Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  January 28, 2019 2:00am-3:01am PST

2:00 am
as a scheduled program. it's extremely important and i think the courage the city and the department has for the support of all other city family groups should be heard by other cities and we can only try to lead it. i would like to also asking anybody who still has connectio connections to the planning universities and those teaching planning and urban design do not negligence negligencely -- necessarily reflect the profile and if we open the door, make sure we speak to a larger audience able to hear us. >> thank you, commissioner moore. okay. thank you very much. >> clerk: that places us on item le for case
2:01 am
11. 2018-008877cua (d. ganetsos: and 1519 polk street. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the request is for conditional use authorization for a bar to exist in an existent and vacant storefront at 1519 polk street in the polk street neighborhood commercial district. the project would activate one of five store fronts. the subject space is approximately 1,380 square feet with 805 request at the first floor and a 575 square foot
2:02 am
basement and no tenants would be displaced. it includes window replacement and improved ten ent improvements and new business sign. since it was published the council has received two letters of support of which i have copies for interested parties and it's consistent with the general plan necessary designerable floor and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and recommends approval. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you very much. do we have public comment on the item? thank you.
2:03 am
>> i'm a bit nervous and it's hard to follow what we just all talked about. hello and good afternoon. my name is is abury brie na sabrina and we feel our bar for win and cheese would make a great addition. we own a wine bar in the jackson square neighborhood. we've been in the same location since january 2012 and very much enjoy the service industry and no well about the blood, sweat and tears that running a business entails. the last two years we've been in search a small intimate and cozy wine bar to chase yet another dream. in january of 2018 we found the perfect location right next to swan's oyster depot on 1519 polk
2:04 am
street. my native san francisco self said that's it. this is a day where you can hang up your worry and sit back and enjoy the moment. be it with friends, your love, your family, co-worker, a welcoming and vibrant environment where everyone feels successful. we have done this with bask and want this to be in our wine bar. we'll offer the traditional to the complex, cheese boards to enhance the place of your wine or a place where you can find some non-traditional funky cheese. my cheese boards and char cuterie boards will be paired with unconventional sides. i enjoy chocolate to i'd like to only have chocolate desserts on my menu because a wine, cheese and chocolate bar sounds heavenly. i have contacted our neighborhood associations.
2:05 am
they are pretty positive and they all seem to be on board and have positive feedback. we are over joyed as the possible of aura becoming a reality at 1519 polk. thank you for your time. >> thank you. so if we could have public comment on this item, anyone please come up. >> good afternoon. i'm susan markel fox a resident of the neighborhood where the wine bar is proposed. i am firmly and fully in favor of it. we're very excited to have a wine bar in the neighborhood where it's in fact two blocks away from the next wine bar. it's not a con ver -- convergence of that entity.
2:06 am
i hope you consider it. >> thank you very much. any other public comment on this item. with that public comment is now closed. commissioner moore. >> given the smallness and location of space it's an ideal place for a small wine bar. it happens to be three blocks from where i live and think it is a great addition including preventing that we have vacant storefronts. we are talking about that and the more we can keep couldn't newton an -- continuity on an active corridor the better. >> cheese and wine. >> second. very good commissioners there's been a motion to approve the matter with conditions. on that motion, commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner hill. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> clerk: the motion passes 6-0. item 12 was continued to april 4
2:07 am
placing us on item 13 at 277 jetson avenue a discretionary review. please note after hearing and closing public comment you continued the meater to december 13th with direction from the commission with a vote of 6-4. commissione commissioners fong and hill were absent and you continued the matter to today. commissioners fong, hillis you need to review the materials. >> i have. >> i did not. >> clerk: commissioner richards, you may not participate. >> the item before you is a publicly initiated request for a
2:08 am
permit proposed for 274 johnson avenue. 6:it's within the outer neighborhood and outside of city college. the planning commission heard the project at the october 18, 2018 hearing. at that time the commissioner continued the item and provided direction to the sponsor as follows further conversation for the proposed project and illustrate the proposed project and existing conditions. the proposed project entails a rear addition, exterior stairs for the usable open space in rear and changes to the front facade and the legalization of a unit at the lower level of the existing two-story building. the proposed expansion will
2:09 am
increase the total square footage by approximately 1900 square feet and increase the size of both units while adding common space where little or non currently exists. the proposal will not increase the height. the requesters' concern include loss of height and air due to the addition, loss of privacy to the d.r. filer's property and loss of use and potential use of the property as student or group house. the project sponsor has indicated to staff additional communication with the d.r. filer to clarify points about the proposal. the sponsor has revised the plan in response to the plan commission's direction. specifically, all east facing windows have been eliminated which a concern identified and resized to better illustrate the proposed project. and consistent with the and
2:10 am
review to ensure the property remains a building and not result in student or group housing by applying the following condition to the project. all interior work shall be reviewed by the planning department and shall not include the addition of new bathrooms or bedrooms. i believe the project sponsor's present i'm available for any questions and this concludes my presentation. >> thank you very much. we'll hear from the d.r. requester. >> good evening, commissioners. since i was here last time, unfortunately we didn't come to any result. what happened we met once briefly for 45 minutes with architect and there was the privacy issue. the rest was not even open.
2:11 am
i would like to recap what's bugging us or why we have a problem with the project. the openness of the properties there's seven properties on judson avenue and all have the same footprint which basically means from the back side you have the same openness and feeling. with this proposed project how the building is proposed, we're literally being enclosed. there is a study on the plan and the shadow study is misleading because it just shows the noon light which in reality around will be 3:00 p.m. will be in the shadow of the building which means with our foot print,
2:12 am
bedroom and living spaces down below are not getting sunlight. we like to sit on the bench as well a lot of and so basically where i'm going with this is i would like to see changed to the project on this particular issue to satisfy their needs and address our issues which every time ask them to do some kind of revisions, maybe shorten or with the first proposal they had make sure it was three stories because it's a project that sits on the downhill so you can excavate and create two levers and the third could be open. every time i bring anything like that i'm shut down that it won't happen. we don't go further with it.
2:13 am
secondly, we requests the monitoring of occupancy. since they bought the property out was turned into dorms and created a bedroom and moved in a bunch of students and the whole project still looks to me this is just designed to move more people in. we live in single residential housing but it's still -- >> >> commissioner: thank you, sir. >> they're moving a lot of people there. >> commissioner: thank you, sir, your time is up. >> you'll have time for a rebuttal. >> thank you. we may have questions.
2:14 am
>> commissioner: there may be questions from the commissioners. do we have any public comment in support of the d.r. requester? then we'll hear from the project sponsor. >> good afternoon. i'm the architect. so last time we were here on october 18 to present our project and then the commissioner referred us to have a further discussion so we had a meeting in november. it lasted about 45 minutes and we discussed the requester's
2:15 am
concerns. the first is the light issue. then we told them we have done extensive solar study. so we have in the morning 10:00 a.m. there's no shadow and at noon no shadow and start at 2:00 p.m. there's gradually shadow but there's vegetation and they cast shadow to their own house as you can see from the diagram. i also explained that the whole neighborhood has this development pattern with the extension towards the back yard because all the lots have extensive back yards existing. so we are one to develop and
2:16 am
make the addition in the back. we provide the corridor with the extra set back. there's no set back required but we have a 12-foot setback for the rear corridors. we also addressed the privacy issue and they're concerned about their privacy. so the owner tried to compromise and make the compromise with the neighbor to sacrifice their use of the deck is there's no deck facing their property. even now no window, not a single window including the bathroom. so the owner is willing to have a skylight or some internal
2:17 am
natural light purpose in order to satisfy the requester. we also have done extensive neighborhood outreach and we have overwhelming support. we have 13 people signed up for the support. and only the neighbor that has the concern. so we tried to work as hard as possible. the main reason for this suggestion is the monetary issue. they request over $60,000 for monetary compensation which is [indiscernible]. thank you for your support. i hope you can support this project. >> commissioner: thank you. do we have any public comment in support of the project sponsor? public comment is now closed. we go on to commissioners. what do we think?
2:18 am
>> commissioner: we're being encouraged to look at it as a two-unit building and the layout still resembles what we had questions on before. for me it's difficult to believe the lower unit which is not completely separate from the upper unit is a full-fledged living area because it comes from components of the corridor to dining to the unit has no
2:19 am
windows. so that living space itself is windowless. i'm wondering how that works for a family in a two-bedroom facility. when the department says enforcement would determine who lives here in terms of family members, i'm wondering if there's the oversight capacity to really see that because the number of bedrooms, six bedrooms, five bath leaves questions on the clarification we asked. my own questions are not fully answered. i'm wondering if you have had additional applications with te
2:20 am
applicant -- conversations wi wiwith the additional discussions with the applicant to help us understand. >> you can see the setbacks from the building and that's the living room you're referencing. that's the entrance and has windows and they're dashed in. >> you're talking about the living area in the lower floor which is completely internalized to the building and bordered by the garage on the west side it then fits in the center of the
2:21 am
building with the a.d.u. being outbound and then it's basically bedrooms with windows to the rear. there's no light in that room and wondering how those simple moves create a livable unit. i assume students could accommodate each other for a situation like that but for a family i find it harder to understand. i wonder if there's discussion you had had on how that would work. >> the living unit is split in two floors and the lower level plan on sheet 2.2 and the in-law unit is in the back and the main unit including the new t vroom and -- tv room and kitchen and there's internal stairs which
2:22 am
goes up to the mainly level as you see it from the street. those are the bedrooms associated with the main unit. is that it, commissioner moore? >> commissioner: yes. >> commissioner: commissioner hillis. >> i kind of agree with commissioner moore. maybe i can ask the architect. we tend to get not terribly involved how people live in a space but we do want it to be livable. it's a bit of an odd configuration you have. can you walk through how it works with the lower portion
2:23 am
having the living area of the unit. there's just the window of the kitchen looking out to the front stoop for the other unit. >> okay. basically this is a very unique housing for a unique family. traditionally chinese family live with the elder parents. right now their parents are over 90 and both are healthy but they want to spend the years in the home instead of sending them to a care home. so i'm so touched for that. they will have the upper level. the existing bedrooms but at the same time they may have caretakers to stay with them. and the children right now are in the 60s and probably want to
2:24 am
live there mainly a daughter will stay there and then the other siblings will visit once in a while. they plan to live there and for cooking, the elder parents don't cook. they just serve upstairs so they have the kitchen and dining downstairs for convenience. >> commissioner: how big are both units? do you have the square footage? >> the upper floor -- >> commissioner: 1,168 is what
2:25 am
it says for the main flooring. >> commissioner: and 618 on the lower floor but the 906 square foot-in-law unit. okay. thank you. i appreciate it. for the d.r. requester -- it's big. the expansion is big. it's good that it's two units. we like it's two units. i didn't hear from you and you have it extended into the back and your neighbor on the other side has. wa are you looking for on this? what are you asking for from the changes they made since the first hearing. >> the first drawings produced there was a total maze but they
2:26 am
have shown the ability they can excavate because it was three stories from that side. >> commissioner: it's not three stories anymore. given the current plans, what are you asking for? >> can you go back to the original layout and they created the first floor or basement floor on the other side with the excavation and the third floor can be recessed another 10 feet and create the deck on the top of it which opens everything. >> commissioner: so your concern is the upper floor extends back. >> about 21 feet or something like that. >> commissioner: what have you asked for to extend?
2:27 am
>> we were asking to go back to how the existing building is at this moment extended maybe another five feet or whatever and just have the second floor. so the top floor can be, again, i'm not going to go in the details how i want to see that house how i would design it but i was looking at this. >> commissioner: you're hear at the d.r. request i'm not asking you about the internal layout what you would do so where do you think there's an extraordinary impact on you? >> the whole section on the same level the street level that goes 21 feet that completely blocks us away from that open space that we have. we live next to the city college and it's a nice area and we are being tunnelled. and the house to the left of us
2:28 am
built in the '70s or whatever that's enroaching on the property line but that's we bought it so we went into that knowingly. >> commissioner: thank you. >> so i rode my bike out to the location after the first hearing. the subject property is not in terribly good shape so i think there is some work needed. and i don't know if any of you have gone out there. it's right next to city college. it's the last house and it's on a very steep slope. so i could visualize having the two stories extending back from the original house and how
2:29 am
intrusive that would be. however, now seeing the new plans they were three stories, i like this better. i think you will get some shade in the afternoon as the sun sets and it don't see this rising to the level of extraordinary. the house on the occur side of you has done essentially the same thing. so i would be interested in seeing what my other commissioners have to say. i don't want to get into the issue of like who's going to live there. i don't think it's appropriate. i think six bedrooms for a
2:30 am
two-unit family is okay. it seems in proportion to what it's intended for. commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i do not have any question about the size of the family. i think certainly the room for the future kids and guest room for future kid in the lower level creates a lot of extra unspecified volume in a building that's [indiscernible] there's tv corners and there is a bedroom for a worker, tenant one. there's a lot of things hard to understand when it comes to extend the majority of the footprint by 21 feet and to the rear. and otherwise creating a floor
2:31 am
plan that's a little bit more compact and explainable. >> commissioner: thank you. commissioner johnson. >> commissioner: i have one question. this new plan gets rid of the windows as a compromise but i'm curious what quality of the other spaces we're left with and how we if i'm hearing correctly, it's like well, there's openness from the d.r. requester to a third floor. i was just wondering, do we actually serve anyone by that compromise? i would love staff direction or
2:32 am
feedback from fellow commissioners. >> i think all the windows are south facing so they'll be capturing all the light as the sun does move from east to west so that's one up side to this particular property and a benefit of removing the windows to provide privacy to the adjacent neighbor. i'm not as familiar to the d.r. requester's interest in having the third floor as having the same or less impact they currently feel is perceived related to the shadow and impacts internal layout. we could have department staff working closely on this and speak to more detail on that particular topic.
2:33 am
>> natalia with department star. the masting proposed with the neighborhood notification is something that can happen in the future. we would probably request some setbacks from the front and side or something to move forward with but it would require a new neighborhood notification and require some guidelines but it would be possible. >> commissioner: thank you. would anybody like to make a motion or make a further comment? commissioner hillis. >> i think i'm on the fence as it rises to extraordinary. it's big. i think it's seven bedrooms, correct, on both units if you
2:34 am
count both it's seven. my concern is how far back you go. it's not how you lay out the space, it's how far you go back to the backyard given the pattern there. i think the neighbor directly adjacent who filed the d.r. is impacted and they'll be boxed on either side and they'll be boxed on this side. that so me is a concern. we're creating an effect. i know you set it back but you still go back far. i don't know what a solution is for that. i think it would entail if you didn't come back as far and sook seven or five or 10 feet off i think you'd lose one of those bedrooms you have back there. the two bedrooms can be converted to one bedroom but you have seven bedrooms here. that's my only concern.
2:35 am
is the pattern back there and boxing in the neighbor but does that rise to an extraordinary circumstance. >> commissioner: commissioner moore. >> i hear commissioner hillis express the same concern that the layout as proposed seems to still have a lot of volume in it which could be reasonably reduced. there are two bedrooms assigned to future users. the tv corners can also be optimized a little bit to be in locations where they don't necessarily push the building by 21 feet out. i would suggest that we perhaps have the architect consider reducing the depth of the extension and perhaps redust it by eight feet or 10 feet and examine how laying out the rooms in a reasonable pattern and
2:36 am
perhaps dropping a bathroom creates a layout that's not as impacting. i think that's a fair compromise because there's two of us looking at the same issue including examining how to add outside connection to the lower living area. you can make it a full-fledged living room downstairs for the large family. that's the second thought but the first in terms of economizing and stringing rooms together in a more reasonable pattern and assigning real people and perhaps dropping a bedroom or bathroom. that's the strategy i would recommend and modifying the project to look at the reduction of a minimum of eight feet by rearranging bedrooms and considering dropping a bathroom and assigning certain secondary spaces for the lifestyle of the
2:37 am
family where they're not adding to the linear length of the expansion. >> i'd like to hear from the project sponsor what they think about that. i had my 98-year-old grandma living with me for a long period of time. she wasn't at the point where she needed a staff to help. but she is now so i understand the need of staff for the support and i get it about the unit but living in an extended family situation with a person elderly needing support requires physical needs. and i agree there's a lot of
2:38 am
unused space and it's redundant but i'd like to hear from the project sponsors what they think about the doability about taking it back 10 feet. is that what we said? >> like a seven-foot impact could make a difference and only on the top level. as you go down, it's not as impactful to the neighbor. how much can we reduce the depth of the top level. >> it's the bottom level i think meant for the elderly parents, right? >> the top level. >> the top? >> i'd like to clarify the main unit is four bedrooms. the reason for this layout is the neighbor's conversation and
2:39 am
there's a renovation in the back. the outline we tried to preserve but you could see the top level was the "l" shaped living space but it's okay because it's not for a traditional living room but we prefer to have a sitting area with a quiet corner. then we meet the requirements for daylight with two windows at the front and skylight in the middle of it.
2:40 am
i can see the concern from commissioner moore at the back we can pull the top level a little bit by five or six feet so they can have a deck. they really want to have a deck. they could have some fresh air at the top. i can try to work around that. i don't mind to have conditional approval to address the issue an make a better solution. thank you. >> commissioner: was that a motion commissioner moore? >> commissioner: yeah, that was a motion but we may have to rephrase it in a manner that it hits the areas of our concern not so much the lower level but we would like to see a contraction on the main level to create seven to eight feet of
2:41 am
contracti contraction. >> commissioner: will the motion work to reduce it by seven or eight feet with a deck. you were interested in a deck which is fine and we'll take the d.r. and make that adjustment. is that fine? >> we could do that and still maintain the condition the department has added and incorporate that because it will hold irrespective of the other changes we're suggesting. >> second. >> commissioner: then the department will work with the applicant for that to occur. >> commissioner: seeing nothing further, commissioners, there's a motion that's been seconded to take the d.r. andism pose a condition that the -- and impose the condition the top floor of the proposal be reduced by a depth of seven feet. and to allow a deck to replace
2:42 am
that horizontal addition as well as department staff's recommended conditions of approval on that motion, commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> can i clarify with the commissioner for one moment, when we're shaving seven feet from 21 feet -- >> commissioner: you can only put it on the same footprint. >> as the reduction. okay. >> commissioner: yeah. >> okay. >> on that motion commissioner moore. >> aye. >> and commissioner president melgar. >> aye. >> the motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners that places us on item 14 for case 2017-013175drp
2:43 am
funston avenue. you can speak to staff -- case 2016-005189drp at 216 head street. this is from application for the publ public initiated request for building permit 2010-1105. the resource status is a category c. the building was demolished by emergency order per d.p.i.
2:44 am
the reason for the d.r., the d.r. requester of the merced triangle neighborhood association are concerned with six main issues. first, drainage, second increased density above the zone single-family land use and blockage of existing windows and skylights. sorry, third. four, sunlight and access to solar panels will be blocked by the new construction and impacts to emergency access on the dead-end street as a result of the new construction. and six, seismic hazard of the three story house will jeopardize the safety of the immediate maybers. -- neighbors. the d.r. requester has requested to reduce it by six inches or less and reduce the depth to 46
2:45 am
feet 11 inches or less and provide a setback on the north side adjacent to the d.r. requester and provide property water drainage system. there's been no letters in opposition or support of this d.r. in light of the d.r. requester's concerns, residential design advisory team we reviewed it with the guidelines and confirmed the scale and masting is compatible with the adjacent building and the requests are not exceptional or extraordinary. fire safety and drainage issues are regulated by the department of building inspection not the planning department. and the increased density a the zone single-family land use is speculation. what is proposed complies with the current zoning and any infraction would become an
2:46 am
enforcement issue should somebody decide to make it a two-unit building or more and the proposed blockage or diminishment of light to the existing windows and skylights are not exceptional or extraordinary and property lines and windows are not protected. access to solar panels will also likewise not protected and impact to emergency access of dead-end streets is not a planning issue but greater density exists without detriment to the public safety and welfare and the six-story house would not be considered a seismic hazard. with this the project meets the department's standards and guidelines and recommend the department do not being sept the d.r. and this concludes my presentation. i'm here to answer questions. thank you. >> commissioner: we'll now hear
2:47 am
from the d.r. requester. >> good afternoon. i'm mark christianson of the association known as metna. it's representing two neighbors who own property at 216 head street and 3521 almeida neighborhood and will testify. at the time of the original building permit application filed on november 5, 2010 there was a blighted abeen abandoned building i'd like to show if possible. that's the front of the building and sat there for 15 years in that condition. this is also another picture of the front.
2:48 am
neighbors had to look at. here's pictures of the back. this one in particular shows you the depth of the height of that building. they want to put a building in way above in here somewhere. above there. this is ms. lopez' building right there. at the time of the original building permit application filed. please note the two-page summary of complaints of violations filed over a period of 15 years from july 21, 2003 to may 18, 2018 when the structure was finally demolished and turned in when i filed the d.r. this has occurred over the period of time. unbelievable and nothing was addressed by the property owners, nothing.
2:49 am
a preapplication meeting on april 7, 2017 did not list as new construction but rather a vertical addition of seven feet or more and a horizontal addition of 10 feet or more. there's a serious question as to the validity of what is listed on the pre-application meeting form. metna is asking for discretionary review with the number of issues you just heard of i will review. the previous building on the property was a one-story structure with at least a five-foot setback on the north side of the property and a much larger backyard. i want to show you what the backyard looked like. that is the backyard of the building where the house was existing. i took it and they want to come back to there and come way back
2:50 am
through there. almost doubling and tripling the size of the building. the proposed height and depth of the residential design will cast shadows for most of the properties to the north and alameda boulevard to the east and two skylights and a slanted roof and solar panels to the northeast on 3521 alameda property you'll hear about from mr. chow.
2:51 am
>> 216 sits at a higher elevation than 218 had and there are further concerns the water from the newly constructed
2:52 am
sidewalk and repaving portion will cause additional problems. i will show you that picture. there is the picture in front. >> commissioner: thank you, sir, your time is up. >> i thought i was given five minutes. you will have a two minute rebuttal. >> i will have a chance to talk a little more. i wanted to discuss a few other things. thank you. i appreciate the time, and we will move forward. thank you. >> commissioner: we will now hear in the public comment in support. i have a few public speaker cards. line up on the left side of the microphone, please. i have glenn rogers, andrew lopez, glenn, paul chow and mark christianson. >> mr. christian son you can't
2:53 am
speak again in public comment. >> that is not mr. christian son. he just filled out a speaker card. that is all. >> good afternoon, i am paul chow adjacent member and metna member. i have owned the property since 2010. i reside there. thank you for allowing me to speak. i welcome the construction of a new home at 216 head street. it will benefit the neighborhood compared with the previous dilapidated structure. my concerns involve the scope of the proposed project, size of the building in square footage, the five bathrooms and height and depth of the structure. the listing owner/representative alfred lee was responsible for
2:54 am
the other properties. they turned out to be four story apartment complexes. i would like to show you that. this is what it looks like. now he is trying to repeat the process at 216 head street making this a multi-unit rental property. this pattern of bad behavior has dramatically affected me with water drainage issues flooding my garage and damaging my property. they have over taken the limited amount of street parking and the height and depth of the proposed building will block sunlight and create shadowing. i am an educate or trying to teach by example. following the initiative i have installed solar panels on my roof and drive a plug in vehicle. i don't think anyone will disagree solar energy is bad for
2:55 am
the environment. this will discourage my continuing effort to go green by installing more panels. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is sandra lopez. i own 218 head street. i have owned the property for 30 years, and i am also a member of the medna. i have the main concern with this new building is that i am suffering continuous flooding into my property because of the high dirt they have there. i would like to see drainage system that is really not going to create any future problems to my property or my neighbor's
2:56 am
property. the proposal of the new building is back 12 inches. it used to be we used to have a higher earth. that is what we used to have before the setback. now it is only 12 inches. when i need to do some work on my siding, it is not going to allow me any space. the garages proposed are next to my two bedrooms where my family lives and myself. this can create a hassle. if someone is driving reckless they will go to my bedroom. i don't have a garage to protect me between the two properties. there is no footing detail. i have requested that before. i want to see the impact on my
2:57 am
foundation in having this tall building next to my residents. there is no detail in the drawings. i would like to see an environmental study. they are going to be building on this part of the city on the sandy soil, i believe that can create a problem if it is not done right. i would like to see an environmental study. in the past i have tried to contact the owner. i have never been able to deal with him directly, but only to his representative. we don't even know where he is right now. in blocking my two windows, by law, my understanding is in case of fire hazard i have to have a window and access space in case of a fire escape.
2:58 am
i know my time is up. i want to show you the damage for the flooding to if basement -- to the basement. in one of the pictures and this is the second picture. the representative they haven't removed the door or done anything about the drainage system. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
2:59 am
>> i am glenn rogers, i am a registered landscape architect. i would like to provide a pro official opinion of the property at 216 head street. numerous cars parked at the street with only four houses that are located there. this is because living those living at 208 and 212 head street have so many people living there. originally planned to be a single family resident after the residences were completed, they quickly became apartments with five to foreignters living there. it is not uncommon to have as many as 20 cars parking along head street. it is my concern the construction of 216 head street would be similar to 208 and 212 head street, therefore, the neighborhood would like to stop the over development of the
3:00 am
property here. in this picture, the view of the side of the building at 212 head street is on display. one coat of paint was applied to the side of the house. today mold and mildew can be seen all alongal main neboulevard and for blocks away. when new construction occurs 216 there would be two coats of paint and anti-mold additive to the paint to provide a more attractive appearance. in this picture, you can see a mound that was added when construction occurred at 208 and 212 head street. normally when it rains on sandy soil the waters


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on