from the front building wall, what we expect in a situation like this, it's also there is a front setback of the building itself, i think it's a little bit less than 10 feet. it sets back in the front of the property line. i would say in regards to the rear addition, that is pretty standard to this encroachment is similar to the one to the west. this is very similar to what is being proposed there. i would say that in looking at aerial photography of the subject property and the block, it's not a clear cut mid-block open space issue. i think in some cases you see those which are much more well-defined and if the overhead will tolerate the ipad, thank you, it looks pretty good today. thank you. so the subject property has a little red pen here. there are significant extensions on other properties here. there are also

structures within the mid-open block stage. this pattern phase it's not clear enough that there is room for extensions. it certainly does match the property to the west. it is code complying and for those reasons we support the rear addition as well as the vertical expansion. >> you said it's to the west, the one that has extension? >> yes, the appellant is is to the east. the pell appoint is is to the east. >> so the, is that a recent addition to the rear or is that original? >> i believe it is not original. the adjacent property to the west does not appear to have that pop out. i think it has stairs more like this property used to. but i did not review the property to the west. i would note too that the on this it is sloping down. so this is a down sloping lot. the

properties on the south side of 26th street are on higher ground and you will find more 3-4 story buildings there and the property does go down to the north that it does go downhill. >> that was likely added before the change to the rh 2 where you know the introduction of the pop out -- >> that's a good question, based upon what this project architect said, it sounded like it may also comply with the section 136 pop out. so it sounds like the appellant is saying that that building was extended in the late 90s which would be a time where we had the pop out. that property was built in the same fashion as the subject. >> okay. thank you. >> okay.

>> tony greko. this permit was a site permit. just an little background history. this is a permit for removal of plaster. our inspector went out and found they had gone beyond the permit and we issued a notice of violation and that was in 2012. prior to that it's when the site permit was filed. this permit went through the standard review site permit process with all required agencies did their review and approval and the permit was issued for a site permit. the site permit authorizes the plans and work submitted for the actual construction. if you have any questions? >> was the permit holder for

the removal of the stairs and chimney the same? as the current site permit? >> yes. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this? please step forward. 3 minutes. >> good evening. my name is helen loss ur and i live across the street. i have also lived there for 30 years. there has been a lot of renovation in that neighborhood and we've

done some and generally neighbors go around and talk to the neighbors, invite them in and show them what they are planning to do and incorporate as much as possible concerns. i did not receive notification of the permit. the first i heard about it was the notification of the appeal. i talked to doug in planning. we can't figure out why i didn't receive that. i certainly wasn't asked to sign something. i don't know where the signatures come from for 61 people to support this. the vertical elevation will obstruct our view of water from our house. at our level it actually is very visible the vertical addition from the street. the profile may not look because of the 15-foot setback that you are describing but from the neighbors across the street because we sit up, it's very visible. >> what was your address?

>> 4181, 26th street. i actually submitted a letter. >> you never received the 311 notice? >> no. i have received notices in the past and i know how to engage with neighbors. in the house to the west of the property in question, when that design was under consideration, we were all made aware of it, we were invited in. the person who was doing it made sure that even if perhaps we haven't received our letter for some reason we knew there was going to be a meeting to review the plans and talk about it. that certainly didn't happen in this situation. the green space, the open park space, the ability to relate to your neighbors to arrive at solutions is i think is really key to that neighborhood. >> thank you. >> any other public comment?

>> clarification. i just want to correct my statement that it was a different ownership when it was a first code violation. >> okay. >> we can take rebuttal. we can start with the kings. you have 3 minutes of rebuttal, mr. king. >> the list of 61 supporters of their project, not one of the signers has a direct view of the front or the back of the remodel property. 54 of them live, 2, 3, 4 blocks away. these are hardly neighbors, missing from the list are any and all of the immediate neighbors to the right, to the left and across the street. the people actually affected by the remodel on file with this

permitted appeal are letters of appeal of support from two immediate neighbors to the right, to the left, both unsolicited and also support from the three people across the street. in short, in my mind a hundred percent of the people, most affected by this project do not support this project and support this appeal. after 33 years of seeing this property neglected, we welcome the applicants commitment to restoring it. however we believe the property should be scaled down to address the legitimate concerns of the neighbors directly and permanently affected by it. we hope to be able to work with the applicants to achieve a solution that will work for all the parties involved. >> thank you. anything more from the permit holder? miss

kong or mr. levi? i just wanted to put up the list of those who were notified of this process. these are a list that we have prepared for by a service that does this on a regular basis that i believe who need to be notified per 150 feet were notified. it was possible that the previous speaker is outside of that area. we can verify with her address. also the house to the west of the subject property is a 3 story house and is i believe when you were looking at that mid-block open space, it was clear that house had an

additional section at i think north portion that makes it similar to the scale mass that we are proposed. >> did you find 4182? >> i believe the address was 4181. is that correct? i do not see 4181 appearing on this list. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? thank you, scott sanchez planning department. i want to clarify that i did look to the property of the west there are several permits for horizontal expansion from the late 90s. there are dates from the late 90s and early 2,000 and on the

planning code, private views are not protected. so just want to address those 2 points. i do not have a copy of the mailing list in front of me. i heard the neighbors say that doug view confirmed that her name was on it and she should have received it. she may want to clarify that and if there are some issue with the postal office. i would also note there is a poster on the property as well, a bright orange poster that goes on to indicate the 30-day appeal for the notice window. >> the expansion to the building on the west is that a single story >> it's my understanding that it's a single story.

>> thank you, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioner fung to clarify, our notices are identical to 311 and that does show under our list. >> okay. submitted. okay. comments? no. your time is up. i apologize. go ahead. >> i'm sorry, i just wanted to answer your question, the pop out is a single story to property line. it's the addition and the dec service is protected by a firewall for the building. >> thank you. >> commissioners, we hear it very commonly stated that views

are not protected by the planning codes. however, when we look at a neighbor to neighbor disagreement on scope of expansion, it would be important for me to have received the type of documents as normally sent to us in plans and paragraphs so we can do our own take on what is the impact of that expansion on an adjacent neighbor neighbors. i can't make that determination without some type of review. i accept the planning department review that it's co-compliant and they have recommended. it doesn't necessarily mean that we can see total the equity that's involved in this particular case. >> i would concur with

commissioner fung. one of the pieces that is missing here is the absence of the neighbor connection and the ability to really have a dialogue. i think with the drawings and further information, i think further dialogue could have happened. >> what would be the recommendations at this point? >> if there is concurrence from the board members, i would like to continue this to receive the appropriate materials and be able to do our own take on what the impact is. >> we've got 10 nods. do you want to make that motion. >> i so move. what is the appropriate date, madam director? >> the next meeting is september 11 th and there is availability on that calendar if you would like to set it for

that date. >> is to both parties september 11th, available? perhaps we can move it to the front of the meeting. >> yeah, let's get it on the front of this calendar. >> i move to continue this case to september 11th. >> is that to allow for submittal plans by the plan holder? that's the only submittal you are allowing? >> yes. >> okay. >> you want to offer? >> no. this is good. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to continue the matter to september 11, 2013. a public hearing has been held and this is the continuance is to allow the permit holder to submit the

approved plans to the board and they would be due thursday prior to hearing, 11 sets to the board identity cal set to the appellants and reduced size 11 x 17 is standard to us. >> if you can put this to the front of the calendar and we'll give each side 3 minutes. >> on that motion to continue for submittal of the approved plans due thursday prior to september 11th, president hwang, commissioner hurtado, lazarus, honda, aye. the vote is 5-0. this matter is continued to september 11th. >> before the next matter, i need a 5-minute break. please.

>> welcome back to the august 21, 2013, meeting of the board of appeals. we are calling item 10 a and 10 b. item 10: items 10aa and 10bb shall be heard together: 10aa appeal no. 13-081 jonathan plotzker, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent 3166 - 16th street. protesting the issuance on june 14, 2013, to jack spade store, alteration permit interior non-structural demolition of dropped ceiling, lighting, existing non-compliant restroom in vacant retail store; accessibility requirements will be addressed in subsequent tenant improvements per sfbc ab-0177. application no. 2013/06/07/8955 for hearing today.sf 101234 item 10b:appeal no. 13-082 jonathan plotzker, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent 3166 - 16th street. protesting the issuance on june 26, 2013, to jack spade store, alteration permit interior non-structural renovation; new partitions, power lighting, mechanical system and new accessible restroom and dressing room; storefront to remain as is with repainting and minor repairs

onlyy. application no. 2013/06/24/0254 for hearing today. adjo 1234 we will start with the appellant. since you have filed two appeals you get 14 minutes to present your case. you are not required to take it all. good evening, president hwang and honorable members of the board. my name is jefferson mccarly vice-president of the corridor association. we ask you to revoke the permits.

these permits should not have been issued prior to a conditional use hearing because under planning code 707.3 should have been considered formula retail. we will support evidence to support you in finding that jack spade stores should be counted together. we ask that you follow the letter of the law in consideration of the following points. kate and jack spade maintain three of the 8 features as written and we ask you to consider the commitment to open future stores. we ask you to consider the will of the voters in proposition c with the super majority in november of 2006. planning code 7.3 states that if 11 or more retail

establishments contain more retails should be considered formula retail. jack spade and kate spade trademark are similar and should be considered together. they are defined as trademark, quote group of works from one source of one party from those of another. kate spade could be selling products for men under any name. but it gave it the line under the same name. >> hold on, please. there is a powerpoint presentation. your power points was supposed to go along with his comments? okay.

>> kate spade could be selling what they refer to as fashion products for men under any name but chose to give it the same name in order to distinguish the source. spade was the key. when introducing their new logo it was enough for kate spade to declare simply hello spade. it is a clear certify -- the zone is administrator has determined that the name kate spade and kate spade saturday are close enough to determine they are the single formula retail enterprise. for reasons that are unclear the zoning administrator does not consider the name jack spade and kate spade to be close enough. jack

spade clearly benefits from the association with the spade brand and should be put in the same category as kate spade saturday. you have the authority to look at the group of words and interpret the current law to find formula retail on these facts. no. 3 on the list it features in section b of planning code section 3.3 is service mark. a service mark is similar to a trademark in definition. however, it identifies and distinguishes the source of service instead of the source of goods. like a trademark it is defined as a group of words that identifies and distinguishes from a source of service from one party from those of others. again, the zoning administrator acknowledges that kate spade saturday would be counted together with kate spade because it appears in both names. with jack