height is appropriate but even if it is it looks worse because it takes no includes from the holiday in its one of the worst looking building it's a cookie cutter urge building. it should fit in about the rest of the buildings and take some clues from the neighborhood. donates the one thanking thing and the other thing is the parking lot. we heard they've got a hardship they can't meet the codes because they'd have to go subterranean and i'm not sure why they can't be having the additional 6 parking places when

they seem to be able to put in 26. i don't know what the appropriate time is to make some of the changes but we need design changes >> i think it takes 4 months this is a difficult site and . >> maybe i can talk to the architect. can you talk about how those designs that we're proposing would you say take 90 days? that depends on the extent of changes >> you can hear it's extent i have. >> we're now in september we're saying january is fine with me. >> second and a can you give us

something in december or january. >> well, your december and january dates are still wide open. december 5th would be your earliest date and the first hearing in january assuming we school january 2nd january 19th. well, i'm going to move it to january 19th. we can continue a second time >> commissioner more and more. >> i look the zoning administrator to help kind of frame the issues properly and the issues are the recommendation for live ability to bedroom windows and the absolute need for compromise cinnamons of the court yard and

it does and does not meet the court yard it's 70 feet short of the thirty feats it needs to be i think it needs to be 23 feet and the issue that the 6 by 6 balcony is so minimal you can't see people. i'd like to have somebody meet with the applicant and how quickly this plan could be resolved and i do disagree that the explores of cars is really want we want above. nobody who going goes by will distinguish that this all space

will be visible to the street and that's unacceptable. >> commissioner wu. i want to make a comment about outreach. this project came to us and the neighbors said they didn't have the chance to speak with the sponsor. it's hard to know but it's clear that the upper and lower polk have questions and maybe the department can provided contacts the most recent contacts. i'm not sure where the notification process is failing us. commissioner >> yes. i'd like to follow-up on the parking open the second

level comment. i think that the plan wise it shows it as residential parking. we have a concern about that. and the staff should take note of that and staff should take a look at the way the earth is presented. the neighborhood context is quite different. and i'm not saying it has to have a one hundred percent, you know, doesn't have to look like it's neighbors exactly we're not saying that. but staff gets the idea. and i think we're not totally - well, i'm not totally opposed to the height. there are other buildings in the area that may not quite as at

all so height to me isn't a concern >> following up on that comment it's not as much height as you deal with did you pull back into mid block but in anticipation of future building this will maximize this when people come from the north and south. this building needs to anticipate as the first kids on the block you've got to be extremely creative with the graduating identification for others >> commissioners increases another motion and a second to continue this matter to december 19th. with that

(calling names) so moved commissioners that motion passes 7 to zero >> the variance will continue to december 19th as well. >> commissioners that places you on item 13. at 2070 through 2080 chestnut street >> i'm mary woods of department staff. the c u before i say by coffee and tea to establish a former retail from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. pete's was located at 2466 chestnut street. that provides two retail spaces tot totaling approximately 21

hundred square feet and to you think if i it into a could he was design. the c u is required for hours between 6:00 a.m. departments recommendation is to approve the project with conditions. although this is a former retail use of a new location but pete have long been on the same block important about 29 years so basically, it's a relocation of a retail use. this concludes my report if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> project sponsor please. hi commissioner i'm michael williams i'm the vice president of beach coach and tea. we've started over 40 years and

29 years ago we will opened our first store on chestnut. we want to move down the block because it is a better location for us. i do want to mention it's going to be built with the new store idea and bring a platform for us to start that idea. we employ over thirty people in the neighborhood at this location. we agree with mary's remedies except condition won a photo control for the property we're not roosevelt coffee on site and there were no other complaints. also our h b c system will have

filters and we appreciate your time >> is there that i public comment on this item? and a partial marine a. we're in favor of this but want some more conditions to be more specific on this particularly project because since 0 they've signed their lease they've not kept the front of the building clean and they've got the homeless coming around. we've had a wonderful conversation and we want to add steam cleaning once a month and

the sidewalks and nobody margaritas in the backyards for the meeting for the sheer faculties close to the people outside and particularly earlier in the morning. we're asking for a liaison to the neighbors since there's - in case there's a problem. is there another one chris? and chris is going to address the backyard issue but to move in we're sorry under the circumstances we've lost a business a that's been there 29 years and come into the area the same time as pete's. that's it and we welcome and they've agreed to those

conditions. thank you >> next speaker. >> hello, i'm chris hawkins i live on this building for 16 years and also a fan of pete's coffee. when we got notice they were going to a new location we got existed because that's a good use of the space. i received the notice and spoke to a person in charge of the space. my residence there's a whole borrowed of backyards and it's like a echo chamber in there.

originally pete's indicated they wanted to use that space but after a lot of subtraction with the neighborhood they've withdrawn their application. it was unclear if they were going to get that added. i represent about 15 of the neighbors in this area that have common areas and just outside of this meeting i met with a number of the pete's exclusives who are new to this project and they've agreed they does not intend to use the backyard and if they do so they'll enclose it. because of the potential future noise should she want to use

this backyard we ask you include in the additional use they can't have an open air like an open air cafe but if they want to expand they have to sound proof it. so we'd ask you add that to the conditional use. another issue that we had concern with it seems revolved but the use of garbage cans being removed early in the morning but they have a plan in place we want to add no garbage

activity >> is there any other public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner borden >> i'm familiar with this cafe why do you inside the other space i don't know why the move i'm curious about the move. >> it's more of a question for the project sponsor. >> donates a great question. actually, it was a have small space and the landlord raised the rent and accompanied president coincidely there was a chance to move the store. there was another spot did you look at that space >> that was before my time and

a thanks. >> good question. >> i mean it's a beautiful building and obviously their merging them and obviously pete's could use more space. it could have been a neighborhood servicing cafe now, it's a clothing store pop up >> thanks for the history. >> in terms of the motion it does have the liaison. the steam cleaning would we add that as a condition of approval >> with regard to steam cleaning it's not required by department it's now required by department of public works. >> could we endorse it.

>> yes. >> in terms of the condition i guess about not using the back patio for any kind of business use and i think odor control there's an item here in the motion that deals with the odor i don't know about the garbage but anything additional. >> perhaps i could speak to that. typically odor condition is placed more on restaurants or self-service restaurants because of venting gas or cooking. and in this case it would seem reasonable they discontinue with their other existing business so

if the commission wants to strike that importantly that would be okay >> is that condition 7 or 18? both of those can be potentially be struck. commissioner anton >> i'm supportive of this and even though we can't require the steam cleaning i certainly would like to see it as a finding and encourage it but many of our streets have gum from 20 years ago it's disturbing when you see

those sidewalks. so retailers can do whatever to keep them clean it's encouraged >> commissioner wu. >> we were reminded that for poor conditions we should state some conditions. i'm supportive of the back patio to limit the noise for neighbors >> (laughter) . commissioner >> i don't think that precludes them from come back for a future date for another conditional use hearing. >> is there a motion? move to approve with conditions as set forth by the board and on

that motion commissioners to approve as moved (calling names) so moved commissioners that passes unanimously 7 to zero. item fourteen has been continued to october 10th so this places you on 15. at 1700 union street. request for conditional use authorization

>> good afternoon president fong planning department. at&t seeks to build a maximum 3 story building within the union street neighborhood commercial district. the proposal allows for 3 antennas and one antenna would be to mimic the remaining two antennas would face the

northeast facade. there are health concerns and the need for the site, historic attributes of the building and there would be electric cabinets and would reflect the cabinet within the guidelines and we recommended use of approval of authorization >> thank you. >> project sponsor please. >> good afternoon president fong and members of the commission arrest i'm a director for at at california. i'm joined today with the firm

of edison whose a professional engineer and engineering firm that conducted the radio frequents at the site and his analysis is part of our packet payroll i'm joined with other folks. we're seeking an approval to place 3 antennas a small site one mount on the roof on union street. the necessary equipment will be located on the ground floor in the building. once this is on site at&t will be commissioning a site on union. it's located under the city's wireless guidelines and at&t conducted a thrower site analysis included in your packet. the site is necessary for at at

to close a network in and around uncle street in the marine a district of the student. as you are aware wireless services is in demand because of smart phones and they announced we're almost 3 hundred percent rows and projects traffic to grow. we ask for your support in approving the application today and i'm valley available for any questions i might have >> that's the extent of the project sponsor? so public comment. i have a couple of cards. john, julie and another lady.

>> president fong isn't here but fellow commissioners i have appreciation for your patience seeing what you do and i will sorry for your ears. my family lives at the 27 golf street next to the proposed project. we look at this proximately from our bedroom and backyard. if i'm my family has been here since 1948. we know the city. with regards to this project the 1700 union street location is a poor choice. first of all, if the owner of the building would have said no to the project at&t would have

found another site for the antennas. so the project doesn't have to be on this site. in saying that it makes no sense for a project like this to be constructed on, on exposed corn with high vibrator. if you're coming down golf street you have the obamacare gone house on the left and this building directly in front of you. it seems like an odd choice. although zoned within the commercial this building is on the fringe of the residential neighborhoods. this project in my opinion should be constructed in the middle of the commercial district between fillmore and not on a visual corner. i don't think this project would

be approved if it was on the other fringe street towards union. if the project has to be on this place place the equipment to the far west of the building. to reduce the visual impact for neighborhoods and pedestrians this would be highly helpful. this is a modest request. from what i understand the original plans have changed, have improved but are not available to be reviewed which max or makes no sense. i suggest we look at those before it's constructed. thank you. thank you >> thank you.

>> hi i'm julie. like my husband just said we live next door less than 20 feet from the author and building. i would like to talk about this to our young and urban born children. like other families we're worried about the impact of strong emissions on our children. it would seem much better if this project were installed in the middle of the commercial district instead of at the border of the residential district. i know that letters and information has been posted but all the families if i spoke to

they don't read those notices because they don't feel they have the power to influence those decisions. i was made aware of this project a few weeks and i bring up this fact to recommend true make up to see test the neighborhoods reactions. most importantly as a mother and a friend of the other parents of the neighborhood this project scares us and brings up serious concerns for our children and we don't know the effects of the new equipment. those are legitimate concerns and better alternates and sites must surely exist for ass

projects. thank you >> thank you. i'm candice i live on green street across the the allen park and 1700 union street is viewed from all levels of my house. you already have a letter outlining my concerns. while i appreciate at&ts need to improve their stoifrs the neighboring areas this is a poorly conceived crude decision that desecrates the architecture of this building. you have a packet that shows you photographs this is a buff building and this is is making restraining order site there are pieces that are the size of a