because our windows look directly at this site, i will tell you a few omissions from the report. first of all -- i am sorry. >> thank you very much. let me ask if there are any questions to you. supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: i will defer to supervisor campos. supervisor campos: i was wondering if you could finish the comedy were about to make. >> they said that there was no public access. we lived across the street from this and we see the roof. there have been vandals or artists. they can add graffiti to the

tall building in the area. this is another from mission street. here is where the cell phone towers would be located. kids jump up here and write on this building. there is nothing that talks about that. there are other problems in the report that are also omissions. our engineer identified that while the initial requests were for 8 cell towers, their eveluation was for 7. we have a photo that shows the 14 l line coming down the street

within 14 yards of where the cell phone tower could be located. as well as the power support polls the pg&e workers to be touching. this is all inside this area. >> supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: i have a question for the appellants. i think it was more of what you were addressing in terms of capacity and coverage. if you were watching, i offered a conditional opinion that the board adopted which was having an outside expert evaluate the coverage and rely confidentially on at&t's underlying data so we

are not being anecdotal about it. i just wanted to raise that. at the end of the last hearing last week, the appellants expressed that they were grateful for that. they would actually get an answer to their question. i am serious to know the appellant response to that and if that would be an appropriate condition here. >> we would be happy to have an independent person. we would like to get a couple of assurances that the expert was independent. that he would not be influenced by the industry. this is a difficult situation. i also want to make sure that if you are looking at old facts, we

are a little concerned with the clinic. the director had not been approached as to procedures. sometimes they haveup to 60 people at the clinic. they are not sure how they are going to evacuate all of these people. you know that there is a safety risk. we want to make sure that the concerns raised. we were a little bit concerned about the building itself. this is a worker for the clinic. they will be talking about the concerns. he wants to make sure that all of the kids are addressed in the study including co the-location. they were not sure why they could not work out a deal. we are going to get it from both

sides instead of just one. we want to make sure that all of the concerns are included. the planning commission's went up to 8. >> in terms of structural issues -- it sounds like what you are saying is that having an independent evaluation, what we did last week was an independent evaluation, selected by the planning department with input by the parties, it sounds like you are raising issues beyond the dispute about a significant gap in coverage. >> there is more concerns that we have. the irs report was reviewed. he had some problems with the information provided to the health department. that is where we are a little

more concerned, not just the coverage gap. >> any additional questions? at this time, why do we not start with public comment on individuals who wish to speak on behalf of the appellants. if you could please line up on the right hand side of this chamber. first speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the concerned resident it worker at the health clinic located on mission street ,the site of the proposed antenna. i would like to say why the proposed location it is not desirable or compatible at this companion -- location. this presents fire hazards that should require extreme caution in deciding where they should be located. this includes photographs of wireless facilities that caught

fire during routine visits. these photos were taken because of the spectacular nature of the images with these large cell towers going up in flames. it points to the essential facts about any commercial wireless facility. it is industrial in nature and utilizes electrical components that can result in fires. we are located below this antenna. with mobility issues. they would have severe difficulties evacuate in the building quickly in the case of an emergency. the building shakes when trucks or large buses drive by. we are concerned about having

2,000 pounds of equipment above our heads. this equipment and facility itself, we are particularly concerned about a fire during an earthquake. we know we are in earthquakes territory. please vote to deny at&t a permit for this application. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am a concerned resident and a worker at the mental health clinic located at 3901 mission st., the site of the proposed antenna. wireless facilities like at&t typically require the use of backup batteries to provide power to the facility. these types of red acid batteries make the proposed

wireless facilities incompatible with the clinic and the surrounding residential area. included was the lead acid battery materials for the sites used in san francisco. we are located right below this antenna. on any given day, we can have 60 patients on the premises. should anything go wrong with this equipment, it would not be easy to evacuate the building in a timely manner. in addition, these buildings vibrate stronger waywhen buses pass and increases the risk to our patients in the case of an earthquake. please vote to deny at&t a permit for this application. >> next speaker, please.

>> good evening. i have been a resident of st. mary's park for 20 years. this is truly an issue of, not in my backyard. the proposed tower is in my backyard. the back touches what i am touching. this impacts me for several reasons. if you look at the material shown to you as far as at&t coverage in the area, it does not show the need for an additional tower in that location. it comes down to whether there are enough bars on your phone and whether you can get internet reception. i do not have a problem. i work at home. in 10 years, i have never had an internet or phone outage.

there are multiple computers used in my home. i do not think this is the appropriate place for it. you look at the maps of ohtether things shown to you. those are more useful areas than something that gives me a stronger signal. tell me why there is a need for an additional tower or eight tower in my backyard. me as a user of your product has no problem getting reception. >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors. i am a member of st. mary's park. i have been there for five years. not only for the reasons i have been given, but i do not see

more cell towers as a scalable solution to the issues they will face in the coming years. will we have a cell tower on every corner because bandwidth is so obtuse? let me tell you what the problem is. it is not a problem with signal. it is coverage. if you read it one of the many e-mails in the report, there was one that contained information from an engineer. problem does not signal coverage, but what happens during high volume times. what is referred to as agap or dropped call. they have got too many. fueled by greed, they joined

forces with apple for greater market share, which cannot be sustained. they wanted to share resources, share cell towers, upgrade the existing cell towers and not put in more and more of these power hungry transistors. where are you going to draw the line? if you do not like any of the above, i refer you to the locations of these cell towers. the second location in the guidelines, co-location sites and encourages at installation on buildings with -- that already have wireless facilities. >> next speaker, please. >> i am a proud member of st. mary's park. i have been living in st. mary's

park for about five years. i would like to speak about the devalueing of our community. the st. mary's park has been in existence for many years. we plan events for our neighborhood. we talk about how important community events are. we have a newspaper that we put together. this has been put together by people in our neighborhood. i am really concerned about the devalueing of our neighborhood. this could affect the property tax revenues. if our homes are devalued by the cell tower and we have to close, it is a big concern to me. why would we have to deserve that. if we do have to disclose this, it is going to affect our

property values. it will affect the property tax revenues that the city can obtain from us as residents. they go hand in hand. i am hoping that you will vote in favor of us, the community and residents instead of voting in favor of big companies. and taking some of the responsibility to represent us as residents. please vote to deny at&t a permit. >> i have a question about the last speaker. i am curious to understand better your thinking about the impression that your home will be devalued. >> i have been informed in the meetings we have had in my

community -- >> who is informing you of this? >> the first speaker today and somebody who has done a lot of research on this issue. do you mind if bay -- >> cite your source. i just want to know. >> can we just not tell anybody? nobody is really going to be able to see it. it is a violation. you cannot lie? neighbors do not like to live next to a cell tower and 10 up. you are supposed to disclose any matters that you would know

about the value of the property. you cannot lie. if you do, it is against real- estate law. they can fine you up to $200,000. >> the public perception is placing something on the market. the person that assesses property value has the ultimate say as to whether or not a property has been devalued. >> if people start leaving the neighborhood and prices go down, there is a possibility that they have trained their appraisers to adjust property values from 2% to 20% depending on how close you are to the site. the closer you are, the market affects your property values.

home buyers and families, in particular with children, may sean away from these properties. we have a problem in sanchez because they had the uv box. it could have a tremendous impact on property prices. many neighbors have stated that they would like to move out. it goes on top of the mental health. that is what we mean by property prices and property devalueing. >> being a real turk, the national organization of appraisers, are they basing their devaluation of property based on any sort of statistical relevancy of a home being placed

so close to cell towers? >> there were studies done in europe. we are not supposed to talk about that. that is what we were told last time. there have been some studies where they have analyzed the data of properties near these facilities. that compared to when the facility came into town and after. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor campos. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. i know we still have to hear more public comment. this is an important issue. i do not want to take anything away from its importance. i understand why people are worried about property values. i do have a question for the city attorney. my understanding is that as

important as the issue is, as i understand it, the issue of the possible devaluation of the property is not relevant to the underlying discussion. i wanted to make sure that we are clear on that. that is an important issue. i wanted to make sure that we were focused on what was before the board. >> supervisor campos, the board may not base its decision to deny a conditional use if the grounds are the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. that is what you are not allowed to consider in making your decision. it is pre-empted by federal law. >> that may not be a proper basis for a denial? thank you.

>> this is a clarification to my colleagues and members of the public that may not be fully versed on laws that govern on this particular issue. it is a very complicated and challenging issue, one bank that we have been supportive in dealing with i do not know how many times in the next three months. >> why do we not hear from our next number of the public? >> thank you. my name is ian wang. i am within 300 yards of the proposed site. i am here to support my community. i asked you to deny at&t the right to build at that site. i have been a resident of this

community for five years. i am a long-term at&t user. i have never had an issue or a dropped call within my area of service or might baseman or my backyard. our service has been excellent with at&t. i echo everything that my neighbors have said. excellent service, a blight on the neighborhood. we feel like thiscell tower is not necessary. please say no to at&t and say yes to our neighborhood concerns. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors. i live within 300 feet of the proposed site. i am a longtime at&t subscriber as well.

i have perfect reception. never a problem or a complaint to at&t about service problems. i understand that there is a cell tower on the same block. i do not understand why they need another one in an area that has good service. does that not make sense. i don't see how they can improve my service more than it is. i am a longtime resident. i have two kids. i look out my window and it is there. i can see it from my living room. like i said, i do not see the need for it. if there is areas that they

want to cover an increase their service, put it in those areas. i implore you to disallow this solution. they want to put another one in in the existing place. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i don't live here, i am a visitor. are you serving the 1% or the 99%? i did not hear anybody who spoke that said they were not getting enough service or enough coverage. what is enough? is it enough when every single person has a device watching a movie all the time? i would like to make an appeal

to the federal government that you cannot make a decision based on the health risks. that is why the property values are lower and near the cell towers. everybody understands that there is a serious health risk. i live in a progressive county. they'd c justabed to serve the 1%. -- they just caved to serve the 1%. i have seen some beautiful areas that are close to a help the habitat for the wildlife. who is going to speak for them? who are going to speak for the bees that get disoriented because of all of these signals. when is it going to be enough? when are you going to serve the people instead of the corporations that hide behind these federal regulations?

you have stood up to the federal government, let's see you do it again. let's see at a healthy habitat for everyone. >> thank you. next speaker, please. i would remind folks to please refrain from applause or any opposition to speakers. >> good evening, supervisors. i live in san francisco for 40 years. i live in st. mary's park for 10 years. i live in st. mary's park for 10 years. i have had at&t for 15 or 16 years. i have never had any problems. the city of san francisco built the playground for the kids and

the children. so many children play there. i do not think it is good for the children. i need your help. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i purchased my house in july of last year. had i known we would have this tower, i would not have purchased it. i have great service. i have no complaints or problems. i asked you to deny at&t the tower. >> members of the board of supervisors, i am the director of san francisco open government. i listened very carefully to the speakers to come up here.

it is their right to speak to you to ask you for consideration. i have heard a lot of things here. we can get into technicalities. the federal government says that there is no danger. my father was a real-estate broker in florida for 40 years. when a person is buying a home, there is a significant portion of the population that decide that there -- this is something that i do not want to live near. there are other people that say i want to live near it, but since there are questions about it, i can use that to reduce the price. if you want to sell this, you have to give me a break on it. look at what i have to live with. we can argue whether the federal government is right or wrong about the health hazards. i think that the jury is out. a significant number of people

when they go into the home buying market will consider it a detrimental factor. another portion of that same group will go in and look at it as a bargaining tool to bring down the price and the value of those homes. someone said earlier, the assessor is the one that decides the value of the homes. the assessor uses the sale by use of the homes in the community. if resale prices of the homes goes down, the assessed values go down. >> next speaker. >> i go to the flea market. let's remember the farmers' market for the fruit and vegetable safety. ♪ it is like thunder and lightning it is frightening