would include keeping the original conditions. >> well, the one box sizes that were required under the boards motion. >> that's correct. >> so that 48 inch box replacement trees. >> so that's a motion would be a motion to - >> the last motion in the docket said 48 inch size i 60 inch size is that the same language. >> do i need to remind the commissioners the motion didn't pass. the thing that was in contention when the trees could be rochd whether or not they'll wait to the planning commission authorized the project >> my memory was different the motion did not pass and what curd. >> no. your right

commissioner. >> we instead of taking our normal action where the commissioners motion would have effected the final decision we should have continued it based on that motion. >> that's correct and so my motion will incorporate that condition that did not pass. >> okay. so to grant the appeal and uphold the condition that the trees be of a 48 or 60 inch box size. >> yes. thank you. >> on conditions that the placement size be of a 48 box size i if possible 60 inch box size. >> and that potentiality to be

determined by the department yes. >> to be determined by dpw and it be properly issued so to reiterate we have a motion from the vice president to uphold the permit on the basis it of properly issued that the replacement trees be of a 48 or possibly 60 inch box size to be demonstrated by the dpw. on that motion with that condition >> commissioner fung. councilmember davis. commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is upheld with that condition.

thank you. >> thank you. so the next item appeal golden gate heights with the mapping the property on canning terrace street for the bell engineering of a excavation permit to install a new cabinet the public hearing was held and this is on for further condition for the permit holder and dpw to submit conditions on the location on 12th avenue. >> commissioners, i must recuse myself and asked commissioner hurtado to chair the meeting. i'll start with the permit

holder and the vice president consents you'll have 3 minutes >> i miss foster johnson where is he. >> he's on vacation. >> on here on behalf of the at&t we're here because the june figuring out hearing we were asked to support our statement that the proposed site was not a viable site because of the landslides so we submitted the inhabits last week i'll highlight a few of the inhabits exhibit a the mark 2013 amending e-mail in that e-mail mr. wilson talks about the preinspection

determined the danger of the land slides is dangerous next t is exhibit b this is the notice that was issued to the property owner that is dated march 12, 2012 is asked the property owner to clean up the rocks as a result of the landslide and exhibit h is at&t's report to the officer and it notes that dpw inspector and at&t found erosion felt hillside. >> and those are the further compulsions that show the concerns about the site. and about the landslides and the

hill. including exhibit e from the notes of may 23rd box walling walk where the 203 ken tar was identified as a site with the boards commission i'd like to give the floor to ms. ray has. >> good evening, commissioners i'm with at&t. i just wanted to put up a photograph to give you a sense of what it looks like up at the location that we're talking about. as you see the situation is pretty much gone from the landslide our box will be going back behind the pole set back from the sidewalk up into the

hillside so the department of public works has put barriers to protect this part of the sidewalk but this is where the box would go and this is the significant landslide problem we have with it i wanted to put that up there to give you a context of it >> so i have a question i don't know do you know when the landslide had awe curd. >> that's better inform dpw we only know about when what is going on since we filed the permit and as we worked with dpw and they came up and look at that after that they filed this

notice on the landowner i don't know it's one landslide maybe erosion that continues on a daily basis. >> i'll asked the other colleague. we're going to hear from the appellant next you have 3 minutes. >> good evening agent for the appellant thank you for the opportunity to speak the board requested that at&t present inhabits supporting the lack of

inhabits and none of the inhabits submitted by at&t contain any statements from any engineers or experts they stayed the job was on hold until the city looked at landslides he described as dirt covering the work area. they were sited for obstruction and the remarks were to clean up the rocks and soil. femur i have an e-mail from the chairman of dpw i asked a question back in february why at&t put the box there. saying specific that the inspectors of dpw rendered no remarks furthermore, the rock

slides was on march 2011 two years before the preconstruction meeting years before this ever happened nothing to do with the situation it was permitted to put the rocks let me show you some pictures. so here i can see the area where the landslide happened more than 35 square feet away from where at&t is putting the box and the neighbors have shored this up this is mr. john lee who refused to shore up the area. here is a little close up of the area where mr. lee was sited to clean up the area and a further

close up of the area. this is where at&t said they will place their box under notice you see in the notice therapists e that's y where a they're going to put the box that never received any notice for nothing at&t failed to show the hillside is safe so i ask you to urge at&t to move forward with the area to provide a viable location as provided by state law. if at&t fails their permit then they'll have to start over for a new location. i appreciate our support. >> ms. short. >> carla department of public

works. i wanted to make a couple of clarifying points. in the brief from at&t they noted in the 3 that a second city engineer arrived i wanted to note that we didn't have a city engineer we've had a couple of sidewalk inspectors and we've spoke with them both and they've said they can't make a determination whether or not the sidewalk was unsafe and doesn't remember saying anything i'm sorry not whether the sidewalk was safe is of but at&t will have to make that determination. and again in exhibit h they note

a dpw inspector stated that - let's see making the site unstable again that was no a dpw determination only the sidewalk needs to be cleaned up. i want to acknowledge a miss statement in that is included well it's not necessarily a miss statement there's an uncertainty who is responsible for the area immediately adjacent to where the box it is proposed in at&t brief they've included an e-mail stating this is a paper street so the adjacent property owner is responsible for the maintenance we believe that's true, however, we've found

inconsistent in our record we're in the process of confirming with the city attorney's office to get the original ordinance it refers to a list of locations we believe that this location is not on the list that were accepted for maintenance we have consistence we have a record it shows the paper street is dpw's responsibility it has no direct bearing on the decision tonight because whether it's dpw's or the adjacent property owners responsibility it should be cleaned up but i don't know that it makes a determination of the safety of the at&t's facilities i will lastly state the landslide that's been received to d occur to the right of the

site and the notice to repair was issued to mr. lee to the right of the site not the site itself and does that mean it requires more extensive strengthening of that slope? >> we actually have one of our geotechnical engineers that look at this if it's dpw's responsibility but it's my understanding that the stabilization of the slope it's brown business owner performed after the landslide this is more simply erosion of the landslide and there could be stabilization required but not the bolting into the hillside we have his

first assessment. >> ms. short one yes. that i have is whether you've evaluated this permit under the new ordinance. >> not yet the new owners took effect on saturday so if the boards determination was to deny to uphold the appeal then we would re-evaluate whatever at&t submitted to us under the ordinance. >> i don't think it's so much this as the fact we need to review the case based on the order owners ♪ effect we've heard it after last saturday >> as i understand after discussing dui discussing with our city attorney because

there's a permit that has been approved from the board upholds it was approved prior to the new ordinance taking effect, however, if it is over turned then, yes we'll need to look at everything in light of the new ordinance. >> there was no permit because it was appealed this is the review of the permit so it has to be reviewed under the new ordinance. >> that's also been the case. >> i stand corrected. that presents a difficulty we don't have the factors and dpw hat evaluated it. we don't have the information to apply the factors and neither do you so >> well, actually i know that

the dpw has to issue its order for how the legislation is interpreted but the legislation itself that has requirements i wonder in commissioner hurtado to your question if you want the department to address the current permit as it went to the review process in the legislation itself obviously, the order has notary republic not been issued by the requirements of prevention itself. >> i thought that was what i asked and you said no. >> we haven't evaluated it but the new ordinance essentially requires additional initial outreach and assessment that didn't take place in this case. >> given that what i think oh, are we done. >> we need to ask for a any public comment on that item?

>> good evening i don't want to take much time. i spoke last time here. my name is tom. i live in the neighborhood been there 15 years. from what i see we've got a site that's approved i live there, yes it needs a little bit of work. you know, we have a community we have neighbors that have quicken you letters and a list of people that said we don't want this box at the end it's an eye soar and we have a spot down the block approved by the neighborhood but here weer and we're back and forth so i want to leave it at

that i appreciate your time. as i mentioned last time i was here we put a lot of work into the hill we talked about but for e beautifying this spot with that, i appreciate your time. >> thank you is there any further public comment seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted. >> when they implement and they have to do additional notice there will be someone else that is not happy so but i think we have no choice but to continue this until the department has taken into consideration.

>> my only issue is the amount of time it will take do you have any indication when the dpw will issue their guidance? >> i can't say for certainly but we're gibtd to do n it westbound 60 days we have a draft we're reviewing it next week in its final form our intention was to essentially, you know, put that out for review so i think we are well within the 60 days is our goal but i can't say specifically. >> august 27th? >> i would hope before that i think we understand that lots of

people have an interest in moving forward and getting those cases resolved so we're not interested in dragging this out and have a draft order that is pretty close to going forward. >> ms. goldstein this appeal was filed april 2nd am i correct. >> it was filed april 2nd. >> well, i would move to continue it in a relatively short amount of time there might be an order imminent i'm concerned we issue a result in the amount of time that is reasonable. what's our calendar looking like in a month >> the first meeting in august

is on august 14th will 13 before that we're in july 23rd there is 15 items on our calendar august 15th majority at&t permits. >> i will be missing the august 13th and the august 20th meeting. >> okay. then we will not be having an august 20th meetings it's unlikely we will depending on commissioner hwang's appointment i recommended you not hear this so august 27th is the next best date. >> okay. so that's your motion do you want any written smiled e

submittals or the department to speak. >> yeah. i want the department to speak to the next owners and hopefully, the order will provide guidance. >> so the continuance will be the department says whether or not this meets the requirements. >> yes. for the criteria. >> i will be occurs to see the order whenever it's done. >> mr. pacheco. >> we have a motion from the vice president to continue this matter until august 27, 2014, to allow time for the dpw to clikd conclude it's analysis on that motion. commissioner fung.

commissioner hwang. commissioner honda and the vote is 3 to store this matter is continued until august 27th. >> there's no further business. >> we're adjourned