tv [untitled] June 20, 2013 7:30pm-8:01pm PDT
planter, you are pretty much almost five feet from you, know in terms of being able to... >> we may be accomplishing what the motion says by your actual proposal. because if i am understanding it right, to this street side of the parapit there is a significant cornis that projeblgts out further. >> correct. >> and then the plants will be between the deck and the parapit. >> yes >> there is a separation. >> and the deck of the planter, you know, like beneath right now is around 2 feet or something and we can make it 3 feet >> okay that may be a good compromise for me. >> i think that part of the problem was, you having it, and several, and you know, no man's land. and is what do we really achieve? >> that will be my question, but i think that my concerns would be when i saw this
screen, in the picture, where it could be seen from somewhere else even from the street we did not want that, of course. >> no. >> but the reason for the screen. >> being pushed up there, >> yeah. >> and when they come to me and say, you cannot take the screen down, in the event that the commission or the planning department that you have to move the deck the way that it was, so they didn't take the screen out. >> okay. >> because this is actually asked not only to move and match with that but also to take the screen down. >> i am inclined to go with your suggestion because you are estimated that the planters now is about a two-foot and if you make it three feet, all that you are really doing is making a foot off so that you would be 23, 4 inches. by 14, you still would have almost an entire deck. >> you will not be standing up next to the para pit. >> it is probably just as well.
>> i think that more important for the privacy, of the landscaping. >> yeah. >> that is true. >> and we have never in an urban area and we have never brought in too much of the privacy issue and people are going to look from one deck to the other deck and they are going to see the people there and it is not really if you choose to look across there, it is your choice, but putting a planter there probably sounds good. so with your permission, i would ask that the motion be modified. it sounds like we are going to be basically three foot from the parpit. and it would be a one-foot reduction on what their permit is. >> yeah. >> but it ends up being a net three. >> okay. >> so that means that if that is okay with the maker of the motion? >> let's hear. >> i have another issue. >> commissioner sugaya? >> i have a question for the staff, when drs are filed, the
staff routinely suggests trying to work it out? or is that not something that the staff does? >> we routinely recommend that dr filers project sponsors communicate before they have to filed the discretionary review, if they reach some type of a mutual agreement and they withdraw the dr, plans will be submitted and it will be signed on, which is what mr. wang did in this scenario. in the future if a new plan is submitted we will review it and unless the recommendation were to come from this commission based on the actual dr that was held, a hearing, where the commission gaves specifics, we will always honor those and bring those back to the commission, with any future you know recommendation on any future dr that may occur on that property. >> okay.
so on item 16 a, and 16 b at 68 procedio avenue which was a request for discretionary review which was withdrawn today. for whatever reason, if there was an agreement between the two parties, then, it holds for water with the city. >> even though the staff has encouraged the two parties to try to work it out. it does not prohibit the property owner in the future from submitting a permit that managed... >> that is not what i am talking about. i am talking about the integrity of the process. and the fact that the city is encouraging private agreements to be worked out on a discretionary review, to be subsequently withdrawn i would advise the dr requestor and the property owner to not withdraw it, bring it to the commission and have us actually take
action on it. >> okay. >> otherwise, >>... >> that is the common process commissioner, i mean the alternative is for both parties actually to record that agreement against the property itself with the assess or's office. >> that is still a private debate. >> it is a private agreement and at least it is a little more enforcable. >> i understand. i am just trying... >> enforcing private agreements. >> and we had a couple of weeks ago we had something on vernal heights that was withdrawn because of their... it was some negotiation. >> and those never have come to the commission. >> correct. >> contrary to what commissioner moore has said. >> there was a process in place where in the city is actively encouraging this kind of process to take place and then
to actually believe that perhaps there was something that is enforcable when it actually is not enforcable and if that is the direction where that is the process, i think that the city should have a huge disclaimer, written disclaimer that says, we are encouraging you to work this out, but it has no meaning. >> okay. >> but we approve out of that when there is an agreement, what we approve is a permit for a set of plans. >> and typically that is what moves forward and that is what can be built. i mean, and but we can't say to somebody, who is a new owner whether it is two years or five years or 20 years later, that they can't come in for a permit and we refuse to process it, we literally can't do that. >> they can come in whenever they want to. >> when you are telling us, from this staff viewpoint that whatever got worked out, has no meaning. >> because, the staff is going to look at it. >> and it has a new project.
>> any two parties can work on any agreement. a neighbor can work on anything with anybody and we would have to honor is that? >> what it was a building that the commission would never have approved. >> why are we telling them to work it out. >> gentleman? i think that this discussion is no longer relevant to this case that dr that is in front of us, there is a motion and a second. i would be curious to have a side bar discussion about that. but let's stick on the case if we can. >> commissioner hillis? >> i think that the relevance is i would not suggest taking dr in this case if it he were not for the fact that there was an agreement. i think that the deck going out to the property line with a planter is if there was no history of a dr or an agreement, i would approve it. i think that the reason that i am suggesting that we take dr is that i move to take the dr i think that the extraordinary circumstance is that there was an agreement do i agree with everything in the agreement and kind of the screen? no, i'm not party to the
agreement. i think that you could accomplish the same thing by moving that deck five feet back, something that i would not have taken dr and unless it was for the agreement. so just to explain why i believe. and because there was this agreement. and you know, we are modifying it a little and weighing in now and that will be mine, and i will stick with the five, and i mean that you have a 10-foot six deck and that is beyond where it was, in the agreement, and i would agree to go 5-6 from ma point >> commissioner moore? >> i would take dr along the same type of conclusions commissioner hillis is drawing, i think that the deck is too far even in front of me as the length it is, i would pull it back because that is indeed what we like and then historic enclosed setting here with the older homes that have to have side relationships. i am comfortable with
supporting what you are saying and here we go. >> commissioner antonini? >> my only question is i think that they are bringing it back a little too far, the present deck is 14 x 13. and the proposing to go to 14 by 24. and now, we are already back two feet and so, i guess that if you are saying, commissioner is that your net is going to be five feet back and it is going to be probably 21. but, it only gives them some what of an expansion but not all the way out there. because there are... it is acknowledged that the because of the planters being there, they are two feet from the parapit as it is and so you want a five foot separation, and i wanted a three foot. >> yeah. >> the deck has 18 feet.
>> yeah. >> and it is going to be less than 18 because there is a few foot separation even with the 24, i can that you are going to 21. >> i think that we have to look at the drawings and it is not just looking at numbers. you need to see the effects on the roof. i personally do not believe that a planter against a history being parapit is the right answer because you could see it as something happening there for anything else. and so i think that by pulling the planter and minimizing the deck in a way that he is describing it is the right response in order to indeed leave the roof deck non-visible from the building edge. >> commissioner antonini? >> maybe i can ask the project sponsors representative who gave us these numbers. >> the planter height is below the top of the parapit. >> you are not going to see it any way. >> you represented earlier that there was already a two-foot
if you look at the planter it is two feet or so but we can certainly look at it deeper. >> so we are saying two foot already there, so what i am saying to commissioner hillis is if he wants a five-foot separation from the parapit to the deck, then only take another three-foot off of the proposed length towards fair oaks and that brings us to 21, 4, which i think is a little more realistic. >> because if you are adding or taking five feet off in addition to the two you are going to end up with no increase in the deck at all and that is really no reason for it to be back that far because you can't see anything any way. >> if you look at, the system plan which is and it fits in this one, and ... (inaudible) you have on the railing all the way out to the edge of the parapit is 23 feet, 24 feet.
>> and we could look the motion... >> so if we move back to the side face of the parapit and then we are really talking about only instead of 24 feet we are really talking about 21 feet. >> yeah, that is my argument, that we should modify or we should clarify. >> so from 21 feet, we are now talking about the mrapter. >> yeah. >> the planter in the space between the 21 feet and the para pit. >> correct. >> that gives you the... there is a five foot space there. >> so, it is 16. >> i believe that there is a make of a motion and this is a second. and i am like it is getting late and i am not giving head bobs for your suggestion there. and so call, a couple of comments, call the questions if it fails maybe you make a second motion. >> commissioner moore. >> a comment is not the planter but what is in the planter that establishes the visibility from
the outside. and on the plans... (inaudible) from the outside and happened to live in a neighborhood that was densely done with these kinds of things and unless she is watering out there every day, you don't want to have the planter in the potential plant not so lively plants being visible to a historic para pit site and i believe that there is plenty of roof deck for what is intended here and the dimensions set by the commissioner hillis with the planter out on from there is exactly what i think that we should be doing. >> motion? the commissioner hillis, so just for clarity. the five-foot set back is measured from the inside of the para pit or the outside of the building? >> the deck will be 19 feet and two inches. >> the plant will be beyond that. >> thank you. >> on the motion, that the existing deck be set back to
the dimension of 19 feet, 2 inches and a plant er a load beyond that commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden aye. >> hillis. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> sugaya. >> no. >> and president fong neso moved, commissioners that motion passes four to two with commissioners antonini and sugaya voting against. >> and commissioners, the last item on your agenda is public comment and i have no speaker cards. >> general public comment? >> seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. adjourned. push
>> thank you, supervisor farrell, for being here this morning, and also for your great partnership with the board of supervisors. carmen chu, you're helping us bring in the money already, thank you. assessor chu. (applause) >> london breed, thank you very much, supervisor, always a pleasure to work with you as well. all of you, friends, spouses, family, people who are just enthralled with this wonderful great city of san francisco like i am. thank you for all being here to witness and honor and thank the people who are stepping up with us to help manage this
wonderful great city. thank you, chief hayes white, for being here as well, and other department heads and other commissioners, thank you for joining us as well. we have 25 individuals today who are sacrificing a lot of personal time, sacrificing their own family's time away for night meetings, a lot of reading of paperwork, a lot of public engagement. we also have some 15 different bodies that you'll be appointed to today. and, so, it is my pleasure to welcome you and to suggest to you that i personally appreciate citizens of san francisco stepping forward to help us manage this city. it never is ever about one office. it's not even about two offices. it's about how we conduct
ourselves to reach out, engage people in the public to help serve our city. your ideas, your engagement with us, you're aligning where we want to go to make the city a greater city is really the essence of managing a city. and i've learned that in many, many years of being a public serve ant, being an advocate to make sure the city represented its own diversity, of using that diversity as our strength, and going forward each of you are being asked to serve on extremely important commissions and bodies that i fully, fully respect. from fire, to transportation, to people handling billions of dollars in retirement, to our arts, to our health, to just getting permits out so that we can help people be success in this city. all of you are part of that. i just happened to address several hundred people this morning at a breakfast to talk
about the health of our city. and part of that discussion was not just the health care programs that the country is heading into. it's also health means are we doing everything right for people? are we building strong communities? are we building neighborhoods? are we giving people the foundation in which they can invest to create a family, that they can have hope for their kids? all of you are part of that agenda, and every decision that you make and the people that come before you want to feel the hope and the foundation that this city has. and, so, i want to thank you, each and every one of you, in your various capacities that you will take on, that you help us be a better city, be a more compassionate city, a city that will help me build more affordable housing, create more jobs, sustain the job situation
that we have, to make it ultimately a city of hope for everyone. that is why we emanate our name of the city of st. francis. we have to be of hope to everybody. not just in america any more. we're a city of immigrants as well. so, your commissions also have to have a viewpoint that we are a world class city and we are a city that everybody, the whole world looks at to establish what are good economics, what is fairness and equity, and what is excitingly ip ~ innovative as a world class city. thank you for stepping up. if you would now stand up, i will provide you with the oath of office. and if you'll please say each of your names individually as i begin.
and then at the end, you will jointly say that the bodies that you are about to be appointed to. please repeat after me. i... i... [speaker not understood] >> do solemnly affirm >> do solemnly affirm >> that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california >> and the constitution of the state of california >> against all enemies foreign and domestic
>> against all enemies foreign and domestic >> that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states >> to the constitution of the united states >> and the constitution of the state of california >> and the constitution of the state of california >> that i take this obligation freely >> that i take this obligation freely >> without any mental reservation >> without any mental reservation >> and for purpose of evasion and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i'm about to enter such time as i go to office of... >> [speaker not understood].