was stated in the last hearing, i urge you to grant jurisdiction so the neighbors who did not find out about it have the opportunity to file an appeal on this. there are few other things of like to add i cannot talk about before. the issue of undergrounding. dpw said that they could tell companies like nextg take your stuff off, but i think we all know that is going to create political opposition from them. they're not on to what to. they will say, we have this stuff up there, it is expensive, we don't want to take it down. that is still an issue, even if this city has jurisdiction to take down later. one thing i think that often is not brought up by the city attorney with these kinds of antennas about jurisdiction that your board has, the planning commission has, it is you have the right to deny the antennas based on the legislation that is

in this city ordinances, based on the decision. some of the things that come up, if a company sues the city, based on the federal telecommunications act -- for example, talking about radio frequency emissions -- in that same law, it says if you talk about -- if they show it was not necessary, if they did not show they had a listed alternative locations, you are not prohibiting service if you deny the antenna. i think it is important as sometimes that gets brought up, about what the federal law is, because i don't hear that. that is why people talk about necessity, whether the device is necessary, appropriate, and whether alternative locations have been considered. a lot of times, that is not in the file.

also, i just want to say the device at my location, there was indeed a sticker. vice president goh: did you not want to speak to 27th avenue case and not your own? >> only in the sense that i don't know what they had at their site, but i know there is a sticker, and i imagine if it is nextg it would be the same. it said on electricalarcing, -- electrical arcing, danger of death on it. sales of hadred cones -- it also had a red cones. commissioner hwang: what is the citation of the case you are referring to? >> it is metro p c s vs. san francisco, ninth circuit decision. commissioner hwang: what year?

>> i have the material with me, but it takes some time to look up. i would be happy to send it to an e-mail address. you have the citation? excellent. >> is there any other public comment? >> at&t is also doing upgrade installations in my neighborhood and in other neighborhoods. i know there's are on the sidewalk. they're putting up big banks about that tall, about that long, only 2 feet deep. they have done them before, and at that time they did not have to notify anybody and you had no say on that. currently, the suits are going out to the neighborhoods, speaking to the neighborhoods, telling them what they were going to do and where they are and how many there are.

there are a lot of them and they are big. the ones that are there, the residents in front of their house, they're having a fit and it cannot do anything about it. some of them go out and paint them and maintain them and they say, you cannot do that, we have to do it. but the new ones are telling them, if you don't want one and freddie your house, we will put it in front of your house. -- if you don't want one in front of your house, will put it in front of your house. we have not found any volunteers yet. they're usually on the corner, which is the worst place to put a piece of equipment like that, getting and the way of handicap access, but that is the way they are done. they're doing a better job this time because they are notifying you entellus give -- there notifying you and they are telling you that if you don't like it, we will put it somewhere else. than any other public comment?

seeing none, commissioners, the matter is before you. commissioner hwang: consistent with my vote before, and for the same reasons, i would move to grant jurisdiction in this case. >> any other commissioner comments before we call role? seeing none, if he could call the roll, please. >> the motion is from commissioner hwang to grant jurisdiction request. on that motion -- [roll call vote] the vote is 4-0, jurisdiction is granted and a new five-day a p appealeriod -- a new five-day appeal period which ends monday

is now open. vice president goh: thank you. we're going to take a short break.

>> welcome back to the january 12 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. if you could call item 4c. >> the rehearing request, subject property at 1120 19th street. rehearing of appeal number v10- 044. the board voted 3-2 rto uphold the reviewer off street parking variances. >> thank you. >> first of all, when we start these meetings, we take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

my opposition lied and misrepresented and was not penalized. let me go through some of these items. first of all, mr. sanchez stated that they refinanced to complete their remodel. here is my most recent mortgage statement. this was taken out in july, 2003. the mortgage was never refinanced. million dollar balance, now has a lower balance. isecond of all, mr. sanchez said are a lot is significantly different from the others. i think he also made an assumption without doing the research. less than 12 months ago, a lot was approved to put and a smaller 900-square-foot lot.

it is four stories high, no setback, does not comply. this is 900 square feet, approved by the zoning administrator in april, 2010. this is the humble house that sits on my proposed 900 square- foot house, to stories, and it is existing, no new construction, brand new construction, no backyard, built by a speculator. i am just trying to keep the house. second of all, i no longer live in the house that was remodeled. here is my current bill. i am on the bill at 398 pennsylvania. here is a recent credit-card bill, my name, address, 398 pennsylvania. here is my driver's license,

2008, still current, my name, 398 pennsylvania. we have always lived in this house. at second, one of my neighbors who did not make it tonight, unfortunately, said parking would be impacted. there is a clear, paul fence between them. this back house was built in 1910. i don't know if cars were even traveling the streets than. it has never had parking. if you approve this, it still does not have parking. parking is not impacted in any way. finally, $20,000 has been spent on legal fees to split the lot. that number is not accurate. a second, i am the majority owner and i pay 70% of all costs. i have more, but that is my time. commissioner fung: if you want to make a last statement? >> the last date but i would say

is i think the ultimate outcome of your ruling will be the opposite of what you want to achieve. you were going to take housing units off the market, not add to it. my neighbor down the street is try to combine two lots and they don't want to take housing units off the neighborhood. maile thing is to buy out my neighbor. i will not be a landlord. i will just put it back to one property and have a bigger house and it will be one unit again. that is the only alternative we have at this point, thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. i take issue with the appellant's claimed that i somehow lied or misrepresented any facts to this board. i would like to point out that the quote that the appellant has

put forward that they have obtained it refinancing or they refinanced, that is not what i said. this was at the beginning of the hearing and the initial statements in response to commissioners' questions regarding the ability to preserve and maintain the building at the rear. i think what i said is they were able to obtain financing in order to do the construction of the front. if that is perhaps not clearly accurate, i apologize for that. however, this was toward the very first presentation, and so the appellant had multiple opportunities to correct that. their presentation, which followed dollars in that case, we went first to it -- which followed ours in that case, we went first and may as the appellant spoke after us. and then later on in rebuttal. i think they had every opportunity to address and clarify that. second, in regards to other variances, that was the argument

put forward by the appellant that night. that they were created differently from other variances. to show a new voting of the variants that have been improved -- approved of april of 2010, this hearing was set at september. they could have presented all of this. i don't think there is any new information here. additionally, i understand the appellant's concerns about being able to maintain the property and, yes, we want them to maintain the property. the option is the combining process. each of the units is bunner/occupied for a set time, they can bypass the lottery -- if each of the units is owner occupied for a set time, they can bypass the lottery. they cannot just merge them without the proper time. that would be a dwelling unit merger, and that would be subject to planning department and planning commission review. i don't think there is any new

information here, there is no manifest injustice, and there's nothing here to justify a rehearing request. i'm available for any further questions. commissioner garcia: mr. sanchez, paragraph two of the questionnaire's materials address is something you said, that financing was readily available. maybe you just spoke to that, but my memory was you said it was available. i think he conceded the fact it is difficult to get. it is my memory correct? >> i just reviewed the comments from the hearing on the website, and there was one passage where i said they were able to obtain financing in order to do the construction. i would have to review further to say whether or not there were additional comments, but i don't have any knowledge of the financing, nor is that really

the reason that the variance was denied. the variance was denied because it is inappropriate. >> is there any public comment? >> my name is ruth davis. i have lived on pennsylvania avenue 47 years, but i have been in this neighborhood 56 years. i live next door to the house, adjacent to the little house. there is one correction. when the big house was built on pennsylvania street, that was the parking for the little house. so there was parking available. it was a backyard of the little house. so what was their yard and it wa