BOOK 28_1960-07-25 to 1960-12-19

Browse Search

+They are creating a certain amount of drainage problems for me, plus taking away light on my west side and eliminating all privacy (windows and patio). I consider this type of building a fire hazard, due to closeness and blockage of fire equip- ment to the rear of the lot. I understand this is to be a purely speculative building, rather than a home for themselves and believe this will tend, also, to decrease the value.of my property by obstructing the view and light I now enjoy. My piece of property represents my life's savings and I had planned to stay here for the re— mainder of my days. I think it is a shame a widow would be forced to sell by such a building being built too close to hers. I work in San Francisco daily, leaving in the dark of the morning and returning after dark at evening, so did not realize until the week—ends that this particular type of building was being done, therefore, I had no opportunity of complaining to the Planning Commission, so am sending this letter to you, hoping it will get your attention. Thanking you in advance, I am, Sincerely yours, (Signed) Myra L. Gourlie December 192 1960 This is to register an objection to the type of construction being used by Antonelli Bros. on a house they are building on the lot adjacent to ours (1515 James Avenue). It seems to us that there has been excessive excavation permitted which creates several un— desirable features as far as our lot is concerned, namely: 1. Drainage, 2. Unnecessary re— taining walls, 3. Fencing problems, 4. Rendering both lots unaccessible (to the rear), and 5. Depreciation of our property (light and view exclusion) WQ were not acquainted with the type of construction Antonelli Bros, would be using prior to the day excavating began, therefore, had no opportunity to take this up with the Plan— ning Commission. It seems to us that our rights as adjacent property holders have been abridged in that we were not given an•opportunity to concur or disagree with plans approved by the Planning Commission. We would like the Planning Commission to inspect this lot so they can see, f or themselves, what the builders have done to a nice lot and to our property, as well. Our property represents the savings of a Regular Army man (retired) who, with his family, dhose this City in which to spend the remainder of our lives. At this point, however, it seems inconsiderate building codes will force us to sell and probably at a financial loss. Whether or not anything can be done about this, we thank you for reading our protests. ,Very sincerely yours, Signed: W. H. Glasgow Lucille C. Glasgow The City Attorney reported that the S & Q vs. City appeal has been dismissed by the Courts. The Buckley case vs. City of Redwood City was dismissed with prejudice. Claims 34991 through 35136, totaling $84,107.16, were ordered paid on motion of Councilman Royer, seconded by Councilman Herkner and carried. Councilman Stehle commended the people of Redwood City for the way they were entering into the Christmas spirit and decorating their blocks. Councilman Granger moved that the meeting be adjourned to January 9th, seconded by Councilman Royer and carried. Meeting adjourned, 10:50 p.m. Helen C. Moore, City Clerk �i L 1