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. like this was purposely done to try the strategy that has been used before. so i hope that is separated from this and but, for this project cannot go forward, thank you. >> linda chapman for knob hill neighbors which fought a project once before. i thought 13000 sacramento was the worst thing that happened to knob hill. at least they kept the homeless and blight inside for the seven years that we fought them until

we stopped it. during that time, it was recognized as such a threat to the city that all of the neighborhood groups came in and we had a list of 45 organizations including coalitions of churches and everyone else. we have to remember who is the owner here. it is the methodist church. the methodist church needs to get an alternative. they need to stop coming in with this kind of project. you have to use the no project alternative that is considered in the e.i.r. and vote no. and then eventually they will come in with something that will eliminate the blight whether it be partial restoration which we hope will happen or whether it be a project that is compatible with the neighborhood. this is a perfectly decent looking building. south of market. we are in a neighborhood as you probably remember that is in a studied historic district because it is so consistent. it has not been wrecked by something like this. you put a building like that in

there and how can it any longer be considered to be a potential historic district. the precedence, well, you know with 1300 sacramento, i started to mention, you know, there was a man who was using a certain technique for being able to build something that the planners didn't really want and pretty soon, there was a proposed demolition, applications on three sites within two blocks and two others were all lined up, too. because we were holding the line on it, the others backed off and eventually timothy dropped it and then we went in court on 13000 sacramento and stopped it. if we hadn't. people would have been demolishing perfectly good residential buildings all over. similarly here, although this is not a residential building, people will use this kind of technique for a contract for demolition in order to stop anything happening except what they want and they will use this against other historic

buildings throughout the city against other architecturally significant buildings throughout the city against buildings that are compatible with the neighborhood. there will be no end. all neighborhoods will be threatened. now, i was really impressed with commissioner fong's understanding of this site, of how important it is to have this open space to setbacks. we used to have a bench there, we planted trees there and so on. we could have a project there which either reused the church or even if it didn't, that had little green open spaces. it was consistent with the neighborhood and that provided some kind of actual community use like we used to have in the church because it's true, we have no community centers. anyway, the engineer's report for example for $23,000 i priced an elevator that would take care of this kind of thing without demolishing the sanctuary. >> hello again, i'm rowena

genn. where you put the picture, is that here? president fong: yes. right there. >> i want to show a photo, i don't know how to get this thing to work. president fong: it will turn on. >> once you start speaking, it will come up. i just want to say that this church has been on the corner for a century and there are a lot of neighbors who don't want to get involved, they don't speak english like this neighbor who lives in the building next to the parking lot, not the first one, but the second one. every morning, it looks like his daughter because he is disabled and handicapped. and he sits in front of the church every morning for his little walk and exercise. every morning he is sitting there. it doesn't matter if there are homeless people there or if the church is -- the paint is peeling, it's in bad condition. but it's still like a resting

place. it's quiet. there is not a lot of activity. it's like a resting place. there is a lot of open air and regardless of the condition of the church. i just want to say a lot of people don't know what is going on. they don't have the notices or the tenants or seniors that are in rent controlled housing and their rent is very low. this will really impact their lives. they don't even know how much it's going to impact their lives. they have no idea what this huge building would do to them. that's why we're asking you to look at the adaptive alternative that is far superior and what the neighborhood is used to. people don't know what is going on. the landlords in other cities. they don't want to speak up or get sued.

it's a tense situation and has been going on a long time. it's not good for the city. it's not good for the neighbors. it's not good for d.b.i. i heard all of these rolling noises and i thought it was homeless rolling through the cars recycling. so midnight to 2:00 is the time when people come out of the bars. the kids are just getting rowdy, fighting or something. i have a few more seconds. i can show you the photo of more windows removed which is consistent with just damage that i have been looking at right out my window for the last since this thing started. the church, you see this one. windows intact right here. the windows over here to the right. now you can see on the ones

with the holes. they turned off the camera. >> i'm afraid your time is up. i thank you for sharing that. president fong: is there any additional public comment? commissioners, joseph butler, an architect here in the city. every aspect of this proposed project is premised on the inevitability of the c.u. authorizations and the variances required. the c.u. authorizations drive the unit count. the c.u. authorizationed drive the type of construction that the building will be made from because of its height at 65 feet and they drive the need for the variances to get enough cars on the site for all of the housing units. so when you look at the

inevitability of the c.u.'s, you have to wonder what it is offering this project to the community. yes, we need housing, but what does the community get from this, too tall, too bulky project. they get reduced light and air. so if the community benefit was the retention of significant portions of the church in a scheme to provide housing, that's something that c.u. process might be able to reward with additional height. but to simply say that we're going to take away this cultural resource from the neighborhood and max this site out way height and bulk that is inevitable because it says they can do it in the c.u. is the wrong premise. there is no benefit that is here from approving the project that is before you today. you have certified an e.i.r. now, but the preservation alternative that was reworked

in the e.i.r. would give you two pieces of skin of the former church behind the six-story building that has nothing to do with the function of the church or the piece of skin that's been left behind it. if you look here, it is an assisted living center. it was put together with the congregation shalom's jewish temple. there was a vacant lot next door that allowed them to build some new next to it. that is typical of the way a project could be done here that would honor the church and its mission at the same time retaining a significant portion of that architecture and providing housing either for assisted living or for senior housing, something, even if it's market rate, but something that leaves a significant piece of the church then perhaps a c.u. could be granted for some additional height or some bulk.

but not the way it's being done now. there is no justification for the c.u.'s given the project that is before you and the demolition that has to occur to make it happen, thank you very much. president fong: additional comment? seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioners, commissioner miguel. commissioner miguel: yes, comments to several people. with due respect for reverend brown and also i'll include his counsel, mr. egan, it is my opinion that as owners of the property, you have been very, very poor stewards of the property and as men of cloth, you have not ministered to the neighborhood. i know that is not a planning

issue, but it's something that i had to say. and there were ways of doing it. i understand that the so-called respected for its time, church architect hired a bad contractor. that's not your fault. no one is trying to say that. i can't accept the fact that there is nothing to be done. as to mr. burchell as the architect, what you're presenting is better than what we have seen before. i'm not sure that is saying a great deal, but that is better than what we have seen before. as to your slides showing the

envelope, that is a ploy i guess the term is that nearly every architect that comes to us on a major project says here is an outline of the entire lot at 65 feet or 85 feet or 40 feet or whatever it happens to be and look how i'm less inside of it. it doesn't mean anyone was expected to build out that block envelope. i would just like to ask staff if they would clarify for the public the 40 and 65-foot comments. >> commissioners, acting zoning administrator here on behalf of scott sanchez. this property is located in