also the art project director is here. there is no 5,000 square foot penthouse. i don't know what she's talking about. there are a lot of disparate comments. if there is something bothering you, i can correct the facts if you have specific questions, otherwise i would prefer to have the zoning administrator explain to you his decision. >> good evening members. i'm gordon, the attorney for nevada state. we have owned the property since 2010. the

zoning administrator granted three variances and this is an appeal of those variances. the appellant has said she's only appealing two of them if you read the appeal. three things i would like to say, one, the appellant made a comment that tndc would like the buy the property. commissioner at the planning commission meeting held up a letter and said at the october 13th planning commission meeting this letter state to me that tndc isn't interested in this property. that's not a quote, but pretty close. you can look back at the tape if you like. we have tried to sell this property to third parties other than mr.

mac ernie. we tried three times. finally, this property, as the appellant points out, a large property. if you look at other properties on that section, all of them have less open space in them than mr. mac ernie's proposing. he's proposing the largest chunk of open space for any building in that area. that's why the zoning commissioner said yes. mac ernie moved things around to accommodate other neighbors. if you look at two of the other buildings on that corner that are almost as large as mr. mac ernie, one is larger, have no open space. thank you. >> okay, we can hear from the

zoning administrator, mr. guy speaking first? >> good evening commissioners, my name is kevin guy with planning staff. the project is at the corner of clay and market street. the project proposed to demolish the church. as you heard on october 3rd, the planning commission approved the project including granting a bulk exception. on november 13, 2013, the zoning administrator issued a variance decision later granting decision requesting variances. a little bit of background. the project does propose uses designed to approve by the commission in 2010 and 2012. the current design of the project has been substantially revised compared to the original proposal in order to achieve a more

sympathetic relationship to the character of the surrounding area. it is important to highlight the previous receipt reiteration of the project is 3 stories instead of 5 stories. the first is rear yard, the project would require under the planning code a 25 percent rear yad grade level on each subsequent floor. depending on the primary frontage that required rear yard would be between 24 and 29 feet in depth. the project does record an interior yard in a configuration that does not meet the requirements of the code. the second variance involves the open space of section 135. this section requires a minimum of 160 square feet and approximately

180 square feet of commonly open space which is for area, horizontal dimension and sunlight access. the project meets the requirements for the area of open space which must be provided. however section 135 provides the interior courtyard be configged in a way. this project does not meet the requirement for the sunlight access. the third variance involve the dwelling units of planning code section 140. this section requires at least one room facing a public street or open area that meets certain dimensions. the majority of the dwellings based on larkin street or clay street and meet the requirements. however the exposure of the interior units which does not meet the dimensional requirements of section 140. this section specifies that in open areas such as the courtyard must

have minimum dimensions of 25 feet after the first two floors containing the dwellings units. the projects courtyard measure 15 feet at the westerly portion and approximately 220 width at the northerly portion. at this time, mr. sanchez will discuss the actual substance of the variance decision and the issues raised by the appeal. thank you. >> thank you, kevin. scott sanchez from the planning department. i will be brief in regards to how the granted variances have be met. they have been documented in the bullet decision letter itself. as kevin noted this is a project that did evolve over

time and the application to deny this as a conditional use authorization. part of their review and revisions in the reduction of the nuk of floors so they have already produced the number of floors in the building however a variance is still required. i know that the appellant has argued that now the rear yard variance is justified, but the other variances are not justified. i think given the corner lot situation here, the other variances are in fact justified and as the project sponsor has over time worked with the neighbors to come to address their concerns in particular the property adjacent to have the large light well and in order to preserve and maintain that light well will in doing so, that changes what we would probably typically say the frontage would be on larkin because it would have a yard

115 deep. the front is really on clay street and it going back towards the rear along larkin street. on that front edge, it's a shallower lot only 97 feet deep and a rear yard in that orientation about 82 feet. if it was a corner lot, in this district it would be averaging the districtings property. i think what's important to note that because of the configurations here and to address the concerns of the immediate neighbors, we find that to be justified and also noting that these open spaces, the quantity is being satisfied. it's not as if there is not going to be enough space for occupants of the building to be able to enjoy and usable open space. it's simply the dimensional requirement and it's i think ultimately, it is a sizable

project given the number of stories, the number of units and they are larger units. they are more two bedroom units which is something the city does want to see family sized housing. there is knot nothing wrong with that and the reason the planning commission approved it. they have open space that these open space variances justified and the open space is also justified. this is steeply sloping street on clay as you are going downhill. the adjacent property or clay street are lower. i think you will find the exposure to the west that will provide adequate light into that courtyard for those units that face only onto that courtyard. with that and noting the appellant themselves support the rear yard variances in terms of the configuration of the courtyard and rear yard which is just a question of the dimension and the variance

is justified. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> mr. sanchez, how many affordable units are going to be provided in this building? >> this is submitted and approved with a condition for an in -- number that is higher than the required. >> would that be 17 percent? has the developer indicated at this point if they are doing on-site or off site or in lieu? >> in lieu 17 percent. >> thank you. mr. sanchez, was a co-compliant scheme shown to the department? >> who worked close with the department on the various

iterations. >> thank you, i will say that we have been presented with really numerous iterations and permutations of the property over the years to get a design concern that the department had initially and some designs of the neighborhood and architecture hired for the project. putting to the with respect to the rear yard variance, anyway you slice it, a project that meets the traditional urban design expectation with building front ages to continue and any property with that sort of revision is going to require a variance for that aspect of the code. now, in many ways the open space kind of sunlight access and the dwelling exposure variances can be thought of as somewhat related to those because for the dwelling and exposure and

usable open space, if those areas identify to meet those requirements are located within a complying rear yard, then you satisfy those requirements. if you just do it in a nature to being a corner lot but don't have the requirements for a year yard, you would likely address to cut back the building or address to -- >> or you have a gap? >> that's correct. which was not in the design solution. >> my question was, was a co-compliant scheme presented totd department? >> i don't know whether we saw a full code compliant scheme which would need a variance again due to some of the circumstances on the lot. >> i disagree with that, but that's okay.

>> any public comment on this item? please step forward. >> good evening, board members. my name is louisa gordon. i own a building immediately adjacent to 1601 larkin. i'm speaking on behalf of all the owners including the residents on clay. it is that i respectfully request that you deny this appeal. 1630 clay street is the building that is most impacted and will be most correctly affected by this project. no other neighboring building will be as close to the project as ours is. to over turn the needed variances that have already been recently granted for this project, therefore striking a fatal

below to this project which is what would be an unconscionable heart -- hardship with those who want this project to succeed. it's been long enough to have this property unsettled. the project has become a tremendous way since we first became involved with it. we are now very comfortable with the building before you. we believe that it's architecturally interesting and handsome and thoughtful. it high in quality of design and finishes . we believe that it will bring a great deal of positive to the neighborhood including much needed housing in the midst of a severe housing shortage in the city and it will also provide significant community benefits, funding. the project sponsor and the architect

have listened to our concerns and addressed them. the very substantial pull back of 1601 larkin of our shared property line and the open space as proposed # as well as other movements have existed with all our windows and light and air. the conditions stand to preserve if not substantially improve the quality of life not only for the residents of our building and the city. please deny this up heel -- appeal and uphold the decision. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is frank canada and the neighborhoods association and development. our group has worked on this project since

2007. we were against the project for it's first two appearances with the planning commission. after the 6-1 vote denying this project in 2012, the project sponsor and project architect implemented many of the suggestion from the neighbors. they lowered their building from 6 stories to 5 stories and put all of their parking underground. originally the parking was above grand and they put backyard grade. they are going to have public carshare and they are dedicating some spots near their garage because they are taking away parking on clay street. because of these changes my group supported the project in 2013 hearing. the

planning commission which the prior two hears was 6-1 vote voted 6-0 in favor of approving the conditional use and the bulk exception. we feel it's time this project goes forward and i respectfully ask you to deny this appeal. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is andrew cousin. i'm a neighbor of this project, 5-6 blocks away from the project. i pass by this site 4-5 times a week. i'm encouraging you to deny the appeal and support the project as decided by the zoning administration. despite the past two revisions by the planning commission were

great. it's in context of the neighborhood. i have lived in the neighborhood for a while. i think the buildings come a long way. it looks a lot better than it did. the project is blighted. i pass by there. there is homeless and it's less desirable. city's in a big housing crunch right now. i'm a structural engineer by trade. i'm not involved in this project but i know this city would be in a bad shape with a new earthquake. building new modest construction is safer for the neighborhood. >> any other public comment? please step forward? >> good evening. i'm the

chair of the coalition for the san francisco neighborhoods land use and housing committee. i ask in this regard to this project the variances should be only approved for hardship. there is hardship in this case. yes. the hardship is to the citizens of san francisco. the middle class citizens. because this removed an opportunity site for affordable housing. the master plan and housing element state that we want housing, but now at this point we become smarter and now we realize that it's not just housing we need. we need housing at all levels and this luxury condos and market rate housing is reduced to a percent of what

is needed. only 8 percent of city san franciscans can afford this type of housing. these are luxury condos. we don't need those. the very low income units, they are about 80 percent obtained. the middle class work force modern rate housing is only produced at a level of less than 15 percent. the reason why i state that you will is that mayor lee recently came out and said we need housing. housing is not up there with jobs. we need housing. we don't need just ordinary housing, we need affordable housing. it's a new day. in the past the department has always approved projects that saying we need housing, yes, approved. even though the neighborhoods might object,

the point was housing, yes. we need them. well, at this point, we learned. there is a middle class fight for san francisco. and most the african americans have left. other middle class work force people, they are leaving too. now, this project is an example of what's bad in the city process. if a variance is approved for this kind of project, if it's approved, that only shows other developers what they can do. variances should be reserved for the most important types of projects and affordable types of projects need to be given an insurances. this project needs to be --

co-compliant. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we'll move to rebuttal. ms. chapman. you have three minutes.3 minutes. >> i heard a number of things that really cannot pass. i accepted the courtyard, but i said the location in the corner is not a bad thing. but as to size dimensions, that's different. with a 25-foot rear yard is going across the dimensions of this huge thing. saying it's okay on the corner isn't the same as saying it's okay in the corner and small and without the set backs that would allow light and air

into it. they are trying to use the 1908 standards and saying well, because the other buildings around there may not have the current code courtyard, we shouldn't have to either. well, maybe nobody needs to have the current code on anything. they can say this one didn't. the things they put in places well there's a variance granted here and there or mission street or wherever, that doesn't justify having a variance unless there is actual hardship not caused by this project and also that it's something highly unusual about the lot. there is. it's really big. tndc absolutely wanted this and still wants it and went into federal court about this and there is constant lying about this lawyer. they have been telling

method district church. they don't own it. i'm a methodist. i happen to the in the congregation. it's all being held by people in sacramento saying you can't talk about it. why are they suing the city? they have been suing the city for the last 7 years saying they are prevented by the city. meanwhile they have tried to buy it. tnd also tried to buy it. what did tndc get? they got a subpoena for all their records. that's why they are not here and for the

planning commission. the planning commission was told that but somehow it escapes their attention. they were told to let go. this lawyer keeps writing back and completely unresponsive. the size, it is certainly over 5,000 square feet. the way condos and coop's including the deck belonging to that 1 unit. >> thank you, would the variance holder care to speak under rebuttal? okay, there is three 3 minutes for the zoning administrator. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. i will be brief. first there were no valid ceqa or conditional use

operations. it was unanimously approved by the planning commission. there have been substantial changes made over time. the planning commission did deny this project twice before approving it. in regards to mr. fung's question about whether or not we received code compliance, in regards to the department's design goals we would prefer to have the department in the corners here and require at least a rear yard variance. that would have been some direction that we would have been providing in this case. lastly, and regards to commissioner honda's question, i want to clarify in terms of the project not really relevant to this project because the environmental application was filed so long ago in 2004 that it was under previous code requirements for affordable housing. that's why the 17 percent would be for

current project for lufey. it was filed. so with that, i'm available for any questions that the board may have. >> i have a question. the impact of these variances is sort of on the units and ultimately of the people dwelling on the units as opposed to something visual from the street? >> absolutely. you wouldn't see those from the street. the only thing you would see from the street, the appellant has stated they support and that is to have against the building wall is on clay and larkin. most impacted obviously the impacted by the unit and those which immediately abut and they are supportive of the project. >> so arguably the variances

to cut an interest to the developer that say this is a cut back? >> we can talk about planning code. but it's similar to other buildings that are existing in the neighborhood already. that may have been built under previous code requirements but are still there and part of the fabric there today and part of the character that the building is attempting to match. >> a lot of it is driven by the corner lot? >> yes. >> thank you. >> isn't it though, along the same line, the reason these things are coming forth is because of your urban design, the criteria and what you wanted this corner to be, a code compliant solution would

have had a continuous rear yard that would have been erect ohlin ear in ratio. the impact upon the only one that would impact potentially the tenant is where the distance to the rear yard is the subject. the other is in terms of light and air. you have windows and looking at open space. i don't see much difference there. is that correct? >> yes. i think that's an important point too and also considering maybe our urban design codes have evolved but the planning code has risen up. this is an example of the code provision that is right

for reevaluation. in neighborhood commercial districts we would be able to handle a corner yard with a rear modification. there are different findings that are made. this is an rm district not similar to an mc district. maybe we should look at that and how we can align the planning code. >> since there have been four corner lots an appealed to this body in the last 2 years, although one was different because most of the corner lots have a ratio of roughly square. >> that's correct. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i will start. evidently the property has evolved