Good evening. I have a lot of things for the overhead projector so you can just turn it on, if you will. First of all, i wanted to comment likely about choosing another site which i had put in my initial brief. I had proposed an alternative site such as parnassus avenue. Counsel for the permit holder indicated the cbr group on behalf of verizon analyzed all of the poles in the area on parnassus. According to the analysis, none of the polls on parnassus avenue between cole and clayton street would work due to bank requirements. Except for one. The last pole was excluded because it would require substantial tree trimming in order to be feasible. I am happy to report, to the board, that the department of public works trimmed the trees on belvidere street, parnassus avenue, grattan street that week of june 12. They also noted, by the council for the permit holder without locating on this a block of parnassus avenue would put the facility to close to other facilities that would not serve the desired area. I respectfully submit to the board that the parnassus pole is only one block northeast of grattan street and is approximately 2. 5 blocks to the next facility on parnassus between schrader and a standing streets. The pole at grattan street is a comparable distance, and approximately three blocks to the facility. Quality of reit views, urban design plan. The proposed facility is to be located in the public rightofway in a residential zoning protector, planning protected location of the cole Valley Historical district adjacent to grattan street with average street views as shown in the quality of street views map. This is grattan street, and this is the pole. As you can see there are 30foot buildings, three floor, 30foot buildings and grattan street, 2 grattan street is a threestory building. Here is another view of the same thing. This is 2 grattan street, it is three stories, approximately 30 feet. The pole is approximately 30 feet, 8 inches i believe. This is belvidere street at the far right end. This is the quality of street views map. That was created in 1969, and it shows in the area we are talking about that belvidere street and grattans reits are partially coded as average in them belvidere street is even off the map, meaning that someone coded as below average. This is grattan street. I am standing in the middle of grattan street and im looking southeast and that is parnassus height. Your time is up. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item. Please approach the microphone for Public Comment. Good evening, and welcome, sir. Thank you. Thats really nice. Nobody has ever said welcome to me before. How we started the time yet . Not yet. Are you ready . I am ready. At the last meeting, i am the neighbor who started all of the wires underground, the oldfashioned streetlights, i forgot to mention one thing that every homeowner had to pay 900 to bring the wires from underground into the house to get i had asked them to give me an idea of what the new poll would look like, i never did email it. I had somebody, this is what it looks like, theyve done a sketch and shows what it really is going to look like, heres another one showing the height. I am a neighbor. Our neighborhood has done everything to improve the street. One thing we have done, halloween about 42 years ago we closed the street off with our garbage can, im sorry the city did not approve of it, so the kids will not get hurt. Then we went and got city permits, so nobody can drive down belvidere street and we get over 4,000 parents and children every year coming down belvidere street. Im here not to be the technical person, but to be the person that said this is our neighborhood. Most people in the street that have lived there 40 years, some 55 years. We like our street, we dont think they are doing the right job for our street, and taking it from a pretty street what we have done, into a street that is becoming more and more cluttered this would not be the first thing. This there will be other things that come up. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Welcome. Before i get to my prepared remarks i want to point out that i think we heard something very revealing here from the applicant for this. They could have muller infrastructure on every poll if they wanted to, it is a factor of money for get they have the capability. Article 25 does not say they are allowed to do it the cheapest way possible. I urge you to keep that in mind for every other hearing you have if they can go the extra mile here, they can go the extra mile for every other pole in the city. President. Two, i am concerned you showed so much concerned whether we are going to affect a hardship on the applicants making them resubmit the permits. This thing has been flawed as one of the appeal it said. I want you to keep that in mind. The ends inconsistent determination, to approving the same 40foot facility at 2 grattan does not have a rational basis. The march of 13 determination stated a 40foot wireless facility adds unnecessary height, is not minimally visible and does not preserve the existing pedestrian oriented building frontage is. The inescapable issue is the negative i impact of a 40foot pole antenna next to adjacent houses that are 30 feet high. Regardless of what he wants you to believe about the height units, the house the basic premise is that 30 feet is the height of the Neighborhood Homes and it would be exceeded by a structure that would significantly degrade the character of the cole valley Historic District. A 40foot pole would clutter of verizons proposed robust and ie word on the june 12 hearing, adjacent to the 35 homes would be a giant and sore thumb. 39 feet will also be a sore thumb and it remains to be seen what they are proposing rethinking thinking of proposing will really change any of that. The pedestrian experience would no longer be a view of victorian homes and a blue sky, it would be overwhelmed by towering uncluttering wireless infrastructure. The fundamental aesthetic degradation arising from the high differential between the homes in the facility is confirmed by the internal documents and its correspondence with verizon that we recently obtained in a public records rick asked under the sunshine ordinance. The first one right here. Plannings 1213 letter to cbrs as the planning within the cole valley Historic District seems to exceed the height of surrounding buildings and structure. Verizon was asked to explore options to reduce the pole height, remove the pole and they were unable to do that. Plannings letter to cbr reiterated that the additional height for the antenna attachment on the existing pole was incompatible with the height of the surrounding buildings. 40 feet, 39 feet, they are both incompatible. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Hello. My name is laura, i live at 477 belvidere street. I am going to continue the same argument that my friend and neighbor has just continued. The plannings memo dated 3518 that backed up to approval, that the new total height of 40 feet for the proposed whole still exceeds the height of the surrounding structures building in the area. Exhibit b, which you can see right here. This antenna was initially rejected because the height exceed that of the surrounding buildings which were approximately 30 feet high. Significantly detracting from the historic neighborhood. Verizons and proper characterization as an average neighborhood, and verizons irrelevant argument that zoning would permit a 40foot building, are both misleading distortions that fail to support the approval of verizons permit. Verizon creatively, disingenuously, and falsely evoked a hypothetical decision of the neighborhood with 40foot buildings. 2 grattan is part of the cole valley Historic District which is characterized by 30foot buildings on subject to the height and more restrictive planning compatibility of standards. It is here that verizons proposed 40foot antenna would significantly degrade the neighborhoods and districts as static attributes. Our comments here are summarized in the supplemental brief. We have 12 copies and i respectfully request the board of appeals have the supplemental brief and added to the record. I would like to make additional comments, as a resident of belvidere street on cole valley. As many of you probably know, cole valley is a beautiful neighborhood that many people select to live in due to its physical attractiveness. It is small and quaint, when i was looking to purchase a home for my family, my two small children ages seven and nine, i wanted to say they stay in the city and support the city and live in a bit of. I dreamed of living on belvidere street. I found a home there. Part of the charm of our neighborhood is that our homes are 23 feet three stories high and that is 30 feet or less. It doesnt feel immensely urban, while still supporting being in the city. It was disconcerting to hear that the Planning Department did not take into account the cole valley Historic District status of our neighborhood. When evaluating the application from verizon. A 40foot pole would significantly detract from our physical beauty. Given that the pole would detract from the beauty, and the fact that the potential [inaudible] have not been fully evaluated of this technology in general. I request this location does not even be considered for a possibility for this technology. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Okay. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. Anybody want to start . I have a question for planning. I am sorry, scott. So the concern i have. Evidently the permit process is flawed here. The concern going forward, since this is not the last case that we will hear on this is that the permit holder mentioned that there is no matrix, or specifics in regards to some of the language that is being used in issuing the permit. I mean, how are we to define this if there is no matrix . You know, one of the issues that this ward has struggled with that our department has struggled with in reviewing this is the standard that we apply. It is a discussion that we have here. There are no clear objective standard in the current controls. There is a proposal to clear objective standard that would make everyones review a lot easier of these applications. In terms of what would be allowed and what would not be allowed. We fully support and we have been working with public works on making such revisions to the public works code to review these applications. In terms of this particular application. It is fraud, because the decision is not reference, accurately referencing the site. It only state that this is a protective location. It was not analyzed and the decision letter with assigning protective location. For that reason, i think the approval does not properly executed, therefore you could denied on those grounds. This would need to be done at a separate hearing on the board has at times, held a separate hearing to adopt specific findings related to denial. The board has also denied applications at a hearing without adopting separate findings onto later date. I would defer to your staff on that. I just want clarification. What you are saying is, and i think you stated it that this permit was issued improperly by your department . Fundamentally if the permit was improperly issued and the decisionmaking process was flawed that led to its issuance, that is grounds, correct . I would say so. The board has im not trying to throw the department under the bus or this is a comp located situation. We continually have cases weekly , and you know to the audience that is here, everyones neighborhood is special. The prices of homes in San Francisco i dont think theres an average home in our seven by 6. 8 here. Going forward the concern would be, is, how do we put this in order and not to conflict with article 25. That comment to me is the concern. To the people that are here, we struggle with this every week. That is our president asking for the department to give us a report. Unfortunately, we are subject to federal law and state law. This is more of a legislative issue than anything else. We are trying to conform with. My question is, if there is no quantifying specifics how do we determine what is what. We ask the applicant provide the smallest site possible. The least obtrusive site possible. In this case, we have been told as a last week, that there is an alternative that would i would note that it is not a requirement. San francisco is one of the strictest throughout the nation. It could be more than 30 feet, and less than 30 feet could be an appropriate design in that range. I dont want people to think that it needs to be, there have been other determinations that have been appeal before this board that have antennas that are higher than the building that it is in front of. There is an event availability, that is what we would ask them to do in this case. The error with this permit is that it was not properly reviewed and our decision to not reference the fact that it is in a planning protective location. I appreciate what staff does on a regular basis trying to comply with the many forces impacting them. Thank you. I have one question. The effort by the department of public works, is that correct . Is our timeline . What is the priority of that type of process. I believe legislation has been introduced already. Good afternoon. Public works. Regarding the timeline for the objective standard, we are still in the middle of deciding what is appropriate depending on planning, rpd, at all agree on. It is still pending. We dont have a timeline for it, to give you a rough estimate, could be a couple of month. Is it at the staff level review of creating standards and introduce the legislation . Correct. Okay. Thank you. There is an ordinance pending at the board. It amends article 25. It would create, put a duty on the department to create these objective standard in partnership with the Planning Department should be adopted at a later date. The code amendments are depending on the board. The department of public works introduced it. There would be the ordinance, and some work to do to follow up and come back later with initial changes as well. Im not fully aware, just processing it, its a little bit over my head. Know worries. Thank you. Do you have any further questions for public works . I think we are fine. Thank you very much. Thank you. It is rare, it has been my experience that it is rare for planning to come and say, we screwed up your big time. Generally we are on the attack and trying to suggest that maybe they should reevaluate their position. Its more rare planning comes to us and says we blew this one. I listen to that clearly. The other thing that influences my thinking here is that verizon has suggested that they have an alternative that is less intrusive, and, they are seeking a postponement of our action today so they can kick the can down the road a little bit and get that technology in place of her presentation in november. And, for thing that set me off just a wee bit, is that when mrt want one of our competitors to take over that pole. I dont think we are in the business of protecting anybody from protecting their market share. I think we are in the business of making sure that a permit was utterly issued and clearly planning is a saying no, we did not issue this permit properly. My point before is that even if we went along with mr. Albritton, and we waited until november, or we did not go along with him and suggesting to eight until november to wait until november. The permit holder is not in any different situation than they would be, one way or the other. I kind of think that we should find for the appellant to. Clean this mess. Let planning evaluate application for the next permit properly and see what happens. That is kind of where i am out. I agree. I fine either way. Can we make a motion . That is your call. Motion to uphold the appeal. Deny the permit on the basis that the permit was improperly issued it was improperly reviewed by the Planning Department so therefore is improperly issued. [inaudible] might i also suggest that the board find, in addition to, i normally suggest in these situations that we would have the board not adopt the but i think we can do it today if. The permit denied on the basis that planning failed to do the proper analysis of whether this particular facility meets the compatibility center. Additionally that the board find that it does not meet that standard because the proposal create a visual impact that does not comply with the standard and because the poll is too high. That was one of the big things of the planning committee. That would work for me and i accept your suggestion. I would caution, at least planning emphasized that there are other things overall that are distracting. I think they need leeway in the review to look at the overall package not just the heights. Right. I think the Department Said the lower facility was too large, as well, right . For that reason it would not meet the standard in your opinion . Right. A combination of the height potentially, and the equipment on the lower part of the poll. What was a word that you used . I use junk, you use clutter. To see if i am capture what you want. We have a motion to grant appeals and denied the permits on the basis that it was not properly reviewed by the Planning Department because the Planning Department failed to do the proper analysis. It was reviewed only as a zoning protective location. It is a planning protective location and the proposed design does not meet that standard because it creates a visual impact, because the poll is too big and the equipment is too large. On that motion. [roll call] that motion carries number0. Appeals are granted. Thank you. We will now move on to item number 8. This is an appeal 19032. Molly sauer versus the Zoning Administrator. Appealing the issuance on april 8, 2019 of a housing fee will be calculate it for an approved project of the subject property which proposes to demolish a twostory plus mezzanine commercial building and construct a six story mixeduse building with 54 dwelling units above approximately 7500 square feet of ground floor and based went level square foot. This is record no. 2019002026zad. Good evening, land use counsel for the appellant. We have reams of paper in front of you, exhibits from us as well as lengthy legal brief that the Zoning Administrator has something similar. It is a simple question, despite the size of the package in front of you. That is does the appellant have to pay the Affordable Housing fee as it existed in 2018 . Or, does the appellant have to pay