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 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