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

boxcar that will add another level to the building. it also should be considered that anyone traveling traveling up golf street are going to when they reach the intersection this is the first section of victorian san francisco that they see. this is the gateway to what we're selling 90 in san francisco. it's the first thing they see when they get off the muni bus. the latest at&t design contains humanely elements that the boxcars equipment made of chain link and can i go debar shaped antenna and all visible from the

sidewalks that surround the units and even from the lower elevations. it's designed as one of our cities potential historic resource building and i'm hoping you'll protect the historic nature of this section. if you haven't, please come and visit this intersection between the building on the northeast corner the obamacare gone museum and this is a gateway to the historic part of the city. thank you >> thank you. any further comment on this public nelson mandela item? that seeing none, public comment is closed >> commissioner anton. >> well, first of all, on the emotions we're obliged we can't

use this as a means to not approve a project and judging from the report those emissions are well below of the standards allowed by federal regulation. however, the question of aesthetics we can consider and i might want to ask the rep from at&t or from - yeah. if i could give me an idea if those elements could be moved to the middle of the building not seen from the street. and that's part of our staff report to move the site those elements so unless your above it looking down if you're walking or driving along the street

wouldn't see the elements and a sure. commissioner anton i'm with at&t. we starred with the panels of antennas on the roof and have ended up with 3 panel antennas. we've had full pipes and some side mounted would we could get down in terms of design was to facade mounted fully screened and one pipe. so if i as all of those antennas if i move this antenna back towards the center of the building i have to bring it up. the further i go back the higher the antenna gets and the more visible it gets. so there's a limitation on the emissions that come off the

antenna that works where they're related to close to the edge of the building. if i looked at the photographs and the pictures it mixes with the neighborhood. i understand what you're saying and there's one misrepresent that's apparently on the side of the building although it's not parted of the original building it looks like it could be. that's correct. there's two mounted antennas on the side and there are two on the side that the city has helped us to make sure they fit with the color of the building. and there is no fiber or cables coming down off those that are bringing blight to the building

>> i would encourage you and staff to work with the neighbors to, you know, do whatever we can to make the aesthetics as good as possible. i know you always try to do that. the other question that came up was citing it on another building and you gave us a number of alternatives and they were not as desirable but there was some talk you could comment on a citing further down union closer to fillmore if that would meet your goals of coverage any better or worse. i know there's some tall buildings on buchanan. >> certainly the search ring is small and specific.

unfortunately, we don't have a lot of room to move the misrepresent to aid the coverage gap in this area. i know we've had a lot of correspondence and we've tried to as best we can make it as small as we can and blend in as well as we can without moving it because the search ring - we would have to kill it and it wouldn't serve the needs of that area >> i'm familiar my dentist office is close by. and in that two or three block area it's a fairly small ring

>> thank you >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to read you like the discussion as i do almost every time about the aesthetics to be part of this. while the west facing antenna off union street is not as much as a concern to me. the corn location is partially because this neighborhood didn't have underground utilities it makes it for more impacting rather than an additional antenna in an r f transparent vent. the vent is right literally next to the corn.

i used to live across golf street and i appreciated the solidness and the historic building on the corner. i don't believe adding the vent open the corn is a good move and i won't support it patricia because we need to start thinking about visual impact. and this is too much. >> commissioner hill us. >> i would agree aestheticly i have less concern with the lead pipe but the additions on the facade doesn't work. it's not like the facade houses a lot of utilities but especially on golf where you see

you know the architecture of this building we're adding this growth to it that doesn't work at all. we have to do more work of the aesthetics and it changes the character of what is an old building by adding this on the side. so i can't approve this >> i would agree ask at&t continue this and move this to another location on the building but i would tend to agree that the location closer to the corn is problematic. >> let me be clear you're asking us to move the facade antenna to the vent roof and move those up. >> i'd like to see that. sound like commissioner moore is more concerned about the rooftop

i'm concerned about the facade. >> could we - i mean would it be advantageous to continue this and have you worked on this to see if there's a solution. >> i'm happy to do that. we started with that several years ago but you want to put this on the agenda next week we'll come back in two weeks with our original designs and compare them. are we're caught in a little bit of - >> it's the shock clock. >> it's beyond that shock clock.

if we come to the planning department with bare antenna and we screen them and can't get them passed it's a prohibittion and violates our code. i'm happy to bring it back. if the department asks us to screen the antennas and then - >> with the timeframe i'm curious. >> so the time limit is 1 hundred and 50 days. so we're way beyond this we've been working on this design for two years. so we go through italy ration after italy ration this is the design we came at and if we

can't find a solution we'll go back to the bare antennas and we'd rather not side that. i'm happy to continue the item for tweaks >> unfortunately i don't think we have the support for the project today & so and maybe just as a point of clarification for staff maybe earlier in the process when your reviewing the antenna you can look at the packet and prevent it from getting to this point because there's frequenting federal regulations and other things involved. the staff sees things differently than the commission so to have it in the packet is worthwhile >> we're going to look at

different sizes and location for the antenna. patricia it was a concern if there's too much bulk or alternatives made to the building given it's challenges it doesn't include the antennas on the too primary facade for example, but we're happy to work with the applicant further >> commissioner anthony i. >> yeah. i think we should continue until october 3rdrd. that's two weeks i believe and yeah. will we'll put it for october 3rd >> that's my suggestion.

>> those are some suggestions. perhaps it's a matter of aesthetics and how the antennas are housed. i don't like them on the sides nor the top but in many case i have a top vertical approach to this may be staff you could work with them especially on the golf street side. i don't know if the other commissioners would agree but maybe if that it was more horizon it could look more like the windows that are on the side. you know what i mean? like a phobia window >> maybe as a vin angle. that's also an issue on the

facade. i don't know if that antenna on the other facade can be - >> sorry have you ever put antennas on powered by one believe on a separate building next door. is that a totally unrealistic approach? so i'm looking at this photograph which has a vertical element - i don't know which - it says photo simulation looking on union street. if that could be - could you move that antenna to that vertical phoney chimney on the adjacent building (laughter) >> no. >> i know it's a totally different ownership that will be

powered - >> i wish it were that easy it would make our jobs a little bit easier but unfortunately, it's not and it's not service - its not in the line of sight we need to have it in order to address the requirements on the radio frequents. >> you might try a few somewhere. >> i take it back i cannot make them shorter or turn them does ways. >> maybe the housing could be a different shape. i think you're trying to minimize the space and maybe aestheticly it might be to look

at them i don't know look at lighter or stick them on the roof >> we'll take it back. >> commissioner more and more. >> i'm not helping you particularly with this project but i believe you have long been at least in front of this commissioners for 34 years or more we're coming to a critical mass where i might have to before you negotiate with a work owner whether you can resolve your technical issues. it would be time to create a library of what works and what don't work. i think there will be an increase public voice about how they look at the cumulative aesthetics trying to shape the roofs in san francisco. i'm making that as a positive suggestion to start creating a

library for yourself what works and what doesn't work and what's itself critical trigger for this commissions feedback >> is it doesn't look - can i address your comment? we've stent a lot of time with the planning department and engineers and addition trying to come up with designs. every building in san francisco is unique. it requires something completely different so to say if the difficult were to tell you we want you to facade mount every one of your antennas or put evidentially in a penthouse we'd love to distribution but unfortunately you can't provided that to you to us so we work with the planning department way beyond the limitations in trying to find a solution. i think we brought a very scaled

down version with a pipe that matches with the characteristics in this surrounding area. good i'm happy to bring back the original design in a couple of week and we can further the conversation >> what ultimately the commission has to between the department and user there has to be a boarder conversation that is in tandem with the public east and we're at that pointing point so far as i'm concerned. >> it's time to take a step back. they're not stopping those maintains their coming at us every week and my concern is on a great old building that congressman's the facade of

that. the golf street side you've got a deck up there and on the roof would be a better place. that might be impossible >> commissioners there's a motion to continue this matter to october 3rdrd. on that motion (calling names) so moved commissioners that passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 16. at 5 9z 7 monterey billboard question for authorization >> planning department. sprint takes approval to modify an existing facility.

the project mass a mixed use the site is commercial and located on the intersection of forester street and it houses 3 antenna open the roof and instead plaza larger antenna with three vent pipes. they'll rise 6 feet above the roof and it would remain in the back. staff supports the facility harassing as it meets the wireless guidelines and recommendations the approval of the land use authorization >> project sponsor please. >> good afternoon, commissioners aim maria miller here on

behavior of sprint. thank you omar for working with us. and i don't have a presentation. he gave a good explanation for our application. and we're upgrading to 34 l g service. i can answer any questions >> not at the moment. any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner - don't all jump in at once. moore >> move to approve. on that motion to move (calling names) so moved commissioners that

passes unanimously and places you on item 7 at 725 street request for authorization >> at&t provision seeks to develop is making restraining order project. this project has a mixed use 3 story building along the commercial corridor between 17 and 18 avenues. is it will allow for electric equipment on the building. it is intended to screen the view and the box will be painted to match the penthouse. the remanding 3 antennas will be attached to the stairwell penthouse. the staff did revelers in opposition of health concerns

the need of the fatality and the design of the facility. the staff supports this and recommends approval of the recommendation. thank you >> project sponsor. >> good evening with at&t external affairs. i'm joined by my staff with k d u consulting. we're seeking your approval for a 9 antenna. once we get this site on air we'll decommission at 901 carr very well. it's a preference 5 building and at&t has conducted a theory analysis which is included in your packet. at&t attempted to go on the

brick building that was the original lion which is not a historic building but we were not able to find a solution for that on 919 avenue. this is necessary to close a gap in this area obviously 19th avenue is a very busy area. we ask for your support in this conditional use of the application today and i'm happy to answer questions >> opening this up for public comment. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. i'm here to speak in opposition to this item 17. i'd like to raise 3 points. number one the notice of the september 19th planning commission hearing on this project was posted on the subject property at the 725 carr very well only 13 days prior to the hearing not the required 20 days. second point the san francisco fire code riders a 10 foot clearance from the roof access door at 725 korea very well but at&ts proposed equipment will be located within 10 feet of the door. and lastly our san francisco planning code on neighborhood commercial districts requires

that a public use such as a wireless facility must be located within and enimposed building >> any additional public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed >> if i could speak to the representative to speak to the points that are made by the speaker just now in regards to 3 things she said was the posting i'll have to check with staff. whether or not this has to be enencompassed >> i'd like to address the question of posting.

we did require posting to be placed before the hearing. the hearing was proposed last month and the poster was pulled down. so we believe the applicant could see the new poster >> so the new poster was up. >> yes. and continues from a prove hearing. >> and the second question i guess she was talking about the antenna by it has to be closed i'm not sure about that that. >> this is an issue i'll try to find the code i'll come back to that but public uses are allowed to believe outside of on enclosed believe for the planning code. >> seems to be what i permed

because many of them are not enclosed and i think there was a third point. >> with respect to the fire code. >> yeah. and it's a road map, however, in other words, to construct that facility at&t would be required to submit building plans and rereviewed by the san francisco fire department and department of health to make sure that met all the requirements. >> so the roof has to be fire rates or whatever would be the case. >> well, the fir rating would depend upon on the roof in terms of mortgaging and alarm systems. generally they have all the