effort to make something work. this double building is an example of innovative in fill design. no variance on top of a variance. commissioner sugaya: i should have continued on. i have a question for staff. if this is in the rear yard already, the required rear yard, because the variance was granted, why isn't this considered an intensification? >> the proposed sun room? is that what you mean? it is actually just short of the rear yard. it is not in the rear yard. so it does not require a variance. it is" compliant -- is code

compliant. >> the issue on the floor is to take dr and does approve the project. commissioner antonini: no. commissioner fong: no. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: no. president olague: aye. >> the motion fails on a 3-4 vote. commissioners, in the absence of a successful substitute motion, this project is approved as proposed. commissioners, you are now on item 12, 41653 grand avenue, also known as 501 greenwich street.

>> good evening. before you is a discretionary review request regarding a proposed t-mobile telecommunications facility that would consist of an antenna shredded in sideway --inside a faux vent pipe mounted on the rooftop of the subject building. it would be set back from the edge of the building. the equipment cabinets would be mounted to the wall of an existing penthouse on the northeast corner of the building. this is defined in individual letters of determination. the microwireless and cannot is

considered an accessory used in a commercial district. it requires planning code modification. macro sites require conditional use authorizations in residential and commercial districts. during the 311 notification project -- a process, a ddr was received from telegraph hill residents. they cited concerns regarding blockage of views. there are concerns regarding the upgrades to the site. during and after the notification, staff received phone calls and e-mails from neighbors in support and opposition of the wireless installation. petitions received by the department have been included in your material. yesterday, staff received a letter from the north beach

neighborhood group. i have it here if anyone wants to see it. after considering the issues raised by the dr requestor, staff does not believe exceptional circumstances exist and recommend the commission does not take discretionary review and approve as proposed for the following reasons. the project sponsor has designed the facility for the site, to be minimally of visible -- minimally visible. it meets the conditions to be a microsite. there are coverage gaps in the area. the excess reuse would fill these camps. this concludes the step presentation. i will be available for any questions. thank you for your time. president olague: thank you. dr requestor?

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i have been a resident of north beach for 20 years. with sponsorship of thd, i fought for the dr, and i am here to speak on behalf of the dr applicants. commissioners, you must see antenna proposals in north beach cumulatively. the cell phone companies are declaring open season on north beach. your stuff record fails to review and discuss these antennas selectively, and take into consideration other antennas within blocks of the proposed location, and hundreds of others already installed by various companies, all within a small, densely populated residential neighborhood. in order for this to be a meaningful hearing, the

commission needs to consider the number and location of all cellular installations by t- mobile in the same area, and all of the ones planned for future installation. these things need to be looked at comprehensively. up until now, cell phone antennas were not raining on our neighborhood. now we are looking for your help as they locate an unusually large number of antennas in a small radius. the planning department determination that these antennas are excess reuse that do not require a conditional use permit is based on an old 2006 zoning administrator's determination in a letter on behalf of t-mobile. no member received a copy of

this letter, -- number of the public received a copy of this letter, and therefore it was not appealed in a timely manner. this is an abuse of the summit in venice traders determination. -- of the zoning administrator 's determination. these must be considered as a single project. there are a rapidly increasing number of microsites that can no longer be seen as accessories. we respectfully request that you take discretionary review and require a conditional use authorization for all antenna's collectively. considering how many of these are being proposed for the city of san francisco, please take

into account the cost in hours, the cost of lost wages, and miscellaneous costs to the public, the cost to the cell phone companies, and to the city government, as each of these antennas are going to be disputed and brought before you. one other point for the record -- this department has segmented or piecemeal the environmental review defining each site individually as exempt, instead of doing environmental review of antennas cumulatively. ceqa also requires that the cumulative impact of all proposed and tennis sites and locations -- antenna sites and locations reviewed. this was not done. for these reasons, please take dr. president olague: thank you. mark bruno, christine brown, kathryn ismay.

>> are we here for two minutes? president olague: 3 minutes. >> thank you for your time. i want to think commissioner miguel for speaking with me. my name is mark bruno. i have been in this neighborhood for over 25 years. communication and accessibility is the way you have made yourself successful for us today. these are the new virtues of our high-tech society. so is connectivity. the question for policy makers is how much conductivity we need to increase our communication. communication and accessibility were always virtues. they are virtues in a democracy, virtus between friends. what we have here is the presumed need by corporations for as much connectivity as possible, without any

consideration of the detrimental effect on the inhabitants of the neighborhood, because they want to be able to argue that their company is the best, offers the most and the biggest, is the most frequently located wherever you're going to go in the world. what is interesting to me as a 52 year-old is that a young man who is quick to testify on behalf of t-mobile told me something i never knew. i asked how t-mobile is in our neighborhood, as far as conductivity. "it is really good, but always could be better." this is the mantra of people with sell funds and connectivity on their mind, including the cellphone proponents and makers of intense -- of antennas, and the building owners to profit.

there is a lot of money in it for them as well. it always can be better. does that mean the city of san francisco should invite 25 antennas on each building? to me, that is cutter. to me, who lives 40 feet away from one of the proposed sites, it is cutter to have an unnecessary and come on that side. -- it is clutter to have an unnecessary antenna on that site. no compelling case has been made for the need by t-mobile to have an antenna on the site, or any of the size proposed. they are doing it because they want to increase conductivity, because it always can be better. we all know it always can be better. but it is city government's job and will hear -- and role here to figure out, as was well

articulated earlier today by commissioners miguel and moore, to come up with a policy for north beach. that is the prospect we are facing. please accept dr for these proposals. thank you. >> good evening, president olague and commissioners. thank you for hearing us. my name is christine brown. i have lived in north beach for over 25 years. i am going to hit some of the points of the people have mentioned before. we all recognize the importance of communication and connectivity. growth is exponential. growth is great in this area, as commissioner antonini has noted. but this growth is not

unpredictable. it is not something that cannot be scientifically mapped and planned for, as commissioner miguel has noted. we have over 1000 micro and tennis -- antennas in the city currently. we do not know how many hundreds are in the future. the planning commission can be forced to deal with each of these one at a time, or a comprehensive plan approach can be adapted so that people will know where they are without a one-by-one or six-by-six examination of these towers. it is not as though three more towers are going to be enough connectivity. as mr. bruno pointed out, there is profit in putting up these towers, even if they do not add

to the communication ease in any way. there is a separation between profit on these towers and the need for these towers. please do grant discretionary review, so that some kind of comprehensive plan can be adapted -- can be adopted for these towers. president olague: thank you. >> i will be very brief. good evening. thank you for caring us all. my name is kathryn esmay. i have lived in north beach for 20 years at least. i am right across the street from where this tower will go. i will see it from my dining room and my bedroom. i am concerned about the way that will look. but i am more concerned about putting such a tower in such a

high-density neighborhood. it is the highest residential density in san francisco, and i agree with the others that it is not clear that it is necessary. i am afraid that it is dangerous as well. i should also say that i travel frequently to sweden. when my swedish friends and colleagues heard about this, the were pretty shocked. as a nation, the swedes would not have approved something like this in such a high density neighborhood. thank you. president olague: daniel marshall, julie acocks, kate wong, june wood.

>> good evening. my name is daniel marshall. i am a resident in north beach for over 20 years. i have lived in the city for 35. we all know, whether our opinion is one way or another, that this is a band-aid solution to a problem that needs a comprehensive plan that works for the residents and businesses of san francisco. please stop the current carpet bombing of the antennas in our city. this has got to stop. you guys have to make a stand and work with the supervisors to please stop this process. this is not a solution. one in town after another. thank you. president olague: thank you.

>> by name is julie jacocks. i have lived on stockton. i have some information for each of the commissioners that pertains to some technical information about antennas such as cell phone antennas are not needed for 911 calls in the city. they are able to go out no matter what the infrastructure is. i also wanted to show a map here of only t-mobile antennas in san francisco, as of 2009. these are only t-mobile. i do not know how many others there are in the city from other companies. what i wanted to read to you is about whether he should grant an excess reuse permit -- whether you should grant an accessory

use permit. according to the guidelines adopted in 1996, supplemented by the planning commission in 2003, this type of the antenna would have to have a conditional use permit. but it has been changed to an accessory use permit. this location at 1653 grant is a preference seven location. on page 7, it explains why this is a desirable location for an antenna of this type, this type of site. t-mobile is relying on the zoning administrator determinations from 1996 and engaging in an abuse of the accessory use process. there are commercial projects in

a very dense residential neighborhood, as kathryn mentioned. as a t-mobile customer, i work directly across the street at 491 greenwich, the opposite corner. i have been a t-mobile customer for five years and never experienced gaps in service or dropped calls in that time, even in the back of our gallery. i would love it if you voted to deny an accessory use permit for this site. thank you for listening. president olague: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. welcome, mr. fong. you are new to me. commissioner miguel, i was blown away by your remarks about the industry being confused and

disorganized. i think they are also apprehensive. there are three applications before you, but one has been postponed and one has been withdrawn. commissioner moore, once again you have hit the nail on the head. we are way behind other countries in the way they handle cell phone technology. we are hobbled by federal regulations from the '90s about the level of regulation -- the level of radiation that is safe. i have been told it is not good for this purpose to bring this subject up. however, by handling these one by one by one, it is very destructive. you saw the map, and you could see in the upper right-hand corner that the densest

proliferation of antennas is all in north beach. i have lived in north beach continuously since 1962. i am a native san franciscan. i have never had a drop call in north beach. the only dropped calls happen on nob hill. i have been to three presentations by t-mobile and they have been asked why they want these ariels. -- aerials. they said they received 41 e- mail requests about dropped calls. when asked who the 41 people are, basic privacy prevents them telling who they are. that should tell you something. the fact that two of these three applications -- one has been supposedly withdrawn. we expect it will be back. the other has been postponed until may. it shows you the the argument of

density, which is the reason for the discretionary review request -- you really should grant it. it is necessary to step back and look to updating the regulations about these cellphone and tennis -- and tennis -- antennas. i would like to put this in your packet for a future possibility of the board of supervisors and yourself getting together to update the regulations. it is not impossible. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment in support of this dr request for it? seeing none, project sponsor.

>> good evening, commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. i am here on behalf of t-mobile. i have been working in san francisco for a number of years. i have had the pleasure of working with this commission. i have been working on this specific project since mid-2009. i have with me the t-mobile council and one of t-mobile's engineering folks. we can also discussed exposure questions you may have. t-mobile identified a specific gap in coverage in the area surrounding grand avenue and greenwich street. these coverage maps were created using drive-test data gathered and compiled in the next few years. -- in the last few years. it reveals a large coverage gap in the neighborhood. t-mobile also received more

than 40 miles from customers complaining about a lack of service in the area and demanding improvement. we have also received more than 400 petition signatures from residents, merchants, and visitors to north beach who support this project, and ask the commission to approve it as proposed. i believe a number of those supporters are here to speak today on behalf of the project. in identifying the coverage gap, we set out to find the least intrusive means of filling that gap. the alternative site analysis in your packet identifies alternative sites, but also discusses why it was not feasible for a number of reasons. none of these alternatives were found to be less interested than what we proposed at this location. ultimately, t-mobile proposed to install a small micro-facility. it includes a 10 inch diameter

trout that is only 5 feet tall. it is set back more than 20 feet. the design includes just one antenna. it will be minimally visible from surrounding public viewpoints. the bank structure allows it to blend in with existing pipes on the rooftop. we've shown the photos in your pocket. -- in your packet. there is nothing extraordinary or exceptional about these visual impact. the exposure limits for the site are less than 1% of the s.e.c. limits. there are no extraordinary are exceptional circumstances here. we ask that the commission stick with mr. hollister's recommendation and not take dr. >> thank you for listening to us today. as you know, you are too

exercised discretionary review with utmost constraint. we do not believe there are extraordinary circumstances. there are not any of the impact you normally would vote on in terms of noise and visual impact that are exceptional. the neighborhood meetings we have gone to, the primary concern has been about emf. as you have heard, we are 1% of the emf standard. under federal law, that is not an area within your purview. also under federal law, you have to have substantial evidence to deny this site. that is not just general objections as you have heard this evening, but specific objections to a site that would fall under a ceqa analysis that staff has said are not there. t-mobile has shown a significant gap with coverage maps and drive-test data, which is what they are supposed to do under federal law. they shone with alternative analysis that this is the least

intrusive means of filling that gap. agora hills, recently a case stated that t-mobile has demonstrated a significant gap. it shifts the burden to the community or local jurisdiction to identify other steps -- other sites that were less. in addition, hundreds of these sites have been approved since 1997. in 2006, without discretionary review. we feel if you accept discretionary review, it would constitute discrimination under federal law. as you know, this is a very complex area. we understand the comments you have concerning the impact of these facilities. they are individual facilities. they are like a light bulb in a street light. the light up a particular area. they are unique and respond to

demands that have been placed on the industry by an explosive desire for these new technologies that save lives. we have over 400 signatures. president olague: think you. we have a few speaker kurds. -- cards. kye pom. >> thank you, commissioner. my name is jeff senti. i am a district two resident. i publish a newsletter read by 12 dozen people involved in social media, twitter and facebook. when i go up, every block is marred by these hideous things called telephone poles. it is basically a dead tree and really ugly capacitors and wires

running to each person's home. children being born today will never know what a telephone pole is. children being born today will never know -- will have no understanding why anybody would ever want a telephone that is attached to the wall. when you hear about all this social media stuff, this computer is the stuff you do the heavy lifting on. everything else you hear about is done mobley -- on mobile. we need to support the going forward. i have trouble believing some of the things i have heard today. any large, successful carrier like t-mobile would not create useless antennas. i think whoever was proposing that would not have their job very long. these things need to be maintained. they nto