>> okay. >> so indeed this is - >> put that on the overhead. >> i want to make sure there's one before that? >> commissioners is that the same document. >> it's the same. >> what was your question? >> is that does at&t box theirs a designation of 4 by 6 is that the proposed location. >> yes. >> okay isn't that a mailbox and a an at&t box next to it. >> pull that up. >> there's a mailbox 40 inches back. >> not based on this diagram. >> but it will be 40 inches back i don't know what base your

saying that won't be. >> well, this is our construction drawing i'm assuming that's where your placing it and right and that drawing shows a 40 inch separation between the mail box and the proposed at&t cabinet that's marked on this box that says at&t. >> we must be i don't see no 40 inch separation. >> i'm going by the scale of it it looks like 12 to 16 inches apart. and >> and here's an actual photograph as well it could be the mailbox is gone now but again i want to make sure there

is in designation that says 40 inches but those are 40 inches the sidewalks is 15 inches wide. >> so i don't know if there's anything more i think i'm talking past. >> i will ask a question of the city agency that's going to be reviewing this. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner fung. >> go ahead with our rebuttal mr. quan and i'll ask the question. >> okay. >> good evening, commissioners john quan from the department of public works. actually, the department has nothing further to add in rebuttal. to answer our question commissioner.

the property location of the new box is at this location which they defined to the center of the box >> which one. >> i believe this is the one their referring to this existing box closer to the intersection. >> well, it's below that it says at&t. >> that's an underground vault. >> so i misinterpreted where the facility was we won't authorize that kind of thing a that's an underground box. >> okay. thank you. >> okay commissioners the matter is submitted. mr. quan that's the - mr. quan that's the city attorneys document he times it back >> sorry. >> go ahead.

>> scott sanchez you can see the underground vault and the mile box in the different bay. >> oh, okay. that's very helpful thank you. >> could you leave it up there for a second mr. sanchez? okay. thank you. >> the drawing shows the gap between the center line of the mailbox to some point before the edge of their box as being 3 feet does that look like 3 feet to you? aren't they proposing to put the new box - >> no, i'm talking about the dimensions to some point before the edge of this green box i've seen 3 feet. >> this is a much tolerant

showing. >> that's 3 feet. >> okay. >> well. >> maybe that's the reason they didn't want to show us those backgrounds before (laughter). >> well, i'll start. as commissioner fung stated that's been the problem at&t has been here many, many times before us in the last evidently weeks and months that seems we grandfather new information piece immediately by permit holder on each occasion as mentioned. so it gives me a hard time to process the information if i don't have all the information before me so again on this one heads or tails we're looking at the map and there's no reference to space to nothing.

so i'm having a hard time coming to a decision >> i thought that the predicament holders argument, you know, testimony here was clear. the problem i think is the lack of a written submission but those are some of my you comments i'm not sure where i'm going to land on this one >> it's not helpful not to have a belief. i mean, it's just not helpful. so for future reference helpful to have one in the future. i don't see is a basis to over turn this predicament.

i'll be leon towards denying the appeal. >> you know the and i think i probably voted more than some of my fellow commissioners to approve some of the issues initially we thought it was more of a process issue but if i look like this as a technical document then i'm concerned now about the accuracy of what they have specified as infeasible a technical infeasibility and i'm wondering whether there are other issues is it the fact their 18 feet from the nearest box. you know, showing a infeasible

site based upon constraints of the dimensions it's relatively easy you know, i have staff doing that all the time when things don't fit right. and see if i'm going purely on the basis of whether the appropriate information have been provided in a process they've already concurred and agreed on through an mou through their own agreement with various sites then i have a lot of doubt as to whether the technical feasibility has been proven >> i want to add i remember, if the last time this permit holder was before our board and i think i asked a question about the analysis that was done with respect with an alternative

promoted site proposed or suggested by the someone on a block walk are i if my memory serves this there was no written documentation for the feasibility so i think the way you tarnished it commissioner fung resonates with me two. the part that leans the other direction the city has been involved in the process and has been supportive of obviously the permits it's granted and authorized so just i think in terms of evidencey record it's difficult to make a decision on what's been presented with no supporting documentation >> i agree. i agree >> i will take the following approach this time.

i would ask for a continuance until it's proven to me that there is no other technically feasible site between 3 hundred feet of the this box >> is that your motion and that's my motion to continue this. i will ask the permit holder and the department how much time they need? >> through the chair can i ask a clarifying question. >> in what form do you want to see that. >> i want to see an accurate drawing but you, however, you want to show me the conflicting zones of different dimensions required of. >> okay and it's relating simple. >> i think we can get it back. >> your choice we may have to

rescheduled upon our schedule. >> i noticed. >> before we pick a date i want to be clear are you asking for an additional argument or inhabits. >> inhabits that demonstrate the technical feasibility they've stated. so the technical feasibility of the alternative sites proposed >> of any other sites proposed. >> that's the basis of the argument why the site permitted is the only technically feasible site. which i would accept for easily if there it was documented >> okay. go ahead >> what do you think about july 2nd. i think july 2nd will work

>> will that work for you. >> actually, i and my attorney will be out of town either the work before or after. >> it would be to be we're not meeting next week. it will have to go to 23rd mr. clerk the 16th is also busy >> i think the 25 for two short. >> we have other agenda items. >> are most of those yours. >> well, we'll be back on the 25th. >> are you talking about june 25th. >> yes. >> okay. >> did that work for you and how about the appellant court gin 25th? >> (inaudible). >> yes. we'll madam director

we'll talk about the briefing schedule. >> any additional documents submitted will be due thursday prior to the hearing and, of course, to summit to not only the board but to the appellant and each other; right? on the same day. >> okay. >> okay. >> any other verifications. >> unless you want to put a page limit. >> mr. pacheco. >> we have to continue this motivator until june 22nd - 25th excuse me. the public hearing has been held to allow time for the public holder to summit the graphics of the alternative sites. >> if the predicament holder and the department as or a department okay. or a dpw and those inhabits are

due one thursday prior to the hearing. commissioner fung. commissioner hurtado the president is absent. commissioner honda thank you the vote is 4 to zero it's continued until june 25th thank you >> we're going to take >> welcome to the wednesday, june 11, 2014, of the san francisco board of appeals. item no. 7 has been withdrawn appeal number next robert and others. vs. the department of building inspection with the planning department approval on bay street protesting the 0740, llc of an alternative permit.

at counter top roof-deck forming woov we'll start with the appellant that has 7 minutes to present our case >> i'm robert thorp the owner on bay street i've lived there 39 years and representing other owners on 728 on bay street and jim the owner on bay street and nightmares properties on hyde street and others on bay street. in one of my units. i thought i'd like to give a background history of you can't why i'm here. back in april of 2010 miff and

other neighbors and on my block received and preapplication meeting for a project proposed on 740 bay street this is a copy of that and in that meeting that was attended by myself and a bunch of other neighbors we basically discussed the project that was being proposed and basically, we told the developer owns on bay street the community insisted on no rooftop fast forward two years we and the rendering of the drawings at this point basically showed in roof-deck at that particular time that was being proposed. fast forward two years and the predicament is resubmitted under

a different number and the permit again basically shows on the face and to the public there's no roof-deck. however, when the permit went up on the wall i basically requested a copy of the plan there was a roof-deck i filed for a discretionary review and granted one of the concerns but unfortunately, the deck was approved. now fast forward 2014 it's february or yeah. february 2014. and the roof-deck is going up and i basically noticed a lot of utilities plumbing and gas links are, you know, being filled on the roof wall i called up a the

dependent on a violation there were no utilities supposed to be installed on that wall. i believe dbi come out on february 19th the owners and developers at the 740 bay street applied for a revision of the predicament and in the revision of the predicament they stated to the public that there were going to be no fire pits and no cooking facilities snuffed been 0 on their plans those cooking facilities and fire pits were submitted through city planning. when i - the permit was granted and your details are wrong it

was approved on the 21st not the first, i he immediately filed a appeal on this the permit was suspected on april 22nd over the owner develop continued to do the work on putting in countertops and basically what appeared thank you. and we received the suspension notice it was foeptd be suspended on april 22nd. what happened this was basically a there will of no bump out as of april 18th and currently it's been completed as you can see through there. with respect to the counter top that was the detail of the

counter top as of february 12, 2014. and this is what the counter top looks like today. so you can see that everything is substantially been implemented on the permit. so what i'm commending is knows besides what was submitted in my original suspension is that any changes from the original received permit is rigging the public to look at that the property owners were never notified about any of the changes let alone the deck was added on. we don't believe that the city

planning premiers were followed this was basically different from what went through city planning. there were material things permitted so it won't refusal any of our feathers so basically upon receipt of the proved plans did the surrounding neighborhoods see the gassed cooking facility and the gas fire pits installed on the third floor. we are basically q that all of this be denied because the neighbors and i were not properly notified about all of those improvements there were going on, on the roof-deck. so that's it. thanks i'll i'm going to turn it over to other members of my neighborhood that have come to

make this presentation in front of you only 18 seconds left >> do you have any more of that food to share i'm starving. >> could you put on the overhead the drawings that accompanied the 311 notice. >> what's that. >> when they first presented the design to you. >> when they first presented the design like in the original plans? okay >> so this was as of april of 2010. we met with the planning with the owners >> i want to see the drawings that were attached to it. >> okay. here's the proposed. >> you didn't put those if in

you're brief; right? >> what. >> in your brief. >> this is the front as you see no roof-deck up here in roof-deck. >> were there plans is there roof plans. >> there's a roof plan on the permit that was approved. >> no with this set. >> no. >> all right. >> why don't we side this pass that up and i'll take a look at it. >> basically we are contending the neighborhood was not notified about the roof-deck properly nor were any of us notified about the additions going into the currently proposed roof-deck and what's that this is the 311 isn't it?

>> okay. >> you want to look at it?

>> know theirs nothing mentioned in here about a roof-de roof-deck. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening, members of the board augustine on behalf of the bay street, llc thank you for your times this evening i want

to mention that the parties responsible for the construction the mentioned of the, llc have never been cited and i think the preliminary issue here and really what should control this decision that appellants have not put forth evidence or facts that the dbi exceeded its authority nor the construction is not compliant with the code or unlawful in any matter that's really the bottom line here. you know, to address their concerns i think they were, you know, pretty succinctly addressed in the brief the fire hazard concerns are unfounded. the equipment at issue is e are natural gas operated noted sparking embers and the

materials that compromise the roof-deck are non-combustible and it has a 3 and a half foot glass barrier. now as to the noise issue that's wholly eir relevant based on a property around the block not connected to them that's only relevant and speculative as well. as far as the odor in their own belief they say the owners of the neighborhood they engage in cooking they make no distinction of similar character that search warrant somehow would be different and finally, there's to the privacy concerns its based on the lighting at the roof-deck not talking about a spot light a small bump out they've in no way indicated it

exceeds the maximum that be voltage by the code that's basically the basis of their protest. so >> would you care to address the preliminary auditorium that we were not notified the roof-deck and right here this was not summit i have copies of the brief submitted in 2012 by the dbi. i'll put that up. actually right here sure right here i can see in the approved plans in 2012, the dbi stamp of approval there's a roof-deck indicated on the first page >> could you blow that up?

>> i think the issue while internal revenue doing that the issue of the plans that went with the 311 notification that's the issue. >> no, i don't have my personal knowledge perhaps if i called one of the members of the, llc it was mooipd. >> let's ask mr. sanchez so are you done? >> i'm done thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez mr. foreman a little bit of braungd the bay shore in the zoning district, llc the previous 2012 permit was submitted in may of 2012 the neighborhood productive

was conducted and the appellant filed a discretionary review permit on that application it's my understanding think the dr requester the materials he stated his opposition to the roof-deck and proposed elimination i quote the elimination felt roof-deck is for cold temperatures and because of noise and partying and fire pits that could further block light the planning commission concerned those arguments and took discretionary review they asked for the property line be