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 include -- and that information needs to be a whole so independently evaluated the, not just coverage or capacity. and i've done here? i have another minute. the planning commission also talked about the preferential settings for schools. this is really important. it is really just a proposed amendment that we think should happen and doesn't directly relate to the pending appeal. my son who spoke earlier, i hav e spoken to dozens of parents

about this. without exception, every single parent i have spoken to presume that their children's school would be -- [chime] without exception, every sing le parent was shocked and dismayed that their children's schools are a preferred site. president chiu: supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: quick question. i went through the materials and i saw in your submissions, allegations that the analysis has of the fcc standards for radiation was inadequate. i did not see our report or any kind of factual evidence to a base that on. i guess we got a little graphic

on it, and i want to make sure we did not miss a report. this is my analysis as an expert retained by the appellant. >> i wasn't involved in the preparation of that document. the experts that prepared that, it's not the typical expert report that would be attached to a proper filing. but my understanding, he was going to make the presentation today. as i indicated to supervisor mar, i'm not prepared to go through the report in demonstrate precisely why it indicates noncompliance with the standards. president chiu: any other questions? this hearing has been held and

is now closed. supervisor mar: thank you for listening to the passion and the testimony of the public. and also mr. waxberg's efforts. there are mitigating concerns of the hebrew academy, going above and beyond efforts. i just want to say that i am strongly in support of residents when there is such a strong neighborhood opposition. it is not desirable for the residential area. i also want to say that there was a document about at&t's coverage is strong in the area. we have referred to those documents before in previous appeals. i would refer to that and use it as one bit of evidence that the

need for the additional antenna is not necessary. i move to table item 24, approving the decision by conditional use authorization and i move to approve item 25, which disapproves the planning commission decision related to the conditional use authorization and to table item number 26. president chiu: is there a second? supervisor mar: disregard 26. table 24, approve 25 and 26. president chiu: is there a second? seconded by supervisor avalos. supervisor wiener: thank you. these appeals are always

challenging, i know that they are not always the most popular because they are very labor intensive for members of the public as well as for the board. our obligation is to evaluate each appeal independently on the merits of based on legal standards and evidence submitted to us. it is very tempting to base it on how many people testify, but it is a due process of appeal. i have tried to put any personal opinions i have about wireless technology to the side amylase evaluate each of these appeals on the merits. i have moved into the night, i have moved to approve cu appeals, i've moved to modify

cu's to add additional requirements. i provided the fifth signature to bring this appeal to the board and i did so, based on the unique circumstances surrounding ability of the appellants together property owners signatures, as a matter of fairness and equity, they should be given an opportunity to present their case to this board. i am now questioning by providing that signature based on what we have heard today. the primary focus, overwhelmingly of the comments supporting the appeal have related to health, perceived health effects. we are prohibited from

considering health effects under federal law. there has been an argument that perhaps the fcc standards that trigger our inability have not actually been met. the appellants have not provided any actual evidence to refute the analysis on which the department of public health lies. we got a graphic today that is inadequate under any standards of service evidence to rebut that or even create a legitimate question. a the the attorney, to his credit, was very candid in admitting the lack of evidence. i don't think that this has met the standard. i tried to keep an open mind and every single case and i don't

think the standard has been met for this appeal to be granted so i will be voting against the motion. president chiu: supervisor olague. supervisor olague: i'm not sure this is the place to bring up this issue, but at some point we really do need to review the process when it comes to the hearings for these projects. frequently, we are asked -- the public is concerned 90% of the time or more on house and packs and we are prohibited from taking that into consideration when we make decisions around these types of projects. i empathize with a lot of the folks in the audience, many of whom came from belarus and those areas that were affected by chernobyl. a lot of the scars from that time have remained. i feel a little bit concerned

that i can't consider the health impacts when i am evaluating the appeal. i hope that at some point we are able to have a hearing at land use to look at the possibilities of having a public hearing at the health commission level. and maybe looking at schools and some of the best practices in other areas. i am willing to support supervisor mar if you take that up. it is long overdue, and it feel slike a -- feels like a ping- pong game. the burden is on the public but we can't take into consideration the greatest concern that the public raises. we have the opportunity to reevaluate some of these things.

people have concerns around schools and other types of institutions. maybe we can start to reevaluate it all. supervisor mar: i wanted to thank supervisors wiener and olague for being so thoughtful, for supervisor coheolague goingo the planning commission. i know you have been in communication and we have been as well with the planning director. they do a tremendous job, and i know that we will continue those conversations. i hope that we can look at some place where the concerns can be addressed. i know that we cannot heare. if we do not, or if we approve

the additional user authorization that the department of public health could conduct additional measures r off level -- of rv levels. my hope is that that can be done by the department of public health at least to give some awareness to the church and the hebrew academy of those levels. colleagues, i urge that you support my community, and i will be voting in support of the appeal. president chiu: roll call vote. supervisor avalos: no. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: no. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: no. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: no.

supervisor wiener: no. >> there are 3 aye's and 7 no's. president chiu: any other motions? supervisor elsbernd: i make a motion to move item 24 and table items 25 and 26. unless there is any discussion, let's have a roll call. president chiu: is there a second to that motion? supervisor mar: can we include a recommendation that the department of public health will, in our memo, it is on page 5, the third line. it is saying that if help is a concern, we can do additional measurements at the church. i am wondering if we can include that in our motion.

president chiu: i would like to ask our deputy city attorney. can we include that as a motion to amend? >> it is not what is before the board. it is the decision on the appeal with respect to the conditional use a. perhaps the board, through its minutes, can make that request, but it is not something that can be mandated in the context of this proceeding. president chiu: supervisor mar has made that request. on supervisor elsbernd's motion. supervisor olague? supervisor olague: any member of the public can go to dph and request the levels be monitored. it is something that is common practice and that we advise the public frequently to do. the dph or at&t provides

something as well. president chiu: let's have a roll call vote on the motion to approve the planning commission decision. supervisor avalos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: no. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. president chiu: the motion is approved. at this time, why don't we go to roll call for introductions? >> supervisor avalos. supervisor mar. president chiu. supervisor elsbernd. supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: i have one

in memoriam. i would like to adjourn today's meeting in memory of solomon kahn. he was a deejay for the golden state warriors and the san francisco giants and was a fixture in district 2 and many high-profile venues. he is survived by his parents, his brother, and his fiancee. he rose to the local ranks and perform alongside such artists as stevie wonder. his most high-profile work began in 1989 when he is hired by the golden state warriors to perform as the teams in house deejay. he was performing similar duties for the giants. he cemented his reputation as the president deejay and was a fixture in the marina district, well-loved by a number of friends and people that i know. he will be sorely missed.

>> supervisor wiener, you are next on a roll call for introductions. president chiu: any introductions? >> seeing no other names on the roster, supervisor kim. supervisor kim: i wanted to take a moment to wish a happy birthday to our colleagues. president chiu: i think we will all enjoy that as we speed up our meeting so he can get home to his family. why don't we go to general public comment? >> the opportunity for the public to address the board, including items being considered which have not been considered by a board committee and at excluding items which have been considered. members needing translation assistance will be allowed twice the amount of time to testify. if a member of the public would like a document to be displayed, please remove the

document when the coverage returns to live meeting. president chiu: first speaker, please. >> [speaking foreign language]