commissioner sugaya touched on. i support many of the concerns addressed by the audience. and i believe that we are rushing this at a rate that does not give us the ability to support. >> commissioner borden. >> i feel quite a bit differently. you know, we have -- the fundamental difference in this project and the project we saw a couple years ago was full demolition of the older building, which was pretty much been kind of a shed standing for quite sometime versus a total demolition. i mean, i always argue about i'm not always confused about de facto or actual demolition. but in all intents and purposes, the previous project we approved didn't even look like the same project although it was not considered a total demolition. now we have a total demolition and we basically have fundamentally the same project before us.

the issues, we may have -- we have drawings in front of us and maybe they're not color rendering. but substantially everything about this project, the size and the scope, the only difference that we talked about is the size of the use for the restaurant there being whether or not it was commercial use, other commercial use incorporated. but i haven't actually heard anyone, members of the public bringing up issues about the substantive factors of the project itself should that space not be a larger restaurant, you know, none of the -- none of the substantive issues about the development project or what people are talking about. they're talking about the boring machines and whether or not they agree with the process or all of that's happened. for me, i mean, what i have in front of me is a conditional use authorization related to the actual project itself, which i see to be fundamentally the same project that i looked at a few years back. and i do remember touring that theater during that time and what poor condition it was in, and i know that there was a lot

of pressure to try to preserve it and that was like the intent of the project sponsor in the original proposal. but obviously, again, it didn't really look to be the same. in terms of why we use conditional use necessary or desirable, you know, we had a special use district for booker t. washington, for higher height district. we decided it was necessary and desirable for the type of housing community it was providing. we also approved that sud prior to the board of supervisors taking action on it. so, it's not as if this is unusual situation. i would say that the completion of this project is necessary and desirable for the city and we've already invested the funds. commissioner sugaya brought up a good point. one of the shortcomings of this project all along was that it didn't extend all the way to fisherman's wharf. if we had the opportunity, the boring machines in north beach and set up at least a north beach station and poe lebanontionv any in the future be able to explore a fisherman's wharf station, it makes a lot of sense to me that we would want to make that preference.

the other thing i wanted to point out is that in terms of the sud we've discussed, it has an expiration date on it. this is not an incident sud. so, it's not like other sud's we typically implement where there is no time frame. this is specific to this project and this boring situation. so, if that doesn't happen, then this sud goes away, we're not creating an instance in the planning code where something doesn't fit that [speaker not understood] we already approved. in terms of leaving the machinery in the ground, after everything we've learned post hunters point shipyard project and the burning -- the below the soil and all types of contaminants, i can't imagine leaving some sort of metal or steel or whatever kind of machine it is underground for perpetuity. it just doesn't seem like good public policy give that hectionv we never know what the long-term ramifications to such action. in terms of people saying the disturbance of north beach versus the disturbance of chinatown, so, i'm not really clear why it's okay to disturb

businesses in chinatown but not okay to disturb businesses in north beach. that argument kind of doesn't really hold a lot of weight for me. in terms of the geotechnical issues, the obviously once they demolish the building as someone pointed out we can do further analysis and requirements around that, that is not the jurisdiction of this planning commission. we hear it all the time in discretionary review in other cases. people claiming geotechnical issues. ultimately we're not going to know what we know until we're in the ground. projects are stopped or halted or decisions are made at that time. again, this commission can't make decisions based on that nor is it even in the purview of the requested actions that we're looking at. so, you know, for me i don't see a reason not to support the project. i was supportive of the project when it came to us before. the height, the bulk, the units, everything is substantially the same as the previous project. i don't have an opinion on the restaurant size being larger than what was previously contemplated. i do know that we're having an issue with retail spaces being

viable for better and for worse. so, i don't see any reason not to support the project especially since it achieves the aims and goals of our transit first policy and allowing the transit to be extended potentially further into a community that definitely needs it would actually be worthwhile. but again, for me if necessary or desirable, this project we decided that before added the additional benefits of the central subway i'm very supportive of it. >> if i could add about the plan. so, the architect has changed from the project that was previously before the commission. i don't know if the previous architect had died, but there is a new architect on board. and they did submit a site permit, the full site permit was reviewed by all agencies and approved, it was actually ready for issuance. so, the apploonians that were included in the packet are based on the site plans that are ready for approval to construct the project that was already approved by the commission. i just wanted to note that. >> thank you. commissioner hillis. >> sure.

i agree with much of what commissioner borden said. i think when you boil this down, we can redebate the central subway project every time we have a station project before. so, whatever the item. but when you're boring it down, it seems to me like we're vastly improving the condition upon removing these machines for folks at north beach whether they're residents or businesses instead of doing it on columbus avenue, we're now doing it on the pagoda site, which i imagine will be less impactful or a lot less impactful than doing it in the street. we've got a project that's pretty much identical to the project we approved, but probably has more opportunity and more feasibility to be built. and i agree with ms. christiansen, i hope this leads to more debate about than it is here, extending the subway to north beach and onto fisherman's wharf. so, i guess the only question i have is something mr. bruno raised about could we impact or

could we reduce the impact on the neighborhood even more by moving the machines to the side, you know, under the new library, under the park, under joe di maggio, under some other right-of-way and leave them there. i didn't see that alternative as being discussed. is that an alternative that you all thought about and dismissed for some reason or another? >> thank you, commissioner hillis. but that was one when i mentioned we had explored i think four different options that we brought to the community in addition to the currently approved plan. that was one of them. we actually had a few different versionses of that. one was leaving the machines underground in chinatown. one was bringing them to the current retrieval site and leaving them. and then there was a third that was bringing them further up, further northwest on columbus and leaving them. they were, as i mentioned for the different alternatives that we brought forward to the community, there were pros and cons.

in the end the confluence of being able to help address the pagoda site, of being able to pull the machines out as is currently contemplated in our contract, not leave something underground, that kind of tipped the balance. at that particular meeting at the time there was -- seemed to be little to no public support for bringing the machines to north beach and leaving them in the ground. but that is something that's viable, it's something that we could do. but in weighing the different pros and cons of the project and the impact on the community, the pagoda was -- seemed far and away the best option. >> and just so we know, it's irrelevant to the approvals. what is that process like? i mean, actually, you know, excavating and making that extraction tunnel and extracting the machinery, how long does that take? i mean, is it similar to

building a building there? how long impactful is it to the neighbors? >> so, the extraction itself, it will be somewhere between 10 and 12 months. as mr. funge said, we're not going to be pile driving, we're going to be drilling to basically build a wall, building kind of a water-tight wall. and then it's excavation and pouring concrete. so, you know, it's significant construction. we're confident that we can manage it without any -- without undue significant disruption to the neighborhood. we're very aware of the concerns of the abutting restaurants and abutting buildings and want to make sure that we do everything we can to minimize the disruption. arguably, the subsequent construction of the new building that already was approved may even be less disruptive than it would be otherwise because the owner would be starting with a virtually clean development path that may make that process

actually [inaudible]. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. mr. reiskin, while you're up, i just have a couple questions. the first is, again, we're not talking about this now, but a lot of commentary has gone on about future possible north beach station extension to fisherman's wharf. if, when this tunnel is finished and the boring machines are extracted from the pagoda site, the tunnel from the last chinatown station to north beach will be a tunnel that will have walls on it. is that right? i mean, they pour it, but it has concrete to hold the tunnel -- >> correct, commissioner. and that's the reason why we can't back up the machine. as each step of the machine -- the boring moves forward, what comes behind it is the encasing that creates the wall of the tunnel. so, at that point diameter of the tunnel is less than the diameter of the machine. so, that's why it keeps going forward.

we'll be building the tunnel out. we won't be installing track and all the systems much beyond the station. they go beyond the station, but not all the way. but the tunnel infrastructure itself will be there. >> so, aside from the election strife indication and the track, you have a tunnel that is usable for the future that goes all the way to north beach? >> that's correct. >> okay. and then my question is * if we did decide to go to fisherman's wharf, is it possible to bring in machines from an entry site somewhere different further down columbus, wherever it's felt is beneficial, and then bore to the existing tunnel which will dead end there at the pagoda theater? just on columbus, just before the tunnel goes into the pagoda theater. >> yes, regardless of really where we end this tunnel, if the city decides in the future to extend the project further north ward, likely the tunnel boring would start from the north and come down and meet the current tunnel.

>> presumably we could make the two meet. i mean, if they can bore tunnels in 1920 in granite for the hetch hetchy project within a couple of inches of each ooh i think today we can make the new tunnel meet the old tunnel, i would hope. thank you very much. i think that's a huge improvement. you know, what i'm getting at is there have been some discussion about how far away we are from a future of a north beach station. that's not what's before us. but this project allows that as a realistic possibility. and one of my oppositions or my questioning of the central subway when it first came forward was ending the subway in chinatown. i know that was what was funded and that was what was analyzed and that's what it had to be. but i was really happy to hear even in those days that the extension of the tunnel was proposed to go into north beach and that's, you know, makes a lot of sense. and i've heard that it can be done. the other issue that's been

brought up is the height of the new structure which is exactly the same as the height of the existing structure. if you're happy with the height of the existing structure, then i don't really know why someone would object to the very same building at the same height and whether we have to go through the same mechanics again to approve the same thing. and that's maybe one reason why it takes so long to do anything in san francisco, because we like to do it 10 times before we approve it. but it makes sense you're building essentially the same thing. so, it doesn't make any sense to do it over again and make the project sponsor and all of us go through enormous cost to do the same process again for the sake of saying it was a different approval. and, so, with that i'm happy to go ahead and move -- i know commissioner sugaya has some comments, but i'm going to make a motion anyway to approve all three items if we can. director ram, city attorney, stacey, can we do them all together, should we do them as

separate item? >> commissioner, the recommendation is to take items 7a and b together. >> okay. >> and then take an action on item c. >> okay. so, let me go ahead and propose for this time -- >> i apologize. thank you, commissioner. i just wanted to reiterate the request to amend the term of the approval as well per the language that was passed out during my presentation. >> the term of the approval as per your language -- >> for the sud? >> it would sink row nighx the validity [speaker not understood] if the sud moves forward for approval at the board. >> that's what i understood in the motion. which is it, a, b or c, whichever one it's in. it's the sud, so it would be -- that's a. >> it would be within the conditional use authorization, one of the conditions at the conditional use authorization. >> let's just work with a and b

for now. so, i would move approval of the request for zoning text amendment to establish the central subway tunnel boring machine extraction site special use district on the property and the rest of the issues that are spelled out there, and 7b, which is request for height request reclassification zoning map to reclassify from 40 height and bulk district to 50 foot height and bulk district. >> second. >> is it 50 or 55? 55, commissioner. >> 55, okay, okay. that is what my motion is, 40 to 55. >> that's what it says here. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i'd like to remind the commission that we do have jurisdiction over geotechnical matters through the california environmental quality act. it's been pointed out i think in the carp report and others that there is a question about that. i'm not the expert.

i don't know. and, you know, so, i think that if the commission were to say that perhaps the supplemental wasn't sufficient in addressing a geotechnical aspects of this project, that we could order such a thing to happen. so, it's not necessarily that we don't have jurisdiction over geo tech. we certainly do. and that includes things like vibration, which i've dealt with through environmental reports on numerous occasions with respect to stored buildings. this is not the same project as has been alleged. it is new project, new construction. that for me changes the parameter because now we're being asked to take a lot more serious action to change the planning code than we did previously. because the existing building was there and it was a proposed

rehabilitation, we did not have to address the height increase. we did not have to address other things that we are now being asked to do, and that's what i object to. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second to -- >> wait, wait, jonas. one other thing. i think in the interest of supporting the legislation -- i mean the motion so that we don't run into a future problem, i'm still going to vote against it. but on page 14 of the draft motion under urban design elements objectives and policies, policy 2.4, it's a very small thing. but it uses a language, the subject building was not found to be a historic resource due to lack of integrity, et cetera. let's see. but the form of the theater including the hiss torquev

blade sign are important, visual reminders of the building's historic use and are to be retained and rehabilitated as part of the proposal. * i don't think we can say that because this is new construction, the blade sign is going to be demolished and the building is going to be demolished. so, i think you have to change the wording to say something like the reminder of the building's historic use will be documented and reconstructed as part of the new construction project. >> commissioner, with respect to that language, i perhaps could have worded that more elegantly. the attempt was to describe the massing and form of the building are to be retained, not the building itself. and then the blade sign would be reincorporated into the new project. so, it's really talking about the building envelope and the building's character. that being retained rather than the physical fabric of the building. >> yeah, i didn't have a problem with that. it's just the way the word

retained and rehabilitated is used because we're not rehabilitating anything here. >> right. my understanding is the sign is to be rehabilitated and reincorporated into the project that's actually one of the provisions that the sud addresses. but the retention in the original proposal of that sign and the reincorporation was thought to be important for compatibility with the district and, again, sort of a visual reminder of the site's past use. >> yeah, all right, okay, i understand that. that's the main reason i'm voting against it, too, because i think it's a stupid design. we have brand-new construction and we're going to have false historicism to a facade that doesn't exist. we could have had an opportunity to have a brand-new nice building here, but no. >> commissioner moore. >> regarding the sign, i think that speaks to the same

vagueness and incomplete information which were being provided. if the sign is with stored, that is one thing. but if it's just rehabilitated, it means that basically falls outside the sign ordinance which currently governs the district, and that is where i have my problems. it's in the incompleteness of many things that are related to the future nature of the building. it is not the extraction site as an interim use. i support contemplation of planning and considering various locations for the extension of the subway, something we have talked about many years ago. my commissioner here is saying we are having [speaker not understood] discussion is very possible. [speaker not understood] i saw commissioner hillis making it sound as if we are circular. that's very possible. the concern with everything justin said today has not been alleviated and i unfortunately as much as i would like to be supportive of the

transportation part cannot support what is in front of us. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second to adopt the request for zoning text amendment and height reclassification for 1731 powell street. commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> no. >> commissioner sugaya? >> no. i just have to note also that when i said i didn't have any plan -- we didn't have any plan, i don't have any plans. so, commissioner moore corrected me in saying that she has it and i notice commissioner antonini has them, too. but for some reason i never received that. no. >> anything else? [laughter] >> i could go on for another -- [laughter] [speaker not understood]. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passes 4 to 2. >> commissioner antonini. >> and i will move 7c, which is

request for conditional use authorization to allow development of a lot grade of 5,000 square feet and the other item included in the text. and this is the extended approval period as included in this motion. >> as amended by staff? >> as amended by staff. >> second. >> commissioners, on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> no. >> commissioner sugaya? >> no. >> commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to 2. >> actually, the commission is going to take a 20-minute break here. >> february 14ing, 2013. i'd like to remind everyone to please silence any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioners, we left off upped your regular calendar

item 8, case no. 2012.1482b, mission bay block 40, aka 1800 - 1900 owens street request for office development authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tara sullivan planning department staff. the item before you this afternoon is for 1800 owens street, commonly known as mission bay block 40, located in the southwest corner of the mission bay south redevelopment plan. the property is a triangle shaped lot bounded by freeway 2 80 on the west, 16th street to the north, owens street to the east, mariposa street to the south. the property is zoned commercial industrial use with an hz7 or 160-foot height limit. the request before you today is for the authorization of 700,000 square feet of office space pursuant to planning code sections 320 and 321. the proposed project is for the construction of a new 99 5,000 square foot office building which will consist of two

campuses. each campus will feature a six-story podium connected to a 12-story building. the maximum height will be 180 feet with a top of each tower rising to 169 feet and then up to 180 feet with allowable mechanical features. there will be approximately 295,000 square feet of parking resulting in 680 independently accessible parking spaces on five floors. the entrance to these parking garages are going to be on owens street. mission bay block 40 is located within the mission bay south redevelopment area which was established in 1998. all development is outlined in the plan area documents and the design for the development document which is the zoning and design code that prescribes bulk, height, setbacks, views, parking and all other land use components. the successor agency to the former redevelopment agency has purview of all projects under this area. underedth area plan, however, the planning commission must

review and authorize the design and office allocation for projects in this area. in addition, mitigation measures that are incorporated into the area plan will also all apply to new office projects that you authorize. all other land use components such as height, setbacks, open space, parking, are reviewed and approved by the new commission on community investment infrastructure which is one of two successor commissionses to the former redevelopment commission. i want to point out that the project will be seeking four variances from the design further development document. and they will be requesting that the commission on community investment and infrastructure approve them. and i'll go through them very quickly. the first one is a corner street wall. the design for development states that buildings must be constructved at the street wall. block 40 will be setback from the corner of owens and 16th street approximately 63 feet. the bulk, the design for development limits the footprint towers to 20,000 square feet and 200 square feet

in length. block 40 proposes a building that will be 21,000 square feet in size and 239 feet long. spacing between towers. the design for development document limits the spacing between the towers to 200 feet. block 40 is proposing 160 feet between the two taller towers on the site. and finally height, the design for development document allows for a maximum height of 160 feet with exemptions for mechanical equipment. block 40 is proposing a height limit of 169 feet. as mentioned above, the total height of the buildings will be 180 feet. the department has been working with the project sponsor for the past several months fine tuning the design of the building focusing on the architectural treatment of the five story garage areas designed among the western and 2 80 freeway facade as well as getting cohesive architectural vocabulary foyer both campuses. in this vein the secretary has passed out additional conditions of approval which were forwarded to us from the

successor agency and will be in their approval documents at their commission. * the department said these conditions are acceptable and we would ask you you to incorporate them into your final motion here today. briefly, they highlight things such as building materials, colors and finishes will be reviewed and approved by successor agency staff. landscape design shall be reviewed and approved by successor agency staff. design of the parking shall be subject to further review by successor agency staff. focusing on the facade treatment and light spill over. design and location of trash, loading docks, transformers and other utility facilities, all signage must be reviewed and approved by the successor agency. and finally, the developer will comply with the mission bay south program requirements requiring hiring of minority and women-owned businesses. lastly, the commission secretary also passed out some correspondence that i received and some packets went out two weeks ago. we received two letters in support and two letters in opposition. both letters in support say the buildings are appropriate to the mission bay south.

one commenter in opposition finds the building to be rather ordinary and boxy and feels that they do not add esthetic value to the adjacent neighborhood. the second letter from save the hill discusses the quality of design in its overall height. specifically, the they say the building should be designed with more consideration of the close proximity to highway, freeway, excuse me, 2 80 and to the potrero hill neighborhood. the preliminary proposal to remove the elevated highway 2 80 at this block is also a concern to this organization. they feel there is traffic and c-e-q-a issues related to it. the de tails are in the letters before you right now. to recap, the project before you today is to review and comment on the design of the building and to authorize the 700,000 square feet of office space. * the next steps will be the review and approval by the commission of community and infrastructure which will assess the requested variances as well as your comments and the requirements in the design development documents. the department recommends approval of the authorization

of the full 700,000 square feet for the following reasons. it's permitted office use is permitted as a right in the mission bay south redevelopment plan and accompanying design for development document. the project meets the goals and objectives of these two documents and will develop the southwest corner of the neighborhood. the new office space will increase the number of employees in san francisco and help increase the economic activity in the neighborhood. and finally, it's consistent with the planning code and the general plan. i'm here if you have any questions. the project sponsor seth hamilton from mission bay development group is here and he would like to briefly go through the architectural program of the site. thank you. >> project sponsor, please. president, commissioners, thank you very much. thank you for your time today. i'm seth [speaker not understood] and i'm with the mission bay development group. we are a master developer of mission bay. we inherited that role from