Secondly the letter of approval is usually included by, excuse me by the permit holder. I didnt see that either. Lastly in the last page of their submission they show various sites that they attempted to look out, i presume, but they provide very Little Information there. The code says something about good faith efforts. When so many puts on the table that there was no interest. I have no idea whether that is a good faith effort, or not. I need to see these things before i make a final decision. I would be happy to respond. My understanding, the first item you brought up was our compliance with the Design Guidelines and preservation review. Did i understand that correctly . Historical review. I can respond to that. This is not within the webster street historic district. It is immediately adjacent to the district which was established in 1981. This property was not included. It is a category d building for our preservation standards. Included in the report is a ceqa exemption which is signed by our Historic Preservation staff. This went through a number of iterations. There is no vistas . Saying that it is not blocking significant views from any public vistas that we see. I would be happy to show you the different iterations we have gone through to get to this design. Thats okay. What about the letter of approval . It is included in the staff report. I didnt see that. It is after you get through the plans, the photo simulations and the categorical exemption. After you get through those graphics you will see the statement from the engineering firm. After you get through their statement toward the end of the staff report is the letter of approval signed by arthur duke. Ashley. Thank you. What about my last comment in terms of good faith efforts . The project sponsor can speak more to this. They did submit an updated letter that we requested. The original letter only said no lease interest. We asked for a little bit more detail on that. Which they provided to me. The mobility site analysis is here the updated one. Which they have detailed the days, the ways in which they actually contact. Sfgovtv. The project sponsor can go into more detail about this. When we saw that report we did ask for additional information. This was provided to us in which at t listed the ways that they contacted, why they contacted and the about why the Property Owners of those other sites were not interested or were unable to accommodate. With staff have thought that the parking garage might have been a better location. We receive the sites that we got. These were also submitted to the department of Public Health for my understanding. While we can bond with the project sponsor, we simply saw the application that was in front of us at the time. I would raise the same question to the project sponsor. You have copies of that providing greater details on the good faith efforts . We sent letters of interest via fedex to all of the Property Owners or emailed them. The parking structure is owned by Sutter Health. We talk to them directly and they are not interested in cell sites. The Center Health is right across the parcels across the street i think theres one whole block, but the parking structures owned by them. The hospital was a preferred location, but they said no. We searched for properties nearby and the current project is across the street from the hospital and has shown the least interest and meets all of our cell site design requirements. Thank you. Commissioner richards . The one thing that has struck me, you know, there is all of these numbers im not an electrical engineer physicist, but what resonated with me is this 51 feet, great bodily danger. Somebody said that if your hundred feet away there is no danger. For every foot you go away, for every foot you go away from 51 feet, how much does the risk go down from no bodily danger, or less bodily danger . In terms of radiofrequency emissions on things like that. The conditions of approval also state that all radiofrequency emissions must comply with fcc regulations. Looking through dph approval as well as the other documents that were provided to us i did not see the phrase great bodily danger. Workers should not be, i think within 51 feet in front of the site while it is operating. That was in the application submitted to the department of Public Health which is the agency designed to review such matters. I forgot to let you know how a representative who can address those questions. Good evening, commissioners. We are an independent Consulting Firm that prepares the rf exposure for the site. Our report does specify that 51 feet is the calculated distance for occupational workers directly in front of the antenna. The report does not say great bodily danger. The with the occupational limits that is not the threshold of great bodily danger. I dont think the guidelines ever used of the terms a great im not sure where that came from. It is not in our report are based on any independent or engineering organization. If you are standing near 51 feet, what happens . What happens nothing happens. 40 feet what happens . Likely, nothing will happen. Hold on. Sir, you are out of order. Im trying to understand for how long before something happens. The fcc limits are not the threshold of harm. If you exceed the limits nothing happens to your body. Science tells us that anything starts to happen with the human body. Its not even harm. Its just any noticeable effect. These limits are set 50 times lower. Even if you start to peek over these limits when you ask what happens if i stand in front of the antenna, nothing happens. Even if im exceeding the limits on 50 tons below the level where anything that happens on the human body. Not capable of emitting enough powder power. Why would we have an osha requirement . Because there is a notification requirement even if there is not an imminent danger. The workers need to be notified. These are areas that are calculated to exceed the fccs limits. That is the guidelines that the sec set. Thank you. Any other questions . Commissioner moore . I am wondering why there are discussions about people being concerned about using 5g . When you hear about europeans they are debating on not allowing it. Im not sure as to whether or not its equipment or health related. The only thing i know is even if you are quoting differences of these criteria as human beings we are all quite different. What affects you might completely affect me in a different way a son age size, et cetera, et cetera. The generalization on health data i think is a concern that still i think resonates with me when i hear people expressing concerns. We have not talked much about 5g. We have not talked much about new technology and how it is different or more harmful than what we have all been doing, including using these things all the time. The thing that resonates with me is a concern about the visual impact of this equipment on more and more of our roof scapes. I have talked about that in other circumstances. We have a Historic Building at the corner of goss and franklin where we ultimately come as a commission, decided that the visual impact was undesirable and we made at t in our particular case, find from a general landuse perspective, i assume all commissioners will lead without the outcome of the garage would be a better place to have visually less impacting for reasons of building the size of the building something which one could hold away from residential and impact to quite another distance. My question to you is, to at t, why isnt there another attempt being made of finding a better location particularly because i, myself, when i look at the visual stimulations of this rather enormous facility i am quite uncomfortable of what it does collectively to our roof scapes and throughout the city. If you look at it each time, an individual the same way you dont see it when you walk around though, all of these roofs are bulging out which doesnt have to do with the real residential building on roofs. Im saying i want to put a stop to this. I want to basically not be impacted by these strange intrusions any longer. I want to complete keep a clean, orderly roof scapes particularly when it comes to residential roof scapes on buildings where the distinctness of buildings is definitely affected by the way we are altering the visual appearance. Those will be my comments. I am kind of wondering to whether or not we instruct at t to resume another conversation with the garage and see whether or not that would be a better option. Really cant speak to finding new locations. I can address the concerns about 5g that you had. I know some of the protesters brought up 5g, especially michael chang, 300 gigahertz service. This station doesnt operate at frequencies the new frequencies that some 5g service proposed operate at. All of the frequencies proposed that the site supports the same frequencies that has been used for decades between 700 and 2300 megahertz. It is really well established that have been used for telecommunications for decades and decades going back to radio broadcast television. As technology that is regulated by the fcc. While 5g sounds scary sometimes because people dont quite understand what it is. It is a scheme to put data onto radio waves. The radio waves are a fundamental part of physics. Vibrating electromagnetic waves. The frequency of what is important in terms of health and safety. The frequency and power at the site is on par with any other station in San Francisco. The same frequencies and power that have been used at other sites for other 4g sites in the past. Anything else . That is good. Thank you. Commissioner moore . I would like to ask the commission to consider encouraging at t to investigate alternative sites and have us revisit the discussion once to that effort has been made. I am uncomfortable, for a number of reasons to support the application the way it stands. Can i have a question for the project sponsor . Has there been any efforts as of yet, to explore any of those other options . Good afternoon commissioners. Im going to go ahead and an extensive alternative site analysis is done as required by the Planning Department. For every application that we do. I personally have worked on the site to work with Sutter Health for over ten years to try to get a site on their building. We have that, we also had st. Lukes which they would not allow us on st. Lukes either. If the commission has any i guess, specific addresses that they would like us to look at. We think we did a pretty good campus for the area. If that is something to do we are happy to do that. Thank you. Excuse me, im sorry, mr. Name. How about 2401 that is a parking garage . Ic 2402 i am happy to have some pull it up and we got look at it. They have to be so many, it actually has to be zoned for it and it would have to be so many stories in height preferably around four. I was thinking 2401. I said it is privately held, apparently. Okay. 2401, right here. You said 2401 webster . 2401 clay. 2401 clay. According to this list. It is a private trust. I moved to continue this item indefinitely pending at t coming back with an alternative plan. Second. Can i suggest that we continue to a specific date even if its a couple months out . Leaving it indefinite is because if it was a different site we would have to renotice. How would the neighborhood know i mean, we will set a date and everyone has put that on the calendar and come back. If at t doesnt have another site that we continue yet again. I would like to continue indefinitely. Commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter indefinitely. On that motion. [roll call] commissioners, that places us on item number 13 for case number 2019017266pca for the extension of temporary cannabis permit planning code amendment. Excuse me. Those persons leaving the chambers could do so quietly. We have additional business to attend to hear. To attend to. Good evening, commissioners. Aaron starr manager of legislative affairs. An ordinance to amend the planning code to extend the date by which a must have received a permit to operate from the department of Public Health to be deemed contemporary cannabis sale used from december 31 to december 31, 2020. Amend the planning code to extend the duration of the temporary Cannabis Retail sales up to three years to expire on january 1, 2021. Good evening, commissioners. Kyle seeley from supervisor mandleman office. Thank you for hearing this item today. As aaron mentioned the ordinance before you will amend the planning code to extend the date by which grandfathered medical cannabis dispensary must receive a permit to operate from the department of Public Health from december 31, 2019 to december 31, 2020. It will also extend the duration of a temporary Cannabis Retail sales use from a 13 years. This will give grandfathered medical cannabis dispensaries until december 31, 2022 obtain the permits to operate and it will allow temporary cannabis resale uses to be permitted to operate for three years. If additional time will allow existing medical cannabis businesses to continue to sell adult use cannabis while the office of cannabis processes the permanent licenses. Additionally, the soreness will allow cannabis because when the citys program to continue to access waivers through 2020. We appreciate planning staff and are happy to accept staff recommendations. The temporary adult use cannabis permits it be extended up to four years instead of three. I want to thank aaron starr for his work on this report. I want to thank the office of cannabis for being here to answer any questions as they come up. Thank you. Has noted in the report. This is the second time the deadline has been extended. This is the first time that the temporary sales provision has been extended. The extension for both is due to the amount of time that the office of cannabis is doing the review. The departments recommendation is for approval the department supposes supports the proposed ordinance. Providing Economic Opportunities for those previously impacted for the war on drugs. The initial ordinance creating section 190 and 191 was intended to allow existing and cds to sell adult use cannabis until the city can process the equity applicants. They have not been able to apply for their permitted licenses in the planning apparent has not been able to process the conversion permits. The department is concerned that the proposed three year extension will not be enough. We are recommending an additional year extension for a total of four. That concludes my report. Thank you. Any members of the public wish to comment on this item . Seeing none. Commissioner moore . Happy to support this creative legislation. I think the Equity Program is extremely important. It is timeconsuming and has basically gotten quite a few wellknown operations behind the eight balls. Since i have spent many years to help them get established knowing what scrutiny they have gone through with this, i think it is a necessary step that requires our support for them. I also appreciate mr. Starrs extension of modification to move the timeframe up to four years given the reality of how many of these things are. [please stand by] [please stand by] im going to provide a background of the project, its master approvals. Ill bring you up to date as to whats happening with Candlestick Point. Well talk about the proposal. And well talk a little bit about the design for Development Document their refinements, and thats the actual action before you. Also just to let you know, david tom who is the master urban design for candlestick will provide you a presentation, well dig deeper into how the documents meet those and talk about the actual proposal before us. As a quick reminder this is a project Candlestick Point was approved in 2010 along with the shipyard. As an active redevelopment project area, our sister agency, oc ii the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency is the lead, however in the master approvals we have documents where we have elements that are within Planning Department and Planning Commission jurisdiction. In those master approvals we created a subarea plan, part of the general plan for this area, we created a special use district which refers to the d for d and we approved amendments to the Bayview Hunters Point Development Plan for which candlestick is a part. And part of our jurisdiction is to look at actual amendments when they are proposed for the design for Development Document. Orchestrates c oc ii seconddegree lead on that the master document talks about how this gets built over time is the disposition and development agreement. And within that, there are subplans that address things like Affordable Housing, Community Developments and then a document called the deardap the procedural document that describes how actual construction, when its ready to go, both horizontal and vertical gets approved in subsequent approvals. And in fact the master developer has been working with oc ii over the last years to get this stuff ready for construction. The candlestick is divided into three major phases. The first major phase is consists of what we refer to as candlestick center. That is the location of the previous stadium. And its considered sort of the the hub of the project. Major phase one also includes clocks across the street from the proposed streets and also includes about twothirds of a hope sf project. And under that major phase, they have gotten their first subphase approved and completed at Alice Griffith and three other of the five subphases have also been approved including initial approval for Candlestick Point excuse me candlestick center. Invariably because this is such a large and complex project, the master developer has come to us with some modifications to those master approvals. In 2016, you may remember we were here with an initial set