screening. we ask for your support as we did work to improve the network in the area and meet the needs and demands within the city of san francisco. i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you, let's open up for public comment. i believe i have no speaker cards. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner borden? >> i will move to approve. >> second. >> commissioners, if there is nothing further there is a motion and second to approve. border, hillis, moore, sugaya, commissioner fung and president wu. that motion passes 5-0. places you on item 18 for case

no. item 18: 2013.1201c o. masry; 4155 575-91166 1701 haight street - at the southwest corner of haight and cole streets, lot 001 in assessor's block 1248 - request for conditional use authorization under planning code sections 719.83 and 303 to develop a wireless telecommunication services wtss facility for at&t mobility. the proposed macro wts facility would feature 122 roof-mounted panel antennas housed within individual faux vent pipes. related electronic equipment would be located on the roof and in the basement. the facility is proposed on a location preference 6 site limited preference, individual neighborhood commercial districtt within the haight street neighborhood commercial district, and 40-x height and bulk district. preliminary recommendation: approve with conditions continued from regular meeting of january 23, 20144 12341234 ,, 12341234 this is also a question for conditional use permit and please be adviced for the purpose of ceqa pursuant to section 34.8. it was left off the calendar. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. >> thank you chairs, with the planning commission. this allows for the wireless facility at the at&t facility at 1701 haet streetight street with equipment to run in the facility. all the vent pipes

would about on the center of the roof of a three story building3 story building and setback at least 20 feet and 6 feet adjacent to the 1 story building west of the project site. the vent pipes with the exception of haight street to the west to marketplace which is former movie house. this site is located in the neighborhood commercial district. it was determined if it might require an alternate site for the facility. the carrier was unable to identify locatable sites or commercial structures for instance the whole foods building at the corner that may offer a preferential siting opportunity. the carrier did

provide a revised third party analysis to determine if it was a capacity coverage gap. that revised analysis took into account a recently constructed and activated mobility about a quarter a mile wait at coal street and the analysis also took into account the assumed coverage that has not been instructed at 14 and haight street and masonic avenue. the sponsors did hold a community which two members did indicate their support for the project. however a petition was provided by residents with 100 signatures and eight calls regarding their opposition to the project regarding health concerns with radio frequency issues and copper and visual

impact as well as the impact to facilities regarding the historic nature of the building and the neighborhood itself and request to consider a davt site which contains and pass -- antennas on wooden poles. staff recommends approval of the project. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon again commissioners. bill ham ot is the consulting engineering firm with us today on this site as well as the other site. the project coordinator on this is toll lean. the at&t is seeking your approval on this conditional use permit application for a 12 panel

antennas on the roof property. for six location under the wireless guidelines and we did conduct a significant alternative site analysis. the at&t held a community forum at the san francisco public library in addition to this community meeting back in october of 2011 to try to identify locations in and around this area because the wireless coverage is so poor in this area. and as you can see we've been working dil gently to try to serve the needs of that area over the last several months. this site is in and of itself related to other areas and nofsz -- in

and of itself will address that area. this is why we are seeking your approval of the conditional use permit application as we work to up grade our network in san francisco. thank you. >vice-president cindy wu: opening up for public comment. jacob and singleton. thank you commissioners. commissioners, before acting on this proposal, i urge you to take a closer look at the site. you would notice that a

designate at 1701 haight is misleading. 1701 haight is the address of a storefront that are part of a larger 2 story multiuse building. the address of this building is 615 cole. that's a building that faces out onto cole street and when we are talking about the proposal, we are actually talking about 615 cole street. and this building is a beautifully restored old victorian building with lots of incredible detail on it and it has in fact been designated a potential historic resource under the california environmental quality act. the proposed facility with it's

unsightly modern rooftop transmission towers would vastly decrease the historic value of the building and undermine the as aesthetics of the building. in addition, we've been informed that the at&t proposal is in clear violation of the san francisco planning code on neighborhood commercial districts, article 703b 790.8. those sections state that designate telecommunication transmission facilities as public use and as such require that they may only be constructed within an enclosed building. the proposal for these rooftop towers clearly is in violation

of that requirement. thanks for your attention. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hopefully you will get a chance to see my lovely little map that i made for you today. my name is lisa angle ton and thanks for letting me speak today. i'm a resident of the haight district. i'm here on behalf of a group of people comprised of over 120 residents, workers and live within 100 feet of this address that is proposed to be a location for the third wireless communication site within the haight ash berry neighborhood. many of us are actually already wireless

customers with at&t and we all are in opposition for erecting 12 additional tower antenna. we oppose at&t's application on the ground that it's immature for an antenna on that building demand our neighborhood. i know i'm not an artist, but this will give you a scale of what's going on in the neighborhood. the green one is our proposed site today at haight and coal street. 3 blocks away at&t has already been approved and has 9 antenna operating. down the street, 3 blocks down haight, at haight and masonic, they will also have approval, have approval now to build this site with an additional 12 antenna. this site not yet up

and running. so 12 plus 9 is 21 and here we are today just three 3 blocks in the middle looking at another 12 antenna for a whopping 33 antennas in our neighborhood. at&t says they are trying to adapt to explosion of need and their testing says we need this. well, i would like to see us get this site up and running at haight and masonic before we really give credit and credible value to those projections and the perception of the coverage gap. i went out myself and you will see in yellow, i went out yesterday in the neighborhood and i talked with at&t wireless customers. what i found was inside of whole foods store where my coverage is pretty pretty kind of

shaky, my checkout guy has at&t wireless. he had 3 bars. he's very happy with it and when he walks out he gets even more. i went down away the site inside the library, my checkout girl, kim had 3 bars on hers. and we had 5 bars right across the street. the max number. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you, your time is up. any further public comment? >> good evening. i am the owner of 1701 haight street. i have been in that building

since 1970. i have helped with the restoration of that architectural gem. i'm very much concerned about what goes on in that building. i'm very involved in the look and the feel of that property. there is a lot of work that i did personally that is part of that building and i would like to see it continue. i think the study show that the reception necessary in the area that it currently doesn't have it, i talk to people on my own that say there is not good reception there. i have considered the proposal and i'm for it and i want to go on record to say that i support at&t's proposal to put those antennas in. thank you. >vice-president cindy wu: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.

commissioner antonini? >> i have a question. one of the speakers spoke about a violation. i'm not exactly sure what they were speaking about. i think everything has been noticed and i'm not quite sure. maybe you can comment on that. >> many uses required incur within a closed building. however the planning code with the neighboring commercial districts which rebecca -- regulate this site. the planning code with that building provides exception for public uses to occur outside a building or on an open lot. that is a vehicle for an allowing for commercial antennas to be placed on the roof our out of the building. because radio waves are generated by the antennas they would need to pass through materials like fiberglass

elements that compose the antenna. if they are put inside the building, they block the output and defeat the purpose of the facility. >> thank you, that answers the question. i have a question for teddy from at&t too in regards to another presentation made by the public in regards to the coverage and i see your maps, but then i'm not sure are they accurate about the fact that there is an approved site that is not online yet and what was the taken into consideration when you did your coverage maps? >> we have two additional sites. one is online at cole street and 1400 haight is i believe waiting for permit approval at dbi. but the maps are accurate and bill hamate is here. if you would like him to address the cover maps as it relates to each of those

and whether or not the third party requirement is met on this which it is. but, they are all separate and distinct and each one of them serves a particular purpose. so i think you've heard me say in the past, cell cites go between 4-6 blocks. that's the range of a cell facility. that's why you are seeing. normally we would have this all over the city, but because we left the pocket of the haight for the tail end of our build, as we come back around that's why you are seeing these three pop up at the same time. there is a strategic plan to address that pocket of the city at one time and that's why you are seeing the three sites. but they are all distinct. there is a coverage gap that has

been proven. that's why we are seeking your approval today. >> so the analysis is taken into consideration benefits from the sites that are not online yet? >> yes it does. >> thank you. >> sure. with >vice-president cindy wu: commissioner antonini? >>commissioner michael j. antonini: move to approve. >vice-president cindy wu: commissioner sugaya? >>commissioner hisashi sugaya: all the companies have a little bit of different technology in the types of antenna they use whether it's an lte or other stuff. and so with respect to at&t their antennas don't project as far as people may think they would. even in a straight line, i don't think they cover as the representative from

at&t has said more than about 4 blocks or five 5 blocks at the most. and if you have terrain and they are directional and some of these are directed in certain directions and certain directions, well, anyway. they can be directed in certain ways. so even though there might be three close to each other, it's likely in this case given the data that we have that this site is projecting out into a different space than the other two. >> commissioners there is a motion and second to approve with conditions. on that motion, commissioner antonini, border, hillis, moore, sugaya, fong and wu. that passes unanimously 7 -0. and places you on your final agenda item

19. item 19:2013.0170d j. look; 4155 575-68122 2123 castro street - east side of castro street between 28th street and valley street; lot 6612 in assessor's block 027 - mandatory discretionary review, pursuant to planning code section 317, of building permit application no. 2013.03.18.2428 and 2013.03.18.2424, proposing to demolish a single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling unit. the property is located within a rh-2 residential house, two-familyy zoning district and 40-x height and bulk district. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for purposes of ceqa, pursuant to section 31.044hh of the san francisco administrative code. 12341234 >> thank you. good evening president wu and commission. i'm with department staff. the case before you is a discretionary review for demolition at 2123 castro street which is located in valley t department is recommended not to take dr and approve the project. indicates the existing property is not affordable. this means the property and land value is greater than at least 80 percent combined land and structure values in homes? san francisco. our code would typically exempt properties from requirements and could

be approved administratively but because this project is located in r 2 zoning district it is before you today. the current structure at 2123 castro is a single dwelling unit with two bedrooms. the project sponsor characterizes as functional and obsolete and altered over time. it's been owner occupied for over 20 years. the new proposed construction will be a three 3 story with a floor plan for new family housing. the height of the proposed project would be approximately 28 feet in height and the ground floor is partially below grade and that's with an effort to reduce building height. in addition, the proposed building plans to be a certified passive house and under going lead gold building certification. the building will also be a certified net

zero building which means it will essentially result in net yes, -- zero use. finally we find the proposed mass and height is appropriate given the pattern of castro street which is the majority of buildings which are 2-3 stories. i also want to let you know project sponsors also have a separate building permit application for a new construction 3 story single family dwelling unit at 2127 castro street and that is directly next door to 2123 to the south. that project 311 notification period has expired and no d r's have been filed on it. the project team has conducted significant outreach to the neighbors and redesigned the project to address one of the main

concerns which is building highlight. as a result of the project response they submitted 12 letters to 2123 castro and 2127. we had a third letter of support which came today from the neighbor on the same side of the project. in response to dr at 2123 castro, i received two letters of opposition. the letter speaks to concerns of housing affordability and scale and size. the recommendation to not take dr and prove a demolition as proposed and the basis of the demolition is the project is not considered an affordable unit or financially accessible housing per our planning code 17 definition. the project will not result in any

reduction of housing unit current fully our housing stock. the project will create one family size dwelling unit with four bedrooms. no tennants will be displaced as a result of this project. finally this project is in scale but surrounding neighborhood and meets our guidelines and it will be a passive house in san francisco with a net zero energy residential building. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions if needed. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. project sponsor. >> good evening president wu and commissioners. i'm david silver man and working on this project. before you due to the mandatory dr's as pointed out for proposed demolition of residential unit. how far no neighbor has requested a dr. the existing building was an

appraised the value of $1.5 million which is in excess of the valuation of $1.3 million as the upper limit of the affordable house. the residential demolition is based p on the affordability factor. residents in this price range therefore are not considered affordable housing. in addition the project satisfies a super majority and it will provide attractive new family housing with four bedrooms in a poorly designed structure and thereby refreshing and renewing the city's housing stock. we have submitted to you as noted 11 letter of support from neighbors including the two adjacent neighbors. i would like to now introduce the

project architect, mark thomas. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, mark thomas. most of what i was going talk about was covered by jessica, so i will be brief and maybe talk about the process. our first step was to meet and vet on design through planning department. we met with staff and confirmed our design concept and our design direction and then we spent the next 11 months talking with the neighborhood especially our two adjacent neighbors and after submissions of our plans we continued to meet with the neighbors and make further design changes to incorporate their request suggestions and ideas. and we think the result is a well designed house that

reinterprets and incorporates some of the best architectural features of the neighborhood is designed well within the planning code guidelines, meets all the applicable residential design guidelines and most notably gains the support of two neighbors next door to us. with that said, i will hand over the remaining time to hue so he can discuss that. i should mention in addition to the standards that hue is going to discuss we are hoping for lead gold or lead platinum certification on this house as well. thank you and i'm available for questions. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is hue, project sponsor. i will talk to you briefly about this project as we got here today.

as you are aware we've done quite a lot of outreach to the neighbors and listened to what they have to say and worked with the immediate neighbors most affected by the project. we originally started with 32 -foot at all and 94 we -- and now we are a 28 -foot tall building. those don't come without considerable effort and cost to the sponsor and myself here. i want to talk to you about the demolition side of stuff and what san francisco gets for this. in exchange for demolition we propose to build the passive house and this maybe a new concept to a lot of people here. the passive house is a little piece of the future. a passive house built today will still be co-compliant in

45-50 years. they are net zero incredible indoor air quality. there are no other houses like them today. we are proposed to produce two of them here. we have recently completed a very successful passive house in castro. in the castro district. i look forward to this. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. public comment? >> good evening commissioners, my name is birey. i live in the district not far from where this project will be built. i'm here tonight as the interim executive director of passive house california to recommend that you do approve

this project proposed on castro street. we are very proud that we are getting builders and developers willing to build to this very exacting building performance standard that is now gaining quite some momentum here in san francisco and across the country. i personally have been working with both san francisco environment and the building department to see that we can advocate for allowing builders who are willing to build to this exemplary standards. and to why this is a significant accolade and something to enhance the city of san francisco's credibility in the realm of climate action and

looking at how energy efficiency is improved in the city. there are only less than 50 passive houses already built in the state of california. in the country there are less than 400 certified passive houses. in the rest of the world there are over 35,000 of these built. their track record has been quite outstanding. i personally worked on projects around these type in the bay area and the actual monitored data is showing their performance is at least a minimum of 60 percent better than current code construction. the willing to