the sponsors of the event to hear an update, which i fell to contain that so many interesting aspects of how the america's cup has changed, relative to the race this year and a big one next year, which i think this commission would be really interested to hear. i think the planning department themselves would be thrilled to see much of the discussions we had have all turned the event into something i think addressing a lot of very positive aspects. i sent an e-mail to mr. martin would believe are responsible to attend to the subjects. if this could happen, probably not in preparation for the october, but the october -- problem did not for theoctober e

august meeting, but for the october meeting. commissioner antonini: we had an excellent meeting of the commission secretary meeting that consists of manning -- members of planning and hsbc yesterday, and among the things handled at that meeting included an addition of some other sources or venues to announce the position opening, and we added some of those. we did discuss the future calendar. we set up a possible meeting dates in september and october, with a possible emergency meeting on august 22, which i will tell a little bit more. that is in relation to the fact we have yet to hear a response from the department of human resources to whom we had sent a letter above the signatures of

president fong and chase asking for clarification of the position relating to salary level and other issues relating to the classification. we have not received any response, and we are concerned because we cannot move further on this process without a response from dhr, because the position of this cannot go out until the issue has been answered. we hope that will happen soon, and one of the reasons why we may have an emergency meeting in august of that has not been approved and have to revise it or somehow makes other changes because that is the beginning of the process. also yesterday we discussed the fact that there has been funding obtained for the managerial position in planning

a planner 3 position. we were told it would serve as an addition to the commission secretary team. currently there are three members, and this will be a fourth member of that would serve under the secretary of and the secretary would be involved in this election of this individual, and it was expressed by the subcommittee and is the feeling that this position should be exclusively for the secretary team. certainly the job description speaks to the very importance of this, and it is extremely important, because nothing can move forward and the commission could not folks that -- could

not focus without the secretary during the myriad of things she does each week, so very important. final bang, there was a closed session that dealt with interview sessions, but we cannot talk about that because that was a closed session. the meeting was very good. we're making progress of looking forward to moving forward on this. president fong: thank you for the update. commissioner sugaya: i have one question, the position in the department's to assist the secretary, has that been posted yet or is that often the future some time? >> it has not been posted. the idea is the new secretary would help in the process. just a you know, there is a

posting -- we have to do an annual exam process for all positions at a certain classification, so we have to do the annual process. that process is just a pool of candidates to be considered. >> i would just like to report that i had a meeting earlier today with the request on 4334 geary boulevard, and they are at the owners of the property next door. i did suggest that they should prevent us with photographs of the interior of the building. she may be you mailing goes to commissioners. -- emailing you those.

>> i did have a meeting last night. the project is 434 if i am not mistaken. i have also been in touch with project sponsor, so i think this is an interesting project that hopefully we can work out something on it. it is scheduled on the calendar for next weekend. i also did want to comment on an article by john king of, and his concern that it seems like all office and residential buildings of any height are in glass or almost glass facades. i am a little concerned about this, too. they can be very attractive, but they can also be not very attractive.

i think most people have been very favorable to the mission, which is one of the best examples of the class. i certainly hope that we have careful design guidelines as we move these things forward and go to staff for finalization that there looked at very carefully, not that you cannot have free- cast buildings and a very unattractive, too, but i think he makes a good point. certainly richness is important. i certainly would like to -- it would be great if someone proposed a building of the first part of the century, such as the shell or rest building for maps and the southern pacific. i think maybe the cross for construction is expensive and

one of the reasons why we see some much glass, because it is much quicker to build and probably cheaper. i hope we can still maintain quality even with that. a very interesting article that raises some good points. i cacommissioner moore: i can let go. >> if there are no further comments, if we could go back to continuance. the item we are concerned about is item two. two commissioners have to be recused. that would render the commission without a quorum. the commission that cannot take

action without a quorum. there is a solution. because the president has the authority to direct that something be calendared or moved, with the refusal, the president should direct eye of the move to which every day. the proposed date is for september 6. let's take the action. we will take action to recuse commissioner steve vugaya and w. the motion was made by commissioner moore. on a motion to recuse -- [calling roll] thank you. mr. president.

president fong: i will propose we move this to september 6. i will direct remove this item to september 6. >> this is moved to september 6 at the direction of president fong. to move forward we are now at the directors' report. president fong: the only item i wanted to bring to your attention was the memo from kong tom desanto giving you an outline of the proposed budget. it was essentially the mayor's budget was somewhat minor reductions that were approved by the board related to temporary salaries and professional services contracts. the budget proposed by the mayor, which was somewhat larger than what you look that

originally was largely approved by the board of supervisors. the only other thing is because the board is on presort -- recess there was no board of directors report this week. thank you. >> no board of appeals report this week either. with that, we can move on to general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address you on any item that is under your jurisdiction for three minutes each, keeping in mind they may not address you on items on the calendar and all comments need to be concluded within 15 minutes. president fong: is there any general public comment? mr. flores, come on up. >> manny flores, just a quick

note to extend my congratulations to commissioner antonini to the board. thank you very much. well deserved. >> thank you. my name is smith mckean. i am here to talk about the octavia boulevard development. i would request -- procedurally you have to help me with this, but i request that you request the staff to get clarification before the september meeting. most of the concern relates to the height of the building. there seemed to be inconsistent reputations -- representation in the packet that we saw. specifically in the sponsors of

metal it states that of the objectives, both section 1.2 0.4, and objective 6.1 insuring new buildings of comparable hike with the testing buildings. the particular language in 6.1 states that the new building is carefully integrated in the area by matching the line of the first baptist church. and apartment buildings across the octavia boulevard. we're one of the apartment buildings across octavia boulevard. what i have not seen the is the exact height which the proposed building is going to be in relationship to that. if the proposed building is at or below the line at the baptist

church, then we can stand across the street, look at the line and extended out, and we will see how high it is in relationship to hours. then we can frame our projects about the questions accordingly at this of timber meeting. it would be very helpful to the public to have the package before the meeting so we can ask questions or, express our views. president fong: thank you. >> hello. i am the board secretary. i am here back in april to talk to you about a verizon wireless

store to open a retail formula business in our neighborhood. we were concerned in general about formula retail and general but not opposing the project. we were interested in making the appearance of the store not something that would act as a billboard, which is basically what we've seen from some of the formula retail and our corridor. we came to agreements with the project sponsor, which i have copies of the agreement to buy capacity is around. -- if i could pass those around. thank you. immediately when the store opened we found the mast -- a vast majority of the agreements were ignored by the project sponsor. we ask the planning department to somehow make these conditions in the conditions of approval so they would have incentive to follow the agreement, but the

planning department did not support us on that, and it was not done. there was a mention made in the planning commission a report where they encourage the project sponsor to provide by the a grievance but no enforcement mechanism. they have not done anything or follow the agreements. they have this going thing. if you put what we have on the projector up -- this is what we have, a giant glowing gold -- billboard. we agreed on only one sign. they put light boxes in the window. pretty much ignored on what we agreed to and got exactly what we were afraid of, which is a big billboard on market street.

basically what we were asking is you call them back in and say your note you have this agreement, could to abide by the agreement? i will put about a couple of other pictures. my colleague is here for more details. >> good afternoon. peter cowen . . we realize there is constrained. the director has talked about the ability to put in conditions of approval, specific restrictions are around sign it because that is permitted separately. the boxes are not sign is as far as we understand. so if you look at the list of agreements we have a number of things that have to do with aesthetics and displays of the store. that said, if we could look at the projector and get this back

appear, i would hope, given how much work our neighborhood association have, and the apple market corridor and the fact that we of 900 units under construction and 30,000 new square feet of retail space, that we can work together to avoid this. this may be all water under the bridge. we would love to see the commission have the project sponsor back and informational meeting on how this happened, but we're very concerned this will become the trend. upper market will be a nice billboard for upper formula businesses. we now have four in the pipeline, all of which will be coming to you soon. there may have been constraints on a technical bureaucratic standpoint, but we think the system is failing to get the quality outcomes of businesses on the corridor that i think the community, department, and commission wants, and would be helpful to figure out how to strengthen the system, whether

it is the regulations or the ability of the department to codify things or the commission in tightening down the screws to make sure we're getting high- quality outcomes that in good spirit are never heard association negotiated with the corporate retail and was totally disagrey ignored and this respe. -- this respected. -- disrespected. president fong: any additional public comment? general public comment? please. any public comment on items not on the agenda? commissioner sugaya: didn't we restrict the assignment in some way? -- the signage is some way. the issue is signage, only part

that is not discretionary and no pcontrol over this. if they meet the numerical measurements of the code, we have to approve it. that is the reason that particular item was not able to be a condition of your approval, because signs are one part of the code better not discretionary. commissioner sugaya: i understand that, but did they agree to limit the upper part to some size? we had a discussion about it. i do not know if the signs shown meets the requirements are goes beyond what we were talking about, but in the upper transit. there was discussion about limiting the size of its and not going beyond a certain dimensions, or something as i remember. i am not sure whether the sign it complies with that or not.

as far as light boxes and other things, we did not have a condition about transparency and that kind of thing that we have had previously. we might want to have an informational hearing or something. >> remember spending a particular amount of time on that project. >> i would like to ask the director that we have a meeting of minds if formula retail is now falling what other was of -- what otherwise was a guideline and running into problems that were well summarized, and as i walk the financial district, district c3 on california street, i see people standing in front of a particular establishment and saying how could this possibly happen? that is the cbs on california and battery street.

that is a sign it -- cyanates issue or whatever when this runs head-on with how we created in the city. i think we might have to take or anchorage and ongoing discussion, and that is what i would suggest here. commissioner antonini: i will say remember the same things the commissioners have brought up. >> there are two interesting issues were raising. -- you are raising. one is it is formula retail and general. i am very concerned about this in the upper market. second, the sign of regulation and the irony of the downtown signed regulation is they are quite liberal. both of those things are somewhat related, but separate issues that we are happy to take up. commissioner sugaya: well, i

agree. maybe we can get a supervisor interested. commissioner moore: i would like to get the commissioners interested in the c3 district where we have a lot of historic buildings. i think this warrants are broader discussion. to thepresident fong: further pc comment? next item, please. >> thank you. commissioners, you are now ready to move on to item 12 on your calendar. which is a case number 2011.1396 c for 901 cole street. >> before you today is a request

for a conditional use authorization by at&t to install wireless facility on the top of an existing building. this would have up to nine antennas located on the top of the residential and commercial building with equipment located on the ground. the facility is proposed on location preference 6 within the nc-1 zoning district. this is a location preference six limited preference site that requires an alternative analysis that has been included in your packet. according to the wire the setting guidelines, a limited preference site needs to show what higher preference sites are located within the service area, evidence that efforts to secure those sites were taken and why it was unsuccessful, and the proposed location is essential to meet service demand. the alternative analysis with a 17 alternative sites with identified geographic service

area. all other locations were location preference six. also, the sponsor submitted a third-party analysis, which is not required part of wireless facilities, confirming the map accurately represent the present and post-coverage in this area. since the middle of the package, staff has received three written comment from the public stating concerns that knocked all other alternative sites have been a boston. concerned that this location will become a co-location site and health concerns. the product has been reviewed by the department of public health and complies with the fcc health requirements. stuff is available for questions. -- staff is available for

questions. project sponsor. >> good afternoon. my name is [inaudible] , director for at&t california. i am here with the consulting engineers who conducted the radiofrequency test and analysis of the third party analysis required by the planning department. both reports are in your packet. also, the reports. we are seeking a conditional use permit for nine a on901 cole st. the associated equipment will be located outside the public view on the ground floor level of the property. this is a preference 6 location

and there's city wire winds telecommunications guideline. at&t conducted a significant site analysis. we looked at 17 sites, all preference 6, with the exception of one location that was a preference one, but it was a park, so there was no place to place the facility. photographs and write ups of each of these sites are in the package. the site is located at the southwest corner -- sorry, the site is located at the southwest corner of carl and cole. it is a three-story building with ground-floor commercial space. it is a high-traffic area. due to the location it is feared a transportation hub. the site is necessary for at&t to close a significant service coverage gap and a wireless network as explained in more detail in your packet. the gap is caused by obsolete

or in adequate infrastructure along with increased smart phone usage in the area. at&t customers are using their smart phones and wireless tablets in a manner that has caused a 20,000 percent increase. i was up here probably not more than a year ago talking about a 10,000 percent increase. now under 20,000 percent increase over the past five years, and we expect the data volume will grow 8-10 times that in the next five years. so we have a need to upgrade facilities. we asked for your support as we diligently tried to work through the city process for doing so. i am here to answer any questions you might have. thank you. president fong: any public comment on this item? come on up. lineup if you are ready on that side. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is amy heartly, and i

reside at 860 frederick street, about a block away. i want to strongly urge the planning commission to reject a conditional use permit application by at&t for the proposed microstate facility at 901 cole. i have spoken with many residents, store owners, workers, and myself, and we are all opposed to at&t's installation of a cell power facility. there are at least two petition circulating with well over 100 signatures. i have a copy of which with me here that i would like to get to you for your records. 901 cole street is designated by city guidelines as a less than desirable location due to the zoning nc-1. it is designateds