Neighbors challenge draft EIR for 1601 Larkin Street as commission hears hours of comment

The San Francisco Planning Commission on Tuesday heard more than an hour of public comment criticizing the draft environmental impact report for a proposed redevelopment of 1601 Larkin Street, the site of First St. John’s Methodist Church.

Neighbors said the draft EIR understates the scale and impact of the project and lacks essential drawings and dimensional clarity. "The draft EIR asserts that most of the building height is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. I don't agree with that," said Kirsten Williams, a nearby resident, who told commissioners the proposal could be five to seven stories at some points and would be "twice as high" as nearby buildings.

The project sponsor proposes a six‑story residential building on a large corner lot; the draft EIR describes potential transportation, open‑space and design impacts and sets the public comment period from April 14 through May 29. Planning preservation staff noted that the Board of Supervisors has introduced a resolution initiating landmark designation for the church, and commissioners asked whether a future landmark decision would change the EIR conclusions. Victoria Wise of the Planning Department said the draft EIR already treats demolition of the church "as a significant and unavoidable impact," so a later designation would not alter that finding.

Speakers pressed the department for more rigorous analysis of shadows, wind, parking demand and traffic where the project places garage entries. "The garage entry is inappropriately located," said Linda Chapman, who urged moving the entry off transit‑preferrential Clay Street to reduce interference with the No. 1 California bus. Other commenters, including Rowena Jin and Frank Cannata, asked for clearer massing drawings and for alternatives that would preserve parcel‑level heritage or reduce the building bulk.

Architects and local historians also urged deeper archival work on George Washington Kramer, the church’s architect, and asked that the EIR’s historic‑resource analysis include additional nearby historic survey data. Joe Butler and other preservation advocates said more research into the architect’s body of work would help determine significance.

Commissioners acknowledged the neighborhood’s concerns and probed procedural questions about the EIR's adequacy and how an eventual change in design or massing might affect the environmental review. Staff responded that modest facade changes or reductions in size would likely leave the EIR valid, but major massing shifts that change shadowing patterns could require further environmental study.

The Planning Commission did not vote on the project; staff reminded the public that written comments on the draft EIR will be accepted at the Planning Department offices through close of business on May 29. The matter will return to the commission later in the environmental‑review and design process.