area. the tenants were e-mailed that to date i've not seen any evidence of actually storm water or sewage u sewage specifically happening at this building. and despite the offer seeing of this building in the permitting the permits this has not been reviewed. i urge you to instruct the planning department to not approve the conditional use permit for it as today's hearing. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please >> good afternoon,

commissioners. my name is deborah i'm the property owner next door to 2016. the categorical sequa for review. i've handed you copies of an expert report prepared by a geolodge. he formerly worked n for the environmental protection agency. the environmental health standards p - led acid batteries that was identified by the city of san francisco is going to

flood. their have materials that act violently with long lasting effects arrest mr. hagman concludes that this project requires at minimum a negative address from sequa. the usual circumstances relating to at&t placement requirement is in a building that has a significant impact on the environment speaks to the investments error in allowing this project. please vote to override the

planning departments determination and ask this be gone over for a better opinion. >> i'm a retired teacher speaking for myself and tenants. i live across the street from 4216. i understand that at&t subjected permits that flooding at the 2016 is not a cause for certain. the fact is that san francisco is one of the few multiples that utilizes a plan

2016 was flooded after a storm and a broken sewer line caused the flooding. in 2008 the city replaced it with a 47 inch pipe with a 27 inch pipe. at&t now claims that the sewer line is not going to happen. they say that the water drainage could never be more than 4 feet deep. i must remind the people that san francisco is a earthquake prone city. fifth avenue and there's a did he decree run off that

constantly closing the sewers. and they're very, very seldom cleaned. my wife and i without there cleaning many times. echo there's one thing that's happened. we've had earthquakes and storms and any combination of an earthquake, a storm, a sewer blockage might run the water where the batteries are. and the it e vapors the room and at any time the air would be flooded with the poison from the chemicals. very often things come together. it's very difficult to plan they wouldn't.

and another thing the hood puts into the air those chemicals from the battery and it's a residential neighborhood essentially. and children playing and, you know, old adults like myself walking around. it's a health hazard. and anybody will tell you concly

dr. carps report include the following 4216 california requires major seismic retrofitting to at least have it to code. and the at&t equipment currently

on the roof as well as the proposed at&ts rooftop antennas and other equipment present additional weight that be subject to largely loads by earthquakes and can't be there. in short the building as it now stands with at&ts currently cotter and proposed equipment prenlts an imminent situation. the planning department should be instructing at&t to decommission the cell site and remove the equipment not relating that you approve the

conditional permit for even more equipment to be placed on the roof. please vote to deny a permit for this location. thank you >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is charles. this tuesday at&t submitted to the planning department an eleventh hour hour rebuttal to the report from mr. john an at&t attorney. we forwarded the letters and i'd like to quote. quota new out of town engineering licensecy doctor carp is referring to streamline engineering who analysis submitted to the planning

dependent on june 4th attached to the letter quote is apparently worried about my letter. i don't anonymously his reasoning that he can go back to the 1976 building code so that won't work. the current code applies to the believe when making changes. he hadn't taken indoctrinate the sagging roof. critical units foundations and lack of sheer walls have been ignored. doctor carp continues my letter pointed out out the original construction and streamlined the omissions. if there was something wrong with my opinion the engineer

should have objected. this is code section 35. a lawyers letter is no substitute. commissioners please does not be bullied by at&ts last attempts to discredit dr. carp. a left hand geotechnical engineer with 50 years experience in his field and is

batteries requires that provisions shall be made for ventilation for preventing explosive measures. the articles goes on for dust, fumes vapors and gases. it requires air conditioning systems to provide minimum

building ventilation. and article - this states that special rooms are required for safe storage for proposed ground floor storage are not securely anchored.

lastly there is no documents from at&t on how it plans to make the proposed ground floor storage room fire resistant. and at&t should be wreaked by this commission. thank you >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm jeff you'll be happy to know my speak is short. this governs the ac district where the california street is located. the code defines public use and includes under that definition

wireless transition facilities like at&t proposes for this location. however, section 703 b-1 of the code is clear that all permitted uses shall be used in closed building in neighborhoods commercial districts. at&ts proposal for this location calls for antennas on the rooftop. therefore at&ts project is impermissible under article 7 which pro includes antennas outside the building. i would ask that you correctly apply the planning code to this project and deny at&t a permit for this location. thank you very much

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm dr. chris. i've been practicing at the 4216 for 40 years. you'll hear a lot of so-called experts what suits their objective. frankly i'm tired of hearing this. i'm going to give you a different approach and appeal to our common sense. as you probably know at&t plan was to sell antennas on the street were submit more than three years ago. i'm not aware of any provisions to the original plan 234e6r78d they placed the antennas outside

the perimeters. those are submitted to the commission more than three years ago. the second set of pictures is a google map of 2010 which shows the actual building structures across california street. on the right you see a large complex and to the left is a something station with a huge parking lot that takes over the rest of the block. early this year a large condominium project was complete. that's the next picture that shows you what used to be where the something station was. the next picture i'm showing you is a construction of an overlay

facing south. we see the apartment building on the are the and think condominium complex on the left. between those two buildings there's a open space of 25 feet. the next picture shows a panoramic view

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is michael. i'm one of the tenants in this building. i have practiced denty in this building are i speak for all the tenants in this building are that in addition to the 9 antennas on the roof at&t plans to install a series of batteries

as back up sorry those are acid lead batteries to be stored in this room adjacent to the front entrance. those batteries emit extremely flammable fluids. as you can see from the photos you my office is located on the ground floor in the back of the building. if the front hallway is bloke we have no way of greg. my patients and my staff and i will be trapped into the back of the building. we are only a few yards away from as batteries and rescue

could a take a while to reach us. i have talked to the department of building inspection and they've known about at&t illegally installed equipment on the roof for over 2 years now. at&t has been cited. until we brought this to their attention the planning department overlooked this was in a flood zone. my office was flooded in 2006. yet the planning department has nevertheless, exempted this project from sequa review and wants us to believe that those same agencies that have been rolling over for at at want to

tell you their watch dangers. with due respect this project is dangerous to us and refuse to sacrifice our health for this city and their co- sponsor at&t >> thank you. next speaker, please >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is steven. a concerned citizen. when it comes to government regulation recent trend are not specifically tell the jury. we see what happens when profits are taken indoctrinate before

folks. a factory that was allowed to operate in a building that didn't meet building codes collapses killing hundreds. those countless others that don't make the evening news has one thing in comparison. from the manufacture itself claubd by a senior environmental protection agency that the lead batteries that at&t seeks to install in a flood prone area poses a significant environmental safety and health

issue in that location. the planning department appears to be operating in a universe we routinely proof this kind of project therefore we must approve this project. let's be clear commissioners. if i approve that project today you will assume a measure of personal responsibility. for any foreseeable injuries for anyone who work and live in the building or nearby and that includes earthquakes and potential floods. i urge you to cast our vote today because of the dictates of

your conscience. thank you for taking this message >> thank you. it will come in when you start speaking sir, >> you have to speak. >> okay good afternoon, commissioners. my name is doug i live one block from the property. allow me to briefly summarize. for over two years ago at another has been illegally operating. having already installed most of the equipment it was here today

to get approved. the planning department had completely overlooked the fact its subject property is on a block that is prone to needing e lloyd and it occurred in 2006. it requires an initially study in not an focused eir under sequa. if at&t seeks to install equipment on the ground floor. the presence of at&t equipment may raise liability for the employers and installing antennas outside the building is expressly prohibited. i put it to you. i recall when shelly was the

president of this commission what now seems to be a golden age of accountability. when permits for wireless you facilities came before the commission under president bell the commission was known when the evidence wandering it to deny the applicants the conditional use permits. i think it's long past time for this commission to do the same thing today. thank you >> any additional public comment? >> okay public comment is closed. opening it up inform commissioners comments and a i'd like to have the director in the room when i say what i do. i'm not sure - here he comes.

let me just say as he's sitting down. i'm concerned about the age of the building it's compliance to code. and this might fall under the soft category of buildings which the city is trying to get seismic upgrades for. i'm concerned it's and independent of what's been said. we approved another at&t project this morning. but i spoke will the additionaltion of buildings. and while this building might notarize to a grand designed believe and i want to be careful here i believe this particular rooftop addition and it's c

consultation is too big. the technical implementation of necessarily wireless need here doesn't necessarily mean that any building that has to have one of those things on the roof will automatically change of properly put it into a category >> i have a lot of questions, i guess the representative from at&t. there's been allegations made this facility has been installed and in operation without permit >> i'd be happy to commit. there's been a lot of things

brought up today and one of them is that we are using - we have a facility that's not permitted and that's not correct. we have permits for the ann tense that's on there today. and that is what's in dispute with the planning department. so there is a different section under the code. can we bring fiber to a self-site without having to go and get a building permit for it. there's been all sorts of complaints filed and it's brought more energy to it but the reality of it is we have a permit and we have some equipment on the