though this project exceeds what the code allows. and as a result we request that you take d.r. and deny the project and request that it be scaled back in order to be code-compliant as well as compliant with the residential guidelines in the neighborhood. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. additional speakers in favor of the d.r.? >> with this -- [inaudible]

three years ago it was four story and balboa and -- [inaudible] everybody against it. and then finally they united the project. [inaudible] you can look at the picture. 2630rks three years ago. four building. fourth building. [inaudible] only allowed him to build -- [inaudible] thank you. president miguel: thank you. are there additional speakers in favor of the d.r.? if not, project sponsor.

>> good evening, president miguel. and commissioners. my name is john. i am the project engineer representing the project sponsor over there. he want me to make sure i thank the planning department for all the help they have had. we were working very close with people and they all helped on this project. they have made numerous suggestions and we have incorporated them all. nobody seems to thank them. i want to take this opportunity to thank them for what they've done. what i want to do is bring you a little background about the project sponsor. the story goes back to 1986 when the grand ask pa wanted to come -- grandpa wanted to come to this country to seek a better life for his family. he work hard for 10 years. in 1995 he brought the project

sponsor, the wife and two kids, to to come to this country and to seek a better life for themselves. they work hard, they work hard, both kids went to college. one has an engineering degree, the other has a business degree, working with the father in the construction trade. and they pool all their resources together, four people working together. to buy this property. this property is perfect for them because the grandfather doesn't drive, the mother doesn't drive. balboa street is a major artery with buses all over the place, two streets away they have buses. and also this is the perfect property for a chinese family because it's within chinese restaurants and chinese medicine shop store and accessory -- etc., etc. and basically what they have done for the last 15 years, they work hard, they work six

days a week and they pool all this money together to buy this property. and they are going to use their own labor to build this property, to help them cut down the costs. when the building is finished, there will be six adults living there. the grandparents, the parents and two sons. but they are getting married in the next two years. so they are building a family. chinese culture, you know? oriental culture, family culture lives together. it seems to be an expensive home, that's the way to keep the family together. they may have two kitchens but i have a feeling they may use the one kitchen because they will eat together and later on the grandparents pick up the grandchildren, etc., etc. that's why they need a big house like that. i think that's what they need a house for. so i will entertain any questions. i'd like you to support the planner because he did such a good job and they have the right to achieve the american

dream. thank you. president miguel: thank you. speakers in favor of the project. if not, d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> hi, again, commissioners. we all want the american dream. i'm canadian. i've been here 28 years. i worked hard here, too. but i don't need a four-story home. and you can approve this project but we'd like to you take off the fourth floor. i think it's reasonable. it would be more fitting with the neighborhood character. it's happened three or four times on our very own block and across the street. thank you. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes.

>> there was only one d.r. they did it jointly. there's only one d.r. >> only one two minutes. ok. president miguel: thank you. commissioner moore: i have a technical question. and it only pertains to the d.r. requester's interpretation . to my knowledge and the practice, residential design is not governed by f.a.r. it's office buildings. and why we have allowed coverage, most of what dictates residential design is zoning. so if we are in rh-2 which i think we are, those would be the only rules governing what we're looking at. i appreciate the attempt on talking about the building as being large, which i think we all see. i appreciate mr. lao's explanation about the family and the cultural needs. however, what we are really looking at goes beyond family

and cultural needs. it goes looking at the code and looking at reasonable interpretation of the rules with respect to this particular building. so i appreciated that -- i appreciate mr. lao giving us a background but what we really need to look at is more narrowly defined. i'm curious what have the other commissioners are saying. commissioner antonini: i share a lot of concerns that the d.r. requester brought up. i will assume that staff dish read the report and it was not considered to be a de facto demolition, although, you know, it's i think very close. but there are -- there is a line and i think in that regard it probably was ok. but i am a little bit concerned about a couple of things. the lower unit looks as though there isn't a separate access to that. but i would hope that that's not the case. there is a full bath down there and that part's ok. there is not a kitchen that's

in there. but i think we normally make sure that there are no access so it doesn't become a third living unit. and then the other thing that's really curious is if you look at the plans on the fourth floor, the pent floor, i guess would you call it, which is supposed to be part of the third floor, it's a two-floor unit, it has a master bedroom, as does the third floor. so i'm not sure why you have a unit with two master bedrooms. that doesn't make a lot of sense the way it's designed. i just don't quite understand how that is laid out and most importantly i think i share some of the feeling that while the code would allow that height, i think it's kind of pushing the nfl a little bit based upon -- envelope a little bit based upon what is in the neighborhood. i would be more happy with a project where we approve the project but took d.r. and made it three floors. i think it would be more appropriate for the neighborhood. it would still meet the needs

of the family. commissioner moore: i am kind of supporting commissioner antonini's observation. what really struck me as being somewhat an inappropriate interpretation of the existing labor is to put a balcony on the fourth floor toward the residential street which is really not the way of the neighborhood, nor those streets or buildings. and that would be the first thing for me to ask, that that would be eliminated. it just isn't a about acal -- balcony facing the street kind of neighborhood. i talked about that. it's nothing new to him. i would like to take a look at potentially getting that building down to three floors. >> commission moore con vade her thoughts to the architect. they are willing to remove or reduce that deck if that is what the commission pleases.

president miguel: thank you. commissioner borden: yeah, while i might sympathize with the d.r. requesters, it is an rh-2. the building is a single-family home and we're going to rh-2 which is actually the zoning in this district and then also the height is 40 feet and it's just below that. so it does seem consistent that way. i don't know if the five-foot setback on the fourth floor is -- i mean, how does that -- how would that, i guess -- how would that affect the view from the street? the issue is more the visual presence from the street and maybe there's way to push back the fourth floor a couple more feet, to make it less of a visual impact, because that's really the impact that we've been hearing? >> currently what you're seeing is a 14 -- 15-foot setback to the fourth floor. i believe what you're seeing in the five-foot setback is an additional setback at the

railing at the top of the fourth floor. that railing is actually needed for the roof hatch. in this case, they opted -- they elected to do a roof hatch instead of putting in a roof penthouse which would actually make the building taller. create more mass. so that was one way of alleviating the mass of the building. it is 15 feet. the five-foot setback at the railing is the further reduction of the height of the fourth floor. the roof of the fourth floor. commissioner borden: i'm kind of inclined to support the project. i feel that it is rh-2 and that's one of the reasons they have to go up to four. for the needs that they have. 15 feet, you're not really going to see from the street frontage, which is the visual impact on the historic district that people are concerned about, i mean, i just don't --

i'm not sure how they achieve the space that they need, you know, in another configuration. and i don't think it's appropriate to redesign their project, nor do i think it's appropriate to specify what they do inside the walls of their buildings. commissioner antonini: i would agree with that. but i don't think that we need the fourth floor. i'm looking at the proposed third floor and the proposed second floor plans which are almost identical. and my understanding is that there are going to be two separate living units. i'm not really sure why the third floor has to be -- have that additional penthouse floor above it. if these are supposed to be units for the two members to have and it looks like, though, they have two bedrooms. conceivably it could be as many as four bedrooms, depends on if the windows can be provided in what's called the computer room and the study-library. i don't believe they have windows at this time. they might have to redesign that. and two bathrooms.

in any case, i think it's quite conceivable that each of these unit could be three bedroom, two bath, which would be identical units. i don't really see the need to have the additional floor. so i would make a motion that we take the d.r., approve the project with the three floors. president miguel: is there a second? no is there a second? >> ok, the motion dies. president miguel: commissioners. commissioner moore: is the architect here to talk about that? >> yes. the reason for the second master bedroom on the top is for the project sponsor.

he and his wife will live on the top floor. and the family of the two sons will live in the middle floor and the ground floor, the grandparents can live there. but they're living together, so one big family, ok? there is a separation of the children. that's the reason. commissioner antonini: my concern is less how the family fits into. it we have to make the house an appropriate size and the family has to fit into the house. we can't make the house bigger to fit the family. if it doesn't fit into the neighborhood. so that's why i'm not in favor of this. but it doesn't look like we have the ability. commissioner moore: i wanted to stay with that observation. i'm looking at fourth floor. if another family, and aassume that is a description, then i don't quite see why this family has a master bedroom, steam shower, an extensive bathroom,

then the rest of the floor has an office-library room. another extensive bathroom with a tub and then a family room but it doesn't have any kitchen. doesn't have anything. so the kitchen season on the floor below, at which we again see a computer room and the study library room, a master bedroom, a large living room, a small bedroom. so the sequence of rooms and support for an additional family living is not really justified on the fourth floor. there is a lot of space but it doesn't quite add up to the descriptions i hear about who's supposed to live there and why. there's something amiss for me and perhaps we need to spend a little bit more time trying to hear the architect describe to us how this is going to work. but i see a lot of square footage without it coming together. >> the only thing i can

explain, i know a lot of big families. my wife's family has 13 brothers and sisterses. and then another one i learned, 13 brothers and sisters. so there's a lot of big chinese families. i don't mind to reduce the size. but hopefully the middle one can have some privacy. otherwise reduce the size to the fourth floor so they have the lifestyle they want to live. commissioner moore: i'm starting to gravitate more to support commissioner antonini's request for rethinking the existing spaces in the way they would semi make sense to me and be more within the spirit of the rest of the neighborhood. this might just not be really for as many families as this project is proposed -- has

proposed. commissioner antonini: can i make that motion again? let me make the motion to approve the project without the top floor on it. commissioner moore: second, yes. >> commissioners, you have a motion on the floor to take discretionary review and approve the project, eliminating the fourth floor. on that motion. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: no. commissioner moore: aye. vice president olague: aye. president miguel: aye. >> that motion passed, 4-21, with commissioner borden -- 4-1works commissioner borden voting against -- 4-1, with commissioner borden voting against. thank you, commissioners. president miguel: we are going to take a half-hour break.

>> th >> ok. sorry for all of that everyone. planning commission is in session. we're on item number 16. before i call the item, let me just remind everyone to turn off pagers, cell phones, any electronic devices that may sound off during these proceedings. item 16 is case number 2008.0968e, north beast library and joe dimaggio playground master plan. this is a public hearing on the environmental impact report. >> good evening, commissioners. the planning department staff. the purpose of this evening's hearing is to take public comment on the accuracy and completeness of the draft environmental impact report for the north beach library, joe dimaggio master plan project. there's no approval action requested of this commission this evening. subject properties are located at 701 lombard street and 2000 mason street at columbus avenue in the city's north beach neighborhood. the master plan entails elimination of the existing commercial parking lot at 701

lombard street, closure and vacation of mason street between lombard street and columbus avenue, construction of a two-story 8,500 square foot branch library at 701 lombard street. and demolition of the open space improvement to be adjacent of the joe dimaggio playground. there's an environmental impact report for this project because it would have significant impacts on the environment. the draft e.i.r. found the existing pradge library is individually eligible for the california registered historic places because of its architecture and its association with a broad nationwide -- nationwide library modernization and program reform movement at the local level in san francisco is part of the 1956 library services act. thus the e.i.r. finds the demolition of the branch would be an adverse physical impact. the e.i. also finds that the existing branch contributes to an historic district or in this case multiple property listing. the branches, the fifth of eight libraries constructed by the

firm of appleton and wolf during the period of significance. the e.i.r. considers the loss of this contributor a significant impact on the multiple property district. staff held a public hearing at the historic preservation commission yesterday and the commission had a number of comments on the draft e.i.r. the h.p.c. agreed to submit a letter to the environmental review office capturing the comments. in addition, the h.p.c. also decided to have one of its members represent them this evening before the commission to provide a summary of their comments. i believe that was commissioner martinez and i don't know if he's still here. in addition to historic resources, the e.i.r. also analyzes the mast are plan, plan use recreation, esthetic, shadow and transportation effects as well as provide alternative but reduce the project's impacts on historic resources to less-than-significant levels. commissioner published the draft e.i.r. august 25th and it has the 48-day public review period

which closes october 12th. for those interested in commenting on the draft e.i.r. in writing, they may submit their comments to the environmental review officer at 1650 mission street, suite 400, san francisco, by 5:00 p.m. on october 12th. for members of the public who are at this hearing this evening, please state your name for the record and address comments to the adequate and completeness of the e.i.r. all comments will be transcribed and responded to in a response to comments document. when the comments and responses document is complete, the planning department will provide copies to those who have made comments on the draft. we will then return to this commission likely in the spring of 2011 to request this commission certify the e.i.r. commissioners, this concludes my present igs. thank you. president miguel: thank you. before we start public comment, again i will remind everyone this is not to speak about the necessity for the project, about

the project itself, it is only to comment on the e.i.r. that is the only valid comment that is really before this commission. all right. >> good evening, commissioners, president miguel. my name is luis cerra, the city librarian and i appreciate the opportunity to provide commentary on the draft environmental impact report on the north beach library joan dimaggio playground master plan project. the north beach library project is a final branch of the branch library improvement program. the blip, as we refer to it, is the largest lie brar yea building campaign in the city's history with our goal to renovate 16 neighborhood branches and build eight new library buildings. it is about equitable access, save buildings, and ensuring we

provide libraries that meet the glowing and diverse needs of our community and neighborhood residents. this project has been an incredibly thorough, two-year review for the north beach branch library. the library participated in partnership with the recreation and parks department to conduct an exhaustive public planning process to ensure the north beach neighborhood had a voice in the plans for the future of this library. what we heard loud and clear was the need to provide this community with the first class library that provided full access to our patrons, areas that were dedicated to children and teens and that shelf space to provide a diverse multilingual collection, technology upgrades, which includes more public computers and meeting space for the community. because this is a complicated project that requires planning to enhance services from two city departments, it was

important to deliberately and carefully examine the potential impact that the project has on land use and recreation, culture resources, transportation and the esthetic character of the project area, including shadowing of the proposed building options. from my standpoint, the environmental impact report does exactly that, and provides a very thorough and accurate assessment to the master plan and multiple alternatives for the north beach branch library. ultimately, this document shows that the only way to provide this very dense urban neighborhood with library service it deserves, in an accessible and safe building, is by replacing an updated and inefficient branch library with a new building the design of the new branch library was found to have no significant impacts on the character of the neighborhood or the scenic vista and in fact provides a more

unified, safer and greener connection between the library and the joe dimaggio playground, which will enhance the entire neighborhood. finally the environmental impact report is adequate, accurate and complete. thank you. president miguel: thank you. jewell gomez, don -- pardon me, i never pronounce your name correctly -- and alan martinez. >> good evening. jewell gomez. i'm the president of the san francisco public library commission. it's a pleasure to meet other commissioners. one of the joys of being the president of the library commission is that i get to cut the ribbon at the openings and groundbreakings of all of the libraries. and i usually begin those -- those moments pointing out that we are on sacred ground. in this city much of our ground is sacred. and as library commissioners,

rec and park commissioners and planning commissioners, i think it's important for us to take our stuartship -- stewardship of glound very seriously. the culture resources section of the draft e.i.r. and historic resources technical report tell the story of that land. mexican settler juan ibinez,6 c1 mexican settler juan ibinez, a resident lived on the land in the 1830's. following in the 1850's, the sisters of the presentation and irish women teaching order established a school for african-american and native-american girls. following the 1906 earthquake, a children's playground was built on the rubble of the convent. all of these things are referenced in the report, all of this is sacred ground. a document that is not included in the e.i.r. is a report which i can leave with the commission from the recreation and park

department, a letter to mayor george christopher dated july 26, 1956. in it is described the library commission's request to build a new library. that report states in 1956 the library and recreation and parks commission specifically recommend, quote, that the north beach library be located on the triangle parcel of property located between lombard street, columbus avenue and mason street. and that mason street be closed between lombard and columbus. the exact same plan that we are considering today. you and i as city appointed commissioners have a chance to correct a 50-year mistake. the e.i.r. under consideration is accurate and more than adequate as it clearly shows that the plan to build a new north beach library on the triangle parking lot and expand

the joe dimaggio playground is the correct course of action. please join your fellow commissioners and approve the north beach e.i.r. so we can use this ground wisely for our children for the future. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> do you want to have that? >> commissioners, my name is dawn and i'm the planning and capital manager for the recreation and park department. thank you for taking time tonight to hear about this important project. the draft e.i.r., the recreation and park department feels provides an excellent analysis of the proposed master plan for the joe dimaggio playground and its various alternatives. the e.i.r. carefully evaluates the various impacts including potential historic resources, open space and recreational resources, traffic impact as well as views and esthetics. it's a thorough and complete

document. the plan reviews and presents the advantages of the preferred plan which replaces a parking lot with a new library branch, plaza and unified park adding an additional 12,000 square feet of open space in a highly dense, high open space neighborhood. north beach chinatown residents only have about half an acre pr thousand residents as compared to the rest of the city, which has about nine acres of open space per thousand residents, a significant gap. when you add that to the fact there are no other backyards in north beach and chinatown, you can understand why this neighborhood has been clearly designated in the recreation and open element of the plan as a high-needs area for acquisition of new open space and the addition of open space. i'm really here tonight i think to make that particular point around the policy context for environmental review as we think about its consistency with ourover all general plan and the roads process that i've been very personally involved with working city planning staff over the past year. if there's one clear --