degrees away from their deck. as for the claim at&t has taken multiple measurements to my outdoor spaces, i believe they must have a defective tape measure. it is important to note that any calculations by edison i want to repeat the last point. if they used the small dimensions as presented to you and me, their calculations by definition are incorrect -- if they use these definitions. this, too, is that the court, simply because at&t consciously excluded any information about a roof deck. the report presented to the commanding commission -- the planning commission is completely silent on the roof deck and only presents rf levels

at one level. this is simply a lie. during their first community our reach meeting, detailed plans were presented. on all of these plants, the deck was clearly visible and negative. as to be exempt from ceqa review, if they had been truthful, i am highly confident the application would have been rejected. within feet of elementary school or playground. second, i do not believe that the public resource code -- it is irrelevant. utilities, water, sewage, electrical, and landlines

communications, not wireless communications. given the thousands of attorneys at at&t, i was surprised to see this from at&t. their relevance in this a few is questionable. given the true effects of the appeal, as i presented them to you, it is based that the planning commission's approval was based on inaccurate information, and it was given the inaccurate placement of the antennas and the incorrect measurements. the board of supervisors had not been given or were provided evidence that the program complies regarding r f -- rf emissions. we ask that this be rejected. president chiu: let me ask if there are more members who want

to speak on behalf of the appellant. if you want to do that, go ahead. ok, it looks like there is one person who wishes to speak on your behalf. >> i am graphics to put up there. president chiu: sfgtv, if you could please, and hit the projector? >> the public comment about all of the dangers and the elements, in the elements of space, and you have got to be careful of them, and ♪ longer and then there have been sties up in the

heavens and higher than at any antenna ever flu or any bird flu, and tennis higher than any poison in the atmosphere. i have confidence that it will fix it, and it will come from you ♪ president chiu: any other members of the public that wish to speak or sing? supervisor wiener: i have a question of the appellant. a question of the side that could be appropriate in your neighborhood, -- one of the sites that could be appropriate. in these appeals, we obviously apply ceqa, but for a broader

perspective of the city, no matter where eight cellular telephone company proposes to do this, there will be objections, based on the issues, whether it is because there is a deck on the rooftop, or there is no debt on the rooftop, or it is within 100 feet of my window. i am in no way passing judgment on those claims. i think a lot of people have concerns about cellular tower radiation, but we also need cell coverage in the city. i think we will all agree, and i do not have at&t, but my friends who do have at&t, it drives them crazy because of the constant dropped calls, and i think at&t is trying to work on that. how do we work on that? >> i think there's a difference between a baseless appeal and an appeal with bases.

-- basis. by definition, no one can be within that 50 foot fcc perimeter. that is not the case on the roof block elsewhere. if you go all of the way across king, avalon, there are pictures that are in the packet, no publicly available space up there. again, no roof deck, no appeal with basis. just like anyone can file a lawsuit, to file a lawsuit with basis is different, and i understand their situation is different. there are alternative locations that do not fit within 58 feet of people's specific children. supervisor wiener: ok, thank

you. president chiu: ok, why do we not hear from planning? >> i am joined by a senior and our mental planner. this appeal is about the ceqa appeal for the wireless on this street. they did not consider health impacts in the review. the question before us is did the product adequately consider -- did the department adequately considered the informal impacts as required by ceqa. you can reject this and send it back to the department for further environmental about -- analysis. they did consider environmental impacts and to determine the project would not have environmental impacts. it was under a classification that does include these.

while the installation was also reviewed as part of a conditional use authorization, where all six commissioners there voted to approve the cu, they are not all before the body today. so let's talk about the basis for the ceqa determination. as specifically applied to this, they applied to utility installations where there are only minor changes, such as this antenna. potential exposure to radio frequency or rf to either workers or others on the roof. first, plus -- a brief note and background. the federal government passed the federal telecommunications act which prohibited local jurisdictions from further regulating these sorts of wireless facilities beyond the way the fcc currently regulate them, so from vain -- the fcc,

the answer is clearly yes. once that answer has been given, it is satisfied. they are concerned that their roof is within the public exclusion zone. well, let's look at the public exclusion zone and where it is in relation to the deck. this is the primary concern in the written materials and the presentation before you today. on the overhead, you can see a photograph, the aerial photography, of the roof deck. the appellant rightly note that these antennas can produce an exclusion zone that is up to 58 feet, but what that appellant miss is that these are very directional, meaning that they are focused in a certain direction, and they do not produce a 58 circular radius of impact. what you can see on the aero,

the little bubble, it shows the fall -- the arrow, a little bubble, it shows the full exclusion zone. that is the property line. you can see this exclusion zone is focused almost entirely in front of the antenna. by the time the rf reaches the deck, it would be less than 10% of the level permitted by the fcc. what do these numbers mean? the wall health organization estimates there have been 25,000 studies n -- on rf, more studies and other carcinogens, which this is not. it continues to be that the only known impact of rf are those of tissue heating, it equal to 1/50 the amount of rf needed to cause

tissue keating. in this case, the maximum exposure of ground level would be less than 0.007 neil walker centimeter or less than 0.70% at ground level -- less than zero. 97 -- less than 0.997. this means that over distance, is significantly changes. some of the elite. with the import -- proposed antenna type and the way it is situated, exposure levels will never be great enough to reach the fcc limits. even if you were standing 13 feet away 24 hours a day for the rest of the year, you would never exceed the fcc limits. we have reviewed this map with the department of public health.

the department of public health has a specialist in a radio frequency is who has confirmed there are no concerns in the worker exclusion zones. so let's talk about the workers and the potential for workers who might be on the roof deck. according to the 2000 report -- according to the report, the exposure limits are clearly marked with signs, their kids, and striping. markers would be visible from any angle of approach for workers who would be working in that zone. even with in this sense, providing precautions, such as turning off the antennas are taken. therefore, workers will be notified of the zounds and will be able to take steps to work safely. the project complies with fcc guidelines and therefore with ceqa guidelines for health and safety.

therefore, the department was correct according to the class 3 exemption for small structures. we believe the appellate has not provided any expert opinion to refute these, and therefore we respect we recommend the board uphold the exemption and uphold the appeal. president chiu: colleagues, supervisor jim? supervisor kim: i know you say it may be turned off in the event that workers who are cleaning the windows or are working in and around the roof, but it did not answer the question about whether that is regulated or whether that would always happen or whether this is a decision that could be made. i am more curious about that. >> yes, those are requirements.

they have to demonstrate both were the public exclusions and our and the worker exclusion cents. supervisor kim: so the workers will be notified, and they will turn them off during work on the roof? >> yes. supervisor jim: -- kim: i do not understand these. are they two dimensional? do they go up and down? >> i imagine they also dissipate up into the air, as well. supervisor kim: do they hit ground level? >> yes, they do. it would be less than 1%. we had patrick from the department of public health, and

he took readings of the existing are of levels of the ground level and on the roof, and those numbers are provided and the map before you, but they are all very low levels. after the antennas are installed, according to procedures, the department will go out and confirmed that the actual levels of around what were they had projected. we will confirm that. supervisor kim: when do they do that? >> sometime after installation. supervisor kim: can we do something to make that deficit? >> yes. i am sorry they could not be here for the hearing itself. supervisor kim: what would trigger the removal of the antenna if it was above the

levels that were required by the federal government could >> i am sorry. i may not be able to answer howdy ph may perform. i know they have to confirm that the levels are accurate, but i am not aware of the executives that they would take it there was an unexpected reading once the antennas are put up. supervisor kim: my last question, the appellant said one of the antennas would not be facing -- i am sorry. it is really difficult. >> i can put a map that is more clear on the overhead, and it does share the directional antenna is, the degrees. the arrows are accurate, and the degree readings are also accurate. the two with decks are the octagonal features in the two

corners. supervisor kim: those are the two roof decks. there is one heading in that direction, but the arrow is indicating the exclusion zone? >> around that but no more than 12 feet away from the antennas on the roof is where the exclusion zone would be. supervisor kim: i will reserve the rest of my questions for at&t. thank you very much. president chiu: ok, why do we not move to the real party and interest for a presentation? and you have up to 10 minutes.

>> sorry about that. good afternoon. a man on behalf of at&t. i am going to try to put a color version of this up there as well. as planning laid out for you, this is really just limited to the exclude -- to the categorical exemption. the only issue that has been raised is the distance in terms of the rf coming from the proposed antennas. this map, which has now been handed out to you, addresses the issue. one man is with me to will be addressing the technical issues which are not legal in nature. as to the law and what is before you, public health and safety can only be addressed in terms of ceqa. you are pre-empted from looking at it. i am not trying to be scary.

these levels are not succeeded at the roof deck. the distance of 56 feet that is listed here is the distance measured from the edge of the antenna to the roof deck. the 58 feet, as emery explained, is the direction of distance that the emissions exceed straight out. they are directional. the black-surrounds that, that is the limit. beyond that limit, it is actually outside the regulatory authority. that is the level where they say it exceeds the sec levels, and you could regulate. outside of that is outside of what the city could regulate. as for the defense, again, i will let bill speak to it, but i did measure with a tape measure. it is 56 feet. the misunderstanding has been explained and address. with the appellant, it is an

agreement to disagree, i guess, about the distance. it is 56 feet. i will show you on a scale. i also say that at&t has done extensive public our reach. there has been a hoa meeting. bill has gone into measure levels in the apartments. you also of signatures on a petition from non merchants as well as merchants and others, so there has been a lot of outreach on this side, and a lot of effort has gone into making sure we have done it right. this site was redesigned. that is actually true. after going out to look at the site. it was redesigned after trying to make sure that it is in compliance. at&t has done the right thing. as for alternatives that were discussed, caltrans has a one- story building. i will let bill speak to

whitmore. it does not work because it does not provide the distance and the coverage. the same thing at the fire station. the fire station is also blocked by much taller buildings. at&t is also decommissioning two macros sites that will improve coverage by reducing interference in the network, but it does enable at&t to remove two microbicides. that is to of a summary to the big issues, but i will let bill speak to the other issues and the distances, which is the only other issue before you. supervisor: could you give us the location? >> yes, one is on third and seventh. not seven, sorry.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is bill, and registered engineer. a regular part of our practice is a calculation and elimination of rf, and mcgraw-hill did publish a book on this. our engineers are looking simply at what are the facts. how much will this produce in terms of the levels for this project -- proposed site, or in the case of an existing site, what are the levels. i agree with everything that staff has said in connection with our findings, and i see you are looking at color copies. is that correct? supervisor camera, to answer your couple of questions, -- supervisor ki8m. -- kim.

here is the octagonal with deck above mr. sanders' residents. he generously walked me to the roof. we wanted to this corner, where the antennas are going to go, and they are, indeed, pointed away from the structure. at that angle, and you see now that you have a color copy of the little yellow area. does of the oval is the extent of the public limit, 58 feet in front, much less distances on the side because it is a directional antenna, and then the yellow or the areas that would be barricaded against public access. you can see how far short the

yellow is of the deck. there is a red area. that is the area that planning staff was discussing for access. that would be the only area that would be a concern for workers. they have a different level than the public. so, very clearly, this is going to fall well short of that debt. the fcc exposure limits are easily met at the deck or any other place outside those yellow areas. i would be happy to talk about the directional nature of the antennas. as you can see, they have three different sectors or three different groupings to service the area. supervisor kui --kim, but you had oust how wide it is, and it is about 8 to 10 degrees. and maybe 10 feet out there. it does not need much better g

at ground. and that is why the level there are so low. less than 1% was the figures that were given. and we know from having taken measurements derrek san francisco for years, the numbers are correct. you asked about the time the measurements are taken. san francisco requires that measurements be taken within 10 days of it going on air, and part of that requirement is that measurements be offered anyone who has a dwelling unit within 25 yards. mr. sanders and lots of other people in this facility, and the building, would be contacted, offered the opportunity to have measurements taken, and we have been in and out hundreds of places in san francisco with a meter. walking in -- walking in and

with a meter and giving it to them, and they can walk around and looked exactly what the numbers are, and i help them understand how much below the standard it is. i think one other question as to what happens. if there is imperative, it can lead and expanded. there are lots of ways to implement it if there were a place where actual levels exceeded what we have calculated. i will say in the hundreds of places in san francisco where we do this work, that has not happened. we make certain that the calculations are conservative and of that in actual fact, the bear cave locations will prove to be adequate, but that is up to independent measurements. you are fortunate that the board of public health has his own

expert. patrick has a calibrated meter. he goes out on calls to verify our work and to verify the work of any other independent engineer, whether it is at&t or anyone else, that would be hired as part of the implementation reports. i would be happy to discuss any other aspect of this that i can help with. >> -- president chiu: colleagues, any other questions? supervisor kim: been the unlikely outcome that there are higher than expected levels, how long would at&t have to cure that. -- ? >> there is no timeline. they have to comply. if they discovered that they were beyond compliance, then it would be done immediately. where the signage is not correct, we will post the signage ourselves and notified

them that is what we have done. there is no time limit. there is an ongoing obligation. supervisor kim: what could be appellant do it at&t did not do it immediately? >> that is really a legal question, not an engineering one. the activity of the department of public health, they would dispense to complaints. i know patrick and another respond to those on a number of occasions, so that is probably where it would go first. they would go out on behalf of the department of public health and determine what the facts are. supervisor kim: another question about it being, the third, being on the roof deck. is there a reason why it is slanted? is there a reason why it could not be straight out? is there a reason that we could not move and over two feet, so

we could be comfortably at 58 feet? i understand it is 56 feet, but it is a matter of feeling safe in your home. is there anything that would prevent it from moving them -- prevent them from moving that antenna two feet to approve the feeling of safety on behalf of the tenant could >> there is no reason from my perspective. i do not design the site. but at&t tries to fill their gas, and they have infrastructure all around san francisco, and as they add or upgrade, they want to focus the energy where it is needed, so if they were to turn that one, this drawing again, if they were to turn this and face it -- face it the other direction, i am assuming it would not solve their needs. they are all driven by their need to provide seamless coverage