indicating the stepping down, as 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 consider myself a humanitarian. i'm all about equal opportunities and ritesdz. homeless people need a place to stay at night. this church has turned into a magnet and inviting mentally unstable people to just occupy the clay and larkin corner. i have seen it all. i have left for work in the morning and i have seen someone consuming drugs, relieving themselves on the church steps,

which is not a great way to start the day. you know, my main concern is there is no lighting. it's very dark on that corner, especially at night, you know, when people are out and leaving the bars coming home late at night. my main concern is curveball people by themselves walking around. so that's why i'm for converting this church into an apartment complex. thank you. >> good evening, again, susan brandt thole here for the middle polk neighborhood association. again, i think we all agree something should happen on this site and, of course, a lot of what you're hearing about are concerns about the current condition, which is largely the responsibility of the owner and the project sponsor, but we would all like to see this go forward but only with a project that is supportable inenvironmentally and under the

planning code. at the outset, so i don't forget, i would like to see i don't see how the commission and hopefully the commission isn't going to approve this project anyway, but it certainly can't approve it if it needs variances that have not been evaluated in the review document. you can't approve it when it needs variances that you haven't been informed about, haven't had environmental review for, and aren't even approving, so you got a real problem there. but going beyond that, in terms of what could be approved tonight, commissioner sugaya was asking about, as i understood it, whether the commission had the power to approve an alternative, an environmentally superior alternative even if e.i.r. says it isn't meeting the project objectives. you have the power to approve a project as long as its impacts were studied in the e.i.r. that's the test. here the findings to approve

this project can't be made. there may be ways to make findings that are legally supportable for an alternate project that doesn't have a significant impact on a historic resource. here you could approve a project or deny this project and give input to the applicant to come back with an altered project that does restore the church. the information you have before you about the infeasibility of rehabilitation and adaptive reuse is based largely on deterioration, demolition by neglect, overt actions that are not defensible and you can't -- the precedent that is set by allowing a project to go forward based on the unfeasibility of restoring a historic resource because of the actions of the applicant is against public policy and common 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