the technical analysis of the antenna array eliminated the site of the golf course because it would not be confident for the parties involved sponsoring the project to consider putting up a 140-foot tower in the harding park golf course where nobody lives or sleeps and nobody resides there, they chose instead a building that has several hundred people that live in it nearly most of the year and so it does not make sense to me with the information that is available today, the science, and at hand and indicates numerous foreign countries, prohibits against these sort of antennas and i understand right now what the situation is in washington, but, i plead that this commission, that they reject this proposal in the current form as far as the location is concerned especially in, and i

think that on air, and... >> your time is up. >> verizon should look at harding park if there is going to be a project... >> sir your time is up. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please? >> my name is (inaudible) and a retired architect and structural designer, at the time i am (inaudible) in san francisco. and (inaudible) i studied project and the provided information does not mention the (inaudible) and the antennas in the zone and the (inaudible) of the children play grounds and the distance of 100 feet.

the commission will decide of the verizon project on the... or the (inaudible) and most of the 1,000 tenants will be exposed to radiation every second, 24 hours, 7 days, all year round, which include children pregnant women, students of san francisco state university, and elderly people. and first living this, 400 people from the cell tower and experienced the sleep problems and depression, and infections and skin problems and muscular problems and cancer and much more. and question one, one thing is that verizon is in the antennas in the high-rise building, and why is verizon did not antennas in the (inaudible), and question, three, why is the department set is party to lease and it has been shown to the verizon. and th e of these

tenants of the residential towers does not indicate that the exposure to the radiation. one more. and we did not see many of the transmitters, totally 8 very maximum power, that of the extension in the future. and question four, who will control the power of the antennas and how often will you use maximum power? what is the duty, cycle of the antennas? >> it is a big risk and intentionally mistake and crime to provide the experience on the people. and it is violation of human rights giving to us in constitutional of the united states. and which all of my heart of the games that (inaudible). thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon,

commissioners, my name is katherine and i am a professional woman who has worked in the park merced area for over 25 years. i have been a resident at park merced for over, over 19 years coming up on 20 years. i would like to submit that reasonable intelligent people could argue with the science that tell us that all of this radiation is safe. although, the federal law states or sets the account or the allowable levels of these radiation from the towers we do not know what the cumulative effects are over time. the amount of radiation that we are bombarded with these days is unprecedented. there is no one that knows what the cumulative effect is. i have listened to the gentleman from verizon tell us how many are in a high dense area and for a person who sleeps, my bedroom is on the

corner, and that is where i go to sleep every night. and in the area like this, wifi and the cell phone reception is ubiquu. itous and there are many towers and how much radiation are we getting i would like to have my apartment tested before and after as i understand that is within my rights. if the project goes forward. my apartment it is the within 300 feet of the proposed tower and there are nine smart meters below my kitchen sink. and is there anyone hearing this? >> who really in your heart of hearts wants to go to sleep at nights with 9 smart meters below your kitchen and a cell tower in 300 feet of your bedroom, every single night in addition to what is already out there emitting radiation that we don't or may not completely understand. i have opted out of many conveniences in order to avoid

these frequencies whenever position because i believe that they can be detrimental to health and i do not have a smart phone and even as a frequent business travelers i opt out and take the pat down rather than submit to the airport scanner and i turn off wifi to my computers unless they are in active use, i do not own a microwave oven and i am not a kook, i am an intelligent person and i would submit that intelligent people could argue the scientific fact and i am almost finished i am not willing to be a science experiment known knows what the long term effects are. there was a time when cigarettes were deemed safe and appropriate, and now we know that many people made money and many people got sick. do not approve the building of this cell tower for some of us this ahome. >> thank you, is there any additional public comment on i.

commissioner antonini? >> yeah, well, to speak to many speakers, who have brought up the federal guidelines where our considerations have to be given by what the guidelines are today. and if you feel those are not the correct guidelines you should take it up with your representatives on a federal level because we have no control over those and we have to make our decisions based upon if projects comply, which this one does, and the one speak who said about having the apartment tested, i think if i am not wrong and the project sponsor can shed the light and i believe that is an option that is available, and in fact, i think that cumulative, rf emissions are checked after the new tower are put in in any case, so i would certainly, yes? staff? if you wanted to comment on that? >> and i address to the chair. and every two years, and after construction, but as well as

after every two years, the project sponsor is required to provide the ports and the wire testing and the units in 25 feet of the antennas. >> good. >> that will also, within 25 feet and that will also involve, somebody wanted the testing they will be able to get one. >> i referred to the public health when they had concerns regarding the site and was out of 25 feet and has been able to go out. and it was required to make that accommodation and i am happy to make that accommodation and so anyone regardless of the distance that you should contact verizon if you feel that you want to have your particular living space tested for the amount of emissions that are there. okay, thank you. and the other things that are about this makes sense, people are using cell phones, and

other electronic devices more and more. and the demand is becoming greater because their uses are not just taking a phone call but now they are downloading things and watching the uses are becoming more intense and so it is not just a number of people, but the intensity of the use. so, i would expect that if verizon is putting another tower in there, there is a reason because the coverage is probably not good. our charts shows that the coverage is sketchy in that area and probably you would not do something if it was not needed. other sites, you have to have the agreement that the park merced has agreed to put it on the tower, the state was not interested and it might be too far away from this to be good and i really can't imagine that harding park would allow a tower of 150 to 200 feet to be erected in the middle of the golf course there even if

verizon wanted to pay for it. and i don't see any reason why we should not approve this and i would move for approval. >> okay. >> commissioner sugaya? >> it is too bad the project sponsor did not call rec park and offer to build a soccer field with lights on it you could have put your antennas on that. >> on that motion, commissioners to approve with conditions, antonini? >> aye. >> borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> sugaya. >> no. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commissioner president fong? >> aye so moved, that motion passes five to one, with commissioner sugaya voting against. e younder 18, for hat will

case number 2011. 2011.0924ec (s. vellve: (415) 558-6263) 2419, 2421, 2435 lombard street - south side between divisadero and scott streets; lots 028, 029, 030 in assessor's block 0937 - request for conditional use authorization, pursuant to planning code sections 712.39, 303 and 317 to allow the demolition of three connected one and two-story mixed-use buildings containing two dwelling units on the second floor and their replacement with a four-story mixed use building containing 11 dwelling units, approximately 900 square feet of retail space and 9 parking spaces within a nc-3 (neighborhood commercial, moderate-scale) zoning district and 40-x height and bulk district. >> good afternoon, the project will be completed in two stages. the first stage includes demolition of three separate but interconnected buildings on three separate lots. the buildings contain two vacant units storage and a commercial catering and off parking. and the second stage including merging the three lots into one and the construction of a four story eleven unit building with nine parking spaces and 900 square feet of commercial space, the project requires conditional use of the two vacant dwelling units planning code sections. and to review the response of

application for the dwelling unit removal and 303 findings, the project was found to meet the criteria of each. the request of the administrative review of an off state parking reduction for two parking spaces which was granted last week and i have a copy for that for your review. and outside of these two items the project is permitted as of right. the project was granted a class 32, category exemption from the cequa. and today the department has received one letter of opposition to the proposal but is aware that the neighbors and the existing tenants have concerns. but these concerns relate to the proposed buildings, volume and height, and the parking reduction, the loss of light and air provided by the property line windows and a private easement and the commercial tenantcy, those who have parked and involve in the buildings on the frontage of the street. and the plans indicated that

the proposed building is taller than the adjacent buildings. and the zoning administrator approved the parking reduction based on the amount of public transport and on street parking available in the area as well as pedestrian safety and in this neighborhood commercial district. while not required, the project includes a light rail for two park lines on the adjacent building to the west. the project provides access for an easement along the east property line. the sponsors have given the commercial tenant one year to relocate. and at this time the department recommend to approve the project with conditions and thank you and i am available to any questions. >> thank you. >> project sponsor, please? >> hi. good evening commissioners my name is ben wo ng. and we have been working on

this project for two years and designing with the use on a mixed commercial and resident space and so we are in delight in knowing that this project is going to require a set back and a height limit of the project and so we would like to have the approval for the project at this, and so i would like to make this and... and there was a mixed communication on some of the e-mail exchange to the neighbors, and i think that we would like to believe that some of the information was not delivered to the neighbors for them to reveal the project scope and the design and so i apologize for that. >> okay, opening it up for

public comment. >> i have one speaker card. and i'm alma miny. >> and thank you for the opportunity. i live at 2520 grinach street which is the property that looks from the back of the bedroom and looks on to the back of the property that is being proposed. and we first met with mr. wong and his group, a little over a year ago. and at that time, i was opening enough to have him come over to my house and come up to my back room and take photographs of the property which he then used to rendor the 3 d representation, which i just received a couple of days ago of what the property would look like. i have lived in this address and now for ten years and although i was born in raised in san francisco. and this is my neighborhood, my father actually built the house that i am in and in the 1950s.

and so what i see out of my back window is not what i saw 60 years ago and i understand that things do change. and i'm okay with that. but i do have some concerns. i'm very familiar with the parking situation in our area. and i don't think that the people who gave approval for reduced parking spaces in this proposed property understand it. i have my wife and i have one car, we have a garage. but i still have to move my car out when the visitors come and find someplace to put it so my visitors can find someplace to park. we have people coming over from marine county who park and so they can catch a google bus and the businesses down on chest nut street and along scott street not only the customers but the employees park in our area, we have limited parking spaces so my first objection

has to be to the reduced number of parking spaces, i understand that this is approved. i didn't know that. i was not given any indication that this was going to be approved. until i heard that it happened a couple of days ago. >> i was not brought up to date on this meeting until a couple of weeks ago. the other issue for me, is noise. and since our bedrooms would be facing this building, and i would ask and i talked to mr. wong and he has agreed to try to move the air-conditioning units down stairs, and down to the basement. and i would appreciate it that were documented. thank you. >> thank you. >> patricia vahe? >> okay. >> thank you commissioners. my name is michelle memane and

i wrote the wrong item number down on the card that i submitted that may be why you don't have it. but we also wanted to thank the staff to sarah for advising us about this meeting for sending us the plans of the project and for letting us know this morning that the parking variance had been granted. we had some neighbors who yesterday, we told we would come to this meeting and represent them in objecting to the parking variance. not really realizing that it had already been granted. and so i don't know if you have the power to change that, and we also when we met with the architects in the beginning, there was an issue raised about the height of the building and the amount of things that they would put on the roof which actually increases the height and they told us at that time that they would consider

putting them in the basement and then it is as if it is a new idea today again. and so, thank you. for your consideration. >> do you want to come up here please? >> jack, fong, owns the building to the west and it is interesting because the noise level on lumbard street is f. and his studios have the old murphy beds in the bedrooms. and the beds are in the closets. and there are small windows right here. with those bedrooms. and they cannot really open the windows for air because of the toxicity of the lumbard street. there are some large windows right here, but the bedrooms will be totally dark of these

tenants. and mr. fong has repeatedly asked, and just been shined off about moving it back five feet. and setting it back as a light rail. and this is a very unusual case because of light mayor and even if it is a lot more window, and those tenants deserve air, particularly if there is affordable rents in this particular building. number three, and here is the building right here. here are the windows. here are the two big ones and the four small ones and just to set back for light and for those bedrooms will be and we are asking you to do something about that. what has disturbed me is that we have tried to a year to talk to these people they have not returned the phone calls and we kept calling sarah and i am waiting for the drawings and all of a sudden we hear that there is a meeting.

and there has been no rapport, and these neighbors have been delightful to the applicants and they asked for the stuff to be on the mechanics to be on the bottom four doors down and how the noise to put the mechanics in the basement. and these being required to do and put the mechanics in the basement in this new building where the old was. and yet, they don't want to and this is three lots, this is not just one building this is three lots. i am disappointed in the way that this whole case has come down and i think that mr. fong has a very, very, very, he deserves to set back. >> and i just hope that you take some consideration on this

issue. also, the soma family, i don't know if they are here or not have said and are objecting because they do own the easement in the back. and they have not even be in negotiations with them, they just said that they are going to put your easement through your building and is that legal? you may think this is a civil issue. >> thank you. >> my name is jack fong and next door and the next building owner and all of our window is legally from the city counter from the many, many years ago. and now, that they build a building and just, it is a wall to wall cut off of the windows and let us lost all of the fresh light, natural light and fresh air and that is not healthy for our building apartment. and sure (inaudible) and at

least they do it and they are ten feet away from our building window. and that has been more shady, for our building. and our building the window is at all, and it is legally in the record or should be kind of (inaudible) thank you very much. >> thank you. >> are there any additional public comment? >> on this item? >> okay, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini i have a lot of questions for staff, the first is that there was talk about a matching light well that... and i am not sure if it includes the windows that were brought up by the speaker who just had come up. yeah, i am just asking for an answer on that. because i don't really know if

it is not his windows whose windows are being matched? >> and the light walls match these upper windows here. and not these smaller inoperatable windows. >> so it will not match those four windows. >> not with the windows and the beds in the closets, no. >> and that is, those are the property line windows and to your knowledge, they are not protected. >> correct. >> there was talk about them being legal windows >> correct. we don't normally. actually having the light wall for these windows is an exceptional thing that we don't normally require the sponsor has. >> and sometimes we do grant that i am just not sure about the other windows. >> and the other question is in regards to the parking and i am not quite sure why the parking variance was granted because the requirement in that area is still one to one, and

fortunately still in this area, we require. and they are very often and i can attest to the fact that parking is almost impossible in that area. and putting two more cars out at least two and with two bedroom units you are going to find it. and the planning code does allow the zoning administrator to make these administrative approvals for the parking reduction in the district. and in some requests it is challenging and there are also subject to the ground floor. and so they do have to have and they do provide a 25 foot deep, commercial space. and then they have the residential entrance here. and so that leaves a limited amount of space for parking in

the building. and they technically they could do this and they could go down and this on the instance, the zoning administrator did find that the two parking spaces. the parking spaces, space to space on the, on the on street parking and uni and pedestrians. >> and trying to reduce the number of vehicular crossings for the sidewalk and the district. >> yeah, okay, thank you. >> and i think that this is a situation where you have to weigh what is most important. i mean i understand that there are at least 17 vacantcy on lumbard and i have heard as many as 24 for supervisor ferrill's ofce and so you know if there are that many vacantcies do we want to create a storefront that can go vacant, we may want to,

instead allow a couple of more parking places and you know, not allow them to not have the storefront there that are often hard to fill. >> we have walked the street, what you find is a lot of sites where you have very little commercial ground floor retail space and the nc3 district is supposed to be a ground floor commercial retail linear street where that is a prominent factor in the street scape and with all of the hotels and motels mostly, along that, retail frontage is very, very disruptive and so it really does not act like a nc3 district. and so there is that consider that we acually to promote these ground floor retail spaces and that is why the code is written as it is for the requirement of this

ground and this active retail frontage. >> and i can understand that to try to compare lumbard to chest nut and union they are entirely different streets, this is just highway 101, and you know it is just not a really walkable street and so you have a much harder time getting retail to work along there. and so i like the commission to consider it and i would like to see them sponsor to get a couple of more parking spaces. and okay, thank you. >> the other comment that they have is that the design is a little sketchy and i tried to figure out what this is actually going to look like, the rendering looks kind of like a motel on the outside, and i hate to say it but the windows don't seem to have any relief and there is not much treat on them and they look like they are flat against the

siding and we need to have a little better rendering of what the architecture is going to look like on this building because we have enough of the ugly buildings around and we don't need another one and so i would like to see the work done on that. and i would like to see what the other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner borden? >> i would agree that the building could use some work. but i am not an architect and i cannot advise. i just want to understand the issue with the adjacent building, so this is a lot lying adjacent building, is it windows and what rooms are those windows in? >> based on my understanding those were closets that were turned into bedrooms and the windows are inoperatable. >> i see, of course they are not protected and we would not, that is the whole block is mostly buildings that are... >> it is development, yes. >> okay. >> thank you.ldi just, i just w tell you a little bit about the windows and i agree that the

renders do not show the reveals for the windows very well but these windows are and the grading is set back from the front of the building and off by at least two inches and we will actually make sure that there are high quality windows in there and we share the same types of concerns and i believe that there is a condition and there may not be that we can check that the sponsor continues to work with us to make sure that we do get the high quality materials and windows in there and that is a concern of the staff as well. >> i would agree with that as well. i think that this spot has been vacant since the gym that was there and this has been what, five years since that gym was there and so it is actually worth while to have something going in there. and because there has not been anything for a while and that building was never an attractive building to begin with and