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