while we were here, i did check the information we have available online for the liberty hill historic district. the vary that was done in that area. for certain buildings they do have files that include pictures and information and documentation about when it was constructed. we did not have that for this building. >> do you know what that room is? is that a living room or bedroom? >> i believe that was mentioned in the briefs that i don't know off top of my head. i thought it was a bedroom. i'm not positive. >> thank you. >> did i hear you affirmatively that this permit was improperly issued by the planning department >> no. it was not reviewed by the planning department. it should have been routed to the planning department for review.

>> you stated that the permit was improperly issued? >> correct. >> secondly, we heard mr. curran talk about while this window open into the neighbor's property line, does this set up automatically the opportunity for notice of violation? it has been discovered that there's a window that is not exactly legal because it goes into the neighbor's property line without permission? >> that specific issue is not addressed in the planning code.

>> i should ask mr. curran and the next part, whether that would narrate a notice of violation as recently discovered is a win toe that -- windows that opens across the property line. >> correct. from taur perspective, we don't address that situation. if we did -- if it was legally done, now it's not conforming to the code, that would not be a violation. it would be allowed to stay that way. i can't speak to the building code. >> thank you very much. >> we have lots of questions for you. welcome back. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item. please approach.

>> good evening and welcome. >> hi. thank you. good evening president swig, commissioners. i'm president of the liberty hill neighborhood association and historic district. i live directly across from mr. lee's property for 32 years. i'm aware that his side window opening into mr. mcleod's way has been constant problem for the mr. mcleod for years. liberty hill's historic breezeway are architectural features of of this district they include light rails and they maintain privacy because none of the original houses had ground floor side windows. mr. lee's property line window is clearly later addition but

there's no permit to date this alteration. in recent conversation mr. lee proudly declared that he's never pulled permits for anything and had no intention of doing so. mr. lee was force to pull a permit after mr. mcleod filed a complaint. he claimed had an existing sliding window. he doesn't. trying to circumvent, mr. lee filed another permit which d.b.i. granted. none permitted work sidesteps the review process that would have resolved this situation. instead, mr. mcleod made attempts to work out reasonable solutions that mr. lee's lack of cooperation really stands out on a block where neighbors interact and work things out.

i've been mr. mcleod's which and frankly mr. lee's opposing window make you feel like you're in a fish bowl. a solution would be for mr. lee to install a frosted glass window that would minimize the impact of both sight and sound for mr. mcleod and allow late for mr. lee. please uphold mr. mcleod complaint and resolve this issue. i've been in touch with our architectural historian who helped write the statement for liberty hill historic district. he agrees this house was built in 1876 like all the rest of the houses on the street and didn't have any of these windows. i'm submitted for sunshine 150 words. >> i got a question. i want to clarify.

it's been stated in the brief and repeated, there's no ground floor windows. you're referring to property line windows. the rear home of the appellant has side windows. >> yes, the ground floor windows were in the back which were the kitchen and they were facing the rear. >> i have a question too. being long-term neighbor of the block, i been into most of the homes. we've all been in their houses and they've been in mine. have you ever been in window and observed that there was no window there? have you been in that property prior or neighboring property and seen that window? >> i only been in the neighboring property.

i've never seen -- >> are you aware -- some people love their neighborhood more so than others. that's a san francisco thing. do you think the historian -- have you talked about having prior blueprints or anything of that property showing it's original without the window? >> no, i haven't that specifically. some the recordings were lost. we know from the architectural eachs this was the trea. >> we had big fire 1906 and that caused a little bit of issue. >> i can attest to though, the blueprints of all these houses were originally the same and the

vast majority are pretty consistent. >> even in the '20s and turn of the century, people always have individual taste and desires. what one person wants one person does not want. even though you look at the same barrel front sun set home, they all have a different flavor to them. >> the whole point of these properties, they were done as the first speculative houses. they were all the same. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any more public comment. we'll move o on to rebuttal.

>> they said this is built in the '50s or '60s. dimensional lumber did not come into use until after world war ii. they said it's probably that. >> i cannot live in this house if that window is open. we've been lucky. we've had great relationship with the kids. they're always kids. they come in every year. he gets three new boys, party on in that house. the only time that window is open was about two years ago.

i woke up in the middle of the night. i thought someone was in our house. they had that window open. just wide open and playing video games and having a party. the noise is huge. i'm going to call the cops every time that window is open. i will even walk down to the police station and bring them back to my house. you causing hundreds of years of problems with that house and the police. the other problem is our privacy. we have to get curtains on every window. we have to turn up the heater because that house was made so that light come in. we have to turn the heater on and turn the lights on because we have curtains on six windows. that will cost hundreds of

dollars. >> i want top say one thing. this is all about safety and privacy. it's not just how old this window is. this thing opens as big as a door. i tried to with mr. lee and compromise. the fact he's going out to get a clear window is crazy to me. >> the thing that bother me most, probably two years after we moved in, i two girls and they are grown up now. i said mr. lee, what i'm worried about one of your mini-tenants jumping in my backyard and molesting my kids. it's easy to get in my backyard from their house. why not. easy, we're out of town and they're in the backyard. >> what we really care about is it's so easy. it's such easy access to get in our house through this window. it makes no sense. there's no way this window was original. i hope vote not on this end but

to end this whole issue. the fixed frosted window, he'll get 20 square feet of light >> thank you. >> i have questions for you guys. can you describe the work that you did to close his window? >> what did you do to close the window? >> i piece of scrap wood like a foot long and i put it up against the window and screwed underneath the window to keep it from opening. >> you're aware it wasn't on his property that it happened? >> it is against the ceiling that overhangs my property. >> did that seem like a good idea to screw that? >> i should have clamped it. >> you did that without permission?

>> it wasn't without permission. i wrote him before i did it. i asked him, i explained exactly what i was going to do. >> did he provide permission. >> no. >> i want to make sure that you understand, the permit is denied. the window could remain. >> i'm aware of that. he can't open it. >> can i understand, is your expectation that window should be privacy glass but your window should not? >> our windows are on the property line. >> i want to make sure i understand that. i want to understand what the bigger issue are. privacy, safety and noise. it seems that noise is an issue that's not before us in terms of our jurisdiction. it would be a matter it take up with the sfpd. in term of privacy, they are

both windows. they have a feature by which you can see into and out of them. it seems odd to be concerned about having curtains that could open or close. sometimes you can see into it and not. i'm confused that seems to be a challenge. having curtains would be a great imposition. >> when they built the homes, they were built so simply to let light in. that was the whole idea putting, it's the south side where the light comes from. to let the light in. these houses are tiny. the idea if you put curtains on them, you don't get the light in. >> you're suggesting that we close the curtains.

why does he get to put a clear window -- >> i'm trying to understand objection to the curtain. >> i can cover the window. that's property and i can cover his window. >> if you permit to build up to the property line, you can cover the window. perhaps you can look at the fencing height that you could put. a fence there. there's some solutions on your property that you can take advantage of. you're right. there are some other ideas you can follow up. i'm not the planning department. >> simply, if we deny the permit, he can leave the window as it is? >> yes. >> i'm making a suggestion. if we get the sliding glass in

obscure glass. >> we don't want openable wind window. >> i work on the weekends. >> let me finish. you would rather have windows as they are there now rather than having a new slider that has -- that's what you want. >> wait. i don't understand. existing windowses condition be open -- >> there's no notice of violation, there's no issue with the current window. if we denied the permit that window stays in kind as it is. if we can accept the permit, we deny the appeal but condition that the permit has a sliding glass with obscure glass in there rather than clear? >> why does he get openable window? why does he get to build a door in our house?

>> why does he get to open. that's trespassing? >> question a and question b. if we leave that, if you don't like the window there, you can call the building department and planning department. if we deny the appeal, he doesn't have to repair in window. he can leave that window as it is. would you like us to replace it with a slider that does not open up in your property? >> what about door number three? which is a fixed frosted window. which gives him 20 square feet of light. >> it's not working. thank you. >> you can be seated. we'll hear from the helicopter -- permitholder. mr. lee. you have three minutes. >> i disagree with the

department, when he said all windows. all windows should not be large. this is our exceptions. i don't believe that at all. also the planning department, usually when they talk about approximate, 1900s or 1870s, it's never exact day and year. it's very hard to say that was original window built exactly at that date. i don't agree with that also. mr. mcleod complaining about original window. take a look at the pictures. he has a windows there.

what's true for me is also true for him. >> unfortunately, as far as i see, according to the planning department, what makes you get really wonderful rent because it's in a beautiful neighborhood. it's also going to restrict you in the permit that were issued orthe counter in the permits that were issued over the counter have been issued in error. that means that if you want a permit for that window, you're going to have to go through the process of planning department. what you also heard him say that

you might as well leave that window alone because it's going to open can of worms. >> yes. my understanding if i apply for the permit, is it visible from the street. >> it's not just baiz it's visible. it's because that area that home is in is designates a specific area that has to go through the planning department. no matter whether it's visible from the street or not. >> i can leave the window as is. >> that's what i heard from the department. >> what happens if he nail my window shut again? >> you'll be back in court with them again. unfortunately, we see this all the time. it's tit for tat. i guess that's rental for you. you might want to talk to your tenants about maybe keeping it closed. that would make things

deescalate. >> i can tell them -- it window has a cylinder. i can tell them just open it. that's why it's a seal. >> that's between you. thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. teague or mr. curran do you have anything further? >> good evening. i want to clarify. seem like you guys moving towards to fix this here. this has to go to the h.p.c. even if the board granted the appeal with the condition that resulted in window they thought fixed the problem. we would still require them to get a c of a. you can be hearing that again. i want to make that clear.

i don't think we'll resolve this today because there's separate process to go through. if they don't replace the wind window, it was mentioned that there could be a possibility the appellant on their property could explore under the planning code what kind of work they'll be able to do. it would not require touching or damaging the neighboring building. it could be explored. >> can we have the building department come up too? >> let me finish. say we issued the permit. what will the planning department say? >> we would say they have to get certificate of appropriateness. if that certificate of appropriateness ultimately determine that approved in the permit okay. everything is fine. if it determines something

different they have to get a new permit. >> thank you. >> just fur our benefit and benefit of the permitholder. he would come back in to file another permit for the certificate of propertiness and come back to building? what will be part of your investigation or your consideration? >> just what type of window it's going to be. it probably can't be vinyl based on what the planning department says. whatever criteria they hold him it, they will check the

installation. as far as building code, it goes back to was it legal or not. we had no prior complaints about it in 1999. >> i was to make sure i understand it. the planning department was saying they are concern more if it fits the appropriateness of the building. not so much when it was installed or that record because the records are lost or burned up who knows where the records are. you're saying it matters if it was original or not. who's doing the proving. >> nobody has to prove anything at this point. as far as we were concerned prior to any of this, there were no complaints about it. it was never brought to our attention. only thing that triggers the planning approval if you change the window. >> can you talk about the compliments that was received in

the d.b.i. or if it was planning? >> there was complaint to planning for the window and how it wait went through the proces. joe duffy wrote a notice violation. it didn't go through the steps. >> has it been resolved? >> no. that's what brought them here. >> thank you. >> i'm just like commissioner honda, i'm projecting what will happen if. >> if we took mr. teague's statement we upheld the appeal base the on the fact that the permit was not properly issued as mr. teague has stated. that's the end of that. permit goes away.

let's say that the -- mr. lee says i'm over it. i'm going to keep the window as it is. do i project the possibility or would you project the possibility that because this window as has been noted opens into the neighbor's -- crosses the property line into the neighbor's space, that the neighbor then would come to you and complain notice of violation because this window opens into my property or is that the end of the line and this window is going so stay as it is? >> i think it will be more civil issue. d.b.i. doesn't get involved in property line issues. it would only have to be compliant in the year it was

built. who knows -- i don't know in what order they were built. with that property there the year before, two years before. we have them all over the city. where these things exist and they have existed until people don't get along. >> that's the reason for my question i'm trying to disclose to all parties the potential continuance the opportunity if one step is taken versus the other. commissioner honda was very wise in projecting to the appellant that we could take steps here to assure those windows became opaque and that might be something they want to settle with. or if we follow mr. teague's advice, it was improperly issued and also with the notice that it's going t to go scrutiny, we

deny the appeal. [please stand by].

on this particular thing, my opinion is we have to accept the appeal on the grounds that it was issued improperly -- that the permit was issued improperly because it requires planning approval. >> commissioner: that is why i asked the question, was the permit improperly issued? if it is, we have no choice but to uphold on the appeal on the basis that permit was improper will i issued as claimed by the planning department. so i don't think we have a choice. >> commissioner: there's more to it. we were told there was the wrong description on the permit of the existing window. so it was erroneous in a number of ways. exactly. >> i have no intention of trying to fool around with that. >> that's my motion. >> okay. so we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant the appeal, overturn d.b.i. irn issuance of the permit on the basis that it should have been

reviewed by the planning department. on that motion, commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> a commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> a president swig. >> aye. >> that carries 4-0 and the appeal is granted the >> may we take a break, please. let's say 5 minutes. >> 5-minute >> welcome back to the june 19, 2019 meeting of the board of appeals. we are now on items 7a and 7b. these are appeal number 19-034 and 19-042. 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 461-463 duncan street, protesting the issuance on april 8, 2019, to james o'driscoll 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 2017-08/15/4881 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. o'driscoll 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 brown's 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 cad-x. 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 preworld-ii. also, i neglected to include page 118 from mary brown's 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 wasn't 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 it's 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 it's 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. >> i'm going to use the overhead. >> overhead please. thank you. >> got to deal with positioning, don't 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. it's 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 won't 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 developer's brief and it paints a picture of the project that i don't recognize. i'll 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, there's 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 neighbor's request to not increase the height of the building. that doesn't 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 hasn't made any results

from neighborhood input. the city's 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 it's 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. i'm 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 we're 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 i'll go through a couple of points. there is one issue, number four, which i think is cleared up. the brief notes that it's 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 haven't heard that. for t two biggest privacy issues come from the decks the development plans to have. let's check issue number three first. this is the privacy screen that the manning commission stipulated on the second floor of the deck. the developer's 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. let's 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 neighbor's 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 neighbor's yard, which i can't 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 won't impact the construction costs nor the unit's retail value. and will always be bidders for the upper unit and i asked ask that you approve the developer's 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. o'driscoll does respond to my email reasonably promptly. i have followed up with him on one of them when i didn't 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 -- we're 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. o'driscoll. >> you have 14 minutes, sir. >> good evening, commissioners and president swig. i am representing the permit holder james o'driscoll 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 won't 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. o'driscolls, those included an increase of 4-feet, 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 5-1 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 they're 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 cad-x 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. brown's 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 issue was raised by both appellants that this project was demolition. again, the planning department and d. bmenti. looked at that and -- d.b.i. looked at it and concluded that it was not. going to the issues that are raised by mr. sheard, again, i summarize the changes that were made in response to privacy concerns and the same ones are additional requests from the planning commission and rejeksed as part of the d.r. on -- were rejected as part of the d.r. of this project. and that 3d window and modelling and will be an opaque glass window facing on to the property line.

some of the other questions have been asked and answered. and the planning staff and the planning commission. it is not true that no changes made throughout the process. not going into the details and the project not being consistent with the residential guidelines and extend into the mid block open space but if you look at exhibit c to the brief submitted to that issue, there is two residences adjacent. one below and one on the upper side that already bifurcate the mid lock open space. it is not this project that is doing this. i know the zoning administrator, there was a call to the attention earlier today. and one of the drawings for the

site permit and indicating the reduction in the number of the area and the bedrooms in the lower unit and the number of ways and hasn't been solved yet. and fire protection and a ladder to the rear building. the planning department and are part of the plans approved by the planning department. we would hope that that could be addressed through a condition and through the permit that would be resolved when the first addendum is submitted to the site permit. on the other hand, approved by the planning department and not an issue that has been raise bid

the appellant. with that i think i will rest. i don't need 14 minutes. >> i have a question, counselor. thank you to your clients for volunteering to do the obscure glass and if that works, we would memorialize that in there. >> absolutely. >> secondly, the other concern and the underpinning and are you set up to do your monitoring? >> i'm sorry. you can come to the mic. >> do you want to address? so i am sure you face this code all the time and will provide the lateral and adjacent supports throughout the process.

>> just identify yourself. >> and james o'driscoll, project sponsor. typically we would take survey points before we start and i can't speak to the engineering process. it will be engineered to the shoring and underpinning, and typically take survey points prior and everything would work from the sur ray points. and when the permit was issue, was there any variances or exceptions on the permit? you said it was completely code compliant? >> totally code compliant. >> thank you. any other questions? >> and just a short one. and look at this being done and as an improvement for resale and the developer has no intent to live here, i am assuming, or does he? resale. so there are two units, two separate addresses, correct? >> that is correct. >> is it anticipated these will

be condos? or anticipated it will be a residence occupied by the resident that will be potentially occupied by two separate renters? what -- if they are to be rental units, is there any anticipation of affordable or rent controlled? what is the structure? >> president swig, i will defer to the client partly on the answer to this. i have not been involved in the project until recently. i do not believe there is any requirement that would exist that would make a two unit structure subject to any affordability restriction or rent control. i would assume two units and if

they are condos, not subject to rent control. >> are they anticipated to be subdivided? they are and condominium'd? >> it is important for the neighborhood to know. >> i know. >> commissioners, the intention is to get a building permit for two equitable younts. >> told as t.i.c. or condominiums? >> they are to be sold -- and we actually haven't got that far to be honest. it is a process that's gone on a long time depending on how long it goes financially, etc., plans change. but at the moment the plan is to get it entitle and get it