unit. it has been a couple years. >> it is awhile longer. >> let me just get this wrapped up to your point. really, by creating a second unit this cleans up a mess because it has already been used as a second unit, albeit illegal, because it is not recognized in any way, shape or form. secondly, the issue of intruding into the common area the bike requirement now can legally go away so the intrigue is not there. >> i think the appellant raised other issue. with bicycle parking that can be removed. >> then the ccnr issue is not our business. also, the issues raised by

fellow commissioners with regard to the building one number of units to another number of units, that kicks in potentially higher insurance. that really again is not in our purview to consider. thathatthat is a civil issue and between the hoa members, correct? >> correct. >> we will hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening, commissioners. department of building inspection. the one thing i see that might be a possible problem for the permit holder is she signed an agreement stating they wouldn't have anybody but licensed contractors. that is because it is a multi-unit building. they were allowed to pull the permit as an owner.

the price is a little low, too. when the building inspector goes out there he is going to ask them to make adjustments to the valuation. >> is that a building inspection issue as opposed to ahoa issue? >> correct. >> that will be noticed as far as inspection red flag goes up, new requirement. we don't have to worry about that tonight? >> during the course of construction they will have an inspection. they will make sure things are done per the building code with fire ratings. i think the valuation is something it will fly or not. >> so the sprinkler issue we don't have to determine tonight if indeed there is an issue of sprinklerring which would

trigger a building-wide sprinklerring, that would have impact on the rest of the owners of the building and that would be the choice to continue? >> it would go through fire. fire did look through this. april 18, april 23rd it was approved. >> that is off the table? >> yes. >> one last question, senior inspector. >> i got all dressed up. you have got to ask me something. you have better hair than joe. >> the question is i thought the building department has a minimum mandate for such remodeling. if you are doing kitchen remodel i thought there was automatically a set fee at a minimum mungoing forward i thought it was $25,000. >> there is a formula. that is for all over the united

states. you know yourself work in omaha is not the same price as san francisco. they made adjustments in that regard. this was an existing illegal unit already. what are they doing? legalizing things so they might not put in a new kitchen. they might make it code compliant. that is why until the building inspector conducts a site visit we have no way of knowing. we go by what they put on the permit application. >> . >> these are not relevant to what you do? >> no. >> if somebody got wind of the project and came to you as the permit was going through the process and showed you the ccrs and made a case this was in violation would that have an impact? >> no that is a civil issue. we are building code.

scott and his team handle the planning stuff. we are building code issue. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? >> come on up. don't be shy. welcome. >> hi. i am betty lee, owner of unit number two. this is my home. i love our building. >> i am sorry. stop the time. i believe since she is just a member she is allowed to speak as member of the public comment. unless you are an officer of the hoa that is my understanding. when we have nonprofits. >> are you an officer of the hoa? >> i am treasurer. >> unfortunately you are not able to speak as a private

citizen. if the appellant wants to give his time up to you, he is welcome to. you are a member of the body at this point. >> thank you. >> googood evening, ladies and gentlemen. i am an owner. >> you are not an officer? >> no. my wife and i bought one of the units. mostly the contractor license. we about the our unit as four bedroom, four unit building. it was to be removed the kitchen and the wall. she never separated her unit into two. now she came to ask.

only one unit three. if it were approved based on inaccurate information she provided. she included space in the garage, biking space for bike parking space. we are asking to comply with the rules and bring the unit back to original form. the sprinkler system that is in the drawings, that will not work. you can only do one sprinkler system for the entire system. for the building to have two separate systems in case of a fire. if her unit goes off, -- if the unit goes on fire, then only one sprinkler system will go off. my wife and i have saved money to buy a place to call home. we invested a lot of money.

we have been doing a lot of work in making the best of the building in top shape. we would like this to be granted in our favor. they do not care about the well-being of the building and only monetary gains. >> in other public comment? we will move to rebuttal. mr. shulman. >> i will speak about there is not only an illegal kitch then is in the front part of unit three. what the attorney spoke about only a four unit building. that is in the assessor's record

from 1984 or 1983. we believe the encroachment in the garage and bike parking is no longerness. it is one of the ways the permit got approved in the first place. the issue is permission. you still when you are in an hoa it is up to you to do due diligence to know what is allowed to come and say i want to do this, i am applying for this permit it is up to us to talk about it. ms. zang hasn't appeared in two years. no questions about anything here. it is every time we try to ask a question, nothing. we understand the hoa situation is a civil issue, and we are currently going through that process, but when we bought our

units this is a four unit building. i didn't know when i bought this that unit three had a subdivision. now that i am hoa president i see the new plans and was told that somebody was renting in 3a and 3b. i was blown away. i would have probably never purchased the unit had i known that. i don't know where to go on this. i am not an attorney, but for us it is about the health of the building and how much time and effort we put in and i think having the five unit building here is just not what i signed up for and what the rest of the hoa signed up for either. summer is being fined.

that is a civil matter, an and i appreciate all of you time. that is all i have. >> i have a question. you understand that prior to the legislation in 2014 of october by now that once there is an inlaw it can no longer be removed. >> she can filed for can b condl use permit and do that. >> as much as i feel in pain for you guys, this is a civil matter. what is legal between the city and hoa is what is in the hoa. you know that once it is going to litigation no lender will touch it. that means no refinancing and no reselling. >> isn't something to be sell

about the mortgagees the one that put up the money. >> that is a civil matter for the co-owners. >> this can escalate over and over and keep going and be expensive. with the sprinkler systems. >> i think you should have a conversation with the co-owner. >> it could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. >> you have three minutes for rebuttal. >> i just want to address your concerns. yes, it would be considered a separate unit, an additional unit. it remains square footage remains the same. for insurance purposes i it is e square footage that counts. number two, is it fair to the other members of the hoa, no.

allocation is based on percentage of ownership. they can reallocate the costs of maintaining the building. unit number three is the largest of all of the condos. they already pay more than anybody else. as to the concern about creating more people living in the use of common areas. it has been since my client bought the building in 2010. we don't know when this subdivision or sub units have been established. when she bought it was already there, and people have been using the common areas. that doesn't mean it is not any

different from legalizing any inlaw apartments in the city and there are thousands and thousands of them. it was intended to include residents and tenants of the illegal units to a legalized situation. this is no different. as to going back, i understand appellant would like to see removing the kitchen and returning it to the original plan. it is not possible under planning code 317 because the criteria to remove illegal units six or seven of them, the primary ones is that whether or not the owner of the property lived in the unit. she has never lived in the unit.

whether the unit is removing affordable housing, yes, it would be. she is renting the apartments for $2,300 per month. that is absolutely under market. you can never get to rent a two bedroom apartment facing the ocean for $2,300 per month. will that reduce the housing stock? of course, it would. with this criteria she will never be able to remove it. >> mr. sanchez anything further? mr. curren. >> bernie curren. to allay the fears the appellants might have concerning the sprinkler system. that is in place. unless the walls or partitions

are going to compromise the coverage of the sprinkler heads, this should be okay. that is why the fire department probably locater indicated over-the-counter like they did. >> when the sprinkler heads were installed i don't know when the property was put together, generally code changes. if you don't touch it, it is grandfathered in. if you touch it there is an upgrade. now the sprinkler requires every year. >> if you had to reconfigure it. when you shut down the sprinkler system the whole building has to be shut down. you can move the heads. i don't think you are increasing the capacity. you haven't added square footage, per se. >> by touching it, you are the inspector would a new permit mean? >> i am not a fire inspector. i am telling you that for what is there, it is working.

as long as they don't compromise the coverage area of the existing heads it shouldn't be an issue. >> this matter is submitted. >> well, i guess it is me. as mentioned this is a civil matter. the project is code compliant. i think personally this is going to end into a much bigger issue. if it goes to litigation, no one gets to sell or do anything. when you upgrade to a five unit building, the loan requirements are different. it requires higher owner occupancy. it is a code change. as far as i see i don't think that we can take this appeal. >> i completely agree. i would encourage the parties to

talk to each other especially before any complaints are filed in court. speaking as a lawyer that is the last thing that either of you want. for the reasons of the commissioner said and because it is expensive and delay resolution of this for a really long time. i encourage you to talk to each other. i don't know if there is space for compromise. maybe there isn't. take a hard look at the ccnr and if you think you can get a judge to force her to file for conditional use and look at what they are asking for and see if there is anything you can provide to make them communicate better. >> i have seen it as a realtor for 21 years. buildings are in litigation for years and no one can do

anything. you are not looking at each other. have a heart to heart. this is going to be a problem for anybody. >> commissioner lazarus? >> i think we can make it cleaner. i think we know where we are going with this. i suggest when you make your motion that you include accommodation to get rid of the bicycle racks and the obvious intrusion into the common space just to make it cleaner. >> you would be granting the appeal on the condition it be revised to remove the bike rack. >> that is what i just said. that is my motion. >> that motion from commissioner honda. (roll call). that motion carries 4-0.

thank you. >> we are moving to the next item. >> it is wise for me. you probably should leave this will not be done in 15 minutes. have a safe flight. thank you very much. >> in the interest of san francisco traffic we will give you an extra 15 minutes. >> item 10. commissioner has to leave. -- i'm sorry item 12. it is appeal number 19-069. ruth krumbhaar versus san francisco public works. 428amatury loop. appealing the issuance on june 18, 2019 to gte mobile net of a personal wireless service

facility. permit 18wr-0372. we will hear from the appellant first. >> thank you for being patient with us. four cases got off the books tonight otherwise you would be here for another two hours keeping us company. we love to be here. welcome. >> for clarification we are presenting together. >> you can share the time. you will have seven minutes to present and three minutes in rebuttal. go ahead whoever wants to speak first. >> there is a clock right in front. >> i am rhatany live at 2638 lion street with my teenage son. this is home to us and enjoyed by those in san francisco and tourists all day every day. i would like to highlighter a fact.

the address is being used for installation is defective. 428amatury loop is two miles away from the location on lions street. you will see the location comes up. it is all that has used that address. verizon and the parties associated with us acknowledged the address problem and argued there is time to understand the truth. they have indicated under article 25 of the public works code they fulfilled the obligation to inform and we dispute this. they say a dozen residents communicated with dpw. if you count the number of people there is a lot more than 12. we learned some neighbors just begun to understand where this is going. they thought the mailing was a

mistake as we initially did and we believe others have nod why of the actual proposed location. we believe they conveniently chose this address for the location of the cell tower to confuse public and neighbors and to get away with placing something in one of the most historic and visited sites in the entire city. >> overhead please. >> hello. my name is jane newman. this facility this is a lion street corridor. it is the lion street steps. one of the san francisco most popular visitor and tourist landmarks and an area i have lived in. i moved there originally 50 years ago. i now own the house at 2626 lion

street. this facility is going to be 50 feet in front of my house on the other side of the street. it is on the outside of the prevideo right on the street. it is not two miles from the address they listed. i have lived there over 15 years. i love living there. it is beautiful, as you can see this would be built the heart of the beautiful lion street steps neighborhood. if this project rubber stamped as it appeared is an ongoing process, i feel personally it is fraudulent and deceptive and disingenuous. it appears it has been routinely approved and not taken into

consideration the unique aspect of this popular and beautiful part of san francisco. i witness every day 365 days a year a flow of people, neighbors, tourists who come to this lion street step corridor and enjoy the location and the uniqueness of our neighborhood. i do feel that it is we are frustrated. it is your duty to protect this unique neighborhood. this is one like the painted ladies or the lombard street, and it is one of those beautiful individual parts of san francisco that we love. please overturn this approval of this facility. >> thank you. good evening.

thank you for your time. i am susan de silva. my husband and i reside at 2550 lions street with our three young children. i would like to address the aesthetic concerns we have. the telling lecommunication companies believes that they had virtually absolute right to install new wireless facilities without complying with the aesthetic standard. the challenge that is aesthetic standard through the california court system. as we know, they lost. the california supreme court recently upheld the ordinance within the local power of the city to protect as theftstics. it -- aesthetics. the state appellate court specifically noticed the city

power to protect the local aesthetics and landmarks. those opposing us seem to believe the court decisions have no import. we disagree. we believe the reasoning of the state courts emphasize the inheroin local power to protect aesthetics. we are deeply concerned about the aesthetics and the negative impact the 5g wireless facility would have on this beautiful historic landmark in san francisco. we want to preserve the character of this historic lime street steps neighborhood. san francisco's beauty is critical to the tourist industry and the reason people and businesses want to locate here. thank you for your attention. >> members of the board i am cathy u. i own the house right next to

jeanies. it is about 100 feet away from this facility. we believe the san francisco ordinance imposes a duty to protect aesthetics in each individual case. as we highlight in our belief the ordinance was to require protection of aesthetics including the lion street corridor. as we emphasize it requires affirmative determinations with specific determinations it does not interfere. >> thank you you will have time on rebuttal. that was thought divided equally. you can go first in rebuttal. >> thank you we will hear from the permit holder. >> you are earning your money

tonight, counselor. >> thank you. we submitted a very large package to you, exhibit g. we were required by the planning department and department of public works to use this address. it appears as first or second line of the notice. the notice packet contains photo simulations of the facility which people will turn to when they first receive the notice and shows views up and down lions street. we think that the notice was received, the appellants appeared. there were 12 respondents of the 50 notices we sent. they were sent in 50-foot radius

around the pole itself. there were protesters at the protest hearing and tonight. we feel the notice was adequate even though it referred to an address provided by the planning department and department of public works. if the notice is defective which it was not in this case. the california state law says it would prejudice somehow the appellates. we don't believe they are prejudiced. that it caused injury to the appellants which we don't think occurred and would have to cause the result to change this address difference. we don't think that also is a difference with the address difference created that problem because we don't think the notice was defective. in addition to the mail notice there is posted notice and the three pictures up and down the

street where this notice was on the poles on lions street that happened twice. with respect to design and aesthetics. i think you remember omar massey we spent years coming up with this design for the city and the design was copied by at&t and other carriers. it went to the historic commission and architectural review committee to receive comment. we included the entire packet omar prepared for the commission and they rejected certain designs and accepted this particular design. it is here in front of well traveled locations in front of city hall. in this case it will raise the height of the existing poll by less than two feet. the radios are 10 inches wide

and 5 inches deep. it is a design we have replicated from the stock exchange to pacific heights to this particular location. we think it is the direct design. it has a hill behind it and wall. it is not affecting anyone's view. the closest home is 60 feet away. the emissions are extremely low. with that we just close by saying, yes, the address is obscure, but it was received, reviewed, no prejudice. we don't believe it would change the result. the notice clearly brought forth the concern in review so there was public dialogue. we don't believe that it -- we believe the planing commission determines that it does not impair the attributes of the

neighborhood. we can answer any questions you would have. >> thank you. we will now hear from department of public works. >> good evening, i am representing public works. we believe this was issued in compliance with the permit procedure in article 25. it requires public works refever wireless applications to department of public health and planning department. they issued tentative approval and the applicant mailed in the notice. there were protests. following the hearing they approved the permit and nose of

determination was sent to the public. planning department is in appearance. we are available to take questions and respond to e-mail. thank you. >> i have a question. i can't remember if you were here or not. we had a chase on church street. during that case the address that was given for the actual site and where it actually was was different similar to this particular case. how far is the next address on this particular case? >> good question. i will read public works order 184504. section 211. correct address for each utility and transit and streetlight pole to be used in connection with the wireless facility. this correct address in the case, well, i have a powerpoint

to show you guys. i appreciate you guys staying late. >> no worries. >> they are getting paid more than we are. i know that. >> overhead, please. so the location of the proposedded equipment on the pole is right there. as you can see, it is adjacent to the procee pro procedio. we go to the website and type it in. it shows the location of the pole. if you look into property information for that particular address, you will see it is all-in-one parcel. 130-0001.

all acceptable addresses for this parcel pertain to this list. 200 addresses. the address on the top is 428 amatury loop. that is how we came up with the address. the posting and mailing affidavits contain two photos that show the exact location of the pole and what it would look like on the pole. that is exhibit d and e, the mailing and posting affidavit. the appellant had said that the nearest closest address is i believe a half-mile. i can't remember exact. 2.1 miles. >> people use different mapping. it could be incorrect information. >> what would 432 on the amatury

loop be. >> you have wi-fi can you google 432. i want the next address. 432. >> hold on.

what is the thing across the street? last time we got the air. >> it looks like the network is down. >> that is fine. what is 432 amatury loop? in comparison to 428, how far is that? >> thank you. >> upon looking at -- it is

loading. it is loading the same parcel. wait for it to load. >> i am fine. thank you. don't worry. we are done. thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> surprised you were not googling the address. i have the same question, by the way. >> i know you did. in regards to the review of this, our staff analysis did review the application and the planning protected location and zoning protected location because the parcel was in front of it was on public. the adjacent are residential properties.

that would trigger the review. in terms of planning because the presidio is a resource. it did not detract or degrade from the character of that was necessary to establish it was a historic resource. the pole design is similar and something widely employed by verizon and often found not to be an issue in historic districts. our review was appropriate. the questions that came to the address which took me a little bit by surprise today trying to find out where the property was located. with the parcel information map, it lists every known address within the presidio.

it is quite extensive. i will put it on the overhead to give a sense of it. it is just how it is formatted in here. it is pretty expensive. it happens to be 428 is am take bet am takeisalphabetically fir. there are other addresses associated with this. you would come up with this property as well. i can only find one lions street that came up with this property. it was not at in location. it was on the 2900 block. in establishing the appropriate address, it was relied on the first address listed on this parcel and that is how it came to be. i have some questions.

>> i am available for questions. >> if that is the chosen address by the planning department. the if the project sponsor chose that address. >> standard operating procedures. it is consistent how they apply it. >> maybe it will be the dpw if you are not able to answer it. >> shouldn't there be notification for the whole parcel. >> if it is not specific where that is. as a layman property owner, if i get a notice in the mail my add joining neighbor wants to do remodeling and it is 30 blocks away, okay, i don't need to look at that and to it in the trash

can. >> i would assume the notice is giving people information about something within close proximity to them. i don't know if it says it is within x number of feet of the property. >> we will say the property address and the property is within 150 feet of your property. i don't know if the extent of the public works notice. i didn't discuss this with them earlier. i wasn't aware of the addressing issue until today. >> it just came to me i have the same issue with church street. i let that go and didn't think it was appropriate at that time and not now. >> are you done? >> i apologize. what strikes me here is that

using federal land. the presidio is not san francisco. it is not applicable to san francisco. the liquor laws are different. everything is different. the use of an address on federal land to me is a different jurisdiction and it has nothing to do at all. you are either on federal land or san francisco land. federal land is like another country. >> you give up your rights as a u.s. citizen the same rules do not apply. >> you know, the rules on one side of that wall are different than the rules on the other side

of that wall. the use of that address. you are in a different country and jurisdiction and it is really slopy. how do you read that? we are talking about an address that isn't on federal property but a pole that is in san francisco. the question to the planning department is it in san francisco or is it on the federal planned? >> the pole is in san francisco subject to our jurisdiction and permit projects. we have you identify the property it is in front of. it is in front of the presidio. one of my concerns and i did have concerns about the historic issues. i want to have the staff review

this, particularly with the trust to see if this is a facility they could have approved. we have a staff member who used to work there. they reviewed it and said this would be something they would see as provable for what it is worth. it is an additional step that i wanted to at least get the answer to. they have their own guidelines, wireless telecommunication facilities or guidelines. that is what they use. i have a copy of that. >> one other question before we hammer on dpw. the corridor. this case reminds me when i

first signed up a few years ago. i think there was a pole out in the sun set and there was a view corder requested. we denied it. it was looking rat golden gate park. far less grand than this spectacular view which i have grown up with as a native of the city. i believe we also sited a view corridor. >> if this isn't in the view corder what is it? >> it is a good street. the issue and what it did have warrant additional review because of th of the historic resource. it was found to be in

compliance. looking at the application and plan. >> in your recollection of that action out in the sun set. if you remember it was even more screwy because they were careless enough to put italian american flags and borrowed the signs they used in north beach to use in the sun set which was embarrassing to dpw. that is another conversation. leavenworth, i believe, also. >> those were view corridors as identified in the plan as being streets with view ratings. >> this street has no view rating. >> it is average street views. it doesn't have the higher rating of good or excellent which has additional street

names. >> thank you. any public comment on this item. >> we had a question for dpw prior to that. >> sure. >> again thank you. the question was understanding that is an address and if you are using that lot as the address, shouldn't dpw circle everybody because if you are using that whole thing as your address. >> the planning representative said it has to be the address adjacent to the pole. >> that is the address adjacent to the pole. in regards to notification. i do have -- overhead please.

>> i got your fingerprints now. >> this is the mailing affidavit that is applicant submitted. it was mailed per public works code article 25. >> i get that. i am not trying to give you you a hard time. it is deceptive if you look at the whole address is the presidio or the whole park. we can't use an address across the street. that is not a correct address. i want across the street from this parcel. that is not correct. we cannot use that. six months ago we had another

pole and it was the same, two blocks up, because it was at the bottom of the hill. that is where the people was. it was the closest address which was hundreds of yards away. the people across the street were impacted by the installation, their rights were abused. they weren't properly consulted. what really bothers me. >> does anybody from dpw ever make a site visit for these installations? did anybody make a site visit to this or did you just simply do the easy way, the passive practice of going to your laptop

and siting it and relying on electronics? do you not make a site visit to a neighborhood? >> it is -- was there a site visit? >> we take the address they give us. >> thank you. >> i would disagree. if they are not required to go out and following a procedure you need to discuss with the department changing the procedure. up to that point they have done when they are supposed to do. >> i see their point. i won't get into an argument on it. >> anyone here for public comment. since you are part of the party,

you can come up at rebuttal time. any public comment? >> we are moving to rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> i think we can agree everyone uses google maps and it is accurate. this shows the disvans. it is over two miles. quite frankly as we emphasized the ordinance requires affirmative determination that each wireless location does not interfere with the local aesthetics. if verizon had made the site visit they would have seen that. you are rubber stamping this and making it routine. we are asking for individual consideration of the impact just as the ordinance has the clerk has affirmed local power to you to protect the aesthetics.

the city ordinance imposes a duty to protect the neighborhood. we just simply ask that you do. >> thank you. i just want to continue to say that they have argued under i believe it is government code section 65010b this doesn't matter because no one is injured due to error or deception. i des agree. if this is approved the very thing that makes san francisco such a world class city of sweeping views and historical significance will be entered. that is one thing. i want to entasias the view corridor is from the iconic lion street steps looking down towards the bay. we walk the steps every day up and down as do thousands of tourists and tons of school

children and artists and photographers. you know this. the view will be impacted from many levels of the steps that people come to visit every single day and night to photograph and to see it. >> thank you. you still have 50 seconds. >> in terms of the approval, the notice we received. we have the same notices from 25, 2735 green, all approvals are exactly the same no differ be language. you get my point. >> we will hear from mr.al bright. >> thank you. you all know we are amateurs.

you have seen the map where we went 50 feet, 150 feet around the pole that is required under public orders dpw18504 says 150 feet from around the pole. that is exactly what we did. the notice itself says the amateuthe amamatury loop and thw exactly where its and lions street north and south. i look at the pictures. we have posted on the street three posts with big huge posters on them showing on either side of the site showing exactly where it is. one of our problems in the city. poles don't have addresses. poles have numbers. many times somebody said they

put that in front of my neighbor's property. there is a decision what address is provided. we were instructed to use these for the parcel on the side of the street where the poll is located. it doesn't have a lions street address. we followed the code, the order. we did all of the notices required. we don't think there was any prejudice and we don't think there was any injury and we don't think it changed the result. this poll is not on the lions street. it is one to two blocks away from the steps. where this is located you don't have that beautiful view that you saw in the photographs. the pole rises from 30.6 feet to 32 feet with a little skinny 11-inch diameter antenna. that is not impairing the view.

i recognize the issue you are addressing. i think this little address issue is a little out of proportion. we do not do anything to try to obscure our applications. you can imagine the result we would get the we did that. we try to cross every t and dot every i. these projects go on for years. we hope you uphold approval. >> one question. you have children? >> two. >> if you were to send them a text to say meet neat 428 and four texas later you sent the picture where it is at. would your kids figure that out? >> if my daughter got a ticket in amatury loop and she was on

the other side of the wall, i would rather it be in federal rather than local jurisdiction. i understand your point. my daughter knows where i am right now. it is not by some address. she takes an uber and it takes her to the wrong address. my only point is we follow the rules and the addresses that were provided to us. if we have to with hundreds of applications second-guess these. we go out of our way to make sure we provide the notices and affidavits are provided and posted and we appear at all of the hearings and respond. >> thank you. anything further? no. okay.

mr. sanchez. >> just to reiterate and i think the board knows this. we review every project individually against the standards. there may be standards adopted throughout the years. it is for consistency these are all applied to the same standards. we do review these on an individual basis. there is no correlating address in our records for directly across the street from this. the closest is 2901 lion. it is a few blocks down. there is nothing here that would lead you to directly this location. >> is the lions street steps an excellent view location?