preference location, not preferred. limited preference means th othr possibilities for their wireless transmission facility. 901 cole is the multiple use building of a busy intersection. the building owner does not live in san francisco and will not be affected by this. therethere are numerous preferae sites which are not in such a neighborhood, with families nearby. lastly, there is a growing public concern about the effect of electromagnetic regulation. many scientists believe the ftc limits are inadequate in protecting people near the source of radiation. the world health organization, international association for cancer research -- for cancer research, has diagnosed it with

ddt, lead, and asbestos. there are health risks to the public within a thousand feet of a cell phone power. only 20% of the studies by the wireless industry show biological effects, whereas independently funded studies show 75%, a study by the department of energetics at the university of washington. i have no doubt that the greatest polluting elements on earth is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields. clearly, more research and is to be done -- needs to be done. i strongly urge the planning

commission to reject the application for the transmission facility. thank you. president fong: i have a few cards. laura epstein? >> and if we can ask the other two people to line up on the other side. if you can line up over here. >> my son is seated in the audience. i am laura epstein. greetings. thank you so much for being here. i especially think dr. antony. -- antonini. i live in coe valley. my children go to school there. i worked in san francisco. i feel as though san francisco truly is my community. i am grateful that the woman who spoke before me was so

articulate, because i am merely going to supplement what she said. my concern is also that these powers be allowed to be placed in this location. the school is very close by, and children are there, generally, 10 hours a day. that is a great concern. there is also a library and fire station. it is a heavily used community. as a citizen, i am concerned that individuals are approached by at&t and are allowed to make decisions that impact communities. i think san francisco should lead in developing a policy of some sort that would put that in the hands of the citizens, as opposed to private individuals. i think this is an opportunity for san francisco to lead in this area. that is what i would like the committee to consider, in addition to my community, who

really opposes these towers being placed. thank you. >> i am a 36-year resident of coe valley. i want to reiterate that our concerns are health-related. this project surely conforms to the fcc regulations, but this is new technology in terms of scientific study. radial magnetic radiation is beginning to be studied in human beings, but there is not a large body of work yet. the health consequences are uncertain. there is every indication that biology is affected by this radiation. there are many questions.

this site is in the body of the valley. it is a very densely populated intersection, a three story building surrounded by other three story buildings. the land rises to the east, west, and south, which will put these antennas at high-level for a lot of residents. -- at eye-level for a lot of residents, which is not a good thing. we have a petition opposing this site. thank you. president fong: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is gayle hannigman. i am also a resident of coe valley. i agree with the reasons of the people who came before me.

i feel strongly that at&t should not have the right to deal with one or two individuals in a very strong community and get this going, and not involve the community and what is happening to the community. there are so many children in this neighborhood. it is a very dense neighborhood. people come from different neighborhoods to wait right where those antennas are going to be. every morning, it is a very heavily traveled route. i am just appalled that at&t and the city would allow them to place these antennas for all those reasons, in particular health.

>> good afternoon. i am a resident of the neighborhood around bellmawr street -- delmar street. i also worked in san francisco. i have been a 12 year resident of the area. i support the conditional use. as a former at&t customer, i can testify that i had trouble getting connectivity. even simple services were not working. i would welcome the additional choice in use between at&t and other providers. my background is that of a scientist. i want to at least provide one counterpoint to the previous speakers. in particular, regarding the citation of the world health organization classifying cellphone radiation as a carcinogen -- that was in regards to cell phones, not

cellphone towers. it is my understanding there may be some conflation of the risks, which are different between cell phones and cellphone towers. i would urge the commission to consider the comments in context, and to analyze the citations for themselves. thank you for your time. president fong: thank you. >> i have done research on pubmed. there are very few studies done on cell phone towers. all of the studies that have been done have been done overseas. there is no research, really, in the united states, on the health risk of cell phone towers. i am opposed to this tower being

built in my neighborhood. thank you. >> -- president fong: any additional public comment? commissioners? commissioner antonini: it does not really make any difference, but i can hand this to linda to put on the screen. this is supposedly a picture, looking along colorado street -- cole street, which -- it has been relocated. maybe it is another landmark i am not familiar with in coe valley. not that that makes a difference to this discussion. anyway. the other thing that is not relevant to this -- the site is

identified as a restaurant, which is no longer there. another restaurant will be going in there. we approved recently. that particular site -- recently, one night, i was thinking of the different places you could design and c street cars going by, and that is one of them. -- you could sine andine and see street cards going by, and that is one of them. it is romantic, i think. anyway. there is increasing usage with family members who are constantly spending their time looking at their iphones and playing video of their events, and other things. i can imagine how much that draws on the system. i am sure there is a need for siting in this area.

they did explore the other alternatives, which are all preference 6 or worse, with exception of the park. but you need a structure that is more than 4 feet high to put an antenna on. to the speakers who are opposed to this, we are bound by what our parameters are. if the emissions are below the level that is deemed to be safe by the fcc, that cannot be a reason for denial, nor can competition between the various carriers. just because verizon has an antenna in the area does not mean you can deny at&t. prick me if i am wrong. once this installation is put in, the sponsor is obliged to

measure the cumulative levels of emissions after the placement, and make that information available. the must make these not in arbitrary places, but in buildings across the street or at street level, where people wait for streetcars. we know these levels fall off precipitously, or geometrically, very quickly, as you move away from the antenna site itself. i do not think there is a better site. commissioner sugaya: direct this to stuff. -- staff. over the last couple of years, we have seen quite a number of

applications for cell phone antennas, particularly from at&t. we have seen less from horizon. almost none from sprint or metro pcs. is that because of differences in technology different companies are using for that cell phone -- for their cell phone towers? >> to the best of my knowledge, there are two factors. they come into play for the at&t expansion. the radio frequency, the band with the use, requires additional sites. verizon operates on a different band with that requires less sites. it also has to do with existing infrastructure. it was previously primarily based on microsoft's -- micro

sites, which does not allow the amount of data transfer that current mobile devices require. they are moving to macro sites, which requires an increase in the number of antennas. those are the factors, to the best of my knowledge. commissioner sugaya: do they take the micro sites down? >> for the most part. sometimes, there are replacements. based on the infrastructure, they may not go in the same location, so it is a case by case basis. vice president wu: can you

detail the process for requesting a measurement, in your home or another location where there is concern? >> we have an obligation to test anybody within 25 feet of an existing facility. we are happy to do that. we have extended that to people in the area who have concerns, who would like to have a meter reading in their home. if they do not want to have our consulting firms do it, the department of public health also has the ability to go out and do readings as well. there are two options available. we are happy to do it as part of our infrastructure bill. vice president wu: for me, although i hear the concerns of

the public on the health impact, i do not believe they should play into the decision by the planning commission. in looking at the physical impact, i do not see any reason to turn down the cu. commissioner antonini: what i am hearing from at&t, in regards to concerns, is if there are concerns and measurements or frequency of emissions, they can contact at&t. if that is not easy to find, i would ask that the project sponsor contact members of the community to make sure they can find them.

that is what we need to have for assurances that the emissions are what they are slated to be. i would move approval. commissioner sugaya: second. president fong: the public comment portion is closed, i am afraid. if you have a question, maybe you can speak with a staff person assigned to this particular item. >> emotion on the floor is for approval. -- the motion on the floor is for approval. [roll is called] the motion passed unanimously. you are now on item 13, case 2011.1005c for 1801 broadway. staff is -- president fong: we will give her

a second, there. >> good afternoon. before you today is another proposal by at&t to install a wireless communications facility at 1801 broadway street. the facility would consist of up to four antennas on the rooftop of a penthouse on an existing residential building, with equipment located in the garage. it is a preference 7 site within the rn-3 makes use zoning district. i want to clarify an error in the document. the approval is for four antennas only. this site is a location preference 7, which requires

alternative analysis. according to the guidelines, a disfavored preference site needs to show what higher performance sites are located, and why it they were unsuccessful, and that the proposed location is essential to service demands. there was a church to the south that is the only preference one site in the area. the church has a strict policy of not permitting wireless facilities on its properties. finally, a third party is confirming the data is accurate. staff has received, to date, 1 e-mail, which has been included. it is opposition to the project, based on health concerns. the staff recommends approval. president fong: thank you.

project sponsor? >> good afternoon again, members of the commission. i am with at&t. i am still here with a gain erickson -- with dan erickson, who did the third-party analysis, and with our representatives from the consulting firm. we are seeking a conditional use permit. this is a small site for at&t. it is a four panel directional antenna. we have an existing on the antenna -- omni antenna on the side of the building. we will decommission that as soon as this site gets built, assuming we get permission to

build it. there are of credit facilities we are deploying throughout san francisco, which are all panel antennas. we get a lot more bandwidth. we get a lot more directions. this is one of those sites. it is a preference seven site. there is very little in that area. it is a trouble spot for us. it is a corridor which is highly traveled. if you have traveled it and you are an at&t customer, you know what i am talking about. we talked about the significant load on the network from smart phones and other devices. we are seeking your approval today. i want to thank michelle for her work on all of our sites, but particularly these two today.

we ask for your continued support as we continue to upgrade our network. president fong: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> my name is jennifer moss. i live on the sixth floor of the building, which is the top floor, directly underneath where the antennas are to be installed. they are literally about 5 feet, between where the antennas are going to be and where my husband and i live. i am opposed. i represent my husband, myself, and many of our neighbors. we have found a significant lack of research showing long-term effects of exposure to these antennas. we are especially concerned about the affects of the

radiation on children. i am currently expecting my first child. we are very concerned about the effects of radiation on them. we also have neighbors who use at&t. my husband uses at&t. they have absolutely no problem with their service. i would like you to refer to the comments before about 901 cole. i am opposed to this. many of our neighbors are. i have a hard time believing this is the best spot in our neighborhood. it is a small building, about six stories. there are plenty of people who seem to have great at&t service. thank you very much. president fong: is there additional public comment?

>> in the code-owner of the property at 1801 broadway. my family has done quite a bit of research on this and worked with at&t to make sure the health risks are not going to be an issue for the tenants of the building. we have looked at this extensively. as the tenant who just spoke -- the antennas are actually directed away from the property. they are directional antennas, not the omnidirectional antennas that are currently on the property site. the emissions are actually away from the property. the equipment downstairs is not

going to be a factor, as far as radiation. it is basically just the antennas themselves. a number of tenants we have had over the previous years has escalated, as far as having cell phones as their full use of communications. it is hitting the point where it is maxxam out our intercom system. -- max thing -- maxing out our intercom system. people want it connected to multiple phones, all of which are so phones. there is not the coverage that this site will fulfill. one of the things i also hear it is about the radiation. there are other sources of radiation that exist in people's

homes right at this point, which far exceed what is going to be demonstrated by these antennas, such as wireless systems we have in place, up routers and those kinds of things, microwaves. if you look at the radiation those put out, in comparison with this installation, it is far less than those devices. the last thing i would like to say is the last thing i would want to do is put anybody in harm's way, in regards to something like this. i worked on this for a number of years. we are not interested in placing anybody in harm or jeopardy. president fong: any additional public comment? the public comment portion is closed.

commissioner moore? commissioner moore: the comments expressed in the previous case and in this case are similar. those should be the answers given by the commission, in the addition to the ability to follow up with at&t. the installation of the things we are discussing at the moment are not regulated by the city, nor are the regulated by this commission. federal guidelines are there to ensure that proper health standards regarding radiation are being observed. for you personally, and i do understand your personal anxiety, the follow up with at&t that was suggested to the previous speakers are available to you as well. i would suggest you contact or

speak to the at&t representative in the room to set up the follow up at the time when it is appropriate. commissioner antonini: i have a question for mr. hammond or their representative. maybe mr. hammond would be better. i noticed that we are going to be removing, as part of this installation, the antenna that was originally approved in 1998. maybe you can talk a little bit about the directional -- the owner talked a little bit about the directional emissions. he intimated that the new antennas go away from the building. is that a different case with the existing microcell? what kind of differences in rf

emissions are there between the two? >> i am dane erickson, a registered professional engineer in the state of california. the antennas are directional in the vertical plane. even an antenna that is omnidirectional in the horizontal plane is still directional in the vertical plane. that means it radiates less energy directly downward. both patterns are taken into account, when we conduct our independent type galatians, whether a particular site complies with federal guidelines for human exposure to radio frequency energy. commissioner antonini: i guess my question was more that the older antenna is more omnidirectional