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.

>> 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