myself. but there are a couple of things i wanted to point out in the application one where the coverage gap, we use fcc app and measured the multiple types that were to have coverage deficiency. we were above the national average and these were done at peak hours in times that were claimed to have bad service. some of the exhibits that were given in the application also lacked proper access. it just said is saturday and sunday and nobody knows what that means other than that it's an exit and shows a gap. we took this data seriously and all the data is available for them to look

at too. that's the first thing that is wrong in there was a service gap. that caused a reject in my opinion. the second thing is the politics is applying for the entire spectrum from 700 mega hertz to 2001 mega hertz. it's not just the at & t but any cellphone provider. you do realize there is a lot of trading going on with cellphone powers and at & t with the $4 billion deal last year. this is more of a land grab and trying to get thousand for trading. as far as the coverage gap. >>president david chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> my name is michael murphy,

i live and 625 sixth avenue. i would like to address the fcc act now codified in section 322c. first, my qualifications. for about 20 years i worked as a research attorney for the court of appeals initially for judge women -- william newsom and judge wagner. i have written eight law receive articles and the journal and the nyu journal review in business and the business lawyer, a peer review of the american bar association. the critical point i want to make relates to familiar parentheses pl that status should uphold their

constitutionality. section 3c would encroach on our constitutional rights. fortunately it lend itself to a common sense interpretation. the right of petition applies not only to the petitions in the common sense but also guarantees access to the courts and administrative agency and protects an individual's right to challenge the misused guide of all as the result. it lies to the part of the democratic. what does section 322c say? it recognizes the authority of the government over the placement of wireless services. then it adds a caveat. local government cannot regulate in the business of their environmental effects if the emissions

comply with the regulations. >>president david chiu: thank you very much, sir. your time is up, actually. thank you. sure, that is fine. you can provide a copy to us. we'll include that on the record. thank you, sir. are there any other members who wish to public comment? >> good afternoon, president chiu and fellow supervisors. i live at 264 sixth avenue with my husband and two boys. our backyard are to the site on west balboa, the proposed site of the towers.

i would like to show you how close we are. this is a view from our deck. this is 431 balboa. that's the view from our bedroom on the second floor. this is the roof of the 431 balance -- balboa. i would like to say that at & t states they will put a locked view for appoint -- antenna and no access will be allowed while it's in operation. in addition, at & t states that it will post prohibited access signage on or near the roof to warn anyone getting close to the antenna, in other words at & t recognizes the danger and will take the measure to

protect the safety of it's workers. what i would like to know what are the precautionary measures to protect me and my husband and my children. where are the measures to protect our safety. we have no safe guards for ourselves even though it's dangerous for authorized personnel to go near. clearly at & t see's the hazards but only cares to the hazards to the workers, not residents. these workers will be there for a short amount of time. >>president david chiu: thank you very much. let's hear from the next speaker and if there are other members of the public that wish to speak on this, lineup on the right hand side of the board chamber. >> president chiu and

supervisors, good afternoon. my name is sophie law and i'm the property owner immediate adjacent to the subject property of 431 balboa street, my property starts as 437 to 439 balboa street. we definitely want to oppose the approval of this conditional use permit and we are here to support the appeal. i would like to show you the diagram, the subject building is right there and the one next to it is exactly ours. we have seven commercial stores currently but it is within

the partnership that our intention is to build another 3-4 story. so we will be creating low housing, commercial store for the area, and my concern is this: i understand the safety zone to 32 feet. can you imagine once we build our building, anywhere from 3-4 stories, i will make it short. so the safety issue, 32 feet were within that. in another issue is the notification process dh most of the property owners never got noticed until i just learned about this last week. thirdly, and if that were reduced the housing, people will not rent m this area which we are decreasing the housing stock.

and lastly, i want to say. >>president david chiu: thank you very much. next speaker. >> thank you everyone for me the opportunity to talk to you. this is the same picture that she show and i want to tell you this is unacceptable building code this at & t tower. you can see the building sfr here to here. it still have longer because you cannot see. i can see and i'm going to show you the pictures here. this is the back of the building and you can see that the building is already extended to every inch of the

property line and there is no window, no doors, no fire escape, no skylight for these people cooking below this. you can see that the kitchen when three of them and you can tell this is a heavy heavy kitchen that cooking and there is no fire escape for these people. and this is taken from my backyard. i also want to show you the neck -- next picture taken from my bedroom. you can see from the house there from the bedroom, you can see how close it is and then i need to tell you this, the other side of the building and also i want to tell you this is illegal on this building they are

putting four families in the building and the search and planning they only allow go families. they make it four families. you can see the mailbox and also i want to point out the trash can. on the trash can on the hallway. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> thank you for your time today, we appreciate it. it's important to us. we come together because it really matters to the community. this is a funny little picture but here you can see the top of sushi bistro and i drew where the tourists -- towers are. from there you can see the top. that's going to detract from the view. in the picture they show you the towers but they are not showing you

the green fences going behind it. they are going to tilt those tourists -- towers downward. the safe distance the 32 feet. anyone over 5 1/2 feet tall is going to be exposed to radiation above fcc standard. in addition, the back of this house has a backyard that has been permitted because they were allowed to go up two floors. the back home is minimum eight 8 feet above level putting 8 1/2 feet above the level of that radiation frequency. again, this is not safe. lastly something they are not discussing is the equipment that is going to sushi bistro. this is going to have to take up square footage that is going

to allow reoccupancy. they are going to reoccupy and this is a potential for a fire hazard. this generator needs, if you work on it, you need to have a dry floor. this is near an oven, deep friers and not safe for people eating food let alone the touching of this building that this house can also go down in a fire. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>president david chiu: why don't we now proceed to a presentation by planning. >> good afternoon my name is amy rodgers and i'm with the project planner for this. as you heard this is a

conditional use authorization for cellphone antenna facility. today your decision before you is the same question asked is this project at this lotion -- location necessary and desirable. the commission based their funding on necessary and desirable and compatible on the design of the facility as well as requirements that have grown out of past hearings at the board of supervisors. in the past this board has been concerned that the city had no way of determining if a facility was needed for capacity reasons. the commission now required third party analysis that is 23479 of -- independent of the carriers wireless vicinity. some have shown that was not necessary, but that was not the case. this showed it was in need of coverage for indoor coverage

particularly with respect to data capacity. further the commission determined the facility would be compatible based on the design and absence of any significant impact. mr. man'sary will walk you through the project and appellants concerns. >> first the project of a conditional use operation. this panel is nine antennas that contains a mixed of uses along the balance -- balboa street corridor with individual vent pipes and vertical expansion and three antenna at the rear roof. electronic equipment to operate the facility will be on the roof and ground floor. no other generators are part of this project. second, this side of mixed use commercial

building district one of the preferred lotions identified in the city's wiles guidelines. the city has five locations guidelines as well as limited preference and disfavored cites. as provided by the guidelines, the comprehensive alternative site analysis indicating why other cites would not meet the objectives for providing heights for light and signal propagation. i would be happy to discuss more details. let's move on to the conditional use authorization where it's necessary and desirable and compatible to the neighborhood. at & t conducted a test to establish service is needed here and this is micro sites which is not able to serve the area. this is including a demand for high speed data services.

micro sites include two antennas that are approved administratively which will advance the carrier but have far more limited range as far as macro sites. they typically feature between 3-5 antennas and provide greater range compared to micro sites. this is for the approval of the antennas and would require a hearing. if i can have the overhead slide. the approval is based on multi-findings. first found that antennas and features would be located designed and treated architecturally to minimize from the public spaces and would avoid intrusion of the public and avoid interruption to the design of the

building and in harmony of the character and well designed and as well appropriate macro facilities tends to result in fewer tendance -- antennas and further design and they are often placed attached to the utility pole. keep in mind that the board praufs approvals of this conditional use authorization, if it's reviewed by the building department and department of building inspection and fire department. if approved, the building inspection will approve been bvr it's activated and will conduct field

emissions. residents can ask to be tested whether hired by the city carrier or by the department of public health at no charge and standardized testing must occur every two 2 years. the antennas do have a standoff distance which is approximately 30 feet assuming the worst case scenario operating at capacity, in addition that standoff distance from approximately 30 feet drop significantly as you move away from the antenna. that same 30 -foot standoff would not apply as they push their energy outward as a rough 2 -degree downhill. in conclusion, today's hearings in existing laws and guidelines were properly administered for this conditional use authorization. in this case the application found that it meets all the guidelines anti-planning code and voted

unanimously to approve the conditional use authorization. the board must now make it's own determination about the necessity or the desirable location. the department request the board uphold this authorization. thank you. >>president david chiu: cloogz, colleagues, any questions? supervisor mar? >> again, i'm going to be brief. on the necessity you are saying based on the third party, i appreciate we are doing that now, you looked at the data provided by the third party analyst and that included i believe you said this as a micro macro site that would help the gap that you said the study showed. you also emphasized that there is multiple compatibility

reasons that you cited and one is less intrusive to have these nine antennas on the ground floor than to have a number of poles that we have no control over and that at & t has this discretion to put up in the right away along the street right outside in the spots of the area. can you give that analysis again what that alt if ernative would be once this is rejected. >> if this were rejected the care could pursue different sites in the neighborhood and distribute antenna systems to be mounted to utility poles which is a concern to san francisco where you often have bay windows two 2 feet from those poles. state law referred to as public utilities code section 7901 constraints our

ability to have siting even requiring third party review which we do on the nodes of the building poles and designs or placement for the method when placed in the public right-of-way. the third party review is a process that we implemented since 20 11 at the boards direction. it worked fairly well for us. oftentimes the engineer will review that data after they signed a non-disclosure agreement and provided that analysis. one of the bigger challenges we are seeing no with the drive for mobile data coverage carriers are often placing more antennas into residential and commercial districts. it creates a challenge to balance those with community concerns about design, or safety as well as impacts as far as neighborhood businesses. >> and you mentioned that the

gap is partially indoor coverage given the new uses for wireless devices and could you comment also on the independent study done by the residents because they say that they counter the independent study and that there is no gap as well. >> we weren't provided a copy of that study. the fcc has released it's mobile application but it's not to our satisfaction as far as what it means to network capability wechl do see that there is a micro site to fcc and indicated that these sites don't meet their current needs. it's a challenge to see where the needs are and thresholds is and maybe more ubiquitous to challenge that issue. >> as an alternative to

thoughts nine panel antenna, how many poles would have to be construct with the alternative devices, how many poles are we talking about that would be alternative? >> i would dfr to at & t on an estimate. we typically see 8-12 poles >> even what he is proposed on the building. >> can you explain again the standoff distance because i know the residents were concerned about that distance but

you explained pretty clearly how it a conservative estimate and that there doesn't seem to be the danger that the residents fear. can you just explain? >> when the rf: study is completed sfart of the approval process that assumes that operating in maximum capacity offering bands of service and any other carrier that was there. when that study is done it assumes the worst case scenario and bases that 30 -foot stand off based on that. that 30 -foot standoff is based on the energy propagating energy outwards. these don't propagate in a manner like epicot center trying to put down main street. that level drops significantly. you can be in a building.

the site gets turned on that day, you have at & t cellphone coverage so you wouldn't see improvement unless there is an off for the signal. we generally see that field emissions fall below worst case predicted. we have not seen a pattern in san francisco of these facilities exceeding those fcc guidelines or approaching any where near that limit. >> my last question on the notices of the community, it seems that t at & t did not do a good enough job even respectable number of people at the committee. did the planning department follow up to make sure the applicant is doing it's due diligence to let people know because it doesn't seem it was done. >> as part of every wireless facility

since 2003 we require all noticed be sent to residents within 500 feet including all those that register with the planning department. we made sure those were accomplished. over time we asked that the carriers send out the words communicating in english, and chinese and put at the site location as well. we have looked back and seen that residents were sent a letter and it has not been a challenge. >>president david chiu: colleagues, any other questions to the planning department? okay, let's hear from the project sponsor. >> good afternoon, president barack -- --

president chiu. on september 18th of this year was voted unanimously to permit with conditional use authorization to place nine panel rooftop antennas at 341 balboa street. i'm going to put up this puerto picture here. this is the site as it exist today and here is a sign on the bottom as proposed. we have three antennas behind this extension of the para pit and included in the 20 -inch pipe and three antennas off the rear of the penthouse. on the october

16th an appeal was filed ocean that quote, i object to the placement on nine antennas in the neighborhood. end of quote. the planning commission before you today on appeal to provide any evidence challenging the need or appropriateness of at &t's facility at 431 balboa street. there is no evidence, no basis and no indication of a problem with the planning commission's unanimous approval and it's necessary and desirable and with at & t establishing the need for the proposed facility demonstrating it would expand wireless service in the area and to the expanding neighborhood. first as a matter of necessity, at & t's radio frequency expert

explains attached to the at & t's application that at & t has a gap in in wireless service by anza third avenue and eighth avenue. depicted here in the photo. per direction of the board of supervisors in 20 11 and this year registered professional engineer bill hamate issued his report concurrence with at & t's gap information and conclusion. that report was included in at & t's application and is part of the record. mr. hamate is here today and available to address any questions you might have in relation to his research and