tonality of this building be lifted slightly more to the light side. i am sorry to be so blunt about it. it does not mean that it is not well designed. it lacks a little bit of better understanding of the color hues of the street. for example, the building next door makes a much larger gesture to the context. i would expect that this building not just operate on the traditional horizontal siding and then cement plaster, which is everywhere else. i am very much -- i would ask that you spend more time with

the detailed elements of the facades. i question the dark tenting on the windows. -- tinting on the windows. i would ask that the department spent more time designing it's a little bit more people friendly? commissioner sugaya: just echoing that comments. we're trying to get to something that is a little bit

-- just taking a look at the street. commissioner antonini: one of the neighbors made a good point. it is different when you are restoring the building. even so, ui think some sort of contextual sympathy to the buildings on the street with regards to the facades come up real treatment, window treatments, would be greatly appreciated. but that is up to staff and

project architecture to work out. i think will hold project is a winner and it should be passed. >> other questions? >> on the motion to not approve the project as proposed. [roll call vote] so moved. that motion passes unanimously. we will place you on item 10. 1490 francisco street. request for discretionary review.

>> are we waiting staff for this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is a request for a discretionary review for a project at 49 d francisco street. -- 1490 francisco street. it is located at the northeast corner of francisco and octavia. adjacent to 1468 francisco. it is occupy by a one-story garage structure. it is occupy by the owners of

which are the request this. the project has three components. the legalization of open space on the roof of the garage located at the properties in eastern and. this rooftop is accessible from one of the buildings units via a door that was installed with a permit. the proposal is to install open railings on the roof to meet building and fire codes. this would be access via stairs. the final component is the addition of new and modified fire escapes and pathways to meet the current fire code requirements for decks. the focus is the deck proposed for the roof of the garage structure.

it should be explained that the broad structure is located in what is considered to be the subject properties rear yard and is up legal noncompliance structure. interpretations of planning code 188, which concerns noncompliant structures, allow the addition of? on the roofs provided data associated railings are visually open and no higher than required by the building code. the additions ofdecks requires a 10-day notice to be sent to owners and occupancy of of budding properties. that is what was done in this case. the garage roof is 35 feet by 12 feet in area. as proposed, decking 35 feet by 12 feet would be installed off by the roof, a 42-inch pipe open

reeling would be installed to separate the usable area from a pathway. as indicated earlier, the garage roof is successful only from one units in the building, unit number 3. the request was filed by kim meyer. the owners of the for condominiums located in a three- story building immediately to the east of the subject property. the front approximately 27 feet of 1468 francisco extend the right to the property line is shared with the subject property. 1468 steps back from the shared property line that includes windows from the bathrooms and kitchens. the front portion of 1468

francisco that extends to the shared property line and adjacent to the garage roof contains to property line windows that belong to unit 1 on the second floor. as you can see from the various -- these to property line windows are set up relatively high in the western wall and appeared to be glazed with non transparent glass. the concerns include potential impacts at the garage roof deck to their privacy, light, and there. there is concern that it will be a source of noise. it is the department's position that the project does not contain extraordinary circumstances. the two property line windows that are immediately adjacent to the garage roofdeck are set high in wall. it would be accessible from a single unit. the usable area would be

separated by at least 3 feet from the eastern and southern parameters. the department would note that if the garage structure was not present, the rear yard could be used as open space without permits being required at all. the impact is open space, it would be similar to impacts greeted by the garage roof. the recommendation is that the commission not take dr and approve the project as proposed. >> thank you. dr request your, you have five minutes. -- requestor, you have five minutes. >> ok.

thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak on behalf of the owners of our building and the renters as well. i live at 1468 francisco street. it is a four units right next to 49 defense discuss street. -- 1490 francisco street. i have lived in the marina for 24 years.

some more pictures. what you can seek is these are pretty much all of the bedroom windows. this is my bedroom window. it is a glass. it could easily be broken into. i am very concerned about security issues. these other windows have line of sight directly to the? deck. all of our bedrooms and kitchen windows have access to that deck as well. the open bedroom windows are the only open -- source of light and air from those units. you can see my security concern with anybody ought not -- on that deck.

it also affects five other unitst. he deck is going there. they will be affected the same way. they have direct line of sight, privacy issues. this is also a very narrow at neuss tunnel. it is very narrow and everything that goes in this area. -- echoes in this area. we would like to argue that this deck is not legal. only if there is no increase in discrepancy. the current code says that a structure in a rear yard cannot occupy any space within 15 feet of the death of a lot or the

property line. -- depth of the lot or the property line. it is closed to all of our units. a later interpretation of that section, adding neuss on to noncompliant structure by returning a shed into a deck was a discrepancy. their rear yard is an amenity for all residents of the building. when someone tried to turn it into private use, it was denied because it was a discrepancy. clearly, we think this is not legal under code. it also affects numerous people in the neighborhood. [inaudible]

you will see that everyone around here, the red building is 1490. our people are directly concerned. i also have 85 signatures on a petition. half of the signatures come from the other side of the marina. i talked with each and every person who signed this petition. half of them are concerned because [inaudible] they are on every corner. they are designed to be uninhabited spaces that provide light, air, and privacy. it has been there since the 1920's. what we ask -- we think these decks changes the neighborhood

character. we believed it is illegal overcoats. neither is needed. but a roof deck for all of the units gets rid of the need for a private unit for one per cent and changes the face of the neighborhood. -- for one person and changes the face of the neighborhood. if it were adjusted -- >> your time is up. now calling speakers in favor of the dr. i have a stack of cards. [reading names]

>> commissioners, thank you. this project started out with construction a year and a half ago. it is not part of the original building. it is a separate building. they got caught, the city gave them a citation. that started a chain of events to pull a permit. since that permits, they have pulled 20 permits on this building. they have been -- we of all lee complained about one issue, the decks. there are two decks. they started off with a private deck. we are not happy about the roof deck. this is located right here, in

the discussion, there will be two fire walls. there is a fire wall around their deck, and directly next to our property lines. the issue is this deck primarily. there is a neighborhood pattern. the classic design is the bookend. the build date -- everyone in this building is on the corner, has one of their to property line walls said back one garage over. they put windows on it. the adjoining neighbor has windows on their property line. it is classic design. that was a design feature. these are pictures after pictures of buildings that have this feature.

if you put a garage on this, the first person, everyone is going to do it. if you allow someone to build eight roof deck on this, you will be affecting all of the neighbors and establishing a precedent. why is my client care? these two windows look like they are white high up in the air. i can stand on this roof and look in today's windows. they're going to raise it up about a foot. they will be able to look into this window. you can walk right up to the window. there will be a little partition, but you will have direct access. i work with the architect. we thought we had something we could live with. if you have your deck, build a privacy screen.

it came back that the planning department said, to our disbelief, this section of the building, that they could build something even more. the only thing you could build with a deck. when we ask for a privacy screen, that would require a variance. i am missing something here. you should -- if you are going to build, at least crete some minimization of the impact. maybe it is an impact you should not have they deck there. we have worked -- we have looked at the planning code. it seems pretty clear.

the garage is there. i believe it should be open space, but open space at 10 feet up in the air next to the second floor is not a good place to have that. we request that if you have to allow them to have day deck, -- have a deck. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am an owner of unit 4 on 1468 francisco. i have all of the unit for approximately five years, put my life savings into it so far. my problem with this is a quality of life issue. i'm self-employed, i work from home often. the window that is shown is my bedroom window. it is the only window in my

bedroom that opens up. it is my only window for light and air. i keep it open to delta breeze from the street. if there are barbecues or dogs, noise, smell of smoke, it already comes into the backyard. to have another deck, it really sacrifices my right to light and air. noise is magnified coming down through this corridor. you hear people on this side walk all the time. their voices are magnified when they walk by. i would ask the commission to consider our viewpoint and to not allow this deck. if they want to have barbeques,

have them on the roof. just like everybody else in the marina. this is a case of one person benefiting. i would ask that you do not approve this project. and that you keep the 1468 francisco homeowners under consideration. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am a renter at 1468 francisco street. i share my one-bedroom unit with my wife and my eight-month-old son, jack. my unit is beneath ben's. i am on the same level as this rooftop carriage. let me show you the view from within my bedroom. this is our baed. this is the top of the garage.

it is not pretty. it has resting fins -- rusty fencing along the top. there is never any one on top of the roof. it is the only when do that we get the sunlight directly into because we are at the back of the unit. if we have a deck on not approve garage, you can see that people standing there, it is not going to make our bedroom very nice. we will have to have the curtains closed all the time. we will have to have the windows closed all the time. it is going to make life difficult. trying to get to sleep, we do not know who is going to take

over this unit. from my point of view, i would very much like that you reject this deck on the top of this garage. it is going to make our lives very difficult. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am here to speak on behalf of the renters in the 12-inch rent- controlled building at 3320 octavia street. it is this white building here. the building is directly adjacent to 1490. people on the broad deck have a line of sight through all of these windows.

in addition, all noise from people, parties, conversations, dogs, bounces off the walls and carries to the noise tunnel. this pride deck will impact the quality of life on all the renters in this unit. the roof deck present noise issues and privacy and security issues as well. i've read a statement from 3320 octavia, who cannot be here today. i have lived at 3320 octavius street for over 20 years. i had corresponded earlier with the owners. i have concerns about the noise and fire hazard. they did allay my concerns

somewhat about the fire danger, but i have serious concerns about the noise and possible damage. during the bridge anniversary fireworks, everyone from 1490 what directly over 3320's roof so they could see better. i understand that it was a special event. i can imagine people will be walking on the 3320's groove on a much more regular basis. never mind the smell of smoke, it will increase the noise of the tenants. it also increases the likelihood of damage. at the time i was e-mail and the owners, i did not realize they've wanted to add a second deck above the garage. why is that necessary? the alley is noisy enough as it is.

you can hear every one going up and down the wooden stairs. not only will introduce on welcome noise, it it will block light. i cannot imagine such a deck benefits anyone. please do not approve either deck. thank you. >> [reading names] >> good afternoon. i live at 3149 golf street just around the corner from the project property. i someone who lives in the neighborhood that has many locations where these garages

group? might be, i have several concerns. we live very close to one ourselves. they can have a net negative impact on the privacy of surrounding neighbors. most are situated in places that are immediately adjacent to the living spaces of the neighbors bedrooms, dining rooms, kitchens, offices. the people who gather on the deck are so close they can easily over here what is being said. they are invasive, i feel, in the worst way and can make already cramped living conditions seem even more cramped. it can create anxiety and stress for the people who live near them. my second concern is that the noise from these decks would be amplified because they are located in narrow spaces between buildings.

these are not rooftop decks. these garages decks -- the sound goes directly into the units around them. the resulting noise can be so loud and interests of that is disruptive to the lives of the people living nearby. finally, it seems obvious enough to me, but these spaces were designed for very specific functions. air, light, and access. they were not designed as recreational areas. they should be maintained as spaces or air and light and access can be provided. thank you.