personally have trouble sleeping at night. i turn my router off, i can sleep. i'm concerned with 5g because it is everywhere and it will be purveyed around us. i feel there needs to be more study on this and somebody has to do it. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public speakers? >> good evening. >> thank you. i live in san francisco. i am severely impacted by e.n.f. in our field. i have been studying them for a while. i don't know how many of you are familiar with the ota, the office of technology assessment. it was used by congress extensively up until 1995, and 1995, the republican -- i am not

trying to get into a politics at all, but the republican congress decided to defund it. it was considered the arm of congress for technology information. the very next year, within six months, the telecommunications act was passed. the passage of -- it allowed all of the standards to be decided by engineers. so they eliminated the c.d.c., the e.p.a., the f.d.a., the department of human health and services. the result is just that things have been buried for so long. there are now over, believe it or not, 27,000 studies that show the impact and the danger of what we are facing here.

this is so dramatic. birds are dying, bees are dying. they are affected 95% more than humans. we are having great a fax. just to give you a small example , i do walk around with an rf and e.n.f. meter. i also have had pg and e. he come to my home. he said that the sidewalk was off scale. that was back, that was six years ago. 5g is now starting to be rolled out in san francisco, and i've recently found that my feet are burning. the heat is so intense that i have some units that help to absorb the electromagnetic fields. i decided to measure, so i am walking along the street, and the measurements are quite high

seconds. >> sure. the meter that i have goes from zero to 50 is okay, 50 to 100 is considered not healthy, 100 to 250 is considered severe, over 200 to 500 is considered critical. my measurement, as i went down to the sidewalk and i am measuring it at sidewalk level, it was 2,350. these levels are so dangerous and you have to keep in mind -- >> so, your time is up. >> okay. anyway, you get the point. she really needs to have a chance to have an attorney. >> thank you. >> are there any other public comments on this item? commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> go ahead. >> it sometimes feels like this word is unsympathetic.

hence why our president asked me , and asked the health department to come before us and give us a report. at the same time, we have heard hundreds of cases and unfortunately, there is -- the legislation that we have to follow, you know, prohibits us from taking the information such as the information information that was brought before us and in the last hearing. and trust me, i'm extremely sympathetic. i'm a stage four cancer survivor myself, along with my son. i get it, but in a rehearing, the rehearing bar is extremely, extremely high, and basically it is to cause, it would cause manifest injustice. in this particular case, there was no new information that was not provided at the previous hearing that would have led me to believe that there was manifested injustice.

>> motion? >> my motion is to deny the rehearing for the fact there was no manifest injustice. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner haunted to deny the request on the basis that you said there was no new evidence. on that motion... [roll call] that motion carries on the request is denied 4-0. we are now moving on to item seven a and seven b. >> there is no rebuttal for rehearing request. the matter is closed. the matter is closed. the request has been denied. okay. we are now moving on to items seven a and seven b. these are appeal numbers 19-036 and 19-037. subject property is two gratin

street. on june 12, 2019, the board voted 4-0 to continue this matter so they can properly follow in their evaluation of the placement of this wireless service is services it -- facility at the site. and the characteristics of the neighborhood. further, the planning department will report back on what the permit holder did subsequent to the initial disapproval of the permit which enabled it to get the permit approved. so we will hear from the planning department first and the planning department has six minutes given that there are two appellants. >> thank you. congratulations on your

promotion today and members of the board and the planning department. thank you for the brief continues to allow us time to further review this matter. i did find that we did not per -- review this subject permit and our review found that it was in a zoning protected location. however, it is also an eight planning protected location because it is in the eligible valley historic district. it is not an adopted historic district but it is eligible for listing and the more stringent review requirement of the planning protected location apply because of the historic character and with that in reviewing and rereviewing the design, the current design is not one that the planning department can support. as such, we did not support the planning design. we know that the project sponsor has requested a continuance to allow time to propose a new design. they've indicated that due to new technology, they can make something that is smaller and have less of a visual impact.

would be happy to review any such revision. if the board so chooses. we wanted to inform the dog -- the board of our apologies to all the parties for the error that staff did make in this, we wanted to make sure we had a hearing tonight to get fully informed the board of the status of the permit and so you can make the appropriate decisions. i'm available for any questions. >> what is your recommendation? i forgot to welcome you. we are happy to, it is really what the board prefers. we are happy to review the sponsor. they would be able to reapply. they wouldn't be a bar from them reapplying within one year because they would be submitting a new design that would comply with requirements. perhaps -- we would be happy for either of the board's preference >> can you tells a little bit about the planning protections on this location and how this conflicts with the protections. >> given that it was a planning

protected location and has a higher level of review and we are looking at whether it may distract from historic character of the neighborhood, there were some concerns in the last hearing and raised about the consistency of our review of this and how we have characterized the overall character and the scale of the districts and we were reviewing the materials and i think it is safe to say this is a three-story district. there are some that have perhaps a fourth story that is in an attic, but it doesn't appear as a fourth story from the streets. it looks like a ground-floor garage, a community living level , and an attic area under gabled roof. but it is a 40-foot height district. it is probably -- buildings are generally 30 to 35 feet tall, maybe the peaks of those roofs are up to 40 feet tall, but especially as the project sponsor has indicated, they have the ability to design a better site one that would be smaller and we think that there is the

ability to achieve a better design that have less of a visual impact. one of the things that was striking for me on this was the amount of equipment that was going to be on the poll. there were quite a few boxes. if that could be reduced and if the overall height could be reduced, those are things that we would look to the project sponsor to do. >> is it practice in the planning department to permit or not permit or suspend the size and the character? i guess i am wondering how likely it is for smaller things to get through. we certainly have approved facilities that are in historic districts, and so it is not that it can't be done, it would just be up to the project sponsor to design something that would be smaller as they stated they can. >> thank you. >> one last question. >> go ahead. >> in the previous, of the previous hearing, there is excessive clutter.

is that the term that was used. >> we raise this about the height of the facility but also the amount of equipment that is on the pole. >> is that common when permits are issued for the cellular towers? i have never seen excessive clutter. >> i have never seen that either >> we called it junk on another street. that is my question. i have never seen the planning department actually say excessive clutter. >> usually by the time it gets to you on appeal, we have resolved those issues. so they have made it such that there is not excessive clutter. i'm going back to when omar was working this program. >> we miss him, don't we? >> part of the struggle was getting the meters removed because pg and he wants to have a meter in every poll so they can get every little drop of

activity. could be nice if we didn't have to have meter rocks. there is ways to reduce the size on the nature of the equipment.

done the stuff level before it gets to the board.

>> it would be a revised project that leads to the denial of the application in the first place. >> do you suppose that this new design will become more of a standard for these facilities in your initial view if it equates to less clutter? >> that is possible. sometimes we do receive -- we have seen the variety of applications. this would polls, city-owned poles, so there are usually different design packages that get set up for each style, and that can be replicated on other poles. it could be they have a better technology, better equipment that they could have a new standard for this type of application. >> you have set the standard before. you have worked with them to say what is acceptable to the department. >> yes. i think this is a case where if

there is an error on staff's part, that led us to where we are today. >> thank you. >> thank you. with the public works department like to add anything? >> are you guys just getting paid to sit down tonight? >> we will now hear from mr. albritton, the attorney for the permit holder. >> can i get paid to sit down. >> you're getting paid to sit down. >> i will just put this up here. do i have three minutes or six minutes? >> six. >> i will try and be quick. >> you never usually use it also it is okay. >> i'm outside council for verizon wireless. it is hard to believe we have worked with the planning department on this application for two years, but we have and we have worked with respect to the review, with respect to the standard, with respect to the

redesign and the requirements to try and make this something that would be acceptable. so it is difficult to find that there is a procedural error that was discovered in the last couple of weeks. our history with working with the planning department with omar and with the city attorney 's office goes way back. unfortunately, we had to sue the city 2006 to go into the right of way but we worked with the city to develop article 25 through all four iterations before it came as a law today. verizon wireless is not part of the lawsuit that went to the supreme court on article 25. we worked very hard on the language of article 25. in fact, bill sanders and i argued about that question about eligible historic districts versus historic districts and whether that would remain in the ordinance. the other thing we discussed is what is the standard? to this moment, we appreciate working with scott quite a bit, but we have not heard the

standard enunciated that is required to view whether this is affecting the effect -- they historic district. that standard is that it cannot significantly detract from the a static attributes that are the basis for the special designation of the eligible historic district. those words weren't chosen lightly. what are the characteristics that make this an eligible historic district? what are the a static attributes that make it historic? it is obviously the buildings, the historic buildings that are there right now. one of the a static attributes? the colours, the balconies, the sizes of the buildings. does our facility detract from that? as you can see, we need to raise the antenna 6 feet in order to allow firemen to climb up the pole and not touch wires when they are reaching for the antenna.

we need to put the equipment 4 inches off the pole in order to allow the alignment -- the lineman to put his belt behind it. the radios have been designed so there is less with than what the department would consider to not obscure of view if they are 6 feet away. they are narrow, there are quiet , they have no fan. we have done everything we can to make them quiet. did they detract from the static attributes of the other -- eligible buildings or the historic district? and then you need to ask yourself if they detract, do they significantly detract. i don't think there's evidence to suggest that it does. i don't want you to reverse the decision of the planning department. the one we heard tonight is that some broad language about how they felt it no longer qualified , but what i would like is for the planning department to really take a serious look at the language, the standards that they are supposed to be upholding and how we got to those standards and how they are

applied. clutter comes up often, but that is a general plan characteristic of this residential neighborhood it has nothing to do with the standard that was drafted since article 25. i reason for request for a reddish -- for additional time to allow the planning department to go through that analysis. if there are, if we are somehow significantly detracting from a static attributes, then what can we do to avoid doing that and that is the sort of analysis that we wanted to see. if you move forward this evening , you need to come up with a resolution of denial that will have to come back at another meeting and we will have to look at that resolution of denial and analyse those questions that i just described decide whether we want a rehearing or not because it is new information. those are the reasons that we thought it would be valuable to allow the department to come up with a clear analysis and for us to address that analysis. it was the purpose for our request.

the only reason i can say to you why it maybe better for us to keep this application rather then to come to reapply is that as we have pointed out, the only reason we have been so tenacious with this poll is it is one of two utility poles in this entire area because of the ornamental poles that have been put on belvedere street, so unfortunately, for my engineers, they told me and they said, to go somewhere else, and they said no, they really need something here and that is why we are anxious not to lose it, potentially to a competitor or potentially to lose this application. we understand that the department of public works is currently working on objective standards that we can point to when reviewing this particular type of question, and i assume they're working with the planning department and coming up with those standards. maybe we will have objective standards and that is one of the reasons we discuss with the department his november date and why it may be more easy for you to make a decision at that time because you have objective

standards to look at. that is our review and i guess that took my six minutes. >> it took five missing 30 seconds, but i have a question. can we talk about the smaller equipment that you potentially would be using? >> we don't like to suggest we would do it in every case, but the first thing that has happened is there are -- >> you know you will be before us with other cases that are later on. >> exactly. we don't want to volunteer that we are going to help. this is a historic district, this is a situation where we will go the extra mile to come up with something that will allow us to do something to fill this potential gap. the radio this was designed with each had two frequencies. there is now one frequency, and now i two frequency radio. when actually have one radio that has a two frequencies that we had before. we would rather use all four frequencies, but we could

potentially reduce that. we could also go -- there is a new radio out and it is a 20 water radio instead of a 40 water radio. it is narrower, it is a little taller, but it is narrower. there are some other new technologies where we are using smaller radios that use the citizen band radio spectrum and something called laa to provide wi-fi bubbles around the small cells in order to improve their efficiency. it was a combination of three smaller radios and we can make a better looking design here that will be wide and closer to the facility. we have been working with pg and d. on a smaller meter and it is a combination switch and it only works when we use low-power radios instead of higher power radios and we are also working on a slightly smaller antenna that is a little over 3 feet instead of 4 feet. so we would try and use all of those new techniques to come up with something that was more

acceptable for this location. every time you do that you reduce that rude wattage of the radios. he reduce the wattage of the radios of itself. if you do that citywide, you end up with more poles overall then the design that we came up with. >> if you shrink the radios but increase the radios and the wattage -- >> we reduce the wattage, but combine the frequencies. >> the height of the district is around 30 feet. given the limitations of the pole, if you would be able to stay under the 30 feet, given the wires and the other things you mentioned needing to be cleared out.

between the bottom of the mounting bracket and the wires themselves or get those are things that we would try and look at. it is also possible we can replace the pole and i don't know if that would help us with height also.

>> thank you, counselor. >> thank you for your time this evening. >> thank you. we will hear from ms. , eliza nemser. you have three minutes. >> good evening, and welcome. >> overhead please. >> good evening. article 25 exists and permitting process, compliance standards, veal process exist to protect our city and its residents. unfortunately verizon has shown a disregard for the integrity of this process to get the fact they sent a sub contractor to string cable to this poll before the permit was even approved. with a foregone conclusion they would obtain the permit. there has been a failure in all levels of this assets. a shadow cast, with a disapproval of a 44 design in

march. the approval of the same design in july with no rational basis. and the failure to review this and permits at the planning protected location as part of the historic district. there have been numerous representations as pivotal it affects you. the board of appeals, tainting these proceedings. residents have had to spend time and resources to eliminate these failures. this isn't a one-off project. our city and its residents deserve a fair and unbiased process, that is not what has unfolded here. verizon, in their brief standing here, misrepresented the basis for plannings merchant determination. they misled the board to believe that permit was raised originally disappear because it was 42 feet and 2 inches high. it was for a 42-foot tall facility. to review the disapproval. it reads, you can look at it now, the total new height of 40 feet. >> thank you.

>> for the proposed pole exceeds the height of the surrounding structures. the board of appeals is entitled to a clear and correct picture of the basis of original disapproval. they misrepresented the july planning -- simply because the pole height was lowered to feed into inches. the 40-foot height did not change. a july 2 e-mail from verizon's consultant at sf planning reads, i appreciate the confirmation of sticking with the 40-foot height i am sure verizon will, too. verizon misrepresented that the facility is not in a protected location. it should have been evaluated as a planning protected location. as shown in this document that i received in my sunshine ordinance. i would like to add these into the record, they are not in my brief. knowing this, verizon failed to

alert planning. december 13, 2017 letter, planning, back in 2017 when it was 42. asked verizon for a facility that does not degrade the ascetic attributes. verizon misrepresented this facility would not detract from views on belvidere street. it would only be visible for a few feet, the pole is a visible for 180 feet along belvidere. finally, verizon interferes with this appeal process for requesting a postponement to be fast-track. >> i'm sorry, your time is up. >> we will now hear from frances dependahl. >> 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 right-of-way 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 30-foot buildings, three floor, 30-foot buildings and grattan street, 2 grattan street is a three-story 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 grattan's 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 i'm 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. that's 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 old-fashioned 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 e-mail it. i had somebody, this is what it looks like, they've done a sketch and shows what it really is going to look like, here's 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, i'm 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. i'm 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 don't 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 applicant's 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 40-foot facility at 2 grattan does not have a rational basis. the march of 13 determination stated a 40-foot 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 40-foot 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 40-foot pole would clutter of verizon's 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 12-13 letter to cbr's 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 3-5-18 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. verizon's and proper characterization as an average neighborhood, and verizon's irrelevant argument that zoning would permit a 40-foot building, are both misleading distortions that fail to support the approval of verizon's permit.

verizon creatively, disingenuously, and falsely evoked a hypothetical decision of the neighborhood with 40-foot buildings. 2 grattan is part of the cole valley historic district which is characterized by 30-foot buildings on subject @ to the height and more restrictive planning compatibility of standards. it is here that verizon's proposed 40-foot 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 2-3 feet -- three stories high and that is 30 feet or less. it doesn't 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 40-foot 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 everyone's 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 decision-making process was flawed that led to its issuance, that is grounds, correct? i would say so. the board has -- >> i'm 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, everyone's neighborhood is special. the prices of homes in san francisco i don't think there's 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 don't 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 don't 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. >> i'm not fully aware, just processing it, it's 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. it's 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 don't 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 number-0. appeals are granted. thank you. >> we will now move on to item number 8. this is an appeal 19-032. 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 two-story plus mezzanine commercial building

and construct a six story mixed-use building with 54 dwelling units above approximately 7500 square feet of ground floor and based went level square foot. this is record no. 2019-002026zad. >> 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 the 2019 version of the affordable housing fee? we believe the 2019 fee is the applicable fee. that is when they pulled their first construction document. it is a 2018 version of the fee is an error.

he claims it is triggered by the site permit which is a deviation from president and is being instituted with no notice to the appellant. a little quit -- quick background, it is a project approved in 2017. at the time of its approval, the project did what all projects do, the elect how to comply with the cities of starting hot -- affordable housing ordinance. the appellant chose to build units on site. at a clip of 14.5%. they chose not to pay the fee as it existed, the old fee, because at that time the old fee was unfair to small projects in small units. this projects approximate unit size would be about 500 square feet. it's tenant roster will be people in the public sector, hospitality workers, it will not fetch the same rent as trans bay because of that, economically, it made no sense to pay the fee. in fact it made the project unviable to pay the old fee.

in 2018, the planning department , the mayors office of housing, the comptroller went through a process of reevaluating how the fee is calculated, the affordable housing fee. they made a determination that the fee was unfair to small projects, with small square footage units. exhibit b to the zoning administrator's own brief has a copy of the comptroller's report that says exactly that. now the appellant seeks to pay the fee instead of building the units on site. they are allowed to do that. they have to go to the planning commission to which they would do. the question in front of you, shockingly it has to go to the board of appeals to answer this question. how much do they have to pay. there are several issues we need to consider. the first one primarily as notice to get the zoning administrator's and brief has an outline of chronology. at the end of that chronology you will see december 1st, 2018 a confirmation that notice was sent to projects that had opted to pay the fee, that if

they pulled a site permit, not a building permit, they would be locked into whatever the fee was , the methodology was, at that time. that notice did not go to the appellant. that is because the appellant wasn't planning to pay the fee. they began the process, and completed the entitlement process under the assumption that they were building units on site. january 1, 2019. the fee ordinance changes. the methodology changes. now the appellant wants to pay the fee. they are being told that in august of 2018 when they pulled a site permit, unbeknownst to them, they were locking in a fee schedule in 2018 despite the fact that fees in the city are paid, and are determined, the amount is determined when a building permit is pulled not a site permit. if we were to confirm the das understanding, and the das position here, you would be frustrating the entire purpose of the change in the fee. the methodology was changed between 2018 and 2019 precisely

so the projects like the appellant small projects in small units could pay the fee. in facts, the planning commission last month stated this on the record of the planning commission that in her mind, projects like the appellant should be encouraged to pay the fee. because, for several reasons, but primarily because the first one is, when a developer constructs small reserved affordable units, in a project, they tend to sit vacant. we provided significant amount of evidence in the record that those types of units shockingly in a city where there is obviously ongoing affordable housing races. these units don't go rented, the families don't reside at 500 square-foot units. consistent with commissioner melger's position. the city needs the funds. the position the planning commission is, let's see if we can get the affordable housing fund to grow by having developers pay the fee. in this instance, the appellant wants to pay the fee.

if they're forced into paying the 2018 fee they will build the units on site despite the fact it's inconsistent with the whole purpose of changing the fee structure. finally, there's going to be no disruption of the cities of a fallible horse -- housing program. because this is a very unique circumstance. a project that never opted to pay the fee. by saying we are building units on site. a site permit, no one told them by building a site permit you have suddenly walked yourself into the old way of calculated in fee and now in 2019 have pulled a building permit center being told if you want to switch to pay the fee you have to go back in time and pay it in 2018. in conclusion a couple of things you should bear in mind. this is a bureaucratic maze unfortunately. the board of appeals can help us out here. they should not be going back to a site permit to be the trigger for when you pay your permits. there is no precedent for that.