a gap within the embarcadero, so i think it is important to move this forward. i would be supportive of making the motion to certify. president olague: is that a motion? commissioner fong: that is a motion. commissioner antonini: second. secretary avery: commissioners, the motion before it is certification of the final eir. on that motion -- [roll-call vote] secretary avery: thank you, commissioners, the final eir has been certified. commissioners, you are now on item number nine, case number 2011.0271c 274 brannan street. >> commissioners, and pleased to present before you rich, who joined the planning commission, a lead preservation planner.

he came to was from page and turnbull, where he worked from 2003 until 2010 and served as project manager for several large-scale resource projects and historic service, including the survey l.a. pilot program, the market and octavia historic resource service, and the mission and sonoma is sort research surveys. he is a graduate of the university of mission and the university -- the university of michigan and the university of california. i have had the pleasure of working with rich on several letters of determination on various cases the past several months and have been extremely impressed with his work, and believe you will be as well. thank you. >> i cannot believe you hired me. [laughter] the project before you is a permit to install a wireless telecommunication networks for at&t, located within the mixed

use office building district. the proposed code of work includes installation of 12 panel antennas on the existing six-story buildings. these would be mounted approximately 82 feet above street level and are suspicious -- and are sufficiently screen from the public right-of-way and public view. as cited in the guidelines, the project is located on a location preference to the site. currently, this rooftop currently possesses seven panel antennas by another wireless operator, and other wireless operator is anticipating another six panels at another hearing. since this is located within the article 10 historic district, it received the certificate of appropriateness on june 15, 2011. staff has received three phone calls requesting information about the project, two emails a concern, and one letter expressing opposition.

these have been included in your pocket. staff has received another e- mail citing concerns over the long-term health effects of the proposed project, which have been passed out to you. the project complies with the current federal communication commission safety standards for radio frequency radiation exposure. also in response to community concerns, the motion includes a condition that reads the project sponsor or property owners to remove it antennas and equipment that happened out of service or otherwise abandon for a continuous time of six months. after analyzing all aspects of the project, we recommend approval with conditions. the department finds the product to be desirable and necessary within the neighborhood. specifically it would allow for increased coverage and capacity for the at&t telecommunications network. it is located on a preferred site and is consistent with the department citing guidelines. finally, from the public right

of way, it would avoid intrusions into the public views and would avoid disruption of the architectural integrity. the product sponsor is present and is available for questions, and this concludes my presentation. thank you. president olague: thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with at&t, external affairs. i want to thank you for considering this this afternoon, and i think the planning department's staff for helping direct us -- i think the planning department's staff for helping direct us with the aesthetics, the directives are around the site. i have with me our project manager and our engineer, who did the emf testing that is in your pocket.

on the way back to the building, he missed it took us for the t mobil site that is discontinued. if you have any questions, he is on his way back to the building. we are here and available to answer any questions. president olague: thank you. is there any public comment? we do have a speaker card. mark dragon? >> hello, my name is mark dragon and i own a condominium across the street. i am not here in opposition to the wireless permit, by at&t, but i have requested a couple conditions be applied to the conditional use permit sought by the property owner. i sent an email friday outlining

the conditions i was requesting, as well as the rationale behind it, and of lead have the opportunity to review that. the first condition i am requesting is that the height of the tower upon which the antennas its be reduced such that it is no higher than the highest antenna. i have a picture here that will hopefully demonstrate the point i am trying to make. can you see the picture? great. this is the tower i am referring to, and there are three microwave towers and dishes and a couple of wireless and tennis. the department is imposing a condition that i am supportive of which is that the dormant tower be removed. i think that is great. that means that this antenna and this antenna will come down. i believe this microwave antenna is also a dormant, but the property owner would know for certain. my proposal is if it is dormant that it would come down and that

the tower be reduced in height to no higher than the active antenna, which i believe is the verizon wireless internet. if the mark with tower is working, the height of the tower would not change at all. that is the requested condition i am asking for, that is simply be reduced if that part of the tower is no longer needed. the second condition i am requesting is that the powers of the elimination of the billboard on the site be restricted. i have a picture to show that. this billboard is a nonconforming use. it is a very large billboard. i think it is the largest billboard west of the mississippi river. it faces east on brannan street, and all of the building's east of this billboard on brannan street, except for one, are residential and nature. it is my contention that this billboard, the light that

reflects off this billboard, and tears my living room and bedroom and all of the other condominium units, as well as the light that reflects off into the neighborhood in the middle of the night and is not consistent with the residential quality of the neighborhood. the commission has few opportunities to limit nonconforming uses, and i believe this will be the last opportunity to ameliorate the effects of the elimination of this billboard. i am asking that conditions be placed such that the billboard not be eliminated past 9:00 p.m. and eliminatedre--- and not re- eliminated until after 7:00 a.m. president olague: thank you. >> thank you for your consideration. president olague: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner fong? commissioner fong: maybe i can ask the project sponsor to speak

to the height of the existing antennas, if they are operable or not. is it a different company? >> good afternoon. i am here representing at&t. we held an informational neighborhood meeting on may 4, and we invited over two dozen neighbors. -- over 2000 neighbors. we had a pleasant discussion. to his request of perhaps not intensifying the legal non complying structure, we have modified the proposal. we originally to have the panels on the steel tower. after i heard from mr. dragon, which took the antennas of the steel tower and they are now pulte-mounted and not attached directly to the steel tower -- they are now pull-mounted. we did everything we could to address that comment. on the drawings you will see the proposed antennas on brannan street are directly adjacent to

the tower. does that answer your question, commissioner? commissioner fong: sort of. so the antenna that we are looking at is attached to the lower portion of the structure? >> the steel tower contains a couple of microwave dishes and two panel antennas operated by verizon. we originally proposed to install our antennas directly below verizon's panel antennas, but based on that mr. dragon's suggestions, we have taken them off the steel tower, on the same location, but not connected to the tower. our antennas are a couple feet over the parapet. commissioner fong: so the difference is those are larger

equipment, that is verizon's? >> yes, sir. commissioner fong: i understand now, thank you. >> they belong to the landlord, they are not associated with at&t, what is up there correctly. commissioner fong: okay, thank you. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i have questions along those same lines, not just necessarily for you, but in general from staff. i guess the question is, if the tower is owned by the property owner, then i don't know that we have jurisdiction to take the tower down, especially because this particular citing is not using the tower, and the other thing has to do with the billboard, which is the same situation, it would seem. i am not sure if that is really before us.

i sympathize with the lights in the middle of the night, but i don't know that is something that is germane to our discussion here. >> commissioner, you are correct, that as a separate issue. we have existing, nonconforming general advertisements signs. there is a very specific ownership structure. i don't know and the case this is a billboard owned by the building owner or owned by a sign company, operated by the sign company. certainly, the concerns that are raised, we can follow-up with the sign company as well. i would be happy to do that and reach out to the company and see if that would be something they would be willing to do, to restrict their illumination on the sign. we could make that request. in regards to the tower itself, this is a longstanding practice where if there are abandoned wireless facilities, that we have as a condition of approval those be removed. that is the case here. at any of the wireless antennas

on their, if they are abandoned, we ask them to be removed. but i don't think that is appropriate to require the tower be removed at this point in time. if we find that the microwave antennas are not in use, which could raise that issue with the product sponsor and the owner at that time, but that is a separate issue from the matter before you today. commissioner antonini: what you are saying is you will be proceeding under normal circumstances in both, regarding the elimination of the sign and the abandoned town or -- regarding the lighting of the sign and the band didn't tower? ok, let me speak up. this will be done independent of our approval today and should not make this a condition of approval? >> the condition of approval right now is that the banded wireless facilities.

icommissioner antonini: it would already be going forward and we would make a suggestion as to the lighting? >> we could do that. president olague: is that a motion? commissioner antonini: yes, i move to approve, and chacon to the elimination of the sign -- and checked into the lighting up the sign t. president olague: second. secretary avery: motion for approval, with the finding that staff would look into or notify the operator of the sign it or the sign owner regarding the lighting. on that motion -- [roll-call vote] secretary avery: 50, commissioners, the motion passed unanimously. -- thank you, commissioners, the

motion passed unanimously. president olague: recess? 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 redential 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 di