[speaking foreign language] >> and it proves that they have enough indoor coverage. if at&t wants to enhance the coverage -- >> [speaking foreign language] >> they can simply get it from at&t through wi-fi. >> [speaking foreign language] >> oh there is no need for at&t to install the antennas on 199 leland avenue.

>> [speaking foreign language] >> oh every board of supervisors, if you could, please vote no. >> hello, hi. [speaking foreign language] >> hello, my name is -- and i live at -- >> [speaking foreign language] >> i am and -- in full opposition of at&t putting up the equipment at 199 leland. >> [speaking foreign language] thank you. >> i am very appreciative of all of your help. thank you.

>> hello. [speaking foreign language] >> my name is -- and i live in the valley near the leland 199 site. >> [speaking foreign language] >> because we believe that the antennas are for the improved signals for the users on the highway, there is no need to install the towers in the residential area. >> [speaking foreign language] >> therefore, we hope that all of your supervisors can support

us in the valley to oppose the construction of the at&t to ours in our community. >> thank you very much, and have a nice evening. thanks. >> hi, my name is mike. i work in that area, and i support the intent is being there because i have a lot of dropped calls there. it affects my work, and i support them being placed there. thank you. >> hi. [speaking foreign language]

>> supervisors, and i am a resident in the valley, and we oppose the construction of the cell phone towers because it is not good for us. we hope that we can gain your support. thank you. goodbye. >> [speaking foreign language] >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is --

>> [speaking foreign language] >> i have been living in the visitation valley area for 20 years. it has been a very safe area. however, with the construction of the at&t towers, it will bring danger to residents, and we hope that the supervisors can oppose the construction of the cell phone towers. thank you.

>> hello. [speaking foreign language] >> hello, my name is -- and i have been living in the visitation valley for over 20 years. >> [speaking foreign language] >> we hope that the supervisors here can support the residents of the valley. we oppose the towers in our area and really hope that we can get your support. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is -- and i live at 288 leland, and i really oppose the construction of the towers at 199 leland. >> [speaking foreign language] >> why is at&t constructing so many hours, 8 to 9 towers, at this time? are they going to continue to construct eight or it to 9 towers next time?

>> [speaking foreign language] >> we really hope that the borders supervisors can consider this process of public input, because when you have the residents in this valley that are consisting of the elderly, the sick, and the low-income, please consider this carefully before approving. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. [speaking foreign language]

thank you. >> my name is joanie. i live in visitation valley for more than 20 years. there are more than thousands of signatures from local residents to oppose at&t installing the antennas. i really do hope the board of supervisors would support the visitation telling residents and board -- and vote no. thank you. >> think. >> [speaking foreign language]

thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is joe chang. a live right next to 199 leland, the site of the proposed showers. we oppose these hours because it will affect the lives of the residents, and we hope the supervisors support us, and we hope to gain your support. thank you.

>> [speaking foreign language] >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is -- and i live across from -- i can see through windows the site of the proposed to ours, and we really hope that they can move the site of the towers to elsewhere. we hope that we can gain your support. thank you. >> [speaking foreign language] thank you. >> he is asking for your support to move the towers and also

thinking you for your support. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am -- who filed this appeal. the original neighbor who organized this could not come due to her heavy seasonal work load. just before the deadline to appear, so i stepped in to assist my neighbor. although the two other areas and the cases that were filed before ours were giving a continuance, at&t would not extend this courtesy to our neighborhood. the chinese community in san francisco, and since we are caught off guard about the short two-week timeline to be here instead of months, and given the fact that this is just before

our thanksgiving. in the interest of time, let me cite a couple of reasons why we feel that at&t should not install the panel on our roof and the equipment in the basement of the building that is home to senior and people who have disabilities at 199 leland avenue. at this time, the building is determined by the planning department to be a preference 5, which is not a high preference. some senior and handicapped residents at 199 leland have expressed concern about the possibility of hazard, a warning about toxic chemicals, fire, explosion. there are other concerns of the elderly residents that having the women in the basement will

take away packing and make it more difficult for the disabled residents to move around, those using a wheelchair. this time of -- type of equipment does not belong -- president chiu: thank you. >> hello, my name is -- and i have been an at&t customer for years, and i have experienced a lot of drop calls, and i do not have a home phone at home. this reception is very important to me, so therefore i am supporting this antenna installation. thank you. president chiu: i just want to note that the previous speaker was speaking on the other side of this record.

next. >> president, board of supervisors. my name is -- and i am the co- chair of the project cell phone to our team. they have had two weeks. i am here in support of them getting a continuance. as scott wiener said, it is important that we look at the data, and they are willing to have an expert look at the data, and they have had two weeks in order to prepare. it is fair that they be given a continuance. obviously, they care. obviously, they have a lot of people coming out here. why are they not being granted a continuance of two weeks so they can get an expert so we can look at the data? thanks so much.

by. >> hi, my name is -- and i live in the area, and i support the at&t because i have got a lot of dropped calls and my wireless internet. president chiu: it is actually not the appropriate time to speak on behalf of at&t. if you want to speak in favor of the project sponsor, please wait until public comment. that will happen in a few minutes. >> thank you. president chiu: are there any who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? on behalf of the appeal? ok, seeing none, why do we go to the planning department for the presentation >> family

rogers, prodded department staff. i am joined by a planner. this is an appeal for a wireless telecommunications facility a.k.a. wts at leland area. we will go over this description and second talk about that this is a preferred side, and third, we will discuss the overall review for this sort of project, and finally i will go over the commission findings as to why they felt that this cu should be approved and that it was necessarily -- necessary and desirable for the community. this is needed by the planning could to install this within and on top of this existing three- story mixed-use building in a neighborhood commercial districts. it includes nine panel antennas that will be located on the top of the building and six equipment cabinets that are

located in the garage, said that is the project before you. second, on this side, this is a preferred location. the city has five different categories for these preferred location types where wireless facilities should go. we also have what is called a limited preference side, we are in -- where they are not as preferable, and sites where will prefer not to see them. messitte is also called a mixed use building in a high-density district as a preference site by the city of san francisco, so under the city's adopted policies, this site is exactly where we have told the cell providers to locate. we do ask the project sponsors to perform an alternative site analysis, looking at other potential sites, and the project sponsor has done so in their application. in this case, they reviewed 13 alt sides. the commission did ask the project sponsor about this

information at the hearing, and they were satisfied with the answers, voting 7-0 for the conditional use. third, let's consider the city's overall review for the facility. we have but basically aesthetic review by planning and then health review by the city department. when it comes to aesthetics, the guidelines state that installations such as this should be minimal invisible from the public right-of-way and should be treated architecturally to minimize the visibility, and that is what has happened here. the antennas are pushed back from the edge of the building, at 30 feet above grade and pushed back 60. they are small in size and minimally visible from the pedestrian level. when it comes to health, as you know, the federal telecommunications act of 1996 prohibits local jurisdictions from disapproving these facilities for health concerns if the facility complies with

fcc guidelines. that said, the city department of public health goes to great lengths to regulate, review, and monitor wireless installations, with an emphasis on exploring the radio frequency or rf radiation. dph produces this for everyone to reevaluate. there are emission's better ambient to the site as well as to project what the proposed maximum capacity could be. the same about the mission is that conducted again by dph within 10 days of the actual installation to make sure that their projected reading is the same as what the actual readings are, and they are. they have been very good about that. then, dph conducts an additional review every two years after. residents who live within a certain distance can request that dph come to their house and conduct a measurement on their property or inside their house,

so that is the review process for the department of public health. for planning, our primary concerns are as that. in addition to all of the specific criteria that we have for wireless facilities, it must also satisfy the general conditional use, which states that the proposed feature at the proposed location will provide a development that is either necessary or desirable and compatible with the neighborhood, and when it comes down to the community concerns, they are mainly health-related that we heard today. the planning commission just does not have the authority to address these health concerns. the commission and this cu can address aesthetics, but that does not seem to be the primary consideration before us today. now, let's review the presentation. the specific findings as to why the commission approved this cu.

in the case of 199 leland, they state that the city is a technological leader and that it is important to our economy and to the vitality of the city to maintain adequate telecommunication. this includes upgrading systems to keep up with changing technologies and increases in usage. when it comes to the location, the site is preferential site number five, one of the sites that the city has identified as desirable for wts facilities. the antennas will be on the roof and in close, and the mechanical equipment will not be visible because it will be in the garage. therefore, the commission found the project to be esthetically compatible with the neighborhood. it was concluded that the project at this address would be desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because the product does not conflict with any of the existing uses inside the building and will be of such a

size and nature to be compatible with the surroundings. the approval of this authorization has been found by the commission first and foremost to ensure public safety. further, the placement of the antennas and features are located, designed, it treated to minimize their visibility from public places and to avoid intrusion into public vistas, which are protected, to avoid disruption of the architectural integrity of the building, and to assure harmony with the neighborhood character. the project has been reviewed and determined to not cause any alteration of any significant architectural features or known historic resources. looking at another criteria, necessity, in the case of wireless communications, there are two criteria at play, capacity and coverage. in this case, the commission found that the proposed project is necessary in order to achieve sufficient street and in building mobile coverage. the project sponsor in their hearing and in the materials

provided evidence that the subject property is the most viable based on factors including quality of coverage, population densities, land use, zoning, and esthetics. this is an intermission of the planning commission to find that this would improve coverage in the immediate vicinity. that is straight from their findings. they founded this will fill in gaps in coverage in the valley as well as provide necessary facilities for emergency transition and improve communication for the community and the region. lastly, the proposed product is not detrimental to health, safety, or conveniens. the department of public health found the antennas will commit a radio frequency that is well within fcc regulations, and therefore, the city cannot deny a permit for health reasons. specifically, the exposure he would be less than 9% of the fcc exposure limit. in conclusion, the application for 199 leland meets all the criteria of the guidelines and

the planning code, and for this reason, the cu is approved, and we request authorization. staff is available if you have any questions. president chiu: colleagues, any questions to planning? ok. at this time, why do we not hear from the project sponsor. you have up to 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, president, supervisors. i am a vice-president of affairs in san francisco for at&t. i am joined by a representative from our legal department and a radio frequency experts, as well as a bill from an area that does radio frequency testing at the site, its third-party engineering firm that conducted the public health tests that we had conducted as well as the supplemental tests on our coverage and capacity, which i will mention later.

as the planning staff stated, at&t was given the authority to install these that will be in falls jimmy stacks at 199 leland avenue, and the equipment to be used with them will be enclosed away from public view. the site was also chosen because it has existing antenna from one of our competitors as well as a city of san francisco gunshot detector which is also located there. this site is necessary for at&t to close a significant coverage gap. as explained in the details provided to the department as bottom presentation. the gap is caused by the demand for mobile data usage. this is consistent with the

8000% increase that at&t has experienced network wide over the past four years alone, and at&t expects total mobile volume to grow 8 to 10 times over the next years, and to put this estimate into perspective, that means all of the at&t mobile traffic volume during 2010 would be equal to the traffic volume for a mere six or seven weeks in the year 2015. i should mention that at&t has conducted significant community outreach on the site and provided many opportunities for members of the committee to have their concerns addressed. there was a meeting on june 2, 2011, and over 70 community members were present, and the meeting was conducted with both management -- mandarin and cantonese translators available. most of their questions were about health concerns and the proposed lack of necessity.

there was another meeting on july 19 that was attended by 45 community members, many with the same types of questions. the application was slated to appear on july 28, but at the request of the appellant and supervisor malia cohen, at&t agreed to an extension until october 6 in order to have members assimilate what they had heard at both of these community meetings. as continued parts of the average, we continue to listen about the health concerns and the health concerns have been addressed by planning staff, but i did want to spend some time to talk about the necessity, and the appellants have made claims that the services are not necessary because of an additional evidence because of service perceived as good or four bars or five bars of service, and the bars of signal strength that customers can see on their wireless phones are in precise with service quality. in other words, a customer's

wireless telephone can show four or five bars, but at times, they can still be unable to access calls or complete calls or download data without interruption, and this is extremely true during times of extreme use of the network. they can be an adequate measurements of wireless service quality and not reflective of the actual steps on our network. these measurements do not reflect the degradation and the quality of the signal as determined by the signal to noise ratio in the area at various times of day. noise, as we call it, are created when buildings on the same frequency are in this in geography, and they create small amounts of interference on the network and are we call noise, and more at&t devices better in the area, the more degradation, so as more and more devices are connected to our network, it causes more degradation and requires greater capacity on our