Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 12, 2011 5:30pm-6:00pm PDT

5:30 pm
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
5:31 pm
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.
5:32 pm
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.
5:33 pm
>> 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
5:34 pm
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
5:35 pm
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
5:36 pm
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
5:37 pm
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.
5:38 pm
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.
5:39 pm
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
5:40 pm
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.
5:41 pm
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
5:42 pm
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
5:43 pm
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
5:44 pm
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
5:45 pm
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.
5:46 pm
>> 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
5:47 pm
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
5:48 pm
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.
5:49 pm
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
5:50 pm
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
5:51 pm
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.
5:52 pm
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
5:53 pm
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
5:54 pm
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
5:55 pm
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.
5:56 pm
>> 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
5:57 pm
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
5:58 pm
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.
5:59 pm
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.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on