jurisdiction at 36 ashbury. for the neighbors who live close to the antenna, i live on the corner of that blocke. let's talk about this. for the execs same reason that 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 was their parking space, also. i just want that for the clarification. this little house sits >> ms. davis, if you do not mind filling out a speaker card, that would be helpful. anyone else with comments? please step forward. >> i am josephine.

i live on mississippi. at the last hearing, i opposed the variance on this property because i did not think the circumstances where extraordinary, living as tenants in common. i do not think any circumstance has changed since then. it just needs to be revisited again. for granted. so i am in opposition, and there are other people with me who have written letters opposing the project also, two other neighbors. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> good evening. my name is joe. i live in dogpatch, which is down the hill from the site. i am not here because i liked the project, do not like the

project, or whatever. i was not at the last hearing. i did go to be variance hearing, where mr. badiner ruled against. these are probably things that went through the cracks or whatever, but we need to not make that kind of a standard provision or a standard allowance. we're down to 75% lot coverage. it used to be a lot less than that.

i do not have a problem with a 25-foot rear yard, but now, we are starting to creep into that, too, so my biggest issue is the presidents of creating substandard lots. the fact that pic's are tricky, and anyone who's enters it should be well aware and make their decisions.-- anyone who enters it should be well aware. i hope you deny the appeal. thank you. >> any other public comment? ok, seeing none. commissioners, the matter is before you. vice president goh: i will start. i did today read the unofficial transcript of the hearing in order to be able to address the specific allegations specifically against me, as for talking about the parking, that the subdivision would make the property nonconforming as to

parking, and as to number two, the allegations that mr. sanchez made a fraudulent statement, i did see some statements about financing that were in the early stages of the hearing, and there was ample time to respond, and, in fact, their attorney did respond, and quite a bit of his rebuttal time was spent on the financing, so the fact that there is not new financing is not a new facts before us. we are looking at new facts to grant a rehearing request. the mistake made by the neighbor about the family not living there, i, for one, never questioned that the family was living in that property and that they had developed it several years o, and a lot is listed as being unique.

we have heard quite a lot of data about the other lots. that is not new. again, likewise, the fourth- floor addition on the property, as the previous variance which allowed the development of that property, which, i think, perhaps, et the rehearing requester was making reference to my comment about it being overbuilt, and my statement was that the structure was nonconforming note -- nonconforming in the neighborhood, with $20,000 being spent. i saw in the record in mr. manabat's testimony, he did not say that he spent that, so that was my mistake, but, again, even if that fact is incorrect, it is

my decision, and i do not see any new facts or mass injustice in this case and would vote against a rehearing request. other comments? commissioner garcia: yes, go ahead, please, commissioner. commissioner fung: when we reviewed it, there was a lengthy hearing on this particular case. at issue was whether the variance conformed to the criteria, of the variance hearing, and, therefore, a lot of the issues that have been brought up in this rehearing request, some of them are related to that criteria. some of them are not. when we reviewed it, the issue vote -- the issue was still our

interpretation as to whether there was conformance with the prior criteria, and at that point in time, i felt that it did not, and the information that has been provided in terms of this rehearing request, i do not find it to be new compared to what was brought forward during that long hearing. commissioner hwang: i appreciate the careful re-read of the transcript that the vice president did today. in reviewing the papers submitted for this week hearing, i, too, did not see anything new, even if these issues were true -- submitted for this re- hearing, so i am leaning towards denying. commissioner garcia: when we had the original hearing, i think what motivated me the most was the fact that in terms of the

effect that this would have on the neighborhood, it would be immaterial, and what would be gained by us at overturning the variance and allowing, giving greater facility to both people, both families involved in terms of getting financing. and the reason i am making any comment at all is that i have no intention of voting for a rehearing. there is no merit in that. there is no new material it, unless one were to consider the new material to be the reputation of some statements -- some misstatement, and i do not think any of those went to how anyone up here voted. there is nothing new. i do not think there was an injustice. but the general, and i want to make, and i am not picking on

you, mr. hughes, but for those people who pay attention to these hearings, i do not think it is a good idea to do ad hominem attacks to the people involved in the decision, whether they be members of the planning department or ddi -- dbi or other commissioners. i think we have all spent a great deal of time trying to understand the issues before us. we are conscientious about it. i do not think our opinions are political. it has to do with our reading of the code and our interpretation of that. something was said, that one fears that when one does something, is it presidential -- precedential. we see mr. sanchez however many times we need per month, and i

think you have a little time, and when you're able to rethink this, you may decide that you want to retract some of your statements, but to say on one occasion his research was lazy, and in another case, his research was sloppy, i think that does not at all characterize what we know of mr. sanchez at, what his preparation is for these hearings. i move that we deny the rehearing request. >> mr. pacheco, if you could call the roll, please? secretary pacheco: on that motion from commissioner garcia to deny the rehearing request, commissioner hwang, vice president goh, commissioner fung. thank you. the vote is a four-zero. the request for rehearing is denied. >> mr. pacheco, we can move on

to our last item, which is item number five. you can read that, please. secretary pacheco: calling item number five, appeal number 10- 117, with a subject building at 1774 grove street, protesting the issuance on october 12, 2010, to hiro kuzumi, et a permit to alter a building, a horizontal addition at the existing fourth floor to include a new master bath and dressing area, laundry, and roofed deck. >> we will begin with you. >> i am appealing the building

permit that the people at 2 -- t 1774 grove street have applied for. several reasons i chose to live in this apartment is that it provides a great deal of direct and natural sunlight, it has a lot of natural recirculating air, and, 3, it has -- what they have planned will affect all three of those. in the planning code, it says it is adopted to provide adequate light, air, and privacy to promote the public health. the kuzumis' additon will block the sun light. these are always on the top of my list when looking for a new home, as they provide light, warmth, and energy on a regular basis. with the potential obstruction

of sunlight, not only will i be required to keep my lights on for the majority of the day, which will increase the amount of electricity i am using, it will also reduce the amount of natural sunshine my family has, and with the reduction of light comedy have the ability of my apartment will be reduced. -- with the reduction of light, the have the ability -- the patentability -- the habitability of my apartment will be reduced. the floor of air will be reduced if not eliminated altogether. in regarding the asset to privacy, my living room and bedroom windows are currently not obstructed.

because i have so much direct and natural sunlight streaming into my apartment, i rarely have the blinds drawn or the curtains drawn. however, with the proposed debt they would like to build, i would definitely have to keep my blinds closed the majority of every day -- with a proposed deck. it will be outside my only two bedroom windows and only 20 feet away. this is not my kitchen or any other common areas of my home, but my bedroom. i cannot imagine changing my clothes in my own bedroom when the kuzumis decide to come outside on the deck with their little girl. in addition to what the planning code states it is in place for, it would be violated, should it be approved. i love my