tv [untitled] May 31, 2014 12:00am-12:31am PDT
it consists of the antennas mounted along the intersection of octavia and union streets it is up to 6 panel machines on the rooftop and larger equipment cabinets inside the building and the screen will be used it on the rooftop in order to screen the antennas as well the equipment the northeast part of the building is component of two antennas with that on top of 0 cabinet and it will have a thirty inch expansion used to mimic to screen the base and equipment below 0 the antennas the top will rise approximately
14 feet above the 37 foot be building it's considered a limited preference site. the applicant conducted a side analysis that looked at soourd building and other opportunity in the area and not able to look at co- location that would be more preferal. the projects are radio mission were reviewed by department of public health and in compliance the staff received 40 e-mails and calls from resident as well as groups from the panicking heights and in 0 opposition how the project will look at the care of the neighborhood and the overall site of the facility the need of that facility to be the
advance and do pass, consent sites in the surrounding neighborhood and the other at&t mobile at octavia and lombardy streets other concerns were health insurance related to the emissions as well. as i recall on october 17th the planning commission took 0 a vote to disprove the antennas on mission street. this is an alternative site and the applicant intends to withdraw the site if this facility is constructed. staff is working with the applicant to look at alternative sites and we're in support of the application and recommend approval of the motion. thank you >> thank you project sponsor.
>> good afternoon, commissioners i'm teddy i'm the director of external affairs for at&t california i'm here with east son who conducted the radio frequent analysis and the third party review that's part of our packets i'm here with the site acquisition manager at&t is seeking our approval on the unity street antenna. it will place up to 6 panel machines on the subject property thaip they'll decommission the other locations the associated equipment will be located outside the public view in the
basement of the property. it - we conducted a significant alternative site analysis for this site we have 24 sites evaluated and that analyze it part of our pact it's located on union and octavia streets and the subject is a 3 story mixed use. as i recall at&t was seeking to cover it's site in coverage with the site that came up most recently in january, the address was on union street. it covered the gap in its wireless network and would like to thank omar and the plaintiff for helping us to find this location and to insure that it's
capable with the neighborhood. itself was a challenge giving up up 17 hundred union and moving moving to 18 hundred union he did that in balancing it. we ask for your support as what we diligently work to upgrade our wireless support in the and county of san francisco if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you. open this up for public comment (calling names) >> if you're ready to speak come to the podium. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm robert president of the golden gate valley and this is
one block away from the historic golden gate library. the golden gate association strongly opposes at&t's proposal for the wireless facility on 18 union street it's a beautiful example of architecture and a unique part of the historic commercial district. the proposed installation will raise the roofline of on existing penthouse and allow 4 smokestacks to extend above that it will become the informational point and the size of this proposed facility is suitable for van ness and lombardy and other adjacent places. we work to have the charm of the
golden gate valley and the wireless communication facility has no charm or character and should be rejected. i was disappeared when i looked the alternative site analysis despite it 2014 notice of requirements number one that asked for an evaluation of the w t s facility at&t's at the 1892 to 98 the spirit store featuring a clock analysis there was some other pact i didn't see it this building in question this clock tower building is a shopping mall architecture it's totally fraudulent i think that golden gate valley will support an
exposed on top of that clock tower that could be designed in a twhimal matter there maybe structural issues and the landlord might not be on board i was disappeared to see this. >> thank you. >> next speaker >> hi i'm melinda card well, i'm in opposition to this plan. when i first heard about this i was like because your office used to be a couple of doors down i understand that those have to go somewhere but when i saw the plans i was shocked it was so visible is a project and considered for this building.
i said planning suggested this site and asked at&t to make the site smaller but at&t refused. looking at those pictures. the penthouse is unfortunate but to make it larger and more of an informational point looking smokestacks didn't make sense for my own street they tried to bargain putting this site in will help. them to remove antenna and bring this into historic guidelines. not sure how much sense this
makes while the making equipment will be visible for blocks away we're removing one to put in 2 is not good nothing like this should be put on this building they need to find other buildings so that's not so notice work if you feel different at the at least at&t should be made to listens to reduce the size of this and mount any antennas against the side of the penthouse so they're not noticeable. the plan as is is really ugly and even though the residents don't matter the tourist that come to the area do. thank you >> thank you.
>> good afternoon, commissioners i'm candice ma kins first i'll stress those of us here today and the 6 associations representing hearsay of people are not opposed to at&t's greater transmission only that at&t's choice. it's located at the end of the shopping district heavy promoted by i did commenting for its historical difference it is built in 1933 shows the great deco area and identified specifically by designation
tourist maps. 18 hundred union supports the mike sites barrel visible and this proposal right here you can barrel see it from the sidewalk that proposal to replace 6 misrepresents by the existing penthouse it better suited phenomenon van ness and the other streets it is 14 feet above the roof is clearly visible on as you know street and from residents to the southeast and west it will be the primary feature of the building resembling the antenna on the on top of 2001 union street an alternative plan leaves the mike site on the roof
and coordinates that with the 12 macro site currently on octavia. as mentioned your commission voted to deny at&t's proposal for 17 hundred union one block ante and this is identify identical it's two short to hide the view from thousands of residents and 18 union significant models will be not looked at well. this is the historic architecture of the streetscape that's a beautiful building please deny that. on a related note things like
this top your time and merchants and residents should not are engaged in this type of thing. i'd like to know if you've followed up >> thank you, ma'am your time is up. >> thank you. >> good evening i guess now thank you to the committee for your patience i'm peter a 10 year resident on union street directly opposite the building in question i'm here because we care about the community and we're long time residents it's not easy to attend i guess not easy for people to attend this long we know you are u you our representatives care and work
hard to make sure the right distributions are made. based on my experience with the at&t team when they say they've collaborated with the community that's not adequate and not cooperative this is disingenuous to be saying that and the community is not seeing the need for the site. i'm here to discuss serious concerns with the plans submitted by at&t we live directly across the street from 21 octavia that's identified as union when we saw the plans the measurements were confusing due to the plus or minus spements estimates are off and most of the measurements were from the street level they make the antennas invisible, however, in
the units across the streets or a tour bus their plainly visible and they're well over 5 or 6 or 7 feet you can see what i mean here my unit is over on the right-hand side it is listed as 40 feet high at the roofline those plans are different. the community requested and the plaintiff asked at&t to provide a pole so we could look at the impact at&t dmriend we request the commission compel them to show the proposal on the overall
aesthetics on the recommendation of the height. i say we care deeply about your neighborhood we want to find a compromise there are other site locations in the application for the 17 hundred location they've listed alternatives i find it unfortunate in an effort to drive this this is down to this or nothing if you guys vote they'll be back with on the extension they'll - >> thank you sir, your time is up. >> thank you. >> hi good afternoon, commissioners i'm megan i also live on union street i'm here to talk about the alternative.
this is flawed they said it would be the site on 18 hundred but the proposal for 17 union they said there was no other sites available and now again, the same thing. they said they did a complete evaluation and not giving us much time saying they've done a complete analyze but other building are not clearly in the analysis f 1695 is not included by it's the same height which was an accepted candidate. at the said it wouldn't need a height balance because there's a
penthouse it looks like you can conceive bely put flush antennas on that it was done in sacramento and it's per perplexing this building was not included it's sited in the report as blocking the site and disqualifying other buildings in the area. we find it odd that other building on loma ladder and van ness were not evaluated for example, 200 and 1 union at&t said in april they'll use this for a portion of the coverage like one antenna by edison couldn't answer whether or not through would be an overlap and now they say no, they need it for other coverage a similar
situation for the clock tower. in my mind the coverage gap assessment they relied on is inadequate their measurements of the purported service gaps didn't include the 31 octavia that makes their data inadequate you can't measure something that doesn't exist also on y 1st overlap on octavia and union site this is why this is the only possible choice it's clear that adequate analysis has not been done. >> thank you ma'am, our time is up arrest good afternoon. i'm
awning drew a resident of san francisco 40 years on octavia straight i'm here to oppose any machines on our are you residential rooftops. commercial industrial hardware will pun i cannot the cluster against our uninterrupted:00 sky a large trans pound situated in the basement of 18 hundred and it's rooftop will be disappropriate - disproperty in both purpose and in size to the intended buildings used please vote no to this intrusive industrial rooftop development. i took myself a tour of the
neighborhood objectively and conspicuously clean rooftop lines throughout the neighborhood an occasional chimney top and we have unclustered rooftops. thank you very much. thank you. next speaker. and hi commissioners i'm ms. caan before i lasciviousness into any slides i want to revisit the word macro it is large-scale. and this is a bearing on the topic at hand especially what's an appropriate building being
there's no published guidelines on a case by case bays basis so we laboratory this to see how big a building should be we look at the diagram and we pulled sites information. we found as right is a barrier it measures 26 by 8 feet smaller than a lost size it's completely hardware we we looked at the building area and found the comfort hotel is ten times more massive it's 13 times more massive by and large their it
major corridors like van ness and lombardy. we don't have to cherry pick when you average the numbers you find the average building area is 44 thousand square feet that's 7 times larger and the parcel area is 13 times >> so the above the blue and windy sea it's not in the league it's two small let's look at other photos. number one is the contestant in hotel a project of 40 units and number two is the office building that has ground parking garage 6 stories high macro 3 is on polk street retail on the
ground floor 4 stories high and on the corner of broadway 3 stories and this is the hotel on lombardy with the retail on the ground floor with 3 stories get a sense. here's the two existing micro site that will be setting an ugly print it's two small and primarily resident so until there are firmer guidelines in usage there should be no site here >> thank you.
>> hello, i'm sky i'm here he representing the union street association. and the union street association is strongly opposed to the at&t micro site it violates the union street design guidelines that were approved by the commissioner in 1983. a short while back we stated our 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