it is just an idea of what we can expect in the future from this carrier. as she said, we get these on an get these on an application basis. the five-year plan -- the tenants may not be installed. and ero has been determined and appropriate document for these installations. in terms of specific health effects, i will pass it over to patrick. >> here we go. the individual measurements that are rejected in the health report are for the individual tenants. that is a projection for these five income as they installed. the field measurements that are done at these locations are

cumulative. there are a variety of frequencies. we would take a measurement that would be broad based and include all of those frequencies. the actual field measurements are for the cumulative effect of the antennas that are located at that site, all the projections in the health report are for the individual, in this case, clear wire insulation. on the one hand, you have an initial report that is projecting what the additional affect -- the radiofrequency affect would be at the location. but the proof is always in the pudding. what is actually being measured in the field is where you get your actual measurements. supervisor campos: related to that, if final question on that. what do we say to the number of residents who genuinely believe there was health issues around the placement of these dishes? what is the response from the

health department? >> hour -- it was accurately stated. our plans are -- our hands are tied by the fcc. it is the federal government. we are given to enforce, but the federal government has pre- emption in that regard. the public health limits set by the federal government was based upon where the radiofrequency energy would begin to have a heating effect on biological tissue. the public health standard was set at one 50th of the level you would expect to see that biological effect began. the readings that we got in the area around bernal heights are less than 1% of that one 50th of where you would expect to see a biological effect. so it is small, but the school is still out there. last time i checked there were something like 25,000 research studies that had been done on

our energy and its health effects. -- that had been done on rf energy and its health effects. there is a large body of work out there. supervisor campos: i have a final question for the planning department. one of the things that has deterred me about the case is that as you indicated clear wire is essentially seeking modification of a prior conditional use that was issued to american power. my understanding from viewing some of the information that we have gathered from the residencts, and at some point even the admission of individuals at the company involved, is that the conditional use required american power to do certain things that in fact have not been done. and there are some real issues around the safety of the site, the condition of the site,

whether it is fencing, landscaping, painting, lighting. that was all part of the conditional use approval, and there has not been full compliance with that. and here we are being asked to grant an additional approval when the have not met the obligations of the original one. the you have any thoughts on that? >> through the president, tara sullivan. this is speaking to the conditional use appeal rather than the ceqa. conditional use permits -- a property owner has three years to pull the permits and build whatever that are going to build, use the property however they are going to use it. the condition of approval, unless the planning commission specifically put in deadlines for when certain been cut to be

completed by -- it is all within that three year window. however, in the case of clear wire, to back up -- with the 2008 team mobile -- tmobile conditional use, the owner was required to do certain things -- to legalize all the antennas, to do landscaping and improvements. they pulled the permit to do the landscaping. they pulled it as it was issued. the department may not have started construction, but the building permit has an expiration. as well. in terms of the clear wire one, assuming this was not appealed and that a cu was issued, they still have to file a building permit to install these antennas. what we do at that time is double check the original conditional use and make sure that all of that would actively be taken care of, and we would

hold the building permit. i spoke to the zoning administrator about that yesterday. we would hold the building permit for clear wire until the other conditions were approved. supervisor campos: if you look at the site, a lot of things american tower promised it would make happen did not happen. these are basic things that would be maintained on the site, in a safe matter. those things have not happened. so who is responsible for making sure those things are done? >> ultimately, it is the planning department. we do in force or conditional use authorizations and any violations of those. however, there is no violation going on currently. they are under way in terms of complying with a conditional use authorization, complying with their landscape application. unless and until it is brought to our attention that they are not doing that, we will not

pursue any violations. until now, we have not -- no one has said they are in violation of their cu. supervisor campos: i think the neighbors have said that time and time again, so i think that has been said. [applause] thank you. president chiu: i want to mention to the public is rules of this chamber that we do not allow for applause in support of speakers, or any signal. in order for us to hear from everyone, we have to do this today. thank you for respecting that rule. colleagues, any more questions to city staff? if not, i will ask for a representative of the party of interest to step up to the podium for a presentation of up to two minutes. >> good afternoon, president chiu, supervisors.

my name is bill stevens. i am representing clear wire in this matter. there are some very large issues that have been brought up here. i will try to be brief and specific to the clear wire application. but it would be hard not to mention some larger issues we have heard here today. just going back to the clear wire application as indicated by the planning department -- the conditional use permit application was necessitated by a denial of a request for a letter of determination by the zoning administrator. the request clear wire made within the existing use permit -- there are a number of available in 10 locations, but they are specific -- there are a number of available and hazmat

locations, but they are specific. we asked -- there are a number of available antenna locations, but they are specific. we changed to dish antennas. nobody change the number of intense -- changed the number of antennas at this site. we are asking for a change from panels to dish. that is the clear where application. since the appeal was filed in a timely way and through the months of august and september we worked with the appellant group, a lot of things came to light for clear wire and american power corporation -- american power corporation. working with that and working with supervisor campos, we were able to ultimately get face

space with the appellants and understand some of the underlying issues of the graffiti and some of the landscaping issues at the site. since then, american tower has taken great efforts to come into those compliances, which they have three years to do, but to do it in a more timely way. that effort is ongoing right now, as we speak. the line of action has been submitted to the board for their ongoing activities. i am going to turn the microphone over to our legal counsel, who will make some other particularly relevant comments about the ceqa exception. >> good afternoon, mr. president, members of the board. i am the outside counsel for clear wire. we are focusing now on the

ceqa question. it is a procedural document to provide you with information about environmental impacts secant decisions about particular applications. the intent is to educate you. in this case, the department has determined this site qualifies for an exemption. as you know, the site was built in 1960. it was billed as a marker with hub for pacific bell. it was seen as the most environmentally sensitive way to transmit large amounts of data, as opposed to building telephone lines over telephone poles or underground. in 2009, the entire permit was reviewed. 71 antennas were approved, 14-in tennis with a categorical exemption. there were three categorical exemptions it could fall under. category one allows up to 10,000

sq. ft. buildings or 2500 sq. ft. homes under a categorical exemption. we are talking about switching out five antennas. you can imagine it does not make sense that the entire project, all 50 feet and all 71 antennas somehow require an environmental impact report to switch out. you have to show the point of the eir -- some kind of in our mental impact. what environmental impact might there be? there might be esthetics, but these are 1 foot antennas, smaller than the antennas that are going to replace. the aesthetic impact are nonexistent. in terms of radiofrequency, these is mid less radiofrequency emissions than the panel's they would -- these admit less radiofrequency emissions than the panel's would replace.

the cumulative impact on the public is less than 1% of the federal standard, and you have already learned that is 50 times below any effect. that standard is reviewed every seven years. it was reviewed most recently in 2006 and brought into compliance with european standards. the fact is i have been doing this for 25 years. cell phones have been around for a long time. they are not creating the health impact people expected. that is becoming apparent. the suggestion there is some kind of exception with cumulative impact -- if you have to show there is some environmental impact. deeper rf and aesthetic impact do not exist. there is no potential for a significant impact you would review in an eir. it just means the project would come back to you in six months with an eir.

there is a suggestion this is piecemeal in the project. that would mean that every one of the facilities clear wire is going to install has to be an essential portion of this project. that is not the case. if you are going to have to approve a cup for every location and each could be denied and the facility put somewhere else -- at this facility is what we are asking for today. you are requiring that we continue to be an individual project. piecemeal and does not make sense. cumulative impact does not make sense. one last point about microwave antennas -- the project has been there for 50 years. those are big microwaves and little microwaves without incident. when microscope offline, they shut down. -- when microwaves go offline, the shutdown. in tv gulch, they are all over.

each path is regulated by the fcc. we realize this issue and the other issues raised in cup perhaps were not the core issue. clear wire recognized we wanted to make sure the neighborhood was heard. through the officers of supervisor campos, we were able to bring the property owners to the table. they sat down and executed a document which sets forth a plan to remedial the graffiti and the gaps in the fence. they have already run mediated the gaps and are today painting the graffiti. i think this is a good thing for the neighborhood and would not have been accomplished without the good offices of the supervisor. clearwater was happy to influence american -- clear wire was happy to influence american tower to do that. the wireless industry tries not

to bring appeals before you. we did everything we could to directly address the issues the neighborhood was concerned about. we were only able to find that through meetings with neighbors and supervisor campos. there is an executed document now. american tower is stepping up to clean up that side. we think the ceqa issue is a red herring. we encourage you not to require an eir, to allow the categorical exemption to stand, and to go on to the second part of this permit. president chiu: colleagues, any questions to the real party of interest? seeing non-, let me ask for individuals who wish to speak -- seeing none, let me ask for individuals who wish to speak to step up to the microphone. >> board members, i am in

recent residents. i moved to san francisco recently. i think you all for your time today. -- thank you all for your time today. we recently, over the last four to six weeks, through supervisor campos's office as well as clear wire and the neighbors in the area -- i apologize. can you hear me? through supervisor campos and clearwater, we repeated some of the issues that have been brought up and address here today. one of the things we have done very recently is created a site maintenance compliance relation plan to enforce the issues we talked about here today. the issues were the fencing,

which we have already fixed the gaps in the fence in which were brought up. we initially addressed the landscaping. we already installed the landscaping. those are issues that have occurred. we plan to replace the dead trees that are there now, as well as looking at a longer term plan to address, potentially, some other landscaping. it is something that is not required as part of the cup. it is not something we are legally required to do, but it is something we are looking at to see if we can make it less intrusive. we have looked at improving the security at that location. we have increased the number of visits we make to the site to help mediate the issues we see up there. as was brought up today, the painting has already started. all the graffiti. with that, thank you very much.

president chiu: are there other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the real party of interest? seeing none, we go to the final rebuttal argument by the appellant. you have up to 3 minutes. >> good afternoon, supervisors. mining is terry mills. i would just like to restate the point of our ceqa appeal. we think there is a cumulative effect of five antennas in five different directions from this hill that should have an eir investigation. we think that because of the size of the installation it is not a minuscule thing and no one would notice. in fact, it is a new use for the installation that has a different technology than the

other antennas that are up there. and it is going to be spread across various parts of the city, so we think it in fact is bigger than just five antennas. the other thing. it is an expansion of use, and i would like to say in relation to the conditional use situation there it has been our experience that a grievance reached outside of chambers, particularly in the planning commission, among people who have some contentions about a project, are totally unenforceable unless a city body votes on them. that is you guys today. if anybody is offering mitigation, fixing up our hill, pointing out things -- unless somebody like you guys votes on it, next week it is unenforceable. and we heard about how the

planning department takes care of this. 82-year-old conditional use -- they still have another year to go -- a to-year-old conditional use -- they still have another year to go and are not going to do anything. president chiu: colleagues, any final questions to the parties or city departments? seeing none, item 37. this hearing has been held and closed. supervisor campos? supervisor campos: my apologies. thank you very much, mr. president. and again, thank you to the appellants and the respondents and everyone who came here today. with respect to action today, there are essentially two issues we have to address. there is the issue of the ceqa exception and the issue of the

conditional use. i do have concerns about some of the public health implications of these projects, and i think that the suggestion that supervisor mirkarimi made about the city having a master plan, if you will, that deals with that, makes sense. that said, we do have very strict guidelines that govern whether or not we redact or approve the findings of the planning commission. and based on the evidence that is presented, i think that with respect to items 38 and 39 that there is no basis legally to reverse the exemption determination on ceqa. so i would make a motion to approve item 38. with respect to the conditional use, however, i do have concerns about what the planning

commission did with respect to the prior conditional use. i do think it is important for us to make sure that there is compliance with the conditions that were previously issued, and that basic safety concerns are addressed. i would move that we -- president chiu: at this time, we are only considering the eir. >supervisor campos: with respect to the eir, i would make a motion to affirm the exemption determination. president chiu: that would move item 38, cabling item 40. there is a second by supervisor maxwell. supervisor daly: i would like a roll call on this item. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: no.

supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: no. supervisor dufty: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: no. >> there are eight ayes and three nos. president chiu: the environmental review exemption is affirmed. it is time to take up the appeal on the conditional use authorization. we have an appeal on the see you authorization for 10 -- cu authorization for 10 bernal heights. we will continue as we have just

done. there will be up to 10 minutes for a presentation by the appellants, up to two minutes in support of the appeal, up to two minutes for presentation from planning, up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor presentation, up to two minutes for speakers, and up to two minutes for a rebuttal. colleagues, unless there is any objection to proceed in this way, let me ask supervisor campos to give the opening remarks. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi: -- -- supervisor mirkarimi: on process, a point of order, we could not have called these concurrently? president chiu: that is what i was advised. supervisor mirkarimi: sometimes we do these concurrently. president chiu: that was what i was advised by the city attorney. >> deputy city attorney cheryl atoms. the board could consider the public comment on these items

together, but would have to take up consideration of the ceqa item per se. -- item first. president chiu: i would ask members of the public -- we have heard the comments you made and ask you to keep your comments as brief as possible. any additional introductory comments? with that, again, why don't we hear first from the appellant on the specific issue of the cu authorization. >> thank you. i am sylvia mellonson, and i still live in bernal hei ghts. we believe it clear on wire's application should be denied as american tower has made its property dangerous and an ugly i

cite that disrupts the park atmosphere of our open space on top of bernal heights. the permit granted allowed tmobile to install nine new receivers on the tower and other receivers were allowed that had been installed illegally without building permits or conditional use permits. adxc has never applied to the planning commission for those, or the building commission. the 2009 permit laid out certain conditions for atc. no. 5 red, "the property owner is responsible for filing building permit applications or requiring tenants to file building permit applications to legalize existing antennas and all future antennas on the site." i heard today that for the first time that the. they have to do that is three

years. -- i heard today for the first time that the period they have to do that is three years. they have not applied for one of those building permits. it has been over a year. while they may have three years, the purpose of those building permits is to make the site safe. it is supposed to be inspected by building inspectors, health inspectors, fire inspectors. myself, my neighbors, and my child are currently walking underneath a 50 foot tower with over 50 transmitters that could be affecting us, for all we know. we feel these building permits should be applied for and approved before any new permits are given to the site owners to put up large transmitters and make more profit off of the site. thank you. president chiu: i am sorry.

you are presenting on behalf of the appellant. you have up to 10 minutes, if you wish to keep speaking. >> i was having so much fun. [laughter] we also believe that atc is out of compliance on condition seven of the 2009 permit which reads, "prior to planning department approval of the building permit application, the project's sponsor shall submit a landscaping plan subject to approval by the zoning administrator prior to permit issuance. they shall apply landscaping per the approved plan. such landscaping plan, including species, shall include tree planting sufficient to screen the base tower and the building from distant use overtime. landscaping shall be maintained, and as trees reach maturity or die of disease they shall be replaced." atc has planted in the last year ti