is a burden of -- had met its burden. in addition, there was quite a bit of information from a number of exhibits that they showed. and although the project sponsor claims that it is not scientific and not checked, i feel like the information in here is, in a sense, we have to question three-page study is done by radio engineers from verizon. we need to not just rely on the technology data done by product sponsor but you have an independent way to look at data. i will be working to look at ways we can address this at the city wide level. in my opinion, after looking at all the evidence, it seems that the project sponsor has not met

its burden of showing that the project is necessary for the reasons i've laid out. i want to urge my colleagues to keep in mind the story raised by the hundreds of residents that wrote to us and the dozens of people that has a lot at the last meeting. human stories that were told to us. also, all the evidence that they have lined up. i feel like there has been shown significant evidence for why we should not approve this project and why the appeal is necessary. i also wanted to emphasize that this project is proposed for a hospital, the kaiser hospital. it is relying on data provided by the project sponsored as opposed to an independent study. i appreciate efforts to try to bring both parties together, which my office did, but we were unsuccessful. because it is moving toward for a full vote today, i urge my colleagues to support the appeal, as i will.

thank you. president chiu: is that a motion? supervisor mar: my motion is that we tabled items 11 and 13 and move to item 124 with a positive recommendation. -- move to item 12 and forward with a positive recommendation. president chiu: seconded by supervisor campos. supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: last week, i was unable to stay for the entire proceeding. i believe that is one of the reasons why this matter was continued. i just want to make it clear that i have studied the material and review the rest of the tape, which is why i will be proceeding in this deliberation now. president chiu: our clerk informed me that for this motion, if you are or to reverse the certification, we are

talking about approving items 11 and 13 and tabling item 12. can i ask a question to the deputy city attorney? i know there has been discussion about whether or not we should consider an independent study with resources provided to an independent engineer. how could we handle that situation if that was something we wanted to do? >> today is the last day for the board to be able to disapproved the decision of planning. if they do not act today, then the decision would stand. one option that you have is to disapprove planning but approved conditional use with additional conditions. if you wanted to tie a study into a condition, that would be something to explore. i am not certain how, logistically, that would work

out. planning might have some input there as well. in order to do what you are talking about, you need to amend the conditions. president chiu: i would like to ask a question to the maker of the motion. my understanding is that many of your constituents do not support that approach, they just want to get a sense of where you might be on something like that. supervisor mar: many residents and the main project appellants do not want to the regional to see a study. they think it would be biased. verizon is making an offer to have an independent study done. i would at least like to see that data. if we vote -- if we vote to disapprove the conditional use, i would like to support the amended decision to fund that study and move forward in that way. president chiu: in other words, at this time, you want to leave

your motion as it stands. if we had to disapprove that, you would suggest that condition for the future. supervisor mar: yes. president chiu: any further discussion, colleagues? should we do a roll-call vote on supervisor mar's motion. supervisor farrell: no. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: no. >> and there are seven ayes and 4 nos. president chiu: that motion

fails. at this time, do we need a motion to table? >> you will still need to dispose of items 11, 12, and 13, because the motion regarding them as failed. supervisor mar. supervisor mar: could you repeat what you just said? >> items 11, 12, and 13 have not been disposed so you will need some sort of a motion to dispense with those three items. supervisor mar: let me ask a question. can we rescind the vote and replace it with rejecting the appeal but on the condition that the study is done? >> and you can. i think that the board needs to elaborate what the study would be. does that mean the project is

approved but the study needs to be conducted within a certain amount of time? what is the consequence for the project? who reviews the study? what is the criteria for the study? supervisor mar: because it seems complex, i will do my best to work with verizon to come back to the board with that proposal will include a study. i accept the vote as it was laid out. what is the recommendation on how to dispose of the items now? my motion is that we table all three. president chiu: supervisor mar has made a motion to table all three items. is there a second to that? seconded by supervisor farrell. any objection to the motion to table? without objection, these items are tabled. supervisor wiener, do you have a question? supervisor wiener: i just want

to make a comment. in terms of what just happened here, we had a situation where supervisor mar stated he wanted to give an opportunity for the parties to try to work together. i thought was a very good thing. we have a situation here where we are not allowed to consider all the facts. i do not want to speculate about the motives of the falls, but in a lot of parts of the city, there are some people who have concerns about health. in terms of esthetics, there was no contention that you could see this from anywhere. in terms of neighborhood character, that was not argued to be and issued. then we have a situation about this dispute about the data and whether or not there was good coverage. unfortunately, there were not particularly interested in having that independent study.

there was not a good way, from their perspective, for it to be independent. we are in a conundrum. i would like to have an analysis. what i would say is that the people who are up -- people who are pursuing these appeals need to be cognizant of that. the facts are what they are. in some cases they might be relevant, in some cases they might not the. but when we are in the process of trying to have an independent analysis, i would encourage the appellant to take advantage of that. that can be useful information. president chiu: ok. at this time, mr. clark, could you please read the in memoriams? >> on behalf of supervisor kim, for the late kim. president chiu: is there any more business in front of this body? seeing none, we are adjourned

for the day.