and not let at&t russia into such a procedure to make a horrible environment not only for the church, not only for the jewish academy, and not only for the neighbors of the area. i think you for listening. >> i am a member of the church. in my country, i was a doctor of medicine. here i am a registered nurse. [unintelligible] if you don't make the right decision, god will be your judge. president chiu: are there any other members that wish to speak

on behalf of the appellant? >> my name is tim. i don't want the antennas to be on the roof because i have been here my whole life and i want to stay healthy. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i have been a member of the local church here for a number of years. i have been in the united states since 1994. i enjoyed in this time and being here. i really like the leadership of this country, the state, the

city of san francisco. and when i found out they would be installed next to the church, ages 2-9, it really concerns me. they are being installed right next to the church and i am kindly asking the board of supervisors to reconsider this. thank you very much. >> i am the parent of four children. my oldest is in the eleventh grade and i have a nine created and in kindergarten. my kindergartner is just five. i got informed that we have two

antennas. i heard in the school, we had cases where a child got cancer and we don't know the reason. it might have been caused by the antennas. i'm strictly against the installation. there is no proven fact. about the consequences, but we don't want to experiment with the children. my mom was an orphan, she lost her parents when she was 7. plus, we have a lot of families from the ukraine that survived at chernobyl. they have greater rates of

cancer and the lower life expectancies. so please, if the antenna is installed, the school is in danger. this is the only school for the whole bay area that combines the program with a religious program. the orthodox jewish school, there is no other school in the bay area. [chime] president chiu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i live two hours away from

here. i come to san francisco church almost every sunday to listen to the preacher. i don't come and to be -- i don't want you guys to put these antennas. if i get some sickness from the radiation or the little kids. a lot of young people are getting married now and they are having children and they are coming to our church. the you guys really want money? or do you want children safe? what would you rather have? a lot of nice, really pretty little kids, or money? [applause] president chiu: thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> i am also a member of this church, i have been there for multiple years. he is about two months old now, and we heard there is potential radiation that could harm the development of the child. i am very against these being installed. >> good afternoon, commission. i am a member of the first slavic baptist church, and i am a mother. i let my child go to this church to get spiritual knowledge. i know you believe in god. you don't wish for your kids to

be in danger. i hope you make a wise decision. and you. president chiu: are there any other members of the public that wish to speak? >> i am one of the parents of the academy and i have two kids. i am a single mother and the academy is doing for me, a lot of favors. i've got to think that i can go to other schools. we submit children's testimonies where our children

could not come today. please don't install antennas. president chiu: are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? why don't we go to a presentation from the planning department. >> i am planning department staff and as you know, the item is the appeal of a conditional use authorization for a wireless a antenna at 14th avenue. you're being asked to reconsider the decision that was made by the commission. the presentation was going to cover a thorough review of the project and the primary points raised by the appellant, but after listening to public comment today, i would like to go back my presentation and focus on two key issues. the questions of the loophole and the guidelines, and an issue

that i was not planning on addressing at all today, the issue of compliance with fcc guidelines and radiation frequency. it would be a public service to get some of the science behind the approval into the discussion. i have and none of that was sent to the director of public health. they discussed the the world health organization has reviewed over 25,000 studies on potential negative affects of wireless antennas. 25,000 studies. after the results of more than 30 years, they have not been able to conclusively find any potential affect other than if you're so close to the antenna that your skin heats up.

they have established a save public threshold that is 1/50 the threshhold to heat your skin. the levels at this site are about 4%. 4% of 1/50 of the amount of energy needed for the only known effect. supervisor mar: i think one of the allegations from the appellant is that the firm is not a reputable one and that it is also potentially biased because it is paid for by the industry. i am wondering if you can comment on their credibility have the department's reliance on the industry paid for study.

>> the board has put in an additional condition that would require an independent analysis by licensed engineer in the state of california. in the wireless carrier would pay for this evaluation. i wasn't going to talk about compliance with sec regulations because this is a prerequisite to the planning commission's actions. it is within the jurisdiction of the department of public health, and we have the senior health inspector for the department of public health if there are further questions about this.

the calculations have been checked. moving to the other item i wanted to discuss, and the allegation that there is a potential loophole is something other or perhaps in addition to a preference one location. the guidelines for these publicly used structures are based on the use and the building alone. the city in general have high for the types of wireless facilities as well as limited reference sites. this type is considered a publicly used structure. as such, it is the highest preferred site for the city of

san francisco. these facilities occur in every neighborhood and it is typically institutional or infrastructure related in nature. they would be the most compatible. this is not a loophole that at&t just identified. publicly used structures have been identified since they were first adopted from the [unintelligible] the commission and under appeal the board -- under the adopted policies, this is exactly where we have told providers to locate. i can provide more if you would like. in conclusion, considering the city's existing laws and guidelines, the commission found

that this project should be approved. the commission believes that they met the criteria outlined in the planning code and act to approve the authorization. the board must now review the evidence and make your own determination. staff is available. >> hi have a couple of other questions. i visited the school several times and it seems to be not open to the public. it has a number of facilities that are invoked and printed materials, and i am not sure if it is technically a library as well. in considering a preference, i

know that we have had hospitals before us. you mentioned the publicly used structures like schools and hospitals are preferred. my hope is that current science , some studies have shown that radiation may be absorption by younger people, especially children that spoke that we would consider their potential health impact as well. schools and hospitals can seem like a totally the wrong type of place to put potential radiation devices. is it a school? give me more of a rationale because i think the publicly used buildings, they seem to me

to be wrong places to cite an antenna structure. >> educational facilities that the criteria as we have adopted. and there is an important qualification for wendy's in school type uses would be considered as a preference one site. the criteria is that they meet the fcc guidelines that i believe the city attorney can correct if i am wrong. they are not able to make special accommodations. the guidelines have been given to us, interpreted, and i think he can talk about the way the radiation dissipates as it goes through walls and over space to be complied with fcc guidelines. president chiu: any other questions? at this time, why don't we go to a representative for the project

sponsor. >> the afternoon, the board of supervisors. a and the regional vice president for external affairs. joining me is john from the legal department and a licensed professional engineer in the state of california. the conduct of the radio frequency testing and submitted that analysis is included in your packet. i would like to clarify some statements that supervisor mar made. we're required by city wireless guidelines to submit the report and pay for it. we're simply complying with a lot and it is not generated by a private engineering firm that is

approved by the city and county of san francisco. at&t was granted a conditional use permit to replace up to four wireless antenna on the building operated by the jurors bureau of investigation. at&t originally sought approval , and voluntarily removed one sector at the request of the landlord to address concerns by the hebrew academy. under the wireless communications services, this is a location preference psyched for publicly used structures. although not required, we did conduct an exhaustive alternative site analysis that is also in your packet. all were preference the seven sides with the exception of 1300 elbow which is the address of the appellant. it is the only other preference

in one location in the search area. the location was for the preferred because it had an existing and touch that had been located there since 1997. the old and tell will be removed once this one is turned on. and the subject location is the least intrusive means by which at&t mobility can close the service coverage gap. it is caused in part by significant demand from at&t customers, and the increase is consistent with the 8000% increase in demand will have experienced over the last four years. at&t expects total volume to grow at a pace of a to 10 times over the next five years. as you may remember, there have been challenges that the questions we're asking, his body

has added additional conditions that require the data to be verified it via non-biased third party. the planning department has encouraged us to go ahead and complete a third party verification that we have submitted and we are in the process of securing that verification now. the appellants have questioned the accuracy of the data, and the report submitted by the department of public health for verification, we do have him here for a report on his measurements. i would be happy to share that with the board and if you have further questions, they can address those. it complies with the standards for view. the city's wireless telecommunications services guidelines is consistent with the san francisco in general plan that supports the

technologically advanced communications infrastructure and growth of emerging telecommunications industries. contrary to the erroneous information, it is consistent with the five-year wireless plan submitted to the planning department every six months for review and available for the general public. finally, the site is the least intrusive means by which we can have a significant coverage gap. i think the planning department staff in support of directing the design of this location. we asked for you to support us today to improve the decision of the planning commission has worked diligently to upgrade the network of the wireless telecommunications demands and the county of san francisco. i am happy to answer any questions that you might have. president chiu: why don't we move to members of the public

that wish to support the project sponsor. >> my name is david waxberg, the ceo of jewish education. i think i am the only person speaking on behalf of this project. i would like to request an additional manhattan -- minute or two. >president chiu: only give everyone the same amount of time. >> we run class is for educators, for children of all ages. we also have a library in our building, we do land of materials, supervisor mar. we are a non-profit organization. our mission is to expand jewish learning on behalf of thousands of educators thof teens,

children from ages 3 and up. i wanted to comment that there has been that the antenna on our building since 1997. since that time, we have received no complaints from anyone in the neighborhood. after we began discussions with at&t, they sent notices to the entire neighborhood inviting people to come to an informational session. a few people showed up, but everyone in the neighborhood received that notice. after we made our agreement with at&t, who had an informational session. in october, we invited the neighborhood, and i don't think anyone from the church came. i never received complaints from anyone at the church and i would have been happy to meet with them to try to allay their concerns. we went out of our way to remove

the antenna in close proximity because the school complained to us. [chime] we saw evidence that this was not -- president chiu: thank you very much. next speaker. >> my name is bill hammet, i am a registered engineer in the state of california. i am a recognized expert in the spill -- in this field. my firm of 20 works for carriers, cities, landlords, our role is simple. what are the facts? we look at the proposal and determine what the exposure conditions are projected to be and after the fact, we measure what that is. as a matter of record, finding that this facility will comply with federal standards, the

department of public health's approval -- exhibit a relies for the assertion that it would not comply contains not calculations. it is a reference to somebody else that said it went 150 feet. it does not. they would give you exactly the same answer. it will prove that the facility does comply with the safety standards. it does comply. i wanted to clarify that in this matter. president chiu: any other speakers? supervisor mar: i missed my chance to ask mr. waxberg a question. could i? i really appreciate your efforts

to reach out to the neighborhood and i know you have had communications with rabbi lipner. i am wondering why there wasn't an effort to give a call to the slavic church across the street? >> i am surprised of the church made this appeal. i wasn't aware until quite recently that the church had submitted this appeal outside of town. at that point, it had been submitted. we sent out notification to all members, including the church. every single call i received we responded to. i met with several of the parents and i went over to the academy several times. we tried our best and we want good relationships with our neighbors. we never heard from the church

at all and it was a complete shock to me that what we heard was the appeal to the board of supervisors, they never approached us. supervisor mar: you provide tremendous services throughout the region, but just a phone call would have gone along way to address concerns. it did not have to be you, but it could have been your staff that raged across the street. >> point well taken, supervisor mar. i am happy to speak with the church any time. president chiu: anyone else wish to speak in response to the project's sponsor? >> i didn't get -- >> i think you're not speaking on behalf of the project sponsor, thank you very much.

any members of the public was to speak in support of the project sponsor? sir, are you wishing to speak? why don't we herar from the appellant for a rebuttal of to 3 minutes. >> i think the most telling fact of both the planning commission's presentation and the project sponsor's presentation was what they did not say. the planning commission's presentation did not address the primary argument that the proposed use of violates planning code section 303c1 because it is clearly not desirable for the neighborhood and the community. the presentation by at&t simply proclaimed compliance with section 3 of 3. no argument, no evidence.

appellants argument with regard to the violation of section 3 03c1 remains unrebutted. this appeal must be granted and the decision reversed. the presentation admitted that the department of information provided by hammet in making the determination that the proposed use complies with fcc standards. it is exactly why the independent evaluation procedure needs to be expanded in scope to needs to be expanded in scope to include -- and that information