she's not immediately adjacent neighbor. so she was not supposed to be notified anyway. >> it can only be on the continuance. commissioner miguel: thank you. president fong: is there any other public comment on the item of continuance? commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i'm going to move to keep it at the 26th for now. now, for one thing, you can always continue something further, but you can't bring it back. this is a hybrid, because what you've got is a mandatory discretionary review for merger, and then we've also piggy backed on to that, the d.r. from the d.r. requesters, and i'm not sure about the whole noticing issues. when it's a mandatory d.r., i don't know that for -- that you have any noticing requirements or maybe not as much as you would. maybe mr. lindsay can tell us a little bit about that. >> it wouldn't require the

preapplication process, but it does require the regular 311. >> but not a preapplication meeting. so in any case, i think it's always better that maybe the two will work the thing out by the 26th of april and we won't actually have a d.r. that could always happen. if there is one, it could be continued from that date. but we can't have it any earlier. i'm going to move continuance of items to the dates requested, which are item one to the 12th. item two to the 26th of april. item three to june 28. >> commissioners, you have a motion before you for continuance of items one, two, and three as they are proposed on your calendar. on that motion -- [roll call] those items are continued as they have been proposed. commissioners, you are now at

your consent calendar, which contains items four and five. these items are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless one of you as commissioners pull or the staff so requests. in that event, the matter or matters would be removed from the con sent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or future hearing. the y emthes are four and five. item four is case number 2011.1218 c, a request for conditional use authorization to convert an existing retail coffee store that's doing business to a small self-service restaurant within an rh-3 district. item number five is case number 2012 .0186 t. this is waiving certain fees for small business matters. the planning commission will consider an ordinance introduced

by supervisor chiu amending municipal codes, including planning code section 355 to waive fees for the month of may 2012, for certain facade improvements and may consider certain amendments. the commission may adopt findings, including environmental findings, planning code section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section 101.1. commissioners, following any public comment, which would automatically remove the item from the consent calendar, this item is before you for your consideration. president fong: is there any public comment on items on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner borden? commissioner borden: i move to approve items six and seven on the consent calendar. >> four and five. commissioner borden: four and five. i'm sorry.

>> is there a second? >> second. >> thank you. thank you, commissioners. on the motion for approval of items four and five as they have been proposed -- [roll call] thank you, commissioners. you are now on your regular calendar beginning with item number six. case number 2011.0189 d for 721 beach street. president fong: commissioners, i asked if i could be recused from this item. commissioner miguel: i move to recuse commissioner fong. >> second. >> there's a motion for recusal of commissioner fong. [roll call] >> commissioner fong is recused.

president fong: vice president wu will chair this item. >> good evening, commissioners. gwen cabrera for department staff p the case before you is a mandatory discretionary review requested by this planning commission at the property at 721 beach street located at a c-2 community business district in the waterfront special use district number two, and also in the 40x hyde and bulk district. it proposed demolition of a four-story mixed use building with commercial spaces at the first and second floors. along the rear wall of the project, an interior connection is proposed to provide the project access to a commercial garage building that occupies lot 4-d, which fronts on to hyde street. public comment today received by the planning department includes 16 letters in opposition to the project, including a letter from the aquatic park neighbors.

in summary, most of the concerns are regarding the massing and scale of the property. also loss of light and air due to the project. two letters of support have also been received. at this time, the planning department does recommend to the planning commission to not take discr the project as proposed. i would be happy to answer any questions. thank you. wuwu d.r. requester has five minutes. >> this is mandatory, so we might want to hear from the project sponsor. vice president wu: oh, i'm sorry. project sponsor first. >> we are excited to be here to present a project that provides a unique opportunity to the neighborhood to complete the block face of this important city block while also improving the operation of the surrounding

sidewalks. i've got some other things to say, but i want to firsthand it over to the project architect so he can explain the project to you. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. we're here to consider 721 beach street. we were hired by the sears about a year and a half to take a look at this project, and before we started design, we did three things. we listened to their program, we then met with the planning staff, reviewed the prior applications because there had been prior applications for building on this site. we also reviewed the fisherman's wharf plan. lastly, we reviewed the prior testimony from the hearings that were for that prior application. that led us to our design criteria. we did not want to come before you with a building that required any variances. we have a building that is 40 feet high in a 40-foot height

bulk area. we have parking provided in the adjourning building, which nicely the applicants own as well. with regards to the architecture, we're sort of uniquely qualified for that because our office is in the building three doors down and we've been there for quite a while. we provided a design that fits within the fabric of the neighborhood by using reused and recycled brick that's similar to the majority of the old warehouse buildings in that block. we're using a very modern windows system on it so that it has a good relationship to the neighborhood, but isn't a replication of an old building. as i mentioned, we are in a 40-foot height bulk area. we are 40 feet high.

the prior proposal that you may or may not have seen was 52 feet high. so we've actually removed one complete floor of the building. and this was at the request of our clients. they didn't want to build a building that had such a large impact on that neighborhood because they are in that neighborhood. we have the required parking in the adjourning -- adjoining building. the sears are planning on expanding their business, which is if bicycle rental business. they are now able to move bicycles between the two buildings without having to go on to the very crowded sidewalks in that area. it also allows garbage and other materials to be moved without using the public sidewalks. lastly, we were very conscious of the height of the back of the building. we could have put more commercial square footage into the building and had a reduced rear yard, but we chose to keep

the rear yard down and allow more light to penetrate into the adjoining buildings. we've also met with the neighbors and we have made some modifications to our proposal. we've removed 36 inches of a solid wall and replaced it with a see-through railing, so we've essentially reduced the bulk of the building down. we've also removed two staircase penthouses and recessed the stairs into the building to provide some cutouts on the side of the building and just to reduce the bulk and the view blockage for the neighbors. we have a couple views here that we'd like to show you. first one is how the building looks and how it reacts on beach street. this one actually is on hide. you see the outlines of the buildings on hyde street on the lower portion, and how our

building reacts with those. you can see our stepdown portion in the rear of the building and that we in fact are lower than the majority of those buildings. the upper image shows our building with relationship to north point street. the north point street buildings vary in height anywhere from a couple low ones, but some of them as high as 56 feet. our building is two feet high relative or three feet high relative to that facade. so we've tried to be a good neighbor and take into account context, height bulk, no variances. would be happy to answer any other questions if you have any. we do have a 3-d model of the entire neighborhood. with our building dropped into it that we use to study the neighborhood and how our building fits in. so there you sort of see it in context.

commission, the project sponsors are the owners of the blagse saddles bike rental project and it's been involved in the fisherman's wharf neighborhood for 30 years now. some of the details of the project, we strongly feel that the height and bulk of the building is appropriate. it doesn't stand out, as you see in the renderings and it's not the tallest nor the most massive building on the block. the height allows for a taller ground floor retail space, which is currently being encouraged by the department as well as the draft fisherman's wharf guidelines and also allows for modest nine and eight-foot floors above. the first and second floors we're going to provide comfortable retail space for their bulky bike rental business. and then the back office space will allow them to centralize their administrative operations from a number of other locations from around the city. you've probably seen they have quite a few outlets.

the project will greatly reduce the clutter on the beach and hyde street sidewalks. currently bikes are -- they do have a retail outlet at the project site right now and bikes are being moved back and forth on the sidewalk along hyde street. these two buildings will now be connected internally so that bikes will now be able to move internally off the street. it's also going to allow for garbage and recycling to be put out on hyde street, further opening up the sidewalk on beach street, which is as you all know, heavily walked by tourists. so jeff and elena are in a very unique position due to their existing business and building in the neighborhood, to make this project work at this location. they currently have 100 employees during the summer months and the project will allow them to continue to grow their san francisco-based business. i've got 22 letters in support and 37 merchant signatures and a group of folks to speak in favor of the project tonight. thank you.

we urge your support. vice president wu: public comment? >> we will now open this up for public comment. each member of the public has three minutes to address the commission. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is jeff sears. my wife, elena and i, are the project sponsors and the owners of blazing saddles bike rentals and tours at 2715 hyde and 721 beach street. i grew up on russian hill and attended and graduated from george washington high school. and while i was in school, i worked at fisherman's wharf, and later met my wife elena and we began a cab business there. that business evolved into our bike rental operation and we

have been at our hyde street location for over 25 years now. we are open seven days a week, 365 days a year and have grown to be seven locations here in san francisco. we rent over 100,000 bikes per year to people from san francisco and all over the world and we're promoting a sightseeing activity that is both green and healthy in this environment that we are all lucky to live in. elena and i had the opportunity to buy the 721 beach property in 2010. we have been looking at the property for several years as the rear of the lot abuts our building on hyde street. we saw that this would allow us to expand our business and continue our growth. it will provide us with adequate back office staging space, office space and staging space for the company and give us the opportunity to move back full time to the neighborhood we'd love and have invested in for decades. i was present at the 2008

planning commission hearing on the previous project at 721 beach and i listened to the neighborhood's concerns. our first step in moving forward with this project was to meet with the same planning department staff that worked on the 2008 project to determine what additional concerns the neighborhood had and what changes we needed to make in order to get this project approved. we lowered the height, reduced the unit count to one, provided a parking space for our dwelling unit, and redesigned the facade in response to neighborhood and planning commission comments and instructions. regarding our neighborhood outreach, we had four large meetings in 2011 with our neighbors and several smaller ones. many neighbors thought our proposal was great and some did not. at the request of the aquater park neighbors association, we complied and asked for a continuance from our february 22 hearing and since have had three

meetings with you are neighbors. we have committed years of our lafe live to the neighborhood. i am currently a board member of the fisherman's wharf community district and we have strong interest in maintaining the community for both residents and visitors alike. we have not been able to satisfy everyone in the neighborhood, but we have put forth an honest and good faith effort. we believe this is a very reasonable project and fits well with the commercial street frontsage and is significantly smaller than the original proposed -- thank you for your support. >> next speaker? >> i'm an architect here in san francisco. i'm not working on the project in any capacity. the existing one-story building on the site amounts to a missing tooth in the heart of a major commercial area in san francisco.

i think it's clear that what's proposed is consistent with the scale and fabric of the neighboring buildings on the street. as i understand it, it's also completely consistent with the planning department's zoning regulations. we have planning and zoning codes for a reason. and this project admires to them in creating a modest bilting that continues the urban scale of the block face. sometimes unique projects require variances. this project does not ask for or need any. the single story building currently occupying the site is the anomaly. it seems to have created a through block water view for a few private dwellings. i think the vitality that the proposed structure brings to the street is a far better outcome for the neighborhood as a whole. certainly better than preserving an unusually short building just to maintain pleasant views for a few. i think the proposed building is well considered, appropriately scaled and it's going to be a great thing for the street. vice president wu: thank you.

>> good evening, commissioners. i own several businesses in the neighborhood of the proposed site, 721 beach street. i am in favor of the project. the structure that is there now is an eyesore. it looks like a tool shed. in this world class neighborhood, we have millions of tourists coming in to visit us and spend time down here, this project will look 10 times better than what it is now. i've been to several of the meetings that the sears have had to outreach with the neighborhood. they've been very sincere and have made changes to help try to get everybody in favor of the project. i think the few that are opposed

are just worried about their views and i think it's a shame if we don't move forward with this project to better the neighborhood. thank you. vice president wu: thank you. >> are there other speakers for this item? >> just in support at this time? >> other speakers. >> ok. >> good afternoon, or good evening, commissioners. my name is scott embleg. i've been working with the neighbors who are very concerned about the scale of this project. these neighbors are reasonable people. this is not a question from their perspective of not developing this site. they're in favor of developing this site. the question is the scale of that development. they just want to see a development that is sensitive to the neighborhood's character and

is sensitive to the impact on the people that live and work in the neighborhood. although the developer claims to have been sensitive to those issues, here are the facts. the developer said he knew going into this that the neighbors were concerned about the height of the project, were concerned about the parking impacts and were concerned about the style of the project and how it fits into the neighborhood. regarding the height, your own staff report says that the prior project that was referenced was 40 feet high at the beach street elevation. this project is 40 feet high. regarding parking, they've played with the way they measure the storage in their commercial space to bring it under the requirement and therefore not require any parking. in other words, they're going to exacerbate a bad parking situation that this business causes on hyde street and makes it virtually impossible for the neighbors who live on hyde street to find a place to park.

to my eye, this is not a style that fits in with the character of this neighborhood. this proposal might have been ok if it was a starting point by the developer in order to interact with the neighbors and try to address their concerns, but that is not what happened here. they met with a large group of neighbors, who you will hear from tonight, and those neighbors expressed major concerns about the height and bulk of the project. not preserving views, not not having a project at all, but just the height and bulk of the project. in response to that, the developer made no changes. zero. that was a year ago. they came back and met with the neighbors again a few months ago and asked the neighbors to prents their own alternative. the the neighbors said they didn't want to redesign the project, but they did give in response a specific proposal alternative, which you see here. it reduces the height at the beach street front that gives light and air to the hyde street folks who are losing the light and air. it gives them still a significant mass that allows them to build the building in the way they need it built. now, the developer said he'd

come back after looking at this proposal and working with this architect, but what did he come back with? he came back with a proposal to remove a stairwell and to change the nature of the pitt on top of the project. he did not address the issues of real concern to the neighbors. the overall height, especially the height on beach street and the impact on the neighbors along hyde street. other people will tell you about the neighborhood's proposal, but the main thing i want to make clear is we're simply -- the neighbors are simply seeking a reasonable accommodation in the bulk of this project so that the neighborhood character can be maintained and so that some light and air can still get to the people of hyde street who have enjoyed that light and air for years. thank you. vice president wu: thank you. so for the public, we ask that if you wish to speak on this item, please line up in the center aisle of the room. >> good evening, commissioners. gloria smith for the neighbors. i'm going to show you a number of depictions of the project as

it actually would fit in beach street and in the neighborhood. the neighborhood engaged a consultant who -- to make these depictions. this shows the existing structure as it exists today along beach street. and i think you've already seen this. this depicts how beach street will look once the new building is built. this is an isolated picture of the project as the applicant is proposing it. as you can see, the applicant, as o'prosed, says it's only 40 feet high. but with an elevator shaft, it would actually be closer to 50 feet. this is actually what's in your packet. i'm not sure what it was that the applicant was talking to you about earlier, but it would be

over 49 feet tall. again, this is an aerial view of the way the project would look. and as it shows here, this is completely out of character with beach street. the architectural style, the bulk, and the height just does not fit within beach street. frankly, it's just too big, too much, and lacking any late neighborhood character whatsoever. and finally, i want to show you the project as it was proposed the you in 2008. this is -- essentially indistinguishable from what you're seeing today. this is the project that you did not grant, that you refused to approve at the time. you asked for the applicant to go back and speak with the neighbors. they have done that, but we have not been able to resolve this matter because the project is

essentially the same as it was in 2008, and we ask you to order the applicant to review this and actually bring it down from what you refused to prove back in 2008. and finally, you have seen this. we think this is a reasonable accommodation. it starts -- it has a 35-foot height in the back, which allows the applicant to realize most of it's commercial project and it allows for a full over two stories in the front and it has a reasonable setback, so it's a stepback that does not completely overwhelm beach street with the bulk that you've seen from the applicant. so we think this is a reasonable accommodation. and this option here would allow for a full rooftop for the applicant. thank you very much. vice president wu: thank you.

>> commissioners, hi, i own a property on the same block as the project on northpoint street. i'm against the project. i'm the former president of the aquater park neighbors association. i have a history of working with developers. working with the city and generally supporting smart growth for our area. as commissioner fong can attest, i helped garner neighborhood support for several issues, including the jefferson street plan. we tried to work with jeff sears and his wife these past few months to find a compromised solution. we wanted to say we're in favor of their design and that hasn't happened. as neighbors we're concerned with light and air for adjacent buildings, true light and air. the east of the development on the shady side. we're also concerned with the monolithic design that will greet tourists as they greet tourists. i'd venture to getz that 0% of tourist -- 90% of the tourists will see this building because of its prominent location.

it's underutilized and was vacant for many years. but what jeff proposes is just too big and will create too many problems if he expands his business to nearly double the size it is now. my main point to you today is that we as neighbors first said what do we want? 20 feet. no more. who wouldn't, right? but then we got serious. we have a number of successful rational neighbors. we didn't want the lawyers to win out on this with their fees and we didn't want to duke it out. so we wanted to negotiate. so what we did is we came up with a consensus and came up with a few plans which represented to you here and it still gives them three floors to live. they're one family. to live and work and run their family business. please see our design as an offering for what it is, a true compromise that fits well into the neighborhood and ample space for this family and their business. please don't approve an eyesore that 90% of tourists in san francisco will see, and i'd also like to just ask those neighbors not employees of the company, but neighbors who are against

it, can you raise your hands and raise your signs? great. thank you very much. vice president wu: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. thanks for hearing me. my name is greg holtzman, i live on the project at 834 north point. i'd like to address the rather clever way the storage is being depicted so the dwper can in a wayside step what might be a substantial parking requirement. from the plan as shown, we believe that the city planners may not be completely aware of the actual operation and how the space utilized for inventory or storage and bicycles and go cart is really disguised retail space. it is actually readily available for rental cars, which is the designated business of the developer. if you account the storage space as retail, there's no doubt that a parking requirement would be reality and the project would need to be completely rethought. there will be other neighbors talking about how hard it is already for them to find parking, not to mention their guests. for what it's worth, i've been a small business