Corner of 1355 market that stretches through to what used to be 875 stooefrn son and back theyre in construction right now. I was there on their on behalf of today when some restacks on the exterior of the building were trying to work out with planning so its a historic designation we cant do anything to the facade and their careful and weve restored it what kind of i have historic designation . I dont know the answer to that historic designation. Okay. This project involves how many parcels. I believe it involves 4 parcels. And was there ever thought to combine those . I dont know we didnt want to take that through zoning there are easement requirements with the city as well as the pg e down the stevenson alley so therefore we cant reparcel that i believe. Any other questions. This isnt going away. We have an agreement with a pedestrian open agreement with the city for that alley as well they have easement rights as well. Okay. So i think we cant reparcel lists it. Thank you. Thank you. And mr. Duffy. Does this feel like the miracle on 34th street with the post office . Just to add a couple of things i actually washgd the block and decided to walk down to see the numbers i was intrigued i didnt see 80 one but the first address on the street past the stevenson alley is alley street i took alleys it is 6573 are 83 and 93 directly across the road is the new building on tenth and market the new highrise and directly across the street from the alley is number 8, tenth street done from the corner theyre not getting number 2 thats number 2 if they wanted they came in and got number 8 down from the corner if mr. Screening e screening i didnt times to get involved we wouldnt be here but if you need to speak to mr. Screening i didnt maybe i should have had a discussion with the gentleman but certainly from the information sheet the other thing that i was thinking if this all start in 2013 there was a lot of work happening in 2013 to my left another that property that decision maybe should have happened in 2011 or envelope this is a big project. Im not saying this happened but they thought they were going to get the number and obviously didnt. The emails that i have here april 2014 is the first visit from the architect to the Building Department to formerly speak to other folks and other emails so the 2013 i imagine the discussion on numbers really needs to start before projects start 23 youre going to market our building maybe it definitely should have been talked about before 2013 in my opinion okay. I have a question so when you took pictures stowaway have a picture of the block im looking the plot map and maybe you can put it on the overhead. Just on my form. Do you have a like i didnt do that i walked along and took the pictures of the addresses on the doorways but theyre on the map. Thank you. Commissioners the matter is submitted. Well, you know the argument as the presented i dont find compelling at all. Im convinced that the mid block should be one one. I agree. One one hundred and 16 feet i think of the corner. If they agree elevated all the elements into on parcel the opinions would not change. Yeah. And im not sure theres a love harm. Yes. Im not in disagreement with this statement but whether they deserve something its quite different than the other patterns of this city. I dont see. Move to deny the appeal on the basis let see the tuesday. The department in error it was a denial. Thank you. That the denial was not in error. Yes. Exactly. Vice president well, actually we have a standard. Yes. I wonder if you want to refer to the policy. Yes. I just remembered that thank you. So the administrative bulletin that refers to the ointment of street numbers and according to that okay. The denial was reasonable. Okay. Vice president i wonder if you want to refer to the policy that was issued in 2011 that talks about the goibz policy of and i signing the numbers to the area ill incorporate that addition as well. Thank you. The denial was reasonable pursuant to the dbi bulletin 035. Yes. And whats the second document were referring to. In addition i dont have it in front of me can you repeat what i stayed. Its g dash over and over 3 an foopgs sheet dated april 20th, 2014, in accordance. The Vice President says to uphold the continual that was reasonable pursuant to dbis administrative bulletin ab 035 and the beginning informational sheet g dash 03. Correct. On that motion to uphold. Commissioner fung. Commissioner president lazarus. No. Commissioner honda thank you. The vote is 3 to one this denial is upheld on that basis. Thank you thank you so the next item is the Golden Gate Heights area the property address is on carr trespasser street to evaluation permit the public hearing was held on june 4th and continued for further consideration to allow time for the public works to conclude its analysis of the city facility ordinance. Commissioners im having to rouse myself from at t ill ask commissioner hurtado to chair the rest of the meeting. So in this case, i think we should start with the Department Since the matter was continued for your review and have hear from the other parties. Yes good evening carlo public works. Bureau of street mapping. I think that in our review of the ordinance in our drafting and the new order when we have skinl submitted for former comments its not been net formally adapted only because the request of the sponsoring supervisor of the legislation actually requested we hold open our hearing a little bit longer to allow for additional Public Comment until after the labor holiday. So we have reviewed that order and that draft. I think based on that we still feel that this appeal should be upheld although the permit was noticeably issued properly. None of the new processes prosecute 0s that require Public Outreach have taken place in this case it might still meet the technical merits of the location of the site a large part of the ordinance was designed to insure theres Fair Community outreach to all if he should parties we suggest the appeal should be upheld and the ordinance clearly states that any permit not final on the Effective Date of the ordinance should be denied. We therefore building this appeal this should be upheld and the permit not granted thank you. We can hear from the appellant or the appellants agent. Good evening and i dont have a whole lot to add i think its wonderful weve come together and old some much more what i think would be effective processes for the selection of the ideal location for those boxes. I completely agree with the department thank you. Marie representative for the appellant and now the permit holder mr. Johnson. Good evening, commissioners. I just have a few points ill make briefly. The first thing i want want to point out the new ordinance required the department it issue a new regulations within 60 days of the Effective Date of the ordinance the ordinance became effective on june 27th that 60s dazed expired yesterday without the department issuing the regulations. Ill be the first person to concede it the department has put considerable effort into drafting the regulations with multiple draft and down their utmost to get comments and met with at t and others. But its frustrating that the ordinance has been in effective only skwi days and the department is in violation of that. The position that the department has taken is that at ts permit even though their not evidence whatsoever that the rightofway should be denied on purely grounds. And id like to make a few comments for the record to remind the board how long that permit has been an issue at t has been seeking this permit for more than 3 and a half years we applied in march of 2011 on march 13 of 2014 at t was grant a permit by the department. An appeal filed on april 2nd the hearing for may 14. Over at ts observation that hearing was rescheduled to june 4th. That was while the old ordinance was in effective rather than decide the appeal the board tndz continued it to july 2nd. Heard additional testimony and continued it for a third time two months out until august 22nd this evening so to summarize its been 5 most since onsite was granted a permit and their shill no decision one way or another. Its a matter of law as to why the appeal should be denied is simply ive stated many times the Public Utilities act on it and not grant it and take it away. We simply ask the board take into account when they make their decision this evening. Thank you. Thank you any Public Comment on that item . Okay. Seeing none commissioners the matter is submitted. Im prepared to accept the departments recommendation and to uphold the excuse me. Accept the appeal and reject the permit. I dont have anything to add move to deny the appeal on the basis that no move to grant the appeal. Grant the appeal im sorry. Is that based on the new legislation . That was your motion commissioner fung or mine. So we have a motion if the Vice President to grant this appeal, deny the permit with the finding that this permit didnt comply with the few smf ordinance. On that motion to deny with that finding commissioner fung. The president is recused. Commissioner honda. Thank you. The vote is 3 to zero given we have a vacancy this permit is denied thank you. Thank you. Next item is appeal john inadmissible and others vs. The public works street use and mapping. The property on burr restraining order street protesting the issuance to intersection excavation permit this is application permit on hearing for today. And we will start in a minute and youll have 7 minutes. Okay. Go ahead thank you sorry im Shawn Michelle ive nativeborn and started my business in the city and my business is on the corner where they want to put the box. I want you to know that at t came in here with an underground of fiberoptics knowing they would have to put a surface box somewhere in our contingent they never bofrthd to contact the businesses and communities and ask for you for our impact now they godfather go and get a permit to put it on the busiest corner of san broourn and theyre saying that it wont impede the traffic on the corner but i have two businesses a dell indication and a chair i permit basically in front of where they want to put their box. I dont think theyve taking into consideration or looked at what was permitted there. And when the board like we protested this to the board of supervisors i wasnt able to go make that here that day but i dont think the board realized i h have a permit for chairs and tables and have a window with chairs and tables on the inside this box is i dont know if youve seen the pictures if youd like to see them i put up a make up box people that walk but they dont have enough room they could struggle thats not the place to put that. And when they did it the first time they put that cross the street and now at the first location they have a walk through for the community for you will have us to talk and see where we can put the box the second time not arranging for a Community Walk through they bypassed it to the department of building inspection to pull the permit. Im here with the Steering Committee and turning our street into a desirable street but theyre doing the wrong thing and at t didnt consider us notary republic not one bit they thought where to put those things. I just think you shouldnt allow them to i know they have to put their communications in places we have a committee they never bothered to talk to us theyre the one percent the billions of company they can come in and do whatever its not right. I think we could have at the start of this thing if they would have talked to us in the community we could have no idea them a sdriebl place they want to put it in front of my place because it will cost them too much money to put it around the street theres bushes around the corner but they never looked at this. They never talked to us about it. All i can say is the community in the last 25 or thirty years i know you know the street has really come a long way and by putting this box where they want to put it is going to be the ugliest not good. I hope i can get our support because theres so many other places we would have worked with them i offered a place and they said theres not enough room i offered it on my property. And they said there wasnt enough room but i offered them places to put it never came back and said intended to the desirable theres a tunnel underneath the street if they were putting in those box why couldnt they put it somewhere outofsight our street is coming a long way their argument it wont impede on our to the traffic it will impede youve got wheelchairs and people are strollers theres not enough room there. I hope you come in favor of us were trying ive been here all my life and i would hyatt hate to see theres Little Things but big things for us their huge. And as you can see i put that make up here the next day it was tattooed with stickers and graffiti they could find a more desirable place to put their box mr. Mitchel whats the width felt sidewalk saw i dont have it in front of me. Im sure the information is here. The Steering Committee donated pots and flowers so this takes up room were trying to make our street for the community were not thats all we want space for our people to walk by. Thank you. Thank you okay mr. Johnson. Thank you. Id like to begin by correcting a couple of statements that the appellant made. So the appellant suggested for instance, that at t did no Community Outreach then he wanted to conceive is not the case at t, in fact, connected conducted two walkthroughs and wanted people to meet with at t. We originally property the box on the other side the community opposed that. So then we remailed and noticed 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 its 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 couldnt 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 ive 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. Its also not true this is simply about money it is simply all 3 of you know there are technical locations were limited by the fact it has to be within 3 hundred feet of the cabinet and were limit by the dozens of guidelines that the city has for where those boxes can and cant go. The department acknowledges and its own brief at least under the older ordinance the proposed location doesnt impede the rightofway ive seen the photographs its a large sidewalk. The proposed location didnt 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 rightofway is impeded. I understand the appellants point of view its not dissimilar from at ts point of view hes 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 cant 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 its been more than 60 days since ourpp