tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 24, 2018 1:00am-2:01am PDT
the june 20, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. board president frank fung will be the presiding officer tonight. he's joined by commissioner ann lazarus, commissioner dale honda, and vice president swig will be absent tonight. brad russy will provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. at the controls is the board's legal assistant, gary cantara. we will also not joined by representatives from -- be joined by representatives by joseph duffy, patrick fosdahl,
chris buck, and brent cohen. the board meeting guidelines are as follows: the board requests that you turnoff or silence all cell phones and other electronic devices so they will be disturb the proceedings. please carrie on conversations in the hallway. for those people standing by the door, can you please move away for fire code reasons? we have to keep it open. appellants, permit holders and department respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments in the seven or three minute period. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speak.
speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments or suggestions. there are customer satisfaction surveys on the podium for your convenience. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff on a break or after the meeting or please visit the board office. we are located at 1650 mission street, room 304. this meeting is broadcast life on sfgovtv, cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. dvd's of this video are available for purchase from sfgovtv. now we will swear in or affirm any member of the public who wishes to testify. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidenceary
weight, please stand and raise your right hand and say i will or i affirm. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. okay. commissioners, we have one housekeeping matter this evening. matter number four has been administratively dismissed because the permit was cancelled by the permit holder.
[agenda item read] >> clerk: so that has been administratively dismissed, so we will now move onto item number 1, which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but that is not on tonight's calendar. please take a speaker card and turn it into gary when it's your time to speak. is there any member of the public that wishes to speak on an item that is not on tonight's agenda? okay. seeing none, we'll move onto item number two, commissioner comments and questions. >> just want to wish our missing commissioner a speedy recovery. >> okay. thank you. is there any public comment on item number two? no? seeing none, we'll move onto item number three, the adoption of minutes. before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the june 3, 2018 board meeting. we have a motion on that. >> so moved.
>> any comments or additions? >> no. >> no, i'll move on it. >> okay. is there any public comment on the minutes? okay. being none, we have a motion from commissioner honda. on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. the minutes are adopted. okay. we will now move onto item number five. >> one second. again, the zoning administrator doesn't have any cases, you can just sit in the hot seat tonight. >> peal number five is 18-030, abdalla joseph, d.b.a. safe more mart, versus d.b.a., department of public health, appealing the denial on march
2, 2018 of a tobacco sales establishment permit pursuant to article s-h of the san francisco health code. so on april 25, 2018, the board voted 5-0 to continue this matter to allow time for the department of public health to provide information regarding their density cap analysis. on june 6, 2018, the board voted 4-0-1, commissioner wilson absent to continue this matter to allow time for the appellant to get a letter from the department of building inspection's technical services division regarding the seismic upgrades. commissioner wilson, did you have an opportunity to view the video from the june 6, 2018 hearing? >> i'm prepared to proceed. >> okay. thank you. so we will begin with mr. jeremy paul, who is the agent for the appellants. each party in this instance since they were heard before will have three minutes, with no rebuttal. thank you. >> good afternoon,
commissioners. jeremy paul for the joseph family and "sav mor mart." health code section 19-h, part d has a provision for a relocation of a tobacco permit, much like what we have in this case, in a situation where the store was forced to close and that a subsequent action of seismic upgrade was being planned for that property. i'm going to ask pat boskovich to explain the permit that is active on the subject property, the property that "sav mor mart" has moved out of to explain the circumstance it meets the intent of the code of 19-h-d. >> my name is 35d boskovich. i'm a structural engineer. the building is a soft story,
has an open front. the interior has no interior transverse walls, so it is a soft story building. the program was setup to be in three phases. phase one, phase two is three of four units, and this building would be in phase three when we get to there, in we do. that would include corner neighborhood serving facilities. the scope of the work includes reinforced concrete, footings, sheer walls and pull downs, any work inside this building of a token nature would satisfy the soft story program. it will -- this work would satisfy it. it just hasn't been required yet because this phase does not come here. we're still working in phase one, which is five units and above. i did talk to the building inspector who's done the plan check. he's talked to the building department. i'll let him speak on that
behalf. i have been out to the building, and this building does need seismic, and this is soft story retrofit. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer them. >> that's in the existing application that's currently there? >> no, the application basically says conversion of he electric store to learning center. removes a roll up door, and then, you have to go to the special inspection requirements, which special inspections involves rebar. 19 is sheer walls, and item 20 is hold downs, which means they're adding sheer walls to the ground floor because the permit is only for ground floor work. scope of work is about $3 $350,000, which is about $200 a square foot. >> could you please move away from the door. a fire hazard. maybe you can find a seat over there or against the wall. thank you.
so mr. paul, do you have anything further? you have 47 seconds. >> yes. thank you. it is difficult to reach a -- the precise standard that is defined in 19-h-d, and the recommendations of this board that a letter of determination be granted -- or sought from technical services at the building department. they don't really have a provision for writing that kind of document quite the way the planning department does. in the -- this certain circumstance, we went to the plan check division, we spoke with mr. duffy. he can confirm the analysis that was done and that this structural work does constitute what would be soft story correction on this case. i think that we meet the intent of 19-h-d, and i would ask that
this board grant -- overturn its denial and grant this tobacco permit. thank you. >> thank you. okay. mr. duffy? >> good evening, commissioners. joe duffy, d.b.i. at the last hearing, i was asked to give an opinion on the work at 4500 third street. that -- i didn't have that -- all of they see documents with me, which is why we continue it had in a way as well. so i'll just readout the application number, and the permit, as you heard, was for the conversion of a liquor store to youth learning center and other various aspects of work. the value of the work is $350,000. the application is a form 8. it means it's an over the
counter approval. it's currently in file status. it's -- it's been -- it's been through building plan check, mechanical plan check, intake, d.p.w. have looked at it. it still needs to go to planning, and it needs to go to the mayor's office of disability. now, the permit application and the plans are in the possession of the permit applicant. they haven't done much since january 2018, but i wouldn't anticipate that they are going to do this work and get the permit. the reason we couldn't review the plans is we don't have them yet. when that permit is issued, we will keep one set of plans and pop those in our records, the applicant will get the other plans. so what we did was we spoke to d.b.i. structural engineer robert chung, and robert was good enough to give us an e-mail today, and i'll read
that out. find it. so this is from robert chung, d.b.i. "this is a form 8 application. i have not had a chance to review the drawings because the applicant has the drawings. based on d.b.i. records, structural work consisting of sheer walls and hold downs are included in the permit work. thank you, robert chung." and then as you heard, we have special inspection for certain items for the enforcing steel, sheer walls and floor systems, used for sheer downs and hold downs, and there are other title 24 special inspections requirements on the permit. this point, i'm available for any questions that you may have. >> that scope of work is not generally reflective of just sheer nonstructural tenant
improvements. >> correct, that's right. >> it does sound like it's a seismic nature. >> i would tend to agree with mr. boskovich, that it looks like they're anticipating that they're going to be part of some future program, maybe an extension of the soft story program, and if you're going to do work at a property, it is a good idea to upgrade the structural work -- the seismic work in anticipation of that. you don't want to do a tenant improvement and then in five years' time, d.b.i. says you're a part of a program. get it done while you're ahead of it. it certainly sounds like from the inspections and reviewing the plan, speaking to the engineer at d.b.i., it does look like a great beam and sheer wall systems are being incorporated into the building to help with the seismic work. it is a change of use, as well. as you know, it's not a change of occupancy, it's still a b-occupancy, but it is a change of use. >> okay.
thank you. one question, inspector duffy. so considering the scope of work that they're planning on doing, we can assume that there is definitely going to be mandated seismic upgrade, right? >> no. >> no, there is not? >> nothing. >> okay. >> looks like they're -- the d.b.i. as part of this permit is not saying it's mandatory. it looks like they're getting ahead of themselves. it could be mandatory in the future if they're caught under the umbrella of the program. i have been contacted by the health department. i think d.b.i. should have been involved in this a little earlier, but i think we're setting up where the health department will use us as a vehicle for trying to find out if this would affect the relocation of the license. >> i.e., pin cushion -- i'm just kidding. thank you. >> thank you. >> sir, can you move away from the front door, please.
thank you. okay. we will now hear from the department of public health. mr. patrick fosdahl. >> thank you. good evening, board members, my name is patrick fosdahl. i'm the assistant director of the environmental health branch. the third time you're hearing this case before you. just as a quick reminder, san francisco health code s-h states that retail tobacco permits are location specific and can't be transferred or assigned to a new person or location. so when the tobacco permit issued for 4500 third street was issued it couldn't be moved to the new location at 4522 third street which triggered this whole thing that you have before you this evening. the health code does have a provision which we -- you kind of just all went over here regarding the exemptions to
the -- the health code. specifically, and i'll read it here for you, an owner of a retail food store or tobacco shop holding a valid permit was relocate under the building code may -- [inaudible] >> -- so if the department of building inspection is saying that this relocation was the result of a seismic upgrade under that provision of chapter 34(b), then, the health department's position would be to grant the exemption based on that. we're not the building department. that's not our call to make. that's for them to make and let us know what that determination
is. >> thank you. >> did you hear the stuff related to the building department whether it conforms to the exemption or not? >> i think if we can get something in writing from the department of building inspection saying that they've reviewed it, and they believe that the work involves seismic upgrade, that would qualify under that section, then we would take that, for sure. >> thank you. >> okay. is there any public comment on this matter? no? okay. since there's no other public comment, commissioners -- okay. if there are other speakers tonight, can you please get up in advance so we don't have to wait, and stand against the wall. thank you. >> hi. it's me, again. hello again. i just have to say, that this
has been a very tedious process, and i know it's much more tedious for you guys than it is for me. something, you know, it really concerns me that these departments don't work together, number one, and especially when they have ordinances that overlap each other. it seems like the department of building inspection and the health department don't talk to each other. they don't even have an updated website, so i guess i can't even really press for that. but even bigger than that, they don't even come with the information that anybody actually asks of them when they are requested. they come with the same recycled information that they had -- and in the -- i'm sure you guys remember me from the last several times. i finally got the e-mail from the lady in the response to the public records request, and it was the same exact letter that they sent to you, which was kind of like okay, if she had the information, why didn't she send it? i really just think that they're playing games
continuously and not even staying true to the ordinance as it was written. they're not updating anything as the city's set forth in the law. so, i mean, how can you enforce something if you're not even staying up to date on something that is so vital to people's income and the vibrancy of a neighborhood? thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is doris simpson, and i'm a long-time resident of bayview-hunters point. what i heard, what i thought i heard, that there was a possibility for you guys to approve this today, and then, when you started asking
questions, it seems like it -- you need a piece of paper to go forward. and i've said this before to you, commissioners, this store should be given an award rather than being put through when they're being put through. they're more than just a store. and i don't understand why it can't be grandfathered. it's only two doors -- i hear the law, but it needs to be amended. and it seems to happen in the southeast section because the same situation has happened, and it was granted so i'm asking that we think out of the box and make this happen. i'm 85, and i'm tired of coming down here for this samuation.
it needs to be addressed. it's not fair to them. all of the other markets on third street is allowed to sell cigarettes. so if i'm smoking, and i'm hooked, and i need a cigarette, i'm going to go to supersave and buy my cigarettes and the rest of the stuff that i need, and that's what's happening. they're being put out of business because they had to move, and it was not their choice to move. so please think out of the box and make this happen. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? okay. commissioners, this matter is submitted. zwl question f >> question for mr. duffy. >> please move away from the door a little bit. thank you. >> who did the department issue
a letter to d.p.h. regardtiing the scope of work in the plans? >> it's hard to do that. we're at the mercy of the permit applicant and the owners. the people at 4500 third street have the plans. they have a filed permit. i do not believe that the building code, san francisco building code is going to require mandatory seismic upgrade to that building at this time. that's the interpretation that i read of it. whether technical services division will do something different. without the plans, it's really hard for us. we're not in a position to review them because they are the property of the property owner. we don't have them yet, so unless they voluntarily come back to d.b.i. and review the plans, they would have to be asked to do that. that was discussed, by the way,
with mr. paul and d.b.i. i let him know that a couple of days after the last hearing. >> isn't it possible that a change of use, in this case, from a retail store to a youth center may be a change in occupancy because a youth center may be an assembly possibly? >> i did check that, and according to the file permit, it's an existing b occupancy, and the proposed is a b occupancy. i think the only thing is that the seismic work that's being done in occupation of a future soft story -- it is a corner building. corner buildings, as we know are vulnerable in earthquakes. we think that it will eventually get to these types of buildings as mr. boskovich said, so at that point, it would become mandatory seismic work. so -- but at this point, with the -- there's no change of
occupancy. there is a change of use. the building code does not trigger it for that work, okay? >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> yeah. i have a last question for mr. boskovich. both soft story upgrades are utilizing frames, aren't they? >> yeah. it's a little surprising they're not -- >> sheer walls usually reflect a seismic upgrade. >> oh, absolutely. the only reason you're putting in sheer walls and hold downs is you're providing lateral strength to be equal to the story above. so they're advancing the retrofit of a future soft story retrofit. it's coming. there's no other reason to put a sheer wall on a first floor
unless it's a soft story. >> my question was a sheer wall -- a soft story, normally, they're putting in a steel frame. >> you're allowed to do -- the soft story program only allows two different types of retrofit, plywood sheer walls or steel frames. >> thank you. >> i've actually got a question for the d.p.h. you've been here a lot on wednesdays, haven't you? >> yes. >> so my question is, in the language specifically regarding 34(b), could you go over that one more time? >> sure. it says, an owner of a retail food store establishment or tobacco shop holding a tobacco
sales permit as of the effective date of this x is, s-h.6 must relocate under chapter 34(b) of the planning code may reply -- >> so 34(b), what is 34(b)? is that the building department -- >> yeah. >> inspector duffy, thank you, would you give me a little clarification on 34(b)? sorry. >> all right. >> their language says that they can move it over if it's subject to 34(b). so what is 34(b)? >> well, that's the -- that's the change of use-change of occupancy. so i mean i don't have that documentation with me. this is a health department
appeal. if there's something on that -- you know, i have the building code with me. if you give me a few minutes, i can look that up. i'll be honest with you. i get contacted by the health department on an e-mail the other day, maybe three days ago about this, looking for directions, someone in d.b.i. to contact. the lady's right, the public. if there's something in our building code and there's this ordinance, why wasn't this -- now, we are going to set something up, but this is the first that i'd say anyone at d.b.i. ever heard of this. i've never heard a tobacco license case or anything to do with our department, but i think it does happen. i can look up 34(b) for you. >> no. it sounds very vague. >> i know. >> at least for me personally, i'm leaning towards, but we have to have some kind of solid base on this. i'm not trying to throw the department under the bus. >> yeah, i understand. i do think you really have to look at the soft story aspects of it more than the mandatory
seismic upgrades for change of use or occupancy which in this case isn't happening. >> okay. >> okay. >> thank you. >> any other questions? all right. so it's over. thank you. as a design professional, when i hear the term "sheer calls ", "hold downs," "gray beams," to me, that makes me think of soft story. the fact is that any type of improvement like this is a seismic improvement to the building. it's my opinion that the exemption comes into play, and
i would move such. >> i also concur. when you use the word "sheer wall" it's a type of wall, how it's used, how it's framed in the span in the center. otherwise, they would calling it panelling. so to me, especially with the word, the terminology "hold down" constitutes seismic or structural upgrade. if there's no other further -- i'll make a motion. >> i'm going to move. >> okay. >> i'm going to move to overrule the department and to grant the exemption based upon the finding that the proposed permit for the facility where they're relocating from has
scope that is reflective of seismic upgrade. >> okay. so what i hear is a motion to grant the appeal on the basis that the proposed permit for 4500 third street has within its scope seismic upgrades which would then qualify the applicant for an exemption under 19-h of the health code, 19-h.6(b) for the exemptions set forth in that provision, that ordinance. so on that motion, motion by president fung -- [roll call] >> okay. so that -- the appeal is
granted. [applause] >> thank you. okay. we will now move onto -- thank you. we will now move onto items 6 a, b, c, and d. these are four separate appeals, and they will be heard together. this is the appellants are the presidio heights association of neighbors, scott wykhoff, cornell i can cornellia elwine, versus san francisco bureau of street works and public mapping, protesting the issuance of february 23, 2018 to verizon wireless of a personal services site facility permit, construction of a personal wireless service facility in a zoning protected location. permit number 16 wr-0139 for
consideration today of the adoption of written findings in accordance with section 8 of the board's rules. on may 9, 2018 the board voted 5-0 to continue the matter on the basis that the wireless facility would significantly impair the declining aspects of the neighborhood. so each party has three minutes to address the board. >> thank you. good evening. scott wykhoff, owner of 3531 clay street. i'd like to thank you on behalf of my neighbors and the other appellants for your written findings. the decision is very thorough and clearly represents the concerns we raised during the public hearing on may 9. we're pleased that the board agrees with us, that based upon the testimony and photographic evidence that the placement of a wireless facility at this location on 3500 block of clay
street -- would significantly degrade the aesthetics and the public enjoyment of this historic block and these historic homes. in fact, just yesterday, there were three or four contractors working on our block, and they pulled me aside to say we've been out here admiring the craftsmanship and wood work details of these houses. they don't make them like this anymore. we hope you don't mind, but we took a few pictures. as for verizons comments, many are misleading or simply erroneous, the finding that the utilities were moved underground many years ago is misleading and incomplete. there are post relay boxes, fire aremain la boxes and street lights. while there are about a dozen post relay boxes in presidio
heights, they're all located on a street corner and they're all 4 feet tall. there are a number of firearm alarm boxes in presidio heights. each one is on a street corner and they're 4 feet tall. they do not obstruct anyone's view of anything, and we have street lights. clearly, none of these items belong underground. to imply that since we have fire boxes and street lights on street corners that entitled verizon to stick a wireless poll in front of a historic home designed by a famous architect follows no logic whatsoever. i have proposed another location which would not block views of any historic buildings just down the street. verizon, by their own admission on may 9, deciismissed it out hand while within range of their extended wireless
service, it was not satisfactory to them. verizon's optimal location to maximize its coverage should not be the sole determinant as to where these units are placed. i think we all agree that the board has clearly stated the historical classification of the neighborhood, historic nature of our specific block, the public's enjoyment of the street views on the block and unique examples of victorian and edwardian ak techture warrant protection. i urge you to support the written findings. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. i'm the owner and resident at 3508 clay street. merrill randall. i also want to extend my thanks to you for your well considered
and well explained draft opinion on this case. since i believe in the adage that a picture is worth 1,000 words, i'm going to place a picture you've already seen that will illustrate some of the aesthetic concerns that we would have if verizon was allowed to place an antenna on the light pole at 3512. it's well within your statutory basis to determine that verizon has not satisfied the aesthetic requirements and standards of our article 25. the board's draft determination about aesthetic concerns supersedes that of the d.p.w. in fact it's interesting to note, if you remember, that the board -- or that d.p.w. was
questioned and ashley lindsey said that in consideration by the d.p.w. concerning aesthetic, it only looks from a pedestrian's viewpoint from five to 7 feet away. it apparently doesn't take into account important businessli - vistas like the one that i'm showing you. you can see the proposed light pole at 3512 in this picture, and it stands out like a sore thumb. however, my fellow appellant and i have stated that we deponent want to be obstruction -- we don't want to be obstructionists in this case. and we've mentioned alternative sites. one i've mentioned is camoflage by trees, and that's shown in
the brief that d.p.w. has -- has put together and shown in a picture. now, let me characterize verizon's actions. they're like a modern version of a steam roller with their foot on an accelerator, and having, i suggest a chicken race with at&t and other telecommunication companies and it's moving from neighborhood to neighborhood without consideration of collateral damage and aesthetic considerations. and this is to the detriment of aesthetic enjoyment of residents, workers, and tourists. and i thank you for being a traffic cop, perhaps in saying there's some limits. you know, you should slow down and consider other points of view. and it's now up to verizon to recognize that this case is not
a case led, it's just a simple matter. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. i'm the owner of 3512 clay street. i want to thank the board of appeals, as well for the draft findings and decision. specifically i strongly agree with the findings at this location. in their responses to the proposed findings, public works and verizon both have claimed that verizon's facility meets public works design criteria, is well designed and visually unobject truesive and that it cannot alter the design of any streetscape. well, that may be true in a location such as this one which
is shared by the planning department as an example of a facility installed on a post in a historic district. that does not mean it is appropriate for all poles in all locations. verizon seems to think that just because its facilities have been improved in other locations in historic areas that its permit must be granted for this location as well. i would disagree. verizon also claims that because the facility meets public works design criteria it cannot have any impact on private views. verizon is focused on public private views where the issue is really private views. as vice president swig clearly identified in his remarks at the may 9 meeting, one is a provide view, which is the one enjoyed by residents looking out of their homes, and the other is the view experienced by all citizens looking at the street and this block. in terms of the public views of the 3500 block of clay, this
facility would degrade the experience of members of the public as they walk, drive and bike by this house and others on the block. as discussed at this last hearing, it was a combination of multiple factors that make this block historically important and so particularly lovely and provide the rationale for denying this facility. the homes are historic resources that possess higher artistic value. it's defined by distinctive and well maintained landscaping and trees. there were no utility lines because they were all undergrounded. there is evidence to support denial of the permit based on the photographic evidence provided previously by the appellants, and based on the extensive written comments provided by the planning department in 2008 regarding 3512 clay street and the presidio heights neighborhood.
in my opinion, the granting of the permit needs to be site specific. article 25 specifically provides for both planning and zoning protected locations capability standards. -- compatibility standards. the fact that article 25 allows citizens and community associations the opportunity to protest proposed facility permits confirms this fact. >> your time is up, ma'am. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> charles ferguson, president of presidio heights association of neighbors. i, too, want to thank you on behalf of the 2500 members of my association for your decision. it's clear, concise and takes the important step forward of educating the public. nearly a year ago today on july
12, 2017, scott sanchez stood before you and on behalf of the planning department solicited guidance from you on how article 25 should be interpreted. your draft decision gives him the guidance in the context of one neighborhood, a neighborhood that has completely undergrounded all utilities and is nearly entirely eligible for the inclusion on the state's list of historic districts. under article 25, neighborhood context matters. no matter what one's opinion is about the design of verizon's wireless equipment in the abstract, the aesthetic characteristics of the location where verizon wishes to put its equipment must be taken into account. for that lesson, we are truly grateful. d.p.w. opposes your decision. they claim that you should
accept planning's decision in this matter at face value. that is clearly not the position of planning itself, as i've already explained, mr. sanchez appeared before this board a year ago and expressly admitted that planning needs your guidance on how to interpret article 25 and planning is willing to follow your guidance. mr. sanchez did not even remotely attempt to persuade you that you are bound to follow his decision. i'm not going to say anything about the substantial evidence argument that verizon raises. the homeowners have already done enough to take care of that. what i'm going to do is turn to the last couple of paragraphs of verizon's submission to you, and i'll respond in the order. first of all, there is substantial evidence to support the denial. the homeowners have already discussed that here this evening. number two, there's absolutely no record evidence that the light pole at 3512 clay
streeted is least aesthetically intrusive alternative, there's only counsel's self-serving argument to that effect, and a lawyer's argument is argument, it's not evidence. number three, there's no unreasonable discrimination against verizon. article 25 applies to all wireless companies, and no other chiropractorless provider has been given preference. two courts, the superior court in san francisco and the first appellate district have already ruled against the wireless companies on this very issue. and until the supreme court overturns them, you have to follow the law. thank you. >> thank you. can you please move away from the door? we need it open for fire access, the egress. thank you. okay. we will now hear from the permit holder.
you have 12 minutes, mr. albright. >> good evening, president fung, commissioners, lazarus, wilson and honda. we're the under dog tonight. i've got my colleague, melanie sangupta to help me out this evening. you're here tonight to look at these findings and see if you can uphold the findings and deny this facility. as we said in our materials, we don't think there is evidence to support the finding, so is what the evidence? the testimony? the photographs we just saw? it's our photo simulations and the plans, and we think that there is no evidence to meet the findings that you have to make that was either presented tonight or previously presented. the department of public health, department of public works, and planning department concur in their brief, department of public works does not believe there's evidence to make the findings tonight.
and so what are those findings? if you look at findings seven and eight, it's whether this is a planning protected district? why is it a plan being protected district? because it's eligible to be a historic district, and these are eligible buildings. they haven't been specifically designated. the standard is does our facility significantly did he gried the aesthetic attributes -- degrade the aesthetic attributes that create this district? and our question, of course, is what are the aesthetic attributes for this historic district? and in this slide -- same slide, same slide that the appellants used, which is actually our photo simulation, you're looking at the historic district. what are the attributes? the attributes are the buildings themselves, the balconies, the windows of those buildings. you see the existing light standard, the existing 25 foot
light standard that's already part of that aesthetic fabric in that particular community, so do we significantly degrade the aesthetic attributes that create this? they're the basis for this designation of an eligible historic district? the other finding tonight is finding number nine, which is your zoning protected finding, and that is do we significantly detract from the defining characteristics of this residential neighborhood? go to the next slide. another shot of clay street, or the defining characteristics of this neighborhood. we have a lot of trees. as pointed out, you've got a fire box, you've got some street signs, you have a light standard. they're light standards. they're part of the characteristics of this neighborhood. you've got some cars parked on the street. so what are the characteristics of this neighborhood that are being significantly degraded by our facility? so with that backdrop, i'd like to go to our facility itself.
i guess we're going to have to turn that right side up. what are we putting up? we're putting up a 2 feet antenna, it's two 7 above the -- 2'7" above the existing lumiere. the radios themes down the pole, it's extremely small. i've got a blow up of the radios. the radios are 16 inches tall, they're 10 inches wide and 5 inches deep, barely wider than the pole itself. i want you to think about degrading aesthetic attributes and i want you to think about degrading the character of the neighborhood. finding number nine says that the blight that we're creating it due to the cables and wiring that we're placing on the
structure. and i want to point out that the cables and wiring are limited -- there are no cables and wiring on there. there is one elbow of metal that is a conduit that carries the cables in a 4 inch radius from the radio into the pole. that's the blight. that's the cable's blight. so with that, we'd like to say the facility itself, that there really is no evidence that these small radios and this small antenna are detracting from the characteristics of the neighborhood. as you know, you've approved a dozen of these facilities in this neighborhood, so they're already part of the character. in addition, we can't believe this antenna, barely wider than the pole itself could possibly
degrade the aesthetic attributes of those buildings. you can see the building, you can see the windows, you can see the balanconies, you can s the trees, you can see the cars parked on the street. so i accept that we're the under dog, but i think that if you sit back and consider the evidence, you really can't make these findings. and if you can't make these findings, you really can't grant this appeal, and that's where we hope that you will reconsider this evening. there was some mention of -- i want to pull up the first photo we had in the last few moments -- mention of a pole that was recommended by one of the neighbors that was -- that was near a tree. you can see the tree next to the pole, the one with characteristics are -- and
that's -- this is the pole here, and you can see that the tree would block the antenna, the branchs would block the antenna, and that's why we can't do it. i'll leave it at that. thank you so much for all the time and effort you put into all of these facilities, and we hope that you concur that there's no evidence for these findings, and that you grant the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we'll now hear from the department. you have 12 minutes. >> hi. i'm andrea higgins from public works, and i don't have any new information to add. thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a question, miss higgins. so recently in the last hearing, it's come that what -- what are these antennas? are they allowed to go tridirectional or are they bidirectional?
>> basically, article 25 says they have to meet the public health compliance standard of article 25. article 25 does not give direction on the direct -- direction on where the antennas should beam, it's just the public health compliance standards basically that the emissions comply with the f.c.c. standards. >> okay, and is it different if they're beamed directly into a property in comparison to laterally? >> we just rely solely on the health department to make the assessment whether it complies with the public health compliance standard sfl i me-- >> they've been saying it's bidirectional and not headed towards the properties, but now we've heard that it's tridirectional. is that a basis for them to be allowed or not allowed, right? >> we can probably ask the health department to answer that 'cause we don't have that expertise at public works. >> okay. okay.
so i will. thank you. >> i have a couple questions. this device, this antenna, i believe, was the result of an effort to come up with something that was compact, as unobje unobtrusive as possible. was that the intent? >> i believe in verizon's brief, initial brief, they kind of detailed their workings with omar masry of planning to come up with their design. they have some f.a.q.'s on this be website showing some examples that planning would not have approved. like, for example on these wood poles, some carriers proposed sidearm antennas, so planning kind of carraled into a design like this one because they
thought it was less objetrusiv than what was originally proposed. >> have there been at least preliminarily, when these permits have come before you, diagnosed by planning that they were not compatible, say in an historic district or a zoning protected district? >> yeah. we have received determinations from planning that facilities did not comply with the planning protected or zoning protected compatibility standards. those were mainly on the wood poles because the wood poles require more equipment like a meter and disconnect box, but we have denied them in the past. >> so there's not a rubber stamping going on. >> no. >> again, you're not accountable, but does the planning representative go out
and look at the vinl sites as each of these permits comes up for review? >> under article 25, public works is required agency that must inspect the installed wireless facility, so article 25 does not require planning to do -- inspect them, but i believe omar may have used to. >> not the installed ones, but did go out and look at the proposed sites? >> article 25 does not require planning to do an in-person inspection before they make their determination. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> i'm going to jump in because my position may necessitate this matter being held over. i am in disagreement with the findings. i find this to be not
obtrusive. i think the issue is with the pole, as it was pointed out, that that is, if anything, contributing to the degradation, and i do believe this two-foot extension or less than two-foot extension of small boxes make considerable difference at all. i think the blight is coming from the pole. beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so i hope to differ with the findings and will not support them. >> perhaps i can get a straw vote from my other commissioners whether i need to continue this case or not. >> i'm on the fence. >> i'm leaning towards -- [inaudible] >> well, then, i'm not going to make a motion. if you folks want to make a
motion, please proceed. >> i'll move to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. >> okay. commissioner lazarus has a motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the appeals, all four collectively, on the basis that the permit was properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. so we -- we have 2-2 math. appeal is -- i'm sorry? >> motion does not carry. >> yeah, the motion does not carry with that motion. >> so without a further motion, then -- >> i'll move to adopt the
finding and grant the appeal. >> okay. so we have a motion from president fung to grant the appeals and adopt the findings on what -- on the basis that the permit was properly -- was not properly issued. >> that's correct. >> okay. on that -- on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. so that motion fails. >> you need a break? then let's go to the next case. >> okay. so the permit, it is upheld by operation of law. we do not have enough votes to grant the appeal, so we are going to move onto the next item, which is item