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

>> foin. just interesting where this project is going. and i think it's 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. >> let's 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, it's 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 follow-up. 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 wouldn't 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 don't 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 461-463 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 5-1 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 don't 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 5-1. 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 brown's 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 b's 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, don't 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 don't address the preservation of specific ark aek tech churl styles. >> would we see this again if they can't 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. >> don't 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 don't 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 it's 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 wasn't 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 don't 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 don't want to -- and in everybody's 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 don't know that i have specific advice for you. i think they're just trade-offs 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. he's 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 commission's 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 don't want to relitigate that. i never thought it was going to work. i don't think most people want to live below a garage in san francisco, in noe valley, whether it's 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. i've seen a lot of changes on my block, and i haven't opposed anything. here's 463 duncan as it is. there's 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 it's important to preserve the facade. like mr. teague said, mary brown's study is a graeat stud. she's not saying everything is historic, let's 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 1920's. mary brown, unfortunately passed away, and she didn't get to do more work, and that's the sad thing. and here we go, this is pending sale, $2.25 million. i'm not saying you can't do that. they remodelled this, they put

another bedroom below the garage. if you're preserving facades like this, and this one actually is mr. o'driscoll's other property right there in noe, he's preserving the facade, you can do it. i think this is a tragedy. i think this is another in-fill in noe valley. i think they need to be preserved. you have the discretion to do it. it's 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. they're 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 wouldn't 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%.

that's why that's 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 it's way smaller than everything else at the block. that didn't go good. i didn't 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 didn't 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 that's 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 it's the same thing. if there's a problem with privacy on one deck, there's 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 i'm talking on their behalf. if we're 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 i wasn't able to go to because they happened without us or they happened before they even started the process. so they may have made changes there, but if you're not privy

to it and you don't know if it's going on, you can't make -- oh, and by the way, can we make a change to the privacy screen? >> i have a few questions for you, sir. can you put the overhead back on? just to understand which of your properties is your property, and then, i believe we were looking on to back porch or something that you had on your property. >> yes. this was looking to the rear of 463 duncan street. the left-hand side of my left-hand side up here is uphill. this is the property being developed. that's my property, and so the deck that i'm talking about is this one here, which is all the way at the back of my garden and at the back of my lot and then looks down the lot on multiple properties further down the hill. >> and then, can you just -- as you said, you threw a bucket of things. you kind of did that here with your brief, as well, so all the

things that you're asking for, and you're focusing on, like the foundation, what is it that you're seeking? >> five issues. privacy screen on the second floor, frosted glass on the se scene overlooking my property. i'd like the set back that the r.d.a. recommended to 5 feet. it was 5 feet in the original proposal, and they said you can just go with 4.4 or whatever. but the biggest issue is this deck on the back of the floor. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now here from mr. olson, and you have six

minutes, sir. >> thank you. speaking about that lower deck, the lack drawing that mr. sheard -- last drawing that mr. sheard had up basically shows that it's at grade. this is a 40-foot hide, 40-x. the project could have been taller. changes were made in recognition of uphill neighbors prior to the first neighborhood meeting. the fact that the changes were made when the neighborhood challenged doesn't mean there's no reflection of the concern from uphill neighbors of this property. and in terms of mr. sheard's comments that he really didn't raise these issues with the planning commission, i've read his brief to the planning commissions, the d.r. hearing, it's almost identical to the brief that was submitted to this board. i want to just focus on the few issues that remain, president

swig. you look at a-303, the east elevation, the window that was going to be opaque, there will be a screen at the second deck. it's the first-floor windows -- >> if you could just put that on the overhead so you could show us the windows you're pointing out, please. >> going to be the first-floor windows right here, one horizontal, one vertical. both of these windows could be made a condition that they would be opaque glass, as well as the -- >> and the other one is also, correct? >> the one that's on the second level, that's the horizontal window, is opaque glass, as well, and that is shown in that, i believe, on the plans. it's really -- mr. sheard's

issue with the vertical and horizontal window on the first level of the window, we'll make those opaque glass, as well. in terms of the number of bedrooms in the final design and how that gets resolved, president swig and commissioners, again, my client's totally committed to the three bedrooms. there's three solutions to this. architect is here and can speak to them in more detail if desires. one with a three-foot hallway, second with a two-hour fire wall. either will solve the conditions for the bedrooms, make sure they provide the adequate egress without major changes to the floor plan. so it would certainly be our desire based on the fact that these permits were submitted almost two years ago, and san francisco desperately needs housing, that we not have a long delay, that the board actually approves the site permit with the conditions that we've agreed to.

one being the opaque glass screen on the second deck, the change to the windows, and a commitment to satisfy the concerns of the planning department and d.b.i. as to the fact that there will be three bedrooms in the lower unit and that we'll have access that's acceptable under the building code for d.b.i. and to approve the buildings on that basis. backup plan is a continuation if that's the will of the board, but that's just a further delay to -- for this project moving forward and stuff. so with that, i thank you for your time. if the commission has any questions -- >> i do. so -- so you don't mind if we condition that three windows become opaque as mentioned on -- the first one wasn't -- >> i think the first one's opaque. >> but if we condition that, that doesn't in any way change the addenda.

and then, the second one, that there would be three bedrooms, you don't mind that we condition that. >> correct. and with egress, that would satisfy the planning code and would confirm that they have the three bedrooms, that in particular commissioner hillis was referring to. >> okay. thank you. any other questions? >> clerk: did you want to address the privacy screen exactly in terms of the height? [inaudible] >> clerk: absolutely. >> then maybe we should talk to the builder as what they plan because we're just talking about making it opaque. he has to raise it -- >> well, i want to see if there are restrictions around how high it's supposed to be. >> clerk: well, we still need to hear from mr. teague. >> thank you, counselor. >> clerk: thank you. >> he already said the privacy screen was -- >> clerk: mr. teague? >> come on up. >> hello again.

just jumping quickly to the privacy screens. so the planning commission didn't provide guidance on a height. they basically minimized the depth of the deck and made it clear that this needed to be a -- there needed to be a privacy screen. they didn't recommend materials, they didn't recommend a height. my recommendation was it needed to be solid, not a planter box or whatever, and it needed to be at least 6 feet tall. because it was in the buildable envelope, you could do whatever you wanted in reason and not trigger conditions. you could have it be 6 feet, 7 feet or some other dimension. >> but there's no other restriction? we can say 6 or 7? >> yeah. just another quick issue i failed to mention before. there's been a lot of discussion just kind of like the neighborhood and meetings

and to that effect. i did want to point out that there were these two d.r.'s filed on the original permit, but on the d.r. packet, it indicates that the department receive no other public comment on this permit, either in opposition or support of the project. and then, regarding the bedrooms on the ground floor unit that were being added, i did also want to clarify that, you know, the planning commission, again, they did not specify a number of bedrooms. i don't know if the department's taking a position on there needs to be a certain amount of bedrooms. i just wanted to make you all aware when the planning commission made their decision, there would be a number of bedrooms. obviously, it's your discretion there would be two or three bedrooms or what kind of configuration you want to see on that. >> you all? i can tell where you were last week. >> i just wanted to know if it

defaulted to a den or a t.v. room or whatever it was, that it would need your approval, or did i misunderstand? >> there may have been a misunderstanding. when the planning commission approved the project, there was three bedrooms and a study. when the planning department approved the permit subsequent to the d.r., that was the same, so the -- the planning department understanding of the project as we were approving it was three bedrooms. what was actually issued was one bedroom and a study and a library and a media room. >> so what would be the consequences of not going forward with the other two bedrooms? any? >> well, there's no specific consequence in the sense that it doesn't specifically violate any conditions of the d.r., but -- and then that's the distinction i wanted to make is that i did not want to -- i did not -- i did not want to imply that the planning commission put a condition on how many

bedrooms there are, only that that was the condition they approved and what got approved under the site permit is a somewhat different condition. it's up to you how to deal with that condition. >> but neither of them affects the outcome. okay. >> i have a question on the privacy screen. was it the planning commission -- i guess it's the second floor roof deck that's above the first floor that's not above the basement, was it the screen would be wrapping around or just on the side facing the property. >> the d.r. was just on that adjacent side facing the -- >> i just wanted to make sure it was -- [inaudible] >> -- on three sides, it was just the specific privacy concerns for that neighbor. >> sure. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. kern, anything further? okay.

commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> actually -- maybe, can i speak to the project sponsor in regards to the privacy screen? we want to make sure you guys get your money's worth tonight. so what size height wise is the privacy screen, sir? >> originally, as proposed on the plan, it was planter box with whatever bamboo. we have no objection whether it's 6 feet, 7 feet. as long as the planning department have no objection to the height of it. >> so he said 7. are you comfortable with 7? >> i'm fine with 7. >> thank you for being very cooperative. thank you. >> okay. so i'd like to start, please. >> no -- i'm just kidding. >> thanks -- revolution. so i -- i made clear my -- my goal, which was to satisfy as

many needs as possible while moving a project forward which seems to be compliant in almost every way. so we -- we -- the two windows, agreed. >> three windows. >> the two extra, three total. >> yeah. >> opaque windows. the -- the privacy screen at 7 feet, agreed. what else -- was the third one? i'm sorry, i lost it. >> the three bedrooms, but i'm not willing to put that -- >> the issue -- so i want to -- where i'd like to take this is that it -- to a with the where the only -- i'd like to continue it, but i want to continue it to only include the planning planning department

and the project sponsor to come to an agreement on the lower level, and that to me is an important legal, life, fire, safety, tieing-it-up-in-a-nice-bow issue. and we're not going to cost them any time. i don't want to do that tonight on the fly because you don't plan things like that. it should be more appropriate. >> sorry to interrupt, but if we're not going to condition it to have three bedrooms, then whether they have one bedroom or two bedrooms, it's going to be code compliant no matter what. >> i just -- before we put the final wrapping on this, i'd like to bring it back, but i'd like to bring it back on the condition that we're not going to discuss privacy screens

anymore, we're not going to discuss any decks, we're not going to discuss anymore windows because we're going to agree that that will be a condition of moving forward. and that when we bring this back, we are only discussing that lower floor with whatever condition of number of bedrooms that you would like to put on it, commissioner. >> okay. so you just want to see if that's the footprint on it. >> yeah, i just want to see the footprint. >> i'm not supportive of that -- >> of that particular piece? >> of that particular piece with everything else. their incentive to get the three bedrooms, they're not going to get it if they don't have the proper design because the permit won't be signed off on. we'll be delaying it a number of weeks. i'm not sure what we'll be accomplishing. >> yeah. that's what i was thinking of. speaking from a realtor, not a commissioner, they'll probably have three bedrooms. >> i don't think it's of any concern to us, how many bedrooms. it's of concern to the planning department and the building department, but not to us.

>> yeah. i just -- my concern is that we have -- >> you just want to see the final footprint no matter what? >> i just want to see the final footprint because we're approving a site permit right now, and we kind of have fog on an entire -- >> is your concern that there wouldn't be three bedrooms or you just don't know what it is? >> no, i'd just like to see -- i'd like to see that we've done our job to make sure that the -- the site permit is approved with a project that is legally compliant and that would mean a plan that would show that you could put two bedrooms or three bedrooms down there -- >> well, normally, that would be sort of a continuance, but i think we've ironed out quite a few issues tonight, and then -- >> what would be your recommendation -- >> would you like to -- >> chime in? >> facilitate this a little

bit. >> if you don't mind, i think there's two different questions here. one is whether or not the commission desires that there be two or three bedrooms? or not or you don't care. >> he doesn't care. >> and the other question is if you do care, do you want to see it before you approve it or do you just want to condition it and have it play out beyond this commission? the thing i want to just clarify is the permit that's before you now, those rooms cannot be bedrooms or they will be defective bedrooms that are not safe. so that is my first question if you even care about how many legal bedrooms are in this

unit, or the second, where you don't care about the configuration of the bedrooms. >> for me, since i brought it up, i would like to see a legally compliant plan with an agreement between you and the project sponsor of -- of how many bedrooms and how folks are going to get out of there if there's a problem. that's all. >> so there's -- right now, the planning commission approved it with three bedrooms. right now, it's one bedroom. it's kind of before you guys to decide if you want to require it to go back to two or three bedrooms. >> mr. president -- >> yes, sir. >> i don't think you have support for that motion. >> okay. >> ann's not going to support it, i'm not going to support it. >> i don't think -- >> so how about some language -- i'm not going to get ferocious about this.

i just want to make sure we're exercising due diligence and responsibility going forward. so if somebody would like to come up with some language that includes the aforementioned decks and windows and stuff, and also that will provide some solid direction with regard to what we expect from planning, i'll -- i'll be very happy to move forward with this tonight. >> well, i think that we're going to accept the appeal and condition the permit. that's number one. >> all right. what are your conditions, then? >> that number one, as per drawing set a-303 -- was it dated april 8? that the windows indicated three windows would be made obscure glass or opaque or whatever the terminology is on t

-- is. on the second floor deck on a-303, is that correct, also dated the same date, that the privacy screening be 7 feet. now, i don't know if we want to determine material? >> no. >> no, with opaque glass. that's -- >> oh, was that it? >> yeah. >> so for the -- everyone's nodding yes, so i guess that's a good thing. for the material to be opaque glass, as well. you know, to me, i'm not willing to touch the downstairs. i think that's planning's job to determine, and i think they'll be able to determine if those are defective bedrooms or not, and i think the project sponsor, in marketing this, there's no way they can market three bedrooms. >> would you consider approving

it have at least two bedrooms? that's what i would say and even three -- >> ann's not going to support it. >> i don't have to. you don't have to have my vote. >> would you support two bedrooms? >> yeah, a minimum of two bedrooms -- with really big sky lights. >> good luck. >> clerk: okay. is that your motion? >> anything else -- you know, i'm sorry, we usually don't do this. it's the end of the night. if you're going to -- please come up to the podium. what are you talking about, sir? >> you've dealt with the deck on the second floor. >> we're not going to deal with the deck on the first floor. >> so which deck do you want at 7 feet? we're only going to do one. >> the deck on the first floor is the worst. >> okay. let me rethink this. sit down, please. thank you. >> so which deck are they talking about?

[inaudible] >> is that the one we're talking about? okay. how are we going to say -- >> so it is -- maybe use a different sheet. >> so just that so we're talking about the same deck, can the project sponsor come up, please. >> we're talking about the ground floor -- basement, first floor is ground. >> clerk: the 3d rendering is really helpful. >> we're actually in deliberation at this point. >> so i'm looking at page a-3 -- >> overhead, please. >> i don't know if that's what we should be looking at. >> hold on one second. >> this is fine. >> okay. that's fine? so it is that one? >> and can you point to the one

which is glass frame railing. >> so is that indicated as first floor on the plans? >> yes. >> okay. so we're talking that the privacy screening on the first floor be 7 feet? >> privacy screening is up at this one here. >> okay. so that's where -- we're at a different deck. >> basement, first floor, second. >> it was a requirement for a planter box by the planning department. which one -- >> which one here? >> it was the second floor. >> sorry to haggle back and forth, but you're the last guys, and hopefully, we'll get this solved. if you had a choice between, which floor would it be? not that you're going to get it, but i'm going to ask it.

>> yeah, understood. we keep talking that this floor is a grade. >> so is that floor that you would prefer to have the 7-foot deck? >> that's the one that overlooks me the most and the neighbors. >> okay. that's a yes. so let me ask the builder, on the second deck -- >> we've put in the provide ski scre scre -- privacy screen. >> okay. you're a planner. >> okay. this second-floor deck, to give reference -- >> so that doesn't half -- i understand that, and that is understanding that the planning commission conditioned it to have a privacy screen, which it

was bamboo or whatever, and now it's going to be opaque. i think in fairness, if we're going to do one deck, i think it would be the second-floor deck to make sure that that is going to be an opaque, wind screen, whatever it is -- solid -- now i'm losing my words because it's getting late. it is not a planning commission's direction that it be on the ground floor or first floor, which is at grade at the front of the unit. >> unfortunately, let's just say with the meeting of thought, so it would be the second thought, which the planning had originally stipulated the planter box, that there be 7-foot privacy screen and opaque glass. >> clerk: that would be your motion, and on what basis? >> on the basis that neighborhood relations, it would make better -- >> clerk: address some privacy concerns? >> yeah, address some privacy issues that were brought up.

it's late. i've got a party to go to. and the minimum two bedroom is to keep in spirit with what was addressed at the planning commission. >> clerk: and approve plans that are more consistent with the planning commission? >> that was approved inside -- >> before the planning department. >> clerk: okay. >> i miss frank a lot. >> okay. so we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant the motion and approve the condition to grant the opaque on east walls as shown on page 5-30 -- a-303 on the plans date april 8, and there be a screen of opaque glass on the second floor screen deck, and three,

this there be a minimum of two bedrooms at the basement level on the condition that these address privacy concerns and the number of bedrooms on the basement level is more consistent with the plans -- the concept that was approved by the planning commission. >> i'll just have you make my motions all the time. really. >> okay. let me get my vote sheet. so on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so that motion's granted 3-0, and the motion carries. >> and we are done. >> clerk: that concludes the hearing. thank you.

>> chair fewer: this is the june 19, 2019 special meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am sandra lee fewer, the chair of the budget and finance committee. i am joined by supervisors mandelman, stefani, ronen, and yee. the clerk is miss linda wong. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes.