Verizon r. F. Engineer says i nee at this intersection. We go to the intersection with architects. And look at different poles to t blocking windows . Is it in front of windows . Is there a tree blocking the si . Here we looked at this is the fe we looked at. We thought it was the best locat that intersection because the aa would be above where the windown adjacent property. That building is about 22 feet m the rightofway. While the other poles on that sn the immediate area are closer to buildings. If you go, i think west, the stt starts to go down in elevation. Sow would lose some signal goint because of that. So that was kind of the reasonid this pole selection. What about placing it on buis instead of poles . Its tough with the zoning in francisco. That is preference seven, the Pg Department can go to that. Its hard at the get these on residential lots. Residentialzoned properties, id say weve heard in past, residel properties could provide an alte to placing them on the pole if Comparable Service if the ses acceptable. We hear more of that from plannr would you like to i would speak to that. We want them at street level. If youre on a building, the sis gettinget going to get to that a that we want. You said the light pole, eveh you got objection from the galln the back, that the light pole ir than the building in which it s, you contradicted yourself. That is that subject buildin. There are other buildings abutte that are taller than the pole. Do you want to speak . In 1998, we began an accessoe process in are San Francisco whe were allowed to put smaller facs within a particular design confn on residential properties. That was recently converted thra code change to allow certain sml facilities through the planning. But i have two comments and onee network is designed in order toe this network the necessary Small Service with the least number os or poles when you move one poled up having to move other poles bf the limited 500foot radius basf seiveis provide. Service provided. When you move the facility off s and into building ide 0 areas, e network an how its designed. There are two comments i have ty about that. One, as i mentioned, we have tht to be if the rieft o rightofw. We have negotiated with the citr this particular design to be ine rightofway. Telephone equipment on poles ine rightofway. And so we have the right to be e without demonstrating need. Secondly is clearly our networks designed in order to provide tht Reliable Network and service int efficient way, that is the desit verizon is bringing forward. The city is not in a position te the technology we use. I have to say, yes, we use smals in certain circumstances. In order to provide the coveragd down the street and this is a bidirectional antenna, this ise design that the network engineed out to provide the service werg to provide. In that spirit, this impliest there will be permits being reqd for other poles and as we heard i cant remember whether it wasc comment or the appellant who sa, now theyre working with the dpd planning to put more of these tn other poles which will further t what weve worked for decades te which is a continuity and cleanf getting away from stuff on pole. So if and if this were a houd this type of permitting activitd happen, i think the permitting d surface in the conversation. So rather than being accused ofl permitting and doing something s less than transparent, whats te about just doing it the right wr doing it the ore, that woulda judgment, doing it the way the neighborhood who invested a tres effort in money to do it in a rl way and sit down with the neighd association and create a propere that youre going to put materi that youre going to request per material all over the neighborhd that you would like to work out. Why not do it that way so weree i20 times hearing appeals from e Presidio Heights neighborhood . Thanks for letting me answert question. First, i want to say that the ee project, the larger project iniy went through a ceqa analysis. That ceqa analysis included an s of cumulative impact. Those issues were reviewed. There is in fact a san francisce regarding the cumulative impacte types of facilities where the ct determined that where you coulde one facility from the next, thet impact from one facility to the, there was no cumulative impact. Regarding the overall planning , we dont apply for these. It sounds like were going in ek or month or something and applyr one of these poles. I think you know theyre over 4s and theyre applied in batches n entire neighborhood which receis hundreds, thousands of notices. We notice within 150 feet of eve and notice every Neighborhood Association twice. We notice any protestor twice. We post the poles twice. This is not in a vacuum. We dont post just the pole bute entire street face block with te notices and thats going on p fl the other facilitieses in a pol. San francisco is certainly one e most processladen locations, jurisdictions for this kind of. So i have to i really want ty that there is has been a verg and involved and publicly transt process to where we are today. That there is substantial noticy mail, by posting of these facils within a neighborhood, there is substantial opportunity for comd review. Dpw dos does tell us to move po. They tell us there i is not a g. Among the hundreds approved, ths only, a dozen that have been e verizon facilities of this stylt come to you. We always experience the concerf immediate neighbors to what i wl public infrastructure. If you were putting this light d in for a first time or a stop se where people gun their engines,t stop sign is important for everf the community where the neighboe concerned. Youve answered his question. I have a couple more. How many exition poles do you hn that particular district right . Existing poles in that distr . Yes. I think were in the processf applying and moving forward. A lot of the poles in the pas area are concrete holes. I think its recently was execui would say right now, weve proby installed 10 to 12 in the pac hs area. And spated or slated, what ie number anticipated or slateds the number of figure youre loo . I dont know because thats s verizons r. F. Proprietary info. That number is probably can you answer that question . I wish i could. I honestly cannot. I believe there are approximaten the area that are currently i mean because what i think commissioner swig was alluding e communication with the neighbord yet, we understand that san fras one of the toughest places. Weve had over 2,000 wireless fy appeals in this body and we wers youre probably aware of. As the members of the public int neighborhood that have spent a f time, effort and energy in thesn the esthetics of the neighborho. Instead of you being in front o0 or 30 more times, if you can gep together with the locations andk with the neighborhood, theyre g to be happy anyway, but the antn knowing that these are where the locations are slated to go. And proprietary or not, if somee showed up at 2 00 a. M. In fronty house yeah. Yeah. I agree, we have web sites, e information that we try to push. We had press campaigns to push im asking at this point, siu know there is further stuff, ple further communication with the o heights neighborhood because the the questions that im sure youn front of this body at least onee time, that 649 did not pass. At which point, those are the qs that were going to ask and whyt there communication. Ill take to heart and to ven wireless. Well discuss open line of communication. Yes. Thank you. Miss higgens, no rebuttal . Okay. And mr. Teague, anything furthe . Commissioners, unless you have s for the departments, the matters submitted. Were in deliberation alreads point. Thank you. I guess you know its my n that the case that was before un sacramento street was worse than terms of, you know, the impact. However, the designation of saco street was no designation. The street has this area hase goodview designation. The question is not so much, i , the blockage or changing of thes either toward presidio or anywh. I think the other portion of ths whether this fixture on a lighte affects the character of that ai think it does. Its too bad that this particulr technology has created a lot ofs in quite a few neighborhoods. Its obviously unnecessary tech, but its one that i think has nt promulgated itself in a conciliy way. Im prepared to not support thee of this permit. I would agree for the same r. And i also think there is i k there is a noticing issue. And ive spoken about this withd to the City Department in chargf working with the utilities. That i think that they are neglt until their bee may havier and sensitivity to specific neighbo. This is a historic neighborhood. This is a neighborhood that hasn above and beyond action and subsidized subsidized out ofr own pockets, the city of san fro to continue the beautification d specific personality of their neighborhood. And the City Department turns tk and absolutely turns a blind eyt is a rather heroic effort or cea city patriotic effort to keep sn francisco a pry San Francisco neighborhood at primary san o neighborhood at a distinctive l. The success of the light poles e because there was proper notici. It involved the city sorry, e Presidio HeightsNeighborhood Organization who testified in ff us just now that they are not o. Theyre not opposed to having vn installations in the neighborho. He said that. But hed like to Work Together a sense to get that there will soe personality of the neighborhoode branding of the neighborhood, se historic nature of the neighbory be preserved. On that extestimon extemporanei support commissioner fung for te reason. So ive been on the board a e longer than rick. In five years ive seen thousanf these cases. As the counselor explained at ts were extremely intrusive. We have fought timelessly on bef the citizens to the point wheree litigated against. I believe we lost that. I commend this neighborhood fore ability for having the esthetic, Beautiful Homes and having the s to put their services undergrou. But at the same time, you know,y is 170 years old. I think every house in every dis actually precious. And not all districts have the y to put their services undergrou. Im kind of torn. I think that if there is a facit goes on top of a pole, this is y the least intrusive in comparest ive seen over the last five ye. So im at this point not sure wy ill go. I would is that a question of the at . Is it correct that verizon has t to put a pole lets say a pot there, that they have a right ta pole there and put it up on the, is that right . I have not researched that sc question. But i trust the councils opinin that topic. Rightofway. The law allows them to be ife public rightofway. Yes. I would suggest that, again,s not pushback from the appeal an. Appellant. The appellant is commenting on e pole and he indicated that as wr developers of buildings and tecy that the neighborhood is open ad willing to accommodate a the Reasonable Development of new technologies. That would be an organized way a grid of these devices throughout Presidio Heights. I think what were what i woe to and that requires proper g of the entire neighborhood, reae macro neighborhood and a plan st doesnt become health scelter. And defeat the purpose of what what helterskelter and makie haul their light stanchions arey the same. That;mb is why i think we shoult this and sustain the personalit protect the personality of the neighborhood and push verizon tt together a plan with the neighbd association and the neighbors io sense. So what about the richmond dt or sunset district or excelsior district . Should they mail out and reach o the district each time they pute up . Thats where the character ad personality of this district is different than those and also ie districts, those districts are y blighted with we talked abous many times blighted with hore wooden telei dont kno tele tr items. Its like comparing apples and vegetables. City attorney. I would want o caution the bt youre not a legislative body. Here to the extent there is an f notice, i havent heard evidenct they did not comply with the red noticing of the ordinance. I dont think this board is nota position to place a new requiren verizon or any other flel commus provider to engage in new notict theyre not required by ordinan. I was editorializing but whas saying was in support of commisr fungs point of view which is bn changing the character and pena differenting the personality ofa historic neighborhood. Thats the basis on which i woud support a motion. Commissioners, just another s information we need to consider. If you have the votes or you mae the support for granting this ai would ask you to consider whethu may want to have written findins adopted in support of it. Instead of voting on a motion, s made, to grant this appeal, i wk you to consider the motion of intent . Motion of intent, correct. Ill make a motion of intentt the appeal on the basis that plg determination of no impact was incorrect. And with the vice presided that be to continue this item tr date to allow the adoption of fs to support that is it. Depending on where the vote. It should be clear that itsn of intent and not an action youe taking. Then i would add to that the development of deliberation continue this to january 17t. So then there is a motion fre Vice President to continue thiso january 17th and that is based n intent to grant the appeal becae Planning Departments assessmeno impact was incorrect. That would be for the drafting d adoption of findings at a later. Is that correct . That is my motion. On that motion, commissioner. No. President honda. No. Commissioner wilson. No. And commissioner swig. Aye. That motion fails with a vot. Lacking any other motion, the al would be denied and the permit y default. Okay. President hop da, shall i call t item . Yes. So i will move on. Were on item five which is a rg request. Subject property 2226 green str. The requester is barbara lawrend shes asking that a rehearing bd of 17125, barynts versus deparf building inspection decided octh 2017. They voted 401 with commissior wilson absent. The project is 56 infill at te existing fourth floor. Deck extension. Kitchen renovation, remove trel. I know when a similar matter wae the board last week, commissiond she was ready to proceed and i e she is still prepared. We have three minutes for this. Good evening and welcome bac. Thank you. Before you start my three minutd a point of order. I think i inadvertently gave fae information. When i looked it up, it impliedt site but i visit it once a week. Its our family home. Then i had a question. Can it be noted in the record t. Lastly has not taken the oath oe again. You can use your three minutf youd like to include that in yr statements. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity tt this new information. Neighbors knew that this deck wt right and its taken us a year e the evidence to prove that. There have been many ambiguitied discrepancies along the way ande explained these as mistakes bute great number of the mistakes she the. De deceit. As you can see, this building s the building were talking abou. As you can see, it stands out. Neighbors know its not legal. Only the project sponsors were d enough to open up this can of w. Worms. This floor is illegal. The fourth floor has no permit. It was built between 1956 and 14 without a permit and per city cy repairs are allowed. We can guess at what is represen the old aerial photos but the ps clear, in 1956 there were three, in 1964 there were four. No permit. My second new evidence is this e that was submitted by the projet sponsors to the planning commis. Here is that image, but with tht Square Footage gathered from acl permit records, google map and n francisco aerial photographs. The size of the deck is larger n neighboring decks. It can accommodate bar cue kfl c that belong in commercial neighs but not residential. Thats why no other deck of thie has been approved in our neighb. These false measurements were sd to the Planning Commission as fa main consideration in the planng commissions approval of this d. Only small decks have been apprd previous to this one. The deck will set an unwanted pt in this neighborhood and open af worms. In conclusion, this deck ha shoe allowed. Ive been overspent and overld pri thby the project sponsors. This is a democracy, it is not n aristocracy. Wed like to preserve our neighd for pos pert. Please do not allow this entertt deck to be po posterity. Please dont allow this deck toe built. I believe you presented lastg a single sheet of paper that int was one of four sheets youd a te Building Made it illegal. That was another neighbor whd that. My same question. That was not mine. But im happy to show you the ps that mr. Sanchez sent me yester. Ill wait for the departmentr that up for me. We can hear from the permit r now. Good evening and welcome. Thanks. Good evening, my name is maigen, my shus traveling for work so hs unable to be here tond. Miss lawrence just reviewed s not in her brief. If you read her brief, her openg statement is i feel i have not presented my case well and i woe a chance to reiterate it. Thats not what in forum is for. In her remarks this evening, shs calling our building an illegal structure. This is not new information as e requesters brought this up befor hearinhearing in april. And there was a complaint file i then also. This has been reviewed over andd over by both planning and buildd they have come back time and tin to say there is no issue. More importantly, if not being w information, its factually inc. Im quoting the building depart im hope the building departmenn clear that up. I have a quick summary on the hf the building. Both 1938 there is an aerial phh of the building at the current. 1950 there a map. 1956 and 57 there was a permit d which Miss Lawrence referred to referring to the building at 50t its an anomaly. 195 had there is a permit totalr storeys. 1973, the same thing. 1981 also. From is the inspection report td the building to contain the fous and the top floor is legal. Im surprised were here and tag about the legality of our build. My husband and i are tired. This is this received a levef scrutiny that i think projects s scope have not received before. So i dont know how weve gotte. If you look at the original d. Rt from Miss Lawrence to p and wee protected her views. We have a three foot high wall d our roof. There is no penthouse stair sca. Staircase. There is no manifest injustice o new information and my husband i hope we can finish the remodel e into our