. >> 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

we can certainly set the appellants submittal to be due thursday prior and the department have one thursday prior to submit a response. you want to set a page limit by the department's response? >> no more than 5 pages, please. >> mr. pacheco when you are ready with that, we'll call the roll. >> the motion is from the president to continue this matter to october 23rdrd. the public hearing has been held. and it's to allow dph to either attend the hearing or submit written declaration to the board and to allow the appellant to submit exhibit as to revenue sales due two thursdays prior and the dpw is allowed to respond. on that motion to continue commissioner fung, lazarus, honda, hurtado. the motion is to continue. >> no further business. we are adjourned. >> >> so good morning and welcome to all of you i'm joseph i'm the director of prime care for homeless services and urban higher or speaks louder you still can't hear me. okay. i've joseph with urban house thank you for coming distinguished gifts and staff and community partners and many, many other wlor here today. i can't believe we're he

>> 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 can certainly set the appellants submittal to be due thursday prior and the department have one thursday prior to submit a response. you want to set a page limit by the department's response? >> no more than 5 pages, please. >> mr. pacheco when you are ready with that, we'll call the roll. >> the motion is from the president to continue this matter to october 23rdrd. the public hearing has been held. and it's to allow dph to either attend the hearing or submit written declaration to the board and to allow the appellant to submit exhibit as to revenue sales due two thursdays prior and the dpw is allowed to respond. on that motion to continue commissioner fung, lazarus, honda, hurtado. the motion is to continue. >> no further business. we are adjourned. >> >> >> good evening. >> i would like to call the meeting of tuesday, september tenth, 2013 to order. >> roll call, please? >> thank you. >> miss fewer? >> here. >> mr. haney? >> here. >> miss maufas? >> here. >> miss mendoza. >> dr. murase? >> here. >> miss wynns. >> here. >> miss norton. >> here. >> mace way. >> and mr. logan. >> join me

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

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

we can certainly set the appellants submittal to be due thursday prior and the department have one thursday prior to submit a response. you want to set a page limit by the department's response? >> no more than 5 pages, please. >> mr. pacheco when you are ready with that, we'll call the roll. >> the motion is from the president to continue this matter to october 23rdrd. the public hearing has been held. and it's to allow dph to either attend the hearing or submit written declaration to the board and to allow the appellant to submit exhibit as to revenue sales due two thursdays prior and the dpw is allowed to respond. on that motion to continue commissioner fung, lazarus, honda, hurtado. the motion is to continue. >> no further business. we are adjourned. >> >>1xzgwh?(ç(;<;8;<;4?0?p?t?÷=÷=a