we have generations of cell phone people using these. in fact, up one bank of our representatives was using his iphone to read the new york times. it is about that wireless experience on the go. i want to make sure you guys know how important these are for my service and for other customers that have great service at t-mobile. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am going to try to be brief. i do have another stack of petitions that are enclosed as part of the record and also letters from the north beach neighbors. i am going to leave that for you. it comes down to connectivity versus disconnectivity.

north beach has been disconnected for quite some time. i am concerned that this governing body is thought that disconnected from the laws on the block. federal laws and state laws ask us to ask the sponsors to follow specific guidelines. they also ask them that to meet the requirements that are spelled out clearly. t-mobile has met all of the necessary requirements. there is nothing here that is extraordinary or exceptional that you have not seen before. i urge you to not have d.r. and approve the project as proposed. there were people that were opposed that attended that meeting. we do have a healthy debate. ultimately, they believe that

this will provide the necessary improvement in the current cellular service in the neighborhood. and that the company will take the steps to minimize impact from the micro-antennas. we believe this meets all of the necessary safety standards. t-mobile has worked hard to make sure that these will not be visible from the street and design them to be with existing roofs. ultimately, it passed. we went to in north beach merchants meeting yesterday. at that meeting was another healthy debate. i think that group had more concerned about the industry as a whole and shaping future laws. that was helping the commissioners that brought up a comprehensive plan in the future about how to handle these things. here and now, we must vote on

this, the laws in the look. >> is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. for the project sponsor. now we return to the d.r. request terrorist for two minutes. >> the argument is not against connectivity and cell phones. we all love our cell phones, we all use our internet and we want to be on the cutting edge of technology. we ask that you stop this practice of reviewing these proposals one antenna at a time. this is not working out for our

neighborhood. this is a dense neighborhood. there are concerns about the placements now and what is coming up in the future for our small neighborhood. >> project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> thank you. i want to say that this accessory use process directs the industry to put up the smallest, most diminutive facility possible. it is a five-foot chimney that is 10 inches in diameter. this is the kind of policy that you want to encourage. these are the kinds of things the other communities are clamoring for. you have to think that this is working. you have heard the demand and

some sort of major master plan. the carriers are obligated under injured guard by to provide a five-year plan for all of their proposed facilities for the next five years. it is on mine and it can actually be mapped. the progression of these networks are thought about and they're designed to keep up with the capacity growth we are having. i encourage you to understand that the impacts of this site are the sort of things you are working for. they provide the vital live- saving service that the community wants. it allows the police officers to be connected to the emergency services. we do not believe that they are extraordinary or exceptional impacts of these facilities. we do not believe that you should review each of these facilities.

>> public hearing is closed. commissioner anthony. commissioner antonini: i mentioned on an earlier hearing about going up on the roof and being able to see the siding for t-mobile. the one on the roof, you could see, the other two, you would have to look really hard to distinguish them. i was impressed with what they were doing was a lot of what we mentioned it to try to be as comprehensive as we can be, given that we are one company. we are dealing with an area of north beach and we realize the coverage limitations. instead of having one large power which would have more emissions, they are having three smaller towers. one has been continued. we look at the coverage and i

can see where this antenna is improved. we are not just talking about our coverage. we are talking about indoor coverage. so many people use it as a primary or only means of communication. i am an old school guy. i have a very old cell phone and i have a lot of paper records in my office. i keep those because i do not entirely trust the system from going off. there are people that are almost completely dependent on wireless for almost everything that they do. there is a lot of support for this. we saw the amount of support that i had. good points have been made about looking at some sort of comprehensive plan in the future. we are dealing in the present when we have certain tphones,

and certain companies. everybody has to communicate and get their messages across. in regards to some comments about having too many towers, i think the idea is to have more smaller towers. i happen to live in a lakeside village. this is a whole different kind of communication. it shows you the kinds of things that can happen if your tower is too large and it has too much the missions. it had to deal with television reception where the cable was not strong enough. it would often buzz the reception because it was overpowering getting through the insulation. this was about 10 years ago. they have improved a lot. you are better off with more smaller antennas than you are with one large antenna for a lot of reasons.

i am supportive of this proposal. at this time, we will hear in a few weeks another one that maps out another portion of long -- north beach to cover. there will come a time in the future where we will be able to look at things more comprehensively. perhaps a carrier will come to us with their installations for the next year for the whole city. that would be nice to have that kind of thing. i do not expect, given the competition that exists, that we would have to look at them connect -- collectively. that would be something for the future. >> commissioner moore. commissioner moore: 3g, 4g, connectivity, and done it, doing it, continuously doing it.

that is not the issue. i am not against creating the coverage and connectivity and all of that. i am totally in favor for it. what we said at earlier on, i am repeating. i am looking for a comprehensive pushed by the city of san francisco to solve this in a manner that does not look at these things in a scattered, one by one way. everything that i know and everything that i read, there is significant evidence of this. however, i think it needs to be studied for a longer time frame. the time frame starts today by trying to be comprehensive. this city can be the leader next to silicon valley. i do not believe that the city should be doing an experiment against better knowledge of how

to do it. i repeat the word comprehensively. do one thing i it would like to say, i do not appreciate to be set to appear. there are no federal laws which cannot force me to speak against my consciousness and a fan for the citizens who have pros and cons about what i need to ask for. i do not like to be threatened. i am going to vote against this particular application in front of us, not because i do not support connectivity and all of those things available to lot but i am going to not support it based on my eighth request that we do it differently and get different guidance on how to do it. >> commissioner miguel.

vice-president miguel: i would like to echo for comments. my position has nothing to do with health. i have children and grandchildren that do not have land lines. i understand that situation. more and more, that will come. my problem is that we are being piecemealed to death. this commission's here master plan on educational institutions, on hospitals, all of the time. there are times when because we have them from various numbers of institutions that we are able to compare the impact that will be coming to the various areas of the city because of those master plans. if we had in front of us the

master plan of the various carriers, we could understand what is happening to the city. without that and without a comprehensive plan, i cannot support this. commissioner antonini: this is an ongoing process. we have to make sure that we do not leave people out in the cold. i think people have spent fishbowled in san francisco because what happens here is look at around the country. that is good and bad. fifth we take a reasonable study to study a comprehensive solution over a period of time, that is a good idea. this sends a message to people that we are maybe not in favor of electronic indications and

other things that people will look at and make decisions and business decisions based upon our position. i think we have to take the middle ground, which is to approve the reasonable and compliant installations during the time this is being studied. i was going to make a motion to approve. we have a motion to approve this conditional use. >> commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i think is to not take d.r. a long time ago, another one of these antenna things, i asked for staff to try to work with the companies to get whatever their master planning efforts are at this point or were back then, what ever it was. i cannot believe that the

companies do not know where their weaknesses are and where their strengths are and what their next move is going to be with respect to building antennas or whatever else the next form of technology is going to be. we already have a different form of technology in the city through clear wire, which is associated with sprint. their technology is a little bit different than the regular cell phone towers we are looking at here. there was an article, i did not read it. in the future, we may not have antennas as we know them now. who knows where that is going to lead? the other question i asked a while back to the staffers to those who know quite a bit about

cell phone and tennis was about the differences in the kind -- and tennis -- antennas was about the differences in this kind of technology. a lot had to deal with the bandwidths and they were using and how long particular antennas can transmit their signals. horizon, -- verizon, at&t, t- mobile, some have less antennas. that relates directly to the kind of technology that they are using. i do not know if t-mobile has more or less. in the san francisco as opposed to los angeles or phoenix, -- which are relatively flat, i would expect that they need a

lot more hills because -- and cannot -- antennas because of the situation. they need to switch between antennas depending on what part of the city they are in. in the northeast area, there are more antennas than whre the commissioner lives. it seems possible to me. in terms of this particular location, it seems that t- mobile's coverage, people could argue that it is not very good. it seems to fill in a gap. i am glad that they would go to the stockton street location. that definitely seem to be redundant given this particular location. >> commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i would

agree with commissioner sugaya's comments. it would be great if we could look at the master plans or the five-year plans of the cell phone cos. the truth is that our purview of the commission is limited. we have to make a decision about this. in terms of the aesthetics, the micro site versus a major site. there is a good argument for this. there is not a legal argument to say that this does not fit. we have to say, what is the solution? we have this issue with lack of coverage. i can tell you the number of places that i cannot check in. everybody knows me. i do know that there are gaps in

coverage is. -- coverages. i work for a technology company. in other countries, they are only using broadband. in remote areas like alaska, they communicate solely through cell phone technology. people are carting around ipads and other sort of tablets. our growth has exploded. companies have been caught flatfooted. they are catching up by building these additional and cannots -- antennas. part of it was not anticipating this. that is where we are today. we do have the complication of the landscape of san francisco that does not make it easy. you can be at the front of her apartment but at the back, it is

actually quite interesting, the challenge there. i would have to address the board of supervisors as they take this issue up looking at how they might engage the health commission. i have mentioned the ideas about are there certain heights of buildings that make sense? are some two tall stalks are some too short? there have to be some ideas about that. we do not necessarily know the next generation of technology that is going to take hold. to the extent that this meets the requirements that it sets forth in our designation, we have to support it. >> i am in support of this particular one. i sense the frustration among my colleagues for a master plan. there is a letter to the mayor's

office, how do we get the master plan in front of us? i would vote no for a long period of time if there was a large amount of time in front of us. >> i am not sure that i know either. individual companies have plans. whether that is proprietary or not, we will find out. it is because we are dealing with several different companies. there is not much overlap between them. they all want coverage of the same areas. i can simply say that what i will do is i will go back and i will talk to the supervisors. i know that the supervisor chu is very interested in this

topic. i do not know where that is heading. why do we not in the end to run again back to you in a memo describing what we can and cannot do describing the information that is available to us. perhaps, if weekend, an initial scope of what our master -- we can, an initial scope of what our master plan might be. >> we are going to be doing the same thing here for the next six years. thank you. >> we are addressing some sort of comprehensive master plan and would take some sort of department told collaboration. there are several different agencies. we tend to do it with the

anesthetic, the fire department, the clearance around the facilities. it would be a larger department will review. >> we have commented on this earlier. we are in a very frustrating position for lack of a better word. we are very limited in one criteria. even though i might want a comprehensive master plan, that is not the tools that the city is currently providing the west to confirm or deny this type of project. -- me with to confirm or deny this type of project. this is very nuanced.

this affirmed and disaffirmed some of the concerns that the public had about this type of abuse. we have been clamoring for this for several years. i have been here for four or five years and have asked the city to do this. there is no moratorium on this. we vote a certain way based on our criteria. we appeal to the board of supervisors, they will use a broader group of criteria to overturn a positions. it is a ping-pong effort that goes on here. it is really exploiting the public si's time and project sponsor's time. it is not healthy, for lack of a better term. we are just going around in

circles with this. i hope that we can work with the commission secretary avery to draft a letter to the land use chair, whether that means another task force, i do not know if that will get us anywhere. he mentioned all of the different groups that have to be at the table to figure out something that is going to work. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i forgot what are was going to say. >> i am sorry. commissioner sugaya: i would like to go on record as supporting everybody's thoughts as far as looking at it more comprehensively and having the staff take a look around as far as what iraq -- of best

practices might be out there. they would have some information on what they might be looking at. some resolutions would be for the city to talk to the federal government. in fact, i would rather spend our time looking at what is possible in the city rather than trying to lobby the feds at this point. maybe some other cities have a more comprehensive way to look at this. it would seem like they would see if there cannot be more. i do not know if this is good or bad. you may have two or three. maybe people do not like that approach. i. writing something -- i support

writing something to somebody. >> i think san francisco has a track record of setting a national example including the federal government. i heard people in the audience mentioned sweden. there are definitely other countries. we are the one that does it. it is good for us to get a little bit into the research which under the director can be brought forward for some of the reasons you were mentioning. i would support that. >> commissioners, you have a motion on the floor to approve this project as proposed. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner moore: aye.

vice-president miguel: aye. >> the motion passed 5-2. >> the next two items we are going to limit public toto two minutes because we are way behind on our calendar. we will go to 14 and then 15. >> commissioners, you are on item number 14. that is for a 1258 lombard street. >> commissioners sugaya has to make a comment. >> good evening, president and members.

>> i think i need to reveal contacts that i have had. the original historic building was demolished. the whole episode took place following the demolition, i do not know how many weeks later, we received a telephone call and a request that we examine the salvaged pieces of the building. they are out that a site. i personally went out and took a look to put together a proposal for architectural services. subsequently, one of the architects in the office went out and took a second look at the salvage pieces. this is mainly the front part of the building. subsequent to