the scales of them. the roof line and they are on much larger or smaller lot. what is here is a hardship. what has happened is the sponsor took over or hasn't even purchased but the control from the unfortunate methodist. we have been told that church communities are sometimes seen as easy mark and obviously this one was and he got a hold of their site about 10 years ago. didn't buy it but did use the opportunity to wreck it. what was in fact a church that was eligible for national register protected by ceqa and considered for landmarking that could have been historically preserved and what was wanted by non-profit housing developers who could have built and still want to two sides of that church and preserve part of the church

for community use. that was also actually what the methodist wanted in san francisco and it didn't happen because of this considered hardship. what is being built there? i big building over 5,000 square feet. it is a family unit, he says and another one over 1800 square feet. this is in rm 3rd district in working class hill and doesn't have anything like this around. this is like he's trying to get the privilege as other people. there are probably not many bigger than 1800 square feet. they are mostly one bedrooms and studios. he says it's a hardship to build on a corner. this is a similar lot across the street. this one also,

there is this open space. i hope you can see it. right out to the street and all the way back through all of those units to look out on an open space even into street. the courtyard itself although it's probably located in a good place, it doesn't really give much exposure if you are looking out over it. if you were in, you can see that the building which is 5 stories high with this narrow space down there the way it's arranged and no setback, it would be required except he got a bulk exception and if you are looking out of those windows, it's not looking at much but right across the street which is the walls. the courtyard itself, three parts are private open space. while that does allow that area to be counting for let's say

exposure and light and so on, for this family building, he says he can't build his family units. he can not do the project or he will have to eliminate those units. if you take your baby or puppy down there, you are not going to have much room to romp around there because this huge building needs so much space. so we could not see anything about this that's exceptional except the fact that he's really abused the process occurred to such an extent that the planning commission ers turned down the project unanimously and finally he's going to continue to blight the neighborhood. the whole neighborhood is suffering. we can't get anything done to stop this. therefore we are going to give him his conditional use and bulk exception and i would say that is not a good reason to give him a variance because of

what happens at the planning commission that we are also objecting to. i realize you don't have that in front of you. and we have a much better plan there. tndc wants to buy it's and the mayor's office says that all cities should consider low income housing. >> okay. we can hear from the variance holder now. is anyone here speaking on behalf of the variance holder? >> good evening. i am the principal in pacific properties. council for the methodist church. the zoning

administrator is going to defend the decision tonight. i don't think they have anything to add to that. i would just make a couple corrections. 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 ad