the locations i've looked carefully at the documentation related to the to the project and harmful information if one looks at deeply into the proposal. >> could you speak into the microphone. >> sorry if one looks at deeply into the proposal it is clear that the project will adversely effect the businesses and create a rooftop installation of 9 antennas that -- excuse me. will detract from the beauty and seen from the public right-of-way and not in compliance with the guidelines to the general planning code or the residential guidelines in the your honor, design criteria i understand that at&t must close it's service gap at&t is not demonstrated that their research was not thorough and nothing was used their application packet and recent

letter from thelogically legal department is not thorough omissions exist they're required to provide context relay provisions it concerns me to see this is not correct it is not correct instead of enhancing the rail use it negatively impacts them instead of protecting the neighborhood character the project causes a change to the building with the installation of the 6, 9 foot antennas that is visible from public view and the architecturally rich part of the neighborhood will be alternated it does not preserve this to the neighborhood according to city documents that states he introduced maul

apartment buildings to san francisco we recognize the developer and the opponent e opponent are a demographics of age and income levels but we have in common we love our neighborhood and want to protect and preserve it the guidelines are sensible and have support our basis of opposition all we're simply asking is that those be especially held commission uphold the small business owners gave me more letters one it signed by her i don't have copies. >> thank you

>> next speaker. >> hi commissioners my name is tony's live on taylor street i'm here to voice my objection on jackson on september 11th i spoke at the hearing and mentioned the irreversible aesthetics on the neighborhood where i've also for 6 years the antennas will be visible from tenants right-of-way and this is unacceptable recently, i saw a similar installation and took to photograph the photo is kind of interesting to see what we look like in practice thank you is there a way to zoom in on this? this is over on scloep boulevard there's 6 full vent pipes you

can see for yourself the kind of impact i really think this intersection is a special corner of the neighborhood with historic earthquake and scenic pictures of the before this and capable cars running across accident street please disapprove this and could make jackson a further site of unattractive >> thank you. next speaker. and my name is is kenneth i live on 1098 jackson the residential entrance on tuesday i received basically, the information regarding the additional

proposal of at&t that if those supporting unit were not located in the basement they'll be in the lower roof over the dry cleaner establishment in the photo that are part of that you know proposal those windows that are visible from that lower roof are residential windows for 3 of the non-residential unit in the building and one of them happens to be mine so it is certainly of interest and so my request i guess is and the expectation if plan b was part of this plan and did take life there are apparently strategies for containing the fan part of this

unit so that it reduces the sound that will come from the fans and that in addition to even the levels of containment done structurally there are a blanketing of that can be done, too, and just to bring to your attention if this is the the strategy it will have an quack to those of us who have been free of the intrusion and noise for 12 years that case very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon commissioners i'm curtis katie tang i live adjacent to the project i'm asking you to disapprove this installation it's totally out of scale for

this neighborhood i understand that there's disguising it as 624 hours 9 foot tall but if i know the scale aesthetically it didn't fit and as residents and san franciscans we rely on the planning commission to protect the stability and the liveability of the various neighborhoods in san francisco and this is an instance we could use your assistance i realize that talking about the emissions is new but i spoke to the gentleman and asked him why he if used the building across the street he informed me the san francisco fire department will not allow the installation of those antennas to the rfp

emissions i don't know if you 92 knew that part of the guidelines on health and safety and 1098 jackson has a fire station i don't know if that's in compliepts or not thank you. >> is there any additional public comment open this item? seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner moore >> perhaps for the benefit of the public you could show the visualization of what was in front of us last time and caused the commissions reaction and what you're intending to do to improve the situation perhaps you could glow that and have everyone participate. >> so this is the photos that was part of the packet

this is the building as it is today as you see it this is the proposed installation search warrant with the 6 panel antennas this is on sector b and 3 for sector a. >> perhaps you could zoom in for people to compare that's helpful. >> one of the ideas that was surfaced was that we can remove the cone or vent pipe from the panel antenna itself right now the vent pipe is about 16 inches in dimension and the antennas are 11 inches in dynamic it will have a cone on the front i'll put this up here

what our seeing on top photos the maintains their flat antennas 11 inches in dynamics those are incorporated and covered the same color as the front side and a cap on it it doesn't look like 3 you know sort of 3 rectangle structures that will reduce the length and also willing to move back a foot when we start to move back more

than a foot then we have to go up a little bit in order to keep the proper measures p measurement we'll move those back and sector a we can move that back as well, we could set back those and remove the width thought that installation by 15 inches and then, of course, the equipment if you do want the ximent equipment there in the storage area we'll put it there and make sure we had sound progressively around to help muffle the noise. >> what our proposing today is that what you're proposing today? it is this today with a foot back on each the foot came to my

attention today >> i think custom telegraph hill the visible impact are hard to disascertain they remain unchanged personally i believe if i had to the full pipes look better than the full panels i'm interested in what other commissioners have to say i wish you considered two antennas two approaches for your company to start with the visual issues that are being brought to you repeatedly the letter from your colleagues didn't help matters because this commission is well trained in what the federal guidelines are to support you but i personally don't feel that

we have been properly heard to the increased voice on city aesthetics and they're getting louder we're noticing the cumulative effect of the lack of design and lack of attention you're putting your antennas and how to elicit the landscape in those corridors where we all have a collective memory and collective pride how we precede not on in one building but on the walking or capable car this project falls into the corridors so i'm not relieves of my concerns so. >> thank you commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much first, i have a couple of questions on your revised proposal

so again, we doesn't see a lot of the visuals in our packet could you explain what was the sort of changes that with the except cabinet on the side of the building i saw a picture from lamar but explain that. >> sure let me just pull up the schematic on this inside so here is the cafe that's the effected areas in terms of the square footage so at&t will be taking up that blue area which is approximately 20 square feet in that storage area and then there's you see about 52 to 56 square feet approximately

so the idea was that if the commission rather have the equipment outside the building that we could relocate that equipment and we would, of course, make it integrated into the building such as we could and put sound screening around it but that's kind of the area that we would propose to place that equipment. >> i have a couple of comments i support it continuing this item because i had issues not just but aesthetics somewhat, but more the information provided about where the equipment cabinets are going to do and how the equipment is going to be used and whether or not you've done enough work on

the capable cars information it left me feeling uncomfortable we didn't have enough analysis on both of the items the placement of the equipment and done all the work for the preferable site post that meeting you said some of the changes we've talked about essentially i think that this is a challenging neighborhood it's residential not a lot of commercial districts and large buildings it is a neighborhood unless a true public sites where a capable car museum all the issues in in between bad and worse frankly, i think the next option you'll have so provide coverage for customer service center is not about measuring agree lack of coverage i'm not sure they'll be better so i'll be prepared to

support those with changes so long as made the motion to get a full listing by yourself or the gentleman about the changes the physical installation. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i feel the sthau i feel since the box you're putting on the roof the lower roof is a well done it blends in well that is from inside the building or the higher - >> i'm not sorry. >> you move forward the equipment cabinet to the lower roof and when the earlier plan where was it located. >> in the storage ear. >> you're taking less away from the cafe and cleaners isn't that correct. >> that's correct. >> you said beginning you'd be

taking 20 feats from the cafe and 52 from the cleaners with the moving of the equipment box or even less. >> we would forego that option and move everything to the roof if a that's what you prefer. >> you wouldn't be taking anything. >> that's correct any compensation by the landlord will actually go away >> itself the reason for my support one of the reasons the staff said to disapprove the adversely effecting the neighborhood servicing businesses but we'll put it in a better and better place and also both of the options are fine the revised options a little bit better you have to have a pretty good memory maybe a resident

knows they look at it all the time but most of us glow there less frequently can't replacement a vent pipe or not it's hard to understand and views are though the 4rkd we're talking about public views and once again the health issue is not before use it is below the level to consider it you analyzed a lot of differealtern and i'm going to vote against the disapproval we'll have to have a separate vote to paragraph; is that correct. >> depending on which motion proposed you would need 4 votes for it to be approved roorls so if there was a motion to disapprove will

isle you'll need for votes and obviously if no motion the project fails without any vote. >> yeah. okay. >> can i ask a followup question if there's a deserve desire there is a motion to approve and have a motion for another day. >> this 0 item has been before you enough times you've had a motion to approve in the original packet you've received that motion to approve and in communication with the city attorney if this excision choose to go f that route and approve that matter the wisest thing to acknowledge the prior motion and verbalize the finding as to why you've changed your mind the equipment location or what have

you. >> commissioner richards. >> yes. a question for staff go through the process of settling open jackson can we hear the sites as typically the conversations they've start mentioning sites and discuss issues looishg like historic preservation and all the things secure with 3 antennas or more that separates out what is reasonable they'll start to discuss certainly sites and maybe not have submitted an application i'll look at my map and there there are co-locations down the hill i'll start looking at alternative locations so they'll find a different prefer the challenge is most of the knows in the neighborhood the majority are disfavored or a

higher he preference their blocked in on two or three sides. >> if we disapproved this we'll be back. >> we'll see more gas smaugsz. >> how many sites did you look at before you got to this one like 47. >> the former alternative sites 27 sites. >> could you comment on the authorness of the report maybe cut-and-paste. >> that's not in the part of the packet today this was in a followup letter by the at&t council but i have not had a chance to. >> so the displacement of tenants was displace you and i had this conversation what ensued with the tenants. >> when i first went out to the

sites the tenants raised concerns about a much larger facility 87 square feet and the tenants raised southerners one of the tenants doesn't have a lease in place to month to month the tenants will be inadversely effected they have to come up with a amply go that meant financial or ways to better use the space and requiring at&t to look at options for instance, another location the lower roof is not a preferenceal option it requires a variance from rear yard sorry the required rear yard area that has to considered

desperately it adds bulk we're comfortable that the facility as proposed that the condition that any minor increases requires for review will help to insure the tenants are not adversely effects. >> so it is strengthened. >> yes. and what do you think they contain. >> the tenant on a month to month lease has a 5 year extension. >> not a displacement concern in your mind. >> correct. >> on the residential design line for the preservation first place the owner and said to put a deck would the design guidelines look at that. >> we try to use did guidelines to look at how we guide the

wireless facilities if they're putting up a fake personality house i'm going to look at pushing it back as with real penthouse or roof-deck it's the challenging we're trying to approximate and the nice clusters but we try to mimic those lemons and make a continuity. >> for storage preservation are the pipes visible. >> in that respect having it in that location it will be usually unusual to have the pipes on the corners. >> so there are makes sense that have pipes in the same locations. >> maybe not the same cluster but we've seen large pipes as commissioner antonini pointed out the restaurants have pipes up the side of the building

that's less than preferable but to accommodate businesses. >> the last couple of questions on the width of the pipes with the widths of pipes that can be reduced and the other question the antennas are 4 feet high. >> on the width of the pipe in other words, to reduce the vent pipe they could take out the vent pipe and place a wrap and simulates it we talked this i congest n cutting-edge engagement if conversations to make this less intrusive if the direction to go down it i suggest providing a field test to make sure it it goes up it looks at appropriate then the second question. >> would you believe if we went

dots lower a wrap around it will actually harderly be seen. >> on the 4 feet antenna clear the roof or they're not seeing in the street. >> so with the - >> they'd be at 9 feet. >> regardless and but the top of vent pipe is 9 feet above the roof and 9 feet back which is a one-on-one ratio that is the historic preservation tried to use a a guideline for a scale more appropriate. >> commissioner moore i don't fully understand how placing the storage cabinets on the facade will not have an effect on the

symmetric's it is a small building and you paint is tone and tone it will not look like the building. >> this is in in addition like the roof-deck we'll recommend as part of the view those new elements not be cause for storage they don't look like the original part of the building they'll be set back with when this was proposed our direction is we're back 5 feed from the facade so it is removable that's the preservation context. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i'd like to i think we have to vote on the motion to disapprove first; is that correct i wanted to make a motion to disapprove that's the

order at this point? >> not necessarily you don't necessarily have to make a motion to disapprove. >> well, i he was going to move is that we approve the projects are the following modifications as previously been inside where the commercial spaces are moved to the smaller roof and pained in a manner to appear face it's an extension of the lower roof with staff working on it design wise and number two opt for the vent pipes that will not be vent pipes rather the wrapped antennas set back a foot more what you need to make it work. >> correct the staff asked for the flexibility if the field

design and work right we go back to the 16 inch vent. >> whatever functions but either or and then there's no space as pilot no space taken from any of the tenants to therefore they're still in place. >> we'll have control over the tenant agreement their contingent about the space being taken downstairs. >> that may or may not happen but their noted losing space. >> correct. >> that's the only point otherwise to approve. >> so add a clarification that requires a variance so it is contingent upon the grant. >> deputy city attorney merlin i would recommend you just