knock on wood. make cell phones safe and good ♪ >> let's go to a presentation by our planning department. >> we are joined today with the department of public health. the item before you is an appeal of the conditional use authorizations for wireless telecommunications at 3901 mission street. the question before you is the same question that was before the planning commission. is this project in this location necessary or desirable for the community and compatible with it. with six affirmative votes and one absence, the vote should be

approved. both parties have presented you with substantial new evidence. today, you are being asked to reconsider this decision in light of all of the new information before the planning commission and what is before you. this new evidence includes information from at&t about a gap in coverage for their 4g service. petitions from area residents about the assessed -- accessibility and desirability of this. i will hand this out to you shortly. evidence from the department of public health about the cumulative rf levels at this location. there is a great deal of information that was not before the commission. today, by my count, you have

heard no less than 15 speakers in opposition. it is important to note what the board does not have to decide today. you do not have to determine whether there's a significant gap in coverage. as the board determined the necessity or desirability. with that in mind, this presentation will cover three topics. the description, the commission findings as to why they had approved this. first, the project. this would be in planning section 303. this authorization offers eight- panel antennas on top of a commercial building. this would help architectural features added. it would have clay tiles to match other buildings in the area. behind these features would be the antennas.

associated mechanical equipment what also be internal rooms not accessible to the public. that is the product description. this is completely within a commercial building in a neighborhood commercial district, one of the locations of the guidelines. the city has five preferred guidelines as well as limited preference sites. this site type is the preferred site type number 4. they requested that they not approve a type 1 in a residential district. even as a tuype 4 location, this is a preferred site. in addition to review, the

commission also reviews aesthetics. there are separate reviews for health by the department of public health. they can speak to their analysis of radiofrequency radiation. they have look at existing rf levels and had projected new readings to be within the limit. when it comes to health, the federal communications act established levels. >> supervisor winner wanted to ask a question. supervisor wiener: the appellants did raise an issue with the rf report. i wonder if you could

specifically addressed their argument about the alleged insufficiency about the report. >> the only discrepancy i heard was about the number of antennas. this would in that look -- enable eight antennas. they have revised their project to only include seven antennas. if be board were to see you today, you may consider modifying it down to lower numbers. if there are no other questions, we have discussed the specifics before. we will not go into that. the appellant has said that they are not appealing the health issues. do you have any questions? >> supervisors campos. >> thank you very much, mr. president. i want to thank the planning

department for their presentation. i want to thank the parties involved. i want to thank the residents of the neighborhood who have taken time part of their schedules to come out and testify today. also want to thank at &t for their work on this issue. i want to get a better sense of the information that was provided to the planning commission versus the information that has been given to us that the board of supervisors. we have heard a lot of testimony from the community. additional pieces of information, returning the issue of coverage as well as a report from an expert hired by the appellants. i was wondering if you could say a little bit about the level of input from the community that

the commission received prior to its deliberation. >> nearly all of the information that is before you is new information that was not presented. the commission did get letters from people in opposition. two in support. the initial appeal was very minimal. this includes neighborhood surveys. if there is anything else, i will ask diego to remind me. >> the record that was included and what came out of the planning commission is relatively thin compared to what we have received since it came before the board of supervisors. a lot of information we have received is information that was not properly before the planning commission. is that correct? >> yes.

>> the issue for me, i know a lot has been said about the issue of radiation and some of the health implications. i have heard about property values. that is not to take anything away from those issues. those issues are not relevant to what is before us. the big issue is the issue of necessity. has the case been made to show that this is necessary and desirable? one of the things that jumps out that the planning commission decided is that this seems very conclusory. i do not see evidence or a great deal of evidence that supports that finding. i wonder if you can say to me from an evidentiary perspective

what is the reasoning for a finding that this was indeed necessary? >> on this issue of necessity, when the commission considers wireless installations, they have considered a necessity to mean coverage and capacity. in this case, they found at&t's materials of a coverage gap convincing. it stated that the proposed project is necessary to build mobile phone coverage. recent tests in the subject area by at&t provided conclusive evidence that the subject property is the most viable location. based upon factors including the quality of coverage, land-use

compatibility and aesthetics, the proposed coverage area would serve the area to san jose avenue, as indicated in the coverage map. this would fill in those gaps. >> one of the things that is noted in the appeal is that there is no technical definition of a significant gap in coverage. that goes to the heart of whether or not there is a necessity or a need for this. my question to you, is there a question between that? how do you know that this is necessary -- necessary? there is no technical definition of a gap in coverage. >> there is not a technical definition of coverage or capacity. they did make statements as to

the veracity of the information before them. commissioner antonin made statements that were not contradicting statements before. to paraphrase, he said that one cannot judge the adequacy of a cell phone signal on their own cell phone. it is increased usage and activity. it is not part of the commission's findings to say whether there is a significant gap or not. >> i think it is part of the analysis. we need to figure out whether or not there is a necessity here. when the commissioner makes a statement that this is necessary

from an evidentiary standpoint, why is the basis of that statement? i do not see in the record what that is. can you point that out to me? >> they made that finding based upon the evidence of the record in the coverage map. including the relatively thin your information presented by the appellants. >> they did not have the report from the expert hired from the appellants around some of the technical issues that they raise? >> that is correct. >> did the commission have some of the information that at&t has on its website regarding coverage? was this something presented the last time this came before the board? we went on the website for at&t and at least what is marketed by

at&t to potential customers shows that coverage in the area is pretty adequate. -- was that information presented at or adequate in the presentation? >> it was not. again, besides the general statement that they found this to be necessary, there is nothing specific from an evidentiary standpoint beyond that? >> beyond the materials that i discussed presented by at&t, that was the gist of it. >> let me ask you a couple of questions. it was the issue of the alternative location. was there any analysis of that

issue by the commission in terms of the relevance as to whether or not this was necessary? >> they did not discuss it at that hearing. companies that do an alternative site analysis, this is a preference four types. >> for me, the question is, how can you say something is necessary to if you did not provide analysis as to whether an alternative location would have been a replacement to this? >> necessity is a separate question. another question is the location. a preferred location as to whether is a desirable location is another question. that is yet to be determined by you. >> was there any question

whether there were about four sites in the area at? was there consideration about whether or not upgrading those sites would allow for the same enhancement in coverage? >> no. >> all right. thank you very much. supervisor cohen: i have a couple of questions for you. what guidelines does the planning department used to determine which site -- what guidelines do you use to establish? >> the wireless sighting guidelines established by the commission. >> how old are the guidelines? >> those were created in 1996. the board recommended some modifications. they amended them in 2003.

>> we're working off of guidelines established in 1996. you could imagine the if we were still utilizing technology are browned in 1996, we would not be where we are today. how can we as a board help the planning department established better planning guidelines? >> this board as a legislative body could legislate new guidelines and planning codes or as a policy document. in the plotting code, you could establish the whole preference siting. >> would that be a remedy it to some of the level of the salt -- dysfunction as we see on a weekly basis as we deal with these issues? >> cell phone sitings are a complicated and contentious issue.

>> i would imagine it would be possible if we were to update the guidelines, a baby to specifically articulate thresholds or benchmarks more clearly so that residents and constituents can be clearer as to but -- what will be granted a conditional use and what will not be. >> they would very much appreciate if that were to be developed. >> if you like to finish the rest of your presentation. >> i covered a lot of it. desirability, compatibility. this is in the report before you. in conclusion, we are presenting information about the city of's

existing guidelines. we hope that you will review that information to determine whether or not it is properly authorized. the planning commission found that they meet all of the criteria in the planning code and then move to improve the conditional use authorizations. the board is moving to review that information along with additional information and come to your own conclusion as to the accessibility of the project at this location. the project tasks that they uphold the city authorization. staff is available if you have any questions. >> any questions to planning? supervisor campos. supervisor campos: i forgot to ask a question about the workers coming within the range of the wireless facility.

i wonder i knew could address that issue. that was something that was raised by the appellants. >> i will turn that over. >> i think that is a great question. the occupational parameters that is estimated in the report is 17 feet for a worker. based on the angle of the antanaes, that those wires would not be included in that zone. these reports are based on calculations. they are all theoretical at this point. it is taking measurements. my understanding is based upon the information that has been

submitted that those workers would not be within that 17-foot occupational exclusion zone. >> any other questions, colleagues? at this time, why do we not hear from the projects sponsored? >> my name is mark. i am the regional director in san francisco. gordon is our radiofrequency engineer. and there is a licensed professional engineer in the state of california. they conducted the radio frequency testing that i just described. as ann marie stated, at&t was granted a conditional use permit. the appellant has had questions

about the number of panel and 10 of them are going up. -- and cannot -- antanae that are going up. we have reduced the numberto seven. we have also added spanish tile to go with the architecture in the neighborhood. this is also as a measure to increase the esthetic of the building. with the plans that were approved by the planning staff is for a seven-panel antenna if to grant us are permit, will go through. under the wireless telecommunications services, the guidelines stated this as a preference tonight. we did do an analysis of over 80

alternative sites. there was 1 site mentioned frequently by appellants. the landlord gave us the rights to place the facility on his building and then notified us that he would be leaving the country for a year and did not have anybody to negotiate this in his absence. we abandoned that sight when he was unable to continue negotiations. this is as opposed to another site that was in a residential neighborhood. we have talked a lot about the coverage gap. there is a significant demand on the at&t network. we have experienced a 1000% increase on mobile traffic over the last few years. we expect that to grow 8-10 times over the next five years.

not only are we building for the existing needs, but also for the future. that was something that we submitted yesterday. this site is part of our 4g upgrade. there were a number of blog reports about at&t networks going live in san francisco. this area has no lte coverage. we would be adding yet there. it provides data download speeds 4-5 times faster than you have on your existing cell phone. we can serve more customers more efficiently. we have discussed before, the coverage maps in response to

last week's hearing. we did send a response back to the supervisors about the coverage maps on the web site. those coverage maps out on where we have the ability to place a call or where we have radio signals. that is in no way of an indicator of your ability to hold back call or is it the ability to continually download data at that location. it does mean that you should be able to get four or five bars. it is the capacity issue that we are dealing with. as well as the long-term evolution that we are doing at this site. as opposed to the appellants, who provided you with third- party analysis at that said that they did not have enough data to give you a big judgment, they went out and tested the site.

mr. hammett gave you the information on his findings. he used his own equipment on the site there. in the interest of time, i will try to be brief. you did add additional aesthetics enhancements to this property including spanish tile which would add to the betterment of the community. with the proposed amendment -- equipment that we will be using, it does comply with the city, federal, and state standards. we submit this every six months to the department of planning. it is the least intrusive means by which at&t can address a significant coverage gap. i wanted to thank planning staff for their hard work. we ask for your support to have

this planning commission as we worked diligently to upgrade our facilities in san francisco. i would give the remaining amount of my time to bill, who would share the findings of the study. >> i am a registered professional engineer in the state of california. i would like to submit, bank i could, i do not know to who this should go. this is just a brief letter in reply to one of the exhibits in the material to impugn our professional integrity. i wanted to make sure that there is a reply in the record appropriately. what we have done in response to the request to do an independent evaluation of the coverage presently in this area is that we had no access to the at&t

internal information. we went straight from the material that was in the at&t application. there were two figures here. the before map and the after map. we overlaid those two and outline this area in blue. in this area, we took measurements at 33 locations. the purpose being, to assess whether there is coverage now and to assess capacity. what we have found is that at 28 of these 33 locations, over 85% of the sites, they were at capacity. the testimony you have heard today julian was one of the

public speakers that said that it was not about the signal level. it was about capacity. that is correct. an individual phone may be able to get five bars and make a call. the data shows that it is at capacity. at&t is rolling it its new 4g. that is not what we were measuring. we were measuring the capacity on the existing network, which is stressed. that is critical to what we found. >> thank you. >> any questions to the project sponsored? any final comments? ok. supervisor campos. supervisor campos: thank you.

following up on the questions i asked to the planning commission on the issue of necessity. as i understand it, the tv appeal factors we need to look at our coverage and capacity. i wonder if you can look at in a very specific way, the need to increase capacity or increase coverage is in this case? >> a lot of that would be on the study that bill's study showed. there are points in time when people are downloading movies, surfing the net, when the capacity is full. if a car or to drive through the neighborhood and he was tried to complete call,