tv [untitled] July 12, 2012 3:30am-4:00am PDT
3:30 am
>> good afternoon. i am the owner of unit 2 at 1468 francisco street. i am here today to support the residents of 1468 to express the concerns that you have already heard. for all of the reasons that have already been expressed here. i have spent most of my savings and plan to retire here. therefore, i urge you to stop the building of these decks for all the reasons you have already heard. thank you very much. >> good afternoon,
3:31 am
commissioners. i live on the other side of the marina. i am a renter. it has the exact same situation. we are next to this large building and that is the roof deck that would be affected. our kitchen and their front windows are adjacent, and even now, when i am out on bill littledeck in front of the house, i can see right over to the roof and see into the neighbor's house as if their curtains are up. it is an uncomfortable feeling. it is not a feeling of privacy or all lot of comfort in my home. i want to suggest that setting a
3:32 am
precedent like this is not a great idea. it is all over the marina. i had not realized until i started looking. i will read a comment from my neighbor, who lives at 1473 francisco. he could not be here. he wrote the following. i have enjoyed living on francisco street for over 14 years. i am not in favor of the additional deck on the garage. noise will be an issue. i think sfpd has a better use of a time when responding to complaints. this sets a bad precedent, please do not permit it. thank you. and >> good afternoon. i am a resident of san francisco and then lived in the marina for about half of the time. i am here to speak for some of
3:33 am
the neighbors who could not come today. the first person is maria, who lives across the street. a family of four. i am a resident of the 1400 block of francisco street. i have been a resident for 20 years. it is a beautiful walk and we wanted to remain that way. without loud people partying, and garbage clutter. the deck on the roof is a huge concern as well. imagine what a real deck will introduce. it is unsafe to have people eating and drinking up in an exposed area with note safety bars. it is also annoying hearing be sound travel down the block. please stop the planning of the
3:34 am
deck. many neighbors are disputing the request. i also have been another comment from another neighbor. she lives on the southwest block of octavia street near the building that has already been discussed. dear planning commission, this would disrupt the look of the marina neighborhood. if one gets away with it, more will appear in the neighborhood. the neighborhood would be noisy. we currently have neighbors with a deck on francisco who party quite often. the whole square block can hear them. some of them -- some of us have complained to the owners. their quality of life would be disrupted and may affect our property values. we're only half a block away. please do not allow decks to be
3:35 am
built. thank you. >> thank you. [reading names] >> good afternoon. i am president of the golden gate valley neighborhood association. golden gate valley neighborhood association request that the planning commission not legalize the existing roof deck located above the one-story garage or all-out expansion. use of this private deck will create new ways. the primary users of this deck may be dogs makes the planning department approval more distressing. in any world other than the
3:36 am
planning department, the garage and deck would be located in the side yard. maintaining that a side yard is a rear yard is no harm was fiction. the project sponsor and the dr requestor formulated a mitigation plan that the planning commission helped torpedo. the people of san francisco are not well served by alice in wonderland logic that blocks the compromises necessary for our neighborhoods. thank you very much. >> any additional public comment? speakers in favor of the dr? >> good afternoon. i have been a homeowner in the
3:37 am
marina for 18 years. i live right around the corner from this proposed development. i've concerns about the street facing deck. this is a precedent-setting situation and i am concerned about the impact to the block face, noise, and also the impact to the residence in the adjacent buildings. i do not understand them and the requirement to have this open railing. we do not see that on top floors. we do not see open a railing. we see solid railing. these open railing decks, it is an intrusion to the block face. you will be able to see the contents of the deck from the street. that is very disruptive to the block face. if this is approved, these types
3:38 am
of situations are all over the marina. it is very disruptive to the architectural features of our neighborhood. secondly, this deck is situated inside -- there are walls all around it. that is a noise chamber. it is not like a roof deck where the noise can filter off. it bounces off the buildings. it affects the people around the vicinity. it would affect us, for example. this is excessive noise. the most -- having personal experience with a development that has negative impact, i am very concerned about the negative impact that some of these development projects have gone neighbors. i certainly support every property owner's right to
3:39 am
improve their property, but i do not believe it should be at the expense of the people that live around them. that should be a very serious consideration when you are looking at these types of projects. obviously, this will create a situation where it will impact the quality of life and property value of those in adjacent properties. thank you. >> proposition m was passed to preserve neighborhood rights of security, privacy, and air. this is a prime case. the code does not allow our rear yard deck within 15 feet of a property line. it does not follow code. what concerns me, you put a --
3:40 am
he puts a railing on the top of this garage, it will be a lot easier for someone to throw a rope over, get into the windows. the security and the safety of these neighbors is extremely important. i firmly believed that neighbors should start being heard on some of these issues. light, air, a safety. that is the case in this case. if you make an exception, you'll be getting dr's right and left. and possibly court cases. i do not understand the fact that there is a deck the neighbors are supporting the above. please listen to them about the one above the garage. this affects people's lives. the people and the next -- the
3:41 am
next door neighbors are hard- working, at trying to stay in our neighborhood. 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
3:42 am
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
3:43 am
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 thedr?
3:44 am
>> 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
3:45 am
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.
3:46 am
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.
3:47 am
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.
3:48 am
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
3:49 am
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.
3:50 am
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
3:51 am
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
3:52 am
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.
3:53 am
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
3:54 am
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.
3:55 am
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.
3:56 am
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 --
3:57 am
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.
3:58 am
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.
3:59 am
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
68 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
SFGTV: San Francisco Government TelevisionUploaded by TV Archive on
![](http://athena.archive.org/0.gif?kind=track_js&track_js_case=control&cache_bust=1706744103)