company. and drove the area. we visited the area three different times. the first time was on wednesday, november 30 from 6:40 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.. what we did is we went to dozens of locations in this area that takes -- to take spot measurements and determine what is the service there. there was adequate signal, getting four or five bars but the performance was bad because of the signal to noise ratio. there is too much other activity in the band that causes the phones to not pick up the signal and decoded. we returned at what we thought would be a lower period of activity. finding the same kind of thing but there was a lot of traffic.

we went back on sunday morning at 5:30 a.m. in order to examine when we could find the least amount of activity. what we found is there were a number of different signals in this area. when you pulled the phone and look at it, it is picking up sources from a lot of other sites, not just one or two that it wants to catch but it has a lot of them and they are equal signal levels. what this does is creates interference in the phone. it looks like knows -- the noise to the phone and phone cannot pick out the signal in needs to monitor. the design, you might have to strong signal so it could handoff. when you have four or five, four or more signals, it is a known thing in the industry. you can read technical papers on it. this causes pilot pollution. that is what we find in this area. many locations suffer from this.

the service is not provided in this area because of that phenomenon. so many different sides. we found 13 different sources when we went through this area. these are the sites that were mentioned. a couple of major sites further down fast -- a van ness -- down van ness. supervisor avaloscampos: i understand the capacity issues you have identified. the capacity related coverage issues you have identified and expert talked about pilot pollution. i understand the explanation as to why would you presented to planning was presented the way it was. is there -- do you provide that

to consumers? any potential customer of at&t, do you let them know about the capacity related coverage issues you talked about? >> to my knowledge, i do not know exactly how that is explain to customers. i am not on the retail side of the business. i can say that every time a site is upgraded or moved, it changes the capacity of that site. i do not know exactly how that is communicated to customers, but i am happy to find out and see if there is a difference between how capacity and coverage if that is your question is communicated to customers throughout the city. every time we do significant upgrades, we do have our corporate communications who do issue some releases talking

about coverage and capacity. i do not know when you walk into a retail store how that is presented to a customer. >> to the extent that there is a question about the evidence, the new evidence that was talked about, you have an explanation as to why notwithstanding that new evidence of what is on the website, why you nonetheless feel that the information that was provided to planning was accurate. i think that position would be bolstered aif you could point to additional information that you provide consumers so that they are aware of what they are buying when they are buying something from at&t. i think it would be relevant to this discussion to know if you can point to specific information that is provided to consumers and potential customers about the coverage

related issues that you pointed out that relate to capacity. is anyone of your experts here, anyone here, can they point to specific information? you either provide that information or you do not. >> provide that to our customers? supervisor campos: yes. >> i can find out how that information is communicated. each time that we do go through and of great, how that is communicated as well. supervisor campos: if i may follow up to your expert. thank you. in reviewing the documentation related to this case, have you ever been given any information about -- that shows that at&t

provides the type of coverage related information that has been discussed here to their customers? >> i would have no way of knowing how that is developed. we are called in to do one assessment. >> has any such information been given to you by at&t? >> no information like that has been given. supervisor campos: thank you. president chiu: any other questions? i know there is time on the clock. if you want to continue with your presentation. supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: thank you. i want to ask similar questions that i asked to the appellant and the planning staff. that is having an independent evaluation, an evaluator

selected by the planning department based on getting input from both sides and selecting an evaluator and having that evaluator -- do an actual evaluation. either there is or is not a significant gap in coverage and making that part of the cu. i would ask at&t's response. >> is that the condition to approval today? >> i think we have two things we would request. that is a professional license registered engineer with the state of california and they are willing to sign nondisclosure. >> those are reasonable things. assuming that. president chiu: would like to continue with your presentation? i interrupted you a number of times.

>> i think if the board is ok with that, at&t would be ok with it. i want to point out a couple of things. we talked about enough of the five bars and what it means. initiating a call and being able to hold onto it even though you have five cars. the structural integrity i think we have addressed. there are pounds of equipment going into the steeple. the equipment will be housed in the second floor room. and -- let's see what else we had in here. i think ann marie address the engineering analysis and it was within the fcc limit. [bell] and that we feel the proposed

equipment complies with the standards for review and is consistent with the san francisco general plan which supports development of technology infrastructure and the growth of emerging telecommunications industries. it is our -- consistent with our plan. it is least intrusive means by which at&t can fill the gap. thank you. president chiu: any additional questions to the project sponsor? why don't i ask if there are -- is public comment. seeing none, why don't we call the appellant for a bottle of up to three minutes. >> excuse me one moment, if you

would. hello again. i would like to address first specific issues raised by president jurchui and i would le to present our perspective. president chiu as the question that planning was told the police had no problems, there were no violations. i would give you a report which is in front of you now. which in fact is the direction by the department of buildings that indicates that this project as of november 29 was i and code enforcement. further, as of november 29, you

will see that there were violations on the building. i do not know what the checklist -- i can tell you that our checking indicates that information is fallacious. let me turn to the heart of the problem that we have as residents of this area. that problem is much of the information that you have been told by mr. hammett and at&t was not subject to review. the planning commission cannot. at&t does not revealed the information. and in fact you heard for example mr. hammett tell you they did a study by november 30. by november 30 it was out of the planning commission and was about to come to you. that was not part of his initial

analysis. if i could with all due deference to mr. hammett, his company derives a substantial amount of money by representing at&t. you will understand that i appreciate his integrity, there is a concern that perhaps an independent party might come to a different conclusion. in fact, in the case of lookout mountain in colorado, his firm had exactly that problem. the fcc received information from his firm concerning a radio antenna. when the fcc would not to check it, the reported it was in compliance they found out it was not. at the same time as his firm

producing airport, they told the city in look out exactly the opposite. it is not that they are not telling the truth. it is that there needs to be independent verification and there is not. the burden is upon at&t and even by what mr. hammett said. president chiu: if i could ask you to follow up your comments, explaining what happened even if that was true. >> what is even if? president chiu: i would like you to finish your sentence. >> my sense is simple. the fact of the matter is, you represent the people of san francisco. all the people of san francisco. if at&t comes to you and asks for something, you should ask them to prove what they say. even their own expert says that the material they submitted does

not prove it. there is some hidden package someplace that does. that is not the way democracy is supposed to work. thank you. president chiu: thank you. colleagues, any questions to the appellant? any questions to any of the parties that we heard from in today's hearing? ok? seeing none, this hearing has been held and closed. this matter is in the hands of the board. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for engaging in this hearing. for many members of the public and thus, we have been frustrated over the course of these issues that continue to rise in front of the board. this is one -- why when i had any -- meeting with the

neighbors, i had specifically said that it is important to make sure we were not addressing issues of aesthetics, property values, health, etc.. and knowing what the standard is and with the high standard for us here, i wanted to make sure this appeal addressed different and more fact based scenarios. i have to say and it is no surprise to you, colleagues, what we have heard from the appellants with regard to the fact they have brought an this is different from any appeals we have had two experts who challenged if there is enough data to suggest that this ought to be appropriate for me, they're marketing materials that seem to conflict with the testimony provided by the project sponsor, it at the planning commission, to me, these are reasons that i would consider in a reversal of the certification. given the high threshold of what that would take, i am not sure that we would have consensus

with eight votes that we should do this. i do gather from supervisor wiener that there might be some interest in imposing additional conditions, to potentially disapprove the planning commission's decision but approve the project with additional conditions. i would like to ask if there is a motion you would like to make in this arena to address what we have heard today. supervisor wiener: thank you. yes, i won't repeat everything i said before. it is frustrating for a lot of us to hear the swearing contests about whether there is or is not enough coverage. i believe that we should require, there should be an independent evaluation of at&t's underlying did it with a confidentiality agreement. someone selected by the planning department who is i independent. and who would then be a

condition and if there is a significant gap in coverage or is not, either at&t's conclusions are accurate or not. i have distributed an additional condition to my colleagues and i have given it to the parties. it would add the following conditions. uses authorized as long as an independent evaluator selected by the planning department with input from the party's determines that the information and conclusion submitted by at&t in support of its request for a conditional use are accurate. at&t show corporate with the evaluator. at&t shall provide data to allow the value and to verify that the map data and conclusions about service covered submitted by at&t are accurate. at&t share -- shall bear all costs of the evaluation. the evaluator shall keep the

submitted data confidentiality -- confidential and sign an agreement. the independent evaluator should be a professional engineer, licensed by the state of california. and so my motion would be basically to amend the cu and approve as amended which would be tabling item 35, amending item 36 to include what i just read and moving item 36 as amended and moving item 37. moshin by supervisor wiener, seconded by supervisor farrell. >> supervisor kim, ay, aye. supervisor mar, no.

supervisor mirkarimi, no. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, no. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd. aye. supervisor of the pharaoh. -- supervisor farrell, aye. >> the motion passes. president chiu: thank you. that concludes today's hearing. why don't we proceed to our next 4:00 p.m. social order. >> items 38 through 41. comprising a special order.

approving a tentative personal map. the motion approving the tentative personal map and item 40 is the motion disapproving. item 41 is the -- directing the preparation of findings. president chiu: we have an appeal of the tentative parcel map at 1138-1140 page street. this is -- the way we will proceed is here from the appellant who will have 10 minutes to describe the grounds for the appeal. and each individual shall have up to two minutes to present. we will hear from representatives of the department of public works and the planning brett will have up

to tenants to describe the decision to approve the map. following the presentations we will hear from the party of interest. we will have 10 minutes to present and we will half person speaking at the appellant will have up to three minutes for a rebuttal argument. are there any objections to proceeding in this way? seeing none, why do we not hear from the appellant? you have up to 10 minutes. >> good afternoon. i am r representing page group llc. thank you for giving me the opportunity. my appeal is primarily based on the fact that the 1138-1140 page

is not a single family dwelling and should not be allowed to bypass the normal condominium commercial process. if i can direct your attention to document number one submitted by me on november 30, 2011, please take a look at exhibit 1. currently using occupancy dated january 7, 2009. signed by mr. sweeney. two family dwellings. which is indicated in the middle. on the left column, under department name, you can go

below to the description. on that box, the property profile. under that box, the property card. and on the right side, simcox, under the description -- the same box, under the description. only of the original department to let it is considered to be a store and a family dwelling. one family dwelling. i would like to direct your attention to exhibit 2 which is identical documents of the current authorized use/occupancy which has been devised november 19, 2009, signed by mr. sweeney to be one family dwelling and one commercial. the revision is based on the

address and description on the original water department. now if you go to the next three pages. documents of the application for service installation by the original owner of 1138-1140 page street. this is 1910. this is a single family and one store. it is 101 years old. service agreement indicates based on the application for service by current owner of 1140 page street, llc, permit

application 200911430376, on this form, they confirm the number of dwelling units on the premises to be two. it appears that the property is a single-family home based on the original 100 years old owner application. i would like to bring your attention to this. this is the application and number 2009-1103. it is signed by the owner of the project. the builders alterations on 11/3/09. on the left side box, the number of the dwelling is indicated at

two by mr. cassidy himself. it is also very important that i bring this to your attention that the client authorized this after the filing of this application. the revision was on the 2009. moving forward to the next page should, i obtained this from the dbi on november 29, 2011. based on the application, the number of the dwelling is determined to be two. proposed as four. it seems that they have changed the current authorized use in

this exhibit im2 after he filed his permit in 2009. this confirms that the document you should be two documents relying on the city and county documents. this is just a confirmation. please go to exhibit four. the multiple listing services of san francisco dated 11/27/011.

the top right corner, and this is indicated april 3, 2009. below the picture on the right side, the property is two units. you can now go to the next page under zoning. the number of units is two. moving below that, on the left side it says 2 flats, 2 stories. this indicates one-bedroom, one bath. under that is a unit two. the property record indicates 2 flats. moving to the next page to the property detailed records, the last recorded current sale of

the property is january 25, 2011. under characteristics, this property is reported to universal land use as a duplex. right below that, the county use code. moving to exhibit 5 is an email to me on november 28, 2011. this is confirming my telephone conversation where he said that after he reviewed the file, he determined that they dpw is determining the condo based on a single-family dwelling. the current authorized use of this project is