trips but given that tncs were already existing for passenger loading analysis we did assume that all other trips that were not automobile, walking or transit trips were tnc trips and we were conservatively accounting for those trips. >> so you added more trips than you needed? >> that's right. >> thank you. i'm prepared to support. >> is that a motion? >> yes. >> second. >> shall we call the question, commissioners. very good, commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to uphold the preliminary mitigated. [roll call] so moved that motion passes unanimously 5-0. i will remind you that in addition to

considering the project the in-kind agreement regardless of whether or not it gets approved or otherwise needs to be continued. and we would propose december 12. >> i'll accept the motion for the in-kind agreement going to december 12. >> we can handle that with other -- you don't have to take that up separately. we can combine that with the project. >> there's no other speakers here. i just wanted to be sure to what pushed me over the edge on this one was the prioritizing of the spanish emerging childcare. i witnessed two speakers up here with translators speaking as employees in favor of this project. i also heard some of the opposition saying that this group was displaced. so that kind of put me over the edge on this

one. >> commissioner fung. >> starting perhaps with the things that are in my mind a little easier, there were a few points brought up regarding the design, regarding conforming to codes and i didn't see anything in there in looking at that reflects a challenge to the overall project. in terms of how this project responds to planning in terms of articulation, things like that, i think the project as constituted does quite well. it's quite responsible to those tenants of the planning. the big issue

of course, is what everybody is asking for is that this be 100 percent affordable. and i'm assuming that what most people want is the level of affordability that is most difficult to provide in our city. i understand that it's a very real concern the issue of gentrification is also very real. it's happened in other sectors neighborhoods of our city. for me, the decision, however is not whether i would for this project be 100 percent affordable. the two options are, one to reject it and therefore have nothing or to have a project that whether you accept it or not is 41 percent

two and three bedroom units and 25 percent affordable, of course we run into the range of affordability. i choose to accept what i think is a fairly significant contribution to bmr units of 25 percent, given the situation on other projects that we've seen and the fact that i think it's a fairly well-designed project. and i will throw in as compared to what i saw as i planned for balboa reservoir. >> commissioner moore. >> the size is well-suited for high density housing. i think the community still is going through a learning experience

exactly how to accept high-density housing and how to swing it together, because the plan that is outlined is an idea, still requires further development and community buy-in. that said, this particular project i think still lacks a certain site sensitivity. and i think it falls short of some of the promises that 1915 cayuga project developed. the thing i'm more concerned about is that the quality of units provides too many nested bedrooms and multi-bedroom units. and i find that detracting from what livability should deliver for the site. the project makes compromises based on home sf that i find questionable when i look at the second floor where units 207 and 208 come in at an angle. i think

there's an exposure issue that under normal code provision wouldn't even be possible, because there is a jamming of units where there's hardly any privacy. i believe that in this project has my support, it will need to do a little more tweaking on unit quality and exposure. i believe that's the percentage of nested bedrooms is too high. and then that becomes a question of proportionality. are you seeing that where there are two units sitting on top of each other. i have cautioned that the diagram about where the childcare facility is is not fully thought through, jamming two units on to the edges on the backside of the childcare facility, i think it's quite detrimental because for my expectation a childcare preschool facility should

have light and air on all four sides that this particular facility will not have. in addition to that, there are two ground floor units between which the facility is jammed into where the units are being accessed over a common open space which is very uncomfortable for people to use as unit entries. those are minor tweaks that could be addressed if the architect would spend a little more time on looking at doing the quality. on the other hand, i think contrary to what commissioner fung said the size of the unit is very massive. its color and material differentiation is not varied enough to make the building overall look for like multiple pieces. it looks too

solid from my perspective. those are architectural comments. but in the end what i'm concerned about is unit quality and livability which i think this project does not fully address. >> commissioner richards. >> so i guess question. the gentleman from poe day charlie -- poder charlie is he here in the audience? overflow room? i had a question for him. one of the -- what kept getting brought up over and over and over was people in the neighborhood can't afford -- i see him coming through the window. is that him? no? oh, it is. okay. i have a

question for you. so when we talked yesterday probably a little longer than i needed too i was late for my medical appointment, we stood at the site for like an hour and a half i think we talked about the neighborhood ami and we went over numbers median numbers. do you have any information on -- more information on what the stratification of those numbers are? because we had a lot of claims here today around nine of the 48 units to be afforded by the family of four that makes the $76,000 which puts you into that 60 percent ami which gives you the nine family-sized units. i was looking for stratification on what the units are. because the neighborhood is big. do you have that data? >> i don't have the neighborhood ami data available but

that's data we could easily look up. what's clear is that the neighborhood amis are significantly lower than other parts of the city. we know that we have a household -- a family amis that are in the low 70s. we know that we have individual amis in the 30s. and given that, the majority of the units in this particular development will be far out of reach for those amis that are in the local neighborhood. >> one of the questions i had was in my neighborhood, there's a lot of doubling up, a person x works for somebody and maybe they're in a profession that only pays 40 or 50, person y is in the same kind of spot, but together they are able to each get one bedroom in a two bedroom place. i'm looking at kind of how many more people

in the neighborhood could actually afford some of these units rather than just at the average. that's the a question that i have. and i really do believe i second commissioner johnson, i believe commissioner moore and commissioner koppel said it, we really need to take a look at neighborhood amis and how we can incent projects to more closely stratify the neighborhood amis. it's going to require a subsidy. i get it it costs money to make those units affordable. but i really wish i could understand that more because i laid in bed last night thinking about this, doubling up, how many people can do this, what's the impact of this project going to be. and that was one of the issues that i had. >> you had mentioned that information would be in the project application 900--page document, which we looked through and did not find that level

of detail. >> it was on the -- i believe where i saw it was on the beginning of the drawing pages that described the project. three percent was going to be 60 to whatever. i can glance at that. i met with the sponsor just before i came out there so it was fresh in my head that it was presented. the stratification of the 25 percent is very clear. we could go over what that is but i wanted to try to key it into where the neighborhood was in terms of its distribution of income. since we are only talking about averages. like can other people in the neighborhood still afford more than just nine units if they doubled up or whatever. so that was my issue. and i think -- and i talked to the supervisor this morning supervisor safai, i said supervisor safai, we really need to look at this neighborhood ami stuff. i remember when calvin

welch, i don't know if cory smith, we were here until 12 something on that density bonus program and mr. welch brought up they were building these buildings for people that can't afford to live in them. and i was like what do i mean. and i looked this up on the federal reserve county by county analysis. there are neighborhoods where nobody in the neighborhood is going to be able to afford it like we had last week when the china bay people came out. okay. thank you. >> i would only add that even without that data, when the project sponsor came to the committee action team meeting and presented the 45 below market rate units, there was a lot of conversation about are those below market rate units actually affordable to the communities that live in this neighborhood. and that's where the conclusion came that it's really only nine of those below market rate units. >> it's the average. >> that are family sized and at amis

that are affordable. >> to the average. right. okay. thanks. you know, i think doubling down on that neighborhood ami point, i know we had a fight about the neighborhood preference legislation, do we even do it, at what point do we draw the line, we came up with 40 percent that worked for hud. there was a lot of resistance probably within this building and other organizations but i really think we need to take a look at that and determine if we need to fund additional neighborhood ami units we need to have a funding source perhaps we can come up with that through some other means but i really want to do that and the supervisor said he was committed to taking a look at that. i also believe as commissioner johnson she stole a lot of my thunder we do need to codify a plan for the neighborhood. this is kind of like the mission 2012 2010. there's a lot more coming. you look at mission street, and outer

mission street, 65 height limit and then i looked at the number of single family hopes and you have the three bills that passed on adu the triple number of units on any lot, i think we need to look at all this in the context of where we are today and the number of potential additional units that are going to be coming into the neighborhood, because they are coming. they are going to come. people are getting squeezed out of neighborhoods to the north are continually moving to the south. and you are now kind of at that water's edge. the other thing is there's a couple of 100 percent affordable projects, those are great projects. this is the 25 percent. i kind of did the calculation. when you take those projects into consideration with this one you kind of get an average affordability percent around 65 to 70, which is

not bad. that digs us out of the hole in terms of what we need to produce in terms of below market rate unit. because for every market rate unit we need 30 percent of an affordable unit. so i look at these in context to the neighborhood. so that was another issue that i did. on the community strategy, i mean, i actually pulled it out on my file. when it came before us i remember it was neighborhood commercial supposed to be focused but the housing section, it was like almost district-wide, so i really think that housing plan for the entire neighborhood is needed. another question i had and i know this project as we were standing in front of the sign and they said this is being rushed through, and i said

to the community let's look at the first four digits of the planning code application, the planning application number, sorry. it was 2016. so it's been in the pipeline for quite some time. but we just went through racial equity program and a class this commission did. and i started to think how does this project work if we had to put it through that lens and one of the things we came up with in that class is we would like for projects in the future to have that lens applied somehow however it is, so we can get extensive is it causing harm, is it bringing things more equity to people that have not had equity? and that was a question i had here. a couple of other things. and again commissioner johnson read my mind. i told this to the folks in the neighborhood, we are getting

a better deal with this project than any other alternative that is out there. so i said to the community, we are getting a little, but we are getting a lot more than we could if we used the state density bonus program where we are giving more away and getting less in return. and i talked to the community about if we have true displacement issues we need to start having conversations at the state level around forming hawkins meeting with senator assemblymembers, our representatives on ways to limit displacement while also increasing housing supply. so they said they wanted to start that conversation too, which is good. so i think state bills we need to look at how we can actually keep communities stable. i think what we brought in this past legislative session, fell

short. i do have concerns about the unit quality and unit exposure like commissioner moore. i did ask the materials palette be brought today. can you show us? i was expecting one of those boards with the actual tile on it. can we see and feel the materials?. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm the architect. yes, i have a materials board printout that i can share with you. the materials palette is a relatively straightforward humble palette in my opinion something we've been working with a lot. cement fiber panels, lab siding. thank -- lap siding.

i can point to some of the different areas where the materials occur. this is the ocean avenue elevation. should i turn it? >> i just want to be sure that no matter where we build a building in a community the community deserves the best and highest of quality finishes. so if you can speak to that, i would really appreciate it. i've seen some buildings, i walked around the neighborhood yesterday i went and grabbed a drink and i went into the good will store and walked around and got a sense of what was there. and i mean, some of the stuff that was built has not aged well. it really looks -- i think the neighborhood deserves better. so if you can tell us what the palette is and the quality of it, to commissioner moore's point, that would be great. >> the palette is materials that you

find in the neighborhood. they are modern materials. the fiber cement panel is a big part of the project. that makes up the taller element that you see in the foreground here is a lap siding, painted. we like the material because it's long-lasting, very durable and we've been using it with great success on recent projects where it's easy to clean and it has a texture to it because of the lap siding creates a shadow effect rather than monolithic materials so this breaks up the scale of the building a little bit. further as you see the horizontal portion of the building, we start to integrate different materials to both tie the building together, it is one building, and we want to recognize that but we also want to break up the scale. so within there, we have what are called bakelite panels.

these are panels that are very high quality. you can see there's not much to see from here but i can hand it around. >> thanks. >> but this is very high quality material. it was actually started from originally it was for printed circuit boards, which have a very, they are nonconductive obviously and it turned out to be a great substraight for the material they put on it. i used this on a project that i think also is working well. it's a new material but it seems to be holding up well and we like them because they are easy to clean and resistant to damage. and then we have an accent that's kind of a -- this is a chip that goes on the fiber cement. on the panel. so i can pass this around too. this is a wood grain

texture that adds a little bit of warmth and also breaks up the building into kind of a smaller portions and adds a little variety to the facade. it's kind of interplayed with the window arrangement if you can see that on the rendering. i don't know if we can pull up the computer. great. so you can see that with the windows you'll see some of the wood grain texture. so this is an idea of taking a bigger building and breaking it up into components and breaking it up further and using language, we have these forms that continue to break it up and break it up. and you see that further even on the behind walls that we are providing which will be also fiber cement boards that are painted. those walls might be covered up in the future, obviously we are not building on the corner lot. but it's notable that our project is integrated with what we imagine will be the future rear yard of the adjacent property.

but nonetheless we are taking our long line walls and accenting them as well to integrate with the vocabulary of the design. >> great. that's great. thank you. >> i have more materials too. there's some natural wood that's going to go in the courtyard. these are samples of the lap siding. you are welcome to pass these around. there's some metal screening that will also be. >> great. okay. thank you. we talked with a couple members of the community yesterday, and we did different various paths on what could happen if this project got approved today or didn't get approved today. do you recall that? and i know there were real issues, you know, this neighborhood is now kind of the next mission if i have to say that. so

this is not that project, you know. i have to tell you this is not that project i'm going to fall on the sword on. i think we we can have much worse projects like i said. when i make the motion to approve the project, i'm going to ask the commission since we are in the stages of this neighborhood being gentrified, i think he mentioned a study done by the university of minnesota that we include in the conditions because we now have a project like this that we make a good-faith effort to measure the impacts of the project on rents. and i'm saying good faith effort. the university of minnesota report. the project sponsor doesn't have to do anything on that. it's just for us to do. and i would like to do that. and that's my motion.

>> second. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner koppel, i want to put for the record that 1515 south is a fully approved project it just has not been built. so it is not because this commission did not support it, to the contrary, it is awe fully-approved project. the fact there are many other projects standing around where you have empty sites many are approved, just not built. i just want to make sure that that is clear. >> commissioner richards. >> i want the community to know i made that motion because i wanted to get that study done, if i didn't make the motion i may not have gotten that agreed to, so i'm trying to get something so the neighborhood can understand the impact of these projects coming into their neighborhood. >> there's nothing further commissioners

there's a motion that has been seconded to approve the home sf project authorization and then continue the in-kind agreement to december 12 and directing to make a good-faith effort one year three years whatever, after the project is built to see what the impacts on rent are as the university of minnesota paper. >> very good. on that motion. [roll call]. >> so moved, that motion passes 4-1 with commissioner moore voting against. >> we will now be taking a 15-minute break. >> before we do, for the benefit of the public if anyone is here for items

>> please silent term mobile devices. when speaking before the commission, if you care to, please state your name. we are under your 3:00 o'clock calendar. item five was pulled off and we will take of the matter now. 2412 clay street. conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon commissioners. planning department staff. we need to take care of one of our, i just want to make an announcement on at&t items in the past i had to recuse myself because of the shares that i hold in the company. it rose to the level of it was significant. i sold most of those shares so i don't have that restriction anymore. i need to file a revision.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. david, planning department separated is a request for conditional use authorization to install a new at&t macro wireless tele- commission -- telecommunication facility at 2412 clay street at&t wireless facility consisting of ten panel antennas screen behind enclosures. installation of 20 remote radio heads, surgeon suppressors, one gps antenna and ancillary equipment on the rooftop of the existing subject building. the project sponsor held a pre- application meeting at the calvary presbyterian church at 2515 at fillmore street on april 30 at 6:00 p.m. board community members attended to did not remain for the formal presentation. topic of discussions including the massing of the antennas noise concerns, site selection, technology rf exposure and

levels and permitting requirements. since the publishing of the staff report, the department has received 57 e-mails in opposition to the request as well as petition with the name of 60 individuals. the opposition correspondence generally focuses on potential health impacts from the proposed facility as well as the effects of the design on the nearby historic district and effects on nearby property values. in order for the project to proceed the commission must grant a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 209.2 and 303 to allow operations for the wireless telecommunications facility within the rm one a zoning district. the department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the wireless telecommunication service facility siting guidelines and the objectives and policies of the general plan. this proposed facility would be screened from view by proposed

enclosures and the replacement on the rooftop of the project site. the proposal would not significantly detract from the views of the subject building or from views of other surrounding buildings and nor would it from the adjacent streetscapes. the project exhibits overall design that is compatible with character and stability of the neighborhood and would constitute a beneficial use and service. staff recommends approval of the conditional use authorization. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions you may have. thank you. >> project sponsor? >> good afternoon chair, and commissioners. i represent at&t. i want to thank david for his work on this project. at&t hasn't reviewed the staff report and we agree with the conditions of approval. at&t cemented this application in august one, 2018.

the application was finally deemed complete august 2019. the current design has been substantially reduced from the original application design. i worked with david to do that. the original design was 11 reduced down to ten. original height of the frp was 52, we reduce that at&t has a surface area coverage gap that is shown in the provided coverage map. the cell site will operate in compliance with the fcc emissions regulation. i'm happy to answer any questions that you are may have. >> thank you. >> i do have quite a number of speaker cards. we are going to limit each

speaker to two minutes. i'm going to call all of these names right now. please align up on the screen side of the room you're right, my left. come on up. >> hi.

my name is brett and i live half a block from the project and the webster street historic district. i'm here on behalf of over 100 neighbors who are vm opposed to this project. we are stewards of the community and it is our job to protect the historical integrity of the webster street historical district. with the permit application doesn't show is this is one of the most well preserved row of victorians in the city built by henry hinkle in the 1800s. every single house on here is a single-family home that is a really great condition. the project site is it directly adjacent to these properties. they are proposing to exceed the height limit which is currently 40 feet by 8 feet up to 48. these giant cylinders would be visible from our historic district side on webster street right here. as well as a trapezoidal object. also they would block it light

and air from the neighboring property as well as block views from 2121 webster, the new condominium across the street. i also wanted to say that the required notification process was not followed i have an e-mail confirming this. one of the tenants is a subject building paid her address was not included on the radius listing. at the minimum distance to go back notifications. based on how it would negatively impact our neighborhood, we kindly request that this project is rejected. we do not need this in the historic landmark neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am bill k hand. you guys have a lot of patients on i've been here for three hours. thank you for hanging out. i live at 2446 washington street with my wife, and my 8-year-old son.

i am here today for the same reason for the 5g tower. i a cancer survivor. i have non-hodgkin's lymphoma stage two. thank only i am in remission. i want to keep it that way. all of the reports i have read are extremely alarming with regards to the amount of radiofrequency. we have a lot of young kids in our neighborhood that are under the age of ten. you have the medical center which is the cancer center that i go to on a quarterly basis. i have three recommendations that i hope you will consider. the first is that you only notify people within a 300-foot radius of the towers. considering that is based on metrics and old technology and that the new metrics would be 200 times greater. i would like to extend that

reach up to 6,000 feet instead of 300 feet which is 200 times that. the second thing i don't believe in independent environmental impact report has been done. i've called the department and i've got no research from them. i called at&t several times and i got no research from them. we have read many reports that indicate this is highly carcinogenic. i am very concerned about this. my recommendation is that we withhold to put -- suspend this permit for a six month process to let other people engage and learn more about what their health is going to be impacted by. and at that point because we can reconvene once we have an independent environmental impact report based on what we actually know is fair and true. we can look at other key stations. >> thank you. >> my name is michael chang.

i'm a homeowner at 245 washington. adjacent to the property not more than about 150 feet away. it is the back of my property. i live there with my wife, aunt three young children. the two reasons that i am very concerned about this. one is the aesthetics of the towers. exceeding the 40-foot height limit in the webster street historic district going up to 48. also very concerned about the health implications. i am trained as an electrical engineer. understanding that going from 4g up to 5g, is actually an increase going from microwave radiation going from 30-300 gigahertz which is well in the microwave radiation range. i think there is euphemism by calling it millimeter radiation.

and not really speaking the truth to what the implications of that radiation can be. and then to reiterate what bill mentioned was the amount of power. a normal micro cell tower would admit 100-200 watts of radiation. the four towers that are pointed basically right in my backyard would be be a meeting about 15,000 watts of radiation, 24 hours a day. that is very alarming. not understanding the definitive health implications for my children. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello. my name is kathy. thank you so much for letting us speak our minds about what we are worried about. i live at 2461 washington street and about 150 feet from the proposed site. my family has lived there since 1980.

six years ago i nursed my father through his death from pancreatic cancer. one year ago i nursed my mother through her death through breast cancer. obviously i am very concerned about cancer for my family, and especially for my young children who are ages four and six. i am also a scientist. and specifically a. i know through studying history that history is littered with these things where a scientific discoveries from a blessing to a curse. i mean, there are stories of madame carrying reading books to her kids with glowing lights on her piece of radium that she kept in her pocket and now you cannot visit her grave site because bones are radioactive. it is not hysterical to be a little bit concerned about new technology.

there are a lot of legitimate scientist who are concerned by this. i know that you guys are constrained by the health and human services. there is also nonmedical reasons. outside of the historic district, it is 48 feet tall, what is supposed to be 40 feet tall or shorter. it would interfere with views and also the report says that anyone within 51 feet of the antenna will experience great bodily injury. i am about 150-200 feet to my balcony. i don't know, would you feel safe being three times the distance of great bodily injury? i wouldn't. anyway. please you have several violations by people who propose this dangerous idea. >> thank you. your time has run out. thank you. next speaker, please.

>> i live at 2409 washington street, exactly behind the antenna. i strongly oppose this. if there is to be little to impact to our health. the report say that anyone within 61 feet of the antenna will experience great bodily injury. i think my house is in that range. i have a small child, 3-year-old boy. plus i have a brain tumor in 2016. i am okay now, but i need to be under treatment for the next ten years. please reject for my health for my son, for my husband for all of my neighbors health. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hello. my name is cara. although my neighbor smoked and drank, i have twice endured cancer. the project in my neighborhood i live at 2452 washington street is extremely worrisome. i live there with my son his wife, two children, two grandchildren and i feel that the fact that we were not notified to the building the proposed building of this colossal project shows the fact that the builders snuck the project in not notifying people like myself further worries me. i worked for many years as a dentist. if you took an x-ray of a person , you had to cover them

with a lead sheets, and you had to stand behind a wall that had led built into it. could we not consider that kind of safety measure for people in our neighborhood. without it i'm very worried for myself in the future. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello. my name is amy morgan. i am at 2440 washington street. today i walked my daughters to school. we stopped at the corner of western and washington. my 7-year-old who is currently doing it neighborhood project said oh come on, we you take my picture right? ". it was designated in 1991 as a historic place. what i saw was this?

in my mind. that's an exaggeration obviously. but what i heard at the same time was this i am familiar with this because three years ago at&t put this outside my other daughters bedroom where we had to move from that because it was 8 feet from her bed. and that was just one antenna giving watts of 215. this is over 43,000. this is a historical site and we have an integrity as a country as a group at his as a city to reject it. would we let this happen? we would never have an adjacent -- we would never let this happen. this would never happen because this is part of our history. mark twain once said, america is new orleans, new york and san

francisco. the rest is cleveland. [laughter] why are we making this cleveland >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is rupert mcconnell. i live at 2446 clay street. i'm very nervous about finding out some of the stuff now. i am on the third and fourth floors. my wife and i sleep on the fourth floor and it is very close to this antenna. my roof garden looks out onto this guys building. he's been doing construction for years. i'm definitely concerned about how close we are. in terms of what is going on whether it is the cancer center that has been developed across the street. there is also a large group across the street. there is to pediatrician groups. my sister-in-law is over there. she does not want it. my wife is a doctor, as well.

we don't know the long-term effects. let's be honest. everyone thought of aping was a better than smoking. it turns out now maybe it's even more dangerous. i know that is not your job here. it is something to seriously consider. my neighbor next door, he gave me a chance to read his and michael read a little bit. he is not able to be here. our houses were built in 1903. they are very old houses. he will not be able to attend the hearing on thursday. i live 65 feet west of 2412 clay street. there is one other unit in the building a total of 12 people will be affected by tenants blacked -- blasting radiation. the two buildings immediately east of my building have six people including two children who will be affected. in addition there will be constant day and night. there's no shielding. the facility will affect the market value of my property adversely. the project will impact the webster street historic district as well.

my main concern is a long-term effects on the high level radiation and the lack of any shielding for myself of the residence in my building. many people are walking and riding down clay street. [reading notes] >> thank you sir. your time is up. >> i am diana ward, i live at 2432 washington street for the past 37 years with my husband who raised his son there. my husband has been at kaiser almost the same amount of time as the head and neck cancer surgeon. he is in complete shock over this. he has read as much literature as he can. he could not be here today. he was one of the first cancer surgeons who worked with aids patients in the 80s at kaiser.

this feels like déjà vu that we are entering another episode where we don't know what we are dealing with. i urge you to reconsider and we go through more research before we start getting our city this way. i think it can only end in a lot of regret. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is margaret ash. i live in an adjacent adjacent neighborhood in laurel heights. they recently put up a 5g tower. right in front of our building. this is the flyer we got, this was verizon. it looks like it's not going to block our view. what they did not the view which is of the iconic synagogue.

i don't think that these companies are doing their due diligence. with the view obstruction, and also the overlay. here is my neighborhood. this is where my tower is. the radius that was given and the documentation of the exposure, how to work from home because my son is sick today. so i used crayons. i am an interior designer, but when you work from home you work with the materials you have. this is where the new proposed mega tower is going with at&t. here's the overlap. what is a science behind the exposure on i was also told there was another proposed smaller tower going up right here at steiner washington. how much does that later on with this exposure. if you're talking about at&t and you're talking about t-mobile.

i assume all of these companies that when you're thinking about the long term overlay. it's not just let's approve this one here. if this is a planning commission we should be looking at the big picture which is what i liked what commissioner moore said how the rooms are being utilized in the day care without the windows we have to look at the bigger picture in these things. it's not just an emotional cancer or whatever. these are big businesses. i get it. it's affecting a bigger picture. i think you should take that into consideration. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is lynn shuman i live at 20 to 51 jackson street and i've lived there for almost 40 years. we have really enjoyed this neighborhood and i am here to

object to the passing of this because i feel that the historic and beautiful fillmore street area will greatly be impacted. i feel that we need to have more time to study this. also of particular interest to me is the health issue. again this huge amount of radiation that will be coming out affects me. i have two twin granddaughters that are aged seven, and a granddaughter age three that are going to school in this area. by the way there are seven schools impacted within this district. as well as all of the young people that are wandering through this neighborhood a great deal of time. what i really wanted to say was i got information on this happening notice of this two days ago. i really would like to prepare more to find out to come and give i feel an environmental impact study would really be helpful. this 51-foot number is very

scary because when you look at it and you think after all you have heard today i don't think any of us would want to stand within a 51-foot distance of this and yet, is there any science that any of you or the health department knows of that can tell us what the safe distances. it is unknown. thank you very much for listening to me. >> thank you. >> hello. my name is terry mcguire. i live at 1981 california street. it's about a quarter of a mile from the proposed tower. i am here speaking for myself. i am the president of the pacific heights residents association which is this tower is basically in the center of

that area. i am speaking for myself. but i have had communications in the last week with most of my board members who have expressed basically the concerns that i am going express to you here right now. we are concerned about the noise issues and the health issues. i went to a meeting about eight days ago of the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods and it was the first time that this whole topic was ever raised at that meeting. many people were not aware, but i think there is a ground swell of concern that is starting to happen within the city of san francisco. my question is, what is the rush? i think most people would say we are more concerned about our

long-term health then being able to move from 4g up to 5g and have increased data speeds. it is not that important. what is going to happen if in the next year we have these towers all over the city. 90% of the population decides that they are more concerned about their long-term health then they are with a 5g speed? that is what i want you to think about. there is no rush to have these towers throughout the city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i live at 2418 washington street. i just want to remind you all that we have seen this movie before. years ago when a tower was proposed for the corner of washington and fillmore. all of the same arguments

obtain. independent research suggests that there is no safe level of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. such a massive installation should not be located in this kind of neighborhood with schools and medical facilities. you should remember that frequency refused to allow any antennas on the facility which is just across the street from his current location and i can't think that they would be happy about this. for such a proposal also flies in the face of the city's own historic district regulations. never mind the proposed site will be in the webster street historic district. the first historic district in san francisco. just a few doors down from home of bloomfield, may she rest in peace whose spirit had to be moved historic district in the first place. finally, is there any indication that the need for this insulation has been verified by

anyone, besides at&t. in the past, wireless carriers have claimed that they needed more sites because some customers would not have coverage. this was proved to be a lie in the meeting of the board of supervisors when the site fillmore in washington was appealed and finally disallowed. as it turns out these carriers were in my opinion still are in a race to set up as many sites as possible to use as chips and a wireless poker game irrespective of need. do the right thing. do not let this project go forward and save us the time and hassle of appealing your decision to the board of supervisors where it will surely die. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon commissioners. the last speaker he said there is no safe level of frequency exposure while literally reading

from his iphone. i've got bad news man, there is radiofrequency is coming out of your iphone. we are surrounded by radiofrequency, radiation. look this is exactly what we see with climate change. have you thought about it, what is the science. you only have questions you don't have answers. that is a great rhetorical strategy. it makes the fact is there is no danger. 5g is fine. this is completely ridiculous and everyone is freaking out. he should just approve it. thanks. >> anyone else from public wish to comment? seeing none. i, too, used to be very afraid of these devices. i'm an electrician and i spent a couple of years installing them. they take a decent bit of electricity and data work.

once i met with the manufacturers and learn how to install the stuff i really learned that it was designed and installed, and meant to be safe. i don't see any shortage of people lessening their cell phone uses. i'm going to let the other commissioners speak first and then i will ask of the project sponsor and engineer to come up and help us understand this commissioner fung? >> you know, i have not been sued by the telecom company. can you explain what this board can or cannot do with respect to restrictions on their usage? >> this use as proposed? on page three of the draft notion, near the bottom at the end of item six which is entitled past history and

actions. under section 704 before of the 1996 federal telecommunications act and the sponsor and past attorney can go on a bit more about this. it stated that local jurisdictions cannot deny wireless based on submissions. such as facilities comply with regulations. they do comply with the fcc's regulations. that is about the extent that i know of it. >> there's a couple of things that are not in the readings. one is you have indicated that planning staff has reviewed this based on the historical guidelines. that is one of the criteria. i see no summary of that analysis other than the fact that you indicated it in your brief. secondly