is it allows a verizon to dramatically expand the size of the antenna or at other equipment to the lamppost in the future should they choose to do so. so even if this small cell adjustment as they refer to it as small, i disagree with that. they could expand it in size dramatically in the future. added fact, d.p.w., in their response, said that this is correct. that verizon does have that capability to do so in the future. so if you go ahead and deny our appeal, our group of appellants have no recourse down the road when verizon adds equipment to the -- pole in the future. there's a fundamental flaw in the permit process which i really don't support. so those are my concerns and i hope you will seriously consider denying this permit. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.

>> good evening. my name as you probably remember is charles ferguson. and president of the association of neighbours. and since i'm batting cleanup, i will make a couple of quick preparatory remarks. i want to correct one thing that mr wyckoff said, probably because he's not as familiar with the specs as i am. the way the light poles were paid for in our neighbourhood is as follows. the east and west streets were paid for by the city. those are the cobra head light posts that are at issue here. the north and south street, all the tree named streets had telephone poles and wires into the 1990s. the cobra head lights were replaced in the late 1960s and 1970s and the telephone wires and electric wires taken down along the east west streets, but by the 1990s, we still had the

north and south streets. they crossed all the east-west streets with wires and so on and so forth. we had to pay for the late post before pg and he would take down all the telephone poles and all the wires from the northwest, north-south street. i just wanted to get that one thing corrected. secondly, just to pick up where she left off, the number 1 condition, the tree to like it is all attractive. it appears in every single condition, in the thousands of permits that have been asked for. they never go out and look to see whether or not a tree can camouflage anything or if there's any room in the sidewalk for a tree. because what they really want is money. they say if verizon on the wireless companies refused to put a tree in, that's a very well, because all they have to do is pay the city money to plant a tree someplace else. so it's just another part, of

the boilerplate that goes on and off and on. the next preparatory remarks i want to make is the floodgates have opened. now i have to battle with a tnt, but i will say this about at&t. they have done more than the law requires, at our request, i don't know whether or not i will end up battling with them or not, but they have gone beyond what's required. i asked them to give notice to the entire neighbourhood to post it in our playground, which is right in the centre of our neighbourhood, have to have a big meeting in the public library for our neighbourhood, and they did that. at my request. they change their date and they change their location. they gave notice to everybody. we had a big community meeting before they'd even filed for a permit. now they will come up here and say those are different kinds of antennas. fine. they maybe different kinds of

antennas, doesn't matter. it's the activity of the wireless company willing to work with us. in fact just by coincidence, we have one of the developers of the largest project in the city, 3333 california street sitting in the back. he can testify that i work with him all the time to work out our problems that we have with that big development. we are willing to do this with verizon but they're not willing to work with us. all right i will get you my actual argument here. i gave you a very simple brief this time. i'm asking for a very simple relief. i'm asking you to put your collective foot down and demand that planning do what article 25, section 15 '09 requires. right the reasons why they are granting the permit. they never do that, all they give you is the same boilerplate

conclusory language in every single permit. and i have said before, that they are not entitled to do that. we must tell us about the carefully constructed balance points that the board of supervisors provided that has to be weighed. you've heard from the neighbours. you've heard what they do about their historic homes. i do the same for mine. virtually every single house in that neighbourhood is historic. it's the biggest historic district, in my opinion eligible for registration by the state which gives us a protected status here under article 25 and the entire city. but you don't see any discussion of what effect our loss of having underground or the whole neighbourhood, which that is a highly protected status, has had

on us. now all of these light poles that stick up, in general, they stick up above all the trees, and they will have these alien pods stuck on them because we've got at&t coming down the road. we've got sprint coming, probably tee mobile as well. they're all going to come down and they all have the right ones this process has started, to come into our neighbourhood and do the same thing. i have said to you before, time and time again, that i suspected that what planning did was run a beauty contest and just picked one design, it happened to be verizon's and said that its edge. we will not do anything more. we will publish a boilerplate and state this won't affect anything clicked and then we'd save lots of time and we get money for all of this. look at the money we will bring in. we will get them every light pole in the whole city. we get paid $4,000 a year for every single light pole.

well now you have before you proof positive, that that's exactly what happened. courtesy of verizon. you look at page 10 of their brief. they explained their that in 2015, there was some kind of decision made can we get this overhead? there was some kind of decision made by the planning department, this comes from the historic unit of exhibit k for verizon. exhibit j is another one that is similar to it. it has a same map. these are all the proposed sites in one particular area of the city. the northeast corner. north of market, east of van ness avenue. not anywhere near our neighbourhood correct nowhere near the other neighbourhoods in the city. on the basis of this, and they have taken pictures in this

neighbourhood, of proposed verizon installations. here's one that supposedly a tickle -- typical sfmta poll. i think a lot of us will recognize this. this is the backside of the bill graham civic auditorium. there is nothing about this picture that has anything to do with my neighbourhood or any of the other hundred plus neighbourhoods in san francisco. it might have something to do with the street behind the auditorium, but the fact they have concluded that from a historical perspective, that this type of thing doesn't do any damage here, doesn't mean that they can just rubberstamp serial applications for these permits in every single neighbourhood throughout the city. and that's what's happened here. so when i'm asking you to do is insulin is that they write to the reasons why they are granting departments. because they never do.

they just give you the boilerplate conclusion. we are granting the permit. they are required to write the reason and if they write the reason, will see that what they've done is made a blanket decision for the whole city. in fact,, that's exactly what the report is also an exhibit to verizon's brief. exhibit j that says that. >> clerk: thank you, sir. your time is up. we will next here from the permit holders. i believe paul albright and returning for the permit holder. >> good evening. >> clerk: you have 28 minutes. >> welcome. i don't need 28 minutes. i think we have sympathized the concerns of the appellant's down to about seven issues and we are trying to go through those quickly. again, i appreciate your time devoted to this kind of project and i know i've given you allows a background in the past and so

i will skip over the background and of course if you have questions, we would have be happy to answer them. there are seven issues i wanted to cover quickly. i mean, first of all, obviously the question is whether it we've complied with article 25 and i think if you look at the public works brief and you look at our brief and you look at all the history of this application, it is clear that we have compliant with article 25 and the decisions of the different departments confirm that. i just wanted to start out by saying that. that begins your review. i also think it's important for me to remind you that this will extend the height of the life standard 2 feet and 7 inches above the light with an antenna dentist 10 inches in diameter. so it is a great deal of discussion regarding the viewer impact and aesthetics and impairment. and two small radios 10 inches wide on the side of the poll. one of the big issues in the briefs had been noticed, and i think it's pretty clear and i

will go very quickly that the mailed notice was delivered and there is an affidavit and exhibit f of our brief the post-it note occurred in december and that is in our briefs in exhibit g. and then there was a subsequent posting again earlier this year. there is fully adequate notice and there was a comment about the address and the notice is posted 150 feet radius from the poll itself to the address to determine where the notice is going. and in the department of planning's brief they say it they recognized in the plans that better are two houses, at this facility is put on the property line on purpose so that it's not obstructing immediately somebody's view window but it is on the property line, and that's why one address was chosen over the other. with respect to the descriptions. i want to move on to the planning department's review.

i have to say, that in closed cases, we get quite a bit of review from the planning department. we were in discussion with them just a few weeks ago. about, i believe, two doesn't cites where there was extensive planning review regarding characteristics where there is a close call with respect to a particular facility. you've seen some of these before you. and this particular case, we think that they accurately determine that it is a planning protective district. and is eligible to be a historic district and so they determined that this two and a half foot antenna did not significantly impair the views of buildings, landmarks, open space or parks that would make this eligible to be a historic district. we think that that is clear. they made it in their first determination in december, in november and came back, again, when this was sent to a protest

hearing in january, wrote an e-mail to one of the appellant's saying we have rereviewed this, we still don't believe the sick -- it significantly impairs any views or the zoning protected requirement that it doesn't significantly detract from the defining characteristics of the neighbourhood. so the planning department did take a close look at this and we did put in materials because i've been living this project for so long, that in 2015, the planning department took an extremely close look at the designs. back and forth and coming up with designs that would be acceptable to the san francisco utility commission, the mta and the board of supervisors on the planning department itself. you saw, in our material, a presentation that was made to the architectural review committee of the historic preservation commission where they reviewed and rejected certain designs but approved designs, there is a photo of one there that is in front of the old pacific coast stock exchange

across the street from the liberty insurance building which is now occupied, residentially occupied and happens to be where my office building is as well. this is a designated historic district. there are three on the block around my building, which is designated historic district. because this design has been so carefully crafted, there are 15 conditions of approval. they don't come up with those every time they review a poll. we have to have elbow shaped cables that enter into the poll and we have to eliminate any labels and fill in the gap that's left where the label was on the actual radio, and so these 15 conditions have been carefully reviewed in order to minimize any ecstatic impacts. one of those conditions is a tree. i'm sure you are familiar with the tree. urban forestry, it is a big process of identifying where a tree may go. the resident has to maintain the tree. we are installing, in one situation where talkin were talo

trees where it works. the trees are street trees. they are lower. designed to cover the radios and not the antenna. this is a ten-year permit. perhaps the tree could get tall in ten years but unlikely. and yes, the antenna, the vegetation, the branches, to block the signal. this is 122-watt facility. hundred 22 watts. and so it only covers about 50 500-750 feet in each direction. they are carefully located to create that network. yes the branches on the trees affect that. as i said that, planning wasn't as extensive in this review as they are in others. i have to think it is because it is not a close call. they can speak to themselves, but this particular design, i think it's well located. we don't place them on corners because they can be viewed and two directions. we frequently play some in the middle of the block because they are only placed in four directions versus two directions.

i quickly touched on a view, and that was one of the issues from the appellant's. again, article 25 does not protect private views. it only protects public views. there is condition number 10 where verizon voluntarily agreed to it and says they will not obscure of you. i would not go to the details of the order because you've heard me tell you about it before but we have to be within six or 8 feet of the window in order to obstruct if you and we're 20 feet away. there is no issue of obstructing private views here under the order. then there is a discussion of the alternatives that were reviewed. we provided alternatives analysis as exhibit at all. kevin boyer is here who worked on selecting these poles further to the west on locust. they are considered to be too far away from where we are trying to cover. the one co- location, one

location that was identified at the protest hearing, at calais and locust. that facility is in our report and it is affected by a tree. all poles on that block... including distance to provide conduit and power and so forth. we can go more into detail if you wish. second last issue, there is a mention of 64 '09 and our ability under federal law to modify an existing facility. this poll is owned by the city. it's owned by the public utility commission. we had to sign a master license agreement that was signed by the board of supervisors in 2016. section 10.7 of the master license agreement doesn't let us do anything to this poll without getting further approval from the landlord. and it even mentioned 6,409 it says they have authority to

approve or disapprove any modification we do to the poll. we would have to go back through the city and there's also an extensive planning review process and modifications in san francisco. there are six criteria we have to be an. it is not an automatic administrative cookie-cutter sort of thing. last issue, we heard some concerns about, again, cancer, oncology and so forth. i reiterate that the whole point of this network is it is extremely low wattage. it is designed, of course,, the phone has to get a signal from the tower as well. as we bring the end user and the facility closer together, the power is reduced in order for the two devices to talk to each other. in this case, at the closest building. where 200 times below the federal standard. and our emissions from this facility will be extremely low. they are required to be tested after installation. will test a neighbour's homes if they ask for it and there's

ongoing monitoring. i will conclude there and hope i did not take up too much time and ask you to affirm the recommendations of the department of planning and department of public health and department of public works and historically, the architectural review committee in approving this facility that in its current location. to buy. >> just one quick question. as you've been hearing from many, many times and we'v we had several thousand at&t cases and quite a few of the verizon cases the appellant had mentioned that he'd reached out to customer relations and was not getting any response. how do you guys handle that and how does that work? >> kevin boyer actually contacted all of the protesters. we are required under article 25 to contact them all. e-mailed and spoke by telephone to the wyckoff's. the at&t facility you are talking about in san francisco guidelines, they require a

community meeting before you file an application. >> no what he said is he had reached out to i guess someone at verizon, i guess via e-mail or phone call and there was no response. >> i can tell you that verizon is a very large company. and we have direct communication and all the communication is referenced and the notices to contact. >> i understand that, even in the room, our previous cases with google, they are a big company too and there was no response there. >> well, i don't think that is a case here. i think that we provide the name and the number and the means of contacting. also there is a webpage where any protester can go on... >> they mentioned other public comment. >> i think it's important to say, we are required to respond to each protest.

so we've included the protest response in an hour materials. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: we will hear it next from the department of public works, bureau streets and mapping. >> thank you. >> go, amanda go. [laughter] >> i'm amanda hitting some san francisco public works. we follow the public works article 25 process to issue at thithispermit. article 25 requires public worked to refer these applications to the department of public health and the planning department. both departments determine to this application complies with our complaint by standard. public works subsequently issued tentative approval and verizon mailed and posted notice of this approval. public works held a public hearing to consider a protest and following the hearing the director of public works

approved the permit and notice of the determination was distributed to the public. and representatives from the planning department are here and can speak more regarding planning review process. thank you. >> good evening president and commissioner's. actually lindsay, planning and department staff. the proposed interior be a verizon personal wireless service facility is to be located in the public right-of-way and a planning and zoning protective location. adjacent to 3512, late street and on the street with undesignated street views. planning is required to review the application for the proposal at 3512 street to determine if the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed personal wireless service facility would not significantly detract from any of the defining characteristics of the planning

protected location or a zoning protected location. the proposed location is in a planning protected location for two reasons. first crack at the presidio heights district is eligible for listing as a california registered historic district. second, the proposed, the property is a historic resource. because it is within the boundary of the eligible historic district. additionally, the location is determined to be eligible for inclusion in the california historic resources as an individual resource. furthermore, the proposed wireless facility is located within a zoning protected location as it is within an rh one zoning district. the proposed wireless facility includes an intent out with a shroud that would extend less than 3 feet from the top of the pole. and two at radio units would be attached to the side of the pole except for cable sweep under the

red deer unit, able to -- all cabling would be concealed within the poll. the proposed wireless facility located approximately 20 feet from the closest a great -- adjacent building cat would not obstruct views or light into a residential window. and it would not detract from the defining characteristics of the residential rh one zoning district. or significantly degrade the aesthetic attributes that where the basis for the special designation of the district. additionally, proposed work would not physically alter any historic features or materials that characterize known or potential historic resources where this installation which occurred. for these reasons, the planning department determined that the proposed wireless facility would satisfy the planning and zoning protected location compatibility standards. this concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions at this time.

>> i think there will be some questions next round. >> thank you. we will move on to public comment. is there anybody here for public comment? seeing and then we will move on to rebuttal and hear from the appellants. each appellant has three minutes. >> thank you. >> thank you. i take two exceptions to the responses. with regard to verizon usually putting someone in the middle of the blocked, trust me when i tell you i drove around presidio heights, pacific heights kept the marina, jordan park and saw 60 of these units. fifty-eight on a street corner. that is their intention. secondly, if you look at the documents from 2015 in the historic district, nine out of ten are on a street corner. let's just clear that up. [please standby] i p

>> inhibiting signals. now my information came from a ucsf professor who's a physicist who said that these emissions go through wood. i also -- you know, the lawyer was saying that the wattage is low. it's still microwave wattage. and then also there was mentioning they'll test. they'll test one times. now we're having these emissions 24/7. it's not intermission with a cell phone, every few minutes, might use your cell phone. this is going to be bombarding our home 24/7. and i understand some of the emissiohe

mission -- emissions can be turn turned up and lowered, soian what they're going to show. thank you. >> thank you. >> cornell i cania elwein. i think that the planning department has not truly spent time going through alternative locations that don't impact the aesthetics of the neighborhood.

-- and on the views of public citizens and on their views from the right-of-way. so serious concerns about the process here. >> thank you. >> i'm going to answer miss ellwein's questions. i've looked through all the protests. there's never been a single protest that hasn't been denied. no protest has been granted by dpw ever, on any of these verizon applications. they just -- this -- this is a -- you have evidence before you right now that this was a decision that was made based on the northeast corner of this city and not our neighborhood.

and there is no discussion here about the -- where is the explanation of what the impact is of all these serial applications on our neighborhood? it destroys something that was very valuable to us. we wanted streets that were lined the way we had them lined, with the lights that are there and nothing else on them because they stick up above most of the trees, and all the trees that we've planted and maintained now, a century or more, that's what we wanted. we're not going to get that. we're going to have all kinds of things stuck on all kinds of poles before all four of those telecommunications companies finish picking apart our neighborhood, bit by bit. that's what valuable to us. that's what was hi jacked by the planning department. >> mr. ferguson, you -- have you researched how many times this board has been sued by the

utilities? >> how many times the board has been sued? >> this board, yes. >> no, i have no idea. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. obviously.

so -- but -- and we are working -- we work with the planning department and we're working with them now, as i said, on a couple of dozen sites trying to work out either location changes or height, antenna changes, all kinds of things, in order to meet -- you have a very rigorous review, including the original ceqa reviews that this whole process went through. i want to say for the one appellant, just really for her benefit, i think you know this, the antennas are directional. they point east and west down the street. they didn't point north and south at all. so even the little 122 watt energy is going and dissipated down the street and not pointing into people's windows, and that will be verified by a test if she'd like to have a test inside of her window when the time comes. i can't read my notes, so i

don't know what the last issue was, but we'd obviously answer any questions and appreciate your time. we are working as best we can with the city's departments, and we think the city departments are working rigorously to make this process work for san francisco. i can tell you after a very long career, it's very difficult to site wireless antennas, and we have over 400 of these cells in approximate san francisco. there was a case that said there are no cumulative impacts if you can't see one from the other, and we're working to try to provide additional wireless services. i take the comment about, you know, not getting any response, and i understand from my colleague that it was mr. acc

verizon? >> we'll let kevin speak to that since he selected the pole. but there was an alternative raised by the same appellant at the protest hearing, and we specifically responded to that one, and it was the northeast corner of locust and clay. i think he's now proposing the southwest corner of locust and clay, and i will let kevin respond to that. >> thank you. >> hi there. kevin boyer with modus. so we were initially targeting the pole at the southwest corner of clay and locust street, and we want trying to see if there was enough room to run our conduit and fiber, and we wouldn't have enough room to

run the fiber and power through the existing conduit, which means we've got to trench and replace that copied bnduit thr the whole entire block on the south side. so initially that one was killed as a candidate, and that one, they're suggesting as the tree issues. tree gets in the way of the antenna, is degrades the signal, so that means we'd probably need to add another site to fix the capacity. i'm assuming we can't conduit proof -- didn't conduit that one on the south side of the street, but the one on locust and clay that they're sugges suggest -- suggesting, thoat's shifting to close to another proposed site, so that's not

viable. >> mr. boyer, how many fibers are you running from one site to another? >> two strands. >> two strands? you can't get that in the one-inch? >> hmm-mm. >> okay. we will hear from miss higgins, nothing to add? okay. [inaudible] >> -- but alternatives analysis is exhibit l. if you're -- i'm probably volunteering too much, but if you are truly interested in our coming back and explaining that particular pole, we can do that. but i think kevin's explanation was sufficient, but we do feel that we've selected the right pole and that alternatives, gives our reasons. >> miss higgins? >> i think, actually, the planning department has something to add.

>> there are two issues that i'd like to address. one is the alternatives. when we do our review, we -- if we feel that there are better alternative locations, we do strongly encourage the applicant to explore them. however, we cannot require that they -- that they change their application to locate the pole on a different pole -- or locate the facility on a different pole. we can only make a determination on the location that was proposed in the referral application. and then, in regards to the rubber stamping of approvals of these applications, we have denied at least a couple dozen of these applications, but there are occasions in which the carriers will work with planning to amend the design, to circumvent a denial recommendation. thank you. >> miss lindsey. anybody else have questions? if not, i have one. i was going to ask something

similar when you were up here first, but i wanted to think it out a little bit further in terms of how would i couch it. i can understand when there is a general criteria, like as an example, protective views, where departmental response to that, certain responses would be fairly similar, some may be fairly general. but i'm thinking back to two cases. besides the one that was previous to this case in the same neighborhood, but also, one that was up in russian hill, where the views were quite dramatic -- different type of view. and in that one, there was so

much garbage up in the streets and the poles, it was everywhere. i voted to deny the appeal. on the previous one in this specific neighborhood, it was -- this is quite a different neighborhood, different type of view. the impact is potentially different. does the department want to respond to something that is dramatically different from one situation to the other like that? >> if i'm understanding your question correctly, depending on the context of the neighborhood or what that street you may be -- do we review these different applications differently? >> yes, that's my question. >> we review each application if it's on a street view that's

undesignated or restricted street views. we review each application as if they would be located on a street that has excellent views or they may be located within a historic district. so on this application, it's located on a street with undesignated street views, and the location is not obstructing any views in the public corridors. >> can i ask a question, please. so did you review or did you review the -- the alternative site that was proposed tonight by the appellant? i don't -- i'm looking at the piece of paper that has -- but it doesn't have the address, i'm sorry. but is that right down the street and across the street? >> at the time that this application was referred to us, it was reviewed by another planner, so i did not have the opportunity to review the

application materials at that time. >> is there any evidence that the other planner who preceded you reviewed this, this pole as an alternative? >> i cannot confirm that. i'd have to go back and look at the record. >> okay. and with regard to street view, we have two types of street views here. we've been through this rodeo before, and we have street views that are views that from the neighbor's point of view, that they can't see beautiful golden gate park or they can't see a beautiful view of alcatraz or -- or the bay. and in this case, there's -- it's the alternative, where we have historic buildings. you know, when you're talking about julia morgan buildings, it's historic, where the street view comes from the street back to the house, and therefore, a pole like this would impede a view of an historic building.

can you tell me how you evaluate street view from house outward versus street inward in judging whether a street view has been -- will be significantly impacted in the neighborhood. >> when we look at street views, we're looking at it from the perspective of a pedestrian from the sidewalk, so anywhere from five to 7 feet and what their views would look like walking down the street. so from the planning perspective, we would feel that an antenna on the top of a pole would not impede a pedestrian's view down the street. >> so the view from -- from a passing car from the middle of the street or -- >> technically -- >> -- doesn't count? >> it counts, but i imagine it would be significantly less impacted as car -- you know,

moving, a lot more quickly on the road, so the antenna or the radio units may not catch their eye. >> you're conjecturing, and not fact. okay. thanks. appreciate it. >> now -- sorry. >> okay, commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> well, for me, we come down to the -- what is traditionally our discussion on this is is that putting a pole here -- putting one of these apparati on a pole here would significantly impair the defining aspects of the neighborhood, given that this is an historic neighborhood, that's, for me, the biggest issue. what impresses me in this case is that an alternative on the same block has been presented, and without -- and verizon

doesn't want to do any heavy lifting and summarily dismisses the view of the neighbors. >> well, you and i voted the same the last time. you know, i'll say the same thing similarly to what i said last time. that is what i was saying to planning staff is that where the view is -- is already severely impacted, such as the one that was in russian hill, adding another piece to a spiderweb of wires and other things and, plus, poles everywhere, to me, did not have any impact on a protected view there. in this case here, where, you

know, entire neighborhood doesn't have that stuff, i felt that it did have an impact, and therefore, it was my position last time that a planning review and determination was flawed. >> alternatively, before we go in that direction, we could continue it and give -- give verizon the opportunity, along with dpw and planning, to reconsider that alternative pole that has been offered up as a -- as a satisfactory solution by the neighbors. so i would -- before we make a motion based on what we're talking about, we could continue it and let them get their pole a half block down the street with their -- you know, with the consent of the

neighbors as it should have been done probably in the first place, but that's just a point of view. >> you might want to hear from your fellow commissioners. >> hmm? >> you might want to hear from your fellow commissioners. >> sure. i look forward to that, as always. >> you know, we have this -- we have this discussion all the time, and someone said that we give up a loss, there's this cumulative effect of all of this stuff on all these different poles in all these different neighborhoods. so one side of me says well, there's also a need for these things, and in other neighborhoods, they've had to deal with them. so why should this neighborhood be different? well, there's a very good reason why they should be different, because of the investment that they've made

and because of the neighborhood. it's a little frustrating to me that this board is supposed to do something that it really doesn't have a lot of power to do. frankly, most of the discussion, debate, power of the vote should be towards state legislatures and the board of supervisors who made these deals, and then expect us to do something about them when the communities complain; and yet, the law restricts what we can do. and then, you get comments about rubber stamping things when you're not rubber stamping, you're following the law. so it's always a very frustrating thing for me. i see this one as a little different. normally, i vote within the confines of the law, but i could be persuaded -- i'm not sure about a continuance. i'd like to see the vote first,

but -- >> i would only do a motion with a continuance if -- if there is a -- a need to develop findings, okay? i will just -- while the other two are cogitating, since i've been on this board, we've been sued nine times by the utilities. in actually one of the cases -- one of those nine times was 27 cases, so we've been sued 36 times and we've lost almost every one, okay? but any way, that's neither here nor there. it's trivia at this point. >> the power of -- of legislation and lack of. >> you want to make a motion

or... >> sacrificial lamb, as always, regularly. i make a motion that we uphold the appeal on the basis that the installation would significantly impair the defining aspects of the neighborhood. >> okay -- >> wait, wait, wait. >> in these cases where you are going -- i would recommend that instead -- that the motion instead be to continue the matter for the preparation of written findings to support the decision to uphold the appeal or to grant the appeal and deny the permit on the basis that you stated. >> what he said, madam executive director. thank you. >> okay. so i believe the motion is to continue this matter so that we

can consider adopting written findings to support the granting of the appeal and denial of the issuance of the permit. >> that's fine. >> okay. so on that -- on that motion by vice president swig -- [roll call] >> okay. so that matter will be continued. we will be drafting written findings, and the party will have an opportunity to respond. i will reach out to you, and we'll discuss a timeline, and then, we will calendar the item on a future hearing and consider whether or not to adopt those written findings, but each party will have an opportunity to respond. okay? >> okay. >> so did we want to set a date

now or work something out with the parties? >> i think you should set something depending on the drafting of the findings, what it takes. >> okay. we'r tully. choe >> it is may 9, 2018, and we're returning to the hearing for the san francisco board of appeals. and we are moving on now to item number eight. this is appeal number 18-033. [agenda item read]

>> and we will hear from the appellant first. you have seven minutes, please. >> thank you. good evening. i am not tully friedman. he is out of town on business tonight. i am his agent, and he's given me a letter -- you don't need that. okay. my name is dan kingsly. i'm one of his neighbors on raycliff terrace. this is a very simple ruling from the perspective of mr. friedman. the lot slopes up from north to south, and yet, the city's topographic map shows the property in question at around 345 feet above sea level, and the contours slope down to about 345 below sea level on pacific. so it seems like it's a downward slope lot, not an upward sloping locht. this is all this is about. the owners are very nice

people. we are happy to have them in the community. there is no animosity. it was just a question that mr. friedman had whether the zoning administrator's question was correct, and that's all i have for you tonight. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the -- so -- okay. >> good evening, again, president fung, commissioners. cory teague from planning department staff. on september 22, 2017, geddes ulintskis requested to measure the zoning height. on february 27, 2018 the zoning administrator issued a letter of determination that clarifies the following points. first the letter stated that the planning code's way to measure sloping was the following step.

such point shall be taken as curb level for measuring the height of the closest part of the building within 10 feet of the property line at such street. at every other cross section of the building at right angles to the centerline of the building or building step, such point shall be taken as the average height of the building elevations at each step of that cross section. the elevations used shall be existing eflss or the elevation used from new excavations encompassing the block. just to paraphrase, what the next is saying when you have an up sloping lot, the first 10 feet, you measure feet based on the height of the lot at grade, at curb level, but once you get 10 feet deep, you following average grade on the centerline as you go with the property. so essentially, you're allowed

to have your height measured and your building go up and follow the existing grade, and that is distinctly different from how we measure height on a dope sloping lot. the second clarification -- down sloping lot. the second clarification, so in this case, this property has essentially t essentially frontages, and the -- two frontages, and lastly, the letter clarified that for the subject property based on the survey provided by the applicant and the department kay's historical topo graphic -- department's historical topographical measurements, north to south, this is an up sloping lot based on the elevations provided specifically in the survey that was provided by the applicant. the appellant claims that it is not possible that the subject property is a naturally up sloping lot from north to south. this is based on the fact that historical and topo graphical

map place the lots between 345 feet to the north and 345 feet to the south -- southeast. as pointed out in the applicant's brief, these maps are not intend today show precise elevations at this scale. additionally, while there is a very clear steep slope to the north and northwest with elevation lines shown very close together, the subject property line falls within a large area between the 340 feet and 345 foot elevation areas on the ground. these often include some sort of slope and undulations. as such, it is possible that an area between two elevation lines can go up and down in elevation. however, without additional documentation, it is extremely challenging to confirm such a case. in this case, the department

requested the original building plans for both the subject property and the adjacent property to the south. we also requested any historical environmental review documents for these properties in order to provide more documentation about the historical topee graphy of the subject property, unfortunately any documents have been lost to history and were not available. therefore, without any solid documentation or evidence that the existing grade of the subject property is not the original grade, the base -- and based on the license survey provided by the applicant documenting the up sloping nature of the subject property, the zoning administrator determined that the up sloping height measurement of the planning code applies to the subject property. the department respectfully recommends that the board upholds the zoning administrator's recommendation. >> thank you. is the determination holder here? >> good evening, commissioner scott emblich on behalf of the

permit applicant. as you've heard, this is one simple issue: did the zoning administrator -- first of all, did the project architect and then zoning administrator calculate the height at this location in the right way? so the answer is they did. they followed the letter of the planning code. what do you do when you're trying to measure height at a location like this? could i have the overhead, please. you have -- first, you start at mr. teague pointed out, you determine what frontage you're going to work from. we selected the northern frontage. the -- you'd have a professional survey done, which is what we did. that shows that the frontage -- that the height at the northern frontage is about 333 to 334 feet, and then, the height at the rear of the property is 340 feet. that's an upsloping lot. you then do your