president fong: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you. some things i'm hearing from the comments and my readings. there were comments about the lack of traffic analysis in the a.m. again, i'm not saying that it's not in there, but i will re-read it in greater detail to make sure it's not there. it could be a good point to address in comments and responses. and then the other issue that was raised and one that i think, again, might be in there but should be addressed is replacement of the parking will be lost, because i understand part of the garage is going to be used for the residential parking for the tower. so how are we going to offset that? that's something we want to look at. nelson spoke about the right turn from market to 4th, and i'm not quite sure whether that

was traffic coming on market or traffic coming from stockton, crossing market and going to 4th, which probably is the larger impact, i would think, because i believe now some of the eastbound traffic on market is already somewhat restricted. so i don't know how much of an impact that causes. then we did talk about the impacts of shadows and particularly union square, but mention was made of jesse square also. from what i'm reading and what i see in the report the analysis of the shadows seem to be well done and very, very adequately addressed. however, there's a separate issue of should we increase the allowance? but that's not an e.i.r. issue, it's an issue that comes up at a time when, if there were necessary to be a shadow allowance change, then we have to find public benefits and other things that are taken into account when we look at shadow allowances through rec, park and other avenues that are open to us.

but i don't believe -- what we're looking at now is, is it analyzed properly. shadow impact is an important mention there. although this may not necessarily be the subject of the e.i.r., the mention of a second block crossing between 3rd and 4th on mission, in addition to the one that occurs at yerba bueno lane has to be addressed. if it's a mitigation for anticipated traffic that might be higher and thereby general rating higher pedestrians needs, then it might be appropriate to answer that in comments and responses also. of course, they did a lot of different variance of heights and different things that's been brought up. and then finally what

commissioner moore brought up, looking at the cumulative looks visually, the expansion of the moma and perhaps some visualization with new buildings that we would assume are going to be in place have already been approved, some of which might be close to going under construction might be good to at least note that a little bit and see what the appearance looks like when those are in place. that's mostly what i'm hearing. there may be other things, and certainly another re-read is the thing, but it seems to be a thorough and complete e.i.r. at this point. but there's always need to address other things, because that's what comments and responses are all about. so that will be very interesting to see how those come out. >> commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: yes. i know staff is not here to answer questions, but maybe this question can be answered.

can i have some idea of what the schedule is for the comments and responses document to be completed? and that brings up the other question of we will be hearing the final e.i.r., which would be the comment and responses document together with the draft at the same time that we are going to be considering project approval, thus, the usual format. so i assume that's still in effect for this. but if we could hear what the projected -- if you have an estimated time for -- >> i don't have a specific time frame at this moment. i've only received a handful of moments, because typically the comments come in at the end. so based on whether we have to do -- based on the work that the c & r would require, that's when we would set the schedule up. >> i ask that question because -- this is a comment on the

project, by the way, which has nothing to do with the e.i.r., but i'm going to make it anyway. given the testimony that we've heard, especially with respect to shadows on union square, i think the project sponsor needs to seriously consider lowering the height of this building. i think it's disingenuous to try to -- this is not going to come out right, but i can see what the public benefit statement is going to be. the statement of overriding considerations on the shadow on union square is going to be that we're going to get the mexican museum. we're going to get additional housing. we're going to get all this stuff. and the developer is going to say they can only do that because they have to have the height in order to make it all work. so we're going to be pitted between the people who want to keep the shadows to a minimum at union square and those people who are going to be supporting the mexican museum.

and that's going to be the crux of the hearing. i can tell you that's what's going to happen right now, and i do not like that scenario and i do not want that scenario to happen. president fong: commissioner wu. commissioner wu: i share the concerns of commissioner sugaya and wonder, where is the forum where we can talk about the shadow issue that's somewhat outside of e.i.r. but come to a place where we're not presented with that tension. so obviously there's that. with regards to the shadow and the e.i.r., i would be interested to know, are there any legal or feasible mitigations for shadows, or is it just -- are there none that exist within the ceqa world? president fong: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: as far as i know it's shadow or sun, those are the two alternatives.

it's a tan or no tan. i'm sorry to say it that way. what i really feel -- and this is in support of what commissioner sugaya brought up -- that we're being led down a path where the inevitable shadow allows others to also have shadow, where there is already shadow, so they're making a little bit more shadow, and accumulatively we understand what the potential of shadow means or not. tourists and visitors come to san francisco because there is indeed sun, when it is not so sunny in other parts of the world, and while many peel assume we're los angeles and they show up in shorts -- we put a very beautiful cafe and renovation into union square which we are all proud of and pass through and it operates like an italian piazza. and this building will cast a

shadow in the open-space area, right in front of the cafe, putting the entire cafe in shadows. i look at it with particular interest because you see all of the tourists having their breakfast, espressos, whatever they're doing, right in that sunny spot in union square. and now we are basically talking about shadow in this area. i think we need to find -- we need to choose our battles. we need to balance the need for housing appropriately scaled, appropriate-height housing, but also maintain the viability of the city. and i think the e.i.r. needs to come to terms with not hiding themselves behind the transit center in shadows, but they need to answer on its own how it basically works not within the confines of the cafe. it needs to be approved and examined on its own merit, and at this moment the e.i.r. says

it would be ok to have a little bit more shadow. as far as a solution is concerned, all of us need to see an animated shadow study by which each building and the shadow center has its own shadow path and consequences. and then as you move along you combine all those buildings which create shadow with each other on down and determine what is acceptable or what is not. and i think the majority of people i talk to would like to keep union square as sunny as they can, because that is part of the kind of heart of the city. president fong: any additional comments? >> thank you. i would just restate that written comments will be accepted at the planning department until 5:00 p.m. on august 13, 2012.

thank you. commissioners, you are now on item number 10, case number 2012.0637 b, 26th street. there's a request for discretionary review.

>> afternoon, planning

commission. i'm the southwest team leader. this proposal is to allow expansion of an existing one-story single-family residence. the construction will consist of a ground floor addition in the rear, a new second level and a new roof deck. the site is located in noise alley and subject to the rh-1 zoning district. the neighborhood consists primarily of one and two-story homes with -- the property is flanked by one and two-story homes. owners and residents from six properties on the block and across the street have submitted letters in support or not objecting to the proposed addition. the residential design team again reviewed the project and found the project to be consistent with residential design guidelines. the remplet e.d. determined that the setback and second floor addition were consistent with the setback of the adjacent building's second floor. also the corner notch at the front of the building will

provide adequate light near to the property line window. it's been determined that the rear was consistent with the development pattern and mid-block open space. larger and deeper space do exist on the subject block. after the addition it was determined that the five-foot change in building depth would not have a negative impact on light and air, rear yard, privacy or interior spaces. they also determined that the height of the proposed addition to be consistent with the neighborhood pattern of two and three-story buildings. the height, topography and slope of the street and exterior materials are compatible with stucco and wood, which is predominantly used in this neighborhood. the planning department has essentially determined that this addition will not create a significant adverse impact to the adjacent residences or block. the department finds this project has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, but the planning commission should not take discretionary review.

this concludes my presentation. president fong: thank you. d.r. request, sir? you have five minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my wife and my two daughters moved into 26th street approximately five years ago. i grew up and lived on the west side, but after getting married my wife loved the sun and couldn't handle the fog, so we decided to move east. when i first heard about noise valley i said no way, the gardens are too small, we have children, the places are too expensive. it doesn't work. the agent told me take a look at it. i went and looked at it and we fell in love with the house. we fell in love with the backyard. i've got photos there and i have some more photos here if you'd like to see them of my garden, the adjacent gardens. everybody really prides

themselves on the open space and values. it's a sunny part of the city and we value that. my house was in the sunset and i was on the foggy side or my house was -- i'm sorry, i'm speaking a little fast because i'm a little nervous. but if my house was at a different orientation or if i lived in the sunset i probably wouldn't mind as much because it's foggy. i grew up there. i know exactly what it's like. we don't object to the project. i look forward to the development. in fact, i look forward to the developer putting in a really nice garden and complementing the rest of the houses. my biggest objection is the back side and what we call an open mid-block space. i'd like to preserve that. throughout this project and meeting with the contractor there's been a lot of misunderstandings and misinterpretations and misinformation. i was just browsing through on page five of the developer's pact -- packet that he sent in

on the sanford map. if you look at the sanford map it's totally crow districted by the next photo -- contradicted by the next photo that he sent to you in his own plan. the alignment to the properties are incorrect. it's these types of things that concern me. i have a very nice 3-d sketch here of a property with a stair layout, but i've got another document here that shows me that the doorway entrance to the building is going to be at the very front. if you look at the drawings, you'll also notice that top of the first floor is equal to mine, and you've got a nice floor, yet he shows us how approximately one or two feet shorter than mine. i don't know how that's going to map out.

the 3-d diagram it looks like it's more like seven or eight feet. takes up 1/4 of the 3-d drawing. and this is my problem. i got a light analysis report, a light study report here and it doesn't even have the firewalls. it's just a lot of information that i don't think has come clear, i don't think has been genuine. regardless, i look forward to the project being built and being done correctly. but i've got an offer letter in there requesting that he set back his property by five feet on the upper floor to the rear yard and five feet on the lower section, which is a total of approximately 75 to 80 square feet on each floor. and i've asked him to set back his property on the second floor by approximately 60 square feet on the front top. like i said, this is my home. we bought this. this is a highly developed neighborhood. everyone gets top dollar for the square footage, but the

reason is because the homes are cozy, the yards are large, they're very well maintained, and i'm open to any questions, if you have any. thank you. >> thank you. >> speakers in support of the d.r. you have three minutes each. any speakers in spoufert the d.r.? ok, project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> hello, i'm devin johnson, project sponsor. thank you, president fong and commissioners, for the time. this is the first time i've been through the planning process, so i'm learning a lot along the way. but i attempted this process to try to be a good citizen and to work well with the neighbors. so i'm going to try to present the information as clearly and

as accurately as possible so you can make an objective determination. so the four things i wanted to talk about was, one, that i was very understanding and compassionate with the neighbors. two, that i made a fair amount of design modifications and accommodations to the adjacent neighbors. three, that i did just a ton of outreach with all the other people on the block. and lastly, that the project really is not -- it does not significantly negatively impact the d.r. requester. so first of all, with respect to the neighbors, i embarked on the journey trying to be a good citizen. i thought that if i listened carefully, really tried to understand what their concerns were, got creative with solutions, made real accommodations that were addressing their concerns, that i would avoid this kind of scenario of ending up with a discretionary review. unfortunately, it didn't work

out that way, but i'm hoping that i can demonstrate that at least i did make the effort and i certainly tried. secondly, with respect to the accommodations -- can you see this? there are nice downtown views in this direction. this is front of the house. so with that understanding going in, i designed with a 12-foot setback for us the neighbor -- the neighbor has a 10-foot setback. he has a window right here. so we tried to preserve that and we put a notch in along the lot-line window. he expressed concerns about light, so we ended up enlarging this notch, clipping off an awning so that the light could get into his lot-line window. his wife had concerns about privacy, so i ended up removing

this window here so that there's no visibility between their lot-line window and the master bedroom. what he keeps asking me to do is to cut off the property right here, and what that does is it takes a major chunk out of this bedroom to the point that it's really not effective. and then what it also does is it allows his lot-line window to look directly into these windows. so the design has offset, gives us mutual privacy, preserves his lot-line window and gives him light. with respect to the back of the house, we reduced the massing. we put in a notch here, originally oriented the other direction to give light and give some space away from his property. we did a light study and discovered that wasn't the best orientation, but twisting it by 90 degrees allowed more light to get in here and get to his windows. on the other side, my neighbor judy has a lot-line window that

we also had to navigate around. i did a 3 1/2-foot setback all the way down the lengths of this house. she also likes the greenery, so i've promised to her that i'm going to put in a couple of trees against this wall to make it look nice for her. what the d.r. requester is asking is to dry a line right here completely flush with his building, and what it does is this bedroom's completely gone and this one is rendered a very nice walk-in closet but it's not a bedroom anymore. and so i had two design meetings before submitting my application with judy on this side. we shook hands and agreed -- she agreed she'd support the project. i had four design changes before talking with my other neighbor and he wouldn't budge an inch on his demands of those two lines i wanted drawn, and i just don't think that's fair that i have to reduce my property that much, just so he can have a line of sight view through my lot elsewhere. with that said, it's also very

relevant to talk about the renovation that he did three years ago. he took out a gabled roof and added a second floor. he put in this lot-line window. he extended to the rear and he took out a side setback, and what that did is create just a very, very large lot line blank wall. the only thing i'm asking for in terms of a lot line wall on his side is a little line that goes like that and a little line that goes like that. when you look at the backyard, there's nice articulation. it blends in well with the house next door. lots of sunlight can get in. we're both lucky to have this beautifully large rear backyard. president fong: thank you. madam secretary, there is a three minute for supporters of the project sponsor, right? ok. supporters of project sponsor.

>> hello, commissioners, my name is vincent. i'm the design team -- >> could you pull it up and speak directly into it? >> come closer. is that better? hello. so the few clients i've worked with over the years have gone about their remodel have been socially responsible. i have to point this out. the neighborhood outreach was extensive, fruitful. he reached out to literally just about everyone on the block, even though i don't think it's standard practice, to get their input and really take it into account. i think he made that clear. we have actually notes that express all the people he spoke to. i find it unfortunate that with delays and unforeseeable expenses i'm rather saddened that his first experience is mixed up with a lot of

unnecessary drama. from the very beginning we didn't start with a vehicles just plan, but -- vexous plan. we started with a commensurate plan that took into account the neighboring properties and keeping everything in scale. we purposefully didn't want to push things too far and propose an elephant. that's just not what the client, devin, wanted. then we went to the planners and implemented all their constructive feedback, which really did enhance our plan, like providing an entry to the main level from the street as opposed to what we had before. later on we yielded some 10 accommodations to please the d.r. requester. i found it really disappointing that it served no purpose in the end, but we still kept all those accommodations out of consideration. my client, devin, is not wealthy. he's doing such remodel for the very first time and we're

working with a tight budget still, because he is socially responsible. we are pursuing certification and have incurred expenses just to be socially responsible. we're very proud of the design of the house. we put enormous effort in thinking it through. we incorporated all sorts of socially responsible features like adding greenery, making it extremely energy efficient. we think it's going to look nice inside and out and it will be a great house to live in. we hope for your support. thank you so much. president fong: thank you. any other speakers in support of the project sponsor? ok. d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> this project takes a house that's debatable whether it's 810 or 900 square feet and not doubles it, but more than tripp

els it, almost quadruples it, depending on which numbers you use. i'd like to make a correction or correct the developer. and this is the classic of what's been going on. they say that i extended my property to the back. i did close the gap, yes, i did. i did build i did not extends property to the back. they keep insisting that i did. honestly, i wish i did, but i didn't. there's this misinformation that keeps going out. i spoke to several of the neighbors who signed the letters and they say, well, we didn't realize it was that big. when i told them it's going to be over 3,000 square feet, and the house i understood to be 810 square feet. i don't mind. when i remodeled my house i went from almost 1300 square feet to 2100. i didn't double the size of my house, i just built on top of it. this is an extensive project. most of the houses on the average are 1,500, 75 square

feet. i left a little spread sheet there for you with all the houses on 26th street odd and even and also on cesar chavez, the street behind us. i used them as a gauge for the outreach program. those are the people that were contacted, so i used that as my reference. if you look at the dimensions of those houses, this house is out of scale. their own diagrams and their own sketches contradict themselves. so my concern is where is the clarity? i requested story poles. i never got them of the i got a jaded light study. i'm in support of the project, i don't mind it. but don't take away my sunlight and don't take away the reason why i moved to this neighborhood of the my biggest concern is the following developer over the next year or two will build even bigger. thank you. president fong: thank you. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal.