neighborhood community groups, which also adds to i think the associate vitality of the neighborhood. and so, for obvious reasons i am speak ng favor today, thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, could you hear me? >> my name is niekol jackson and i am a partner with the catering and events and i am a former employee of the patio cafe and i worked there from 1986 to 1990. and my experience there i was in high school at the time informed my career path i still have you know strong friendships that i developed during my time there and i am here to support the reopening of the patio cafe and it has been profound on my life and also the community that i grew up in and i am a native san franciscan and i grew up in the castro and i really think that it will benefit the community at large, thank you. >> thank you.

>> mr. johnson, alen beach. >> hi my name is dejohnson, resident and on calling wood street and i got the personal letter in regards to this project, and i thought that i would take the time to come down and at least show some support. because for the community, and in the castro we have seen a lot of closed restaurants and a lot of closed storefronts, especially in the last year. and as finding out through this letter and learnings and a little bit of the story it is really a shame of how much revenue the city has lost through just the red tape that this project has had to go through. not that it is intentional, but sometimes we can't get passed ourselves to really look at how we can expediate things and

what that means to the community and not only the revenue but what it will do to the remainer of the street and i thought that we will come and show the support and hopefully you will approve. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is allen beach net son and i am the president of the valley association and i have spoken with them a lot of times and castro neighborhood association is the oldest continuously operating neighborhood association in san francisco. and it was founded in 1878 and over 100 35 years we have been looking to make the neighborhood a place to live work and place and today one of the biggest focuses is on creating a strong balance between businesses and residential concerns. and so when les came and spoke to us, the big concerns that we had about the space was notice

containment, further containment, and if this should be in the entertainment that it be appropriate to the space. and adhere to the noise containment issues. we talked to les about it and we feel very strongly that this would be a wonderful addition back to the neighborhood. we believe that it is returned to the castro after a long time. we will return this historic 50-year-old icon back to the neighborhood and also, my mom will be really happy, she loves that place when we moved here, she is 83 years old and she can't wait for it to open on sunday. >> so we are very happy that les is a wonderful supporter of the neighborhood and very engaged and this is a type of business that we should want to have open in the neighborhood, a side note, the castro ntd has a currently a 6 percent vacantcy rate. if this space opens up again it will lower our vacantcy rate to

4 percent which has a significant impact on the neighborhood and the vibrantcy of the neighborhood and you can read these statistics in the next newsletter, thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> i have a question for you, during 813 which will show the current configuration of the restaurant ready for opening still indicates four tables outdoors. and i understand that there might be a carry over from the previous life as a patio restaurant but there are apparently, and there are four tables,; is that correct?? >> at the bottom right-hand corner of the diagram is that what you are looking at? >> it is... >> yes. >> so they are actually just on the far top right corner.

>> got you. >> you see? >> i see that right now. >> if those exhibit and i am not quite sure why because they would add very long for asserting them they will fall under the same restrictions of the roof closing at night and i would like that to be properly expressed at this moment i do not see on this and i have not properly looked at the roof closure and it is expressed in the motion. >> it is. >> yes. >> thank you. >> the property and it looked, and i am generally in support of this. the letters that we have received makes me feel that the neighborhood has a larger collective entity who wants this project and so i am in support. >> commissioner syracuse? commissioner sugaya? >> i need to clarify that. i don't see the closing times for the roof here. >> it is on in the draft motion, number 1 7 the very last page and the condition

number 1 1. hours of operation? in the seating area of the restaurant shall be closed by 9 p.m., seven days a week >> how is that different than the conditions that are on page 7? >> or is the observation? >> i guess that is not a condition, right? >> no, it is not. the real condition is through this and on the very last page. >> okay. >> okay. >> and for clarification, does the roof cover the entire dining area? >> that is a good point commissioner sugaya, it does not, it is actually a smaller area, so when it is opened, the entire patio area is not open to the sky it is only a portion

of that. >> and to clarify commissioner moore's point that there is a rectangle that is lowered up and that will be or that is under the roof and it is closed. >> and how could that be? >> commissioner sugaya? >> the roof does not go over here. >> yes. you are correct and when the retractable roof is closed that is still open to the air but we are comfortable with the hours of operation limited to 9:00 p.m. if that makes you comfortable. >> that would make me more comfortable. okay. >> and so if the maker of the motion will accept the amendment to include the

outdoor dining area to be restricted to 9:00 p.m. >> i will make a motion to approve with the conditions as stated and with the additional condition that the outdoor seating area also be limited to 9:00 p.m. closing. >> second. >> and commissioner antonini? >> yes. >> and acceptable to the project's sponsor? >> yes. >> okay, thank you. >> and i am very supportive of this project and actually very nicely renovated situation. and we should be encouraging them when people take the properties and improve them lately, it is always a benefit for the city and all of the things that have been doing with the accessible bathrooms and the elevator and the seismic and the electrical. and i know that there are retail spaces that have been eliminated and it is problem

and the only time that it works and it is only marginal when you are going to the garage and there is a stream of people that are coming through and it is always tough, that has not been an issue any way and it creates 30 new jobs and has widespread support of the neighborhood groups and so, i'm supportive of it. >> commissioner borden? >> i know this is going to pass but i cannot support this applicant. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like you to confirm with the zone administrator, which areas we are talking about at 9:00, it is a little bit ambiguous. this is a motion and a second

to approve with conditions and adding a condition that the outdoor seating area hours of operation be restricted to 9:00 p.m. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> no. >> hillis? >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> sugaya. >> aye. >> wu. >> aye. >> fong. >> aye. >> six to one, with commissioner borden voting against. >> commissioners it will place you on item 17 for case number 2013.0659 c. 531 castro street - on the east side of castro street between 18th and 19th streets; lot 093 in assessor's block 3583 request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 179, 186.1 and 303, to allow the patio restaurant and café, a nonconforming use, for the expansion into three vacant retail spaces within the same building the restaurant is located, in the castro street neighborhood commercial district and a 40-x height and bulk district >> please silence any devices that may go off during these proceedings, thank you very much. >> my name is omar and the

request for a conditional use authorization for a macro garage facility. and the project site is located in the block of the park merced residential neighborhood and it features two identical apartment towers and it is part of the master plan development in the park in the lake shore neighborhood and otherwise tell me that the project site and the neighborhood apartment building. and but the proposal will place the maximum of... the top of

each antenna will be flush with the top of the wall with 143 feet above grade. the project type as is located in the park merced and subject to the design guidelines and determined to be compliant and i would note that the featured tenants that are flush to the walls to paint to match the building color with a cable tray running below to hide the electronic cabling associated with the panel antennas. the location preferences in the guidelines do not specifically refer to the pmr zoning as this site is zoned however based on the location and the type of development, the high-rise residential structure, this development is considered according to a development in the arm four zoning district or the high density mix and therefore it is considered to be a location 6 site or a

limited preference site. holding a meet at the university and the staff received some concerns from the residents regarding the location of that meeting however i had a chance to enter face with the management at san francisco state and they affirmed that they were able to direct the folks to the right room by placing the noticing and having two staff members outside of the roof to direct the people to the right conference room and in addition i received a petition from 160 residents and also phone calls and e-mails regarding their opposition of the project based on the health concerns which are regulated by the fcc, and the project has been approved by the department of public health with regard to the rf studies provided by the applicant and in the alternative site analysis was provided and that was not able to identify the feasible locations for the alternative site including the publicly

held spaces regarding parts of the west and san francisco state university. the project as designed does comply with the guidelines and therefore the staff recommends approval. >> thank you. >> project sponsor? >> good afternoon commissioners, staff, my name is peter hillard of llc representing verizon wireless and thank you for the opening presentation and he did touch on a couple of things that i will also touch on, but we will start with to give you a little bit of background of the site. and in the fall of 2010, verizon wireless began a search to address the call failure and to support the sites in the area and by adding a facility

in the mark merced and off load the neighboring sites at 100 armory drive which is on the west shore of lake merced at 599 buckingham way which is just in stones town, chopping mall and then at 552 mecero drive and which is actually in the park itself and on the south east side and with the expected growth of the san francisco state university campus, and the final build out of the new park merced division to 8900 units, this location on tower 40 is ideal for our service design and fits in the network quite readily. as omar mentioned in the service area here we have the

park merced tower being zoned tm, although, we are going to address it as if pursuant to the wts facility site and guidelines as if it was still an rm four building. and we did take a look initially at the san francisco state university buildings specifically with the psychology building and the student services building and thorton hall and by the facilities director we were steered towards the psychology hall because they were, their department would rather see a 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)