amendment on no. 19, and that is on page two, line one, it says motion, the word ordinance should be swapped for motion. president chiu: the controversial amendment has been added. supervisor olague: i wanted to commend the planning staff. i was there for earlier discussions and i think this is an example of how something really positive can come out of a good process where we have the planning department engaged in very constructive dialogue with members of the neighborhood and the community. i think we came up with an excellent plan to help support these changes today. president chiu: can we take

these items same house, same call? these are passed on the first reading as amended. item 21 which many members of the audience have been waiting for today. >> a motion confirming the a pointn ofaomi kelly as city a administrator under charter section 3.104. president chiu: i think at this time, i do not think this is a controversial item, can you please call the roll? supervisor avalos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. >> there are ten aye's.

president chiu: congratulations, the motion is approved. [applause] congratulations to the hon. city and administrator, naomi kelly. >> i will be brief.

thank you, supervisors. and thank you to all the other board members. dr. martin luther king said that occasionally in life, there are moments that cannot be explained by words. their meeting can only be articulated by the inaudible language of the heart, and this is one of those moments. [applause] i am very grateful for your confirmation and humbled by your trust in me. i like to express my deepest appreciation to the mayor, my community, and colleagues. i've got to do my best job for san francisco and i am proud and thrilled to be your next city and illustrator. -- administrator. [applause]

president chiu: understand it is now 3:30, the mayor is going to be swearing in the new city administrator. i will recess this body for 15 minutes so we can go down to the court and witness this. court and witness this. we will recess temporarily. [gavel] president chiu: welcome back to

the board of supervisors meeting of february 7, 2012. i would like to move to the special order. we have a commendation. if you could please step up? colleagues, as you may probably recall, every year in this month of february, we proclaim in san francisco the american heart month, in part because cardiovascular disease accounts for one in three deaths, including an average of one death every 39 seconds. cardiovascular disease is among the most deadly and most expensive diseases in america, and we also know that preventive and community-based strategies, such as those promoted by the american heart association can reduce rates, and we have a goal of reducing the deaths by this type of disease and by a stroke

by 2020, and i want to take a moment to thank them, as is the case, and there is a resolution that we are hereby proclaim in february 2012 as american heart month in the city and county of san francisco to improve the prospect of cardiovascular health. thank you. david? >> my9 is david. -- my name is david. the american heart association mission is to reduce karate rest would disease by 20% by the year 2020, and the public may not be aware, but cardiovascular disease is the number-one killer of both women and men in the u.s. personally, i have been affected by it. my brother, my mother, and my father all passed away directly or indirectly from the effects of cigarettes smoked --

cigarette smoke, so i would like to thank you for naming this heart month, and thank you for your time. president chiu: thank you. [applause] colleagues, why do we not go to item 22? secretary calvillo: commissioners, this is a charter

amendment to change the election cycle for the offices of a city attorney and treasurer said these offices will be elected in the same year as the election, officers of major, district attorney, insurer, to amend the general election so that such elections occur in even-numbered years and every other odd- numbered year. president chiu: supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: this would put it into the mayoral election, and it would save money by combining the elections. under the current proposal, we would hold a regularly scheduled election for treasure in 2013, and again in 2015, and then they would be placed on to the mayoral cycle. there has been a suggestion that was discussed at the ross committee that instead of doing it that way, not holding the

2013 election and simply placing them immediately on to the 2015 mayoral cycle, that would result in an immediate savings in the next budget. there were a lot of different opinions about that, and in order to allow that dialogue to occur, i want to move to split the file to amend one of the two with an amendment that i distributed to you to have that set an option to continue both items to next week with the amended version being heard as a committee as a whole. that is the motion. president chiu: supervisor wiener has made a motion. is there a second? seconded by supervisor cohen?

supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: i understand what you are trying to do, but this is wrong. they were elected to an four- year term. i do not think we should be in the business of creating a business where they should have a six-year term. if we are to go through this, maybe we do the original proposal, but i do not thinking it is appropriate to be granting them a couple extra years. i know the voters will have to sign in on that. they ran for a four-year term. who wants to do the charter amendment to give supervisors six-year terms? we could save a lot of money that way, too. let's have that discussion this week. i do not think we should go through the door of altering the current officeholders. president chiu: any further comment?

supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: and i appreciate that, through the chair to supervisor elsbernd. wanting to have the two elections, and i had considered both, but i made a decision to move forward with your original proposal, but even the people have expressed something the other way, and i am not saying i agree with that, in my view, i think it would be appropriate. i think it is more likely than not that we would move forward with the original proposal, but i did want to read least give folks the option since and has been raised, and i think dialogue is always a good thing, so that is where i am coming from. president chiu: any other discussion on that motion?

secretary calvillo: supervisor alioto-pier, president chiu, supervisor chu, supervisor cohen, supervisor elsbernd, supervisor farrell, supervisor kim, supervisor mar, supervisor cohen -- olague. president chiu: the motion fails. supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: ok, well i guess we know where people stand on that. , what i have proposed and is before us, i would ask for your support on it. i think it does make a lot of sense even though it will obviously not result in an immediate savings. over time, it will result in $4.20 million in savings every four-year savings, and more

importantly, it will result in a higher turnout in electing the city attorney and our treasurer to office, which we have not really had in the past. president chiu: colleagues, i understand that this needs to sit for six days, given that this is its first appearance before the board. if i could entertain a motion? a motion from supervisor wiener, seconded by supervisor farrell, and it will come back on february 14. [gavel] if we could cover a couple more items skipping over, item number 27. clerk calvillo: item 31 was not forwarded to the board. no. 27 is approval of the nomination of cindy wu.

president chiu: roll call vote. clerk calvillo: supervisor alioto-pier, president chiu, supervisor chu, supervisor cohen, supervisor elsbernd, supervisor farrell, supervisor kim, supervisor mar, supervisor olague, supervisor wiener. there are 10 eyes. -- supervisor supervisor avalos. president chiu: next item. i understand the nominee has not been able to meet with a couple of members of the board, so i would like to nominate me to have a motion to continue this. without objection, this item will be continued to february 14. and, madam clerk, if we could,

items 29 and 30 proof -- and 30? clerk calvillo: item 29 a charter amendment, and item 30 a charter amendment for increased voter education and implementation of ranked-choice voting. president chiu: i understand that both of these items have to sit for one week, so i would 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