president is away on business. i have worked extensively with the project sponsor, and i have to urge you to not hear an appeal. i have worked on developing this. unfortunately, about a month after they were put into effect, mr. bronzino was violating them after attempts to working with him. nothing happened, so we finally called a meeting on february 25, at which members impacted by the noise were triggered.

we agreed to reset the clock. all issues and would-be resolved by march 21, 2010. youthree sound checks later, thy they issued a notice about being in violation curiosa -- in violation. no response. the first response did not happen until august 10. git got so bad, finally we had o ask him to revoke it because they could not get their act together if you're a good -- to get their act together. i feel terrible about the employees, but he is the one to

blame. he did not do what he originally said he would do it in 2009 and then did it again in 2010, and now he is trying to tell me he is going to do its now. how many times are we going to give him a chance? it has taken a lot of my time. it has taken everybody pause time, and he should have to pay the fine. if i speed, i have to pay the fine. if you are a nuisance to the neighborhood, you have to pay the fine. >> next speaker please. >> low. thank you for listening to us. i am the director of marketing for greg bronstein.

>> you are an employee of the restaurant and? >> i am an employee. >> your time to speak would have been under the three-minute allotment. maybe you were not informed of that, but that is the board's rules but employees have to speak. >> may i say something for just a minute? >> you are not allowed to speak. if there is anyone who is not an employee, you can step forward. seeing no other public comment, the matter is submitted. >> i guess i will go first, and i want to remind people who are here that what is before us tonight is not whether or not to reduce the penalty, not whether

or not to grant jurisdiction. what is before us tonight is simply the fact that he came before us in his papers and is here to night stating that when he went to the board of appeals office in order to file for a jurisdiction request in error instead of writing in may 11 as the date he was supposed to appeal, he wrote today's date because he had another case that was being heard tonight, so the board has to decide whether or not to set aside earlier decision to not grant times fiction. if we agreed to set aside not -- to not grant jurisdiction. if we agreed to set it aside, that would mean he would not have an interest fictional request.

-- jurisdictional request. it is very unusual. i do not even know how long i have been on this board. i do not remember ever having a case like this. he has appeared before us on many occasions. my memory is that he is a diligent. he properly represents his client, and i am willing to give him one free bite of the apple and if he made a mistake in inadvertent error, it should not affect his ongoing business with other people in the city, and i would personally lead him apply for jurisdiction. >> we have been pretty consistent where if somebody

misses a meeting and we have no reason to believe the reason they miss it was through some nefarious reason, so i would support allowing them to argue whether they have a jurisdiction. >> i agree on the question of default. i must say i can see the struggle, but i agreed about granting the new hearing. >> you are so easy. in my day job, i cannot miss a deadline, and i am a professional, and i would expect out of anyone, but given that, i see there is not additional harm, other than the fact that this board is going to have to come together to hear

this. i would allow this another time. >> i moved to set aside our previous decision and to allow the jurisdiction request a hearing to occur. >> thank you. if you could call the roll please. >> on that motion to set aside the original decision of may 11. the president is absent. commissioner garcia: aye. >> the vote is 4-0. would the court like to set the date? >> he still has to file. >> he filed already.

>> i would go with whatever date is most convenient and with this board and its staff. >> would you like this to be heard in august? we have availability august 10. >> if august 10 is available, we would do it at the time. >> there is no additional briefing. is that correct? >> understood. >> august 10. >> we thank you everyone for coming. >> we will call the next item, item number six, jim flanagan

verses the department of public works. subject property on did issuance of a wireless and box permanence. jurisdiction was granted on april 20, 2011. we will start with mr. flanagan. who have two minutes. >> there are just a few of us. thank you for hearing us tonight. i have been in the current location for 20 years. i am representing a number of my neighbors to night, and we are really concerned about the growing numbers of wires and equipment going up over the last

couple years. nearby streets have been underground, so we have become a thorough search for new boxes, so i was excited to read the general plan that there was some relief. before you is the appeal that i submitted on june 23, and in that appeal, there is a number of pictures i have taken with my iphone camera and a tax -- and attach, and those pictures all support what i consider to be part of the general plan, and i will read for it as part of the general approval for this project. they have such wording answes highlighting the views and the

lifestyles of residents, especially those on hilltops should be maintained and approved. i also said anything blocking or comparing these street the use -- impairing street views should not be there. i also talked about the review for those permits, and most importantly, it said the review should not released area for recommended approval if there is an elimination of some of you point your a good -- elimination of a viewpoint. we have a ton of tourists who come through the carrier, so i think that is why the general plan specifies about.

if you look get the pictures, in photograph one, that is one of the pictures of it shows the viewer into the open space -- that shows the view in the open space. they obstruct the view of the surrounding hills. another picture shows the fog obstructing views of the east bay, and finally, for perspective, take away the picture, so it is clear to me these pictures demonstrate a violation of planning guidelines and of the planning department should not have done this, so i asked how does it happen.

i said, how do you guys decide how this is done? he said, we take a look of the pictures submitted with the application. the one picture that came with the application was a very small and incorrect simulation that showed a small box not looking towards any of the views but to my house, so there is no way to the planning department could make any decision about whether this diminishes views, and they do not have time to go and look at all these, so they just do it based on the pictures, so my contention is the pictures were intentionally misleading, and to underscore this, they have submitted even more misleading pictures curio -- misleading pictures. they have done a couple of pictures taken from my house,

which are irrelevant. several other pictures were taken from very far away, but it is the exact same viewpoint were if you take pictures from very far away, it does not look as bad. i have done some research, and all i could find was a long litany of lawsuits across the country. they have been difficult to deal with now, would move things afr they got solved. none of which happened. he declared we do not have any of approval. they can do whatever they want, and that seems to be the case. the wireless box still stays there today. they have ignored requests to remove it, and it still stands.

they point out there are no alternate locations available. i point out these and they would be happy to work with the appellant to find another location, so that indicates there were other locations. in page 3 of the response, it is also mentioned they were not available, so this is five more feet of antenna 10 feet from my house. i am not sure how you can make a claim i cannot see it, because i can. i will tell you there has never been anything of this sort, and there are no scratches or deathnts on any of these boxes,d

if there were, i imagine there would be a lawsuit. >> it seems as though you say dissimulation picture was misleading, and i thought i read that you said you submitted those pictures. >> i am not sure where you read died. > page 4 of your brief under the first sentence under how did this happen. >> i got old of the permit, and a permit did not have the pictures on it. i tried to get ahold of the people in the department, but they were on vacation, so i did not get it. in my view, that is the

simulation they submitted. >> we will go to whether or not it was properly granted. you are saying certain processes did not occur, so you are backing off. >> a permit given to me did not have the picture on it, so maybe there was another one. i was not able to get a hold of it. it shows a picture not looking towards the view but looking back to the house, so you could not see anything that was obstructed. >> in your brief, you show photo one and a photo of two. what are the perspectives of those pictures?

>> i am standing two doors up, and i think i am standing on the sidewalk. i think in photograph two, i may have been standing in the street. any other questions? >> thank you. >> thank you, vice president garcia, commissioners. my name is natasha, and i am a director of government relations, and i and here to discuss the process we followed for the permanenit, so a littlet

of our ground, because this has been a long process, but we began working on this last summer, and we look of the various locations, and height matters of law when you are going to have an antenna, because you are trying to target a certain area of. we also look at whether or not the end cannot will be in front of the window, because even if it is not what the code says, we do not want any antennas in front of the golden gate and trade 15 feet outside of someone's in window. that is why it was selected. when we met in october, we did go to the office to look that the surrounding distribution polls, but because of requirements, it was too high. also, from some of her windows,

it would have had more of an impact on the view. the nice thing is it is over the roof line, so we went ahead with this location. it went to the planning department. we received approval, and the permit was properly issued. when the permit is issued, it does not have the documentation materials we submitted, so i think that is why there was some confusion over the photos and that were submitted, so we received a permit. this is a comparison with the photos simulation given to the city, and that is the photo. i went out and took the photos myself, so i can testify to that

location. i wanted to make sure the photos have more perspective, so this was taken to weeks ago when i was visiting the location. this is the approval we received from the department of planning signed. the conditions were that we mount the antenna with the top of the full extension required to meet clearance requirements and also that we paint the exposed equipment to match the polls. we have done that. we have said to the city, if you do not like our colors, we will change them.

the city has not notified us they do not want any changes, but if they do, we will go and paint the site. it is helpful to have the standard the planning department used, which is fairly vague but consistent with general welfare and will not reasonably into the pond or diminish any of the city resources. it is an interesting place, and there are a lot of people who visited during good -- who visited. i made sure to stand directly at the top of the stairway to get an idea of what you see. luckily, our box is up here,

above the stop sign common -- above the stop sign, so it is hard to see. it does not make a great impact. also, the thing you look to in this standard is what the existing visuals are, so giving an idea of the similar equipment boxes on nearby polls, this is our equipment here, and two poles away is a larger box, so you look to see if there are similar things in this area. it meets the standard of having similar equipment, and also some of the photos were quite shocking, so i went and tried to line up the box based on where

the lines were, and to get an approximate judgment of that, so while standing in the middle of the street, i was able to get the to line up, and that is the area of the photos there. when put in perspective, you can see the box, but it is not having the visual impact. lastly, to conclude, it does have a state wide franchise from thus utilities commission to place it in the right of they have determined of the equipment is exempt under ceqa.

we received those permits on december 7, and are equal and is smaller than the existing equipment. we ask that you uphold this permit. vice president garcia: would nextg be compliant of the other standard were applied? >> yes. vice president garcia: who owns that other box? >> i found that no identification on that other box. some of those boxes are not marked. vice president garcia: thank you. >> thank you very much. we will hear from the department now. >> good evening, commissioners.

i am from the department of public works. i need to provide a little history on this permit specifically. at the permit received an application from nextg networks ouon august 15. it was found this location is on a significant street, and on august 18 we submitted a referral to the planning department with plans and photo sims, the full package, so they could do an evaluation. in november of 2010, we received approval from the planning department with conditions. prior to that date, the health department had already reviewed all the equipment to be placed on this pole and determined its satisfied all appropriate regulations. on november 15, after receiving the approval from planning, we

provided the approval to permit from -- for nextg networks for the facility. we received a notice of completion date of december -- excuse me. december 12, 2010 from nextg networks in may of 2011, in this case. the precedent that the department followed, we believe to be appropriate. we follow all regulations as relates to the wireless. at the time of its some middle and issuance. -- at the time it is submitted and issued. this permit was essentially completed in december, 2010. the permit was set to expire in december, 2012, at which point

to renewal of this permit would fall under the current legislation as adopted by the board of supervisors, which governs wireless permits. upon preliminary review of the equipment, the department would determine this to be type 3 facility, which has additional requirements as relates to the notice and other review as we continue on. the department believes that we acted appropriately in this specific case, and we request the board to uphold our decision in the issuance of this permit. commissioner fung: i guess there is a criteria now applied based

upon the permitting process correctly? >> that would be correct. under the legislation, wireless facilities are identified as tier 1, tier 2, or tier 3, and they are all a function of size, specifically. commissioner fung: and one of the main differences would be the level of notice? >> that would be correct, sir. commissioner fung: okay, is this facility approval by your department as currently constituted? >> as currently constituted and moving forward, it would fall under re tier 3 facility, given that it is not a significant street. planning would still need to -- given that it is on a significant