expand it. >> and the dr, when can they do that? if we approve the dr today could they come back tomorrow and approve the permit. >> yes, this is from a cu or you can make a decision without prejudice and they have a year to come back with the same exact request and in this instance if it is a code complying request, we have to respect that permit and review it and give our professional recommendation on it and if it results in a discretionary review bring it back to this body. in this instance they came in with a revision to that deck, and we did the notification process because we knew that there were neighbors who opposed the alteration and they were notified and the discretion review was filed, and it was brought back, because of prior agreement had been made, it does not negate us the inability to not follow through with the process. >> excuse me, with all due respect, i think that commissioner hillis is asking

if under the original dr, that came before the... if it had come before the planning commission and if the planning commission took the dr and ratified that agreement, and then yes, the planning department would agree. >> and the question that you could come back with another permit. >> and they could come back with another permit. >> and we could not approve that administratively knowing that. >> they will come back to the commission. >> i just want to... could i ask the projector the dr requestor a couple of questions? >> because i mean, i think that it is important to have this agreement and i think that it is great that you worked this out agreement. i just want to get at, because i agree that the glass is not good and i would not approve that nor do i like the sfra glass screen where it was agreed to be put. i mean, so let me ask you, what was the purpose of that kind of

screen? >> why did you want that? >> well i was just concerned of the privacy. and our house is right across the street and you know, and it is going to look straight across. but if you know, it is gone, and it is not the end of the world. because while the public is see the glass screen at the street level if it is on the edge, you can see it where it is? >> well... we could see it from our second story. >> yes. but it is not, some of it is... i think that it is a more importance than the other and than the others and it is not... >> it is not the most important thing. >> my question is that the deck is small and where they are looking to expand the deck i can see that the deck is small and i don't like the screen and if we set the new deck back five feet from the property

line that faces your house and put a planter instead of a screen what do you think about that? >> the original, sure, it sounds good. >> i mean, i move to take the uflm. >> go ahead. >> first of all would i like to clarify that the permit before you is to take the screen down. and to remove the planter in front of the (inaudible) facing them. >> yes. >> no i get it. >> yeah. >> i mean, i think that the agreement is to gather the contacts and i think that it was a well thought-out agreement and we are looking at it and would i move to take the dr in set back the deck without a screen, but with a planter, and five feet from that property line. >> so you get an expanded deck and you don't get it fully to the property line and there is a five-foot buffer and i don't

have what i think is an inappropriate screen on that. >> is there a second to that? >> maybe... i will second it at that point and we will want to talk to the project sponsor about the feeling but i will second it. >> commissioner moore? >> just for the record, in my recollection, that is in support of mr. washington and when we ask for two opposing parties, to work things out, it is mostly after we have looked at the project. the agreement was well created here, and it was not with any guidance from any planning commission, i know was seated in 2010. i do not recall this project because the project is a number of others, and it is things and the approval of the planning commission and how you paint your trim and all things and the tonalty of the garage and whatever, those are personal agreements which go way, way beyond what normally this planning commission comments on

as really have any influence on. so in your recollection, too, how do we encourage the dr applicant and the opposing parts to work things out after we have given guidance and sometimes we do it once and twice and three times sending them back to work it out but specific input of what we are looking for in terms of being the critical issues. and not seeing the property line and the projects which have common lines, and the layout of this building and the living room and light and all of the things that we really spend a lot of time sending the dr requests back to work with each other on the subject and the things that we are setting to be worked out. and this is not the case here. and if this project was unbias and we would take the dr and make the modifications and it would not just basically say that because it was an agreement that means that we have to up hold the agreement. i think that only comes after

we have given the type of guidance we are asked to give you. and so, i basically want to take issue in the interpretation of commissioner sugaya and more trend towards what commissioner hillis understands we cause and interpret and so i am more in support and more support of your motion while to have taking the dr and modifying the project and look at the plans and see a lot of what we can agree on and what guidance we want to give the project when we are out. >> commissioner borden. >> i think that what the struggle is for us, i feel terrible that this agreement was not lifed up to and that the neighborhood felt like they had agreed to something and now sponsor is in a different direction, it is our policy whether it is ccnrs or deeds or other sorts of easements or other private agreements that is not our jurisdiction because that is not our jurisdiction

and we do not have binding capability there and i think that while we may end up changing this project, you are taking the dr, and the past agreement can't be the binding reason because it does set a precedent that is not in line of what our policies have been and how we have acted as a commission, and again and, again told others that is not our area, and that is a legal matter. and so, what we do need to do is look at this permit as in the new permit that is coming before us and make a decision on how we want to treat this project sponsor proposed project. and so i think that it sounds like we were talking about moving the deck back and it sounds like that might be leases among the commission about doing that and i do also want to point out that the larger agreement that we agreed to was about other things and not specifically about this deck and i, you know that i regret that i hope that

whatever happens here that everyone can work together and i want the neighbors to understand and that i understand where you are coming from and i feel terrible that you took a process, and you had an agreement and apparently with the same architect that went later to work on that and did not keep that word but at the same time, as commissioner moore said it is not something that had officially been before the commission or discussed in approved in a particular fashion. and so our jurisdiction is to decide the best way to you know to either maintain the project as proposed or to scope it in a different way. >> commissioner antonini? >> i agree, i think that we have to look at this denuvo even though i do understand the issue of the previous agreement and there were many parts to that and the place was being renovate and there were issues dealing with the historic nature of the building that were included and really we were right down to the deck now and we are talking about the size of the deck if i could ask

the project sponsor, and i am looking at your correspondence and the legalization of the deck that you are proposing to do. to go from 14 x 13, ten inches to 24, 4, so a 24, 4, does it come all the way to the parapit. >> yes. it does. and then if you look at it, there is also very, very extended quantifies, that is above 30 inches that just beyond the parapit. and so that is why, the proposal, when you ask this, and to qualify to it and the 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 even with the plans for 24-foot, you had a two-foot separation from the parapit to the end of the deck. >> basically, right now, if you are going to be standing in

front of the planter, and the planter is against the... the planter is about... one second. 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. push there are so many ways that the internet provides real access to real people and resources

and that's what we're try to go accomplish. >> i was interested in technology like video production. it's interesting, you get to create your own work and it reflects what you feel about saying things so it gives perspective on issues. >> we work really hard to develop very in depth content, but if they don't have a venue, they do not have a way to show us, then this work is only staying here inside and nobody knows the brilliance and the amazing work that the students are doing. >> the term has changed over time from a very basic who has a computer and who doesn't have a computer to now who has access to the internet, especially high speed internet, as well as the skills and the knowledge to use those tools effectively. . >> the city is charged with coming up with digital inclusion. the department of telecommunications put together

a 15 member san francisco tech connect task force. we want the digital inclusion program to make sure we address the needs of underserved vulnerable communities, not communities that are already very tech savvy. we are here to provide a, b and c to the seniors. a stands for access. b stands for basic skills and c stands for content. and unless we have all three, the monolingual chinese seniors are never going to be able to use the computer or the internet. >> a lot of the barrier is knowledge. people don't know that these computers are available to them, plus they don't know what is useful. >> there are so many businesses in the bay area that are constantly retiring their computer equipment that's perfectly good for home use. computers and internet access are helping everybody in the community and people who don't have it can come to us to help with that. one of the biggest problems we

see isn't whether people can get computers through programs like ours, but whether they can understand why they need a computer. really the biggest issue we are facing today is helping people understand the value of having a computer. >> immediately they would say can i afford a computer? i don't speak any english. how do i use it. then they will start to learn how to do email or how to go back to chinese newspaper to read all the chinese newspaper. >> a lot of the barrier still is around lack of knowledge or confusion or intimidation and not having people in their peer network who use computers in their lives. >> the important thing i learned from caminos was to improve myself personally. when i first came to caminos, i didn't know anything about computers. the second thing is i have become -- i have made some great achievements as an individual in my family and in things of the world. >> it's a real issue of

self-empowerment where new immigrant families are able to communicate with their families at home, able to receive news and information in their own home language, really become more and more connected with the world as well as connected even inside their local communities. >> if we value the diversity of our city and we value our diverse neighborhoods in the city, we need to ensure that they remain economically viable. equiping them and equiping residents in those areas with jobs that will enable them to stay in san francisco is critical to that. >> the important thing that i see here at caminos is it helps the low income community, it helps the women who wouldn't have this opportunity otherwise. >> the workers with more education in san francisco are more likely to be able to working that knowledge sector. where they are going to need that familiarity with the internet, they are going to find value with it and use it and be productive with it every day. and half of the city's

population that's in the other boat is disconnected from all that potential prosperity. >> we really need to promote content and provide applications that are really relevant to people's lives here. so a lot of the inspiration, especially among the immigrant community, we see is communications with people from their home country but we as much want to use the internet as a tool for people to connect within the local san francisco community. >> i think it's our job as public educators to give them this access and give them this opportunity to see that their efforts are being appreciated beyond their immediate reach. >> you have to blend this idea of community network with computer equipment with training and with support. we can pull all that together, then we've got it. >> it's as much about social and economic justice -- in fact it's more about social and economic