san francisco should not handicap itself by getting behind on communication technology. there is no evidence of environmental impacts. the planning commission has already approved the antenna. please deny the appeal. think you very much for your time. -- thank you very much for your time. >> good evening, board of supervisors. my name is steve ike. my company does aerospace engineering work for nasa. my understanding is that t- mobile has met all the requirements. i heard the testimony from the planning commission earlier that supports some of their plans,

which includes making sure that this meets the health standards. the talk about the rf commissions, etc. it is common knowledge that the s.e.c. -- the fcc will not approve any of these intense as if there is anything health-was wrong with it. it is not harmful to humans. that is what science proves to us. it is also not harmful to the wildlife, as someone quoted earlier. i think it is about quality of life. we'll have cell phones. we have pdas. most of what we do today, we rely on these phones. we also rely on the pga -- the pda device is to reach our information. it has become part of our lives.

i think it is no longer a luxury. in third world countries, most of them do not have direct calls. it is the same in some areas of san francisco. i think this project will improve the quality of life of san franciscans, especially those that use pda devices and cell phones. i urge the board to support the implementation of this project. it makes good business sense and is also the right thing to do. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, supervisors. it has been a long day. i appreciate all of you staying here to listen to all of us. my name is ron lee. i worked for at&t for 30 years. i worked around these cell sites, radio towers up in the san bruno mountains. i used to stand next to them all

day long. i am living proof. i am not sick. i do not have cancer. none of the bad stuff people talk about has happened to me. my co-workers -- i do not know any of them that ever got sick from being on a cell site or radio tower. i just want to point that out. i am living proof. it has never affected me or any of my co-workers. i hope that you will deny this appeal and let everybody in the neighborhood have full-service so we have reliable cell phone service throughout the whole north beach area. thank you very much. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is mike lee. i have been a resident for 10 years. i am also a retail business owner very close to the site. a lot of my customers are now

starting to use technology to incorporate wi-fi purchasing processes. i hope you guys do not stand in the way of that future technology. i am concerned about this issue, and personally collected 120 signatures of my fellow merchants. i got this approval with their signatures. it says as merchants working and living in the north beach area, we do not oppose this. i urge you on the high court -- on behalf of this project to deny this appeal and carry forward the project progress. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is marsha garland. i am a 35-year resident of north

beach and a business owner for the same time. i am probably the first person in my generation to eliminate her land line. when i first did that four or five months ago, everybody was very concerned for me. actually, i totally rely on my cellphone. we have had enough studies done. the engineers and the department of health agreed there is not a safety problem. each antenna site is monitored, as you have heard, every two years to ensure they meet federal safety guidelines. if the cumulative radio frequencies were to increase a lot, they would have to change the antenna. that is not a problem, because they are low-powered antennas anyway. if we are going to study these, we might as well start studying microwave ovens, electric blankets, and cell phones, which most people seem to be attached to. there has been enough study.

there should not be any more delays. delays cost us money and we are in a budget crunch. i think we should just get along with this. i hope you will approve and uphold the planning commission decision back in february. thank you. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is stefano. i spent about 20 years doing community civic work in the north beach area. i am a member of north beach -- north beach neighbors and north beach merchants. i went door to door to try to do the out reach that was required. one thing that i did discover was that this decision, although it is for grant avenue , has a significant impact on the whole city. that is why it is before you

today. in the short time, we were able to get letters asking to deny the appeal from the alliance for a better district 6, which is jane kim's district, the mission district business improvement association, the jackson historic district association, the inner sunset group, the terrible park -- the taravel park merchant association. the city did an excellent job in the study and showed that the project sponsor met all the requirements the city has asked. there is also federal requirements that were met. this is something that is not done overnight. it takes about three years in san francisco. i urge you to deny the appeal. support the planning commission.

this is a thorough and comprehensive thing. thank you. >> i am dave cruz. i am a resident of district 2. well this is not in my backyard, i wanted to speak on behalf of public safety. i am a public safety professional. i do wireless for a living. i do not typically take sides and am not taking a side for this project. i think somebody really needed to answer your question, supervisor mar, about why so many antennas. unfortunately, t-mobile did not do a good job of answering. it is because these received. the big powers are not transferring as much as they are receiving. to be able to listen to you when you say, "can you hear me now," when you are in a closet, calling 911 -- that tiny signal

coming from your phone is trying to get across town to that site. the closer it is to you, the more likely it is you will be able to make that call. there is nothing more frustrating to a public safety is better than wireless phone call. they are afraid the call will drop. the typically do not get your number or where you are calling from. the cannot provide you help. it is very frustrating. there are tons of sites that are going up. the power levels are so low because radios keep getting smaller. the amount of power coming out of them keeps getting less and less. the planning department did an excellent job of explaining the volume of how much emf comes out of those things. from the public safety side, more and more people are using 911 on cell phones and not land lines. that is just the way things are going.

think about that when you get all of these applications. somebody handed this to me to give to the board, so here it is. [applause] president chiu: i think he spoke on the other side on this. and unfortunately the rules are we can only allow you to speak once. but i think now everyone knows you have changed your mind on this, so thank you. thank you very much. [applause] next speaker, please. >> my name is rebecca shapiro. i think we have already submitted a letter stating we are in support of the t-mobile tower and we do oppose the appeal that has come before the

board of supervisors. i will just read briefly from the letter. north beach neighbors supports approving the installations of micro cell antennas at these locations. we believe they will provide a necessary improvement on cellular service in the neighborhood and that the country has minimize any negative impact. it is our understanding that the proposed installation means necessary safety standards. t-mobile has worked to make sure the antennas will not normally be visible from the street. i wanted to come here this evening and the state the position of the north beach neighbors and separate from that, i will state that i do own and manage my own business in north beach. i also live here in san francisco. i actually still do have a land line. i do not actually know the number to it even though i have been there for five years.

and never give up the number. but i have to call out on that number when i am at home. otherwise, on my cell phone, it drops immediately, randomly at any time. and i find it very embarrassing that in san francisco, the backyard of silicon valley, we are still coming across these challenges. we should be at the forefront of technology and should not have problems with having our cell phones drop on a regular basis. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is jose ricardo. i have a collection of 500 letters from various organizations, from the san francisco mission business improvement association, the after sunset merchant association, and north beach

neighbors. that is from local residents and merchants. >> i just want to say one thing. president chiu: i am sorry, but you have already spoken. thank you very much. thank you. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of t-mobile? seeing none, let us hear from the appellants for orbital. -- for rebuttal. >> this morning, david chiu, your office for did me an e-mail from hammond and edison. i have a rebuttal for that e-

mail that arrived at david chiu's office. i want to point out that the letter is contradictory. they make a blanket assertion that there are no rf levels in excess of the public exposure limit in san francisco but it knowledge that they are exceeded in a certain perimeter of each in tennis facility. the testimony asserts that no member of the public could ever access an area within the perimeter that would result in exposures above this limit, but this is false in many situations where members of the public have access to roofs, where antennas are located, which is the case at 1653 grant. they can go on the roof and party anytime they like. the way such situations is typically dealt with is by installing signs that warn of

rf levels in excess of limits. but installing a sign that limits might be exceeded is not the same as asserting they are not exceeded anywhere in san francisco. i also want to point out that hammond and edison has in the past given testimony that is not credible. consider the documents i am submitting, which detailed an instance when they measured cumulative rf levels above fcc levels at lookout mountain colorado. but then the testimony -- and they testified to the local government debt delimits did not exceed fcc levles. -- levels. >> we are a small group of local north beach residents who

live within 25 to 50 feet of the proposed antenna. we do not have the funds to hire a lawyer. we do not have the funds to hire a professional. but our concern is very real. i just wanted to remind you that ceqa says the environmental document that is approved is appealable to an elected body. we respectfully submit that in this individual site in a residential area, it cannot be valley waited alone, and therefore is not exempt from ceqa. we are not necessarily saying that it requires the i r -- eir. but evidence indicates there are 550 reported in tennis by the cellular industry, 308 proposed on their plan, and additional antennas not on their plan, according to --

president chiu: thank you. that concludes the appellative for a bottle. that includes oral argument on items 17 through 19. first of all, i have quick questions for staff. the first is to ms. rogers from the planning staff. there was a question around why it was that this is a dis- favored site but the appellate did not have to prove this is essential. i understand we have an answer for that. could you explain that? >> as you have described, this is a micro cell site. it is small enough to meet that criteria. as such, it is not required to go to a hearing before the planning commission. it is small enough to be considered excess reuse. the commission is not required

to make any findings for the sight or hearing about for either the smaller accessory use incidents or places where a larger antennas are permitted as a right. only wireless antennas require a conditional use for macro cell sites in residential districts. president chiu: the planning department could decide to change its guidelines, right? >> yes. the procedures we have in place are procedures that are not legislated and could be changed. president chiu: thank you. one final question to the city attorney's office. we had a discussion around the federal telecommunications act. i would like your opinion on the impact. if we were to uphold the appeal, it is it your opinion that we would be open to a lawsuit?

how clear is lot in this area? >> the pre-emption question is quite clear with regard to the city's ability to deny the project based on its radio frequency emissions. if that were the sole basis for the board to overturn the appeal -- overturning planning department determination and uphold the appeal, i think we would be quite vulnerable. president chiu: thank you. colleagues and ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience in listening to this hearing as we grapple with this difficult issue. i want to also thank the neighbors in the northeast neighborhoods i represent for your patience and all the work you have done. i know there are a lot of neighbors on both sides of this. every single one of us relies on a cell phone.

we are often frustrated by coverage but understand the concerns of neighbors who worry about environmental effects. we are trying to grapple with how we balance those needs. i think the fact that the 1966 tillich commission caissons act -- telecommunications act, although it was passed a long time ago -- it is the law. rarely does the city attorney of pine as clearly as she just did today -- does the city attorney opinie as clearly -- opine as clearly as she did today that we do not have the authority, given federal law here. i would ask that we affirm the cadex which is item 17, and table items 18 and 19. that being said, this is an issue we have to tackle.

we will have subsequent conversations about this with the planning department. the do think our city needs a master plan. we need to move forward with that. we need to set up a master plan. we need to figure out where and how frequently we should be siting these around the city. i would like the planning department to give us guidance. consider requiring these micro sites to meet the same standards as the macro sites as far as being able to prove they are the essential when it comes to where they go in the neighborhood. i want the planning department to move forward on that, if that is possible. these are separate requests i am making to the planning department.

i would like to make a motion to a firm. -- to a firm. supervisor campos: the hearing has been held and closed. now we have a motion to approve item 17 and table items 18 and 19. can we have a roll call? supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: no. supervisor mirkarimi: no. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. >> there are 9 ayes and 2 nos.

president chiu: the categorical exemption is affirmed. if we could call item 20. >> item 20 was considered by the land use committee at a regular meeting on monday, april 11, 2011. it is a resolution opposing the golden gate national recreation area's propose alternatives for dog management. supervisor weiner: thank you. yesterday, we had a hearing on this issue, the proposal to restrict off-leash access. it was a very productive hearing. we had a ton of people come out from the public to testify, a lot of people who had never been

to city hall before. i also want to acknowledge gg came out as well. we had good feedback from animal control as well. in addition, since we called for this hearing and introduced -- took up this resolution, there has been more interaction between the city and ggnra, including meetings with city departments. i am pleased with that. i have very serious concerns about this plan in terms of the impact it will have on dogs and their owners in san francisco, as well as the impact on our city parks. for that reason, i cannot support what ggnra is doing, and they need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a different plan. the mayor is requesting we

continue this for two weeks. he would like the opportunity to engage directly with ggnra on this issue to see if there is any way to make that a productive process. i want to respect that. in addition, having the mayor communicate directly, in my view, can be a powerful thing. at the mayor's request, and in the hopes of moving the ball here, i am going to move that we continue this for two weeks. i want to say one thing. it is very consistent for this board to come out against the ggnra plan, but for the city to continue to talk to and negotiate with ggnra to move us in the right direction. i do not know if this will impact the final result, but i want to give the mayor the space

he needs to have this conversation. that is my motion. president chiu: that is seconded by supervisor avalos. >> two weeks is april 26. president chiu: without objection, this item will be continued to that date. we now go to roll call. supervisor kim: sumit. -- submit. supervisor weiner: i have one thing. it is a good thing. as my colleagues will remember, we had a little bit of a disagreement about the metropolitan transportation commission appointment. i am happy to announce that we have a resolution to that controversy. it is a resolution that i believe will result in supervisor capmos and i serving

on the mtc together. the mayor has appointed me to that seat and so i know it will be coming up at the rules committee soon and supervisor campos has my full support for appointment by the board. i think the mayor for reaching out to the board to resolve what was proving to be an impasse. i think it speaks volumes to the mayor's leadership and desire to work productively with the board. i just wanted to announce that. president chiu: in reaction to what supervisor weiner just said, i am glad we were able to avoid that potential dogfight. i look forward to our commissioners representing us. i know their leadership will be greatly appreciated in the

coming years. i do have one in memoriam, for a 16-year-old sophomore from thurgood marshall high school. he was brutally taken away from his family. he was someone who was much loved by his friends and by his teachers. today, students at thurgood marshall high school are signing an 8 foot banner memorializing him. the banner reads, "rest in peace. we will miss you." there are not many details about this case, which is under investigation. the debt has been ruled a homicide. supervisor campos: let me begin by thanking supervisor weiner for his comments about the mpc, and reiterating his comments about merely -- about major --

about mayor lee and his role in finding a resolution that makes sure the entire city and county of san francisco is properly represented. again, thank you to the mayor for his role in continuing to promote dialogue and cooperation here at city hall. i have an item that i am introducing which is a hearing to review and discuss the comprehensive report on family violence in san francisco. this report is the second annual report released by the family violence council, which is a multi-agency advisory body that addresses the interconnections between child abuse, domestic violence, and elder abuse. this is something we think needs to be discussed at an open hearing. lastly, i want