concerns in opposition to at&t's plan for 1700 union street at this point we couldn't imagine at&t wanted to bigger antenna site on one our our heritage building. 18 hundred is a 1933 art deco building the same and/or as the coit tower and golden gate bridge my quote the society of the california strongly opposes at&t's proposal for this site this building is a wonderful art deco site it lends beauty to the neighborhood including delight full ornament and general

masking. the streetscape contribution of that beautiful building sorry i'm very nervous would be significantly accommodated with the offer scale position to the top of the structure. those buildings can't be replaced we imburglar you to look at it it on a significant corridor. the association visitors have a devoted investor basis we have a devoted visitor base they shop at our stores and take pictures the educate street 18 hundred it predominantly located and the at&t installation will degrade the character of the building

and the neighborhood. again, this violate the union street guidelines that are twice the size of the proposed for 17 hundred union and is very concerting that lee although planning staff has asked them to reduce this site app refused why won't at&t compromise especially on a rare and distinguished building >> thank you. is there any further public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini >> yeah. i have questions for the representative from at&t. many of the speakers brought up some alternatives and i don't believe they're among the ones

you've analyzed like 17 hundred green and i don't know if any of those buildings would useable or close enough to fill the gap >> sure i took down 31670 green street and union street the landlords were not willing to work with us. under any price. so they are under the guidelines they're not a leased intrusive alternative and the clock tower the building across the street is exactly the same height so it would be blocked so virtually useless >> i'm looking pictures produced by at&t you may have those available their photo simulations i guess if you can

bring them up fine but they're new stacks look like 38 they blend in how much of the of stacks i can certainly give those to the gentleman if i want to put those up on the screen and i'm not saying those photographs were taken from the various streets. when you view those you can see the before and after the stacks are hidden and not appear to come above that and another one they brought from another view yeah. there's the other one you can see the part that's contradicted there and the stacks sit on top of the area

that's constructed. i guess my question is there's a suggestion about story poles i'm not saying we have to do that did you find out how far those stacks come up >> so, yeah 14 meeting feet above the roof. >> but it takes up part of the space and that's correct and there's one stack existing that's part of this building it seems to be the same size of something about stacks your creating. >> we're checking the dimensions. >> so the roof is 37 feet the top of the largest act decking could facade is 41 and a half

feet so 4 and a half feet above the roof so the antenna need to clear that the top of the penthouse is 44 feet so 7 and a half feet above the roofline and the upper most antenna is 50 feet. >> so we're going looking at i'll have to had had math but six or seven feet above the stacks. >> all right. i'm going to have to see what the other commissioners are going to say i don't know this be done. >> commissioner hillis. >> on the plans we've got there is more antennas than the

photographs. >> there are 4 antennas on the roof of the penthouse on the other side shown in this photo here are the remaining 23 antennas and at the northeast corner of the building those antennas are slightly lower than the antennas on top of the penthouse they need to clear the per fit. >> from those you can't see 4 antennas on the roof. >> part of the direction you don't i didn't want to see the whole prospective for instance, we had a different design so this was the initial proposal. and from this prospective you see 4 of the 6 convenient pipes

not on top of of the penthouse but rising among the main roof. >> these are difficult nobody comes here and testifies they want to see these on their rooftops but it's better from the street level to be obscured. >> some of the public comment stated that the department asked at&t to make the pipes smaller or some part of the elements smaller could you describe that. >> given that at&t has been active in the new and major modifications one of the comments i had from the letter can i make sure you elevate whether or not the medical

office building and pending upgrades for the improvement in as well as a new site under construction on lombardy and octavia will be able to handle the facility if they get down to less antennas this is primarily visible primarily the antennas and that's the bulk of the combntsz are inside the buildings so we lose that visible effect. >> can i ask the at&t representative to speak to that. so as i understand given the other antenna going up in the area the question is it needed for all of the capacity to be at the site >> thank you, ted i didn't with at&t. when we first approached the planning department several

years ago in seven hundred union our original design was 12 panels you saw it mapped a net our small their 6 to 12 antenna we'd love to put a 12 panel macro restraining order from the area but if we're not able we we have to build two or three smaller wonlz the design has been sort of made you smaller at the request of the planning department so we can make it compatible with the neighborhood that gap doesn't go away so we center to build another site to pick up a gap

>> would you mind answering a question when you started to plan are you looking at building size relative to micro vs. macro it it there a correlation with smaller buildings for micro and large building for macro. >> it's interesting i've not seen anything like that unfortunately, there's no correlation what was available in technology 15 years ago when the micro antenna there's no macro sites there was no data as we can it today in streaming none of that and so this is in

correlation we find what was assessor use permitted the antennas across the city under careers use for carries looking to upgrade their network as quickly as possible to handle the voice traffic on the old telephones as we know that thank you. do you see any hypothetical where that might occur if you're obviously feeding an even increasing demand for your technology is there retrofitting how to size and how you respond to choose particular buildings that are more suitable than others. >> that goes on behind the scenes you've seen the projects that's why the sites take 4 two

or three years some buildings can take a more square penthouse some more creative and some scaled down we try to its a give-and-take to fill the gap and coverage awhile considering the architectural diversity in this city. >> i only see the uncomfortable intersection not too far away where the fire department is going to start being questioned by the historic preservation that's the changing of the overall aesthetics of the city i like to be ahead of the curve to present an accident at the intersection so there's been people spending the afternoon saying they don't want it.

you're concerned only with the industry that's concerned with the infrastructure i want to prevent the collision and have more forward thinking of all the people and the planning department and various departments in order to prevent we're sitting here talking about what the technology requires. that's my best hope because we're asked by director ram several times to think about the guidelines that are appropriate to address the issue without putting you on the defense here >> commissioner borden. >> yeah. i mean obviously this is - we account through this the 17 hundred and asked at&t to look at another site i feel like this property was one that was referenced in the context and what's challenging i, you know,

because of the topographic in san francisco and the fact that those antennas were not contemplated and now we have mobile days the strength of the antenna you have to put them every few blocks and every carries has different antenna to add to that it puts us in a complicated situation and the ftc we asked at&t to look for other sites there are heights and other heights this is a far better aesthetic look than the previous site we'd seen before i feel like, you know, every time

we have those hearings people suggest other sites and the minute we hear the next site there is another group of people seeing there's something wrong with that that's the challenge we have making the perfect the enemy it's more incentively done a better thing the antennas are hidden and not the prominent corner of gov. so for that reason that this is a much better solution. commissioner antonini >> yeah. i'd like to ask the project sponsor another question about the appearance of the stacks that's hard to tell will you but the existing stack on the building already i assume

that's two existing ones. and i assume that the stacks are the new stacks will be of the same shape as that and obviously, the same color and what do we know about relate heights of the existing ones are they shorter or the same height or maybe another one >> so i'm going to let omar talk about that. >> from what i key is how tast

blend into the building. >> do i hear a motion. >> commissioner borden. >> i'll make a motion to approve ask the staff continue to work with at&t on the least amount. >> on that motion to approve approve with conditions with direction to include that the staff continue working with design commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong and commissioner president wu.

so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you under our discretionary review calendar. item 14 for the case d at the 1110 ashburg after may first, they continued the matter by a vote of 6 to zero commissioner fong upper absent at this item and for you to participate you'll have to say you've reviewed the materials and that's correct i watched it on sfgovtv and am ready. >> if we can say add consulted the secretary on how to consultation the hearing this is the third hearing we just

decided to allow for the staff for 3 minutes from the dr requester and open this up for public comment. >> okay. >> good afternoon. commissioner president wu and members this case is a discretionary review for 1110 ashbury street to allow the property owner project sponsor to work on the design and incorporate feedback. as a reminder the dr was filed by the resident directly from the adjacent property to the north. the dr requesters look at the scale in particular the masking on the north side property line the project sponsor submitted a revised set of plans those included did third floor the top

floor light well, from a 20 feet of inches in length the light well will remain at the 27 feet in lethal and have a 5 foot length and the second is the light well will remain the same as according to the project sponsor that will accommodate ann a boomer with a cheer yourself ride bathtub. new things like the speciality guy. and the lighted well remains the same and an additional sheet was provided that's the last package in the set as identified and has a cross section of the proposed light well, i find useful to

look at. again, the department recommends that the commission not to take dr and approve the project as originally proposed that concludes my presentation. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> thank you project sponsor. >> commissioner president wu and commissioner fong and commissioners i'm the project sponsor for the proposed edition at the 1110 ashbury i want to provide a quick cap i purchased this home to create a customized

home to accommodate my disabled. i wanted to meet the planning code and at no point did i disclose my disable or asked for accumulation from the plaintiff as we met all plans xhoomsz. in preparation i reviewed the meeting on line multiply times and look at the sdpriks with my meeting with staff. as this cuts by the planner by jessica the planner on the second floor there's a master bedroom to a gym that accumulates equipment for my condition.

on the top floor we set the section of the here back increased it from 5 feet to 7 feet. that will allow enough room to go around the one table with a wheelchair. and this is the section that the dr requester was more interested in others. please understand that the plans only note items that's relevant to other items today, there are other changes we'll need to make when we get into the building. this is a 3-d rendering of the light well, it's quite large and this is even giving a better idea. i also prepared another shadow

study without the front edition on the alternative i'm preparing today include in your pact that was originally not distributed we can't see that i ask you to look at that. i think it's important beginning at the 1 o'clock in the afternoon from 8 hours everyday we receive direct sunlight at the front of the building it's articulated in the south and east and at this point, i'll ask you to approve it. there's a lot of information if you have questions please address them >> dr requester.

>> could i have at the projector turned on and left on commissioners mary. the planning department and we agree when you have two separate buildings on a lot it doesn't matter if it's one or two unit we have to have small property owner. what differs when we have one building so the way the interruption has historically been implemented there's two parts of the building that are connected then you have to have the 25 percent open area and a and it's on the partner for the open development in the area. the way the department wants to interpret it if you want to connect the two parts of a building then all of a sudden

this entire requirement just goes away you adequate to building that. we feel there's a gap in the logic and mr. sanchez noted there's at&t's an, an out that's where the front wall of the rear cottage exceeds the rear wall from the adjacent building if you fill in that circumstances there's no adjacent open area so we're pointing out the that problem and saying you can use our discretionary powers to lots like this. the building walls on this side of ashbury are unbroken you can't help to see the gardener

and then the hill draws up your vision to the building surrounding that. as i mentioned last time at the last hearing this picture was taken from the advertising from the sue electro estate he erected the liberty and left to right status. my point is not that this building is not sixth under sequa the cottages are ordinary than the buildings they have interesting architecture and facing gardens off something valuable to the neighborhoods. with the approval of this project we would be saying by virtual the city wanted to get

rid felt older building and have affordable housing. so this dr is not about this project but making sure we don't actively promote the did he miss of those types of buildings >> thank you open this up for public comment. >> can i have the projector on for this, please. >> 2 minutes. >> it's two minutes. >> the character of the neighborhood is not a one of 4 to 5 story building all but a few properties at the merging of ashbury and one property have yards between 25