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. -indicating the stepping down, s referred to in the staff report. next, please. the top left-hand color is 22 feet from the property line. next, please. this is a view looking from the corner of clay and larkin. i want to show you the stopping -- stepping. the red line represents the

zoning envelope for property on this project. 55 feet tall. some similarities some design that have been before you a few years ago. i want you to notice the way in which the building is cut back from back zoning envelope. next, please. looking back up. again, next. you can see the sky inside that zoning envelope. the way the planning department asked us to look at these setbacks, i think we have responded positively. next. this is obviously larkin. the building envelope goes across the entire frontage. we have not done not because you're going to maintain the open space between the buildings -- we are going to maintain the open space between the buildings. the entrance, we have tweaked

the entrance since last presentation. it will go through further development. we are adding limestone. next. this is a footprint of the church in the peach color. it is over a footprint of the building. we listen to the concerns of president fong and tried to open up the corner. next. we have pushed the building away from the corner. next. given its more transparency. the sidewalks on both streets are 15 feet from the curb. it is a very large sidewalk. next. looking back towards clay. next.

>> this is the building with the street context from the last hearing and is looking up clay towards larkin. next. the buildings on the left hiding not too successfully behind a telephone pole looking into section of clay and larkin. next, oh, go back to that slide, please. i want to point out that the building on the right is about 10 feet lower than our building on the left. next. and this is looking up larkin towards clay and another telephone pole performing admirably. next, please. bay windows which i introduced at the last hearing, we'll roll through this quickly. next, please. next. and a nighttime shot that is horribly gatherish in this rendition of the rendering.

i apologize for the color scheme we have here. it's not what we had intended. this is the presentation. i have the plans in case you want to refer to them. we have them in the slide show. i have data here as well. i was trying to respect the time that i was given and the late hour. thank you. i'm here to answer any questions. president fong: thank you. public comment? i'll call a new names at a time. paul wormer, rafael davis, samantha chandler, pamela wong, elizabeth gordon, and if the first speaker is ready, are any one of the names they called is ready? >> thank you very much, my name is rafael are davis with

chandler properties. we do manage several 5,000 units here in san francisco, a lot of them in that neighborhood. many of the people that do come into san francisco i take around and they do notice that building and they have nothing but negative things to say about it and hopefully with the new development plan it will show growth in san francisco and i support it. thank you. president fong: thank you. >> good evening. my name is a mantha chandler duvall. and my mother and i, carolyn chandler, own a local real estate firm here in town who my colleague who just spoke, rafael, also works with us there. as rafael mentioned we manage 5,000 units in san francisco, many of which is rental

property. rent control is rental property. we rent to many rent controlled tenants who have also in the area, who have also noticed that the church is promoting a lot of homelessness and negative behavior for the neighborhood. i also live two blocks from the project site on clay and jones. i have also noticed this. and i urge you to support the project and to support it as a form of development for the future of the city and to also promote new tenants and new business. so i support the project, thank you. >> thank you. mike carpet, gregory corbett, nick hannick, zach sutter, adam meyer, susan brandt.

>> good evening, commissioners and director. my name is elizabeth gordon. i along with my original co-owners purchased 1630 clay street, a six unit residential building in 2005. 1630 clay street is a immediately adjacent to the new building at 1601 larkin and is the neighboring building that will be most directly impacted by this new project. since we have property line windows that will now be closed in if this current project is approved. since 2006, i have supported the project with the understanding that our building would be able to maintain at least four of our 11 property line windows. in good faith, we have already voluntarily removed five of those windows in anticipation of this project being approved. my architect and i reached this understanding about the preservation of at least four windows after meeting and

reviewing the then project plans with the developer. my prior conditional support is evidenced by my letter to the then planning director dated may 24, 2006. i would request that that letter of conditional support be added as part of the record. in 2007, my original owners and i sold three of the six units to three owner occupiers. at this time, i remain the owner of half of the building, that's units one, four, and five there. recently i learned that all property line windows in our building would have to be closed in despite the understanding i had with the developer. the developer's change of architect and redesigning of the project building which came about to address the planning department's concerns and various neighbor input apparently triggered this turn of events. since then, the developer, his architect, my co-owners and i

have been working in good faith with one another to try and reach an agreement that would mitigate as much as possible the loss of air and light that our building will suffer from the close-up of all property line windows. while we have yet to finalize a mutually agreeable arrangement in this regard due to time constraints, i am hopeful that we will still be able to do so in the immediate future. as such, subject to and conditioned on my co-owners and i reaching an agreement with the developer, please know that the project is fully supported by my original owners and myself. the project has come a long way, we believe, since 2006. we think the design is elegant and interesting, respectful of the greater neighborhood with all its setbacks and stepbacks and it's conducive to keeping families in san francisco which need more than a single-bedroom

unit. i urge the commission to approve the project as submitted but subject to this agreement being reached with the developer concerning our loss of light and air. thank you. president fong: thank you. >> in addition, i have a letter -- president fong: you can submit the letter if you want. >> on behalf a different party i have been asked. she was here for two hours and had to leave for an engagement. she has asked that i read her letter and put it in the record. may i do so? president fong: you have used your three minutes. >> am i allowed her three minutes? president fong: if you want to submit it, it's great. submit it right up here. thank you. >> good evening, my name is mike corbett and i have lived within three blocks of 1601 larkin for the past six years. i lived at the corner of polk and sacramento which including the retail is a seven-floor building. i know live by pacific and high which is a four-story building.

neither building looks out of place or has had an adverse impact on the surrounding buildings or area. i think this site would be no different. having looked at the plans over the past -- having seen the developments in the plans over the past few years, i like what i see. i'm fully onboard. i think it's going to have a great impact on the area. having lived here for so long and being so close to the church, my car was broken into right in front of the church a couple years back. i have seen countless homeless people on a daily basis using drugs, defecating, urinating in the area and i think this project is exactly what we need to change that. thank you. >> good evening, my name is nick and i live on 1688 sacramento street which is about two blocks away from the development site. i, too, have had my car broken

into. i have lived there for three years and every time i have walked by and taken the bus by, drove by, parked by there all i have ever seen are homeless people or drug users loitering the property. i think the development would be great because it would allow people, encourage people to come and move into a great neighborhood and bring in business. local shops and other businesses are in that area. i'm definitely onboard. i think you guys should approve it. thank you. >> my name is gregory corbett and i live at 965 hide street and i'm a neighbor, i live in the community, have for a number of years and the neglect and the blight and the deterioration of the property there has bothered me since i moved in. when first noticing it, i asked myself what is going on here. and the answer is nothing,

nothing has changed, it's gotten worse by day and by night as people have said. it's really a safe haven for homeless and there is illicit behavior that is a threat. it bothers me by day. there are obscenities being shouted. i feel threatened in some ways. by night, i have a dozen friends that are in the area going to or from after the sun goes down, myself walking by, all 6'5" of me, i even feel scared because i don't know what is going on. it's unpredictable. it needs to change. so the development without question is going to add value to the neighborhood, to the community nearby store has been shut down and being changed to trader joe's and c.v.s., it's exciting. it's progress, it's moving forward. it's again going to add value to the community. i think it's important. i ask that you grant the project.

thanks. vice president wu: thank you. >> hello, my name is adam meyer. i live on the corner of polk and sacramento. i have lived there for almost six years. the blight of the community has been that church, unfortunately. i have seen it only get worse over the years. like other people have said, my car, because i have a couple roommates and we only have one parking space, i have the luxury of having to park in front of that church a few times, quite a few times. two times my car has been broken into. the neighborhood is interesting. it's kind of at the crossroads of a couple neighborhoods coming together and fortunately a lot of things have improved. the store is turning into what i think is going to be a much better supermarket. bob's burgers which was kind of a rundown diner has turned into a nice eatery. another store has come in. a lot of things have cleaned up around the property, around the

neighborhood, and it looks great. the church being the blight of the neighborhood, that transforming into a living community for people to move into i think would be a great benefit for everybody. it's unfortunate that church has been the way it is. it's unfortunate that many of the transients have adversely affected the neighborhood and a development like this will move it in the right direction. so i am for the project and i hope you guys will approve it, thank you very much. >> good evening. my name is zack sutter and i'm speaking on behalf of converting this church into a residential complex. i live on 1635 clay street, which is about 30 yards from the church and i have lived there about two years now. i