d.r. requester. all those in opposition to the project basically. if you are in opposition to the project, you can speak at this time in support of the d.r. requester. seeing none, project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. on behalf of the grass roots medical cannabis collective, grass roots has been in operation for five years and during this time they built a large and supportive and patient base and built excellent relationships and have indicated, however, that this location is often difficult to get to because of restrictions in parking in that neighborhood. because of the requests, grass roots began looking for a second location closer to downtown and would have good parking and be accessible by public transportation and this location was identified by upper grass roots management with the lease. and the lease expired and at the end of 2010 grass roots decided to make the commitment to expand to this location and this was based on the fact that this is a great transportation corridor and within a block is the cable car, the bart, muni

d.r. requesters. but if in fact the original decision is being honored, then i don't think i have any more to say about it. thank you. president olague: thank you. dd >> good afternoon. i'm the project architect. i would like to just respectfully disagree with the d.r. requesters. it was our understanding that there was only -- we thought it had been expressed at the hearing that the notch was only going to be eight or nine feet. so looking at the drawings -- that eight or nine feet is taking space of both the living space and the deck above and what was part of the original deck that was on the house that jeremy just expressed. but also realize that at the ground level of the adjacent neighbor, their building is actually -- is partially supported on a column. so their setback is much wider at the bottom level of the property. so they are getting light in a substantial area already. i'm repeating what jeremy has expressed. the notch -- the neighbor has a shrubbery tree along this property line for pri

d.r. requester. i amg generally in favor to thi particular m.c.d. because i think they do a better job than most of them. however, i am concerned about any negative effects that any m.c.d. may have and do you have any projections to when you might be beginning construction if you can get a loan and where you can get on the project? >> mr. singh is the owner of the project and unfortunately he is not here. i do know that we have recently gotten approval obviously through the city and when we are trying to get financing right now. our major concern is would this actually negate our affect our ability to get the financing. and beyond that i would have to get a better idea of how soon the project will be done. commissioner antonini: here is the thing. what i am going to say is i am not o supposed to a sport continuance but if we did have a continuance and if it was voted that way, i would like you to come back with a report to the financing and specifically with a bank source or other institutions that you might speak to and whether there is, in fact, a

d.r. requesters received that action memo and it was our understanding that it was to encompass this area highlighted in yellow as well. i have since met with the maker of the motion and clarified that it was indeed to include this yellow area that's highlighted here as well, which would be a setback for the whot depth of the addition -- whole department of the addition. this really concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions or comments. president olague: i'm sorry. i'd like to open it up for public comment at this time. >> madam president, let me just say one more thing. this is not a typical d.r. hearing. the project sponsor does not get five minutes. each speaker can have up to three minutes, depending on the rules that you've set. president olague: thank you, secretary avery, for clarifying that. >> thank you, president olague, jeremy paul for the project sponsor. after the public hearing we spoke to commissioner moore, who made that motion, and used this set of plans to get clarification of where this line should be. and the markings that were made on this were mad

request was filed. the commission did not take d.r. but instead approved the project. in addition to the procedures by the planning department, the department reviews the antennas. they are reviewing this for compliance with the fcc regulations. first, prior to installation, a report is record that shows that the rf levels as well as the cumulative levels in the neighborhood notice that this is inclusive of all rf commissions in the area including personal routers and smart meters. the ph will go out and insure that the projected levels are actually consistent there are periodic safety measurements. after installation, there are reading is required for this ongoing monitoring. the city has a very good understanding of the key lots of levels. and preparation, the staff took the measurements. the highest reading was next to an existing at&t and 10 up. even there, it was 0.2%. this is similar to the expected operation of the antenna location which has been expected at 0.28%. what do these numbers mean? rf is a highly steady topic. the who estimates that over 25,000 studie

requests for general him to move command. i will refrain. the requirement under the q d.r. for some 330 + planes includes 111 c-5's. 36 c5a's, 52 b's and c's, and what are the other 23? >> right now we are asking 32.7 tonne miles which is about 301 total big airplanes. c5a's.7's, 27 >> you'd be supportive of the 23 missing off of that list. there are parked some place and may never get off the ground again. we are maintaining airplanes in a commercial venue? >> what we were hoping for was the ability as a bring on additional c-17's that we could take the older and replcae them with the c5a's to get them new airplanes and extend the service life on the c-17. >> the operational tempo you are experiencing, none of us hope over the next five or six years, but each plant has a said useful life as a period of time. what is the current operational tempo having on -- but the fact is the current operational tempo having on this fleet? will this last until 2025 or 2030? >> we bought them for 30,000 hours and we do about 1000 per year. about 30 years is what we were trying to get out