Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 24, 2010 7:30pm-8:00pm PST

8:30 pm
against the showcase review. this is impossible since we don't live in the showplace square. i might not have reviewed their >> plan, she said. she attached a different plan which she says is actable -- is applicable. this suggests that our homes are in showcase square but they are not. if you look, this is above and to the left of our home.
8:31 pm
the plan also describes where it is and qualitatively, this is a warehouse in an industrial district has recently been developed. it describes this as a former light industrial area. by contrast, our neighborhood has no industry. there is not even a corner store within four blocks. turning to the general plan and the renewable energy plan, these plants are implicated by my design.
8:32 pm
if my design was improper under the general plan, nothing could be developed in this city. as for the quotes that were taken out of context, i will say this. a solar permit was pulled several months after i said as pointed have an edition. months later, they tried to block my plan by saying that they had solar trains. they claimed that my addition would impede their ability to ever put solar panels on their home. within a few months, they put more panels on the house.
8:33 pm
i asked them if they were aware of the approved plan. zine around this and put to the others in the house. when they talk to you about the equitable issues, this was about what happens when a neighbor has a solar panel already on their home or what happens when the timing is different? what would you do? what are the equitable considerations. this had nothing to do with access to sunlight and those comments are taken out of context. in this case, we have the east- facing facades. you know what incredible sunlight you get. all morning, this is directly in the winter side. this time of year, this is
8:34 pm
casting shadows during the day to my house and not the other way around. this goes all the way to go west and sets. my house will not affect the light she is getting. for some parts of the year, it might move towards oakland rather than san leandro but this will go right over our homes, this will not have a significant impact on the light that she received and we are grateful for it. as for the question about the shade steady, there has been some misinterpretation about some conversations that were had. instead of telling an extensive and unnecessary chatter a steady, the story did not reveal any problems with the shading for the very reasons that i described. this is facing directly east and
8:35 pm
west and this does not create a problem. miss von has said some things about the addition of fact in the neighborhood character and i will tell you that my home is the shortest home and what my addition would do would be 5 feet taller than her home. you can see that where i stand is actually smaller than the difference in my home. this was also set back 15 feet from the front and quite a bit more from the back. this will not be a monster home, this is quite a modest addition. there has been alternate plans submitted. i would respectfully request that you reject that. she is asking the board to come up with a new set of regulations
8:36 pm
to govern our home and the city. if my plan can be blocked than any business owner does not have a prayer of doing anything with their property and that is not the way the public policy works in this town. >> there was mention made of a project in 2004 in your letter, could you talk about that for a second? >> with great sadness, yes. i bought his home in 2000. i believe there were a key homeowners that had the home. they did virtually nothing to the home. i had several outlets that were extra wide. you could run a hair dryer and a microwave. you needed a new roof, new plumbing. it took me years to save the money to come in into a renovation. part of that plan was to also do
8:37 pm
a deck at the same time so i'd planned to do a deck. i would say that we had a quite nice relationship. i invited her frequently for get together is and this was a good relationship. as soon as i wanted to put a deck in the back of my house, that -- dramatically. she represented that i was building this without a permit which was erroneous. she called the planning commission to make a complaint. i was there the investigate -- today the investigator came. she took the note off of the building and then came to the hearing and said, i have proof that they were worried that it was a without a permit. this was a cascading said of misrepresentations that really started their relationship.
8:38 pm
what you are seeing is a hangover from 2004. >> thank you. >> i don't have much to say. this is an extremely modest addition and this is set back substantially from the front property line and from the rear building walls. this was approved unanimously by the planning commission. the department fully supported it and this is fully code compliant. the residential design team supported the project. we would like to put plans on the overhead that will answer some of the questions. >> this is the subject property, this is a very modest
8:39 pm
addition that they are doing at the top level. >> can you tell us what page? >> this is the planned said middle. -- submission. looking at the property, this is two weeks out and this is set back substantially from the front building wall and this extends further to the rear them the proposed addition will although there might be some shadow cast upon the rear from the house of the appellant. i see no reason why this board should deny the permit. >> the mind but in that picture back up again? -- do you mind putting that picture back up again? >> this is the top floor
8:40 pm
setback? >> that is correct. >> where is the rear of the project? >> that is right here. i believe that is the building wall. >> i was going to ask why you would not have them pulled this all the way back to match the appellant set back but it looks like it be in the garden? >> this would have an adverse impact on the rear yard. >> that is not a requirement. the project sponsor agreed to do this. >> that is often a good idea. >> that is not required. they don't see any need to have a shadow steady. >> is there a need for this study? >> i was interested to see that
8:41 pm
this would not be needed because of the size and location of the edition and the location of the appellants property. i don't see how there would be much of an impact on the property. going further and doing a steady does not seem necessary. >> what about these from the park? >> i don't see how this is negatively impacting any views of the public open space. this is a very modest addition. >> thank you. i have won public comment card here.
8:42 pm
>> this project is in deeper tora neighborhood. i have attached the neighborhood to show the eastern neighborhood planning area and all of the blue area is in deep in that part of the general plan. this is attached with the showcase area plan. the subject property is in deep in that area and subject to its requirements. i understand this was not required but it was offered and agreed to buy a key architect. >> the letter has said that they would provide the steady and
8:43 pm
this is also included in the discretionary review. >> this is wonderful to see. they don't show everything that the shattered study shows because they show this at least two times of the year and usually the equinox or the solstice. this would show things that the story could not show unless there were left out for an entire year. the last item that i want to address is the issue of the size and scale of the edition. the simple reality is that it was built up to the lot line. the two adjacent houses were not. there is no averaging of this possible that is the averaging of the setbacks and this approach is the second story addition.
8:44 pm
>> i think that the other point, this is about civility and -- they wanted me to read a letter to clarify one of the points. there are claims that this would be derailed by the proposed addition. the truth is that the original system would be inoperable in the shadow of the edition. this is a matter of record. we chose to move ahead despite the shadow. this is an abbreviated system. this will work and deliver something in the summer. the loss of available solar energy will be considerable and in retrospect we should have demanded compensation. instead of some kind of relationship going sour, this is
8:45 pm
on the public record of just to the data that this was not issued. i did not want a contentious relationship at all. >> we have two minutes for the permit holder. you cannot speak under public comment but if there mr. moody went to give some time, you could speak. >> you are probably wondering why i'm spending so much of my life savings building on a lot like this. i love petro hill, we generally have fantastic neighbors. this is a wonderfully supportive community and i plan to spend as
8:46 pm
much of the rest of my life on this property. i don't want to build down the property. there is a circular stair that goes down from my kitchen down to the room below. i have parents did come visit me and i don't want them to stay in downtown -- downstairs bedroom. i would like them to stay as long as they need to. i appreciate your time. thank you. parts anything further from the department? >> commissioners, the matter is submitted? >> would you clear up what implications if any paris as to
8:47 pm
what is and what is not showplace square. >> there is no provisions which would prevent the project. this must be viewed as a whole, not in pieces. it anyone could find it policy that supports his or her position in the general plan so we need to look at this in total and in total this project complies with the general plan. >> thank you. >> there are two issues. one is the issue of the shadow steady and therefore what impact this has on the home.
8:48 pm
as far as i can see, the permit holders property is due north. if there is any impact from that, this is probably a relatively small sliver. i don't even think that would be the case. this would be the reverse situation where the appellant really has some kind of shadow on the project therefore the question of a shadow steady is really a moot because there is no shadow. secondly, in terms of sustainability, the home faces south. how she chooses to balance her heating and cooling is up to her. this is really not impacted by the addition.
8:49 pm
lastly, i find that the position is very modest, as mr. sanchez has said. i think that this is sensitive and sent back on both the front and rear of this small-scale and i am prepared to uphold this permit. >> my comments would have been exactly the same. it seems as though the same issues, i agree with this. the shadow has been dealt with, the orientation is that there was never a need for a steady and there is very little need for an impact given the orientation of the houses and therefore on the sustainability issue, this is a modest addition. this complies with the planning code and with the general plan and is consistent with the
8:50 pm
residential design guidelines and i intent to uphold the permit. >> i think that this is pretty straightforward. i would echo the other comments of my fellow commissioners. there is not here -- enough here to work with for the appeal and i would uphold the permit. >> i would tend to agree. i've suggested and i would have liked to have seen maybe some averaging of the setbacks. that was not done public has the appellants property seems to extend further in the rear.
8:51 pm
i agree with what has been said. >> i have nothing further to add. i hope that you all get along in the future and i understand that this has been tough for all parties but this is a relatively small edition. the shatters study would be moot. -- shadow study would be moved. i move to deny the appeal. >> on the motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit for the reasons stated -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.
8:52 pm
>> there's no further business. >> we are returned -- adjourned.
8:53 pm
>> we thought we wouldd< take ts weekly video out on the road. we are here at recology at the recycling center. if you ever wondered where your recyclables go, and this new mandate for composting, the new challenges and mandates around recycling, what we are trying to achieve -- it all starts right here. we just marked an important milestone in our city. i would argue important this nationn francisco has now achieved a 77% diversion rate, the highest in america. no big city can lay claim to diverting that much of their waste, and that is why that
8:54 pm
composting requirement was so important. this is why our efforts to consumption and distribution and the like of plastic water bottles is so important. it is because we want to reduce that waste going into the landfill. we want to reduce the burden on our environment. we want to create jobs. the folks on the line behind me and above me, those are folks that have employment because of these programs. we have added over 118 people in the last couple of years to the roles of the employed in these green collar jobs because of the recycling and composting programs. we actually created economic stimulus by building facilities like this and putting people to work to do that job. ball the folks out here in the hard hats are also supported by people in the office is doing the processing, doing accounting, doing the bookkeeping, so there is a multiple in terms of jobs that are created because of programs
8:55 pm
like we have established. it was error, we were less than 50%. when i first w6urw@8yyixorwakñwe were roughly 35% effective, which was pretty impressive. it was higher than almost any other big city in this country, but we had an= reaching 50%, and they said it could not be done. we said we would reach 70%, and i was so proud when we broke 72%, and here we are with a goal of 75% by 2010, and not only did we achieve that. as i just region, we are at 77%. on our way -- ahead of schedule in fact, to be at 0 waste by 2020. there is no city that i know of anywhere in the world that could ever even imagine within the next number of years to be at zero ways. this is achievable because think
8:56 pm
about this -- even though we are at 77%, the remaining trash that comes here that ends up in a landfill -- already, we have identified 2/3 of it that could easily be diverted if folks would do more composting at home and do more recycling at home and use these bins you see behind me. i do not want this to become a psa for our recycling efforts, although that is always good, and remember, it is the kids teaching the adults, which is always good. but this is good for the environment, good for the economy, and a san francisco can do this, cities across california and cities across america can do this. i will remind you of the great line by michelangelo, who said that the biggest risk is not that we aim to hawaii and miss but that we aim to low and --. it would have been easy for us to have a goal of 50% recycling rate by 2020. a lot of states, a lot of cities
8:57 pm
across the state, that will be tow%8x4ç:vw1qs8mna ++%uq when you do that, you get people to organize that quality of imagination, where people in the private sector and public sector, using the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit coming up with new ideas and attitudes that may seem untoward or a little controversial or extreme at first, but suddenly, when you peel it back and look back two or three years, you go, "my gosh, that makes so much since." if you make a few mistakes in the process, but ultimately, you create a goal that is accomplished that becomes an example for other people and other cities to achieve with similar goals and accomplish similar efforts. we are really proud of our
8:58 pm
collective effort in san francisco and the people in a city that have stepped up. they mocked us a bit. i even was a little concerned about the composting requirement at first, but now i'm doing it. other folks are doing it, and it is really exciting to achieve these extraordinary goals. green collar jobs. the new economy. this is our future. this is real. it is happening now, and it could be happening everywhere else, not just in the great city and county of san francisco. >> the next time you take a muni bus or train, there could be new technology that could make it easier to get to your destination. many are taking a position of next bus technology now in use
8:59 pm
around the city. updated at regular intervals from the comfort of their home or workplace. next bus uses satellite technology and advanced computer modeling to track buses and trains, estimating are bought stocks with a high degree of accuracy. the bus and train our arrival information can be accessed from your computer and even on your cellular phone or personal digital assistant. knowing their arrival time of the bus allows riders the choice of waiting for it or perhaps doing some shopping locally or getting a cup of coffee. it also gives a greater sense that they can count on you to get to their destination on time. the next bus our arrival information is also transmitted to bus shelters around the city equipped with the next bus sign. riders are updated strictly about arrival times. to make this information available,


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on