following a limit to hosted rooms by days or both that the consent have the intent occupied unit or a thirty day notification with no objection that sro's are excluded from the legislation that budgeted funding for enforcement and that there be consideration were b m r limitations that h h1 are included in the legislation and that the board consider the list of holocaust platforms. >> just to clarifying the single-family residences could be included. >> that doesn't need to be called out separately. >> we'll strike out the 6 consideration and have 7 recommendations outside of what the staffer already recommends.

>> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to remind the commissioner hillis about the requirements for inspection conforming to the terms of what total occupancy requires totally existing and fire compliance and all of those life safety issues. >> perhaps the condition or the recommendation could be no code violations in the building. >> you know, the department of building inspection needs to make the determination about the land use category this falls under and whether or not it has the changes and the additional requirements that my trigger this is not a new use in the

similar to a bed-and-breakfast we'll rely on the department of building inspection to make this enforcement under their codes. >> in the holocaust there's a requirement for disclosing the issues to be considered you can't just get a permit and pit 8 people into a room that is norman occupied by two people there has to be disclosed the number of people minimum those are all questions i hoped we could discuss i'd like it to be addresses the because we can't send it off by not addressing it. >> that's a suggestion.

>> well, i, introduce another 146 but i'm going to vote against the motion anyway. >> why not put that into the category of being further studied by staff. >> and i this the department of building inspection will hear the protective; is that correct? >> yes. i'm not sorry the department of building inspection will be considering they're waiting for your recommendation. >> so we can raise this as department of building inspection commission and it can certainly be part of their codes how their enforced in the legislation. >> the advisory committee will be looking at go this one suggestion i'll be comfortable with the short term be rentals

not have outstanding building or fire codes and if you want to say we should look at other issues i'm happy to consider those as well. >> would you to clarify add did violations or complaints it that thought building. >> that's a good question i can use some guidance from the staff. when we look at those we look to see if there's outstanding violation or an annual inspector so whether a economically to see if there's unpermitted work so that kind of is appropriate from those could go looked at the level of inspection to be

required and so we w can we consider the prohibition of short term rentals where there's a planning code violation >> just as we can certainly be part to clarify that as a rule we don't process outstanding code violations but look at the dbi to see if there's outstanding complaints when we process it. >> but when you look up on the new tracking system it lists the outstanding violations or the open complaints. >> we can look at the building and a separate website and check either. >> okay. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah. that won't get at the problem the issue is current

state of the building all the buildings in san francisco are not code compliant my building is not code compliant it's built in 82 the issue is how do you get at that to insure public safety. >> i've heard no amendment by the maker of the motion. >> i would certainly consider prohibition and short term rentals a planning code violation. >> i'll second that amendment. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm glad beer forwarding additional questions to the board of supervisors the one

pressuring idea it the residential that's not being responded to as further discussion item i think the consequences are too far reaching for me if nothing else i'd like to have a further discussion for itself helping the board of supervisors broadening our investigation would be a much more comfortable solution for me. >> shawl we take a crack there's a motion. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah. what's stripping an issue that's so important to the city we're going to try to decide a recommendation in one meeting of 5 hours of testimony. >> well, i share the same

reservation i'm trusting the president is going to bring this forward to understand our questions and concerns and try to harsh that out and aids that are watching this and can carry this forward. in the a heavy decision it has many moving pieces that affects other things that makes me concerned as well. >> so there's a motion that's been seconded to have an adaptation of modifications proposed by staff for the board to consider the limit to hosted rentals by days or rooms or both with the property owner sxheent occupy the consent or an a thirty day notification 50s

computed and b m r limbs and the insurance requirement a list of registered holocaust platforms and prohibition of short-term rental where a code violation exists. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis. councilmember johnson. commissioner moore i really would like to support this i believe it requires further discussion i can't forward it to the had particular moment >> that's a no. >> commissioner sugaya (laughter) president fong arrest so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to 2 with commissioner moore and commissioner sugaya voting against. shawl we

>> we left off under your regular calendar and two items pulled off for consent. that were placed after your after item 17 and this is item 4 at hiding street request for conditional use authorization arrest planning staff staff to allow for a conditional use authorization in order to develop is making restraining order television facility on hyde street the project street on, on the southeast corner in the hidingville neighborhood mixed use development developed in 1907 with the ground floor market and two residents above

and the zoned mixed medium density along the high street line it will economist of through 3 elements for the battery back up to run the facility in the combrvr of the building and the antennas on the roof of the building to any questionsic the flow utility and the equipment need to be located on the roof but at a set back. because the site is located in a residential building in the residential vicinity it is a disfavored location by the wireless guidelines therefore the applicant was to determine sites to be of a higher

preference the committee itself and 9 members attended the rfp report says the facility will meet the standards and will continue to ply with the continues the staff asked it be commit a robbery with the guidelines and recommend guidelines of the project be approved >> project sponsor please. >> good evening president fong i'm mark the regional vice president of at&t i'm joined by an engineer with the firm of edison which is a jp morgan firm in california they've conducted

the analysis and your analysis is in the packet and our project ready lad owed from the site acquisition team we've seeking approval on a conditional use permit to place telegraph hill screen mronts on the street hiding location as the a 7 preference locations we've not done an exhaust site nachls it lies in the hiding neighborhood surround by mixed use buildings and that 3 story residential buildings to the north and west it's necessary for the at&t to close it's site we ask you approve that and i'm able to answer any questions you might

have i have two speaker card. >> sonya had to leave early with her son i'm the school principle and we're a public school located about 60 feet from the promoted site where the making restraining order facility will be e very cold erected i'm here to speak on behalf of our 3 hundred students and parents and teachers we want to request the planning commission to issue a continuance for this project the reason why no one attended some of the previous meetings a lot of the meetings were sent during summer vacation there was no one through to receive the notifications payroll a few of the parents live in the neighborhood were very alarmed

they hadn't heard about the proposed plan and before making any decisions i ask that the community get more accurate information, and, secondly, we wonder if this location is the best location for this facility we recognize that at&t have an analysts this is a location preference 7 site it sound like it's a low he preference level and we're wondering why there's a much taller on 1369 hiding street we think that this building should be included in the site collection analysis as well and lastly we want to request that the rfp levels westbound tested at our school as quickly as possible according

to the antenna they can expense the levels that exceed the exposure limit and their classrooms within that range we're concerned this b will steady the standards around at&t was asked by mr. omar to calculate those particular levels at our school, however, the company refused this q request if the company a refusing and not required instill after consumption we ask the department of public health consultation the test prior to the nation and it will help affiliate concerns. thank you for listening to me i want to end and ask you put the needs of our students first

thank you. >> is there any additional public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini i want to ask the property owner or staff it could be either i think rounl we do the testing on the installation or before the installation to affiliate concerns. >> as part right of application passage hemming and edison does a project of the levels and that's in our packet it meets the fta standards we are required to go back and building every two years and do testing at part of cities requirement or meantime we make adjustment it that equipment that's it a

requirement that's ongoing we have to file those reports with the city and county we're willing to go out and test if they want us to test their sites the issue we don't this that's worthy of a continuance here the site meets the standard has submitted in our report we're happy to take the standards. >> you've already taken the measure once that's spring valley. >> right. >> i'll say i move to approve but ask you bring those reports to the member of the public that spoke that shows the rfp levels at the school are below the level and do a follow-up test. >> i don't want to lead you astray we've filed the report as

it was supposed to you, bring up your engineer if you want me to do that if that would help. >> yeah. commissioner moore did you want to ask. >> i want to ask a question about the engineer. the public speaker raised the question if you look at the brick building on hiding street that's a taller building had you done that >> unfortunately commissioner it's in patrick avenue pc d district that has limbs is that restrict our ability the 24 hours the antenna and they're treated at the same story controls but there's in place first for the towers of the buildings and limit our ability to do the height restrictions. so zoning administrator can you

explain that i've never heard that it would be a large building it is set back on the street i'm curious about that interpretation >> there's a bit of quicker in the controls at least two in the intern sundown the patrick and cd and west portal that limits the levels of the public uses can be loud they're not allowed in the third story i above in the districts that's why in the notsz allowed on top of building it's a quick. >> it's a quirk. >> that's outside of our district as well. >> we have the engineer here to answer our question. >> commissioners i'm wherewith hemming and engineers we've calculated the distance to the school tb the closet antenna at

80 feet and at the thirds floor of the school we calculate 19 percent of the public limit for human x portion so doing less than 10 miles per hour in a 50 miles per hour zone we can certainly do measurement before and after at the school that's doable. >> my motion that information be provided to the member of the public the woman from the school who's spoken and other other interested parties and the motion asking you to do testing after the installation of the antennas to check the projections are, in fact, correct. >> understood and we'll mock

those conditions. >> that's my motion. >> second. >> commissioners there's a motion and second to approve many matter with conditions with the radio frequency provide to the interested neighbors and testing after installation on monoon many commissioner antonini. >> commissioner johnck. commissioner johnson. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes amazing 6 to zero and places you on item 5 at 401 jennifer avenue request for conditional use authorization. >> the request before you allows the relocation of an at&t macro facility from the south plaza from the bart station on geneva avenue it will increase the number of antenna in 3 panel

antennas to 9 antennas and result in a new wireless verizon this was previously approved by bart itself and not viewed by the city it will be adjacent to the main rail building and the performance one location. staff determined the antenna is in standard and recommends approval project sponsor. >> good evening tb we have dan in from edison and another colleague our project lead. as was stated wire seeking to place 9 antenna on the geneva bart station it's a preference one site we didn't do a consent

analysis in your packet this site and the boundary of the outer mission supported by the factor will balboa park to the south and 2 to the west this is necessary for the at&t to close the gap and we ask firing support of this police station i'm available four questions >> opening it up for public comment i'm not sure there's speaker cards any public comment on that item? seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i requested that we pull this item off the consent agenda hopefully, there will be fast. i like the idea the idea a great we're xhouth the data but it was approved by bart without going

through the planning commission or any other authority it's bart they have the authority there i wonder why is this different and what's our policy going forward and fanl what district attorney our ccii authorization mean if we if approve that could they still approve that and that wouldn't mean anything >> since bart approached us this is 3 facilities as at a bart station. the one that is relocated is the one that was preapproved in 1997 it is unknown if the mraergs go choose to deny the facility parting broecapproached us and it was not reviewed by the city and in my manner they wanted an

finest especially one that wouldn't travel to bart's haurlgdz in oakland for instance, bart plan to look at other is facilities >> commissioner sugaya. >> no, no i'm sorry i want to comment i want the conditional use to mean something if bart facility has at approval we should consider some other method of approving the project. >> we meet with the city attorney's office they've agreed with our assessment we have jurisdiction their exempt if local control if it meets their ore mission that will provide

the service to the neighbors to the city attorney's office agreed that within our purview to approve the conditions. >> if i could add we've got bart stations and a similar recommendation their city will review this as well. >> commissioner antonini. >> move to approve. >> wait, wait, wait. go ahead >> i was going to move. >> you chimed in first. >> i had a question if you go look at exhibit 2 before the site a constructed and go to exhibit 4 which is the service area after the site a constructed there's harder my difference if you go to exhibit 5 the site before construction and exhibit 6 which is the service area after there's hardly my difference why

are we doing this. >> bart is looking for other tints whether the united states faesht because the antenna are small so it didn't deserves at&t. >> so it shouldn't present that as crossing a significant gap the service area before service construction not the other one the service area is actually greater than the new facility will provide according to this. >> one of the things for the testing their require that it town turn off the facility on a sardine night there's will be a gap in service. >> commissioner sugaya move to

approve. >> on that motion to approve with sxhnz. commissioner antonini >> commissioner hillis. commissioner johnson. sxhoerg. commissioner sugaya and commissioner fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously have to zero and commissioners that will take us to your discretionary review authorization calendar item 18 d and v at 135 telling grade request for discretionary review there was one heard on march 26, 37 >> i'm david lindsey of department staff the project before you is the alternatives they consist of horizontal things changing the stories sloped roof to a flat roof and

the bay project on the new windows and doors. the subject building has been determined to not be a historic resource. the project horizontal are extend of inches into the side yard and the zoning administrator related to this requested she intends to grid. the subject property is a sleeping sloping land one block located at the southern end before clearing i think avenue immediately to the west is a vacant lot and immediately to the right is the single-family home it's up sloping and it's paramount character is a 3 story i'm not sorry