Georgia schuttish versus the department of building inspection with Planning Department approval and paul sheard versus department of building inspection with Planning Department approval. The subject property is 461463 duncan street, protesting the issuance on april 8, 2019, to James Odriscoll of a site permit, add new residential unit at basement, side addition at second floor east and west elevation, horizontal addition at first floor, provide basement level, remodel interior. This is application 201708 15 4881 and we will hear from ms. Schuttish first. Thank you. Thank you. I have seven minutes. Thank you. And good evening, commissioners, president swig, fellow commissioners. I gave copies of what i am going to show on the over head to mr. Odriscoll and mr. Teague at the start of the hearing and would be happy to give those to you, too. Good evening, again. I am here to ask you to preserve the battle front facade of the mediterranean revival style house. This is a design issue, an issue of aesthetics. The project sponsor states in his brief that i rely too heavily on mary browns report, but her report is important because she goes beyond describing homes as just marina style, but as specific and distinct styles like 463 duncan, which is a battle front mediterranean revival. In reading her report, i was educated. It was never my intent to challenge the cadx. I know the ceqa document should be appealed to the board of supervisors within 60 days of an i a prooufl. I fully understand this is not an historic with a capital h resource, nor did i ever claim it to be one. It is an original 1927 facade, intact, and extremely attractive with details that are specific to the San Francisco style of vernacular architecture. At the d. R. Hearing, i testified about the importance of this style of San Francisco residential dwelling and to describe the uniqueness to San Francisco and to our residential neighborhoods. And that the commission should use its powers under discretionary review to preserve the facade in the design of the alteration. The commission did not discuss the facade in their deliberations on december 6 and did not preserve the facade. I am testifying tonight that the board should correct the oversight by the commission, and for this board to use your powers of discretion to discuss this battle front mediterranean revival facade and preserve it. But before i continue, i want to assure the board that i am not asking you to declare this an Historic Resource. I am asking you to make an ed situation regarding the unique a decision regarding the unique to San Francisco facade which will also be based on aesthetics of a unique residential structure. May i have the overhead please . This is a really nice facade. It is in beautiful condition with wonderful details as i outline in my brief. And it is original from 1927, nearly 92 years ago. Here is a house that is nearby at 1525 knowing that is pending sale and is also a battle front mediterranean revival. It is described as battle front mediterranean in the brochure and as it turns out, it was also built by Andrew Berwick in 1927. Several months after he took out the permit for 463 duncan. Based on the brochure and the pending sale, this house with the original facade is supremely marketable. Some realtors have a fancy for this maria style and recognize it as unique to San Francisco. Also, i never knew, but it seems so that most of the infill in noey valley was usually a marina style house. In these two reports, one by paige and turnbull from 2016 and one from ruben junius for 2019 for two other projects, that is confirmed, only they refer to them by the proper names mediterranean eare viefl. I found the reports after i submitted my brief. Both state this style was the, quote, common dwelling time and infill housing preworldii. Also, i neglected to include page 118 from mary browns report. Here it is. And i apologize for that. The important point in her conclusion is that she recommends further study of the battle front mediterranean eare revival houses because it appears to be the most commonly constructed style. The project sponsors and the grouping of lots wasnt the pat everyone in in the valley after world war i. The mediterranean revivals were the predominant in fill per the paige and turnbill and julius reporting. That these battle front were only built for a period of time from the mid 1920s to 1931. She writes in the conclusion of the report that this particular style deserves further study. Again, as written in the brown report, these solid houses in heat indices which includes the battle front mediterranean revival that are unique to San Francisco. They most likely only exist here in San Francisco or perhaps daly city per the mare ru brown report. At exhibit five in the brief, i show four photos of alteration projects, where the precede and none are considered Historic Resources and all are rated b. All are in noey valley and they were preserved. Here is a facade also a battle front, mediterranean revival, built in 1931 at 578 elizabeth street as it was. And here it is as it undergoes construction as an alteration. This facade should have been preserved. It did not have a Commission Hearing and now its gone. This board should use the discretionary power regarding aesthetic issues to maintain the battle front mediterranean revival at 463 duncan street. I think you have discretionary powers granted to you by various court cases and i think its important that you consider it. Here is 578 that elizabeth more recently two days ago. Thank you very much. Thank you, ms. Schuttish. Thank you. We will now hear from the other appellant, pr mr. Sheard. Good evening. Welcome. Temperature final consideration tonight. Yes. I have to say happy birthday to you. Thank you. Im going to use the overhead. Overhead please. Thank you. Got to deal with positioning, dont we . Face it as if you are looking at it, sir. Hi. My name is paul sheard and live next door to 463 duncan. I have a good size garden on the other side, as you can see. This is a picture on there overhead from winter. I can flip that and show you what it looks like in summer. That is a more recent picture. The house and the garden have been my home for over 20 years and i man to retire and grow even older there, but ever go in the further, let me be clear. I am not trying to stop this project. Its going to get built, maybe with the facade, but the Actual Development going to go ahead, some manner, some form, and some impact to my light and privacy which are the two main issues. That is a given. Through some elements of the plan that are excessive and simple modifications which wont change the cost of the project and no other retail value of the units. For example, making the side setbacks 5 feet. I have read through the developers brief and it paints a picture of the project that i dont recognize. Ill call out a few examples from the brief. The plan extends the second floor by 6 foot and adds an extra 8 1 2 foot deck which makes it 26 longer than the current house. Where is the brief whereas, the brief states minimal changes to the second floor. The brief claims that the project is a significant reduction in massing. Using the data from the plans, theres been a decrease in habitable space of 69 square feet. 1. 6 with the original 4300 plus. There is also a claim that they listen to a neighbors request to not increase the height of the building. That doesnt really count because no increase in the height of the building was ever proposed. Not even in the plans revealed at the first neighborhood meeting. So i have been forced to come to the board for help because the project hasnt made any results from neighborhood input. The citys complaint processes and all that i can really use. I wish i could have worked with the developer. If he would have been cooperative because its been really stressful. And as a novice to the planning process, i am always worried i am missing something important, which i think i have ever figured out because there is a big basement that needs to be dug out and that will go beneath my foundation. There is no talk so far of surveys and monitoring, underpinning, all that kind of stuff, so you kind of get worried about that. Im sorry. I am kind of ranting here, but trying to show how it works to feel with this developer and his team, which i noticed now includes a bunch of lawyers and i also see the r. B. A. In the audience. So were probably going to get some animated comment from them. Anyway, the reason i am here is about privacy and light. I hope i was pretty clear in my brief. And on what it is that i am concerned about and why and what i think reasonable remedy, but ill go through a couple of points. There is one issue, number four, which i think is cleared up. The brief notes that its got missing details missing in the actual plans and that the actual east facing window on the second floor and that still leaves two other east facing windows on the first floor. Both overlook this garden. We could close that issue out if the Developers Just do propose something similar, but i havent heard that. For t two biggest privacy issues come from the decks the Development Plans to have. Lets check issue number three first. This is the privacy screen that the manning commission stipulated on the second floor of the deck. The developers brief note they have provided a planting box that meets the residential guideline suggests as landscaping. However, plants die really quickly if you stick them in a small planter on a south facing deck in full sun and even slightly ignore them. I think the developer should be responsible for provide on the third party to maintain conditions. I am asking a condition be applied to the permit to clarify that the screenings should be opaque, and tall enough to provide privacy and not rely on a third party. This is a perfect example from 24th street, really close to the project site. That is an easy one to solve, but the Biggest Issue is the deck off the back of the first floor bedroom. This is the third deck on this unit and it is an extra to have on any real estate flyer, but a nightmare for my privacy and impacts the neighbors, too. Lets go back to the shots of the actual garden the rails of the and that deck sorry, that fence is already 8 foot high. The deck is 11x17, the second biggest on the project, and going to go back to the pole on that garden. Anyone on this deck, even toddlers, will be able to look over it and have a great view down the whole open space and into the back of my neighbors houses. This is the best shot from what the view of the back deck would look like looking into the back of my house. This deck overlooks my entire backyard and can kitchen and bedroom. This is probably not exactly correct because to get the right shot i would have had to go to my neighbors yard, which i cant want to do. The impact of the deck is excessive. I am asking it be eliminated. A pretty big thing, i know, but it would still lever the unit with two other decks. One on the main living area and one on the roof. Removing the deck would be in line with what the Planning Commission talked about in august trends for the decks and eliminate the Privacy Concern without impacting the habitable space on the first floor. There are likely other options we probably could talk about. To sum up, i have been in this house for a long time and i intend to there live there a lot longer and acknowledge that this will have an impact on privacy and light. It is unevidentable. I am seeking help from the board to reduce the impacts still present in the current design. The changes i requested wont impact the Construction Costs nor the units retail value. And will always be bidders for the upper unit and i asked ask that you approve the developers conditions, except for the comments. Any questions . I do. So you went to the initial meeting with the developers at the site . I actually missed that because i was out of town on business. I did send in my comments to them and i talked to all the neighbors that went there. Going forward, whatevers your interaction like with the builders . An i never met face to mace and most of the actions have been email and as late as yesterday. And did they respond to your emails . Mr. Odriscoll does respond to my email reasonably promptly. I have followed up with him on one of them when i didnt get a prompt response. Reasonably cordial and well written and could all be replaced by the single word no. Looking at the brief, you said from the rear deck, it would view the back of your house. This only could you give me that outline already. So is that looking from the standpoint of standing on their rear deck . Yes. This is standing this is the equivalent of standing on the rear deck, at the edge of the rear deck nearest the Property Line looking right back. Are they behind you or adjacent to me . Adjacent to me. They are adjacent to me and the house goes back except for the 25 on the back of the lot. You figure from the back of that deck to the back of your house is at 25 feet, 50 feets . The back of the deck to my house were got the plans if you want me to look at up. It would be round about dosh so my garden is 70 foot long. The and the 25 on there would be minus 25 of 70 and about 45 feet at the furtherest most point on the deck away from the building. That deck is 12 feet deep, so they have 12 foot to go back and forth. Thank you. And you have a beautiful garden. Thank you very much. I spent a lot of time on it. Do you want to come to my house . An it comes from striping and various other sales. Thank you very much. Any other questions . Thank you. We will now hear from the permit holder. Mr. Odriscoll. You have 14 minutes, sir. Good evening, commissioners and president swig. I am representing the permit holder James Odriscoll and i am the bunch of lawyers here tonight representing the applicant. There is a lot of overlap in the two appeals. We briefed both appeals extensively, so i wont go through every issue. This is a project that is remodel and extension of an existing residence, construction of the new second unit. And the basement level alterations to the facade and addition of a roof deck. It also involves excavation of about 11 feet below the existing surface in order to develop the structure would increasing the height of the existing structure. The project was submitted about two years ago, almost two years ago, to the building and Planning Department. It was totally code compliant at that time with the Building Code and planning code. There were Community Meetings that were held, contrary to the statement just made, there were people in the neighborhood concerned about an increase in the height of the residence to achieve a second unit. That is a reason for the excavation and a change in what the project could have been. When the 311 notice went out from planning, there were two d. R. S file bid the two appellants here tonight. Since the meeting occurred with the Planning Department and the rdat team, they were recommendations for additional changes to the product design, but mr. Odriscolls, those included an increase of 4feet, 4 inch side set back and increasing and we deucing the size of the garage and the rear extension on the top floor by 5 feet. Following the d. R. Hearings, there were further changes that were requested. The Planning Commission approved the project on a 51 vote and 15 feet to 1 2 feet. They asked for privacy screening. In connection with that issue and the conversation earlier today with the zoning administrator, the recommendation from the Planning Commission was not that clear. The plans that were approved by the site permit and include opaque glass on that rear wall for the privacy screening on that side and that is something that theyre willing to do and will do. In terms of the issues that have been raised about the historic issues related to the facade. This is indeed a barrel front mediterranean revival structure. Unfortunate, will the Planning Department and said the project is not a Historic Resource or a landmark or part of the district like the last item you heard. As she is not asking you to declare and that is good because that is the per view of the Historic Preservation activation commission, not the board of appeals. The Planning Department looked at the issues closely in terms of issuing a cadx and also in terms of the d. R. They concluded there is no basis for treating this facade as a Historic Resource and preserves it. They concluded that there is no none of the people that have been resided in the house for a long period of time met the area for Historic Resource. The horizontal is not very helpful. Obviously there are areas of the city made up of the barrel front, medtain thattian, revival homes. This is not one of them and there may be isolated homes, but a quote from ms. Browns report, they are typically in the sunset district from mid 1920s and the standardization and cookie cutter approach. Significance is derived from the overall architecture front of a group l of the barrel front mediterranean the harder than the situation we have here at duncan street. In case the issues come up, they were briefed, and comments by both appellants to the roof deck. Again, the Planning Department looked at that in the discretionary review approvals and moderately sized, set back from the building edges and does not add to nasz and project. Both appellants raised questions about the degree of excavation reviewed by d. B. I. And covered by civil code aekt and to comply with support for the structures. He will do so and the work will be done consistent with existing geotech reports. The last issu