perpetuate these imbalances. nothing about this rule as drafted and closed, removes the ability of the community to weigh in and shape a project, to oppose a project, it only makes it so it occurs at one permit application at a time, and on the merits of that specific project. finally, the office wanted to be conscientious about not overburdening your department with application review for applicants that would otherwise perhaps not succeed if the one application before them did. we can send 156 retail applications to you guys. but we wanted to seek -- we wanted to acknowledge the immense responsibility that are placed on the department staff to address the pressing and competing needs. that was the thought behind that rule. thank you. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> i am sure -- because we got

an application before us, that meets the qualification, we will have a hearing on that see you and pine on it. i can imagine that if there is competing applications, those folks may or may not come and testify on that. or if the neighborhood thinks there is a better application, they can testify against that application. and i think the difficulty is coming up with a process that is perfect. no process is perfect. we can punch holes in this one but there is another one where we are hearing all of those. there will be waves that people can get a leg up. would also be an imperfect process. we wouldn't be able to look 100% objectively at those applications and pick one. there will be lobbyists or whatever the case may be, we have seen that happen here at this commission. i appreciate that clarification.

when will be here -- there seems to be an issue about the haight street parcel. i imagine there's others where there will be other applicants that we can't hear. wonder we hear the first ones? when do we start hearing those? and particularly the one on haight street. >> i believe haight street is tentatively in the calendar for february. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you, commissioner hellas. i want to reiterate that we set up this system so that you would not have to look at the applicant. that is the office of cannabis catch up job. the system is set up so you can focus on whether this use is appropriate at that particular location and not the merits of the applicants. the land use approval runs with the land. you can have the best applicant come here and give you the best sales pitch and you can say, i

really like this applicant and i will approve them. they can go ahead and sell their business then and sell it to someone else who is not a good applicant. the office of cannabis is there to screen the applicant and make sure -- but it can also monitor them to make sure they are operating properly, and within city guidelines. your job is to make sure that the use is appropriate at that location. i just wanted to bring it back to how the system was structured originally. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner mel gard? >> thank you. i will be supporting these amendments today. i just wanted to address a couple of things that were said during public comment and give you my thinking about this. first of all, the public commenter who spoke about his teenager his, you know, liking pot, i want to remind the public that consumption of marijuana to

still be illegal for teenagers and we are working very diligently through the public health department and our san francisco unified school district to do public health education of students in san francisco. there is lots of evidence to the folks who talked about schools, and the access of youth, and the space between retail establishments, there is lots of evidence that prohibition does not work with teenagers. you tell teenagers not to do something and they will go do it the most effective way is public health education. to give them all the information to be transparent. and for parents to reinforce what that is. so for the public, a public health reminder. we are all in this together, reinforcing what is legal and what is not legal. to that end, we have no

commercial rent control in san francisco. we spend a lot of time in this commission talking about cultural corridors and the gentrification that is happening in a lot of our neighborhoods. i am concerned about the effect that this industry is going to have on the commercial corridor where there is lots of small mom and pop businesses. and p.d.r. spaces. this is for manufacturing businesses. i think the other proposal of the office of cannabis to do it this way is actually a good thing. i want to see this one proposal. it is consistent with the equity values that the board of supervisors put forth. i want to thank mrs. elliott for her diligent work.

i think it is thoughtful, it is intelligent and it is thorough. i am really grateful that we have you in that position, and i will be supporting this today. >> commissioner richards? >> to the speaker that was upset that i wasn't sitting here, i was sitting in the back and i heard you say your comments. if i yawn and don't put my hand over my mouth, it is not because i want to be rude. it is because i just don't think about it. i had to eat lunch and that's where i was. this is an interesting topic. i was reminded about what our role is and i said while, we should have a different way. i actually, it brings me back. we are deciding the use of the land. it is up to the office of cannabis to determine who they send. it is a very objective standard. if you are first, you are first. if you are second to, you are second. it is a bit arbitrary.

i could not imagine trying to create a sense of the findings getting ten applicants at once and say, haycock we want to pick this one or this one. can you imagine what this would be like? we would be subject to sales pitches. we get a glamorous project and then it is sold and they value it. i definitely like the way that the roles are defined. lastly, i was sitting up here and going, if you have cannabis as a retail or medical cannabis over here, with a 400-foot radius, but another one over here is 100 feet to the next one , you kind of get a daisy chain effect. how do you look at all of those at once.

it gets really messy. i think they are already going on. i walked down the street and see empty storefronts and some of the commercial folks in my neighborhood say that one was going to be an m.c.d. but we have other applicants that were here and that person is really close. it is already happening. we still have a lot of vacancies as a result of the land grab. as mr paul said, we will have people coming up and testifying against why should or shouldn't be in the haight district. it seems to be a big issue. someone was there first, and maybe there's a lot of other people who want to go in there. maybe they have storefronts that they are paying for it but it seems to be a big issue. we will have people pitting themselves against each other because they will have a target now. the target is applicant eight who was first and people will try and go up and say applicant a isn't good. there is not an alternative for

us to evaluate. that is up for mrs. elliot to determine whether it is good or not. hopefully we can stick to these issues. i support all the amendments except the 600-foot level -- the 600 feet radius. as i look at these, i do feel sorry for those on folsom with the blacksmith shop. it is a landmark. it would be the only reason why the landmark would keep functioning. the other two are so close to each other. i just don't support it. the law says 600 feet. let's keep it at 600 feet. i would be voting against that part if the package did not include striking that recommendation. >> commissioner melgar? >> i'm confused. do you want to write that away? >> everything else is great. >> so two different motions? >> if we could carve out -- they

were taught what recommendations in the end. there were three things boiled down into 20 recommendations. the first one is okay, recommendation one but recommendation two, i don't support. >> you don't support -- recommendation two clarifies that section to say we can consider clustering as part of our decision on those three projects if we do we hear them. but what i'm hearing you say is the original legislation, you don't support allowing. >> we can take them separately. but you can also just express your fear. if there are four folks on that, may be we will take it up and eliminate that. >> mid lone wolf here. >> i'm support -- am i the loan

wolf here? >> i want to be clear. i don't necessarily support those three projects. we will have hearings on those projects but i can't remember if i voted on it or expressed an issue. we continued it but i think some of us expressed disapproval of that when it was heard. we may have it up and disapprove it. the fact that given the sense of fairness we allow these projects to come forward, we may disapprove them, and i want to be on record saying i reserve the vote to write and know if i'm on this commission and they come. i would support that clause. i hear your displeasure. >> i was going to say i would like to make a motion to approve this legislation as presented, with modifications. as you, i have plenty to say, especially about the leland project, but i would like to do it in order. and not just take them out right

now. >> if we don't support -- if we vote on the motion because of one item, then you would reconsider? >> yes. >> great. >> i am agreeing with a couple of items on a -- on a few things thank you to miss elliot. i'm sure you have heard your share of opposition to what is going on as we have and where i am standing on these things is i am okay with the medicinal dispensary converting to retail. i am with commissioner richards when it comes to the hard 600- foot rule. i've heard plenty of opposition from plenty of neighborhood groups throughout the course of our hearings and i am willing to stay with the 600-foot rule no matter what. again, i appreciate commissioner melgar post s. -- commissioner

melgar chalked up comments. it is legal medicinally and legal recreationally. i think we need to accept that and move on. i think we are having a good discussion up here. with all the parties involved, we will come to a good decision. but it's not -- don't stink -- don't think so negatively about this industry. it will create a lot of business and jobs for people in the city. and i think we are having a good discussion up here and i am proud to see that we are getting somewhere with this. but that is where i am at. >> thanks. commissioner johnson? >> i want to start by thanking director elliot and mr christiansen and all the stuff that has been on the vanguard of implementation of cannabis, and being on the vanguard is no easy task. you really are building a plane as you fly it. you all have done an incredible job of doing that.

and in particular, i want to applaud your commitment to equity and to taking the time that it takes to get that right. and i think toeing the line in that -- i just appreciate that leadership. i would say overall, i would agree with all of the comments that my fellow commissioners have made about the process. i hear where people are coming from about the issue of timing. at the same time, i have full faith in the department of cannabis and i also appreciate recognizing our role in the process. i also want to appreciate commissioner melgar's comments around education. implementation has to go hand-in-hand with making sure that all of the folks who live in san francisco, especially our young ones understand cannabis and that we are balancing both the use with family-friendly uses that our safety can be a

place for all of these things. i also wanted to say that i am supportive of the amendment. i think, in particular, i appreciate the amendments that allow us or give us the flexibility to take things like clustering into account. it is the number 1 concern i hear from community members. i will meet with them on other issues and they will say by the way, on the cannabis thing. they are really concerned about clustering and wanting to make sure that folks across the apartment -- departments across the city are really looking at what the right number is. there is no right number, per se , but i think we all want to take into account what the best land use is in the context of what other businesses are operating in a community and what the communities post s. -- community tasha -- community

tasha. cannabis has been thinking about that as well. >> i am quite impressed with your presentation and all the work you have done. we have the right person in the right job. >> commissioner fong? >> i want to thank mrs. elliott for the work. this is a difficult task and there is may be no perfect way to do this, but you are getting it, i think. this may not be the end all, and may be a few years from now things change. this is a good start. i appreciate the local partners and the equity partners, and giving a chance for local business to have a crack at keeping the money in san francisco. as far as the office of cannabis , i -- we rely on some degree on those offices chiming on good operators are not.

i think the system works in san francisco and it will work for cannabis as well. i am in support of the proposed language today. >> great. just to have clarification, are you okay with staff's recommendations on the modifications to the ordinance? i don't think we asked your feedback. >> i'm comfortable with being able to recommend those implementation his. >> i want to clarify motion includes staff recommendations. >> just a question on overall, the rollout to recreational cannabis, to me, in walking around the city, things are going well. but i wanted to get your sense on other neighborhoods. i may not be the one to see how these operators are operating. it seems like we had a lot of consternation about recreation and adult use cannabis that

didn't quite materialize. things seemed to be going okay. i just wanted to get your sense on that tour feedback. >> it's a big question. overall, we have tracked complaints associated with existing dispensaries. in anticipation of the conversations coming to you guys later this year. we have received very few in whole. in general, there is no nonretail permits yet that are permanent where all those rigorous application standards have been applied. we are moving them all in that direction. we started to see the benefits of that, especially in the south and southeast side of the city. notably from a public safety perspective. in general, the legalization part of this, i believe to be beneficial to the overall outcome that i think we all collectively want to see around public safety, use, access, and

exposure. >> thank you very much. all right, jonas, there is a motion and a second. >> there is a motion that has been seconded, commissioners, to approve this proposed code amendment with staff modifications. on that motion. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner richards voting against. >> item 12 at 601 crescent wait. it is an informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners

i'm from the planning department i am here along with the project sponsor and project architect to present architectural revisions to the development project at 601 crescent way. a vacant 3-acre parcel located in executive park neighborhood of the bayview within the community business zoning district, and the 60th, atf and 165 bulk districts. the conditional use authorization for this planned unit development was approved on march 1st, 20 -- 2007. the approved project was for the construction of 465 dwelling units. a 2,150 square-foot community meeting facility, 776 parking spaces, and 129 by cook -- bicycle parking spaces in a single building with 16, eight, seven, and six story elements over a six story parking podium that was screened on the southern side with dwelling

units. the project included 32,000 square feet of private open space and 41,000 square feet of common open space on roof decks and private decks. following the approval permit -- building permit applications, it was completed in 2009. the permit to construct was placed on hold due to changing economic conditions and was never issued. in 2017, the project sponsor reactivated the building permit by submitting a revised architectural plan. of the executive park neighborhood has been subject to multiple master plans since 1979 , and since the original project approval, executive park continue to evolve. with the contractor his current parking lots being zoned to create a mixed use pedestrian-friendly residential neighborhood. therefore, over the last year, the department has worked with the project sponsor to not only

ensure the current design conforms, but also to refine the architecture to be more residential in character and relate to the developing residential neighborhoods. the current design breaks down the development and du toit taught residential buildings. a 16 story and an eight story building, each over 2-eight building parking. the building would continue -- the buildings would continue to contain 465 dwelling units, 2,175 square-foot community meeting facility, 52,000 square feet of common open space and 24,000 square feet of private open space, along with 582 on site parking spaces and 264 class one bicycle parking spaces compared to the 2007 design, the

current design reduces the overall building mapping by eliminating a six-story element adjacent to the tower, and creating an at grade, midblock open space. the project also steps or terraces the massing down with the topography it, and reduces the overall amount of parking while still exceeding minimum code requirements and reduces the volume of excavation into the hillside. the revised architecture enhances the ground floor with active uses and greater connectivity to streets. the façade changes create a more articulated façade with greater variation in materials and color it breaks down or avoids a more monolithic appearance to the development. this concludes my part of the presentation. the project sponsor and architect are here to present further on the details of the proposed changes. >> thank you, very much.

>> hello, planning commissioners i am a senior development manager for this 601 crescent bay -- crescent way project. it has been a great collaboration. special thanks to alice murawski for her work. we are delighted to be here to present to you. this project is being developed by new horizon development l.l.c. it is the third phase of the original three phase development called san francisco a project. phase one and phase two projects were built out by the previous owner of the project and all the common units were sold out. the previous ownership felt -- in 2007, the planning commission gave unanimous approval to the conditional use authorization for this phase three.

the project stayed stagnant in 2008 because of the challenging economic conditions. although the site started grading in 2009 and was completed in 2010. as you know, there has been a great demand for housing in san francisco. as a result, we have reactivated this project and made many upgrades to the previously approved design. to meet with today's market conditions. we kept the originally approved number of units, 465 units. we kept the same building height , bulk and buildable lot area. as required by the conditional use authorization, we hosted a vote with the current phase one and phase two residence about

whether to keep the outside control gate. we received a strong voice from the community to keep the gate and we will honor that. the gate remains. under the c.u.a., we were required to build a computer his community room of about 2,150 square feet to the residence with an obstructive -- unobstructed access. we need to relocate our community room from behind the gate to the front. to support the city touch up public transit program, we have reduced the number of parking and we will add more frequent shuttle service to this area. we have also increased open space and along with parking spaces. this phase two development has

been responsible for the donation of a community park of 20 acres right behind this project. which occurs approximately a decade ago. the cost of maintaining this open space has been shared by new horizon development, along with other property owners in the executive park area. this project will provide about $2 million to the community facility fund. it will pay its fair share for intersection improvement, and we will participate in both the city gt first hiring program and the city build program. the new design has also seen the environmental impact by eliminating the extensive amount of excavation as previously planned.

also the new design creates socially inviting townhome units with that, allow me to introduce john ennis with p.d.r. architects to present the design with the details. >> thank you. >> can i please get the screen we -- can i please get the screen? thank you very much. i will review the design changes we made to the project. i will be here for any questions you can see, there is still a tower and a lowrise piece. we adjusted the architecture and the use of materials and color to differentiate the buildings. previously it was one color and one long mass. on the next slides, i will show you how we took the mass of the tower and the mass of the midrise and split it apart and created a mid walk break.

there is the site. you can see the red shaded area is the residential towards the bay. it is the existing condos that were sold out. the adjacent uses are mostly residential. this is reiterating 465 units. a nice variety of sizes of units one of the changes that we made where is where the units were a little over the market size. so we reduce them. they are still very generous and over any of the average units that we have done in san francisco. it did allow us to tweak the massing a little bit when the units got the right size. there is the parking and bike parking on that sheet. you can see the buildings are kings and pulled apart. in between the buildings, there is a midblock break with a stare that walks out from the lower street to the upper street. as you walk up those stairs, you

can access stoop units along there and access the various open spaces on the levels on both sides at the tower side and at the midrise side. although it is covered by the text on the screen right now, there are stoop units were other just whatever residential units are at grade. we have direct access to those units to the sidewalk and an accessible entrance from an elevator on the backside. we have increased the pedestrian-friendly nature and activated frontage of the building, which was previously not part of the project. you can also see here, in ten, the public community room which is located outside the secure gate that was mentioned by robin , and is there for the community to use. walking up the plan, is a slope side. there is many first floor plans. you can see on the extreme right as you come around crescent way,

there is more stoop units that access the street and you can see the green patch of the midblock break which connects onto the large courtyard from the midrise building. again, coming up on top, you come around the street and come up to the top of the site. you have the main entrances for vehicles and for residents on the top of the site. the lobbies are located there. again, more units with stoop entrances as you go up the midblock break and as you go up crescent way. this is a composite plan. it illustrates the amount of open space. there is quite a lot of open space in a courtyard which is 7e other direction. and also, you see rooftop terraces which will take fantastic views of the bay and the hills beyond in that great location.

we did the same thing at the tower. we have a podium style pool at the lower level which is on the right of this image capturing the pool and hot tub and gathering areas. and in the composite plan, you see rooftop terraces with two levels on the tower on the left. it is open to the common areas of the residences and taking in the sweeping views of the bay. we wanted to say thank you to ella and working with us on this it is a very difficult slope side. it is hard to measure heights and things like that. but we did produce some information that shows the previously approved height, the allowed height, and our height. we are always underneath that. i will quickly go through the slides because i think they are boring. they are just compliant slides. this is a slide that shows a material on the bottom. the darker material at the center is a stone that we will use at the base of the buildings

to create a rich and more enhanced material at the base wherever the pedestrians and people interacting with the building at street level. and then to the right of that, you see a nice and warm wood siding that we will use. you can see that throughout the midrise building. on the left side, we are using a high quality plaster finish. typical of some other buildings we have done in the city. which i will show some slides of those materials were continued up and we'll wrap back to the top side. you can see here, we have broken down the mass of the midrise building using ins and outs in the massing and using various window patterns and using a differentiation of materials to break the building down and give it 30-50-foot pieces as it walks up the hill. this is the side of the building that is to the west.

showing the side of the tower and how that is massed and broken down as it makes its way up the hill. there are some photos of projects we have done in the city. there is pine street which is on van ness and we used this high quality plaster there and it has turned out really well. it looks a lot like metal panel. we are very happy with that and we are proposing that for here and some of the porcelain stone you can see at the base of the building too. this is an image is a representation of the tower on the left and the midrise on the right. i will just go through these few slides. it will take 30 seconds. showing the midblock break. this is a slide showing -- looking along the project to the west and looking at the breakdown of the massing of the midrise building, the use of materials, the in and out of the recesses of the massing center that break it down and create individual buildings along the midrise portion.

that is the final slide where we started. i'm here for any questions you have. thank you very much. >> thank you. we will open this item up for public comment. i have two speaker cards. anybody else we welcome -- anybody else? welcome. >> i represent 70 people that went for the vote for keeping our gate at candlestick condominiums at one crescent way in san francisco. basically, i have lived there for 14 years and i have owned my condo and we have always had a gated community and a security guard service 24/7. with this project, one of my questions, which i am representing about 70 people,

that went for the vote, and voted to keep our gate and security guard services, we have a community of 400 homeowners right now and renters and most of them have a question, is the bayview district and the national park or city park that is next to us, are reliving -- are we going to be living in a safe neighborhood? now mr robin wang said that they are going to keep our gate, but the maintenance and the security guard -- the security guard service has not been mentioned. my question to them is, are we keeping the security guard service as well? those of us that purchased over 14 years ago, over seven years ago, we purchased this property,

paid for it with our lifetime investment to keep the gate and the security guard services. that's why we purchased in this area. without it, i could tell you right now, i would not have purchased. i feel that new horizon takes away our gate, while, they say they won't do that. but if they take away the security guard service which is 24/7, than we do not feel we are living in a safe community. one of my questions is mr wang, can you explain how your revised plan for building 601 with unobstructed access to the community meeting room for the bayview hunter touch up point and little hollywood areas of san francisco would not impact our safety? will outsiders not to go to the

community meeting room be able to bypass and walk through the area areas past the gate without checking in with security? what i see in your revised plans is a brick walking path on the north side parallel to crescent way and going east after the community meeting room. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. your time is up. >> okay. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is witchery. it is a pleasure for me to be here. i am a resident of 501 crescent way and i welcome the construction, that we were wondering, some other residents and myself, how long will this

take? when does it start and when does it end? now that the architect was talking about some quality plaster, which that -- because these are high-rises, how will that protect the residents from earthquakes? in case something happens? will the building fall on top of each other or will the buildings fall on top of the residents? that is my question. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am always wondering when the project -- when the project will end. they have not officially endorse this project so we do not have an opinion about the details. but generally speaking, this is the stuff we like to see. just some high-level

observations that we had to, there has been -- this has been a very long process. anything we can be doing to keep it moving forward is ideal. we are always going to be fans of doing anything we can to get less cars on the street and reduce vehicle miles travelled. as we are all paying attention to the camp fire situation. schools are closed all over the place. global warming is getting in our face more aggressively by the day. anytime there is an opportunity to move these projects forward to, it does make a difference. there -- i have mentioned this a couple of times here. a quarter of the state's co2 emissions is related to parking. we can control it on a micro level that will have a macro impact. doing anything we can to get more housing and transit rich areas is critical. if we are able to get more

density related to the heights, perhaps in small units and avoid going back into the hill to keep the open space open back that is something that we are going to be a fan of. and making sure that the midblock open space allows for easier pedestrian access. no formal opinion, but sorry about that. no formal opinion on anything here but more housing is good. >> thank you. any additional public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioners? >> this is informational. can you -- can someone clarify why this is informational while. >> since the project had gotten an approval and vested that approval, remember we have significant changes in the design or overall intense.

we like to bring it back to the commission just to ensure that they are aware of what the commission has been improving and how it has evolved. >> okay. i generally like the direction the design is going and i appreciate the presentation. the gate issue that came up, is there any -- i know -- do you want to speak on it? >> okay. i don't necessarily -- generally we like questions without -- we like these without gates. this one doesn't, correct? >> as was mentioned before, the original p.u.d., this is the first phase of a p.u.d. from -- while there was an 85, and then an amendment in 94 that has been through a variety of p.u.d. that original p.u.d. did have a gate and there is a gate built.

it is existing and it is there. when they came in to do the p.u.d. for the current site, 601 , the plan commission recognize it could not require the removal of the gate but they thought that conditions were changing and so they did make that the project sponsor, before they complete their building permit contact the existing residents and take a vote or discuss altering or removing the gates. as mr wang stated, the overwhelming response was in support of keeping the gate. so this project -- >> does the gate limit access to the new project also? >> it does. the base of the tower is publicly accessible. that is out in front of the gate so where the lobby at the base of the tower portion and the

community meeting facilities are located, that is in front of the gate. you can walk up and walked straight to the front of that. but further back where crescent way curves, that is all behind the gate. >> okay. >> yes. i'm representing the project sponsor. among the -- i am one of the team members you have heard from i was the only one involved in 2006 and 2007 when i presented this to the commission. just some extra background, the woman who spoke from the homeowners association asked about whether there's going to be a gate and a security card or just a gate. this is not something your staff would know. but there is a recorded agreement that i have in my binder between the predecessor to my client and the homeowners association that says my client 's predecessor and now my

client have the option to maintain the gate and the guard. for the moment, they are paying for both. it is a recorded agreement stating the gate comes with the guard paid for by new horizons. to be clear the commission back in 2007 had no choice but to approve phase three behind a gate because the land that was owned by the phase three owner was already behind to the gate. there is no way to create a public road to the rest of the proposed project around to the gates because those are privately owned properties. that is all i wanted to tell you thank you.

>> thank you. i support projects that don't have gates and people -- certainly people locked doors and lock lobby is, but i think this is outside the purview of what we are approving today. but i appreciate the clarification. >> really quickly, this is an informational item. i appreciate the opportunity. i think this is light-years better than what it was. i am glad that we took the time and the project sponsor took the time and the architects did a great job. let's get her belt. >> we always -- we already had public comment, sir. okay. the time was then. that is why we ask for public comment. i will give you 30 seconds if you would like. i need you up to the microphone and you can take 30 seconds. we are moving on from the project. >> my name is trevor and i am a resident in one of the existing units behind the gate. this was after you close public comment from this young lady

here. i would like to seek clarification. as i understand what she said. pedestrian access to the tower can be gained from outside the gates but presumably from within the tower, access can be gained inside the gate. if that is the case, then it is obvious the security provided by the gate circumvents -- >> okay. thank you. all right. thank you. we will move to the next item. >> item 13. fifty-third street for the hurst building. this is an appeal for the preliminary negative declaration it is my understanding that there have been some last-minute impacts to the ability to consider this item. >> it sounds like staff is

recommending that we continue this item. >> continued to december 6th. >> with that request, we will just hear the matter of continuance first. if it is continued, we will hear this matter on december 4th. >> good afternoon president ellis and commission members. i am a senior environmental planner. the item before you today is an appeal of a mint -- mitigated -- this morning, we received a letter from susan pauley on behalf of one of the two appellants and the friends of hurst building. the latter complaint -- contains comments from the state historic preservation office dated november 9th, 2018, regarding the project project start preservation application. the comments to state the project may be deemed to meet

the secretary of interior his standards of rehabilitation if specified recommendations are incorporated into the project. given that we just received a letter today, the planning department would like to request more time to assess the information contained therein and adequately respond. as such, we are requesting the appeal hearing be continued to december 6th when this project is already on the advanced calendar to come to the commission for conditional use authorization, and a downtown project authorization. this concludes my presentation. staff are available to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you. to clarify, are these comments new? >> these are the first time that we've seen them. >> so there was already a letter sense that included comments? >> that is correct. >> but we had not seen them before. how come they did not direct his comments to us? >> that is a good question. the project sponsor just received them earlier this week on tuesday. >> okay. all right. thank you.

we will take public comment on the matter of continuance, not on the subject matter itself. >> good afternoon. i am here for the appellant. we just received the comments from them last night in response to a public records act request. that is why you were presented and that's why we had not presented the information earlier, because we couldn't. and i think the timing of december sixth would be great because we would have the historic preservation commission hearing before that. i think that is on the fourth or the fifth. and i just wanted to point out that everyone seems to agree that the issue here is compliance with the secretary of interior standards. the standards that determine whether or not there will be a significant environmental impact that is the issue before the preservation commission. >> you are in support of the continuance? >> yes, and the timing. >> just for clarity, the historic preservation commission

will not be able to take up that matter until the issue of the appeal is resolved. that matter will have to be continued from the december 5th hearing. >> i would like to speak briefly on that. >> you have 20 minutes -- you have two minutes. >> under article ten, they do have authority to review and comment on environmental matters and under article 11, the commission, in improving the request of major alteration permit, has to make a determination of compliance with the standards. so it makes a great deal of sense for the commission to weigh in separately from its approval of the permit alteration, but it should give this commission that information , regardless of what the state office of the historic preservation decides about compliance with the standards. there will still be a question about the adequacy of the negative declaration that the commission -- i think they would

be of great help. we have not talked to them and we don't know their view. we do not have a finite project now because it will be revised. it would make sense for the commission to opine on the sea, -- ceca -- opine on the documents before anyone makes any more comments. >> any additional public comment on the proposal to continue. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am the second appellant. i have been sick for a week. two days ago, i called josh and i told him that i'm sick but i had been waiting for this hearing for the last seven years i knew there was something coming down the pipe. he told me, i hope you make it. i was here by 1:00. nobody told me. i received a call at 2:36 pm that someone was requesting a

delay. i don't think this number 6 or 5 is good for me. i have a health issue which i can't be here on that date. and i would -- if you would like , i would like to present a completely separate bill than the other appeal. i am in support of this project, but i need some restrictions. i hope that i can finish for mine and then december 5th or sixth, whatever date they want. >> i wish they had told me before 2:36 pm that there is a delay. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment on the issue of continuance? seeing none, we will close public comment. staff suggested the request from the second appellant.

>> for the appeals that were filed for the case, there were two separate matters that were raised. one was having to do with the entitlement and the requests that miss holly just addressed. the other is that mr somma was regarding -- was regarding a separate parcel then the lots that is currently under review as part of this project proposal the project under review is for the lots that contains the hurst building, and its three separate structures on the subject lot. the hurst garage, which is currently under the same area but on an adjacent parcel. it is not part of the current project. therefore was not subject to the review. [please stand by]

>> is there subsequent prior project approval that comes after, so you can take their feedback and say, so there's three separate hearings, h.p.c., and then us on the approve of the project.

>> president hillis: just on a follow-up, h.p.c. does have the ability to comment on the environmental application. i imagine they chose not to, or we didn't receive anything from them. >> that's right. so the ceqa review, the ceqa review is conducted in advance of h.p.c.'s review. they will receive a copy of the historic resource evaluation part two analysis, which is essentially stating whether or not the project meets the standards as part of their deliberations. they will also just be looking at the design overall, and if there are recommendations for proposed changes to that design, that could be addressed at the time of the h.p.c. hearing as part of the deliberation of the permit to alter. >> one other question, if i may -- >> if i may add further to that response, the purview of the h.p.c. is with regard to historic resources, so their review would be limited to the evaluation of the project with regard to the criteria they use

for assessment on the permit to alter the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation would be the standard of review that they use for that, which is actually a more stringent standard than we use for the environmental review. >> the issue with the second appeal, we're not going to hear two separate hearings, one for the first appeal and one for the second. we want to hear them at the same time. >> yes. >> so would it be beneficial for us to allow the second appellant time to present their case at the same hearing? can we make it the 13th? >> i would defer to the environmental review officer for procedure. >> we would be ready at that time. we had been requested to continue this hearing to the earliest date possible, from our perspective, the 6th. so we'll be ready at either time.

we'd prefer both appeals at the same time. >> commissioner richards: ideally we should continue this to the 13th, so that both appellants can be here. >> president hillis: why couldn't -- what was your issue with the 6th? >> i have a serious health issue. i had to go to the doctor december 5, and i don't know how long things will proceed. >> president hillis: okay, this is the 6th. i'm having a little issue, thank you, okay. thank you. you go ahead. >> does the date of the 13th work for you? or do you not know? >> december 13. >> december 13? >> yeah.

>> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i move to continue this to december 13. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners, on that motion to continue this matter to december 13. [ roll call ] >> secretary: so moved, commissioners, motion passes unanimously 6-0. items 14-a and b have been continued to november 29, placing us to item 15, twooevent-015110cua. >> good afternoon, commissioners. karen durandet, you have before you conditional use authorization for the removal of an unauthorized dwelling unit from the ground floor basement garage area of an existing two-family dwelling. in order for that project to

proceed, the planning condition must grant the conditional use under planning section 303 and 317. the project was deemed to not be financially feasible, as the project sponsor submitted two property appraisal reports. one at the value of the property as it is, and one with a legalized unit, and there was no appreciative difference in the two appraisals. furthermore, the cost to legalize is estimated to be approximately $552,500, and that difference makes it financially infeasible for the property owner. the department is recommending approval and finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the policies of the general plan and the mission area plan c