in the late 90s when you were approving all the work buildings there were 6 story buildings that came through. and i went to law school at golden gate. we don't have a really good circulation or empower we have wider streets and use of the sky from the people that are in them on mission and howard and folsom and clara. so at certain level oh, the pretty pictures have to come

down. you're adding more height into a wide street but that's a deceptive picture who's going to see anything like that. so adding height south of market that has narrow streets should be a dig decision for you all. it's tread as though it's a pitfall oh, nothing by the staff. it's unfortunate the planning department at some point should move down in one of these interior blocks and understand it they don't. they've never moved on a constrained site maybe once upon a time. but i have an experience from

going to law school there. i had clients on howard that was a low rise building. i'm asking you to think carefully about adding more bulk, more density and more exceptions on a height on an interior block no one will see those pictures their infancy >> any additional public comment. okay seeing none, public comment is closed >> i want to recap my previous position and raise a couple of questions considering the increased height. i'll be listening i listening to what the rest of the commission says. i think the project was

thoughtfully designed particularly in the lobby together with the park. i think that was a strong argument and the architects did especially well. the zoning was creating only a mandatory front door open space. the building itself was well crafted during its orientation. the fact it has affordable on site it was an important point. i remember 2 years plus ago i went to discuss the merits of considering that at that time, it was an open ended question. the way the project was brought forward i could see from an old san francisco family made a big

impression. the questions which arises together with the fact the project is potentially being passed into someone else raises a concern for me. one is we entitle buildings here commenting to a southern type of architecture which we take as an ingrept to approve entitlements. when a project gets passed on i didn't want to say flipped when the project gets absorbed there is an opportunity where it will make is reasonable to switch to another anxiety. but i don't believe unless the director tells me we'll be expecting this project to be

delivered as we were approving it including the additional height. >> commissioners the typical project when it comes in for it's permits the zoning professional has to make a phone call to make sure it's what you, you approved. that's both the size of the building and the design of the building. so if the commission would like to make a statement about the need to maintain this design you can certainly deposit. i don't believe you can still make the specification of the design the approval but you can say this design can moved in that particular way >> i think i'll ask for a building of like quality and design execution which goes into

who don't the workable drawings. the next is a discussion i'd like to have with the director and staff. the one element that was difficult even with the reduced size was the tower separation. awhile open it's on if you can bring up those two comparable images while on itself the building might be slightly more squat i didn't or obviously is lower it has more tower separation than the building that is in front of us. the decision i'd like to initiate with the department is the commission when they were not fully informed this building was come back because in the course one could potentially

considered the separation of towers by which the building would shave a little bit back it would only linearly expand the buildings. with the additional 4 floors theirs less separation and how towers are meeting and that's going to make is darker and more windy. i hope if something like that happens again, i would like to have a larger discussion of how we were revisiting the promise and linearly stentd the entitlements with the exceptions that come with that. i'm concerned about that. i'm in support of the project because it does many things right but i'd like to see the department the commission in the future to take a little bit more time to consider this when it

comes up again >> commissioner. >> yeah. i'm not sure quite sure commissioner moore is talking about tower separation but air-conditioned height wouldn't bring it closer to an adjacent tower by closer to towers that are seen visiblely. >> by tower separation our basically allowing other towers within the area to create important light on the way we see the skyline how light comes down to the street. we're exuding and basically, not looking at tower separation. so a shaped tower which rates back would indeed not require the extension of that entitlement >> well, i don't see it's the

case before i think it's virtual virtually same. that building stands by itself. i frequently take that off-ramp for fremont or folsom it's quite a ways from any kci terminal or planned tower in the area so it's being close to other towers is not the issue in terms of how it will stack up to the others and there's oscar parkway that opens up and a deals with the exemptions. for example, rear yard it doesn't apply mr. comply but it effective is a rear yard and wind currencies they're not different only one in 20 test

cases. and the bulk requirements and tower design changes a little bit. but if you've got a wireder for play while tapering to the top you're able to make the units for attractive. i've been in stwoerz when i get towards the top they get clarify phonetic. view wise that will make for a better experience for the residents. so i like this and think it's fine. i believe if mr. guy could answer a question. this is height requirement at the 368 >> that's correct it rezoned it to 3 hundred and 60 feet. that's what i thought it's below

the allowable and now itself there. i'm compliant and for those who don't like parking. i'd like to see more parking anyway but so i think it does a lot of good things and you know it allows us to put more unit and probably even larger units within the given floor plate. it will add something visiblely to that off-ramp i spoke about when is banner. you see the buildings off in the distances but you don't feel like you're in the city. this is fine. i know we've approved. the other thing i want to ask maybe mr. chandler. we've talked about architect and

it's my assumption should this be developed will i hines they'll condition with the same architect >> i can't speak they have no tension to change the design by who they're to use as their architect we haven't gone this far. >> great that sounds i think i got a node from the gentleman and it's going to be good that's what we're approving and wecht to make sure what's built is what we're seeing now. there have been incidents in the past with that movrpd into somewhere else >> commissioner wu. >> so i want to ask staff to be

clear i believe the answer is no if the project is purchased by hooindz the site can't change; correct. >> he can't that's the way it was worded and that's required. >> thank you so i'm supportive. >> commissioner, i apologize it's actually within the planning code within this special use district it's required to be on site as well. >> which zone. >> it's the trans bay special use district. >> great. so i'm supportive of this project as it stands a, you know, because of inclusionary requirements the more units there are the more b m rs there are. it reminds me of the challenges we're phasing with that

affordability. i think there maybe should interest to look at all of sylmar. i know it wasn't in the plan but donates a challenge going ahead. if we continue to approve project that comply with inclusionary it's either 12 percent closing arguments we're going to be out of balance could we put thought to that going forward. but this has met the conditions so i'm supportive >> commissioner hillis. >> i am in support it approvals by taking up 4 floors. i wasn't negotiating with the

neighborhoods but it was an economic issue. this additional height is not an issue the design was an issue. that nod you were going to stick with architect donna you like the design and the architect. i think that's important we're not xhooep i to keep the architect but i'm supportive of that >> director ram and i wanted to you had a couple of things. with respect to the design we can the message i've hearing you like the design proposal and if there are changes we need to keep with the quality materials that's being proposed. where respect to the affordability it is somewhat

different in the trans bay within the tans bay plan thai percent of the units are affordable which is an unusual high requirement. that includes both the b m r requirement and the units that wasability built in total 35 percent of those units is a high you requirement >> commissioner. >> just to comment on the process we're getting indications that architect tan can will remain in terms of the project but as very well, the construction documents can be done by another firm they basically have to follow the design but it's not usually for

the other companies to do the grunt work. i'll make a motion to approve with conditions >> second and a commissioner. >> yes. i was going to do the same i was going to ask mr. chandler. how libel is this to move forward fairly quickly? >> i will paraphrase we're going to get started as quickly as we can as soon as possible. >> that's great to hear. >> so they've begun and approved the project so the capitals we need to finish the due diligence and make sure there's nothing we haven't finished and then the plan is to immediately get a general contractor on board to finish the drawings and begin

construction. the window right away right now so to deliver this project so waiting is a disadvantage >> commissioner moore. >> i think that scientists known for delivering class a building across the world the project is in good hundreds. >> commissioner is a guy a and i want to say we can't include this as a discussion about the design but it's generally part of the desire to have this design and want to make sure it's carried out. >> commissioners there is a motion and second to approve with conditions. on that motion (calling names).

so moved, commissioners, that motion passes amaze 67 to zero zoning administrator what say you >> i close the public hearing with the variance with the same conditions as the regional variance. >> thank you zoning person. >> commissioners that places you on item 12. at 3226 avenue request for conditional use authorization. there was a request for organized opposition and this was granted. >> thank you good afternoon planning commission. i'm planning department staff. the project before you is a request by at&t for authorization for a wireless

facility on 26 avenue. the project site is located at the tara value street commercial strict which is a limited previous site. the subject building features 11 apartments on two stories above a first area containing both residential parking and a commercial space. it's surround by similar use developments and further is surrounded by single-family neighborhoods. the proposed wireless facility would have 3 primary components. first 6 antennas screened and designed to mimic in 3 locates. second anywhere electronic equipment that needs to be

located on the roof and the third, i component would be the additional equipment located in the parking grammar with batteries. the subject building is 32 feet tall and the which i am in the cause would rise 70 feet above the roof. staff worked with the applicant over two years to refine the design to reduce the impacts recommended to the which i am in the cause and locating the excitement inside the garage for parking spaces for resident. they held 4 meetings and staff received in seizing even if 15 comments primer in opposition to the project regarding rfp

mission and options for ultimate sites in the neighborhood. in addition mr. david with r f consultants provided a packet with the summary that cites good news concerns and a petition for over 2 hundred and 70 snitches in opposition to the project. staff believes that the project as proposed conforms to the guidelines and the finding in section 403 of the planning code and recommended approval. if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, please. >> good afternoon, president fong and members of the

commission i'm the recreational vice president of at&t for the san francisco bay area. i have a radio access engineer and the project sponsor and bill a licensed engineer in the state of california and he is the third party that we hired for the radio frequent studies interest we're seeking your approval today on a conditional use to place 6 that innocence of that antennas with the necessary equipment to be housed in the park garage. approval of this conditional use will allow at&t to have a mountain that is located under no circumstances on 29th avenue. under the city's communication

guidelines at&t did a theory analysis that included 31 properties in the area. at&t has worked diligently with planning staff over two years to have the most unintrusive locations. we held many meetings and the community members acquired about the health effects and noise levels created by the equipment and testing and the building height and the design alternatives and alternatives sites in other at&t mobility sites in the area. at&t has also responded to numerous inquires and we've met with will in her and associates

to address and at&t responded to mr. will in her were date august 1st, 2013, are included with the letter that i believe we've disseminated earlier; is that correct and they were just handed out >> as you know see from the numerous meeting at&t has addressed many issues. the opponents have not raised any appropriateness to the at&t facility on 26th avenue. in conclusion at&t is trying to meet the demand within san francisco. we are doing it with a prudent plan. it's fully consistent with the

land regulations and it's prototype facility is the least intrusive area. i urge the planning commission to approve the conditional use application and we've happy to answer any questions you might have. thank you >> thank you. opening it up to public comment. there was a opposition statement from a couple of folks >> yes.. good afternoon, president fong and members of the commission.

i am david will in her with will in her and soeshdz i have 40 years experience. i represent clients before the commission and state regulatory agencies. i've been responsible for obtaining - for interstate and international communication practices. i have military train on equipment and missile tracking systems and r f transmitters and assessments and mitigation and i'm also a former telephone

company employee per we are representing 2 hundred and 73 people in the park side district they've signed a petition in opposition to the cellular base station on 26th avenue. the primary question before the planning commission today is whether or not to approve the project. the answer is our opinion is no. they say the height of the chimney that's on the roof create a blight. the staff disagrees. the architect letter attached to our letter shows this is not true the rooftop installation would be an eyesore.

please look at the pictures on your screen. it's clear from the postpones on the building both before and after the assessment is absolutely correct. i've driven through the neighborhood i am a san franciscan grew up in san francisco after world war ii. i can tell you drying all the way from lincoln way to this area i didn't find one apartment building with a chimney on the roof. i doibl doubt there's any pavement buildings that have chimneys. they say that at&t did not look at an additional site. that building is on the screen. and incidentally the staff report says the building is seen

by nearby structures and it's suitable, however, there's no screening on that four story structure they only relied on at&ts information. this should have been considered under the guidelines. the staff report claims there's nothing to worry about. however, the safety sheet from the battery manufacturer which is the exhibit b warn of a possible fire or exploitation. vehicles would be parked next to the battery.