The major conclusions are the folsom 4216 california requires the retrofitting to bring it to the standards of 2010 San Francisco Building Code and the at t equipment on the roof as well as the proposed rooftop antennas present additional weight that will be subject to largely loads by earthquakes and cant be permit without a Service Upgrade system. In short the building has accrual proposed equipment is a life safety problem. The city should be instructing alter at to remove its equipment from the building not approving an additional use equipment to be placed on the roof. Please deny those permits thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon supervisors. Im also the neighborhood resident. The resident of the neighborhood retained awning architect and engine engineer. A copy of the report as well as some of the photographs that the dr. Took of the Current Conditions are included as paeltsz exhibit no. 1 in our materials. The building was built in 1976 and it is soft its substandard and can
Site was the least intrusive means and thereby handed the residents a decisive victory. Its not that that graze the basketball stamped and theres no way to treat the at T Organization any differently. For any and all the above listed conditions we ask you deny at t permit today thank you, colleagues any questions to the appellant . Seeing none, lets hear from the members of the public. The public should have up to 2 minutes good afternoon supervisors. The residents of the neighborhood retained architect and engineering who had 50 years of the professional experience to provide a report on the site on the at t equipment on this building. Some of the photographs that dr. Carping took of the conditions on the roof are included in appellants exhibit no. 1. The building was built in 1976 and the building is substandard and cant support the equipment that at t has on the roof. Nor can it support any new loads including the 9 antennas that theyre asking for. The major conclusions are the fols
Of the professional experience to provide a report on the site on the at t equipment on this building. Some of the photographs that dr. Carping took of the conditions on the roof are included in appellants exhibit no. 1. The building was built in 1976 and the building is substandard and cant support the equipment that at t has on the roof. Nor can it support any new loads including the 9 antennas that theyre asking for. The major conclusions are the folsom 4216 california requires the retrofitting to bring it to the standards of 2010 San Francisco Building Code and the at t equipment on the roof as well as the proposed rooftop antennas present additional weight that will be subject to largely loads by earthquakes and cant be permit without a Service Upgrade system. In short the building has accrual proposed equipment is a life safety problem. The city should be instructing alter at to remove its equipment from the building not approving an additional use equipment to be placed on the r
Of the professional experience to provide a report on the site on the at t equipment on this building. Some of the photographs that dr. Carping took of the conditions on the roof are included in appellants exhibit no. 1. The building was built in 1976 and the building is substandard and cant support the equipment that at t has on the roof. Nor can it support any new loads including the 9 antennas that theyre asking for. The major conclusions are the folsom 4216 california requires the retrofitting to bring it to the standards of 2010 San Francisco Building Code and the at t equipment on the roof as well as the proposed rooftop antennas present additional weight that will be subject to largely loads by earthquakes and cant be permit without a Service Upgrade system. In short the building has accrual proposed equipment is a life safety problem. The city should be instructing alter at to remove its equipment from the building not approving an additional use equipment to be placed on the r
The residents of the neighborhood retained architect and engineering who had 50 years of the professional experience to provide a report on the site on the at t equipment on this building. Some of the photographs that dr. Carping took of the conditions on the roof are included in appellants exhibit no. 1. The building was built in 1976 and the building is substandard and cant support the equipment that at t has on the roof. Nor can it support any new loads including the 9 antennas that theyre asking for. The major conclusions are the folsom 4216 california requires the retrofitting to bring it to the standards of 2010 San Francisco Building Code and the at t equipment on the roof as well as the proposed rooftop antennas present additional weight that will be subject to largely loads by earthquakes and cant be permit without a Service Upgrade system. In short the building has accrual proposed equipment is a life safety problem. The city should be instructing alter at to remove its equip