the appellant has an appeal to reagan during -- has appealed. uring 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 u

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 t

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

i am with a law firm, and i am especially appearing this afternoon on behalf of the appellant. in this presentation, i would like to initially set forth the two separate and independent grounds upon which the board may grant the appeal. first, the planning commission decision clearly violates section 303-c-1 of the planning code because it is unquestionably not desirable. it is not desirable for the neighborhood and the local community. second, the proposed use fails to comply with applicable sec health and safety standards. next, i do want to address the planning commission's recent amendment of the guidelines to require an independent evaluation of the coverage and capacity data provided by the project sponsors in these types of situations, and noted that even if the board does not grant the appeal, in light of the recent amendment, unless it is remanded to the planning commission for such an evaluation -- and i will conclude with a plea that this board direct the planning commission and the planning department to undertake a thorough and comprehensive review and amendment of

the ground. i will make a note to provide it to appellants so they have thought. thank you. >> anything further? >> at this point the department would have nothing to add that would be germane to this hearing. >> if there are no further questions, the matter is submitted. >> i think i understand the point raised by the appellants. i do not think they go to the question of whether we should grant for repeal or reject the permit, but i appreciate that you raise them today. >> i am in agreement. one could infer from the appellants argument that the department erredç because they did not have correct information. i am not sure her argument rises to that level, and i have nothing in front of me that would allow me to overturn the permit. >> i think i am in agreement with the rest of the commission. good >> basically, even though the appellant explain that the arguments and would not go towards rating frequencies and whether they are not permissible levels, and we have to decide whether or not it confirms to standards as to whether we allow these facilities to be on the

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.

every time i heard the appellant speaker, i heard you're referring to mr. ills 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 further

>> 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

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

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 i

>> the increase can contain whatever the appellant wishes. >> unless someone wants to make a motion to continue. >> i think that maybe it a correct the termination. we have heard from the appellant she would like more time to get their response, and if no response is going to be given, there is no reason to extend the time. what is your position? >> we would like it to be issued. it has been about six months, and we would like to continue construction. >> you would object to continuances? >> we would object to a continuance, but i just handed and jon vaughfung the brief, so he may be able to provide some of that information. >> since no one has made a motion to continue, we are going to continue to hear the merits of the case. >> thank you, president and commissioners. i am the director of relations of nextg. thank you for this opportunity to speak to you. even though the appellants talk about it, i want to use this opportunity to give you a background of this facility. there is a large primary utility pole on with three attachments. there are anti knows that extends over the building

the appellants have questioned the accuracy of the data, and the report submitted by the department of public health for verification, we do have him here for a report on his measurements. i would be happy to share that with the board and if you have further questions, they can address those. it complies with the standards for view. the city's wireless telecommunications services guidelines is consistent with the san francisco in general plan that supports the technologically advanced communications infrastructure and growth of emerging telecommunications industries. contrary to the erroneous information, it is consistent with the five-year wireless plan submitted to the planning department every six months for review and available for the general public. finally, the site is the least intrusive means by which we can have a significant coverage gap. i think the planning department staff in support of directing the design of this location. we asked for you to support us today to improve the decision of the planning commission has worked diligently to upgrade the network of the wireless

all were preference the seven sides with the exception of 1300 elbow which is the address of the appellant. it is the only other preference in one location in the search area. the location was for the preferred because it had an existing and touch that had been located there since 1997. the old and tell will be removed once this one is turned on. and the subject location is the least intrusive means by which at&t mobility can close the service coverage gap. it is caused in part by significant demand from at&t customers, and the increase is consistent with the 8000% increase in demand will have experienced over the last four years. at&t expects total volume to grow at a pace of a to 10 times over the next five years. as you may remember, there have been challenges that the questions we're asking, his body has added additional conditions that require the data to be verified it via non-biased third party. the planning department has encouraged us to go ahead and complete a third party verification that we have submitted and we are in the process of securing that verification now. the appellan

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 would be that this should serve as an illustration of the value of talking to your neighbors when you are doing a project. if your neighbor is doing a project, talk to them and make sure you are clear of all the issues. i am not suggesting efforts were not made to do that. thank you. >> on that motion from commissioner fung. president garcia: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. commissioner hillis: aye. >> the vote is 4-0. the permit is upheld with that condition and that finding. thank you. >> and on behalf of the society, its board of directors, and want to welcome you to the celebration of the 2012 black history month kickoff program here at city hall. on behalf of our sponsors, comcast, represented by linda today, i believe, and mr. chang, from comcast, on behalf of our co presenters who are in the audience and listed on the back of your program -- i will read them off to you and ask that they would stand as i read the g

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

commissioner lee: no question with the appellant. no? i 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 boa

we will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, born. -- board. family owns the property adjacent to the permit holder. i grew up two blocks from this property. i live in the neighborhood. i have lived there for over 50 years, so i know the neighborhood quite well. my mother had her antique shop on the block. i am quite familiar with it. i live in the city, and i believe the permit holders do not live in the city, so i have concerns about the aesthetics, but i have other issues, too. this all started because of an accessibility issue, and my niece's a special needs of young woman, so i am very sensitive to disabilities. we have tried to bend over backwards to be in reasonable about this. there seems to be a disconnect between the building and planning, which we discovered, and the department of streets and napkin -- mapping. the proposed ramp is 60 feet long, eight and a half feet wide, and it is described as a minor encroachment. i do not see how a 60-foot long and now is a minor encroachment. it will be eight and a half feet wide, and it will ta

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

>> yes, you're sorry the attorney for the appellant, and i'm here to ask for a further continuance for 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 lee: ok, any other questions? if not, i would like to ask the department -- do you have a position on t

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 sim

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

>> as far as i can tell. >> i actually agree with the appellant in this case. i think there are several requirements and were not met. i do not see any hardships. there are five of the monroe, and the fact there is not a widespread pattern of smaller lots, the only smaller lots nbwe see are oddly shaped but not necessarily the tiny losts the subdivision would create. i see parking as a problem. i did not agree with the explanation 7 and non-complying in the rear would be it sufficient or desirable outcome. those are my comments for now. >> i am a little bit in between. let me explain why. we have had two cases like this in the last two years. each had a slightly larger unit in one lot and a small unit on the other a lot. both have significant departures for lot size, and iun financing of for your unix -- financing four units, and i concur that given the size of the units, they are probably more affordable than the larger units, which have some fairly large buildings, given the fact there is still a multiplier that applies in volume -- applies value. the question

this is my analysis as an expert retained by the appellant. >> i wasn't involved in the preparation of that document. the experts that prepared that, it's not the typical expert report that would be attached to a proper filing. but my understanding, he was going to make the presentation today. as i indicated to supervisor mar, i'm not prepared to go through the report in demonstrate precisely why it indicates noncompliance with the standards. president chiu: any other questions? this hearing has been held and is now closed. supervisor mar: thank you for listening to the passion and the testimony of the public. and also mr. waxberg's efforts. there are mitigating concerns of the hebrew academy, going above and beyond efforts. i just want to say that i am strongly in support of residents when there is such a strong neighborhood opposition. it is not desirable for the residential area. i also want to say that there was a document about at&t's coverage is strong in the area. we have referred to those documents before in previous appeals. i would refer to that and use it as one bit of evide