Commission disapproves large remodel at 116 Tenth Avenue after neighbors raise light, privacy and process concerns

The Planning Commission unanimously disapproved a discretionary review petition for a large single‑family remodel at 116 Tenth Avenue on Aug. 31, citing neighborhood impacts and the project’s scale on a key lot.

Neighbors Lisa Tsang (837‑841 Lake Street) and Francis Gleeson (114 Tenth Avenue) filed Doctor petitions and urged the Commission to deny the project. They said the sponsor’s proposed deep rear extensions, multiple north‑facing windows and stacked decks would significantly reduce sunlight, eliminate mid‑block access to shared open space and intrude on privacy for immediately adjacent homes. The Doctor filers presented photographic and 3‑D renderings they had commissioned to show the projected daylight loss and visual impacts.

Francis Gleeson told the Commission he has lived on the block for decades and that the project’s proposed changes would convert his rear porch and dining room from light‑filled spaces into shaded areas, and he accused the sponsor of misrepresenting plans to the neighborhood. "They're lying constantly," Gleeson told commissioners during rebuttal. Lisa Tsang described how her child reacted to the plan: "When I told my daughter that what they're gonna do, she cried: ‘They're taking away the sun from me,’" she said.

Project counsel said the sponsor (Amanda and Jesse McBain) intend to live in the house and had revised plans multiple times, and staff and the Residential Design Team (RDT) recommended approval of the revised design, finding changes adequate to address standards. Sponsor counsel asked for an opportunity to continue to work with neighbors; commissioners and attendees noted multiple prior continuances and raised process concerns.

Commissioners weighed the RDT recommendation against neighbors’ testimony and broader concerns about precedent for oversized single‑family “spec” expansions on small or key lots. Several commissioners said the project appeared to be maximized for internal amenities rather than neighborhood context and that the developer had not engaged sufficiently with neighbors. By a roll‑call vote, the Commission took discretionary review and disapproved the project, effectively sending the sponsor back to redesign under discretionary review procedures.

Next step: The disapproval means the sponsor must substantially revise the project if they seek Planning Commission approval again. Commissioners and neighbors suggested specific changes that could reduce impacts, including shortening the second and third‑floor rear depths, removing or reducing decks facing neighbors, shifting window placements, or converting ground‑floor rooms into a subordinate affordable unit.