the project offers and what it does not. those responses are found on page six. and page eight of your packet. to briefly summarize those -- excuse me while i get to it. it was believed that the conversion would not effect existing second dwelling units which is one of those criteria that i mention in the existing plan. the ground floor is currently vacant. there would be no eviction of tenants. the project sponsor indicated to staff upon their purchase it was their intention to utilize this space as a dental office. denied it would hamper the sustain ability of a community servicing a business.

that is a quick summary of some of the items that were responded to in that motion. >> commissioner moore, if i may, it promotes a small business owned by the occupants of the building. also the unit is not subject to rent control. those might be other reasons you can consider in terms of reviewing the project. >> i am just raising this question because we are continuously being confronted because the units, most buildings we approve are falling short of the requirement for the multibedroom thing, the mission is a family oriented neighborhood, we hear it all of the time. i want to be consistent. also as i said earlier there are quite a few businesses.

i just want to be 100% sure we have looked at this very, very carefully and not just within the building and the building next door and one over. >> dia cursory check today prior to the hearing. there hasn't been a lot of conversions within the southeast quadrant. actually there was only one other one in the mission. it was the space down on 14th street that you approved about two years ago. there is not a trend for these types of conversions in the mission district or the southeast quadrant. >> would you say or could you stshtiate for me the ground floor living in this particular level is not the --

>> i think that is part of it for me. for us. a mixed district, but it is largely rebuilt. that's part of the reason for the recommendation. >> having lived in the neighborhood area and walked down this stretch of the street i can safely say most of the ground floor is retail oriented. down the street there was a drug store that unfortunately has gone out of business now. but i think it still remains in some type of retail function and most of the store fronts are that way. >> there is a part of me disinclined to support it because i think it might be

rent control. because that's right. you are right about that. i just feel a little challenged by the thought of removing a dwelling unit that is where we see a lot of families looking for multiple bedroom rental units. i know this is the owner and it is community serving. i understand the rational it is just that i am tend to support the idea of maintaining as many three bedroom units in districts like the mission. so -- >> this is interesting.

i don't know. the pat search pretty much commercial ground floor. but i am not quite sure. what staff is saying is that it has always been one unit. legally one unit. >> one unit on the ground floor and another unit on the second floor. it is a two-unit building. >> my question is do you have any history of it being converted from commercial to a unit in the past. >> i don't. no. >> i think i am supportive of the project but it would be interesting just because it seems atypical of the situation that exists in the area, not that there are not always exceptions that it be ground floor residential. seems to be an exception. i wouldn't be surprised if sometime it had been a commercial unit that was

converted into residential along the way. it has been a long time since 1906. it could have been. >> i also can't count three bedrooms on this ground floor. it is still two bedrooms, which is kind of a family-sized -- but it is really not a bonifiyed three bedroom unit. >> commissioners, do you have a motion and a second to approve or not to take discretionary review and approve. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> so moved commissioners. you are on your final item of the regular calendar. 2016 chestnut street request for discretionary review of

building permit application proposing to locate to t-mobile omni-directional antennas. >> good afternoon commissioners. the request for discretionary review before you has been continued from the hearing of june 10th at the request of the project sponsor. at that time they had given their testimony. therefore this hearing should begin with a presentation by the project sponsor unless the commission decides otherwise. the department hasn't received any additional information pertaining to the project and continues to recommend that the commission approve the project without d.r. >> ok.

>> good evening commissioners. i am here to speak on behalf of t-mobile. thank you for the opportunity to speak here this evening. i worked as a planner in the bay area for several years, including a year and a half here on a number of projects. i am here to request the planning commission accept staff's recommendation and approve the project as proposed. i would like to briefly discuss the proposal and the merits of the project and address the questions raised by a few of the neighbors of the subject building. the t-mobile proposal includes two antennas, they are approximately 24 inches tall and one and a half inches in diameter. they will be mounted in the northeastern and western sides of the building. all equipment will be painted to match the existingly color

scheme. all of the equipment will be located and not be visible. information was submitted that t-mobile had not had the opportunity to review. i would like to respond to some of those questions. the project was designed to meet the requirements stipulated in the letter signed by the zoning administrator in 2006 and was further determined by staff to be considered an accessry use. it meets the definition of an accessry use. t-mobile required with all requirements as required by the application process including mailing notices to adjaceant neighbors. further the rooftop instaulation will have no impact of the commercial or residential uses or to surrounding buildings nor does it in any way endanger the

court reporter residents of the building as suggested by mr. houston. the proposal will be reviewed by the san francisco building and fire department to assure compliance with all building and fire codes. despite the unfounded fears voiced by some neighbors, the antennas do not combust or elevate the danger of fires. in response to the questions of the use of backup batteries, no batteries are proposed at this site. mr. houston contends that property values will be compromised however studies relative to the proximity of antenna facilities veb inconclusive. one can argue that robust telecommunications can be considered an asset in the same way access to transportation, public services might be. some of the neighbors argued the site is not necessary due to other t-mobile upgrades and submitted an amateur spot

testing data using a t-mobile phone. taking a few samples using a particular phone model is neither statistically significant or scientifically valuable. statistically speaking spot testing the neighbors have done equates to stopping five people on the street, asking their opinion and drawing a conclusion that the entire neighborhood feels the same way. the test was conducted using an htch 26rbings d smart phone. the measurements taken utilized edge technologies, using a 2g technology. the proposed site will include 2g and 3g technologies which will help improve call quality and the speed and reliability of data transmission in the area. the test data submitted with the application as evidence of inadequate and incomplete coverage. it is collected using highly

sophisticated equipment, not simply spot testing in various locations. this testing results in data that is highly accurate and statistically valid. as people continue to rely on their mobile devices, it is increasingly necessary for wireless devices to supply customers with quality indoor coverage. global devices evolved into what are essentially portable computers. this site is necessary to allow t-mobile to increase their quality of coverage. to further illustrate the need for improved coverage in the area i would like to read a few commaints submitted by our customers since march of this year. on april 1, customer does not get signal inside house.

network is busy. does not receive phone calls. may 26th, customer service at home has been bad for months. >> thank you. >> we never had a chance to speak at the first hearing. i would hope that i have a couple of minutes. thank you for your time. >> thank you. before we proceed further, i should mention that i have been talking with the city attorney to be sure of what i thought was correct. one of my adult granddaughters at times has been a private contractor to one of the consult ans for t-mobile. city attorney advises me that is not a violation of any ethics rule and certainly not a violation of any financial rules. just in case there were any questions. d.r. requester.

>> some additional conditions for the commissionary consideration. exhibit l, o, p and q. good afternoon commissioners. i am a resident of the subject property at 2010 chestnut street. i filed a d.r. application in this case along with chris houston. this is an industrial commercial wireless facility proposed for a residential apartment building. it does not meet the code requirements. for your convenience we noted the pertinent sections of the

planning code in exhibit a. in 2006 the zoning administrator made a determination that antennas like these are considered an accessry use but the permits can be denied or required to go to further hearings. the planning commission retains broad discretion to deny a permit and we will present arguments and evidence that it does not meet the language of section 204 and 703 of the city planning code. under section 204 and 703 of the planning code t-mobile must prove it is a required use or appropriate to the mixed use building for which it is proposed. t-mobile cannot do so. why are t-mobile's antennas not necessary or appropriate at

this location? nothing about t-mobiles' facility is necessary for the structure or function of a residential building, it doesn't provide shelter, heating, air conditioning, gas or electricity to the building or its residents. residents of the building do not need antennas to continue living there nor do residents of nearby buildings. based on the results of the field test using both phones, not even t-mobile customers in the neighborhood need additional antennas to get satisfactory services. this is not surprising. according to the t-mobile five-year facilities plan they already have at least 212 antenna facilities city wide and 11 in the marina district alone. to increase the speed and capacity of their network they upgraded their air access technology and installed

fiberoptic technology. on may 18th, the san francisco board of supervisors determined they had not met the standard for antennas proposed for a mixed use building. on that basis supervisors voted 11-0 and overturned the permit for that location. in addition to not being necessary, their facility is not appropriate for and necessary for this residential location because wireless facilities present a documented fire hazard, required frequent, routine maintenance visits and raise noise issues. finally t-mobile's antennas will crown and sit atop the building to serve as a visual reminder for all who live in the area as a failure to maintain the residential character of our neighborhood. 2010 chestnut street under

amendments to the guidelines approved by the planning commission in 2003. please refer to page three of exhibit j. they have not provided an alternative site in this case. it sent surprising that the california public utilities commission has an ongoing investigation into claims they improperly put up sites throughout northern california without complying with local building laws. please see exhibit o. by choosing to install this facility at this location they will create divisions and tension among tenants and the landlord of this building as well as nearby buildings. we ask you today to prevent it from happening and respectfully request you deny them an accessry use permit to this project. thank you. >> speakers in favor of the d.r.

>> good afternoon. thank you for hearing us on this issue. i am chris houston. i filed the d.r. with evan. i would like to point out in terms of emergency 911 that t-mobile's plan to install two antennas don't include any backup batteries at this site. in the event of a power outage during an emergency they will not be operational. they will therefore be rendered use little. if they were to install backup batteries they would present safety hazards themselves for this mixed use apartment building. included in the material submitted to you is the fact that the led acid battery material data sheet that they normally install in section six it actually states that unusual fire and explosion hazards are

produced during normal battery operations. these gases enter the air through vent caps. keep sparks and other sources of ignition away from the battery. this is not the type of equipment appropriate for a residential building like 2010 chestnut street. since they will not be installed they will not provide any service during a power outage affecting this building and do not meet the necessity standard of a planning code. i thank you.

>> i am wendy robinson. i am a san francisco resident here in support of all of the comments of the prior two speakers and in support of this discretionary review application. i would emphasize one part. the comment about the documentation committed about necessity. studies and evidence presented to you do in fact show that the t-mobile customers in that area are satisfied with their coverage. t-mobile hasn't presented anything to refute that. there were comments from the sponsor from t-mobile where he quoted two communications they received from customers and some comments about complaints about their coverage. but there was nothing present body whether or not those complaints would be solved by this instaulation or how they became solved if they remained outstanding outstanding. whether or not that is .0001%

and the rest are completely satisfied. look at their website and see how much they tout how happy their customers are with their coverage which contradicts the necessity requirement for this application. you will see the documents regarding the t-mobile plan to upgrade their service, not for necessity but to try and get customers to improve their marketshare, to get customers from other companies and once again, that is not necessity. that contradicts the requirement, one of the requirements before the permit can be granted.

i would encourage you to deny the permit for that and all of these other stated reasons. thank you. >> thank you. >> i live at 2010 chestnut street. i would like to point out some of the problems and tensions that t-mobile's proposed facility will create among the tenants. landlord and property owners in the neighborhood -- wow. i would like to point out the problems that t-mobile's proposed wireless facility will create in the neighborhood should you approve an accessry use permit here today. first, some tenants in the subject building who oppose it already feel uncomfortable

about raising their objections to their landlord. while tenants usually enjoy strong protections of their rights they don't want to participate in behavioral for fear of retaliation that may fly under the radar of the city's rent laws. second, they will be under an ethical, if not legal obligation to disclose the antennas to perspective tenants which may create problems to rent out their residential units. in exhibit h of the d.r., supporting evidence points out that the california association of realtors requires that the sellers must disclose material facts that affect the value and

desire ability of the property, including known conditions outside and surrounding it. the presence of known wireless facility on a nearby property may create problems for property owners. property owner in the neighborhood, should they place their property on the real estate market. it is not in the best interest of the property owners and tenants. please vote to deny the permits for this location. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners. i am a marina district resident. before you came today, it is the question of whether t-mobile should be granted an accessry use permit proposed at the location under discussion.

the wts facilities guidelines were adopted by the city in 1996 and supplemented by the planning commission in 2003. these guidelines require a conditional use permit in a neighborhood such as the one that 2010 chestnut is located. additionally a presence five location, like the subject building, requires it. a location like the subject building requires an alternative site analysis from t-mobile explaining all of the available alternative its has and why they are not viable for its proposed antennas. instead, t-mobile is relying on

a zoning administrator's determination and is engaging in the abuse of the accessry use process to try to slip itsa antennas in without planning commission oversight and without explaining why alternative sites or other means such as a roaming agreement cannot be utilized instead to achieve their objectives. should t-mobile be rewarded for this, we urge you to please deny t-mobile a permit for this location. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i live at 1831 fullson street, right next to the location where t-mobile is proposing

another unnecessary antenna. i would like to speak about one reason why their proposed wireless facility is inappropriate for residential apartment buildings like the one at 2010 chestnut street. they are proposing it be located in a residential building. wireless facilities present electrical and fire hazards that should keep them as far as possible away from buildings where people live and sleep. exhibit b of the materials submitted last time -- it is a part of this d.r. application including photos of wireless facilities that were set on fire during routine maintenance visits. while these photos were taken by media outlets, mainly

because of the spectacular nature of the cell towers literally going up in flames they point it an essential fact about any commercial wireless facility. it is industrial in nature and utilizes electrical components that can result in fires. last time i handed you the san francisco fire department incidents from 2009-december 31st 2009. since the san francisco fire department does not have a category for fires caused directly or indirectly caused by wireless facilities, any of these might have originated from wireless facilities. while we don't know the figures for san francisco, we do know that wireless facilities present fire hazards and are not appropriate