good morning, everyone. to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for october 2, 2014, i'd like to remind members of the members 0 that the commission does not permit outbursts of any kind and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to take we'll. >> commissioner fong arrest

commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner hillis and commissioner johnson commissioner president wu. >> thank you, commissioners due to the late start we'll be moving things around on the calendar weaning we'll be moving tatters c and d to the end of the calendar and item 12 for 490 van ness will be outside of order following abc of pine street so commissioners terrors is the items proposed for continuance item one at 53 state street a announced discretionary reviews no other items proposed for continues and i have no speaker cards

any public comment on the items proposed phone number for continuance seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner moore >> move to continue. >> second. >> on that motion to continue item one until november win arrest commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner fong and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you under your consent calendar to be routine and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you only have one item case no.

two at 1098 jackson street quebec they adapted a motion to continue the matter until october 2nd are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar seeing none, public comment is closed. oh. >> do i want to comment on this. >> i'm asking that the commission yeah. i - >> this is new. >> so we'll have to pull it off of content. >> okay. thank you. >> so commissioner this is pulled off of commensurate and heard at the beginning of chartered. >> commissioners we are again moving commission matters and department matters until the end

of today's calendar and taking general public comment not to exceed 15 minutes i have several speaker cards. >> opening up for general public comment

(calling names). >> mr. al could you like to submit your comment while he is doing that? sure >> good afternoon. i'm john over link with the tack 0 group the dialog about pdr a burning issue i want to share with you the proposal for permanent pdrs depiction controls we hope the commission about apply in the south of market neighborhood starting with the central selma rezoning next year you know howe how important 24 issue is and the flower mart in particular is a burning issue of the day our proposal would require that all of the service arts and industrial district the current district that includes the

flower mart a one for one replacement that might be demolished 0, however, rezoned in the future and in the current deserve e service like the s l i which includes the 668 are thirds project you acted on last month our proposal is what you did that 50 percent of the building would be retained permanently as pdr or arts also arts is also sip anonymous with the pdr we that i made an excellent decision and proposed that you make a gentle policy in the zoning area and the mirror i can't do of districts we proposes that one fourth 25 percent of pdr that currently exists as of record be retained

or in my future development conversion or demolition we also very importantly propose there be an number two, of opposition for building owners to buy their way out of alteration that provides the buildings are different but most of all a fund the city will be only in the tens of million dollars the city uses to provide loan grant to nonprofit arts organizations that can buy their own building or for a private pdr business that times to buy a building the second loan at you market rate interest the best way to preserve pdr businesses and arts organizations is, of course, if of a they oppose their own building and it takes

significant funds so we forward this to you, we gave it to the staff we hope to work with you on how to make that work thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> once you part speaking sfgovtv will display it on the screen. >> whatever one you prefer. >> thank you, commissioners 2u7b89 to speak i'm dr. raymond is there any public comment? tennis e kins as an undergraduate you san francisco state university and taught at the school of engineering the departmental research i'm a former dean of the studies an associate dean i current have

two offices in vietnam one in han now and current the executive director for community first coalition in bayview hunters point as well as a consultant for the black coalition on aids i only before you earlier on september 19th a addendum was passed dealing with the occasion in candle stick park i'm asking the commission to reconsider and have public comment on this this is a crucial issue as the study we did back in 2000 plus in the a map of the area a in bayview hunters point this is where candle stick at the hunters point shipyard i had the grant overseeing the clean up for years on this and had a staff

from berkley and san francisco state in reviewing the documents this situation i've worked with the city as well as an article 38 they're considering monday and i'll be testifying at the hearing i'll ask the commission defer and have a public hearing on this matter it's crucial right now we did t the study in the 8 and if i could get the laptop projection thank you this is a sample we did of benefit zinc out at the elementary school which is in the zone therefrom be unaffected george washington elementary school school 199850 percent of the children were ass mask and i go through the school records it

is 85 percent of the babies in the first grade are astigmatic i've been working with a particular study and the document that is presented to you may i have the overlayed projector that is a pattern that is going to deal with the expansion if you do the inclusion on the upper level i'm sorry the false assumes are utilized the place they quoted was san francisco city college that is on bay land and ocean boulevard 9411 zip code they're not mentioning bayview hunters point looking at the last point i can

go on and on as a professor teaching environmental chemistry and - >> thank you but our time is up. >> may i have an extension of 30 seconds. >> sore sorry we're happy to have your written form. >> i hope you consider my question we never had an opportunity. >> at the. >> next speaker. >> - >> i'm jessie i'm in support for the community of first coalition to talk about the addendum certified on november 19th for the project hunters point shipyard for the demolition and redevelopment of

seven hundred port acres around kansas city the environmental review officer moved the demolishing the upper section of the candle stick stadium it has the impacts for the upper levels of candle stick using comploelgs it explicit require a public review but the commission should provide public notice and seek the public comments like using ball and chains that result in a matter that effects the local community such notice is important because the bay area management evaluation because of elevated levels of air pollution a particular matter will be

toxic in effect united states dpap has said this effects the hearts and lungs the current levels of the matter in the hunters point shipyard is high as a result and the concentration of light industry in the community that contribute to accumulative matter pollution community members are concerned as the inclusion there 0 could be impacts to air quality and hoozus materials noise and have i been arbitrations and air measures that were added for instance, the dust clean up should be promote and the inmroegs should be undertaken what that means i hereby ask a public meeting

about the candle stick stadium thank you. >> is there any additional public comment. >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners i'm advocate for the doctors efforts 85 percent is murder and 25 asthma rates in children is murder and to deny that or ignore that is complexity in murder i was here for the earlier session and i noticed there was a discussion regarding the airbnb 2k3w5rg9 revenues for the city now i was at a hearing the other day airbnb it is recognized that

airbnb is illegal at this point in total and so to authorize them to gather financing for the city is to give them in a corrupt practice so i would definitely urge you to reconsider any authorization of them gather revenue stream they should be tracked for any of their franklin they're using through this city there are hotel laws that go back for century to prevent especially demgz and illegal use of properties there are certainly bordering house laws and bordering houses have been around for century and for the city to pretend that airbnb can set up operations with no

constraints is taking part in an illegal operation i will definitely urge you to reconsider efforts to authorize them to gather revenues for the city from further operations thank you is there any additional public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners that places you under our and item two came off of content so tame item 2 at 1098 jackson street request for conditional use authorization. >> thank you chair and members of the police station on

september 11, 2014, the planning commission heard is request for conditional use authorization for a proposed at&t mobility wireless facility on jooks street the commission at that time, voted to take a motion of intent to disproductive the project and staff has worked with alternative designs and engage the community we're here to answer questions that you have. >> thank you project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm with at&t affairs i'm here seeking your support to approve our conditional use application last time you raised several issues and i have sent all of you information and i'm happy to go

over it briefing but one of the main concerns whether or not the displummet of the two commercial attends in the building i wanted to share with you a graft we have for you to show that, in fact, the tenants have not been displaced their compensation given to them and i'll put this up here briefing in case you get a chance to see that. >> sfgovtv? >> will they focus it or should i. >> you should go ahead. >> there you go. >> so as you can see we have about 40 square feet on the

revised after we started with 60 mosquitos on the cafe and revised 40 square feet we'll be taking square footage of that for compensation for the tenants and one hundred square feet and we'll be occupying 52 square feet for the cleaners in addition to that we'll be putting up racks that make the space a little bit more usable borough the tenants that occupy it other was that there was concern about aesthetics in the preference 7 locations we went back and worked with the planner a little bit and tried to figure out if there was anything we could the or do with that and you also see if you thought the tenants were displaced or for

some reason doesn't want the equipment inside at&t the owner allows this on the roof this is before and right after so we also ask for your support as we try to i have copies of the leases and everything you have as well but our support to allow us to build this site as proposed thank you. >> thank you any public comment on that item? if there's public comment please line up on the screen side of the room the first speaker can come to the podium. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is is avery i represent the ownership of 1420 there will street the

building adjacent to 98 jackson excuse me. most i want to talk about a letter i received from the gentleman the staff planner did an september 30th from john d bean a general attorney for at&t i trust you guys have read the letter letter really deals with the legality of the basis of denying this application mr. the gentleman talks about the prohibition and there is a two-step task involved when you employ that effective prohibition i'm no lawyer dpu but this is the first task whether or not a significant grasping gap in the coverage

exist and they've shown through a third party there is a gap that exists and whether or not they've provided a bridging of gap and i guess where i go with that the words sufficient evidence in my mind the application n is less than robust i mean 1320 is not mentioned and literally i took this from someone else on the screen just to let you guys see with the building is on jackson it's an obvious admission in the report i know the gentleman addresses it here but it's an afterthought why was that not addressed in the original application i want to direct

your attention on page 2 paragraph 3 one opponent questions the need for the site and other at&t macro sites on octavia so on and so forth this paragraph has nothing to do with the application added hand they mention last sentence says at&t has a significant gap in service coverage on union i know through my research this was pulled off another application i think approved received permits on august 21st so again 0 has this sdud study been robust i have no confidence and why they continue to mention other reports i urge the commission at a minimum press for more research.

>> thank you. >> hello, i'm the one of the owners of 1420 taylor street i'm totally against this project for 3 reasons ami i've been an architect and urban planner since 1971 i have a right and expertise in the design element and having these rising 9 point plus feet above the roofline is it is incomparable with the existing improvements this is a disfavored site by the w t s guidelines it makes no sense to

have this installation two other issues i'm less qualified are the health issues i know there's certainly legal requirement but as i can't say this is unsafe but i defy at&t scientists to say without a doubt u doubt that 20 to thirty years of endorse to those frequency 247 will not cause harm to the inhabitants of this area no one knows the long term effects in short as dennis richard said last time i wouldn't want this facility next to my home we don't want it thirdly, a it is a gap in service i've tested that myself there's plenty of light service there for light service

again, i'm not a scientist but you can go there and look yours it's fine and lastly the letter to by the at&t legal department of september 30th claims that 1800 union street would - is needed in order to close the at&t gap well 1800 union street is 1.1 miles away from our building and 3 blocks away from the installation this commercial zone it is a ridiculous thing to say they've not done their homework or a mistake it shouldn't be in there it's shoddy report writing by at&t so at&t in my opinion needs to go back to the drawing board and work on a better solution with

protecting the environment in the city and not be intimidate by legal threats by at&t thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon commissioners i'm bill i'm a property owner on 1329 taylor street a quarter of a block away my attitude is that it is inbunt the real problem additionally to the e r f is the aesthetic issues their improbation officers those antennas they appear to solve the problem by camouflaging it with other diess that about camouflage those but

pursuing 9 feet and 6 antennas is intrusive in the visibility and the aesthetics of our neighborhood and it was seen it would be an issue throughout the city when the antennas of that magnitude were put on any this is would seemed to me that one of the issues would be that at&t or any other carry will come up with an alternative ways of finding antennas or issues that don't have that intrusive impact on the community and neighborhood thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon commissioners i'm chris at the here to express my option to jackson street at the locations i've looked

carefully at the documentation related to the to the project and harmful information if one looks at deeply into the proposal. >> could you speak into the microphone. >> sorry if one looks at deeply into the proposal it is clear that the project will adversely effect the businesses and create a rooftop installation of 9 antennas that -- excuse me. will detract from the beauty and seen from the public right-of-way and not in compliance with the guidelines to the general planning code or the residential guidelines in the your honor, design criteria i understand that at&t must close it's service gap at&t is not demonstrated that their research was not thorough and nothing was used their application packet