Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 31, 2011 7:31pm-8:01pm PST

7:31 pm
will ask diego to remind me. >> the record that was included and what came out of the planning commission is relatively thin compared to what we have received since it came before the board of supervisors. a lot of information we have received is information that was not properly before the planning commission. is that correct? >> yes. >> the issue for me, i know a lot has been said about the issue of radiation and some of the health implications. i have heard about property values. that is not to take anything away from those issues. those issues are not relevant to what is before us. the big issue is the issue of
7:32 pm
necessity. has the case been made to show that this is necessary and desirable? one of the things that jumps out that the planning commission decided is that this seems very conclusory. i do not see evidence or a great deal of evidence that supports that finding. i wonder if you can say to me from an evidentiary perspective what is the reasoning for a finding that this was indeed necessary? >> on this issue of necessity, when the commission considers wireless installations, they have considered a necessity to mean coverage and capacity. in this case, they found at&t's
7:33 pm
materials of a coverage gap convincing. it stated that the proposed project is necessary to build mobile phone coverage. recent tests in the subject area by at&t provided conclusive evidence that the subject property is the most viable location. based upon factors including the quality of coverage, land-use compatibility and aesthetics, the proposed coverage area would serve the area to san jose avenue, as indicated in the coverage map. this would fill in those gaps. >> one of the things that is noted in the appeal is that there is no technical definition of a significant gap in coverage. that goes to the heart of whether or not there is a
7:34 pm
necessity or a need for this. my question to you, is there a question between that? how do you know that this is necessary -- necessary? there is no technical definition of a gap in coverage. >> there is not a technical definition of coverage or capacity. they did make statements as to the veracity of the information before them. commissioner antonin made statements that were not contradicting statements before. to paraphrase, he said that one cannot judge the adequacy of a cell phone signal on their own cell phone. it is increased usage and activity.
7:35 pm
it is not part of the commission's findings to say whether there is a significant gap or not. >> i think it is part of the analysis. we need to figure out whether or not there is a necessity here. when the commissioner makes a statement that this is necessary from an evidentiary standpoint, why is the basis of that statement? i do not see in the record what that is. can you point that out to me? >> they made that finding based upon the evidence of the record in the coverage map. including the relatively thin your information presented by the appellants. >> they did not have the report from the expert hired from the
7:36 pm
appellants around some of the technical issues that they raise? >> that is correct. >> did the commission have some of the information that at&t has on its website regarding coverage? was this something presented the last time this came before the board? we went on the website for at&t and at least what is marketed by at&t to potential customers shows that coverage in the area is pretty adequate. -- was that information presented at or adequate in the presentation? >> it was not. again, besides the general statement that they found this
7:37 pm
to be necessary, there is nothing specific from an evidentiary standpoint beyond that? >> beyond the materials that i discussed presented by at&t, that was the gist of it. >> let me ask you a couple of questions. it was the issue of the alternative location. was there any analysis of that issue by the commission in terms of the relevance as to whether or not this was necessary? >> they did not discuss it at that hearing. companies that do an alternative site analysis, this is a preference four types. >> for me, the question is, how can you say something is
7:38 pm
necessary to if you did not provide analysis as to whether an alternative location would have been a replacement to this? >> necessity is a separate question. another question is the location. a preferred location as to whether is a desirable location is another question. that is yet to be determined by you. >> was there any question whether there were about four sites in the area at? was there consideration about whether or not upgrading those sites would allow for the same enhancement in coverage? >> no. >> all right. thank you very much. supervisor cohen: i have a couple of questions for you.
7:39 pm
what guidelines does the planning department used to determine which site -- what guidelines do you use to establish? >> the wireless sighting guidelines established by the commission. >> how old are the guidelines? >> those were created in 1996. the board recommended some modifications. they amended them in 2003. >> we're working off of guidelines established in 1996. you could imagine the if we were still utilizing technology are browned in 1996, we would not be where we are today. how can we as a board help the planning department established better planning guidelines? >> this board as a legislative body could legislate new guidelines and planning codes
7:40 pm
or as a policy document. in the plotting code, you could establish the whole preference siting. >> would that be a remedy it to some of the level of the salt -- dysfunction as we see on a weekly basis as we deal with these issues? >> cell phone sitings are a complicated and contentious issue. >> i would imagine it would be possible if we were to update the guidelines, a baby to specifically articulate thresholds or benchmarks more clearly so that residents and constituents can be clearer as to but -- what will be granted a conditional use and what will
7:41 pm
not be. >> they would very much appreciate if that were to be developed. >> if you like to finish the rest of your presentation. >> i covered a lot of it. desirability, compatibility. this is in the report before you. in conclusion, we are presenting information about the city of's existing guidelines. we hope that you will review that information to determine whether or not it is properly authorized. the planning commission found that they meet all of the criteria in the planning code and then move to improve the conditional use authorizations. the board is moving to review that information along with additional information and come to your own conclusion as to the accessibility of the project at
7:42 pm
this location. the project tasks that they uphold the city authorization. staff is available if you have any questions. >> any questions to planning? supervisor campos. supervisor campos: i forgot to ask a question about the workers coming within the range of the wireless facility. i wonder i knew could address that issue. that was something that was raised by the appellants. >> i will turn that over. >> i think that is a great question. the occupational parameters that is estimated in the report is 17 feet for a worker. based on the angle of the
7:43 pm
antanaes, that those wires would not be included in that zone. these reports are based on calculations. they are all theoretical at this point. it is taking measurements. my understanding is based upon the information that has been submitted that those workers would not be within that 17-foot occupational exclusion zone. >> any other questions, colleagues? at this time, why do we not hear from the projects sponsored? >> my name is mark. i am the regional director in san francisco. gordon is our radiofrequency
7:44 pm
engineer. and there is a licensed professional engineer in the state of california. they conducted the radio frequency testing that i just described. as ann marie stated, at&t was granted a conditional use permit. the appellant has had questions about the number of panel and 10 of them are going up. -- and cannot -- antanae that are going up. we have reduced the numberto seven. we have also added spanish tile to go with the architecture in the neighborhood. this is also as a measure to
7:45 pm
increase the esthetic of the building. with the plans that were approved by the planning staff is for a seven-panel antenna if to grant us are permit, will go through. under the wireless telecommunications services, the guidelines stated this as a preference tonight. we did do an analysis of over 80 alternative sites. there was 1 site mentioned frequently by appellants. the landlord gave us the rights to place the facility on his building and then notified us that he would be leaving the country for a year and did not have anybody to negotiate this in his absence. we abandoned that sight when he was unable to continue negotiations.
7:46 pm
this is as opposed to another site that was in a residential neighborhood. we have talked a lot about the coverage gap. there is a significant demand on the at&t network. we have experienced a 1000% increase on mobile traffic over the last few years. we expect that to grow 8-10 times over the next five years. not only are we building for the existing needs, but also for the future. that was something that we submitted yesterday. this site is part of our 4g upgrade. there were a number of blog reports about at&t networks going live in san francisco.
7:47 pm
this area has no lte coverage. we would be adding yet there. it provides data download speeds 4-5 times faster than you have on your existing cell phone. we can serve more customers more efficiently. we have discussed before, the coverage maps in response to last week's hearing. we did send a response back to the supervisors about the coverage maps on the web site. those coverage maps out on where we have the ability to place a call or where we have radio signals. that is in no way of an indicator of your ability to hold back call or is it the ability to continually download data at that location.
7:48 pm
it does mean that you should be able to get four or five bars. it is the capacity issue that we are dealing with. as well as the long-term evolution that we are doing at this site. as opposed to the appellants, who provided you with third- party analysis at that said that they did not have enough data to give you a big judgment, they went out and tested the site. mr. hammett gave you the information on his findings. he used his own equipment on the site there. in the interest of time, i will try to be brief. you did add additional aesthetics enhancements to this property including spanish tile
7:49 pm
which would add to the betterment of the community. with the proposed amendment -- equipment that we will be using, it does comply with the city, federal, and state standards. we submit this every six months to the department of planning. it is the least intrusive means by which at&t can address a significant coverage gap. i wanted to thank planning staff for their hard work. we ask for your support to have this planning commission as we worked diligently to upgrade our facilities in san francisco. i would give the remaining amount of my time to bill, who would share the findings of the study. >> i am a registered professional engineer in the state of california. i would like to submit, bank i could, i do not know to who this
7:50 pm
should go. this is just a brief letter in reply to one of the exhibits in the material to impugn our professional integrity. i wanted to make sure that there is a reply in the record appropriately. what we have done in response to the request to do an independent evaluation of the coverage presently in this area is that we had no access to the at&t internal information. we went straight from the material that was in the at&t application. there were two figures here. the before map and the after map. we overlaid those two and outline this area in blue. in this area, we took
7:51 pm
measurements at 33 locations. the purpose being, to assess whether there is coverage now and to assess capacity. what we have found is that at 28 of these 33 locations, over 85% of the sites, they were at capacity. the testimony you have heard today julian was one of the public speakers that said that it was not about the signal level. it was about capacity. that is correct. an individual phone may be able to get five bars and make a call. the data shows that it is at capacity. at&t is rolling it its new 4g. that is not what we were
7:52 pm
measuring. we were measuring the capacity on the existing network, which is stressed. that is critical to what we found. >> thank you. >> any questions to the project sponsored? any final comments? ok. supervisor campos. supervisor campos: thank you. following up on the questions i asked to the planning commission on the issue of necessity. as i understand it, the tv appeal factors we need to look at our coverage and capacity. i wonder if you can look at in a very specific way, the need to increase capacity or increase
7:53 pm
coverage is in this case? >> a lot of that would be on the study that bill's study showed. there are points in time when people are downloading movies, surfing the net, when the capacity is full. if a car or to drive through the neighborhood and he was tried to complete call, it may drop at that location. when it hits that antenna so our own internal records show that we have capacity issues. i would also add that there's a third element here and that's upgrading our network to 4g and l.t.e. which is what this will do, as well. supervisor campos: the question is, is there evidence that was provided to the planning commission that actually shows that issue? >> yes.
7:54 pm
supervisor campos: were those records given to the planning commission? >> we provide that in the way of a map, a before and after map that shows what the capacity issues are today and i believe you have those before you. i'd be happy to put them up if you would like me to. but that shows what the capacity is today and what it would be afterwards once the new antenna get placed. supervisor campos: one of the things that the appellants say is in the gordon spencer report that the statements that are in the report are not supported by engineering data, and i'm wondering what you say in response to that. >> it's supported by his own engineering data. it's not included in the records because we consider that proprietary as we agreed to do last week and would agree again to do is that if a third party wanted to verify that data, we would provide it with a signed nondish closure.
7:55 pm
supervisor campos: how can we say that the evidence is presented if the data is not included in the record? >> the data was included. it was done in the way of a map as opposed to giving raw data numbers. the information is included there but in a different format. if the planning department would like that in a different format, we could discuss that. so far, this has been sufficient for them to visualize what our capacity issues are in that neighborhood. supervisor campos: isn't the point of having data that the ability to actually verify what the map supposedly shows so how do you verify that if the data is actually not included? >> right now, if you needed that, we would be happy to provide that with a nondisclosure agreement. supervisor campos: you haven't provided that? >> that has not been provided. the maps have been sufficient to date. supervisor campos: that's what i have an issue with. assuming that at the end of the day there is a third party that looks at this issue and says you
7:56 pm
know what, everything at&t says is correct and the data, the engineering data and everything that's relevant to this actually verifies and proves what they have said all along, the problem that i have is that essentially you're asking us to take what you're saying at face value. you're basically saying, trust us, that these maps are correct because they're based on accurate data that's underlying the conclusions of the maps, but we're not going to give you the data that actually shows that. >> with all due respect, i disagree, supervisor. we would give that data if it were so requested. at the end of the day, you have the same issue. you're using our raw data and you have to trust that thatidate at that we're providing you is accurate. whether we provide it in the form of raw data, which we're happy to do with a nondish closure agreement to protect the
7:57 pm
proprietary issue or in a map format, it's at&t's data being measured here. supervisor campos: isn't that a matter of degree, isn't it, right? because we have an obligation to make sure that before something is approved, that it is, in fact, necessary, and a finding of necessary is required, right, and that it is not enough for that finding to be done for us to simply take what the company is saying at face value. we actually have to engage in our own independent analysis of whether or not there has been enough evidence provided to show necessity, and again, that's the challenge here is that you have data that ultimately leads you to the creation of these maps, but that data has not been
7:58 pm
independently analyzed either by a third party or by the planning department, and you have statements that have been made by the expert hired by the appellants that basically shows that it's hard to, at least contends, that it's really hard to make a finding of necessity because of some of the gaps in the data that has been presented. >> i understand what you're saying, supervisor. in many ways i would compare this to whether i show you the data in the version of a pie chart or a bar graph. it's the same data. it's our data and there's no reason why we can't provide that data if it had been requested. i'm stating that the maps show that data in a different format and have been adequate to reach conclusions of necessity at the planning commission and we also have a responsibility to our share owners that we're investing hundreds of thousands of dollars on each of these
7:59 pm
sites and we don't do that recklessly. so there is a need here that we're going out and investing a lot of money into upgrading these sites in order to bring our customers the level of service they desire. supervisor campos: i appreciate that and i understand there are proprietary issues involved but the problem is, just like you don't have an obligation to give us that information, we don't have an obligation to grant you a conditional use so if you want to get a conditional use from the city, to me, it means that you have to meet your burden of actually providing the information to make the case and i don't think that the city needs to specifically request an item or two. the city generally simply says, make the case. and my point is that it is difficult for me to see how the case can be made if this information that actually verifies the conclusory statements you're making is not
8:00 pm
provided. that's what i'm saying. >> and again, if that's the data required of us to submit, we can take that in a future application for c.u.p.'s. this is one of 38c.u.p.'s approved of since the beginning of the year from the planning department and these maps depicting this information in this format has been adequate. if the planning department would like that additional information or provided in a different way or if you, the supervisors, would like it in a different way in anticipation that things come to an appeal, that's something we can certainly work with commission staff moving forward. supervisor campos: if i can request a couple of final questions to your expert. >> sure. supervisor campos: i'm wonder figure you read the -- sorry -- the report, the letter from accord communications regarding, from


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on