like to entertain a motion. supervisor avalos, seconded by supervisor elsbernd, and that shall be the case. if we can call up the special order, items 23 to 26, the special order items from 4:00 p.m.. clerk calvillo: item number 23, a hearing involving the removing of existing and tennis and to install a wireless telecommunications facility of up to four panel antennas. item 24 is a motion approving the decision of the planning commission, and item 25 is a motion disapproving a decision from the planning commission, and item 26 is a motion directing the clerk of the board to prepare findings. president chiu: this will be about installing wireless communication facilities and

related equipment on the property located on 14th. there will be a presentation of up to 14 minutes, and that will be followed by members of the public who wish to speak who will have up to two minutes to speak. we will then hear a presentation from planning and then up to 10 minutes from the project sponsor, two minutes per member of the public who wishes to speak in opposition to the appeal, and then finally the appellate will have a were bottle. colleagues, unless there are any questions, supervisor mar, i recognize you. supervisor mar: the documents submitted by the appellant, i

want to say that many residents of the richmond district that are part of the first slavic baptist church ban parents and family from the academy have some and a number of documents that lay out their case for appeal. i also wanted to think david from the bureau for convening different meetings with residents and parents and also for making different medications that recommended by the planning commission and urged by the hebrew academy parents and families and others. i also wanted to thank some, including parents from the neighborhood and many that have communicated to my office. my staff and i have met with both sides, and like the planning commissioner had it urged efforts to come together to find common ground and compromise, but i do not think that was found by both sides. i also wanted to say that in the

documents submitted by the appellant, i also wanted to let you know that one key issue is the wireless citing guidelines from the city, and i know that a number of my colleagues have said that the 1996 to 1997 guidelines should residential area and fentanyl -- and senate panels are there as opposed to a commercial area. another point is whether the antennas or are desirable or necessary, and i think the appellants lay out a number of strong reasons why we should consider that they are not desirable and not necessary for the neighborhood. a third thing is an issue that we struggle with as a board over health and radiation concerns, but i would just say the depaul's layout important arguments -- let me just say this, the study that was

completed by at&t, an engineer, and associates is contested by the appellant, and they raise other issues put forth by a physicist that says that the radiation levels are much higher than that proposed in the report from december 7, 2011, acela as you did a close look at the health concerns raised by the residents, and they say that the fcc pressed roles -- thresholds are exceeded. the last point i will make is that my office has done my best to look at the concerns that parents have, but we have also had meetings with the bureau of jewish -- jewish education, and i hope that you look at the validity of the arguments made by the appellants, and that is for this hearing. thank you.

president chiu: thank you, supervisor mar. why do i not invite the appellant up, and you have your time, which you may share with others. >> may it please the board. my name is sherman. i am with a law firm, and i am especially appearing this afternoon on behalf of the appellant. in this presentation, i would like to initially set forth the two separate and independent grounds upon which the board may grant the appeal. first, the planning commission decision clearly violates section 303-c-1 of the planning code because it is unquestionably not desirable. it is not desirable for the

neighborhood and the local community. second, the proposed use fails to comply with applicable sec health and safety standards. next, i do want to address the planning commission's recent amendment of the guidelines to require an independent evaluation of the coverage and capacity data provided by the project sponsors in these types of situations, and noted that even if the board does not grant the appeal, in light of the recent amendment, unless it is remanded to the planning commission for such an evaluation -- and i will conclude with a plea that this board direct the planning commission and the planning department to undertake a thorough and comprehensive

review and amendment of the guidelines. those are long overdue. first, the decision is the weight -- violates section 303- c-1 because they use is clearly not desirable for the neighborhood and community, and the planning commission decision actually indicates this, and i am now referring to, this is their motion, i am looking on page 5, finding no. 13 refers to the planning code section 303, a subdivision a-1 dealing with this specifically, 303-c-1. and i am now reading. desirable. san francisco is desirable. it is important to have

adequate cell coverage and capacity, and this includes the installation and upgrading of systems to keep up with changing technology and increases in uses. it is desirable for the facility to allow wireless facilities to be installed. that is a very laudable general policy. we do not disagree with it. it does not establish that this specific proposed use is desirable at the specific location in this neighborhood and local community. it does not meet the planning code provision requirement. the planning commission to accentuate acknowledges this when it goes on and tries to tie it up specifically with the actual project site, "the proposed project on 14th avenue will be generally desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood because the profit will not conflict with the existing uses of the property and will be of such size and

nature to be compatible with the surrounding nature of the vicinity." "generally desirable" does not meet this requirement. and compatibility is a separate requirement under it says 303-c- 1, so the fact that it is compatible does not determine this. it was clearly established it is not desirable for the community. if we look up the page dealing with public comment, and i ever reading again from the planning commission decision, "prior to the november 3, 2011, and december 8, 2011, hearings, the department received extensive public comment in opposition to the proposal from families and administration of the hebrew academy and neighborhood residents.

a few letters in support of the proposal were submitted." there is no question that the proposed use is undesirable in this specific neighborhood and in this specific community, and if there is any doubt, i would urge the board to review the exhibit b of the documents submitted in support of the appeal which contains over 500 signatures of residents and individuals, members of the community who learn and worship and lived in this neighborhood. it is unquestionably not desirable, and for this reason alone, the appeal should be granted, and the appeal should be reversed. second, the appeal should also be granted because the proposed project violates applicable ftc health and safety standards. exhibit a details that in a very

detailed way from the appellants expert. the appellate expert was supposed to be here today to make a presentation to show in more detail how that indicates the noncompliance. unfortunately, you had a medical condition, and he is not going to be able to be here to make that presentation, so we submit it on the documents already provided in support, but this does lead to a another problem with a piecemeal review and evaluation of the guidelines. for example, the amendment just passed by the planning commission is restricted, the independent in that nation will be restricted to capacity and coverage issues, which is key for the necessary standard in section 303-c-1, but, for example, it would not solve the

expert clashing opinions on this regarding whether or not the proposed use complies with fcc standards, and this is why the scope of the independent evaluation needs to be expanded to include confirmation that the proposed use complies with fcc standards. and this also leads to why i think it is incumbent upon the board to direct the planning commission and the planning department to undertake a thorough and comprehensive review of the guidelines. the guidelines were passed on august 15, 1996. on march 13, 2003, the planning commission passed a resolution 16539, that found, among other things, that it has been almost seven years since the guidelines were adopted in 1996. during which time, industry

maturation and increasing neighborhood concerns regarding antennas has made it necessary to review and supplement the guidelines. it has been nearly nine years since that review. it will be nine years next month. it is time to do a comprehensive and thorough review of the guidelines. there are many problems with them, particularly as it relates to the preferences of citing. -- sighting. you probably would not know this from reading the planning commission's decision, but this is also a disfavored site. it is both a preferred site, and

this is under section 8.1 of the sighting guidelines, and it is a disfavor site, and the other problem, if you look at the publicly used structure, there is an inconsistency within the definition. it includes public facilities, and now i am reading from that section, such as police and fire stations, libraries and community centers," and then it goes on to talk about utility structures, water towers, elevated roadways, flagpoles, smokestacks, telephone switching, or other structures. may i have one minute? president chiu: you still have one minute. you can see the clock. >> thank you.

these should be public structures, because in this instance, we have a private owner who is receiving a good sum of money from at&t to sight on a private building, and with that, i will submit it. thank you for your concern. president chiu: thank you. colleagues, any questions to the appellant? supervisor mar? supervisor mar: i would just like you to restate your name and elaborate more on why the project is not necessary, especially when at&t says often there is a lack of capacity and there is a lot of dropouts and that projected future years will mean that they need antenna's like that. if you can go into more detail as to why this is not necessary? >> i think on the necessary pronk, this comes back to the

independence evaluation procedure bat has been recently proposed and passed as an amendment to the guidelines, and my understanding, i was not a part of that procedure specifically, but my understanding is that part of the reason for doing that is to have an independent evaluator confirm the capacity and coverage data that is provided by the project sponsor to establish that the situation is truly necessary, that the proposed use is truly necessary, and in this instance, that obviously has not been done, as that amendment occurred subsequent and at the very least this matter would have to be remanded back to the planning commission for such an

independent evaluation, and i would encourage that in those circumstances that it also include an independent about a waiter, also include confirmation that the proposed use complies with applicable fcc standards. president chiu: thank you very much. supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you. in terms of independent evaluations, it is one thing to talk about independent about the mission of this service coverage and capacity, because that has to deal with what is proprietary and confidential, so, in the past, as i suggest is currently happening now, having at&t confidentially turning over the data to an independent evaluator to see if there is a coverage capacity issue or not, but when you are talking about

the health evaluation or some of the other issues in terms of neighborhood desirability or any of those kinds of issues, that to me is a little bit more difficult to understand why there needs to be an independent evaluation. we have a department of public health that does not have a course in the race that is making an evaluation. we have a planning department that makes an evaluation about whether particular citing is appropriate in this neighborhood or that given the circumstances. however, the data for the coverage capacity seems to be where the planning department, without that did it, does not necessarily -- is not in the same position as at&t to evaluate, which is why we have gone with an independent evaluator in some other cases, so why would we need to have an independent evaluator for other things other than service capacity?

>> well, as i primarily argued, we do not, for example, our primary argument is that it is not desirable. we do not need an independent about you later to decide that. i think the planning committee decision already indicates it is not desirable, so i agree on this there is no need for an independent evaluator, and i am not suggesting that the planning department's or the health department is in any sense, you know, biased in evaluating, but it is my understanding that they make that evaluation based upon the information regarding the radio frequency emission's comes from the project sponsor, and we need, i think, consider an independent evaluator to confirm the accuracy of that information which is then provided, as i understand it, to

the health department to see whether or not it complies with those standards. supervisor wiener: and another i question i have, perhaps to the city attorney, is it the health department's determination is before this board? >> through the chair, supervisor wiener, it provides that the board can deny a wireless permit if, among other things, the decision is not based on the environmental effects, so, yes, it is not before as based on the fact that it is not before you to make a decision based on that. supervisor wiener: it seems there also disputing whether or not it complies with fcc standards. is that determination by dph that it does comply before us? >> there is really not a mechanism for that to come before the board, so i would

urge the board to exercise caution in using that as a basis. supervisor wiener: right, and i am not saying we would. i just want to clarify in terms of whether dph is correct or not correct with whether this complies with fcc standards, and that is not something that is before the board or something on which we could base our decision. is that true? >> as i said, there is no mechanism for that to come before the board. it has not ever come up, so that is sort of new territory here how the decision by a public health, whether that is appealable or how that would happen. supervisor wiener: thank you. >> briefly, i would note, and again this is in the planning department's findings, the proposed wireless network would be operating in the 700 to 2200 mhz bands, which is regulated by

the federal communications commission and which must comply with the fcc adopted health and safety standards for electromagnetic radiation and radio frequency radiation, so it is a specific finding by the commission in support of its decision, and i think it is properly before the board. president chiu: any other questions, colleagues? supervisor mar i just wanted to say that in the memo today, from february 7, after the appellants may be allegations that it does not comply with the 1996 the vacations act, the department of public health the valley with is based on information submitted in the edison report, that is an industry-generated report, the proposed project would comply

with the fcc regulations regarding radio frequency emissions, and then skipping down to the paragraph on page four, the health department requested that the density at 150 feet ejaculated and show energy to be 14.1% of the acceptable limits of the fcc guidelines, so my analysis of this is that the appellants are contesting the edison report but that the planning department is accepting that it is within the threshold, but that is my read of this, and the appellants are making that argument, and unfortunately, the physicist that the appellants had hoped to speak is not here, so i would just ask again if you can give us more detail as to why you are contesting the industry generated report and why your data is more accurate, according to the residence? >> i appreciate that, and i am sorry i cannot.

i am not prepared. it was the appellants expert to was going to make that presentation today, and he is sick and was hospitalized and was not able to come, so my apologies to the board that i cannot shed further light on the details of that. president chiu: thank you. why do we now not hear from members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? if you could line up on the right side, and each member will have up to two minutes. and if we could get the projector? >> hello, my name is gene. there are the children that attend the jewish academy's goal. unfortunately, one of our technical experts coming he is sick today, and i am going to take his role and try to explain

to you whatever he did, and i am going to submit the same papers to you after i finish. what was done by the hamilton association, we think it is not really representing -- in the previous history of this case, when the hebrew academy appealed the decision of the installation, we proved that the distance between the buildings of where it will be installed and the hebrew academy are much less than it is supposed to be by the fcc regulation, according to what is public and which is

what the hamilton report used. according to the power of the antenna and the wattage, the distance is supposed to be set least 150 feet from the antenna installation to the building. it is exactly inside this 150 feet, and we proved, and at&t admitted that it does not comply with the fcc rule for the hebrew academy, -- president chiu: thank you very much. next speaker, please. police stepped up.

-- please step up. >> my name is -- and i have lived on 14th avenue for the past 22 years, and i recently, queens -- with my neighbors, both the academy and the church. what i have come to understand is whether these risks are concerns over health are real or perceived. psychologically, it is a very real concern for them, and what we know is that this situation is politically a real concern citywide, and i would like to bring the concern that not only do we need to address our city corner and our neighborhood but that the siding -- citing -- sighting guidelines need to be addressed citywide, and i think

you need to address this with constituents and that there needs to be a moratorium put in place until the guidelines are revised and the planning code is revised, and i feel it is your moral and ethical obligation to put everything on hold until these revisions can be put in place. you know, we do not want to see that these antennas continue to be put on rooftops and later on how do we remove them, and so what is the process for that, so i would ask that you represent the people in the neighborhoods and not the largest lobbyists to the city, which is at&t. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> that afternoon, my name is -- i am the father of two boys to attend the academy. i do not want to minimize the

important role that at&t plays in the future of san francisco, and, in fact, they have good services. i want to remind you from my personal experience that the religious institutions such as the hebrew academy and the church play in the san francisco community. number one, it teaches family values to lenders of kids and teenagers. number two, it provides financial support to many charitable causes throughout the city. number three, it teaches and promotes moral values that many kids do not get in the public school or their neighborhoods, and number four, it teaches public responsibility, not only to the kids but to the parents. and the last 40 years, the academy has helped thousands of children in need from all over san francisco, and, in fact, and this is a fact, we cannot underestimate or overlooked.