Georgia schuttish versus the department of building inspection with Planning Department approval and paul sheard versus department of building inspection with Planning Department approval. The subject property is 461463 duncan street, protesting the issuance on april 8, 2019, to James Odriscoll of a site permit, add new residential unit at basement, side addition at second floor east and west elevation, horizontal addition at first floor, provide basement level, remodel interior. This is application 201708 15 4881 and we will hear from ms. Schuttish first. Thank you. Thank you. I have seven minutes. Thank you. And good evening, commissioners, president swig, fellow commissioners. I gave copies of what i am going to show on the over head to mr. Odriscoll and mr. Teague at the start of the hearing and would be happy to give those to you, too. Good evening, again. I am here to ask you to preserve the battle front facade of the mediterranean revival style house. This is a design issue, an issue of aesthetics. The project sponsor states in his brief that i rely too heavily on mary browns report, but her report is important because she goes beyond describing homes as just marina style, but as specific and distinct styles like 463 duncan, which is a battle front mediterranean revival. In reading her report, i was educated. It was never my intent to challenge the cadx. I know the ceqa document should be appealed to the board of supervisors within 60 days of an i a prooufl. I fully understand this is not an historic with a capital h resource, nor did i ever claim it to be one. It is an original 1927 facade, intact, and extremely attractive with details that are specific to the San Francisco style of vernacular architecture. At the d. R. Hearing, i testified about the importance of this style of San Francisco residential dwelling and to describe the uniqueness to San Francisco and to our residential neighborhoods. And that the commission should use its powers under discretionary review to preserve the facade in the design of the alteration. The commission did not discuss the facade in their deliberations on december 6 and did not preserve the facade. I am testifying tonight that the board should correct the oversight by the commission, and for this board to use your powers of discretion to discuss this battle front mediterranean revival facade and preserve it. But before i continue, i want to assure the board that i am not asking you to declare this an Historic Resource. I am asking you to make an ed situation regarding the unique a decision regarding the unique to San Francisco facade which will also be based on aesthetics of a unique residential structure. May i have the overhead please . This is a really nice facade. It is in beautiful condition with wonderful details as i outline in my brief. And it is original from 1927, nearly 92 years ago. Here is a house that is nearby at 1525 knowing that is pending sale and is also a battle front mediterranean revival. It is described as battle front mediterranean in the brochure and as it turns out, it was also built by Andrew Berwick in 1927. Several months after he took out the permit for 463 duncan. Based on the brochure and the pending sale, this house with the original facade is supremely marketable. Some realtors have a fancy for this maria style and recognize it as unique to San Francisco. Also, i never knew, but it seems so that most of the infill in noey valley was usually a marina style house. In these two reports, one by paige and turnbull from 2016 and one from ruben junius for 2019 for two other projects, that is confirmed, only they refer to them by the proper names mediterranean eare viefl. I found the reports after i submitted my brief. Both state this style was the, quote, common dwelling time and infill housing preworldii. Also, i neglected to include page 118 from mary browns report. Here it is. And i apologize for that. The important point in her conclusion is that she recommends further study of the battle front mediterranean eare revival houses because it appears to be the most commonly constructed style. The project sponsors and the grouping of lots wasnt the pat everyone in in the valley after world war i. The mediterranean revivals were the predominant in fill per the paige and turnbill and julius reporting. That these battle front were only built for a period of time from the mid 1920s to 1931. She writes in the conclusion of the report that this particular style deserves further study. Again, as written in the brown report, these solid houses in heat indices which includes the battle front mediterranean revival that are unique to San Francisco. They most likely only exist here in San Francisco or perhaps daly city per the mare ru brown report. At exhibit five in the brief, i show four photos of alteration projects, where the precede and none are considered Historic Resources and all are rated b. All are in noey valley and they were preserved. Here is a facade also a battle front, mediterranean revival, built in 1931 at 578 elizabeth street as it was. And here it is as it undergoes construction as an alteration. This facade should have been preserved. It did not have a Commission Hearing and now its gone. This board should use the discretionary power regarding aesthetic issues to maintain the battle front mediterranean revival at 463 duncan street. I think you have discretionary powers granted to you by various court cases and i think its important that you consider it. Here is 578 that elizabeth more recently two days ago. Thank you very much. Thank you, ms. Schuttish. Thank you. We will now hear from the other appellant, pr mr. Sheard. Good evening. Welcome. Temperature final consideration tonight. Yes. I have to say happy birthday to you. Thank you. Im going to use the overhead. Overhead please. Thank you. Got to deal with positioning, dont we . Face it as if you are looking at it, sir. Hi. My name is paul sheard and live next door to 463 duncan. I have a good size garden on the other side, as you can see. This is a picture on there overhead from winter. I can flip that and show you what it looks like in summer. That is a more recent picture. The house and the garden have been my home for over 20 years and i man to retire and grow even older there, but ever go in the further, let me be clear. I am not trying to stop this project. Its going to get built, maybe with the facade, but the Actual Development going to go ahead, some manner, some form, and some impact to my light and privacy which are the two main issues. That is a given. Through some elements of the plan that are excessive and simple modifications which wont change the cost of the project and no other retail value of the units. For example, making the side setbacks 5 feet. I have read through the developers brief and it paints a picture of the project that i dont recognize. Ill call out a few examples from the brief. The plan extends the second floor by 6 foot and adds an extra 8 1 2 foot deck which makes it 26 longer than the current house. Where is the brief whereas, the brief states minimal changes to the second floor. The brief claims that the project is a significant reduction in massing. Using the data from the plans, theres been a decrease in habitable space of 69 square feet. 1. 6 with the original 4300 plus. There is also a claim that they listen to a neighbors request to not increase the height of the building. That doesnt really count because no increase in the height of the building was ever proposed. Not even in the plans revealed at the first neighborhood meeting. So i have been forced to come to the board for help because the project hasnt made any results from neighborhood input. The citys complaint processes and all that i can really use. I wish i could have worked with the developer. If he would have been cooperative because its been really stressful. And as a novice to the planning process, i am always worried i am missing something important, which i think i have ever figured out because there is a big basement that needs to be dug out and that will go beneath my foundation. There is no talk so far of surveys and monitoring, underpinning, all that kind of stuff, so you kind of get worried about that. Im sorry. I am kind of ranting here, but trying to show how it works to feel with this developer and his team, which i noticed now includes a bunch of lawyers and i also see the r. B. A. In the audience. So were probably going to get some animated comment from them. Anyway, the reason i am here is about privacy and light. I hope i was pretty clear in my brief. And on what it is that i am concerned about and why and what i think reasonable remedy, but ill go through a couple of points. There is one issue, number four, which i think is cleared up. The brief notes that its got missing details missing in the actual plans and that the actual east facing window on the second floor and that still leaves two other east facing windows on the first floor. Both overlook this garden. We could close that issue out if the Developers Just do propose something similar, but i havent heard that. For t two biggest privacy issues come from the decks the Development Plans to have. Lets check issue number three first. This is the privacy screen that the manning commission stipulated on the second floor of the deck. The developers brief note they have provided a planting box that meets the residential guideline suggests as landscaping. However, plants die really quickly if you stick them in a small planter on a south facing deck in full sun and even slightly ignore them. I think the developer should be responsible for provide on the third party to maintain conditions. I am asking a condition be applied to the permit to clarify that the screenings should be opaque, and tall enough to provide privacy and not rely on a third party. This is a perfect example from 24th street, really close to the project site. That is an easy one to solve, but the Biggest Issue is the deck off the back of the first floor bedroom. This is the third deck on this unit and it is an extra to have on any real estate flyer, but a nightmare for my privacy and impacts the neighbors, too. Lets go back to the shots of the actual garden the rails of the and that deck sorry, that fence is already 8 foot high. The deck is 11x17, the second biggest on the project, and going to go back to the pole on that garden. Anyone on this deck, even toddlers, will be able to look over it and have a great view down the whole open space and into the back of my neighbors houses. This is the best shot from what the view of the back deck would look like looking into the back of my house. This deck overlooks my entire backyard and can kitchen and bedroom. This is probably not exactly correct because to get the right shot i would have had to go to my neighbors yard, which i cant want to do. The impact of the deck is excessive. I am asking it be eliminated. A pretty big thing, i know, but it would still lever the unit with two other decks. One on the main living area and one on the roof. Removing the deck would be in line with what the Planning Commission talked about in august trends for the decks and eliminate the Privacy Concern without impacting the habitable space on the first floor. There are likely other options we probably could talk about. To sum up, i have been in this house for a long time and i intend to there live there a lot longer and acknowledge that this will have an impact on privacy and light. It is unevidentable. I am seeking help from the board to reduce the impacts still present in the current design. The changes i requested wont impact the Construction Costs nor the units retail value. And will always be bidders for the upper unit and i asked ask that you approve the developers conditions, except for the comments. Any questions . I do. So you went to the initial meeting with the developers at the site . I actually missed that because i was out of town on business. I did send in my comments to them and i talked to all the neighbors that went there. Going forward, whatevers your interaction like with the builders . An i never met face to mace and most of the actions have been email and as late as yesterday. And did they respond to your emails . Mr. Odriscoll does respond to my email reasonably promptly. I have followed up with him on one of them when i didnt get a prompt response. Reasonably cordial and well written and could all be replaced by the single word no. Looking at the brief, you said from the rear deck, it would view the back of your house. This only could you give me that outline already. So is that looking from the standpoint of standing on their rear deck . Yes. This is standing this is the equivalent of standing on the rear deck, at the edge of the rear deck nearest the Property Line looking right back. Are they behind you or adjacent to me . Adjacent to me. They are adjacent to me and the house goes back except for the 25 on the back of the lot. You figure from the back of that deck to the back of your house is at 25 feet, 50 feets . The back of the deck to my house were got the plans if you want me to look at up. It would be round about dosh so my garden is 70 foot long. The and the 25 on there would be minus 25 of 70 and about 45 feet at the furtherest most point on the deck away from the building. That deck is 12 feet deep, so they have 12 foot to go back and forth. Thank you. And you have a beautiful garden. Thank you very much. I spent a lot of time on it. Do you want to come to my house . An it comes from striping and various other sales. Thank you very much. Any other questions . Thank you. We will now hear from the permit holder. Mr. Odriscoll. You have 14 minutes, sir. Good evening, commissioners and president swig. I am representing the permit holder James Odriscoll and i am the bunch of lawyers here tonight representing the applicant. There is a lot of overlap in the two appeals. We briefed both appeals extensively, so i wont go through every issue. This is a project that is remodel and extension of an existing residence, construction of the new second unit. And the basement level alterations to the facade and addition of a roof deck. It also involves excavation of about 11 feet below the existing surface in order to develop the structure would increasing the height of the existing structure. The project was submitted about two years ago, almost two years ago, to the building and Planning Department. It was totally code compliant at that time with the Building Code and planning code. There were Community Meetings that were held, contrary to the statement just made, there were people in the neighborhood concerned about an increase in the height of the residence to achieve a second unit. That is a reason for the excavation and a change in what the project could have been. When the 311 notice went out from planning, there were two d. R. S file bid the two appellants here tonight. Since the meeting occurred with the Planning Department and the rdat team, they were recommendations for additional changes to the product design, but mr. Odriscolls, those included an increase of 4feet, 4 inch side set back and increasing and we deucing the size of the garage and the rear extension on the top floor by 5 feet. Following the d. R. Hearings, there were further changes that were requested. The Planning Commission approved the project on a 51 vote and 15 feet to 1 2 feet. They asked for privacy screening. In connection with that issue and the conversation earlier today with the zoning administrator, the recommendation from the Planning Commission was not that clear. The plans that were approved by the site permit and include opaque glass on that rear wall for the privacy screening on that side and that is something that theyre willing to do and will do. In terms of the issues that have been raised about the historic issues related to the facade. This is indeed a barrel front mediterranean revival structure. Unfortunate, will the Planning Department and said the project is not a Historic Resource or a landmark or part of the district like the last item you heard. As she is not asking you to declare and that is good because that is the per view of the Historic Preservation activation commission, not the board of appeals. The Planning Department looked at the issues closely in terms of issuing a cadx and also in terms of the d. R. They concluded there is no basis for treating this facade as a Historic Resource and preserves it. They concluded that there is no none of the people that have been resided in the house for a long period of time met the area for Historic Resource. The horizontal is not very helpful. Obviously there are areas of the city made up of the barrel front, medtain thattian, revival homes. This is not one of them and there may be isolated homes, but a quote from ms. Browns report, they are typically in the sunset district from mid 1920s and the standardization and cookie cutter approach. Significance is derived from the overall architecture front of a group l of the barrel front mediterranean the harder than the situation we have here at duncan street. In case the issues come up, they were briefed, and comments by both appellants to the roof deck. Again, the Planning Department looked at that in the discretionary review approvals and moderately sized, set back from the building edges and does not add to nasz and project. Both appellants raised questions about the degree of excavation reviewed by d. B. I. And covered by civil code aekt and to comply with support for the structures. He will do so and the work will be done consistent with existing geotech reports. The last issue was raised by both appellants that this project was demolition. Again, the Planning Department and d. Bmenti. Looked at that and d. B. I. Looked at it and concluded that it was not. Going to the issues that are raised by mr. Sheard, again, i summarize the changes that were made in response to Privacy Concerns and the same ones are additional requests from the Planning Commission and rejeksed as part of the d. R. On were rejected as part of the d. R. Of this project. And that 3d window and modelling and will be an opaque glass window facing on to the Property Line. Some of the other questions have been asked and answered. And the planning staff and the Planning Commission. It is not true that no changes made throughout the process. Not going into the details and the project not being consistent with the residential guidelines and extend into the mid block open space but if you look at exhibit c to the brief submitted to that issue, there is two residences adjacent. One below and one on the upper side that already bifurcate the mid lock open space. It is not this project that is doing this. I know the zoning administrator, there was a call to the attention earlier today. And one of the drawings for the site permit and indicating the reduction in the number of the area and the bedrooms in the lower unit and the number of ways and hasnt been solved yet. And Fire Protection and a ladder to the rear building. The Planning Department and are part of the plans approved by the Planning Department. We would hope that that could be addressed through a condition and through the permit that would be resolved when the first addendum is submitted to the site permit. On the other hand, approved by the Planning Department and not an issue that has been raise bid the appellant. With that i think i will rest. I dont need 14 minutes. I have a question, counselor. Thank you to your clients for volunteering to do the obscure glass and if that works, we would memorialize that in there. Absolutely. Secondly, the other concern and the underpinning and are you set up to do your monitoring . Im sorry. You can come to the mic. Do you want to address . So i am sure you face this code all the time and will provide the lateral and adjacent supports throughout the process. Just identify yourself. And James Odriscoll, project sponsor. Typically we would take survey points before we start and i cant speak to the engineering process. It will be engineered to the shoring and underpinning, and typically take survey points prior and everything would work from the sur ray points. And when the permit was issue, was there any variances or exceptions on the permit . You said it was completely code compliant . Totally code compliant. Thank you. Any other questions . And just a short one. And look at this being done and as an improvement for resale and the developer has no intent to live here, i am assuming, or does he . Resale. So there are two units, two separate addresses, correct . That is correct. Is it anticipated these will be condos . Or anticipated it will be a residence occupied by the resident that will be potentially occupied by two separate renters . What if they are to be rental units, is there any anticipation of affordable or rent controlled . What is the structure . President swig, i will defer to the client partly on the answer to this. I have not been involved in the project until recently. I do not believe there is any requirement that would exist that would make a two unit structure subject to any affordability restriction or rent control. I would assume two units and if they are condos, not subject to rent control. Are they anticipated to be subdivided . They are and condominiumd . It is important for the neighborhood to know. I know. Commissioners, the intention is to get a Building Permit for two equitable younts. Told as t. I. C. Or condominiums . They are to be sold and we actually havent got that far to be honest. It is a process thats gone on a long time depending on how long it goes financially, etc. , plans change. But at the moment the plan is to get it entitle and get it built. 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 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 second floor deck, and we all seem to have problems about how many decks there are. The deck on the second floor has already been cutback by the d. R. Request. We still have the first full deck, the one thats all the way down the end of the garden that has no privacy screen, and i brought this to the commission because i felt that they focused on the second floor deck on the d. R. Request and forgot about the first floor. I think its the same thing. If theres a problem with privacy on one deck, theres a problem with privacy on the other. Even more so with the first floor because that deck looks into the yard of all my neighbors, who are not here, but im talking on their behalf. If were going to put any conditions on it, i would like to see and i picked this up from a meeting two or three weeks ago, all the things that were done on the under pinning. It would underpinning. It would be nice to see this on a condition permit. Mr. Kieran talked about so many meetings