>> he welcome back to the october 17 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we are now calling ate a through

8d, appeal numbers 12-105 through 12-108. the appeals have been filed by josh bleacher snyder and dennis stewart and they are against the department of building inspection with planning department approval. the subject property is at 530 sanchez street. two of the appeals are protesting the issuance on august 20, 2012 to brendan fox to demolish a building with 1,830 feet square feet of area and a permit to erect a building, 4 story two-unit building with 1413 square feet of ground floor area. these appeals will be heard together and we will start with the appellants, mr. snyder, if you care to go first, you have 14 minutes for the two appeals. we're going

to hear them at the same time. >> good evening, honorable members of the board of appeals, the three of you. my name is josh bleaker snyder, i live two doors down from 530 sanchez, which is the property in question. i am opposed both to the demolition of the house that currently is there and in particular to the proposed building which would be constructed in its place. i am sure you have had many floor i had descriptions of the beauty and wonders of the historic architecture of our city, i will simply say i love san francisco's architecture and i love that i live on a block where all of the houses are old, old sort of with the character and the graph tas that comes with an old building. 14 of 15 were built

by 1911. that apparently is enough to place the house at 530 sanchez as a category b historic residence, but i don't know the details, i'm afraid, of what that actually means. however, i do know that i don't want to see a building that could be refurbished and turned sb a beautiful modern version of an old house needlessly demolished. and the proposed construction is two large modern boxy condos, flagrantly different in character than the classic san francisco arc tech taur that surrounds it so i ran around last night and took photos of all the buildings on our street, if we can bring that up just to give you a feel. that's one building, a bunch of victorians. the building on the bottom right is the proposed construction according to the permit holder's renderings.

they aren't uniformly victorian, but they do have a uniform feel of old standing san francisco. not only does the construction on the bottom right not really fit in, you might be willing it say it's not that obtrusive, it's just sort of there, maybe it's not a perfect match, but unfortunately looking carefully at the renderings and the plans provided, the renderings don't actually match the plans. if i can forward, i'd like to point out that the building is actually significantly higher than it is as rendered. if you notice, look at the north building first, according to the rendering the top of that window matches the roof line. however, if we look at the north side elevation as depicted in the plans you can see in the dashed lines the neighboring building and it shows up halfway down that window. there's a similar discrepancy on the south side.

looking at the plans you can see that the front facade roof line of the neighboring building matches the top of the window box. on the rendering, the top of the window box is significantly lower than the front facade so the building is actually significantly larger than shown in the rendering, which is worrysome to me and makes me wonder if anything else in the rendering is not accurate. it's worth knowing actually that that height does matter to the neighbors. i'd like to point out a photo of the building immediately to the north. the peaked roof building is 530 sanchez. the building immediately to the north is the tan building behind it in this photo and you can see there is a framed window in the rear, a light well and a skylight. if you look carefully at the plans, the height of the proposed new building would be 16 feet above

the current roof line of that northern building. so you would have 16 feet of elevation casting a shadow on that building, which would dramatically shadow that rear window, that light well, as well as the skylight. the skylight is halfway into a 25-foot wide lot so it's about 12 feet in, 16 feet taller. i didn't do the tangent in advance, but it's all over 45 degrees. also the deck on this proposed building is directly at high level with our bedroom separated by the 25 feet of the intervening house. it would be a significant privacy concern for us. the permit holder actually claims in their response braef that there would be no impact on privacy because the proposed structure would be infill, but given that it rises an entire floor over the surrounding buildings, i don't think it's accurate to describe it as

merely infill. i'd also like to note there's significant neighborhood opposition to this proposed building. unfortunately two of our neighbors who came here to talk, amy and mark, had to leave for time constraints. they have a young child. but there are still a significant number of folks from the neighborhood that are here because they do not want to see the proposed building built and we are the ones who wf to live with that building long after the permit holder made the money from the sale of this building and moved on. one of the letters cited, howard rubin, the document that is purported to be in support, is a legal nonaggression document. i am good friends with howard and rubin and i can tell you it is a legal nonaggression document. >> what do you mean by that. >> i know personally they do

not support the project. they could not come here tonight because they signed a document they would not, but i do not believe howard or jean support the project in the slightest. the other is from james romeo holiday and you would like to support out that james romeo holiday is the real estate agent that brokered the sale and it is not implausible that he would broker the subsequent sale of 530 sanchez so i don't think he qualifies as just a neighbor. with the disingeneral with us and misleading claim to have the support of two neighbors, there is one other thing in the permit holder's brief i'd like to respond to. they say it's been 7 years since the original permit was filed and he is very understand bli frustrated by that, i think i would be, too, but if the plans had been acceptable to the neighbors the

building would be long built and we would have moved on. for two years from 2009 to february of 2012 the permit was approved and sat unpulled and the house was allowed to further deteriorate and the building permit in fact canceled the permit which was later reinstated some months later through some director's mandate. i'm not sure what happened there. in closing, i am sympathetic to and i understand the need for more housing for the city, but until it was suggested 530 sanchez had two units, the house and the cottage, and the new building will also have two units and they will be significantly more expensive. it is in conflict with things like the character of the neighborhood and will have a significant negative impact on

the neighbors. the proposed construction are so far from achieving these goals i must oppose them completely and ask that you revoke both the permits. >> we will hear from mr. stewart. >> yes, good evening, members of the board, i believe you all have a copy of my written appeal. i'd like to paraphrase parts of it but you can fill in the parts i don't raise. my name is dennis stewart, i reside at 112 hancock, which is in close proximity to the above site and i am appealing the permits for the following reason.ment first, i oppose the permit to demolish the structure because destruction of of a classic building is not in conformance with the

residential design guidelines of 1963, which this body is legally obligated to enforce. specifically, demolition of the existing strug structure does not ensure the character is maip taipbed in that the existing structure is to be guted and replaced with a building of a completely different style. please refer to page 52 of the rdg of a project that was unacceptable because it resulted if a loss of integrity of the original structure. acceptance of the permit holder's assertion that it should be demolished because the building is dilapidated and uninhabitable, this was his statement, is not supported in fact. in fact, it should be noted as part of the records of this hearing when the sponsor

purchased the fully habitable structure in 2004, he did so as a speculator to allow the house to full into disrepair so as to fulfill his original intent when purchasing the property, which was to demolish it and replace it with two million dollar condos. should the people of san francisco allow replacement of the dilapidated housing that only encourages future speculators to follow in their foot steps, identify and bay a decent family home, let it lie inhabited without any upkeep then claim a value to the city to formally permit applications of destroying the house because it is in disrepair. now is the time and the opportunity for this board to say that this strategy will not be rewarded. secondly, i ask the board not to approve the construction

permit as tendered by the sponsor for the following reason. the project violates the design principles set forth in page 5ff of the aforementioned residential design guideline in that, no. 1, it does not ensure that the building scale is compatible with surrounding buildings. the proposed 14 feet increase in elevation height is not compatible with adjacent buildings which are similar in height. so i would like you to take a look, see if this is upside down or right side up -- not showing. it's upside down. now you can see that this is an are thist's rendering which was done by the architect and you can see in relationship to the surrounding buildings that this is not in accordance with the residential design guidelines that i'm citing,

which says, quote, ensure that the building scale is compatible with surrounding buildings. it clearly is not compatible with surrounding buildings. please refer to example on page 23 of the residential design guidelines which is the city's guidelines for buildings which is deemed relevant to this project in which the residential design guidelines identifies, quote, out of scale with surrounding buildings. i would ask you to take a look at the photo and determine for your own in a judgmental call whether this is within the scale of the surrounding buildings. viewed from the east side of sanchez street, looking west at the proposed property, the houses on the block heading down a hill progress like a series of steps, a pattern that would be interrupted by the height of the proposed structure. the proposal, while technically within the law, violates the spirit of harmony

the approximate east view from the requester's property provides a vivid visual confirmation of the dissonance. thirdly, it does not provide architectural features that enhance the neighborhood's character and that its nondescript cookie cutter style is sharply dis?apbt with the art deco style of the neighborhood. please refer to the planning department's own example on page 29 of the residential design guidelines which is relevant to the project, particularly the lack of facade results in a building that disrupts the character of the street. the project sponsor has made no attempt to reconcile the concerns of the

neighbors regarding the architectural disharmony with the rest of the neighborhood. in fact, the project sponsor replied to the planning department when the original permit was appealed in 2008 that the building height modifications suggested by neighbors to rectify the architectural imbalance of the proposed structure, quote, would fatally compromise the livability and feasibility of the project without any substantial of such allegations. what the sponsor should have said and to this day i've not heard him admit to be more truthful the alterations suggested by neighbors would have seriously reduced the projected profit the sponsor anticipates achieving from the sale of the proposed condos to be constructed. the sponsor chose to maximize his profit with no regard to the proportionality of the structure to its environment. neighbors assert based on

recent sales in the neighborhood -- the sponsor has never had any intention of living in the neighborhood -- the heights proposed by the neighbors could easily allow the sponsor to achieve a return on his investment of over one million dollars. however, it was never entertained by the sponsor solely because of his greed. since the recent appeal was filed by two neighbors, sponsor arrogantly confident this board would uphold his permit, has not made a gesture toward the neighbors. this conduct of the sponsor is not in keeping with the policy that kirk triezes city government in san francisco, that of encouraging neighbors trying to cooperate in the resolution of contention issues, rather than compelling city boards like yourself to resolve litigious conflicts. third, there is a better solution before the board than

the two apparent choices between the appellant and the sponsor, sustaining the permit or denying the permit. this would accomplish three seemingly (inaudible) boards, one, allow the sponsor to achieve a reasonable return on his investment, recognize the structure would harshly interfere the architectural character of the neighborhood and upholding the design code that is the legal responsibility of the code. that suggestion is suggested by two opposite actions made by your predecessors.

compare this with the more judicial decision made by subsequent boards which is a multi unit at 160 hancock. when that building was torn down, the one in the middle, the decision was made at that time after consultation with the neighbors that you maintain a reasonably flat structure line so there's harmly and it looks like it's a fill-in. so that was an opportunity to create a modern structure with more units than the current one that was brought in by the neighbors and i was around during that time, so i know what happened. in earlier times like this or previous one there was apparently minimal concern for preserving any sense of neighborhood harmony. that was the first photo you saw. hence the building at 155 hancock. yet as the years passed, san

francisco city government came to realize the important value of protecting our architectural heritage not by resisting every legitimate attempt to replace decaying structures but by insisting that the new project permits ensure bleplding of new structures with their surroundings, comparing and contrasting the two buildings at 155 and 160, which are the two last photos i showed you, reveals a solution to the problem 4530 sanchez. the superior choice, i would assert for this board, is to follow the basic direction embedded by previous city agencies to approve buildings which maintain the architectural flow as in 160 hancock with adjoining properties and avoid the dissonance of the permits from an earlier period that permitted the construction of 155 hancock. this is the principle that should be applied to the decision before board regarding the matter at

hand. throughout human history, cities have been defined and influenced by the quality of their architecture. great cities have achieved that status largely through the great quality of their architecture, but urban designers have long recognized that quality is not achieved solely by the presence of a few public edifices but by fostering buildings compatible with their environment. one of the quipblt essential classic buildings of modern architecture, the parthenon, derived its timeless beauty from its placement on a hill. the parthenon itself, a quality building, would be grotesquely

ill-suited as replacement for its neighbors. i request this board support the decision which would rec up zul all the goals identified above by defering this permit until such time as the project sponsor makes a reasonable accommodation by lowering the height limits in a precise manner to be determined by neighborhood arbitration. this board has the authority and i would assert the responsibility to promote the architectural vitality of san francisco. failure to act on this occur will perpetuate the gradual decline into mead yauk city into san francisco architecture that is progressively accelerated by greasy speculators and compliant boards. this is not a matter of fact, it's a matter of judgment. it's up to you to say what kind of city you want and are you willing it approve

buildings abstractly one by one without seeing how they fit into a broader context. so i ask the board's agreement to turn this over to arbitration for the neighbors so we can reconcile the situation, a motion which the owner of this project is unwilling to do and absent that to reject this appeal. thank you, board, for your time. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> given that there are 4 appeals, the permit holder has 7 minutes per appeal but of course you don't have to use them all and it is not necessarily effective advocacy. >> commissioner, my name is lew blodget, the planning department real estate viewed this project and signed the permit. >> are you an attorney? >> no, i'm not.

>> okay. >> commissioners, let me give you background in terms of where this project has been. the project was filed 2005, 7 1/2 years ago. we all know it's hard to get permits in san francisco and it takes time but this is an extraordinary amount of time. because the building is over 50 years old, the planning department required that a historic evaluation be done. an independent consultant, historic consultant, was retained at project sponsor's expense but doing the report for the city, filed the report for the city, the city's preservation staff reviewed that report and found that this building is not a historic structure and you have a copy of that historic resource evaluation in your brief in the response that was provided. the project sponsor went through and his architect went through the various processes that the city requires. they

had a preapplication meeting with the neighbors, they filed their permit after the historic evaluation was completed and after the cat category exemption was issued, the section 311 notice went out. prior to that because of concerns raised by some neighbors, the project sponsor engaged in the community board process. this is not something where the project sponsor is stone walling neighbors, he has been working with them since 2005. there's a disagreement and obviously we're here because people still have a different point of view and they are using their rights to appeal, but the project sponsor did go to the community boards with the neighbors, they went through that process. so i just want you it know that. in 2008 discretionary review was filed and was heard by the planning commission and the planning department basically

recommended that discretionary review not be taken and the planning commission basically also acted in a way where it was a tie vote and they basically no discretionary review was taken on this project. then we had a recession that took some of the time in terms of the why this permit hasn't moved along. but we are here now, the project sponsor picked up his permit and the permit was appealed to you for the same reasons, the same arguments, that were made at the discretionary review appeal. i just want you to know, this was the report that was done for the discretionary review, an exhaustive study, there are elevations of all the block frontages, i'm not going to go through that with you, but it was all documented. the planning department has reviewed it and that's where they base their conclusion that discretionary review shouldn't be taken. if you'd like to see it i'll pass it forward.

what i would also like to pass forward, commissioner, which i didn't have access to until after the briefs were due, this is the discretionary review analysis. this was given to the planning commission at the discretionary review hearing. what you will find in there is the analysis that goes with the residential design guidelines. >> what's the date on that? >> this was not submitted as part of the response because --. >> we have that in our files. it was submitted by planning. >> very good, thank you, then. so i don't have to submit it. when you review that you'll see as always the planning department has an exhaustive checklist of design criteria and it reviews all the various issues, the topography, front set back, rear yard, views, it goes on for 3 pages, a detailed

check list, building scale and form, architectural features, building details. in all the categories that were applicable the planning department staff checked yes that the project as proposed and designed complies. so what i'd like to do now is just show you some illustrations. the appellants showed you some graphics. this is the zoning map. the subject site is right here, it's in an r3 district. you can see it surrounded by this ocher color

is zoned 3 family. this is the castro street neighborhood commercial area, market street and the muni station is right here. you have church street and the church street commercial and then dolores park. it's situated in the area that's zoned for 3 families, what's being proposed is 2 families. here's an aerial photograph that puts it in context and shows the situation. so this is the subject lot right here. it's on sanchez straet and hancock street and it's a steeply down sloping site. the neighborhood errs did show you some context photographs. this victorian here is right at the corner of sanchez and hancock and you can see it's two large tall victorian floors over a garage. the next neighbor is a one story over a garage, this is the ec