brought up today and one of them is that we are using - we have a facility that's not permitted and that's not correct. we have permits for the ann tense that's on there today. and that is what's in dispute with the planning department. so there is a different section under the code. can we bring fiber to a self-site without having to go and get a building permit for it. there's been all sorts of complaints filed and it's brought more energy to it but the reality of it is we have a permit and we have some equipment on the roof and whoa

whether or not to debate the equipment we're happy to put it downstairs in the equipment room that was our intent three years ago. they would have you believe this was rubber stamped. this took 3 years to get through the planning department. i have not seen one in my time at&t at that's taken 3 years to find a design that meets with the planning departments standards and we have submitted structural report. we've submitted reports from our - we call her the sewer woman but your own department of public works has said this is not a flood prone zone. this was submitted on june 5th.

you don't have to take our expert word for if this was what our hydraulics expert has state >> so you're saying the additions on the roof are not what you're seeking today but something to augment the antennas. >> there's equipment on the roof there's some fiber on the roof and the the panels weighing 50 pounds each will go up on the roof. >> another thing i want to ask. there was testimony about they're not being antennas outside the building. we've approved a lot of these >> beyond where that comes from

brown but the guidelines specifically allow for the neighborhood commercial district wireless facilities. so again a lot of things have been thrown out here today i don't understand their interpretation of the code but according to the city wireless guidelines we're in compliance with that. it would be impossible to put our antennas on a ground floor >> they're almost all on roofs. >> now there's batteries that are back up batteries that are stored in a downstairs room. is that the practice? >> it varies we can put them

upstairs looks like we enclose them from the elements. but in this particular case we have a permit that is now pend over at d b i. the san francisco fire department cares and they're the people going into the burning building. those permits are looked at with scrutiny the number you have electro lights where their located. so all the issues we've talked about are talked about in that process. there's 9 or 10 different areas we have to go through electrical fire and that's where those

issues with raised >> another one is two hour rated firewalls around the room is that considered. >> i think you're being lead down a radical frankly. no other carries do that. we're happy to in this instance we're adding a seal around the door and just - if it makes, you know, sense for us to do that we're happy to seal off the door to prevent, you know, you know - they say it's not a flood zone they've up sized sewer pipe but if it makes the tenants of the building happier we're happy to seal off that room >> so if there were a flood

from inside or outside the water couldn't penetrate? >> yes and i have a question for dr. i don't remember this from your testimony but the flood that occurred in 2006 or wherever your office was flooded i saw the payment was that from a source within your office or outside the building >> it was a source of two toilets. there is a toilet a bathroom on the directly underneath the staircase it's a still there and that toilet overflows two or three times a year >> specifically in my office we have a value that turns it off

because the values leak. >> if you look at the bottom of the first page that waiting room is my neighbor doctor lewis i didn't see office and right behind that door is the batteries. >> well, that answers about 4

high maybe a little bit higher. we had a slope on the roof so they might look a little bit higher in this distanced than

their. but that's the - that's the sort of the design of the building. we do comply with the setbacks. we started with a full front and we've looked at all sorts of designed. that's a major though fair for us. believe me i walk sites with our radio frequency folks just to find another location another design but we're in compliance with the code. we have worked with the planning department. this is the best design of the 7 or 8 we've worked on with them. >> i still have issues with the design. i agree with commissioner moore

i want to see more alternatives. i don't think i can support 6 feet high it alternates the building >> i want to talk about the code compliance it would be reviewed and under the department of building inspection. this is not within a flood zone. it's not in a flood zone. there's a memo in the public works and it's clarified for this site because this map was made in 2006 and there are since upgrades on that street. now to the design. the primary reason this sat in our department for the period of

3 years is primarily based on the design. we struggled with the design and we're still struggling with the design. working with at&t on numerous alternates the difference that was the best alternative we came up with >> commissioner. >> well, i department of publi

identified areas that were blocks of interests not flood zones. i've spoken with folks in dp w and they say that projects they're not focused on when they created the block of interests. they want to make sure that the sidewalks are upgraded like adding curbs and the fire department look at the battery

batteries do submit small amounts of acids. if there's no secondarily form of egress it's you sounds like the building is in violation of the code and if their in violation of the code the department of building code wouldn't issue those permits? >> the building isn't being unfit for code in its

unless a significant allocation to that building >> wouldn't this constitute that or no? >> well terms the current code the building inspectors would look at that. such as other addition like egress >> you don't know. >> until building sees the final complete plans their

withheld judgment until they see the egress and the batteries how much acid is in those batteries. this requires stamped codes arrest unfortunately not really we're not able to vir one way or the other and i don't recall that the batteries with on the ground floor - >> they're related to on ground floors and sometimes on the roof. >> it seems like mostly they're on the roof. >> when you remove them from the roof this was discussed earlier. you'd have to combaelg the area

to accumulate the batteries >> the folks who are here we have to decide whether or not this applicant makes sense and the wireless guidelines we have before us. there were some legitimate issues to design that were raised and it sounds like we're at an impasse. there's the secondarily issues raised that are fire department related. i have a question to staff or perhaps falls into the gray zone and the american people a little

bit but the seismic upgrades when is that going to happen >> i believe the way the new legislation reads is the soft buildings will have to come into compliance but i don't know. >> a couple of years this is not a residential building but a commercial building. and each building would have to be evaluated by an engineer this is a fully commercial building >> i assume it would be brought up to code. i like to repeat to the director and i think you hear it very clearly p the response from the commission we need to find

resources to have the screening devise. if the antennas are too large we need to move into a different direction help at&t but help ourselves also. the additional antennas will not go away until we get new technology. >> commissioner. >> to staff when was this building built-ins. >> i don't have the information. >> in regards to the soft story issue

>> if he can go back a ways? >> so the good news and the bad news we can go back but the

antennas have to be higher. >> so if i like us to go back further we have to raise those antennas then it would raise the height of the appearance. >> aside from the appearance i'm not sure it would have any impact on the other buildings around it. but the other possibility is although this is a square buildings many of the other buildings have a pitch so maybe a pitcher can be added. and perhaps this could tend to block that off architecturally to cover the things so it didn't look like a box.

>> okay. >> commissioner. i hear from at&t this is kind of a standard height interest so is it that this building is shorter than other buildings? i'm trying to understand what's different about this case and a typically their higher but any additional massing would be virtually exaggerated in comparison. >> okay. >> but it's not uncommon either. >> commissioner. >> wouldn't a less solid exterior work better? i'm just making a suggestion in case - >> commissioner we're open to hear the suggestion on the

sites. commissioner woe we're instructional with all the new sites that are going into low lying neighborhoods. that's the struggle. to respond to your question the building was built in 1976 >> commissioner. >> well, i'm going to make a motion to approve with some conditions that the battery room be sealed to prevent intrusion of water and the walls be looked to see if it's possible to increase the fire rating consistent with d b i to be involved in a fire at least we'd have a longer period of time to exit the building. and the third condition would be that at&t continues to work with

staff to mitigate the problems of the boxes on the roof either set it back further to make it less untruthful you on the outside of the building >> second. >> i believe that we're getting ourselves on very thin ice here. it's the building suitability statement to add in something to the roof and in addition to that i believe that movie the equipment further to the back would only require another notice because it will be visual from you figure out street which are residential buildings. so i don't think that it's simply creating some technical wish list without any consideration.

i'd rather have those people take another look at it and have the engineers and experts look at it and we'll listen to it again. there's too much in the room that's not clarified >> there's a motion and a second commissioner to approve with conditions adding that the battery room is sealed that d b i consider an increased exist and for the sponsor to continue to work with the staff on that design. >> increase fire i know it -- placate the period of time where the fire could be contained there to allow people's to

escape. >> on that motion (calling names) so motives the motion passed 5 to 2. >> the commissioner is going to take a short lunch break be back