>> my name is william stockton. i have a prepared statement. i am just a neighbor and rival of half a block down from the church. i would like -- i live half a block down from the church. i am astonished that there are people who want to stand in the way of this. this is a 24-hour today homeless camp. what i have seen is the proposed project is a beautiful building that will add tremendous value and get rid of the blight on the street. i do not understand what people are saying about the lack of air or views. it will be a beautiful improvement to the neighborhood. the concern about the eir, i do not understand. i think it all seems to be in order. as a neighbor that lives in the street and has to witness and

suffer through this eyesore, i would appreciate approval of this project. commissioner fong: additional public comment? >> i am the council for the california and nevada at annual conference of the united methodist church. the city of san francisco has successfully defended the planning commission's decisions of june 24, 2010, in court. that is absolutely incorrect. in february, the judge reaffirmed his prior decisions and allowed the developer and the churches lawsuits to continue. those questions are now in front of the court of appeal. the judge was very clear that he

believed the church had been treated unfairly and the full fit -- a full hearing was unfair. there has been descriptions that we have not tried outreach. we have tried outreach. the church matched with middle pollek. when this project came up and a resolution came up, we reached out. i did not realize the same people we were calling were the same people that mr. mack and attorney subpoenaed. we did not subpoenaed them. we asked the city attorney's office to call them. there is no horrible conspiracy. we're not trying to destroy the building by letting it fall apart. the sad fact is when mr. kramer designed it, he designed it without paper.

the water had slowly deteriorated the building. thank you. i encourage you to certify the eir. commissioner fong: additional public comment on the eir? >> good evening. i thought might card had been submitted. -- my card had been cemented. we are the property owners of 1600 larkin. i want to speak on behalf of the church itself. that church is a thing of beauty. since about the turn-of-the- century, it is an incredibly beautiful building. it is an art piece in this

community. what is being proposed is another high-rise condo, a look- alike that you can see about every which place. you know, left and right. how often do you see the church building? this particular church, in our neighborhoods, adds tremendous value. in its heyday, people loved to congregate there. even now, young people talk on their cell phones, old people walk back and forth. it is still a useful place. bad things have been said about the homeless. of course, why did the homeless go there? because they feel safe. that church still has energy.

there are drawn to that energy because they feel safe. it is a haven. a spiritual center in the community. thank you. commissioner fong: additional public comment? >> good evening. i do not understand the logic. if this project has not changed, what would change in your decision to not certify the eir? if it has changed, why do we not need a new eir? i am completely lost to this logic. thank you. commissioner fong: additional public comment? ok, the public hearing is closed commissioners?

-- the public hearing is closed. commissioners? >> item 17, 1601 larkin street, certification of the final eir. the planning commission does not conduct a public review of final the irs. -- eirs. >> good evening, commissioners. the item before you, the certification of the final environmental impact report for the proposed 1601 larkin project. the draft eir for this project was circulated for review and

comment until may 29, 2007, for a 45-day comment period it. the commission held a public hearing on may 24 to receive comments on the adequacy of the draft eir. comments and responses document was published on may 20 -- may 27, 2010. public hearing on the certification was held on june 24, 2010. at that time, a motion to certify the final eir failed by a vote of 3-4. the final eir was not certified. modifications were made to the proposed project and submitted to the department, along with the structural report in may of 2012. the project described in the 2007 eir was a six-story 67500

-- 67,500 square foot a rectangular building. the modified project is a six- story 60,000 square-foot building containing 27 residential units and 29 of street parking spaces. the modified project design revisions include a change to the building materials, the addition of recessed elements on the street elevation, setbacks, and reduced heights on clay st.. the eir has been revised to include a description of the project variants that i just described. it preserves of varying amounts of the existing church building,

depending on the number of units developed. this alternative would preserve more of the building down the bell tower alternatives and less than the preservation alternative. these revisions do not change the findings and the conclusions identified in the eir. on june 7, the planning commission was presented with information on the revised project. at that hearing, comments were made on the proposed project and the environmental review process. these comments were the same as those that were addressed in your originally published comments document. tonight, the one comments pertaining to the eir itself had to do with the fact that it did not analyze a preservation alternative or a partial preservation alternatives. these alternatives are contained in the document starting on page

119. the revised draft eir and response to comments document was sent to the planning commission and to members of the public who had commented on the eir. recirculation of an eir is necessary when significant new information is added to the eir after public review and before -- after public notice of the availability and before certification. new information is considered significant, is the eir -- sorry -- new information is not considered significant unless the eir is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental impact of the project or a feasible way to mitigate such an effect, including a feasible alternative.

the revised eir does not contain significant new information. therefore, it does not require recirculation. please note that the revised eir that was sent to you on june 14 contains page number references and headers that are inaccurate. these errors do not change the substance of the eir and will be corrected when the final eir is finalized, if it is certified. the eir discloses a number of impacts, including less than significant impacts and impacts that can be mitigated. there is one impact which remains significant and unavoidable. despite implementation of mitigation measures. this is the demolition of the existing church building on the

project site, which is considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact on historic resources. if you certify the eir and should decide to approve the project, you will need to adopt a statement of overriding consideration that explains how the benefits of the project outplayed the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. -- outweighed the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. that item is not before you now, but it is next on the agenda tonight. the document is adequate,

objective, and accurate. this concludes my presentation on the matter and i'm available for any questions. thank you. commissioner fong: thank you. commissioners, i have been asked if we could take a five-minute break so staff can do little bit more research. i would ask that we take a quick break, if that is all right. thank you. >> welcome back to the planning commission regular meeting for june 28. commissioner fong: thank you to everyone for their patience. i want to go to commissioner comments. commissioner antonini: a couple of things were raised in testimony. the first thing that was raised that i think was answered very well by staff is why the commission voted not to certify two years ago -- it was a 3-4

vote and i was one of the three who voted to certify, as i recall. i think it was answered very clearly by staff that if there is no significant new impacts, no significant new information and the project has no greater impact, therefore, there is no reason for recirculation, in my opinion. i will ask staff, though, about -- there was a question brought up by some of the speakers about the notice. perhaps we could have some clarity on not. as far as the dates. i think you did speak to that a little bit. they had only had a couple of days to address it. it looks like it has been a long time. could you elaborate on that a little bit? >> are you speaking of the

latest -- commissioner antonini: the supplemental. there is the original draft and there is comments and responses. >> there was a 45-day review period originally. two weeks ago, the revised documents were sent to the commission with the certification motion. does revised documents were not sent -- those revised documents are not sent to the of individuals who have commented iuntil that monday. after that friday. at that time, the eir response comment was posted on the website. commissioner antonini: i guess that was what the comment was speaking about. is that considered to be

adequate notice? >> i would have to defer to the city attorney. >> because this is not -- because this is simply a revision to the eir that was done two years ago, there was no requirement technically for a further notification period other than getting it to you in time for your calendar. there is not a further technical requirement like the original 45-day period. commissioner antonini: ok, that answers my question. there had been some questions asked by the public and i wanted to make sure there was no requirement because we know there is a minimum of 45 days, a maximum of 61 days, if i am not mistaken, on the comment period on draft eirs. in general terms. >> there was an impact to

historic resources. the original comment period it was the 45 days. commissioner antonini: ok, it thank you. i have a few comments on the eir. first of all, other speakers talked about there not being alternatives. there has been all along. there have been preservation alternatives, partial present take -- preservation. what was added, which is not part of the environmental document, there was a feasibility study that we had as -- during the informational presentation we had a few weeks ago which showed the relative costs to these alternatives. that is not an environmental issue. it substantiates. the other thing that is not an environmental issue, i will comment more during the comment. on the budget -- on the project

itself, the regional housing assessment -- but regional housing needs assessment is not an environmental issue. you could bring that up during the comment period on the project itself, but it is not an environmental issue. finally, the issue of overriding considerations. that is something we have to take up after certification. if that occurs, that occurs during the comments. i will bring them up but that time. i think the document is complete, adequate, and accurate. my feeling is that we should certify its. commissioner sugaya: i have a question, but i do not know who to direct it to. the actual motion, i think we

all understand it, was for approval, which did not garner enough votes. it was a vote of 3-4. is that motion different than if the motion was to deny? with respect to the current eir. in other words, i am trying to get to whether or not there is a legal difference in the motion because we're being told that there have been several comments raised by people who testified that if there were problems identified in the previous hearings on the eir, if we have the same document before us, why were those problems addressed? -- weren't those problems

addressed? >> deputy city attorney. you are correct that the motion from four years ago -- two years ago, pardon me, was a motion to certify that failed. and then there was no motion to not certify. if the commission had taken a motion not to certify, it would have clearly articulated reasons and findings, which could have then directly responded to by staff. however, although many members of the public testified as to why the eir should not be certified, it is my recollection that it was not quite as articulated by the commission what reasons for not certifying the commission would give because the commission did not vote to not certify. right now, that it is up to the

commission as a matter of its own decision making whether or not the document you have in front of you is certifiable as adequate, adequate, -- accurate, and objective. it is really the commission taking a fresh look at the document you have in front of you and whether it meets the requirements of ceqa. >> i have another question with respect to alternatives. the preservation alternative says that there could be partial restoration, rehabilitation of the church combined with a certain number of housing units. it is obvious that there would not be as many housing units as analyzed in the alternative as what the developer has proposed.

this is environmentally superior because it does not result in the demolition -- even with some demolition it will still meet the secretary of interior standards. some of the other things would be lessons in terms of environmental impact. it does not meet the project sponsor's objectives. is it possible for the commission to adopt an environmentally superior alternative in the face of the argument that it does not meet the project sponsor's goals? >> deputy city attorney. i think -- there are two separate actions in front of you. one is the certification of the eir. in doing not comment you are simply certifying that the -- in doing that, you are simply certifying that the document addresses the environmental

impacts, proposes a feasible mitigation. that is the action would take. when you have the project approval in front of you, assuming that you were to certify the eir tonight, if you turn to the project approval, at that point, you'd have the discussion to approve the project as proposed, to approve it with modification, or to deny the project. if you were to approve it with modification, we would want to have verification from the planning department's environmental planning staff that whatever modifications were with in this boat -- the scope of the project.

we would want to have that be made part of the record if you were to modify the project from what has been proposed. commissioner sugaya: so, what i just heard is that if the commission goes ahead tonight and approves the final environmental impact report, it is not that we say -- is not at this time that we say that we believe there is an environmentally superior project -- alternatives. >> there are two different parts to that. the eir is up required to identify an environmentally superior alternative. that is required under ceqa. whether or not you approve fact is a question you would take up at the time of your approval action. not during certification. commissioner sugaya: i am trying

to understand project sponsor's objectives. complete the project on schedule and within budget. i mean, really. it makes no sense, how can that be an objective that is used in analyzing alternatives in the project itself? another one is that the design of the project enhances the urban character of the area. what does that mean? what kind of quantitative or factual evidence can there be that can be used to analyze such a thing? it does not seem like the objectives have been created such that it gives the public and the commission an opportunity to say for example,

a particular alternative does not meet the project sponsor's objectives. that is my problem with this particular document. commissioner moore: i want to take another tack at this. i am not an eir jockey. it takes me a lot of time. it is you're a difficult and challenging, particularly when you have other work to do. i ask myself a clear series of questions. is the project adequately and accurately described, including project alternatives? my answer to this one, the conditions has been a slippery slope for quite some time.

the resources for can divide as being noteworthy as an historic resource. today, that does not seem to be the case anymore. particularly when you listen to some of the descriptions provided by the public and those who live nearby. has the project accurately described project alternatives? in light of my first statement, i believe that is difficult to do because the substance of the remaining historic resources is hard to evaluate and cannot be fully quantified. nobody has been able to more recent look at the building. nobody has been in the building and nobody has made any recent evaluations.

are the project objectives desirable and realistic? that could entail an immediate discussion by which i would quickly, without going into detail, say given that we have looked at this project for quite some time, i believe that the project objectives are not desirable and somewhat unrealistic. is the proposed project necessary? i would say definitely not. it is not just the architecture. all the things a project and this location should do. are the trade-offs between the proposed project and the significant and unavoidable impacts justified and acceptable?

i would go back to my earlier comment about not quite knowing what is left. i would say no. commissioner antonini: i think you are talking about the project and not the environmental report. you cannot mandate that analysis be made of a different project. the project sponsor brings forward a project. the project sponsor has to analyze various alternatives. you cannot force an analysis to be consistent with ceqa of an entirely different project. there is a time to talk about whether or not you think is a beneficial projects, but i do not believe that is predicated -- predicates a ceqa document. in terms of the status of the building being different than it