tv [untitled] January 27, 2012 10:48pm-11:18pm PST
a significant gap, it's unrelated to what an engineer would do can say whether it is a gap or whether it is -- it's not an engineering decision and with respect to least intrusive means, are less guidelines, the premier definition in terms of the preference system -- [tone] i can answer any questions you have. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm with at&t external affairs. having gone through the appeals the board of supervisors on your decisions and having fully agreed to the condition supervisor wiener put forth on those appeals, i want to think
the department staff for coming up very quickly with what we think is a good direction in terms of trying to come up with the standard, the process, rather quickly. i think the department's staff for doing that. we have a couple of concerns and want to address the addition scott weaner put out for the record. both went up on appeal and at&t willingly agreed to the condition scott wenner proposed. i want to make sure we understand the condition and that in the event the applicant is able to demonstrate to an independent evaluator that the applicants' own data support the accuracy of the data and
conclusions about service coverage and capacity submitted by the applicant during this appeal, but a conditional use is supported as set forth in the planning commission's motion. the resolution before this commission today to add data evaluation to the checklist appropriately check this language and that dollar is to let there is no broader interpretation being sought by this condition as we interpret it so i just wanted to put that out there. second, as jonas has indicated, we have a concern that if there is only one evaluator, i've the evaluator is overloaded or on vacation or we run into a problem where we incur substantial delay -- as you know, we tried diligently and the planning department staff
does to work these three within 150 days as federally mandated. i want to think the planning department staff and thank you for considering this resolution and we support it. president miguel: is there an additional public comment on this item? if not, public comments is closed. commissioner antonini: much of our discussion centers often around whether the maps are accurate. if we have an evaluation, that's one less thing to be questioned and might make more -- but make for a more expeditious process. this is a process that is somewhat cumbersome and it is something that has got to be done anyway. it's like when we had television
antennas, we put antennas on the roof to take -- to pick up the television and we did not have to go through permitting process for every antenna we put up. the same with how many telephone poles local utility was going to put on the road to run their lines. these are professional decisions that have to be made. i have a question for the representative from at&t. there have been some suggestions by members of the public about including this alternate site search analysis which i don't think it's part of this and don't feel it is necessary. >> there is an existing requirement for us to do alternative sites analysis on preferences 537. we do them as carriers because
we look for the best sites within the search range. maybe you want to address -- not to put you on the spot, but i think it is covered. >>commissioner antonini: maya understanding is this is not included in here. the carriers are obliged to do alternative site analysis, but to have the>u evaluator have to do that sounds like a lot more expense and work. >> it would be evaluating whether it be alternative site analysis is accurate. we tried to transpose the language as it was read into the record. >> we have to begin with one step at a time and not make the process more burdensome. nobody wants to put up a site --
nobody wants to pick the worst side when others are available. i don't know if this has to be part of the motion, but there should be a list of evaluators by the city. is that included already? >> , yes. i read that into the record. commissioner antonini: then i would think it is fine. >> we're also seeking your advice on how to handle pipeline projects. commissioner antonini: thank you
for reminding me of that. what we have been doing is ok. we approve a process and ask them to go and have this after the fact. if it turns out it wasn't, we by have to look at that again or they would have to have another evaluation. i'm not sure with the recourse would be if there is a situation where did not agree. >> it is part of the conditions of approval and they cannot satisfy it, it would result in a denial. commissioner antonini: that is my understanding. we may just approve them subject to the condition being felt. that seems like most expedient way to do it. commissioner moore: what the
public is asking is to do something -- whether or not this is perfect. but some think is happening. i would be trending toward saying it should be part of this new procedure following a we are currently discussing. i am comfortable with what is in front of us and like the list of expert. i see it almost like a peer review which happens another projects. if it doesn't work, i will look at it again but for the time being, i am comfortable and i want to think supervisor winner
for having delivered something which we all can support. -- supervisor wiener for something we can all support. commissioner sugaya: i don't think this addresses what what has been brought before us as far as radiation. we're just talking about coverage and proving the site is ok. the legislation is fine, i just don't think it addresses the main issue that testimony has provided to us over the years. >> we have the dual product -- the problem of technically and legally not being able to use that. some are on this, we are working with the department of technology to look at how we review these so we bring their expertise more robustly to the table on this issue because
it's outside the expertise of the planning department to look at public health. 's legal is a different question. even the coverage and capacity is something we would like to bring the the run of technology in on. we are looking at those processes to make sure the information is brought more robustly to the table. commissioner sugaya: i mentioned with respect to the coverage max -- maps of the commission's ability to understand them, all the carriers use a slightly different set of terminology to describe what could coverage is, what sort of good coverage is and what were coverages.
there are three tiers of that and they all use different terminology and i would try to appeal to the carriers to figure out if we can't come up with one set of terms that refer to coverage inside the houses. if you are on the sidewalk, it's ok or if you're not, and -- maybe all of the levels are slightly different between the carriers but it makes it difficult to understand or compare one against the other. >> a question i have had for the department of technology and that's part of the reason we're not clear on what defines a significant gap. is a gap based on a certain number of users and data demand keeps going up?
all of these questions are out there. there's an implication that some point there is a threshold but what's to say in five years it's not going to go up? that is the input i want from the department of technology. in an ideal world, we have a standard way of describing coverage. >> i am glad you went into that because the definition of coverage or what we looked at as coverage is constantly changing because coverage today is not going to be the same as what we need for coverage even next week. i would just as well see pipeline projects covered. we're going to but that condition in as we go along, so we might as well do it up front. 4al/i understand peer ri
understand it is always, no matter what field you are in, whether it is engineering, medical, you can always find expert who has different testimony. that's why we have so many so- called experts out there. this will answer the questions we are able to answer which has nothing to do with the federal regulations we are under. but i think the resolution covers that, i think the check list covers it, i think it satisfies everything we are able to do without going crazy over the whole thing. do we have a motion?
commissioner antonini: i would move to approve as presented with what has been read into the record. that is my motion. >> second. commissioner antonini: pipeline projects are to be handled -- except for it -- it is up to them to do it in the future. we're not going to delay a project so they have to go around that time. if they are ready to come before you, we're going to add a condition of approval with the understanding it's wiser for the service provider to prepare that? president miguel: future ones, it might be brought -- might be
wise for them to have it ready. >> there is a motion on the floor as staff has read the conditions into the record. on that motion? [roll-call] that motion passes 521 with commissioner sugaya voting against it. you are now on no. 13, 500 grant ave. >> good afternoon. i'm rick karp -- hambrecht parker from department staff. this is to and fall -- install for roof antennas and eight equipment cabinet that one equipment rack on the first floor of the building at 500 grant avenue as part of the wireless and pressure within the chinatown community business district. the project would remove
existing antennas on the sides of buildings. the project is located within the chinatown neighborhood across the street from st. mary's square. all of the antennas would be enclosed in a radio transmission screen designed to resemble the masonry of the building. it is considered a historic resource but the project has the potential impact on the building or any potential to historic district as the proposed and tennis are set back and screamed. the department has now received any comment from the public on this project and recommends approval as the project is consistent with the facilities siting guidelines. the antennas will be minimally visible and will not affect the architectural integrity of the building. the project complies with the applicable requirements of the plan and is consistent with the general plan. i am available of the have any questions. thank you very much.
commissioner antonini: -- president miguel: project sponsor? >> in conferring with the city attorney, he discussed this and i do not have a conflict. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm from at&t external affairs. at&t is seeking your approval of a conditional use permit for 500 grant ave. approval will permit at&t to upgrade its existing and tennis currently located on the side of the building by removing and replacing them with up to four roof mounted panel antennas concealed with an antenna screen. the cabinets will be located
outside of the public view in an internal storage room on the first floor of the building. they cite is a preference for location. to put this into better context, five under grant street is known as china gem. it has been there for a long time. many people know it. it's located at the intersection of pine and grant within the chinatown neighborhood near the financial district. for many tourists, it's the gateway to chinatown and for residents and commuters, pine street is a main thoroughfare leading out of the financial district at the current time. the site is necessary for at&t to close eight necessary coverage gap and its wireless network, explained in the materials i have provided to you. it is a gap caused in part by a great demand and great usage. with the increase of tablets and
mobile devices, we continue to see the demand on the network. i want to end the day by thinking rick crawford and helping us design and direct this location and we ask for your support as we diligently tried to upgrade the network to meet the growing demands of our customers. president miguel: is there any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: i support this item. the demand is evident with calls being dropped frequently. it is evidenced on the maps, which will be confirmed. the motion will greatly improve the coverage and capacity in the area. assuming you have a hands-free device, if you are stuck in
traffic on a future pine street, you may very well need to communicate, so i would move this item. >> second. >> question -- is the commission we discussed already in this, or is it being added? >> my motion includes the conditions stated in the last motion, which is to find a project sponsored to find someone to evaluate the accuracy and capacity. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor for approval, including the]aozñ&g resolutionu have just adopted, that stuff will provide.
on that motion. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. the motion passes unanimously. you are now on item 14, 387 ellis street. >> good afternoon. this case is a request for conditional use authorization to install nine roof-mounted panel antennas and associated equipment cabinet in the basement of the building at 387 ellis street as part of the wireless transmission network operated by at&t mobility. the project site is located within the tenderloin neighborhood. six antennas would be placed within a new radio frequency trends bearish route designed to resemble rooftop vince.
three antennas would be placed within a new radio frequency transparent brick material to resemble a chimney with bent pipe hat, and in the surrounding neighborhood. the subject building is considered a historic resourced and is the contributory building to the uptown tenderloin historic district, however, the project has no potential effect on the building or any potential historic district as the proposed antennas are set back and screen. the department received a letter from a neighbor objecting to the project because the owner of the building has not provided tenants with individual mailboxes. staff has contacted the rent board regarding this, and they have no active enforcement case relating to this property. the department recommends approval of the project with conditions, as the project is consistent with the 1976 wts facilities siting guidelines. the antennas will be minimally visible and will not affect the architectural integrity of the
building. it is consistent with objectives and policies of the general plan. the recommended conditions do not at this time include the new condition. we felt it was a little premature to put it in before the commission had decided to impose it, but you may wish to add that to the conditions of approval. i would be happy to answer any questions you may have and here is a copy of the letter about the mailboxes. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon again, commissioners. i am it also still here with bill ham at -- hammett. at&t is seeking your approval on a conditional use permit for 387 grant ave. six antennas would be placed
with a new radio frequencies designed to resemble the roof top vent pipes, completely transparent. nothing can be seen from the street. three antennas will also be placed within a new radio transparent brick material to resemble a chimney with vent pipes, have -- hats, and to the surrounding neighborhood. the necessary equipment cabinets would be located outside of public view in an internal storage room located in the basement. it is a preference 5 location, as stated, and outlined in the materials, at&t conducted an alternative site analysis where would look at nine different sites because this is a preference by location. there were -- this was the best one that we found that met the needs within the search range. i just want to end today by
again thanking rick crawford for his work and the department's staff were helping us design and direct the site. we ask for your support as we continue to upgrade our network in the city. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. is there public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya: move to approve with the standard condition we are now imposing for independent review. commissioner antonini: second. commissioner moore: i just wanted to say that a letter was written that the owner does not provide mailboxes can knock affect our decision. the only thing is there are other venues in public comment, the item can be brought forward
as a complaint. i just have to say that it is not affecting how this body decides on this matter. commissioner antonini: i know in some private apartment buildings, they all have their own mailbox, of course, but much of the male is too large, too bulky, impossible, and they're put in a common area where people know to pick up, so i think that is generally about all you can do, so it is not before us how mail is handled, but that would probably be the case with some items. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval, including the board of supervisors proposed amendment to the guidelines. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye.
commissioner moore: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner fong: aye. >> the item passes unanimously. >> i have to recuse myself on this one. we can vote. >> do you have to go to the bathroom? >> would you like to take a recess? [laughter] commissioner miguel: i think if commissioner sugaya is going to recuse himself from the next item, maybe we should take a brief recess. >> t >> we are about to start item 15. commissioner sugaya: i asked the
commission for a recusal because my firm is -- has been retained to work specifically on this site. we implemented a mitigation measure, which called for documenting the building, taking photographs, we are also now in the process of reviewing the proposed design, so i have a conflict of interest. commissioner moore: move to reduce. >> second. >> on the motion -- commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. >> good afternoon. presentation, i want to note that although you do not have signed copies of the proposed ordinance is in your packet, the copies in your packet are the same in terms of content, and i have passed up the sign version for review. the items are zoning map so an
amendment ordinances at the southwest corner of washington street. specifically, the ordinances would allow the demolition of the existing two-story mixed-use building without the prior review and approval of a replacement building. the building contains 18 residential units. all other controls currently applicable in the chinatown residents of neighborhood commercial district would apply with this special use district. the creation of the chinatown transit station is an essential implementation component of the city's large central subway project. it is necessary in order to allow for the demolition of the existing nearly vacant mixed use building since the chinatown residential neighborhood commercial district prohibits the demolition of residential units. without the demolition of this xe