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 from the flood zone in

the building with my wife. the flood zone becomes for important because of the run off of california street. we have a lot of debris that comes down and floods the sewers. my wife and i are the only people out there cleaning up. and the acid put it in a building where there's gases without any ventilation the ventilation system is poor and the gas is lighter than the air floats in the air and burns easily. one of the other major problems there's a whole block of residential areas between california street and lake street. lake street is the sewer line for san francisco it has one sir, line. and you know the problem that i

have is the lack of consideration of - a perfect storm earthquake prone, flood prone, people with burgers running around in a dental area and i live across the street with other people and people with children. and also number one the line goes right by with electrical wires constantly spashgz and repairs are made daily. that's a consideration all that other b.a. lesson of the flood zone won't flood it floods all the time. i think what at&t is could go is cost effective. screw the safety and screw the people. thank you >> thank.

>> next speaker >> good afternoon. i'm dr. kenneth. i ask you to deny at&t this permit. in 2006 the first floor of 4216 california street was flooded with 18 inches of water. as we know san francisco is in a service active zone are there will be an earthquake and the sewer lines will break. the battery lines will be on the first floor of the building i urge you to vote this down >> thank you. >> next speaker >> good afternoon. i'm a resident of the neighborhood. on page 10 of at&t june letter arguing against sequa project he

writes there's nothing about the location of the batteries that cats there's an exposure to fire such as there is any unusually impact from the hazard materials quote/unquote. doing both at&t and the planning department ignore there are dental offices located on california street. each of those offices makes uses of the insend deprives burns and bhut bhutan torches. and this building has no ventilation system yet at&t seeks to install high beat acid

systems. there was one in china where 1 hundred workers were killed. they only have one area to exist and that's the front door located next to the door with at&ts infallible equipment is located. please vote to deny a permit and request sequa review and a thanks >> next speaker good afternoon. i'm here to say that the planning department approved this project on june 6th is added some imply conditions based on the flooding and fire safety and a cal osha. the new conditions have equipment identify the equipment

room for potential substantially and overflow event as feasible. fire safety identify the message to construct and modify the equipment room in order to achieve the rating above fire code minimums as deemed feasible. the so-called methods to seal the equipment room in the first condition remain unidentified. if d b w doesn't seem those as feasible they don't have to be implemented. and only now the discretion to implement or ignore this condition rests with d b i. given dp w they expect dp w to

roll over to at&t. the next time the building floods with the grand jury consistent application of codes and preferential treatment of certain parties we have no contest that the measures will be implemented if you choose to vote for a permit for at at therefore i ask you to deny the permit. thank you >> next speaker >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is charles baldwin. this is a copy of the documents that was found in the file for 4216 california street but were not presented to the board of supervisors.

in 2002 zoning determination regarding the precise amazing amount and types of equipment that the at&t currently operates. there are photographs that was installed in 2011 without a new permit. the first, you page includes the type of message from the valve and i state it looks like the planning - the department of building inspection has been signing off on loophole permits we won't agree to. there's also notes from the planning staff stating that at&ts quote modification requires c u. that requires a conditional use permit.

of course, at&t already knew this back in 2010 which is when it applied phenomenon for the permit today. so it so you get to upgrade this facility in march 2011 without first receiving the conditional use approval. in october 2012 a hearing was conducted and let them go free. vote to deny a permit for at at&t this location. thank you supervisors of the people of san francisco. >> things next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors my name is steven.

i'm a 55 year resident of san francisco and i live in district 2 for the last 40 years. dr. karpz letter mentioned that 4216 california street is a soft story building constructed in 1946. this bordering and mayor lee signed election requiring that the soft buildings to be seismicly retrofitted and upgrade. this was to protect the health and sate of the public during kwaekts. while the building at 4216 is a commercial property therefore falls outside of the legislation one would hope this board would have the same concern of the

dentists the staff and their patience and other members of the public who take and use this daily building that's professional. so if this building is so important to get a use permit at this location you should also add an upgrade of the building before at&t is to install their equipment. however, if you want to reinstall the people's confidence just deny at&t a permit at this location. thank you for your safety common sense for the citizens of san francisco. >> next speaker >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm jackson kent.

i'd like to did you the 6 alternative sites in its condition application. at&t appraise the following reasons where it should be discounted. the proposal of the project is to upgrade the mick facility at the existing location where wireless telecommunication has been established. the wireless communication was established at the 4216 back in 2005 and 2006 by means of a zoning administrator letter that permitted at&t to install a two antenna system following a permit issued by d b i. it was not until 17 that the

board of supervisors passed the permit. therefore no public notification of the 2005 and 2006 building permit was ever issued and therefore no resident was able to appeal this 15 day deadline. the original establishment of the at&t equipment thus took place as it were under the cloak of night and 6 years after the original permit was issued that resident have been fooshd they're first opportunity to obtain. i don't think this should carry much consideration for this unfit location. please deny this permit to at&t

>> next speaker >> hello supervisors. i'm ann and i live in mr. shay's district this is a preference 6 location under the city's guidelines. as such at&t is required to list and discuss all alternatives and explain why they're not feasible. this requirement is important perhaps in a situation like this one where is involves fire hazard issues and seismic issues. one alternative to provide the services at&t needs is completely absent from at&ts conditional use application and that's the antennas. the failure of at&t to even

mention this alternative let alone mention this conditional use application and deny a permit for this site. for failing to do so the at&t doesn't meet the guidelines nor does it meet the conditional uses. please act carol and deny this permit and i thank you for your services to the city >> next speaker >> good afternoon supervisors arrest president chiu. i'm one of 5 dentists with offices in this building. i speak today on behalf of

myself, my staff and colleagues. the lead acid batteries that at&t plans to install in a ground floor room adjacent to the front entrance halfway emits hydrogen gas. and there's cancer can you see. this is provided in the emt is provided to you today. because my office is in the back of the building if the front halfway is blocked in the effect of a fire or explosion or earthquake we would have no way to egress we can be trapped in the back of this building and the sufficient

fufshg acid could be deadly to all of us who work here. this building was flooded in 2006. we had over 18 inches of water and that's my office. this is where at&t wants to install its equipment. d b or p w wants us to believe that this is okay. but no one can predict the severity of the next storm. i've contacted the fire department. those batteries are a threat to our health and safety and i imexplore you to regret at&ts proposal >> i have a question i i know it's in the packet of information can you talk about the under god from 2006.

i'm not sure if it was you or another dentist but the cause from the flood or the planning department might have applied it was not a flood but some internal reason. during the holidays over the new years eves on 2005 we had severe rain. and during that time the air vents front was blocked and they bubbled up with water. during the new years eve and i wasn't in the office apparently there was a flood in the area. i came to the office on january the first time new year's day i had floodwater inundated my office not only mine but this is

dr. lewis office and his office is adjacent to the battery room. so the entire first year building was flooded. as to how the water got in its beyond me. all i know is that the entire ground floor was flooded. and i was going to add that the discussion from the planning commission that the flood was under within the building but it sound like it was external. i know there's been more super storms and the areas been inundated not only on the sidewalk but businesses and buildings like yourselves that are flooded more often now; is that correct and a yes.

supervisors after this flood and storm every building owners between 4th and 5th avenue had been flooded and they all have varies amounts of damage a to their building >> final speaker. >> hello. i'm l.b. carp. i have several licenses and the report is in your packet. yesterday, i received a letter from a company works inform lawyers and an shupdz they're not practicing engineers. and they're from ohio and chicago.

in their letter he crisis what i wrote and they didn't know what they're doing and they're not responsible for that anything and it's not their fault. i reviewed the drawings and my report has no disproclaimers in that and i say politely that the system is substandard. the reviewers want to say that - they didn't have my calculation and a by reason of of calibrations. there's no foundation system per say. there is what is allowed by the 19723 san francisco unified code a 3 inch thick foundation. there's a 3 story building they're adding seismic to the

roof and they shouldn't never have done it. i urge you require a full largely force analysis of the building and a soil and foundation investigation of which the lateral will be based on. if this area floods and there's an earthquake the condition will be dangerous. i'm surprised at any time being used there's strict standards for medical - >> thank you. thank you very much. any other members wish to speak in support of the appellant. seeing none, why don't we go to the planning department for your presentation >> good afternoon management of affairs federal or state to the department. i'm joined by my colleagues as

well as the project planner for this project. we're here today to defend the sequa determination and the authorization as was proposed by our planning commission. for today's hearing the first decision was that the permit was issued legally. we're here to say it was. is this facility capable with the neighborhood is in another issue. for the sequa determination you've heard there's some risk of fire or flood related to the batteries and that's not the case. as was described the batteries have been commonly used throughout the city and we've done research there's zero hazard with those battery types of.

further the batteries will be placed to commonly practiced with the building and fire codes. including for seismic sate. the department it did not identify any unusual circumstances. on the second question our commission based their finding based on some decisions this board felt was important. in the past this board of supervisors has been concerned that the city departments have no way to determine where there's a true need for the wireless services but for the wireless provider. upon the direction of this board we've got a third party wireless study. in the past that requirement has shown that some were not need but that was not the case here there's a deficit in this area.

the report also found that this commission determined that the facility would be capable with the city through further refinements to design. and it's this final dine we're working with at&t for the final design. i'll turn this over to my colleague. >> first, let's discuss the project. in the planning code to install the facility this project includes 9 panel antennas and nc one commercial district. the roof installation would be located within the ground floor area in the medical building. second the site is within a commercial building in a neighborhood commercial he district for the guidelines. the city locations and that

includes the disfavorable types of. as such the guidelines twitch the use application has to show that the co- location sites or other preferred sites are located in the geographic service areas with the good faith measures to secure the sites and explains why such areas are were not successful and why this is so successful. the project sponsor submitted the information. for the sequa determination. the appellant raised 3 concerns flooding, ventilation and sound innocence of the roof. the adequate is regulated and

it's outside sequa. the potential flooding and back up concern would only be a concern if it rise to flooding levels. this is from 2006 and is not within a flood zone determined by the county surveyor. the impacts could have a significant impact on the environment. for this project the battery acid is behavior a concern for the fire department. however, they still get reviewed in their annual inspection. and those batteries are upstairs in a location not in the basement. i would add for the previously information the map refers to the need for dp w inspections.

this don't - in facility does not fall within the scope of the inspectors review. those combined the remove of the maps and this seal to the batteries means the replacement of the batteries is not an u cut risk. for the department there were no sequa issues and this does not raise any special circumstances. where this promise is capable with the neighborhood it is. first necessity as the sequa said the capacity was needed. and at&t concluded no other locations would be feasible within this area.

new facilities require a review for coverage and capacity in the facility. this includes additional drive test. they determine the information was accurate next intieblt. this california street will be capable with the neighborhood because the project will not conflict that the uses of the property and it will fit into the environment. next capability. this must be accommodated but we're still working with at&t in the final refinements. the placement of the ann tense would be located, designed and treat architecturely so to minimize their interrogations

into public businesses and that would insure harmony with the environment. they don't require remove or any of the features of the subject building. there were 3 alternate requirement increase the fire room safety and increase the room. as condition the project would actually be held to a higher standard then for example, for a data storage element in an office building which would be approved without a hearing. this is in conclusion of the sequa for the sea authorization. in this occasion it was