requester is absent too far to really actually warrant the discussion we live in neighborhoods there are 5 building between the next one and trying to see, etc. we believe that in the interest of two parties living in a building to prevent each other from a 20 percent rooftop parties when it comes to bedrooms of those decks so i building this is no reason to take dr and support the motion commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take dr and approve commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner coppel commissioner mondejar commissioner moore commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero expirations that places us

on item 15 an euclid avenue is building directly across u clildz a 3 story uphill and hidden the subject building are

3 story multi units families the department is aware of opposition to the project from two adjacent neighbors the dr requester the lowell heights.

>> overhead please. thank you commissioner president fong and commissioners i'm kathy and the next door neighborhoods john joins in the dr request a 12 foot solid wall is don't large and requires a variance. height every 10 feet in the required rear yard as shown in the variance application now those photos show the existing grade and stairway to the zika that we'll be put it in the stairway and expansion and con sells by hedge that spills into the public sidewalk here's a picture of the column that was add will require a variance not granted this photo

showed they've built on the rear yard here's variance >> speak into microphone. >> some of the neighbors have some of their mid block open space. >> - she'll not put trees in

the public sidewalk the patio is large and a zika expansion about jet but

-as the fence bulletin explains minor openings between slats doesn't make it a open design. the new third story would not be in conformity with the common roof lines of the building, the laurel heights track was built uniform patterns and design says be

compatible and suggest a sloping roof to make a vertical addition more compatible. they refer to a sloping roof to make it fit in. the penthouse is a thousand feet, it is very large thmpt master bedroom is 25 feet long and storage wardrobe 25 feet long and it would save the neighborhoods property. here is the neighborsiar and that would be shaded. you could reduce the size by about 6 feet on the north side to mitigate the impact or slope it as the guidelines say. and then the new wooden siding, would create the appearance of a giant wall around the property to the front and it is not consistent with the stucco facade of all the buildings the design guidelines require that and it shouldn't be filled in.

>> thank you, your time is up. you will have a two minute rebuttal. >> speakers in report of the dr requester? >> my name is vivlia silvia johnson. [inaudible] building and joaning area, which is really crowded and the zoning area on this project. i do you know, want to give a litm example because i have dawn drawn out some patterns of construction and rebuilding and they got stolen from me because

i had went to law enforcement and i got application to-the minutes i get to see [inaudible] what's going on with that? this is where [inaudible] and administration with the buildings processes and more economic [inaudible] i want to gets more stronger and make more plans to where this dont happen to me no more. this is really [inaudible] so i can see what

i'm talking about. it has been this, that and the other, which was going on in my [inaudible] same time just because [inaudible] i'm not being disturbed from it. they are being disturbed and don't know it. [inaudible] that need to be wrapped up squand put in proper perspective of housing to where we can see more of our [inaudible] >> thank you. any other speakers in support of the dr requester? okay, project sponsor then.

>> i'm dagny mademan and part own orphthe property with my wife who will speak in support as well. thank you i know you had a really long day. so, i just want to say i'm not sure where cathy gets a thousand feet because we are adding 700 feet and we really have tried to be thoughtful about the neighborhood. we love living there, we got 3 kids , we have 4 grandparents who would like to come and visit and would like more room for everybody. just keeping it short and simple, we think it is a tasteful and attractive vertical addition that supports the needs of the family. we studied the zonejug planning guidelines and design is within the scope. we worked very hard

with the neighbors on multiple occasions to try to handle any issues that they have, but found they just tried to stop us every step of the way and think planning discretionary-the planning people can speak to that. we went to the department several times trying to speak to issues that the or just checking if we can design it this way or that way and took extra 6 micts months and never got anywhere. we got a big packet that there was nothing about the projict that they liked. so, we trust you guys and the design review team and the policies in place x so we won't get held hostage by our neighbors anymore for this relatively discreet addition and think it is beautify the neighborhood and in euclid we get more space back along that street and it is prominent and like to

be really beautiful. the only thing not thin packet that i should mention is we have 9 local supporters all in our zip code who have signed letters that look xastly like this one in support of our project, which includes new neighborhood, one of the 3 housing with the same roof line, 106 collins which is the second or third house you saw there. they are in support of our project and we are very happy to have them there and in support. that's all i need to say. thank you very much. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is molly wood, dagny's wife and i am the other owner of 245 euclid. primarily i just speak as a mom of young

children and we are very commit today our neighborhood, we are getting involved with the-we like to renovate the playground across the street. our children play there every day. our twins go to preschool. a older son is in a a school we also walk to every day. we really care about staying in this neighborhood and improving the house and the corner that hedge that you may have seen is pretty ugly and we would love to have a exkoos to expand the sidewalk and get rid of the hedge where it cannot always-it can be dangerous. there are people camping out under there in past so we would like to make a better place for our family and really appreciate you approving our project. thank

you. >> hi. i like to urge you to approve this projeblth. i live in the neighborhood as well. i spoke earlier. i drive by this building every single day on my way to pick up carpool kids. it is a very prominent corner. the design is beautiful, it will add to the neighborhood. it will make it better for everybody and will help another family stay in san francisco with the space they need so urge you to approve. thank you. >> great, any other speakers in support the project sponsor? seeing none, dr requester--

>> overhead, please. thank you. >> hi. my name is [inaudible] from [inaudible] architect for this project. >> you are part of the project sponsors team then? >> yes >> so you can speak during the two minute rebuttal at the end. >> you need to wait to the two minute rebuttal. so, thank you. no other speakers in support. project sponsor you get a two

minute rebuttal. >> thank you. the design team met in june and didn't knote anything about it until we got the memo last week and no buddy talked to us. we asked her to consider a softer design than a solid wall such as a short hedge with a fence and hedge which is what they have across the street and she said no. they are not will toog do anything. the corner knauch, the design team said it should be open and they just put two windows. the guideline say corner buildings are supposed to be notched. just putting two winnows doesn't mitigate that. on the fence the design team said it should be open design and they just turned the slat and can see st. is still soled. the main problem is the 12 foot wall. this

deck if you-you should deny the wall. none of these variances are granted. but if give them a foot they will have 4 feet the the property line and can put a hedge on their own property that will not require these street trees, otherwise they have to put trees thin street to mask this ugy 12 foot wall. quite a few neighbors have told me they are against the wall and think 12 feet is ridiculous. nobody has a 12 foot wall thin neighborhood and it is a very prominent corner and will look really bad so this is the wirs aspect of this design. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal.

overhead, please. >> my name is ti[inaudible] from [inaudible] architecture. i like to focus on the fence in the streetscape along euclid avenue since that seems to be the sticky point. [inaudible] i will show how difficult it has been despite the outreach and work wg the department and all the efforts we have put in. this photo is the start the euclid avenue streetscape from the eastern corn er of the same block. you see that entire corner is blocked off with a tall hedge. going down, the same pattern of retaining wall and a tall fence. there is no streetscape. arriving at the

hedge that is existing in the current condition. now, only about 4 feet of that is within public right of way. we are giving that back to be public right of way where we will plant street trees. we are required to plant street trees. we are not taking anything away. the bulk in mass of what we are doing will be far less than what is current late there. it is beautifying the neighborhood and corner. it is a tough [inaudible] thank you. >> you have 30 seconds. >> it is tough to understand without visiting but if you see the-rounders it is a improvement to the corner and how the corner is perceived to the traffic and pedestrians alike. thank you.

>> thank you. public portion the hearing is closed. commissioner moore. >> mr. lindsey, would you help us go to the dr requesters up front statements about variance and encroachment permit, 12 foot fence, 10 foot fence that we are anchored and understanding how these particular points fit in that would i think set us on a good footing. >> yes of course. david lendsy, department staff. i should have mentioned in my presentation the project does require a variance which was applied for-the zoning administrator heard that variance in april and he hasn't issued a decision he wanted to wait to the commission weighed in on the e

dr re quest but indicated he will grant the rear yard variance should the commission approve the project. >> this is to clarify that the building really doesn't have a clear rear yard but because it is a [inaudible] the front the building is the front yard and side yard becomes the rear yard. that is sometimes the nature of corner buildings. >> the rear yard we are taking as opposite columns so it is the portion on the right hand side. it is the-because they relocated the retaining wall, that is within the required rear yard and the retaining wall is higher than the 3 feet allowed as of right so that's what triggered the rear yard variance. just to

continue on about the 12 foot wall, that is actually the retaining wall plus the fence on top. under the planning code we measure the height of the fence from the top of the retaining wall which is the established grade. >> it isn't [inaudible] it is top of the lot? >> correct. and then the-i would mention that the hedge that currently is partially in the public right of way is being removed and they are going to be planting street trees which are required under the planning code along the sidewalk. >> could you briefly help us with open versus opaque fence? i do not quite see that totally open spence in support of any rear yard? >> the code requires fences to be a certain degree open if

they are in the front set back. if they are taller than 3 feet they need to be 75 percent open. this particular fence is not in a required setback for design purposes if thdesign team wanted the fence to have a some openness to it. i don't think we specified a certain amount, but did want it to read as not fully solid. >> [inaudible] reviewed by the residential design team and has been deemed to meet those recommendations? >> yes, that is direct. >> i find the design itself sensitive. i am actually very much in support of seeing the public sidewalk take its full width and the block more unified. and dont have any problem with the retaining wall and the fence. that is not to say the wall itself at some point could just be the nature

of where it become green and overgrown with some vine or whatever, so i'm in support the project and i would like to make a move to approve and not take the [inaudible] >> thank you commissioners. on that motion to not take the [inaudible] aproouv the project proposed. hillis, -that motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioner, that places on item 16. 4320, 24th street. discretionary review.

>> good evening. planning commission. [inaudible] subject property is located at 4320 24th street. the proposal is construct a new vertical addition to existing two story single family resident thmpt building over-all height will increase from 19 to 30 feet. the new top floor is set back 15 feet from the front building. the subject property is 26 feet wide-the lot is 26 feet wide and 114 deep. i would like to make a correction from the report, the existing resident is 2399 square feet, not 1500 and located in rh 2 district in no go noe value. planning

department received shadow impacts and [inaudible] windows along the east facade and fasing. two dr were filed however one was withdrawn which had been filed by an adjacent neighborhood because agreed upon design changed implemented by the owner. project sponsor did a shadow study and methodology reviewed by the department and concluded additional shadowing caused by the new floor is negligent. file ing the dr filing requested design modifications. the residential design supported the design including the project doesn't create anything exceptional or extraordinary

and planning commission should not take discretioncretionary review. >> dr requester. >> s f gov tv will go to the overhead. >> okay. good evening. thank you commissioners for staying so late. my name is larry tang. i lived in noe valley for every 18 years. the father of active young girls who are active in the park on a daily basis. we have a little puppy right now. i have been active thin community many years. i served thin library commission 8 years. served on many

non-profit educational boards including [inaudible] serviced 1800 since last summer and volunteer as a wrestling coach at [inaudible] for over 22 years. i urge the commission today to post pone approval of 4320 24th street to get community information on the impact of the project and circumstances the project poses to newo noe courts. letters written by neighbors and supporters oof the application regarding the impact the park, the conformance of the height of the building with the neighbors buildings and whether prop k should apply to this project, we also believe that the ceqa eximption claimed isn't applicable as we believe the project will have a significant

effect on the environment due to the unusual circumstances that the shading of the park will have and park useage. especially the shading will impact the most used part of the park, the tennis courts and [inaudible] and new picnic tables. one thing to also note, the planning department and neither proponent have done any outreach to the community on the impact of this project. the plan fact is there is no notice put thin park or posting this would go on, nobody knows this will go on and since april the park is closed because of the major renovation and no one knows what will happen when the renovation is completed on the impact of the project on the park. so, i want to give background what noe courts are.

from the park department website, i just print td this out, this is a small sanctuary. tennis and [inaudible] on high demand. when you look at the project and shading it will shade more of the tennis court. this is a--the plan renovation the park is doing right now with rec and park. the project is on the slide right here-this is tennis court remain. they are clear enough to add new picnic tables and here bringer terrace for lawn seating. all this area will be shaded by the expansion. you get a better picture of this. a neighbor took the picture in the string of the project. you

can see up on top is 4320 24th. they will add a floor and you can see this is playground and the middle is a lawn seating and picnic tables. when they at a floor you will have a new wall that will shade these areas. currently the park is under renovation. this is a picture of the area they are building with picnic tables which is most closer to 4320 24th street. you will have more shading of this area. when i say a gigantic wall will be built, this is the tennis court. building itself from the front of the building street level is less than 40 feet but if you measure from

the tennis court the wall exceeds 40 feet which prop k will apply. i want to show this picture because it will block views when it goes up from the park of the hills. this is one picture but if you go around the park it will block. i'm out of time and will make the rest of the argument with my rebuttal. if you permit this to go forward-i'm out of time. thank you. >> thank you. speakers in support of the dr requester? okay. so project sponsor. >> good evening commissioners ross levery the architect for the project. i think planning staff gave the facts clearly. i want to

clear up about square footage. there was a question commissioner moore had about the square footage. there are 509 square feet of unconditioned space. there is 1096 proposed square feet of unconditioned space. that is to park another car and portion of that 150 square feet is on the 15 foot setback, the roof deck that happens when we set back from the front of the property. we did do extensive work with the planning staff and rdt to make a project they found to be acceptable and did outreach with neighbors and were able to come to a compromise with our immediate neighbors who draupd their dr. planning code does not require shadow studies on residential projects less than 40 feet adjacent to the park but we

produced a shady study and it found the additional shadowing amonths to 0.1 percent. that happens thin late afternoons and all most exclusively on the tennis courts, not on the grass surface the park in any way. with that in mind you can also take a different vision of that and say that additional story that might provide wind break that will work in service of tennis, but that is subjective. another subjective notion is the discussion of the large or presumed large wall. we have been advised by planning staff and have designed an art piece on the wall designing the wall into parterns providing colors and providing property line windows to break up and animate the surface. finally, just to

address other issues discussed in the room earlier in regards to gentrification. this is rh 2 zone, this is a single family home. i have discussed the potential to create a second unit on a lower level with the project sponsors and they areope toon that possibility. squl that is all i have at the moment. happy to answer questions if you have any. >> speakers in support of the project sponsor? not seeing-do you have a-you have a two minute rebuttal. >> thank you commissioners. the most active time the park is used, after school, early evening when people get home, that is quh the shade will come and people will be using the park. the

argument that the planning department says it is already shaded so a litdal more shading does want matter. i think you are missing the point. the point is we want light and want to use the light. this park-the proponent paid for the shade study. the park is already all most 20 percent shaded and additional shading isn't good for the park. in 19 89 there is a joint memo between planning and rec and park that says if a park is less than 2 acres and 20 percent shaded you should have no more shading. this is about 1 acre and 18 percent shaded not including the trees it will be over the 20 percent. recently the rec and park commission and this commission reviewed project that victoria

manuel park where that 0.7 percent shading. this is 10 x shading and ruled because there was additional shading in the active use part of that park that project shouldn't go forward. this has more shading that that t park and actively used portion of the park and really encourage you to continue this until you get full information on the usage. there is no public notice of the impact the shade of this park. just like toquote with one last thing, in 1984 when prop k passed, many neighborhood associations and cr clubs stated to achieve the shiest use now and for the future insure our parks have as much sunlight as possible for as many hours as possible. >> thank you, your time is up. >> thank you.

>> project sponsor you have a rebuttal? >> i do. this project is theoretically exempt from shadow on the park by the naichjure height less than 40 feet. in regards to public notification i checked, there are no notifications on the property so there is no legal cause to notify neighborhood groups. all proper notice was sent out regarding 311 to all concerned parties and posting was made at the property as before the dr hearing. thank you. >> okay, that conclude public hearing. commissioner richards. >> question for mr. levy. the additional shading, what time of the year, how many days and what day to what day and the duration? >> the shadow study is a 80

page long document and i cannot site it from memory, but the primary-there is no shading until the later afternoon because the house is west of the park so no shading thin morning and the extent the length of shadows is more extreme in the winter months when the sun is lower and less extreme in the summer when it is higher. there are very very descriptive diagrams in the study which you can have a look at yourself. >> okay. um, on the notification i guess, you have 311 notice there is a park next door that goes to department of parks and rec. >> this was carried through all proper nofeication notification that includes [inaudible] >> the reason i ask if there is a note here from stacyerate

ratting bradley from deparm of parks. she is saying she is concerned. have you talked with her? >> we have had communications with them and was determined that-that was a reason why we took the initiative requesting the stado. it is unusual to get a shadow study so our environmental division did a little extra due dilliance on this property. >> i appreciate that. the question with mr. levy, is there anything you feel you can do and would love for you to add your client to add an additional unit, is anything you can do to mitigate any amount of shade by going back, stepping the building-doing any type of thing you can do to help out that park and create another unit? >> i would like to mention this and apologize for that, but in accord with the revisions we made to sutd suit the

neighbors we lowered the height. this 0.72 is the shadoge effects. 3 quarters of one percent. that study was done on there 33 foot tall building so the reduction will reduce that number of course i cannot tell you how much. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i emphasize with the dr requester. this is like trying to redefine demolition criteria for me and i'm saying that in light of the fact that we are gentifying the city when we are not adding or protecting the open spaces that we have or the small ones that we approve because when we build downtown for example the new open spaces we are not conditioning them to not be over cast by those buildings which come down the

line so those open spaces they are nice when they are proposed they are spaces where we know will not be thin sun. for that reason i'm interested to do all and everything to basically have no shadow impact on the park if i could. saying that, i like to acknowledge that the building was lowered, there will be a small reduction on the otherened when you look closely at the shadow study the most impact in answer to commissioner richards question is september 21 through december 21 thin afternoon particular ly like yesterday you want to play tennis and find yourself with half your court thin wrong direction in the shadow. people say, if you switch sides for those who play tennis you are in the sunny side or in the shadow side. in this particular case, you will have that shadow going thin wrong direction and you will step in

and out of the shadow which is a impossible to play a game. out of memory i used to play tennis but not anymore, that is not a good way to effect the shadow on a tennis court. having said that, the idea of for us for the first time mr. leavey to have to distinguish between condition versus not condition is the new one for me. i called mrs. jackson and asked what is the actual net growth and for all intensive purposes the building is bulging out because it will have impacts on the adjoining building. i at this moment not quite clear if thissis an hr 2 where we should ask for second unit but want i want to ask

mr. leavey if you would come to the micro phone. there is one way of dealing with the building and that is flipping the liveability and that moons buting the bedrooms on the second floor. they still would all be together and bringing the living portion under the top floor and it is basically a long stretched out plan anyway, but starting to pinch the living space a little bit and give more -reduce the massing on the upper floor. is that something you have thought about because in many cases people do like to live -have living space on the upper part the building for views and for whatever, but still maintain the children and sleeping part all in one part the building. is that something you have thought about? >> thank you commissioner moore

and yes that is something i thought about and something i spoke with the project sponsors about. it is something i thought about a long time ago at the inception of the project. my project sponsors prefer what we call conventional home opposed to what commissioner moore refers to which is a reverse plan. they would like to come up from the garage and be on the main living level and not center to go to two flights of stair tooz get to the living space. that is a lifestyle choice. also as a result of the front setback in p with the residential guidelines and concession we made to the neighborwise the rear expansion which is reduced from what was originally proposed. the footprint that remains on the third floor and presumably there will be setbacks that come along with this reversing of the floorplan to reduce the

presumed shadowing. there is literally not enough space to provide adequate living areas per my clients requirements which are not excessive by my judgment. can i comment on tennis? if you look that shadow diagrams carefully you see this small third floor addition removes the [inaudible] being in and out of the shadow at moments of day and would make more fr a more equitable play, not always dividing the court. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. so, this is a challenging one. normally with these projects i don't like to redesign single family homes but this is where we are looking at the protecting the public benefit of literally a park, like public open space and i'm challenged

here because the layout of the park the only programmed space other than just a grassy knoll is where the shadow will be. the tennis court st. the only thing that is programmed space where you do a certain set of activities. i dont see any way of really reducing that impact other than not having your addition, which i am also not sure i'm interested in disapproving the project. it is a code compliant project. i think one-i don't know i can make a decision on this today because i don't want to have to disapprove it, but a couple options i think might be well in consideration is, this is one where i would put to your clients the idea of a roof deck. i think if you take away the front or the back half of the addition

and have that be open space, that would reduce the shadow impact and can have the discussion on what people think about roof decks thin neighborhood but think it may solve issues here. i understand there was conversations with the rear addition, but i all most feel if you -your clientss opted to do that option we may not be sitting here today. but as it stands i'm having a hard time with this project that is shadoge so much of the only programmed in the playground-programmed spaces in this small park. >> commissioner hillis. >> just questions for the architect, if we can. have you looked at-what would it take to mitigate some or all of the shadow impact to is in to me it looks like

any third floor will have shadowing? >> any third floor will produce some additional shadowing. there are times in the year as the property stands it will shadow part or all of the court by virtual of its existence ment we studied this and it is commissioned by the project sponsors but done by a objective third party accord toog city planning standard and believe it is accurate. >> just trying to look at your plans. you got that setback on the third floor against the park of like 3 foot 7 where the master bedroom is. i'm looking at page 3 of your plans in our package. >> jes yes >> if that is extending ed to

had walk in closet and that is adjusted and shortened to where the bedroom is, to give a sense what does that to do to the shadow? >> if you look at the shadow pattern and typically going cast toward the north and towards the east as the sun was sinking in the southwest. what you are talking about will reduce a nominal corner oof that shadow that may fall outside the baseline of the north side the tennis court. i'm speculating, but- >> looking at the shadow, the new shadow will take the shape the building. you with see that. >> what you are suggesting would cut the corner off that shadow. >> it would n't be an enormous impact. >> i don't think think there is net benefit to the public.

>> that is a issue we are having. you can make minor changes but dont think they result in anything significant. any third floor there will have a impact even your setback 15 feet from the front will have a impact. >> i should point out that the neighbors made-the rer line submitted a letter to planning where she fs in support of this as long as there were no living areas on the third floor expansion because she felt she had privacy concerns and as long as there are bedrooms oen the level she is satisfied with that. >> right. i think and then you mentioned the possibility rh 2 district of adding a sectd second unit. is that put on the ground floor? >> i dont center have the sheet

numbers but if you look that ground level plans, the garage [inaudible] i can put it up on the screen for you. ful a two car garage is part the added space. i'll clear up the volume question. >> where is the conditioned unconditioned-maybe i'm missing that with all the figures on it. >> it is title page. all that data is there. >> it is normally there for you. >> it is in the electronic package page 9. >> regardless, so we are expanding the garage, this is portion the unconditioned space and expand today had body of the house and trading off needed space for

unneeded space to create the two car garage. with that in mind, the two cars park independently in this plan and if you look that remainder of this third level which was proposed as a bedroom, a bathroom and family room clearly it lends itself to being a one bedroom apartment with no changes and addition of a kitchen so it quite easy to contemplate adding a unit here. >> okay. i think that's maybe where i am. if we allow the massing of this project to go forward in shadow to happen-we had the discussion of adding units to the city and increasing housing, i like to see a increase in rh 2

that bottom level becoming a unit. weened end up with a two unit building. it is a in-law unit. or the flip side it stays a single family home but come up with a reduction to the shadow by reducing the size of that addition on the third floor and you using the ground floor space and integrating it as you do in the unit. >> i understand. i am curious about the politic squz legalities and would love to talk to you more about it at another time. >> rh 2 district so it is a fairly substantial addition. a few of other commissioners-to me that is the trade off. if there is shadow impact it is relatively small but happens at key times

in key space, so i think it is significant-i like to see a additional unit put in exchange for that and it is not just a extension of the existing home, fairly significant expansion that leads to the shadow or the flip side, additional mitigation by reducing the square foot age of the third floor addition, not necessarily any third floor addition that would reduce the shadow impact. you still have a shadow impact with the third floor. >> we are aware of the larger discussion aboutgent fiication thin city. that is qulie i made the comment that it a vecd second unit is possible and project sponsors are open to that discussion. >> commissioner richards. >> there is a lot fwoeing on. there is additional units and reconfigering the living space. public policy on the effect on

the park, the time orphof day, the programming space. reconfigure the unit because the neighbor is concerned about privacy and talk toog the folks thin park and potential redesign-what i recommend is we table this item and have you go back and think about these and come back at your earliest convenience with options so we can sort and figure which is the best. i move to continue this. >> i second that. >> commissioner richards, do you have a date in mind? >> i would love your opinion secretary. >> how long would you need? >> i should ask mr. cane that question. how long do you think we will need?

>> have to come to the mic. >> i didn't get the entire shadow study. i got the cumulative for the year but didn't get the actual- >> you didn't get a 80 page document? >>ument can suggest-[inaudible] >> recommend 3 months. >> this will be a larger discussion. my owners are at this for 18 months. they suffered extreme personal duress as they per sued the process and difficult in the neighborhood and part the dr reform you ought to contemplate is the kind of behavior this breed in the neighborhood and makes for a difficult neighborhood situation so this is something that needs to be contemplated and the reason i'm standing here today in some

contradiction to planning staff advise which is continue the hearing prior to attending was because the project sponsors are at their whits end so came to speak today. >> i would recommend november 3 and i ran into germany pog and said he would work on this, is that true? >> i have spoken with mr. pog about the project but he [inaudible] >> i don't think we can set up here given the hair on the egg. november 3. >> is there is a second? >> commissioner moore? >> i wanted to ask that difficult to toss the public interest for preserving the few open spaces we have against adding a additional unit. one, i think the case for a additional unit needs to be made other than what is currently relative to