questions or, express our views. president fong: thank you. >> hello. i am the board secretary. i am here back in april to talk to you about a verizon wireless store to open a retail formula business in our neighborhood. we were concerned in general about formula retail and general but not opposing the project. we were interested in making the appearance of the store not something that would act as a billboard, which is basically what we've seen from some of the formula retail and our corridor. we came to agreements with the project sponsor, which i have copies of the agreement to buy capacity is around. -- if i could pass those around.

thank you. immediately when the store opened we found the mast -- a vast majority of the agreements were ignored by the project sponsor. we ask the planning department to somehow make these conditions in the conditions of approval so they would have incentive to follow the agreement, but the planning department did not support us on that, and it was not done. there was a mention made in the planning commission a report where they encourage the project sponsor to provide by the a grievance but no enforcement mechanism. they have not done anything or follow the agreements. they have this going thing. if you put what we have on the projector up -- this is what we

have, a giant glowing gold -- billboard. we agreed on only one sign. they put light boxes in the window. pretty much ignored on what we agreed to and got exactly what we were afraid of, which is a big billboard on market street. basically what we were asking is you call them back in and say your note you have this agreement, could to abide by the agreement? i will put about a couple of other pictures. my colleague is here for more details. >> good afternoon. peter cowen . .

we realize there is constrained. the director has talked about the ability to put in conditions of approval, specific restrictions are around sign it because that is permitted separately. the boxes are not sign is as far as we understand. so if you look at the list of agreements we have a number of things that have to do with aesthetics and displays of the store. that said, if we could look at the projector and get this back appear, i would hope, given how much work our neighborhood association have, and the apple market corridor and the fact that we of 900 units under construction and 30,000 new square feet of retail space, that we can work together to avoid this. this may be all water under the bridge. we would love to see the commission have the project sponsor back and informational meeting on how this happened,

but we're very concerned this will become the trend. upper market will be a nice billboard for upper formula businesses. we now have four in the pipeline, all of which will be coming to you soon. there may have been constraints on a technical bureaucratic standpoint, but we think the system is failing to get the quality outcomes of businesses on the corridor that i think the community, department, and commission wants, and would be helpful to figure out how to strengthen the system, whether it is the regulations or the ability of the department to codify things or the commission in tightening down the screws to make sure we're getting high- quality outcomes that in good spirit are never heard association negotiated with the corporate retail and was totally disagrey ignored and this respe. -- this respected. -- disrespected.

president fong: any additional public comment? general public comment? please. any public comment on items not on the agenda? commissioner sugaya: didn't we restrict the assignment in some way? -- the signage is some way. the issue is signage, only part that is not discretionary and no pcontrol over this. if they meet the numerical measurements of the code, we have to approve it. that is the reason that particular item was not able to be a condition of your approval, because signs are one part of the code better not discretionary. commissioner sugaya: i

understand that, but did they agree to limit the upper part to some size? we had a discussion about it. i do not know if the signs shown meets the requirements are goes beyond what we were talking about, but in the upper transit. there was discussion about limiting the size of its and not going beyond a certain dimensions, or something as i remember. i am not sure whether the sign it complies with that or not. as far as light boxes and other things, we did not have a condition about transparency and that kind of thing that we have had previously. we might want to have an informational hearing or something. >> remember spending a particular amount of time on that project. >> i would like to ask the director that we have a meeting of minds if formula retail is now falling what other was of --

what otherwise was a guideline and running into problems that were well summarized, and as i walk the financial district, district c3 on california street, i see people standing in front of a particular establishment and saying how could this possibly happen? that is the cbs on california and battery street. that is a sign it -- cyanates issue or whatever when this runs head-on with how we created in the city. i think we might have to take or anchorage and ongoing discussion, and that is what i would suggest here. commissioner antonini: i will say remember the same things the commissioners have brought up. >> there are two interesting issues were raising.

-- you are raising. one is it is formula retail and general. i am very concerned about this in the upper market. second, the sign of regulation and the irony of the downtown signed regulation is they are quite liberal. both of those things are somewhat related, but separate issues that we are happy to take up. commissioner sugaya: well, i agree. maybe we can get a supervisor interested. commissioner moore: i would like to get the commissioners interested in the c3 district where we have a lot of historic buildings. i think this warrants are broader discussion. to thepresident fong: further pc

comment? next item, please. >> thank you. commissioners, you are now ready to move on to item 12 on your calendar. which is a case number 2011.1396 c for 901 cole street. >> before you today is a request for a conditional use authorization by at&t to install wireless facility on the top of an existing building. this would have up to nine antennas located on the top of the residential and commercial building with equipment located on the ground. the facility is proposed on location preference 6 within the nc-1 zoning district. this is a location preference

six limited preference site that requires an alternative analysis that has been included in your packet. according to the wire the setting guidelines, a limited preference site needs to show what higher preference sites are located within the service area, evidence that efforts to secure those sites were taken and why it was unsuccessful, and the proposed location is essential to meet service demand. the alternative analysis with a 17 alternative sites with identified geographic service area. all other locations were location preference six. also, the sponsor submitted a third-party analysis, which is not required part of wireless facilities, confirming the map accurately represent the present and post-coverage in this area. since the middle of the package, staff has received three written

comment from the public stating concerns that knocked all other alternative sites have been a boston. concerned that this location will become a co-location site and health concerns. the product has been reviewed by the department of public health and complies with the fcc health requirements. stuff is available for questions. -- staff is available for questions. project sponsor. >> good afternoon. my name is [inaudible] , director for at&t california. i am here with the consulting engineers who conducted the radiofrequency test and analysis of the third party

analysis required by the planning department. both reports are in your packet. also, the reports. we are seeking a conditional use permit for nine a on901 cole st. the associated equipment will be located outside the public view on the ground floor level of the property. this is a preference 6 location and there's city wire winds telecommunications guideline. at&t conducted a significant site analysis. we looked at 17 sites, all preference 6, with the exception of one location that was a preference one, but it was a park, so there was no place to place the facility. photographs and write ups of each of these sites are in the package. the site is located at the southwest corner -- sorry, the

site is located at the southwest corner of carl and cole. it is a three-story building with ground-floor commercial space. it is a high-traffic area. due to the location it is feared a transportation hub. the site is necessary for at&t to close a significant service coverage gap and a wireless network as explained in more detail in your packet. the gap is caused by obsolete or in adequate infrastructure along with increased smart phone usage in the area. at&t customers are using their smart phones and wireless tablets in a manner that has caused a 20,000 percent increase. i was up here probably not more than a year ago talking about a 10,000 percent increase. now under 20,000 percent increase over the past five years, and we expect the data volume will grow 8-10 times that in the next five years.

so we have a need to upgrade facilities. we asked for your support as we diligently tried to work through the city process for doing so. i am here to answer any questions you might have. thank you. president fong: any public comment on this item? come on up. lineup if you are ready on that side. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is amy heartly, and i reside at 860 frederick street, about a block away. i want to strongly urge the planning commission to reject a conditional use permit application by at&t for the proposed microstate facility at 901 cole. i have spoken with many residents, store owners, workers, and myself, and we are all opposed to at&t's

installation of a cell power facility. there are at least two petition circulating with well over 100 signatures. i have a copy of which with me here that i would like to get to you for your records. 901 cole street is designated by city guidelines as a less than desirable location due to the zoning nc-1. it is designated as the preference location, not preferred. limited preference means th othr possibilities for their wireless transmission facility. 901 cole is the multiple use building of a busy intersection. the building owner does not live in san francisco and will not be affected by this. therethere are numerous preferae sites which are not in such a neighborhood, with families

nearby. lastly, there is a growing public concern about the effect of electromagnetic regulation. many scientists believe the ftc limits are inadequate in protecting people near the source of radiation. the world health organization, international association for cancer research -- for cancer research, has diagnosed it with ddt, lead, and asbestos. there are health risks to the public within a thousand feet of a cell phone power. only 20% of the studies by the wireless industry show biological effects, whereas independently funded studies show 75%, a study by the department of energetics at the

university of washington. i have no doubt that the greatest polluting elements on earth is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields. clearly, more research and is to be done -- needs to be done. i strongly urge the planning commission to reject the application for the transmission facility. thank you. president fong: i have a few cards. laura epstein? >> and if we can ask the other two people to line up on the other side. if you can line up over here. >> my son is seated in the

audience. i am laura epstein. greetings. thank you so much for being here. i especially think dr. antony. -- antonini. i live in coe valley. my children go to school there. i worked in san francisco. i feel as though san francisco truly is my community. i am grateful that the woman who spoke before me was so articulate, because i am merely going to supplement what she said. my concern is also that these powers be allowed to be placed in this location. the school is very close by, and children are there, generally, 10 hours a day. that is a great concern. there is also a library and fire station. it is a heavily used community. as a citizen, i am concerned that individuals are approached

by at&t and are allowed to make decisions that impact communities. i think san francisco should lead in developing a policy of some sort that would put that in the hands of the citizens, as opposed to private individuals. i think this is an opportunity for san francisco to lead in this area. that is what i would like the committee to consider, in addition to my community, who really opposes these towers being placed. thank you. >> i am a 36-year resident of coe valley. i want to reiterate that our concerns are health-related.

this project surely conforms to the fcc regulations, but this is new technology in terms of scientific study. radial magnetic radiation is beginning to be studied in human beings, but there is not a large body of work yet. the health consequences are uncertain. there is every indication that biology is affected by this radiation. there are many questions. this site is in the body of the valley. it is a very densely populated intersection, a three story building surrounded by other three story buildings. the land rises to the east, west, and south, which will put these antennas at high-level for a lot of residents. -- at eye-level for a lot of residents, which is not a good thing.

we have a petition opposing this site. thank you. president fong: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is gayle hannigman. i am also a resident of coe valley. i agree with the reasons of the people who came before me. i feel strongly that at&t should not have the right to deal with one or two individuals in a very strong community and get this going, and not involve the community and what is happening to the community. there are so many children in this neighborhood. it is a very dense neighborhood. people come from different neighborhoods to wait right

where those antennas are going to be. every morning, it is a very heavily traveled route. i am just appalled that at&t and the city would allow them to place these antennas for all those reasons, in particular health. >> good afternoon. i am a resident of the neighborhood around bellmawr street -- delmar street. i also worked in san francisco. i have been a 12 year resident of the area. i support the conditional use. as a former at&t customer, i can testify that i had trouble getting connectivity.

even simple services were not working. i would welcome the additional choice in use between at&t and other providers. my background is that of a scientist. i want to at least provide one counterpoint to the previous speakers. in particular, regarding the citation of the world health organization classifying cellphone radiation as a carcinogen -- that was in regards to cell phones, not cellphone towers. it is my understanding there may be some conflation of the risks, which are different between cell phones and cellphone towers. i would urge the commission to consider the comments in context, and to analyze the citations for themselves. thank you for your time. president fong: thank you.

>> i have done research on pubmed. there are very few studies done on cell phone towers. all of the studies that have been done have been done overseas. there is no research, really, in the united states, on the health risk of cell phone towers. i am opposed to this tower being built in my neighborhood. thank you. >> -- president fong: any additional public comment? commissioners? commissioner antonini: it does not really make any difference, but i can hand this to linda to put on the screen. this is supposedly a picture, looking along colorado street -- cole street, which -- it has

been relocated. maybe it is another landmark i am not familiar with in coe valley. not that that makes a difference to this discussion. anyway. the other thing that is not relevant to this -- the site is identified as a restaurant, which is no longer there. another restaurant will be going in there. we approved recently. that particular site -- recently, one night, i was thinking of the different places you could design and c street cars going by, and that is one of them. -- you could sine andine and see street cards going by, and that

is one of them. it is romantic, i think. anyway. there is increasing usage with family members who are constantly spending their time looking at their iphones and playing video of their events, and other things. i can imagine how much that draws on the system. i am sure there is a need for siting in this area. they did explore the other alternatives, which are all preference 6 or worse, with exception of the park. but you need a structure that is more than 4 feet high to put an antenna on. to the speakers who are opposed to this, we are bound by what our parameters are. if the emissions are below the level that is deemed to be safe

by the fcc, that cannot be a reason for denial, nor can competition between the various carriers. just because verizon has an antenna in the area does not mean you can deny at&t. prick me if i am wrong. once this installation is put in, the sponsor is obliged to measure the cumulative levels of emissions after the placement, and make that information available. the must make these not in arbitrary places, but in buildings across the street or at street level, where people wait for streetcars. we know these levels fall off precipitously, or geometrically,

very quickly, as you move away from the antenna site itself. i do not think there is a better site. commissioner sugaya: direct this to stuff. -- staff. over the last couple of years, we have seen quite a number of applications for cell phone antennas, particularly from at&t. we have seen less from horizon. almost none from sprint or metro pcs. is that because of differences in technology different companies are using for that cell phone -- for their cell

phone towers? >> to the best of my knowledge, there are two factors. they come into play for the at&t expansion. the radio frequency, the band with the use, requires additional sites. verizon operates on a different band with that requires less sites. it also has to do with existing infrastructure. it was previously primarily based on microsoft's -- micro sites, which does not allow the amount of data transfer that current mobile devices require. they are moving to macro sites, which requires an increase in the number of antennas. those are the factors, to the best of my knowledge. commissioner sugaya: do they take the micro sites down? >>