>> that's true. >> thank you. can i talk to the project architect for just a second here to try to maybe keep it -- here's something that i have in mind. the first is maybe we could take a little bit off of the two sides of this penn house to make it more narrow on this side. if we could takes perhaps 3 feet off of each side, i don't know how many you have to work with but this is 25 feet. >> if we not a couple of feet off of the side, there is still the 16 foot frontage and that might tend to keep the neighbors more happy, there is more separation. can that be done?

>> perhaps. it is a good idea if you grant a continuance so we can work with staff and put together something that meets the needs more. i was talking to my client about getting the roof deck back instead. this is hard to make it work as it is. i would prefer to give the roof garden back. >> that would be my thinking because it is a balcony on edge for a different floor and maybe for a different unit.

>> if you make a condition, i would be happy to do that >> commissioners. >> there is a character issue too. we're not talking about a whole floor of these other buildings. but they are about the size of a stairway and house, as they're called. beth and i don't know what kind of access there is to those anyway. i object to a full floor being up that high. >> i was going to make a motion

to continue. with three weeks be a reasonable amount time? this is continued to what of ever our calendar permits. >> february 24th. >> ok. bu>> the calendars are pretty fl before then. >> i come back from a two-week vacation on the second. >> ok. >> so, we are looking at march 10th? is that ok with you? it will have to be the 10th of march. >> we are working with a

solution that incorporates some of the items we have been talking about. >> i will 2nd that. it sounds like what people are saying is that may be a smaller work force might be acceptable. i think sometimes we have issues were cases come back and there's not clarity. if >> on that motion to continue. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> let's go on brit before the -- break before th dr. >> mr. sanchez has to continue. >> we will continue this to march 10th and the public hearing will remain. >> good afternoon, before i get into the particulars of this matter, the city attorney has advised me just this afternoon that since this the -- in this project or partial to the previous environmental impact report from 2008, the attorney has advised that the commission must adopt ceqa findings as

well. those findings have not been prepared. what we would appreciate is that everyone is here, the neighbors are here, the sponsor is here, the engineers and other people are here. if the commission would care to have the presentation made it tonight and then continued the case until next week, i could come back or the following week. b>> didn't we make findings before? >> we are willing to have the hearing says there are many people here.

>> this is a mandatory discretion review for a building permit them. this would place forging new panel antennas at various locations were clear water for a wireless provider. they're considered the final part in the project was approved by the commission in 2008. this has been sent to all properties. the planning code has received one complaint from a neighbor. we are suggesting to the listed neighborhood groups. there are two other places where it would be appropriate to

have personal neighborhood organizations and the department recommends that the commission takes discretionary review and permit with the standard conditions. >> the project sponsor. >> the acting president, the owner and operator of the tower. this is for the installation of 15 and 10 and three locations on the tower. clear water is a provider whose networks deploys faster than traditional facilities. the clear wire representatives are here to discuss the global

internet access service. this installation represents a final component of work previously included as part of the digital conversion projects. this was an fcc mandate that all signals and the u.s. be converted from analog to digital. this also incorporated additional unrelated elements in conjunction with the required change donor if -- changeover. one of these was a planned installation of 15 and ctenophore you. -- installation of 15 and tax -- antenna for you.

on january 14th, 2009, the planning department issued a notice of termination which demoralized the decision to carry out the conversion project with a determination that the project is approved which will not have significant environmental affect. the entire conversion project including the 15 new antennas and using a worst-case scenario assumption would result in less than a significant impact in regards to radio frequency emissions or 8 and 1/2% of the public exposure minutes. a new radio frequency setting is specific to the installation and the study has been submitted to the city and has been -- installation. this should be less than that

contemplated by the eir. the engineers are here to answer any questions you have about the testing protocol. the project would not increase the visual impact of the tower. there are some technical questions regarding the installation or the tower itself. the power operates as the primary communications facility. we are lucky to have it. there is a conditional use authorization which authorizes all forms of radio communication on the tower. it makes sense that the type of insulation is you are considering be centralized in location to the tower.

this is to minimize the impact of the remaining areas of the city. we request that the planning commission uphold the building permits as amended by the neighborhood agreement in 2008 and referred to by mr. crawford and those have been intended to apply to all of these permits for this tower. this includes mandatory structural inspection and discussions with neighborhood organizations. thank you and we remain open to any questions you have. >> we would like to open it up

for public comment. >> i am the neighborhood lays on for the homeowners association. we urge the planning commission to disapprove the application to place 15 more antennas on this. the neighborhood division has always said that there's been a critical need to balance the needs of future towers with the safety and welfare of our residential neighborhood and the need to not overwhelm our residential neighborhood with antennas. this was made clear during the 1998 public comment time for the first phase of the dtb conversion. -- dtv conversion.

the former chair of the safety commission started a chain of the events that led to a multimillion-dollar retrofit of the tower. this retrofit resulted in more safety and more insurance for future tower owners and the city that this could withstand a major earthquake. the residents submitted over 300 pages of letters and over 368 questionnaires relating to problems with the installation. neighborhood participation has to and bill since 1998. the zoning administrator reversed and dismissed after she wait determination against the future towers interest. she determined that a new -- required for the approval for

the uncommitted antennas and the diesel fuel tank. within two days, this new the zoning administrator was gone from office and the determination was dismissed. we urge the planning department and commission to exercise the broad discretionary powers in using their traditional planning authority to review whether our neighborhood with a six additional antenna sites is becoming overwhelmed with antennas and becoming an internal farm which is against the city's policies. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? public comment is closed. >> i have some questions for ms. peters.

i read your report and this is the continuation of the move from analog to digital which the course is very important. >> this is not true. this is included because we knew that these services would be provided and we included it as an all in one project. the project was evaluated. at the same time the digital conversion projects was -- work evaluated. -- at the same time the digital conversion project was evaluated. >> this is a new type of transmission that has come forward and we actually approved a series of relay towers on colonel heights and other parts of the city and their success is predicated on their ability for

these antennas to transmit. >> the line of sight is very important. >> that is why this is so important. the other point i wanted to try to make and we talked about this earlier today is the fact that one of the reasons why we continue to have much of the television and radio transmission in san francisco is because this is the prime transmittal site throughout the bay area. i noticed in the paper this one station that had been granted a higher frequency by the sec. unfortunately, they were taking down the classical frequency. it was classic rock or whatever it is moving from santa fe to san francisco because they probably wanted to take it manage of the towers. i wanted to verify what i assume was the case based on these other hearings. >> i move to continue so we can

take ceqa findings. >> public comment has already been closed. >> the question has been forwarded to the board of supervisors do we start having a policy discussion about how we deal with these by locations and distribution city tried to avoid health concerns. i am not an expert in the field. we hear people but i feel that it would be helpful to everyone and it even the department, this discussion will not be held at a larger level and that this is

advised by the supervisors, there is really just more and more options and my level of expertise to where people express concerns and not being able to properly respond. >> i could get it ready for you for next week. >> that's fine. >> we can continue this to january 27th. >> will mr. hammond be heard next week?

it has a lot to do with what was brought up earlier. my feeling is that the tower is necessary for transmission in the case of clear water. then you have various boosters. this is a necessary part of any of this transmission. >> that is my understanding. as i have observed, this is based on a backbone. >> the line of sight is what miss peters product and that is very important because especially with telecommunication, particularly television, they have to have a direct line to be able to be transmitted. >> that is correct. >> this is an ideal spot >>.

>> i have a question the current sprint, at&t, verizon system are all being touted as 4g. the speed set are being touted are much less than what was originally. there is another coming up which is another pumped in improved speeds especially by way of which data can be uploaded and down loaded. does that mean we will be facing another series of conditional uses sometime down the line for equipment upgrades and and 10 upgrades?

>> that is a broader question that they can address directly. this is using a new frequency data that was allocated several years ago for high-speed internet service. the other bands are actively used for their existing services and as they turn the service is over, they continue to improve the efficiency of those services. whether that will translate into four-g will be conditional. >> at&t purchase another band with to improve their systems, so you think that that means that the bandwidth will require new equipment? >> in some cases like the one you mentioned, they are acquiring 700 mhz which were freed up due to the conversion process.

at&t already has some of those so whatever they are stalling for those they could use without requiring additional and tennis -- and 10 antennas. >> i have a motion. i hear a second. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> we are going to take a break.

we will be back at 7:30. request for discretionary review. >> my name is madeleine todd and a number of you have heard me request a continuance for this d.r. we have sent an e-mail proving out and number of our points as to why the d.r. said matter what like to request a continuance, and i will expand on those now. we have also sent another e-mail to all of you explain why we wanted to continue that request. i would like to have that heard now. vice president olague: usually we hear from staff. >> i thought you wanted me to go first. vice president olague: usually -- well, that is fine.

>> sorry. vice president olague: basically what happens, the commission votes on whether or not an individual commissioner requests that we hear the item when they are present. otherwise, we take it upon ourselves to vote on whether or not we will have a continuance granted. that is fine. >> i will just go quickly. vice president olague: okay, three minutes. >> her clock has been ticking. >> let's restart, because i was not told it had been taking. vice president olague: well what we will do is hear from staff and understand what the case is, and then we will hear from you and the private sponsor. >> i just want to clarify, i spoke with ron and he said he

did not have the sole right to continue. then i spoke with you and you said to, at the beginning of the meeting. vice president olague: okay, this is generally how it is done. he may have misinterpreted what i meant, but what is generally done it is a staff person will give us the review of the case, then you speak. so we hear from the staff. this is typical. that we hear from the persons requesting the continuance. >> we had no formal request. vice president olague: she was listed, and she sent me a request also. >> are you jonas? >> i am. >> ok, not because we sent you two emails. >> ok. vice president olague: so, mr. smith, if you can't reject it

-- if you can describe the case for us? >> good evening, michael smith, planning department's staff. the proposal is a construction of a three story horizontal addition at the rear of a single-family dwelling within an rh-1 district. it was granted a rear yard variance. the variance request was opposed by the d.r. request youors and appealed, but the decision was upheld. there are three adjacent neighbors, two neighbors nearby, and the neighborhood association. the d.r. requestor is concerned it would impact their privacy and noise, that there would be noise impact from these as well into adjacent rear yards and the

amount of encroachment has been granted through the rear yard variance is unprecedented for this district and this neighborhood and violates the residential design guidelines. to address their concerns, the d.r. requestor wanted to be reduced by 5.5 feet. on the overhead, just walking through the project quickly, this is the matching study that you all have received a new commission package. this is the one with the most detail, the subject building. this is uphill, to the west. this is the other building to the west. another d.r. requestor to the east. this is the proposed addition. there would like to see this reduced by 5.5 feet -- they would like to see this reduced by 5.5 feet and would like this roof deck removed.

the department is supporting the project as proposed. we feel it complies with the residential design guidelines. the residential design team looked at this and thought it was fairly exemplary and how the massing and form related to the adjacent buildings. as you can see from looking at this, these buildings tier down to the rear yard. at a similar thing happened on this property, and this tax as the same thing. -- and this tax as the same thing. they're taking advantage of the back. it is a fairly long building located to the east of the subject property, which is this downhill building. this presents a blank wall on their property line. the residential design team thought because of the massing of the addition was essentially put against that blank wall with a very significant setback right e