>> thank you. i appreciate the comments, i appreciate the design changes. i think there have been improvements made since the last hearing and i think it's important to get this all in the record. i'm challenges about the mere fact that this is a cu and necessary and desirable. the most recent housing pipeline, we are at 197 percent of our allocation above moderate housing. i have no fantasy there will be affordable housing here that in this location with these neighbors with this kind of view that this could ever happen, but it's very difficult to find the logic behind feeling that this is necessary. i think that mr. stewart

raised the notion of property taxes, if it's up to $200,000 a year, every year of affordable housing cost $300-500 affordable housing, all the property tax go into general fund and a small percentage. i think that's a largest barrier for me to support the project. >> some thoughts and positives and negatives about the project. i watched the video and i think the design is much better in the back. somebody said they didn't want a wall on the hill. i appreciate that you did something on that. it actually looks better from afar. there is a house on my street at the very top that you come off from the 101 it clearly dominates anything and anything to do to soften

that which is iconic is a good thing. i like that reading is completely detached if you are from piner park and you are at an angle you are not going to see anything. you are going to see three structures and not see anything in front of them. i think the quality of the view created by putting the view corridor at the further down the hill makes sense. i think the looking at the trans-america building is a lot better than than look at what that was. i think that is true from the view cones that you were showing us from the larger view corridor was not interesting. so looking at trans-america building is more interesting to me. on the negative side, we heard over again about the water table issue and dbi is responsible for that and

geotechnical exemption in the environmental impact report exemption. i'm assuming that's all good and the 6 feet plus they roll down is sufficient enough and will have to find something completely different. i'm assuming we'll rely on the city to do that. i do have a concern about the parking. these aren't affordable units at all. these are $10 million condos, the only thing we have that is actually somewhat affordable and is the cottage. $1200 a square foot, north of a million dollars. in order to make it somebody in that middle class band of housing that we create about 25 percent of our goal make that even more affordable. i use the word affordable in

quotes. you are selling it with parking. i really don't support the parking. on family homes, i feel like i'm in an out of body experience in this commission and i have been here twice. we talked about last week family size units of 26 and clemente being 1400 square -square foot and we have many multiples of that, you can create six or seven of them on this lot which would be great and we would meet at a band of 82 percent of the ami. i want to make sure that dpw and parks and recreation and i want to make sure that there is no issue with emergency vehicles and anything that could affect the public space

or safety. >> elizabeth, planning department. i spoke with the fire department and we talked through the fire lane which was her biggest concern to make sure there was a clear fire lane along telegraph hill boulevard and the construction wouldn't block that. the sponsors have confirmed on the latest plan there is a dedicated 12 -foot wide fire lane. she only needed a 10 -foot fire lane. they are in approval. >> i don't want to bash people who are too successful. if someone can buy a condominium for $8 million that's great. here we are trying to talk through affordable housing issues and we keep coming up with these massive projects. i'm excited that you want to build a project here, i want to see you build a project here, i don't want you to ban

building here. i wish you the best. i want to hear what the rest of the commissioners have to say. >> commissioner antony? >> it's going to be desirable and will provide more safety on the site and will generate a significant amount of taxes. how much of that goes to affordable housing and other issues like that is an interesting question but it is revenue that the city will have and allow to not spend that revenue and allow for more affordable housing that we do. those are all good reasons. also i don't think there is anything wrong with a couple other commissioners have mentioned. if you build homes that people have a means to buy often they contribute to the city by way

of contributing and not somewhere else. couple things i want to ask project sponsor about the concern about the driveway. is there a possibility putting a light there that would flash when a car comes up as you do for commercial structures downtown? >> thanks commissioner. i'm get up and answer it because the question has been asked by your staff already and answered in your draft motion which required us to provide those. >> okay. that's already there. for those concerned about that and i can see walking from the downstairs might see when the car was coming forward. there was oblly an -- obviously a car there and allowed someone to have been

there if a stop was there and also the pedestrian is alerted by seeing the lights. i think that certainly answers the question and with only four parking places, only four cars, the impact is going to be much less than would be the case if you had a lot more units and a lot more parking places if there are not any trips in and out from the day. they may not even bring the cars out in the course of the day, maybe every few days. it depends on what they do. i have some requestes for project sponsors, in addition to the flashing lights. the interior floor heights, commissioner moore brought up the figures that the heights were 11 and 10 1/2. is that correct on the floor to ceiling heights on the floors that she speaks of? >> yes, those numbers are correct. >> okay, what i would suggest

doing is to lower those heights to 11-10 and 10.5 to 10 . you are below the limit to height. it's 39, 39 and 37. your resulting structures would be 37, 37 and 35. for those who have concerns about those coming down the steps from pioneer park and being able to see over, you will be able to see over these buildings for a longer period of time with two less feet of hooit. >> commissioner, with all do respect, i think a change in one 1 foot of height or six 6 inches of height off the top of these buildings makes no material difference to the views as you see them from a distance. i mean, i doubt somebody

could tell a six 6-inch difference from across the room no less from across the street from the park whereas it is very important from inside those spaces to have high ceilings that let ebb a lot -- in a lot of light and air. >> i realize but we are trying to craft something that is supportive. by only taking one 1 foot off each of the two floors and half a foot off the other one you still have by my calculation, you have a 10 foot and -foot and 2, 11 -foot, whatever it is no less than three 10s. if you have a lot of windows you are going get a lot of light in there. i will probably make a motion. >> can we make an alternative

suggestion which is the plans before you actually have stair pent houses on the roof and seven feet. 7 feet. that if you are looking to make a difference on the view, eliminating the pent houses will reduce the height. >> okay, that's what i'm going to propose. you will get rid of the pent houses you will have access to the outdoors, there is no height above the roof. you will have 39, 39, 37. that's what we would end up with? >> that's correct. >> that maybe two 2 feet additional off the building. all right. let me propose to something i

will make a motion to approve work-cited -- with the design changed presented and specifically without making the motion too long the separation that have been spelled out between the different unit, different buildings and the separation at the end and the setback at the end. also i would like to make a condition that project sponsor work with dpw on providing park stewardship and improvements on the fill bert steps by best efforts. that the construction plan is included as part of our approval that has been spoken of today. that they continue to work with staff on design. the flashing light is apparently already part of

the motion. and maximizing the setback at the drive way to give the most possible vision to pedestrians or other drivers that might be there. so that would be my motion for approval. >> second that. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to respond one more time to say that in order to justify a cu for this property or two cu's i need to reaffirm for myself that those plan in general plan priorities are in place that the design for the project for the side deserves issues that recognize special context of the site, maintains the integrity of the steps, provide safe passage from the top of the steps to the crosswalk to park steps and preserves view corridor from pioneer park steps.

the view corridor proposed at the low end of the side does not even address the public's interest in having the city view from ascending to the first landing on the pioneer park steps. it does somewhat on the fill bert step and there are many people who come by bus go on the sidewalk and see the city from the first landing of the pioneer steps. since the project really in that sense takes more than it gives including a rebuttal of asking for three 3 feet respect of lowering ceiling heights which tracts the entire building, i cannot support what is in front of us. >> commissioner richard? >> i would like to ask the sponsor if the unit can be comparable without a parking space oovm

>> yes. >> thank you. >> commissioner hillis? >> i want to clarify the motion? >> let me go over it again. >> the setback from the property line, i believe that's what it is. >> that is included in the design changes which i didn't speak out explicitly. there is a 7 foot six -foot six inch setback 6-inch setback from the property line to allow for more safety at the entrance to the garage. >> so i just wanted to specify that measurement. were you interested in looking at that. i can be supportive of one less. >> absolutely, i was going to amend the motion. >> i would accept your amendment to the motion for, we would have three parking places, not four, there would be none for the cottage.

presumably it would be taken from the cottage. that is an amended motion. >> just one quick note on amending the parking to be only three spaces it would be affectively disapproval for cu. you can have three spaces for the four 4-unit by right. the cu is only one to one ratio. it's disapproving that cu for the parking to make it clear for the record. >> that cu would not be necessary, it would be mute. i'm not sure how we have to vote on this. >> i think you can disapprove that for the cu and continue to approve the cu for the density. >> the motion would be to approve the cu for the density and make a second motion to disapprove the cu for the parking. >> it's just one motion,

right? >> yeah. >> so, i think -- >> or we could have the sponsor withdraw the request for the cu on the parking? >> rows for the project sponsor, we are withdrawing the request for the parking space. >> okay. commissioner johnson? >> thanks. i agree with the project sponsor, i guess if you are amenable to that change to your project, thank you for your withdrawing your request for the parking space. the reason for why, what does that get us in terms of public safety and in terms of changes to design just looking at the way they have the parking level oriented, i'm not sure that anything was physically changed about the building, i'm supportive of it and asking what commissioners

were intended to get out of that request? >> two things, it would make the cottage more affordable. you are not charging a parking space to the unit and you have less car trips. it doesn't go to eliminating the entire issue of pedestrian safety but reduces it by 25 percent, and that seems reasonable to me. >> commissioner hillis? >> i agree that logic. i didn't think of that, it doesn't make it affordable but probably makes it cheaper. >> okay. i agree. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second to approve this conditional use authorization with conditions based on the most recently submitted plans. with the separation between

units provide a good faith effort with department of building inspection and partnership and maintenance of the fill bert street steps, to continue to work with staff on design maximizing the garage setback, profession a -- providing a seven 7-foot setback and acknowledging the project sponsor has withdrawn their request for the conditional use for off street parking. thank you. and the elimination department of pent house access an construction plan enumerated that they would be oh blielgd to follow the construction

plan. >> following the construction plan as presented. okay on that motion commissioner and knee, hillis, johnson, moore, no, richard, wu, no, fong. that motion 5-2 with commissioners moore and wu voting against. >> the commission will take a

. >> commissioners, we left off under your regular calendar on item 10, point 0633 at 1099 jackson street, request for conditional use authorization. >> thank you, good afternoon, commissioners, chair wu, omar masery, this is a request by at&t

mobility for a macro wireless telecommunications facility at 1098 jackson street. the project is at the northeast corner of jackson and teller street and featuring two floors of residences including a dry cleaners, a cafe and a restaurant. the project will consist of 3 primary components, primary the antennas, 6 antennas mounted on the roof with elements intended to mimic fake vent pipes, would not be visible from off streets given its low heights as well as an equipment room in the basement. the project site is a (inaudible) location as the site is zoned rm3 residential mixed moderate dense silt. the carrier did submit a required alternate site analysis demonstrating an absence of other sites considered higher accesses such as churches and museums and other public

buildings. staff received calls, and correspondence from approximately 272 letters in opposite proceedings primarily due to concerns over rf emissions and concerns to impablgts to the businesses on site such as the dry cleaners and the cafe. as a condition of the project staffed added a condition requiring that if any changes are made to the basement equipment area those changes would be reviewed by staff and if determined they could cause an adverse impact to those businesses then the project could be brought back before the planning commission. also in response to concerns by those tenants the equipment room was reduced from 80 square feet down to 72 square feet as reflected on the plans within the case packet. staff has worked with the applicant to look at sites within the vicinity of aultd gnats and noted the challenges with such sites. staff believes that based on the proposed design and the conditions for the project, the

project would be considered necessary desirable and compatible and recommends approval. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> good afternoon, president wu, vice president fong, members of the commission, my name is teddy verhayes and a licensed engineering firm out of santa rosa who conducted the radio frequency analysis and did the third party analysis that are all a part of your packet. also joining me today is our site acquisition and project manager. at&t is seeking your approval on a conditional use permit to place a wireless facility at 1098 jackson street. approval of the cup will permit at&t to place up to 6 screened roof top mounted panel antennas on the

subject property. the majority of the associated equipment needed to run the facility will be located outside the public view in the basement of the property. 1098 jackson lies at the knob hill neighborhood along the hyde street cable car line and is surrounded by 3 to 5 story residential buildings. the density of this area has contributed to the network conjunction and in order to alleviate that conjunction we have to add capacity to the network in the area. the project is a 7 under the network guidelines. at&t conducted a thorough alternative analysis which included 27 properties. none of these properties were less intrusive than the one selected by at&t. that analysis

>> to be specific for a quick second, this is item number 8 of edison's rf safety study, it says that the cumulative of any nearby reference is 30 percent of the public exposure limit, and the residents is in astrik. s and located 50 feet away based on the photographs from google thanks. and i guess that the fact that

the 1420 taylor which is 40 feet to the property and is not mentioned in the study and just indicates that this could have been more thorough and so my, i guess if anything, at minimum, i would like it see, a more robust and thorough study of the safety, of the exposure. and the building is eight feet away and i think that the antennas are set back and so it is well in the 68-foot, public exposure limit and i do understand that the limit pertains to the area directly in front of said antennas, but at the same time, just by nature of the fact that 1420, taylor is not mentioned at all and i feel like, it could be more, it could be more robust, study. and that is those are my

thoughts, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> good afternoon, commissioners, my mame is kirsty and a live on taylor street, next to the subject building and i have lived there for 16 years and, this are several problems with this proposal, and specifically... (inaudible) the two owner haves asked the neighborhood for their support in opposing this projects and asking their customer to write letters to the planning commission. in addition to the storage space, there is a safety issue, since they will be working

directly above the three large cabinets and these weighing though ands of pounds have hazardous material, the close proximity, to the gas pipe and because this is a registered soft story building, this creates a dangerous environment in the case of a major earthquake, and these are constantly generate the heat and nose and emissions. and despite the opposition, and the wireless mraern, it appears that there is an agreement with the landlord, and i spoke with susan and told me that they wanted to sign the agreement tomorrow. however the landlord insisted on signing it yesterday, and there was a feeling that the aat attendance would not be here and original she had original plans to attend.