offset of the project. those are fair signage regulations. their drafted and pass by the commission and their appropriate for the neighborhood then the current regulations. so colleagues 50id appreciate our support and i think kevin annoy from the planning department would like to present i've brought copies for the body >> kevin. good afternoon, supervisors. this is the fulton grocery store special district for the code. again, it's requested of 555 fulton street to demolish the existing building on the site for the 0 ground floor grocery

store. this was proofed for the entitlements to extend the project with the uses that were originally proofed or it was proofed for the grocery store use at the site. it extraordinary under the sunset date in april of last year. therefore the estimation it necessary. at that time the commission recommended the estimation as well as other amendments. just to recap the commission did recommend the formula retail for the affordability of the pursuit line for the attempt that might have the space and striking the cap for the non-tenants which is

limited to 3 thousand secret. those are a not up for consideration today. with respect to the signage restrictions that strooed mentioned i will like to read into the record this is on page 3 and it would start as sub item 5. for the article 6 stipulate it to be limited. window signs. the total area of all window signs shall not exceed 10 percent. sub item b wall signs. the area of all wall signage shall be limit.

it shall not exposed 24 square feet or the highest wall which every is lower. the sign shall be limited. projecting signs. the number of projecting signs shall not exceed one per business as set forth shall not exceed 24 square feet. the signage shall not exposed the lowest on which every is lower. excuse me. no part of this sign shall project more than 75 percent or 6 feet 6 inches whichever is

less it shall be non-directly limited. signs on marquees. the signs shall be on marquees the area of such senile copy is in section 2.1-c shall not exposed the use of la gone. such sign copies maybe non-limited or indistillery limited and finally, the free sign towers shall not be permitted. that concludes my presentation i'm available for questions >> sfrooed. >> i'd like to proof the changes and hopefully, your support to move forward this

item. >> now to city attorney my understanding those amendments would precluded us from sending those forgot. >> that's correct. >> we can't put them out. so supervisor breed we'll continue this item one week >> yes. >> colleagues if there are no questions or comments we'll open this up for public comment any any public comment? >> i'm douglas. >> i would actively speak in favor of this item and put on the record some special considerations to be considered. on ocean avenue there was a

special use development where safe way stores antidepressant the main retail and then a above that there's good news condos built brown above that and safe way failed on that location and the location has been on and off antidepressant. i haven't driven by it lately so you might want to consider what happened to safe way and hopefully it won't happen to fulton street and on the record i'd like to make a prediction there's going to be a failure near city college. according to my research the tenant is a miss match for that neighborhood and sufbl that

won't work and we'll have two projects on ocean where both will fail so let's not let that happen on fulton street. also since we're on the subject of special use district i'd like to propose why candle stick can't be torn counsel and used for homeless services veterans housing and also for nonprofit offices. i think those 3 uses will definitely proof the area we don't need any more high-class shopping at hunters point >> any additional any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.

sfrooed proposed the amendments their amendments are adapted. any additional questions or comments. okay. we'll need to motion to continue the item for one week and we'll tack that without objection. madam clerk, call item 3 >> item 3 is a resolution authorizing the city and county special district to levy the tax these important work necessary. >> it's sponsored by mayor. supervisor chiu any questions >> good afternoon, supervisors tuesday night. the item is the second to last piece of regulation to be able to issue fund for both divorce and seismic retrofits. this motion was made because of

the soft store ordinance where we have 3 thousand 3 hundred building to be retrofitted. i want to thank the supervisors for working closely with mayor ed lee. i've had seattle contacting our office and it's truly ground breaking. we had a workshop with over one thousand tenants and we've had a lot of folks to sign up for the soft store retrofits. we have televised videos and we want to thank the building inspectors as well. more importantly i want to say that the consumption of some of our financing and property outreach will be happening this

month we'll have is an earthquake meeting and this is an opportunity for the owners to comply to meet with the contractor and manufacturers and lenders. so again, thank you very much for your support if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> at the were we'll open item 3 up for commit. >> good afternoon. i'm doug. since we're on the subject of special tax district go we have a special tax district to handle the current electrical problems on treasure island.

that's funny we can't keep the lights on for any - and it's not about treasure island >> right but i'm relevant i think. mr. gibb in her >> deputy city attorney. so sir, you can comment on the item which authorizes the special tax district >> well, then i guess i can't say anything about mel he murphy. >> is there any comment on item 3 smokz a. that will be the order madam clerk, is there any other business >> there's no further business.

>> thank you we're

>> good evening, welcome to the san francisco board of appeals. our is fong, and hurtado. to my left is deputy city attorney robert brian. he will give any legal advice tonight. pacheco is the legal assistant. i'm the executive board director, we are welcome from matters of the board. scott sanchez is here. building inspector representing the department of inspection. murray is here with the san francisco municipal transportation agency and john

kwaung is here manager of public works. at this time mr. pacheco if you would go over the meeting guidelines and go over the process. >> please turn off our cell phones. appellants, permit holders and department representative each have 7 minutes to present their cases. people speaking must include their comments in 3 minutes. people affiliated have up to 3 minutes to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate presentation of minutes, you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card of the board staff when you come to the podium. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes

your comments. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, schedules, please speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning. the board office is located at 1550 mission room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television. sf gov. tv. san francisco television. channel 78. thank you for your attention. at this point in time we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's hearing and wish to give evidenceary weight, please stand and say i do after you have been sworn or affirmed. please note that any member may speak pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance.

thank you. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give to the the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> anyone who would like to speak on general comment, this is the item under which you may do so. seeing no general public comment, we'll move to item two commissioners, comments and questions. commissioners? seeing none, item three, consideration of the boards minutes for the meeting of january 8, 2014. >> any changes or comments? i move to adopt the minutes of january 8, 2014. >> thank you. any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, mr. pacheco, please call the roll. >> on the motion to adopt the

january 8, 2014, minutes on that motion commissioner fung, ay! aye, hurtado, lazarus, honored -- honda. those minutes are adopted. >> thank you, item 4. rehearing request. item 4: subject property at 1532 cole street. letter from david polatnick, appellant, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 13-140, polatnick vs. dbi, pda, decided december 18, 2013. at that time, the board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit on the basis that the planning department's determination on height is accurate, and on a further basis that the structure is code compliant. permit holders: andrea higgins & peter chung. project: addition of new office space in rear yard below associated patio at natural grade; demo exterior rear wall; bpa no. 2013/04/26/5579s >> thank you, item 4. rehearing request. item 4: subject property at 1532 cole street. letter from david polatnick, appellant, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 13-140, polatnick vs. dbi, pda, decided december 18, 2013. at that time, the board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit on the basis that the planning department's determination on height is accurate, and on a further basis that the structure is code compliant. permit holders: andrea higgins & peter chung. project: addition of new office space in rear yard below associated patio at natural grade; demo exterior rear wall; bpa no. 2013/04/26/5579s >> thank you, item 4. rehearing request. item 4: subject property at 1532 cole street. letter from david polatnick, appellant, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 13-140, polatnick vs. dbi, pda, decided

december 18, 2013. at that time, the board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit on the basis that the planning department's determination on height is accurate, and on a further basis that the structure is code compliant. permit holders: andrea higgins & peter chung. project: addition of new office space in rear yard below associated patio at natural grade; demo exterior rear wall; bpa no. 2013/04/26/5579s at that time the board 1234 the board held 5-0. and that the structure is co-compliant. the project is an addition of new office space in rear yard below associated patio at natural grade. we'll hear from the requester or the agent first who has three minutes.3 minutes. >> my name is jace eleven son. thank you for letting us be here tonight. before outlining this process i would like to talk about the 311 public notification process, the primary component for planning approval for residential projects in san francisco and has done so for more than a generation. if a neighbor plans to do an addition there will be a public notice and time for review and input. when there is a 600 square foot addition without public notice that is troubling and very unique. it's really counter to the intention of the planning code which encourages both harmony and cooperation. now planning code

section, does allow for exceptions to both the rear yard requirement and to the public notice. for underground garages. the issue is is that they are not building an underground garage but for a habitable space. when we try to make sense of this, you have garage on one side and whether the definitions of how do you come to those kinds of judgments, they are posted online and transparent and available interpretations and we looked up and it turns out they are absolutely no written interpretations that equate garage with living space. that doesn't happen. it's not in the interpretation. it's not in the planning code. and planner or elisa or listensey, there is no written interpretation. the only thin that was given to us was this illustrated book of

development definition and under that garage is clearly a service space for the storage of vehicles. the other point i want to make is about the 5-foot setback. there is great precedent for side yard set backs isn mechanisms for negotiations. these are typical situations for board permit appeals hearings. the setback is reasonable because it's absolutely achievable. it can be done and should be done and if there is no loss of function, if there is no loss of code compliance, if there is no loss of square footage and no loss of value, it should be done because it's a better project. thank you for your consideration. and we should have a hearing to discuss it. i want to say this. understanding both your powers and your judgment and recognizing that the fate of this project and the future definitions of 136c

26 lie not with some planner, but with you tonight here and now. we respectfully request a rehearing. thank you. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now? hi. good evening. i'm representing architecture. the project that you are reviewing is in fact a very unique project. when we started the project because of it's uniqueness, it's underground. we were trying to figure out if what we are doing was feasible

. due to its uniqueness we started with the project to check that it's meeting the required codes and set backs. the project was approved as you do know. and we are proposing a fully compliant project. so i just wanted to reiterate that. ying include a couple of drawings in the packet that you have that demonstrate this. the height of the structure and including the topography for illustrating that we are fully compliant. thank you. >> i have a question. go ahead? >> just to remind you commissioners, last time we had discussion about what our client could have done. by right without any variances he could have done a 2 story horizontal edition. no variances. just straight planning code. he chose not to

do that. because he felt that i was going to be a lot more detrimental to the neighbor. so he selected a very expensive option. it's a subtraenl option. he's going to have to do water proofing, pumps for draining. he did everything he could so it would not fact his neighbor. once again no good deed ever goes unpunished. this is going to cost a groo great deal of money. it will not affect the neighbor. it has absolutely no significance to the neighbor. it will affect them absolutely no element of condition or visual or any other system. so please, deny the request for a rehearing. >> question for you. can you

illustrate for us how you relied on this interpretation. there is an argument by the appellant by the definition at section 16 by the planning department is i assume they are arguing it would be unjust to don't interpret the sections this way. can you explain to us how you as a permit holder can rely on this stipulation on what planning told you? >> regarding it can be an office or habitable space? >> right. >> i will have the architecture speak. >> so in addressing that, when we did our preliminary review with david lindsey it was brought to our attention that there are unwritten uses that the planning department, i think scott might be able to speak to this a little better.

there are uses that they have allowed in the past that don't necessarily that are not limited strictly to garages, that they have adopted and approved. so there is a precedent for it. that's where it was brought to our attention when we did this preliminary review with the planning department that this is an acceptable use under this particular code section. >> did you rely on that when you draw up the plans? >> yes. that's the whole presup for us moving on the project. >> one question. your drawing shows that elevation 445-4. the appellants drawing shows that at 445-11. what was in your

original drawing? was this the change? >> the elevation height of the fun. the -- finished. the top of the structure has not changed. i'm not sure which one he's referencing. if it's the dirt, the soil, the structure does have about 10-12 inches of soil on top of it. it's a green roof. the top of the structure, the top of the concrete roof structure is what we are applying the 3-foot dimension. >> i'm talking about a drawing that they have that supposedly was prepared by you folks and it's dated october 4, 2013. it shows the top of that at 445-11.

>> i didn't bring that drawing with me. the one at our site permit. all i can tell you the drawing we have in our brief is the current unchanged. no heights have been changed or modified. it is a clarified drawing. for that purpose of measuring the height in here. >> so the section that you have provided as part of your response you are saying is the same section as in your site permit? >> that is correct. yes. >> okay. >> thank you. okay, we can hear from mr. sanchez.

>> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. this is a rehearing request. this item was properly before the board on december 18th the board upheld the building application and a standard of review whether or not there is new information that couldn't of been presented at the time of hearing. it seems the appellant is in fact rearguing the case here. all the material, all the arguments were available to them prior to the previous hearing. in regards to the question related to reliance, certainly they had approached the department in march with proposal. we reviewed that. determined that it was something that is code compliant. submitted an application and reviewed and an

appealed to this board. regarding to this stipulation which is under planning code section 311 it's exempt from neighborhood notification. it's a longstanding interpretation that predates me as zoning administrator. it's more than three 1/2 years old if not older that would allow other uses in what is section c 26 closed garages that has landscaping open areas in the required rear yard. other uses that have been allowed one was a basketball cart and there have been media rooms and office in this case. so it is something that we have approved in the past. there is no requirement for a setback. even under section 136c 25 you can have that extending 12 feet into required rear yard at one level and there is no required setback there on the code. in

regards to commissioner fungs question the information provided by the project sponsor and last week clarified some of the points that were raised by the appellant in the rehearing request in terms of the grades shows the project. it's more information than what is on the approved plans and we would request that this be added as an addendum to the information. we reviewed all the materials and it is code compliant. i'm available for any questions that the board may have. >> i have a quick question. can you address the appellants argument regarding the height? >> yes. we did review the material and reviewing the submittal for mar, the building permit application banged in november and december we did request additional information from the spon