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

was two years ago, i think the deterioration began when the building was first built. from what i understand, there is no steel frame. the seeds of its destruction were slowly going on for many years. it is not a whole lot different than it was in 2010. i do not see any reason why we should not move forward with cert. but we will hear from the other commissioners. commissioner borden: i think -- and looking at the eir, it states the and environmentally superior alternative is the partial preservation alternative. according to sequel law, we only have to -- ceqa law, we do not have to approve the eir if we do

not agree -- which we have all been discussing. to that point, i think the eir is very clear on the significant unavoidable impact that this project would cause. we have to decide whether or not we think that unavoidable impact is mitigated will. many of us do not believe that it is. we believe the document, at least, identifies that the impact is significant and there is an environmentally superior alternatives available to us. that is what i would say on this point. it is not about whether or not the project is great or not great. it is whether or not, for the threshold of what ceqa seems to require, i've been trying to find out the project description of should actually say. i will said the project objectives in this eir are very

similar to project objectives in many other e i ours -- eirs that we see. we prioritize their objectives -- in the language, i guess that is how the document is supposed to be written. but we have to exercise discretion in choosing the alternatives we might want to pursue. i do not think certifying the eir contradicts that. commissioner miguel: to follow on commissioner borden, this is a situation with whatever has been discussed and evaluated in the eir, in the project comes after that has to fall within

that envelope. we do did many projects were the eir envelope in up being a lot bigger than the project eventually is before the commission. i was one of those who voted negative on the motion when it was before us before. i've actually got through the eir again, plus the supplemental materials, and taken a look at my own thinking on this as to whether or not i feel it should be certified or whether it is adequate, objective, accurate, and trying to separate that entire from what i may think about the project itself. i am trying -- i have been

trying to think of the project as say -- as a diagram and its historical implications. on that basis, saying absolutely nothing about the circumstances or the project, i would move to certify. >> second. commissioner wu: i tend to agree with commissioners borden and miguel. whether or not the physical and packs of the existing environment are described, -- impacts of the existing environment are describes, i see that there are a number of alternatives and the impact has little to no bearing on what i feel about the project itself

and whether or not i think items to be discussed later tonight. on the eir itself, i felt comfortable that it is adequate, accurate, and objective. commissioner fong: additional comments? >> there is a motion on the floor to certify the eir. so moved, commissioner. that motion passes 5-2. that will place you back under the regular calendar for items 18a, b, c. 1601 larkin street, request for

a conditional use authorization. >> good evening. planning department staff. the project proposes the same design that was previously approved on june 24, 2010. the previous project also involves the demolition of the historic church and the construction of the six story building containing 27 dwelling units and 29 of street parking spaces. the design of the project has been revised to reduce the mass, its architectural language. the current design incorporate setbacks above the third story along clay street. the building appears to stack with the sloping topography of

the block. it incorporates various setbacks of the roof line, lessening the apparent height of the project. the uppermost story is visually subservient to the remainder of the building. department recommends that the upper floors of the building be sculpted further to better transition the adjacent buildings, respond to the sloping typography -- topography, and further reduce the visible height of the building. the conditional of approval has been added to the draft motion to require this additional sculpting as the project proceeds. the project requires a conditional use authorization because it is a building exceeding 40 feet in height and requires bulk exceptions at the

fourth and fifth floors. the planning code requires specific findings that must be made that address compatibility with the surrounding environment. the project requires bavarian sister -- variances. however, it has come to our attention that the project requires additional variances. separation requirements for bay windows and production limits. these are not included in the notification for today's hearing and they cannot be heard. to be clear, it would not preclude the commission from taking action on the items that are before you today. it would not preclude the

sponsor from revising the project to make the code compliant if the sponsor chooses to proceed with the current design come at a new hearing would be required by the zoning administrator. if the commission chooses to approve the project, we would ask that you condition any such approval on the project sponsor justifying the additional variances or the project being revised to no longer require the variances. staff recommend that the commission approved the ceqa findings. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions. the project sponsor is here. commissioner fong: project sponsor.

>> if i could beg your indulgence for a few seconds so they can try to get our show sharp. i and the architect for the project. i welcome you to the middle of the evening. some of the images i will be showing, you have already seen.

you have them in your package. given the late hour, i will go through them quickly. i will focus on some of more than others. -- some more than others. ok. there we go. let's roll, please. i think you are all familiar with the site. these are images of buildings in the neighborhood within two or three blocks of the site, tall buildings. next, please. next, please. this is a slide indicating the support that the project has received from neighbors.

buildings and tenants and owners, over 250 letters that a been collected door-to-door, in person. they're also on the record. these letters support the design and they also support the height and support the removal of the church and support the number of floors. next, please. we are doing a lot of charts. these are meetings we have had over the past month with neighbors, 1630 clay. i appreciate the opportunity to present the project. we have tried to reach some consensus without success. it has been a very interesting experience. next, please. i will talk very quickly about this one. we had 32 design elements and items and comments from staff,

neighbors, and other people. we have responded to each and every one of the 32 design comments. the next. this is the design that was presented a year ago. it was presented this february for review and discussion with the planning department. these are the setbacks, excuse me. next, please. next. this is the design that you see before you tonight. it is a design that follows the modeling and setbacks that recommended by the planning department. i will go through this quickly because you have seen them before. this is the view looking back from larkin into the courtyard.

this is the view of the courtyard. next. this is the view taken from the roof level of 1630 clay. next, please. the view of the courtyard indicating the landscape adjacent to the building. view of the -- from the rear of their property. next. this is the elevation of the building shown the photographs of the adjacent property and scale of the building. the adjacent property is about 46 feet tall. it is a four-story building, but it is 46 feet tall. next, please. this indicates the mapping setbacks on the allegations to make a little easier to understand. -