hester. i wanted to speak on two issue, shad dose and transportation. i'll start with transportation. your response -- the response to my raising this issue is troubling because it goes back and says that you basically do your transportation analysis based on census data from 1990 and this is a little bit beyond that. and you haven't -- i am following up on comments made at the beginning of the hearing made by myself that you have a transportation methodology that is way out of whack with the real world. and you don't have good data on this and the response goes back to eastern neighborhoods e.i.r. as well. and this area of the mission has had substantial changes. it has had substantial changes in who lives there. they have had substantial changes in how the streets are used. there's a really big nighttime activity focus on valu valencia street. there are changing transportation patterns because of silicon valley buses. i think it's a bouwa limousine. i think that is the name you see. and the

i am sue hester the attorney for the owner of the building that is the d.r. request. this is the building that is the building -- the building isn't 100% lot coverage. as you can see, there are not just here -- there are notches here and here and basically goes lot line to lot line east and west. this is the building in the middle. the one story cottage in the front and the two story addition that exists already and was built in 1988 and the three-story addition in the rear. and what we are asking for is this commission to remove the clear windows that goes the length or the width of the lot and this is -- these are the elevations in your folder. this is the front version of it. and this is the side version of it. so the lot that was developed with stairwells and the stairwells provide interior light because there are lights into the stairwell. this is the top floor unit on the north and this is a six-unit building with three units stacked in the north side and three in the south side. this is the affected units are on the north side. and this is the top story unit. a

hester. the planning department in no way is condoning people who perform work without the benefit of a permit, without the benefit of design review, without the benefit of the residential design team to review it. and we recognize the inappropriate actions taken in order to get the 1998 permit and the fact that additions were built. i believe that if the massing of the structure was different or the horizon additions to the building were in different location, i don't think the planning department and residential design team would have allowed those portions of the building to remain if we didn't feel that the new configuration and location of the massing of the building were not sort of conveniently in this circumstances located with enough separation from the adjacent property and appropriately articulated along the side. so, i want to make that clear. the example would be if they filled in the front setback closest to the adjacent property i don't think the team would have any hesitation

hester. i have been hearing these for years from bike coalition, tom, and i have been having these convictions as long as i have been here and it is time we start tackling the issue. call the question. secretary avery: commissioners, the motion on the floor is to uphold the preliminary mitigated negative declaration. on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> yai yai. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel. >> aye. >> commissioner fong. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. commissioners, you are on item 14a andb, 2004.091ck for 899 valencia street. the item on the calendar, 14a is the conditional use authorization and 14b the shadow. and i think you will hear them both together, but you need to take your action on the shadow first before you take your c.u. action. >> good afternoon, commissioners. ben fu, planning department staff. the 899 valencia on planning code 134, 151, 175, and to allow the demolition of existing service station and construction of

added neighborhoods to the community advisory committee, including the executive parkmerced and the hester her its neighbors. -- including the executive heights neighbors. there have been 75 community meetings are hearings. i have gone to every neighborhood association and organization in the visitation valley, a little hollywood, bayview, hunters point. we started this back in 2005 and we are still coming. i would submit that of all the projects you have coming before you you will not find a project that has this much community support and such a tremendous amount of community opposition. there are some things that people still have some issues with. but this project is almost universally supported in the southeast sector of san francisco. it is time for us to move forward. we appreciate your support. >> i am the chair of the green party sustainability working group. when you widen car transportation access, it does bring up transportation concerns. this neighborhood is already inundated with too much car and truck exhaust. i am not here to speak in favor or opposition of the project, but

. >> sue hester. i want to follow up on the additional conditions. you all got a late email from me last night for which i apologize. because the section 311 notice and plans never went out for whatever reason, because they were not ready to talk to the neighbors until very recently, what we are asking for is you to put back exactly what people get in the 312 notice procedure in conditions, which is time to review, time to comment, and staff has to talk to people once the plans are out. there is no plan. nothing has been filed unless it was filed today. i didn't check today. but i checked yesterday and it hadn't been filed. we're asking for the staff to be required to talk to people and the plans be provided just as though there was a section 312 notice which you are not going to do because you have this hearing as a substitute. what happened is there was no building on the site and all of a sudden there is a new building and no note and no plans. you need to build into this and it is in my conditions and i can give you my copy if you want that the c

hester is correct that the project, however fantastic it should be, is the consideration. it is whether or not there is a significant adverse impact. there isn't. that is the standard i look at. that is the first standard and i will move adoption of the motion and our packets findings that the net new shadow from the project is not adverse. >> second. olague r commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i just wanted to comment on the building it and i think it does a lot of skillful things from diven shating the building to the -- of differentiating the streets and being in the vernacular and it's a larger building and still breaks the building down into the different building expressions and very much like stepping down and transitions to the lower buildings and i do not have any suggested modifications to the contrary and would like to differ from commissioner antonini's observations that this building in it has the design which speaks to a complete thinking it through and i don't think any xhept we make by tweaking it here and there would make it a better building as it st

. >> sue hester, i want to follow up on two of the prior comments. on the transportation studies, it's shocking how bad our data is, one. ways that the planning department should consider getting better data is when new housing is built, the owner should have an obligation at least on the first sale to collect information and feed it back to the planning department. this was done for years on officeages. it was a requirement. board of supervisors when the downtown plan was processed. we have really bad data on where people work and where people live. and it's going to come up in one -- in a comment later on. but it should be something that is a routine requirement on every developer of housing saying please,ness a mandate, seller, first buyer, where do they live? you know that. where do they work? and how do they get there? we really need that information on the suggestion, on the c.u. workshop. i agree with that. but i want to add another workship. i sent an email about three weeks ago and i testified on how you deal with emails. and how you deal wi

the printer considered to be the father of a new church in america and for bailey's work hester barkley sister-in-law of john young who arthur has shown convincingly certainly gave johnny appleseed his first taste of swedenborg. the place crawls with connections direct and indirect. for me please perhaps most rewarding of them all is the fact that this museum happens to be the repository of the papers of florence murdoch the longtime secretary of the new church library in cincinnati. because it was in those papers that i was able to trace his history of how johnny appleseed happened to happen to make his film debut. the story begins with the december 1944 letter to murdoch from a librarian and the indiana historical society or good library and wanted to let murdoch melded to studios, mgm and disney, have been asking around about johnny appleseed. of the to the library and clearly preferred disney take on the job she was not 100% certain. i only trust she wrote that they did not do something peculiar and horrible. three and a half years later with the mgm movie scrapped and disney's anim