president olague: the planning commission is back in session. you're on items 10-a and items 10-b. case number 162-d, 1945 hyde street.

commissioners, as you consider the request for a discretionary review, the zoning administrator will hear the variance request. >> good afternoon, president olague. this is conversion of a two story over basement parking garage to a three story over basement seven unit residential project including 17 parking spaces and one commercial unit. the new third floor will be set back from the front and the russell street side of the property to protect the historic integrity of the building. the addition would have a rear yard of only 10 feet or 25 feet are required, necessitating the request for a variance. the building is considered an historic resource, and the property is within nc-140-x districts. the commission considered this request in march and continued the case to allow the sponsor to meet with neighbors and consider revisions to the plan to better protect light and air to an adjacent building to explore parking options and to

provide more information regarding the parking in the past in the building. the sponsor has met with the neighbors and has revived the project as follows -- modified the new third floor so that the mass of the building does not encroach into significant view planes from both the rear apartments at the top floor of the adjacent building to the rear at 1221 union street. modify the front of the building so that arch windows extend to the ground. added three parking spacings to the plan for a total of 17 spaces. the revised project now includes the potential to provide hourly public or community monthly parking for neighboring commercial uses. the sponsor proposes a condition of approval to provide for 10 parking spaces for pews as short-term business parking or monthly parking for residents. the department recommends that the commission approve the project as the project will replace a parking garage with seven new residential units and a neighborhood serving commercial space will contribute in lieu funds to the city for affordable housing,

advances the city transit first policy, compliance with the planning code and promotes the objectives and policies of the general plan. i'm available for any questions. thank you very much. president olague: d.r. requester. >> my name is marvin frankel and i'm with the russell hill neighbors. to give you an update of where we are with the developers and since we last spoken, even though we would like to see the current use remain, we understand that the current zoning is what it is. and have tried to work with the developers and creating an amicable situation where it's best use for the community. we were shown three different possibilities, one was a 25 parking space option. one was a 19 space option. and one was a 17 space option. we originally chose the

25-space option. and the developer then found it was economically infeasible or not to his liking. so then we chose the 19-space option. and then the developer felt that the -- there was a window involved in which it would be better used as a unit than a parking space. so we would still like to see 19 spaces in the project. and we would like to see -- ints a modest request, we believe, and easily achievable. we would also like to see all the parking spaces be treated abc's a single unit. this would align the interests of the parking spaces with the community. and the fact there would be one utility bill and one person responsible for the mechanisms for the parking spaces. and if there is only one space allowed per unit, then if somebody chose not to take a space, then that would immediately allow that space to

be given over to monthly or hourly parking. so we would like to see them all bundled, all 17 or 19 spaces, to one unit in itself. the last request that we have is that we would like to see a 30 inch setback on russell street. and what this would do is it's only 12 to 18 inches more than it currently is. so again, it's a moderate request. and the fact, what it would do if you're on the sidewalk on russell street, you would not be able to see the top of the building. if you're across the street from the proposed project, you would see it roughly half the building. so it would give a relief from where the current structure is currently. to the russell street neighbors. and some light and air. we understand that the current use of the project is a parking garage. and it definitely services the

community better than the seven units currently. and even though it doesn't fall within conforming zoning, but because we're changing the use, we hope that the commission will take the additional two spaces and also give the allowable option if for some unforeseeable future that they find a way to put in 25 spaces that the commission would allow them to be granted the 25 spaces if for some unlikely case that they could do such. and that is it. thank you. president olague: thank you. second d.r. requester. >> good afternoon. jamie terry, rhca. this is the third hearing for this project. why? because this project is rife with extraordinary circumstances. we are here to ask the commission to exercise its d.r. powers and consider if niece extraordinary circumstances are good planning.

this project looks deceptively simple. it looks like it meets code. and that's good. but it unravels quickly when it's realized that the current planning code is insufficient for the planning complexities of change of use. a use which is presumed better for the city but is highly questionable in this case. the lot -- the lot and use predates the current zoning cold. so by default of its early construction, and nonexistent planning, the parcel inherited an n.c. zoning code. a zoning designation appropriate for standard sized lot on high street but not appropriate for an acceptably large lot that intrudes halfway down russell street, which is an rh-2 zone. therefore, the lot never had

any planning sense applied to it. and the result of that inadequate planning is a conflict of use. existing park transit use versus residential use. the use changed to residential violates urban design principles. as the commission knows, it can take d.r. for extraordinary circumstances. and according to planning, those circumstances occur as follows -- one, where the commonplace application or adopted design standards do not enhance or conserve neighborhood character. in this case, the existing building use and mask conflict with the surrounding residential and n.c. area. the project creates an oversized out of character residential project by reusing the building for a new residential use. the units described as family units are luxury units. and will be sold at a market rate unaffordable to average

san francisco families. two, extraordinary circumstances occur where the design standards do not balance the right to develop the property with the impacts on the neighborhood. absolutely the project sponsor has the right to develop the property. but the planning code provides an equal right for the commission to assess the impacts on the neighborhood. this is not an existing residential building renovated for condos. it's an existing building that's served a mixed use of this neighborhood for 1100 years. loss of this building to a primarily residential use reduces the livability and vitality of the neighborhood. once gone, this building will never be replaced, and eliminates forever the potential to meet future needs of car share, bike share and electric charging stations. the current plan for the project claims 14 spaces for the community. that's a quarter of the existing 58 spaces.

and that impacts the commercial district. three, extraordinary circumstances occur because of complex topography or other conditions not addressed in the design standards. the n.c. zoning was inherited by a building that preceded the planning code. as a result, little if any planning attention has been paid to the effects of that zoning. the application of existing zoning does not produce much n.c. value. it's an 800 square foot commercial space in the 20,000 square foot building. a second look is required by the commission because when planning fails, you are the city's last gatekeepers of public good. and although the planning code may have been applied correctly on the surface, it's inadequate for this project. and it produces unintended consequences that violate urban design principles. based on these extraordinary

circumstances, we request that you take d.r. and maintain the entire building or take d.r. and approve the two plus two alternate solution that we propose to the project sponsor in april. residential, parking transit and balance the right to develop property with the impacts on the neighborhood. thank you. president olague: thank you. i'll open it up for speakers in support of the d.r. request. and we have several speaker cards. joe harney. harvey hacker. joanne allen followed by richard lerner. you can come up however, whatever order, you know. >> commissioners, i'm joe harney, owner of 1221 union street. and i'm very disappointed that this matter has become so contentious. as i've stated all along, i'm not opposed to this project.

i've only asked the project sponsor make every reasonable effort to minimize the impacts of this penthouse and roof deck proposal to my tenants into my property. i hope you had the opportunity to read my letter to mr. willis. it demonstrates that i've made every attempt to reach compromise with mr. willis but he chose to fight me. commissioners, i do feel it is necessary to set the public record for the commission on one important matter. i never agreed to support this project. you can imagine my anger when i come across the document that mr. willis submitted to you stating that i did. you don't need to ask or take my word for it. one of two occasions, he admitted that this was false. once at a meeting at his own architect's office on may 10, attended by five people in this very hearing room. please note that that meeting was left out on the north neighborhood time line.

actions like this have made it quite difficult to reach an accord. on a positive note, mr. willis and i do agree on one thing, and probably one thing only -- this whole matter is best left in the able hands of this commission. if left to me i would eliminate the six-foot overhang and cut back much of the penthouse footage that's adjacent to the light well that's so important to my renters. i leave this to you and your expertise. i ask that you take this to address this matter and i'll abide by your decision. i would like my friend and architect harvey hack tore explain my position using some images. >> commissioners, i'm harvey hacker speaking for joe harney. my concern has been to attempt

to interpret for joe planning code section 134-e-1-b. which says the proposed new or expanding structure will not significantly impede the access of light and air to and views from adjacent properties. this is -- the notion here is that special permission is being asked to violate a required rear yard setback and this is the standard that needs to be met for that. i'm going to put up on the viewer a couple of pairs of photographs. the first one shows a view from the window of one of the

apartments in joe harney's building. and the sticks you see are the story poles erected by the project sponsor. this picture just fills in the gaps. and showings the effect on what the tenants would see when they look out the window. i should point out this particular version of the picture is based upon a version of a proposed modification that the project sponsor submitted which reduced the extent of the overhang by 18 inches. i'm not sure that that's actually the proposal that's on the table right now. but this is the best case. a second neighbor window from a

different apartment is this one. again, you see the story poles that were erected by the project sponsor. this simply fills in the outlook that would be occluded by the new proposal. i recognize that the project sponsor has made two or three concrete proposals to mr. harney for mitigation. in my opinion, none of them impeachment the intent of the code section that i cited. thank you. president olague: thank you. let's keep calling cards. michelle sudis. kathleen courtney.