En Español

The Planning Commission voted Thursday to give future tenants in an eight-unit condominium project at 736 Valencia one heck of a deck.

Despite neighbors concerned about noise and a suggestion by some to at least reduce the size, the commission said yes to a 1,500-foot roof-top deck at 736 Valencia St.

“I think there needs to be more open space,” said Commissioner Gwyneth Borden. “I wish I had a roof deck.”

In exchange for their approval, the commission ordered Ronald Mallia, the developer, to install “bird friendly” sound barriers and signs telling the future residents to keep the noise down. These concessions, they hoped, would appease the neighbors who opposed the deck.

The issue of the roof came out in the open when someone discovered and complained that the developer had no permit to build a roof deck.

Mallia’s lawyer argued that a building inspector told them they did not need  one.

Neighbors said the deck would produce too much noise.

“Mr. Mallia does not live there or sleep there,” said Sue Hester, an attorney with the Mission Anti-Displacement coalition.

But a restriction to limit the deck to only four people after 10 p.m. also failed.

“How can anybody possibly enforce it and how would anyone would check it out?” Commissioner Borden asked.

The eight market rate condominiums were approved in 2007 despite opposition from some neighbors and the Mission Anti Displacement Coalition.  Mallia, who also owns other properties in the Mission, bought the location for $5.2 million, according to property records.

Rigoberto Hernandez

Rigoberto Hernandez is a journalism student at San Francisco State University. He has interned at The Oregonian and The Orange County Register, but prefers to report on the Mission District. In his spare...

Join the Conversation

6 Comments

  1. I can see this building from my own roof. I’m a bit envious of this roof deck proposal, but doubt it will really increase noise significantly. We should all have roof decks – leaving them bare is a waste of space.

  2. I think it should be noted that project, if my memory serves me correct, was initially planned as rental units for the workers of the neighboring auto body shop. I could be mistaken it with another project. If this is the project next to the auto-body shop, it is my understanding that MAC opposed the project because it was highly unlikely that the units would actually be rental and would further gentrify the neighborhood. I think more information should be stated about MAC’s position beyond just opposing the project. Some context to MAC’s position would have been nice.

  3. It IS next to the auto repair shop. But hey, it was an empty parking lot for that building. I’m glad it is built and it did not displace anyone.

  4. ecalifornio- I agree! It WAS supposed to house the workers. While no one is being displaced, it certainly is fishy. I’m curious about learning how this was “worked around”.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *