that area. lastly, she requested more public benefits, including use of the swimming pool by san francisco local youth. the chair of the committee questioned the finance districts split, saying she had a concern to ensure there was a fair share split to the city at large. she also expressed an inclination to ensure public benefits were sufficient for the use of this land and this item was moved to the full board without recommendation. next tuesday, the full board is expected to resolve these questions. also at the committee hearing was a building code amendment. while we're waiting for the eight washington hearing, they were hearing a building code amendment and ask for planning cut staff comments. this would reduce the permitted

size of inefficiency unit so that the size is consistent with the state level. the chair the committee asked if the planning commission had considered this ordinance. staff explained our practice is to inform the commission of new ordinances at the board and if they're planning code amendments, we bring them before the commission in 90 days. in this case, you did not hold a hearing on that item, but you may be pleased to know that speakers at the hearing praised the commission's thorough review of ordinances and we have a wonderful notification process and everyone knows about our hearings. >> lastly on tuesday, there was an ordinance before the full board including a financial-

services within the definition of formula retail. this commission recommended approval in april. supervisor weaner introduced to amendments a couple of weeks ago. the first to make formula retail controls -- i'm reading the old one -- have already given you that one. let's go back to tuesday before the full board -- they did vote 8-3 to recommend approval of adding to formula retail controls. all only supervisor carmen chu explained why she voted against it. she said it was primarily adopted to help mom-and-pop stores and banks play an important role by providing financial services and loans to small businesses. with that, the ordinance was

adopted on first reading. the only new legislation introduced was a legislation to be the extension as the amount of time currently under environmental review. that concludes my report. >> -- commissioner sugaya: do you think we to get the board to do that as far as selling drinks at a community cafes? >> thank you. >> the board of appeals did not meet last night. was the first meeting without president garcia and a new election of officers.

frank was nominated to vice- president and there were no planning-related items that would be of interest but we have hearings on june 20 s, an appeal the planning commission approved on 52-58 mission street. it is my understanding only the permit for one of them has been issued. that has been appealed and is scheduled for hearing on june 20 as. the 4200 block was recently appealed as well. i will be out of the office next couple of weeks. dan snyder will be acting while i am away that's all. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm here to share the outcome of

yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. the commission wrapped up its comment on the plan and a there recommended approval of the expansion of the new montgomery magistrate conservation and that the reclassification of 43 properties as part of the overall plan. based on a request by the property owner, they did recommend changing the category to a category one significant building. they also provided review and comment on the overall plan itself, voting unanimously in support of the plan with a comment to revise these own height of an overlooked parcel sandwiched in between the trends bay terminal and conservation district. they recommended the zone might be reduced to 150 feet.

they also reviewed and approved to requests for certificates of appropriateness. both projects involved exterior operations found to be compatible with the district and in conformance with the secretary of interior's standards. the architect for the telegraph hill project was commended for their community outreach efforts. the commission also continue its review for a request for a certificate for the interior and exterior rehabilitation of the veterans building located across the street. the item was continued after a good deal of public testimony and opposition of the project and failed motion to approve at. the city attorney's office, to provide more information on the ownership and review the authority under the view of trustees as well as additional information for the building's

historic use for veterans. that concludes my presentation and report unless you have any questions. commissioner antonini: i have a question on the veterans building. it has been brought to my attention that there was a plan not only to do renovations but either downsize or displace the veterans presence within the building. i'm not sure of that was part of the discussion are not. proposal is to reprogram some of the space related to the opera house and arts commithat t affect the physical spaces which is what they were reviewing yesterday. >> the distribution would come under different jurisdictions? >> it is negotiated between the board of trustees and the

veterans. >> thank you. that gives me more clarity on that and i will look into it. >> thank you. if we can move forward on your calendar, public comment. if you are commenting on the land use discussion -- i question whether the commission is well served by not knowing what building code amendments are going through when they directly affect your decisions. there have been at least three attempts by the department to remove unit limits in areas. those of you who have been on the commission for a while that. they tend to be contentious proposals. if there are no limits, the size

of units really matters. the issue is going to come up again in central corridor because they come up all the time. the many units are a planning code issue because it affects how environmental review has to look at a site. how do you maximize density? what are the number of units you assume? what services have to be provided in the community? i would suggest it would be a question you should be asking yourself. when building code provisions are not structural issues, but use issues, -- another issue that is currently coming through is the question of removing a window requirement. we had these issues come up and the past for people put an skylights rather than when those

in small units. i would suggest the commission should ask staff to monitor building code amendments and give you input on what is coming through while it is coming through rather than having people, tenant representatives show up at the land use committee and saying people don't get the building code. the big agendas -- lots of people get the planning code. they get your agendas. they do not get the big agendas. people do not have the same amount of awareness of what is going on at the building commission. it was a flash point for a lot of people and i think it would be much better for you as well as the public to get reports in and if they were brought to you before they happen. thank you.

president fong: any additional public comment? it just on the report and historic preservation. item #7. >> an informational item force 16 no one of larson's street. >> it good afternoon. i'm with planning staff. the item before you today is an informational hearing with -- regarding the 16 no one of larkin street. the commission disapproved a project proposal to demolish an existing vacant church on the property and construct a new six story over basement dwelling containing units and offset based parking. some of the units -- [unintelligible]

the mapping of the project was not as sculpted to adjacent lower buildings or strumming property. they proposed materials not compatible with characteristics in the community and the project would result in the demolition of historic resources, the church on the site. at the same hearing, the commission did not certify was prepared for the project. the project would still include the demolition of the church and the construction of dwelling units with of street parking spaces. however, the architectural expression and finished materials have been revised in order to achieve a more sympathetic compatibility. the project sponsor will be here to make a presentation and go into more details.

the project is scheduled to be before this commission on june 28 for conditional use authorization and variants as well as consideration of certification of the eir. the second thing i would like to talk about is a structural report. an independent structural report, selecting from a pool of the structural engineers offered by the department. ultimately the report went over several aspects of the existing church, including a structural review and evaluation of the existing building. floor plans and elevations of the church, a description of the cost to rehabilitate the building to a habitable shell was no specific use as well as a description of cost of work required for several hypothetical uses permitted within the district. the report also describes the

necessary working costs that would be associated with several hypothetical partial preservation some areas. a portion of the existing church would be retained along the street wall in order to retain the church as an element of the urban fabric in that neighborhood. but it would be demolished to allow construction of a new building that would accommodate new development. staff from the planning department and part of building inspection reviewed the report and believes the description of tasks and of the unit cost estimates are accurate. ultimately, the report concludes giving the condition of the church, none of the re use of partial preservation would be viable. the project sponsor is here to give a detailed presentation, however before that, i would like to introduce a brief overview of the process for this.

thank you. >> good afternoon, the commissioners. i'm with the planning department's staff. currently, the draft for a 16 no one of larkin street are being revised to reflect the modified project description and a modified partial preservation alternative. that document will be available and will be sent to the commissioners on june 14 as well as members of the public to comment on the draft eir previously. the documents has not been recirculated and i would like to read the conditions under which recirculation is required.

recirculation prior to certification -- recirculation would be required if a new significant environmental impact would result from the project or the new mitigation measures proposed to be implemented. if a -- if there is a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that would result in less mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. 3 -- feasible project alternatives or mitigation measure are different from the others previously analyzed. it would clearly lessened be significant environmental impacts of the project. the draft was so fundamentally or basically inadequate in nature that meaningful public

review and comment were precluded. the department does not feel any of those conditions apply to the revisions being added to the draft which are fairly minor. if you have any questions, i am available to answer them. president fong: project's sponsors? >> it good evening president and commissioners. i am the architect 460 no one larkin. i would like to take you briefly through some of the work being referred to by planning staff and the design for the building as it stands today.

kevin did a very good summary of the report. i came prepared to do a little more discussion and presentations so i will quick -- skip quickly to the first couple of slides and we can come back and discuss these at some point if it is necessary. these are the drawings that were prepared for the report. you may remember kevin referred to some options we were asked to study with the additions to the side of the church. these additions were steady in some depth to disturb -- to determine the depth and orientation of windows, so it's not exactly a wild guess.

let's move to the project itself. these are the two adjacent buildings. it's not going to come up. the one to the left is on clay. the one to the right is on the larkin. there was mention made of our attempts to respond to the concerns about the materiality of the building. this is a summary of our responses to those concerns. i will let you read that at your leisure. we were asked about 18 months ago to prepare a more contextual design. this is not the design we are presenting today, but this was the first attempt about 14 or 15 months ago. this was reviewed by staff on a

casual basis that and we were all to the lead given some directions with this as a template by planning staff and the department to change the massing of the building to break up the form and allow for a more significant stepping from clay to larkin and at up harkin. this is the record of those directions based on the design we did 14 months ago. our response to this -- you see here the view looking at to the intersection of clay and larkin how the building sets down from a large and up toward larkin and the element of the building underneath that is the building

pushed back from the street to allow the adjacent building to have all little more street presence and create a break at that point. the top two floors have been pushed back 12 feet to allow for more respect for the scale of the building on clay. this is the view on larkin. much the same kind of effect. there is a more respectful arrangement and acknowledgement between the existing building and our new building. the organization of the plan of the building is not that much different in terms of overall strategy. we have to the raw edge levels. what is access from clay and

what has access from larkin. they actually sit on top of each other. the yellow areas are residential spaces. this is the main entrance level. we have a single entrance into the building. as you go up to the second floor over the top is a rear courtyard. going through the building, stepping back from the area adjacent to 1630 clay street. you see additional stepping back at the top left-hand corner and the top floor unit which pulls back significantly from the building lined to allow for the stepping down.

that is the view looking across the intersection at larkin and clay. we have a very large contrast going on here so i apologize for the quality of the image. the street a few looking back toward the end resection indicating the setback of the garage entrance. the transparency of the first floor is a criticism of the previous design has been enhanced with units being sent back from the building line. it is not encroaching into public space, it is within the private realm. a base material that allows the building to address the sidewalk.

the materials of the building are a limestone stucco plaster that is different from the cement plaster. this is a french limestone, with relatively water impervious. it does not need of the control joints. this project -- product allows you to him to let to a very fine and finish. it as is if you holiday piece of limestone. looking back toward clay and larkin hit -- the building it features a bay windows that have french doors that opened in word from the enclosed point. there is a classic balcony rail that fits and immediately outside the bay windows between the french door frame and the

glass panel that allows for the bays to not have and the bay windows. the bay window can be converted by taking the doors and swinging the mend. these are standard custom window components made for this kind of use. it gives us a chance to give us an uncluttered look and give us a balcony effect with the french doors. these are enclosed spaces. looking through from the inside, -- just a comment about the sustainability of the design. we are far above the legal level and we are at the 122 points on the green build

points. with that, i would be happy to take any questions you have. president fong: public comment on this item? i have one speaker card. >> a good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the neighborhood association and i live a block and a half from the project and have been involved in this since 2007. at the june 24 commission hearing, this commission

disapproved the project. the project sponsor, instead of following the process of appealing to the board of supervisors to the city. as part of that suit, the project sponsored subpoenaed our group's e-mail records. we hired an attorney at great expense to protect and defend the rights of neighborhood groups to freely participate in this planning process without a threat to our privacy. we feel the original eir was not totally inaccurate and told us about the steady -- said the reviews could not be done at a profit. we feel that alone should have the eir reissued at have public comment for citizens. the notices for the june 28 hearing went up on june 6.

what happened to 30 days for citizen input into the project? it seems like a precedent is being said that says if a project sponsor loses a hearing, all they have to do this to the city to get what they want. i do not think that a good precedent. this project is way to impact fall to circumvent the process. if it truly shows the church cannot be reused, we welcome the opportunity to sit down with the project sponsor and agree to a building that will be an asset to our neighborhood. since 2007, this group has negotiated for major projects in our neighborhood where both the project sponsor and the neighbors made concessions to come up with something acceptable to everybody. please go through the process. don't circumvent this process. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i lived about 300 feet within the site. i received a call from the city attorney on may 23. myself and some other members of the neighborhood association went to the hall for the following week. we learned about the engineering studies new project you just saw. in our opinion this is the same as the previous generation. some elements of the building were in line with the existing neighborhood. we're more than happy to meet with the developer to discuss further provided there is an intense negotiation on the part of the developer. >> next spe