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

>> we will take public comment on items that were closed. this would be item 18. each member of the public will be able to address the commission for up to three minutes.

>> i would like the hearing to be reopened. there is a possibly illegal call that if you don't pass this emergency housing element, the city will lose some -- the city has always been this is possibly a call in the dark and i would like the council to make note of it. this has to be recalled and a

counter explanation sent. on that basis alone, the interpretation is a suggested guidelines. this is the objective and resources and the political game of the board of supervisors to make those political decisions, not yours. therefore, my suggestion is if you don't want to lose your -- don't call for a suit in court because you definitely will lose

them. bank you. >> thank you. >> i have some written comments to submit. the commission should not certify the eir in this project because it has some very serious legal flaws. i would like to address a few of them that relate to the transportation analysis. first, i am very surprised that the city continues to fail to set forth an accurate baseline. this has been determined by

court efforts and yet we keep seeing it here. they are using the 2025 year for this condition. those have to be based on actual analysis in the year 2008. other things, we cannot find any accurate descriptions of existing traffic volumes even on the selection of study streets which excludes major corridors and streets throughout the city.

the city seems to defer to the better neighborhoods. these are better plans. the housing element is the document that should set forth the policy of the city on residential use, not an area plan. this is not include the intersections, 30 side -- 35 are acceptable levels of service. seeker requires the eir to propose the mitigation. that is not here and this is not in the eir.

the 2004 policies that encourages a mode shift towards a transit might result in a potentially significant transit impact. this means that you have to mitigate it. >> thank you. >> i represent san franciscans for aid livable neighborhood. i am submitting this for the commission to be placed in the record. i have copies for the commissioners. substantial changes were made

after the review. closed. this includes area along bus lines through the city neighborhoods and new policies whereas before policy 12.1 had to find major transit lines. the plan areas have capacity for your housing needs. also, the text was changed to eliminate the statement in some areas and density limits should be maintained for the character. this was the height and bulk limit. consistency of individual projects would be based on the changed language and the change provides for the districts.

it also eliminated it to the planning code to further accommodate housing near transit. in addition, this is legally an adequate and we should not certify it. there was no density alternative. you have enough capacity in the areas you already approved. it is illegal for you to approve the project. that is limiting to the area's already approved and not expanding the transit oriented development to bustlines outside of the priority development

areas which will inquire you to focus on the whole city. residents living near the local bus lines and not near a part station were deprived of public notice that their areas could be affected by the transit oriented development which includes increased height, density. and thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> i am not sure if i'm speaking to the right item. brought time and time again to

your attention which is the adequacy and quality of water supply. there is a development that occurred the day before yesterday at the san francisco public utilities commission. the assistant general manager reported to the commission that projected shortfall of available water supplies to meet the level of service goals and its contractual obligations. we raised this issue during the scoping. your document relies on the 2005 urban water management plan which was totally out of date ae signed the contract with our customers. after that time, in the summer

of 2010, the city agreed to take even less water from our watersheds of 7.4 million gallons a day. because of that, we don't know right now where we are going to have a supply adequate to meet the contractual obligations of our sales agreement. this documents, they are speak -- this document is speaking to a greater density. the assistant general manager has to come up by april 27th. what is the plan going to be to provide adequate water supply?

if you have the person in charge of doing the updating water management plan but in 2010, he is going to go out and draft the form. you are missing some very important steps. you have let it go until now. it should be until after this document comes out. all of these things are not want to meet our contractual obligations. our contract gives our customers an assured supply. >> thank you.

>> certain comments will be made to decision makers. then it goes on to say, comments on the housing element policy. these are not regarding adequacy of the analysis in the draft eir and no response is required. this might address accuracy issues. these comments have been afforded to the planning department 4 response. with no response is, we cannot write but that this will be certified. these will be published as the last chapter. this seems to be a little bit like the cart before the horse. finally, there are certain

changes that were subjective and were not subjected to a formal review. the statement of eliminating changes that were not subjected to environmental review to reinstate the june 2012 draft. please do not certify the housing element. thank you. fis>> i feel that there has been significant changes made sense,

public comment was closed. particularly the increase to density along major bus lines and transit corridors. this is something that we never had a chance to speak to and we are very concerned and many of these areas are residential areas which could be suddenly subject to increase density through be adding of units. people are willing to spend more to acquire property that is partially income property.

we hope you will go back to the earlier versions, thank you. >> we urge you to eliminate the changes that were not subjected to environmental review and to reinstate the june 2010 draft of the housing element that was subject to environmental review. before the 2005 element is put into its draft, we have the opportunity to sit down to go over the entire document. we reached a compromise and was true our name from t