>> hello. i am the president of the cathedral homemakers' association and members -- member of the san francisco home networks. this project is of concern to the neighborhood network for many reasons, but particularly, i want to focus on process. the process that has taken place in this project has been that after the project was denied in 2010, the developer, instead of going through the details process, sued the city, subpoenaed the neighbors and nonprofit organizations working on the project, deliberately deteriorated the building, did not bargain in good faith with the city, the neighbors, or any of the concerned citizens of san

francisco, and we are before you again with the same project two years later. we are all dealing with planning processes, and we expect the planning process to be respected, rather than going to court and imperiling community activists that are trying to represent their neighborhood by making them retain lawyers. this developer deliberately subverted the project and has threatened and harassed the proponents. we would ask you not to certify it, not to grant the conditional use at this time. thank you. >> good evening. i am with the middle polk neighborhood association. i lived a block and a half from the project and have been involved since 2007. as is been stated already, in 2010, the eir was not certified

because of deficiencies. now, we are looking to certify this eir, but it has not been recirculated. we have been told by the planning department that the reason is that the changes to the eir are not that significant, but i of the changes are not that significant, how can they address the deficiencies of the eir of 2010? if indeed there are significant changes, it should be recirculated for public comment. the whole purpose of this process is to allow citizens of san francisco to have input into the development process in san francisco. please do not certify the eir tonight. thank you.

>> commissioners, i live at 1601 sacramento, one block from the project site. this has been an onerous process, given the legal claims involved. regarding the charges communication with the neighbors. the church reached out, it has been misstated that we were non responsive. numerous neighbors have been involved at the onset. despite the legal actions involved, i do not think it is appropriate to run roughshod

over this process. we need time to respond and negotiate about this project. as michael has pointed out, we had about three weeks. it is unfair to ask us to do this. thank you. commissioner fong: let me call a couple of more names. if you are ready -- [inaudible] >> good evening. i am one of the very affected neighbors directly facing the church. the church is 1601 larkin and i am 1600 larkin.

for two years, since the last eir was not approved, we did not hear anything because we were subpoenaed. around that time, given a 2010, -- june of 2010, we got served. no communication, no outreach from the developer. we did not know what was going on. about a month ago, my neighbor got a call. i got a call, did you get it? so and so, three of the members

got the call and they were on vacation. is that three minutes? >> you have 30 seconds. >> there is no notification come at the very last minute. the neighborhood group got together -- there is notification, at the very last minute. the meeting was held at old first church. i thought it was canceled. finally saw somebody go in the side door. i echo everything that was said before. please do not certify anything tonight. commissioner fong: thank you. >> i would like to remind the public that this is public comment regarding certifying the

eir. your time is limited to two minutes. >> i am a resident bishop for the california and nevada conference of the united methodist church. our conference serves the northern two-thirds of the state of california and the northern half of the state of nevada. i come here asking the commission to certify the environmental impact report and eventually approved a conditional use application. i come as someone who cares and knows about this church. i am a former resident of the city of san francisco and have worked in the city over a number of years. in the mid-'80s, i was the district superintendent that supervised this church and the city of san francisco. i have continued to serve in this city in many ways. i am the current member of the board for glide.

this is a way -- it allows the church a dignified and to a long ministry. the legacy of that ministry to be continued in new ways within the city of san francisco. in 2002, the congregation asked our conference to assist. we sent a team to help them with their ministry. the team found the congregation with eight active members and a building that had suffered for many years. despite efforts to approve the building, it was studied by professionals and found to be unsafe. we had to cease operations for the safety of the people using the building. it was unsuitable for use as a church and it seemed impossible to rehabilitated in ways to preserve the purpose of the

building. thank you. >> my name is george green. i am a real-estate broker in san francisco. i have represented the methodist council on various occasions. i've been asked to speak to the options that were presented to in the eir. the first option of rebuilding the church at a cost of close to $3 million and trying to sell eds on the markets is totally -- sell it on the market is totally unfeasible. no church in san francisco could afford it. the other option, arebuilding te

church with a residential component on various cost estimates of between 800,000 -- $800 per square foot. the cost of the project would be between $1,100 to $1,400 per square foot. new sales of condominiums in that area of are running between $900.900 $58 to about 1031. this project -- these options are not feasible under -- and current market conditions. thank you very much. >> good evening.

i am with the neighborhood association. i come to you tonight to share our feelings about the eir and have to sure that we have had many neighbors asked us what process is being followed. it is very different than anything they have seen before. we had to answer, quite honestly, we do not know. it is not anything we have seen before. the revised eir was just received nine days ago for such a huge project. we honestly have not been able to do the type of throw home work that we normally do on a document of this importance -- throw hallmark we normally do on a document of this importance. it does not adequately address the housing element. this project will do nothing to help the city meet its goals,

but further exacerbate the problem of too many luxury units being offered in a city that is that 115% gold and luxury units. -- goal in luxury units. this eir needs to be recirculated. it needs to include the current environmental setting. thank you for your time. >> linda chapman. i would like to have these distributed. i would like to ask for a continuance. the dates you heard that outreach was done was done to the people who were subpoenaed. and then there was a private meeting on the 19th called by

the director. people in the neighborhood into -- the very first time ever they were allowed to come to a meeting about the church was less than 48 hours ago. the eir changes cannot quite late. i ask for the files because what i would do with my time is to do outreach. i was denied access to the files. i still not been able to see the prior files. this is not right. we need to have at least a continuance. i would have been writing comment on the structure report, but i do not have time to do that. i cannot get the list anyway. people need to know about this. this is demolition by neglect. a contract for demolition. nothing can happen without

demolition. it undermines everything. i hope you will use the continuance time to read the article. there was a board of supervisors hearing, an investigation about violating ceqa. just a week or so ago, i was told by the owner that the windows were removed. my goodness, that created a whole city process when it was sacred heart church. misinformation was given to the same nonprofits that received a subpoena before. commissioner fong: thank you. [reading names]

>> 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?