let's say that we have 308 antennas. we will concentrate all of them at this one site. to keep things simple, we will assume that all 308 are exactly like the one you are considering today. even in the hypothetical, 308 times 0.028 results in a reading which is 14% below fcc standards. again, the standard is 1/50 the amount of radiation known to cause an el affecting humans. we would not have much of a cumulative effect in the ground level at all. in truth, this is a low power antenna that disburses quickly. in conclusion, neither the potential cumulative impact nor any unusual circumstances could create a reasonable possibility

that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment. reasonableness is your market today. on friday, the appellate submitted additional materials. the department has found that the grant avenue antenna does not have a significant environment, therefore our work is exempt from further review. >> thank you, i had a couple of questions. it is my understanding that there was a number of sites that were proposed in the north beach area and one of those was withdrawn, one was continued, and one was actually heard and that is the one we're talking about today, right? >> yes, you're talking about a hearing date where it was heard by the commission? >> you have laid out for some of the environmental studies you have done, could you tell us the

history of appeals to this body of microbicides? my understanding is has been rare, if at all. tell us what the history of this body is. >> that is a good question that i would have needed to research before coming here today. i'm not sure if there is appeals of micro cell. can you talk about typical wireless sites verses this micro site? >> are you asking for the definition, the difference between a might recite and a larger antenna? >> correct. >> i will turn that over to the planning department. >> good evening, supervisors.

these have been prepared for each carrier. typically, as far as an antenna goes, this is either a 5 foot tall and tena -- 5 foot tall antenna. any site that would be larger than what i've just described as our conditional use in a residential or mixed use district. >> can you answer the question that i propose about the federal telecommunications act? >> this is where state law compares with the federal law which is probably better answered by the city attorney. >> >> we are pre-empted under

federal law from considering the health effect of the emissions as long as the city has determined that these comply with federal regulation. without getting into too much detail where the federal analysis, we would not be able to consider those things as long as we have determined that these are within federal regulatory limits. >> if i can ask these questions, are these in compliance with federal regulations? >> i will turn that back over to the department. >> yes, these are well below 1% sold of the threshold. >> thank you. >> any additional questions to the city staff? are there members of the public

that wish to speak in support of the appellants? can you please step up to the microphone? >> hello, my name is victoria robinson and i live at 1653 grant ave. i am in favor of an appeal. i have a lot of things i want to say but after here -- but after hearing everyone talked, san francisco has a history of going against the federal government and making rules that fit us. looking at the environment, this is something we need to do. this is not 1995, this is 2011. people are more concerned about radioactive waste, radiation. the influx that the amount of satellites that we have and the city which is stupendous. this is absolutely unbelievable.

i think we need to look at the effect today by today's standards and not what was written in 1996. i just think that if we really want to go ahead and support health, we need to take a look at this. san francisco would like to beat the number 1 city to compost and recycle. when we go to restaurants, we have to pay a healthy feet so that everyone can have health insurance. the fact that you will not look at rf radiation rates over my head is funny. i asked you take another look and approve an appeal. thank you. >> thank you. question evening, board members. i am president of the telegraph hill dwellers. we are organization founded in

1950 for preservation of the local districts. we are 750 members strong. when they appear before this body, this is a serious issue. it looks like the people on this side have been before many times and the folks in this side are new. i know we have a lot of lawyers on this board as well. let me address the issue, this is not just about health the fact or the fcc pre-empting, there are others that might be considered today. let me go to that. under the planning department's own guidelines, there is an entire section called disfavored sides talking specifically about where sal antennas are favorite or not. if an antenna is proposed in a disfavored site, there are four

criteria that must be met that are outlined and one of the key ones that has not been met that stands out to me specifically is that team mobil must demonstrate that this is essential to meet demands and the area. -- is that t-mobile must demonstrate this is essential. this is essential to meet demands, i see nothing in the records that supports this. you will be looking at the record that they have met the standard which is outlined in the guidelines of the planning department. by virtue of the failure to show this particular element is alone grounds for appeal. we're talking about your obligations. this is one issue you must consider. >> thank you.

>> i live in north beach, three or four blocks from the projected and 10 up. let me say that federal law never stops san francisco and it has awarded and cited by a previous speaker, particularly the marijuana law, the feds have been trying to enact their ideas and this has not stopped most of the counties in california from carrying out the voters' wishes. i have been to several public meetings about these and 10 up. the first one, t-mobile said they were doing this because they had many complaints about dropped calls. they were asked.

it was stated that their privacy would be violated. there are members that are protesting and they are trying to find people that had tea- mobile. we have been completely unsuccessful. san francisco has a reputation for being progressive. i am asking you today to go back to that tradition. this is somewhat being eroded because the business community including developers have been feeling threatened.

>> are these antennas essential to meet demand? when we looked at each, we basically take the word of the cell phone company that this is essential. the cell phone company does not talk about the fact that they are in fact blocking each other out. therefore, more will not lead to better service. no one opposes the need for self on technology. what is needed is a

comprehensive plan so that the cumulative impact is considered and so the time and energy at the board of supervisors is not spent on a case by case analysis. a clear plan would be helpful in doing that. we see a merger of t-mobile and verizon coming into existence. this has not been addressed at all. i think that given that they block each other out, more is not equal better service. the necessity of each one should be carefully examined and there should be a plan that cites them so there is good coverage everywhere but not excessive numbers of antenna. thank you. >> thank you.

>> i just hope that you don't get your [singing] radiation fill on grant street hill. i hope it is not a big bill. and the moon has pulled still and board, i hope that you will make it safe and i hope you will. >> next speaker, please. >> of supervisors, my name is shirley. i'm a registered nurse. i would like to consider seriously about cellphone service, especially in chinatown. last week, i have a patient that needs to see a doctor.

however, she is about 1 mile from the doctor's office. she could not get any help. her husband tried to call. i hope everyone drops or selfish feelings and ideas. think about this serious safety needs. there are many seniors that live in that area. you know, i have friends and relatives over there and i tried to reach them and i was face to face with them, maybe two or 3 feet. i cannot call them and they cannot talk to us. also, my friend has been changing to different companies and none of the phone has been working in the chinatown area.

please, consider the safety which is very important to our increasing health needs, population in china and north beach. you know, all of the other cities, they're using cell phones. they have antenna. can we research on the other city, let's see what happens? only, san francisco has life- threatening situations because of the antenna. please come to consider seriously we need the service right away. >> thank you. >> i'm speaking in favor of the balance. there is a concern about safety.

we note the malibu fires were caused by putting the equipment on polls. these devices, they claim to add to safety but they don't work very things like earthquakes and regular land mines are much more reliable. i would like to talk about the aspect of the eir. there is a question about whether an environmental review should take place. a lot people know about what the possible impact is which could include radiation issues and that is not have anything to do with the telecommunications act. this talks about whether if you disapprove, if there are reasons that you disapprove and make a list of what the reasons are. if this is outside of radiofrequency limits, and that is a valid reason to deny a

permit. what i say is that the grounds are here, so the study should be made. i cannot see any conflict with the telecommunications act. i have not seen any court cases that struck down ceqa as far as telecommunications are concerned. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is zach stewart. san francisco is this big. the number of people who want to put stuff in it is zast. speaking of cumulative impact, it seems that we have to have a broad view. i will give you a couple of examples. 1000 sheep in the high sierra was just fine. when there were 1 million, they

had to call of the cauvery to keep the foles from being eaten alive. when we were faced with having thousands of buildings on the hill in the bay, that is not ok because we will not have a bay. there is one really high rise building on the waterfront. somehow, we stopped the whole community -- cumulative impact of a bunch of high rise buildings. i would suggest that that alone is worth billions of dollars to our city. making it attractive for other developers to come. in this case, i think you have an of cell phone companies to have enough cell phone towers to cover the whole city and there

would not be enough room for people. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, i am speaking on behalf of the san francisco green party. our position on cell phone towers is that unless the project sponsors can show a dramatic, compelling lack of service and need for the antenna, then we should take precedence. there is no way you can show the compelling need for another antenna. then you have the precautionary principle. it does not just apply to health dangers. we are talking about potential dangers to wildlife. we are talking about potential visual blight in the city. thousands of these antennas start to blanket rooftops and other sites. there are potential synergistic

effects between different tower sites and my career center sites. 30 or 40 years ago, with chemicals, even environmentalists and the not grasp the interaction of chemicals between each other that will create health dangers that will exceed federal guidelines and standards. there is nothing wrong with you as supervisors adopting the position that the precautionary principle should prevail. wherever it is not really necessary, there is no reason to put that in because the potential impact on the broad scale of the issues. you can say that under the precautionary principle, there is not a compelling reason to put another one in. to avoid the potential cumulative impacts by not overdoing it with an antenna

sites. you do not have to worry about the health standard of the federal government. a lot of us understand that that is not a good enough standard. >> hello. i am edmund juicy. i came over here to talk about karaoke at the club. i have not had t-mobile. i realized on august 5 that nobody was calling me. t-mobile company, i had six phones in two years. i figured that was not my problem. i am going to school at the

international hotel. that is a very dense population. when i pass the park, you really do have to have the right kind of communication. we have explosives right near the market. something blows up. boom. we do not know what is going on. they do test the area. i looked up at the telephone poles. i see there is something that monitors the air for us. these are things that most citizens may not be aware of. i was working for the telephone company in the 1980's. we had good benefits. that was the breakdown of the bell and it took 25 years to come back. you really need to know that the

telephone companies do not have good communication work. i think you really need to make sure that wireless and t-moblile does not give us more cell phones and chemicals. remember japan. >> thank you, next speaker. >> however she put it, but it was clear in the legislation that she talked about that it was clear that it needed to be essential. that was in black and white. i have seen this happen a couple of times. if you are going to vote in favor of the antenna, i am not challenging you guys. why would you say yes?

do you feel like it is essential? if you are going to vote no on the appeal, say something about it. i have seen it happen with central subway. everybody loves central subway, but nobody knows why. i am using this to try to understand more about the process. why would you overlook what we have talked about it and vote against the appeal? do it if you can. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i actually lived in north beach. i leave my house from north beach sometimes, too. all you have to do it is crossed into chinatown. like the lady said earlier, your call will drop. you will find dead zones within

chinatown. we are talking about a continuous signal, a cohesive signal between cell towers. we are not going to go out and throw away our cell phones because somebody wants to go back to drums and sending carrier pigeons. they are demanding environmental impact reports. the city is in a financial crisis. to do eir's on projects like this is irresponsible. we have america's cup 2012 coming up. where is it going to take place? along fisherman's wharf, along north beach. you are going to have the upper class tourists coming. if they are here trying to use their cell phone and they're smart phone and their laptop and we get system busy, are they

going to recommend that their friends come to san francisco and bring us tourist business? i do not think so. we all know what happened when we had the giants celebration downtown. we had dead zones. people could not call people. what we are talking about here is a very low impact environmentally and architecturally. it is not creating a huge health hazard. it is less than the powers that pg&e is putting out. we need a cohesive signal so that we can show the world that we have an infrastructure to support major events. i say deny the appeal and let the structures go on. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> i live in north beach. i live at exactly 80 feet from where the new tower is going to be installed. thank you for letting me speak tonight, supervisors. i live at 80 feet from the cell tower. my neighbor has never had a problem with her cell coverage. i am here tonight because we all need this tool for our work, for our pleasure. we all need it. i asked you to please have this. we all know that at&t and t- mobile are merging. in less than a year, they will be together. we have to figure route how they

are going to care for this community. it should be a shared responsibility. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who would wish to speak on behalf of the appellants? i would like to ask the project sponsor if you could step up and do your presentation. >> i am the outside counsel for t-mobile. i would like to refocus this to where we were. the issues regarding need or demand or exceptional circumstances. these are not really relevant to your review this evening. we are talking about whether a categorical exemption is applicable to the planning commission provided to this project. cumulative emf, that is an

issue. this covers the ceqa exemptions. the planning commission took the words right out of my mouth. the fcc standard includes cumulative radio emissions. this concludes that your obligation is to ensure that our operations and the operations of wireless companies in san francisco are compliant with those standards. what you have confirmed that we are in compliance with the fcc standards, it takes it out of your hands and you are done. this is the most progressive in