there is probably wifi in this room. this is probably beyond the original macro cells. this tower has been turned off and taken down. >> the one-mile radius past telegraph hill, there is that same number of 562 wireless sites in los angeles. why do we need so much? i know that it is silly. they seem to mix up cell sites

and antennas. we have tens of thousands of mantegna's. the number of antennas is a funny concept. all that i can say is that each individual site, aunt'does make a difference. it all comes back to the fcc standard and the fact that we are so far below that standard. i think it is 500 and sites in l.a. they are all tall sites that are broadcasting.

you could still have lower rf the missions in that situation then you have with less antennas. there is no direct correlation between the number of antennas and radio frequency emissions. the fact that i have all of these antennas in my pocket it does not mean that i am getting zapped by my phone. each cell site talks to the next site. we have to down tilt the antennas so that each cell site has a coverage area networks within the network.

the advantage is reducing the size, reducing the output, reducing the footprint or the rfr from these. >> i want better service for my cell phone. it seems like a huge concentration in one small area of the city. if there is one area of that will have a significant impact. i am leaning towards that there is that impact. >> i have got to say one more time, you said this in your planning department well. here is your cumulative impact. from every cell carrier that is currently operating in the telegraph hill area. the highest is adjacent to an

att site and is 500 times below the standard. every time one of these goes in, you are re-evaluated again. if you approach the federal standard, you will not be able to succeed. you have every right to deny that next site. i do not know how to better explain that after 25 years, if you believe their number, you are still in the highest area, you are still 800 times below the federal standard on the street. it is angels dancing on the head of a pin. i understand the public concern. people do not understand it. people feel like this will not affect their lives. >> i know that t-moblile -- t-

mobile is not the only ones supporting this. >> i think the planning department 5-year plan goes to the industry that way. >> if i could just follow up the plan, you are saying that because of data at that the department of public health had gathered, it really is not fair from your standard? there is not a fair argument from your perspective? that is your position? >> that is right. there is not a fair argument that there is a cumulative impact from the impairment colfax. it should not be included in your analysis. the federal law does trump ceqa.

it is to provide you with information and facts to make your decision. there have not been any faxed provided by the appellants to suggest that there is a fair argument that has not been considered when granting this categorical exemption. >> thank you. >> the gentleman who was up here earlier who you introduced with regard to this study that was done was that study paid for by your company? >> was it paid for by our company? yes. they are required by the department and i should let him describe this. >> it is an interesting study. >> it is a measurement study

that the city requires that the carriers a met. they hire us to do the study. we submit it to the department of public health. >> separately, the department has done their own studies. is that correct? >> you reference federal government. the federal government has evolves over periods of time, whether through fda or issues related to those that might condone certain uses? in this particular period of time, it seems that maybe this is not a great area, but this is the first time we have seen the conversion of federal thinking catching up with standard of local thinking. articulate concerns of public health, we have seen this over

the last 25 years quite rapidly. i am just wondering why this insistence that because of the fcc standard that this is the golden standard. they're literally is no room for that challenge? >> the federal standard began -- radio waves have been around for a long time. that was reviewed in 1996. it was reviewed in 2007. there are continuing and ongoing studies regarding the radio emissions. this is referred to in your planning and staff reports. this is not an area of the people are ignoring. there is a lot of concern and interest.

there continue to be studies and reviews. the standard remains the same. this is an effective today. it is comparable to european standards. it is not as though they came up with a study in 1986, put it in a box and decided that would forever be the standard for radio emission frequencies. it is an ongoing review area for various federal government departments that are looking at it. is the gold standard? i did not say that. it is the standard that the federal government determines is safe. they continue to review that standard on a regular basis. >> i had just one follow-up to the supervisor of's question. your study was paid for by t-mo

bile. i assume you would stand behind that study. >> the issue here is the measurements. my metred does not know who is paying me and telling me to take the measurements. we sent notices to anybody that lives within 25 feet of an antenna and offered to take measurements. i put the meter together and i hand it to the resident. they go wherever they want in their house. that meter is a calibrated meter. we report that the existing levels are x. that is independent of who is paying for that. the department of public health has a similarly calibrated meter. our results are similar to theirs. >> the reason i ask the question

is that supervisor mar referred to a discussion that the city had been having about a master plan. from my perspective, i think that we could probably move this forward if we were able to get some funding that the city could use. it was not necessarily an industry sponsored set of studies. something that we as a city could move west. as a representative of t-mobile, what would your thoughts be on moving forward with something like that? >> all of the carriers are struggling. anything that would constitute a working relationship between the city and the industry to try to come up with solutions of how we could better serve the community with least in packs would be favored by the industry.

you would suggest that there sponsored or funded by the industry as well. each carrier has different frequencies and different network build out and requirements. i just want to say that there is federal law that says that a community cannot dictate the kind of technology that is used by an entity to provide coverage to its customers. that being said, i know that paulo also will be having workshops on providing service in palo alto. that is something that the industry favors. they provide service for these wonderful services that changed our lives. they are not in the business of scaring people about radiation. this is something that the industry is in favor of. in the past, we have tried to

sponsor assistance in the planning department. this would not be a new request. >> thank you. in order to alleviate some of these figures f --rears, it would be important to have the these including studies by t- mobile. thank you very much. why do we not go to members of the public who support the project sponsor? if you could please line up? step up to the center aisle. we will hear from the first speaker, please. please step up. please step up.

>> good evening, supervisors. this is important to me. in the north beach area, they have a high school and middle school involved. this is very important. i will support in the north beach area. thank you. >> good evening, supervisors. i am in the chinatown, long beach area. i am a cell phone user.

i spend a lot of time in long beach and chinatown. sometimes they do not work good in the area, especially at my restaurant. the signal is even cut off. it affects our community. honorable supervisors kamala please do something about this. -- honorable supervisors, please do something about this. in the case of emergencies. so many seniors are in the chinatown area. on the hill, people do not have

to look at antennas. please, no more delays. thank you for your consideration. >> good evening, supervisors. we have a specialty general contractor. we are located on third street. we are the telecommunication workers that make yourself ands -- cell phones work. we employ roughly 120 employees. we are a union contractor.

we love these jobs. in the 16 years, we have never had health damage from rf exposures. for the general public, there is roughly zero risk. the cordless phone provides 150 times as much radiofrequency exposure as do these micro antennas. baby monitors provide as much as 10 times more exposure. the last keynote is that the construction industry has very huge unemployment. we need jobs. that is all i have got to say. >> good evening, supervisors. i am the district four

residents. i am a due paying electrician. i have a local business started 30 years ago. not only do these projects employ the telecommunications workers, but also a very important part of our business model. we appreciate the jobs and the chance for our businesses to succeed. >> hello. i am the resident of san francisco. it should be evident that the planning commission shows what rf planning commission does. i am a san francisco geek. no matter what cell phone service i have, it is not as

good as people across the nation or across the pond. i hope that we can build the tower so that we can get the fastest speeds. when we have travellers coming in in 2012, they should get the best service possible. it is not just about making phone calls. it is texting. many people have their iphones ready to use. hopefully, everybody get five bars. >> i am a native san francisco in. -- san franciscan. i am not an expert on wireless utilities. i do know about the planning code. i urge you to reject the appeal. it is absurd to require others to seek an antenna that that is

only 30 inches in size. i would like to provide for an exemption for the construction of these small structures. these are realistic commercial buildings of 10,000 square feet or more. the guidelines specifically exempt utilities. there are no unusual circumstances here. there are buildings all over town. they have approved many similar antennas. we need better wireless infrastructure. the signal capacity is rapidly used up. many people my age do not use land lines. please support the planning

department. thank you very much. >> good evening, supervisors. i lived in district 3, but not in telegraph hill or in north beach. i publish a newsletter for people that used water or facebook. they went to the planning commission meeting a couple of months back. i came here tonight to ask you to deny the appeal. i was looking very carefully at all of the arguments. i feel like i have learned a lot. i do not see where the argument is for the appeal. in terms of the cumulative effect, we learned that there is a lot being done. it seems to me that t-mobile followed the rules you layed out. you say, officer, i stopped at

the light. he said, that is the law com. nobody could argue against greater analysis or a city-wide plan. you do not have one yet. stop denying micro sites while you try to find the funding for a citywide plan. what a massive failure you are admitting to. they cannot provide mobile connectivity for a year or so. i heard the argument that the opposite of cumulative, this power is not essential. i do not understand how that could be a suitable guidelines in this area. i would urge you to deny the appeal. san francisco is not the leader in cities for this type of

business. it is an urban legend. in new york city, they put these on the building appeals. >> next speaker. >> my name is james bishop. i am san francisco native born and raised. i come here on a daily basis. people come to my store saying how much they love t-moblile service. we do not have service in my house. we are working on it and we are trying to provide service. i ask you guys to reject this. >> my name in asregina. i live over in north beach. not too far away from where this dummy antenna is.

you can barely see it from the street. t-mobile is a great company. we need the jobs. we need them to bring in the business in this community. they are complying with federal regulations. they take into consideration that in 2013, the america's cup is coming to san francisco. you will be inundated with so many people throughout the world that can connect with other people throughout the world. they are going to need a good reception. they are going to need to be able to connect with other people that are watching the america's cup. it is extremely important to have good coverage throughout

the city. t-mobile has always been in compliance with the city. the supervisors and the county of san francisco gave t-mobile certification honoring t-mobile on their commitment to the community. that is for after-school programs to keep kids out of gangs. they will be able to have some sort of objective so that they could have some sort of direction. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> i am here speaking on behalf of the vice-chair person of the united residents. members of the san francisco board of supervisors, you are -- we oppose the antenna project, also known as 1653 grant. the united residence of polk is a registered neighborhood association in san francisco. we write in opposition of the micro cell proposed.

we believed it is unreasonable to require an environmental impact report of a tiny antenna out that this just 30 inches tall. this will be enclosed in a rooftop that is just 5 feet in height and obscured from view by casual observers. reluctant the latest set a dangerous precedent that could harm all neighborhoods and businesses and property owners that are seeking to build or expand with minor improvements. we believe this will be a waste of the city resources as well and not reasonable at these times in the bad economy. we support t-mobile site because it expands the wireless network.

>> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good evening, board of supervisors. my name is smith. i live here in the city. i think we deserve quality wireless service. it is hard for some people to be here this afternoon to come to city hall. i would like to read the following letter from someone who was unable to be here today. i am a homeowner in north beach. i am surgeon on the emergency call to sf hospitals and real- life ont-mobile telephone service and to respond to life- threatening emergencies. >>signs are not permitted here in the chamber.

it is a list of names of folks that support t-mobile here. >> i request that you facilitate the improvement in the network so that i might provide for my patients. the think that i might miss a life or death call the city bureaucracy hinders the network is unacceptable to me. thank you. >> and next speaker. >> good evening, supervisors. we support the micro cell antenna proposal. we urge you to deny the appeal. this appeal was sent in for the neighborhood and citywide. we need the cell