a" sponsored to this legislation, making those changes. -- as a co-sponsor to this legislation, making those changes. >> this will be a substantive amendment requiring an additional week. chairperson maxwell: then we

will rescind that vote. not on the amendments, just the vote. the item will have to sit until our next meeting. madame clerk, that would be -- >> january 3? chairperson maxwell: to the call of the chair. without objection, item is amended, and as amended it will sit until the call of the chair. we need to go back to item one. i would like to rescind item one. with that, we need to divide the file. the amendments to the first/aisle -- first divided file -- we will refer that without recommendation as amended as a committee report. and then the second item, we

will amend them. there were amendments to the second/aisle. we will pass as amended and continue that to the call of the chair. -- there were amendments to the second divided file. we will pass as amended and continue that to the call of the chair. >> item 3, ordinance amending the public works code and administrative code to create new requirements for personal wireless service facility site permits and associated fees. chairperson maxwell: we heard this last week. this will go as a committee report. we have staff from supervisor avalos's office. >> francis shea here on behalf of supervisor avalos. he apologizes for not being here to address you today.

we are asking for your recommendation on the supervisor's ordinance requiring certain fees. standards exist on private property to the wireless television -- to the commission -- telecommunications services guidelines, but no such things exist on public property. that is what we are trying to do with this legislation. you held public testimony last week. we have received e-mails and letters of support. we have also had an opportunity to review comments submitted by industry representatives and members of the public. we do not plan to make any further amendments today and ask for your support and for doing this to tomorrow's board meeting. city staff and here -- and i are here to answer questions you need them. chairperson maxwell: why don't we go directly to public comment? alissa adamo, steven koellick,

gray okey, and paul abritton. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the executive director appeared -- of san francisco community agencies responding to disaster. i have a letter to of submission for this ordinance and appreciate being here today. if we were to have a moderate or severe earthquake even right now, but we would all pick up our cell phones. we would call our loved ones, trying to let them know we were ok. frankly, not all of us would get through. there is not enough capacity in the city even in normal times to meet the demands of their with many carriers. the united states geological

survey says a major earthquake will occur in the bay area within the next 30 years. that could be today or it could be tomorrow. it could be a year from now or within 30 years. i bought a map that represents the vulnerable populations in the city -- chinatown, tenderloin, bayview hunters point just to name a few. those are highly vulnerable areas of the city. you can see those highlighted in red. in orange, we have major displacement occurring. one of the most important means of communicating after a disaster will be wireless communications. we will need towers to carry the load and battery backup to power them. the non-profit sector will depend on these communications systems to convey critical communications between nonprofits and faith based organizations who do not have

radios that police, fire, and medical personnel have. these organizations are first responders in their own right, reaching out to deliver critical missions to the people who depend on it every day in normal times. these are the most significantly impacted after a major earthquake. putting barriers in place through this proposal will only serve to weaken the overall communication capacity. thank you for considering a proposal. chairperson maxwell: thank you. >> excuse me. my name is brian -- brad cahoon. i represent t mobile. we have submitted several letters of the past year. the request that all of the cummins recorded in the record of the proposed -- all of the

comments be recorded in the record of the proposed ordinance. the city is missing an opportunity to streamline the opportunity to attach equipment to utility poles in the right of way and provide significant service to residents and visitors to the city. the ordinance will likely be pre-empted. the city will lose valuable time that could have been used for approving wireless communications that are presently being disparaged in the press and by frustrated customers. the proposed ordinance targets licensed characters, subjects them to cumbersome discretionary process. only unlicensed carriers can meet the tier 1 and tier 2 standards and enjoy a streamlined approval process. one not make the minor modifications t mobile has requested?

that would improve communications and the city rather than wait for a resolution of what could be a protracted dispute over the current ordinance. we have submitted comments already relating to the two-year permit limit. this asks why should an attachment permit be limited to two years when state law names anything less than 10 years unreasonable and federal law would render two years a barrier to entry. after the city has permitted an untenable attachment, why should the site be open for repeal to discretionary process by people who decide they like the new technology better? why should existing sites have to be removed and retrofitted? these sites have vested rights.

removing them will make the administration's worse. we urge that the city not move forward with a road -- with a vote, that the ordinance be rethought and revamped. thank you. >> excuse me. before i begin, may i have the time ceeded by another speaker in case i go over the two minutes? can we start at two minutes? thank you. my name is steven kroelligh. i am member of the presidio

heights residents for safety. we support the legislation by mar, avalos, and campos. but we would like to go a little bit further. we are very concerned about the antenna's proliferating above the ground. we would prefer them to be below the ground in commercial and residential neighborhoods. i think this is going against our policy by overloading the utility poles with possibly dangerous or hazardous lead batteries and other issues on those polls -- poles. we live in a city which has earthquakes, which has high winds. those environmental situations can cause a hazard. let me once again go to the projection here. let me put this on. this is from southern california

in malibu. the telecommunication company said these polls would go up to -- poles would go up to 92 miles per hour. the wind was 50 miles per hour. homes were burned down. lost homes, not lost lives, but lost memories. this is "the wall street journal" about wifi, which is a threat to the trees. this was in last weekend's edition. they have been some -- they have been doing studies on the damage to leaves on the trees. they are very sensitive to the impact of electronic smog. supervisor maxwell, last time we were here, you mentioned the tourist dollars coming into the city. people are becoming very sensitive to electronics amok. the man not come to our city.

put them underground. chairperson maxwell: teddy veerhez, diana scott, leslie valiander. >> i strongly support this legislation as a first step in addressing the issue of wireless telephone equipment being installed over public rights of way in commercial and residential areas of the city.

commenting on all of this wireless equipment on utility poles undermines this policy since wireless transmission cannot operate underground. the number, size, and wait along with upsized pg&e power cans are being added to polls that were not -- poles that were not built to hold them. several of the old wooden poles are not sufficient for them. at a specific address in our block, they could not get all of the equipment on their pole and decided unilaterally to run a cable across the street to

install more equipment there. dpw has been contacted to investigate and demand to remove that equipment. this example shows a disregard for the existing committee process. finally, it seems the telecom community is putting all their resources into miniaturizing the loans but do not put the same focus on minimizing the size of support equipment needed for these phones, even know they're bulky equipment terrorizes the public. they tout three g and 40 coverage. -- 3g and 4g coverage. oh gee -- how can we raced to >> good afternoon, supervisors.

outside counsel for verizon wireless and at&t. quickly, it is the retroactivity that was introduced last time. i think it is going to create incredible legal problems for the city in that you have facilities that were approved two or three years ago that are now going to fall under this new regime and simply will be protested or brought before the board of appeals and you run the risk of having to take down facilities that were approved a few years ago in violation of our clients' constitutional rights to taking a property without constitutional rights. i just want you to focus on the retroactivity. i noticed that you have a good understanding of some of the prior legislation. i would encourage some of that kind of scrutiny in this legislation as well. the second item -- i would like to skip forward to my matrix, which provided for you.

the new york model that supervisor avalos provided last time. it was an rfp to encourage the placement of facilities on light standards. the industry would love to see that in san francisco. it is not a punitive measure as this one is today, but one that encourages cooperation. since the beginning, we have suggested that there be a modification of the wts guidelines, which were discussed earlier, as a way of guiding wireless companies to work with the communities. there is no community outreach at the beginning of the installation of these wireless guidelines under supervisor avalos' proposal. there is no aesthetic guidelines here. they are only inches -- 10 or 12 inches. we strongly encourage you to take a step back, look at this broadly, as the planning commission has recommended in

the resolution, to modify the guidelines to include the right of way and not have this separate and parallel and unworkable process. thank you very much. supervisor maxwell: next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i represent at&t. i want to thank supervisor avalos' office, dpw, the planning department, the community, as well as the industry for trying to come together to find a solution that works for everybody. having gone through this, what we would like to respectfully ask is that this committee take a moment and allows some conversations to have been about rolling the public use of the right of way, the dpw process currently, under the wts guidelines. at the end of the day, what we

heard last week and what we heard with all of these industry meetings is that i go home. i wake up in the morning, leave for work, and i come home, and there's these facilities outside my house, and there's boxes in my window, and at the end of the day, the avalos legislation does not do anything to address that. where we end up at the end of the day is at the board of appeals where the industry is fighting to put up the facilities and the community is fighting because they do not want them. we all lose. if we could just take a few moments and have some conversations of our rolling this under wts where there is a community meeting ahead of time, where we as the industry can address these problems, we do them with all of these facilities, with all of these conditional use permits. why would we create additional

legislation when we already have legislation that has been working for 16 years that could easily be amended to account for the aesthetics and for the community input that needs to happen when we are placing facilities in the right of way. thank you. >> [inaudible] supervisor maxwell: excuse me. thank you. next speaker please. i think a point was just made that was shouted out, and that is for this industry folks, a lot of people here do not know exactly what speak you are speaking. we hear a lot of acronyms, so when you start sprouting them off like that, it is difficult for people to understand. the next industry person that comes up, maybe you could explain what that means. next. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i'm a resident of the our sunset, and i'm grateful to supervisors avalos and campos for sponsoring this ordinance. i think it is an important first step adding additional apparatus to light and utility poles that and not necessarily designed for these uses. i would urge much stronger language to discourage placement in residential and neighborhood community districts. i hear a lot of industry talking about how this is good for public safety, but i think communications is one thing, and public safety on the ground is really my immediate concern, not how you let your relatives know, as important as that is, so my primary consideration is what happens when this apparatus is not down -- knocked down by

wind storms that are increasing. some years back, a time in the outer sunsets attracted a lot of attention when it fell. that was a sign that had no toxic chemicals or possible electrocution ramifications associated with it. i think with climate change, we really have to be prudent and take certain precautions about these things toppling. i think we need language that would allow independent inspection of installations and whether polls can support these, not paid for by industry, but done independently under the supervision of the city. i just am grateful for this as a first step, and i think we need to be prudent. this is new technology, and whatever the claims are, we need

to know what it actually does on the ground. thank you. supervisor maxwell: next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm a mother, and in a resident of san francisco. i would like to express a heartfelt thank you to supervisor avalos for sponsoring the wireless facilities legislation and to supervisors campos and mar for cosponsoring. i fully support this legislation. it is an important initial step which addresses the issue of wireless facilities and public's right away. also, the installation of wireless facilities on utility poles can cause safety hazards resulting from fire and a lecture share from the overloading and the possibility of these toxic chemicals from the leaks of lead acid batteries.

-- electric shock from the overloading. i urge you to protect our district and children by immediately drafting additional legislation which will address this issue. thank you so much. >> hello. i'm a homeowner in the city, and i have lived here for 23 years. i care deeply about the quality of life here. i would like to echo the thanks already expressed for your efforts with this legislation. i'm here because i have had a crash course in the past week on wireless antennas and how fast and seriously they are going up at the moment in the city. an antenna is being activated as i stand here before you on my street. do i need to tell you how unsightly it is and how poorly installed it is? the crew has worked until 10:00 p.m. and on saturday and sunday, to complete their work, and it seemed to go on and on. the first thing i wondered is where else are they installing these things? are we just unlucky on our

street? there is one a single block away and two more within a four-block radius. it seems to me that this proliferation goes against any intention to ultimately buried the utilities underground, like the area immediately surrounding us. while constant exposure to one of vice might not offend, according to the fcc standards, how about this kind of density? who is asking these questions on our behalf? are they being asked? the more i research, the more i learn how my hands are tied -- how our hands are tied as residents and homeowners as far as what we can do about this, i understand that the new regulations will allow for an appeal in two years when the permit comes up for renewal. we have to live up to the monthly service crews, and the fear that this equipment might come down with a large storm for two years. i think that the public needs to be notified as part of the curve

in the process for any size antenna. politics is personal, and so is aesthetics. we should have a chance to voice our concern and to learn about how our coverages provided. the placement of these facilities across the city needs to be made with more consideration and more equity. thank you. supervisor maxwell: all right. joan hopkins, why don't you come out? thank you. >> yes, i did not turn in a card, although my name is joan. i live in north beach. i'm grateful for this legislation, and i'm grateful the supervisor campos and supervisor mar signed on to it after supervisor avalos. we all love our cell phones and with all harbor the suspicion that they are dangerous, which, of course, they are.

i've read articles about 10 years ago about the radiation from power plants. it is the same radiation. it is just that cell phones proliferated after that, and i do not think they have been studied, particularly not in america. there have been studies in europe. the industry is concerned with competition, and that is why they come and testify here. i'm concerned with safety. it is the first set. one is always told that since the feds have a particular standard and we are not exceeding that standard, that it is useless to talk about the danger. i think the san francisco board of supervisors has never been afraid to make policy statements dealing with national issues and war issues and things like that. in california, the whole statement to -- the whole state is not afraid, and i hope that

my city feels the same way about the danger of cell phones. this is the first step. there should be a lot more, and i hope you will send it on to the full board immediately. thank you. >> supervisors, i'll live on 17th avenue, and i am not fully versed in these towers that are going up, but i do know that there is a vicious-looking thing on the top of our rightful 20 feet from where somebody sleeves, and the three of us that live in the house are outraged that this has gone on with no communication to us that it was happening. at no time were we told that this was going to happen. i personally cost city and county offices -- personally

called city and county offices after this thing was a task. i found out that it was ok. it was not dangerous. i do not believe that. so we do not want it next to our house. thank you. >> i'm a researcher and statistician, and i have downloaded some of the antenna search.com data on wireless transmitters and towers in my richmond district neighborhood. there are 489 antennas within a three-mile radius of my home. many of these are multiple antennas -- supervisor mar: through the chair, can you repeat those numbers? >> yes, there are 480 antennas