day airbnb it is recognized that airbnb is illegal at this point in total and so to authorize them to gather financing for the city is to give them in a corrupt practice so i would definitely urge you to reconsider any authorization of them gather revenue stream they should be tracked for any of their franklin they're using through this city there are hotel laws that go back for century to prevent especially demgz and illegal use of properties there are certainly bordering house laws and bordering houses have been around for century and for the

city to pretend that airbnb can set up operations with no constraints is taking part in an illegal operation i will definitely urge you to reconsider efforts to authorize them to gather revenues for the city from further operations thank you is there any additional public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners that places you under our and item two came off of content so tame item 2 at 1098 jackson street request for

conditional use authorization. >> thank you chair and members of the police station on september 11, 2014, the planning commission heard is request for conditional use authorization for a proposed at&t mobility wireless facility on jooks street the commission at that time, voted to take a motion of intent to disproductive the project and staff has worked with alternative designs and engage the community we're here to answer questions that you have. >> thank you project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm with at&t affairs i'm here seeking your support to approve our conditional use application last time you raised several issues and i have sent all of you

information and i'm happy to go over it briefing but one of the main concerns whether or not the displummet of the two commercial attends in the building i wanted to share with you a graft we have for you to show that, in fact, the tenants have not been displaced their compensation given to them and i'll put this up here briefing in case you get a chance to see that. >> sfgovtv? >> will they focus it or should i. >> you should go ahead. >> there you go.

>> so as you can see we have about 40 square feet on the revised after we started with 60 mosquitos on the cafe and revised 40 square feet we'll be taking square footage of that for compensation for the tenants and one hundred square feet and we'll be occupying 52 square feet for the cleaners in addition to that we'll be putting up racks that make the space a little bit more usable borough the tenants that occupy it other was that there was concern about aesthetics in the preference 7 locations we went back and worked with the planner a little bit and tried to figure out if there was anything we could the or do with that and you also see if you thought the

tenants were displaced or for some reason doesn't want the equipment inside at&t the owner allows this on the roof this is before and right after so we also ask for your support as we try to i have copies of the leases and everything you have as well but our support to allow us to build this site as proposed thank you. >> thank you any public comment on that item? if there's public comment please line up on the screen side of the room the first speaker can come to the podium. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is is

avery i represent the ownership of 1420 there will street the building adjacent to 98 jackson excuse me. most i want to talk about a letter i received from the gentleman the staff planner did an september 30th from john d bean a general attorney for at&t i trust you guys have read the letter letter really deals with the legality of the basis of denying this application mr. the gentleman talks about the prohibition and there is a two-step task involved when you employ that effective prohibition i'm no lawyer dpu but this is the first task

whether or not a significant grasping gap in the coverage exist and they've shown through a third party there is a gap that exists and whether or not they've provided a bridging of gap and i guess where i go with that the words sufficient evidence in my mind the application n is less than robust i mean 1320 is not mentioned and literally i took this from someone else on the screen just to let you guys see with the building is on jackson it's an obvious admission in the report i know the gentleman addresses it here but it's an afterthought why was that not

addressed in the original application i want to direct your attention on page 2 paragraph 3 one opponent questions the need for the site and other at&t macro sites on octavia so on and so forth this paragraph has nothing to do with the application added hand they mention last sentence says at&t has a significant gap in service coverage on union i know through my research this was pulled off another application i think approved received permits on august 21st so again 0 has this sdud study been robust i have no confidence and why they continue to mention other reports i urge the commission at a minimum

press for more research. >> thank you. >> hello, i'm the one of the owners of 1420 taylor street i'm totally against this project for 3 reasons ami i've been an architect and urban planner since 1971 i have a right and expertise in the design element and having these rising 9 point plus feet above the roofline is it is incomparable with the existing improvements this is a disfavored site by the w t s

guidelines it makes no sense to have this installation two other issues i'm less qualified are the health issues i know there's certainly legal requirement but as i can't say this is unsafe but i defy at&t scientists to say without a doubt u doubt that 20 to thirty years of endorse to those frequency 247 will not cause harm to the inhabitants of this area no one knows the long term effects in short as dennis richard said last time i wouldn't want this facility next to my home we don't want it thirdly, a it is a gap in service i've tested that myself

there's plenty of light service there for light service again, i'm not a scientist but you can go there and look yours it's fine and lastly the letter to by the at&t legal department of september 30th claims that 1800 union street would - is needed in order to close the at&t gap well 1800 union street is 1.1 miles away from our building and 3 blocks away from the installation this commercial zone it is a ridiculous thing to say they've not done their homework or a mistake it shouldn't be in there it's shoddy report writing by at&t so

at&t in my opinion needs to go back to the drawing board and work on a better solution with protecting the environment in the city and not be intimidate by legal threats by at&t thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon commissioners i'm bill i'm a property owner on 1329 taylor street a quarter of a block away my attitude is that it is inbunt the real problem additionally to the e r f is the aesthetic issues their improbation officers those antennas they appear to solve the problem by camouflaging it with other diess that about camouflage those but

pursuing 9 feet and 6 antennas is intrusive in the visibility and the aesthetics of our neighborhood and it was seen it would be an issue throughout the city when the antennas of that magnitude were put on any this is would seemed to me that one of the issues would be that at&t or any other carry will come up with an alternative ways of finding antennas or issues that don't have that intrusive impact on the community and neighborhood thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon commissioners i'm chris at the here to express

my option to jackson street at 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