hello, my name is david sincotta of jefferson [speaker not understood] and mitchell and i'm here on behalf of the property owners in the neighborhood. i do want to say that we'll be submitting additional written materials, but i wanted to address a couple of significant issues today where we believe this document is considered grossly inadequate and inaccurate in some areas. the first area that i would like to talk about is in regard to the land use impacts. the e-i-r, draft e-i-r, very adequately describes that this project is significant and unavoidable in its creating negative impacts on the land use of this area. and that -- as to how it's unavoidable is perplexing but i'm not here to address that today. i'm addressing because you have an alternative that says it is unavoidable if you reduce it. in any case, what i'm here to

talk about is the things it says where it's not significant. it's less than significant. that is on its impact on the character of the vicinity and its impact cumulatively on land use impacts, and i believe you've got the downtown area plan talking about how this steps down. you have the urban design element plan. you have the transit center development plan. all talking about how buildings must be stepped down to the bay or reduced, in fact, it actually says where buildings should be along the waterfront. one of the things that's not mentioned is the bcdc waterfront plan is ultimately impacted by this project. the only discussion -- these things are determined less than significant and i believe the character in the discussion of the e-i-r is only referred to as land use. the impacts of these buildings is height, its bulk, its proximity to the bay, all of

that impacts the character of this neighborhood and impacts the cumulative impacts of people going further and further towards the bay. the other point that i wanted to talk about just briefly is transportation and circulation section. it doesn't believe this project will have any cumulative impacts or any significant unavoidable cumulative impacts. this area of the e-i-r is it's wholly incomplete because it does not discuss the impacts the warriors arena will have just three blocks away. this project is considered on record as possibly providing parking for the arena, yet it's got one of its variants is for parking. and there isn't an adequate discussion of the cumulative impacts that this project will have on transportation in that area when it's already incredibly dramatic. there will be more in written materials submitted to you soon, but i think that this

thing is not ready for prime time. it's got to be done again. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. christopher butcher from the [speaker not understood] speaking on behalf of some building owners in the area. the e-i-r needs to be revised and recirculated. we're going to submit additional comments with more detailed information, but some of the areas that are flawed include the transportation analysis as previously discussed. one specific issue in the transportation analysis is that they looked at data for just an evening and the weekend day to determine the level of service. there is no it analysis of weekend traffic. as mentioned, the warriors arena is coming to town. also we've got the ferry building that now is being thankfully a lot more used. we've got the farmers market and all of the other facilities in the area that bring a lot of

transportation ands traffic issues on the weekend. there's no discussion of that. in order for the transportation analysis to be adequate, there must be a discussion of potential impacts. there is data to suggest that the peak level on the weekends can be greater than a week night level and analysis. i believe one day in the e-i-r. in addition to that, the transportation analysis relies heavily on a transportation study and a driveway plan. it is not included in the e-i-r. it is not included in the appendix. c-e-q-a guidelines section 1-5 147 requires information like that either to be in the e-i-r or in the appendix. 15 147 also requires that information to be provided ~ to opr's clearinghouse so that other agencies, responsible trustee and the like, can review that documentation as part of their review of the e-i-r. that information was not provided to opr as part of the clearinghouse and therefore that information was not before

other agencies that have looked at this document, and therefore the comment period needs to be extended so they can review that document along with the e-i-r and its appendix. next, construction noise. there is a mitigation measure for construction noise. that mitigation measure lists potential mitigation that could be adopted if feasible. that's not consistent with the san francisco noise limits in that it doesn't prove that they will in fact be lower than what's required. in addition to that there is no discussion of nighttime construction. if construction is going to be allowed at night there needs to be analysis. if not there needs to be a mitigation measure that says construction will not be allowed at night. finally the range of alternatives is not adequate because there's only two alternatives in the document besides the c-e-q-a mandated project alternative. those two alternatives do not address four of the six significant unavoidable impacts. c-e-q-a requires any potentially feasible alternative that addresses significant unavoidable impacts in the e-i-r be addressed.

there are potentially feasible alternatives that can address the shadow impacts and can also address the sea rise level impacts, addressed in the e-i-r. we also echo the height and bulk concerns of others and you will be hearing more in our letter coming next week. thank you. >> is there additional public comment? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i'd like to start with asking for an extension to comments from september 16 to september 23. reason is the planning commission received this voluminous document on august 5th with us going on break for three weeks. i was out of the country for three weeks. i did not have any time given the very busy commission calendar prior to our going on break, and i would like to spend a little bit more time

for substantiating comments. so, what i will touch on are thoughts which jumped into my eye with cursory review, and they are as follows. the project description for the e-i-r needs to properly describe site disposition and ownership, what building lots are and are not part of the project based on ownership. there is a lack of clarity about the freeway parcel that the project describes as an open space amenity. who owns this parcel at this moment? who is responsible for designing and disposing of it in whatever form? the record shows that the city owns [speaker not understood] was create and had transferred when the freeway was torn down. the project without color differentiation at the moment shows that the project will occur on four, for lack of a better word, lots with the project itself seems to only own the garage side with a corner on the southeast owned

by the gap. there is a public right-of-way, a street which will be occupied to the project's benefit, the e-i-r needs to fully disclose how this assembly of parcel will function as a full fledged building site. i think the draft e-i-r needs to become more of a disclosure of background for some of the projects in the area which historically were under the jurisdiction of redevelopment. and while the planning department, office of environmental review prepares the e-i-r, the jurisdiction of the projects were not under the planning department's purview. that includes the approval for rincon annex, rincon point, south beach, and other projects up to broadway. and i think in order for the

background of issues surrounding this project, the project needs to reference or make available those documents which substantially set the tone of this development. and i think it will be very interesting, particularly some of us remember the approval surrounding the historic rehabilitation of the rincon post office which is indeed a post office property, where the creation and the height of the residential towers were once [speaker not understood] to deal with height and bulk and [speaker not understood] to waterfront, but the height also justified the historic preservation of the building into murals of the former post office. i think those things need to be taken into consideration and ultimately properly weighing

what this project does contribute, what it asks for, and how you mitigate potential impacts. the other point is the d-e-i-r references a transit center. i do not believe the transit center ever implied there would be additional height and intensification of use going east. we saw the transit center speak to towers which are [speaker not understood] surrounding it more closely, but i do not believe that the transit center plan even remotely suggests that this building would go up to 31 stories. i have other comments. the one thing which is always very important to me is that i do not see that this project clearly references the urban design plan, the downtown plan,

particularly when it come to building mass and height and building expression. while this is at this moment only a draft e-i-r, it is particularly the sculpting and the silhouette of the building which will affect program and impact as it is described in the e-i-r. i also believe that the building at this moment in the e-i-r does not show any differentiation of the required base shaft and top, leyva loan the suping of building top which is at this moment just a block, a building block. it does not address setbacks as practiced by the hills building and the gap building, and it leaves a number of issues which are clearly spelled out as mandate in those downtown and urban design plans and would like the draft e-i-r to reflect on that. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you.

i have a few comments. first, i understand this property does largely lay within the transit center development plan, and i would like to kind of if there is any history about this site or the height consideration, certainly it would be interesting to know. i sat through the approvals during that time, but, you know, it would be interesting to know if there was any consideration of this as we move forward with the plan, although that's not before us today. what's before us is the draft e-i-r. and i do agree with -- though it's not before us today, i agree with commissioner moore some kind of sculpting might be advantageous. we see he that in the ymca and the gap and some of the other buildings that have been built there. but are there a few things with reference to the plan itself?

i think there is mention in the draft e-i-r of the shadow impacts of the building, and then the effects that the buildings now or soon to be under construction in the transit district will have on mitigating these shadows because they will actually often be part of the shadow from the bigger buildings. therefore, their impact will not be there any more, in many instances. with that, i think there is reference to this in this document which is far reaching and i think it's good to understand that when we look at those shadow impacts. i don't believe that you have to analyze perceived socioeconomic impacts as part of an e-i-r, so, that is not necessary. another point is that the waterfront that we have is curve linear in its nature ~. so, when we talk about a

building and its distance from the waterfront, we have to kind of look at where it is really relative to the waterfront as we move further south, the waterfront becomes closer to the streets further in ~. steuart street in, spear street ends [speaker not understood]. that is an interesting feature as we look at where the waterfront is and isn't. the new park that's proposed, i believe there is an analysis in there that talks about the amount of park space being created and how much additional light is created relative to the amount of light being eliminated by this project as it's currently structured. so, it's good to look at both those factors. the speaker who talked about the hotel variant is probably good if we can have a little

bit more in comments and responses that would talk to impacts if that particular variant were the one that is selected. then there might be a little more impact from the hotel part of the project as would be the case obviously if it's entirely condominium. so, good to look at that a little bit. in terms of the traffic, i'm in agreement with the plan. obviously it depends on the variant. but if the variant is all condominiums, then it would be hard to believe that you're going to generate more traffic from residential parking than you would from commercial parking garage which it's their business to park cars. so, therefore, one would think more cars would be coming in and out of that. and if there is an increase in traffic in the area as a result of the arena or other businesses that are planned for

the area, the traffic is going to be there regardless. i mean, whether, you know, whether or not this project adds residential parking is not -- is going to have kind of a neutral effect on that. so, those are my main feelings after reading this over. i want to concentrate on it a little more, and i do want to see what the comments and responses are, but i do think the document seems to be pretty extensive. now it needs a little fine tuning, but i think it will be -- it will give us a good picture of the environmental impacts of this project. >> commissioner hillis. >> clearly height will be the issue that kind of is controversial and is kind of before us with such a substantial kind of request to increase the height limit. and i think the e-i-r does a good job in analyzing the impacts of the additional height. a couple things i'd like to see

beefed up, or one that i know is not typical in the alternative section to have actexture associated with those height alternatives. so, the code compliant alternative as well as the lower height alternative, it would be nice to compare what's being proposed which has architecture developed with projects or kind of scenarios [speaker not understood] with architecture at those lower height limits or those lower height levels just to compare apples to apples. and then also in the discussion of the feasibility of those alternatives, it seems somewhat scant, the information that's given on why they aren't feasible or why they can't meet the project sponsor's objectives, like tearing down the garage, so, more analysis or more detail on that would be helpful. and then i agree with some of the public comment, although not on the e-i-r issue on open space. i think we build a lot of this kind of inactive for open space

on the waterfront. it will be nice to see a variant or ultimately when this is considered, more active use of that triangular lot if it does become open space when we have rincon park across the street and other waterfront open spaces that tend to be pretty passive. >> commissioner sugaya. >> thank you, yes. perhaps it's only my ignorance or something, but when we've had -- when i've raised issues about potential impacts related to land use, zoning and city policy resulting from increased heights that are being proposed for projects, there's always been in my recollection rebuffed because the city has always argued that those kinds of things can be changed, that heights can be raised, bulk and other standards can be raised, that the general plan can be

amended, et cetera. so, i'm quite surprised in this case to find that there is a significant and unavoidable impact in the analysis in those sections. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to your next item. >> actually, commissioner moore. >> i would like to restate my question to extend the written comment period to october 23rd and ask for commission support for that. >> second. >> can we vote? >> you can vote on it. we can certainly take your recommendation to the ero who makes that determination if you all believe that that's the right thing to do. >> yeah. >> all right. >> the commission will take a very short break here and maybe back in about 20 minutes or so. state your name for the record.

commissioners, you are on your regular calendar, item 14 for case no. 2013.0291c for 1233 - 1239 noriega street, request for conditional use authorization. >> president fong and fellow commissioners, kasey noel, department staff. the item before you is for a conditional use authorization to establish financial service at 1239 noriega street doing business as sterling bank and trust. sterling bank and trust is a community bank with approximately 12 san francisco locations and two others in the bay area. the project will divide the existing retail space occupying 1237 and 1239 noriega street into two retail spaces. the proposed use for the occupied 1239 noriega street. the existing tenant space measures approximately 18 34 square feet and will be split into 9 26 square feet at 1237

noriega street ~ and approximately 9 08 square feet at the proposed subject space ~. the proposed use size would not exceed the use size limitation. the project includes interior tenant improvements and minor alterations to the existing store front. to date the department has not received communications in opposition to or in support of the project. the planning department is recommending approval with conditions. this concludes my presentation. i will be available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, please. commissioner fong, commissioners, director ram, my name is steve adams, i'm with sterling bank and trust. and this is my first cu under formula retail. i guess i'm getting big enough now for this. this project is unique. it's a win/win situation. the current tenant in there is a chinese language bookstore

and she takes up both spots. and when i heard of her plight, i at the time was looking for a location on noriega avenue. and at the time there had been a rash of i don't want to say frivolous lo*s lawsuits, but a-d-a issues going on on noriega avenue if you're familiar with that. i met the landlord and i met the current tenant in there and she is a chinese language bookstore and she didn't need the space, but she's doing enough business that she wants to stay in business. and then there was the a-d-a aspect of it. so, i proposed to her since i was looking for a space, i would split the space with them, renovate her space, the bookstore space, make them a-d-a compliant with a ramp and a better a-d-a compliant bathroom, then i would take the space next door and upgrade that space, a-d-a compliant and it's a win/win on both sides

and she can stay with her bookstore and thrive and keep people employed, and i can hire some more people from the neighborhood. that is it in a nutshell. i ask for your approval on this project. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, jeremy schaub, [speaker not understood], i'm one of the architects on this. previous two speakers have said the most things important. i want to mention specifically about the a-d-a because noriega street is so sloped coming up to 19th avenue that the adjacent space, the modifications will include firming up the entire floor plate there and providing two new a-d-a bathrooms, one for each space. and that will include some site mod if i equations to the store front and our space will have an atm vestibule, but will

retain the existing aluminum store front windows and will have a new [speaker not understood] directly illuminated not to exceed 28 square feet, which is the limitation for this frontage. ~ wall sign thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i think this is a good proposal. as was pointed out, it serves two purposes. it makes two stores a-d-a compliant that were not previously such. sufficient use of bank space, which is something sterling does -- i've seen a few of their branches, and, you know, you don't need a lot of space. banks are realizing that in most instances they don't need as much space as they've had, and this is a good use. and they're a local bank and they're a bank that you can work with, unlike some of the

larger banks unfortunately that send everything you do to some other state and you talk to somebody who doesn't know where you are. these are people that actually know who you are and they'll work with you locally. so, i think it's going to be an improvement for noriega street. i'm in support. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, i would just like to get one clarification from the bank. this is prompted by a previous case we had with la blanch, which subsequently got bought out by starbucks. there's a recent report in the paper that there's a merger going on between [speaker not understood] and sterling and i'd like to get clarification as to -- >> yeah, that's sterling financial and they're based out of spoke cain washington. we're sterling bank and trust based out of san francisco. we're two different institutions. >> so you're not the same. thank you. >> commissioner moore. ~ >> i'm actually interested in seeing that this bank really

deals with the type of space and the kind of dimensions of space which we prefer for small banks. instead of the occupying corner properties, overwhelming people with signage and night lighting, which is not as desirable. i think this bank takes a very interesting approach, putting a customer area with seating light in front, keeping the atm actually away so there is not unnecessary night lighting for an atm. it has many positive moves which i would hope we will find language for one starting to tighten up our signage guidelines and how we deal with lighting as well. so, i am in support of this project and would like for us to make a note of some of the positive attributes of how certain critical areas are resolved. >> move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion to approve,

commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously to 7 to 0 and places you on item 15, case no. 2013.0535cer for 3301 - 3601 lyon street. request for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners. mary woods of department staff. the cu before you is a request by the town group of boys to occupy the talented fine arts for a one-year term while its permanent main campus at 27.50 jackson street is being renovated. ~ the school has an enrollment cap on students. this will not change. the school will relocate about 200 kids from k through 4 to the towers of fine arts site. the cu is required because for

the elementary school in a public zone, the department's recommendation is approve with conditions. this concludes my summary of the project. if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, please. thank you. i'm mark miller. i'm on the board of [speaker not understood]. i'm a san francisco resident and i've met many of you before when we took the jackson street project through planning commission approval about a year ago. so, thank you, commissioners, for considering our conditional use application for the palace fine arts. that's all, if i may. the town school for boys is an independent boys school. as you may know, the school is

a k through 8 school located at 27 57 jackson street and continues to operate at [speaker not understood]. we just have a big hole in the middle. we're a a nonprofit organization. our mission is to provide a rich, challenging, rick russ educational experience that addressesedth distinctive energy level of boys. throughout the course of the -- of 2013 and 14, town school is undergoing a series of improvements at our jackson street campus. we started construction in june. due to the nature and extent of the construction, we can't accommodate all the grades at the jackson street campus. the town school for poise our goal is to relocate k through 4 is what it looks like it's going to be now which is approximately 200 students, 200 and change students and supporting staff members to the palace of fine arts. and occasionally and for special events, k through 8 may

be in the space. fortunately when we made the application, we thought we might have to have k through 8 there. fortunately we were able to keep that going in the jackson street campus and that seems [speaker not understood]. no changes will be made to the existing passive art, the fine arts building or structure. this is not an architectural building project. [speaker not understood] use of the property is effective from august 1st -- our lease is august 1st, 2013. actually before that, through end of june, 2014. there is an option to extend only through september 30th, 2014. the lease is with the department of rec and park. just want to hit on a couple key points. this is absolutely a temporary relocation, a wonderful facility, neighborhood it is. we don't intend to or want to be there very long. we're only there because we have to. the project as i said is no new construction. we are using the building as-is, as provided by the exploratorium use.