But it failed to prove that the 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. Th
Francisco which or gaited in those very chambers of a wireless facility which like the present case was property for the Richmond District but the 9th sixth was not only in favor of the city but the District Court resulted that it had demonstrated the significant gap but it failed to prove that the 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 co
Our consideration of the appeal of the use authorization involves an analysis whether the Planning Commissions determination was appropriate. The second hearing is quasi and were required to afford the project sponsor due process to over turn the authorization of the continual condition 8 votes of the board are required. While into need the consideration and the members of the public who wish to speak and the consideration of the patents my suggestion is we condolences hearings. The Public Planning Department and sponsor each receive a fair opportunity to address the appeals. First, the pales will have up to fourteen minutes to peel and next the members of the public meaning i request the board to regret the project may speak up to 2 minutes. We ask the speakers address the progress. Well have 15 minutes to address the analysis and for first year its authorization of the plan unit development. The real project sponsor in this case is at t will have up to 15 minutes for the Environmenta
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