>> 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 discussion 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 of a minor sidewalk encroachment permit. public hearing was held on july 25, 2012, and was continued today for further consideration. good air the matter was continue to allow time for -- the matter was continue to allow time for dbi to conduct a review of the accessibility and texting issues. >> i went to the address -- i

think it was the day after the hearing -- and a building permit is required for this work. there are two gates attached to two separate properties, and there are exiting requirements for the code. there are accessibility requirements, and we would need to do a structural review on how it is attached to the building. we need two separate permanenci one for each building is attached to. that will have to be reviewed by dpw and the fire department. >> if it was not attached to the buildings but was independently supported by the street, would that change the requirements? >> that is a good question.

dpw could probably deal with it than a year ago -- we did then. -- with it then. i am still concerned about who is going to check the accessibility valerio -- acceptability. >> we would still want to see that done. 5 i have had two meetings. mr. flynn already has a plan involved. we have to make some changes, and they are almost ready to submit to the building department for review. it is going to be taken in before we can see of permits for that, and i think the dpw minded region might need to give

reassessed a little bit. -- i think the dpw might need to get reassessed a little bit. we try to do the right thing. get a couple of people may have said this is dpw and got a permit when it should have been of a building permit at that time. >> given that it is currently attached without a permit to two buildings and the permits are under way, what would the permit who recommend? >> i think it is not too bad. from an inspection point of view

it looked pretty secure. there was a bar at the bottom, and that would not bee reassessd at all. i think the last hearing that got mentioned. >> did not mention, but has anything been done? >> know, but there was a suspension. for the building permit it would have to be done. i spoke to mr. flynn, and he would have to show about. -- show that. >> if that is the case, the corollary to the question ais is the action in the pennant to that, or is there a reason to tie them together?

>> i think we should have a building in place before we do anything, because it is kind of a little bit of leverage as well, so maybe we hold it off a little bit and say i would like to see a building permit in place. >> we will see what their opinion is. >> to enter the first question you posed -- to answer the first question you posed, if the fence was installed solely in the public right-of-way, the department of public works will review the integrity of that gate. we will engage the building department and the fire department as it relates to this

alleyway to insure the building requirements are satisfied. this raises a good question, because currently the permanent incentives -- is inspected. i am not sure what you would need to get a building permit relating to this gate at this point. one of the items is we contacted the mayor's office. goowe contacted the department. there will be additional requirements the department will impose on this date going forward if the permit is upheld. one of them will be to set it back 3 feet from the property line to swing not into the path traveled, but rather it will

swing short of it so there will not be a potential hazard. there will be adjustments required on the mechanisms of the gate itself. it will satisfy requirements the department will impose based on recommendations, and the access coordinator will review the design to ensure it satisfies the requirements. >> any recommendation from your department as to how you would like us to proceed? >> before you answer that, part of the question i have is is the gate in its status quo going to turn into something totally different?

is it going to be transformed? will need to be redone in order to comply with oversight? >> it depends on the amount expected to exit. there might need to be more than one gates on both sides. there might be a multitude of elements that would be required. debate itself would be moved by a minimum of 3 feet -- the gate itself would be moved back 3 feet. they would maintain the location but shifted back 3 feet. >> what do we do pending in

getting the thing in compliance? take it down altogether? get it in place? >> i think the board is faced with a slightly different question as to the appropriateness of the gate, because the department of public works and building inspection recognizes there is an additional issue as it relates to a accessibility that needs to be adjusted, and if we know about it today, we go back to the applicant, saying this adjustment needs to be made. you need to make provisions moving forward. the question is the appropriateness rather than the design, because we can require the applicant to adjust to the

design to satisfy requirements. >> can i ask the clarification question? there is a permit issued for your requirement, which sounds separate from needing to go to the building to get