coverage. -- 3g and 4g coverage. oh gee -- how can we raced to >> good afternoon, supervisors. outside counsel for verizon wireless and at&t. quickly, it is the retroactivity that was introduced last time. i think it is going to create incredible legal problems for the city in that you have facilities that were approved two or three years ago that are now going to fall under this new regime and simply will be protested or brought before the board of appeals and you run the risk of having to take down facilities that were approved a few years ago in violation of our clients' constitutional rights to taking a property without constitutional rights. i just want you to focus on the

retroactivity. i noticed that you have a good understanding of some of the prior legislation. i would encourage some of that kind of scrutiny in this legislation as well. the second item -- i would like to skip forward to my matrix, which provided for you. the new york model that supervisor avalos provided last time. it was an rfp to encourage the placement of facilities on light standards. the industry would love to see that in san francisco. it is not a punitive measure as this one is today, but one that encourages cooperation. since the beginning, we have suggested that there be a modification of the wts guidelines, which were discussed earlier, as a way of guiding wireless companies to work with the communities. there is no community outreach at the beginning of the installation of these wireless guidelines under supervisor avalos' proposal.

there is no aesthetic guidelines here. they are only inches -- 10 or 12 inches. we strongly encourage you to take a step back, look at this broadly, as the planning commission has recommended in the resolution, to modify the guidelines to include the right of way and not have this separate and parallel and unworkable process. thank you very much. supervisor maxwell: next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i represent at&t. i want to thank supervisor avalos' office, dpw, the planning department, the community, as well as the industry for trying to come together to find a solution that works for everybody. having gone through this, what we would like to respectfully ask is that this committee take

a moment and allows some conversations to have been about rolling the public use of the right of way, the dpw process currently, under the wts guidelines. at the end of the day, what we heard last week and what we heard with all of these industry meetings is that i go home. i wake up in the morning, leave for work, and i come home, and there's these facilities outside my house, and there's boxes in my window, and at the end of the day, the avalos legislation does not do anything to address that. where we end up at the end of the day is at the board of appeals where the industry is fighting to put up the facilities and the community is fighting because they do not want them. we all lose. if we could just take a few moments and have some conversations of our rolling

this under wts where there is a community meeting ahead of time, where we as the industry can address these problems, we do them with all of these facilities, with all of these conditional use permits. why would we create additional legislation when we already have legislation that has been working for 16 years that could easily be amended to account for the aesthetics and for the community input that needs to happen when we are placing facilities in the right of way. thank you. >> [inaudible] supervisor maxwell: excuse me. thank you. next speaker please. i think a point was just made that was shouted out, and that is for this industry folks, a lot of people here do not know exactly what speak you are speaking. we hear a lot of acronyms, so when you start sprouting them

off like that, it is difficult for people to understand. the next industry person that comes up, maybe you could explain what that means. next. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm a resident of the our sunset, and i'm grateful to supervisors avalos and campos for sponsoring this ordinance. i think it is an important first step adding additional apparatus to light and utility poles that and not necessarily designed for these uses. i would urge much stronger language to discourage placement in residential and neighborhood community districts. i hear a lot of industry talking about how this is good for

public safety, but i think communications is one thing, and public safety on the ground is really my immediate concern, not how you let your relatives know, as important as that is, so my primary consideration is what happens when this apparatus is not down -- knocked down by wind storms that are increasing. some years back, a time in the outer sunsets attracted a lot of attention when it fell. that was a sign that had no toxic chemicals or possible electrocution ramifications associated with it. i think with climate change, we really have to be prudent and take certain precautions about these things toppling. i think we need language that would allow independent inspection of installations and whether polls can support these, not paid for by industry, but

done independently under the supervision of the city. i just am grateful for this as a first step, and i think we need to be prudent. this is new technology, and whatever the claims are, we need to know what it actually does on the ground. thank you. supervisor maxwell: next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm a mother, and in a resident of san francisco. i would like to express a heartfelt thank you to supervisor avalos for sponsoring the wireless facilities legislation and to supervisors campos and mar for cosponsoring. i fully support this legislation. it is an important initial step which addresses the issue of wireless facilities and public's right away. also, the installation of wireless facilities on utility

poles can cause safety hazards resulting from fire and a lecture share from the overloading and the possibility of these toxic chemicals from the leaks of lead acid batteries. -- electric shock from the overloading. i urge you to protect our district and children by immediately drafting additional legislation which will address this issue. thank you so much. >> hello. i'm a homeowner in the city, and i have lived here for 23 years. i care deeply about the quality of life here. i would like to echo the thanks already expressed for your efforts with this legislation. i'm here because i have had a crash course in the past week on wireless antennas and how fast and seriously they are going up at the moment in the city. an antenna is being activated as i stand here before you on my

street. do i need to tell you how unsightly it is and how poorly installed it is? the crew has worked until 10:00 p.m. and on saturday and sunday, to complete their work, and it seemed to go on and on. the first thing i wondered is where else are they installing these things? are we just unlucky on our street? there is one a single block away and two more within a four-block radius. it seems to me that this proliferation goes against any intention to ultimately buried the utilities underground, like the area immediately surrounding us. while constant exposure to one of vice might not offend, according to the fcc standards, how about this kind of density? who is asking these questions on our behalf? are they being asked? the more i research, the more i learn how my hands are tied -- how our hands are tied as residents and homeowners as far as what we can do about this, i understand that the new

regulations will allow for an appeal in two years when the permit comes up for renewal. we have to live up to the monthly service crews, and the fear that this equipment might come down with a large storm for two years. i think that the public needs to be notified as part of the curve in the process for any size antenna. politics is personal, and so is aesthetics. we should have a chance to voice our concern and to learn about how our coverages provided. the placement of these facilities across the city needs to be made with more consideration and more equity. thank you. supervisor maxwell: all right. joan hopkins, why don't you come out? thank you. >> yes, i did not turn in a card, although my name is joan. i live in north beach.

i'm grateful for this legislation, and i'm grateful the supervisor campos and supervisor mar signed on to it after supervisor avalos. we all love our cell phones and with all harbor the suspicion that they are dangerous, which, of course, they are. i've read articles about 10 years ago about the radiation from power plants. it is the same radiation. it is just that cell phones proliferated after that, and i do not think they have been studied, particularly not in america. there have been studies in europe. the industry is concerned with competition, and that is why they come and testify here. i'm concerned with safety. it is the first set. one is always told that since the feds have a particular standard and we are not exceeding that standard, that it is useless to talk about the

danger. i think the san francisco board of supervisors has never been afraid to make policy statements dealing with national issues and war issues and things like that. in california, the whole statement to -- the whole state is not afraid, and i hope that my city feels the same way about the danger of cell phones. this is the first step. there should be a lot more, and i hope you will send it on to the full board immediately. thank you. >> supervisors, i'll live on 17th avenue, and i am not fully versed in these towers that are going up, but i do know that there is a vicious-looking thing on the top of our rightful 20 feet from where somebody sleeves, and the three of us that live in the house are

outraged that this has gone on with no communication to us that it was happening. at no time were we told that this was going to happen. i personally cost city and county offices -- personally called city and county offices after this thing was a task. i found out that it was ok. it was not dangerous. i do not believe that. so we do not want it next to our house. thank you. >> i'm a researcher and statistician, and i have downloaded some of the antenna search.com data on wireless transmitters and towers in my

richmond district neighborhood. there are 489 antennas within a three-mile radius of my home. many of these are multiple antennas -- supervisor mar: through the chair, can you repeat those numbers? >> yes, there are 480 antennas within a three-mile radius of my home, and many of those are multiple antennas. one of them has 29 different frequencies in meeting from its antenna. there are also 64 towers within a three-mile radius of my home. henry lie at the university of washington -- henry lai is doing research on the health effects of wireless transmitters and towers, and there are animal studies on that and some human studies related to memory deficits, performance deficits, genetic deficits, cancer, reproductive deficits -- a whole host of health issues. so i'm wondering who is going to

monitor the cumulative burdens of all of this technology being added in our city? it is just a question i would like to raise. thank you. supervisor maxwell: i have no more cards, so if anybody else would like to speak, please line up. >> i'm director of government relations. thank you for your attention to this matter today. one of the things the you are hearing repeatedly is the lack of notice and the lack of community involvement before approval. that is one of the larger issues here. projection, please? this is examples of some of the equipment that is out there that received no static evaluation. -- no aesthetic evaluation. by leaving these installations out of the ordinance, there's nothing to protect the citizens from coming home and finding it

pg&e antenna and box on the poll as well as a new transformer for some of the larger cable and other broadband internet boxes. i understand that the wireless equipment has been targeted for specific discriminatory treatment, and that is what we are asking to stop. because that goes against state and federal law governing this, and even the current case law in the ninth circuit is not specific to wireless, but rather all communications, wireline and wireless, that's it throughout the city. we are asking for broader inclusion. unlike the legislation that was heard before this item, there were no stakeholders consulted in the drafting of the legislation. if we were able to go back and actually write down a piece of legislation that would address the valid concerns of the residents -- i talk to them every day and explain these things, but if they knew what was and that it was not

something speered before it went up, i think it would be a better solution than only having the after the fact notice that they receive under the ordinance now. lastly, regarding the proliferation -- projection, please -- there is a photo of the new york site that was done on streetlights. as far as proliferation, this is the way -- [buildings] supervisor mar: what is your organization? who do you represent again? >> we build small antenna installations throughout the city, and the smaller they are, the more we need them. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. san francisco neighborhood and ctenophore union. we are a citywide grass-roots

coalition that focuses on wireless impacts. i want to again echo other comments. we are supportive. we do encourage you to pass out of committee today with the recommendation to pass it at the full board. with that said, as other people have mentioned, there is a very crucial need, as soon as the new board gets seated, in january to work on additional legislation dealing specifically with public rights of way. that is the safety hazards we have heard talk about. when this item before you was unanimously passed before the planning commission in october, a number of commissioners, including commission president miguel, strongly supported additional safety legislation aimed at all types of equipment placed on utility poles, but that is not what this legislation does appear this one, for very specific legal reasons, which the deputy city

attorney can more adequately explain to you, is carved out and focused the way it is, so i will give you the strongest possible legal representation that the city can have on your specific -- under specific current state and legal restrictions. i want to briefly comment. the wts guidelines are simply guidelines. they deal with private and public party antenna installations. there are legal reasons why this is carved out as a specific piece of legislation. finally, the person who testified about the emergency importance of cell phones during earthquakes and other natural disasters should read the city's own extensive the emergency planning documents, which first on the list says cell phones are not reliable. rely on the following -- and it has an extensive list of other networks in place to provide emergency background. thank you. [applause]

>> good afternoon, again, supervisors. eric brooks, san francisco green party. san francisco's green party -- the green party pose a position on this is that this legislation is excellent and every opportunity should be made to minimize the amount of these things that are out there -- the green party's position. based on whether or not there is sufficient coverage, especially. so many times, we have seen the planning commission approved and 10 a placement, and then it is appealed to the board. the corporations will get up and argue that their coverage is not good enough, but then it will be made clear through the appeals process that the coverage is actually good enough and the appeal is of help. this happens over and over again. so that is the standard. also, it does not just apply to cell phones. it applies to broadband access.

you need to make sure there is not already sufficient coverage for an easy way to get there, and the direction we really need to head, especially in light of the fcc's recent decision to unfortunately make the internet a two-tiered system is to have a major buildup of underground fiber-optic lines in the city. if we did that, fiber would allow us, to the extent that we do need wireless devices, to operate on very small antennas the size of cigarette packs or smaller, that are hooked into the broad fiber-optic system, and would also allow us to set up so that multiple corporations do not have to have their own antennas. they could look into the public fiber network and all ride without having the proliferation of antennas all over the place. supervisor chiu, you are probably interested in that direction. i would love to see you work

with advocates that are working with broadband to get that in motion so that we do not need all these ridiculous antennas all over the place. thanks. supervisor maxwell: next speaker please. >> i want to thank supervisors avalos campos, and mar for sponsoring this legislation, which i support. i think it is important to ensure the protection of city residents from all possible hazards. i ask that the supervisors begin drafting additional legislation to ensure public safety, particularly in those residential districts -- that is neighborhood, commercial, and residential zones. housing wireless facilities on utility poles poses obvious

hazards, such as whole overloading, fire hazards, and chemical hazards due to the battery -- the back up batteries that are components of these facilities, which are easily combustible and the explosive. so thank you for your efforts so far, and please consider further legislation to ensure the safety of city residents. i will just add that i live in an apartment building where there is a radio base station in the basement and antennas house on the roof, and we did have a fire alarm go off last friday, and the first thing i reported from my land mine, as i reported the fire, was that we have antennas on the roof and a radio station in the basement. to be considered. thank you. >> i find -- i want to thank the

supervisors for this legislation. it is very important first step. the important thing is it provides a notice to neighbors. the carriers, despite their claim that they think there should be more notice, they could not provide -- they could provide notice if they wanted to. they could just put little posters up on their telephone poles. i do not believe them that they want to provide notice. this is very important. they have been having an aggressive campaign to put up these devices before this legislation goes into effect. they are not providing notice, even though they have known about this. supervisor avalos' office had contacted them. whoever said there were no stakeholder meetings -- that is a complete lie. i was at the meetings. there were representatives from

all kinds of carriers. let me show you what they have been doing lately. [inaudible] the overhead? in 2008 -- this is only the last two months of 2008. and in 2009, and then this is the number of facilities that they applied for in 2010 after the legislation was put on calendar. basically, they are trying to circumvent this legislation, and these guys are all saying, " let's come up with another plan. let's go back to the drawing board." and they will just put more of these things up without notifying residents. i also want to point out about the batteries. these batteries have hazardous materials in them. they have led, lead oxide, and sulfuric acid. from one of these data sheets, they have here, from one of the batteries they typically use, this is what i read from that data sheet, what you posted with

the battery. these are hazardous, should not be on poles. >> good afternoon, supervisors. san francisco chamber of commerce of here again. i recently read a really interesting book by dave eggers. it was a fantastic book about a family in new orleans during katrina. and the consequence of what happened when we lost our communication infrastructure and what that did to the society and to the community in trying to help people get out and get information and get equipment, both from a public safety side, but just on a community side as well. it was devastating. we are going to be in a situation in san francisco where we are a very tech savvy community. many people have moved off of landlines and now relies solely

on the data or cellular technology for wireless technology. when there is an earthquake, we will need to have equipment for people to communicate, and it is not just police to police and fire to fire. it is the citizens to police, citizens to citizens. our emergency networks, our community-based programs will need to be communicating with each other. those battery back ups are important. what we have heard today is very little discussion about actual aesthetics. this is about how we can stop this in two years, whenever this comes into play, when we have to go back for new permits. that will undermine our communications infrastructure in this community. it will make us less safe. i think it is very important that we look at ways to involve the community and the neighborhoods in conversations about where things go up and how they look. this is not the legislation to do it. we have other guidelines we have

used on private and public lands that should be incorporated. please do not move this legislation as it exists forward because we do believe it will undermine our communications infrastructure in san francisco. thank you. [applause] >> i'm the director of environmental justice advocacy. if you go to any civilized nation, you will not see electric poles and such nasty equipment as you saw the last time again and again and again. what the service providers do is they invest millions of dollars in washington, d.c., as lobbyists and come over here, do the same in sacramento, and come over here on the local level and try to bully us. what perturbs me is dpw, and i know there are some people here from dpw that know me pretty well. if somebody comes and puts a

little graffiti thing, they will find you about $300. and you have these nasty, dirty looking things on our electric poles. they are disgusting. lowering the property value. they do nothing. we need to find out what is the relationship between the service providers and dpw? and secondly, who gives them the right to go inside somebody's house, even though it is public right of way, and put these nasty things on these electric poles that in the first place, such things should never be put. these are huge boxes -- not all of them, but most of them. you have heard here from eric brooks and others that we can do this underground. we can use fiber optics. the city lost eight years ago when we allow comcast to do the underground, and we did not do