development thereof this type than at the other two buildings thorton and the student services so we went down the road with them for quite a while and ended up being told that they were implementing a new solar program and they were not going to dedicate any roof top space to a verizon wireless lease. subsequently, we also reviewed harding park and as you know, harding park is zoned public. and it is a difficult choice to consider from all stand points. it is 163-acre golf course, quite beautiful, scenic, and lush vegetation and trees and upon reviewing the park it was determined that the structure of the height necessary to serve the intended area especially in the interior of san francisco state university and the interior of park merced as it gets developed in the

future would require quite a large structure of harding park. and the applicant, myself, and verizon believe and have a firm conviction that building a wireless facility at harding park is not an option or an acceptable alternative to man the antennas to an existing 150 foot building, adjacent to the park. on to the in the area just outside of what we have as our service area, definition, is there are no industrial commercial structures. there are some neighborhood commercial shopping centers ncs located between camon drive and 19th avenue on the east side of the park merced but that is currently and very close to the

55 two, site and the same is with the location at the stone's town shopping center. and boughts just north of there, we have a site at 599 buckingham way. and that provides coverage to that area. and not only that, but our site at or on the armory over on 100 armory, provides great signal across harding park as it exists currently. so our site design here is a pretty simple and comprised of radio equipment and it is located in the exclusive area of the basement of the building and nine antennas on three exterior walls of the inner elevator penthouse and two small gps antennas on the roof top. >> your time is up. >> i am sorry, i thought that i had more time.

>> i think that we have got the sufficient. if the commissioners have any further questions, they can call upon you. very well. >> thank you. >> opening up for public comment it looks like there are a couple of cards here. ernest vic. and ury destinic. vladimar desk and eric fina and katherine ventamen. >> commissioners thank you. and so just a little bit of a background i am a radio engineer and my parents leave in 350 (inaudible) drive and my 4-year-old son spent a lot of time with them on a daily basis and so will the new child that will come in november. >> sir, if you could either use the mic. >> sure. >> so the first thing that i want to draw attention to is that the residents were misled

as for the location of the public meeting this was either unintentional or deliberate i am not sure. only four people showed up. 60 people, signed the petition and so i know that there is huge interest in it and more people would have arrived if they would have known the exact address. >> and also, the hearing was held during the time that the students were out of school. on i believe it was june 26th. and 30 to 50 percent of the tenants in the buildings are students. and so they were definitely not represented at this hearing. our opinion is that the proposal by verizon is irresponsible and reckless, the reason for selling these are incorrect and need to be confirmed by an impartial testing authority. and they claimed that installing these are gaps of the coverage in the area and based on the root metrics.com and open signal.com, the area currently get in the best coverage in san francisco. and look it up on-line and on

google. so the motivations are unclear, the independent third party has consistently done work for verizon in the park, freemont, berkeley, santa barbara and mirin county and we say that they are not a third party they are a bias for securing more business with them and have a conflict of interest. the exposure limits that verizon limits are obsolete. if you take a look at analogy of a microwave you are going to get measurements and you cannot relate those to an understanding. a oven is 100 watts approximately on average in the kitchen and it is shielded and it cooks the food faster than a conventional, the facility is 3,000 watts. of very directional and very

intense, microwave radiation. and the fcc limit is 566 mili watts per square inch. that is equivalent, on the same level of the ground level of 25 ovens and you have in the documents stated as the 0.0012 mili watts at ground level, well, that is per square centimeter, the human body is 20,000, that is 24 watts hitting the human body and the equivalent of a microwave on defrost and you just open it up and put in your hands and that is on defrost. we have a problem. >> is my time up? >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please?

>> good afternoon, i live at (inaudible) and in my bedroom 70 yards... (inaudible) what i know about it. (inaudible) the building was closed down may 12, 2006 and 100 people were created of the 7th worker in this years was diagnosed with brain tumor. but, the company like verizon issued or insisted that the building was not a cluster, and five epidemics who work on the top floor and have suffered brain tumors since 1999. six of seven have worked in proximity straight for more than a decade.

two of them cause is malignant and of course it was denied by the company and denied by the standard procedure of real estate and for example, it is known that it will deny this work and in for the kids and after the commission had been pulling beyond a shadow of a doubt. it took the scientists to support their position and to state that of this cell phone company (inaudible) the health and safety standards, and the radiation is not strong enough to heat the brain. but they said it in other pages of this site, the standard is out dated and it is dated by the matter of studies and so far, the issues and they will

damage itself. (inaudible) and it will be scientific to state that considering the repeat of the connection, and with the brain tumors and considering that it the radiation is strong enough to damage the dna in the people in the upper floors and it may have caused tumors and the principle is designed for just this kind of situation. it is stated that when a situation dictates it and it may be harmful and supported they supported it and to the suspicious interest and it should be stopped until it has been established. but there is not, no casual connection and they do it in... (inaudible) >> one sentence, (inaudible)

science and technology and finds that it is responsible but... >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> thank you. >> next speaker please? >> my name is eric finny and i live at (inaudible) drive. and i only found out about this project several days after the notice of the neighborhood meeting and i never received a letter in the mail. and i would have attended that meeting if i had known that it was schedule. i would like to point out some information about the fcc's current guidelines that are based on policies that were established in 1996. and right now, the fcc has as

of march 27th, 2013, the fcc voted to advance the review of its various rules pertaining to the implementation of the national, environmental act related to frequencies from the radio transmitters. >> my understanding right now is that the fcc is working towards the goal of determining whether the fcc, or the fcc should develop whether they should maintain current rules, or if they should tighten the policies. or relax them? so it is up in the air right now and a lot has changed since 1996 and the technology and the information and that we have, and the citizens have and sciences and experts have. there is a big question about the health hazards and the risk to humans especially when you put a large array like this on

top of a residential building that has about 140 apartments in it with infants and small kids and pregnant women and three to 400 people during the school year and during the fall and spring semesters. and i thought that it was interesting to note that one of the previous speakers mr. peter hillard, on llc who provided 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 the argument 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 this item? >> okay, being none, public comment is closed. 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. >> commissioners that will place you under item 18, for 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