where the major gap from what i can see potential of where they are is if that makes sense. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am wendy bean and i oppose the installation of the antennas. i live in a building that is less than 300 feet from the proposed site of the installation. there haven't been many studies done on the effects of -- potential effects of radiation from antennas and there has been some and the higher incidences of cancer rates and a lot of them were done with controlled groups of thousand to 1500 people within 300 to 400 meters of the

e erection of towers which is three to four times the distance from where the proposed installation site is. interestingly enough on february 22, 2013 something called the buy initiative report was publishd and this is a study of 1800 new studies regarding the effects of radiation and they include abnormal gene transcription, toxicity and stress proteins, loss of dna repair capacity and human stem cells, reduction in free radical, toxicity in humans and animals and host of other

issues, sperm function and effects on the fetus and off spring and cranial development animals exposed to cell phone radiation and during pregnancy and findings in autism spectrum disorders. there are far too many outstanding questions to allow something like this to sort of pass. it makes me wonder how much at&t is paying the city or paying the owners of the building to erect or to install these antennas. i don't want to be an unwilling participant in their experiment to use the residents in the area as a control group, and i don't quite understand how -- lastly i don't understand how this was able to slip through. we

received -- residents in my area -- at least the neighbors that i asked we received one notification and that was a month ago and that was for this and we heard nothing else. thank you. >> hi. my name is mark dennis and i am opposed to the installation of these antennas. basically the sections that they have moved to have the them under with the planning code it requires there is the necessity like people have mentioned and i don't believe at&t can show that necessity. i know people in the area that have at&t and they have no problems with the coverage. the representative from at&t brings up the public transportation lines there. that really seems like a last -- oh we have nothing to grab at kind of argument. oh let's

bring up public transportation. every carrier -- cell phone carrier you can always make engineer -- emergency calls and to bring that up it means they don't believe their own argument. they can't meet the requirements of the code by showing that site is a necessary site. it's not showing that we need to increase our operation here. we need to show it's necessary, this specific site. no other site will work and they don't do that in section 303-c1 and that is mentioned and they don't do that and in section part two it talks about -- they have to show --

they have to provide evidence that these towers will not be hurting the residents and at&t can't provide that evidence. all of the studies show the opposite and large companies like at&t that refuse -- they refuse to fund studies that will conclusively show that the antennas will not cause health problems and they know they don't do that and it would defeat the purposes and they can't do that and show the necessity and the towers would affect the health of the residents. thank you. >> mark enis -- okay. are there additional speakers on this item? okay seeing none public comment is closed and

commissioners. commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i just have a question for the project sponsor. maybe you could comment on some of the testimony in regards to the need for this. i do see in your preparation here that there's a huge increase in the service area after the installation, so it looks like you have documented this, but can you tell me a little bit more. >> sure. i can and then i will ask bill hammer to come up here since he conducted the studies before and after, but we do have -- we have a lot of research before we go out that we use to determine where our necessity

is, and it's not just about exactly what's in that area, but it's the cell towers work off of each other so if the cell tower at dolores park is full where people admittedly have dropped calls that are testifying today that capacity is full it will draw capacity from other sites where we can move capacity. coverage we can't move but capacity we can move amongst cell antennas so we reached capacity in the other areas. we have a couple that are coming before you, but we have clearly shown in the third party review that you require of every carrier that the coverage before the coverage after -- capacity before and capacity after and i am happy to have bill come talk about that who conducted that review. >> sure. that would be fine. >> good afternoon

commissioners. i am a register engineered in the state of california and this is our report dated 2012 reporting on the work that we did under the direction for the coverage provided by at&t and we do a couple of things and for your interest we go and take measurements in all of the areas. we do a drive test using calibrated equipment and the signal there during the high peak times and we compare the results where what they put on the map and if there is agreement which there was in this case and we will put a statement that we concur with the maps so that is based on independent test that we do with our own time and equipment. >> thank you. i appreciate it.

well, i tend to think it's counter intuitive that at&t wants do more because there is expense there and the point that they do feed off of each other as was pointed out i think that makes a lot of sense and i am satisfied with the documentation on the need for the towers. also the other speakers who spoke about the health concerns. again we're restricted by what the federal government allows as being an acceptable level of electronic magnetic emissions and if it's within that level we don't have any ability to disapprove based upon that, and yeah it's kind of iertion -- ironic a speaker used a device that requires the antenna to use it and if there isn't an adequate one you would

have to use papers to make the comments and you need enough antennas and it's going to get worse and people riding muni and i move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner. >> on the motion to approve commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> comr moore. >> aye. >> commissioner with wu. >> commissioner president fong. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously and puts you on item seven at 975 bryant street. conditional use authorization. following public testimony the commission continued the matter to this date. the matter before you is

a motion to disapprove. >> is there staff on this jonas? >> i apologize diego sanchez is not present and i believe jewel an is present. >> would staff like to introduce this project? >> yes. commissioners we don't really have anything further to add follow your intent to disapprove from last week. we drafted a motion for your review in the packets and i believe commissioner antonini wanted this off of consent so i leave it to you. >> okay. public comment on this item? you can leave that on

the bench there. >> my name is jerry wolf. i am here again today to talk about what is proposed use of the property for new store but specifically i was here last time to talk about kate street, the alley that i own a property on and we were concerned that orchard would use that as the sole means for freight loading and i am here representing two of my neighbors and couldn't be here because of the short notice . they own the building at the end of the block and i own the other one and we own the last 150 feet of the street. in the last hour i talked to the

gentleman from orchard and they made a concession that will change my speech now. we have been negotiating for the last three weeks and reach out to us as members of the community and asking them not to use the loading now and corporate said they will accept that and remove the door on kate street and move back over to the parking lot where there was a pre-existing door and the tenant blocked up when they took over the space. this will be a little burden for them because they need smaller trucks. it's on the private property and makes myself and my two neighbors to say we're not opposed to the project anymore and we basically are willing to go along with it. i want to make one comment though to the hardware people here at the original meeting and say something. i am a small businessman. this is a 33,000

square feet building and parking and inevitably some corporation will take it over. the reason pacific sales is leaving because they can't afford to stay in the space because of the rent. it will be a big corporation and that's the way the world exist and inevitably the building is there and has to be used by a corporate large store and the fact that orchard was willing to reach out to us and save kate street and no presence and we get a future on our little street and there are under used properties on the street and used as new residential and means those developers are willing to do something there because they made the compromise. thank you.

>> president fong, commissioners, my name is mike ayers and i lead efforts at orchard and i was surprised to this this pulled from the consent calendar and now feel compelled to make a few comments. thank you for your time. thank you for the lessons regarding the proper amount of public input and dialogue on a project of this scale. we learned a lot in the last couple of weeks. if we're given more time we will work hard to gain the support of the neighborhood and the san francisco community at large. thank you. >> additional public comment? >> good afternoon commissioners. jim meeko from south of market. i think the most devastating

revelation two weeks ago when you heard this was the map when the small businesses, hardware stores, home improvement stores in the area passed out that map that showed the two block radius, six block radius and a 2-mile radius around the proposed location. in showing just how many san francisco businesses are involved in this from speedies hardware just two blocks aware. they're struggling to get established on folsom street and another hardware a couple of other blocks away and for the small businesses struggling to remain in this city. i ask you to maintain the commitment you made two weeks ago to the small businesses and to up hold this

decision to redie this project. thank you very much. >> any additional public comment? okay. seeing none public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i will let you know why i asked this to come off of consent with a little background. i am old enough to remember in san francisco we had no national clothing retailers. if you were going for clothing you went to several stores and we lived in a different world. we lived in a world where the needs were met by local firms and had additional outs in the bay area but it's regional. we don't live in that world anymore. we are international. we have firms from other countries and located their outlets in the area. we have

small retailers and they have to survive in the environment and they can but they have to appeal to their customers because of service or other goods that they stock and what happens when you don't allow a major firm into an area they will probably locate close to the area and possibly daly city and other places and people do drive to specific places. an example of this is target. when target was not in san francisco people would drive as far as they had to do shopping there, and this is also true to some degree for hardware stores. i think there are a number of people i talked to inside and outside of san francisco that appreciate the quality of orchard supply and they do their shopping there, not exclusively, but often for certain items that do, so i think it's kind of shortsighted

to not approve it or possibly at least allow another site in san francisco. it might be necessary to be down on bayshore boulevard where there are other box stores. maybe this isn't the best site but as the speaker pointed out it's a huge site and it's going to be a huge operation or sit vacant. the other thing is formula employers don't give enough benefits to the employees and i'm not sure if that is true and they may employ part time employees and bring people into the work force that are not employed otherwise. they have a part time job on to subsidize their full time work, a older people or a younger people supplementing their

income. there is nothing wrong with part time and i was at ground zero for retail and there are problems with that esthetically and it's not the thing i want to see, but when you go around they don't see as many social challenges and i am sure they have them but not as obvious as san francisco and i am not sure what the role of retail plays but i think a large significant part of the population is employed by the retail businesses. i'm not defending formula retail. i like to shop locally and support the firms but i think we need to look at this in the context of what is best for san francisco and some of the people looking for work in san francisco so i'm going to work against the disapproval and i would like to see this item continued. i don't think there is anyone that would second that but i would certainly propose that as a motion.

>> commissioner moore. >> excuse me if you could turn off all of your mobile devices. >> the testimony which we heard last week has not been disputed or modified by anything i heard today. i think we very wisely observed something which required our attention and the position present d today has not changed my mine. i feel everything is intact to disapprove the project and i think we move forward to do that as we were asked to do. >> second. >> call the question. >> if i could. thank you. well, i was tempted to second the motion to continue i don't think we have the votes to did that today and i think the project sponsor understands with a little more time and come back and re-examine the approach in

san francisco but i wanted to explain my position on this, and very clearly i'm not flat out opposed to formula retail or support of it. in the case -- in these situations for me you need to look at each location by location case by case, and i think this particular location pacific sales is owned by best buy. it's their larger appliance store. it's a big box, large format. likely another user of that magnitude will come in. rei is essentially next door. it's on bryant street. we would like to see more pedestrian activity but it's a large thoroughfare. there is appropriate parking and the most compelling reason that he we will hear it's an area for growth in san francisco and both for office and housing and i

think in the near feature future parcels will be there and more housing and i think the store will serve a particular type of customers that are looking to improve their condo, their apartment, or home in that area, so the other part is i don't want -- i don't think it's necessary to drive for one piece of lumber or screw. that's i didn't am supportive and i will be with commissioner antonini and vote against the motion to deny. commissioner moore. >> i think nobody said that having formula retail disapproved in one location doesn't mean they can't find other appropriate sites and the proper support from the surrounding community and businesses that stand in front of us and present a case

whether it's possible. this commission has approved a number of formula retail uses [inaudible] challenged to do so but it's a question how do you deliver a project and i wanted to add that further exemplifying what you said. >> thank you. commissioner hillis. >> yeah, just to clarify my view. it's both location and use. i don't think this is a bad location for formula retail. there is formula retail around there. there is the ninth street complex that has a couple of formula retail. i think the location coupled with the use and hardware stores have been historically difficult. to commissioner . antonini's point and i think hardware has a tougher

battle in the city than other uses like clothing so i just want to mention that it's both the use and the location. i think it would be good to engage the next location you look at and engage the folks that came out and testified and most were not the neighbors but the local hardware merchants. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second to approve or adopt the motion -- excuse me, the motion to disapprove. >> commissioner antonini. >> no. >> commissioner aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> comr. >> aye. >> comr president fong. >> thats motion passes four-two.

>> okay. the commission is going to take a break and there is a time certain coming up. we have two more items -- one more. okay. thank you.