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. the academy and the church are real partners, your real partners, because they provide many important things to the community, and the government should not only be proud of what the academy has done over the last 40 years and unconditionally support it, so we, the parents and the community, we come to you and tell you that the calculation done by, and the antennas are against the fcc regulations and are therefore against basic moral obligations. if the antenna's go up, it will hurt without a doubt what the city and -- what the church and the academy provide to the city. please help the academy and the church to continue serving the city of san francisco by disallowing them. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is constant theme, and i am a member of the baptist church, and i am also a member of the board of directors of the church, and as soon as i heard about this problem on 14th avenue, i went online, and i checked what harm this could cause to especially children, and to my surprise, it actually harms children three times more than adults, and here we are putting these antennas right next to a school where children are present for an entire day for an entire week and next to a church where we of sunday school and music classes throughout the week, and i also found out that many civilized countries in western europe are already banning the use of antennas from and it -- from areas like these, from schools, and also residential places, and you know, they are no less intellectual than we are, and i am wondering why we are lagging in this situation, and also, i wanted to point out that we do know that the two antennas that are pointing to the hebrew academy were removed, and i am also asking for equal treatment, because there is a potential harm to the church, as well. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, counsel. my name is -- i am speaking on behalf of the church. what you have in front of you is an application from a private entity for a conditional use permit. what they want is an exception to the world. they are seeking this exception in a residential neighborhood, so they are a for-profit organization trying to do something to increase their bottom line. when you consider a conditional use permit, you are supposed to consider the benefits and the harm once you grab one of these permits. now, the benefit put forth by at&t is faster internet. i do not think you get anyone here who is complaining about how slow their internet is. what you have is a bunch of people who are concerned about their health and whether or not these concerns are unfounded, the concern is real. you should take into consideration. furthermore, the only thing at&t brings forth about the safety of their proposed antennas is the testimony of a company they hired, whose job it is to show that what they are doing is safe. you all received a letter two weeks ago about mistakes that were done in a report from the company that at&t hired. now, the canada members do not have enough money to do all of these reports properly, and it should be the at&t boardroom to provide the funds for a neutral person to come in and do the measurements again, and before these measurements are performed, you cannot take it back, so you should not granted before. it would be wrong for you to forces permit upon the community without ensuring that what you grant is a forever. thank you. -- is safe forever. president chiu: thank you. >> my name is vladimir. i am a member of the church. i go there every sunday and a lot of times during the week, and i just got married, so when i heard of the frequency of the radiation harms children, and i am hoping to have children of my own, and they will be attending the church, so i really do not want them to get affected by that, knowing that we could have done something to prevent that. there is enough radiation around us, and i think we do not need more sources of that. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> hello. my name is -- and i will speak also on behalf of the slavic baptist church, which i am a member of. my main concerns are health concerns and safety concerns. the health concern is basically not only for the people who come to our church but also for the school where those antennas plan to be built. when we say school, we do not mean 20 students. it is really a lot of people, so providing safety for a lifetime of people, especially children, is a concern. we do not want to get great technical about the wireless equipment, but especially the equipment that is installed in the basement, not the equipment that is in the roof, has some hazard risks. everybody likes technology when it is safe, and there is no argument about this. the argument comes when it comes to people's health. what i wanted to also say, just one aspect looking ahead in time, if we have this year, let's say, one wireless carrier who wants an antenna in a specific neighborhood because it is desirable, and let's say another carrier chooses the same neighborhood because it is desirable, and we do not have any concerns about the health and safety, soon we will have multiple carriers in one area. president chiu: thank you very much. thank you, sir. next, speaker. >> hello, my name is -- and i am a member of the first slavic baptist church. in addition, i am licensed and have a doctor's diploma from the ukraine. our church is very concerned about the installation of a wireless antennas in our neighborhood, because there are many kids in our church. we have classes. we have ceremonies for our kids, and the parents and the administration, we are very concerned about this. this is not just another church. this is family, because many of our people travel from 20 to 50 miles just to visit our ceremony, said that is why, please, we are asking you, do not allow the installation of the antennas in our neighborhood. thank you. president chiu: next speaker, please. please step up. >> i am a member of the richmond district, as well. there is a lot of concern about the antennas, and i just want to sit quickly thank you to the parents and the members of the church and the community who have come out in support of the opposition of these antennas. if we can have a moment to stand up and show support if you are in opposition of the antennas? you may not know what side everybody is here on. we have talked a lot, but i want to show some pictures. is the overhead on? thank you. you can see this is pretty well -- president chiu: if you could hold your microphone closer? >> right now, you can clearly see that this one is corroded. there is no label on it, but it is owned by at&t. this is some of what they are talking about moving to the basement where we cannot see it. some battery boxes. there is information on it that it was singular wireless, and they went out of business in 2004, so it leads me to have some concerns about the maintenance of the equipment installed when we cannot see it and potential hazards in case of an earthquake, god forbid, and this is for antennas. here is some more associated equipment, and finally i have some more slides here. this is the at&t coverage map of the area that you can get from the website. you can see that this level of coverage in the area of question is the highest level of coverage for both data and voice, so with the opposition you can see before you today and the level of coverage that they proclaim to have, we do not see a reason to another project to go forward. supervisor mar: could i just ask, go over a bit more slowly about the lack, that there is strong coverage in the area? if you could just repeat that. >> can you put this light up again? this is their voice and data coverage legend. i do not know how clear this is, but you can look this up on the website. the things in between our lakes and water bodies. and the surrounding area at best in data. this is the main lack of coverage. it also shows this to be at the highest level in these areas. thank you. sorry, rushed for time. gosh hon. supervisors, i am a member of the baptist church. a little bit over a year ago, this became important to us. a lot of members are originally from the ukraine. >> it will be disastrous for chernobyl. the government at that time tried this information for over a week. and many people were affected by the nuclear reaction. people trusted the government hearing in the united states, and for that part of the world. people can see the government -- the decision that will not be in favor of the people will shake their trust. >> i'm representing the first baptist church. the point of like to discuss today is a presidential -- prejudicial treatment of the baptist church. in our case, you can clearly see that our church was completely excluded from the practice. at&t has negotiated with the bureau of education, and weer

Related Keywords

United States , Canada , Richmond District , California , Ukraine , San Francisco , ,