recommended the standards recommended in this proposed ordinance. the chapter included to draft the language and this language has the definition here. and would a zoning codification be introduced. so the proposed ordinance is here so you can recommended the approval or disapproval. that concludes my presentation. i believe that dan and sarah are here to provide further clarification. thank you >> thank you. opening it up for public comment

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with spur. i wanted to speak on behalf of the propriety amendment adoption and ask the commission to approve it. this recommendation does represent all the prop c and the passage of that proposition and we believe the definition does represent what all parties are interested in seeing in this proposal so we ask you move this forward for approval >> any additional comment? >> thank you, commissioners i just wanted to clarify a little bit the housing committee that

sophie mentioned. it's made up of housing and planning. i sat in on that committee in those two meetings we had interesting discussions frankly on both sides of the issue. so this definition really grew out of those meetings. just want to give you that information and a thank you. commissioner and yeah. >> just some clarification on how this works. if you had a site that was less than 40 acres this would not apply or you had a site that was a special use district it won't apply and you'd be significant to the limits and knowing the

additional combrgs could be added. and one would assume if you have a somewhat increased number of units allowed or floor area additional height but was not at the threshold

>> but it sounds like it's very well put together. >> okay. any additional comments? >> i want to be sure is there any additional public comment? >> i'm reopening it because i didn't formerly close public comment. >> shawn i'll be brief. we're part of the working group that put the language forward. individually i'm sure that each would have their grips about it but we're here as a group

representing the communities interest and this was a lot of hard inrefined. that was the actual strength of people coming together i'll support it. i'm happy to say that it's the

same folks that got it together >> commissioner. >> i guess i'm the only one who didn't vote for it. anyway to staff. the language in area subject to change in zoning after november 6, 2012, that effects 40 acres or greater so we're voting on here this comes into play at the time the board of supervisors enacts some kind of zoning for 40 acres or greater.

that's like 2 or more blocks south of marketing i believe. so we'd be taking in a large area. let me if we - and do those 40 acres have it be con tigz or under the central corridor plan for example, if the corridor plan had proposals to increase residential areas beyond the 20 percent that is stated here but they're not con tigz areas if there were other units but ultimately under the plan and under the zoning plan those parcels totaling 40 acres come

into play? >> the answer is yes i believe it's the nature of the board it would come into play. >> the second question is it possible then i'm not saying anything sirp tissue but it's possible that a different proposal of zoning areas could like take 10 acres in july and we took another action in september of 20 acres in similar areas that wouldn't trigger this? >> i'd like to take this. if there are a number of different provisions >> it's like serial zoning. >> the intent of the clause

with the 40 acres is intend. i will defer to city attorney. but it's attached to an individual are a single-action that addresses that comprehensively. i believe it would fall into the other category of local legislation so it could be captured under this intent but not the 40 acre category if that make sense >> yeah, i was under the understanding this was an individual project but this 0 could be an area plan that could trigger this because an area could be over 40 acres. in one great way it goes against the intent of the proposition. i know that a lot of the bigger

areas might include more than 40 acres >> commissioner that was the intent. it wasn't really meant

>> the proposal before you is to convert an micro facility to is making restraining order facility at two locations on the rooftop of building. the antennas will mimic an extension of the building. batteries and comment necessary to operate the facility will have back up on the first floor of the medical building. the lowest battery will be located about 6 inches off the ground. the antennas will be fully screened from off-site and will

be located in an area sorry - i'll restate. the applicant will talk with the business owners in order to make sure they're in compliance. the staff did receive a petition from 1 hundred business owners opposed to the project including issues related to the seismic of the building. the building is to be reconsidered for the categorical provision on the impacts related to ventilation on the antennas and flood impacts in the event

of flooding or sewage flows or greg with the tenants of the medical building. the request did ask for an expiration of the building. staff worked with the building folks to see the risks involved. we're happy to say that the seismic issues and greg can all be addressed. and i would also note as of yesterday staff received a letter from public of works removing this site from flooding. and it's not recognized by the

couldn't surveyer. staff that believes the compliance is okay. if approved the outcome will provide everyday of the permits and all safety issues including egress and the structural soundness of the building. the building has not been deemed unsafe and the building permits would determine that the facility proposed that the building retains save. therefore staff recommended it be approved. thank you >> project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. with at&t external affairs

arrest i'm still joined by the professional licensing affirm. and it's report is in our passage package. we're seeking our approval today on a conditional use permit application which would allow at&t to upgrade it's antenna. the new facility is fully equipped with the antennas. this is a preference 6 location under the city's i wireless telecommunications guidelines. at&t xhukd an off-site analysis.

in addition over the 3 years - over the 3 year period of time our at&t radio engineers conducted 3 surveys. this site is necessary for at&t to close a significant service coverage grasping gap between 2 and 7th avenue. the opposition to this upgrade would like you to believe there are seismic impacts due to possible future flooding where the equipment and back up batteries will be stored arrest

a san francisco hydrologic engineering affirm with the professional knowing of sewage and other concerns say this is a safe location. in addition a representative from the hydraulics division says it's not going to a flood arre. approval of this conditional use permit will enable at&t to secure a building permit to relowest the equipment to the ground floor clearly a notice of

violation by the department of safety. a permit was pulled by our contract and the permit was final listed but the contractor didn't pick up the job part and pay the fees and therefore the permit lapsed. we have something in place to prevent that from happening. we are asking for your support and to approve the conditional use. thank you for our staff for they're hard work >> thank you. >> opening it for public comment. i have one speaker card steven. >> steven?

okay >> so looks like you have a pretty well organized. why don't we do this. if you want to line up on that side of the room it would be great >> go ahead and start speaking. >> go ahead and start speaking. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm amy. i handed you a timeline summarize in 2005 and 2006. at&t was granted a permit to allow this. because this happened before the legislation that was approved rigging public notification of microsoft facilities there was

no such revision in this permit. we asked to upgrade our permit. before we received those permits at&t went ahead and installed the equipment. they have two violations on at&t. it was finally conducted a yach later. at&t essentially said forgot the facts we installed this equipment because we'll shortly have this permit. at&t has been illegally operating with no permit. and this commission upon

approval of those permits is conditioned. if you grant at&t a permit today, the city will be making it clear that at&t and other wireless companies can ignore the rules. please deny at&t a permit to this location >> thank you. next speaker, please >> you can just leave it right on the counter there. >> good afternoon. i'm diana. at the directors meeting last november at&t offered to resolve the violation by moving the equipment to another ground floor location. as of april 11th this year never at&t nor anyone else saw that

this area is prone to flooding >> in fact, january 2006 the entire building was flooded and there was 18 inches of water where at&t seeks to install their high voltage equipment. on april 11th residents smiptd a report on how to install acid and other equipment in this area. the tenants were e-mailed that to date i've not seen any evidence of actually storm water

or sewage u sewage specifically happening at this building. and despite the offer seeing of this building in the permitting the permits this has not been reviewed. i urge you to instruct the planning department to not approve the conditional use permit for it as today's hearing. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is deborah i'm the property owner next door to

2016. the categorical sequa for review. i've handed you copies of an expert report prepared by a geolodge. he formerly worked n for the environmental protection agency. the environmental health standards p - led acid batteries that was identified by the city of san francisco is going to flood. their have materials that act

violently with long lasting effects arrest mr. hagman concludes that this project requires at minimum a negative address from sequa. the usual circumstances relating to at&t placement requirement is in a building that has a significant impact on the environment speaks to the investments error in allowing this project. please vote to override the planning departments determination and ask this be

gone over for a better opinion. >> i'm a retired teacher speaking for myself and tenants. i live across the street from 4216. i understand that at&t subjected permits that flooding at the 2016 is not a cause for certain. the fact is that san francisco is one of the few multiples that utilizes a plan 2016 was flooded after a storm and a broken sewer line caused the flooding.

in 2008 the city replaced it with a 47 inch pipe with a 27 inch pipe. at&t now claims that the sewer line is not going to happen. they say that the water drainage could never be more than 4 feet deep. i must remind the people that san francisco is a earthquake prone city. fifth avenue and there's a did he decree run off that constantly closing the sewers. and they're very, very seldom cleaned. my wife and i without there

cleaning many times. echo there's one thing that's happened. we've had earthquakes and storms and any combination of an earthquake, a storm, a sewer blockage might run the water where the batteries are. and the it e vapors the room and at any time the air would be flooded with the poison from the chemicals. very often things come together. it's very difficult to plan they wouldn't. and another thing the hood puts into the air those chemicals from the battery and it's a residential neighborhood

essentially. and children playing and, you know, old adults like myself walking around. it's a health hazard. and anybody will tell you concly

dr. carps report include the following 4216 california requires major seismic retrofitting to at least have it to code. and the at&t equipment currently on the roof as well as the proposed at&ts rooftop