of the west is trying to put up is a new billboard that's not appropriate. >> maybe i'm reading this wrong but maybe the project sponsor could answer the questions. it looks like the signs are in the two directions and are up at the level just above the raised level which is the appropriate height and it has bank of the west with the logo and when i go around the corner it's the same thing. i don't understand the objections to this >> your interpretation of the design is correct. >> yeah. i think it's - maybe it would be a little bit smaller but if you make it two small people will try to a figure out but i don't see it as

inappropriate. >> you saw in our passage submitted we showed signs of other things in the district they're larger and all of the corner locations have signs on two sides. and i would say this sign is well integrated into the signs of the buildings much more than other signs in the district and a thank you. i think that was well-taken and most of those signs are formula but one has a sign that's been there a looked at but there are certainly a lot of signs in the area that have been there but i don't understand what's loud about this sign. >> one last point there was a

communication with pet e-mails back and forth and on the one point we were sent imagines of the cd sign as an example. our sign we used that and our sign is smaller. it's designed similarly but it smaller cbs >> thank you if you could put that up. yeah. i see similarities there for sure. okay. thank you very much. i think that the other point that's made there's a bank first national bank of northern california which tried to put too many words into its logo and decided to put letters and the letters are small and you don't know it's a bank and it's not as

busy a streetcar it's hard to figure out what happened to that bank but the sign is so small. i think it's not necessarily a matter of size but how taste full. we have so many triangular signs and people will be coming from 3 directions but i think the number of signs is okay >> commissioner yu. i do remember a lengthy distribution about this if i could ask staff to talk about that >> as i recall the issues that were raised was the number of signs since it's a curb building and the two proposed signs are

next to each other. i think that you are concerned the commission expressed concerns you don't need signs next to each other but it's about size and the lighting. staff is taking a look at the commercial signs in the district to look exactly at those kinds of issues. it's not the size but the materials and the lighting and the nature of the designs and how it works with the building or is more oriented toward the pedestrian environment >> thank you director ram for - i was going to ask a question as to how we're preceding on the with whole design issue.

it would seem if the commissioners were concerned if we can author neighborhood commercial formula in a matter of a month they can certainly try to do something on signage that's easier. that said i need some clarification on the sign itself. so could someone from the - i'm confused between with your dpekt in your elevation and i don't know where the section is drawn >> yes, sir. i'm mike with chandler signs. >> so your section shows a panel

in the front or is that the letter. >> the acrylic is the face. the body of the letter and the sides is aluminum and the face is a while acrylic. it's illuminated they're only 80 aluminum by that's an acrylic face and the bear itself has red material >> what's the question about the section. >> is it through the letter t or k? >> i'm sorry. it's a standard section if you want to look at any of the larger letters. >> so are those on the front. >> there's a canopy structure

that has a face on it and it is mounted flush it's a brush stainless steel face. >> i'm looking at the other one. >> those letters will be put on the canopy but the canopy is not there it's a flush mount on the wall. >> but there's no box. >> no sir, their individual letters. >> i have a couple of k34i789s it comes back to balance. i know that currently the planning departments rules are

not - i think the lighting is that flows off and around beyond the lettering of the sign is whether to illuminate the building. i understand that. i applaud the sponsor while it may not be hand in hand with the neighborhood. i know that the department is working on some new ideas and criteria how we can control this. i want to point out if i look at the dimension of the sign is relevant. if we talk about 18 inches and it's up in front of you or on the second line. so i want that to be considered

in relation to the optimum distance of the sign. but i applaud the project sponsor for trying to acknowledge and i think we're going to try to work our way and understand the need for the neighborhood related signs. it's a confusing street because this was a main though fair that cuts through san francisco but your portion of town is a friendly pedestrian area and that's fantastic. so commissioner moore >> and i would actually support the comments made by director ram that is it leave alone the sign we we could look at where

the signage is going doctor that having been said i think 33 feet of a building facade in this location is excessive and i'll support with what you were saying that a single more centered sign would have been a much more successful conclusion given this is a long name for an institution like 13 letters times 2 is 26 so having the signage over the corner and i hope as we have other buildings we will be able to work more closely when those projects came forward to make sure those types of rules are more focused on. i'm fully in support of what you

are >> commissioners if there's nothing further we can move onto the item 11 board of appeals and restoration commission. >> the board of appeals met yesterday and i'd like to brief thrill those. the first is a jurisdiction request for 437 la trespasser. in this case, the jurisdiction requesters were saying they didn't have timely notice and the board denied that request. they've been employed i appealed to the board of appeals and we'll be looking at whether or not those were valid appeals. and the next is for the property on 16th street with regards to

jack spade wanting to relocate and they found they were not notified and the letters were not - i have been sending the letters so we mailed this to 36 groups and there were no appeals and it was reopened to a 35 day appeal. and whether or not there are appeals for building permits that the board has calendar appearing next week. so at this hearing i'll advise the board they could make an demonstration that the permits were improperly given and they didn't take jurisdiction and

they will hear the matter next week on the building plagues for the jack spades store. and another was for kres listen drive. the planning commission approved it and at the hearing the board of appeals denied the permit overturning the planning commissions decisions. there was recent information that was brought to our attention. yesterday we received a letter from the county surveyor saying they're reviewing it and they received it in july. the subdivision was they found that the 1962 subdivision would

be subdivided. we didn't have this information at the time of the hearing. the board continued the rehearings request to the call of the chair and we're going to see what happened to the subdivide application. i understand that the conditions could be appealed and the board of appeals could have the final decision and depending upon that it maybe brought back at that time, r to the board of appeals. we'll keep you updated on that. i denied a variance for final set back the proposal was to establish a parking pad in front of the building and they would allow the parking so in the variance for the set back and

also i denied the variance because it would deny the privatization of the parking space and also, because the parking pad that was goes to be accurate was substandard. i would say it was a depth of 14 feet and unless it's something like a smart car would overhang into the parkway and my denial was upheld. they're meeting again next week and i'll report on that and the jack spade item when we reconvene. >> commissioners that will place you under. >> as to the zoning administrator it doesn't sound

like kroet listen is going to come back to us it's either the board of supervisors or the board of appeals. >> the only ways i could see it if the board of appeals ultimately denies the project and the board of supervisors approves the subdivisions that allows construction they could reply it after one year. >> commissioner and yeah. i've seen something on the news i didn't see the whole story on jack spade. >> it is - there's a larger corporation called pacific that owners 3 businesses and they does not have - right now this would be the 11th establishment and the 12 would trigger it so i

note they have stores outside the u.s. so we're considering regulations and it would be considered formula retail and there's been decision about the percentage of corporate parentage and so it's possible under the proposals this could be formula retail that's been issued by the supervisors. >> yeah, and what's their product. >> jack spade sells clothing and accessories and comparing the two products their marketed differently. >> when i first heard the name i thought it might be a bar i didn't think it had anything to do with kate spade if the

products are dissimilar even though their common ownership i think the supervision should look at it. >> under the curious is there stores in the mall does that count as 11. >> yes. >> commissioners that will place you under general comment not to exceed 15 minutes. now the public may ask about agenda items and the item be addressed up to 3 minutes i have 2 speaker cards >> linda and sally. linda chapman for knob hill

neighborhoods. i want to thank the commissioners for not putting 1601 larkin on the face track it would be a concern about one issue coming up quickly. we had something like that come up and there are people right here in this room like john who remember the battle to save knob hill where we had an appeal and we have a conditional hearing once a month, you know, until the city attorney cut it offer after 1 or 2 years and you know the people who were the signers didn't know if we were coming or going it was horrible. so if they could come back with a new project. i want to mention that the knob

hill meeting we were being sabotaged and i presume you've got an article you'll read from a blogger there were about 80 people there. it would be impossible to see any support for this condo person to tear down the church. those were miscellaneous folks. if the architect or developer had asked to come we would have given them some time but they choose to sabotage it and who by the way, showed up and our flyers were taken down and two people were pitting them up and removing the ones with profanity

and the developer choose to write to all our 5 people on the panel. is this on? anyway, we invited 5 people to be on our panel sow they all get a letter which said hi bob, i see your opposing a project that has the approval the planning staff could you please give me monday. well, bob acted appropriately. he said is there anything i want to say i said personally you're a lawyer send him an announcement. so 3 people doesn't respond

negatively on this but two went berserk. the last week when i should have given out notices to people who would forward them i was responding to e-mail after e-mail saying you've tricked us. we were coming to see what was appropriate and not not the demolition of a building >> better than manipulated by the person. instead of we were sending out e-mails. when they arrived i don't know is this on? they did address the things the

architect stood up and spoke. the facilitator left the area so the meeting organized itself. his elevations were posted all over the walls. one of the people who grew up in knob hill said how could you develop something like this? >> sally. >> okay. any additional general public comment? ongoing public comment is closed >> commissioners it will place you under our regular calendar. item 4 was pulled off the calendar and will be considered

at this time >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm with the planning staff. before i i present an authorization for 1 hundred and 43 thousand office space. the planning section is legitimate as part of the requests of planning code 321 and 22. it's occupied. commissioners on june 28th the zoning commissioner determined that the office space was eligible for the office space. the legitimatetion allows the building to be put under the planning code that now permits the coding.

there's 2.2 million office space and this request allocates about 6.4 office space. the planning market staff approves this pursuant to planning code sections. and it will represent a allocation. authorizing the requested office will allow the office space to a condition it's economic activities. it will generate $1.6 million in fees and lastly it is consistent with the area plan and the general plan. commissioners i'd like to submit to you as part of the record the following e-mail on the case reports for office allocations. this message was omitted from

the submission and i apologize for that. this concludes my presentation. >> project sponsor. >> good afternoon president's fong and members of the commission i'm jim rubin representing a couple of matters. i ask if i could confer this was pulled off the consent calendar and i'd like to address that and the staff has talked about what the request is >> would you - >> yeah, that's fine. thank you. are you asking to have a private meeting with her >> i was asking her to talk

before me so i could respond to the concerns i don't know what the concerns are. >> we'll open up for public comment first and a okay opening it up to public comment. ms. tester, i presume. >> i went through my requests but i'll speak about the letter you got. there is a problem with case reports come at the last minute and you have no opportunity for the members of the public to respond to them. i sent the letter that was offered by to staff about too

weeks ago saying i don't understand how an office allocation can be a one week item because your rules are rules for the public such as a they are rules for the planning commission. a two week report enables the public to understand what the staff report says and respond to it like i did for 350 mission street. my letter is still valid and the facts of this case they're right it was placed out in the zoning administrator. people that have advanced information and understand the staff report is tied to something that's already been going on are apprised of that and not surprised.

when an office allocation just shows up on the calendar at the last minute which is friday afternoon some of us actually will respond because we don't have the ability to download 6 hundred of pages and that's the number of pages we had to download this week >> is there any additional public comment? okay public comment is closed. commissioners >> i'll move to approve. >> commissioner. >> yeah. i wanted to ask staff i guess. question: i don't understand there are some projects as ms.

herera brought this seems straightforward i don't understand what's the existing use it's been around since 1998 what is the line we draw from the notification between some projects and other projects being two weeks projects >> what the staff understands is the policy we work with the planning commission leadership in reviewing the advanced calendar to determine what cases the planning commission would like to see. this case nor the following case, i believe it's 333 brandon was one of the cases that was identified you want to see two weeks in advance >> it's a judgment ca