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 takes place if you approve it if we prevail we will be able to obtain attorney fees from the city. so you're going to - let's talk money. if at&t you deny a permit and at&t goes to court and if they win they get nothing from the city if the resident go to court they get the taxpayers' money on something that should never have happened because the department and d b i were doing their jobs. this is a soft story building. it's about safety of the people in the building. it needs a service upgrade that's the bottom line here. i'm on the ravaged mr. blackman says he's got a building permit

to put it in the ground floor and that's supposed to be the final approval of the application and their signing open o off on 0 permit? i've handed you appellants exhibit no. 10 which is the first application for a digital system. the next is the lower box on the lower left hand coroner. they installed the ostend was at pat. not a single word from mr. blackman why they didn't explore the distributed system on light poles and its not the burden of

the city planning it's at&t. in the negligent sixth court of appeals decision the burden is on at&t to discuss all alternatives to the proposed site and explain why it is not feasible. at&t failed to do that. the city must then point out alternatives and give at&t an opportunity to respond and anyone of you may do that by a simple interrogation. and while members of this community are under no legal obligation to tell at&t where they can put their antennas but i'm sure which of us would like

to do so >> colleagues any final questions inform the parties. at this point this matter is in the hands of the board. colleagues >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you, president chiu i want to thank all the members of the public to district 1 and 2 as closest to the site it's technically in district 2. i want to thank the planning department. you know, over the past few weeks i've received calls for or against this site. the comments to echo the jazz comments those are about the fears of the wireless facilities

and not necessarily the fear we've heard today. i want to be very clear i would never allow an installation of a wireless system in my district if i thought for a minute there was a true safety issue or damage the welfare of folks in my district. my office has met with the planning departments and other and you read all the materials and obviously i wanted to come in today and listen to the discussion. there are other systems like this in california. in terms of the fears that were discussed i've spoken with the fire prevention inspection and

they've not noted an incident including back up batteries. the fire department conducts inspectors as was mentioned on a routine base. i've been consistent with the appeals. first is the cad. and i quote the discussion is whether to possible have an impact on the environment. with all due respect i think this is a note an argument that's reasonable at all. the service issues are covered under d b i. i know that d b i has to

continue to issue the permits with the service issues. and they have to have construction maps and i don't think it's relevant to our sequa discussion at all. a lot of the comment were focused on flooding issues. we have conflicting opinions from those who do the work at the building and some of the neighbors who talked about the flooding. first of all, this prior flooding happened in 2006. and let's be clear there were corrective actions taken. there's not at the same set of circumstances whether it was 18 inches or one half inches and at&t will raise it up to 18

inches and we'll hold you to it if this gets approved. but the characterization that this area is a massive flood zone is somewhat cease. you, you know, we have a lot of wet seasons here in san francisco but this is not unusual compared san francisco. in the not some extraordinary circumstances so have the board of supervisors overturn this due to flooding. yes, it could happen but it could happen anywhere in san francisco. we might as well have everything raised up if we're going to worry about that in every single neighborhood. so in my opinion the flooding

issue while i appreciate the concerned from my opinion bans the people and the experts as well i don't think that flooding is a concern here especially from the improvements in 2007. and at&t is going to be raising the heights of the batteries. the second part is the c u whether it's necessary or capable with the neighborhood and community. contrary to other debates we've had on wierlsz antennas there's no debate on how necessary it is in the coverage of the area. i'm driving with my children all the time and the report says why we need additional coverage. but we're talking about c u here

we know that cell phone uses but data capacity use is swavrm our system and the cell phones is going to make it worse. so lastly in terms of the design it's still being worked out. i've look at the designs and i'm not a architectureal consultant but i think this is one of the circumstances if you oops this project you'll oops everything about it. but at the same time we have a requirement to look at the circumstances. there maybe other comments by first with the sequa i'm going

to affirm the exemption from the environmental review >> any second? colleagues any further discussion? why don't we take a roll call vote on the motion (calling names) increase 10 i's >> the motion passes and supervisor farrell i have another motion. >> i'm going to make a motion

to table item 60 and 61. >> supervisor farrell has asked to table 61 and 62. colleagues shall we take another roll call on that? (calling names) >> that motion is approved as well. colleagues why don't we go back

to the consent agenda >> item 15 is improving the contribution rates for calendar year 2014. >> can we take a roll call vote on item 15? (calling names) there are leveling i's and the ordinance finally passes. >> item 16 is to not allow planes to have banners

overconcern areas. >> why don't we take a roll call (calling names). >> the ordinance is fbl passed. >> item 17. >> it's an ordinance with the zoning during this time to facilitate the development of the 406 street the mexican museum and making the requisite findings. >> take a roll call

(calling names). >> the ordinance has finally passed. >> item 18 is an ordinance of the lawsuit filed against the city it was filed on 2010 in san francisco supreme court. >> can i have a motion to ask his supervisor yee. supervisor yee will be excused and can i have a motion to excuse supervisor kim >> supervisor kim is excused and if we could take a roll call

on item 18 (calling names). >> the ordinance finally passed. >> item 19. >> item 19 is an ordinance authorizing the lawsuit against the city for 75 thousand that lawsuit was filed in u.s. northern district of california. >> colleagues can i ask for a motion to excuse supervisor breed. without objection supervisor breed will be excused and annoy asking can i have a motion to

excuse cowen >> supervisor cowen is excused roll call vote on item 19. >> on item 19 (calling names). >> the ordinance is finally passed. and with that colleagues why don't we recall our special 3:00 p.m. order to bring back to the i staff and if staff could inform us to your conversations that would be helpful