and we project the number to grow by eight to 10 times by 2014. it is important to address these issues to better serve our customer experience, which we believe this site will do, and as i said, i'm available for any questions you may have. commissioner president olague: and a public comment? seeing none. commissioner antonini: this is inappropriate public sight. it is located at the top of the hill on 19th avenue, which gives it a good place to project from. there is a big change in coverage if you look at the coverage maps. i can tell you there are some dropped calls that occurred, being a customer of this company. on 19th avenue, the volume is very high. it sounds to me like it makes a lot of sense. as was pointed out by the project sponsor, it will be

quite some time until this merger, if it is approved, occurs. also, the demand is probably going to continue to increase. we will have to reevaluate that at the time and the merger may occur and make assessments as to the antenna needs at that time. i would be supportive of a movement to approach. vice president miguel: if i have been reading the general financial news correctly, it will be at least a year until anything is approved regarding the merger. i have asked the department, in order to get a better thought, of the other three corners, without realizing i was going to be driving by their twice yesterday. even though i have seen that corner for years and years, it did not occur to me before how

ugly and stubby that tower was. it is not in proportion to the building. raising it will make the building but better, oddly enough. the antennas that are there now are somewhat slack on to the side and will be gone. architecturally, whether we like antennas are not, -- or not, this will improve the building in my mind. commissioner sugaya: i agree with the length of time this might take. i have no doubts it is going to be approved. the mood for not doing it i do not think exists in this country at the moment. i could be wrong. i think from a planning standpoint it would be nice for future at&t and t-mobile sites,

we had coverage maps that included both companies. i can see from the one that has been provided here that the need, at least from the maps we reviewed, will increase coverage in areas that are currently lacking signal. but i do not know if there is a t-mobile antenna sitting 10 feet away from this which will suffice in the future. maybe the gentleman from at&t already knows that. from what i have been reading, your systems are compatible. somebody was crooked from at&t in the news saying anybody that has a t-mobile phone now can use if we takeover. >> on the point of coverage maps, we do continue to operate as separate companies and do not have access to their data. i do not know if you can compel them to provide that data. we can grant you our coverage maps and will continue to do so

until the merger takes place. we do not have access to any of their corporate information, unfortunately. commissioner sugaya: i was directing this more to staff to see if they can pry something loose. [laughter] president olague: i would support the request, going forward, if the department can keep that in mind. commissioner moore: the question which i continue to raise does not as much address at&t, verizon, or t-mobile, but covers the request for considering a comprehensive network of coverage, a respected of who owns it. who tells me that in this neighborhood there are 5% of people using t-mobile or at&t? who knows. there are many people who get frustrated with one particular

phone. they buy and iphone but t-mobile does not cover iphone. you buy by taste, and switch companies so you can buy their phone. it is more about the phone, the look, as to whether you have company loyalty. i am personally more interested in how do we deal with 21st and 22nd century technology relative to a network or if i like this phone as my fashion statement i will get roaming rights else, rn continuing to overload everybody's towers. somebody needs to pick up this discussion for the city at large. i will be prepared to vote for whoever is of a mind to be the

operator of one of those sites. commissioner sugaya: we could go the direction of what i think australia presumably is doing, which is to build up the system -- have the government allowed the system. the think phone companies sort of lease it or something. i am not sure exactly how it works. the "was, "why do we need 85 different companies building the system when we can do it and reach everyone fairly throughout the country?" socialist, i know. president olague: we cannot even get health care straight. vice president miguel: that is a difference between america and other countries. we have competition. wife -- while we have the entitlement before us on this installation and the others, the customers of the cellular phones are not limited just to san francisco residents, but many people who passed through san

francisco but still would like to be able to pick up their cell phone signals, or those who are visiting or maybe vacationing here. we have to take into consideration the fact that we are serving the broader public than just the residents of san francisco when we deal with these questions. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: no. president olague: aye. >> that motion passed six to one. commissioners, you are now on item 16, case 3438 mission street.

mission street. >> diego sanchez with the planning department's staff. at present the request for a conditional use authorization to install a wireless transmission facility, five panel antennas and associated equipment by t- mobile within the nc-3 zoning district. the project is on mission between kingston and brokok. this complies with the planning code and is consistent with setting guidelines -- sightinti

guidelines. it is a mixed-use structure in a high-density district. they have held community outreach meetings for residents within 500 feet of the proposed meeting in december 2010. the objective is to maintain a comprehensive wireless network in san francisco and provide service that serves the public good. the staff is aware of one telephone call in opposition to the project, and one request for further information, citing health concerns. stepper commence approval of the conditional use authorization with standard conditions. that concludes our presentation. i am here for questions. president olague: project sponsor?

>> good afternoon. i would like to think diego sanchez and staff for their diligent preparation, and for preparing a thorough and accurate staff report. t-mobile feels this product design is of a very high quality. all five proposed antennas would be placed in false events on the roof and would blend in nicely -- false vents on the roof and would blend in nicely. you cannot see them too well here. existing and proposed. this is one view showing from mission street looking northwest at the site. you can see where our three sectors would be located. it is a total of five antennas, as diego mentioned. there is another before and

after photos. this one is on mission looking southwest. this is above mission street. this is the before and after. there are also some existing rooftop bentz already in place on the roof. -- vents already in place on the roof. his is dealing from san jose avenue -- this is viewing from san jose avenue. this is on the west or backside of the roof. the facility would benefit the surrounding neighborhood, extending coverage north to 29th street, south to highland avenue. this is pretty low-tech, but -- oops.

i don't know how to expand this about -- out. you cannot assume about -- cannot zoom out? that is ok. this is the existing coverage in the area. this is our proposed site. where it shows yellow is essentially where you just have good coverage in your vehicle. you cannot get good coverage inside of the building. a large swath, a radius along our proposed site would be filled in. you would be able to get excellent coverage within buildings, as well as on the street and in vehicles basically all the way from whitney to 29 st. and highland avenue.

the project would also provide 3g infrastructure and services which previously had not an available, such as faster data transmission, internet, and multimedia, the kinds of things you can do with your smartphone. it would support police and fire in the event that land lines are not functioning. with me is a licensed engineer whose firm prepared the radiofrequency commission report. he is here today as an independent third-party evaluator to respond to concerns are health issues. we would request that you conditionally approve the project. i am happy to respond to any questions you or members of the public may have. president olague: i would like to open it up to public comment at this time. seeing none, public comment is closed. vice president miguel: i have

one question, if i may. i am asked this all the time and i am unable to give an intelligent answer. we keep hearing 3g and 4g. what is the g? >> i think generation. i think it is a sequence of generations. 2g was the second wave, and so on. vice president miguel: but it has to have an actual valuation of some kind, i would assume. >> i am not familiar enough with the technology to respond. vice president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini: move to approve. commissioner borden: second. >> emotion on the floor is for approval. -- the motion on the floor is for approval.

commissioner moore: no. >> that motion passes six to one with commissioner moore voting against. you are now on 1917 port 650 -- you are now on item 17 for 160 5th street. >> it is a request for a conditional use authorization to install a wireless transmission facility and panel and tennis -- panel antennas on an existing

commercial building. the project sponsor has complied with all procedural requirements for establishment, including a community outreach meeting in november 2010. the proposed project will assist in maintaining a complete network, a service that is in demand and serves the public good. the planning department received one telephone call in a position and one letter requesting more and permission. the telephone call excites -- call complained of health issues and a lack of public coverage. we recommend approval with the usual conditions. president olague: projects sponsor. >> my name is maria miller, on

behalf of t-mobile. i also have chris wilson to answer any questions you can have. i have a brief presentation. our proposal today is for installing a wireless facility on the rooftop. it will consist [inaudible] president olague: if you could speak into the microphone. >> t-mobile is licensed by the federal communications commission to provide services in the area. they have to extend the network.

the technology of wireless services requires cellphone sites to be in close proximity to the coverage area and other sites on the network. t-mobile engineers have discovered there is a lack of coverage in the area surrounding 5th street. these are the coverage maps. you can see the existing conditions show a gap in coverage. the gray areas are the areas where the coverage is lacking. proposed coverage shows that if we place the site at the intersection here, the coverage objectives will be met. this is just the general area maps. six antennas would be mounted on one of the penthouses of the building and two would be

attached to another penthouse. they would be painted to match the color of the structure to blend in. antennas would be mounted 71 feet above ground level and 11 feet above roof level. equipment will also be located on the roof. this is the site plan at the roof level. uc two pink arrows pointing to the penthouse where the equipment will be located. this is a close-up of the mounting of the antennas. these are some elevations. again, the pink arrows are pointing to the penthouses. i have some photos simulations. you can see the antennas are blending in with the background. they are not adding any extra height to the building. this is just from a different angle, showing the second penthouse. the proposed and existing

condition are almost the same. this concludes my presentation. president olague: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? step to the microphone, please. >> good afternoon. my name is eric barnes. i have worked at the property there for 12 years. i worked for eight radiology website. i have kept abreast of the research anin emf radiation. i am aware the 1996 telecommunications act does not allow that to be considered. i mention these health reasons "-- solely as background information to support the fact that i think it is the wrong

site and the wrong place. these antennas will be less than 50 feet from my head. that makes it a very intense personal issue. i have 26 petitions here, signed by the people who work in my building, who absolutely do not want this facility. my boss has promised that we can move, but we still have a two- year lease. nobody wants to be there with the cell phone towers here. we are very aware of the science because that is what we do as a company. there is a caltrans station less than 35 feet away with train tracks and lots of ugly structures, where the population is transient. less than 500 feet away is an excellent citing place that would cover the neighborhood without being on our heads. there was a large apartment condominium building across the street from us that those people

just built and moved in five years ago. now whenever they seldom will have to put that as a negative factor. there is a tower across the street from them and 50 feet from my hand. the towers can reduce property values by 29%. there was some association with the property values and will make sure there is a lot of publicity for the people who have to live with this. the news is getting worse and worse, for those of you in the medical community. just today, a study came out showing how the adverse impact of emf waves on bone density.

a study in australia found that children living there near three broadcast towers had twice the rate of leukemia of children living 7 miles away. a university in new zealand said that more needs to be studied on the reported affects. cancer. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner antonini: i would like to speak to the gentleman who was here from t-mobile. i wanted to talk a little bit about the emissions. as was presented by the speaker,

we are not allowed to take that into consideration. but what i have heard in the past is that the amount of these emissions decreases very suddenly as the distance becomes higher. i believe you said this is 12 feet above the height of the building where these are being placed. >> yes. the documents that were submitted in the past allow the in tennis to be 10 feet above the roof level. that is the radiation center of the antenna. commissioner antonini: your calculations were made at roof level? >> that is correct. it shows that the three- dimensional distance around the antenna where the general population limit is going to be exceeded -- outside of that distance, you will not. that is listed as 3 feet from

the antennas. with the mounting head of 11 feet, a six-foot person could stand on the roof and not be within that distance. commissioner antonini: my understanding is emissions decrease geometrically or more as you move further away. >> that is exactly antonini: thk you. i would move to approve. commissioner borden: second. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: aye. president olague: no. >> that motion passed five to two. you now have recessed f for two

hours and 35 minutes. president olague: that is fantastic.