coverage in the city on 660 castro street we engineered the inexperience of the coverage grasping gap at&t has a gap and 4 l g t services and the proposed facility will close the gap the city processes requires an independent engineer selected from a list provided by the city to see a gap in the coverage at&t selected hemet and edison to conduct the analysis and on july 14th of this year they confirmed that at&t has a significant gap in the coverage open castro street and at&t proposal will indeed close the gap hemet representative is here to address questions as it relates to that report prong 2 onsite

applications aims to close the coverage gap by the least intrusive means based on the city's code the question that is raised whether the proposed facility is consistent with the values expressed in the federal code is includes an alternative site analysis which is a code evaluation at locations which at&t will close a coverage gap at&t evaluated 21 sites and 13 preference locations on the basis of it's comprehensive analysis at&t selected did proposal at 466 castro street in short no other aefltsdz available from that list which at&t could close it's coverage gap by the least intrusive means

on our 0 meeting in august regarding the health effects of the facilities edison was hired to look at the determination that is far below the proposal will be far below that of the prevailing standards the site will be tested to confirm the calculations and every two years as required by the city it is important to note the health concern is not evidence to support a denial and federal law prevents the local folks to deny the wireless facilities to the extent they comply with the ftc recollections in sum at&t has

shown a capacity gap in the area that cases a significant service coverage gap in the wireless technology and the site analysis that the proposed facility is the least intrusive maples to close the gap at&t is trying to upgrade it's technology and it is going doing so in a careful consideration of the impact of the facility in the values that the city t is seung to promote it's in line with the regulation and the facility is the least intrusive means by which attica fill it's coverage gap in the area i ask for your consideration and consider the information presented to you this average and the recommendation from staff to approve with conditions and vote to approve the conditional use

permit today. >> thank you any public comment on that item? seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i have one quick question i agree with the site analysis and the commission has one question on the schematic it wasn't clear on the first floor where the parking can be somewhere else you i had the opportunity to vital the it and that location will not take up any partially. >> thank you. i move to approve this item. >> second. >> on that motion to productive that with conditions. >> commissioner antonini commissioner johnck commissioner johnson commissioner richards

commissioner johns and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously have to zero and places you on item 8 for case no. 2014 t reasonable moifgsdz to persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing in the access code and good afternoon commissioner planning staff i'm here to remedy the modifications ordinance and calendaring this proposed hearing for approval and adaptation that is required by the state and must be finished the reasonable modification ordinances provide a program for the be disables for any barriers to access to their home a reasonable modification modification is to

modify the zoning and building registrations that has no undue burn on the city of san francisco or to the zoning and planning program those modifications include the changes to the residential property that enables residence to access their property it has to provide apple continental opportunity to live in the neighborhood some for example, i'll discuss are the access ramps and elevators in developing this program the plaintiff looked at the municipalities and met with the mayor's office of disabled to understand the types of modifications and the most common modifications is the elevator and the additional ramps elevators and ramps allow access to the homes and that's

for the residential property and parking spaces help people to access - the ground floor can help with the visibility and current the reasonable question for modification are address by itself zoning administrator on a case by case basis for the future applicant are not offered a clear process which can lead to delays in approval the programs provide two programs in the case report as described first an administrative pass for access ramps and elevators and additional parking spaces those accommodations are important for people to assess their homes and does not provide an hard of hearing on the building the guidelines are proposed for the administrator question for example, parking can only be approved with no obstruction and

elevators are the elevators structure are not visible but set back 10 feet from the property line and the policy implementations and approving the modifications to understand how much parking should be loud and how people that don't have a disable in requesting the modifications they'll continue to be misdemeanor described in section thirty 5 of the planning code any plans that don't meet the plans will be considered through the surveillance process and it proposes a hard of hearing fee waiver for residential uses if misinforming for some reason the applicant can't pay the fees under this ordinance a fee waiver maybe grant on a case by case base it meets the needs of

disabled to access their homes to adapt a initiative and schedule an adaptation hearing the staff is available for questions. >> thank you any public comment on that item? okay seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much definitely in supportive of that item and moving it initiating the hearing i have a couple of questions normally after the hearing but the first one it does fair housing law implement the modifications i know we talked about our fees but the actual modifications itself and then again i don't think it's appropriate for today, we're initiating on the vote of the hearing but can you give a

little bit of detail on what we mean by parking i think we're talking about rear and side yards but what other accumulations and the elevators are the only type of modification that sound like it is not reserveable were to leave the property can we talk about the difference types of elevators and, you know, how they will be maintained if the person has a handicapped we can see the modifications for access ramps and habitable space but elevators where it total make sense for the person as a change to the property i need to understand who is supposed to be in charge of that and how it works i think it's all my

questions thank you. >> we'll make sure to research those and get back to you. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i have questions about the legislation i'm assuming that the things that are the accumulations that are being allowed in this legislation people with the disabled there might not be parking allowed or difficult to get it and it's easier for people possibly an elevator where it might not be allowed. >> yes. that's correct that's why we put that under the variance but you can only get the requested modification if you have a disability. >> and this is for people that reside in the particular units that a disability and across the

map where no one has a disability. >> how about multi unit where a tenant has a disability. >> i can research that. >> that would come into play a lot of instances where the tablet may not be the owner but the tenant needs a reasonable compromised to access the building there's a conflict between the owner and not necessarily wanting to do those things or being able to afford them so have the answer next time. >> thank you thank you, commissioners we'll need a motion to establish a future date and what's the proposed. >> november 6th is the date the

earliest date. >> we can certainly do it. >> very good a second. >> second. >> thank you commissioner johnson. >> november 6th. >> on that motion to initiate and establish a hearing on november 6th for potential adaptation commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner richards commissioner fong commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero and places you on item 9 a and b for 181 fremont street request for a approval of the downtown authorization. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and members of the commission i'm kevin guy before i get into my a staff report i want to introduce my colleague from supervisor kim's offers who

wants to say a few words. >> good afternoon. i'm april with supervisor kim's office located others one 81 fremont is located in our district 6 the supervisor has co-sponsored with the mayor that's before you we ask firing support on the development all the time as well as the downtown authorization amendment the supervisor prefers on site affordability but this case and circumstance the developer has agreed to contribute supra funds and there have a prediction of more housing moving us forward with the housing and this mayor's office of housing is here to speak about the hoa and how that

was a consideration as well in terms of the fee for the affordable housing rather than having this on site the supervisor wants to thank the ocii staff for in their expertise in understanding what was actually be a fair fee out for this project i think they'll be more presentation about this in detail i understand it is 2.5 times more than the fee that is required in the inclusionary housing program it would be used only for the creation of the transbay that's an important consideration this be within the location and in close approximate to the primary project i understand this will be used to subsidize 64

stand-alone vs. the 11 on site units that were not originally proposed the variation has broad support within the housing community and the constituency recognized the building type and housing project while this is indeed a unique circumstance it is the 181 fremont area says they can participate in the area and become actually members downtown so again, i ask for your support. >> thank you. >> once again kevin with the planning staff just for a little bit of project background in december of 2012 the commission

approved the entitlements for the fremont project would demolish two and 3 story building and construct a building containing about 4 hundred square feet of office space and greener retail space and subterranean off street parking it creates a bridge to the city park located on top of of the transit center so it will be demolished and construction underway it is located within the district that is to the privately owned parcels the plan requires for instance with state law 35 percent of the housing be offered to the low income households it will be a what happened then cheap combination of stand alone a development of

publicly ordinary parcels in zone one and off site projects for privately owned parcels excuse me. so far just a mome moment. >> thank you. i want to continue on with the presentation we have 35 percent of the housing within the area will be affordable to low income to moderate this will be achieved there a stand alone housing projects and increasing the publicly owned parcels in zone one and requiring the on-site and privately owned parcels in order to achieve those one of the departments is

all residential vice president is must provide 15 percent affordable and the inclusionary units must be built on site and off site construction are not permitted to satisfy those requirements they will be 11 units for the project and to exempt the requirement to have affordable housing on site and have a fee for affordable housing in the transbay redevelopment area it is going to have a previously granted authorization to remove the conditions of on site units and they want to enter into an agreement to the special eye to provide affordable units on site and the terms of the leasing the office of community investment

and the housing development has analyzed it for the one site developments the units within the project are recommending large and swietd within the upper most areas with the views the 11 affordable units will be steeply discounted in addition it is spelled it the homeland security association will exceed $2,000 a month it this will allow the residents to quality for the project there are the mayor's office of housing has concluded to create the affordable units will be leveraged for 09 opportunity within the development of the plan area the demonstration all the time asked the project sponsor to -

the comparative purposes the sponsor will establish in the planning code approximately $5.5 million ocii staff estimates that fee will create 39 affordable units comparable to the 11 unit on october 10, 2012, the ocii considered a variation to the transbay development on site affordable housing with the acceptance of a fund that files the obligation the staff represents it is approved as the disappointing downtown authorization and the commission recommend that the board of supervisors approve the development all the time they'll allow the number two, fee that will create a greater affordable housing opportunity for the

housing project that will be achieved on the on-site within the project i know that staff has received no opposition we're available for questions and also staff from other agencies are here as well. >> thank you. i apologize for the break in the presentation i want to note there were a kind of of items not in the agreement the main agreement was included but there were a couple of items inadvertently commuted and several were not available so we have provided for your the development agreement in it's desirability with the attachments and the body were in our staff report i want to acknowledge and introduce the ocii staff to go

into the detail. >> okay. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm courtney with the infrastructure and investment area as scott and kevin mentioned on october 10th this year the community infrastructure department granted the redevelopment plan and made findings of the extraordinary circumstances an enforcement of the on site will result in a difficulty and unnecessary limitations in summary summary this is unique it has a residential offices in the planned area and the smallest area of residential projects and their located on the upper 15 floors of the 7

foot twenty-four hour in this case, the small units at the on top of a high tower has undie hard of hearing for a number of reasons first per state law the hoa fees can't be adjusted for the income level of a homeowner second while the city and ocii have programs that sure the affordability of units there's no programs for assisting the hoa fees over time and third hoa members may approve the fees without the support of the bmr owners particularly in the development of inclusionary units typically constitute a small number of the hoa membership finally when the fees are increased the people may have difficulties in making the

higher payments the result is housing costs may be too high and people face foreclosure we have a colleague here to skewer answer questions the 13.785 contribution is 2 and a half greater than than under the city's housing program the fees were determined and backed up by a market study conducted by the conquer group which determines the net additional revenues that approve the on-site affordable units fee will be used to fund up to 69 units or a net gain within

the project area and - for example, the fee could be used to fund the affordable housing on transbay block 8 two blocks from the 181 that fremont site and the current proposal is 27 percent of the total units or one hundred and 77 affordable housing i want to mention that ocii is on track to meet the transbay affordable housing within the project area through construction of 12 hundred affordable housing unit most of which will be on the number of parcels on that map the publicly owned parcels on the october 10th cc ii we have one

spoke under oath of this variation they're in support of the fee payments for the additional units in the project area i want to mention the project sponsor has been supportive of melrose and from the beginning of the project transbay fee rates one by one was one of the projects emitted in the development agreement but it's a rate of proportion it was approved by the board of supervisors and the project sponsor has in the dna have a brief when the election comes up later this year but to agree to pay a fee haven't been to the rates in the approved r ms if the certificate of occupancy

isn't published ocii recommends the approval and myself and maria is here to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you that's the conclusion of the presentation? okay. thank you we'll open this up for public comment is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item? okay seeing none, public comment is closed i'll make a couple of comments initially i wanted to study this item pretty careful but i was able to meet with ocii and the planning staff it seemed like a reasonable deal has bun struck i think there's lessons learned number one having on site for sale bmr's in the towers leaguer or we're going to run into this hoa problem i wish

it could have been discussed when we heard the original entitlement hearing i remember i believe in the corrosion a number of years ago a woman that lost her bmr because the hoa was too high this is a challenge maybe we can use this as a kinds study gordon's in the mayor's office task force to consider the hoa's and the solution that's been found i understand it's much closer to the dollar between the construction and the sale prices again that is information we take into the task force as a case study commissioner antonini >> yeah. i think this is a very good proposal and it's exciting to see this building under construction i've walked down there frequently and it is a be

mixed use development not far away at fulsome and fremont that will be a mixture as most of the numbered parcels are of market rate and a candidate but there's quite a few of the of those under construction so there's many places to be employed efgz been said and building to build 69 unit and, of course, the other part that was mentioned is a community facility district that is part of the development agreement and an affirmation of the sponsor of the agreement of 923 of the board of supervisors to set the rates that's been challenged by some but this will