difference what company it is, they're going to take on every building, every church, every synagogue, every mosque where they can put up their antenna. christ did not die on a cross. you would think he died on an antenna. president chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> i'll try to keep out the religious comments, here. i'm working with the appellant on this case. i spent time on bernal heights and i'm familiar with the location. i actually went up there at site and was talking with people at the area. almost everyone i talked to, they didn't realize there were something like 63 antenac up there and my understanding is a lot of them don't have the permits they're supposed to have. i urge you to vote yes on seekwa, especially.

and as far as the issue of meeting fcc requirements, they haven't done an adequate study to show that and this was brought up before. there must be an unambiguous identification of all the existing end points for the planned point-to-point transmission. the intended intersection and ongoing alignment for each microwave dish in san francisco must be documented. clear wire must provide clarification that the power level being used at each of the point-to-point transmission sites and the crossing transmission beams across public areas. clear wire must document the contingency plans to shut off the facility should loss of alignment of these dishes take place, including automatic deenergizing of all transmission

capability. however, there is nothing in the hammit and edison report or the clear wire application that clear wire gave this information to hammit and edison or that hammit and edison used this information in writing the report. my understanding is they're property taxes at that site. that's in your documentation. thank you. president chiu: are there any members of the public who also wish to speak on the behalf of the appellant? >> tara sullivan from the planning department. i'm here with erica jackson, the project planner, as well as noni terrell, the environmental planner and patrick who reviewed the applications for fcc requirements. to give background, to set the stage for this appeal, i would like to give background which

applies to this appeal as well as the conditional use appeal as to how the bernal heights power became what it is today. in 1960, the owner of the property had applied to the planning commission and received the conditional use authorization to install two towers, specifically for antennas. both were to be exactly the same as the one constructed today. the owner only constructed one and a lot of time passed. we didn't see a lot of permit activity from 1960 until about two years ago. in 2008, t-mobile came to the department and requested a conditional use authorization to install some additional panel antennas. when we were reviewing that application, it came to the department's attention that from 1960 until 2008 there had been a lack of permitting going on in terms of the antennas that were on the tower. over time, the towers were

originally constructed for radio and television and technology has advanced, it has been a receiving site for a lot of cellular installations. the governments there, the local governments as well as many other major carriers. what we did, we worked with the american tower corporation, put the t-mobile application on hold and worked with the owner of the property and the tower, american tower corporation, and what we did is we did a survey or we asked them to do a application . how they are active, who they are leased to, and as a result of that, they brought forward that application, the conditional use application to the planning commission in october of 2008. they basically legalized what

had occurred over the past several decades and set a very hard cap at the number of antennas that can go on this power without any additional conditional use authorizations. they also delineated the type of antennas that can go on, some up to 71. there would be 14 dish antennas and 17 other types. there are nine dead antennas on the tower. the removal of the 57 or however many are on their, to come in and legalize, they would need an additional conditional use authorization. in addition, they agreed to submit a landscape plan and an improvement plan as you have seen from the photos. american power agreed to do

that. that was the 2008 conditional use authorization that basically set the standard for what is going on today. the conditional use or the categorical exemption was appealed to the board of supervisors. with the larger c.u., all applications that we get our first sent over and referred to the department of public health. the department sets a cursory review -- but they do a check to make sure that is within the fcc mandated guidelines. they go out to the site and take measurements of the existing transmissions, waves, and have that as a base of measurement. they have an idea of what the proposed panels will do and they

will determine if it is within fcc limits. they go back out to the site and make sure that the measurements are the same and do not exceed the levels. this measurement is checked every couple of years. they did a cumulative checked in determined at all of the antennas did not exceed the fcc radiation levels. the determination that we issued at that time also determined that there was no significant environmental impact. there was no health impact, and the site is not on an earthquake-prone locations. that is what occurred several years ago. this spring, a new carrier came up to the planning department and they wanted to modify the conditional use that was granted a year ago.

they only wanted to modify the number of a dish antennas, they did not want to modify the cap number. they wanted to allow more dish antennas because that is the technology that they utilize. the commission did grant a conditional use as well as the -- the planning department did categorically exempt this because based on that particular and data, they did not find that they would exceed any fcc regulations. it would have no impact on them. that the structural integrity of the tower is sound, and they would ensure that it would be continually earthquake ready. as i mentioned, there were no cumulative impact by the installation of these antennas. i will keep that brief in terms

of the determination. supervisor mirkarimi: to the planning department, thank you for that context. as it applies to fcc as i understand as it relates to these and tell us, i doubt chernobyl would exceed fcc regulations. i wonder that the predicament we are growing -- from a larger view, an important illustration is that with greater frequency, we are seeing a number of these requests and appeals that is taking a considerable amount of time and rightfully so to deal

with what the federal government handicaps us from being able to deal with. for me, i would like us to figure out the master plan kind of health care day, why don't we have some sort of master plan that allows us to consolidate what latitude we have to influence the decisions such as the constant upgrading and modernizing of these and does. [applause] >> thank you, supervisor mirkarimi. there are a couple of answers to your question. i have to refer to what the city can do in terms of regulating the fcc requirements. this board of supervisors and the planning commission did do

the comprehensive plan that you're referring to, and they came up with guidelines. they came up with some basic design criteria, and that is where the five-year plan came in. the planning commission and the planning department is working with what we have in front of us right now, a very constantly moving permit process because of the technology. there are a variety of carriers out there. not that hospitals are simple, but there are not many doubt entities or locations. the technology is constantly upgrading. when at&t comes to us, they get their permits and they install everything. they're coming back to us to upgrade because of the number of people on their system as well as the upgrade. we have some master plan for the

city, but we don't have a comprehensive updated one. supervisor mirkarimi: i would endorse the idea that maybe collectively, we might find a way through similar offices to help shepherd what a plan would look like, knowing what our limitations are. i think there is more that we can exercise. we have rejected attendance before, but it has not been on public health grounds. we have broken ground in the debate, but it is still not very well evolved. supervisor campos: i know that there are a number of people waiting, so i want to thank the residents of my district and my

neighborhood for being here. there are a number of important issues. if i might just as a couple of follow-up questions to the planning department. why not just do an environmental impact review for something like this? based on the findings of the health department, where there was compliance with fcc regulations, but is that the only test in deciding whether or not there is a need for an eir? i am just wondering what your thinking -- you are thinking in terms of that. >> the project before you is the five excess restructure's on the tower.

-- accessory structures on the tower. there would be no reason to do an environmental impact report for this limited project. supervisor campos: i know that there are differences of opinion on that. on the issue of the adequacy of the study of the health department's review, what about the issue that has been raised in terms of the cumulative impact that these dishes -- a number of these things have been

approved a citywide. is it taken into account in making the health analysis? >> i want to answer the second part of your question and the dph will answer the first part. while the department requires a five-year plan from carriers to determine what they think their capacity is and where they believe these installations will go, it isn't just that. it isn't a hard and fast plan. 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