as a result the calendar has moved accordingly. i think what is important to emphasize is we are not trying to truncate the process. we are currently looking at a schedule that would have draft eir published in the late fall, probably november, with then proper consideration for comments and hearings that projects us being back before the full planning commission in april 2013 for consideration of the eir. during that process we are working redefining design, coming up with some solutions and opportunities through the transportation assessment, bringing a term sheet before the port commission and the board of supervisors over the summer, probably in june and july, and really using the period of 2013

to continue to work with the public and the cac and other stakeholders around the program at the facility, and the state legislation that was just introduced by assembly member king would move through this legislative year. >> thank you. >> i want to thank the commissioners and there are more that chimed in and asking very good questions thus far and i realize this is informal only. it's early stage so it's important not to get too much into it and pass judgment at this time. as some of you know i had a long association with san francisco's waterfront and fisherman's wharf in particular and i am happy to hear that fisherman's wharf will not be duplicated. fisherman's wharf as you know is the number two destination next to disneyland in california and we seem to do

a good job at making the people happy and generating tax dollars and the arena will bring in new tax dollars from a new sector of san francisco and entertaining folks of san francisco. in regard to the cruise ship -- i assume they're celebratory ships or back up cruise ship capacity and for fleet week? >> yeah, we are currently planning that this berth could accommodate fleet week and other ships. the eastern edge of this pier as you probably know commissioner from your time on the port commission has an advantage in it doesn't require as much consistent dredging and lower cost from a operational standpoint and options like that and one of the reasons we tried

to make it work under the plan. >> okay. i imagine the port is negotiating with you about the number of days, maximum, minimum? >> yes. we're in those conversations as we speak. >> i think it's a terribly transit rich area between bart, muni and streetcar and walkablity and my last comment on this with my time at the port this is one of a few piers that if we want to see them rehab and want the questions and conversations to stop what about the pier and why is it falling into the bay and why aren't you doing something about it? this is a public private opportunity and they don't come around everyday and one that we need to take advantage of it and i am looking forward to seeing the design and i am in support.

commissioner moore. >> thank you for the presentation. this is happening all very quickly. i acknowledge the questions and the commission and psychologically interesting to start with the compelling image and hope it falls in place and you in the middle and i would like to propose a second challenge to you. i would like to ask you at what scale are you trying to design a model? i hope it's a working model so when people ask you about the features and that being the bridge, that being the waterfront and the promenade and all the way to the ferry building and to the embarcadero and the buildings on the other side that people can see you move the model around and respond to questions why you're doing what you're doing. the question is what scale are you doing your model in and is it a working model? >> we are working with two means of visualizing the project, the

physical model and digital models. the ones that we currently have in house with our partners show significant parts of san francisco, not just the immediate context so for us it's more important being able to show another context that you understand the building in relation to the city at large and not just the immediate adjacent properties. in the digital model it will be easier to do that and set up solar -- to get actual sun angles. we currently have two models we're working with at different scales. i wouldn't want to answer the exact scale but your point is well taken and big enough so you can get a picture of it and i think the people asking for a model are quite correct. >> historically we used a model scope and eye level into the model. >> yes. >> and like an antiquated

technology but it has a lot of persuasion and it's eye level and digital model and depending whether you're 7 feet or 5 feet tall standing on the street or across the street you want to understand height i think it's where the rubber will hit the road and i will live it at that and the work is interesting and i am looking forward to it evolve and respond to the questions at hand. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> just a final comments. i see this as a normal track. we often on the slow track but i don't think there is conflict between expediting a project and allowing for a comprehensive complete open dialogue with the public and following all the necessary steps so they're not mutually exclusive. i did have a question on transportation or

i think that what i would suggest is that -- i am sure you're doing this. do your analysis at the worse possible situation where you have 44,000 going to a giant's game and 18,000 for the arena and that will happen frequently more so with concerts and giants games between the other because there isn't much overlap. if the warriors make the playoffs there will be a little bit. i think you have a good record with the transit split and analyzing what the giants have and more favor to that because you're so close to market street and another admonination from cars from the east bay and look at lot 330. i know you plan hotel, retail and housing there and some supportive parking but if there is any space to accommodate cars coming off the bridge. they get out of the car. they walk and

right on the bridge and out of the city which they make go to fisherman's wharf too of course but often they're going just drive out and not a traffic problem, and the final thing was i noticed there are practice courts next to the arena. i assume that's a practice facility for the warriors and they would relocate the headquarters here. is that correct? i think that is important and they're playing the games and headquartered here and not happened in the past and that is important. thank you. >> any additional comment, questions? okay. thank you: do you guys want to take a break ? . let's keep going. >> commissioners that will place you under the two items that

you pulled off of consent. first of item four at 225 30th street conditional use authorization. commissioners if i may briefly this will be michelle's last hearing before you. she has decided to leave the planning department and move back east so it's with much regret they introduce michelle. >> thank you jonas. good afternoon commissioners. i am michelle from the planning department. this a conditional use authorization by at&t located at 225 30th street. the request is install up to [inaudible] on the roof top building and residential care facility. the facility -- because of the institutional nature is proposed on a location preference one site. staff is

submitting the staff report staff has received two emails and a call oppose the project based on necessity, health concerns and design concerns. staff is proposing -- is recommending approval with conditions. >> project sponsor. >> good afternoon commissioners i am teddy [inaudible] and from at&t and i am here with the firm that conductedded radio frequency testing at this location and the third party review that was required. we are seeking your approval to install this facility consisted of nine panels that will be on the roof top of the building

with transparent blinders to integrate this into the building. this is a preferred location and with the guidelines. the site contains a three story institutional building known as on lock day services that provides day time residential care. the site is necessary to coverage and capacity in the area which are served by the muni rail line and the 24 and 36 muni bus lines. i would like to thank the department staff for their time and support in directing and design and ensure this site is compatible with the neighborhood and the surrounding area. i am available to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. opening up for public comment. i have some speaker cards. (calling speaker names). >> good afternoon. steven

strong. i am here to pose the installation of the proposed antennas from at&t and increasing coverage and increasing capacity. i live in the immediate neighborhood. the back of my property -- i can see the on lock facility. i am an at&t customer. i have been for 15 years. i also work from home. i use anywhere from three to 7,000 minutes of voice on at&t every month. i am also a heavy data user. i have been in the neighborhood for eight and a half years. there is no coverage problem. we never have outages. i have documentation they will leave that i took of tests with my phone and ipad

from my location but the location on dolores and 30th street. the location of 30th and chenery and look readings at church and 30th. i think what you will see in the results i am providing you -- i mean in most cases -- not only do i have interruption of services the speeds are faster from comcast fiber connection at home. they operate i believe full coverage. that's the state of the art latest greatest technology at&t is using and it's performing at maximum speeds. it's the best available in the neighborhood so i do not understand and do not agree with the fact that we have a coverage problem or capacity problem. a couple of other things i would like to point out in the report that was filed on

page 44 you will notice that one of the primary basis for the third party study i believe was a simpling of data provided by at&t. that only covered a 24 hour period of one day. hardly a representative sample when i can certainly tell you from seven in the morning to the evening including the peak hours at&t refers to there are no issues so i don't see how on earth it benefits the community or the residents on the border of the area benefit at all. i also have a number of documents that i will leave behind from a website and this shows the towers 2 miles from the site and the antennas installed and the last thing is at&t is the experts in the alternative sites but they evaluated more than 100

potential alternative sites in the report. not a single one of those sits to the west -- >> thank you. >> or to the south of the proposed location. >> thank you for your time. >> where 2/3s are proposing to go. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon commissioners. thank you for your time. i am michelle carter and live in the neighborhood. my property abutting the back of the on lock property and i don't think this complies with the planning code. first of all i don't think it's desirable. it -- it says it's supposed to be located to minimize the visibility and intrusion into visittas and integrity and they are doing this for sight and for the museum and it

will be directly over that and the church. i think it will have a negative impact of the esthetics of the neighborhood. i am also a at&t customer. i don't think it's necessary. i take the buses and the j church. i travel on public transportation. i work from home on various days. i go around the neighborhood and bernal heights and no valley and the excelsior and i check email and i never had problems with any of the coverage. i am also concerned there is no addressing the question of the gaps they're fixing are significant. they indicate there are gaps in college but the case law states and san francisco more than gaps. they have to be truly significant gaps and based on my experience and the fact they apparently looked at a 24 hour period i don't know there has been showing that the gaps

they're supposedly trying to fill are in fact significant gaps as required and i know that the health issues aren't a factor. i mention that in the email and that really isn't the basis of the concern but i am concerned about but i am more concerned about the esthetics and they're not entitled to put this up there and they have to get approval because these issues need to be addressed and i ask that the commissioners reconsider your opinion and decision to grant them their request. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i have one more thing if you look at the map where the towers are that was mentioned by the preefses speaker you will see they're proposing to put the antennas on the three sides of

the building that don't face 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