we sent and field person out and meet e met with the appellant by attempting a purchase an easement in the driveway and that driveway was two dangerous because it's an active driveway so it seems like it was not a good location. when we looked at the surrounding neighborhood the problem that came once we couldn't put it across the street this was the only location in the neighborhood that satisfied all of the objectives criteria that the department has. so we contacted the department in the fall of 2013 and had a conversation with jerry and lynn

fong who agreed with us that is what i've been told by the two individuals who were on the call that the location on burr restraining order street was, in fact, the best location in that neighborhood. it's also not true this is simply about money it is simply all 3 of you know there are technical locations we're limited by the fact it has to be within 3 hundred feet of the cabinet and we're limit by the dozens of guidelines that the city has for where those boxes can and can't go. the department acknowledges and its own brief at least under the older ordinance the proposed location doesn't impede the right-of-way i've seen the photographs it's a large

sidewalk. the proposed location didn't conflict with any of the objective guidelines in the old or new ordinance and neither the appellant nor dwp in its brief presented evidence that the s m f would establish whether or not a right-of-way is impeded. i understand the appellants point of view it's not dissimilar from at&t's point of view he's worried about the sf m would impede his business. finally because i know it will come up i simple again have to make a point about the

retroactive clause in this situation the problem is that the city granted at&t a permit more than two months ago. the city can't grant us a grant on day 10 after we submit our application and have it taken away by the board of appeals on the 69 days it's been more than 60 days since our application was grant and our position is so the board no longer has jurisdiction over the appeal and simply dismiss it. thank you. i have nothing further to add unless you have questions >> counselor the location that was not accepted by the community across the street which way on bruins no?

i can't answer that >> i think one of your colleagues can and march blake man external affairs for atf it was on san broourng on the dead end portion where it runs into the subway and the parking meters are located horizontal. >> yeah. all those streets across san broourn dead end. >> the community gave his this considerable amount of time making that into a reservation area for the community. >> thank you. >> thank you. ms. short >> carla department of public

works. i don't have much to say that's different from the basing last case this case what in our opinion the contract was not finally, the board of supervisors completely determined the permit is not final if it's pending before the board of appeals and the new ordinance requires that any permit not final on the effective day of the ordinance should be subject to the new ordinances so again on that basis the board should uphold the appeal and overturn the issuance of the permit although we believe the community issued this permit properly in the first place >> ms. short you know if i recollect the ordinance one of the preliminary components of

that was to not limit the public outreach to that irrational box walk. >> that's correct. >> but because the potential sites the second round occurs it has happened here should this process more closely satisfy the new regulations? >> did this process - aha occurred for this permit. >> prior? well, one the provisions of the ordinance is that all potential sites will be identified in advance so that the community can then weigh all the potential sites simultaneously and therefore we're not really pitting the community members against each other they'll have contrary opinions but open dysfunctions about the option

this is not as closed is to the community participation and thanks but directing your attention or during the course how many sites were reviewed >> in this case i believe there was let me check. >> let's start with the first round how many sites were reviewed during the course of that. >> the first round there was one site. only one >> yes. yes. and then subsequentially there were a second site proposed. >> the second round only one additional site? >> yep i'll double check this and you'll are rebuttal. >> yep. >> thank you.

thank you. >> any public comment on that item? please step forward. >> good evening xhiergsz i'm ruth walling list i've been involved with the portland neighborhood organization and ii feel i've been structural to bring up a part to san brunner avenue it was a dead he said an overgrown people through trash there we decided to put it a public space we've worked with the sfmta to get bulb out and crosswalks and a huge amount of pedestrian traffic and directly

north of mr. michelle's establishment is the northeast medical center that serves thousands of low income people to get health care and across the street is the family connections which again serves hundreds if not thousands of families in the neighborhood. this street has two busy business lines that go back and forth people are not just stroerl not paying attention they're busy trying to get somewhere. where this box would be that would restrict the pedestrian traffic and stroerts and which were in tow the different people trying to get to a bus stop and the elderly population that's huge in our neighborhood. plus we think that the mitchel's

have been helpful in expanding our straightaway streetscape this area where they put their chairs out it is only outdoor seating space that any of the businesses in the neighborhood have provided. the neighborhood association has worked hard to get >> number of grant to create our park and we created seating areas on the other side of the street on brewer's to have a place to meet we didn't have a public spates before. we think this is an inappropriate use. from anywhere recollection the first box was to be put on the south side of burr roses not on san brunner avenue but again, i can't be certain of that

>> the south side of burr roses. >> yeah. >> on the other side of san brunner on the other side. >> no. >> i think this location is on the south side of bruning's. >> not north side. >> the north side. >> so my understanding it's near the hallway had a i can't think barbecue if i can say there's 3 restaurants at the four corners there's a lot of people moving in and out. >> i eat the sandwiches and go to the hawaiian barbecue but where would you recommend at&t be located. >> i thought that the best solution was in the driveway their speaking of. >> if there's a safety hazard

who what other location would you recommend. >> i don't personally think that's our problem to solve. it's not a good intersection it's one of the busiest intersection >> understandiably and but it' in a bad space the martin luther king academy they have a wide right-of-way. >> so if you go burdening nos northeast or west it would be. >> it would be west directly west. so you're thinking san brunner west and sean brunners west side

>> i believe that's the east side. >> yeah. the west side yeah, the north side is vacate. >> they have a wide area there. >> okay. thank you. okay. >> is there any additional public comment. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is inrene long time resident of the district and i'm also a member of the neighborhood association. and i've been a member now for going on three or four years i was a leader with the

organization project. i'm here to support the owners appeal to eliminate placing an at&t box in front of his business the deli deli he currently has tables and chairs and planters and this would cause no space that street that sidewalk is not that wide okay. it would create cause problems for the residents, the patrons the children to go by in this area. because i go to the delhi bat out of hell i didn't a lot to have coffee or a scratch i notice the problems they have trying to get through there now. so i'm also a member of the

beautification committee my goal is to 0 seek the corridor beautiful i work with carla about trees so i feel that placing the boxes in this area will be an hen resistance and we've been trying to do that more a long time we feel that is not the right spot for the box. thank you for listening. thank you >> pardon. >> any public comment on that item? seeing none, no other public comment we can go back to rebuttal with the appellant first mr. mitchell you have 3 minutes. >> hi again.

>> yeah. we got the box it was directly across the street on burrow street and would that be with the hawaii with an. >> on the wine drive and on the side yes i don't know if it matters when you go fore a permit shouldn't you have the right address where you're putting it. usually i know upper talking about numbers i addresses. there's no one 10 burrows on that street they've made a mistake with the numbers and that counts somewhat i'm not sure but law by obviously they didn't do their homework because one hundred 6 is where they're putting it in front of the door and jumps to one 12 or 15

they've got the address wrong. i hope you take into consideration and right around the corner is a good place i told the at&t people at martin luther king at the corner of gerard they can cover it with interests i don't understand why they didn't look into those options >> mr. mitchel i'm not sure where i'm going with that but if this box was moved in a westerly direction so it's across from where your plants are is that resolve it a little bit better for you. >> so that - they're right in

front of my door i will there - >> no, no where the plants are. >> where the plants are yes. there's a gate next to the plant that goes into my apartment upstairs literally if you a long time the pictures you'll see a gate. >> just thinking about it. >> i'm more than happy i don't think there was an alley but that's my offer. >> mr. johnson. >> so just a couple of points i'll start with the address issue i think everybody on the board a aware at&t applies for the permits it's required to apply for a permittee finish

tissues address if a person owns a property there are fictitious addresses that don't technically exist until the permit is granted. the appellant referred to a different location in a grove of trees i understand that is actually more than 3 hundred feet from the cabinet that will make if technicallyly infeasible for the cabinet we appreciate that the appellant has worked this it's rare to have a private project sponsor to offer to work with an easement if we could have placed our cabinet in the easement we certainly would have taken up the offer in this situation. i'd like to briefly address the

departments argument again, i want to point out this is a different situation if there's evidence that the location actually impede the public right-of-way. that's not away why the department asked that the appeal be grant and the permit denied the departments position is that there's a series the procedural requirement that at&t didn't comply with that's the basis of the new ordinance for denying the permit request. the problem with the position as a matter of law at&t has a franchise with the state it's a grant solely to the condition that our box doesn't impede the right-of-way municipalities can't propose additional issues into permits and that's been

litigated for one hundred years. i understand that the public didn't want the boxes i have to point out that the department has objective guidelines the surface mounted facilities have to have a minimum room for clearance and the department felt it would or they wouldn't have grant the permit. finally in my remaining 11 seconds i want to say when i'm talking about the 60 days i'm referring to the date we applied for the permit as a matter of law it the clock runs at this point >> so how much further is that open patch of space i need the

feet from. >> i don't have dan an exact measurement i'm hoping mr. blake can address that. >> nor do i have the exact (laughter) s a i is located on the corner of san brunner the easement that was basic considered the maximum of the 3 hundred feet that is the area behind the hawaiian eye stand under 3 hundred feet and the other question the box what is the further distance other one 3 hundred feet plus. >> no-win 3 hundred feet it's the secret provision they are

within 3 hundred feet. >> san francisco is different than is a listens. >> then what. >> is a listens. >> yeah. >> i thought i saw an oral with your name and the city of is a listens. >> regarding? at&t. no >> salinas is part of my territory but i cover everything from san louis obisco county. >> i thought they were appreciative. >> of what. >> of at&t's efforts. >> are you referring to our gig gay power in cappuccino. >> no, i saw something in salinas. >> we built something in salinas i was there regarding

another issue but - >> okay. thanks. >> ms. short. >> carl short department of public works first, i want to correct the earlier statement the issuance was at the box walk a second site was proposed so at the hearing the hoff held open that hearing to consider the affectionate of the second site no report was submitted in at&t but caltrain wouldn't have been supportive of having a box adjacent to that. so then on the second go around the one site that was considered although at the box walks that

at&t representative suggested that the alley way easement that had been proposed with an an ideal location and later came back and said they were concerned about safety. the only point i want to make the department is not suggesting a procedural requirement our ordinance requires that any permit that's not finally on the dated of the ordinance and specifically says if the permit is not final during the appeals i know the new ordinance will apply. the preschool process was different and the previous case had not gone through the process we ska ask the appeal compels you to uphold it. i've got a question >> yeah. >> go ahead. >> so mr. mitchell stated he

has a permit for tables and chairs. when you issued that permit how far out other than the sidewalk is he allowed to go >> that's noted in hits tabled and chair permits it can be according to the sidewalk i'd to look at the permit by the department was aware of the permit when it was approved. >> there's not a lot of space between where those tables and chairs are versus see i don't know how correct the make up box is for instance to the at&t box. >> you know the minimum pedestrian thorough way is 48 inches in federal law i know with the tables and chairs we try to keep 6 feet and i believe

based on photo it looks like there's likely to be more than the federal minimum i can't tell if it's 6 feet based on the photos. >> it looks close but someone sitting in a chair. >> we require the of feet it's without question that's why question exceed the 4 feet minimum if they have a foot out it will keep the necessary federal maintained. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matters yours. >> commissioners the in general, i agree with the department in the since article

27 does apply. the question in my mind this is probably the closest i've been to saying that the net effects of what that article and it's process bring forth has been to a certain degree met here in this particular case. and, yes it didn't have all of the potential sites agree elevate at the beginning and have a resolution to one site potentially but knowing what has been happening historically it's likely even that kind of process will be convoluted and have some level of contention related to it. so this is the closest i've been to saying that that process of

organized outreach was closer than that what we've seen in most instances, however, i'll support the department in the since that article 27 does apply and i do agree with commissioner fung with a slight variance although i think with the new legislation and what that is going to bring to it i personally feel that box is not going to be on that location so i agree with you it didn't - it should fall through the new legislation >> i will move if there's no other comments i'll move to

uphold the appeal and to deny the permit based on the prelims of article 27. >> thank you. mr. pacheco >> so again, a motion from commissioner fung to grant this appeal and deny the permit and again, with the finding the permit didn't come ply with the new smf ordinance on that motion commissioner president lazarus. the president is recused commissioner honda >> thank you. the vote is 3 to zero this permit is denied with that finding thank you. okay. so we have two items remaining that is 9 ab appeal. and