the project sponsor could look for parking at another location. i will turn to the other commissioners if we can come to some agreement. >> i would be in favor of what has been proposed on two different light wells at a depth of 3.9. the staff mentioned that typically if we're going to match, we only go 3 feet. is that correct? we don't necessarily match the depth of the adjacent light wells which they provide light in and of themselves. the property line windows and not protected under the code.

they have some special protection for property line windows. it is difficult when we eliminate the light to those. that is a special circumstance. that is that anything the code calls for. i would be inclined to go with the suggestion of the 3 foot, 9 inch depth, 20 feet long shaft on the southern side. i think that it is 3.6 light well in length on the northern side. mr. paul, can you explain the dimensions there? i know it was not in your proposal but that is what we had in mind. >> yes, we would to a 3 foot 6 inch light well to accommodate those property line windows at the northwest corner.

there is a real problem created with ada access in our corridor with a 9 inch difference at that light well. we could to 3 ft. 9 at the forward. that forces us to make changes that become very complicated and difficult. >> another question, the wit of your property is 25 feet, i believe. >> 5 feet. 5 feet. >> yes, that is fine.

>> when a door opened into his space, that dimension does from 4 feet to 5 feet. any space that we open up, when we open up the door at the end of that corridor, we still have to have at least a depth of 5 feet to remain from that point in order to have the legal access. they have to be minimally 48 as a minimum and that is only in the case with the doors to open into them. thank you. >> why don't you just swing the door from the other side? >> if you are going down that way, we have a 5 foot high wall way. that is about 16 feet left. >> well, you have stairs and one

side. >> it is almost 7 feet, 6 inches to 8 feet wide. you have your walls. for feet minimum for the hallway. then you have whichever side the door opens onto. it is the door that opens into the space that has to be 5 feet. you are just running out of room in that spot. it is really tight. >> doing the math probably at that particular side, that window is almost at to the rear of the building. that might be a place where you are only having stairs and a corridor. once you get to the rear of the building, then you can access your other -- >> the plans are pretty accurate in terms of describing

that situation. there is a corridor that goes up there. it is logical to have the door there. the reception space is gone. keep in mind that this is a bifurcated plan. you're getting office spaces. it is not one big open space. >> i interest and that it might end up being a passage space. >> the building wall, you have to have the -- to get out of the building. that has to be at least 3 feet. it is 3 feet plus the wall.

and it ends up being 3 feet, 3 inches. >> the city something that would have to be up to code. permit it would have to come up with. they would have to come back to us if there was a problem with code. >> the stairs are not workable. this would be forced into the front of the building. >> i don't think that is a concern. >> thank you. >> it has to be 16 or more. that is what you're dealing with. that is at 15 feet.

>> i kind of feel that this is picking up the back half. they can certainly afford to come to 3 feet or 4.6. >> 3.9 is what we are looking at. did you make a motion? >> i did. i would like to clarify. >> given that we are allowing, we are going to allow for the back to be built.

let's make it 3.9. this extends to feet below the existing window and extends beyond the building. >> i have the 3.9 and the rear. >> two feet past the end of the building. >> what would your like be? >> this is not to mention. >> this is 2 feet south of the existing window and to the north. the southern light well extends from the light well, the existing light well to the north all the way south >> two feet past the existing property line window.

>> do you have that? thank you. >> we are leaving their rear as it is proposed by the project sponsor. >> is there a motion to that? >> seconded. >> commissioners, the motion is to take discretionary review and approve this project as it has been modified with the conditions offered by commissioner sugaya. on that motion. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> thank you. that motion passes unanimously. you are at the general public comment. >> is there any general public comment? seeing none, this meeting is adjourned.

>> good evening. it is august 15, 2012. welcome to the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer is chris fung. commissioner emma lazarus is with us. one seat on the board is currently vacant, and the board may hold a meeting when there is a vacancy. the board may overrule the action of the department by a vote of three members. good four votes are not required. robert bryant will provide the

board with any legal advice this evening. i am the board's executive director. we are joined by representatives from some of the city departments that have cases before the board to night. scott sanchez is representing the planning department and planning commission. if you could please go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. but the board requests you turn off on phones and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. good rules are as follows. appellants and department representatives each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. people must conclude within 7

minutes or three minutes. members of the public not affiliated with the party have up to 3 minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. joyces the board and accurate presentation of the meetings, members are asking are not required to submit a speaker card or business kearncard whenu come to the podium. the board also welcomes comments and suggestions there are customers of the section forms on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about the hearing, please the to the staff during a break or after the meeting or call the office in the morning. gthis meeting is to broadcast live on san francisco government

television, sfgtv, cable channel 78, and the these are available direct from -- dvds are available from sfgtv. we will start are swearing in process. if you intend to testify, please stand, raise your right hand, and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. please note any member of the public may speak without taking this oath pursuant to their rights under the sun shine ordinance. the solidly a test the -- attest you will give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> thank you. we will call item no. 1, public

comment on items not on the agenda. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? item no. 2, comments and questions. good >> i just want to welcome vice-president fung and let you know i am very appreciative of your being here, and i would like to add congratulations to that appointment, and i look forward to serving with him. >> madam director, i would like to announce i will be missing the september 12 meeting. i will be out of town. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, and we will move on to the minutes. for your consideration are the minutes for august 1, 2012. goo>> of there are no comments,i

move to approve. >> if you could call the roll please. gooright on that motion? [calling votes] the vote is 3-0. those minutes are adopted. >> item #a, having to do with the department of building inspection and now with the building disapproval, and the board voted 4-0 with one vacancy to deny the appeal and uphold a permit on the basis of planning code section 150.

it is for an existing data to be removed and replaced with -- existing gate to be removed and replaced, and i understand the parties are jointly requesting the matter be continued, if you would like to step forward, and before we take on this item further, i would like the record to reflect commissioner of lazarus was not here when this was originally heard, but she has indicated she has reviewed the video and is ready for this hearing. >> and the attorney for the party of interest. i am here to join the request a continuance. i believe that is supported by the zoning administrator. the purpose is so they can continue discussions that are on going to try to resolve the matter.

>> mr. sanchez, do you have any -- she is a member of the public, so she can speak next. >> good afternoon. also, congratulations on your reappointment. and we look forward to four more years of having you on the board of appeals. we give additional time to review the case, and it is up to the board. thank you. >> thank you, and now we will take public comment. >> good evening. i agree with this continuance to sometime in september. good thank you so much greater >> you said sometime in september. goois there an agreed upon date?

>> i believe it will be september 19 is that time is available. arts both odrugs both of those n december -- in september, i believe the calendar is full. praxair believes october 10 would be an acceptable. >> i think that would be a lot better for the board. good >> is that the acceptable -- >> is that acceptable? >> october 10. >> is everyone seems to be an agreement, i would move to continue on october 10 based on the parties diussion of resolving the matter so maybe we will not have to hear it.

>> or if there is a resolution and anything is requested of this board with respect to the permit process, you should be fully ready to grieve about or submit that -- to brief that or submit that so actions can occur in the same evening. iit is related to a zoning administrator planning department affirmation. >> thank you for suggesting that. no parties would provide an additional briefing on the hearing requests. if all parties agree, and we may request the board grant a rehearing and allow the matter to come back to you. we would need that time to determine if that is even a

possibility. >> thanks. >> there is a motion to continue the item to october 10 at the request of the parties to allow further settlement discussions. if you could call the roll on that, please. >> on that motion from the president to reschedule this rehearing request to october 10 . [calling votes] the vote is 3-0, and this is rescheduled to october 10. >> the next item is item 4b, another hearing requests. it is at howard street. the department of public works, decided , -- in july 2012 to uphold who.

a permit type is a mobile food facility permit. the matter was also heard before commissioner lazarus joined the board, but she has indicated she has reviewed the video and is prepared to participate this evening, so we can start with the requester of the rehearing request, and you have three minutes to present your case. >> i am the proprietor of the rincon grill and restaurant group. prior to this we had an attorney representing us, so i could not get an attorney to actually say anything, and i found some

documentation that shows a notice from the dpw saying my facility is 150 feet away from the propertiey, and the code sas 300 feet -- it has to be within 300 feet. it is quite confusing. they are saying on this and permit i am 404 feet away because it is measured from the midpoint of the block. gooit is quite confusing. good we hav --we have some things saying it is 150 feet. it was 290 feet. i got a little bit further. it is quite confusing, and i do not know which one to go by, because i also pulled up google maps, yahoo maps, and bing as

well, and one of them is saying it is 177 feet away another one is saying it is 298, so i would like to actually see if you could go ahead and grantees rehearings -- grant these

i am the managing member of slighter shack. we went over this at length, and i understand there are various ways to measure this, but as the dp -- the dpw measures it, it is from the midpoint of the block. i do not want to rehash the details. this note as they got, i am not sure if that is from the dpw. i feel that might be from the board of appeals, but it is unclear whether this actually came from, so i am not particularly sure about that, but this three sum it up but we do not believe there are new facts but have risen -- this really sums it up that we do not believe there are new facts that have arisen.

thank you very much. good >> do you want to participate? >> good evening. i am from the department of public works. from the previous hearing there were questions relating to how the notification who is this is based upon different type of permanence -- permits. in this case the code was very midpoint of the block, and it was from the bases but made a determination to grow without side of 300 foot radius -- the grill was outside the 300 foot radius. there were questions whether it was two under 98 feet or 306 feet.

goothe department says it is toe measured from the midpoint of the block. we have nothing to add except but we follow our process based on the requirements. >> did you see the information provided by the requester? >> no, i did not. that is why i am trying to figure out what they are referring to. taiex i just want to get confirmation -- >> i just want to get confirmation it is not a communication from your office with respect to this issue. >> i see it now. it is from the board of permit appeals. >> i wanted to get out on the record. >> is there any public comment on this item?

seeing none, commissioners, and the matter is before you. >> the one dissenting vote, and the basis of my dissent was that it appeared to not be a realistic requirement in the code of utilizing the midpoint of the block. did you have a long blocks. however, -- you have long blocks. the issue was brought forth, and a vote was taken. i do not see any new information as provided in the breezief. as i share those sentiments, and i would move to deny the request for rehearing, and that

is based upon the fact of there is no new evidence. >> when you are ready please. back on the motion to deny the rehearing request. [calling votes] the vote is 3-0. this rehearing request is denied and notice of decision order shall be released. >> calling item #5, courtney utt verses the bureau of st. use and mapping. this is foreign the issuance o