. >> 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 t

>> for the record they are dated, they are in the permit holder august 14th submittal but the july plans are dated 20, 136789 we have an motion from the president to uphold the revised plan july 26, 2013. >> on that motion to uphold with revised plans, commissioner fung, aye, commissioner hurtado, aye, lazarus, aye, honda? aye. the vote is 5-0. the permit is upheld with revised plans. >> what were the dates of those plans? >> july 22nd. we are calling item no. 9. item 9: appeal no. 13-057 david & niloufer king, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 4162 & 4164 26th street. protesting the issuance on may 08, 2013, to tony szeto & annie kong, permit to alter a building 3rd story vertical addition and onestory horizontal addition, interior remodel, structural upgrade, plumbing and electrical workk. application no. 2012/06/19/2903s. for hearing today.sf 91234 this is on for hearing today and we'll hear from the appellant. >> good evening, this concerns a remodel of victorian house in millie valley. the three identical once -- ones in a row. the rem

we didn't make a submittal for a new contract and funding will cease july 1. we respectfully request that you consider the plight of the people that we use and use your discretion to restore funding. we need $78,000 a year to survive. thank you for your help. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> i am eric booker and the manager of st. francis living room. like peter was saying we do need your help because we have 100 people we feed on a daily basis and [inaudible] some barely walk and in wheelchairs and safe environment for them. we help them with clothing. we help them with shower information. we counsel things that really need you guys' help on and without the help from the city we won't be able to stay open. guys look forward -- everyday, monday through friday and get a nutritious meal and do stuff and we show them love and i appreciate if you all can really, really, really put in your hearts to keep us -- to keep this funding going on for these guys because they really need it. thank you all. >> thank you. >> hi i am edmund larry and want to show you a co

it's going to be a little different than our first submittal work as in ten years. and we're proposing ten years because we don't believe it's going to take more than ten years to get the entitlement to phase ii. we're looking at phase 1 as just the introduction to phase ii. we would pay a $120,000 a year per annum to the port starting on day one during the construction. we would pay a minimum base rent of $128,000 once it's occupied versus a 15% of the gross receipts, of the net receipts on entitle rent. and just as an aside on piers 1, 3 and 5, we started paying the port percentage rent, at least paying amortization within six quarts of opening that pier ~ and we are continuing to pay that. ~ entitle rent the adjustment base would be five years with cpi. we would not amortize any of the infrastructure costs in phase 1. so, we are not asking for long-term lease to do that. we are going to defer all of the infrastructure costs until phase ii so the port will get its $120,000 no if's, and's and but's during that period. we will provide the funding. we'll provide the

the residential design team reviewed the project following the submittal of the d-r request and made the following comments. the rdt found the proposed horizontal addition to be appropriately setback from both side property lines to reduce any negative effects to adjacent properties. the massing of the addition to be appropriately stepped down to reduce any negative effects to the mid-block open space. the rdt noted that the project does not propose any changes to the shared driveway width. the rdt concluded that the project does not contain nor create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and staff recommends that the commission not take d-r and approve the project as proposed. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. okay. first d-r requestor, you have 5 minutes. >>> good afternoon. my name is [speaker not understood]. i'm here on behalf of myself, my husband david who are the current residents and my mother jane [speaker not understood] the property owner. this apartment has been our family's primary residence the last 30 years. [speaker not understood] have a unique

we generally prepare for submittals to the planning department. these ask for very basic information that kind of make it hard for me to evaluate it. there's no setback line indicated, the adjacent neighbors for width of lot and footprint of the building is not shown. [speaker not understood]. and i didn't see any rear yard photos. they weren't part of the packet that i filed for you. and also if you assume the rear setback line which i'm estimating to be about -- at the line of the rear of the next door neighbor, the rear wall line, the main two-story line, the proposed planter which they show on the deck goes beyond that so that line, therefore, requires -- i believe would require a variance. this is not an open railing design. beyond these efficiencies, i think the commission should really look at the overall size and scale of this deck given its location in bernal heights. the buildings are small and [speaker not understood] and tightly spaced. with overhead drawing, if you could focus on this. we did a survey of various elevated decks in the