to increase the floor area say by adding a new third floor, there would be an extensive preservation review in terms of environmental review and a request for historic resource evaluation. typically, what we recommend is the installation of dormers, which will be set back at least 15 feet from the front and the minimally visible from the public right of way. that is the standard solution to avoid extensive mixed level review which potentially could cost between $5,000 to $15,000 additional. these are typically reviewed over the counter as long as it does not trigger notification requirements. they are approved over the counter. we perform a plan check. we have a checklist we must complete before approving the application. president peterson: you have the 15 foot setback on the dormer. >> the bomber is set back 16 feet.

-- the dormer is set back 16 feet. that is the smallest dormer they have. vice president goh: on that review, you would not look at rafter tales? >> would look at the elevation. there is no indication on the plans that we reviewed that show any change on the pitch of the roof or any detail on the roof. vice president goh: the detailed drawing of the rafter beans did and at the wall. >> so then we refer back to elevation. elevation shows us what the final product is going to look like. it is identical to the existing. vice president goh: you would not expect to see those rafter tails shown in that detail even if there were purely cosmetic? >> we do not typically review details in that detailing as far as the roof is being constructed. we rely on the building department. we look at the elevation.

are there any changes in terms of pitch? in this particular instance, there was not any. if we may, may i suggest that if the board is deciding to go in a certain direction you can add a condition to make sure the detailing of the rafter tales be shown on subsequent plans. >> just to point out on the proposed plan as was just pointed out, the proposed elevation shows some details of rafter tales, but i would agree if it was the direction of the board to approve a permit you might specifically note that as a requirement so it does not get overlooked. henke.

-- thank you. vice president goh: i would be amenable to a condition of that. would you like to address the permit history issue commissioner? commissioner fung: i will make a motion. i am going to move to continue this. what is the earliest we can take this back on? commissioner garcia: the movement for continuance? >> we have to meetings in august. there are both full calendars. commissioner goh will be absent on the august 11 date. those are the earliest meetings coming up. commissioner garcia: what is my execution date? >> your execution date -- commissioner garcia: am i good

through august? >> you should be good to august. his term has expired. he is sitting on a 60-day holdover. . he has been nominated for reappointment but the process has not yet taken place. commissioner garcia: before you call the roll, i will not support a continuance unless there are provisions to allow the permit holder to continue to start the work having to do with the foundation. commissioner fung: i do not know if you can bifurcate that. commissioner garcia: then i am not going to support the continuance. i thought we had done that in the past. commissioner fung: we have allowed the protection of property against wind and rain to continue. there are certain life safety

things we have allowed to continue. those can be done by the department. the authorities. commissioner garcia: unless i have that assurance, i do not intend to support a continuance. commissioner fung: well, let me continue with the motion anyway. i am going to move this continues to august 18. president peterson: call the roll on that please. >> the motion is to continue to august. that will allow the retrieval of additional documents. commissioner fung: the planning and building department. specifically, the permit history. and no additional briefings. >> on that motion to continue with those vice president goh?

vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: no. president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: no. >> there is no further business before the board this evening.

vice president olague: we are having technical difficulty folks, so i apologize, once we resolve it we will start the meeting.

clerk: good afternoon, this is the regular meeting of the san francisco planning commission for thursday july 22nd, 2010. prior to taking roll let me just make a couple of announcements. we ask that it's very important that you not engage in secondary discussions while in this room. if you feel the need to do so go outside with those discussions. they become extremely disruptive to the process, the whispers all of that take them outside

please. also turn off your cell phones your pagers any electronic devices that may sound off during the proceedings. the commission will not tolerate disruptions of any sort including clapping yelling cheering, speaking out of order etc. roll call -- [ roll call ] clerk: and congratulations commissioners moore and suggest guy ya on your reappointment and swearing in today. [ roll call ] clerk: president miguel is absent today commissioners first item on calendar items fortunance, item 1 2006.1006e for 222 2nd street items 2a b, c and d companion cases

proposed for continuance, august 5th item 3 for 3281 16th street this project has been withdrawn and the matter is no longer before the commission for any consideration. further on the calendar commissioners case 2010.0130 it item 17 upper unit please note that the discretionary review for this item has been withdrawn and the matter is no longer before you for any type of consideration. for the benefit of the public please note there have been some questions, if necessary, to take a couple of items to hear a couple of items later on the calendar, that would be item

12' and b if necessary to move those items to the calendar. that means items 14 15 and 16 would move up and be considered following item 11. vice president olague: that is collect. clerk: with that commissioners, i am not aware of any other item on calendar being proposed for continuance or that has been withdrawn. vice president olague: to open it up for pup comment on items proposed for continuance. >> sue hester, attorney for the 246 2nd street homeowners association. the president of the association had intended to address you but he has a sick child and asked me to come in his stead. the homeowners association is a

condo building one block away from this building. it is the project that people most directly affected by this project. we are asking for a one-week continuance from the 5th to the 12th. when the first -- there were extensive comments from the homeowners on the d.e.i.r. those of you remember it it was a knotty passive case. these people are involved. they have been watching to find out when the hearing was and at the end of june the hearing was announced for the 2nd. it was announced in the paper and on posters on site and notices were issued. people made then their vacation arrangements. they held off until the hearing was on. two different units including

mr. dagopia, his family made -- paid reservations to visit his family, costs a lot of money nonrefundable tickets, $5000, he is asking not only on his own behalf but on behalf of another tenant who also did the same thing, that it be continued one week, so he doesn't have to choose between representing the homeowners association and taking a vacation with his family. it's a reasonable request. one week. before the 22nd was set the planning staff checked with the developer, they agreed to the date and then the developer found out that mr. miguel would not be here and he asked for the change. at no point was anybody else consulted about the date. we find out about these things by noticed and we found out it was proposed to a date that is really disruptive to the plans for the homeowners association.

a one-week continuance for the interest of fairness so that people do not have to lose their vacations and all their money. we are not asking to be continued to october, just for one week. mr. julius knows this request has been made and he has rejected it already so i am interested in hearing his rationale. but in the interest of fairness when staff does negotiations with one side and doesn't even talk to the other side before dates are set it's not really fair. thank you. >> commissioners, andrew ju in nius, on behalf of the project sponsor, we are asking you to continue the dates august 5th as set forth in the calendar. there is certainly more than enough time to prepare for this

hearing. the seek request materials have already been out, you have had them for two weeks miss hester's clients have had them for two weeks and they will have another two weeks. packets are going to you today fully two weeks in front of the hearing that we are hoping to have on august 5th. you know, i have a tough time believing that miss hester also didn't inform her clients that sometimes hearing dates change. in this case it is changing because our architects are not available today. that's the reason. we couldn't go forward with the hearing on the 22nd because our team was not going to be ready. we were given the date by staff. we've been requesting the earliest possible date since last year, and the earliest we could get was the 22nd. it turned out our team could not be prepared on the 22nd. that is the basis of our

request. our team will be available on the 25th and we want to present the case to you then. you know, our team has already changed its plans several times to try to get this hearing to happen as quickly as possible. the 5th is where we have taken our plans everybody on our side has scheduled this hearing. the idea that miss hester didn't know until -- i don't know when she knew that we made the question for the hearing change. we made the question two weeks ago, the minute we found out our team wouldn't be ready. i cannot believe that she didn't have that request. it's been two weeks. she never contacted me. i haven't contacted here her clients have refused to communicate with us. we would just like to go forward on the 5th thank you. >> hi, i am carl shannon.

i reiterate -- >> speak into the mic. >> sorry, this is carl shannon i reiterate that we are trying to reschedule to make sure tom pfeiffer is here, and we are trying to bring great architects to san francisco to have great buildings. he's in des moines today with another client i could not trump and mr. mannis is in philadelphia. ply apologies, but august 5th would be great in terms of having them both. vice president olague: any additional public comment on items proposed for continuance? seeing none, this item is closed. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: i was going to move items 1, 2a 2b 2c and 2d to august 5th. clerk: item 3 is withdrawn. vice president olague: well i am going to speak against the motion because i think that the

neighborhood association is making a modest request. that isn't a lot. today it was moved to accommodate the project sponsor. when people make plans for their summer vacations, they are not always, you know people usually buy tickets in advance so it's possible that he purchased thosing tickets before he knew of this continuance to the 12th. and i know that mr. junius raised the issue of reviewing materials in time to review materials. but that wasn't the point i heard miss lester make but it was to accommodate the neighborhood association who showed out in numbers at the draft e.i.r. hearings. i think it's critical that people in the neighborhood and their needs are taken into consideration and i don't

believe that request of an additional being, given that it's summer and people tend to take family vacations in summer in august that it's an unreasonable request to postpone for one week. so i think project sponsor's needs are obviously important, but so are the neighborhood's needs. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: maybe i could ask staff questions on this. so originally, this was noticed for today and it's been represented by, i mean the project sponsor that about two weeks ago, they asked you for the continuance, is that correct? >> correct, a little over two weeks. commissioner antonini: , ok, two and a half weeks ago did you inform the dir requesters of that continuance? >> this is technically not a dr case. commissioner antonini: yeah i

misspoke. >> so i informed miss lester of the continuance when she contacted me i forget the date that exactly occurred. commissioner antonini: so that kind of answers my questions as to you know if these reservations were made they were made fairly quickly. but i would probably be in favor of the motion as stated thanks. commissio ner moore? commissioner moore: here we go when these types of issues come up, i feel i need to sit between two chairs. i believe there is a certain precedent of animosity between both parties and i would suggest if there have neutral date in which beet can agree i am prepared to entertain that. but i do not want to be dragged into a disagreement that she said and it was announced. i don't want to go there. i don't believe we sit here for resolving that issue. but if there are two parties

that have an issue that they don't agree on they should come to consensus before education or back let them come back with a date that works for both of them. vice president olague: we have to make a decision today. well, go ahead. commissioner borden? commissioner borden: maybe i could ask the project sponsor that this architect that you have that couldn't be here today, would the 12th be possible? i mean, if that is the issue that is the difference for you. >> again, it's carl shannon he's from new york he has flown out several times to complete with john and his staff. he has not confirmed his available on the 12th. i did ask him for other dates. he can't be here next thursday. he can be here the 5th. i am not aware of the 12th. we have a whole bunch of people on our side we are trying to

coordinate. we are also quite frankly in very preliminary discussions with a tenant and we would hope to be back in front of the epa at some point if they re-open their search, so losing time is not a material thing in terms of being able to tenant the building,. commissioner borden: we can agree one week is not a big hardship. >> assuming epa doesn't make the decision in that week to come back. they have gone back and forth. i don't know when that decision will be made. it would be forthcoming shortly. it could happen between now and the 5th, between the 5th and the 12th it could happen after the 12th. if we are not an approved project when they issue that request, we don't stand a reasonable chance of being considered for it. commissio ner moore? commissioner moore: , isn't it enthusiasm that your architect

of record in the processes that go on in this room why do we need the architects to be here. the architect of record -- it's not as much about the building as it is about approving the eir. >> both. >> that leads and that is the one on which you will most testimony? >> in terms of the technical approvals, i can say absolutely, mr. mannis can speak very eloquently to the technical approvals and what is required, probably more eloquently than tom pfeiffer can. we are encouraged by the planning department to bring great architects to san

francisco and to build great projects, to do kpr and 555. this is tom pfeiffer's day in the sun this san francisco. i would think you would want him here. >> he's the design architect, so typically we like to have the person who designed the building here for the approval. we recognize they are the architect of record but he is the actual designer of the building. commissio ner lee? commissioner lee: i think we should keep the 5th. we can always continue after the 5th. i mean if the information is there. the e.i.r. has been around for five weeks. this project has been around for quite sometime. if we need to continue after the 5th, we will continue it. commissio ner borden? commissioner borden: i want the architect to be there. and i think it's not

unreasonable request. if they are asking for a month or three weeks run thing but we are talking about a week. i wish that. clerk: you can continue it to the 5th and move it to the 12th. commissioner antonini: it's probably better to continue it to next week and if we were to find out there was an agreement over the architect or some reason why parties did agree to the next week that's possible, but you can't go the other direction, but you can't go forward and not backward. vice president olague: i think the key point here for me is mr. pfeiffer is flying in from new york and we do encourage great architecture, this commission has for as long as i can remember. the reality is he's flying in

from new york the neighbors and others aren't flying from anywhere. they will have to live with the impacts of this development in their neighborhood. so i think it's critical we have a balanced discussion here with all parties that are going to be affected. that includes the architect. that includes the project sponsor and that includes people in the neighborhood who live in close proximity to a project that may have some ongoing impacts for them. so it's important to keep that kind of balances conversation when it comes to the project. i don't see any other names up. i will call the question. clerk: commissioners on the motion to continue items 1 and 2 to the dates proposed on calendar -- [ roll call ]