it will add something visiblely to that off-ramp i spoke about when is banner. you see the buildings off in the distances but you don't feel like you're in the city. this is fine. i know we've approved. the other thing i want to ask maybe mr. chandler. we've talked about architect and it's my assumption should this be developed will i hines they'll condition with the same architect >> i can't speak they have no tension to change the design by who they're to use as their architect we haven't gone this

far. >> great that sounds i think i got a node from the gentleman and it's going to be good that's what we're approving and wecht to make sure what's built is what we're seeing now. there have been incidents in the past with that movrpd into somewhere else >> commissioner wu. >> so i want to ask staff to be clear i believe the answer is no if the project is purchased by hooindz the site can't change; correct. >> he can't that's the way it was worded and that's required. >> thank you so i'm supportive. >> commissioner, i apologize it's actually within the planning code within this special use district it's required to be on site as well.

>> which zone. >> it's the trans bay special use district. >> great. so i'm supportive of this project as it stands a, you know, because of inclusionary requirements the more units there are the more b m rs there are. it reminds me of the challenges we're phasing with that affordability. i think there maybe should interest to look at all of sylmar. i know it wasn't in the plan but donates a challenge going ahead. if we continue to approve project that comply with inclusionary it's either 12

percent closing arguments we're going to be out of balance could we put thought to that going forward. but this has met the conditions so i'm supportive >> commissioner hillis. >> i am in support it approvals by taking up 4 floors. i wasn't negotiating with the neighborhoods but it was an economic issue. this additional height is not an issue the design was an issue. that nod you were going to stick with architect donna you like the design and the architect. i think that's important we're not xhooep i to keep the

architect but i'm supportive of that >> director ram and i wanted to you had a couple of things. with respect to the design we can the message i've hearing you like the design proposal and if there are changes we need to keep with the quality materials that's being proposed. where respect to the affordability it is somewhat different in the trans bay within the tans bay plan thai percent of the units are affordable which is an unusual high requirement. that includes both the b m r requirement and the units that wasability built in total 35 percent of those units is a high you requirement

>> commissioner. >> just to comment on the process we're getting indications that architect tan can will remain in terms of the project but as very well, the construction documents can be done by another firm they basically have to follow the design but it's not usually for the other companies to do the grunt work. i'll make a motion to approve with conditions >> second and a commissioner. >> yes. i was going to do the same i was going to ask mr. chandler. how libel is this to move forward fairly quickly? >> i will paraphrase we're

going to get started as quickly as we can as soon as possible. >> that's great to hear. >> so they've begun and approved the project so the capitals we need to finish the due diligence and make sure there's nothing we haven't finished and then the plan is to immediately get a general contractor on board to finish the drawings and begin construction. the window right away right now so to deliver this project so waiting is a disadvantage >> commissioner moore. >> i think that scientists known for delivering class a building across the world the project is in good hundreds. >> commissioner is a guy a and

i want to say we can't include this as a discussion about the design but it's generally part of the desire to have this design and want to make sure it's carried out. >> commissioners there is a motion and second to approve with conditions. on that motion (calling names). so moved, commissioners, that motion passes amaze 67 to zero zoning administrator what say you >> i close the public hearing with the variance with the same conditions as the regional variance. >> thank you zoning person. >> commissioners that places you on item 12.

at 3226 avenue request for conditional use authorization. there was a request for organized opposition and this was granted. >> thank you good afternoon planning commission. i'm planning department staff. the project before you is a request by at&t for authorization for a wireless facility on 26 avenue. the project site is located at the tara value street commercial strict which is a limited previous site. the subject building features 11 apartments on two stories above a first area containing both residential parking and a commercial space. it's surround by similar use

developments and further is surrounded by single-family neighborhoods. the proposed wireless facility would have 3 primary components. first 6 antennas screened and designed to mimic in 3 locates. second anywhere electronic equipment that needs to be located on the roof and the third, i component would be the additional equipment located in the parking grammar with batteries. the subject building is 32 feet tall and the which i am in the cause would rise 70 feet above the roof. staff worked with the applicant over two years to refine the

design to reduce the impacts recommended to the which i am in the cause and locating the excitement inside the garage for parking spaces for resident. they held 4 meetings and staff received in seizing even if 15 comments primer in opposition to the project regarding rfp mission and options for ultimate sites in the neighborhood. in addition mr. david with r f consultants provided a packet with the summary that cites good news concerns and a petition for over 2 hundred and 70 snitches in opposition to the project.

staff believes that the project as proposed conforms to the guidelines and the finding in section 403 of the planning code and recommended approval. if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, please. >> good afternoon, president fong and members of the commission i'm the recreational vice president of at&t for the san francisco bay area. i have a radio access engineer and the project sponsor and bill a licensed engineer in the state of california and he is the third party that we hired for the radio frequent studies

interest we're seeking your approval today on a conditional use to place 6 that innocence of that antennas with the necessary equipment to be housed in the park garage. approval of this conditional use will allow at&t to have a mountain that is located under no circumstances on 29th avenue. under the city's communication guidelines at&t did a theory analysis that included 31 properties in the area. at&t has worked diligently with planning staff over two years to have the most unintrusive locations. we held many meetings and the community members acquired about

the health effects and noise levels created by the equipment and testing and the building height and the design alternatives and alternatives sites in other at&t mobility sites in the area. at&t has also responded to numerous inquires and we've met with will in her and associates to address and at&t responded to mr. will in her were date august 1st, 2013, are included with the letter that i believe we've disseminated earlier; is that correct and they were just handed out >> as you know see from the numerous meeting at&t has

addressed many issues. the opponents have not raised any appropriateness to the at&t facility on 26th avenue. in conclusion at&t is trying to meet the demand within san francisco. we are doing it with a prudent plan. it's fully consistent with the land regulations and it's prototype facility is the least intrusive area. i urge the planning commission to approve the conditional use application and we've happy to answer any questions you might have. thank you >> thank you. opening it up to public comment. there was a opposition statement

from a couple of folks >> yes.. good afternoon, president fong and members of the commission. i am david will in her with will in her and soeshdz i have 40 years experience. i represent clients before the commission and state regulatory agencies. i've been responsible for obtaining - for interstate and

international communication practices. i have military train on equipment and missile tracking systems and r f transmitters and assessments and mitigation and i'm also a former telephone company employee per we are representing 2 hundred and 73 people in the park side district they've signed a petition in opposition to the cellular base station on 26th avenue. the primary question before the planning commission today is whether or not to approve the project. the answer is our opinion is no.

they say the height of the chimney that's on the roof create a blight. the staff disagrees. the architect letter attached to our letter shows this is not true the rooftop installation would be an eyesore. please look at the pictures on your screen. it's clear from the postpones on the building both before and after the assessment is absolutely correct. i've driven through the neighborhood i am a san franciscan grew up in san francisco after world war ii. i can tell you drying all the way from lincoln way to this

area i didn't find one apartment building with a chimney on the roof. i doibl doubt there's any pavement buildings that have chimneys. they say that at&t did not look at an additional site. that building is on the screen. and incidentally the staff report says the building is seen by nearby structures and it's suitable, however, there's no screening on that four story structure they only relied on at&ts information. this should have been considered under the guidelines.

the staff report claims there's nothing to worry about. however, the safety sheet from the battery manufacturer which is the exhibit b warn of a possible fire or exploitation. vehicles would be parked next to the battery. opponents contend that at&t is going to operate with more power tramentd by the antenna on the roof. the staff report didn't disagree with this allocation and a refers to american people engineering report that doesn't relate to this issue. the opponents say the base station channels will be shierd which is a violation of ftc

rules. this so-called service gap in the staff report doesn't dispute this allocation but claims go this is an fcc issue. any thing asserted by the staff is subject to the requirement that the service provider is in compliant with want rules back in 12996 rules. it is compliant with all local, state, and federal laws, however, it is not true. the proponents climate the portion of at&ts proposal is really an internet service and not servicing the fcc jurisdiction. the staff report didn't deny

this but regulates the airways. this, however, doesn't change the fact f this is an internet service not kofrld by cities guidelines. in our opinion it should file a separate permit for this service. ; moreover, there's no preemption concerning the internet service so far as the health safety is concerned. we think they have to consider those matters as part of the application for the l t e service. the staff report claims they've raised affordable housing issues, however, this was computed from our revised papers and not an issue at that time. they're saying there was noting

non-permitted work on the property and it's not an issue either. the revised opposition papers we submitted to the planning dependent on november 6th contain a detailed analysis by on a architect ever modern 15 years of experience showing the subject property is not a proper location for the proposed cellular bay station. the staff report doesn't address the issue that are raised from the architect this was sent to the project planner on october 3rdrd. given the fact that this matter was continued for almost thirty days the project plainer had modern time to include the information in the staff report. we've provided detailed information concerning the points i've raised and at&ts

application must be denied. there are letters from neighbors that add additional reasons for at at to be rejected. now turning to a farnts issue. we have a caused the project plainer of strong bias with at&t. this includes failing to distribute our papers before the continuance was granted by this commission. instead, he scanned our papers and sent them to at&t which proimd a continuance. in addition he tried to force us to change the language in our opposition papers according to his reductions under the threat

that he would claim the staff report that we made false statements and are incompetent. we asked the secretary to delay the process until this complaint was looked at he declined. nevertheless to say this has made your work difficult. this should require the board to deny at&ts application that we believe it should be denied further because as what's been stated that in the presentation. thank you for allowing me to speak >> good afternoon. i'm marie. i have sawdust david in private and public institutions

supporting him. we've filed federal if you happened for school district in california and have been successful in objecting several millions of dollars for communication services. i'm familiar with the file in this proceeding and have praerptd since this year. there's a point in our opposition papers that involves the cord student. if you look at the bottom right hand on your monitor you'll see the story pools where at&ts antennas are located. this represents approximately 4 football feeds to give you an idea of the distance. also at&t included non-specified industrial uses and we want to

make sure the planning department knows this is a violation and not allowed. i'd like to point out that as part of the process we met with the project sponsor and general council of at&t along with the project plainer and a representative from town. we tried to find some middle ground. we requested him to provide legal authority to show the installation. in any case law they said it was not subject to the guidelines because it's an internet challenge certify. he agreed to do so but after we wrote him he reviewed to

respond. he didn't mention this in his staff report. nation when the at&t representative asked for a continuance on october 17th she stated the purpose was to dialog with the community. that the fact is there were no communications with the community. thank you for considering envy comments and please deny the project. i wanted to note that mary ann has taken ill and will not speak, however, deborah is going to talk about the equipment. thank you. again

>> good afternoon my name is is deborah i've minding an 26th avenue since 1993. i'm going to talk about how the cell phone antennas placed on the roof will impact myself and my fellow tenants. i'll be bringing a letter and exhibit and this was received by folks. i've reviewed the new skeptic that neglects the plan as proposed. the new drawings speblts that the equipment will be put on the south wall in front of my car. from what i understand the amended ordinance 183 dash 13

file and section 150. off street parking and loading requirements d spaces to be remained. once the parking space has been appointed the off street parking will not be unused in any manner. there are no exiting stalls marked per code requirements if the tinting intent is to have the stalls made compact it won't help. as shown in exhibit 4 the proposed electrical cabinet will invade and severely decrease the stalls.

this doctors will make unusual most of the parking stalls. we will not been able to make out of the garage making reasonable turns and allowing residents to make a three-point turn to enter and exit. based on the coincide the building is required to have 11 parking spaces. each parking space is now - it's it - thank you >> thank you. >> howard west ton and colleague. >> howard i've lived across the street for 45 years. i retired several years ago i bought the building and worked 3 years hard and