big the lot has to be or how small the lot has to be or how many units it has to accommodate. i like the option of land dedication. i like it here obviously gives us the ability to do 100% affordable project if they have the funds and built more affordable housing than you would get from the inclusionary model. >> yeah, basically there is a calculation offered within the code. the project site itself falls within the tier a, which basically says that the land itself has to be -- the dedicated land has to be 35% the size of the land of the project. so, the affordable housing project. >> yeah, to clarify. so, the project site is roughly 50,000 square feet. considering just the development which is excluding the new mission theater. this is the development portion of the residential unit. >> you take 35% of that which is roughly 15,000, and that's

the size of the new lot for the land dedication. that land dedication lot has to be a minimum of 40 units. moh has determined that it can be 46. they can also -- there's some language that allowseses them to go as low as 25 in certain circumstances, but they determined they can do 46. * allows >> is this based on [speaker not understood] are we talking about the economics, 12 affordable units in the projects? >> this is strictly from eastern neighborhoods. >> is that originally based on some economic calculation or it's not clear? >> i don't remember. there was some analysis looking at comparables. i can't remember the details. if i had ken rich here, we could ask him that question. i honestly don't remember. >> i kind of second commissioner wu's comments to see if this is, you know, economically consistent. they're following the rules which is great. i think it's a good model. we should use this as a test to see are we getting kind of the

same value because then there is a potential to get even more land to do land dedication. so, it would be good just to see that kind of -- it's not a terribly difficult calculation. >> yeah, we could do that. i think what's relevant here is that the land dedication, regardless of whether it's economically comfortable in terms of dollars, it was intended to provide more units. and, so, what this does, it relatively triples the amount of affordable units. >> [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood]. [multiple voices] >> more units on lower land cost. >> one thing i do remember, part of the reason and i think mayor's office of housing can clarify this. part of the reason we did that five years ago now, four years ago now, is because at the time, and i think it's still the case, land itself was a big part of the problem that the affordable housing community in general has had. so, we rao really looking at an alternative to make land available for new housing.

>> make an incentive to use the land dedication model but you don't want it to be too much of an incentive you're not getting enough units. >> okay, commissioner moore. >> i'm sorry, i should have taken my name off. >> commissioner wu. >> just to add one last thought on this conversation is that there is a policy difference here, which is that moh has to finance these units. so, in the example where the developer builds bmrs, the units come ready, however you want to say it. but the city is taking on more of the burden. i really agree we have to make sure it's economically correct. >> commissioner sugaya. commissioner antonini. >> well, on this issue of off-site land dedication, for years we've had a lot of affordable housing activists who have come forward and said, we really want this, particularly in the mission district. so, it's been created and it seems like the wrong forum,

although it's worthy of discussion. this is not the time. when the policy is being formulated and approved, that's when the discussion should come forward and make sure it works out equitably and these are all valid comments since they're not being built right now, but itself a trade-off. again this is probably one of the reasons the project can go forward and give so much because the land is dedicated, but they don't have to go through the initial cost of building right at this time of the extra set of units. but land is expensive. it's usually anywhere from 30, sometimes 40% of the value. it depends how much the improvements are. land is very expensive in san francisco. i'm still waiting to hear about my amendment now. i can modify that a little bit. i can go with a total of 80 residential on four car share and commercial. so, basically what we're doing is we're bringing it down one more. it allows one more to be a car

share because it's becoming increasingly more important. and you're going to get some people who will say, i would buy this place if there's a car available to me when it's raining, when i have to get groceries or anything else. but they won't buy the place if they have to put their car somewhere on the street to get vandalized or have to pay for a separate garage somewhere else a few blocks away. so, if there's more car share, that would be my amendment. >> so, just to be clear, the project sponsor is only proposing one car share space? there's three and then three retail spaces. so basically you're proposing to provide 08 off-street residential, [speaker not understood], three retail. * 80 >> unless they're willing to come up with a couple commercial and car share instead. >> commissioners, for clarity, there is a motion and second on the floor.

i haven't heard the maker of the motion nor the seconder support this amendment. >> i could get a second for the amendment. >> we would have to deal with the original motion and the second first, and then we can move on to another motion if that motion fails. >> i'll hear what the developer has to say. >> my preference would be 80, three retail, three tenants or more. and then one car share. i'd be happy to increase that car share to 83 and 2. for a total of 85. >> [inaudible]. >> okay. >> i mean -- >> we'll defer it to the maker of the motion to see what would work for the maker of the motion to try to make this realistic. i'd hate to see the project fail because we don't have enough parts and go nowhere because we can't sell the unit. it doesn't make any sense.

>> mr. junius, you're a land use attorney. how many condominiums do you think are for sale now in the city out of the thousands that used to be for sale? a couple hundred? >> i think if you're talking about demand for units, the pine line is pretty slim right now without a doubt. that's with all the cranes are in the air. >> thank you. we're in a transit rich corridor here. it's not only uses. we have a policy. the staff has already split the difference between .5, which is the max allowed and .75. the developer would have to do all of the things that commissioner antonini mentioned anyway just to put money into the community -- excuse me -- eastern neighborhoods fund. granted, he's volunteered to do the community benefit separately, but we're not in control of that.

all of the things that he has to meet, affordable housing, he's required to do. so, that would be required of any developer. and that developer would still be facing .5. and, so, given the location of this, it's not south of market, which sue hester argues there is no transit. it's not located, you know, in another area. and we have the precedent a block away of having approved up to .67. so, i stand with my motion. >> the way i'll respond to that is this is a rehab project where if you were going to lose doors, apartment doors because you were going to try to add more parking, i understand that. but you're trying to work with some bones, existing bones. and i still saw that basement is really set up for parking. commissioner moore.

>> this commission spends years and years and years, nights and nights and nights on thursdays to develop policies surrounding the eastern neighborhoods including parking [speaker not understood] in transit corridors. i believe that it opens a door for a policy by which, depending on how you want to sell your project, you will find arguments that your project indeed deserves exceptions or considerations outside of what the rest of the folks have to adhere to. i think it has very, very questionable tone for how developers appear in front of this commission. i do think that this project has many other exceptions and exemptions it is asking for. these are important to consider. they don't [speaker not understood]. those have to be considered in addition to parking.

rear yard, whatever they are, i believe that the parking issue with the staff recommendation for an already increase is what this commission should be supporting. >> commissioner antonini. >> it's always curious to me why we have such a war on parking in many instances here. now, just because something was passed, it was passed as a policy, but there was conditional use. as i pointed out, we wouldn't -- or whoever made the final decision, which was probably the board of supervisors on the amount of parking allowed, they wouldn't have allowed .75 for an extraordinary project. this is an extraordinary project. if they didn't want it to be used if the project warranted it, and that's the reason it's there. so, that's the reason i'm supportive of the higher parking and i probably will vote against this now. but i will vote if we can have another motion, i will vote for

the higher parking. >> commissioner hillis. >> just want to comment on the parking. i think not being here on the commission for the other project where we've gone to .65 or .67 to 1, clearly we can go to .67 to 1. my question is, is this project -- are there unique circumstances in this project that would justify four additional spaces, three additional spaces? i think the one argument against it is it's on mission street near barton a pretty transit-rich corridor. but there are things that president fong brought up about basement being in existence. there are stackers involved. there is the issue of land dedication and the off-site affordable housing. i don't know how that compares to the other project that were approved at .67 to 1. and whether that is -- that

gives increase to parking in a couple spaces. >> commissioner moore. >> this commission will need to grant conditional use authorization to develop on a lot exceeding 10,000 square feet or we'll have to give approval for formula retail. it will have to give approval for pud development with specific modifications and it would have to give exemptions for certain planning requirements which normally all other projects have to adhere to, which is really open space dwelling unit street funded and off-street freight loading. the project has and also an exemption on height and all of that basically amounts to having more units in this particular project than you would have if this project would be totally code

compliant. as it packaged itself to pud, it comes automatically a larger project. i think on a policy issue was the public transit parking and traffic. i myself cannot afford to give on that point. i'm prepared on all others. we are already creating a larger project. we are already giving more development benefit to the developer in terms of how many units he can develop. so, i think that is all i can support. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, it is extraordinary and this has not been pointed out. the saving of the new mission theater and the creation of an even better facility there necessitates, i believe, at the $1 million contribution from the project sponsor, it might even be more. so, that's something that is exceptional and i think the community benefits that are being promised to help

stabilize the community, particularly commercial businesses that are threatened to go far beyond what is mandatory under the eastern neighborhoods stabilization front. so, it they are doing some very unusual things and they've got to make it work. and it doesn't work if you can't get it to pencil out. there is obviously a reason. maybe mr. jeves, you can tell me a little more about the whole -- the need to have that parking and a little bit about the economics here when we vote on this because we want to get a yes vote, but we don't want the wrong yes vote. >> surely, and i appreciate all the dialogue and i completely understand the issues related to parking. and i'm very appreciative of the effort to get us the parking we desire. as commissioner fong mentioned, we have an existing basement, it covers most of the site. the impact on our project of the parking is it's revenue generating. it's what enables us to

finance, at least partially, finance -- this voluntary unique benefit package. as far as i'm concerned, as far as i'm aware of, it's unique for private project. i don't think it's any private -- i don't know of any private project that has done that. it helps us finance that and that's why we're asking it -- for it. i'm sensitive, i understand the parking issues, but that's our rationale, so thank you for considering it. >> thank you. you can also let us know this is not your first project. you've done a lot of different projects like the hayes, like the artera, i believe, one or two others, all of which are freestanding and do not do all the benefits that this project is doing. my experience, one thing unique here is i think we talked about this, but i was approached to do land dedication. in fact, i didn't know land dedication existed, i didn't know what it was. the consequence of that is that i have 100% of market rate units and this may fall on deaf ears. i get concerned about market

absorption at artera had 12 units of parking, hayes had three units. those are difficult to fill. i understand we're in a very nice location transit wise, but i'm sensitive to that and i am sensitive to the fact that the burden we put on the project, the community benefits that we will be providing. so, that's my rationale. >> thank you. >> call the question. >> commissioners, there is a motion with a second, to approve with conditions as proposed by staff. commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to 1. commissioners, that will place

you on your next items under your regular calendar. given the proximity of location and similarity in proposal, items 9, 10, and 11 will be called up together to be heard as -- to be heard together, but be voted on separately. commissioners, items 9, 10 and 11, case numbers 2012.0505c, 1101 fillmore street, 2012.0602c, 1290 fillmore street, and 2012.1245c, 1426 fillmore street all requests for conditional use authorization.

>> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners. as jonas mentioned, these next few items are all wi-fi antenna items presented by at&t. they're all conditional use instruments. i'll go through and explain them. i just wanted to, i just wanted to point out a map in your packet showing the location of each of these items. 1101 fillmore, 1290 fillmore, and 1427 if ... fillmore, there

is a wi-fi [speaker not understood]. 1101 fillmore street is a proposal from at&t located on the northwest corner of fillmore and golden gate avenue. it is a wi-fi facility proposed by at&t that consists of one wi-fi panel antenna, concealed in a dome on the rooftop of an existing residential and commercial use building. it is preference two co-location site. due to the location of three other carriers at this site, this location is within the nt-3 neighborhood commercial [speaker not understood] and 50 -x height and bulk district. the proposal before you is located at 1290 fillmore street. this is located at the southeast corner of fillmore and eddy. this facility would consist of five wi-fi panel antennas still

behind two screens. they're mounted on the facade of the existing mixed use building. this facility is proposal and preference 4 site also nc3 zoning district, height higher here at 130 b. the third proposal is located at 1426 fillmore street, which is the east side of fillmore street between geary and ellis street. this facility consists of six panel antennas and two ray dome on the building on the rooftop and the building is [speaker not understood] commercial building which makes it a preference 4 site, also in the nc-3 neighborhood commercial district and the height here is 160 height and bulk district. to date staff has received two phone calls with questions about service improvement of home wi-fi systems and also two phone calls opposed to the project space and health concerns. staff is recommending approval of the projects with conditions. i'm available for questions. thank you. >> thank you.

calling up public comment, i have two speaker cards. earnest eggerly and nell simmons. good afternoon, commissioners. happy new year. first thing i want to know -- >> could you state your name for the record? [speaker not understood] edgerly. i want to know through the bay area air quality, has there been any studies done on these cell phone towers and neighborhoods? second thing is is there a full proposal that the community can review on exactly who is at&t -- we know they're an international company, but who is representing them? what is the compensation in our community that they're giving the building management or, you know, who is being paid off,

what is going on in our community? the health effects as, again, these infill towers, you know, and the towers which are located within three or four blocks, you know, do we need that many towers in our community, you know. it's three blocks. so, at&t is, of course, going to profit off of getting these towers maybe before verizon, you know. so, we want to know the long-term effects and things like that. but really, you know, not passing it today to get a real understanding of the full proposal. all we're getting is a date of these big signs to come down here. but none of these facilities nor at&t has a community meeting to discuss anything about these cell phone towers.

and as we're developing with our new supervisor and the new cbd along with a lower fillmore neighborhood association that deals with that area, i think it's in deserve of another meeting plan to come here, you know, which is in april, but maybe before that we can deal with this. but since we're going through so many different changes right now, i think it deserves to be reviewed and put on the back burner. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is mel simmons. i live at 1431 eddy, which is about four doors from the west basin and which is at 1290 fillmore and a roughly, a

block, not even a block from the 1426 site. i have cancer now, been struggling with it for 10 years. i didn't know much about wi-fi or anything like that until i got on the internet and discovered that -- what it does to people. there are denials out there that are questioning it and i'm saying, you're putting a [speaker not understood] on it that doesn't hurt you, it doesn't hurt you. out of my pocket now, i've gotten some teenagers. i work with kids. i'm a youth counselor for kids in the area. i've been doing that for the last 20 years. i used west bay for talent shows.

i use the farmers market i help found on fillmore and o'farrell. it's an organic market. the elders and young people come there and sit all day. this is across from the 1426 building. what i discovered online, and that's where i got my information, it's very threatening to my health. my backyard where i sit in the morning faces 1426 building. so, now i have to worry about the impact of what someone is going to tell me it will not do. the radiation, which is called micro magnetic waves, it's particles that are airborne and they go through you. if you read it, i don't know if you have, maybe you have. i have a study here. i don't know if i can pass this to you. these are where your microwave

antennas are in the black community. it is shocking, the amount of antennas that are spread out in the area, one area of 3rd street and hunters point where now i'm going to do it very aggressively, what health problems are kids having in that area? we're going to try to hire the kids to do a film to say, are there any connecting illness with kids, nose bleeds, headaches, all of these things are -- not only the tumors. i haven't gotten to the tumors and what the study says about the tumors and the skin cancer. i don't have enough time now, but i wish you give me a second because we just found this out to do this study -- >> sir, your time is up. >> thank you very much, sir. okay. >> thank you. we might call you up for questions. is there any additional public

comment? okay, public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. to answer some questions that were raised and they come up frequently, we have cell phone conditional uses before us almost on a weekly basis. in terms of even the map that the speaker just brought, the heaviest concentration as a product of usage and it's the most heavily in the middle of downtown because obviously you have the most heaviest use there with high-rise buildings where people are on number of different floors and they're all using their electronic devices almost constantly all day long, even those on the street. so, you know, it's not -- there is not a reason why you have to -- you can't possibly put antennas in a specific area. there is a limit to how far the antenna will process the

signal. and then there is the demand, which has become astronomical because everyone is using these electronic devices all day long for everything. and, so, it's increasing astro no, ma'am li. -- a astronomically. the federal government has set and they're measured from any antennas. and as long as they are below the level that is deemed to be a safe level, then we cannot deny a permit based upon the radio frequency level. * and we also can't discriminate between carriers. so, that means if at&t wants to put in and verizon wants to put some in and somebody else does, they all have the ability to put their own antennas in. so, as long as this demand is there, there is going to be more antennas and, you know,

until they figure out some sort of way to make the transition different. but i don't know if there is going to be anything coming very quickly. >> commissioner moore. >> i would ask that the at&t representative answers the question to this commission and the person asking why there was no neighborhood outreach, was there neighborhood outreach? you can also describe -- would you mind coming to the microphone? i would like to also have you describe to members of the community what other tools you have in the way of helping people get readings, get a more thorough introduction to the subject matter, including if the area is under used or under covered, et cetera. if you wouldn't mind doing that. >> absolutely, thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is [speaker not understood] and i am the director of external affairs for at&t. i am joined today by david hyatt who