the creation of the words you came up with. politically, you and i never quite connected. [applause] what i appreciated is -- you try very hard. i am not trying to make light of anything. ross was always an open door. ross was always listening. we tried to come together on a number of important issues. what i appreciated most is when we disagree, it was not a disagreement simply because others wanted to go along. you were always willing to break free. you had your own conscience and your own code. no one instructed you. you were your own man. and i think that is something

all of us can look at and be proud of. you stood your own ground very well. and i appreciated that. i think most importantly we did not have the political connection. u.n. that became fathers at a very close time in our lives. your son was born a few months before mine. our wives enjoyed as much as you can bring her pregnancy together, i remember one evening when i could not find jennifer because she was off at babies r us with ileana. they connected in a personal way and we had to watching our sons grew up. i look forward to continue to doing that with you as you move on and i wish you all the best in your new role. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you.

>> we have not seen eye to eye on a ton of major issues. a few things. the one thing that i will say, it is one of the most humbling things, i learned a ton freer and i have seen the way you have interacted with your constituents, with people on the board. i have respected that and have learned a ton with you at -- from you. it has been a great learning experience. the only -- other thing i admire is the passion with which he advocated on issues you believe in. we did not agree in the end with the booker t. washington debate by you took the reins to work with community leaders and neighbors. i respected that and we did not agree in the end but i respected the way you work together and it

has been a great experience with you so far and i wish you all the best of look and look forward to working together for years to come. supervisor chu: i find myself not quite knowing what to do in budget. with you gone, it will be a big change. you can to sail lot and i tend to say almost nothing. -- tend to say a lot and i tend to say almost nothing. i want to thank you for really being a great committee member and for being a great supervisor. i can see how you connect with your residents and that is something we can all learn from and that has been said many times. in particular, my experience working with you in this budget year has been wonderful. you have exhibited an ability to understand budget issues and get to how it is we can pass the budget. i want to thank you, the work you did to make sure we had the

votes in. to do that. a lot to thank you. again, i do not know what to do without you there. jane and i and whoever the next person will be will have to figure that out. thank you for everything. i look forward to working with you as a share. we will have many conversations about the budget and i look forward to having you here. supervisor mirkarimi: be kind. supervisor cohen: i am going to say publicly congratulations. i cannot think of a more deserving, more passionate person to take up the helm of our public safety, one of our public safety arms. i want to say that as one of the newbies, it has been an interesting year watching you and sean text oppose each other. -- juxtapose each other.

you were the most senior person on this board and it has been a unique opportunity to sit and watch and learn the functions of how we can conduct business as a board. also the difference in your style. the rest of my new colleagues might agree in saying it has been entertaining also at times. it has been a fantastic learning lesson and i wish you the best of luck. i am sure we will continue to work together as we address a lot of our cities, very critical and serious public safety needs. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. ross, again, congratulations. i first met you during your 2004 campaign. i will add that i was helping a different candidate. -- admit i was helping a

different candidate. i was impressed that everywhere i was as a volunteer, you were there as a candidate. even though we certainly have our political differences, i know as bordering districts, your everywhere and you are absolutely devoted to your district and to helping people in the district. i am incredibly respectful of the work that you have been able to do. that is how attentive you have been. as district supervisors, even though some of us have our differences, we all get swatted around the same. we all have been criticized on a regular basis. we all have really hard by rewarding jobs. i have seen the work you've done. it has been very impressive. i also -- there are times when you get that look on your face and we're sitting here, sort of like the wiser, more mature dog

looking at the puppy flopping around and you have that look that you get, smiling at me. i always enjoy that. congratulations. [laughter] we will miss you. i know you're not going far. thank you. president chiu: let me just conclude. we will be passing a resolution later on commending you, supervisor mirkarimi. let me read the final result clauses. the board of supervisors on behalf of our residents recognize supervisor ross mirkarimi for serving with the utmost integrity, intellect, and passion that will be missed by many. let it be further resolved that the board of supervisors congratulate supervisor ross mirkarimi of becoming a share of a lack of the city and county of san francisco. we wish you and your family continued success and happiness in your future endeavors. congratulations. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. [applause]

president chiu: that concludes today is 3:30 p.m. special accommodations. we still do have two 3:00 p.m. special orders. i will take them in order. before we proceed, i do understand that the fillmore community benefit district results are in. why odn't -- don't we go back to items 38 and 39. could you please announce the results? >> voting for the fillmore was 33.83% and the returned weighted balance voting against was 66.17% indicating there was a majority protest. president chiu: given there was a majority protest, could we

have a motion to table this motion? supervisor mirkarimi: motion to table. president chiu: is there a second? can we take this without objection? without objection, this item is tabled. [gavel] with that, could you please call the second 3:00 p.m. item having to do with the cell phone protest at 3901 mission street? >> items 40 through 43 comprise a special order of people interested in the planning commission decision conditional use authorization on property located at 31 -- 3901 mission street. approving the planning commission's decision to approve the authorization. item 42 is the motion disapproving the approval of a conditional use authorization on item 43 -- 43 is the motion directing the preparation of findings. president chiu: we have before

us the appeal of the conditional use project. for this hearing will consider whether or not to approve the decision of the planning commission's cu authorization to install a wireless telecommunications service facility consisting of eight panel antennas and related equipment on an existing one story commercial building as part of the at&t wireless telecommunications network within a small scale neighborhood commercial zoning district and a 40 x district. we will proceed with a presentation initially by the appellant for up to 10 minutes. we will hear from the individuals from the public who wish to speak in support of the appeal with public comment about two minutes. we will hear from the planning commission for presentation up to 10 minutes. from the project sponsor, presentation up to 10 minutes

and individuals who wish to speak in opposition, in support of the burial party and interest come up to 2 minutes per speaker and a three minute rebuttal by the appellant. unless there are questions to proceed, let me ask the supervisor districts, do you have anything you would like to say initially? ok. with that, which began the hearing. let me ask for the representative from the appellant. if you could come up to the podium. you have up to 10 minutes. you could divide it as you see fit. >> we have an exhibit, where do we put it? president chiu: it is hard to hear you. could you speak into the microphone? >> we do have an exhibit. president chiu: it should be on the projector. i want to thank sfgtv for their work. >> good afternoon.

i am the vice-president of the college hill neighborhood association and i am an at&t addict and i get great reception. i am here to present -- represent our association. members of the improvement club. employers of the san francisco community health clinic and many homeowners and working families who lived near the proposed facility at 3901 mission street. we're here to oppose at&t's proposal for an eight panel antennas facility. it is not necessary. the engineer report that claims to justify the need for another wireless facility is not supported by the required technical data. in addition at&t has failed to sufficiently justified its rejection of the existing code locations and viable alternatives. i hope you got a copy of the

court communications which are independent consultants to review the information and that at&t provided. they provide conclusive evidence of our position. it is not desirable. nearly 50% of property owners in the radius, 72% of owners have signed a petition. it is not compatible. the facility presents a number of toxic chemical fires and explosive hazards that are inappropriate for a building that houses a community mental health facility catering to senior citizens and children. it is an industrial use that is incompatible with that residential neighborhood. we will explain why at&t has not made its burden of proof. under the san francisco planning

code. >> i am a resident of st. mary's park and i want to thank you for listening. i know you are wary of this issue and you have heard it from other neighborhoods. that is why if you will bear with us we have a solution may be that could help the better -- to better san francisco. i have been there for 16 years and my home i was surprised is identified as one of the alternative sites. much to the surprise of my husband and died. we live -- musban husband and i. to give you my background. i also work in telecom and wireless. i love technology. i am an at&t user. i also have -- my husband is an engineer. we have four laptops, teo smart

funds -- two smart phones and have never experienced a coverage problem. my husband runs major tests because he does a lot of development work and never had a wireless issue. i want to make sure i have this going right way, can you see it? you have seen this before. it seems like at&t agrees with me. at least the their marketing map on the website agrees that the coverage, if you look at this ship here, this is our neighborhood. if you look at the guide, even if you take into the discrepancy, maybe my printer is off. it is very orange. i want to present the map from at&t. here is where they identify service gaps in the neighborhood. i want to present to you an

alternate view of that. when i have done here is blacked out the areas around here. the water treatment facility, st. mary's park, those are areas where there are no residence. it presents a different picture of the coverage map. once again, if you look at the various maps we have provided, who was right? is it he said, she said? is at&t? is a their marketing department? is that there neighborhood? do we have enough evidence to prove there is a significant gap? although presented an engineering report done by a third party. i want to put his credentials of. at&t has also put forth board and spencer -- gordon spencer's report. one of the things he has

criticized, where is the right coverage we should have? it is the marketing map that is right? is it the neighborhood's opinion that there is great coverage? all we're asking for is where is the criteria? they have not met the burden of proof either under the telecom reform act or under the local code of 303. that there is conclusive evidence there is a coverage problem. part of the reason is cordoned -- gordon spencer's report fell to include criteria -- failed to include criteria about what is successful. bear with me as i talk about gaps in coverage versus capacity. that has been an argument used in the past. i was at at&t park 1 barry bonds -- when barry bonds hit his home run and everyone is out there taking pictures try to

upload to facebook. could anybody do it? no. at that point you have a situation that is unique where everybody is over using capacity. my question is to at&t and spencer, what is the level of capacity you are willing to accept? we had our engineer look through report. there is no guideline. what is acceptable? what is the criteria? i think the only conclusion you can draw from this is there is no real criteria. i want to present to you and i am sorry if i do not have it with me. you received it as one of your attachments. it is what at&t identified as their plan. my printer does not paint -- print out, it is a spreadsheet. it talks about desired sites, how close are they to the ring, and what is the plan for 2g, 3g,

4g. this is what at&t was presenting as a plan. where is the strategy, where's the criteria, where's the baseline of what the coverage should be in the area? i think one of the things you'll get is you may reject our bid here. and in january when you presume you will have bayview, pacific heights, every time a tower those of you have people back representing a similar maps, similar arguments, similar discussions with you. we need to draw a line in the sand right now. make at&t come forward with a plan for the city. is it 2g, 3g, 4g, what is it? what are the capacity guidelines? will 1 million people should appear and not able to use

services? we're all along to 80. there is no residents there. that is what people are talking about coverage issues. why not put one of those fake cell towers that look like trees? and not put it in the neighborhood or it is interested. we contend they have not met the requirements and 3901 is not the place for it. you may notice they considered an alternative location. 3899. there is no reason they rejected that when verizon already has a cell tower there. if you look at the format, it is clear they need to consider co- location facilities. what did they not consider that what they have to work with verizon? what is the reason? when you look at the evidence, everything has not been explored. ask them to come back with a better plan for the city.

thank you. [applause] president chiu: we do have role in the board chamber that prohibits applause or other expression of support or opposition. if i could ask you to approve -- appreciate that -- respect that i would appreciate that. >> i want to echo what suzanne said. you have seen this before. this is our first time in this documentary. there things that are unique about this situation and things it has in common that we would like you to listen to. people took time off from work to talk to you and i appreciate all the respect you have given us here. [bell] my name is theresa, i lived at this location for 16because ourk

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 aut