these are thousands of pages long. the summary is all that is required in the eir. the competing alternatives and approving the project, there is no question that they had all of the questions that they needed and that is what the eir is supposed to do under ceqa. we urge you to allow the appellants design objections to be heard next week at the board of appeals where they belong. thank you. >> thank you. are there any members of the public which wish to speak on behalf of the real party in interest, the project sponsor? ok, i will ask the public if you could step up for 8 or bottle -- step up for a rebuttal. >> and almost 20 minutes we

heard from the planning department and mr. rubin, i did not hear any where that noise is quantified, it noise steady or anything about noise. i point you to the planning department's response that they issued a couple of days ago and they addressed the noise issue and they say, "it the following information was obtained from the project sponsor team. it will not make any noise." there is no sentence that quantifies anything. the generator on the roof is not discussed. mr. rubin said that a code compliant alternative was studied. it was not. what was studied was something that significantly reduced the square footage that has been proposed for this project.

it did not go any higher. they say because they don't want to build that project but that is not the determination that is a post to be made or put before decision makers. the city is supposed to exercise its steady at about the region a range of alternatives. you cannot just except what the developer comes in the door with. that is what happened here. again, i need to push back on this idea because we have to have simple issues. this was not sufficient for the reasons that i outlined it and i don't think that anything from the planning department or mr. rubin changes the assertions that i made earlier. thank you. >> are there any final

questions? at this time, this hearing has been held and closed. these items are in the hands of the board. >> in reading both the appellate brief and also the brief for a 350 mission, one of the major contentions of the appellant is whether the eir properly evaluated project alternatives as has been discussed for the last 30 minutes or so or whether it adequately analyzed the building. i agree that the bulk has been evaluated and does not have any reductions in environmental impact. there is reductions and parking, reductions in noise. any potential transit or

conflict. this is still another office building. the environmental impact will be the same regardless. that being said, whether all of the reasonable alternatives have been approached by designers and engineers in terms of how this will impact the neighborhood or the neighboring office building. i think this is an issue that is more properly dealt with by the board of appeals. there is a hearing in the next week or the next two weeks. i hope that our office buildings are able to work out this dispute. i don't think that the eir is the appropriate place for this discussion. i would like to move forward item 13 and table items 14 and 15.

>> supervisor motion has made a motion to the firm the eir and table items 14 and 15. is there a second? can we take a vote on that item -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aabsent. >> please call the next four clocked special item. >> 16 is a public hearing a persons interested in the decision of the planning department dated june 3rd,

2010, this is for a project at 1653 grant ave is exempt from environmental review under categorical exemption. item 17 is a motion a firm determination of the project located at the grant street address which is exempt from environmental review. item 18 reverses the determination of the plan department that the project is exempt. 19 is a motion directing the findings reversing the exemption. >> we have in front of lost the appeal of the environmental exemption of the proposed project. for this hearing, we will consider the adequacy, sufficiency, completeness of the planning department's determination that this is categorically exempt from review. we will first hear from the appellants first and then we will take public comments.

each speaker will have up to two minutes to present. following planning presentation, we will hear from the real party of interest. then we will hear from persons speaking on behalf of the real party of interest. then the appellants will have up to three minutes before a rebuttal. unless there any objections, we don't we proceed to a presentation from the palate? -- from the appellants? >> thank you for hearing our appeal. team mobil proposed new sites in a two-block radius in north beach. one of these is the subject of the appeal before you. let me show you why this should not be categorically exempted.

mr. president, members of the board, first i will give you a visual to complicate as i speak about industrial installations. imagine a forest that is managed by a timber company who was applying to cut down one tree at a time. there is no one analyzing whether they are damaging the forest. the defect in the planning department's approach is that the analyze each and every installation in san francisco individually and apply categorical exemption individually to each antenna and they fail to look at the entire forest. the wireless communication guidelines utilize by the planning department indicate that this address is a preference 7 site, the least desirable site for locating a cellular antenna.

the guidelines require that such sites only are approved in rare circumstances. the city has claimed a categorical exemption under class three of the guidelines based only on whether a single cellular antenna would impact the character of the building. in this process, the planning department has ignored the potential impact of the proposal including potential cumulative impact from frequency radiation, levels resulting from a high concentration of telecommunications sites in the area.

supervisors, up to seven wireless providers locate and 10 that in san francisco proper. not only are there 550 existing antenna reported but they propose an additional 308 in the same area. more have been prevented cents a barrel first. this was a new one that just came in the mail. in addition to the volume propose, there is an additional 1225 antenna with in the same mile radius and 73 tower structures. depending on the time of day, it

tells you what is out there. if you will refer to page 80, we can expect to include 20,000 smart meters which will be bringing the total into every household. there will be 13,000 individual meters and the corresponding transceivers. this is a map of the transceivers. over 3 unaffordable wireless antenna are proposed for the right of way in san francisco since 2008 alone and this was noted by jeff cooper in his appeal. there are more and 10 at in this mile radius of north beach then in downtown los angeles. -- there are more antennas at this mile radius.

the meters might create a levels exceeding the fcc exposure which would propose a potential cumulative impact under ceqa. there is no existing federal law that pre-empts public notification of radiation levels in any publicly acceptable -- accessible area in the city. it is incumbent of this city to look at all of these cumulatively and not just one by one. supervisors, it is income but to reject this review because they refuse to include the entirety both public and disclosed. >> i have supplemental exhibits

here to submit. i am the second applicant on the appeal and i would like to present additional documentation. please note that based on the maps provided, the total number of antennas within 1 mile is 858. that is 858 within 1 mile radius. this does not count the nine additional antennas just recently proposed by at&t. according to the coverage check performed on the service, the voice and data coverage for north beach is stated as excellent. since at&t will very likely to inherit the intent after the

purchase of the mobile. in the coverage in north beach is stated as best. supervisors, either they are making misrepresentations or the -- to the planning department or the consumers regarding the strength of their voice and data coverage in north beach. which is it? if they're making misrepresentations regarding coverage, what guarantees are there that they are not misrepresenting the measurements? in july of 2010, a group of concerned residents met with representatives from t mobil to discuss the plan to install the three and 10 at in north beach within 8 to block radius. we learned a key significant facts. first, cell phone companies

measure the signals of their cell phone antenna on frequencies specific to their company and not cumulative. additionally, the signal is essentially directed towards the horizon. since they are often installed on roof tops, because of the characteristic of the city of san francisco and in particular in north beach, these installations are often end up emitting radio frequency directly. yet, the radiation is measured at st. levels, and public right of ways where the levels are decrease. in many cases, they're not even measured but calculated only. if the primary purpose is to meet the health department's code, in order to avoid health

risks, you can clearly see the inconsistency in the system. the second fact that we learned is that the cell phone antennas tend to override each other depending on their proximity to each other and directional wavelengths. this affect contributes to put cellphone reception and the number of drop calls. and other words, as far as connectivity is concerned, and selling more antenna is not necessarily in the best interest of the consumer depending on which company is the carrier. the current rush to install as many antenna as possible can best be described as a wild west style land grab an order to achieve market dominance. eventually, the bigger company with most money will buy out the competition and eliminate the diversity of business and service options for the

consumer. supervisors, in order to make sure that the cell phone companies are in fact measuring cumulative a facts and levels, especially in consideration of a new an increasing number of rf- emitting devices, it is the responsibility of our government to take a second look at the technology. the industry's business practices, the planning scheme and the rf measuring practices in a more comprehensive manner. for these reasons, i suggest that a categorical exemption is applied and should be rejected. >> thank you. i have one question 40. -- for you. hoyou are not primarily issues n

the impact of the radio frequency emissions, is that correct? >> this is based on the current emissions. >> there is a statement about what federal law may or may not apply. i know that under the federal telecommunications act, it says that they might waive a permit as long as the decision is not made on the basis of the environmental impact and radio frequency emissions. can you explain why what you're asking us to do does not conflict with federal law? the federal law which was established in 1996, is that what you are referring to? >> correct. >> this does not take into consideration the new

technologies and it does not take into consideration the increased radiation emitting antenna. and the federal communications commission as prohibitions on consider rating how this is not comply with the city's obligation. the obligations for environmental review is not pre- empted by the federal telecommunications act of 1996. >> to second be clear, penn to the federal law says that we can deny an application for these types of permits as long as this is not based on the environmental impact of the missions and i feel that this is what this is based on.

>> ceqa overrides that in california. the amount of radiation cannot go over the fcc limits. we are interested in knowing what the levels are out there that have possibly exceeded those limitations and the federal government says that you cannot exceed those radiation levels that they have written about or made charges. >> i appreciate that, that is what i would like to ask both planning and t mobil. thank you. >> are there any other questions or should we proceed? let's go to the planning department. >> let's go -- good afternoon, vice president chiu. i am joined today with -- to is the subject of the appeal before

you. this appeal is about the termination for a wireless antenna. the appellants have argued that the department is not considered a potential cumulative impact of the installation. the question before you is did we adequately considered the potential environmental impact that is required? the department did consider significant impact and found on june 3, 2010 that the subject permit would not have an adverse effect on the environment. this was exempt under class 3 exemptions for new construction of a minor stroke small structures. the decision is whether to uphold the department's action to issue or to deny the action

and overturn that so the project is returned to us for additional environmental review. first, let's talk about the basis of our determination. this is specifically applied to utility installations. the palace did not raise this issue, these are material submitted to the board which shows that this issue would either be invisible warm and only visible from the display and therefore did not have an impact. what are the potential camilla's impacts? the primary concern is that

there is a potential cumulative effect. disestablish limits on our view of the facility. the city of san francisco goes to great lengths to regulatory it -- to regulate review within emphasis on exploring potential cumulative impact of the radio frequencies or rf radiation. we do this to ensure compliance with federal law. the city has no further authority to regulate rf levels. the processes of the plan department found that the city and public are well aware of the plans for antennas. here is the processes so we can

help understand the cumulative effect. we have six steps up for review of the proposed wireless facilities. this must be updated so we will know about all future proposed installations. second, the submission of the -- report. we understand the outputs in this area. third, approval by the department of public health. fourth, is that it review of the site including the resourced review. 6, specification about the antenna and the streets where they will be installed. after our view, these are referred to the planning commission -- planning commission. these can be approved with an

excess reuse with required notification. after we told neighbors about the wireless internet, a discretionary review request was filed. the commission did not take d.r. but instead approved the project. in addition to the procedures by the planning department, the department reviews the antennas. they are reviewing this for compliance with the fcc regulations. first, prior to installation, a report is record that shows that the rf levels as well as the cumulative levels in the neighborhood notice that this is inclusive of all rf commissions in the area including personal routers and smart meters. the ph will go out and insure that the projected levels are actually consistent there are

periodic safety measurements. after installation, there are reading is required for this ongoing monitoring. the city has a very good understanding of the key lots of levels. and preparation, the staff took the measurements. the highest reading was next to an existing at&t and 10 up. even there, it was 0.2%. this is similar to the expected operation of the antenna location which has been expected at 0.28%. what do these numbers mean? rf is a highly steady topic. the who estimates that over

25,000 studies have been done to monitor the biological effect on humans. this has been studied more than most known carcinogens. the prevailing opinion continues to be that the only known impact is due to tissue heating. this is set at the level of 1-50 that would cause the reading. in this case, the maximum exposure level would be 0.0028 milliwatts per centimeter or 0.28% at grovel. this is less than 1% of the fcc standard. the energy dissipates with distance. it follows the inverse square law. the proposed types, once a

person is standing more than 6 feet away, you can stand there all day and on lead and never received enough exposure to seat the guidelines. the proposed antenna here is set back 7 feet from the edge of the building and is elevated. this non publicly accessible rooftop means that no public member would be exposed to levels that would exceed the fcc standards. let's go to our second concern. there's potential unique circumstances. let's take the readings that this antenna will produce which is 0.28% and must take another number. they say there are 300 a proposed antenna and a 1 mile radius. of course, 1 mile is too large to realistically consider because it dissipates over the space and ground.

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