Foin. Just interesting where this project is going. And i think its important that your neighbors know at some point where this project is going. And probably make your life a lot more friendly with them. Did you have a second question . I want clarification on one thing. Thank you very much for volunteering that the privacy screen will be more elaborate with opaque windows. It was it was mentioned three property lines and one is scheduled to be opaque at this point. And the other two are not, but is there would you volunteer to make all three opaque and that would take that issue away . As an issue of the appellant. One second here. An i am trying to make issues go away for you. An appreciate that. Perhaps i could answer in rebuttal. Sure. Thank you. Give my client a chance to confirm. Sure. Thanks very much. Okay. Give them a moment, i guess. No, they will do in it rebuttal. They volunteered to address it in rebuttal. Lets let mr. Current speak first. Did you have questions you wanted to ask . Were you just interested in my question would be, simply, if you have nothing to say, is this okay . And got any issues with this . Well, its a site permit, commissioner, as you well know. It is basically for conception and then they ran into the problem with egress for the bedrooms. I think that put a hiccup in their deal with planning. There is going to be some design manipulation in order to get that many bedrooms, but all that is vetted through d. B. I. With the Design Review for trurg if you are going to do work, and excavation, massive engineering. As i have been reminded several times because i always forget this is no longer appealable with an addenda after we do the site permit. So this is the last time we get our fingerprints on it. So if we other going through the laundry list right now, one piece of laundry list was the opaque glass around the deck. The other two are going to be resolved in the followup. And is the issue of the lack of clarification of this egress something that should be dealt with tonight with more clarity, or should we kick the can down the road because we need to clarify it with more clarity . An i think clarify with more clarity because it will involve creating a corridor or some ways of means to egress because right now it is not there for the back bedrooms. Is that a better question for mr. Teague than yourself . Yes, because Planning Department had some kind of an i a groement which i was not had some kind of agreement which i was not privy to, and it became apparent that two wouldnt be bedrooms because of the egress, and then that violated with planning by changing to a library and study. Are there obvious issues from a d. B. I. Stand snoint i dont see anything insurmountable for habitability. Perfect for me. Any other questions . Many mr. Teague. Thank you. Good evening again, commissioners. Cory teague. The property is 461463 duncan street. And it currently contains approximately 2200 square foot Single Family home including a garage within the rh2 zoning district. Somewhat oversized lot as most of the lots in this block are. The subject Building Permit was filed in august of 2017 after a few rounds of Design Review and comments from the Residential Design Advisory Team and underwent section 311 neighborhood notice in july and august 2018, and the project proposed to excavate a new basement level floor to add a new second dwelling unit and also do a horizontal addition to existing building and add a roof deck. During the 311 notification period, two d. R. Requests were filed and are the same two appellants here this evening. That hearing was held on december 8 of last year. I did not attend that hearing, but did review the video. Generally speaking primarily commissioner hillis and moore were the two commissioner who is spoke. Commissioner hillis supported the project and what we very much thought was appropriate. He made a comment about positive about the second unit being added and added to the project overall. Commissioner moore did not comment on the design issues that were raised. She commented primarily on the potential issue of a de facto demolition and on the privacy concerns, after they discussed that a little bit further t Planning Commission did vote 51 to take d. R. And as was mentioned, reduce the deck on the first floor to only 8 1 2 feet deep and require the privacy screening. They did not provide any details on the privacy screening and condition in terms of materials or height. However, in reviewing the plans, a planter box was likely not sufficient. And some type of solid material would be appropriate as a full screen privacy screen there. Beyond that as was mentioned, during our review and put on the overhead as well. So this is the new basement level floor where the second unit was being added. The plans submitted for notification and submit and reviewed by the Planning Division essentially showed a three bedroom unit of approximately 1800 square feet. It did include the interior study and the storage area. Subsequent to the discretionary review, the Planning Department approved it in this configuration, but after that time at d. B. I. It was determined the two superior bedrooms did not meet minnium egress requirements and these were amended to be a media room and library. I dont think that was the intent to have an 1800 square foot one bedroom unit with a study, library, and media room, so that is why i raised it with the permit holder today to see what options are available to add the necessary egress so they can have the same number of bedrooms. It is understood that that would require some type of reconfiguration on that lower floor. Obviously there are different ways to do that and could be a situation if the board felt that needed to be addressed could be a situation where this is continued and the plans can be brought back or a situation where if the outcome you want is clear, you can express that and that d be done through the addenda process up to the board to decide. Overall t project went through significant design code review and completely code requirement and did not require variances and exceptions and went through the full d. R. Process and the Planning Commission did approve the project 51. I am available for any other questions you may have, except i want to add one quick thing because in the briefs and also tonight we have heard mary browns name a lot. I had the pleasure of working with her for seven years in the Preservation Team and unfortunately passed away in 2015 of lung cancer at a way too young age, but was a really sweet woman and is nice so see her name invoked so much. U an i had a question regarding the bedrooms in the second unit. Typically would that be handle at the site permit level and usually be figured out . Is that usually handled under the addenda and from that process and is not looked at for adequate egress. If there is a room that will not meet the definition of a bedroom, that is not something we make the determination on it, and we may or may not learn of it, but as a review that happens somewhat after the fact, sometimes that would be sent back to us and sometimes it would not. It just kind of depend. In some cases it is not terribly relevant and in this situation it is more relevant considering the process that the permit went through and the rationale they had to approving it. Can you speak about the historic review process and this is not a resource that needs to be preserved . Just a thumbnail of that. When this process started with the permit, it was a category b. A. Means you are a historic resource. And c. , it is definitely determined it is not. The vast majority of the buildings in the city are bs because they are more than 45 years old and not reviewed in detail. This permit obviously proposed to do significant work visible from the street to the facade and other work and it was reviewed by the preservation staff and there was basically a process to determine based on the secretary of interior standards if under the ceqa process, as was mentioned, it would reclassified to a c from a b and as the appellant mentioned, dont think her argument is that it is because the appropriate appeal for that issue would have been to appeal the ceqa determination. I think hear the issue is more aesthetic as was mentioned. They dont address the preservation of specific ark aek tech churl styles. Would we see this again if they cant meet three bedroom standard, where would the project be if egress could not be obtained for three bedrooms . What happens in that case . You have two routes to try to work this out with the specific set of plans before a final decision or grant the appeal, approve, but with conditions, and if you did that, those conditions would have to be met. So if your condition was reconfigure in a way that meets the Building Code and planning code and allows x number of bedrooms, they would have to find a way to do that or get a new permit. Because your condition would not be kind of optional. It is a condition of approval of the permit. So they would be held to that requirement if that was the route. Thank you. Dont you love having a planner on the board of appeals . I immediate the fifth. I plead the fifth. I thought that the three bedroom condition was a conditional use. Not sure if i understand the question exactly. There is no requirement no condition placed on this permit through the d. R. That it have a certain number of bedrooms. However, part of the deliberation by the Planning Commission was especially from commissioner hillis, not many commissioners actually spoke during this d. R. , but was that commissioner richards was actually quiet . He was absent. He was quiet. You guys picked a good day. And part of his rationale for supporting which no one else spoke against at the commission was this was a good size unit. A good unit parity. Rh2 district and adding a reasonable size second unit that is of good size is part of his rationale for supporting it and by extension of it, other commissioners as well. I think changing it from a three bedroom one study unit to a one bedroom, three study unit is maybe not what they had in mind when making those comments and reviewing those plans. And then the last thing was you said it was completely code compliant. Are they at the max or could they have gone larger . Technically under the code they could have gone deeper. How much deep sner i dont have that specific analysis, but the ground floor was fairly deeper than the upper two levels and could have gone again, this is a pretty deep lot. And 114 and it has the adjacent building that is very deep next to it which allows it to average a little bit more and get even further in terms of the rear yard. What we have and what comes before us a lot of time, not to interrupt you, but looks like it goes down in the back. So are they at the max height as well . They are not at the max height. They could have built a much bigger property. Under the code. Now, under the residential Design Guidelines, there was discussion at the Planning Commission and commissioner hillis and their consensus is that any proposal to go higher probably would not have been supported, so again, what the code allows and what the residential Design Guidelines allow which is a little bit different. Usually on this board we see a lot of variances and exceptions. So they have gone on this project, they could have gone higher and way back. Thank you. Thank you. Quickly, we dealt with the issue of the privacy screen, and we can detail that if we move forward. We will deal with number of opaque windows in rebuttal. Thank you for addressing the historical issue. What has not been addressed and i would like your opinion on it is the back deck and what are your feelings about the back deck . It did not seem to be a biggie for the Planning Commission, but since it was brought up by the appellant, i think its appropriate we address that thoroughly. Well, it depends on which level you are really talking about. The back deck, which is the one that is. Because the deck at the first floor, so kind of the middle floor, the Planning Commission did require that to be basically cut in half. And put the privacy screening up there. That was specifically in response to the adjacent Property Owner and privacy concerns. That will be at the ground floor level of the adjacent property or above . Second floor. But there wasnt any real discussion at the Commission Hearing that i recall addressing the patio at grade or the roof deck because the roof deck was fairly small and centralized and not along the lines and a hatch and no penthouse either. I dont get a sense that the decks are an issue especially since the middle deck was adjusted. What was the final question oh yeah. So it would if there is interest in moving this forward in the code compliant, but there is the issue of the basement and will hear rebuttal and discussion on that. And in the spirit of being thorough and appropriate, what would you advise that we do and give condition to number of bedrooms which leads to your view versus our view and who knows how it will turn out, but we dont want to and in everybodys interest, and new piece of housing, available for the developer who probably feels at this point the house should already have been built, and what should what is your advice . Should we ask or seek a continuance so you can quickly work with the developer to resolve those appropriate issues . Or should we leave in it your good hands . I dont know that i have specific advice for you. I think theyre just tradeoffs either way. And i mean, it comes down more to how comfortable the commission is approving something in concept without seeing the final result. For the purpose of expediting the process. That is a totally valid path to take and choose to stay longer and work this out now to esao it on mans and exactly what you want and understand what that means. [please stand by] schutti shea. Another round of changes were made by not one but the two trips to the r. D. T. And finally, at the Planning Commission, at his request, to his specific benefit, they cut the deck in half on the second floor. This is a case of appeal creep or opposition creep. As soon as the wants and needs and demands have been met, he simply moves the target and moves to the next set of demands. Every step of the process, there has been concessions made to this neighbor. Mr. Driscoll faced fierce opposition from an entire Neighborhood Group at the thought of going up an extra floor. He did not. He worked with them, he worked with his neighbor on the other side, he worked with the neighbors across the street, and he worked with the neighbors in the back. Mr. Driscoll is completely committed to the conditions of that third bedroom or whatever the proper bedroom count should be, completely committed. Hes completely committed to the concessions made here tonight. He has submitted this since 2017. We respectfully ask that the commission deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions decision. Thank you. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Is there anybody else here for Public Comment . Okay. We will move on to rebuttal. Mr miss schuttish, you have three minutes. Thank you. This is so interesting with regard to the basement garage unit because i thought that would be an issue beforehand, i suggested that they put the basement in the garage level and get rid of the garage. And i said that to mr. Driscoll and elroy. I dont want to relitigate that. I never thought it was going to work. I dont think most people want to live below a garage in San Francisco, in noe valley, whether its a condo or a rental. I think this could have been solved i want to say i live directly across the street and have for 33 years. Ive seen a lot of changes on my block, and i havent opposed anything. Heres 463 duncan as it is. Theres the tradesman entrance. If you follow along with the a. D. U. Legislation, they could have done a unit on that garage level and gone out and used the yard and shared the yard. That was one of my premises at the planning addition. I do think that its important to preserve the facade. Like mr. Teague said, mary browns study is a graeat stud. Shes not saying everything is historic, lets look at everything. As she said, conduct a focused evaluative survey of houses in the district. Although there were relatively few houses in the sunset area, it appears to be the most common home constructed in the 1920s. Mary brown, unfortunately passed away, and she didnt get to do more work, and thats the sad thing. And here we go, this is pending sale, 2. 25 million. Im not saying you cant do that. They remodelled this, they put another bedroom below the garage. If youre preserving facades like this, and this one actually is mr. Odriscolls other property right there in noe, hes preserving the facade, you can do it. I think this is a tragedy. I think this is another infill in noe valley. I think they need to be preserved. You have the discretion to do it. Its a condition you can add. If you want to care i know you care about this, and you should because that comnates the planning chigs, and they never talked about the facade at all because they were bedazzled with the second unit. And i just wanted to say thank you. Clerk thank you. Thank you. Clerk we will now hear from mr. Sheard. Overhead. You can see the height in there is exactly the same. These are what came with the brief, and these are the plans. Theyre the same, so they may have done sort of outdoing the height earlier, but i agree what was said at the d. R. Request, president hillis said quite clearly he wouldnt like kindly on increasing the height. As for the depth of the building, the buildidepth of t building is the most you can build on that lot. It is right on the back of the lot. My lot came out to the lines. And you still have to have 25 . Thats why thats like it is. This step back is back of the r. D. G. S this step back is because of the r. D. G. S. Being a novice at that, i thought i can shoot down this building because its way smaller than Everything Else at the block. That didnt go good. I didnt bring out much of the privacy stuff. I through in a bucket of stuff in the brief and just focused on matters of the building and it didnt work. What they did talk about on the d. R. Was the s