inches. you have a 30-foot setback from the street. a seven-foot height at the elevator shaft. i am not sure it would have any effect on the rating of the building historically. and finally, the last thing and this may not be applicable for this particular installation, but law enforcement officials brought up, they are not relying on these for their transmissions or for emergency transmissions. but to the effect that a user has a cell phone walking down chestnut street and is being mugged or whatever the crime may be. a lot of times they just have time to go 911 but not talk. one of the problems law enforcement is running into is trianxietyulation. you know, you have to have the ability to pick up where the victim is exactly located and so that is a reason why -- not

the only reason, but it is a reason that even though there may be relatively good transmission in some of the areas, there are voids and it is important that we have enough because they have to be able to triangulate. anyway, i will see what the other commissioners have to say on this. >> i have a more general question that someone from the cell phone industrycan enlighten me on. looking at some san francisco data that t-mobile has 200 plus antennas around the city and at&t has 177 or something like that. could someone answer a question as to -- it is generally understood that at&t and verizon have better coverage than t-mobile.

i am not a t-mobile user. coverage is not frankly very good. i am puzzled by the fact that a company that has fewer antennas can have larger coverage. can someone answer that question? >> good afternoon commissioners. the reason for that is they have the 700 megahertz spectrum. t-mobile has higher. if it is lower frequency it

penetrates more. so it penetrates more in the walls of buildings. so you probably -- you know if a t-mobile site and at&t site with 700 megahertz transmit at the same place, the at&t site would cover more. that is basically what it is. >> commissioners, it is also part of the business plan as well. verizon has the least number of wireless telecommunication sites in san francisco, however based on their frequency and business program of installing almost entirely macro cells, larger facilities, that is part of the reason as well. if they were installing a larger number of sites with larger antennas, requires more antennas but not as much coverage.

>> that is why we have not seen as much activity from say verizon. >> correct. you will though. >> i am sure. i am looking for the next increase in speed here from somebody. >> could you clarify the issue of accessries? >> i believe commissioners clearly understand it. the findings needed to be made today is if there is an extraordinary circumstance to deny the permit. a conditional use, the commission would have to find a condition of necessity and desire ability. it is slightly different. what is before them is made by

the zoning administrator and has been a long-standing policy by the planning department since 1998. and that written determination for t-mobile and for all of the carriers for accessry use determinations has been affirmed and acknowledged by the board of supervisors requiring the notification. so, that is all. i just wanted to make that clarification for the public and the commissioners. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> well, based upon what we have known all along, we have a lot of these that come before us. i don't believe that any of the conditions here are unusual or extraordinary that allows us to take d.r. we had a number of earlier ones

today. not to say the issues raised are not interesting oneses and ones that need further discussion but i would move to not take d.r. and approve the project. >> i will second. >> i am personally left uncomfortable of going through this process. when it comes to residential buildings, rental buildings, i feel i don't have the technical knowledge. i also do not have comparative data to other cities in terms of