i think you're [speaker not understood] engineering too much. so, that's my rebuttal. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. thank you. i'd just like to go back to the sun shading study real quickly. so, these show 7:30 p.m. shadows cast by our building to the buildings across the street in january, again in march, in june, and in september. in january we cast a shadow over half of the facade of 850 corbett. and then in march our shadows are already decreasing down to the garage level. and then in june and september,

our shadows do not even reach across the street. that's at 7:30 in the morning. at 10 o'clock in the morning on all the four dates throughout the year, the shadow from our building does not reach up into the units of 850 corbett at any time of year. and finally, i'd just like to point out that the photos that the d-r requestor showed really only captured this part of the neighborhood and that the majority of the blocks beyond the 800 block, including the 800 block and beyond the 800 block -- excuse me -- all contain 3 to 5-story apartment and condominium buildings. thank you. >> thank you. public hearing portion is closed. commissioners? commissioner antonini.

>> i think the shadow study sort of told the story there is an impact, but it's fairly limited to very early in the morning in the winter months. and of course views are not protected as we know. so, i think this is a good project. it will create a couple of nice units in replacing a house that was hardly habitable and in very bad shape. i'll have to see what the other commissioners, but i'm inclined to not take d-r. >> commissioner moore. >> i think that the project is respectful. it's adjoining neighbors to the extent there are buildings of similar massing and height. and while adjoining buildings at the moment might still be a blight overall, i think the project responds to those requirements by which i think

the residential design team consistently holds the setbacks, et cetera. so, i am comfortable with the overall consideration. particularly we need to sensibly find a way to add density. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, just one small observation. there was mention of not having a deck on the corbett side. i think it's -- the plan on the upper floor, the fourth floor, makes it virtually impossible to access a deck. there is a down stairway on one side, the north side. there is another stairway coming past the middle of the facade that goes up to the roof. and then the rest of it is a master bathroom that has both a shower and the tub on the wall that would face the flat roof area. so, i think given the present design, it's almost impossible to punch a door through there,

so. >> call the question. >> okay. thank you, commissioners. in this casey did miss the motion. >> i didn't really make the motion. >> i'm sorry, go ahead. >> i can make a motion to not take d-r and approve. >> second. >> okay, commissioners, on the motion to not take d-r and to approve the project, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commissioner fong? he's absent. okay, that motion passes +6 to -0 with one absent. okay, commissioners, we'll move on now to item number 17. this is item number 2006.0647dd, 2166 12th avenue.

and in this case the two ds indicate i believe two discretionary review applications. we'll find out in a moment. this is a request for discretionary review and we'll begin with staff presentation. did staff explain at the beginning of the hearing there was a request to continue this item? >> one d-r requestor. >> and one d-r requestor is present, and the other d-r requestor is requesting a continuance, is that correct? >> has the continuance matter been resolved yet? >> no, i think i'd like to hear from the commission on that. >> okay. so, we'll begin with just the discussion of the continuance only for this case. commissioner moore?

>> could somebody explain the reason for the other d-r requestor, why he is asking for continuance? a better understanding to balance t i would be inclined to continue because if somebody has an emergency, that happens. >> you want to go ahead? >> good afternoon, commissioners. president wu, commissioners. [speaker not understood] presenting this d-r and there are two d-r requestors. and basically this case was originally scheduled on may 23rd and it was requested for continuance by the commission secretary because that day, the 23rd, the calendar was too crowded. and, so, staff consulted with both d-r requestors, project sponsor, and you finally scheduled on june 6. and one of the two d-r the requesters who is not present today requested continuance.

but at that time when staff rescheduled to june 6, that d-r requestor told staff he would make everything possible to attend the meeting -- >> it wasn't clarified specifically that they would not be able to make this meeting. ~ till this week. so, we had scheduled it to be on this agenda. and at the time the project sponsors as well as both d-r filers were, one certainly and the other said they would be able to try to make this meeting, but then it was made to the attention of mr. whackv they would not be able to attend this week. ~ wang >> he would ask somebody to represent him and [speaker not understood], he could not do either. >> so, who is here currently? one of the d-r requestors here? >> yes, one of the d-r requestors is present here.

>> mr. washington, could you give some insight? this has hardly ever happened. again, this is unusual, but being moved from one day to another with that short time in between, it creates an unusual circumstance. could you give us -- >> it does. again, this is the commission's discretion whether or not you want to hear it or have it continued to a specific date. the parties are present. one of the d-r filers is present and the project sponsor, and i think all other interested parties are. at the time the change was made, it was not clarified that they specifically said they could not make the meeting. it was thought that they were going to try to attend or have someone to represent them. but at this stage we have most of the parties here that would want to hear this project through. >> commissioner borden. >> i guess does the other d-r

requestor have a position on this? i mean, i just want to know, because maybe there's a different -- there's a different view that you have from the other d-r requestor and it's not able to be represented in your case. maybe you could speak to number one, if you have an european on the matter, and number two, what your issues are are very different from the other d-r requestor's as you understand them. ~ opinion hi, my name is tracy [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood] was not able to make it today. he's actually doing presentation at this moment as we speak. he was unable to reschedule his appointment. we have overlapping agreement on how we disagree with the proposed additions to the house. we were hoping to be able to express our own opinions about it. does that answer your question? >> you would prefer a continuance as well? i would prefer continuance, yeah.

and i had [speaker not understood] suggested from alternate dates that work for his schedule. he wasn't able at the last minute to accommodate his entire calendar, apparently. >> and i guess the project sponsor, do you have an opinion on -- thank you. hello, commissioners, [speaker not understood]. we'd rather just move forward. this has been i think 7 years. i'm sorry. >> is it that long? and i apologize because i was in part of the original phase and the d-r went back and forth. i think the adjacent neighbor originally had one d-r, then i think in the future another d-r came along. i'm not quite sure how that worked. i don't know the history that well. so, i'd rather we move this forward. the family is here. they would like to see this move forward if possible.

and i think with the d-r requestor, i think informed the planning staff friday, just friday about this. anything else? >> ~ >> i feel like if the other d-r requestor can represent the views of the first d-r requestor, then maybe there's not an issue. but i feel like maybe we should just go forward. she's here, they're here, [speaker not understood]. i'm happy to do whatever the commission prefers. >> commissioner moore. >> it's kind of difficult to say, because of the d-r requestor 1 who would support a continuance in deference to the d-r requestor 2. i kind of feel that in order to have everything balanced, with us not having any stake in the outcome except hearing everybody, i kind of feel i need to suggest that we

continue. >> commissioner sugaya. >> do we know what the calendar looks like in the next week or two? >> not really, but i can take a look for you. >> compare that against whatever date -- >> i guess the other thing the commission has to be aware of, if we continue to a date specific, which we've got two of the three parties involved, we'll know if that day works. again, this individual is not present. and if it comes up again that this date conflicts with their schedule -- let's put it this way. we're going to select a date. if he doesn't come, we'll go ahead. >> excuse me, ma'am. they'll let you know if they want to hear from anyone else other than staff at this point. >> what is the first date? >> the first date that's open

is july 11th. >> july 11th, okay. commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i kind of agree with what commissioner borden said, that maybe we should, you know, wait till we have both d-r requestors. i didn't hear the beginning of the reason for the absence of the other d-r requestor, but you know, i would be firm in the fact that we set it for that date f. they're not here for one reason or another, it still goes forward because -- >> i'm sorry, can i interject? july 21st and july 28th, the project -- the d-r filer, absent d-r filer informs us that date could possibly work for them. you mean the 18th? i'm now told july 11th is closed. it would have to be the 18th. >> july 18th? okay.

>> okay, that would be okay with the continuance to july 18th. we'll see what the other commissioners want to say. >> commissioner hillis. >> i mean, give in, too, that staff is recommending we take d-r, this is a little more complicated so i recommend we move this to july 18. >> is there a second? >> second. >> okay. commissioners, we have a motion to continue this to july 18th. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu is absent. commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioners, that motion passes with 6 votes in the affirmative. so, commissioners, we will be moving on, then, to item number 18.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. this is gavin washington, southwest team leader. i want to present the commission a discretionary review for 84 sea view way. the proposal is to construct an additional story on a two-story residence. [speaker not understood]. the addition gross floor area of 8 57 square feet, including two bedrooms and one half bath and a study area on this top level. the project is located on a site with 34 feet of frontage along cityview way, and average depth of 96 feet. the current residence is about 1,144 square feet, 45 feet deep. with an average froth setback of 7-1/2 fight. ~ feet. and rear deck of 42 feet. the [speaker not understood] was originally constructed in 1975. the department's residential design team has reviewed this proposal and determined it be

it to be consistent with the city's residential design guidelines. they determined that the proposed front setback for the addition to be appropriate and the setback between the addition and the adjacent house at 62 panorama drive which is about 62 feet and was also [speaker not understood]. this distance minimized the impact of light and air on this neighborhood residence. the final as of the mid time terrace association has some conflict with the proposed addition, however. those bylaws have not been adopted by the city and county of san francisco. in our view, this department's review of this project, it does not require consistency with bylaws, but rather with the adopted standards and residential design guidelines which sometimes can conflict with local bylaws or cnrs. therefore the planning department has determined this addition will not create a

significant adverse impact to the d-r filer's residence nor does it demonstrate exceptional or extraordinary circumstance and the planning commission should not take discretionary review. that concludes my presentation. >> d-r requestor. president fong, commissioners, my name is rex bell. i'm a board member of the midtown terrace homeowners association. and i have filed discretionary review on behalf of the midtown terrace homeowners. our position -- we have bylaws that prohibit third story additions, however i understand the city has not adopted them. our position, though, is also the project deviates from the residential design guidelines, from the standpoint of size, design perspective, light blockage and neighbor privacy. no less than 10 neighbors have submitted letters of opposition to the project and have come to the board for assistance.

here's a summary of the issues. light blockage, the third story addition would block light in the only west facing window at the neighboring home to the east located at 80 cityview way. it will also block light to neighbors to the west. 5, the proponents' response to d-r cites 25 examples of deviations from the residential design guidelines within our neighborhood as reasons of why the commission should allow more of the same. these are some of the examples of existing homes within our neighborhood that have been overbuilt and are clearly violations of the residential design guidelines based on size and mass. this house will have 2300 square feet of living space and

is out of proportion in mass and size with surrounding homes. square footage of surrounding houses is as follows. 76 in 80 cityview way, 1,053 square feet. 83 cityview way, 1,290 square feet. 87 cityview way, 1,4 93 square feet. 202, 204 and 206 panorama drive, 1,026 square feet. ~ 2300 square feet, 80 city view will create a house more than twice the average size of surrounding homes. design. the height disruption will be visible from the front as well

as from adjacent streets. panorama drive and star view way. the building will be 27 feet in height. the neighboring building is 17 feet in height. houses on the block are currently stepped down slope, respecting the topography. the project will disrupt that step as illustrated in this example from the residential design guidelines. there's a planned deck that the extend the outdoor living space to the front of the house. the proponents' response to d-r admits that fourth decks on third stories are not common in the subdivision. and indeed they're not. there are 22 third story additionses out of 81 1 homes.

we're trying to preserve our neighborhood. privacy issues... regarding privacy, the proponents' response to d-r states, the only privacy that would be compromised would be the privacy of mr. mclaughlin and his family. as the neighbors would be able to peer into their home, end quote. [speaker not understood] clearly residents of that home will be able to peer into the homes of neighbors. the board respectfully asks the commission to take these concerns as well as those of impacted neighbors into consideration in your final decision. thank you. >> thank you. i am going to ask for speakers in support of the d-r requestor. i think these cards here, is that right, ms. rodgers, [speaker not understood]? >> that's correct. >> okay.

[speaker not understood]. >> yes, if you can that would be great. these are speakers in support of the d-r, just to be clear. ~ whenever the first speaker is ready. i have not called anybody. go ahead and come up if you're ready to speak in support of the d-r, that's great. in support of the d-r. in support of the d-r? can i have the overhead? [speaker not understood]. >> that is correct. okay. thank you, commissioners. my name is c. steve juan. my wife and i live at 80

cityview way. adjacent to 84 city view. i want to emphasize that we have been good neighbors. we fully understand their desire to have a better home. however, we respectfully oppose the project for three reasons. first, proposed project would have sunlight and light impact. [speaker not understood]. houses which build with one higher than the other, our east adjacent house is higher. so, our east window hardly has any air and sunlight. we only have one west window receiving most sunlight for the whole house. [speaker not understood]. you can see the 84 roof. if that story is built, the higher roof would block our window and our house would lose

most sunlight and also become darker. if approved, it would be the first time that the house would have the higher adjacent roof on both sides on east and west. i have surveyed the whole area. none of the existing three-story house cause this problem, even 51 mountain view. that would be the worst three story building. i appreciate our neighbor offering to install a skylight that is not critical to install a skylight in a bedroom. i also have glaucoma. my room is getting darker, i'm retired, i'm a senior. i need sunlight and a bright room. in fact, everybody does. secondly, in my opinion, the

proposed project does not follow the guideline for topography on page 12. please see photo 3. the proposed project does not respond to the topography and front setback pattern. the proposed front setback is not found in surrounding buildings. so, i give you another example of a good design on number 8 city view. beautiful [speaker not understood] with existing topography. the final reason is there are alternatives with less impact on neighbors. so, i'll show you the impact. so, in highlight in summary, [speaker not understood]. >> thank you very much. everyone gets three minutes. thank you. okay. next speaker, nicole sirhondo.

susanne kin son. waynn foley. ~ sekwan waynn goldman. [speaker not understood]. and lisa bell. good evening. my husband and i have been residents of 75 cityview way for 36 years since 1977. we'd like to express our concerns regarding the third story vertical addition. we the residents of midtown purchased our home in this community for the privacy, the design of detached holds, with access to natural space light to the sky lines of the neighborhood. midtown was thoughtfully designed in this purpose. it appears that the size of 84 cityview way would approximately double in size to other homes in our neighborhood. the height which however [speaker not understood]. the height of the project is

[speaker not understood] four streets. mill view way, star view way, cityview way, and panorama, which is a major thoroughfare. no other project in our 800 home plus neighborhood does this. of the it '02 2 homes that have had third story additions, which only is about 2%, each of them have been, a, on a cul-de-sac, or on a street that they had no homes on the other side. ~ or a street of the home facing into the hillside is on a rearview plan. the owner of the 84 city view house [speaker not understood]. in a letter my husband and i received from the architect in response to some of the concerns we have of the project, the architect stated, and i quote, this is a city and we all live by the same rules and share the same rights. it is an unfortunate reality of city life one person's rights are incompatible with the continued enjoyment of

another's fortune. my question is to the planning commission, do the neighbors of midtown terrace surrounding the city way project not have the same rights, to enjoy the natural light based on privacy [speaker not understood]? thank you very much. good evening, commissioners. i am submitting this statement in regards to the proposed third story addition to 84 cityview way. i live at 204 panorama which is immediately down from the hill of the proposed site. my backyard abuts and slopes down directly from the west side of 84 city view. ~ because of the natural slope of the hill, 84 city view sits well above me and the ground level of it is above the roof level of my home. i have happily accepted and enjoyed the characteristics of living in a hilly environment. however, due to 84 city view's already raised level above the

back of my home, i am for this and other reasons strongly opposed to the proposed third story addition. this addition will directly and significantly affect the level of light my home receives. because of the proposed addition is directly east of my home, the sunrises over it. the morning brings light to my backyard ~ and the morning brings light to the back of my house and backyard. i rely on it to brighten and warm my home and grow my patio plants, trees and flowers. additionally in damp foggy summers and winters, this light is my only defense against mold in the rear of my home. i would be greatly impacted if i lost any more light due to the proposed and unnecessarily large and imposing structure. if the proposed third story is built, 84 city view would cease to resemble a neighborly home nestled within its community and become a looming edifice completely out of character with its surroundings. instead of it enjoying our

custom light, we will be forced into darkness and shadow with only the side of a disproportionately large structure to stare at. additionally a third story would intrude on my privacy as the windows and balcony will look directly into my bedroom. due to its position in the neighborhood, the building will sit high on a slope directly behind me and would be a light blocking monolith which would capture all the light for one resident while denying light to those around it. i am opposed to -- i am not opposed to a person enlarging and improving his home, however, i believe that the property at 84 city view has the opportunity to grow down or to the rear. this would have very little impact on the neighbors and neighborhood. however, as proposed, the impact is far too great, far too oppressive, and far too [speaker not understood]. submitted on behalf of officer douglass farmer. thank you very much. t