sites were not as attractive because of opera ability or appearance. staff received no public comment, but yesterday afternoon received an e-mail citing concerns about proper public noticing for the project and the cumulative impact of all at&t project in the nob hill. today, i received a phone call from someone with unspecified concerns. staff looked at public notice and determined on the petition was conducted in compliance with city codes and. this complies with the general plan policies and setting guidelines from 1996. the antennas will be minimally visible from the public right of way and the site is determined

to be the best in this area. president fong: thank you. project sponsor? >> project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with the external affairs team in san francisco. i am here with the game erikson from hammond -- with dane erics son from hammond. his analysis is in your packet. i am also with the representative of the press coordinators. we are seeking a permit to install nine new directional antennas on the california street property. the equipment cabinets would be located outside the public view in an internal storage room in the basement.

the property is occupied by a five story mixed use structure in a commercial district in the center of our defined search area. under the city guidelines, the site is location preference six. as outlined, at&t conducted an alternative analysis. nine sites were evaluated. they were all preference six locations. the site is necessary for at&t to close the coverage service gap in the wireless network, as explained in detail in materials provided to you as part of our application. the gap is caused in part by significant demand for mobile data usage, which is increasing lately. i would like to thank the planning department's staff for their hard work and support in helping to select and design this location.

we ask for your support as we try to upgrade our network to meet demand within san francisco. i am happy to answer any questions you might have. president fong: public comment, i have to speaker cards. the first is: sloan -- colin sloane. >> i am here representing two brothers who own a hardware store at 1414 california st.. they were unable to close shop to counter this proposal. their concern is cancer exposure. they have supplied me material i will pass into the record. primarily, they feel that if this goes through, they are moving out. they have been there for almost 10 years. i am a patron and have been friends with them. i feel like they really mean what they say. the other issue is i live up the hill, about a block away.

i am that i level with where this tower will be. apparently -- i am at eye level with where this tower will be. i am on the top floor of a building that is the block up from the corner of hide and california -- hyde and california. i am going to be exposed to the maximum exposure of collector and an epic radiation. thank you. president fong: linda chapman. >> linda chapman. i just discovered this yesterday by chance on the calendar when i was looking at the public, and i came in on. i did get notified of one near me, and there was a little meeting. i and others went there. this one, i heard nothing about. i heard it second hand at a meeting about another in our

area and one down on broadway. then i heard somebody had posted a this is about another over on bush street, -- notices about another over on bush street. i do not know how many of these have come before you from our area, but i am concerned. i heard the board of supervisors appeal from a different district. they raised the issue of whether there really is a coverage gap. in our neighborhood, that is not going to happen. we had a hearing on historic preservation and how difficult it would be in our neighborhood to mount a conditional use appeal generally. most of these are multifamily buildings, rented. the people who own them do not live there. and the renters do not receive notification. they do not get a chance unless supervisors do it. if it were the site across the street, you would have some

francis hospital involved. there are huge lot smacking of a large part of it. in this area, the conditional use area is probably one building. but that was the hospital garage, which as far as i can see in this diagram, would be in the area. is that considered, as opposed to the residential building? some people in our area have raised health concerns. i would say also visual concerns like the one just raised. this document says they may be up to 8 feet tall. and remember in our neighborhood getting a visual display of the buildings, being told, "look at these little protuberances, just like venice. you would pay a lot of money to see these little venice." i do not know that these will be

as attractive, nor will they be all over our neighborhood. people are not getting notice. i am not saying they are not doing legal notice. but when it is a utility type thing, muni for example, they do not just send notices to the property owners within 300 feet. i think that something like this, it probably needs to be. you do not find out about the ones that are more than a block away. you cannot run to seven are eight different hearings. was it considered? this was priority six. was the other side even consider? -- considered? scott sanchez: i once again want

to raise the proposed condition of approval to the commission. should you approve it, i can again read into the record the proposed conditions, if madam secretary thinks that would be appropriate. she is nodding yes. i will read that into the record. the use is authorized as long as an independent evaluator selected by the planning department determines the information and conclusion submitted by the provider in support for this request are accurate. the wireless service provider shall fully cooperate with the value greater and provide any and all data requested to allow the evaluator to verify the data and conclusions about service coverage and capacity are accurate. the service provider can bear all costs of such evaluation. the independent evaluator, upon request by the provider, shall keep the submitted data

confidential, with an agreement acceptable to the provider. the independent evaluator should be a professional engineer licensed by the state of california. president fong: thank you. my apologies. is there additional public comment on this item? >> can i follow up? president fong: we are allowed one speaking opportunity each. thank you. is there an additional public comment on this item? scott sanchez: it may be helpful to say that for notification there is a poster on the subject property. there is a posting requirement on the subject property. >> [inaudible] commissioner borden: you are out of line. thank you. commissioner moore: given that there is this a positive idea to broaden the discussion, i agree that all products of a similar kind would indeed take the condition as another way for

checks and balances. i think at that time i was suggesting that would apply to everything. the second i would suggest is have alternative sites been considered? president fong: is that a specific question? commissioner moore: that is for at&t. was the garage considered? what was the thinking? >> i think i mentioned we had nine alternative sites. they were all preference six locations. commissioner moore: thank you. comissiomer sugaya: i am going to make a motion to approve the conditional use. commissioner antonini: second. having personally experienced dropped calls at this location.

to answer some concerns -- that is without the condition. we can talk about whether or not to include the conditions. i am in favor of the project. i think to answer concerns, in reading the literature, the same thing applies as always does with these. we had a mention of around a 40 foot area at which most of the radiofrequency emissions are. beyond that, they are negligible. i think for those who may have concerns at street level, the measurement is well below what is deemed acceptable. that is fairly standard with any of these. as always, correct me if i am wrong, but we go back and these are evaluated against existing

commissions to make sure the are consistent. you can answer this question, but i am pretty sure that is what is going to happen here. when there is testing after the installation goes in to make sure it is being presented, a cumulative effect is taken into consideration. >> absolutely, before and after. and after 10 days, we test the facility and report back to the department of public health. every two years after that, we are required to submit an updated report. cumulative effects are always taken into account. commissioner antonini: you can see if you look closely at the photographs that there are those events, but you have to know those are concealing antennas. i do not think that is a problem.

you did not want us to include the -- comissiomer sugaya: that was not in my motion. commissioner antonini: we did that with the other project, and it seems consistent the we do with this project as well. i make a movement to include the language by the zoning administrator. commissioner moore: second. comissiomer sugaya: that is fine. commissioner moore: commissioner antonini will summarize what i was going to add. thank you. -- well summarized. comissiomer sugaya: for the benefit of the hardware brothers, this commission and the city do not have jurisdiction to consider emissions as part of the decision. it has already been pre-empted by the federal government. so we cannot use that as a reason to deny antennas. no local jurisdiction can use

that, i don't think. dianne feinstein. commissioner borden: you can advise the hardware brothers that you are representing that they can have at&t come to their store and measure the emissions. likewise, you can have at&t come to your home. there is that process that you are allowed. >> [unintelligible] comissiomer sugaya: maybe you can have that discussion outside. commissioner borden: maybe you can address that with the microphone and he can speak to you. the law requires -- >> the law requires us to test radiofrequency emissions within 25 feet of any antenna. we are happy to extend it.

we have always extended it to anybody concerned about it in the area in which we're placing it. we are happy to connect with you and the harbors door and have them come out and do some testing. >> there is a motion on the floor for approval with conditions, including the condition offered by the board of supervisors, as recommended by the zoning in a stripper. on that motion -- commissioner antonini:aye. commissioner borden:aye. commissioner moore: aye. comissiomer sugaya: aye. president fong: aye. >> you are now on item number 18, case number 2,011.1327c for 401 grove street. >> my name is kevin guy, with

planning staff. the planning commission approved conditional use authorization for a project at 401 grove street to demolish an existing surface parking lot and construct a new mixed use development including 63 dwelling units and approximately 5000 square feet of commercial space, as well as 37 parking spaces. the plans presented to the commission depicted seven of the residential parking spaces in a confederation which would result in a total of 39 parking spaces. however, staff failed to identify these spaces, and the sponsor described an amount of parking which is principally permitted by the planning code. therefore, the conditions of approval or written to limit the total amount of spaces in an amount that did not account for the seven additional spaces that would result from these configurations.

therefore, the project sponsor request an amendment to allow the seven additional spaces, for a total of 39 parking spaces residential we -- for residential use. texas reporting is not required for residential use in mcp district, in respect of the transit-oriented nature of the district. -- accessory parking is not required for residential use in the district. staff believes the additional parking would incentivize travel by private vehicle over walking, biking, or using transit, and this would degrade the pedestrian environment. multiple policies within the general plan and specifically the martin and octavia area envision a variety of transportation, and discourages

automobiles in a transit-rich neighborhood. staff has received one letter regarding the request. it came from the hayes valley neighborhood association. the letter reiterates support of the project, but is opposed to parking beyond the principle permitted levels in the code. staff recommends the commission does approve the request to modify the existing conditional use opposition to allow the additional seven tandem parking spaces. president fong: project sponsored? -- sponsored? -- sponsor? >> i am david baker, and i am very unhappy to be here, but i am. i would say i agree with everything kevin said. in fact, i think i am one of the primary culprits, one of the

players in getting these parking maximums in place. i just want to explain to you what happened to us and why i think it is reasonable and that there be some adjustment. -- reasonable that there be some adjustment. there was a use permit to in 2008 which was modified. in 2008, tandem parking spaces were counted as one space. there were counted as one individually accessible space. the second space was not counted toward your total. this was approved just to make things really confusing. it was approved with five spaces written and six bases on the plan. we fumbled along and thought a tandem space did not count. this shows the written part

where it said five is six on the plan. it's a 6 on the plan, five on the written stuff. in between our submission for the modification and that, the planning department, i think wisely, changed the definition of a tandem space to be a two parking spaces. the then we applied that, and you must have looked at this, which shows seven parking spaces. our mistake. we were thinking tandems base was one space. 37 spaces. unfortunately, we proceeded along and submitted a separate permit, and people went, "you have too many parking spaces." that is what it is. we would like some consideration. i am not a developer.

i think there should be a wall around san francisco and you would pay $5,000 to take your car inside. that would be fine with me. i am not person. in terms of the general conditions, we were approved for 32 individually accessible spaces. each unit has -- half the units have parking spaces. five or six or seven would have an additional space. they could not get out without the keys to the other car. that is a nutshell. we are not asking for any additional spaces. we feel like the bad guys. i usually have the white hat. i have the black hat today. but with thinking of not even coming. -- we were thinking of not even coming. if you give it to us, other folks might say, "you gave it to

them." but it was in the original use, which was modified. it was knocked out with the change in the definition, but nobody said that anywhere. if you have any questions, elizabeth and don are here. i will make it short. thanks. president fong: public comment on this item? >> i am the developer, elizabeth costello. i just wanted to reiterate that we are really not asking for anything new here. the spaces were in the original plan that was approved. the neighborhood has supported us in every way. but this one particular thing in this development -- only 50% of the units would get parking. even though some of those bases will be tandem spaces, they will be controlled by that one unit. we are asking you to reaffirm

the approval we thought we got in july in last year. thank you. president fong: other public comment? commissioner antonini: i am very much in favor of this, as outlined by project sponsor. the approval was based on a situation that existed in the past. there was somewhat of a technicality. however, in general terms, there have been some objections to it. i have had experience to be without my car five days last week. i walked a lot, and it was very good. going to and from work was fine, but coming home and having to go shopping was another issue. i was not going to try to carry three bags of course respond muni. i used my wife's car, which was still available. i think this is a modest request here, that is basically still staying very close to the

amount which is principally permitted, which is 0.5. you have your spaces for the other reasons of commercial, and if you because of the technicality. i did the math. if we were to grant them 0.75, it would be up to 47 spaces, and they are not requesting that. we are talking about a total of 39, if i am not mistaken. is that correct? i would move to approve. commissioner borden: i want to wait to hear what other commissioners have to say. comissiomer sugaya: in terms of the staff recommendation, wouldn't staff recommends 0.5 originally? however many spaces were being proposed or overlooked? >> we talk about that a bit. i defer to the director on this.

but it is fair to say department practice has been fairly consistent on areas with parking maximums, or principally permitted parking maximums, to recommend 0.5. even if the staff oversight or lack of recognition of tandem spaces -- if we understood the project back in july, we might have recommended going back to the 0.5 amount of parking. comissiomer sugaya: i believe the commission voted on the assumption that it was 0.5, and not a number, per se. >> anything above that would have required a cu. >> that is correct. the plans show larger spaces and a tandem configuration, but the staff understood it as the 0.5 ratio. commissioner moore: i would call

approval on this project. this is a key project with a very persuasive architecture, very much in the spirit of what we are trying to do here. but it includes a very specific commitment to the 0.5. we are in a very walkable neighborhood. we have everything else to get us everywhere we want to go, including grocery stores. i basically can really only commit to what i voted on and then, and not amend the parking as we approved it. and by the way, i really appreciated the thorough and objective analysis, and i want to acknowledge him on that. commissioner antonini: i am not sure there is a grocery store

that is a workable distance from this. maybe there is some. i am not positive. regardless of that, there are other needs for cars. i do not know the exact ratio, but i think we have cars per capita in san francisco fairly high, even though some people do not drive. many people have more than one car. i think out of my staff, currently we have 14 employees, and 13 of them have cars and use them frequently. and they are almost all san francisco residents. i think that to try to create something that is not grounded in reality is not the best situation. you have a very modest request from the project sponsor. i do not know if i can get a second for my motion. if we can, that is fine. otherwise, i would probably move to continue. we are absent two commissioners

today. presumably, will have commissioner miguel back to consider this. on the absence of a second, i would move to continue this. i am making another motion to consider this item to whatever time when we think we would have at least six commissioners, which would be a week or two. >> the next open commission hearing is february 13. commissioner antonini: we would probably have to go for that one. it is looking like we will have as full a commission as we can get by the 16th. >> i am not sure if you have a seventh commissioner appointed. commissioner antonini: we probably won't. >> you will have the six commissioners that currently here. commissioner antonini: that is my motion. commissioner borden: second. >> with the public hearing? commissioner antonini: yes.

comissiomer sugaya: i do not even know if i have to do this. given conflict, i should say that mr. baker and i have a remote relationship, if you want to call it that, because he did published a photograph of mine a of one of his buildings on his website. there is no monetary exchange or anything like that. it was a favor that it is up there. i guess i am supposed to reveal things like that, since he is the applicant and i am on the commission. it is not going to influence my decision making. >> thank you. commissioners, on the floor is a motion for a continuance to february 16. president fong: wait. commissioner