>> clerk: i would like to remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or out bursts of any kind. when speaking to the commission, if you'd care to do so, please state your name afford. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> clerk: we expect commissioner richards to be absent today. commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance, case number one at 49 hopkins avenue, conditional use authorization. it is proposed for continuance to january 24, 2019. item 2, case number 2018-013861

p.c.a. and m.a.p., large resident special use district, is proposed for continuance to january 31, 2019. items 3-a and b for case 2016770370 d.a. and c.u.a. and m.a.p. are proposed for continuance to march 14, 2019. further, commissioners, under your regular calendar, item 10, case number 2014.0948 e.n.x., large project authorization is proposed for continuance to january 10, 2019. and under your discretionary review calendar, case number 14 at 1973 broadway street,

correlatary review is proposed for continuance to january 31, 2019. i have no other items proposed for continuance, but i do have several speaker cards for 49 hopkins. >> president hillis: all right. thank you, jonas, so we'll open up public comment on items being proposed for continuance.

[inaudible] >> -- your hard-working, honest staff are tarn issued by this happening on their watch. the community loses and the city loses. we get no compensation. when will this stop? this is repeatedly and with greater frequency occurring on your watch, director rahaim. step aside if you can't fix this or won't. this should not be continued today. the community is here to get answers and see that a replacement structure of the same envelope is all that gets built, under like the willis-polk house on chestnut street. like the code requires, a continuance means this could go off record and to the city attorney for another settlement and fine, and then, where would

we be? both the polk and neutra houses should be historic, even after nothing is original left there because they both should stand for the day when finally, the constitutionalized destruction of the planning and building departments came to an end. should we do that? >> president hillis: thank you. >> thank you. my name is jerry dradler. i'm from the san francisco land use coalition. if if the commission agrees to a continuation, the commission should recommend that the project architect eliminate the obvious misstatements in the conditional use application. it also attests to the accuracy

of the application and signed the currently unsigned application. the existing property is one story over garage and not three stories, the box showing ross johnson to be the owner of 49 hopkins avenue should be unchecked. 49 hopkins, l.l.c., at the top of the form, is the only name on the property deed. i'm going to flip this over. if the -- furthermore, the planning department should not accept anymore bogus documents from ross johnson claiming that he is the registered property owner of 49 hopkins avenue. i'm a retired c.p.a. i am a licensed professional, and from experience, i can tell you when another licensed professional refused to attest to the accuracy of a form and signs -- and sign the form --

and refuses to sign the form and an individual other than the registered property owner claims to be the property owner, alarm bells should be going off that there is big-time hanky panky going on. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next please. pa . >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is stephanie peak, and i've lived in san francisco for 55 years, and i'm a new member of the san francisco land use coalition. i ask you to deny the request for continuance of 49 hopkins because it gives the developers and their attorney more time to come up with elaborate ways to ask for for giveness after not asking for permission to

demolish this structure. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. miss rahm. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here asking for the same thing. i'm asking you to -- this -- to not grant the request for continuance because we've been here for far too long. it was over a year ago when a private citizen discovered the illegal demolition of this property at 49 hopkins, and then, on a rainy night, we were summoned to attend a preapplication meeting for its replacement. we didn't have a place to actually attend a preapplication meeting because the property was gone, so we had to hudle around in the garage of a neighbor to go over the plans that were being presented to us by the newark tech of the project, i presume, and this was calling for --

new architect of the project, i presume, and this was calling for demolish. this was over a year ago, so why are we waiting and postponing for another month? what else is going to happen? are you telling us that within a month, they're going to change plans and rectify the house that was illegally demolished, and unjustice that was done is not going to come back within a month. so we're here, asking you to please hear this case. do not continue this case any further. too much time has gone around, and you need to send a message to people that are going to be continuously breaking the law like this. thank you very much. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. any additional public comment on the items being proposed for a continuance? >> good afternoon, president hillis. we're here seeking a continuance to fur do design refinements based on comments

that we've had with neighbors and planning staff. in addition we noticed that the planning commission packet wasn't posted on the website, so neighbors haven't had an opportunity to review this to provide their input. further, we've received several comments and two of which from neighbors that have made statements about attending today's hearing. we've informed them of the continuance that was being advocated by the project sponsor and planning department staff, and if the continuance was not granted, we would feel it would be unfair to those neighbors that were unable to attend today and have stated that january 24 would work for their schedules. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: so i make a motion that we approve items 2 and 3 for the continuance calendar. >> president hillis: and you want to hear item one?

>> vice president melgar: yes. >> president hillis: i'm anxious to hear it, too, but can we ask staff why we're continuing this? i know it's been on our continuance calendar before? >> jeff horn, planning department staff. the project sponsor did request this continuance after the hearing materials were sent out. they requested more time to prepare background materials. we've seen similar projects before the commission this summer. i provided the sponsor with the materials that d.b.i. and the building inspection commission had requested, and i guided them to kind of prepare similar studies in terms of kind of these three dimensional and kind of data analysis of where this project was in its life versus what was originally there, what was approved to be removed during 311, what kind

of move -- what got removed during construction, kind of the information the commission had seemed to want to have before them when making a decision. >> president hillis: and why the 24th? could we hear it earlier. >> that was the date that worked with the sponsor and planning commission's calendar, so that date is something that can be adjusted at your discretion. >> president hillis: okay. thanks. mr. butler, could i ask you a question? i'm always nervous. i guess where commissioner melgar wants to go with this and hear it. i'm fine hearing it. i'm always nervous with things being on the continuance calendar because there's neighbors that may be hear that want to hear this. do you have any concerns that? >> i do, and i'm reluctantant

because project sponsor's attorney is the one that told them not to come. >> president hillis: that's my concern. we have it on the continuance calendar. people don't anticipate it being heard because we typically continue. okay. there's a motion to continue items two and three, and the other ones on the calendar -- do you want the other ones on the calendar, item? >> clerk: item 10 under the regular calendar and item 14 on the discretionary review calendar. >> vice president melgar: yes. thank you. >> president hillis: is there a second on that? all right. commissioner moore has seconded it. >> clerk: you're seconding that motion? very good, commissioners, on that motion, then, to continue items 2, 3-a and-b and 10 and 14 -- [roll call]

>> clerk: that motion fails, 5-1, with -- 1-5, with commissioner melgar voting for. is there an alternate motion? >> president hillis: i would suggest that we move item one up, even to next week, if we need to, 'cause i know it's been kicking around for a while. i know commissioner richards would like to be here for a while. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'd just like to say to the public when we receive the calendar, there is no explanation of why things are being continued. the only thing that puts us on notice, and i'm being very honest to you is that the piles of work that we have to attend to every week gets a little thinner. that's all it is. and from my own, while i have very specific comments on hopkins that i voiced before,

this is not the moment to repeat them -- i looked at this just as a neutral request for continuance with no political slant one way or the other. so i am not prepared to review hopkins, prepared as i need to to make a reasonable and informed judgment. and i'm not telling you what i would do one way or the other, but i'm not prepared because if i get the agenda, i am just taking that project off my to-do list. >> president hillis: so is there a motion, commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: well, i was curious to hear other commissioners voice their own thoughts about that matter. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: yeah, i echo those comments. i hear from the community the

desire to hear this item and that it has been kind of going on for a long time. i just think we have to make sure that we have all of the facts ahead of us. so i do also support the move to move up the item. jonas, would next week be possible? >> clerk: you certainly can. >> commissioner johnson: okay. so i make a motion to continue item one to next week. that date -- and item 2, item 3-a, item 3-b, and 10 and 14 to their specified dates. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. there's a motion to continue item 1 to next week, and items

2, 3-a, 3-b, and 10 and 14 to their respective dates. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners that matter passes, 5-0. commissioners, that'll place us on item four on your calendar, commission comments and questions. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'm sure all of us have been watching the papers and that there is sb-50 coming up. i want to ask the department and miss rogers, if you're now in the room, i would like to see the department doing an analysis update just as it successfully did when it prepared a-27 which basically looks at the effects of that particular bill on san francisco. is there support from the rest of the commission? >> president hillis: yeah. i think that's a great idea. thank you. we will do that. >> clerk: item five,

director's announcements. >> director rahaim: thank you, commissioners. i was just going to let the commissioners know that we were going to do that very thing. there are some bills that we are going to introduce this we week. we are looking at all of these and will be prepared to bring those to you probably right after the first of the year. >> clerk: item six, past events at the board of supervisors, board of apaelz and the historic preservation commission. >> at this week aways land use committee, the rezoning for 175 golden gait avenue was continued to the call of the chair due to a problem with the general plan referral. next, the committee heard the permit review procedures for uses in the n.c. districts ordinance, sponsored by supervisor tang and safai. this ordinance proposed to make permanent a two-year pilot program that exempted certain

noticed from neighborhood notification, in certain districts and neighborhood districts for supervisors four and 11. commissioners, you heard this on november 29 and voted to approve the ordinance with modifications. the modification was to include a two-year report back on the effects of making the pilot program permanent. at the land use committee hearing, two members of the public requested that supervisors delay the ordinance until the board is -- the new board is seated next year. supervisor tang and safai both emphasized that the n.c.d.s in their districts need more small business activity. they both mentioned that the reduction in permitting time frames would help attract more small activity to their districts. the land use committee unanimously recommended the report to the full board as a committee report. next, the committee heard supervisor mapped will man's ordina ordinance that would allow residential care facilities in districts. during the hearing, a few members of the public spoke in

favor of the ordinance. supervisor mandelman spoke about the need for the ordinance, and then the committee voted to recommend the item to the full board as a committee report. the zoning control m.c.s in the c.c.r. district was continued to january 7, and prohibiting cafeterias in office space was continued to december 10. as a full board this week, three items passed their first read. that including 1550 evans avenue s.c.d. sponsored by supervisor cohen, residential care facilities sponsored by supervisor mandelman, and exempting certain notices from 311 and 312 in district seven. the board also passed on first read supervisor kim's ordinance that would eliminate parking requirements citywide. there was quite a lot of comments from the spiefrs on this item. supervisor's yee, safai and cohen made statements against the proposal, citing the need for more dialogue and a lack of

reliable public transit in their districts. supervisor kim gave a very thorough defense of the proposed ordinance and was joined by supervisors mandelman, brown and peskin. supervisor brown proposed removing her district from the proposed ordinance, however this was withdrawn. in response, supervisor yee duplicated the file. in the end, the ordinance passed its first read with a 6-4 vote with supervisor fewer absent. and that concludes my report. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. >> clerk: there is no report from the board of appeals, the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday, and the only of item was interest was they continued the alternatives for 3333 california street, and their adequacy, and that item will be before you next week with their comment later. commissioners -- letter.

commissioners, that will bring us to public comment not to exceed 15 minutes. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may speak for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers speed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. >> president hillis: all right. i've got two speaker cards. >> good afternoon, commissioners, cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. we were glad to see the housing coalition passed. it's where we need to be going, it's where everybody knows we need to be going, and while there's some uncomfortableness that might exist, we need to continue to have the

discussions and educate people, about how this is good for the environment, communities, and how this is good for getting cars offed road, as well -- off the road, as well. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. miss courtney? >> president hillis and members of the commission, kathleen courtney, russian hill residents association. we've appeared you before about the willis polk historic resource, which was unfortunately demolished.

this sick continuation of this saga, and i do want you to know that the san francisco chapter of the american institute of architects is promoting a tour of what is now dubbed residents 950 for $40 on december 19. i requested yesterday that members -- i requested yesterday that members of the historic preservation committee not attend. in response to this egregious action by the architect, the russian hill community association sent a letter to the san francisco chapter basically saying that the integrity and professionalism of the chapter was being called

into this actiquestion because action. the property was purchased for $4 million in 2012, was subject to a settlement of $400,000 in 2017, and mike bueller of the heritage toured the property a couple months after that, and the cottage has been demolished. and today, it's on the mark for $45 million. we're urging that the aiff do a case study for its members. in dealing with professional ethics when professional ethics are called into question when the service is a developer. this is egregious. reading the settlement and thanks to director rahaim and the city attorney, it very

clearly details what was done over a period of five years bit by bit, piece by piece. you can't simply blame it on the planners or the fellows from d.b.i. it really is a question of by virtue of what you negotiate and the settlements, there's a form of aiding and abetting the demolition of historic resources in this city, and we all need to be aware of it, and we're going to be asking you to support our request that the aiasf do something about this. thank you very much for your time. >> president hillis: all right. thank you, miss courtney. >> yeah. i have a bunch of screen shots of what the property was when it was the willis polk house on

my ipad, because the website, when it was sold however many years ago, and it's really shocking what they've done. and i don't know about the second unit, if there really is a second unit, but the shocking thing, the idea that they're having a $40 event up there is kind of astounding because my boys went to school down the street. if people want to see the pictures, if you haven't seen the pictures of the house as it was, i'll be happy to send them to you.

it's not that different. -- you wouldn't want it done to you, golden rule, so thank you very much. and i will be happy to send you pictures of the willis polk house on my real e-mail account. >>. >> president hillis: all right. thank you, miss sciuto. miss rahm? >> thank you. i just wanted to comment that i live in the district where safai is supervisor, and he's proposing to create a -- [inaudible] >> -- and it increases the character of the neighborhoods. and we -- we like -- we would

prefer larger developments so that actually affordability in the city is higher versus if you make it more complicated to build larger buildings, then they don't get built, and we have a lot of single-family homes. and that is lower density, but it creates movie of the affordability problems that we have. i don't know if this is when i bring it up. >> president hillis: it is. >> but i wanted to comment on that. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. so today, i'm not going to be talking about affordability, especially full arguments for affordability. bigger houses are not affordable. so what i'm going to be harping again is 49 hopkins. as miss courtney indicated, how a developer can demolish a

house and being able to put it on the market for $45 million and be able to charge $40. next week, when you hear this, we will be here, and we'll be asking you to not approve the project any larger than what it used to be when they demolished it. that's only right. if you do, that is going to send the wrong message, and we don't want to have another replacement that is going to fech how's tours and palace of fine arts exhibition for people to showcase and collect $40 a visit. we're not saying build. build, but go ahead and build

the number of square feet that you demolished. 3600 square feet plus storage plus garage is not going to fly. we'll be here, we'll see you next week. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you. >> patricia voy. i'm back. the middle class is being shoved out of this city. many of the neighborhoods are losing their viable businesses. i want you to consider one of the things that they're trying to do was say middle class is 200,000 a year. it's not. our middle class is 50 to 150 at the most. i want you to seriously consider in your future months consider this element. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional general public

comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners, jeremy paul. last week in your packet, you received a status about the case of may's oyster house on a six-month report. sorry i wasn't able to wait until the end of the hearing last week to comment on it. y but afford i'd like to express my appreciation on how it all paid out. this business is suffering the mixed blessings of being a wildly popular establishment and with the help of dario jones in code enforcement, william perry, the planner, the business owner has taken this on really full bore and done a lot of both soul searching and hard measures to correct a

problem out there, and i think that the process has done what it's supposed to do. the result is a much better business and much more neighbor, much better performer in the community. and i'm just glad to see that it all resolved well, and that the planning department acted so effectively to help the -- the project sponsor get it done. thank you. >> president hillis: great. thank you very much. any additional general public comment? seeing none, we can move to the regular calendar. >> clerk: very good, commissioners, number seven, the home-sf project authorization planning code amendment. >> before you today, we have a piece of cleanup legislation on

the hoef sf program proposed by supervisor katey tang. it brings two main changes to bring home-sf's project and fee schedule in line with the original intent of the program. the first would be a clarifying amendment in section 328, which is the code section governing home-sf project approvals. if you'll recall, the original intent of section 328 was that it would be an entitlement similar to a large project authorization, so that would allow home-sf projects to receive necessary modifications through one commission hearing and one entitlement, and after that, it would go to the board of appeals. the exceptions were any c requirements put in place by the voters or pose for a specific use type or specific

use size. you may recall the first problg to come before you was 2601 vanness. -- for those c.u.s that i mentioned, i was not clear enough that other c.u.s would be superseded. so this legislation would provide that clarity, would add clarifying language to sections 206 and 328 to state that most other conditional use authorization or other discretionary approvals that home-sf project would otherwise trigger do not apply. the section 328 takes precedence. the exceptions would be voter mandated c.u.s, for example, formula retail, and these would remain c.u.s. they would still require a c.u. in the cases of c.u.s for use type or use size, then, the

commission would still make the findings, and the commission would sti -- findings would have to clarify with 328. the second is all density bonus projects seeking approval under 206. the purpose of the c when the program was adopted was to cover the cost of projects that required a planning commission hearing. however, as adopted, the fee applied to all projects in that section, section 206, whether they required a hearing or not. so this amendment -- so since that was the fee schedule came into effect 100% affordable housing bonus program projects, there ises -- amendments have bye-bye made so those projects no longer -- have been made so those projects no longer require commission hearings.

the amendment would clarify that only those projects that require a commission hearing under section 206 are charged that fee. the department supports this legislation as drafted, and we are offering one -- actually two recommended amendments, one of which made it into the case report, which is we're recommending that the commission also consider any requests for parking that's in excess of what is principlely permitted. this would normally trigger a c.u., so we're recommending that the -- that the commission consider those same findings and criteria as part of section 328. this would simply make it clear that any requests for parking in excess of what's principlely permitted would continue to be approved by the commission. the additional one which didn't come to us in time to make it into your case report, but i have a summary here s on the

sunset date of this tiered program that was introduced earlier this year. currently, those tiers expire on december 31,2019. [please stand by].

>> that concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions after public comment. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: yeah. can you just summarize the second recommendation again? i didn't quite again that. >> yeah. so currently -- so now, in june, we set these tiers, so home-sf used to be 30%, you give us 30% affordable, and in return of the project, you get two stories. the whole idea, the intent, i think, was that we would set those now, see how they work,

and when the attack, which is sort of looking at the inclusionary rates of all of our programs reconvenes, we would look at that, decide if the tier program was something we should keep, but really, the tack is where that decision was made. we're deciding rather than having this kind of hard deadline, leading the tack sort of do the work and sort of resetting -- yeah, resetting the rates and reconsidering the tier program after they've had a chance to really do the work. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: as of last tuesday, there's another question, and that is should the supervisors pursue eliminating parking standards and what would be basically no minimums. any request for parking, even

one car, would be in excess of. are you prepared to comment on that? >> so this is actually referring to maximum -- to parking maximums. and so we have -- my understanding is that we have -- we currently still have a minimum parking requirement, but we also in many districts have a maximum that's principlely permitted, and if you want to provide more parking than that, then you have to ask for a conditional use. so the minimum is going away, but the maximums are still in place. >> commissioner moore: i have a feeling that the maximums are somewhere on their way out because they contradict minimums. so the macmums and minimums is zero. in that case, why would we have maximums which are far in excess of what we want, any way? so i'll be prepared to see this

particular legislation request that, because included in housing is parking. >> many of our maximums are well below what we required as minimums. for downtown, it's 1.25. those are maximum. you can't do any more than that. the point is, what paolo is saying, sometimes, there's a conditional use allowing you to go higher than that, and we would like to bring those to the commission when you go above those maximums. >> commissioner moore: so it would not affect eliminating minimums. >> president hillis: commissioner coppell? >> commissioner koppel: motion to approve? >> president hillis: with all the seconds?

>> commissioner koppel: yes. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. that'll place us on item 8, a draft environmental impact report. >> good afternoon, president hillis, commissioners, rachel shott, planning department staff. joining me today are my colleagues rick and andrew. other members of the project sponsor team are present, as well. commission secretary is providing you a handout that i will refer to later. copies are available for the public to the table on my left.

like to tell you a little bit about the project. the proposed project would reright la redid redevelop the site. the proposed building would include up to 984 residential units and about 30,000 windows square feet of ground floor retail, over parking. terrane

as such, the building is considered to be a historical resource under ceqa for its association with the iconic fillmore west and for its direct association with music promoter and impresario bill graham. the period of significance is from 1968 to 1971. the project sponsor has asked to give a brief overview of the project and variance, so at this time, i will introduce jim abrams, speaking on part of the project sponsor. >> good afternoon, jamie abrams. i'm counsel to the project sponsor. this project has been a long time coming. we want to thank staff for their work on it. this project started back in about 2014 far in advance of the hub plan, and we proposed a

project that was consistent with the heights that were adopted as part of market octavia. that's the proposed project with the towers and existing codes of 200 feet. both the sponsor proposed -- we've decided that we would include as a variant in the e.i.r. this 590-foot tall tower, which is in anticipation of the hub. the department also requested that we include it, based on the urban design of the single tower, which they preferred. the two-tower scheme, the project is designed by handel architects, and the single tower scheme is designed by k.p.f. architects. after publication, this e.i.r., t

the -- the project sponsor has decided to decrease the amount of parking, and also just want no know that we will be having an informational presentation about this project. so thank you very much. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. >> again, as a reminder, the purpose of this hearing is to receive comments on the adequacy and the accuracy of the proposed project report.

[please stand by]. >> i'll briefly go over the impacts identified. there are three significant and unavoidable significant impacts. even with the implementation of mitigation measures, the following impacts would be significant and unavoidable. with regard to historic architectural resources, it would involve demolition of a proposed historic resource. with regard to transportation and circulation, construction of the proposed project for a variant could coincide with construction of other projects in the area, leading to substantial interference with pedestrian, vehicle or bicycle circulation. this is the accumulative impact, and with regard to wind, construction of the proposed projector variant in combination with construction of other projects in the area would alter wind currents such

that when key projects could occur. a public hearing for the historic preservation hearing was held to november 17, 2018. subsequent to this hearing, the h.p.c. provided a letter on the draft e.i.r. to summarize, the h.p.c. found the deir to be adequate and concurred with the analysis concerning historic resources. vaguely, the deir supported the mitigation measures described in the draft deir. the h.p.c. requested app amendment to the portion -- to a portion of midgas station

measure mcr-1-b interpretation. as written, the multigas station measure requires a sponsor to fund a his tore can cal study to identify the significant trends and events and music of the 1960's counter culture in san francisco as well as identify various sites and buildings in san francisco. the h.p.c. requested that this study be expanded into a citywide conduct statement for the 1960's counter culture in san francisco. returning you to the handouts, in addition to the h.p.c. letter, i've also included table three from the draft e.i.r. which includes a proposed project, the variant, and each of the alternatives. before i conclude, i'd like to remind members of the public in order to be included, final

comments must be submitted early at today's hearing or in writing to the planning department prior to december 11, 2018. we'd also appreciate it if members of the public would state your name for the record prior to providing comments on the draft e.i.r. after the close of the comment period, the planning department will prepare and publish a response to comments document which will contain orresponses to all relevant comments on the draft e.i.r. following publication of the response to comments document, the planning commission will conduct a hearing to consider whether to certify the e.i.r. as adequate, accurate, and complete. so this concludes my presentation. as i mentioned, city staff and members of the project sponsor's team are available to answer any clarifying questions. otherwise, i would respectfully

suggest that the item be open for public testimony and the commission comments on the draft e.i.r. >> president hillis: and we will do that. i've got two speaker cards, but if others would like to speak, please lineup on the screen side of the room. mr. haas? you can speak, sir. >> commissioners, i'm jim haas. i live at 100 vanness, and some of you nay i've been involved in all matters civic for the last several decades. i want to dale with the items in the e.i.r. labelled pedestrian. as you know, this could be the most important intersection in san francisco. it also serves as the beginning of an important corridor into civic center, used by thousands

of employees and now new residents. particularly in the event, the many thousands of people attend perform -- evening, the many thousands of people attend performances. unfortunately, the intersection is a very tawdry place. the conditions are bad, and the -- it is exacerbated by the entrances to the muni station, the cement u-shaped structures, which people lurk behind and write on and other things, and make it scary for people in the evening. i have met people who refuse to use that station in the evening because of the conditions. it is particularly scary to women. so the -- all the new projects that are proposed in that immediate area are there to help, not only to provide housing, but in my view, to improve the pedestrian

environment. and that means dealing with having active uses on the street which really doesn't occur now and into the evening, and hopefully, dealing with the muni station entrances. the project that you have before you, from my review of the e.i.r. in talking to them, i believe attempts to deal with that quite well. i would like to make sure that the e.i.r. covers the possibility of incorporating an entrance into the muni station through the new project, rather than keeping the old entrance. they've indicated an interest in exploring that. the m.t.c. in the past has not -- the m.t.a. in the past has not been overly excited about that, but it would certainly make -- if we could get more of the entrances handled in that way, it would certainly make it more pressurable for people to use that area.

so i would like to see all the sections that deal with pedestrian beefed up as to who's they're now, what they're doing, what can be done to made it improved, and why this project would be a significant enhancement of that experience. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name's aaron and i'm the cofounder and c.e.o. of clean tech. i'm actually a san francisco born and raised native, so this is my first frisk planning commission meeting. i don't know how you feel, but i am excited with this. our company, we go into a high-rise building, collect everything, convert it both into treated water, and then we take all of the organic waste and turn it into soil.

the reason why i'm here is we've been developing this technology the last four years. one of the hardest parts of technology for us when you're dealing with infrastructure, the legal, all these overlapping things, is finding investors who want to work with the new technology. every single party that we've talked to wants to incorporate knees technologies. the problem is no one wants to be first, so working with this developer on this project, not only have they agreed to support us with their engineers, with their developers taking us through a project is actually built, but in this building they've allowed us to test out our technology. frankly, that is an invaluable thing for a new technology like ours, and they've been amazing partners, so much so that in the last year of all of this

testing, we've recently hosted the global climate agency summit, and our technology took the first prize in that competition, something that was only possible like this with a partnership with the developer in this project. this is different for me, but what i will say is if this does go through and we can install our technology into this project, this will be the first project of this scale in the entire world who is doing this type of pioneering, far reaching waste water recycling. most developers do the bare minimum, but the developer that we're partnering with has gone well above and beyond. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> hello. my name is joe lopez. i am the c.o.o. of nonplus ultra, who is now the tenant at 10 south vanness, which i'll refer to as n.p.u. we as n.p.u. are excited and grateful to have partnered with crescent heights at 10 south vanness. when we learned that 10 crescent heights was searching for a tenant to partner up with to create something special in a neighborhood, who has innovative ideas to beingtivate the space for -- activate the building for community and cultural events, we were

excited. crescent heights partnered up with us and hosted a friends and family carnival. we also had a gay pride celebration, and we're really looking forward to our programming in 2019. the future of our partnership with crescent heights is very exciting to us at n.p.u., and we're proud to bring exciting and innovative projects supporting the community. we're proud to support the project at 10 vanness. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. there's a button to scan out

there. >> my name is larry mansbach, and i'm speaking here in support basically of the project so long as the fillmore west auditorium is retained, and i'd like to call your attention to the draft e.i.r. where there's a reference to the superior alternatives. that superior alternative is the planner's jargon. there are two, and it calls for the retention of the ballroom item. i think we are losing too much of our cultural history in san francisco, and it's important that preservation be under taken. just like the previous speaker, i was born and raised in san francisco, and looking at me, you can probably guess that i was in high school at the end of the 60's, beginning of the 70's. by the way, that was a great time to be a young person in

san francisco. i went to performances at fillmore west. i think the importance it needs to be preserved, 4 million people attended performances there. it was comparable to the apollo and the savoy theater. now with regard to the draft e.i.r., although i'm agreeing with the superior alternatives, i think the text and the body is lacking in recognition of the historical and cultural significance. i notice that there were only three pages referencing that when in fact as part of the ceqa process, there's this great report prepared by swca. i don't know why it was so abbreviated. i understand the document's already 700 pages long, but you know what? we know there's going to be traffic. what we don't know is the history of the project. now, i'd also like to