tv [untitled] November 25, 2013 3:00am-3:31am PST
depay attention we need to know what the applicant says it's 26 hundred feet we're approving something we don't have the ability to see the size. if we're praying the drawing the number doesn't allow us to understand what we're approving. i hope as the commission will be revising or looking at its rules and regulations i hope we as a department the residential design team will give a more consistent message for people who come to us with the larger and smaller projects to avoid what we've seen today. we're only asking for better
information >> commissioner antonini. >> it that an adequate amount of time to proceed. okay. thank you >> i want to say in the on topic this is setting some sort of standard this is a small promise. it might be helpful if we had some sort of sample or template or a check list of items because you know this is for the architect and whether he has an discussion with you or not in private t he would be guessing what you have in mind. >> commissioner. shelly call the questions arrest on the matter commissioner antonini. sxhrnd.
commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner wu and president fong. no. sxhirgsz that motion passes 5 to one with president fong voting against and places you on item 17 case 13.1286 d and i have a question. those plans are even more - >> i'm sorry. i want to understand are you looking the plans for barring let street because it's bans what we decided on the other case. it seems to me those plans have less information >> this is the project that lies completely different. i want to say that's a
completely different thing it's legal listing something that's there so the plan is completely different. >> please continue. >> item 17. at 259 a request for discretionary review this is an abbreviated discretionary review >> good afternoon, commissioners in the a discretionary review to legal liza desk on 2151 barring let located in the midgets strict this murders approximately 2 hundred square feet of desk area. you have the case report materials and at this time staff has nothing further to add the project was reviewed but he remain design team that noted in the dr are not usually and it's
the departments position it doesn't create any extraordinary six and the department recommend it be approved. if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. >> dr requester. >> go ahead and start talking. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm shawn. i live at barring let street and my bedroom window is 5 feet from the proposed deck and it allows the occupant to see me sleeping.
referred to as the view. >> thanks. this is the view from the deck to my bedroom you also have it in your packet. second page in the deck shows the plan of where the roof questioning is in proximity to the neighboring property being my property. when the barring let property was remodeled two years ago it was never approved for a deck. and despite my former complaints that was built anyway. he asked me if i opted it i said, yes. the current occupants bought the
building knowing it didn't have a deck. partner had a discussion. i have the documents here the follow-up letter to speak to some information. since that time in 2011 despite my disencouragement the current resident added railings and built in furniture and plants this has been going on for two years and it looks directly into my bedroom window. please don't allow them to put a deck outside my bedroom window. let's review this so it won't be so invasive.
>> there any speakers in support of the dr requester? okay project spokesperson you have 5 minutes. >> my name is chris i'm the owner on bartlett street it was asked for me to show some paperwork so regarding this roof area that's been converted into a deck. the pit wall had been raised loirg for the proper space and it was legally required. in terms of the work we put down a surface it was a proposal it's
not increasing the footprint we've got photos. we know that there's a concern about privacy that's been made dauntingly clear. this is after hearing the request for privacy we invested some planters along the line so there would be a privacy screen. it was for on ero own benefit but so he could have a private area. so it's not the best thing but it's a simple thing we want a deck baits it's the executive deck area four folks have a
generated and we have the possibility of a deck. we want to enjoy the backyard. we have 5 letters in support and their curiosity neighbors. there's opinion. we've done what we can and it's a city we live next to each other and any concern about the bedroom for all tints and perspires that mirrors can look into his kitchen so there's a privacy concern we live in a city and need to find a way to live amongst ourselves. we really want it t a place to go outside and enjoy the sunlight. >> thank you speakers in support
of the project sponsor? >> if there are no speakers in support then you can have rebuttal. >> yeah. i think we do live in the city we all know that. sometimes, it gets tight spaces spaces and i think what to move this along i am willing - rather than in your paychecks where you see the full length of the side of the building an option might, looking at some sort of
continuums where the deck is at the back of the house. that would be my rebuttal. >> okay project sponsor you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> i appreciate there being some option for compromise. this is how we consider how we can be receptionist full of each other. i feel like we've visited properly and it's pleasing. i want to reiterate we have 5 letters we're pretty consider e
considerate. okay. the public hearing is open to commissioners >> i want to respond to sxhrnds opinion. we're legal listing the roof-deck what did the original application envision in that place that's a question i didn't see anywhere in the report. the thing i don't know is the plans as they stand don't show how the deck is educated does someone crawl out a window. and what about the common building is that the day i
assume everyone needs to agree to the common areas of the building where the spaces have to be approved by the interior association or whatever the appropriate word it here. if the landlord may have to approve a deck in this particular location. and what is legal or what are we leg legalizing. >> i may answer that. this is complicated permit. the first permit didn't show any deck on this roof it only showed the par pit and this was approved over the counter. they came back to put the deck
on the roof. we wouldn't sign off it was to be signed off over the creditor we did not and put an n a and dbi issued that permit. subsequentially it was built with the permit and that didn't come to us. that's where the discrepancy occurred. they were issued a violation and now it was a series of permits one of which didn't come back to us and a at this time we realized it wasn't legal under the planning code >> the follow-up by mistake ca was it not come back back to you. >> no it was approved over the
counter no routing. >> commissioner antonini. >> it sounds like even though planning had suggested that there are not be a permit the issuing dbi still could issue it. >> i think there was just a mistake. they didn't realize it noted to come to planning so it's a preschooler mistake so, now we have a situation where we have a d r because i'm assuming it's not a continual use it's something that would have been permitted and might not have come to us unless it was a dr request
>> right. >> it sounds like this is something that planning is willing to approve even the route we got there was a complicated one. >> yes. this is somewhat similar to a deck you had in july it was built without a permit and had it been properly routed to us through would have been the same opportunity for d r but it was issued by dbi. it's code compliant and it's before you because the defendant r is written >> it's not entirely the fault of the project sponsor he was preceding on what he was told he could do. i don't really see the extraordinary circumstances
we've got a 4 foot between the bedroom and the roof-deck it's 5 feet in this one area so it's not directly across but it's at an angle but the picture shows the ability for someone on the deck to a lot into the bedroom. i live in a single first name home on the western side of attain u town and there's restrictions and you look out one of the bedrooms and usually we've got the shufrts closed. so it's one of those things urging to deal with so i don't have any problem with this rae i don't see any reason to take dr
>> commissioner moore. >> i didn't say anything. >> commissioner antonini. >> so i move to approve. >> commissioners on that motion commissioner antonini. commissioner borden. commissioner moore. commissioner wu and mrvg. that places you under our general portion of the hearing i have one speaker card >> alex. now >> this is the first time i've ever done something like this. i want to comment on a-1.
the basic what it is remodeling and redeveloping the sharp park safety infrastructure improvement and inhabitant impeachment project. it's on item a-1. the opposition i have with this is simply the fact it the eola damage as well as the fiscal ramification of this plan the project to expand the pump house as well as the redevelopment and improve the infrastructure of the park is a serious issue with the funding of the capitalization of the park and golf course the city is
continuing to pump money into a failing golf course on life support. and the recent survey found the hiking and biotic trails are the number one recreational priorities of san franciscans. shatter park as failed to turn a profit for the city. and as a result has cost the san franciscan taxpayer $8 million. that's 3 hundred thousand to around $700,000 a year. that's money that would have been spent on a wide range of things other golf courses and social services. things of that nature after an unjustly service that continual
bleeds money given the fact that people don't use it. the eola factor it is built from wetlands. all the generates of frog legs that led to life forms is the california four-legged frog and the san francisco garden snakes when you take the frogs that hatch in the water when all the water is being pumped out when all this water leaves the eggs dry up and die. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment? looks like i got it >> with that, the meeting is g
francisco exhibit featuring architectural rendering of what never was in the public spaces of san francisco. imagine the reality of a panhandle parkway and the library building and visualize a monument in cascade twin peaks. exhibit is on through november 27th. join us for a spontaneous combustion. this jam celebrates music and keeping it live. that's your weekly buzz. for more information on any of these events, visit us at test test, test, test, test, test test
>> good afternoon we will call this meeting historic preservation commission to order. >> welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission regular meeting for wednesday, november 20, 2013. like to take roll at this time. (calling names) commissioner wu is expected to be absent. at this time members of the public any address the agenda expect agenda items with respect to agenda items your item will be addressed at that time. i have no speaker cards.
any member of the public wish to speak on non-agenda items >> that places you under the regular calendar. there's only one item on the green connection if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. >> seeing no questions we'll move on. item two the staff report and announcements. tim fry commissioners, i have two items to report to you. first, i wanted to give you an updated on the silver cottages work has stopped they site but on monday shelly of our staff and myself met with the project sponsors reviewed the condition
of the cottages. and they're working on security measures foyer the cottages while they awe witting wait the lawsuit. the protection plan is short term hopefully and it will begin in less than 90 days. the project spokesperson will know more this week and mark hal beggar is in the audience and happy to answer any questions. we're working closely together and hoping to have a resolution to any stoucht issues in the short-term. the second is last week, i gave a brief presentation at the cities graffiti board from the graffiti incident at the high beggar bank.
the advisory board had questions about the historic preservation commission relating to abatement. they're trying to encourage property owners to put in a report. i expressed our willingness to work with them to achieve some of those golds and we'll be coordinating with the department of public works to see how we can work better together. p that concludes my presentation if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. seeing no questions we'll move on >> commissioners that places you under commission matters president's report. >> just an update on the real our program we've got a couple of gentlemen helping out. we set a launch date of march
one. we're getting a a lot more traction from real terrors i have been talking when they may want to train all the real terrors for the first banish it could be a good kick start. a green good friend wants to have it at their site >> commissioner could you give more details. i know i remember discussing it earlier in the year but i think it's an cellist e exciting project >> the real touch to a lot of the folks in buying home in the district and surveys are happening throughout the city. so the idea was we get realtors
trained and preservation approved saying i understand the preservation rules so california preservation foundation is putting together four or five we came up with >> 5. >> yeah. 5 different training items. and i can actually i'm not prepared inform give you a brief >> is that a certification. >> yeah. through preservation and they'll role it out statewide. >> okay. >> and it's all online training not having to show up. >> thank you for your initiative. >> and thanks to the staff for the help. that's it for president's report >> moving to item 4 damgs of
draft minutes for november 13th. >> commissioners any comments or corrections. any member of the public wish to speak seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i move we adapt. >> second. >> thank you. >> on that motion to adapt the draft minutes (calling names) so moved, commissioners, unanimously 6 to zero and places you on item 5 commissions questions and comments. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i have met with one of the board members ted about the project. just to discuss he wanted to know more about our process and what if
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on