hearing >> thank you madam clerk. on today's calendar there are two items where we want to install a wireless system containing 9 antennas within a ground floor medical service building. first tlrns there's an appeal from the environmental review and second there's a conditional use authorization. the issues on each appeal are different. our planning commissions review under the california quality act sequa announced the adequacy and completeness of the examinations. this is a legislation hearing and to over turn needs 6 votes of this board.

our consideration of the appeal of the use authorization involves an analysis whether the planning commissions determination was appropriate. the second hearing is quasi and we're required to afford the project sponsor due process to over turn the authorization of the continual condition 8 votes of the board are required. while into need the consideration and the members of the public who wish to speak and the consideration of the patents my suggestion is we condolences hearings. the public planning department and sponsor each receive a fair opportunity to address the appeals.

first, the pales will have up to fourteen minutes to peel and next the members of the public meaning i request the board to regret the project may speak up to 2 minutes. we ask the speakers address the progress. we'll have 15 minutes to address the analysis and for first year it's authorization of the plan unit development. the real project sponsor in this case is at&t will have up to 15 minutes for the environmental review and a for the use authorization and then we'll hear from the members of the public that support the environmental review and the approval of the ice authorization may speak up to 2

minutes. again, we ask the speakers to identify the particular peel and then we'll hear from the sponsors up to 4 minutes and the appeal of the conditional use 30 years. now all parties can divide their time within their sectors as they feel fit. on conclusion we'll determine the examinations from the peel we'll consider whether to affirm or overturn. first are there any objections to preceding in this way? oh. okay in order for us to combine hearing wre we need 0 motion.

supervisor farrell and supervisor mar second it. and let me ask i know there are two supervisors that bored this site any comments? seeing none, why don't we move first to the 15 presentation from the appellants and a good morning. i'm doug appearing on behalf of the appellants. i live about one block away. given the serious safety issues raised by this particular project in this particular location i have to say in my 13 years of working on the site of wireless facilities in every district in san francisco this is by more the most egregious example that have i've seen

agencies bending over be background to operate a wireless facility on a building that doesn't prolong. and in light of the grand jury report which speaks of preferential treatment and inconsistent in his building codes i have to say that the planning departments position is those position are best addressed by d b i is not particularly reassuring. so let's take a look at that property. it is a building between supervisors district 1 and 2. 67 property owners representing over 40 percent of the property area within a 40 foot radius

subscribe to those appeal. in 2006 at&t installed a two antenna micro facility and nobody received the notice and nobody had the right to contest is because this board didn't pass an ordinance until 2007. in 2010 almost three years ago at&t applied for the court instructs the jury use to upgrade this to a 9 macro facility. then in march 2011 without the required i condition of the building permits at at the went ahead and started to install it's macro equipment on the roof.

one the dentists in the building filed a complaint. in october 2012 almost a year and a half later they held a director's meeting in which at&t said forgot about our ongoing site we're about to get a permit so let's move it from the roof to a ground floor to which d b i respond go ahead. there's two problems here. first, the 1976 soft story wood building is not up to current building codes for seismic sate. the technical engineer who has 50 years experience was to view the site.

the drs. comment was no at&t was to be permitted on the roof without a complete seismic upgrade of the this. so in the absence of a service upgrade is a skeptic issue that was referred to in the previous hearing. the second problem although this application has been in the pipeline for 3 years until residents brought it to their attention both at&t and the city planning department overlooked that was identified as prone to flooding or was prone to flooding. so it appears prior to the june meeting at&t also waved it's

magic one day over the department of public works. one day before the planning commission hearing stated this block is no longer prone to flooding. now should we ask the grand jury to look to d b w. why is potential flooding at this location an issue. contrary to at&t would have you believe while it's important to say this has batteries it is highly unusual to place those batteries in a known flood area. this is because the equipment at&t seeks to include has a lady

and acid problems. according to our sequa appeal, in fact, con tooedz seeds this issue on page 5. the release of electric light sewage is likely. this is precisely the threshold for sequa review we've repeatedly sited. led acid battery may have an inadverse effect but the planning department contorts the language of sequa saying the risk of such an occurrence is not significant or unusually high. under sequa it's not the risk

that maybe released into the environment but rather it's the posh effect of the release of acid solution that must be significant. for sequa review to be required there need be only a reasonable possibility that there are unusual circumstances. i should add the planning department appears f to be operating in a you thought where it's alicia in wonderland logical. we routinely approve those facilities therefrom therefore we have to approve this facility. the ground floor of this facility was flooded with 18 inches of water after a water sewage pipeline break.

residents hired a second expert epa spent and the conclusion was at a minimum an initial study mitigated declarations is required to address those o how those hoozs will be determined. in the last minute classification they said that the sewer line was replaced in 2007. he's on the record of saying while the sewer upgrade may reduce the odds it doesn't eliminate the posh of a 2006 flood which is logical that no one can predict the storms and

earthquakes or cumulation of things in the sewer. it raise seismic safety issues and at&t should not be allowed to put things on the ground floor because of the history of flooding and with safety issues they will be referred to in the words a common per certification is the order of the day. under the city's guidelines this site is a preference 6 locations and they're to list all the possible alternatives. in response at&t has provided 6

photographs of why they won't work, however, consistent with the cookie cutter approach with its attitude toward the residents concerns for their own safety at&t has not examined all the alternatives and has failed to meet its burdens of the cities guidelines. here's the photograph of the current at&t application. the south side of california street dribble across the street from the significant property. this photograph was taken when at&t filed their application in 2010. compare this 3 beyond a reasonable doubt photo which is this photo of page of the exhibits that the appellants provided.

this is the condo from 2016 site it's completely absent from at&t photographs. this new building is significantly taller than the site and therefore, huh? hover i cared with the owner at&t has never pursued this as at&t is required to do under the guidelines. at&t is also provided no evidence it has considered a described wireless system on light poles. by failing to meet the requirements of the cities requirement guidelines and failing to demonstrate it's all possible alternatives this board can and show overturn the

decision and deny this permit for 2016 california street. under the planning code on this district wireless facilities are denied in section 70.90 that prurient to another section they must be located within an imposed building in and out on a roof as at&t says. at&ts attorney says this planning code carves out a special section and i quote the city has an entire code for facilities are allowed outside and then sites a unconsistently code. what he's refer to say section

of article 25 of the san francisco peculiar code which only governors codes on light and light poles. it does appear for the last 17 years the city's codes have been at odds. and it's the controlling authority from the landmark sixth court metro vs. 71 of san francisco which or gaited in those very chambers of a wireless facility which like the present case was property for the richmond district but the 9th sixth was not only in favor of the city but the district court resulted that it had demonstrated the significant gap but it failed to prove that the

site was the least intrusive means and thereby handed the residents a decisive victory. it's not that that graze the basketball stamped and there's no way to treat the at&t organization any differently. for any and all the above listed conditions we ask you deny at&t permit today >> thank you, colleagues any questions to the appellant? >> seeing none, let's hear from the members of the public. the public should have up to 2 minutes >> good afternoon supervisors. the residents of the neighborhood retained architect and engineering who had 50 years

of the professional experience to provide a report on the site on the at&t equipment on this building. some of the photographs that dr. carping took of the conditions on the roof are included in appellants exhibit no. 1. the building was built in 1976 and the building is substandard and can't support the equipment that at&t has on the roof. nor can it support any new loads including the 9 antennas that they're asking for. the major conclusions are the folsom 4216 california requires the retrofitting to bring it to the standards of 2010 san francisco building code and the

at&t equipment on the roof as well as the proposed rooftop antennas present additional weight that will be subject to largely loads by earthquakes and can't be permit without a service upgrade system. in short the building has accrual proposed equipment is a life safety problem. the city should be instructing alter at to remove its equipment from the building not approving an additional use equipment to be placed on the roof. please deny those permits >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm also the neighborhood

resident. the resident of the neighborhood retained awning architect and engine engineer. a copy of the report as well as some of the photographs that the dr. took of the current conditions are included as paeltsz exhibit no. 1 in our materials. the building was built in 1976 and it is soft it's substandard and cannot hold the equipment that at&t has nor can it contain more equipment. the major conclusion that was reached is 4216 california requires major seismic ubld and the at&t equipment currently on the roof as well as the proposed

rooftop antennas present additional weight that will be subject to largely loads generated by kwaerths without an you are not talking about. in short the building with the at&ts equipment presents a life issue to the tenants and others of the public. the believes should be instructing them to remove the equipment of at&t to the building. please vote to deny the permit to this location >> next speaker >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is deborah. i'm one of the property owners located next door to the site. appellants report number 2 is a report certified by

professionals. this gentleman was a u.s. environmental protection agency expert. this documents in detail the various health and safety paroles for at at to install their equipment including the acid batteries located on a building that's could be flooded. this has lead components and materials that could cause cancer and materials that react violently to heat. mr. hag man says this requires another study to address how

at&t proposes to deal with those hazards. the unusual swishgz of relating to at&ts equipment in the building with the history of flooding that presents a potential flooding speaks too on the error of this project from sequa. please vote to override the planning depends determination to pass this permit for this location. thank you >> next speaker >> good afternoon supervisors my name is vince co- owner of the property next to the subject property we're discussing this knowledge. as was previously talked about this pipeline both at and the and the city planning department are oblivious to this project

stands in an area a that's prone to flooding. until the city had the report on june 14th the letter to the planning commission at&ts attorney said in a letter the flooding areas was replaced and they said the batteries couldn't are researched reached in the basement. and a response to the attorneys june 4th letter includes a report. as the gentleman poutsz the surgery is only designed to be sufficient to be okay in a 5

year storm it's based on an assumption that this this will hold back a disagree from a one hundred year flood. it maybe flooded in any given year and that would include the batteries to be impacted. please vote to require sequa review and vote to deny a conditional permit for this location. thank you >> thanks next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is van. i'm a resident of district 8 concerned with the health and safety of the residents n in districts would be. i'd like to provided an example of why we don't have confidence that the department of building

inspection doesn't have this conditional use permit that is good for you percent shortly after we got the report from the expert that an upgrading be made before at&t be put on the roof. a new complaint was filed. and a second directors meeting was on may 7, 2013. when dr.s report was referenced the office was and i quote regarding the skeptic issue the service conditions would not be

effected. but we ask it be tied down in some way. after consulting with dr. carping a file was sent and a e-mail asking the hearing office to where it's writing that the building don't have to comply with current codes to receptionist codes. he never got a respond. the grand jury report that preferential treatment of the 13 yourselves. who might that be in this case? >> thank you very much sir. >> next speaker >> good afternoon supervisors

i'm wendy. attached to mr. hagman's report is exhibit no. 2 is a copy of this san francisco planning bulletin. entitled review of project in identified areas he prone to flooding. this bulletin talks about the projects guidelines in a flood prone area. attached to this bulletin is a copy of this map that the city considers prone to flooding sfgovtv if you could please show what's on the overhead >> as you can see the block is located is one of only two blocks that that is identified as a flood area, however, the planning department never followed it's on preserves and

this is completely overlooking the flood area until the drs. error. and instead of preparing this report the planning department took another approach and asked the department of public works to issue a report stating that the block is located is no longer prone to flooding. while this feet of bureaucratic domain is for the standards tenants and others are of a different opinion. sequa review is not only appropriate but is okay. and i urge you to vote accordingly please. >> next speaker >> i live right across the street