commissioner hwang: thank you. commissioner fung: i am sorry. is there -- perhaps the project sponsor would like to respond to the suggestion at this point by commissioner hwang. >> i did suggest to mr. hwang that i think we would welcome a condition of approval that requires that suf a-- usf and uta include consultation with dpw in the ongoing planning process. we did have a chance to look through our settlement agreement. there is an outside date of three years. at that point, the parties agree that if they are not agreed it is submitted to arbitration. we have an outside timeframe intended to function as an outside time frame. we hope to do it sooner than that. if there is really a focus on that eastern and of the encroachment, -- eastern end of the encroachment, we would look to include dpw in the ongoing community process and direct the director to specifically consider, as part of that process, whether some modification of that fence might not be appropriate in the future. commissioner hwang: the problem i am

commissioner hwang: is that the opposite side? >> all four of the windeast. -- faced east. -- itface -- face east. the next room over is the bedroom. commissioner hwang: ok. is that where the deck would be? >> yes. if you look at exhibit b, the proposed addition will go all of the way to where the pink line is drawn. commissioner hwang: so affecting three of those four windows? >> correct. and then the deck on exhibit c would be where the door is. commissioner hwang: where with the door be? it would open on to the deck? >> and then the deck would go to the majority of the second window, as well. commissioner hwang: is it going to be raised? >> i believe so. commissioner hwang: tell me about exhibit d. >> d was showing the height of the neighboring buildings, that if there was a potential to put any of this edition vertical other than horizontal -- put any of this addition vertically other than horizontally. commissioner garcia: these pages are not numbered, but you have exhibit d. >> image number one. commissioner garcia: no. two.

commissioner hwang: furthermore, i take issue. there is no opportunity to cross, no opportunity to understand fully what was stated in the declaration, when we have an opportunity here to do this, so i think a re-hearing is what i would vote for. >> i think the real term would- be "re-opening." commissioner garcia: there are the objections i raised having to deal with paragraph four. even if they had done work before, they actually got the permit, i do not see the that is ever been a standard for denying or overturning a permit. they should then be required to either pay a fine and/or try to legalize it and come forward with some case in which they applied for a permit to legalize. they did not apply for a permit to legalize. the permit that is before us was to object to a project for which a cfc had been granted, so even if we had ample evidence in my opinion that they had done work before, i do not see, as was said by commissioner fung, if there are other standards for denying this, having to do with community standards, then we

commissioner hwang: i was just curious. vice president goh: we heard something about undergrounding. what is going on with the undergrounding of the boxes? >> declaring an underground district, with enough equipment on a pole or not, -- with the and put on a pole or not, -- with the equipment on a pole or not, the ones that are underground, they have to move it. obviously, there is pg&e equipment. vice president goh: so a neighborhood cannot decide to foot the bill for undergrounding? >> the board of supervisors would also love to declare underground. >> yes. vice president goh: we heard something about wind tolerance in the request for jurisdiction. >> the safety matter is for any utility pole. it is governed not by the city but by the california puc, so if there are any issues, as far as i understand it, any concerns about safety, it would have to be brought to the california public utilities commission. general orders the rct orders, a believe those are called general orders. vice president goh: ok, and can you tell us w

commissioner hwang: i just have a quick question. it your map that you put on the overhead, could you put the last one back up? >> sure. commissioner hwang: yeah, with the yellow highlight. am i sure, of course -- >> sure, of course. commissioner hwang: you are saying that usf failed to submit pictures were the yellow highlighting is? >> i am saying more than that. i am saying that the areas in red are with the photos that usf submitted. i am saying they failed to i am saying they failed to support

commissioner hwang: thank you. but i would like to follow up with -- unless someone else has a question. mr. duffty? sorry. if the testimony is taken as truth, the testimony you just heard, would that work which was described require a permit? >> it would require a permit. that is right. commissioner hwang: thank you. president goh: i will start. what is before us are the findings, the adoption of findings. we had given the permit holder an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple and bring new evidence to attempt to contradict those findings. i did not see credible evidence from the permit holder to contradict the findings. i did, however, and to continue to find that it appeared that they started work before the permit was issued. and my assessment of that has to do with what we have heard in with what was suggested by president goh. president goh: in paragraph two, this is a suggestion, and i would like to hear what other commissioners think. at the end of the second line, i would consider substituting "pr

are you finished, commissioner hwang? commissioner hwang: for now. vice president goh: what are the dimensions of this box? >> it is, i believe, 36 inches -- i know it is 50 inches wide and 10 inches deep. let me look at the drawing -- it is 15 inches wide. it is 25 inches tall, and 15 inches wide. and 11 inches deep, roughly. vice president goh: and what kind of notice you typically provide and to whom? >> there are the no parking signs, but there is no formal notice under the 2007 guidelines, so we did not go through any type of formal notice procedure. vice president goh: and can you talk about the noise? you say that some neighbors have complained about it. it is a fan sound? >> there is 65 of this exact type of box, in advance of this 4g launched in san francisco, and there was one case of excessive noise because of a miswiring of the fan, and we had a mainstream go out and correct that, and that has been corrected. -- and we had maintenance go out. vice president goh: so there are 65. one last question. how much does the box away? -- weigh? >>

commissioner hwang: i like the one page. just summarize it. >> one page a briefing, and limited exhibits, but all parties submit the thursday prior to the hearing on january 19. and the subject matter of the briefing? the subject would be whether there was on permited work done prior to the issuance of the may 24 permit. >> and we will make the agenda item for this meeting clear that you make -- you may take another vote on the merits of the appeal. president peterson: on the scheduling issue, you may ask. >> will there be oral testimony taken on january 19? i heard there would be cross- examination. president peterson: yes. three minutes. i believe we have a fully articulated emotion. call the roll, please. >> the question on scheduling -- is the oral testimony three minutes for each witness or three minutes total for each side? president peterson: the letter. if witnesses are questioned by board members, they will extend the time. >> the motion is from commissioner hwang to continue this matter to january 19, 2011. additio

commissioner hwang: i think so. just when i looked at your photographs, it appeared it was more a way to enclose the field and protect the field from the public. that seemed to be more the reason for the fence, rather than the safety concerns of the public. >> i think it is both. again, i think this condition -- something would need to be done because of that change in grade. yes, i agree the solution that was settled on 20 years ago -- or, frankly, perhaps 50 years ago -- of having the fence along that edge of the sidewalk was as much for protection of the property as protection of the people. i would point out that is appropriate grounds for issuance of an encroachment. ok? commissioner hwang: thank you. >> madam president, mr. vice president, congratulations. i am from the department of public works. as you can see from the brief, what the department believes, we have issued an encroachment permit to usf appropriately. there are a lot of questions. we understandt mr. rabbit's point of providing more pedestrian pa

commissioner hwang: would you mind slowing down, please? i am having difficulty following. >> this is looking south. this is the rear yard of masonic. this is the small side of set of the stairwell of 1774 and 1776 grove street. -- this is the small section of the stairwell. the dark shadow life is showing where the sun would hit just as it rises -- the dark shadow line is showing where the sun would hit just as it rises. commissioner hwang: so the shade is the sun. >> i am sorry. the sun is above that. haute there is a shadow on the building -- there is a shadow on the building. commissioner hwang: and that is the proposed building? >> correct. this is at the back portion, so when there is an addition, -- where there is only three stories currently, at 7:00 a.m., it is all of the way down here. there is some impact for a very brief period of time, not all day. ms. lyons would enjoy the same amount of light and she gets, as well as the air. commissioner hwang: where is the 9:00 a.m.? >> it would be approximately at that point. it is not sho

commissioner hwang: thank you. one more question, i think. the boxes described as the permit holder, presumably, are from other companies. are those companies required to -- are they subjected to the same approval process as the ones that are before us today? >> there are some companies that have franchise rights that are not wireless companies, which this law is governing. and there are no public notification requirements to make that a requirement. commissioner hwang: so franchise rights outside of the permitting process, they can do whatever they want? commissioner fung: who owns the pole? >> the poles, generally, are owned by pg&e, but the people who put things on them are part of an association. you know the department telecommunications puts equipment on their occasionally -- on there occasionally, and i am talking about power poles, and others have a right to use those through the association. commissioner fung: are fees charged and given to the owner of the pole? >> i do not know the arrangements between utilities and the owner of the

commissioner hwang: you had proposed conditions, including access to a baseball training camp? >> what i was trying to do was address the question -- one of the arguments from usf and dpw is this is a longstanding encroachment. i do not believe there is any basis for the fact that encroachments that our existing are permitted. to answer a question -- i lost my train of thought. i apologize. commissioner hwang: if you find a minor encroachment, the conditions imposed -- >> right. given the fact that there is an existing encroachment, there might be reasons that would stop the fence from being removed. i still want the right of public access to be recognized. i think it is more consistent with the code, but was trying to provide a corrective alternative for the public would get access in return for the fact that usf would have exclusive control of a portion. that was the rationale. commissioner peterson: thank you. >> mr. o'brien? >> harry o'brien. very briefly, commissioner goh asked a question about this

commissioner hwang: you just want them to have notice? >> that the commissioner is coming out to see one side, and if they want the commissioner to view their side, they can have that. they may choose not to. commissioner fung: i will determine which side i want to visit. commissioner hwang: what you're going to say is that if we want to. the board will maintain, again, the discretion to go to whichever we want to. >> i think in the interests of making sure the process is quick, and people get into their hearings quickly, it really should be neither. there should be an opportunity for rebuttals during the actual session. sometimes there were held back from the paperwork. there are some very complex cases, including one where i think it would have helped both parties have a rebuttal. just moving on, i think there should be items for continuance on this calendar. to wait around and ask for a continuance. they may agree to it anyway. i think it would be better if you had a request for a continuance. in the case of the project tonight, that w

commissioner hwang: you said you would not mind? >> i do not mind. president goh: it says in the police narrative that he did not ask for i.d., but in her report it says that she was asked for i.d. in her report, which was provided. there is a little bit of a discrepancy between the police to port and the department's brief and her report -- between the police department's report and the department's brief and her report. >> yes. president goh: okay, thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, if you have more to say, please step forward. >> i have been working there 38 years. this is my first time i made that mistake. but i did ask for i.d. i would like to pay with a fine, because that is my business, and i want to keep my business running. commissioner fung: unfortunately, sir, that is not an option based upon the way the code is written. you. a fine -- you fine --a fine. president goh: i have a question. is your shot behind schools? >> yes. president goh: samples? it is right behind the school? >> yes. icommissioner hwang:

commissioner hwang: aye. vice president goh: i am going to vote no. i am torn. if my vote does not make a difference, i am going to vote no. >> the vote is 3-2. the permit is upheld. president peterson: >> welcome back to the december 15, 2010, meeting of the board of appeals, the last meeting of this board for this year. mr. pacheco, could you call item no. 6, please? secretary pacheco: item number six, appeal number 10-076, raymond berrios vs. the department of building inspection, 750 andover street, protesting the issuance on july 2, 2010, to jose berrios, and electrical permit. >> please step forward. you have three minutes, sir. >> good evening, commissioners. i and the aged and architect for the permit holder, the legal property owner of the residence at 750 andover. the last time that we left, you requested three items. one is that we performed a sound reading at the site, which we have done. the second item was to possibly study alternative locations for the compressor unit, which was at the time located below the bedroom window of the tenant who filed

commissioner hwang: a reduced by index -- reduced fine? >> i went to the department and filed for the permit. i paid $750. they never told me any notice to my house. they never warned me about keeping the construction. i was waiting and waiting. we see a man from another department. he saw the construction was in place. he said that we probably had a permit. he sent somebody. they asked me for so much money. i said it was not worth it. i go back and he says that he would give me another person. he sends me an architect who comes over. he says it does not need a permit issued. my son and i did it. commissioner hwang: you have taken it down at this point? >> yes. commissioner hwang: and today the question is about the penalty you have paid and you would like a reduction. thank you. i think we understand the issue. president goh: thank you. >> i did not know. president goh: we understand. thank you. >> mr. dufty? >> commissioners. the notice of violation was issued on may 22, 2008 for a structure 25 by 20 feet in the rear yard. that totals th

on that motion -- [roll call vote] hwang --commissioner hwang: could you pass? i'm still thinking about it. [roll call vote] hwang aye. >> the vote is 5-0, the rehearing request is denied a. >> thank you, call at five -- thank you, call item 5b? >> callingb item >, housing court inc., verses the department of building inspection at 281 turk street. the protesting the issuance on may 24, 2010, to a drug's a permit to alter rebuilding. public hearings were held and closed on october 6, 2010, and a motion to grant appeal conditioned upon adoption of findings was approved on the october 13, 2010, and the motion reopened and the public hearing and receive additional evidence approved on december 15, 2010. we're here for further public hearing and possible action to reconsider the merits of the appeal and/or to adopt findings in support of the october 13 motion. thank you. >> thank you. the permit holder, ll drugsc, -- the permit holder, bay drugs llc, is providing a certified court reporter and has asked that this be the official minutes of the meeting. we would need

commissioner hwang: thank you. vice president garcia: if we did that, what about the fee? would be automatically suspended? >> the board of appeals. -- would that be automatically suspended? >> by the board of appeals. commissioner fung: mr. sanchez? this is almost an excessive use, is it not? >> that is a good point. -- this is almost an accessory use, is it not? >> that is a good point. we have not fully investigated that. that is something we could investigate further, but, however, given that it operates outside as well, that a factor in and have it. that may factor in so that it is not an accessory -- that is -- given that it operates outside, as well, that factors in the, and that a factor in so that is not an accessory. i think there had historically been in office there, maybe eight years or so, but most recently, it had been used for retail use, and just prior to the hearing, i looked in the reverse directories for 1986, and it was listed as a store. an antiques store. commissioner fung: an antique store.

commissioner hwang: i think it is costing the city money. commissioner garcia: the police are on overtime. vice president goh: did we not leave it to the discretion? is an article 3, section 5? -- is it? commissioner fung: to have it when a government official is here for four cases. commissioner garcia: even if there was one case. president peterson: commissioner garcia, there was a case a few months ago when there were pro bono people with mandarin chinese, and they were volunteers, so i think we make all efforts, but there are instances where -- commissioner fung: do you remember the temporary parking permit? that was the last case. president peterson: i understand what you are doing. sometimes, they are shorter. i agree that lately they may not have been and short. commissioner garcia: where we know it is going to be short, there is not going to be any discussion, but i have often wondered why we have city officials sitting here cooling their heels when we go through an hour on a re-hearing or a jurisdiction case. secretary pacheco: if t

commissioner hwang: is that inclusive of the fence? i am trying to get to the fence peace. >> uta's position was that there should be a comprehensive look at golden gate. there were issues raised about the baseball field and everything from the colors of the polls on the netting, a lot of concern about noise on the baseball field, and aluminum bats over there. there are a long list of issues that were specifically identified. it was agreed we would work on that over time. commissioner hwang: was the fence one of those issues? >> defense specifically was not identified as something that -- uta is still not asking for that offense to be relocated. more generally, the landscape along the width of the sidewalks, the parking orientation -- all of those things were very much raised and are being looked at as part of the university's institutional master plan process. it is a cooperative process with uta. commissioner hwang: up the alternative potential resolution offered by mr. rabbitt was to push part of the fans back that would not have an

hwang? commissioner hwang: aye. >> thank you, the vote is 2-3. >> since that motion does not pass, call the next motion. >> and that motion was for mr. fung to elevate mr. garcia to the vice presidency. on that motion, goh goh? president goh: no. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. hwang no. >> the vote is 3-2, and mr. garcia is elevated to the vice presidency of the board of appeals. commissioner peterson: okay, congratulations. >> we move on to item three, which is commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? and item four, which is the adoption of minutes. icommissioner garcia: i had bridget commissioner fung: i had one comment. i thought we had change the way we tally the vote, when there's somebody not attending? if there is no correction, i would like to correct that threat. -- i would like to correct that threat. >> thank you for that correction. president goh: there are no further comments to adopt that correction? >> is there any public comment on the minute

commissioner hwang: i have a question for planning. can you talk about street views being rated excellent or good and who makes that determination, where is it recorded? >> under the general plan, there are certain streets that are designated scenic corridors. i think that was embedded into the legislation which dpw and forces for the permits for wireless facilities. otherwise the planning department would not have jurisdiction given that it is the public right of way, we would have purview over public property not in the public right of way. it could be neighborhood notification or additional use. vice president goh: if someone were interested in finding out there street view, where would one look? >> i think the place to start is online. you confined the planning code, the general plan, -- you can find the planning code, the general plan, and maps. there actually was another appeal that had been scheduled before this board. i doubt that it was ever heard, 40 mobile facilities on a highway, -- fort t-mobile facilities on the highway.

commissioner hwang: is there going to be a step down then? >> it will be level with the fourth floor. however, the roof rises above the existing level. there is probably about 24 to 30 inches, i do not have the exact dimension, from the interior to the finished roof level. commissioner hwang: got it. commissioner garcia: and that is a see-through? if somebo the top of the rail, it would hit them where? 42 inches from that. >> i would say, probably your note -- your knees -- we are currently showing it as being open. i guess one of the trade-offs, when you try to think about the neighbors when you approach design projects, there is always a trade-off, because if it is a solid wall, it casts a more shatter note -- more shadow, and then they lose more light, more of you. i know that view is not protected. -- then they lose more lights, more viewmo -- re light -- more light. commissioner garcia: which you feel comfortable, and i do not know if the -- would you feel comfortable, and i do not know if the rest of the board would agree, if she gets m

commissioner hwang: what what did you witness being done? >> al she said, we went over and saw the initial counter wall in place. the counter wall that she pointed out in her exhibit. commissioner hwang: ok, do you know how long that had been up? >> i did not make a habit of looking in there, but when she noticed it that day, when she said the email, we were discussing it and how to look at it, and it was there. commissioner hwang: thank you. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is before you. >> it seems additional evidence has been taken, so i should have the opportunity. president peterson: that is correct. thank you. vice president goh: well, in regards to whether there was work done before, i have found that we have heard credible evidence tonight as well as in the submissions that we received in preparation for today. i am not sure if it makes sense to go ahead and suggest changes to the findings now or if we should hear from the other commissioners as to whether others would like a revoke or not

commissioner hwang: i would be inclined to continue, as well. i am wondering if there is any question here as to what it is specifically that is being asked. is the permit holder clear on what is being required? should this board continue the matter? were you not clear the first time, is the question. >> i think i was quite clear. there was the noise study. it did not say how many types of noise studies you wanted. the existing noise levels at the exterior of the building, i think that the compressor in comparison to what the existing noise level is is what we wanted. i do not think you asked me to do any noise studies on the interior side of the building. if you have, i would have tried to do that. the only problem would have been with the one unit. as far as the location, i thought you just asked for alternate locations. i did speak to the owner of the property and to his brother, who was doing the installation of the compressor. because of the neighbors, the proximity of the building, the neighbor has their interests on the north side of thei

commissioner hwang: the stem of a branch? >> this essentially has the main trunk and then to main stems. it was one of the larger -- "we often called dominant trunk or main stem. president peterson: do you know if that resulted in any harm to the public? >> i could look back. president peterson: but off the top you do not know. vice president goh: i am looking at the ceqa cadex. that was provided to the appellant? >> just today. we received it from planning last night. vice president goh: isn't this to be appealed to the board of supervisors? i see mr. sanchez nodding his head. >> i am not a ceqa expert, but probably. vice president goh: thanks. president peterson: and want to follow up on the heron. did your department look at which trees that had the impact of habitat loss? >> we did not look specifically at habitat loss. president peterson: is that not within your purview? is that some and you do not consider it? >> it is something we try to consider. i think in this case because of the condition of the trees, and there ar

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. -

commissioner hwang: i would like the briefing that was requested at the prior hearing. mr. pacheco, do you have that? secretary pacheco: for the permit holder to go first? president peterson: we want to make it extremely clear that any briefing you choose to submit up to 3 pages in the exhibit, so the noise study, whatever play and you have for where this is going to be, whatever permits are required to fully install this. >> you want this? president peterson: yes. is it a question? >> the architect failed to mention what was going on. that 85 decibels, i contacted the manufacturers, both of the suppliers to handle this equipment, and the manufacturer has not tested this equipment under u.l. testing, and their best was 85 decibels on the low end and that it is likely higher than that. president peterson: that is likely a response you can submit. >> we would like them to submit something from the mfg. giving the actual wage of the equipment so we can have a representation. vice president goh: i have a question for you, sir. did i hear you that when they turned the compressor