Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board conditions permit for 461–463 Duncan: opaque glass, seven‑foot screen, minimum two bedrooms
Summary
After appeals about aesthetics, privacy and egress, the Board of Appeals approved the site permit for 461–463 Duncan Street with conditions: three rear windows to be opaque glass, a seven‑foot privacy screen at the second‑floor deck, and a minimum of two legal bedrooms in the basement unit.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 19 granted a site permit for work at 461–463 Duncan Street but imposed conditions intended to address neighbors’ privacy concerns and planning‑level expectations.
Appellants raised multiple concerns: preservation of a barrel‑front Mediterranean‑revival facade, loss of light and privacy to adjacent gardens, and the project’s multiple decks and basement excavation. Opponents urged preservation of the distinctive facade and stronger, permanent privacy screening for rear decks. One neighbor asked that a deep first‑floor rear deck be removed; others focused on screening and setbacks.
Counsel for the permit holder and the project sponsor described a multi‑year design review process, said the project had been approved by the Planning Commission (5‑1) after revisions, and volunteered additional mitigations. Project counsel Charles Olson and the sponsor agreed in the hearing record to provide opaque glass for specified rear windows and to add a solid privacy screen; the sponsor also described standard monitoring and shoring procedures for excavation.
Planning staff explained that the project had undergone discretionary review and that DBI had identified an egress issue for two intended basement bedrooms that required clarification; staff said those details can be resolved as part of site permit revisions or follow‑up addenda. Planning recommended a solid privacy screen of about six feet for the affected deck; commissioners and the sponsor agreed to seven feet of opaque screening to address neighbor concerns.
In deliberations, commissioners negotiated three binding conditions: (1) three east‑facing rear windows shown on the approved plan (sheet A303) will be installed as opaque glass; (2) an opaque privacy screen seven feet high will be provided at the second‑floor rear deck facing the adjacent property; and (3) the basement unit must contain a minimum of two legal bedrooms with egress to DBI/Planning standards (project must demonstrate compliance). Commissioner Daryl Honda moved to grant the appeals and approve the permit with those conditions; the motion passed with Commissioners Tanner and Swig voting aye and Commissioner Lazarus recorded as no, resulting in a 3‑0 recorded passage.
Staff said the project sponsor must submit revised plans reflecting the conditions and coordinate with Planning/DBI to resolve egress and final materials for the privacy screen and windows. The board emphasized that the Historic Preservation Commission would have jurisdiction if a certificate of appropriateness were required for an altered facade; the permit decision does not preclude separate historic‑resource appeals under CEQA.
