>> 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

d-r requestor, the first d-r requestor. >>> hello, commissioners. my name is john hayden. i am the neighbor that lives right across the street. i wanted to say that the people -- the planning commission and the architect have been very cooperative in trying to address our concerns and it is true that -- i have several members of our hoa. we have one of the few units -- few buildings there on that section of corbett that is all privately owned condos. almost all of the other buildings are rentals or a few sporadic owners. and, so, there are very little complaints when the five small homes that are still remaining want to be made into 40-foot dwellings that basically will turn that whole area into a canyon of bill monoliths. so, we're complaining. my apartment is the one in the middle of the building that will have the most serious effect to the height of this middle building. the height of the building as it exists now is 22 feet and it will go up to 40. the building just to the south of the proposed project is 30 feet high and, you know -- and the new building will be in t

letter from marolyn allen & thomas church, requestors, asking that the board take jurisdiction over bpa nos. 2007/12/12/0282 and 2007/12/12/0285, which were both issued on april 24, 2012. the appeal periods ended on may 09, 2013, and the jurisdiction requests were filed at the board office on may 29, 2013. permit holder: adil shaikh. project, 1st permit: demolition of one-story, single-family dwelling. project, 2nd permit: construction of four-story building with four-dwelling units. >> item 4b: jurisdiction requests: subject property at 353-355-357-359 san jose avenue. letter from marolyn allen & thomas church, requestors, asking that the board take jurisdiction over bpa nos. 2007/12/12/0282 and 2007/12/12/0285, which were both issued on april 24, 2012. the appeal periods ended on may 09, 2013, and the jurisdiction requests were filed at the board office on may 29, 2013. permit holder: adil shaikh. project, 1st permit: demolition of one-story, single-family dwelling. project, 2nd permit: construction of four-story building with >> item 4b: jurisdiction requests: subject property at 353

i also am sympathetic to the requestor. i'm tempted to continue this case for 6

i also am sympathetic to the requestor. i'm tempted to continue this case for 6 months. >> any other comments? >> the council for the permit holder expressed that if it's not done right that they are still open to some negotiations. so rather than holding it off, maybe we can come to some decision prior and let everyone have some closure to the end rather than having to wait again. because i am sympathetic to the tenants as well as well as to the permit holder. he's been waiting properly and through the correct channels and no matter what, there is someone going to be unhappy no matter what here. we can try to come to some understanding, maybe. >> question is whether both parties aren't happy. >> that makes for a real compromise. >> i agree with commissioner's approach and i mean it's observations, but six months seems like a long time to potentially hold up the permit. if there is going to be discussions, it seems to me they could be had and done. >> i was just reminded by our director and city attorney that this is differ

>> the requestor is not in. >> let's wait in the the requestor is here. we are returning to item 4 b. >> we did meet in the hallway for a while. >> tenants want a year and we offered six months until the end of the christmas break because he's a teacher which would be early january. we don't have an agreement on that yet. we were hoping for a compromise along those lines. that's where it is right now. >> okay. all right. thank you. >> yes, again, i'm fine with them leaving sometime after the christmas break to accommodate mr. church who is a schoolteacher. he mentioned that and again i realize that they said that three months would buy be a little bit too short a time and i think that is a fair mutual compromise and i thank you and leave that at your discretion. thank you very much. >> thank you. let's return to -- are you giving them more time to continue their discussions or do you want to proceed to a vote? >> proceed to a vote. i don't think there is any reason to do that. >> no. we are in deliberation. i have already stated my view of where i would l

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 wind

. >> are there other speakers in support of the d-r requestor? okay, seeing none, project sponsor. >>> good afternoon, commissioners. myname is michael woods. i'm an attorney with [speaker not understood], the homeowner of 84 cityview way. ~ and before you, you have a packet for opposition of the discretionary review. and the proposed wrote et was proposed constructed vertical [speaker not understood] and residential rh-1 zoning district. [speaker not understood] and his family have been living at 84 cityview way for 15 years. he also owns a restaurant nearby on west portal. as a homeowner and small business owner, he's financially, physically, and emotionally vested in the neighborhood. he has a son five years old and is just about to start grade school. he is not planning to go anywhere any time soon. nothing short of a model citizen during his time in the neighborhood. he is current on homeowner association dues. several homeowners are several years delinquent. he takes pride in his home and takes pride in his home while other residents do not

could i ask the projector the dr requestor a couple of questions? >> because i mean, i think that it is important to have this agreement and i think that it is great that you worked this out agreement. i just want to get at, because i agree that the glass is not good and i would not approve that nor do i like the sfra glass screen where it was agreed to be put. i mean, so let me ask you, what was the purpose of that kind of screen? >> why did you want that? >> well i was just concerned of the privacy. and our house is right across the street and you know, and it is going to look straight across. but if you know, it is gone, and it is not

agreements to be worked out on a discretionary review, to be subsequently withdrawn i would advise the dr requestor and the property owner to not withdraw it, bring it to the commission and have us actually take action on it. >> okay. >> otherwise, >>... >> that is the common process commissioner, i mean the alternative is for both parties actually to record that agreement against the property itself with the assess or's office. >> that is still a private debate. >> it is a private agreement and at least it is a little more enforcable. >> i understand. i am just trying... >> enforcing private agreements. >> and we had a couple of weeks ago we had something on vernal heights that was withdrawn because of their... it was some negotiation. >> and those never have come to the commission. >> correct. >> contrary to what commissioner moore has said. >> there was a process in place where in the city is actively encouraging this kind of process to take place and then to actually believe that perhaps there was something that is enforcable when it actually is not enforcable and if that is the direction where

strongly recommended that you would get a written opinion from the city attorney to provide to the requestor of the information? i don't know if it means anything and, i don't know if the word of mouth is better or worse or a written determination is better or worse. because there is that and there is the when that is happened and then the when is what is certified here and you told me only when i asked. you did not actually... and there were a series of procedures that were not followed. but would that... would getting a written sbons have triggered the rest of the procedures to be followed was my question and in which case you would less en, if not mitigate the violations. >> there is a ten day window in responding getting a written opinion from the city attorney does not... >> i am in favor of the motion. i do think that it would be worth while as a matter of policy going forward for the city and the sunshine ordinance task force and whoever else wants to play, to think about what should or what should be treated as confidential here and it is a very subtle balancing. and i think that in

you have done it and this is only going to the process of of the redaction and the notice of the requestor. >> in which case for me it would be the commission that you would find the violation? >> because the head of the commission delegated this authority to the custodian and did not follow up and just engaged a few key individuals who engaged the city attorney and the city attorney made the determination and then you moved forward and weren't required to follow up with the commission head and you were just to follow the advice of the city attorney. >> with all respect, i sense that the redaction may have been done with the records custodian and the question about what information was private. i think that your analysis may be right. >> i would move that the commission finds that the arts commission and/or its designated employees failed to comply in redacting material, failed to comply with the provisions of 67.26. >> i think that is too vague. >> in the appropriate, i think that you made... >> properly. >> and improperly redacting. >> yeah that is it. >> finding i am prorer redaction. >

. >> calling up first the dr requestor? >> you have five minutes. >> good evening, my name is mark anderson, my wife and i have filed a dr. the staff person has accurately and summarized the history, and that the developer came in in 2011, and remodeled the building and we are all in favor of that and the neighbors are in favor because the building is in bad shape, and however, there was, we reviewed the architect's plans and various meetings and we were concerned that it was not in keeping with the historical nature of the building and there was a prolonged negotiation with the developer and the architects and as the design, and we reached an impass at one point and that is why we filed the dr and the neighbors filed the dr in september of 2011. okay. and the principal problems that we have is that the addition of a penthouse and a roof deck that was mentioned. and we were in the neighbors were against those penthouse being built at all but in the negotiations, after all of the offer the dr, the developer became more inter

the public, wanted to advise that we just received via e-mail from the representative of the d-r requestors for items 16 a and b, that they are withdrawing their discretionary review application. >> good afternoon, president fong and members of the commission. are you excited? i know i am. how often do you get a chance in government to make something more efficient, which is what we're doing today regarding transit. so, what i have here, i have props, is the san francisco zoning and map and book from 1947. it includes the maps and the zoning code, and the zoning code has four pages in it. i'm going to let you look at this so -- >> what is the date now? >> i'm getting to that. [laughter] >> and then what i have here is the zoning code from 1979. it has six articles, 236 pages, and it's in one handheld convenient binder and a stylish beige. look at that if you like. >> watch your back. [laughter] >> what i have here is our current planning code. volume 1. volume 2. and volume 3. it has 11 articles, 1,335 pages and three volumes. so, somewhere between 1979 and 2013 we added 1,0 99 pages to the