telecommunications -- telecommunications facility on 2041 larkin street. item 36 is the disapproval. item 37 is the preparation of findings. president chiu: we will be considering whether or not to approve the decision of the planning commission's september 22 conditional youths authorization to install a wireless telecommunications service facility consisting of up to six panel antennas and related equipment in an existing church as part of as -- as part of the at&t communications network within the district at the property located at 2041 larkin street. we will proceed as follows. for up to 10 minutes, with a presentation by the appellant,

to be distributed as you see fit. then the appellate will be followed by up to two minutes by the public in support of the appeal and up to 10 minutes for the planning commission. 10 minutes for the planning sponsor. two minutes for speakers who wish to oppose the appeal. three minutes for a rebuttal by the appellant. any questions or objections to proceeding in this way? hearing none, why don't we start the hearing and open it up. i would like to invite of the appellant. if you could please approached the microphone. you will have of 210 minutes as you see fit. >> thank you very much. my name is kathleen courtney. i am chair of the zoning for the russian hill association. we are asking you to deny the request of at&t to put 2,000

pounds of commercial grade telecommunications equipment in the steeple and second story of a 100-year-old wooden church at two dozen 41 larkin street. -- 2041 larkin st. this appeal is not about property issues or aesthetic. this appeal is due to the fact that at&t has not demonstrated, which it has to do according to federal and court regulations, it has not demonstrated that there is a significant gap in coverage in this site nor has it demonstrated that this proposed site is the least interesting alternative. taking a cue from supervisor wiener from a couple of years ago, the russian hill community association engaged two outside

experts, independent experts. we just got bulk of their opinions in hand yesterday. their opinions are being circulated. we defined independent as an expert who does not derive significant revenue from the telecommunications industry. you have in front of you and opinion by a core communications who has provided cell phone reviews for clark county among others. they say there is "a dearth of technical information needed to reach a conclusion. mr. spencer offers his opinion but does not support it with technical data. i do not find any mention of or data supporting technical review of any potential alternative

sites to the proposed sites. the second peer review that we engage was with consultants from san bernadine know. the performer views from municipalities from the united states. several in the greater bay area. they reported that "the packet contains insufficient and permission for a peer review. either there is an existence of a meaningful gap or whether or not there could be a less intrusive means." at&t has not submitted information that would allow any of us to take supervisor wiener up on his suggestion to get an independent peer review. i turn this over to my colleague. >> good afternoon. my name is phoenix -- my name is felix lipman.

i live in a condo behind the church. i have been a residence as 1995 in that location. we ask that you reject this application by at&t for the conditional use. at&t has not met the burden of proof to demonstrate that there is a significant coverage gap in the area. that is not the least alternative means available to meet better coverage. in fact, the application in front of you contains insufficient data to demonstrate that at&t is asking you to take the opinions of their paid experts. our own experts concluded there is not enough data on the record. let me show you some specific examples. can we switch -- president chiu: it is coming up

right now. it is upside down. >> you cannot read upside down? president chiu: we can, it just takes a little longer. >> this is the map of the area. the circle is the proposed site. the rectangle is the area of improved coverage. that area has magically ground to a much larger area with each subsequent at&t filing. you have got to wonder about that. notice the yellow areas are the least desirable residential areas. the blue areas are the most desirable commercial areas. has at&t offered to find an alternative location? according to their filings, they contacted two sites out of god knows how many blocks and commercial properties.

even that contact was half- hearted with a phone call and not a formal letter. but there is more. notice these three crosses. these are existing micra sites that at&t has in the area. downhill, and downhill, flat. there is no technical discussion as to why these sites cannot be reconfigured to serve as a nearby area. there is a report that says they cannot be serviced as they are. there is no data to say why they cannot be technically reconfigured. there is more. notice this big square. this is a proposed macro site. 250 feet away from this location. no mention of this in the at&t filing. no date as to -- no data as to

why this cannot service the area in question. you have to wonder whether or not at&t met the burden of proof of finding the proposed location. i would say no. let's talk about the proposed coverage gap. upside-down, again. this is the paper that at&t submitted illustrating there is a coverage gap in the area. this little triangle is the site and this is the center of russian help. -- hill. you are looking at the coverage area of the wilderness. there is so much white space, it is incredible. people can use their phones in the middle of russian hill. it defies convention. it defies measurements done by residents walking around every block. there are clear phone calls.

not only does it defied that, it defies the marketing materials of at&t, illustrating coverage on their website. let me show you those. this is how they market the same exact area to their customers. the dark blue indicates the best possible data coverage. it does not matter if it is upside down, it is the same area. the dark orange indicates the best possible worst coverage. president chiu: you are doing that on the at&t web site? >> yes. you just enter in your zip code. in fact, behind this wilderness coverage map, there is no data to independently conclude how

this coverage gap was calculated or determined. it is undisclosed data. i ask you, which marketing materials do you believe? the marketing to the planning commission or the marketing to the consumer? i do not think you can make a conclusion because there is no data. in fact, we have commissioned two independent studies at our own expense to look at the entire at&t filing and planning commission decision. let me read you what these experts have concluded. "there is no data supporting significant gap conclusion. the before and after maps are not helpful to recheck conclusion. there is insufficient data to reach a conclusion about the coverage gap the day -- about

the coverage gap." there is no analysis in the filing in upgrading existing microseisms to cover the area in question. and there is no data for independent technical review, one of the least interesting alternatives. honorable supervisors, i ask that you vote to support the neighborhood. i asked the vote to raise the bar by which these applications will be considered for the entire city. i asked you reject this conditional planning application. thank you. [applause] president chiu: i would like to remind the audience that in the board chamber, we do have a rule that we asked folks not to applaud or to express or opposition to statements audibly. i appreciate the use of hands.

i do have one follow-up question, before we go to the appellant. i'm not sure if all of my colleagues have had a chance to visit this site and. could you describe the church? its proximity to residential areas? where this equipment is being placed? give us a little bit of a picture for where this is. >> yes. i have a more detailed presentation on that. let me describe it quickly. this is in the middle of a 93% residential area. the antenna caught -- the antenna, while not visible, would be within 18 feet of the nearest persons bedroom. having lived in the neighborhood for 15-20 years, i cannot quite add up the numbers, this church is essentially a vacant building. it is only attended four hours

per week. on a sunday. that is it, for services. it is a completely vacant building. imagine that. it is the only part of the neighborhood where there is unclean garbage and occasional police action. it is not a comfort building location to have the presence of this commercial equipment. does that answer the question? president chiu: it does. one of the issues that the neighbors rate is about the structural concerns of the building. and the concerns about 2,000 pounds of equipment. >> is a 100-year-old church. visually, a looks awful. we would ask the church if it would allow our own structural expert to look inside. we were not able to do that.

all i can say is that it is a 100-year-old building with a history of lost permits and it is visually in disrepair. you can make your own conclusions. president chiu: there has been some discussion around the building integrity. could you address that for a moment? >> you can look at the pictures. we know that there are last permits. we were not able to send in an independent structural engineer. it is visually and appalling structure. we are very concerned about that issue. supervisor wiener: as to the structural integrity of the building, i did raise this with the planning department and i would ask them to address that even with the conditional use, at&t would have to pull a permit

from the department of building inspection and the structural issues would be in play and then. we have this divided process between planning and building inspection. that is my opinion. could you address that? >> at&t will do whatever is necessary to bring the church of tuesday. the concern is that the church is in an unattended building and has a certain record of presence in the neighborhood. you can improve it one time. the fact that it is unattended and there are access points and there is a pattern of maintenance going for, i think it should be a serious consideration. supervisor wiener: it seems like the core of the appeal has to do with the appellant's contention that at&t has not satisfy its burden of the gap in coverage.

>> that is correct. supervisor wiener: we have all seen this movie before. one side is saying there is a gap in coverage and the other side is saying there is not. if there were to be, as a condition of use, a requirement that there be an independent evaluation to determine whether or not there is a significant gap in coverage, is that -- with the appellant be able to support the c.u. with that condition and live with the result that either there is or is not? it should be independently verifiable. if it is done by an independent reviewer, would that be something that is -- that would satisfy the appellant? given that that is the core of your appeal? president chiu: if you could

speak into the microphone. >> certainly. my name is donald david. i would like to address that there are actually two issues that i was going to do in public comment. it is not only question of the gap in coverage, but the least intrusive. as a compromise, if there is a truly independent entity that will be given access to all of the underlying data and given the opportunity to make that evaluation, the answer to your question is yes. let me be clear -- an independent party, an independent entity is not somebody who derives a substantial amount of income from doing expert testimony for at&t. i think that the community would be prepared to suggest three proposed independent parties to at&t, and at&t could pick which

one they want and pay for it. since the community does not do a lot of telecommunications business, we do not have a lot of people we have influence with. we have to go with somebody -- for example, rcc, who represents other municipalities in the area. we would be prepared to do that under the circumstances you described. supervisor wiener: you can imagine a bunch of different ways -- the planning department could get someone who is independent and could make that selection. assuming that we have an independent evaluator, and if that independent evaluator has access to the data and makes a determination that there is -- is going to make that determination, and the c.u. would be issued as on that, with the appellant be willing to

accept that knowing that if the independent evaluation comes back and says there is a significant gap in coverage, that the cell tower would go up? >> the evaluator needs to make the second prong. this is a purely residential area backed up to a commercial area. if the evaluators scope and was both of the prongs, the answer is yes. supervisor wiener: you are talking about the location being the least intrusive as well? >> that is correct. supervisor wiener: i do not think that is a technical evaluation so much as a policy evaluation. maybe i am wrong. >> according to the ahc decision in san diego, that is a technical evaluation if i might suggest it to you, supervisor. supervisor wiener: so your view is that, even if it is

undisputed that there is a significant gap in coverage, let's assume for the sake of argument, then the c.u. would still be inappropriate because it is an inappropriate location? >> that is not true. it may very well be -- i will not say very well, but it may be possible that a determination may be made by someone who is doing an independent evaluation with access to the information that this is the least intrusive spot. we are not in a position to do that, because we do not have the information. if that determination were made by an independent entity, and it was also made that there is a gap, the community would be prepared to except that. supervisor wiener: do the appellants have a position as to whether or not this is the least intrusive? >> yes, we do. it is clearly not the least intrusive. for example, on polk st., at&t

is about to put up a macro site. according to our preliminary information, it appears that that site could be configured to cover whatever coverage gap exists. they have not even evaluated that macro site as part of their current in not -- their current analysis. nor have they evaluated updating the three microbe sites that they have. they say they have hay infrastructure that is not able. that is their situation. they have not evaluated the opportunity to upgrade the existing micro sites as well as the macro sites. we do not believe this is the least intrusive. we think the least intrusive is the proposed macro side on polk street and upgrading the 3 micro

sites. that said, we are not the expert said. we are prepared to accept an independent expert, as you have suggested. supervisor wiener: to be clear, even if we assume a significant gap in coverage, is your current position that this is still an inappropriate location because it is not the least intrusive? >> that is correct. that is the two-part test from the telecommunications act of 1996. supervisor wiener: the document you distributed yesterday, does that address the least interested issue as well? >> i do not know which documents you are referring to. if you are referring to what we submitted, the answer is yes, it does. if i could, it references it in the context of the obligation of at&t, not specifically saying -- i will take that back. actually, it does in the analysis which mr. lightner had

started to go into. you will see charts dealing with other alternative sites. the answer is yes, i think it covers that issue as well. quite clearly, we would prefer to cover it in a technological fashion with an appropriate expert, an independent party who had access to all the information. supervisor wiener: thank you. president chiu: unless there are any other questions from colleagues, why don't we proceed to public comment by individuals who wish to speak in support of the appellant? if people could please line up. if you could line up on the right hand side of the room.

why don't we hear from our first speaker? sir, you have already -- you have spoken, but thank you. first speaker. everyone has up to two minutes. >> thank you for allowing us to come here and talk to you. my name is lily lee. i live on the same block past the church. within the 300 radius, 97% of the structures are residential, unlike in the other places you have seen. 65 of these 67 structures are presidential.

every single building within 100 feet is residential. this is considered as a category seven. i will let you think about it. 340 people have signed petitions saying that they do not want an antenna in their area. not just in their area, but at this site. these people -- of these people, 70% are presidential people. there are playgrounds here, there are a lot of people that are very sports-minded. they use the streets, going up and down. they also like to feel that they can walk comfortably in their area. this is our neighborhood and there are a lot of neighborhoods

in your area, too. this support is not desirable and not compatible with our neighborhood. would you please denied the request of at&t? president chiu: next speaker. >> i have been a resident and a homeowner in russian hill for the last 25 years. i lived within the -- less than 100 feet from the proposed site. one of the burdens of proof for at&t is, according to the law, proving that this is desirable. we have now 340 people, 70% of the residence in the area,

saying it is not desirable. that have signed a petition against this experiment. i questioned the desirability of this in the neighborhood. one of the important things to look at the desirability is the condition of this building. this is one structure, it is 100 years old. it has had open work permits for the last -- almost 10 years, that have never been completed or signed by this committee. it has had no electrical work done that is on record with the city at all. we are proposing to install an enormous amount of electrical charge on it. the building is not inhabited most of the week, only four hours per week usually. there have been a lot of

homeless people living in the front of the building. there has been quite a bit of problems related to that. there is no security in the building and the equipment that will be installed there. i urge you to please vote no on this. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i am an electrical contractor. i have been asked to comment on the electrical safety issues of this building. research of the dbi database says there is no permit history on this building except for one in 1987 that appears to have been taken out for an overhead to underground service conversion. in the absence of any permit history over the long -- over a long time he raises the question

of the initial wiring. changes in the last 24 years are thorough enough to warrant a safety evaluation to determine existing loads and new conditions. particularly, a battery room that will operate 24-7. it also raises the question of maintenance and changes to the electrical system. since 1907, these permits may be made by a lay person. my experience is that -- i volunteer for the center cisco catholic archdiocese. due to budget constraints, it is hazardous to non-qualified in sollars. prudence dictates denial of this request.