we would like for them tuesday, thank you. -- we would like for them to stay, thank you. >> good afternoon. i am here to represent those who have not been represented the about this process. the general plan for san francisco states that the number one priority policy to ensure the city supply of affordable housing, be preserved and enhancing. the permit applicants appears to be removing the 12th affordable housing units. the owner and landlord of the search the 192412-unit apartment building died in april of 2008, leaving the property to her two daughters, permit applicants come up one of which is a residential real-estate agent.

in august of 2008, the new owners initiated eviction proceedings with the help of legal counsel against the 64- year-old 30-year tenant of unit 3. the allegations against the tenets were vicious and ridiculous. the permit applicant initiated four eviction proceedings with legal counsel against the tenant in unit 1, 4, and five. unit 11 filed an unlawful rent increase. the permit applicants submitted legal documentation to tenants which included a unilateral right for them to evict any

rental tenant. the effect was that all units except for four appear to have been vacated. two units are occupy by the permit applicants adult children. the permit applicant appears to be removing up to 12 affordable rental housing units from the market. the planning commission should not reward those who removed affordable housing stock from the market by threatening the eviction of renters. with code exceptions which benefit these people financially to the detriment of the neighborhood. thank you. >> ok, any other speakers in favor of the dr? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to represent the many

units of 1490 affected by the crgarage deck. there are five units next to or above the proposed private unit. all of these units face security issues from the garage deck. there is no fire protection. the proposed building roof deck impacts these five units disproportionately as it is placed on their side of the building. this exposes them to additional noise and security issues of people climbing down a fire escape with direct access to their units. i will now read a statement

regarding the impact of 1490 residents from the former tenant of unit 3. who live there if for 31 years. i resided in unit 3. for 31 years. from 1978 until 2009. it connects to the building next door. many marine the apartment buildings have similar one-story garages. this allows all units of but in both buildings to have windows, light, and air. adding a deck will provide an alliance to the units above. once constructed, there is no control over how and when it is used. it is also -- and will also

cause a loss of privacy for the apartment above and behind the building. allowing this to be built will set a precedent for similar decks in the neighborhood. additionally, adding a deck will be a loss of privacy for all the many buildings and apartment windows it looks down upon. there is no way to control the noise factor. walleye live there, the police were called -- while i lived there, the police were called for a rowdy rooftop party. i respectfully request that you denied this. >> thank you. additional speakers in favor of the dr? project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> good afternoon.

mr. chairman, members of the commission, i am the project sponsor. i am also the project architect. i am here representing the owners of the building. in 2010, we started this process of legalizing a door which was put in to the side where a window was to access the roof. no deck was built at that point. we subsequently have gone through this process with the city planning department. we have submitted a package to the city planning department. we did meet with the neighbors' back in july of last year. from that meeting, we were able to establish some guidelines for putting back deck -- that deck there. if you look at the exhibit number five, a list of

concessions were made. they agreed to. there was one item on that list, which we could not agree to, and that was in creating a wall from 42 inches. we thought it was inappropriate. we had a 55-foot -- they requested a 55-inch height screen between the deck and their property. subsequently, we heard from planning. planning said we cannot have any railings or a wall higher than 42 inches. so we went back to this process of coming to this meeting today to get this approved. if you look through the exhibit 5, you will see that we made concessions to firewall and walkways.

we put our walt 3.5 feedback from the property line -- we put our wall 3.5 feet back from the property line. i will just put this up here. the windows are 88 inches above our deck. very unlikely. we also felt that those windows -- the obscure glass, no one could look into them. they are not operable. there yellowed over with some type of obscure material. the tenants have a view of our

deck. they are far back enough, a sufficient, we would not be encroaching on their privacy. we cannot see into their windows. at no time has the owner of unit 3 entertained the idea of training dogs on this deck. that has never been discussed. that has never been the intent. at no time has she entertained the idea of having rowdy parties on the deck. they have noise policies for the building. it is very unlikely that they will allow parties or anything like that.

one of the things i want to bring your attention to, exhibit 5, we did talk about restricting the use of the deck. we also agreed to restrict the fire protection, the use of barbecues. that was a concern of the neighbor. we did agree to put this in writing. in the animals that were coming to be on the -- any animals that were going to be on the deck would never be unattended. noise would be put to a minimum as to not disturb the neighbors. i am available for additional questions. it is my wish that you would look at this review.

thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. are there any speakers in favor of the project sponsor? >> good afternoon. i am one of the owners of 1490 francisco street. i'm also going to be the one residing in apartment number 3. i wanted to introduce myself. thank you for coming. i spoke to kim back in 2010 when she filed the discretionary review. she is a lovely woman. we had wonderful conversations. i told their if she wanted me to paint the deck purple, i was happy to work with her. it was not until later that i discovered that her kindness was to be used against me at this

type of the hearing. she has turned the neighborhood against me and i've never even met my neighbors. i think it is horrible. i am very well respected person. i have done many years of work in my community improving the lives of many people. i am a former police officer. i know how to follow the law. i am a dog trainer, yes, it is true. why? because i know how to make them behave. i do not walk the dogs on deck. i left my home at 11:00. i am paying $20 an hour for a dog sitter because i do not let my dogs run free. i am certainly not going to want them on a tiny deck. this woman has smeared my character. i am going to ask you to please do what ever you feel is correct in making it possible for me to have the enjoyment i deserve on

my property as a 56-year-old woman. thank you. >> in the other speakers in favor of the project sponsor -- any other speakers in favor of the project sponsor? >> i am the attorney for the owners. i just wanted to touch on two issues. the applicant misconstrue the planning code, section 188 is very clear. the reason that you have the requirement of this open rail link is to continue to provide the air and light and ventilation that our concerns of some of the people in the audience. in terms of section 136, that also has been misconstrued.

the 12 feet refers to the depth of the structure. the existing garage is 12 feet. this is going to be built on that 12 feet. it will be fully code compliant. the 15 feet per first to the area and the rear of the property. although it is considered a garage, this is the side yard. if you pull up the planning commission -- the planning code itself, you can see illustrations that are exactly what this deck is. it tells you exactly what you need. that is what this is going to be. thank you. >> any other speakers in favor of the project sponsor? you have a two-minute rebuttal. dr requestor?

you have a two-minute rebuttal if you choose. >> where to start. i guess -- one issue is with a 42-inch opening rally. anyone can step over that. there is going to be an additional flight added on to the structure. it is going to st. -- go straight up to our property line. anyone can cross that. regarding the rear deck, this is designated as the rear yard. it is 12 feet the. section 136 clearly says -- including naina deck. we did have agreements, but they

were never able to be enforced. we never reached a final agreement. even though -- i thought it was going to all worked out. it all fell apart when we could not find a way to enforce our agreement. that is all i can say. >> project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal, if you choose. >> there is not much to say. we did have the disagreement. it was already written by the neighbor, and provided to us. we agreed to everything on it. however, it changed because of the height of the wall.

we have done everything we could to accommodate the neighbors. we have been over backwards, just to meet their requirements. we think we have done more than adequate to try to address some of their concerns. if you have any questions, i will be glad to answer them. president fong: the public hearing is closed. commissioner moore: i would like to make some comments. the personal disagreements which might have arisen, which have been brought forward, are completely irrelevant to what we are discussing. character assassination -- what we are discussing are the facts, and the experience of how we

look cumulatively and the decision surrounding this project. having said that -- i may not pronounce your name correctly, but i thought i did. i think you extremely well characterized what the situation is. the building type you are describing is not just a privilege to go into the marina and not help. it is everywhere. the buildings of the high you are describing here -- it is also colored buildings in the pacific-broadway corridor. i believe that, and here it comes, i happen to live in a situation like that. i find it more than an acceptable to consider approving. the impact in a densely built up neighborhood, where their regular building types start to occupy the block, create situations which you and other

people have described succinctly. there is not only intrusion of light at night into bedrooms, when the lights on roof decks, which are not limited by time of use, are still on. there is no way you can really get a dark bedroom to sleep. it is a transfer of noise at all times, which might not always coincide with your own life style, i.e. on a saturday or sunday morning, when a cell phone discussion starts on the deck with a person having their first coffee. there is a lot of ability for tolerance, but there are basic situations which make it impossible. as it really interferes with not just living in a kitchen and a living room space, but also a bedroom space, where windows, because of the san francisco ability to have the windows open why you are asleep, becomes

intolerable. i could not see myself supporting this in any shape or form. i am not sure if you have talked to the fire department. these old garages have a narrow exit for the fire escape. initially, the entire roof deck of the garage is to be the exiting corridor. having seen places these ducks have been added, the fire department has to make modifications, because it did not work. >> that is exactly what happened. our first meeting was very adversarial. i was trying to point out the code issues with the fire department. i was dismissed as not understanding the building and fire code. subsequently, i was able to ask the planning department to ask the fire department. some of the changes were not compromises. there were requirements by the fire department.

the setback of the deck was a fire code requirement. the firewall on the property requirement was a fire department requirement. moving it back from the fire escape at the back was a fire department requirement. the lot of these changes were requirements of the fire department. we started having these discussions, and the planning department came back and said this is the rear yard. they would not work with reasonable restrictions, and everything fell apart. commissioner moore: as far as exiting from the fire escape, originally, the fire code was set up that you exit in a straight line, even if it is a diagonal line. you move toward the front of the building to come to the street and go down the ladder. you are creating a circular way.

you, at night, need to find your way around the protrusion of the deck. >> which is probably going to be lit 24 hours. >> for me, it raises questions which are so obvious. these buildings were originally built, as you described it, with the original ground floor garden as a space holder. the buildings collectively agreed how the buildings would orient. >> this was not an original addition to the building. this was a garden, and a garage was added subsequent to this. this is not original. this is a separate structure. commissioner moore: i am not going to jump into what this might mean to future tenants, to have one owner use the garage while the common cost of every homeowner pays for the maintenance of the garage as well as the deck, but that is

another discussion. i will not support this at all. i very much caution the commissioners to listen to what the public has to say, because i think they are completely right. commissioner miguel: i am going to follow somewhat closely with commissioner moore, and also thank you for the display of photos. it shows the general public what commissioner moore was talking about. those of us who know san francisco know the standard building form. there are a few where they are open. most of them have structures put in them. some were originally set up as open gardens. most have had one story structures placed in them. it may be that somewhere in the planning code, or the zoning

administrator's statement, that they are calling this a rear yard. i hope it is put in quotation marks. it is not a rear yard, in a logical sense of the word. i do not want to debate that. that is my opinion, strictly. this is a -- pardon me. i had a cold last week and i cannot get rid of it. what this is is the light and air for the space between buildings. there is a light well, a standard type of light well. but this is a light will between the buildings. it creates an air space. it creates air movement. it also creates a sound alley, as has been described. there is no way i, and i hope

the rest of the commission, would want the department to have to delete a condition that you can only use that back up to a certain hour, or before a certain hour, or allow dogs or not. that is not what enforcement, the commission, and the department exist for. it is ridiculous. as to the roof deck on the top of the building, i could go either way, truthfully. i am going to make a motion, subject to amendment regarding the other roof deck, to take d.r >., not approve the deck on top of the garage structure, require the illegal door to be replaced

with whatever it was beforehand, a window or wall -- i really don't care. as i say, i would be open to any comments regarding the roof deck on top of the proper building. commissioner moore: second. commissioner sugaya: second. commissioner borden: i used to live in this neighborhood. i know the style very familiarly. i want to support to not have the deck above the garage. i think it causes a major nuisance. it is not a publicly accessible and open space. it is not available to everyone in the building. it is the use of one unit at the disadvantage of the larger community. it could be precedent-setting. i understand the project sponsor may have felt this was something they could do, but i think a

better direction to staff in the future is we do not think this is acceptable and should look at how the code needs to be redefined. it does seem to be a side yard, not a rear yard. that needs to be dealt with. in the marina, there are a lot of full lot coverage buildings. you would like to have open space in your own building. we know that many of the buildings of stairs that tick to directly to the roof, and you are allegedly not supposed to go on to the roof. we know that everyone goes on to the roof. we also know it is windy in san francisco and not very warm. so we can predict the times. fourth of july, new year's eve, weekend -- we can predict it. there are not many opportunities when people want to be on a deck, because it is windy. your usually up there to look at something specifically.

those open spaces provide, usually, the only common open space in the building. i rarely see those spaces occupied. what is more common is that people do not have real roof decks, and they go onto the roofs, and they are dangerous. i have been to more than one party on a not-real roof deck, and climbed through all kinds of weird dynamics. i know it happens. it is better to be safe and appropriate, and this looks like it is set back enough that it should not be visible from the street frontage, and definitely not from the sides. if there are other commissioners who feel it has to be resized, i am fine with that. it is important to have accessible open space in your building, if possible. i do believe that most people will be respectful. obviously, there are always people who do not care about the

rules. they do not care about the rules when there is not a real deck. commissioner antonini: i am also concerned that this could set a precedent, so i am concerned about that. looking at the pictures presented of the situations throughout the marina, there are a number of variations on what we see. there is 0 ne on -- there is one on chestnut street that i recognize. there is a garage similar to this, and a car parked next door. that might be similar. are all of these garages necessarily non-conforming or illegal? some may be, and some may not be. >> in this case, the structure is in the required rear yard. i should explain, because there has been quite a bit of questioning.