O. Masry; 4155 57591166 1701 haight street at the Southwest Corner of haight and cole streets, lot 001 in assessors 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 roofmounted 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 40x 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. Vicepresident 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. Vicepresident 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 FranciscoPublic 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 weve 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. Vicepresident 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. Thats 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 its unsightly modern rooftop transmission towers would vastly decrease the historic value of the building and undermine the as aesthetics of the building. In addition, weve 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. Vicepresident 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. Im a resident of the haight district. Im 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 ts application on the ground that its immature for an antenna on that building demand our neighborhood. I know im not an artist, but this will give you a scale of whats 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. Hes 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. Vicepresident 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. Im very much concerned about what goes on in that building. Im 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 doesnt have it, i talk to people on my own that say there is not good reception there. I have considered the proposal and im for it and i want to go on record to say that i support at ts proposal to put those antennas in. Thank you. Vicepresident 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. Im not exactly sure what they were speaking about. I think everything has been noticed and im 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 im 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 youve heard me say in the past, cell cites go between 46 blocks. Thats the range of a cell facility. Thats 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 thats 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 thats why you are seeing the three sites. But they are all distinct. There is a coverage gap that has been proven. Thats 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 vicepresident cindy wu commissioner antonini . Commissioner michael j. Antonini move to approve. Vicepresident 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 its an lte or other stuff. And so with respect to at t their antennas dont project as far as people may think they would. Even in a straight line, i dont 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, its 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 57568122 2123 castro street east side of castro street between 28th street and valley street; lot 6612 in assessors 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 rh2 residential house, twofamilyy Zoning District and 40x 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. Im 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. Its 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 thats 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 23 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 rs 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 im available for questions if needed. Vicepresident cindy wu thank you. Project sponsor. Good evening president wu and commissioners. Im david silver man and working on this project. Before you due to the mandatory drs 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 citys 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 im available for questions. Good evening, commissioners, my name is hue, project sponsor. I will talk to you briefly about t