we will start with the appellants or their representatives. have seven minutes. >> my name is wayne canterbury, and i represent libydia and zoy, who are residents since 1969. that is for a row on baker street, and i submit it exhibit thb to illustrate the row of houses forms achieve -- net the row of houses. there are spaces between the bedroom facing the south to the opposing wall of the neighbor. in this case the neighbor is ruth carlsoton, a woman who livs at 10 05 baker street. she has applied for a permit to remodel her kitchen and construct an extensive system and wrapping around the rear of her home. this is the first invasion of that kind of space in the row of houses that was designed in an ingenious way to preserve white and security and privacy. we have met with ms. carlsoton prior to the appeal. she was very accommodating on a number of things. one was to pay for the installation design and purchase of a railing for a bedroom window looking at the premises, and we believe she had agreed not to the concept of screening the railing s

colleagues, any questions to the appellant? supervisor mar? supervisor mar: i would just like you to restate your name and elaborate more on why the project is not necessary, especially when at&t says often there is a lack of capacity and there is a lot of dropouts and that projected future years will mean that they need antenna's like that. if you can go into more detail as to why this is not necessary? >> i think on the necessary pronk, this comes back to the independence evaluation procedure bat has been recently proposed and passed as an amendment to the guidelines, and my understanding, i was not a part of that procedure specifically, but my understanding is that part of the reason for doing that is to have an independent evaluator confirm the capacity and coverage data that is provided by the project sponsor to establish that the situation is truly necessary, that the proposed use is truly necessary, and in this instance, that obviously has not been done, as that amendment occurred subsequent and at the very least this matter would have

the appellant has an appeal to reagan during -- has appealed.during the hearing process, through our tape-recorded information and our review of the document provided, the primary concern of the appellant was our power, which is governed by federal law, and is beyond concern region beyond the purview of the department. what is suggested does not appear to be a change from the position there are issues as it relates to the federal government and not local governance situation. i am happy to answer any questions you may have at this point. >> any idea when the street is scheduled for underground? >> right now i know the city has expanded its underground funding and new revenue source, and it is not slated for underground in the near future or any time soon. >> the department will underground if neighbors pay for it? >> that would be correct. but what happens to an antenna were you have two sets of the rights being violated now? >> currently they are allowed now to be authorized. when an area is underground, the associated street lights would fall

colleagues, any questions to the appellant? supervisor mar? supervisor mar: i would just like you to restate your name and elaborate more on why the project is not necessary, especially when at&t says often there is a lack of capacity and there is a lot of dropouts and that projected future years will mean that they need antenna's like that. if you can

the appellant makes no such case. mr. malek provides no evidence any errors were made by the zoning administrator, and he makes no argument but abuse or indiscretion occurred. with the zoning district allows three units, this is legal- nonconformity. most parcels are less dense and contain one or two family homes. this one is difficult to finance or to sell at a price reflecting its true value. more stringent lending rules are in place and reduce the pool of qualified buyers. this is not attributable to the owners. i want to point out a of building was moved there in 1949 from a lot condemned on vermont street to make way for the 101 freeway. it predated the requirements currently required, so the owners but applied for this says variances do not meet requirements for lot size, and the property line also triggers some technical variances for rear yard and usable open space. these conditions meet on the lot. goonote timely appellants in brf was submitted, but he mentioned three bullet points but we address in our response.

exhibit a details that in a very detailed way from the appellants expert. the appellate expert was supposed to be here today to make a presentation to show in more detail how that indicates the noncompliance. unfortunately, you had a medical condition, and he is not going to be able to be here to make that presentation, so we submit it on the documents already provided in support, but this does lead to a another problem with a piecemeal review and evaluation of the guidelines. for example, the amendment just passed by the planning commission is restricted, the independent in that nation will be restricted to capacity and coverage issues, which is key for the necessary standard in section 303-c-1, but, for example, it would not solve the expert clashing opinions on this regarding whether or not the proposed use complies with fcc standards, and this is why the scope of the independent evaluation needs to be expanded to include confirmation that the proposed use complies with fcc standards. and this also leads to why i think it is incumbent upon the board to d

appellant are due one thursday prior. of that motion. the vote is 3-1. this matter is continued to march 21. president garcia: we will take a short break. >> welcome back to the february 8 meeting. dr calling item #6, loren palmateer vs. maria virag. system for testing the issuance of of wireless and box permit. -- of the wireless xbox permit. please step forward. you have five minutes. >> hello, my name is lauren. just to give you an idea of what we are discussing, that is an antenna. i am an electrical engineer, and i'll live in the neighborhood, and i was asked to look of the data, and we did a hearing, and we went to do over appeal, so i am trying to gather my thoughts. it seems to be the feeling i am appealing on health issues. i know you cannot smelrestrict d and and not based on health issues, so i never talked about -- you cannot restrict based on health issues, so i never talked about. he helped us through the process, and we paid $300, and i see they were to respond by february 2, so natasha is representing, and she has e- mailed me on the plan

we will start with the appellant, or the appellants agent year ago -- the appellants agent. >> i am married to linda. i am here to talk about the two trees in front of the house. it was approved for removal of the country. the other is not approved, and we are protesting but it was not approved for removal. our reasons are threefold in. one is safety. the tree does helene 20 degrees towards our neighbor's driveway. good and -- it doesn't mean -- it does lean 20 degrees towards our neighbor's driveway. our neighbors to put up a wire to hold it up, and they are in a lawsuit as a result. good we have had significant new sidewalk damage from the tree. dpw marked our sidewalk. and we do not want to go through that again. from of beauty point of view, we would like to put trees in. there are a lot of trees on the block. cbc suggest we have a pear tree. these do not do well in front of the house. we do not believe this one is safe. we would like to start over with two new trees. that is my presentation. >> you might not want to make a point about if the tree were trimmed it would be below a size t

this is parallel to the appellants property line. beginning 3 inches from the appellant's -- is that the west? >> the bedroom window. commissioner fung: there is no north on the drawing. >> beginning at the point of three inches from the street- side edge of the appellant's window with the finding that this is in agreement between the parties. >> we do the length and height? >> i can repeat it again. four feet, six inches in width. seven feet tall. >> look at the city attorney when you do that, she was the one not paying attention. >> perfect. i will repeat it one last time. crafty appeal on the condition that a privacy screen of alternating lattice with dimensions of 4 feet 6 inches and with by 7 feet in height parallel to the appellant's property line beginning on the street side edge of the appellant's window with the finding that this is an agreement between the parties. president garcia: the comment president garcia: the comment would be that this should serve

>> the appellant have asked for the screen here. ç>> not on this level either?> no. >> i understand now. >> what is the distance between the end of the proposed new debt to the property line? >> this area here? that is a little over 3 feet, 3 feet 1 inch. the >> and the other -- any other comments? >> how you access the rear yard? >> currently this is the only access to the rear yard. in the proposal, this will be access to the rear yard. there will be accessed off the bedroom to reopen. >> there is not living space? >> ok, and a departmental comments? >> good evening, commissioners. i am available for questions. i think it was answered correctly. fear is one answer, if you are going to agree, it would have to be opened as from the inside. it would have to be open from the side. there would have to be a requirement. any questions? >> good evening. we are very glad to see you. this is a single-family house district. it is not in a detached district. why that is significant is there are no required side yards in the zoning district. nonthe proposed debt does not o

president chiu: are there any other members that wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? >> my name is tim. i don't want the antennas to be on the roof because i have been here my whole life and i want to stay healthy. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i have been a member of the local church here for a number of years. i have been in the united states since 1994. i enjoyed in this time and being here. i really like the leadership of this country, the state, the city of san francisco. and when i found out they would be installed next to the church, ages 2-9, it really concerns me. they are being installed right next to the church and i am kindly asking the board of supervisors to reconsider this. thank you very much. >> i am the parent of four children. my oldest is in the eleventh grade and i have a nine created and in kindergarten. my kindergartner is just five. i got informed that we have two antennas. i heard in the school, we had cases where a child got cancer and we don't know the reason. it might have been caused by the antennas. i'm strictly against the

every time i heard the appellant speaker, i heard you're referring to mr.hills out of some level of deference that he is the architect and designer. i think from what you just represented, i got the sense that you haven't carved out the specificity to present a clear- cut proposal today anyway. it sounded more generic. >> may i respondd to that? >> sure. >> i did not impose a 24 hour deadline, the code did. if i could have given her 24 days, i would have been happy to do that. >> you could've had a continuance agreement -- >> the appeal had to be filed within the 15 days, but there can be ongoing discussions beyond that. >> i appreciate your point. >> there would be every reason for the parties to continue even after the appeal was filed to sit down. that was over three weeks ago. we have not heard a word from mrs. carlton in the interim. perhaps she got back up, quite understandably, that we were forcing the issue. it was the code that required us to appeal. we are quite willing to continue to talk. >> it sounds like both parties are willing to have furthe

appellants argument with regard to the violation of section 3 03c1 remains unrebutted. this appeal must be granted and the decision reversed. the presentation admitted that the department of information provided by hammet in making the determination that the proposed use complies with fcc standards. it is exactly why the independent evaluation procedure needs to be expanded in scope to include -- and that information needs to be a whole so independently evaluated the, not just coverage or capacity. and i've done here? i have another minute. the planning commission also talked about the preferential settings for schools. this is really important. it is really just a proposed amendment that we think should happen and doesn't directly relate to the pending appeal. my son who spoke earlier, i hav e spoken to dozens of parents about this. without exception, every single parent i have spoken to presume that their children's school would be -- [chime] without exception, every sing le parent was shocked and dismayed that their children's schools are a preferred site. president

why do we now not hear from members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? if you could line up on the right side, and each member will have up to two minutes. and if we could get the projector? >> hello, my name is gene. there are the children that attend the jewish academy's goal. unfortunately, one of our technical experts coming he is sick today, and i am going to take his role and try to explain to you whatever he did, and i am going to submit the same papers to you after i finish. what was done by the hamilton association, we think it is not really representing -- in the previous history of this case, when the hebrew academy appealed the decision of the installation, we proved that the distance between the buildings of where it will be installed and the hebrew academy are much less than it is supposed to be by the fcc regulation, according to what is public and which is what the hamilton report used. according to the power of the antenna and the wattage, the distance is supposed to be set least 150 feet from the antenna installation to the building. it

appellate judge expressing

i think the appellate litigants it would be hard to find one that wants to grandstand an appellate argument. and i've argued an awful lot of cases to the appellate courts. it just does work. in one you have a very limited period of time unlike the open ended aspect of a trial. and i think we're dealing with different things. but i think that there is as senator durbin noted the part of this bill which allows a vote to close on a specific thing and i imagine there may be such cases, may be very rare, but there may be such cases. i've wrestled with this idea over my years here in the senate. but i am afraid when you have so much distortion about what goes on in our government by some of the media, some of the blogs, and so on, where you help the most is to have as much openness as possible to as many people as possible. i am constantly surprised by the number of people that travel around my state or to the airport or another state who come up and talk about some hearing they saw on c-span. it may have been a very, very routine hearing and i thought, why would anybody be interested in this? an

we will start with the appellant, or the appellants agent year ago -- the appellants agent. >> i am married to linda. i am here to talk about the two trees in front of the house. it was approved for removal of the country. the other is not approved, and we are protesting but it was not approved for removal. our reasons are threefold in. one is safety. the tree does helene 20 degrees towards our neighbor's driveway. good and -- it doesn't mean -- it does lean

commissioner lee: no question with the appellant. no? have nothing to report other than we filed for the permit a couple days after this hearing in november. commissioner murphy: so isn't planning now? you did not receive the permit? >> yes, we received the permit. commissioner walker: do you want a continuation? >> yes, until we get the permit. commissioner murphy: does anyone know how long this would take? >> we could consider treating both cases similarly, if that is ok with you. commissioner walker: 90 days? commissioner murphy: i am not sure if that is enough, talking about planning. commissioner walker: maybe they could come back in 90 days to let us know. commissioner murphy: second. >> roll-call vote. is the public comment on this item? thank you. we can continue with the vote on the motion. [roll call] the motion carried unanimously. item e. new appeals to orders and abatement. 6755, 336 pear street. seven minutes for the department to speak, seven minutes from the appellant. rebuttal then public comments. >> members of the boar

. >> and when you address the issue president garcia out and the appellants to discuss -- of the appellant to discuss, which is should be pruned it would get to a size where permit for removal would not be required. >> there is question about a significant tree and a street tree. any tree planted in the right- of-way is protected by code. those signs relate to trees on private property. if there are trees on private property within 10 feet of the right of way, in order to be protected, they must meet one of three size criteria, but any tree in the public right of way. it requires a permit for removal and is protected. go>> this street is quite wide. was there a history of city- planted trees in this area? >> not to my knowledge. they were planted with permits. i believe they were always planted by the property owners. >> the pair is a very slow- growing trees. good >> this is a slow-growing evergreen pear. the orange trees grow faster. the evergreen pear does not grow upright. >> and the plum? >> aplomb is considered medium, so it is not considered -- plum is considered medium, so it is co

at this point, i would like to ask the appellant -- do you want to hear this now?s, you're sorry the attorney for the appellant, and i'm here to ask for a further continuance for three months, the reason being that the parties are in negotiations. in fact, we have gone to an arbitration, and the decision of the arbitrator will be forthcoming very soon. this will resolve the underlying issues relating to the abatement. commissioner lee: how much time? >> we have gone through the arbitration, finished the arbitration. the arbitrator has solicited statements from the party's. it is anticipated -- we are hoping this will be resolved earlier than three months, but we are asking for three months because, as you know, things an arbitration do not go as fast as we anticipate some times. >> is this binding arbitration? >> yes, it is. it flows from a settlement the parties had reached over year ago. that broke down, and the parties went to an arbitration before the mediator, and it was a three-day arbitration with testimony and all that, so, yes, it is binding. commissioner

the appellate was not a party to the lawsuit.cause he believed he had issues related to the subject matter of that litigation, he and the department had asked that the matter be put on hold. commissioner hillis: thank-you. >> i should ask if there is any public comment on this item. ok. commissioners? commissioner fung: move the adoption of the findings. >> ok. if you could call the roll, please? >> did you want to comment on how well they were written? commissioner fung: they were extremely well done. >> we have a motion to adopt the findings. on the motion -- president garcia: aye. commissioner hillis: aye. >> thank you. the vote is 3-0. those findings are adopted. >> ok, commissioners. we have already and all items five and six. we move to item seven, adoption of budget. we are here to discuss and possibly adopt the department of budget for fiscal years 2012- 2013 and fiscal years 2013-2014. bringing the budget proposal to you this evening because the city's administrative code requires that all departments submit their budget

the appellate court is just another type of jury, right? the supreme court is a very different kind of jury because the supreme court, and having only had one case before them, i learned very quickly that president -- precedent is not as important as the justices, who will decide what the law is. they will change what the lot is if they get a majority of their sisters and brothers to go along with it. to have a jury made up of diverse cultural views and understanding only makes us a stronger society. so i think -- i personally think it is a good thing. i do not think you ever separate your life from what you do. your personal experiences -- some of the personal experiences i talked about tonight shaped my life, and i think they are important parts of the decision- making process in may, that they did not overwhelm -- but they do not overwhelm the legal obligations i have in the case. >> i am going to ask a different kind of question, which is -- do you see the difference between the idea of a constitutional democracy, which is a term you ha

some one here has written, are there similar problems in the slowing of the functions of the appellate courts in resolving legal issues? they mentioned particularly environmental law, which you could say, the same would be true of many other branches of law where the appellate system has become so sluggish, so slow, that often by the time a question finally gets resolved, in an appellate court, particularly the supreme court, the practical utility of the resolution is obsolete, because life has been moving along much faster underneath. is that another dimension of this problem? >> it is certainly a problem. again, quo tote -- to quote winston churchill, it is a terrible system. it is just better than any other one. i met with the brazilian supreme court. they have just met with the united states supreme court less than a month ago to deal with their issues. in brazil, every matter that comes before the supreme court of brazil, they had 80,000 cases last year, 80,000, obviously, no justice. you cannot have a system that wants to review 80,000 cases. i do think our appellate system could

president garcia: i respect the appellant for her devotion to this tree. we made the comment last week that no matter how much someone loves a tree, a particular tree or the cities in the city, i don't think that their caring for a tree would ever be greater than that of ms. short's. i think it is unfortunate this tree has to come down but i don't think we've been given any information that would cause us to think that shouldn't come down, and barring any of the other comments, i would move that we uphold the department and deny the appeal. >> president garcia, is that on the basis of the d.p.w. order? president garcia: exactly. thank you. vice president hwang: i think when president garcia stated is consistent with how i would view it, and i agree. i would state for the record that i think the testimony of ms. short is sufficient and compelling in terms of persuading me this is a tree that shouldn't -- that should be removed. commissioner goh: i agree as well. and also thank and spreesht the appellant for her care and concern about this tree and i feel si