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 approved

because there is no significant impact on the environment. the examinations should be issued and the commission found it met all the criteria and impacted enacted to approve the application. now having you have the new evidence and determine the be intieshlt. staff is open for questions >> supervisor mar. >> let me try to be brief. i really appreciate the planning department and staff have a third party analysis. that's a big step forward. i'm appreciative to look at those projects but i have a question of the w t s guidelines. and the appellants are saying this is a preference 6 site it's

one above unfavored status and there are requirement that staff look for other locations. there's a clear guidelines on explaining why effort were unsuccessful to meet the demands of the geographic area and i think the appellants are raising some concerns you didn't do that why is preference 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 weren't acceptable. one of the folks who testified had a preference site 6 as well it was actually a residential building. those are zoned in the same

manner. staff did work - >> but that doesn't give me the sense where you tried to find another area like the kaiser hospital we dealt with on sixth avenue as a higher preference for example. so you the your due diligence to look for other sites that so many other businesses and property owners have so much sketch about dr. carps study >> there's a number of limited sites but there were challenges for feasibility like public school the school district hadn't entertained any additional wireless facilities other than the ones they have and there's no additional

wireless facilities listed. so were surpd by other areas. at&t can conduct an additional analysis >> so peabody school is a off the list and what else is on the list that would be preference 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5? >> there are none that i can locked. the majority were surround by residential areas >> but there are many other mixed use buildings and there are other sites that could have been looked at. that theirs pea body school and

others i want to make sure you did your work to make sure there are other guidelines >> their might be an misunderstand. so evidentially it's mixed use commercial it's the underlying zoning that makes a difference. so preference 6 is still preference 6 and there are largely disfalsified >> it wasn't by mixed use sometimes the land zoning district as well. if it's a public school it would be one of the higher preference sites >> are there any final

comments. >> okay supervisor yee. >> so one of my concerns is as i'm listening to the public comments and presentation. even if their seams to be a low risk of flooding and so forth and you also said that - the toxic element of it was not that great of a risk although there's a risk. i'm just wondering even though the battery like you said was going to be in a chairman is this like 6 feet >> it's my understanding they'll be 6 to 8 feet high in a storage rock bolted to the

floor. >> i'm curious since i've heard there's there were floods or at least some floodwater 18 inches. would under be enough height to evade it on an evaluated platform so if there's my flooding it would prevent any issues with any flooding >> i would defer that question to project sponsor. >> if the project sponsor wants to answer this question. >> mark vice president of at&t. we can go up to 18 inches that the approach that the batteries are on >> are you planning to do that. >> no 6 inches.

i should menace that the project to remove that we've gone through all the special circumstances case and it's been approved and we're ordering materials right now to begin construction. that was to remove the equipment from the exit location into counsel into the first floor location >> i guess my question is would you be likely and, you know, sort of a factor for me. i don't know the planning process i don't think you would have to go through it again but with you be willing to evade it up to 18 inches

>> yes. >> and the body would you be willing to ask at&t to do that. it gives us some flexibility by this is within the ream of the building permit those minor changes >> i would appreciate it i don't know if anyone else would support that notion but i'd like to have at&t elevate it. >> i know there were sewer upgrades could you delve into that. i wouldn't ever imagination that part of california a flood zone

so could you talk about that a little bit more. >> planning staff through the chair. it's not meanwhile concerned a flood zone it's mapped by the city in terms of their where they have higher potential for sewer back up. most of those areas are in the south of marketing. there are a few areas such as this block to have sub sewer capability during flood events. and generally for a one hundred year flood zone doesn't meaning mean a flood happens every 1 hundred years but my understanding is that subsequent to the permit being issued the

sewer system has been expand and the flooding hadn't been eliminated but reduced significantly >> so from your prospective this is not a flood area concern for you. i understand it's not fema it's city but there was a flooding of 18 inches and they're now ready to raise their battery services to 18 inches but subsequent to a event or repairs i want to hear a little bit more about that why you don't consider it to be an issue >> it's a combination of water flows as well as sewage back up. this was mostly sewage back up.

the sewer pipe has been upgrade to a modern steel pipe so that has addressed that concern >> this information is based on information we got from the public works and we'll submit that to the board today. further the last comment i would make on that prospective that map doesn't refer to our review for the facility but for new construction for the project so even if that were it wouldn't apply to this project >> i appreciate that if you put that in the report. we had the big sink hole a couple weeks ago. i think it might not certainly

affiliate some concerns of the neighbors but we don't want to see this to begin with you i think it's important to articulate that from my prospective. there were upgrades being done where we fundamental have a different situation i can't believe it was 2006 prior to the flood >> supervisor mar. >> i wanted to follow up with supervisor question. i used to live that for 16 years and there is the back up of toilets and kitchen sinks and on the ground floor levels as well as. i'm glad at&t is to go up to 8 inches but would if it goes up

higher especially, since we know about environment change and the superfluous storms coming. there have been other huge storms in september and october that leads to other situations and i feel that the residents and small business owners concerns are looked at. so to those who live close by and being a resident in that area it might not feel like a flood zone but i had the sewers back up and i hope i carefully and sense actively look at that. we don't know how severe storms will be in the fuchl and from the climate changes and the fact

is we're expecting more unpredictable storms & so we're not knowing were there be backs up >> colleagues any further questions? >> why don't we go to the party interests and hear from at&t. >> good afternoon. i'm mark regional vice president of at&t. i want to address supervisor yee. we won't need a permit we can raise the batteries up in the container. so it will be sealed. so my prepared remarks i'm vice

president of the at&t and i'm joined by our team of experts they'll be available to answer any questions. they've designed a leadership partnership with a third party who put in the analysis. we have beth with the engineers and she's got experience working on waste issues here in the city and county of san francisco. we have a licensed professional engineer and they conducted a pier review that was conducted by allocate third party and we have another project manager with k d u consultants.

and we have ted from at&t community outreach and john our attorney and mark who is our f engineer in house. i want to start with thanking with our staff. asia ms. rogers explained at&t was granted a permit to put equipment to will be paint to match the building. and the antennas will be in an equipment room in the building. the modification of the site will provide much needed and improved wireless service and

it's necessary because at&t has a serious dpap and it's caused by lack of infrastructure. the gap is also, because of the dramatic rise of technology like music streamlining applications. we have got a tremendous service in at&t products. and this explains that during periods of high use there's a service gap in the area bored by lake and 7th avenues and this map - shows the significant gap area and where we were looking for our search ring for a new location >> thank you, sir.

>> the gap includes sections of california street a heavy driven road. and california street is a main though fair for san francisco. this gap was confirmed by the city's professional folks. many hammond is here to answer any questions about the radio frequency. the redesign is the least intrusive means by which to close the gap. a detailed analysis which was mentioned and i want to say that there were other sites that are lower preference but because they were 150ur7bd by higher

buildings it wouldn't be useful for our needs >> thank you. >> thank you planning commission meetings there was a design issue. as shown in the photographs that were provided to you at&t has submitted 9 different designs and working with the planning department to bring a proposal that has the staffs support. we've considered alternative designs but there are equipment are restrained. we feel that the current design is the best design but we'll continue to work with your staff. now the potential for flooding optical street and i believe we've talked about the flooding issue but i would mention that

the batteries are waterproof so that's another issue noted brought. now the structural analysis. in a single paragraph that provides general allegations without any supporting fact and if you look at the two analyze we have a detailed engineering analysis of those sites. it was peer reviewed by a third firm who is here to answer your swerz answers and it has to go through the building inspectors before we're allowed to move forward. the planning department and planning commission both determined that those fit within the california environmental act which covers the small

structures. the appellants contend their quote/unquote instances that may trigger a problem. they have not other issues that rise to the level of unusual. our attorney is here to answer any question about sequa. i'm happy to answer any questions that you might have >> colleagues any questions to the real party of interest? tell you why don't we move to the anybody's of the public that support the parties of interest and line up and we'll hear from the first speaker >> my name is martin i'm a

licensed contractor in san francisco. i do most of the maintenance on this building. i'm here to say this 18 inch flood is a total fabrication. what happened in this case, the sewers backed up and they flooded out through the front door inside of the offices you'll see here that, yes 18 inches of sheetrock was removed if you know anything about sheetrock it's important reduce and will suck up water. if you remember the entryway it's susceptible to staining. the total he repairs in the entryway was sealed hidden the inch and a half baseboard so

this 18 inch flood was a total fabrication >> hello, i'm linda i'm the owner of the building and i lived in this neighborhood for 18 years so i'm have famous with that. i also, never experienced flooding when i would there and it was a sewer back up that happened that's been addressed. also the ages that the building is seismicly unsafe are unfounded so far as i'm concerned. i think there's been a lot of fear issues. so i hope that you look at the boarder picture and you know, i feel this is a project that

needs to happen because that coverage needs to be extended. thank you >> next speaker >> speaking on behalf of wireless yourselves everyone. you hear all the excuses about seismic safety and but really the issue is fear of wireless signals. that wouldn't be spoken but that's the key issue. i imagine everyone in this room has a smart phone and yet those of us who have a wireless cell station place near us we worry about it. we want it somewhere else and if i moved throughout the city i find service very spotty.

but certify could be better. so whether we can have better cell sites let's make it possible. if every cell tower was subject 80 to this nobody 0 would want a cell tower near them. so i'm al for flood prevention and safety but i hope you can approve this authorization. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm a san francisco resident and local small business owners. i've been working on the flood issues and in the company nearly 40. i'm available to answer any questions about the packets and the you understand that were

addressed on the map. i believe the gentleman very adequately described the sewer as having back flows and i also want to point out that the language between curb and gutter got misunderstand by the reviewer of my t m. it talks about the sewer remittance that they be designed to carry the load from curb to curb. in a one hundred year storm it wouldn't exceed the location and the batteries would be well on behalf of curb height. and the maximum flood would be a flood over 16 inches which is less than the proposed standards

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon my name is david. i'm a san francisco resident licenses structural engineer and i've been practicing ann as a designer. the opponents speculated that it's poor soil and that's at site but doesn't do any analysis to back it up. and age alone doesn't require upgrades or we would all be spending a lot of money to upgrade our home they don't ban soft soil. the engineer of record hired by at&t has done his homework and

they've designed the building anchors to make sure their sufficient so that aspect has been performed. they demonstrated e demonstrate the building and proposed the retrofit to handle the loads and that's what i found and i believe nothing in this process has evaluated the doctrines of the building codes. and i was the author of one of the reports in your possession so if you have any questions >> colleagues any questions to the parties so far. so let's hear from the appellant with the rebuttal. you have up to 4 minutes >> supervisors let me first

state it's unfortunate that the city attorney representative deputy attorney has been litigating those issues for 10 years. the u.s. supreme court decision vs. abrams in 2005 if you were to deny a permit for at at today and if at&t were to file a lawsuit and a win at&t is prohibited from getting attorney's fees or monetary damages. by contrast if you file a law enforcement and the planning code the inmrablt of the article 7 in violation that