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. against public policy and comm sense and it would really be a terrible matter of public policy to do. importantly, the -- in order to approve this as is, you would need to make a statement of overriding considerations. the statement before you basically says that this project is consistent with planning and the general plan and various planning policies. and whether you agree or don't

agree that it is consistent, that's step one for any project that would come before you. that's not a reason to override a significant environment impacts as you're supposed to be looking for something special, something that provides public benefit, not that is only required by law. so you can't make the findings and i would ask you to deny the conditional use and not make the findings. president fong: thank you. joyce lewis. we have to keep the door clear. i think most of you guys have kind of spoken already. kathleen courtney, frank clamath, michael finnick, i think you may have spoke already, willie adams. >> i'm joyce lewis. first of all, i would like to say that i have lived in the neighborhood for over 40-plus years and even as a child, myself and my siblings were

sent to that church for sunday school. so i do have a long history with the church itself. i also wanted to note that the neighbors and the neighborhood association had tried to work with the developer and the respond -- sponsor for many years as we are anxious to have this abandoned building dealt with. it's a aye sore and the homeless and all of that other stuff that has been going on. but 20 years ago, it was really a beautiful church as one person had noted how it was so like a piece of art and so that it was actually an asset to the neighborhood. it brought space to the community and it had open space and the air and light in this densely populated area. also i want to note that the developer and its caretakers have abandoned this building

which is an example of the demolition by neglect as has been noted and by the owner's admission that there has been no maintenance in place for this 100-year-old building for many years and as noted, the property does reflect this. i am, again, coming before you to protest development of the building at 1601 larkin street because of the height is way beyond the neighborhood limit along larkin and along clay, despite the setbacks that have been noted, it's still a huge massive building that is out of character with the neighborhood. again, the concern of the block of the sun and open air, among not just the adjacent buildings, but along down larkin street and clay street and also down washing street. again, also there are other alternatives as noted as we won't go into.

so i urge the commissioners to have consideration for denial of the passage of this development and, also, would encourage the developers to even come back and meet with the committee of the neighbor to come with a different plan, an alternative. thank you. >> good evening president fong and members of the planning commission. my name is cathly courtney. i'm chair of housing and zoning of the russian hill community association. we are just north of the project being discussed. every thursday this commission reviews projects that has the potential for having unvoidable consequences. i'm sure the planning commission that approved the apartments had no inkling of the precedent it was setting

and the rash of high-rises that it encouraged by its approval. until the siths of this city said stop and a 40-foot height limit was put into place almost a half century ago. the proposed project you're looking at if approved has the same precedent-setting potential. you're getting ready to break the 40-foot height limit that the people that came before us worked so hard to put into place. you break the 40-foot height limit here, you'll set a precedent, you'll set a precedent for height and bulk that is beyond measure and by doing so and approving this project, you're going to change the diversity and the peoplescape of this neighborhood. it's impossible to fathom how a

project that is so architecturally abusive of the neighborhood could meet the conditions under today's conditional use. how can anyone say that "the proposed use at the size and intensity contemplated and at the proposed location will provide a development that is necessary or desirable for or combatable with the neighborhood and the community." we don't need this type of housing here. your decision is not based on how personal the developer or the community advocates are or are not or whether there is blight because there is absolutely no question that this building has been abandoned and something must be done or how much time and energy the developer has put in this project. the only decision that is before you now is does this

project as proposed provided a development that is necessary or desirable for and compatible with this community. please decline the question for conditional use. thank you. >> president fong, commissioners, frank again, neighborhood association. i totally agree and empathize with all of the comments on the blight at this corner. however, my view of it is it's intentional neglect, intentional blight and intentional destruction. this has been the property owner's and the project sponsor's strategy for the last five years. let the church fall into such disrepair that neighbors who you heard tonight will take anything in its place. two years ago the neighborhood said no to this strategy. we argue that the proposed building was too tall and too

big and did not fit into the neighborhood. this commission agreed and did not approve that project. now two years later, after lawsuits, siennaing of neighborhoods and not for profit groups, the sponsor comes back way building that is just as tall and just as much bulk as the one that was denied two years ago. nothing of substance has changed. in the past two weeks, we have met two times with the project architect and with the project architect set up a third community meeting for him to show the building to neighbors. we also met with the project sponsor for a meeting at the planning department. and all of the meetings, as all of the meetings with the project sponsor over the past five years, the project sponsor refused to compromise anything on the height and very little on the bulk of this building. this is an 11,000-plus square foot lot. the proposed building on a lot this large will be enormous and totally out of context with the neighborhood.

we have compromised with other developers on our neighborhood on polk and pacific right now the project is going on and it's on polk street, a block from van ness where they have nine and 10 story buildings and they agreed to a five-story building with the entire fifth floor set back 12 feet to respect the streets going up pacific. if this church cannot be adaptively reused, what we would like to see on this side let's get rid of the blight. we would like to see a four story building or five story building with appropriate setbacks that respects the hill on clay street and fits in with the character of the neighborhood and provides the type of housing that we need. this city does not need additional high-end multimillion dollar housing. it needs medium priced housing so that our diverse neighborhood can stay diverse. i respectfully ask you to deny this project. thank you.

>> hello, again, commissioners, president fong, i just wanted to add a couple of comments, i know that you have already heard -- president fong: excuse me, state your name for the record. >> i'm robin tucker. i'm the co-chair of the pacific avenue neighborhood association which is also known by many of the neighbors in the neighborhood as pana. i would like to make a couple of additional comments. while the project -- this is in reference to the residential mixed use 40-foot height zoning. while the project sponsor has a right to develop his own property and we in fact, pana and pana's neighbors, we really encourage development. we would love to see new development that enhances the quality and scale of our neighborhood and enhance the quality of life, but the

project sponsor should be subject to the planning code regulations and guidelines. the zoning height of mixed use residential district is 40 feet . approving a conditional use to build beyond this regulation based solely on additional housing units is not what was contemplated when the zoning laws were passed. in pana's opinion, the two additional stories approximately six housing units, does not add sufficient value to justify the conditional use, especially when it sacrifices the neighbor's wants and needs and desire to preserve and enhance their quality of life. the 1601 larkin project as proposed would really destroy the small scale neighborhood and the quality of life along

larkin and clay streets. there should be no question that this would be the case if the project is allowed to move forward as presently proposed. thank you very much. >> commissioners, i'm michael michael skolnick. i don't think i will use three more minutes tonight. i have some great neighbors with me tonight. i mean, these people have put a lot of time and energy and thought into this project and i have lived in the neighborhood since 1997 and, yeah, i have seen it deteriorate, but i think that the day i walked into the planning department and had a meeting with them, the zoning administration, larry babner that i knew i was going to take on this site.

you know, gordon eakin will talk about a meeting that we had with neighbors in january of 2000. that was a tense meeting. we said to him, you know, there are lights on that property. turn them on. he said, you know, i'm going to go back and i'm going to look into that. you know, i saw an electrical contractor go out there. one day i got so tired checking d.b.i. records. i noticed this electrician. he set up for the lighting. he did the electrical work and the lighting was never turned on. i'm just amazed that we have, you know, this football team of guys in here tonight, you know, saying there is no light. it's not safe. of course, it's not. that's by design. this is like textbook developer stuff. so i ask you tonight, just let's send a message and deny this project. i mean, this project has

changed considerably, but it's got to come down in its scale and it's got to come down in its bulk. we're making reasonable requests of this developer and we asked him to come to the table and work with us, not send proxies to work with us. thank you. president fong: call a couple more names, ruth henceworth, andres merkel, jim adams, steven martin, roan jen, kargen jen. >> i'm wiley adams. i live a block away from the project site. i have been involved with this project since day one. i wanted to reiterate some of the messages that have already been shared about the height and bulk. i'm somewhat concerned that the conversation has been distorted from a 40-foot by right to a 65-foot by right.

there is still a requirement to be necessary and desirable, but at no point have we heard a valid, any argument as to why the 65-plus-foot building should meet these exceptions. this building the planner has talked about the appearance of setbacks. i don't understand why we can't have actual setbacks. the buildings on either side are three feet over garages. we have talked add news yum about the context of this neighborhood, the other buildings. this will be a massive building on a blank lot, square lot, yet there are a number of c.u.'s and variances being requested. i don't understand the justification for it. as has already been stated, we successfully negotiate aid project on polk street, another large lot, a five life story building with significant setbacks on the fifth floor and

we are consistent with our message. we are consistent with our needs. we're consistent with our negotiating that for some reason on this project, it hasn't been accepted. it hasn't worked out. so i urge the planning commission to deny the c.u.'s and variances required. thanks. >> good evening again commissioners. i live 300 feet away. i think we can all agree that we have a planning code which represents some sort of consensus on what san francisco should feel like and look like. we can also agree that this project exceeds this planning code considerably. i think we can also agree that we have a variance mechanism and a conditional use mechanism which in some ways tie to some notion of public benefit. we give exceptions when there is a public benefit to the planning code.

when we want to put in more affordable housing, when we want to trade maybe a little extra height for some more open space, when there are special circumstances. i wonder what the public benefit here is in violating the consensus of the planning code? and what the planning code really means anymore. i don't see a public benefit in luxury housing, 800, 900,000 a square foot. i don't see any open space created here. i see a 4,800 square foot hinthouse, presumably inhabited by a man who has made many friends in the neighborhood and i wonder what the tradeoff really is and what the public benefit of giving an exception really is. if we do give this exception without this public benefit, what that says about our commitment to respect for something we call the planning code. so i would like to respect

fully request that you turn down the conditional use authorization. thank you. >> thank you. my name is ruth haynesworth. i live a half a block from the church. i have lived there for over 30 years. the building that is proposed seems to have absolutely nothing in common with any other building in the immediate neighborhood. it will change our neighborhood. right now, the neighborhood has zero percent vacancy rate. everybody has talked about that the church has blighted the neighborhood. it has not. it is not pretty. it should have something done with it. we do not need a huge building like this which will change the neighborhood and therefore even perhaps hurt the neighborhood. thank you very much. >> good evening, my name is steven martin and i live at

washington and larkin street. i would like to reiterate what the young lady just said that this building is totally incongruous to the character of the neighborhood. i would appeal to the commissioners because of the aesthetic and justice for the people that live there and deny this and send it back to the drawing board and my name andreas brought up an excellent point. where is the public good? this used to be a voting precinct. there used to be a theater and stage in this church where this took place. what is going to take place here? it's a bunch of rich people going to trader joe's and other places. this neighborhood reduced -- has a lot of unique individuals and is very diverse. it's a block from spring valley school where our distinguished citizens of san francisco went and i just think they and the

area deserve better, something that lends itself to the character of the neighborhood. so thank you very much. >> hello, my name is james adams and i live a short block away, right on the corner, a 20-unit apartment, four stories high. all three apartment buildings on the corner is four stories high, some of them bigger than this 20 unit. it all blends in, it works in and like most of the people here, the blight, the area is terrible and whether it's a conspiracy or not, it's kind of worked on me. it's almost like put up anything, but it's only legal four stories high. this is six stories and some of

it is almost seven stories. thank you. >> hello, marlene morgan, cathedral neighbors. cathedral neighbors testified against this project two years ago because we felt that there was a great opportunity to use part of this church for community meeting rooms and to provide a public benefit. i think this is particularly true of cathedral hill where we have so many churches that do provide spaces for community groups to meet. that's an important community resource. this neighborhood has no public meeting spaces available. so if there is a project to be built on this site that is residential in nature, the developer could provide a community meeting space that

would be of benefit to the community as part of their request to make it a slightly larger building. the other thing that we wanted to point out is that the -- the desire to have luxury units without having the portable units onsite is not a good idea. we really recommend that the affordable units be built onsite so there

>> and soon afterwards. everyone started complaining. there was almost crying and and it's the same story. and soon the neighborhoods got fed up. there is too much, there are criminal elements and sitting here tonight i heard the same thing.