Sitting at the table is cory teagu e and amanda shaw and russ higgins. The board requests that you turnoff or silence all phones and Electronic Devices so that they wont disturb the proceedings and you carrie on conversations in the hallway. Participants are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes to present their rebuttal. Members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. Please speak into the microphone. To assist the board identify you, you are asked to submit a card to the board before you speak, we also have Customer Service survey forms on the podium, and we welcome your comments and suggestions. If you have questions about requesting a hearing, the boards rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff after a break ok or after the meeting. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast at 4 00 on friday on channel 26. Now, we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may make statements without swearing in under the sunshine ordinance. Please stand if youre able and raise your right hand and say i do after youve been sworn in or affirmed. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Okay. So we will start with item one, which is general Public Comment. This is an item for people who have items in the boards subject matter jurisdiction but is not on the calendar. Seeing none, then item 2 is commissioner comments and questions, anything, commissioners. And then, item three is the boards consideration of the minutes of our november 8, 2017 meeting. Unless we have any changes, deletions, may i have a motion to accept those minutes . So moved. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on the minutes . Seeing none, we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes. President honda . President honda aye. Commissioner wilson, minutes . Commissioner wilson yes. Thank you, and commissioner. Commissioner swig swig aye. Okay. Thank you very much. That motion passes. So we have a settlement for item number 9 that were going to call out of order peal number 17152, appellants are mark hampton and gayle pigatto. Protesting the issuance on august 18, 2017 to Steve Altschuler and lani wu of a site permit exterior modification of parapet, new sun shades, second floor, minor interior alterations, roof level expansion of stair penthouse to a 246 square foot mezzanine, shade pergola, enlarge existing roof deck. Perhaps we could hear from both sides just to confirm that that represents their agreement. Whoever wants to start. Good evening and welcome. So this does represent our agreement. We did want to make one minor notation on the dimensions as a minimum and maximum. Im sorry, could you just speak a little bit closer to the mic. This does reflect our agreement. We wanted to make one change on the conditions of the minimum and the maximum. Weve all agreed in favor of what they were looking for, any way. It just gives us a little bit of flexiblity in the design, so if we all agree then were would you like to make a motion . Point of clarification. They included drawings of the adjacent building. I just want to make sure our motion does not include whatever side because thats not before us. Okay. Understood. Would you like to make a motion . Before motions made, i just want to make sure its just that one sheet. Theres no other sheet that reflects the design changes, is that correct. This sheet correctly describes the difference between the previously submitted packet, and thats the only change from what was submitted and whats today been approved condition the permit on the adoption of the revised plans that were submitted today, and thats on the basis that it reflects the agreement of the parties. Exactly my words. Okay. On that motion, commissioner lazar lazarus. Aye. President honda . Aye. And commissioner swig. Aye. And then also calling out of order are items 7 a through d, this is appeal number 17144, 145, 148, 150. These are appeals that have to do with 255 sea cliff avenue protesting the issuance on august 11, 2017, to ann mao of a site permit to erect three stories one basement, type v. B. Singlefamily residential building. The motion failed with a lack of four votes because that would have conditioned the permit, so on further motion, the board votes to continue the matter to this evening, and this was to allow the permit holder to work with the appellants on a design that removes the penthouse and includes a roof deck no larger than 500 square feet, and the reason this is being called out of order is i understand the parties request this matter be continued to another night. Yes. So president honda, maybe we can give each side a cup of of minutes just in case they have a couple of other matters they want to raise. Yeah, but just on the continuance. Specifically on the continuance . Yeah. Okay. So is mr. Williams in the room . Ah, there you are. Okay. Why dont we start with mr. Williams then. Good evening. Steve williams, and im speaking for the four different appellants. We knew that one week wasnt going to be enough, and we appreciated the the continuance which was, you know, in order for the parties to negotiate and discuss how the roof deck might look, so i spent a lot of times with the other appellants immediately after the hearing, and i sent an email with ten items that we wanted on the roof deck the next morning at 10 00. Didnt hear a single word from the sponsors, and as as late as yesterday, i got an email from mr. Tunney, saying the maos havent even gotten to the point of reviewing your items with this. They are starting from scratch and really dont have any plans on what to do with the deck. So were a little bit mystified and we dont know how to get the conversation going, because it appears they dont want to discuss the matter, they merely want to prepare it and discuss it with us. My ten items i thought were reasonable and based on the boards comments and the neighbors what the neighbors wanted, 500 square feet, no stair or penthouse structure, nothing intrusive a wire or glass railings kept at the minimum height allowed by the code, a hatch or some sort of recessed stair. No large apertenances, and no large set backs, and no lighting up there, since then a big issue. But i couldnt get responses or affirmation on nearly all of those things, so here we are. Thank you, mr. Williams. Mr. Tunney, and sorry, i forgot to disclose. Tom tunney on behalf of the permit holder. Appreciate the opportunity to address this. We are would like more time to come up with a plan for the roof deck. We have talked about december 13th with the appellants. We have agreed to give them, to provide them with a plan, drawings ten days in advance of the 13th, december 3rd, thats a sunday. We can figure out exactly when to get it to them. Theyve sent a list of items. Ive explained to mr. Williams a few times that were happy to consider all of them. Some of them we already acknowledged, the 500 square foot limitation, but we need time to decide what the maos would like to do and then, we need to evaluate the rest of the items that he proposed. Okay. Lewis butler, architect for the project. I just wanted to add it was my optimism to push for the one week, and when we addressed the issue we realized it was a much more complicated design problem on this. It makes no sense for us to rush the roof deck at this point. Wed like to coordinate it with the rest of the design, specifically, the roof access from down below proved to be trickier than expected. It also impacts the floor plan thats down below. We look forward to pushing through with mr. Williams, and bringing you an organized presentation on the 13th. Thats our goal. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this issue of the continuance . Elize curran are you with mr. Williams . He said he was representing all of you. All right. Okay. All right. Commissioners then the matter is submitted. Im prepared to grant the continuance to december 13th. So moved. And was that with any additional submittals or briefing or just continue to allow them to submit revised plans if they reach revised plans would be fine. Okay. Bei okay. So then we have a motion have the Vice President to continue these matters, four of them to december 13th, 2017. Only submittal allowed to be revised plans, and on that motion, commissioner left side russ. Aye. President honda. Aye. Commissioner swig. Aye. All right. Thank you the motion passes, and these items are continued to that date. Okay. And were going to return to our calendar and well start with item number 4 appeal no. 17157 Presidio Heights association of neighbors, appellant s vs. San francisco Public Works Bureau of street use and mapping, respondent 3400 washington street. Appealing the issuance on august 28, 2017, to verizon wireless, of a personal Wireless Service facility site permit construction of a personal Wireless Service facility in a zoning protected location . And we will start with the appellant. Good evening, and thank you for having given me the opportunity to speak to you. My name is charles ferguson. Im the president of the Heights Association of neighbors, the appellant in this proceeding. There are many issues in this matter. Im going to cut to the heart of the whole thing right away. After all the briefing, one thing is clear. There is absolutely no evidence supporting plannings conclusion placing verizon license at 3400 washington street would not negatively affect the character and he ia esthetics at that location. There is no evidence that planning considers any of fans concerns. Did planning consider the fact that at great expense of presidio residents had put all utilities underground, and t n consider the neighborhoods emphasis on license number street scapes in Presidio Heights . Did planning consider that placing verizons equipment on a light pole would cause it to stick out like a sore thumb above the tree tops . Did planning consider that this particular light pole has no trees around it at all and is highly visible . Did planning consider that every residence near this specific light pole and throughout most of Presidio Heights is classified as class a for Historic Preservation purposes, and that the resident individually invest in those homes for posterity . Did planning consider we do not want antennas on our light poles drawing attention away from the homes . There is no evidence that planning took any of these characteristics of Presidio Heights into account. Article 25, section 1509, subsection b requires planning to provide reasons in writing as quote of its determination. In other words it was required to put in writing an explanation or justification for its decision. Planning failed to supply any written justification for its determination that no significant harm would come to any aspect of the Presidio Heights neighborhood by installing verizons equipment. Thats violation of 1509 b and sufficient reason for you to deny this request. Dpw, backed by verizon, urges this board dont worry that planning failed to do what it was required by law. Instead, both offer an excuse. Their excuse is they both believe verizons wireless equipment is well designed. Well designed, carefully designed, or any other type of design is not an express standard embedded in article 25. Those words or anything like them cannot be found any article. What is at the heart of article 25 is the principle that it is the neighborhood context into which the equipment is placed that matters. Both dpw and verizon leaped to the conclusion that simply because they think that wireless equipment is well designed, the equipment is automatically unobjetrusive. Dpw says this is objective evidence at paging and 8 of its brief. If planning only needs to determine that a piece of equipment is well designed, that is the only thing it needs to make in decisions for our city, and here, based on this record, the neighborhood context was never taken into account at all. Some things can qualify as well designed in and of themselves, a tesla automobile might be a well designed object, but if i stuck it on a light pole at 3400 washington street, would it be unobtrusive . What if we took verizons antenna and strapped it on the head of a person in this room, would it be unobtrusive . Its the context in which the equipment is situated. There may be locations in this city where that equipment would fit without disturbing the environment, but this chamber is not the place for that, and neither is the Presidio Heights neighborhood. Most of the houses and buildings are rated class a. Thats rare. Residents have spent well over a century maintaining their lush lands and tree scapes on each street. Theyre blessed with sweeping views, and perhaps most important of all, Presidio Heights have made the utilities invisible by undergrounding them. The importance of that cannot be over emphasized. All utilities are completely out of sight and underground. Pg and e required the city and residents on each block to pay them in advance of the work the cost of buying the new Street Lighting before the work would be done. The fact of the matter is we dont care if verizons so property is beautiful. What we care about is putting it somewhere where it is invisible from the street or as close to invisible as possible because that is the key component for our ability to showcase our homes, buildings, street scapes and views. We dont have the same problem like the russian neighbor that are cluttered with poles and wires, but we worked hard to get past it and that is make all utilities become invisible. We dont want to lose what we achieved, but that would happen if you approve this permit. Verizon cant be counted onto protect our neighborhood. Article 25 does that. Thank you. Your time is up. Thank you. And we can hear from the permit holder now, mr. Albreton. Welcome back, counselor. Thank you, chamber honda, members of the board. Thank you for your time this evening. I know you have a full agenda, and i will try and keep my remarks short. Im joined tonight by kevin boyer of modus. Bill hammond is here to answer any questions, as well as melanie singupta who helped prepare the materials for tonight. The appellants raise two issues. One they felt it was not a cooperative process that included the Presidio HeightsNeighborhood Association in the process and i want to take you back for a minute and say that this truly has been a cooperative process in terms of coming up with that well designed facility that we had. San francisco here exercises its proprietary rights with respect to this design, so three years ago, we began working on a design with the San FranciscoPublic Utility Commission fore them to approve this design in order tfor it t be leased to verizon wireless. It went through ceqa review, and the board, and the board threw out a design to keep this design. This design was thought to fit into the context of San Francisco and to meet those to match those poles that they currently are attached to, and that is the cooperative process that began several years ago and then continues with article 25, wherein this situation, Presidio Heights neighbors received a notice, and they did protest in a timely matter. Kevin sent them a response to their protest and invited a conversation with them, and they didnt get into a conversation. They came to the dpw hearing officers hearing, where he listened to all that they said, and i was asked several questions, including about iran in order to have them and their results heard. Very cooperative process in terms of trying to get their positions and understandings before you. In terms of the second point made by the appellants is this design is destructive to Presidio Heights and we just have to honestly disagree. The characteristics that are outlined in their brief are their trees and even the cylinderical shape of the poles, and we feel this design in no way is destructive. The facility is small, the facility is designed not to impose. We believe that the department of planning accurately determined that it does not significantly detract from any defining characteristics of the neighborhood, nor does it impair any of the views from any of the buildings. The protesters as protests could have submitted photographs have any windows showing any kind of view obstruction and planning under 184504 as required and then evaluate if there are any set of windows impacted from the facility, and that was not done. We believe that their decision, department of public works decision, planning decision was the right one made and we believe it should be submitted for rhea professional, and wed be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Miss higgins. Thank you. Im Amanda Higgins from public work. We believe that this [ inaudible ] for personal Wireless Service facilities. Article 25 requires public work to refer wireless applications to the department of Public Health and the Planning Department. If both departments recommend approval of an application as they did here, public works will issue a tentative approval, and as required under article 25, verizon mailed and posted notice of the intended approval. Public works then held a public hearing to consider protests to the approval, and following the hearing, the director of public works approved the permit and notice of this permit approval was presented to the public. In addition to public works, planning and Public Health are here for the boards question. Miss higgins, so the appellants stated that they, at great expense to them, they put all their underground all their services underground. What would be the departments response for that. Well, the city has various legislated underground distr