competition that exists, that we would have to look at them connect -- collectively. that would be something for the future. >> commissioner moore. commissioner moore: 3g, 4g, connectivity, and done it, doing it, continuously doing it. that is not the issue. i am not against creating the coverage and connectivity and all of that. i am totally in favor for it. what we said at earlier on, i am repeating. i am looking for a comprehensive pushed by the city of san francisco to solve this in a manner that does not look at these things in a scattered, one by one way. everything that i know and everything that i read, there is significant evidence of this.

however, i think it needs to be studied for a longer time frame. the time frame starts today by trying to be comprehensive. this city can be the leader next to silicon valley. i do not believe that the city should be doing an experiment against better knowledge of how to do it. i repeat the word comprehensively. do one thing i it would like to say, i do not appreciate to be set to appear. there are no federal laws which cannot force me to speak against my consciousness and a fan for the citizens who have pros and cons about what i need to ask for. i do not like to be threatened. i am going to vote against this

particular application in front of us, not because i do not support connectivity and all of those things available to lot but i am going to not support it based on my eighth request that we do it differently and get different guidance on how to do it. >> commissioner miguel. vice-president miguel: i would like to echo for comments. my position has nothing to do with health. i have children and grandchildren that do not have land lines. i understand that situation. more and more, that will come. my problem is that we are being piecemealed to death. this commission's here master

plan on educational institutions, on hospitals, all of the time. there are times when because we have them from various numbers of institutions that we are able to compare the impact that will be coming to the various areas of the city because of those master plans. if we had in front of us the master plan of the various carriers, we could understand what is happening to the city. without that and without a comprehensive plan, i cannot support this. commissioner antonini: this is an ongoing process. we have to make sure that we do not leave people out in the cold. i think people have spent fishbowled in san francisco

because what happens here is look at around the country. that is good and bad. fifth we take a reasonable study to study a comprehensive solution over a period of time, that is a good idea. this sends a message to people that we are maybe not in favor of electronic indications and other things that people will look at and make decisions and business decisions based upon our position. i think we have to take the middle ground, which is to approve the reasonable and compliant installations during the time this is being studied. i was going to make a motion to approve. we have a motion to approve this conditional use. >> commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i think is to not take d.r.

a long time ago, another one of these antenna things, i asked for staff to try to work with the companies to get whatever their master planning efforts are at this point or were back then, what ever it was. i cannot believe that the companies do not know where their weaknesses are and where their strengths are and what their next move is going to be with respect to building antennas or whatever else the next form of technology is going to be. we already have a different form of technology in the city through clear wire, which is associated with sprint. their technology is a little bit different than the regular cell phone towers we are looking at here.

there was an article, i did not read it. in the future, we may not have antennas as we know them now. who knows where that is going to lead? the other question i asked a while back to the staffers to those who know quite a bit about cell phone and tennis was about the differences in the kind -- and tennis -- antennas was about the differences in this kind of technology. a lot had to deal with the bandwidths and they were using and how long particular antennas can transmit their signals. horizon, -- verizon, at&t, t- mobile, some have less antennas.

that relates directly to the kind of technology that they are using. i do not know if t-mobile has more or less. in the san francisco as opposed to los angeles or phoenix, -- which are relatively flat, i would expect that they need a lot more hills because -- and cannot -- antennas because of the situation. they need to switch between antennas depending on what part of the city they are in. in the northeast area, there are more antennas than whre the commissioner lives. it seems possible to me. in terms of this particular location, it seems that t-

mobile's coverage, people could argue that it is not very good. it seems to fill in a gap. i am glad that they would go to the stockton street location. that definitely seem to be redundant given this particular location. >> commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i would agree with commissioner sugaya's comments. it would be great if we could look at the master plans or the five-year plans of the cell phone cos. the truth is that our purview of the commission is limited. we have to make a decision about this. in terms of the aesthetics, the micro site versus a major site. there is a good argument for

this. there is not a legal argument to say that this does not fit. we have to say, what is the solution? we have this issue with lack of coverage. i can tell you the number of places that i cannot check in. everybody knows me. i do know that there are gaps in coverage is. -- coverages. i work for a technology company. in other countries, they are only using broadband. in remote areas like alaska, they communicate solely through cell phone technology. people are carting around ipads and other sort of tablets. our growth has exploded. companies have been caught flatfooted. they are catching up by building

these additional and cannots -- antennas. part of it was not anticipating this. that is where we are today. we do have the complication of the landscape of san francisco that does not make it easy. you can be at the front of her apartment but at the back, it is actually quite interesting, the challenge there. i would have to address the board of supervisors as they take this issue up looking at how they might engage the health commission. i have mentioned the ideas about are there certain heights of buildings that make sense? are some two tall stalks are some too short? there have to be some ideas about that. we do not necessarily know the next generation of technology

that is going to take hold. to the extent that this meets the requirements that it sets forth in our designation, we have to support it. >> i am in support of this particular one. i sense the frustration among my colleagues for a master plan. there is a letter to the mayor's office, how do we get the master plan in front of us? i would vote no for a long period of time if there was a large amount of time in front of us. >> i am not sure that i know either. individual companies have plans. whether that is proprietary or not, we will find out. it is because we are dealing

with several different companies. there is not much overlap between them. they all want coverage of the same areas. i can simply say that what i will do is i will go back and i will talk to the supervisors. i know that the supervisor chu is very interested in this topic. i do not know where that is heading. why do we not in the end to run again back to you in a memo describing what we can and cannot do describing the information that is available to us. perhaps, if weekend, an initial scope of what our master -- we can, an initial scope of what our master plan might be. >> we are going to be doing the same thing here for the next six

years. thank you. >> we are addressing some sort of comprehensive master plan and would take some sort of department told collaboration. there are several different agencies. we tend to do it with the anesthetic, the fire department, the clearance around the facilities. it would be a larger department will review. >> we have commented on this earlier. we are in a very frustrating position for lack of a better word. we are very limited in one criteria. even though i might want a

comprehensive master plan, that is not the tools that the city is currently providing the west to confirm or deny this type of project. -- me with to confirm or deny this type of project. this is very nuanced. this affirmed and disaffirmed some of the concerns that the public had about this type of abuse. we have been clamoring for this for several years. i have been here for four or five years and have asked the city to do this. there is no moratorium on this. we vote a certain way based on our criteria. we appeal to the board of supervisors, they will use a broader group of criteria to

overturn a positions. it is a ping-pong effort that goes on here. it is really exploiting the public si's time and project sponsor's time. it is not healthy, for lack of a better term. we are just going around in circles with this. i hope that we can work with the commission secretary avery to draft a letter to the land use chair, whether that means another task force, i do not know if that will get us anywhere. he mentioned all of the different groups that have to be at the table to figure out something that is going to work.

commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i forgot what are was going to say. >> i am sorry. commissioner sugaya: i would like to go on record as supporting everybody's thoughts as far as looking at it more comprehensively and having the staff take a look around as far as what iraq -- of best practices might be out there. they would have some information on what they might be looking at. some resolutions would be for the city to talk to the federal government. in fact, i would rather spend our time looking at what is possible in the city rather than trying to lobby the feds at this point. maybe some other cities have a more comprehensive way to look at this.

it would seem like they would see if there cannot be more. i do not know if this is good or bad. you may have two or three. maybe people do not like that approach. i. writing something -- i support writing something to somebody. >> i think san francisco has a track record of setting a national example including the federal government. i heard people in the audience mentioned sweden. there are definitely other countries. we are the one that does it. it is good for us to get a little bit into the research

which under the director can be brought forward for some of the reasons you were mentioning. i would support that. >> commissioners, you have a motion on the floor to approve this project as proposed. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner moore: aye. vice-president miguel: aye. >> the motion passed 5-2. >> the next two items we are going to limit public toto two minutes because we are way behind on our calendar. we will go to 14 and then 15. >> commissioners, you are on

item number 14. that is for a 1258 lombard street. >> commissioners sugaya has to make a comment. >> good evening, president and members. >> i think i need to reveal contacts that i have had. the original historic building was demolished. the whole episode took place following the demolition, i do not know how many weeks later, we received a telephone call and a request that we examine the salvaged pieces of the building. they are out that a site.

i personally went out and took a look to put together a proposal for architectural services. subsequently, one of the architects in the office went out and took a second look at the salvage pieces. this is mainly the front part of the building. subsequent to that, we have it had no further contact for whatever reason. we never consummated any contracts. there was no monetary exchange. we did not get paid for anything that we did. except for discussing what was there, we did not officially produce a report or anything like that. i would just like to reveal that. i feel that i do not have a conflict of interest in this particular case. if convict -- commissioners feel differently, they can chime in.

>> good evening, members of the commission. the case before you is located at 1268 lombard street. they want to construct four units on the subject lot. it is owned rh3. -- it zoned rh3. they want to construct a four- story building on a vacant lot. there are many neighbors opposed to the product. the russian hills neighbor group is opposed to the project. the penthouse and roof? would negatively impact adjacent neighbors. the units would be to -- too much density for the lot. they would also support the

construction of a three-story home at the rear of the lot. an adjacent neighborhood directly appeal from the project is also opposed and has provided opposition. at this time, the department recommends approval of the conditional use with conditions. the project is necessary and desirable as the project has the density with the neighborhood. the project is of a scale and mass that is compatible with other construction in the neighborhood. the new building would be considered an important landfill project. this is not found to significantly impact trafficke access or in pugh in the muni service or older public transport. i would like to also add that as

part of this project, this commission was concurrently reviewing calls hundred 59 at lombard street, which is right across -- a 1259 at lombard street, which is right across from this project print this is before you for review of the historical preservation commission. i will not spend much time discussing that. if you would like to hear more about that, i would be happy to disclose that information. we decided to do that prior to the issuance of our categorical exemption of the project. i would be happy to answer any questions. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you, project sponsors.

>> thank you. good evening, commissioners. i am representing the project sponsor on this project, proposing a four-unit building on this lot. conditional approval is necessary for the building on this lot. we want to build this and as required by law, it would be a fully handicapped accessible building. we have 7500 net square feet of residential area. 1800 sq. ft. per unit. four-car parking.

the neighborhood is a mix of single-family and multiple use structures. at the bottom of the street is 830 plus unit apartment building. above us is a three-unit building. as you go up the street, there are two trees. there might be a single family. there is a fairly consistent streetscape. we are also across the street from an eligible historic district. our facade is classically derived. a two-story garage as you go up

all the street. this section is set back about 15 feet behind the large magnolia tree. it is all in proportion. the idea is traditional. they allowed district contributors to shine. as you go to the back of the lot, it is pushed up against our larger neighbor. these homes have a 10-foot setbacks along the side. the rear yard is deep.

with the new building, there will be 37.5 feet of open space as compared to five-feet of rear yard. this is as compared to 25 feet below us. i want to focus on where we are. this project has inspired a very high level of community interest. we came to you a month ago and requested a continuance so that we can engage more with neighbors. in 2009 and 2010, we had several meetings with the neighbors. there were many responses to those concerns. so we have met with the uphill neighbors who have roof decks.

we have met with the russian hills neighbor association. we have met with someone who has rejected a compromise proposal, which we made. this would allow more air and light to his kitchen. a number of issues with this project. perhaps joe will speak to that. this was hurt by the planning side. the conclusion was that it was a legal demolition. this should be considered a vacant lot. is this building to date? the density is about half the

density of the building up above us. a third of the density or better downhill. in terms of f.a.r., they are all about three. is this story to call? our front side is 34 feet, like both of our neighbors. >> we may call you back up for additional questions. >> i have something i would like to address that will take about one minute. >> the people are saying that they want to open up for public comment. we will call you at a later time. we are limiting public comment to two minutes. thomas, and joseph butler, jerry, nick