it will only make us work harder. thank you very much. [applause] president chiu: that concludes our presentations for today. before we close the ceremony, i would like to acknowledge the folks who have help from the city. paula jones from our department

of public health has been our director of food assistance. she has worked to make sure we have restaurants that are working as well to promote our public health as possible. i also want to see if we have luke o'brien, president of the small business commission. would you like to say a few words on behalf of the commission? commissioner o"brien: >> good afternoon, supervisors. far be it for me to be biased in any way to all of the businesses today, but i would have to follow up supervisor campos's recognition. i happened to totally by accident take my wife, who is of thai origin and has discerning taste buds, as difficult to please as anybody i know, to

there, because we happened to be in the neighborhood. when she walked out of there, she had a grin from ear to ear, and commented how good the food was. she reminded me of the famous cheshire cat that ran off with all the milk as i watched her. i have to concur with the recognition that supervisor campos gave. i also want to say they are no more or less deserving than every other business that has been recognized today. the commission and the office of small business wanted to put a few words together to make a comment on these recommendations. i would like to address those to you right now. on behalf of the small business commission, i am honored to take a brief moment to recognize these outstanding small-business restaurants. san francisco's economy depends on our culinary talent, and the businesses recognized today

certainly have wonderful cuisines. but they are much more than just a place to eat. it is important to note our restaurants contribute culturally and socially. they are truly part of the fabric of our wonderful city. the small business assistance center, on a nearly daily basis, sees new entrepreneurs hoping to start their own restaurant in the city. it is a difficult undertaking, but today, as demonstrated by the success of those being recognized before us, we see that hard work does not go unrecognized. to both potential entrepreneurs and existing restaurant tours, -- existing restauranteurs, we are here to help you. i think the supervisors for these recognitions. i join our fellow small business commissioners in thinking these

business persons for their contributions to the vitality of san francisco. thank you for allowing us to speak today. thank you. [applause] president chiu: thank you all for participating. given that this is the day after national food day, i hope everyone goes to all the restaurants and eats as much as you can. with that, why don't we go to our 4:00 p.m. special order? madam clerk, could you call items 16 through 19? >> a hearing of persons interested in the decision of the planning commission conditional use authorization to install a nine panel in cannot wireless tel commission facility and related equipment on the roof of a five-story publicly used structure known as kaiser hospital. item 17 is the motion approving the decision of the planning

commission, approving the conditional use authorization. item 18 disapproves the planning commission approval. item 19 directs the preparation of findings. president chiu: we have in front of us the appeal of the cu authorization. for this hearing, we will consider whether or not to approve the decision of the planning commission's conditional use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility, consisting of nine panel antennas on an existing mechanical penthouse on the roof of a five-story structure at kaiser hospital as part of verizon telecommunications. for today's hearing, we will proceed as follows. there will be a presentation of up to 10 minutes by the appellant. speakers who wish to support the appeal can speak for up to two

minutes. we will then hear from the planning department for a presentation of up to 10 minutes, then up to 10 minutes from the project sponsor, up to 2 minutes per speaker in a position of the appeal, and up to four minutes rebuttal by the appellant. the objections? supervisor mar: i want to thank the appellant, jacqueline ku, and others from angela's infant and how care center, for raising the issue. i also want to think representatives from verizon for sitting down to think about working together. there are a number of people from my neighborhood. it is right around the corner where i live. that is where i go for my health care. many residents are here to testify, in addition to many other folks. i think that for the 11 of us,

we should listen to the testimony to determine whether verizon has shown weather -- let me see. it is nine panel antennas and two gps antennas and associated equipment panels to be placed on the five-story kaiser building, the north side building, facing gary -- geary. is it necessary? the testimony will raise different questions. i know there are worries about cumulative impact of public utility poles to the other buildings and other efforts that have a cumulative impacts.

i also want to thank the residents of the richmond district, who will speak about whether these are necessary, desirable, and compatible for the neighborhood. i know we have a board of supervisors 1996 document. i think the supporters for being thorough in their efforts. i know the guidelines give us some guidance to place antennas in preferred spots, and also examples of limited preference sites, and even other areas that are not favored. but i want to acknowledge this is a hospital. there are three other large antennas, panel antennas, in the

near vicinity, on st. mary's hospital, close to presidio, and another on the beacon storage building on geary. i still have a hope that the appellant and the parties will sit down and try to come to some agreement as well. with that, i am open to hearing the testimony now. president chiu: appellant, you have up to 10 minutes to make your case. >> good afternoon. i have lived in the richmond district for over 30 years and

worked at angeles children's center. i have also been a long-time horizon customer, and received excellent voice and data reception in the neighborhood. i am here to represent those who live near the proposed facility. can people who are opposed to the placement of the antennas please stand? we are here today because the nine panel antennas proposed for this location are not necessary, not desirable, and not compatible with the predominantly residential character of our neighborhood. under section 303, the burden of proof is on verizon to demonstrate these antennas are necessary at this location. however, verizon has not provided any meaningful data to

support the need for these antennas, and will claim it is proprietary. instead, they have submitted color charts and maps, using vaguely defined terms, to show whether it is good, marginal, or poor coverage, and where in the report dropped calls in the neighborhood. verizon has provided no details or methodology of the collection techniques on which those maps are based. since verizon was unable to use this -- to provide this data, we conducted our own tests using a droid phone and different applications to determine the available signal strength for voice and data plans. with a fully charged phone with updated software, the data collected offered an objective picture of voice and data service in the vicinity of the avenue.

a summary of our testing methodology and details from the data results are included in exhibit a of your material packets. the term fast was based on verizon standards, stated on there website. additionally, the application to plan and does not include meaningful statistical evidence to back up the claim for dropped and blocked customer calls in the neighborhood. for example, of verizon claims as many as 50 failures per hour, but there is no explanation of how many calls when through during the same time. the application also does not explain the cost of dropped calls. how many problems are there that adding new antennas will not

resolve, like customers using cell phones with a gun charge batteries? -- with uncharged batteries? exhibit b in your packets details all the information verizon must provide to prove it has a problem with capacity among adjoining cell phone sites. unless verizon is willing to present this information, the cannot prove a problem with capacity in the richmond district. verizon also claims these antennas are needed to provide emergency services. however, the emergency response plan explicitly advises against reliance on self phones during emergencies, and lists eight non-cellular, emergency communications systems that will be in place during and natural disaster. federal mandates require that every cell phone site in san francisco must prioritize 911

calls. even a cell phone without a service provider must be allowed to connect to any site if 911 is dialed. there are more than enough antennas to handle 911 calls. it is not necessary to add more antennas to sixth avenue. the wireless facility is also not desirable at this location. the signatures obtained by a rise and lobbyists were conducted by paid signature gatherers, but people who lived outside the proposed area. the signatures we have submitted are the residents most directly impacted by the verizon project. we have gathered over 260 signatures for residents and parents in the area.

most are within a 500 square foot radius. exhibit i shows that verizon residents in the area noted the have good reception. verizon cannot reasonably claim this project is desirable from the perspective of residents that live in the neighborhood surrounding kaiser hospital. the industrial commercial wireless facility is also not compatible with our residential neighborhood. the planning department identifies the zoning adjacent to kaiser as a residential neighborhood. under city guidelines, residential districts are disfavored locations, which is the lowest of the seven levels of preference listed. for good reason, the city favors limiting this type of facility in a residential never heard. verizon cannot prove it is compatible with our residential community.

the only reason hospitals are identified as most preferred is because of a loophole in the 1996 guidelines, included by the wireless carriers at that time. please reference exhibit e in your pocket. the pictures detailed here are evidence that wireless facilities present a variety of fire and electrical hazards, even during routine maintenance. the recent fire at the corner of haight and fillmore took place at a building hosting multiple antennas. the fire apparently started in or near the apartment located closest to the antennas on the roof. even if the fire was caused by the wireless facility, we would not know. as exhibit at shows, the san francisco fire department does not have a category for fires caused by wireless facilities.

additional safety hazards are also provided by the lead batteries that will work in conjunction with any backup generators. these lead-acid batteries provide explosive hazards and chemical hazards, documented by the battery manufacturers, included as exhibit be in your pocket. the potential hazards further prove this type of industrial commercial equipment is not compatible on a hospital in a residential lead-down area. -- a residential lly-zoned area. verizon has not shown that it has explored alternatives to the location. it uses a variety of poll- mounted antennas and has not mentioned why it cannot do the same for the richmond district. for example, exhibit g in your packet is a map

many of british by companies that can accommodate more than one wireless carrier. the technology is a prevalent part of our daily lives. this should be a need for the kennedys using these services. san francisco is a leader in technology. -- this should be a need for community is using the services. installing a new wireless facility without providing data to the city and the public is not responsible or respectful to san francisco residents and their elected officials. on behalf of the richmond district, i ask that you please vote to deny verizon a permit at

this location. >> thank you. [applause] >> at this time, why don't we hear from members from the public. could we hear from the first speaker? >> dear supervisor, i have been living in the richmond for over 40 years.

this is in the concert -- kaiser hospital. the sixth avenue is more people. let me tell you. people from far away bring their kids to hear. sometimes to get a lot of people.

i am surprised. what are they needed? what are they wishing? you can follow my direction to everything. this is not fair. you have to listen to people's noises from inside of them. a lot of immigration people, they moved to richmond because it is a residential area. we don't want this changed to a commercial area. we want to keep this peaceful place. >> thank you very much. thank you.

>> individuals may not express supporter opposition said that we can hear from everyone. i would ask you to respect that. thank-you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i currently live and work in the richmond district and i am also a student. i have personally volunteered my own free time going and asking my fellow neighbors about this issue. the findings by the planning commission provided the following statement -- recent tests provided conclusive evidence that the subject property is the most viable location based on quality of coverage, population, land use, compatibility, zoning, and aesthetics. where are the supporting

materials for this evidence? verizon fails to provide any specifics regarding the tests. many questions remain unanswered such as who is included in the studies, how was the study conducted, what kind of software liz used to measure signal strength -- what kind of software was used to measure signal strength? our own survey showed that users had more than adequate cellphone coverage in that area. the question remains, are of these antennas necessary? where for all of the disgruntled customers complain about service? there should be at least a consensus on the neighborhood. currently, the data is conflicting. more important, the evidence is lacking. based on these premises, verizon should not be granted a permit

at this time. please vote to deny them the permit. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am with the russian hill community association. i am here to lend my support. i would like to speak about one reason that the proposed for this facility is neither desirable or compatible and compatible with a hospital setting and this is largely a residential community. warless facility's present a lecture for fire hazards that should require extreme caution in deciding where they should be located. this includes photos of wireless facilities that were set on fire during routine maintenance

visits. they were taken by media outlets, many because of the spectacular nature of these images presented by these cellphone tower is literally going up in flames. they still point to find the essential fact of any commercial wireless facilities. this is industrial for in nature and utilize is of much of the components that can resolve in fires. if this is in residential areas. the recent fire, this is huge. this took place in the building that hosted a number of teen mobile antennas in the basement and the roof. for the resulting investigation is not yet in. they were determined to play a role in the fire and we would not even know it.

the fire department does not reflect the fact this is the san francisco fire department and the situation list from january, 2009 to december 31st. as you can see -- >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. under federal law, verizon is required to prove that the location is the least intrusive means for addressing a significant staff have to of the application before the planning commission contained no discussion of alternative locations that verizon had located and why for these

locations one-off viable. in its submission to the board, verizon presents six alternative locations with exclamations, why these buildings are not had a lot defeasible. however, they do not mention the alternative of using the already existing network of utility pole mounted antenna is in the richmond district. in fact, there are already 14 located in the coverage area that verizon is trying to surf, some of which are available to be shared by multiple carriers including verizon. this is a map of existing polls and antennas using to be the richmond district which are created using the inventory of the existing wireless facilities. many of these facilities are operated by companies that can accommodate more than one

wireless carrier. verizon uses a network of utility poles in the sunset district. without a full discussion of why they cannot utilize this already existing network in the inner richmond, verizon cannot meet its burden of proof that this is the only alternative that will work for the neighborhood. please vote to deny a permit for this location. think you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the proposed antennas are not necessary in the richmond necessary to provide service in the event of a natural disaster. the emergency response plan to medication and next which was established in 2008 and a copy which is included in your packet makes clear that cellular

communications are disfavored in case of emergencies. the services are prone to system failures, times of disasters, are emergencies, and large special events and might not be reliable or dependable. the city report goes on to cite several more reliable communications systems for march is currently in place including the telecommunications system, the mayor emergency telephone system, the oasis dedicated satellite radio system and the telephone system. the antennas are not needed to provide communications during emergencies or any other natural disasters. we ask that you vote to deny verizon a permit for this location with this information. thank you very much. >> thank you, nexts