>> my name is chris middlestat. we live at 1358 broadway. i have a little bit of a different perspective >> i am concern that at&t as a business is potentially putting undue pressure against the less powerful organization. especially in light of the fact that there are alternative sites on polk street as has been expressed earlier that can be used and my concern and i would urge you to reject this application by at&t for conditional use if for no other reason protecting the citizenry when there are other alternatives for businesses to

act responsibly and not put aside in a residential area. -- a site in a residential area. president chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> i have to say my heart is pounding. i have lived next to the church for over 20 years. my son's bedroom window, he is 14 years old, it is 14 feet. we have measured it. it is 14 feet away from the cell phone tower. i have been to these hearings, i have been watching. i am going to attempt to explain why this location is different. i am going to talk to you about the nature of the neighborhood which is 97% residential as everyone keeps saying. the nature of this building, the nature of security.

the building is in code enforcement right now. it has a seismic grade. that is why it is in code enforcement. this building this morning, we got woken up to police. i have the badge number of the policemen. this -- ok, sorry. this was this morning, the police were here, arresting a man, the homeless are often camping out there. [bell] and living there. this is not a secure building. it is occupied, unoccupied for four hours a week. we're terrified. all the other places are occupied. this is the only one.

we ask you please just to listen to our independent experts as well. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is john lamb. i lived in the neighborhood for 30 years with my wife and daughter. i have to businesses on polk street. this is -- the church is a mess. the security and the vagrant situation there as well as the dilapidation, i stopped three fires in the alcoves there that vagrants were starting. it isd a real concern. my daugthter -- daughter's had when she slips is 30 feet away from this building. it is an ugly tower. thank you. president chiu: thank you, next speaker.

>> good afternoon, president chiu. i live on russian hill. at&t is a giant force in the telecommunications industry. their capability as far and wide. with all the technological know- how that at&t possesses, they cannot explain why they cannot meet the area supposedly needed by reconfiguring 3 micro-sites. and one macro-site. no serious attempt was made to identify less harmful side. they need to use their abilities to investigate west's interests of alternatives.

the church at 240 larkin street is located within a residential area, considered a category seven area. it is the least preferred area. the church being public domain gives easy access to at&t. if the church were not where it stands now, what at&t choose this area as an installation site? this is a less preferential area. category seven. [bell] at&t's in-house engineers state, "the gap is caused by an obsolete and inadequate infrastructure and increased traffic." i respectfully ask that you deny at&t's request and respect the will of the people. thank you very much. president chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon.

i live on the same black -- block as the church. we ask you to reject at&t's application. insomuch as the current application contains insufficient supporting information to meet their burden of proof that a significant gap exists and there is no less an -- and obtrusive need if such a need does exist. they have suggested that you accept the opinions of their paid experts, opinions that the experts we have retained say have no support in the record before you. clearly the citizens of san francisco deserve more and you deserve more. we deserve information showing that a gap exists. you and we deserve a meaningful analysis showing that other sites zoned for commercial use were considered and white the were rejected. at&t with its vaunted technology cannot find an alternative for dealing with its own antiquated

infrastructure. you and we deserve the trip before we sign on onto their plan. we urge you to vote now. thank you. -- we urge you to vote no. >> if you're in. -- good afternoon. the data underlying their claims will not go away. to be truly independent, one must have no cause to favor one side or the other. the possibility of a consultant being blacklisted, an industry that is comprised of a few major corporations is sufficient to comprise the -- compromise the integrity of the process. think for a moment. if you were consulting a doctor about a condition, would you

feel comfortable seeing one who shills for a particular company ? would you prefer someone with no such affiliation? o2 if there isn't independent evaluation of the underlying data, it cannot be in experts picked by at&t. t beenheir -- their engineer blacks credibility -- lacks credibility. thank you. >president chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon. portis supervisors. -- board of supervisors. i used to live in the russian hill area. i am here to ask you to deny the installation of the cell towers -- antennas at 41 larkin street.

given the fact the group has presented you credible experts' opinion why at&t should not install it in this particular location. thank you. president chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> i wish to make a few comments regarding the construction of the church or mentioning. what i called an arc in previous comments to the board. the city invited representatives for an accounting in front of the world health organization. in another city the birth of christ was be held. sunshine ordinance. i included this packet of information i am going to give

you from the san francisco public library. the last thing i would like to do is read the bar code. something i created with the help of others. it is the english alphabet, a list of english characters and 26 empty boxes. a califon, b byrd, sea cat, the dog, e egg, f fish, g god, h heaven, i insect, l lion, m metal, omega o, p papyrus, q queen, r reptile. u union, v vegetation, w word, x, y yeast.

zed. thank you for your time. president chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> ♪ electricity in my lark captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- ♪ ♪ captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap ♪ electricity there will be even when we're gone ♪ and is about electricity, in larkin.

♪ forever ♪ ♪ ♪ forever there will be larkin street ♪ ♪ electricity ♪ president chiu: thank you, next speaker. any other members wish to speak in support of the appellant? seeing none,, at this time where do we go to the planning department. >> the evening. -- good evening. i am joined by the project planner. this is a condition use authorization for wireless telecommunication facility. at 2041 larkin street. i will cover for topics. the project description. the most preferred site in san

francisco. the city process. including how these preference locations were determined and the finding specific to this case and why they found it desirable and compatible. let's discuss the project. this is required to install the wts. we have six panel antennas that are installed within a sepal. these would be put in a steeple with -- by removing the existing screens and replacing them with radiofrequency transparent screens that would not -- with an additional equipment that would be installed that is not visible to the public. that is the wtf project. this is a preference one location. the city has preferred location

types. this is the most highly preferred site. public facilities by the most favored site and occur in every neighborhood. they give the opportunity for a cell phone reception. also the appearance of these sites are infrastructure related. they are most often compatible. this is not helpful pulled elvis discovered -- this was discovered. this is identified as a preferred site for establishing self-service in the residential district. antennas have been reviewed in this location for 15 years. under the city's adopted policy, this site is where cell phone

providers. let's review the process that determined this site should be a preferred location. the department and commission has had guidance in the installation of wireless facilities. in 1996, the board passed a resolution which provided input on locating wtf facilities. public and institutional settings in the city should be our top preference for wts facilities as they are least likely to be visually disruptive. this board resolution did seek further clarification on some of the lesser preference sides and in response in august of that year, the commission updated their guidelines and updated them again in 2003. the guidelines contained not only location preferences but also mandate when outrage meetings and site analysis are required and they require these

the middle of facility plans that must be either -- updated. that is the process that led to this site being the highest preferred site. other procedural review for facilities include the aesthetic review by our department and health review by the ph. when it comes to guidelines, they will be not visible. that is what has happened here. the antennas are screened and not discernible by the public. the appellant stated -- [no audio] when it comes to thhealth, limis were established. i will not go into this in detail. we have a city process which i have described before. the appellant stated they are not appealing these antennas due

to health concerns. i will not review that unless requested by the board. between the existing federal laws and regulations in the guidelines put in place by the board and commission, review is largely limited to aesthetic concerns. in addition, the project was satisfied sections 3 -- must satisfy section three. it is compatible with the neighborhood. that is the process these facilities go through. let's look at the fourth topic. in this instance, why did the commission find this project to be appropriate? in this case they met all the commissions criteria. looking at desirability and compatibility, it is important to upgrade the infrastructure to keep up with changing technology.

on the location, this was the number one most preferred site in the city. when it comes to siting, the antenna is indoors, not visible from the public right-of-way. the commission found it to be compatible. in the case of necessity, there are two criteria at play. coverage and capacity. in this case, at&t has reported the coverage gap in this area especially inside the building. the planning commission considered information project -- provided by the project sponsor and by the appellant and found evidence, fighting there was a gap in coverage to be compelling. on the capacity issue, the project sponsor of describe their capacity exceeding expectations.

the commission found it is necessary for san francisco to have adequate capacity and the commission found this proposed facility would fill gaps in coverage in the russian hill neighborhood and would provide necessary facilities for emergency transmissions in this area. lastly, the project was determined not to be detrimental to health, safety, or convenience. the department of public health found that would emit a radiofrequency that is well below fcc regulations. the exposure would be 2.9% of the allowable fcc limit. you have questions, the hearing is not the appropriate venue. this is to consider if the existing city law guidelines were properly administered in the authorization. in this case with the project cited in the most preferred

location, and the project that meets all the criteria outlined in the guidelines and the planning code, the project is approved by the planning commission. assets the department respectfully requests the board of polled its conditional use authorization. i am available for questions. president chiu: i have a couple of starter questions. the appellant in their presentation showed a map that the project sponsor laid out which suggests that there is a lot of coverage gaps, making it look like certain parts of brant county as opposed to san francisco. if you go to the website it suggests that there is excellent coverage in the neighborhood we're talking about. how do you resolve the discrepancy? >> in consultation with the planner, that information about at&t's coverage from their rooms i was not presented. president chiu: if you go to the corporate web site, it says

that the coverage is the best coverage possible. should that affect our decision? >> i suggest to use that in evidence in your decision. president chiu: the neighborhood association was not able to put together the resources to bring the experts testimony they submitted today. how should we consider that? >> can you restate that? >president chiu: we have testimony from two experts and analyze data and found it inconclusive whether there is a service gap. how should we consider this? is this evidence we should consider in our decision? >> yes. that is additional evidence that was not presented to the planning commission and is before this body for your consideration. president chiu: how should we consider the issues around structural building integrity and the bacon aspects of the building? there have been some code enforcement issues and police

activity in a mostly vacant building. how should we consider those issues? >> the structural issues were discussed. there is an ongoing dispute between the neighbors and the church. we're not aware of any active planning code violations or complaints. the complaints that have been listed in evidence presented were complaints to the department of building inspection and complaints about implementation of their code. we have researched those because there was evidence it was raised. the majority of those cases are closed. there were some cases that were not closed and where dbi have sent letters out to the project

sponsors. in this case, when dbi sends these notices, they send notices to verify allegations. the fact the notices were sent this not necessarily indicate there were actual violations. we have consulted with the deputy director in charge of enforcement. he has said that there are no active enforcement cases or problems that dbi is aware of. president chiu: are you confident the wait is sustainable? >> that is outside of my authority or the commission's authority. it is a land use entitlement and the structural issues would be investigated by dbi subsequent to the board of holding the cu. president chiu: you're saying that decision is for the future but not one that has been evaluated yet.

>> it is not authorized -- relevant to the authorization or the birth -- building permit. president chiu: thank you. supervisor avalos: do you think the information that president chiu pointed to, if that evidence had been presented, there would have been a different outcome? >> i could not speculate on the commission's outcome if additional evidence were provided. supervisor avalos:. staff make up -- did staff make a recommendation? >> we found this compelling. we found at&t's evidence compelling. the commission acted by that by authorizing with a 6-0 vote. there was one commissioner absent. all the commissioners found evidence to be compelling. supervisor avalos: would staff

recommendation change in the light of the evidence we have on the website? >> i would like to hear the project sponsors but i am -- i am not sure my import -- opinion is that important. there is still evidence to be presented tonight. supervisor avalos: you could consider that evidence relevant? >> i personally am interested in the project sponsor's response. supervisor avalos: sorry. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. i want to raise the same issue i raised with the appellant. that is one of the really frustrating parts of these appeals. supervisor cohen raised the issue a couple weeks ago. it is a he-said she-said thing.

there is a gap in coverage. our expert says this and their expert says that. do we have it within our power to require an independent evaluation that would basically say based on the deck, there is a significant gap in coverage or there is not. we will rely on what an independents evaluator says. >> you as a body could with a two-thirds vote overturned the planning commission's decision to approve and with a subsequent vote be able to authorize and nail -- a new cu. if there are outstanding issues, it can require

additional modifications to determine -- be determined by staff. if it meets whatever they said at the outcome, then we do issue a cu. supervisor wiener: we could have an independent evaluation based on the data. president chiu: thank you. why do we hear from the project sponsor -- don't we hear from the project sponsor? >> that afternoon. -- good afternoon. i am joined today by gordon

spencer, who is our radiofrequency engineer for at&t mobility. i am also joined by bill hammond, a licensed professional engineer with the city california whose firm conducted the radiofrequency testing and prepare the reports that are part of your package. at&t was granted a conditional use permit to place and new six panel wireless facility at 2041 larkin street which is known as church of the fellowship of all peoples. the panel antennas will be placed inside the church. there are 50 pounds each. for a total of 300 pounds. the necessary equipment will be housed in a room on the second floor outside of the public view. under the city's wireless telecommunication services, this is a preference one location.

it is a preferred structure, it is a public structure located within an fh 3 zoning district. -- rh 3 sunning district. we looked at 23 different sites in the corresponding area. this was the only preference one location to serve the residents of this area. the subject location is the least intrusive means by which at&t mobility can close the existing significant servers coverage gap in the area. a gap that is caused in part by the demand from at&t customers for mobile data usage in the area. president chiu: could you address the issue that we're wondering about, your own marketing materials and how that does not jibe with what you have laid out in front of planning? >> certainly. >> certainly. wet they are referring to, i