Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
www.sfplanning.org
Discretionary Review Abbreviated Analysis HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2018
Date: September 19, 2018 Case No.: 2017-015997DRP Project Address: 1871 Green St. Permit Application: 2017.1204.5366 Zoning: RH-2 [Residential House, Two-Family] 40-X Height and Bulk District Block/Lot: 0554/023 Project Sponsor: Carolyn Walker Davis, Architect (c/o David Heath, owner) 15 Convent Court San Rafael, CA 94901 Staff Contact: David Winslow – (415) 575-9159 [email protected] Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve as proposed
PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of a horizontal addition to the side and rear of a 2,319 square foot 3-story single-family house built in 1885. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE The site is a 25’ x 137.5’ upsloping lot. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD This block of Green Street consists of predominately 3-story wood sided single family houses. BUILDING PERMIT NOTIFICATION
TYPE REQUIRED
PERIOD NOTIFICATION
DATES DR FILE DATE DR HEARING DATE FILING TO HEARING TIME
311 Notice
30 days May 22, 2018 – June 21, 2018
06.21. 2018 10.04. 2018 105 days
HEARING NOTIFICATION
TYPE REQUIRED
PERIOD REQUIRED NOTICE DATE ACTUAL NOTICE DATE
ACTUAL PERIOD
Posted Notice 10 days September 24, 2018 September 24, 2018 10 days Mailed Notice 10 days September 24, 2018 September 24, 2018 10 days
Discretionary Review – Abbreviated Analysis October 4, 2018
2
CASE NO. 2017-015997DRP 1871 Green St.
PUBLIC COMMENT
SUPPORT OPPOSED NO POSITION
Adjacent neighbor(s) 0 0 0 Other neighbors on the block or directly across the street
0 0 0
Neighborhood groups 0 0 0 DR REQUESTOR Linda Beattie and Kyle Sheehy for John Robb of 1877 and 1879 Green Street, adjacent neighbors of the proposed project. DR REQUESTOR’S CONCERNS AND PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Property line windows would be blocked by proposed side addition 2. Privacy and light impacts on neighbors’ on rear deck. 3. Roof drainage impacted by new construction.
See attached Discretionary Review Application, dated June 26, 2018. PROJECT SPONSOR’S RESPONSE TO DR APPLICATION See attached Response to Discretionary Review, dated July 6, 2018. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Department has determined that the proposed project is exempt/excluded from environmental review, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15301 (Class One - Minor Alteration of Existing Facility, (e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet). RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW
1. The Planning Department does not make any provisions about maintaining or protecting property line windows, as they are typically non-complying features. By the description of the DR applicant they are not required for light and air to habitable rooms, therefore this is not an exceptional or extraordinary condition.
2. Privacy impacts by the projecting bay window set back three feet from the side property line does not present any unusual or extraordinary impacts to privacy to the adjacent neighbors’ deck.
3. Roof drainage is not a Planning Department issue.
RECOMMENDATION: Do not take DR and approve project as proposed
Discretionary Review – Abbreviated Analysis October 4, 2018
3
CASE NO. 2017-015997DRP 1871 Green St.
Attachments: Block Book Map Sanborn Map Zoning Map Aerial Photographs Context Photographs Section 311 Notice CEQA Determination DR Application Response to DR Application dated July 6, 2018 Reduced Plans
Exhibits
Discretionary Review Hearing Case Number 2017-015997DRP 1871 Green Street
Parcel Map
Discretionary Review Hearing Case Number 2017-015997DRP 1871 Green Street
SUBJECT PROPERTY DR REQUESTOR’S
PROPERTY
*The Sanborn Maps in San Francisco have not been updated since 1998, and this map may not accurately reflect existing conditions.
Sanborn Map*
Discretionary Review Hearing Case Number 2017-015997DRP 1871 Green Street
SUBJECT PROPERTY DR REQUESTOR’S
PROPERTY
Zoning Map
Discretionary Review Hearing Case Number 2017-015997DRP 1871 Green Street
Aerial Photo
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Discretionary Review Hearing Case Number 2017-015997DRP 1871 Green Street
DR REQUESTOR’S PROPERTY
Aerial Photo
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Discretionary Review Hearing Case Number 2017-015997DRP 1871 Green Street
DR REQUESTOR’S PROPERTY
Aerial Photo
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Discretionary Review Hearing Case Number 2017-015997DRP 1871 Green Street
DR REQUESTOR’S PROPERTY
Aerial Photo
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Discretionary Review Hearing Case Number 2017-015997DRP 1871 Green Street
DR REQUESTOR’S PROPERTY
Site Photo
Discretionary Review Hearing Case Number 2017-015997DRP 1871 Green Street
SUBJECT PROPERTY
中文詢問請電: 415.575.9010 | Para Información en Español Llamar al: 415.575.9010 | Para sa Impormasyon sa Tagalog Tumawag sa: 415.575.9121
1650 Miss ion Street Suite 400 San Franc isco, CA 94103
NOTICE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION (SECTION 311)
On December 4, 2017, the Applicant named below filed Building Permit Application No. 2017.1204.5366 with the City and County of San Francisco.
P R O J E C T I N F O R M A T I O N A P P L I C A N T I N F O R M A T I O N Project Address: 1871 Green Street Applicant: Carolyn Walker Davis Cross Street(s): Laguna Street Address: 15 Convent Court Block/Lot No.: 0554 / 023 City, State: San Rafael, CA 94901 Zoning District(s): RH-2 / 40-X Telephone: (415) 517-4939 Record No.: 2017-015997PRJ Email: [email protected]
You are receiving this notice as a property owner or resident within 150 feet of the proposed project. You are not required to take any action. For more information about the proposed project, or to express concerns about the project, please contact the Applicant listed above or the Planner named below as soon as possible. If you believe that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances associated with the project, you may request the Planning Commission to use its discretionary powers to review this application at a public hearing. Applications requesting a Discretionary Review hearing must be filed during the 30-day review period, prior to the close of business on the Expiration Date shown below, or the next business day if that date is on a week-end or a legal holiday. If no Requests for Discretionary Review are filed, this project will be approved by the Planning Department after the Expiration Date.
Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Commission or the Department. All written or oral communications, including submitted personal contact information, may be made available to the public for inspection and copying upon request and may appear on the Department’s website or in other public documents.
P R O J E C T S C O P E Demolition New Construction Alteration Change of Use Façade Alteration(s) Front Addition Rear Addition Side Addition Vertical Addition PROJ ECT F EATU RES EXISTING PROPOSED Building Use Residential Residential Front Setback 12 feet 4 inches No Change Side Setbacks None No Change Building Depth 60 feet 2 inches 63 feet 2 inches Rear Yard 65 feet 62 feet Building Height 35 feet 2 inches No Change Number of Stories 3 No Change Number of Dwelling Units 1 No Change Number of Parking Spaces 3 No Change
P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N The proposal is a rear an lateral expansion of the existing single-family home. The project includes interior alterations and the expansion of the building to the west to include a new family room and bathroom at the second story, as well as an expansion at the rear and at the west side to include a new bedroom and bathroom at the top story. No portion of the expansion is proposed within the required rear yard. See attached plans. The issuance of the building permit by the Department of Building Inspection or the Planning Commission project approval at a discretionary review hearing would constitute as the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
For more information, please contact Planning Department staff: Planner: David Weissglass Telephone: (415) 575-9177 Notice Date: 5/22/2018 E-mail: [email protected] Expiration Date: 6/21/2018
CEQA Categorical Exemption Determination
PROPERTY INFORMATION/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Address
1871 GREEN ST
Block/Lot(s)
Project description for Planning Department approval.
Permit No.
Addition/
Alteration
Demolition (requires HRE for
Category B Building)
New
Construction
REMODEL KITCHEN, ADD FAMILY ROOM AT MAIN LEVEL, ADD BATH, RELOCATE LAUNDRY. REMOVE
ROOF DECK, ADD MASTER BED AND BATH AT UPPER LEVEL.
Case No.
2017-015997PRJ
0554023
STEP 1: EXEMPTION CLASS
*Note: If neither class applies, an Environmental Evaluation Application is required.*
Class 1 - Existing Facilities. Interior and exterior alterations; additions under 10,000 sq. ft.
Class 3 - New Construction. Up to three new single-family residences or six dwelling units in one
building; commercial/office structures; utility extensions; change of use under 10,000 sq. ft. if principally
permitted or with a CU.
Class 32 - In-Fill Development. New Construction of seven or more units or additions greater than
10,000 sq. ft. and meets the conditions described below:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan
policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than 5 acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or
water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING USE ONLY
Class ____
STEP 2: CEQA IMPACTSTO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER
If any box is checked below, an Environmental Evaluation Application is required.
Air Quality: Would the project add new sensitive receptors (specifically, schools, day care facilities,
hospitals, residential dwellings, and senior-care facilities within an Air Pollution Exposure Zone? Does the
project have the potential to emit substantial pollutant concentrations (e.g., backup diesel generators,
heavy industry, diesel trucks, etc.)? (refer to EP _ArcMap > CEQA Catex Determination Layers > Air Pollution
Exposure Zone)
Hazardous Materials: If the project site is located on the Maher map or is suspected of containing
hazardous materials (based on a previous use such as gas station, auto repair, dry cleaners, or heavy
manufacturing, or a site with underground storage tanks): Would the project involve 50 cubic yards or
more of soil disturbance ‐ or a change of use from industrial to residential? If yes, this box must be
checked and the project applicant must submit an Environmental Application with a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment. Exceptions: do not check box
if the applicant presents documentation of enrollment in the San Francisco Department of Public Health
(DPH) Maher program, a DPH waiver from the Maher program, or other documentation from
Environmental Planning staff that hazardous material effects would be less than significant (refer to
EP_ArcMap > Maher layer).
Transportation: Does the project create six (6) or more net new parking spaces or residential units?
Does the project have the potential to adversely affect transit, pedestrian and/or bicycle safety (hazards)
or the adequacy of nearby transit, pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities?
Archeological Resources: Would the project result in soil disturbance/modification greater than two
(2) feet below grade in an archeological sensitive area or eight (8) feet in a non -archeological sensitive
area? (refer to EP_ArcMap > CEQA Catex Determination Layers > Archeological Sensitive Area)
Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment: Does the project site involve a subdivision or lot line adjustment
on a lot with a slope average of 20% or more? (refer to EP_ArcMap > CEQA Catex Determination Layers >
Topography)
Slope = or > 20%: Does the project involve any of the following: (1) square footage expansion greater
than 1,000 sq. ft. outside of the existing building footprint, (2) excavation of 50 cubic yards or more of
soil, (3) new construction? (refer to EP_ArcMap > CEQA Catex Determination Layers > Topography) If box is
checked, a geotechnical report is required.
Seismic: Landslide Zone: Does the project involve any of the following: (1) square footage expansion
greater than 1,000 sq. ft. outside of the existing building footprint, (2) excavation of 50 cubic yards or
more of soil, (3) new construction? (refer to EP_ArcMap > CEQA Catex Determination Layers > Seismic Hazard
Zones) If box is checked, a geotechnical report is required.
Seismic: Liquefaction Zone: Does the project involve any of the following: (1) square footage
expansion greater than 1,000 sq. ft. outside of the existing building footprint, (2) excavation of 50
cubic yards or more of soil, (3) new construction? (refer to EP_ArcMap > CEQA Catex Determination Layers >
Seismic Hazard Zones) If box is checked, a geotechnical report will likely be required.
If no boxes are checked above, GO TO STEP 3. If one or more boxes are checked above, an
Environmental Evaluation Application is required, unless reviewed by an Environmental Planner.
Comments and Planner Signature (optional): David Weissglass
STEP 3: PROPERTY STATUS - HISTORIC RESOURCETO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER
PROPERTY IS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: (refer to Parcel Information Map)
Category A: Known Historical Resource. GO TO STEP 5.
Category B: Potential Historical Resource (over 45 years of age). GO TO STEP 4.
Category C: Not a Historical Resource or Not Age Eligible (under 45 years of age). GO TO STEP 6.
STEP 4: PROPOSED WORK CHECKLIST
TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER
Check all that apply to the project.
1. Change of use and new construction. Tenant improvements not included.
2. Regular maintenance or repair to correct or repair deterioration, decay, or damage to building.
3. Window replacement that meets the Department’s Window Replacement Standards. Does not include
storefront window alterations.
4. Garage work. A new opening that meets the Guidelines for Adding Garages and Curb Cuts, and/or
replacement of a garage door in an existing opening that meets the Residential Design Guidelines.
5. Deck, terrace construction, or fences not visible from any immediately adjacent public right-of-way.
6. Mechanical equipment installation that is not visible from any immediately adjacent public
right-of-way.
7. Dormer installation that meets the requirements for exemption from public notification under Zoning
Administrator Bulletin No. 3: Dormer Windows.
8. Addition(s) that are not visible from any immediately adjacent public right -of-way for 150 feet in each
direction; does not extend vertically beyond the floor level of the top story of the structure or is only a
single story in height; does not have a footprint that is more than 50% larger than that of the original
building; and does not cause the removal of architectural significant roofing features.
Note: Project Planner must check box below before proceeding.
Project is not listed. GO TO STEP 5.
Project does not conform to the scopes of work. GO TO STEP 5.
Project involves four or more work descriptions. GO TO STEP 5.
Project involves less than four work descriptions. GO TO STEP 6.
STEP 5: CEQA IMPACTS - ADVANCED HISTORICAL REVIEWTO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER
Check all that apply to the project.
1. Project involves a known historical resource (CEQA Category A) as determined by Step 3 and
conforms entirely to proposed work checklist in Step 4.
2. Interior alterations to publicly accessible spaces.
3. Window replacement of original/historic windows that are not “in-kind” but are consistent with
existing historic character.
4. Façade/storefront alterations that do not remove, alter, or obscure character-defining features.
5. Raising the building in a manner that does not remove, alter, or obscure character -defining
features.
6. Restoration based upon documented evidence of a building’s historic condition, such as historic
photographs, plans, physical evidence, or similar buildings.
7. Addition(s), including mechanical equipment that are minimally visible from a public right -of-way
and meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation .
8. Other work consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties (specify or add comments):
9. Other work that would not materially impair a historic district (specify or add comments):
(Requires approval by Senior Preservation Planner/Preservation Coordinator)
10. Reclassification of property status. (Requires approval by Senior Preservation
Planner/Preservation
Reclassify to Category A
a. Per HRER dated
b. Other (specify):
(attach HRER)
Reclassify to Category C
Note: If ANY box in STEP 5 above is checked, a Preservation Planner MUST check one box below.
Further environmental review required. Based on the information provided, the project requires an
Environmental Evaluation Application to be submitted. GO TO STEP 6.
Project can proceed with categorical exemption review. The project has been reviewed by the
Preservation Planner and can proceed with categorical exemption review. GO TO STEP 6.
Comments (optional):
Preservation Planner Signature:
TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER
STEP 6: CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION DETERMINATION
Further environmental review required. Proposed project does not meet scopes of work in either
(check all that apply):
Step 2 - CEQA Impacts
Step 5 - Advanced Historical Review
STOP! Must file an Environmental Evaluation Application.
Project Approval Action: Signature:
If Discretionary Review before the Planning Commission is requested,
the Discretionary Review hearing is the Approval Action for the project.
Once signed or stamped and dated, this document constitutes a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and Chapter
31of the Administrative Code.
In accordance with Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, an appeal of an exemption determination can only be
filed within 30 days of the project receiving the first approval action.
Please note that other approval actions may be required for the project. Please contact the assigned planner for these approvals.
David Weissglass
09/21/2018
No further environmental review is required. The project is categorically exempt under CEQA.
There are no unusual circumstances that would result in a reasonable possibility of a significant
effect.
Building Permit
TO BE COMPLETED BY PROJECT PLANNER
STEP 7: MODIFICATION OF A CEQA EXEMPT PROJECT
In accordance with Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, when a California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) exempt project changes after the Approval Action and requires a subsequent approval, the
Environmental Review Officer (or his or her designee) must determine whether the proposed change
constitutes a substantial modification of that project. This checklist shall be used to determine whether the
proposed changes to the approved project would constitute a “substantial modification” and, therefore, be
subject to additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
PROPERTY INFORMATION/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Address (If different than front page) Block/Lot(s) (If different than
front page)
Case No. Previous Building Permit No. New Building Permit No.
Plans Dated Previous Approval Action New Approval Action
1871 GREEN ST
2017-015997PRJ
Building Permit
0554/023
Modified Project Description:
DETERMINATION IF PROJECT CONSTITUTES SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION
Compared to the approved project, would the modified project:
Result in expansion of the building envelope, as defined in the Planning Code;
Result in the change of use that would require public notice under Planning Code
Sections 311 or 312;
Result in demolition as defined under Planning Code Section 317 or 19005(f)?
Is any information being presented that was not known and could not have been known
at the time of the original determination, that shows the originally approved project may
no longer qualify for the exemption?
If at least one of the above boxes is checked, further environmental review is required.
DETERMINATION OF NO SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION
Planner Name:
The proposed modification would not result in any of the above changes.
If this box is checked, the proposed modifications are categorically exempt under CEQA, in accordance with prior project
approval and no additional environmental review is required. This determination shall be posted on the Planning
Department website and office and mailed to the applicant, City approving entities, and anyone requesting written notice.
Signature or Stamp:
~'!~p ~~~~?i
~ ''1~ ~, San Francisco ~ ~M ~ ~ ~~"o ,~• ~ ~~ wwwsfpamingorg
~~~ ~~~~~ 'JUN 2 1 2Q18
PLFu~lhl,~~:~ L]EPNRTMENTPursuant to Planning Code Section 311 (d) and 312 (e), the Planning Commission may exercise its power~o~~Discretionary Review over a building permit application.
Please read the Discretionary Review Informational Packet carefully before the application form is completed.
WHAT TO SUBMIT:C4'One (1) complete application signed by owner oragent.
C9~A Letter of Authorization for Agent from the ownergiving you permission to communicate with theplanning department on their behalf.
Q~hotographs or plans that illustrate your conerns.
f~~]~.~II C~7.Y : u
To file your Mandatory or Sta~nitiated Discretionary
Review application, please send an email request
along with the intake appointment request
form to: CPC.(ntake~fgov.org. Intake request
forms are mailable here: http://sf-~lannine.ore/
perm it-forms-application s-and-fees.
❑ Related covenants or deed restrictions (if any).
L~d'A digital copy (CD or USB drive), containingthe application, project drawings, letter ofauthorization, etc.
CtYPayment via Check, Money Order or debit/creditfor the required intake fee amount. (See FeeSchedule and/or Calculator)
To file your Public Initiated Discretionary Review (Public)
application, please submit in person at the Planning
Information Center, 1660 Mission Street, Qt fir,
with all required materials including a check payable
to the Planning Department.
Espanol: Si desea ayuda sobre como llenar esta solicituden espanol, por favor Ilame a1415.575.9010. Tenga encuenta que el Departamento de Plani ~' ion requerira almenos un dia habil para responder
t~~,415.575.9010o p~i~~~ ~~~~o~~~~~~~i`—~❑~I~~B~cC°~J~o
Tagalog: Kung gusto mo ng tulong sa pagkumpletong application na ito sa Filipino, paki tawagan ang415.575.9121. Paki tandaan na mangangailangan angPlanning Department ng hindi kukulangin sa Tsang crawna pantrabaho para makasagot.
R4GE7 ~ RANNINGARlJCgTON-DISI€fIONAM (~VIBN V. 06.122018 SAN FWWg9A RNJNING DffP.RlMB~IT
~~ ~'' ~i ~sa~ i isco~oj ~ ~ r1~
~a8 . o~
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION
PLANPIING APPLICATION RECORD NUMBER
Property Owner's Information
Name: J0~~1 ~C~~
Address: , G~~ ~ n ~~~ ~ i,Y~~~ Email Address: ~,J 1Y~ ~jb (~ ~ rn~+.-L ~, ~'(jY~0/ CO -f ~1
{ b ~ 1 Telephone: ~ ~ J F ~ q ~ " 7 ~ ~ o~
Applicant Information (if applicable)
Name: Ll~'~~(,~. ~tCnt~►C'r ~ [~~~~ c~►'122~1~ Same as above
Company/Organization:.. `~q ~ ~JYl~IAI.~I~~ ~~Q ~( l~ 1 CQ..~j l,,,l, C,
Address: l ~ (Q~ 1~~~~~ L ~ ~ ~ Email Address: ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~j ~ ~jY~`~YG~c"~u f S~~ lU 1C~'-S . ~,a~'~
~G.~~,~~_CL. ~S~ _~( ~(~ ~ y _ Telephone:.. ._ ~ 1 ~ ~~ (~.` ~ ~ ~. y
Please Select Billing Contact:
Name: ~~(l'r1 ~O1rJb
Owner ~ Applicant ❑Other (see below for details)
Email: W V~~r -~.c~~ ~, LUrI.P Phone: ~ ~~' ~~~ - 7 {P~~
Please Select Primary Project Contact: I,~ Owner ❑Applicant ❑Billing
Property Information
Project Address: j ~1 ~ ~ reC~,Y~_ ~ ~" Block/Lot(s): ~C~. y Z3I
Plan Area: Y n r...-
Project Description:
Please provide a narrative project description that summarizes the project and its purpose.
~IZ~ew~o cam. K~ ~cr~e.►~ 1~ d ~ ~~a m ~ ty ~Qo,r-t C m~ Le ~r~.l~ C~c~ c~ C3 ~ ~ ti~('e \o Cs,.~ ~e. l..ca..,.:v.~s ~ re w~ov~ ro~ c~-ec]L ~ A ~ c~ tv`~~~r 13 -e~0.v J ~~ c ~`~. C~ ~'~' p'~'~' ~~eA.
PAGE2 ~ PLANNING APPLICATION -DISCRETIONARY REVIEW V. 06.12.2018 SAN FflANCISCO VLANNING DEPARTMENT
Project Details:
❑ Change of Use ❑New Construction ❑Demolition ❑Facade Alterations ❑ROW Improvements
Additions ❑Legislative/Zoning Changes ❑Lot Line Adjustment-Subdivision ❑Other
Estimated Construction Cost: ~ c~Ov ~ ~C`~0 .~~
Residential: ❑Special Needs ❑Senior Housing ❑ 100%Affordable ❑Student Housing ❑Dwelling Unit Legalization
❑ Indusionary Housing Required ❑State Density Bonus ❑Accessory Dwelling Unit ~ K} C~~ lT'~ 0 V)
Non-Residential: ❑Formula Retail ❑Medical Cannabis Dispensary ❑Tobacco Paraphernalia Establishment
❑ Financial Service ❑Massage Establishment ❑Other:
Related Building Permits Applications
Building Permit Applications No(s):
~ ~ l ~I. 1 a.~ ~~ . ~~3 ~ 4~
PAGE3 ~ PLANNING APPLICATION -DISCRETIONARY NEVIEW V, 06.12.2018 SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ACTIONS PRIOR TO A DISCRETIONARY REVIEW REQUEST
In reviewing applications for Certificate of Appropriateness the Historic Preservation Commission, Department staff, Board ofAppeals and/or Board of Supervisors, and the Planning Commission shall be governed by The Secretaryof the Interior's Standardsfor theTreatmentofHistoric Properties pursuant to Section 1006.6 of the Planning Code. Please respond to each statementcompletely (Note: Attach continuation sheets, if necessary). Give reasons as to how and why the project meets the ten Standardsrather than merely concluding that it does so. IF A GIVEN REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT, EXPLAIN WHY ITDOES NOT.
PRIOR ACTION YES NO
Have you discussed this project with the permit applicant? x
Did you discuss the project with he Planning Department permit review planner? x
Did you participate in outside mediation on this case? (including Community Boards) 'y~>
CHANGES MADE TO THE PROJECT AS A RESULT OF MEDIATIONIf you have discussed the project with the applicant, planning staff or gone through mediation, please attach a summary of theresult, including any changes that were made to the proposed project.
P I e a-se ~~ e~ ~t ~ c
PAGE4 ~ PLANNING APPLICATION -DISCRETIONARY REVIEW V. 06.121018 SAN FRANCISCO VLANNING DEPARTMENT
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW REQUEST
In the space below and on seperate paper, if necessary, please present facts sufficient to answer each question.
1. What are the reasons for requesting Discretionary Review? The project meets the standards of the Planning Code and the
Residential Design Guidelines. What are the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances thatjustify Discretionary Review of
the project? How does the project conflict with the City's General Plan or the Planning Code's Priority Policies or Residential
Design Guidelines? Please be specific and site specific sections of the Residential Design Guidelines.
~e ~ iA~C~t e~
2. The Residential Design Guidelines assume some impacts to be reasonable and expected as part of construction. Please
explain how this project would cause unreasonable impacts. If you believe your property, the property of others or the
neighborhood would be unreasonably affected, please state who would be affected, and how.
3. What alternatives or changes to the proposed project, beyond the changes (if any) already made would respond to the
exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and reduce the adverse effects noted above in question #1?
~~,~ ~-ts~Cl..~—~~ L'. ,SJ
PAGE 5 ~ GLANNING APPLICATION- DISCRETIONARY flEVIEW V. 06.12.2018 SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING ~EPAPTMENT
APPLICANT`S AFFIDAVITUnder penalty of perjury the following declarations are made:
a) The undersigned is the owner or authorized agent of the owner of this property.
b) The information presented is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
c) Other information or applications may be required.
Signat e
Relationship to Project Phone(i.e. Owner, Architect, etc.)
G~n~~ ✓~-~tl~icName (Printed)
~~ ~ JQ ~ ~ b Cn~ fi-4 cif se_v v «e s ,cow
APPLICANT'S SITEVlSITCQNSENT FORM
herby authorize City and County of San Francisco Planning staff to conduct a site visit of this property, making all portions of the
interior and exterior accessible.
Sig ature
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~a~t~ ~eName (Printed)
~/a~~~~Date
For Department UseOnly
Application received by Planning Department:
By: Date:
PAGE6 ~ PLANNING APPLICATION -DISCRETIONARY REVIEW V.06.121018 SAN FflANCI5C0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
John Robb 1877 Green St San Francisco, CA, 94123 415-794-7672
David Weissglass, PlannerFlex Team, Current Planning DivisionSan Francisco Planning Department1650 Mission Street, Suite 400San Francisco, CA 94103
David,
authorize B&B Contractor Services to act as my agent with regards to the constructionat 1871 Green St.
Thank you,
~~~ ~~~John Robb
John Robb 1877 Green St794-7672Rob and Caron Philips 1879 Green St
David Weissglass, PlannerFlex Team, Current Planning DivisionSan Francisco Planning Department1650 Mission Street, Suite 400San Francisco, CA 94103
David,
San Francisco, CA, 94123 415-
San Francisco, CA, 94123
Thank you for your continued support in helping us gathering information and learnmore about the development plans at 1871 Green St. As you know, I purchased 1877Green St less than 30 days ago on 5/23. I am still trying to learn more about the impactof the potential construction at 1871 Green St on my property. I have read the letterswritten by the previous owner of my property as well as the letters written by DavidHeath, the owner of 1871 Green St. Additionally, I have read the letters sent by theowners of the condo below, 1879 Green St, and the response from David Heath.
At this point, I believe I need more time to make sure that the construction and the plando not have a negative impact on my property. I do not believe that all of the partieshave been able to find common ground and to come up with a plan that works foreveryone. I am hopefully that we can work together and given David Strong support forhis project.
Below are the areas of concern that remain unresolved:
1) Property Line Windows —The proposed plan would block two windows that areused for ventilation and light for a kitchen and bathroom. Clearly, there aresolutions like skylight or creating a lightwell that would help address theseconcerns. Exhibit A shows that if the plan was notched it would satisfy bothparties.
2) Privacy and Light on a Deck and Backyard —The proposed plan wouldsignificantly impact the privacy and light to the back deck and the yard below it.Additionally, the proposed window at 1871 Green St that faces my property isless than 3 feet from my deck. I have been advised that this creates fireconcerns (see Exhibit B). I believe it would be easy to move the bay window tothe East and to have the windows face to the East without materially changingthe quality of the design at 1871 Green St. The best solution would go beyondprivacy glass.
3) East Facing Roof Drainage —The roof drainage from our property would beimpacted by the current architectural plans. The three parties, including the
previous owner of 1877 Green St, the current owner of 1879 Green St and theproject owner, have been unable to come up with a plan to deal with thisdrainage. There are a range of solutions, including a roof cricket system, thatwould help address making sure both properties have proper roof drainage.
Thank you again for the support and I hope that all parties can work together quickly tosupport the construction at 1871 Green St. Obviously, if the project proceeds bothparties will need to be in support of all permits needed to complete the work. My goal isto quickly come to a compromise and to support the project.
Thank you,
~~
John Robb
~ s ~.:ti
•
^' Edy
~, 4
4
1~a~ ~l
r.
Ju, .
r.
V~':
,: °
~..3
1- r—
r
+'`si,
~~
.~,~~f.e.~~~~:~~: f
~~ :~~.k
~~
f
~;
'~ .y '.
~ .~~x .
:~f,~
o
'~~~`«,~
~~{t'
..,stn.
.•
~ =..~~c.:~~r.—
.:
d es .tv a'~~
~~ ".
„~
~,~
~:r~
~ ~
K s'
>~~~
~~ ..•~.
x, ....`
<~
I, ~
_ ~ t
..r.~= .
r
r
.Gi. ~~
yti
C~~ h:
F ~,r
„~.4
y 4
~-t
.. ~
ti
~ ~
~Ya ~
.,:..
,~;: .
~ ,
j
a~ ,
.~ ~.
.....1t
ree St
-~ ` ~
, .
.~
~: -"` "
~.G:
~,..~;. ~ ,~
- .,
..
k .;.
Ji
tw~'
~a
4 ^
~ l
..
[~
~, hCa.~
/pE a
~
~,.
/~
!' .:
+ .
. 5~
.,
..
y,
A$ s.y
~.. ~~'. ice' 1
..
~ P'~?•'~
G .N~~
...
r
j~
Yt#U'
.~
..
..
~ "a
~. d
~.
~~
.,
~ .
t _
,r
~.E
M 1
i ~
:: A
~
ry
w
,~ ~
..
Google Earth
~,1 ~
~:2~, 8 Goog~e
1~ ~ a~~.
~~~ *'~-
~ ~~^~
a~aye Landsat /Copernicus
" t , ,:
,~-°"°.~.
~-.
~i
. ~ti . ~~f~ .°
R~,r
1
1(
~
".~
~.
e/M ,
~
~- ~,
F
6 r
k''...
~Y~~ ~~~.
~...
., ~~rl~- .,
9 _, `"
~ t }
. .
9
w~.~:
:.~6•~6
FIRE AND SMOKE PROTECTION FEATURES
705.8.1 Allowable area of openings. The maximum area 1.2. Where the wall faces an unoccupiedof unprotected and protected openings permitted in an space. The unoccupied space shall. be on
-- ~xteriar wail in any story ofa building shall not exceed the the same }ot ordedicated f'or public use,percentages specified in Table 705.8. shall nat be less than 30 feet (9144 mm)
Exceptions. in width and shall have access from astreet by a postc;d fire lane in accordance
1. In other than Group H occu~rancies, unlimited with the C'alifornea Fire Cade.unprotected openings are permitted in the firststory ahove grade plane either; 2. Buildings whose exterior bearing wails, extcri~r
'`-' nonbearing wills aid exleriar primary structural1.1. Where the wall fads a street and has a frame are nc~t required t~ be fire-resistance raked
fire separation distance of mare than 1 Sfeet (4572 mm); or
TABLE 705.8MAXIMUM AREA OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS BASED ON
FIRE SEPARA7fON DISTANCE AND dEGREE OF OPENING PROTECTION
FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE (feet) DEGREE QFOPENING PROTECTION ALLOWABLE AREA°
0 [o less than 3". k
Unprotected, Nonsprinklered (UP, NS) Not Permittx;d'`
Unprotected, Sprinklered (UP, S}' NBC Permitted"
Protected (P) Not Permitted`
3 to less than
Unprotected, N~nspr'rnklered (UP, NS) Not Permitted
Unproteet~ed, Sprinkiered (UP, S}' 1510
Protected (P) i5z'Io
_5 to less than l(~•~'
Unprotected, Nonsprinklered (UP; l~iS) 10%`'
Unprotected, Sprinklered (UP, ;S)` 25%
Protected (p) 25~j,
10 tq less than 15`• ~ E ~
Unprotected, Nonsprinklerec9 (UF; NS} 15%''
Unprotected, Sprinklereci (UP, S)' 45%n
Protected (P) 45%
15 to less than 2~r~k~'
Unprot~:cted, Nansprinklered (UP, NS) 25~'Io
Unprotected, Spri~klered (UY, S)' 75°l0
Protected (P) 75~~0
20 to less than 25'• &~'
Unprgtected, Nonsprinklered (UP, NS) 4510
Unprotected, Spnnklered (UP, S}` No Limil
Protected (P) No Limit
25 ko less than 30'~•~~'
Unprotected, Ncrosprinklerecl (UP, NS) 70%
Unprotected, Sprinklered (UP, S)' No Limit
Protected (P) No Limit
30 or gzeater
Unprotected,Nonsprinklered (13P, NS) No Limit
Unprotected, 5prinkkered (Uf', S)' No Limit
Protected (P) No Litnit
ForS[: 1 fcxrt = 304.8 mm.UP, NS =Unprotected openings in buildings not equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.11.UP, ~ =Unprotected openings in buildings equipped khroughout with an aufomatic sprinkler system. in accordance with Sec[ion 903.3.1.1.P =Openings protected with an opening pr<ftective assembly in accordance with Section 705,8?,a~ Valuzs indicated are the percentage of the area of the exterior wall, per story.b. For Che reAuirements For t~1i~e walls of buildings with difi~ering heights, see Seetioo 706.6.Ec. For openings in a fire wall for buildings on the same lot, sec Section 706.8.
—~ d. The ~naxitmm~ percenwge o€ unprotected and protected openings shall be 25 percent. for Group R-3 occupancies.e: Unprotected openings shall no[ be permitted for openings with a fire separation distance of less than 15 feet for Group H-2 and H-3 occupancies.f. fihe area of unprestected and protected openings shall not he limited t"dr Group R-3 occupancies, with a fire separakion distance of 5 fc;et or greater.g. The art;a of openings in an open parking structure with ~ fire separation distance of l0 feet ar greater shall npt be limited.t~. Includes buitdingsaecessory to GroupR-3.i. Not applicable to Group H-1, H-2 and H-3 occupancies.j. The tires of r~penings in a huidding cuntairirng only a Grrrup U occe~f~aruy private garu~;e ar carport with a,/ire ,ser~ur~atiorz disi~nc~e of S,feet (7523 nimj or
Rreater sluill no[ be limited.k. For openings between S-2 parking garage and Group N-2 building, see Section 705.3, Exception 2.
2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SUPPLEMENT—BLUE 2O3EFFECTIVE JULY 1,2018
6/21/18
1. Letter dated 12/18/2017 from previous owner of 1877 Green Whitney Pieper to owner of
project of 1871 David Heath. Stating concerns with the proposed project.
2. Letter dated 3/16/18 Response to Robert Phillips and Ms. Caron Stapleton owner of 1879 Green
Street. From owner of proposed project David Heath regarding their concerns of the proposed
project.
3. Email dated 5/30/18 Owner of 1877 Green Street asking Planning staff David Weissglass for the
permit package for the proposed project located at 1871 Green Street.
4. Email dated 6/3/18 from John Robb owner of 1877 Green regarding the impact the project will
have on his property, including response from project owner David Heath to property owner
John Robb of 1877 Green Street owner.
5. Email dated 6/20/18 from John Robb owner of 1877 Green to Planning staff David Weissglass
regarding concerns of the proposed project and explaining that he needs more time to review
the proposed project located at 1871 Green since he is a new owner of the property.
DocuSign Envelope ID: SCA9BC2D-9BBD-48C9-A23C-7069437ACBFA I
~~
David Heath °ocoSianed~ 5/16/20181871 Green Street ~► (,t,i,~, ~,(,~San Francesco, CA 94123 ~~4N~,45og,4ri~ ,,,
December 18, 2017
Dear David,
Thank you for sending the October 2017 plans for your remodel and for the invitation to yourpre-application neighborhood meeting. I was unable to attend the neighbor meeting as I was outof town, so the plans were very helpful. I have reviewed drawings and now have a betterunderstanding of your proposed project. As a directly adjacent dwelling owner, I would like torepeat the concerns#hat the Phillips' addressed during the neighborhood meeting to yourarchitect regarding your plans, and mention a few more concerns that I hope we can discuss.
1. Property line windows: The proposed rear expansion of your building blocks an existingeast facing operable property line window on my floor that gives light and ventilation tomy kitchen area. Would you consider contributing towards the cost of closing the currentwindow and the: addition of a small operable skylight in the same area which wouldretain my light and ventilation, while not conflicting with your addition?
2. Privacy at my existing deck: The proposed e~ension of your house includes a baywindow at the rear which shows a west facing window looking directly onto my deck at asimilar height. Unrated windows within 3'-0° of the propertyJine are not code compliant,but furthermore. the location of the window ruins the privacy of my deck which is the onlyoutside space available to my unit. A window and direct view within. a few feet of mydeck will drastically change my enjoyment of it and our enjoyment of our respectiveproperties.
3. Existing roof drainage: The. eastern portion of my gable roof currently drains to a gutterrunning along the eastern property line. Your proposed addition will remove that gutter.We should discuss how you could design a small parapet similar to what is proposed onthe eastern side of your property so that a cricket could be built to channel water to arain water leader at the southern. end of my building. This .would benefit us both.
In general, I do support the project ifiwe can come to resolution on the above three items.ln acity as small as San Francisco it is imperative that owners can revise their properties to changewith their lives and needs, however I hope we can resolve my concerns prior to you submitting.for Planning review.
Sincerely
Whitney .Pieper1877 Green StreetSan Francisco, CA 94123.
.~
CC: Carolyn Walker Davis —ArchitectCaron &Rob. Phillips -Owners 1879 Green St.:
~p~ ~-3David,
Thank you for sending over your plans for remodel. I was unable to attend the neighbor meeting, as
was out of town, so this was very helpful. I would like to repeat the concerns that the Phillips'
addressed during the neighborhood meeting to your architect regarding your plans. Two main concerns
come to mind, the blockage of the west-side windows and the blockage of western sunlight with the
back of the house coming 6' out past our property.
would first like to point out that our home was built in 1896 and has survived through 2 major
earthquakes and the development of the rest of the neighborhood around us. While some of the laws
may have changed, we have been able to keep a lot of the original architecture and unique features of
our house as it was originally built.
My first concern about your drawing is the blockage of the upper window just off the kitchen.
While this isn't a "view' window, it does provide western light into the house and is a major
source of ventilation for the room.
My second concern is around the extension of the back of the house 6' past the end of our unit.
Again, this basically puts your add-on on top of the only outside space that we have, blocking all
of the western light for the back of our unit.
do want to note that your diagram on page 2 is incorrect. The small window depicted towards the rear
of our house should actually be on page 3, as it is on the lower floor. With the blockage of this window,
believe that you have put the Phillips' home in code violation, as it is the only source of ventilation for
their bathroom. This is also a concern.
Additionally, I have also consulted a real estate professional who validated my concerns around the
value of my house being downgraded by the blockage of a window and putting a neighboring structure
on top of my outdoor space.
do hope that you are open to discussing these concerns further and that we can come to a resolution
that will serve both of our interests and concerns.
Thank you,
Whitney
Carolyn Walker Davis
15 Convent Court
Response to Discretionary Review July 6, 2018
Project Information
Property Address: 1871 Green St Zip code: 94123
Building Permit Application: 2017.1204.5366
Record Number: 2017-015997DRP Assigned Planner: David Weissglass
Required Questions
1 Given the concerns of the DR requester and other concerned parties, why do you feel your
proposal project should be approved?
OUR APPROACH
We have approached our project with fairness, respect and due consideration to the neighbors and
neighborhood and respect for the aesthetic of this Victorian house of which we are blessed to call home.
Being mindful, thoughtful and deliberate, we commenced our discussions with the Building Inspection
Dept and Planning Dept very early on in our process. We sought advice from the Building Inspection
Dept and Planning Dept regarding layout, fire safety as well as procedural and protocols and
incorporated this advice into our plans. We remain grateful for this advice, notably from Mark Walls and
David Weissglass. Courtesy of these discussions we were advised that property line windows are neither
permitted nor protected.
We have also been mindful and respectful in navigating the new procedures tie the pre-application
meeting) and responded to neighbors. Regretfully our engagement with the neighbors has not been
reciprocated despite the implications contained in their DR filing — the only feedback we received has
been in the form of their filing a DR request which was made on the last possible day.
OUR NEIGHBORS’ APPROACH
I’d like to share examples of the neighbors’ approach to being “good neighbors”:
- The new owner of 1877 Green contacted my Architect on May 30th emailed him, in good faith
as the (unverified) new owner, on June 3” sharing my Match 16th 2018 letter sent to the prior
owner and provided my phone number saying I was happy to speak. This email is contained in
the DR request filing. I never heard from the new owner so left him messages. He confirmed
he’d call me back, but didn’t. He stated to David Weissglass that he wants “to be a friendly and
support neighbor” (email dated June 11th) I made numerous attempts to discuss the project
with him but my efforts were not reciprocated. By the time we connected, by my calling him
(again), he had already filed the DR request. I question any intention of engagement beyond
complaint prior to or after the DR request being filed.
- Some years ago, at their request, I granted the neoghbors permission to access my property in
order to paint their house. I granted access of course, without protestation because to do
otherwise would be both unreasonable and ridiculous. My only request was for them to paint
the wall facing my property (which by definition they cannot see but is approximately 40’ by 40’)
a color in sympathy with the color of my house, which is a pale yellow. In blatant disregard they
chose to paint it bright green and refused, through inaction, to engage with me when I asked
why they ignored my simple and reasonable request. My house now faces a 40’ by 40’ bright
green wall which gives my rooms a green hue. The point being what they say does not echo how
they act.
- At the Pre-application meeting the owner at 1879 Green verbally expressed ambivalence as to
the protection of the lower floor window. Despite this, we addressed this issue since it was
written in those meeting notes, of course, and now, according to the DR filing they re-raise it.
Again, what they say does not echo their actions.
- My letters to both owners dated March 16 2018 tExhibits A & B] have been ignored by both
recipients including by the new owner of the upper unit albeit would/should obviously have
been a discussion point between buyer and seller — other than by virtue of filing the DR request.
I share this as a challenge to their presenting themselves as reasonable, communicative, helpful and
“good neighbors” — their actions speak for themselves.
I also refer you to an excerpt of an email from 1877 Green’s new owner and David Weissglass dated
June 11th and contained in the DR request filing: “I also discovering some documents were not given to
me as part of my disclosure packet.” This is something I had wondered, and shared with the new owner
in my June 3rd email, it seeming odd that he would ask me for the project plans. Surely the seller would
have disclosed all necessary paperwork? Referring to Exhibit C attached hereto (being an undated letter
we never received despite representations to the contrary) it is interesting to note that the prior owner
stated ‘.. I have also consulted with a real estate professional who validated my concerns around the
value of my house being downgraded by the blockage of a window and putting a neighboring structure
on top of my outdoor space” - this would explain the timing of her selling the property and motivation
for non-disclosure. Interestingly, the property sold for approximately 15% above her asking price! I
would suggest that the motive(s) for the DR request is founded upon an unreasonable desire to delay
our project and an element of buyer’s remorse resulting from non-disclosure by the seller. Our project is
bearing the brunt of the new owner’s unfortunate circumstances brought about by the seller’s apparent
inaction.
OVERALL PREMISE & SUMMARY
Neither neighbor has cited any new information nor specific issue relative to the project (aside from
where addressed elsewhere in this letter).
Lastly, in an April 3 email David Weissglass shared with me [Exhibit D]:
‘..we will stick to our policies of not immediately protecting property line windows, and allowing
your bay window to be near the existing adjacent deck. HOWEVER, while not required, we
strongly encourage you to work with neighbors to find a way to alleviate these issues. I want to
make sure that you know that if a DR is filed by a neighbor, RDAT will look at the request againin light of any new information or specific issues cited by any DR filers.”
I have attempted to work with the neighbors but my efforts have not reciprocated. I respect the RDATwill look at the request again in light of “any new information or specific issue cited by any DR filers”.The DR requesters have not raised any new information or specific issue that has not already beenpresented to the Planning Dept. The exception to this might be:
- the upper floor bay window being less than 3’ from the property line which we have statedelsewhere herein that we will comply with such applicable code.
- Providing a “notch” to allow the upper floor window to remain which we address elsewhere inthis letter. It is untenably ironic to be asked to set back a window from our property line whilethe neighbors’ core objective is to protect the windows that ate actually on the property line.
We believe the explanation above, and the answers provided below, establish our proposed project asbeing reasonable, echoes the RDTR findings, and thus should be approved.
2 What alternatives or changes to the proposed project are you willing to make in order toaddress the concerns of the DR requestor and other concerned parties? If you have already changedthe project to meet neighborhood concerns please explain those changes and indicate whether theywere made before or after filing your application with the City
RDTR REVIEW
The Planning Dept undertook a thorough RDTR on Match 28 2018 [Exhibit EJ and a number ofconversations pursuant to that meeting. The meeting notes specifically raise the issue of enclosingproperty line windows and, by virtue of their silence, the opinion of the RDTR is that these windows arenot protected in the context of our proposed project.
PROPERTY LINE WINDOWS
I have not received any response to my March 16 2018 letters so I am not able to comment on what theDR requestor is suggesting as reasonable compromise. For purposes of this narrative — and hopefully toprompt dialogue - I will assume they would like us to include light wells for the 2 non-permitted, non-protected windows. If we did so:
- 1879’s bathroom window (lower unit) would gain no practical benefit since it is approximately15-18’ below the building height. Conversely, it would dramatically impact the use of ourproposed room and the bedroom above it. Such a compromise — including for a non-permitted,non-protected window — is not something I would consider reasonable.
- Providing a light well for the 1877’s upper window has been suggested in the DR request. Toprovide this “notch” as they call it, would contradict the Planning Dept’s statement thatproperty line windows are not protected and would be complicit in approving an illegal propertyline window. It would also negatively impact the need for space in that area of the project. Weare a family of 5—suitable bedroom space upstairs is a vital requirement for raising a family.Such a compromise is not something I would see as reasonable and it would undermine the
integrity of the review and permitting process. Fundamentally, to do so would deny the legal
rights of one property owner because of the illegal existence of another’s property line window.
To perpetuate what is known to be wrong undermines the integrity of our being and I see
application of this premise in the instance of these two windows. It is untenably ironic for the
neighbor to seek protection for windows that are actually on the property line while asking us to
set back a window 3’ from our property line and a similar set back in the form of a “notch”.
The Building Inspection and Planning Depts explained to us that property line windows are neither
permitted nor protected. That these 2 property line windows exist is questionable and they certainly
invade the privacy of 1871 Green. The Building Inspection Dept also explained to us that property line
windows that were more recently installed were granted on the specific proviso that they be enclosed in
the event the neighbor wishes to expand.
I would ask the owners of 1877 and 1879 Green — or the Building & Planning Depts - provide the
documentation evidencing the approval of these two windows. As property line windows can be
approved with the proviso that they be required to remove them in the event the neighboring property
expands, we would ask the relevant Building or Planning Dept produce such agreement. If such
agreement exists then the neighbors’ agreement to enclose the windows already exists. If no such
agreement exists then the windows are not permitted. Closing up both these windows would have the
benefit of bringing 1877/1879 Green up to code (no windows within 3’ of property line) the code being
founded on fire separation thus improving fire protection and life safety issues for all properties/parties
involved.
EGRESS / FIRE EXCEPTION
The Building Inspection Dept also explained that property line windows may be protected under specific
circumstances — notably as a means of egress from fire. The bathroom window of 1879 Green is too
small to be a reasonable point of egress. I would expect there are better points of ingress/egress to 1877
Green than their upper window because it is boxed in to 1871 Green.
COMPROMISE OFFER
With that in mind, we would be willing to provide a light weIl/”notch” for the upper window if:
- it is demonstrated by an approved authority (such as the Fire Dept) that the upper window is
the sole or the vital means of ingress/egress; or
- the owners can provide an authentic and verifiable approval /agreement with the relevant San
Francisco Building Dept or prior owner of 1871 Green St that the upper window be installed and
that such agreement guaranteed the future “view” or “rights” to that window.
PROJECT CHANGES MADE PRIOR TO FILING
Following the Pre-Application meeting a Residential Design Team Review was conducted. As a result we
agreed to provide a set-back to the south east corner extension. This requirement was not asked of us
cç
by the neighbor — in fact, that neighbor has not voiced any concern with our proposed project but the
Planning Dept, quite rightly, acted to protect this neighbor’s interests by asking us to provide a set-back.
We redesigned the relevant area to address this concern and thereby ensure the neighbor would not
feel “boxed in”. This set-back was incorporated prior to filing our application. I have commented to
David Weissglass that I agree with protecting neighboring owners as I may very well be an impacted
owner in the future. The Residential Design Team remained silent as to the need for any revision to the
west side of our proposed expansion.
DR REQUESTER CODE ISSUE
The DR requestor has raised a possible Code issue regarding the proposed upper floor bay window being
within 3’ of the property line. If this is verified by the relevant authority, we would certainly comply, it
being our full intent to comply with relevant building Codes.
3 If you are not willing to change the proposed project or pursue other alternative, please state
why you feel that your project would not have any adverse effect on the surrounding properties.
Include an explanation of your needs for space or other personal requirements that prevent you from
making the changes requested by the DR requester.
ADDRESSING DR REQUESTER ISSUES
In revisiting the DR requester’s issues, I would refer you to my letters of March 16 2018 which I
summarize below. It is our belief that our project will not have an adverse effect on the surrounding
properties - quite the contrary, we believe our project will provide some benefit to surrounding
properties.
1879 Green St (Lower unit)
Disappearing back yards:
- the reason 1879’s back yard is disappearing is because they have built on it and their lot is
smaller than others because is backs on to the properties facing Laguna St. See Exhibit F
Alleged loss of light:
- I have improved their natural light by removing and pruning a number of trees on my
property, at my expense.
- My property stands to their east so they’ll not lose any post noon or evening light. The
proposed plans do not go back nearly as far as their own property, thus the impact to their
natural light pre-noon is negligible.
Loss of bathroom window:
- Property line windows are neither permitted nor protected. They have since raised the
notion that removing this window will reduce ventilation. This would suggest it is regularly
opened. In the decade I have lived at 1871 Green St, I have never seen this window open. I
would also add that it is typical for bathrooms (with or without a window) have an electric
ventilation fan and I would be surprised if that bathroom does not already have one
installed.
- It is worth noting that during the Nov 27th Pre-application meeting the owner, in clearly
understanding the possible loss of this window, verbally dismissed any value in its existence
in discussions with my Architect.
Other:
- They raised other questions such as not wanting my structure to go further than theirs. Our
proposed project will not go further than theirs.
1877 Green St (Upper unit)
Loss of kitchen window:
- Property line windows are neither permitted nor protected. The prior owner asked if I would
consider contributing to the cost of closing up the window &/or installing a skylight. This
suggests to me that the owner understood that property line windows are neither
permitted or protected or that agreement exists where the permit for this window being
installed was subject to the proviso that it be enclosed in the event of the expansion of 1871
Green St. The owner of 1877 Green has yet to comment on what this would involve —
another example of my communications not being reciprocated.
- Because this property was recently sold, photographs of the property were available on line
(Zillow). I have attached these photographs, which show a total of 5 additional windows into
this area of the unit which by any reasonable measure clearly demonstrates there is suitable
natural light and ventilation to the unit. These photographs show the unit as sun drenched.
See Exhibit G
Privacy of deck:
- We believe that enclosing our deck and change of use to a bedroom will improve the privacy
of 1877 Green’s deck. We inhabit a City — privacy is a relative word especially with the high
rise apartment buildings to our south and the Upper Deck of the properties facing Laguna St
which also face 1877’s deck. Our project will improve privacy.
Roof drainage:
- As you’ll see from my letter, I agree with this comment.
PERSONAL REQUIREMENTS
We are pursuing this project for the following reasons:
- We are a family with three children so we need 4 bedrooms on the same level. To do
otherwise would be to disregard the needs that children have of their parents.
- Our extended families are in Pennsylvania and the UK. Both our fathers are in their mid-SOs
and our mothers in their 70s and 80s. While visiting us and their grandchildren, walking up
flights of stairs is a challenge and a challenge that will only get worse with time. We fully
expect that in a relatively short period of time they will stay with us on a semi-permanent /rotating, if not a permanent basis. Hence we need to install a full bath and bedroom on the
main floor.
f
- We are improving the outer staircase / access to the upper floor thus improving security and
safety.
- We are installing improved fire walls which will serve to protect our and our neighbors’
properties from both fire and fire following an earthquake.
- Looking longer term: our project would enable the property, at a future date, to be more
readily convertible into a 2 unit property thus contributing to ease San Francisco’s
affordable housing crisis.
Exhibits:
A. The DR requester omitted my letter of March 16 2018 to the owner of 1877 Green so I have
attached it hereto. (2 pages)
B. Letter to owners of 1879 Green St dated March 16 2018 (2 pages)
C. The DR requester included an undated letter to “David” from “Whitney” (prior owner of 1877
Green). This letter was never received by David Heath nor my Architect Carolyn Walker-Davis
despite representation to the contrary. (1 page)
D. Email from David Weissglass to David Heath dated April 3 2018 (1 page)
E. RDT review sheet from meeting Match 28 2018 (1 page). This meeting took into consideration
the Pre-App meeting issues being:
a. privacy — rear bay window too close to deck of adjacent west neighbor
b. enclosing property line windows of adjacent west neighbor
F. Google Maps showing the extent to which 1877/1879 Green’s property eats into their garden
and lot space. (1 page)
G. Photographs of the internal area of 1877 Green St evidencing 5 additional windows in the space.
Source: Zillow website while 1877 Green St was for sale. (9 pages)
Signed: Date:
____________
David Heath
Owner: 1871 Green St, San Francisco CA 94123
/
i4; A
David NE Heath1871 Green St
San Francisco CA 94123
Ms. Whitney Pieper1877 Green StSan Francisco CA 94123
March 16, 2018 VIA EMAIL
Dear Whitney,
Thank you for your letter dated December 18th. Understand you weren’t able to attend the November27th meeting but your letter articulates the hand-written comments made by Rob &/or Caron at thatmeeting — the difference, of course, is that the plans were mailed to you after the meeting so you had theability to digest them more thoroughly, making the comments in your letter more complete. We haveshared your letter with the Planning Dept.
The purpose of this letter is to share our thoughts as to the three discussion points you raised.
Item 1 Window.This window is on the Property line, facing my existing structure. At a July 26th, 2017 meeting myarchitect, Carolyn, and I had with Mark Walls (SF Dept of Building Inspection) he explained that whilesome Property line windows do exist, they are not permitted. In discussions this month with DavidWeissglass (SF Planning Dept) he explained that Property line windows are not protected.
You’ve raised the notion of our contributing to enclosing your window and possibly installing a skylight.Of course, at this point we don’t know what that translates to nor involves, but I understand your request.
Item 2 Privacy of upper deckThe bay window is an important architectural feature of our proposed plans; by echoing the bay windowsat the front of our properties it promotes the architectural heritage and aesthetic that contributes to makingSan Francisco such a beautiful city.
My home has an upper deck at its southern end at the same height level as yours and looks directly ontoyour deck. Immediately to the south of your deck is the property facing Laguna St. which also has a deckat the same height level as that of your and my upper decks. These three decks are close enough that wecould easily converse if on our decks simultaneously. To the south of both our homes are the high-riseapartment buildings that face Vallejo St. I make these observations to exempli1’ that my garden and ourroof decks are inherently not “private” in the typical sense of the word. This is inherent to City dwelling,of course.
The proposed plans enclose my existing upper deck and convert it into a bedroom. Being a bedroom, theroom will be inherently quiet and low traffic and the bay window will have drapes or blinds. To this end,our project will improve the privacy of your deck.
To further protect privacy of both your deck and the proposed bedroom, I would consider installingprivacy glass in the relevant new bedroom bay windows that face your deck. Would that be acceptable?
Item 3 Existing Roof DrainageWhile I can’t comment on the proposed solution stated in your letter, I completely agree this is importantto get right and needs to be done in consultation with the relevant professional.
for supporting our project and I hope the above helps put it in appropriate context. I lookhearing from you and our continued dialogue.
David
Davis - Architect
David NE Heath1871 Green St
San Francisco CA 94123
Mr Robert Phillips &Ms. Caron Stapleton1879 Green StSan Francisco CA 94123
March 16, 201$ VIA EMAIL
Dear Rob & Caron,
Thank you for attending the Nov 27th meeting hosted by Carolyn Davis, my architect and your writtencomments which have been submitted to the building dept. Of course, your written comments were madeprior to your having the opportunity to fully digest the proposed plans which you received in early Dec,just over three months ago.
The purpose of this letter is to share our thoughts as to the discussion points you raised.
Written CommentRob ?hillis 1879 Green Street owner. We are primarily concerned that the proposed work will extendout and elevate so as to close in our existing backyard. Backyards are disappearing and losing lighting.We will need to see at the property how the proposedplans extend out and tip.
Our thoughtsThere are two explanations for the restricted/reduced size of your garden:
- it overlaps with the depth of the properties which face Laguna St and thus has a smaller depth ofproperty line. My property is the first (from west to east) on the block with the deeper backyard.
- you have a substantial extension that extends into your backyard. This provides additional livingspace for you and the roof terrace for the upper unit. This extension extends further into yourbackyard more than any other Victorian home on the block in both dimension and proportion.
From a natural light standpoint:
- I have removed a number of trees and pruned/maintained others on my property, thus improving thenatural light to 1877, 1879 (and my property) all at my expense, of course.
- My property stands to the east of yours so the anticipated lost light will not impact any post noon orevening light, being times owners typically use their outdoor space. My proposed extension will notimpact light by any reasonable amount compared to trees on others’ properties or other structures,notably the high-rise apartment buildings to our south that face Vallejo St.
JVritten ContinentWe would not want bay windows which extend beyond our existing back structure line.
Our thoughtsThe proposed bay windows will not extend beyond 1879’s building line.
1) f27
Written Comment1879 Green St — howfarpast the secondfloor building at 18774879 would the building extend? Approx3 feet ansertedfrom above with arrow). Concernedproposed building will block light to level 2 ofourbuilding (1877 Green St,1
Also concerned that proposed bay window would extend out the building an additional 3 feet intopast the existingproperty & (‘illegible) a total of6feet (following appears in right hand marginbut appears to be continuation imiade in same hand) of2nd stomy blockage to 1877 Green (‘secondstomy of 1877 Green)
Our thoughtsLet us know if your having received the-proposed plans addresses this point. See comment aboveregarding natural light.
Vritten onzmnent*
- Concerned aboutfact that proposal will completely block & cover existing windows at 1879 Green St.The window at 1879 Green St is a bathroom window and the oniy east window in the unit.
QthQhThis small bathroom window is on the Property line, facing my existing structure. At a July 26th, 2017meeting my architect, Carolyn, and I had with Mark Walls (SF Dept of Building Inspection) he explainedthat while some Property line windows exist, they are not permitted. In discussions this month with DavidWeissglass (SF Planning Dept) he explained that Property line windows are not protected.
for supporting our project and I hope the above helps put it in the appropriate context. I lookhearing from you and our continued dialogue.
David
Davis - Architect
David,
C I
Thank you for sending over your plans for remodel, was unable to attend the neighbor meeting, as Iwas out of town, so this was very helpful, (would live to repeat the concerns that the Phllips’
addressed during the neighborhood meeting to your architect regatding your plans. Two main concernscome to mind, the blockage of the west-side windows and the blockage of western sunlight with theback of the house coming 6’ out past our property.
I would first like to point out that our home was built in 1896 and has survived through 2 majorearthquakes and the development of the rest of the neighborhood around us. While some of the lawsmay have changed, we have been able to keep a lot of the original architecture and unique features ofour house as it was originally built.
My first concern about your drawing is the blockage of the upper wndcw just off the kitchenWhile this isn’t a rview window, it äoes provide western light into the hoi.se and is a majorsource of ventilation for the room.
My second concern is around the extension of the b-3ck of the house 6’ past the end of our unit.Again, this basically puts your add-on on top of the only cutside space that we have, blocking cliof the western light for the bac< of our unit.
I do want to note that your diagram on page 2 is incorrect. The small window depicted towards the rear
of our house should actually be on page 3, as it is on the lower floor. With the blockage of this window,I believe that you have put the Phillips’ hone in code violation, as it is the only source of ventilation fortheir bathroom. This is also a concern.
Additionally, I have also consulted a real estate professional who validated my concerns around thevalue of my house eing downgraded by the blockage of a window and putting a neighboring structureon top of my outdoor space.
I do hope that you are open to discuss’ng these concerns further and that we can come to a resolutionthat will serve both of our interests and concerns.
Thank you,Whitney
Carolyn Walker Davis
15 Convent Court
Heath, David N
From: Weissglass, David (CPC) <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 4:36 PMTo: Heath, David NCc: Carolyn DavisSubject: FW: HeathAttachments: 1871 Green St (DW_LB).pdf; Residential Design Guidelines (ID 941000).pdf
Hi David, I was able to get this to you today, in fact. The RDAT requests are as follows:
“To comply with the Residential Design Guideline to “Design the height and depth of the building to be compatible with
the existing building scale at the mid-block open space” (pages 25-27), provide a 5’-O” side setback from the property
line at the upper floor, East side, from the end point of the existing wall towards the rear (where the proposed bedroom
#4 is located).”
See the attached RDAT notes sheet, as well as a copy of the Residential Design Guidelines. As for the neighbors on the
opposite site, we will stick to our policies of not immediately protecting property line windows, and allowing your bay
window to be near the existing adjacent deck. HOWEVER, while not required, we strongly encourage you to work with
neighbors to find a way to alleviate these issues. I want to make sure that you know that if a DR is filed by a neighbor,
RDAT will look at the request again in light of any new information or specific issues cited by any DR filers.
Thank you, and don’t hesitate to contact me if there’s anything more I can do for you.
David Weissglass, Assistant PlannerNorthwest Team, Current Planning Division San Francisco Planning Department1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103
Direct: 415.575.9177 I www.sfplanning.org San Francisco Property Information Map
Original Message
From: Weissglass, David (CPC)
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 3:47 PM
To: ‘Heath, David N’Cc: Carolyn DavisSubject: RE: Heath
HI David, sorry or the delay, I’m working on getting them finalized! Ijust have to pressure the right people. I haven’treceived any notification from any neighbors.
David Weissglass, Assistant Planner
Northwest Team, Current Planning Division San Francisco Planning Department
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103Direct: 415.575.9177 I www.sfplanning.org San Francisco Property Information Map
Original MessageFrom: Heath, David N [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 3:37 PMTo: Weissglass, David (CPC)Cc: Carolyn Davis
1
E
SAN FRANCISCO /PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN TEAM REVIEW 165OMsonSt.
San Francisco,CA 94103-2479
DATE: 3/27/18 RDT MEETING DATE: 3/28/18Reception:415.558.6378
PROJECT INFORMATION:Fax:
Planner: David Weissglass 415.558.6409Address: 1871 Green Street
Cross Streets: Laguna Street ionBlock/Lot: 0554 / 023 415.558.6377Zoning/Height Districts: RH-2 / 40-X
BPA/Case No. 20187-015997PRJ / 2017,1204.5366
Project StaWs El Initial Review Post NOPDR El DR FiledAmount of Time Req. El 5 mm (consent) 15 minutes
El 30 minutes (required for new const.)
Residential Design Team Members in Attendance: Elizabeth Watty, David Lindsay, Luiz Barata,Marcelle Boudreaux
Project Description:
Lateral and Horizontal expansion at rear; enclose roof deck to add master suite at upper level.
Project Concerns (If DR is filed, list each concern.):-Expansion at rear will affect rear area of adjacent east neighbor-Pre-App meeting issues:
• Privacy - Rear bay window too close to deck of adjacent west neighbor• Enclosing prop line windows of adjacent west neighbor
RDT Comments:
To comply with the Residential Design Guideline to “Design the height and depth of the buildingto be compatible with the existing building scale at the mid-block open space” (pages 25-27),provide a 5’-O” side setback from the property line at the upper floor, East side, from the end pointof the existing wall towards the rear (where the proposed bedroom #4 is located).
www.sfplanning.org
1877 Green St - Google Maps F Page 1 of 1
Go gle Maps J877GreenSt
The white railings of 1877 Green sit atop the roof of 1 879s extension. Theirproperty lot is smaller than others because it abuts the properties facingLaguna St This photo demonstrates that the cause for 1 879s garden beingsmall is because of their own building extension - which is deeper than anyother Victorian on the block.
Imagery ©201 8 Google, Map data ©201 8 Google 20 ft
https ://www.google. comlmaps/place/ 18 77+Green+St,+San+Francisco,+CA+94 1 23/@3 7.79... 7/5/2018
ç711,
0
Page 1 offj
I
•
p —
https://photos.zillowstatic.comlpf/ISekw63keerrmx0000000000.jpg 5/29/2018
ii t. Page of )•
https:/Iphotos.zillowstatic.comlp_f/ISax795e 1 pd7pw0000000000.jpg 5/29/20 1$
https ://photos.zillowstatic .comlpf/ISq9O4nvtksgqx0000000000.jpg 5/29/2018
J
I
,q4 ‘2i 7 ( ?agej of
c Page4ofj
4
j
https :Hphotos.zillowstatic .comIp_f/ISe8zw3oksgipw0000000000.jpg 5/29/2018
G Pagefof
11A
,1
https ://photos.zillowstatic.comlpf/ISijerj2obi8rx0000000000.jpg 5/29/201 $
7- Cf Page t of
https://photos.zillowstatic.comlp_f/ISado$krznbwpw0000000000.jpg 5/29/201 $
C- Page7of1
https ://photos.zillowstatic .comlp_f/IS2nq2y2euz2sx0000000000.jpg 5/29/2018
Page of tI
https://photos.zillowstatic.comlp_f/ISuw4qu98lpusx0000000000.jpg 5/29/2018
/
C? Page-) of
I
\/A
https ://photos.zillowstatic.com!p_f/ISq59wzh63 qfqw0000000000.jpg 5/29/20 18
Memorandum of Record
From: David Heath To: Carolyn Walker-Davis
Date: Sept 2018 Re: 1871 Green St
Dear Carolyn, am offering this Memo to be plo our Commission packet for our Oct 4th Public Hearing.
On Friday Sept 7th, 2018 I met with a number of individuals at the SF Planning Dept Offices at 650
Mission St, San Francisco, CA. David Winslow had kindly offered the opportunity to host a meeting
between the owners of 1871, 1877 and 1879 Green St. (1877 & 1879 being upper & lower unit of the
same building, located next door to the west of 1871).
The meeting was from 3-4pm.
Attendees at the meeting were:
David Winslow (Host) SF Planning Dept
David Heath Owner 1871 Green
Carolyn Walker-Davis Architect for David Heath
Anthony Murphy Contractor for David Heath
Peter Nissen PE Structural Engineer for David Heath
John Robb * DR Requestor & Owner of upper unit 1877 Green
Rob Phillips Owner of lower unit 1879 Green
Caron Stapleton Owner of lower unit 1879 Green
Linda Beattie Contractor representing John Robb
(* by video — we lost contact once or twice during the meeting and lost him for the last 5 to 10 minutes)
The purpose of this memorandum is to memorialize important elements of the meeting and pursuant
dialogue.
After David Winslow opened the meeting, the DR Requestor shared his proposal detailing various work
be completed including closing up of their 2 windows, installing a fan in the lower unit’s bathroom, a
skylight in the upper unit and drainage. They also mentioned foundations as an issue albeit did not
provide further specifics. Their proposal was that I would pay for the all the costs.
Anthony Murphy asked my permission to share his initial views which were that the costs detailed in the
proposal seemed high and that overall it was very one sided and thus lacked compromise.
Rob Phillips, an attorney by profession, responded by saying that before I act on Anthony’s advice that I
might consider whether at any time during the life of the project we might need out neighbors’
cooperation or agreement to something. He said that if we “win” it might be in our interests to pay their
costs in order to ensure future cooperation. It was obvious that he was threatening us into bearing their
costs and I said in reply that I thought he delivered a veiled threat by suggesting they would obstruct
and delay our project if we did not agree to their proposal. His rebuttal was that they would not do
anything unethical or illegal - his threat was clear and obvious.
I informed them that the manner in which their roof drainage and roof deck is attached to their house
appears to breach our property line (see photographs attached) and out of code compliance.
On September 11th 2018 I offered to pay for 50% of the costs. Coincidentally on the same day I had
received a letter from Linda Beattie misrepresenting that I had agreed to their proposal and pay all their
costs. Notwithstanding their misrepresentation I did not change my offer. They declined my offer on
Sept 19th2018 Upon declining my offer, Rob Phillips wrote the following in an email (dated Sept 19th
2018):
“1 am certain that David’s contractor will again remind David that he can satisfy our concerns
inexpensively and that our cooperation going forward is essential to staying within the remote
vicinity of the job’s budget”
As an attorney, I would hope he would respect his Bar Association reputation but he has, on behalf of
both units, made it clear that he/they have intent to be unreasonable neighbors, cause us harm,
financially mentally or otherwise, and to hinder and obstruct our project at any opportunity, with or
without reasonable cause. His threat, previously verbal and now written, remains clear and obvious.
I respect the Planning and Building Departments processes and the Committee’s determination of our
application. Given the neighbors threatening intent, both spoken and written, even if I were to agree to
their proposal, their actions make it clear that commitment to cooperate on their part would be
insincere and thus I would want assurances that we can proceed with our project (in whatever form we
are so permitted by the Committee) irrespective of action or inaction taken by the neighbors.
9‘9
-
Heath, David N
From: Heath, David NSent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 7:14 PMTo: ‘[email protected]’; ‘John Robb’; ‘Rob Phillips’; ‘Caron L. Stapleton’Cc: ‘Winslow, David (CPC)’; [email protected]; [email protected]: 1871, 1877 & 1879 Green St
Good evening Linda, John, Caron & Rob,
Thanks to you all for attending last Friday’s meeting and to David Winslow for hosting. Shame that you weren’t able to
attend in person, John, but thanks for joining by video. Somewhere towards the end of the meeting the connection was
lost but we had covered plenty of ground.
We’ve just received a letter from Linda (which perhaps I’m misreading it since it refers to being a draft?) mistakenly
stating that we had agreed to a list of conditions. What we agreed to was that we would review your proposal and
revert to you. You mention in your letter, Linda, our next meeting with David Weissglass (I assume you meant David
Winslow?) — kindly share when that meeting is planned for.
Following Friday’s meeting Carolyn, Anthony, Peter and I have been in dialogue and I had drafted the note below prior
to receiving Linda’s letter. The offer below still stands as a good faith effort to reach common ground between us and
we believe it to be fair and reasonable. As you’ll read, it involves both financial considerations as well as design
revisions.
1271 Green will agree to pay 50% of costs of:- Closing up both upper and lower property line windows including the reasonable costs associated with painting/tile to
a standard that is currently in place at 1877 and 1879 Green.- Installing a fixed skylight in upper unit in the vicinity of current window.- Installing ventilation fan in lower unit’s bathroom (assuming one doesn’t already exist).
- Ensuring appropriate/code compliant drainage from our respective roofs.
To address the privacy concern of your upper unit, John, we agree to change the proposed west facing upper bay
window to being a solid wall. This will avoid the need for your proposed 7’ x 7’ privacy screen for the upper unit which
will also preserve light to the upper unit’s deck.
Foundations: to be determined but what is necessary will be done.
Some housekeeping items we’ll need to work through:- please share your 3R report.- it would make sense for the same contractor to do the work on all our properties to ensure economies of scale. The
contractor needs to be granted access to your properties prior to and during work including access internally andexternally so we’d bake that into this agreement.- until it’s timely to physically visit, it would be helpful for the contractor to have photos (or better yet, video) of
the inside of your properties showing the area of and surrounding both the windows and the attic space above the
ceiling where the skylight would be placed.- we should establish communication protocols for the life of the project including reasonable response times for us all.
Perhaps Linda is granted the ability to represent you all? I expect I’d appoint Carolyn.
- we can also bake into the agreement whatever we think are reasonable expectations for evidence ofinsurance/certificates to be provided to both neighbors by contractor for liability and workers comp.
I look forward to your soonest reply and hope you find this offer acceptable. The timing is tight so if you see the notice
of public hearing posted, it’s to comply with the necessary notice period.
As always, am happy to speak.
Cheers, David
(646) 379 7135
2
Heath, David N
From: John Robb <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 1:35 PMTo: Heath, David NCc: [email protected]; Rob Phillips; Caron L. Stapleton; Winslow David (CPC);
[email protected]; [email protected]: Re: 1871, 1877 & 1879 Green St
David-
We are disappointed to hear that you have changed your mind not to support a smooth transition for ourproperties that are being impacted by your project. As you know, this is a project that is your decision and itwill result in unexpected costs and ramifications for our properties.
At this point, we are not in a position where we can support your project. We realize that the planningdepartment is unlikely to support all of our concerns but we will plan to continue to speak out that we havesignificant concerns. Thankfully, San Francisco has a process that will give us plenty of opportunity tocontinue to express our concerns including the need for a 5’ setback of the back bedroom.
Additionally, we remain very concerned about the potential impact of your foundation work impacting thestructural integrity of our building. The next step on maintaining the structural integrity of the building will beto plan to have survey monitoring points during and after the construction. This is a reasonable precaution andwe expect it to be part of the building process.
Here is a link to information about the Civil Code 832 process:https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=832
As you will see, the code requires notification, reasonable precautions and we believe the monitoring points will allow usto assess the damage that is caused by the building.
In final thoughts, we would like to repeat that we believe our list of solutions is reasonable and fair. We would stronglyprefer to support your project and put this process behind us and transition back to being friendly and supportiveneighbors.
—j r
[email protected]+ 1-415-794-7672 (m)@jrobb
On Sep 11,201$ at 7:13 PM. Heath. David N <[email protected]> wrote
Good evening Linda. .lohn, Caron & Rob.
1
Heath, David N
From: Rob Phillips <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 1:51 PMTo: John RobbCc: Heath, David N; [email protected]; Caron L. Stapleton; Winslow David
(CPC); [email protected]; Cwd @jps.netSubject: Re: 1871, 1877 & 1879 Green St
John, I am certain that David’s contractor will again remind David that he can satisfy our concernsinexpensively and that our cooperation going forward is essential to staying within the remote vicinity of thejob’s budget.
Rob PhillipsPartner
PHI WPS SPALLAS &ANGSTADTLLP—AlTOBNES Al LAW
San Francisco Las Vegas Los Angeles Naps Valley
505 Sansome Street, 6th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94111
t 415-278-9400
f 415-278-9411
[email protected]. psa law. net
This communication may contain confidential and privilegedmaterial for the sole use of the intended recipient. Receipt byanyone else does not constitute a loss of the confidential orprivileged nature of the communication. Any review by ordisclosure to another is prohibited. If you received thiuCommunication in error, please delete all copies and notify me.
On Sep 19, 2018, at 1:35 PM, John Robb <[email protected]> wrote:
David-
We are disappointed to hear that you have changed your mind not to support a smooth transitionfor our properties that are being impacted by your project. As you know, this is a project that isyour decision and it will result in unexpected costs and ramifications for our properties.
At this point, we are not in a position where we can support your project. We realize that theplanning department is unlikely to support all of our concerns but we will plan to continue tospeak out that we have significant concerns. Thankfully, San Francisco has a process that willgive us plenty of opportunity to continue to express our concerns including the need for a 5’setback of the back bedroom.
Additionally, we remain very concerned about the potential impact of your foundation workimpacting the structural integrity of our building. The next step on maintaining the structuralintegrity of the building will be to plan to have survey monitoring points during and after theconstruction. This is a reasonable precaution and we expect it to be part of the building process.
1
r
rz:
1’
W
A
31
FA
.1
[
1
GR
EEN
STR
EET
ADDITIONSHOWNSHADED
(E) RESIDENCE
LOT 23
LOT 24
LOT 12
LOT 55,56
LOT 57, 58LOT 43, 44, 45,46,47, 48, 49, 50,51, 52
BUILDING CODESALL WORK SHALL BE IN FULL ACCORDANCE WITH THELATEST RULES AND REGULATIONS OR PUBLICATIONS OFTHE SAN FRANCISCO BUILDING CODES, AND APPLICABLECODES AND LOCAL LAWS. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS ORSPECIFICATIONS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORKNOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES. THE CONTRACTORSHALL COMPARE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS TOTHE REQUIREMENTS, CODES, ORDINANCES, ANDREGULATIONS AND NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TOTHE SUBMISSION OF HIS BID OF ANY DISCREPANCIES.
APPLICABLE CODES:2016 SAN FRANCISCO BUILDING CODE2016 SAN FRANCISCO PLUMBING CODE2016 SAN FRANCISCO MECHANICAL CODE2016 SAN FRANCISCO ELECTRICAL CODE 2016 SAN FRANCISCO ENERGY CODE 2016 SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING CODE
BUILDING INFORMATIONLATITUDE: 37° 47.80' NLONGITUDE: 122° 25.79' WOCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: VBSTORIES: 3
RESIDENCE ADDITION and REMODEL FOR:
1871 GREEN STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
DAVID HEATHLOT 23 BLOCK 554
1877, 18791865
PROPOSEDADDITION
DRAWING INDEX
1877, 18791865 1871 GREEN ST
ADJACENT RESIDENCE1877, 1879 GREEN STREET
ADJACENT RESIDENCE 1865 GREEN STREET
LOT 24
SITE INFORMATIONPARCEL: LOT 23, BLOCK 554ZONE: RH-2
SITE AREA: 3613 SF
AREAS:LIVING SPACEEXISTING LOWER FLOOR: 0 SFEXISTING MAIN FLOOR: 1,257 SFEXISTING UPPER FLOOR: 1,127 SFTOTAL EXISTING LIVING SPACE: 2,384 SF
NEW LOWER FLOOR: 289 SFNEW MAIN FLOOR: 375 SFNEW UPPER FLOOR: 414 SFTOTAL NEW LIVING SPACE: 1,078 SF
TOTAL (E) & (N) LIVING SPACE: 3,462 SF
GARAGE EXISTING GARAGE: 619 SF GARAGE TO BE REMOVED: ( 2 SF) TOTAL GARAGE: 617 SF
BASEMENT: EXISTING BASEMENT: 502 SF (E) BASEMENT TO BE REMOVED: (227 SF) TOTAL BASEMENT: 275 SF
LOWER PASSAGEWAYS:EXISTING PASSAGEWAY (EXIT): 171 SF
NEW STAIR VESTIBULE: 93 SF NEW REAR PASSAGEWAY: 151 SF
TOTAL LOWER PASSAGEWAYS: 415 SF
COVERED PORCH: 14 SF
DECKSMAIN REAR 191 SF
(E) MAIN SIDE 134 SF (E) MANI SIDE TO BE REMOVED: -134 SF (E) UPPER 138 SF (E) UPPER TO BE REMOVED: -138 SF
(N) DINING ROOM DECK 76 SF TOTAL DECKS: 267 SF
PROPOSED EXCAVATION 25 CY (APPROXIMATE):
LANDSCAPING &PERMEABLE SURFACE
1 SITE PLAN, SITE INFORMATION1A EXISTING SITE PLAN2 LOWER FLOOR PLAN - PROPOSED & EXISTING3 MAIN FLOOR PLAN - PROPOSED & EXISTING4 UPPER FLOOR PLAN - PROPOSED & EXISTING5 FRONT (NORTH) ELEVATION6 REAR (SOUTH) ELEVATIONS - PROPOSED & EXISTING7 EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION - PROPOSED & EXISTING8 WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION - PROPOSED & EXISTING9 SECTION - PROPOSED & EXISTING10 1877/1879 GREEN ST EAST ELEVATION - PROPOSED & EXISTING11 1865 GREEN ST WEST ELEVATION
OCT 2017
RES
IDEN
CE
AD
DIT
ION
AN
D R
EMO
DEL
FO
R:
DAV
ID H
EATH
1871
GR
EEN
STR
EET
SAN
FR
ANC
ISC
O,C
ALIF
LOT
23
BLO
CK
554
HEATH
12
DMS
SITE PLAN1/8" = 1 FT
SITE
PLA
N
N
1/8" = 1'-0"
10/25/2017
OVERHEAD VIEWNO SCALE
FRONT ELEVATIONNO SCALE
VICINITY MAPNO SCALE
PLANNING03/02/20181 DMS
GR
EEN
STR
EET
RESIDENCELOT 23
LOT 24
LOT 12
LOT 55,56LOT 57, 58LOT 43, 44, 45,46,47, 48, 49, 50,51, 52
OCT 2017
RES
IDEN
CE
AD
DIT
ION
AN
D R
EMO
DEL
FO
R:
DAV
ID H
EATH
1871
GR
EEN
STR
EET
SAN
FR
ANC
ISC
O,C
ALIF
LOT
23
BLO
CK
554
HEATH
12
DMS
EXISTING SITE PLAN1/8" = 1 FT
EXIS
TIN
G S
ITE
PLA
N
N
1/8" = 1'-0"
PLANNING03/02/20181 DMS
GARAGE
STORAGE
GR
EEN
STR
EET
MUD ROOM
COVERED PASSAGEWAYEXIT PASSAGEWAY
WINE STORAGE
MECH
GARAGE
STORAGE
WINEVAULT
GR
EEN
STR
EET
COVERED PASSAGEWAY
OCT 2017
RES
IDEN
CE
AD
DIT
ION
AN
D R
EMO
DEL
FO
R:
DAV
ID H
EATH
1871
GR
EEN
STR
EET
SAN
FR
ANC
ISC
O,C
ALIF
LOT
23
BLO
CK
554
HEATH
12
DMS
PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR PLAN1/4" = 1'-0"
N
LOW
ER F
LOO
R P
LAN
PRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONJUNE 29, 2018
SYMBOL SCHEDULE
1/4"=1'-0"
EXISTING LOWER FLOOR PLAN1/4" = 1'-0"
N
PRO
POSE
D &
EXI
STIN
G
PLANNING03/02/20181 DMS
ENTRY
OFFICE
HALL #1
LIVINGROOM
(E) DECK
LIBRARYDECK
DININGROOM
FAMILYROOM
KITCHENPANTRY
LAUNDRY
BATH #5
GR
EEN
STR
EET
ENTRY
OFFICE
LAUNDRY
DININGROOM
HALL #1
LIVINGROOM
KITCHEN
DECK
FAMILYROOM DECK
LIBRARY
GR
EEN
STR
EET
OCT 2017
RES
IDEN
CE
AD
DIT
ION
AN
D R
EMO
DEL
FO
R:
DAV
ID H
EATH
1871
GR
EEN
STR
EET
SAN
FR
ANC
ISC
O,C
ALIF
LOT
23
BLO
CK
554
HEATH
12
DMS
MAI
N F
LOO
R P
LAN
PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR PLAN1/4" = 1'-0"
N
SYMBOL SCHEDULE
1/4"=1'-0"EXISTING MAIN FLOOR PLAN1/4" = 1'-0"
N
PRO
POSE
D &
EXI
STIN
G
10/25/2017
PLANNING03/02/20181 DMS
BEDROOM #3BEDROOM #2
BATH #3BATH #2
GALLERY
DRESSINGMASTERBEDROOM
BEDROOM #4
M. BATH
BATH #4
DECK BELOW
HALL
WALK-INCLOSET
ADJACENT RESIDENCE1877, 1879 GREEN STREET
GR
EEN
STR
EET
BEDROOM #2
ROOFDECK
BEDROOM #3
MASTERBEDROOM
MASTERBATH
BATH #2
MASTERBATH
MASTERTOILET
DRESSING
HALL
GALLERY
DRESSING
SHOWER
GR
EEN
STR
EET
ADJACENT RESIDENCE1877, 1879 GREEN STREET
OCT 2017
RES
IDEN
CE
AD
DIT
ION
AN
D R
EMO
DEL
FO
R:
DAV
ID H
EATH
1871
GR
EEN
STR
EET
SAN
FR
ANC
ISC
O,C
ALIF
LOT
23
BLO
CK
554
HEATH
12
DMS
PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR PLAN1/4" = 1'-0"
N
PRO
POSE
D &
EXI
STIN
GU
PPER
FLO
OR
PLA
N
EXISTING UPPER FLOOR PLAN1/4" = 1'-0"
N
SYMBOL SCHEDULE
1/4"=1'-0"
10/25/2017
PLANNING03/02/20181 DMS
OCT 2017
RES
IDEN
CE
AD
DIT
ION
AN
D R
EMO
DEL
FO
R:
DAV
ID H
EATH
1871
GR
EEN
STR
EET
SAN
FR
ANC
ISC
O,C
ALIF
LOT
23
BLO
CK
554
HEATH
12
DMS
EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION (FRONT)1/4" = 1'-0"
ELEV
ATIO
N
NO CHANGE
NO
RTH
EXT
ERIO
R
1/4"=1'-0"
EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION PHOTO (FRONT)NO SCALE
WITH ADJACENT RESIDENCES
PLANNING03/02/20181 DMS
1871 Green St. 1865 Green St.1877, 1879 Green St.
1871 Green St. 1865 Green St.1877, 1879 Green St.
GR
EEN
STR
EET
LOT 23
LOT 24
LOT 12
LOT 55,56
LOT 57, 58LOT 43, 44, 45,46,47, 48, 49, 50,51, 52 ADJACENT RESIDENCE
1877, 1879 GREEN STREET
ADJACENT RESIDENCE 1865 GREEN STREET
LOT 24
OCT 2017
RES
IDEN
CE
AD
DIT
ION
AN
D R
EMO
DEL
FO
R:
DAV
ID H
EATH
1871
GR
EEN
STR
EET
SAN
FR
ANC
ISC
O,C
ALIF
LOT
23
BLO
CK
554
HEATH
12
DMS
SOU
TH E
LEVA
TIO
NS
EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION (REAR)1/4" = 1'-0"
PRO
POSE
D &
EXI
STIN
G
1/4"=1'-0"
PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION (REAR)1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"
AT SPIRAL STAIR AND DINING ROOM DECK
DRAWING KEYNO SCALE
N
10/25/2017
PLANNING03/02/20181 DMS
GR
EEN
STR
EET
LOT 23
LOT 24
LOT 12
LOT 55,56
LOT 57, 58LOT 43, 44, 45,46,47, 48, 49, 50,51, 52 ADJACENT RESIDENCE
1877, 1879 GREEN STREET
ADJACENT RESIDENCE 1865 GREEN STREET
LOT 24
OCT 2017
RES
IDEN
CE
AD
DIT
ION
AN
D R
EMO
DEL
FO
R:
DAV
ID H
EATH
1871
GR
EEN
STR
EET
SAN
FR
ANC
ISC
O,C
ALIF
LOT
23
BLO
CK
554
HEATH
12
DMS
PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"
PRO
POSE
D &
EXI
STIN
G E
AST
EXTE
RIO
R E
LEVA
TIO
NS
1/4"=1'-0"
PROPOSED NEW BAYEAST ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"AT NEW FAMILY ROOM BAY
EXISTING EAST ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"
PLAN KEYNO SCALE
N
10/25/2017
GR
EEN
STR
EET
LOT 23
LOT 24
LOT 12
LOT 55,56
LOT 57, 58LOT 43, 44, 45,46,47, 48, 49, 50,51, 52 ADJACENT RESIDENCE
1877, 1879 GREEN STREET
ADJACENT RESIDENCE 1865 GREEN STREET
LOT 24
OCT 2017
RES
IDEN
CE
AD
DIT
ION
AN
D R
EMO
DEL
FO
R:
DAV
ID H
EATH
1871
GR
EEN
STR
EET
SAN
FR
ANC
ISC
O,C
ALIF
LOT
23
BLO
CK
554
HEATH
12
DMS
PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"
1/4"=1'-0"
EXISTING WEST ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"
PRO
POSE
D &
EXI
STIN
G W
EST
EXTE
RIO
R E
LEVA
TIO
NS
DRAWING KEYNO SCALE
N
10/25/2017
LIVINGROOM
GARAGE
BEDROOM #2BEDROOM #3
GR
EEN
STR
EET
LOT 23
LOT 24
LOT 12
LOT 55,56
LOT 57, 58LOT 43, 44, 45,46,47, 48, 49, 50,51, 52 ADJACENT RESIDENCE
1877, 1879 GREEN STREET
ADJACENT RESIDENCE 1865 GREEN STREET
LOT 24
FAMILYROOM
DININGROOM
LIVINGROOM
GARAGE
MASTERBEDROOMBEDROOM #2BEDROOM #3
DRESSING CLOSET
WINESTORAGEMUD ROOM
ROOF
MECH
OCT 2017
RES
IDEN
CE
AD
DIT
ION
AN
D R
EMO
DEL
FO
R:
DAV
ID H
EATH
1871
GR
EEN
STR
EET
SAN
FR
ANC
ISC
O,C
ALIF
LOT
23
BLO
CK
554
HEATH
12
DMS
PRO
POSE
D &
EXI
STIN
GSE
CTI
ON
S
1/4"=1'-0"
PROPOSED SECTION1/4"=1'-0"
EXISTING SECTION1/4"=1'-0"
DRAWING KEYNO SCALE
N
10/25/2017
GR
EEN
STR
EET
LOT 23
LOT 24
LOT 12
LOT 55,56
LOT 57, 58LOT 43, 44, 45,46,47, 48, 49, 50,51, 52 ADJACENT RESIDENCE
1877, 1879 GREEN STREET
ADJACENT RESIDENCE 1865 GREEN STREET
LOT 24
GREENSTREET
GREENSTREET
NEW
& E
XIST
ING
AD
JAC
ENT
BUIL
DIN
G E
AST
ELEV
ATIO
N
1/4"=1'-0"
1/4" = 1'-0"
PROPSED 1877/1879 GREEN STREET EAST ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"
EXISTING 1877/1879 GREEN STREET EAST ELEVATION
OCT 2017
RES
IDEN
CE
AD
DIT
ION
AN
D R
EMO
DEL
FO
R:
DAV
ID H
EATH
1871
GR
EEN
STR
EET
SAN
FR
ANC
ISC
O,C
ALIF
LOT
23
BLO
CK
554
HEATH
12
DMS
DRAWING KEYNO SCALE
N
10/25/2017
GR
EEN
STR
EET
LOT 23
LOT 24
LOT 12
LOT 55,56
LOT 57, 58LOT 43, 44, 45,46,47, 48, 49, 50,51, 52 ADJACENT RESIDENCE
1877, 1879 GREEN STREET
ADJACENT RESIDENCE 1865 GREEN STREET
LOT 24
OCT 2017
RES
IDEN
CE
AD
DIT
ION
AN
D R
EMO
DEL
FO
R:
DAV
ID H
EATH
1871
GR
EEN
STR
EET
SAN
FR
ANC
ISC
O,C
ALIF
LOT
23
BLO
CK
554
HEATH
12
DMS
1865
GR
EEN
STR
EET
WES
T EL
EVAT
ION
1/4"=1'-0"
1865 GREEN STREET - WEST ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"
WITH OUTLINE OF PROPOSED 1871 GREEN STREET
1865 GREEN STREET - WEST ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"
WITH OUTLINE OF EXISTING 1871 GREEN STREET
DRAWING KEYNO SCALE
N
10/25/2017
1871 Green St. 1865 Green St.1877, 1879 Green St.
1871 Green St. 1865 Green St.1877, 1879 Green St.
GREENSTREET
EXISTING REAR ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0"
1871 GREEN STREET EXISTING WEST ELEVATIONNO SCALE
1877, 1879 GREEN STREET EXISTING EAST ELEVATION
1877, 1879 Green St. 1871 Green St.
1871 GREEN STREET PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0"
EXISTING UPPER ADJACENT WINDOW
EXISTING LOWER ADJACENT WINDOW
EXISTINGLOWERADJACENTWINDOW
SITEEXISTINGUPPERADJACENTWINDOW
EXISTINGLOWERADJACENTWINDOW
1871
1877, 1879
1871
1877, 1879
AERIAL VIEW OF THE REAR OF RESIDENCE MASSING - EXISTING MASSING - PROPOSED
NO SCALE
SEPT 2018
RES
IDEN
CE
AD
DIT
ION
AN
D R
EMO
DEL
FO
R:
DAV
ID H
EATH
1871
GR
EEN
STR
EET
SAN
FR
ANC
ISC
O,C
ALIF
LOT
23
BLO
CK
554
HEATH
DMS
EXIS
TIN
G C
ON
DIT
ION
S AT
WES
T W
ALL
AS SHOWN
09/13/2018
