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 tt

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 briefing articulate the reasons why you're choosing to approve that project now pursue briefing describe the proposal and the current one and why that has changed our decision i have in front of a motion to disapprove. >> i'm happy to do that first of all, there are a number of reasons to disapprove one the adverse effect on the rail businesses which is no longer there that has been taking care of and the position of aesthetics we've greatly improved the aesthetics by the changes that was suggested by staff those are the two issues that i think have improved and hatred made it different that's why i'm moving to approve sxhoifksz.

>> so the wrap around is still in the vent pipe. >> yes. but a similar routinely pipe. >> do those pass the historic preservation review. >> yes. okay. mr. frying they do did the design go through the historic design. >> tim frye department staff we work with the staff and we feel it is appropriate treatment. >> okay. thank you and. >> i'd like to second commissioner antonini's motion. >> commissioner moore. >> i believe that the summary made what we observed to last time is not reel in concurrence with the way i one side to speak against it it summarizes the violation which commissioner antonini's disagreement with the motion as it is brought forward i believe in the analysis which

was sent to us the emphasis often the tenants space while it's an important one from october from the authentic and other neighborhoods concerns i believe that the currency kind of proposal greatly fails to capture broadly combresz expressed aesthetics in the neighborhood by supporting the motion as it is spoken read into the record i believe that doesn't reflect my understanding of what is in front of us why we sent it back and how it is come back and i also like to say the aesthetic of the historic preempt that is a historic neighborhood, however, the historic preservation per say has not reviewed this as a project they did review those projects they might have

reviewed in the abdomen track that a fuel windpipe is a better looking and more comparable thing with older buildings that this pipe is a historically acceptable solution as i consider the corner incriminating equipment to be if this equipment was placed differently i'd support in project this project leaves the equipment in the same spots and in the same unreduced numbers as before i think actually no offense but i don't think at&t is on top of good spiritual design i want to be clear the equipment is not designed to where industrial design produces electrical and antenna equipment around the world so i'm holding

the challenge to you, you can do better i've said that about a year or two and he still getting the same vent pipes no one will approve them and that's the issue you, your shaking our head i'm talking about the design of this particular pipe as comparable that the historic premise i want to be clear about the aesthetic impacts of the that is my understanding on this historic setting i'm not getting into technical discussions staying in the aesthetics that's my concern i believe the motion as proposed misses the point of what we're asked to do today. >> commissioner hillis. >> yeah. i want to echo many of the concerns i don't support f

24 it goes too far and one set of the vent pipes would be different i appreciate the changes to the railway space but we're adding more to the front of the facade that i'm voting he against. >> commissioner richards. >> besides the vent on the roof is there another site mid block would you be open to that is there another site. >> i can answer so that the first portion other than vent pipes this is a traditional approach by the historic preservation has been either put the antenna back or the penthouse the choosing of penalty houses the planning code didn't protect the views that's changing but if they have 9 vent

pipes on a larger building we didn't want the factory effect but we may have having the combination of upgrading the rear facade and the combination of the rear. >> is there another mid block those antennas will be better. >> it is higher-up so this is a signal block. >> sure in the 27 alternative sites is there one as suited. >> i can't see with certainty but it overwhelming has changes with regard to fire escapes or other things. >> ms. hayes. >> there is no commissioner we've gone through the analysis thoroughly between the time we submitted in application and september 11th and today, this was part of the request and i

feel between a rock and hard place here. >> i understand that the other option to not will screen the antennas and the ac and c supports that if you want to place the antennas with no screening whatsoever we can do that but we think this is a better option. >> thank you one other quick question 6 antennas is the smallest type of sited. >> we have i think those are pretty few and far between i know in our network i don't even know we proposed one for 17 hundred union and went to 18 union this was a little bit of a situation we can't i think we'd rather not build a 3 panel sites

site then yeah. >> thank you thank you please call the question. >> commissioners there is a we have a motion and a second to approve this matter with conditions and modified finding of the original motion that was provided to you conditioning that the equipment move and that the equipment be painted to match the existing building that the with regard antenna or full wraps be at staffs discretionary discretion and the antennas will be moved away from the buildings edge and a caesarean on that motion. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis no arrest commissioner johnson commissioner moore no commissioner richards no arrest commissioner fong and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to 3 with

commissioner johnck commissioner moore and other commissioner against that is the pine street mixed use for the final environmental impact report the draft public comment is closed the draft eir end on june 30th, 2014, and public comment will be received when this item is called, however, the comments may not be put in the final eir. >> good afternoon, everyone. with tplanning staff that is a financial environmental impact report or eir for the proposed 1527 to pine project case which entails domination of 5

xoifts buildings on the south side even if pine between van ness on the west and austin to the south and a construction of one hundred and 37 square feet at all story building with retailer space soon the ground floor and one hundred 37 housing in the upper levels a copy of the eir draft is in front of the commission and published on may 14th and the public hearing was held and the public comment closed comments and responds were published on september 27th no public comments on the draft eir nor did any member of the public speak before the commission in june the elevation contained in the eir found that the implementation of the proposed project will result in

significant unavailable impacts that can't be litigate below a significant level the demolition of the pine street building for the purposes of environmental review and it was identified as one of the temporary constructions after the 1906 san francisco earthquake fire in the sequa's mandate it was the american building certification and interpretation the artifacts the alternates to the impact due to the unavailable significant impact on the resources the commission will need to adapt this over oppositions to approve this project

at this point the motion to adapt it it certifies the eir as accurate and adequate and the procedures to which it complies with sequa the sequa's guidelines in chapter three 1 that concludes my presentation. on this matter unless the commissioners members have questions for me. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so, sir we open for public comment. >> for the certification of the eir yes. >> any public comment on the certification of the eir? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners commissioner antonini >> i think the eir is adequate and accurate and i would move to certify. >> second commissioner moore. >> just so far completeness questions raised by the commissioner were answered and

inaccurately addressed i'm in support. >> thank you commissioners there is a we have a motion and a second to certify the final eir. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore sxhifksz commissioner johns and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously which e 7 to zero and places you on abc and for the e, c and v for 1527 through 45 pine street sequa and for conditional use authorization and the consideration for variances. >> good afternoon sharpening with the planning staff abc constitute the demolition for the projects on 1527 through 45 pine street the project is on 3

lots with a combined site area of 15 thousand square feet within the van ness and van ness afghan special use district within the polk street district to demolish all commercial structures mudding over two levels of subterranean parking the eastern part of the discriminate is limited to 6 facilities which also provide a transition from the higher van ness to the moderate polk street a tip to on page 4 where the proposal is incorrect seeps so a 5 foot story it is approximately 96 square feet of residential of ex-1112 an affordable housing

27 hundred square feet ever number one residential use for commercial spaces on pine street and a commercial constitutional use on austin street the two who levels of parking constitute will contain 84 parking spaces that are dedicated car spaces and bicycle spaces will be provided and two secure rooms with access from identifying street and a total of 8 bicycle parking spaces to date the department has not received option and the sponsor submitted 18 additional levels of support i believe copies were just handed out and in addition the staff want to say acknowledge they forward right a letter on september 17th outside of the draft