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 long getting it

back in good shape. the last picture you saw is not right. i have a car across the back end that will be removed which freeze up 7 and a half feet. the cars are 3 feet from the walls and it will free up 5 feet for people to turn. the previous man who said there's no chimneys anywhere on any building, in fact, this building has a chimney. it goes down to a very nice unit below. i've worked with radiation as a dentist and this is radio waves and i'm sad that some people have tried to rent it as radiation it's not. i'm in favor of this area it

will give more space for people to make their turns. it is not a health hazy. sure you don't need me to tell you that. thank you for listening >> hi, i'm tommy. it's good he brought up a he's a dentist and i took my daughter to the dentist and they covered their bodies with a sheet for radiation. illness we're to live with this radiation and another thing the roof. when it rains, it leaks. my question have you been to the top of our building and what can on the roof it's not a roof. once you walk in it moves. it leaks when it rains.

we've been telling me to fix them he missed the roof and he missed a lot of other stuff. so radiation is radiation. there's no way around it. and mr. omar said there's a lot of commercial around the buildings there's only a few restaurants and their owners families horrify families that's all i need to say and a radiation is radiation. thank you. >> any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners i'm jim senior san franciscan born and raised in the san francisco district. i've passed the half singularity mark. in 1984 5 i got clear

reception. 1989 i purchased a flip phone and again, the reception was pretty good but as the years went by the reception got worse and worse. i go in muammar park and 50 percent of my calls were blocked those were business calls. we finally, got some antenna up in the neighborhood and welcome them because since then we have had better reception. we ail clamor for better clarity and use our phones for professional and personal business but in the case of

american peop an emergency we have alter at come before you so ask for the antennas so we customers stop exclaiming and get the type of service we need especially in emergency situations. i know you all care about san francisco and we have to make decisions they're not the easy sdpigz but in the best interest of the public >> any additional public comment? >> commissioner, i wasn't planning on speaking today, i have a voices disability but i feel i need to at this point.

i live 25 feet from this proposed project. my husband and i bought our property in 1967. i've lived there continual since we're love our neighborhood. and we're opposed to this installation. which does not fit with our community at all. what i'd like to bring tourngs is that recently in the last few years mayor ed lee and our supervisor chu did wonderful work to start improving our neighborhood. in fact, all the older wires and a public utilities were put underground on the corridor consequential it opened up the

whole corridor because it is on a hill going up to 19th avenue. you can look at all the way to the ocean it's absolutely beautiful. there are already wireless destinations in that area. i brought some photographs because at&t has 9 antenna on top of lincoln high school. this is the area east and northeast. this is the high school they've got at&t antennas already there. this is on 24th avenue it's four

blocks from this new proposed site. what we like about this particular at&t installation is that the antenna fit with the building and yet you hardly see them we didn't know they were there until we did the research for this. in addition this is another picture showing carrousel street. this is also taken from the building roof itself. you can see those antennas will be projecting right into the surrounding properties. i want you to look and see all the overhead facilities have been put underground. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment?

okay public comment is closed. opening it up to commissioners. >> yeah. i have a few questions i guess for staff. there's have been allocations made by opposition one is this particular nation has an extensive amount of r f power in comparison to other installations and it's technically an internet service and cell phones is part of the signals. >> yes those include the voice and data that includes internet

access or text messages. the ftc regulates those antennas. to generally, the connection between a mobile users cell and the internet is not made at this site but at&t ats major switches to the signal is from your phone through 3 facilities and it will be carried to one of the at&ted main hubs and would connect to the internet. the wireless guidelines recognize the guidelines to include the internet and they're the vehicle for the approval and review of antenna of all form and manner not just voice communication. they discuss data and other forms of communications rather than cell phone communications.

with studying the power limit staff has not seen that. in addition it's something that's under the per view and folks are allowed to raise that concern. if we see some kind of threshold a that's it that that's inappropriate we'll not seen that to date >> that answers the second part of my question the same regulation would be in place with this too. the other concern there are being batteries in the garage which i think is fairly standard. maybe you can speak to that situation relative to other installations >> the ftc requires that the preparation is like at&t have

back up power on site in this case of an earthquake it can be provided by back up batteries or beetle generators. those generators wouldn't be appropriate in those locates so they use back up batteries. you'll see between 8 and 16 led aside batteries. the fire department and building inspection believe when those batteries are permitted and installed and maintained they're not representing an area of concern but the fire department inspects those batteries on a yearly basis. i've had the opportunity to look at the 9 hundred locations to a list i have locations where

there's been incidents and i've not seen a pattern of concern the fire department concur as well >> so we have not seen any pattern of battery fires that have happened to some automobiles recently. those are a back up they're sitting passively they're not - >> right if you speak to folks in the area those aside batteries are more of a true technical rather than cars that have electric batteries. it offers stable and have not caused concern and a right i'd like to ask a project sponsor 90 in regards to 5150 terry value.

i'm not sure i've read the difference in height maybe you can explain why this site is aspire to another site the buildings to the est of which are think the left of this picture would block a wireless signal the height of the buildings wouldn't allow a signal >> okay. i understand that. thanks a lot. well, in in my mind i don't see anything extraordinary only the visible light issue that some people have raised. we see these are a little bit more visible than the ones in the past. i think wherever we put this installation we're going to have

similar chimney type things and a i'm not sure there's a way to do that without that. the building in question is not a historic building it's a nice looking building but it probably dates from the 50s or 60s do you have the construction >> 1975. >> oh, even in your than that not close to being historic. so i don't see reasons to oppose but i'll see what the other commissioners have to say on this >> commissioner wu. >> i tend to agree. in the packet that i believe at&t provided to us on the last two pages there's a number of google and get infringes the

intersection of 26 that have chimneys on top that doesn't seem to be different. two minutes of the public were concerned about emissions from the antennas the department of health can come and take hearings >> commissioner hillis. >> this project has been in the works has it been modified. >> in terms of the maintains their smaller and the size of the which i am i didn't see are reduced. we've looked at ways to reduce the unbelievable >> so they've been reduced. >> correct. >> and are there less antennas. >> i'll differ to - i believe

there were 9 antenna previously - no 6 antennas. >> i intend to agree with envy fellow commissioners those are not attractive but from other projects they're not a huge impact it's not a historic building so i'm supportive. >> commissioner. is a guy a. >> i have a question for mr. welling in her. >> yes, in our packet we have exhibit o and under that exhibit there's a memo from you to another gentleman in which he's saying closed are 15 copies number one is the opposition

papers. and there's an opposition paper here letter also addressed to our staff dated october 6th. is this letter the second version of our opposition letter after which mr. masonry apparently disagreed. the papers were deliver on the 7th. those were not the revised papers >> there's also an e-mail addressed to you from 10 dash 72013. in that e-mail he's concerned about the opposition in our e-mail packet.

that one is dictated october 6th is the one he's be objecting to >> i don't know if the october 6th is in our package is that the one that's marked revised - forgive me. perhaps i could start over i've been distracted >> all it says it opposition at&t and it's dated october 6th there's no indication it's revised or not. >> that's correct. you are correct >> commissioner. >> yeah. i would make a motion to approve. >> second. >> on the motion to approve with conditions

(calling names) so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. commissioners there's nothing >> excuse me. we're going to take a 5 minuteitem. >> i'd like to welcome everyone back to san francisco planning commission regular meeting for november 14, 2013. i want to remind people that the commission doesn't allow any disruptions please silence all electronic devices. and when speaking to the commission speak into the microphone >> on item 13 for the case the event center and mixed use

development and this is an informational item. >> staff we're here today so we can see the new design for pierce thirty 32. there are representatives here from the lawyers team and others nick reward and, of course, craig. peter albert will be joining us shortly he'll come in and we'll all think around for questions. as you may remember craig was here talking about the second phase of pierce thirty and 32. you'll see six months of intensive review from comments b

from public agrees and the planning department and the mta. there's a collaborative effort from agency that have jurisdiction in the promise. at the end of the august the planning department provided form comments inform the warriors team on the second reiteration to make sure we incorporated the comments into the design on the open space connections on the piers and on the scale and interests of the sort of perimeter access along the edges of the pier. and probably most important to us the sort of articulation of the main entrance as you're walking from downtown at the intersection with the

embarcadero. so we've included copies of that memo in your packets i believe in august, august 23rdrd. i can provide you another copy. so with that we'll get to the order of business. i'll turn this over to envy colleagues. we'll be here after the presentation to answer any questions you might have. thank you >> is it is this one? okay. thank you. thank you hello again commissioners it's a procure to show you the latter developments. there's been a great deal of work on the project. i want to clarify we're focusing on pier thirty and 32. you may be interested in the

seawall site m that won't be presented there's still issues on that. so although obviously there are some implications of the design along the embarcadero. i'm maple to answer as many questions as i can we're happy to answer questions about the whole. your focus is on thirty and 32. the first thing we wanted to remind you have we've been continual stabilizing the pier. there's been a lot of studies to assure that the pier can be stabilized to manage the pier as it krmgz into the bay. so part of our a big part of our goal and emphasis is to make sure it's viable for the citizens of the community.

we're looking forward to creating a design that provides for access than we're able to have here today. 3 that will be open on all sides important our first sketch is a reminder and also to suggest to you that although many changes have been made the core consent is the same. so the open space is a commodity not just a left over thing. this particular idea has been carried through to the original scream. but the emphasis on the view to the bay bridge peer to the south will be maintained in this current design. moving from the north to the

south there are more things to see. one is approving access and various types of access across the site. many comments from the community and those who've been working with we're working with developing a more inviting scale to the building to assure with the massing of these things are in scale. we're trying to provide for park space and a vegetation. this was what big challenge because originally the sketches showed you less of that but there's a commitment to this by the team and ownership to insure that would be a healthy place.

so here's the first view of the new it location. it's the version 3.10 you notice the areas on the west side of the site have been broken down. there's a v shape that goes through the retail that's a passage a gentle rising passage that takes you up to the center plaza. you'll note there are several things we'll mark in detail many of the heights have come down so that are central plaza area has been lowered and the northeast corners have been load. there's been cut outs given to the edge of the pier for quickly access to the pier. so all of those things have been

part of our thinking. this was the previous scream to remind you. the retail was set into two large blocks and there was a straightedge to the arena. the arena was slightly larger. in fact, what we've shown is the red scale and the retail are important it's more imitate in scale and porous. we reduced the program but about thirty thousand square feet that's the gross square feet of the area. without sacrificing performance in general it's about being efficient and tighter on the solutions and making sure the engine solutions are able to

make things more refined. the other thing, of course, is mentioned we'll talk about is the there of water that's open to the sky. it remains maritime use and a for the fireboats on the north and east and on the south public access to leisure activities. you'll no a lot of green that raised plaza used to be a little less planned. we brought more vegetation both this sloping surface. the sloping sacrifice comes down. those rapture ramps they're less than than one to 20 they slope but don't require a handrail.

it's a simple sloping sacrifice from bottom to top. this is a long chart there's time to review it but for the purposes of this meeting we'll highlight some of the factors. we've lowered the event center down to one hundred and 10 feet. as you know in cities people gage the height of structures by their eave line. so we pushed the top portion of the building inward so it's one hundred and 10 and it's in the center of the arena itself. we managed to decrease the 03 thousand square feet in the facility. we've sort of morning managed inform maintain the soviet of