particular area of will fill in a gap within the embarcadero, so i think it is important to move this forward. i would be supportive of making the motion to certify. president olague: is that a motion? commissioner fong: that is a motion. commissioner antonini: second. secretary avery: commissioners, the motion before it is certification of the final eir. on that motion -- [roll-call vote] secretary avery: thank you, commissioners, the final eir has been certified. commissioners, you are now on item number nine, case number 2011.0271c 274 brannan street. >> commissioners, and pleased to present before you rich, who joined the planning commission, a lead preservation planner.

he came to was from page and turnbull, where he worked from 2003 until 2010 and served as project manager for several large-scale resource projects and historic service, including the survey l.a. pilot program, the market and octavia historic resource service, and the mission and sonoma is sort research surveys. he is a graduate of the university of mission and the university -- the university of michigan and the university of california. i have had the pleasure of working with rich on several letters of determination on various cases the past several months and have been extremely impressed with his work, and believe you will be as well. thank you. >> i cannot believe you hired me. [laughter] the project before you is a permit to install a wireless telecommunication networks for

at&t, located within the mixed use office building district. the proposed code of work includes installation of 12 panel antennas on the existing six-story buildings. these would be mounted approximately 82 feet above street level and are suspicious -- and are sufficiently screen from the public right-of-way and public view. as cited in the guidelines, the project is located on a location preference to the site. currently, this rooftop currently possesses seven panel antennas by another wireless operator, and other wireless operator is anticipating another six panels at another hearing. since this is located within the article 10 historic district, it received the certificate of appropriateness on june 15, 2011. staff has received three phone calls requesting information about the project, two emails a concern, and one letter

expressing opposition. these have been included in your pocket. staff has received another e- mail citing concerns over the long-term health effects of the proposed project, which have been passed out to you. the project complies with the current federal communication commission safety standards for radio frequency radiation exposure. also in response to community concerns, the motion includes a condition that reads the project sponsor or property owners to remove it antennas and equipment that happened out of service or otherwise abandon for a continuous time of six months. after analyzing all aspects of the project, we recommend approval with conditions. the department finds the product to be desirable and necessary within the neighborhood. specifically it would allow for increased coverage and capacity for the at&t telecommunications network. it is located on a preferred site and is consistent with the department citing guidelines.

finally, from the public right of way, it would avoid intrusions into the public views and would avoid disruption of the architectural integrity. the product sponsor is present and is available for questions, and this concludes my presentation. thank you. president olague: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with at&t, external affairs. i want to thank you for considering this this afternoon, and i think the planning department's staff for helping direct us -- i think the planning department's staff for helping direct us with the aesthetics, the directives are around the site. i have with me our project manager and our engineer, who did the emf testing that is in

your pocket. on the way back to the building, he missed it took us for the t mobil site that is discontinued. if you have any questions, he is on his way back to the building. we are here and available to answer any questions. president olague: thank you. is there any public comment? we do have a speaker card. mark dragon? >> hello, my name is mark dragon and i own a condominium across the street. i am not here in opposition to the wireless permit, by at&t, but i have requested a couple conditions be applied to the conditional use permit sought by the property owner.

i sent an email friday outlining the conditions i was requesting, as well as the rationale behind it, and of lead have the opportunity to review that. the first condition i am requesting is that the height of the tower upon which the antennas its be reduced such that it is no higher than the highest antenna. i have a picture here that will hopefully demonstrate the point i am trying to make. can you see the picture? great. this is the tower i am referring to, and there are three microwave towers and dishes and a couple of wireless and tennis. the department is imposing a condition that i am supportive of which is that the dormant tower be removed. i think that is great. that means that this antenna and this antenna will come down. i believe this microwave antenna is also a dormant, but the property owner would know for certain. my proposal is if it is dormant

that it would come down and that the tower be reduced in height to no higher than the active antenna, which i believe is the verizon wireless internet. if the mark with tower is working, the height of the tower would not change at all. that is the requested condition i am asking for, that is simply be reduced if that part of the tower is no longer needed. the second condition i am requesting is that the powers of the elimination of the billboard on the site be restricted. i have a picture to show that. this billboard is a nonconforming use. it is a very large billboard. i think it is the largest billboard west of the mississippi river. it faces east on brannan street, and all of the building's east of this billboard on brannan street, except for one, are residential and nature. it is my contention that this

billboard, the light that reflects off this billboard, and tears my living room and bedroom and all of the other condominium units, as well as the light that reflects off into the neighborhood in the middle of the night and is not consistent with the residential quality of the neighborhood. the commission has few opportunities to limit nonconforming uses, and i believe this will be the last opportunity to ameliorate the effects of the elimination of this billboard. i am asking that conditions be placed such that the billboard not be eliminated past 9:00 p.m. and eliminatedre--- and not re- eliminated until after 7:00 a.m. president olague: thank you. >> thank you for your consideration. president olague: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner fong? commissioner fong: maybe i can

ask the project sponsor to speak to the height of the existing antennas, if they are operable or not. is it a different company? >> good afternoon. i am here representing at&t. we held an informational neighborhood meeting on may 4, and we invited over two dozen neighbors. -- over 2000 neighbors. we had a pleasant discussion. to his request of perhaps not intensifying the legal non complying structure, we have modified the proposal. we originally to have the panels on the steel tower. after i heard from mr. dragon, which took the antennas of the steel tower and they are now pulte-mounted and not attached directly to the steel tower -- they are now pull-mounted. we did everything we could to address that comment. on the drawings you will see the proposed antennas on brannan

street are directly adjacent to the tower. does that answer your question, commissioner? commissioner fong: sort of. so the antenna that we are looking at is attached to the lower portion of the structure? >> the steel tower contains a couple of microwave dishes and two panel antennas operated by verizon. we originally proposed to install our antennas directly below verizon's panel antennas, but based on that mr. dragon's suggestions, we have taken them off the steel tower, on the same location, but not connected to the tower. our antennas are a couple feet over the parapet. commissioner fong: so the

difference is those are larger equipment, that is verizon's? >> yes, sir. commissioner fong: i understand now, thank you. >> they belong to the landlord, they are not associated with at&t, what is up there correctly. commissioner fong: okay, thank you. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i have questions along those same lines, not just necessarily for you, but in general from staff. i guess the question is, if the tower is owned by the property owner, then i don't know that we have jurisdiction to take the tower down, especially because this particular citing is not using the tower, and the other thing has to do with the billboard, which is the same situation, it would seem. i am not sure if that is really

before us. i sympathize with the lights in the middle of the night, but i don't know that is something that is germane to our discussion here. >> commissioner, you are correct, that as a separate issue. we have existing, nonconforming general advertisements signs. there is a very specific ownership structure. i don't know and the case this is a billboard owned by the building owner or owned by a sign company, operated by the sign company. certainly, the concerns that are raised, we can follow-up with the sign company as well. i would be happy to do that and reach out to the company and see if that would be something they would be willing to do, to restrict their illumination on the sign. we could make that request. in regards to the tower itself, this is a longstanding practice where if there are abandoned wireless facilities, that we have as a condition of approval those be removed. that is the case here.

at any of the wireless antennas on their, if they are abandoned, we ask them to be removed. but i don't think that is appropriate to require the tower be removed at this point in time. if we find that the microwave antennas are not in use, which could raise that issue with the product sponsor and the owner at that time, but that is a separate issue from the matter before you today. commissioner antonini: what you are saying is you will be proceeding under normal circumstances in both, regarding the elimination of the sign and the abandoned town or -- regarding the lighting of the sign and the band didn't tower? ok, let me speak up. this will be done independent of our approval today and should not make this a condition of approval? >> the condition of approval right now is that the banded

wireless facilities. icommissioner antonini: it would already be going forward and we would make a suggestion as to the lighting? >> we could do that. president olague: is that a motion? commissioner antonini: yes, i move to approve, and chacon to the elimination of the sign -- and checked into the lighting up the sign t. president olague: second. secretary avery: motion for approval, with the finding that staff would look into or notify the operator of the sign it or the sign owner regarding the lighting. on that motion -- [roll-call vote] secretary avery: 50, commissioners, the motion passed unanimously. -- thank you, commissioners, the

motion passed unanimously. president olague: recess? secretary avery: the commissioners are a taking 15- minute recess.