san francisco, the emphasis for affordable housing is not only to provide it but allow persons with low incomes to become part of an existing community so that they are no longer isolated and segregated in affordable housing. public housing, excuse me. san francisco has torn down dozens of cinderblock and other big blocks of nondescript housing such as the laguna hauers and -- tower towers and public housing at north beach. there are current plans to build a beautiful community two blocks away at the west side port public housing complex. this has voofled lot of community outreach to design a property that meets housing needs and has an appropriate design style for the neighborhood. all proposed developments of booker t. washington over the years have involved practically no meetings or community outreach at all. the e.i.r. has an astounding

conclusion that this project with its modern design and size is somehow not incompatible with the neighborhood and has no -- president miguel: thank you. ron cardin. i take cards as they go. >> i didn't know this. you have my -- president miguel: thank you. >> you can just submit your written comments. >> we already have. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners, my name is ron cardin at 2555 sutter street. ms. avery, i have a letter for the commission. thank you. we bought our house on purpose with full knowledge of the booker t. and its programs and it's all good except maybe a gym full of screaming kids at night for a basketball game but

it's all good. we're used to it. i support continuation of booker t.'s ongoing community services programs and the construction of emancipated youth and affordable housing at the site. i oppose aspects of the proposed housing component designed specifically because of its exaggerated height and its failure to respond architecturally for the context of the community and the planning of the residential guidelines. i support housing of the component within the current codes and that this would enhance the architectural quality of the neighbor and preserve the face of the city block. i support architectural revisions to the current design to provide matching and volume and materials and proportions that respond and relate to the context. my issue is with the d.i.r. -- the deir is that certain drawings, certain required

drawings have not been submitted or provided, specifically the elevation on sutter street showing existing and new conditions, so i brought a photo. i hope this is right side up. with the addition on sutter street with booker t. on the right. that's my house there on the middle and been there since 1980. and the new conditions. now, i composed this because the elevation submitted by the project sponsor omitted the house next to booker t. and in the e.i.r., there is not a significant impact on the environment based on this design, but my house was omitted and i don't see how that conclusion was reached. so i would like to have the

e.i.r. modified and resubmitted for public comment including all of the required documents so that the planners can make a reasonable and objective analysis of how this building does impact the neighborhood. it's not just my house. i agree with what joyce said regarding the bulk and the monolithic size of the building. it would be great to see some changes there and i'm willing to work with the project sponsors. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. president miguel: randy lee and john manly. >> i'm brandy lee and i actually wanted to give my time to joyce lively so she can come back up.

president miguel: your time is your time. >> my time is my time? president miguel: correct. >> i got it. i didn't know the rules. ok. then for the record, i will say that i grew up in actually a family of my mother started the head start and even start programs in our town. my aunt is the executive director at casa in her town, so very much involved in underprivileged organizations. that said, i live on post street and the architectural design, and i've actually reached out in the hall to the architect and also the executive director, and the program -- or the skin, i believe it's called, itself of the design is just too modern for my tastes and too modern for the building -- or the -- too modern for the actual neighborhood. so that's really all i wanted

to add other than support joyce in her letter. president miguel: thank you. john manly. is there any other public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, my name is esnelda jackson and live in bay view hunter's point. my mom first came to san francisco in 1943 i was 10 years of age and booker t. at that time was on bush street. and i was a participant and i would like to say that the programs that they have, actually help the young people because at that time was only african-americans over there because they had moved out all the japanese folks, ok. so i'm saying to you today, please approve what you have received because of the fact a

lot of us have been here for many years and our great grandkids still go to booker t and i still go over there every night. thank you so very much. president miguel: thank you. >> my name is katherine car, c-a-r-r. and i as well grew up in the neighborhood the last 28 years of my life. i think we all do embrace the booker t. community center full heartily. we'd like to see the program extended and expanded. but within the means and limits of the neighborhood. we'd like to keep it at the 40 feet. we've had real estate brokers come through giving us new proposed word that our property values would be decreased with the oversize by 15% to 20% which affects us but also greatly affects the city with

property taxes that you would be getting through us and going back into the community, directly to the community so it definitely affects us, personally, directly. and whatnot. and i guess i don't want to repeat a broken record but ditto to what everyone has said. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, my name is roger miles, i live at 59 lupine avenue in san francisco which overlooks the booker t. facility. i, too, am not opposed to the facility. i think it's useful for the neighborhood but the size and bulk of this is not too dissimilar from the new building right across from us which houses court buildings.

the back side of this building would be about 65 feet high. the sun-woo never shine on half of the buildings behind it anymore in the afternoon. just to give an idea. one of the previous speakers showed his house. it looks like it is surrounded by it, not just in front of it. it will affect people's views. it will affect the sun that they get in the afternoon, and it will -- it's just so out of place in the neighborhood. it just seems astounding to me it ever got through the commission and allowed to get this far. it seems like it's an insult to everybody in the neighborhood to have something this outsized and huge and nobody was notified if they weren't within

150 feet of this, which also seems to be a terrible kind of slight to the rest of the neighbors in the area. other than that, it's a repeat of everything that you heard before. i don't want to take any more of your valuable time. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, bill barnes, i'm the supervisor aalioto-pier whose district includes presidio avenue and we've been working with the project sponsor and the neighbors. and i want to commend the planning staff for their work on the draft e.i.r. which fully addresses the issues that remain to be involved including height and the number of street trees that would be replaced and the issues around zoning conformity. i understand it's a public hearing and later on you'll hear about your zoning amendment which is referenced in the draft e.i.r. but didn't want -- did want to thank the

planning staff for the incredible work they did which helps lay out the issues we need to consider as we move forward with project approval. i would say one other thing, we heard in neighborhood meetings about parking and traffic are significant and we think the draft d.i.r. does a good job of discussing those issues and hope those would be addressed in the comments following. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> steve williams. good afternoon, commissioners. i live nearby. i don't represent anyone in this particular case. let me start with an objection on procedural grounds. the draft e.i.r. is not in the packet or the public reading room and in fact the most recent hrer is not even linked up. what we were told yesterday at the historic preserver situation committee the links are provided but the most

recent eir is not on the link so they'd not provided with open meetings and public notification laws. you see the paper this morning? plans for rebuild, reground neighbors, deteriorating westen center seeks 50% more space. that sounds pretty reasonable, 50% more space? it's 550% more space. 550% more space. i challenge the commission with decade of experience, and the staff, to show me one instance, any precedent where a facility of this size has been set down in a 100% residential neighborhood. i challenge the commission and staff to come up with anything comparable because it has not happened before. yearsst kind of spot zoning imaginable to break all the rules for height, density, rear

yards, unit exposure. why? i mean, it's a good facility and they do good work, but at this cost to the neighborhood? the land use impacts are unbelievable. the findings in the draft e.i.r. do not adequately address these impacts. it divides this neighborhood. right now you can see across the lot, you can see through the lot. you can see one victorian road to another victorian row which surrounds this project. you won't be after they put up that 65-foot, 70,000 square foot building. the gentleman that just spoke didn't receive notification. this is what he will be looking at. this is what it looks like presently. this is what they will be looking like. this is the public vista and this is the developer's document. this is the public vista from masonic avenue. if that is an aesthetic impact to dozens of residential units,

what is? the draft e.i.r. skims over all this and says there's less than significant impact on every one of the land use issues and that's diametrically oppose the staff's first view of this case where it says it's not in conformity with the general plan, specifically the urban design element. they told the developers that they could not have a building of this size, they could support a little more height at the site but that was it. the political pressures and other fallouts, staff has now challenged the view of this project. president miguel: thank you. are there additional public comment on the project? >> good afternoon, my name is mall pistra, 2535 sutter street next door to the gentleman whose house is going to be completely enveloped by this building. it's completely out of portion to the current buildings in the neighborhood. they're all three, four story

beautiful victorians. this will be six-story mom trotity -- monstrosity. there's nothing wrong with the programs, i enjoy all the things happening there. i'm completely against making an exception to the zoning for this building. there's no reason for a six-plus story building 70,000 square foot going from 12,000 square foot building in this neighborhood. there's absolutely no reason for it. they can do the same thing within the zoning. they're currently two stories, maybe three, going to four, not a problem. just officially i'm again this -- against this building. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> i'd like to add that it was mentioned that this project was designed to bring these children into the community to give them a place. this is not a community. >> can you state your name for the record? >> hildie burns. it's a residential community,

it's not for gatherings, there aren't coffee shops, there aren't shopping areas, you have to walk a long way to get there. i don't think this is an appropriate neighborhood for them to be -- to feel at home in. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> hello, my name is kala winkler and i also live in the area of lupine avenue above the community center now. i just want to reiterate, we love the community center and the project and we hope that everything continues, all the plans for the expanded programs continue. the only problem is, of course, the size, like you've heard already. and the e.i.r. report, everything in there that is outside of the zoning laws they came up with less than significant impact which the

gentleman before stated. as you can see by the illustration that was in the environmental report itself, it's just extremely large and it's out of place in the neighborhood as far as the size goes. one of the problems, also, is with the parking p, as it is, the bus terminal which is right across the street, even the drivers do not have adequate space to park, and so that overflows on to the streets. also, the university, ucsf which is two blocks away always flow on to the street. sutter is a one-lane street between bush and gary which are two of the main thoroughfares in the city and is so busy as it is and so difficult to find parking as it is. it is a major concern. there are businesses close by the village which is two blocks away, laurel village has difficulty. there are lines backed up on the street on mayfair drive and

california avenue trying to get into that parking space there, into the parking lot behind the village. there are problems everywhere with that. and it's -- i know it doesn't seem like maybe it's a lot to someone that doesn't live in an area without a problem of parking and don't know too many places in the city where that would be. but in our area right there between those two major streets, it's very difficult to find parking. and there are a lot of concerns as far as what it's going to take away. there were 13 trees are required by the zoning laws and they're only going to replace seven. you heard about the rear yard requirements and the density, it's almost doubling as many apartments as people per square footage there is supposed to be for the zoning laws. i n't think the e.i.r. report was accurate at all because everything was stated as less than significant. and there's so many violations of the laws and that's why

they're seeking, especially a special amendment to the zoning laws because everything is violated as it is now. and if you stick within the zoning laws, it would be fine, but i just don't understand why that can't be done. president miguel: thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is beth wells and live in the 2600 block of sutter street and i'm here to oppose the size and the scope of the building. it does not fit in the neighborhood which is primarily victorian but every other building that isn't victorian is more or less a compatible design. this one is not. and also with the transportation, i heard it was supposedly not going to be any transportation impact when they put trader joe's in there and if anybody ever tried to drive up masonic street almost any time of the day when trader

joe's is open it's a complete bottleneck because of that so thank you. >> thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> my name is rhonda alfonso, my domestic partner and i barry brown own the condo at 2646 post street which is just -- our rear yard meets the rear yard of this property. this will be a wall of a building next to our property. it just seems way out of scale. we have a four-unit building, two floors above a garage, it would just completely overshadow our building which is in scale with the rest of the building. those houses on post street which is right around the

corner, the sidewalks in this area are about nine feet. i don't feel like the sidewalks could even keep -- hold the amount of people that are slated to be living in here coming and going. it just doesn't seem to fit as everyone else has said, the neighborhood, it doesn't fit in the envelope, it doesn't fit with the use of the neighborhood and we're already greatly impacted by the mini barn across the street. lots of traffic there, lots of parking by the employees, and the whole thing is just out of scale and scope for the neighborhood and i just would really strongly object to the way it is now. also, everybody height dimension i've heard only comes from the presidio street side and the sutter street side is so much higher because of the

elevation change at sutter street, the building would be like 80 feet or something at that point. it's just completely outrageous compared to the two and three-story buildings that are around there and they're all residences. so i want to strongly object to coming out of the envelope, as it is. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i have comments to the e.i.r. i believe that there is an absence of photography showing the building as is, including whatever is still part of the history, murals, other details, in order for the e.i.r. to be complete, that needs to be added. i believe that -- i'm sure someone in the archives of the

a.i.a. there is something about the architect, lloyd garden, i'm not familiar with his work but there are few farc tects with practice in the city that only have done one building so that should be fulfilled. and i have a little bit of a problem with the view simulations. i do think that the sutter street elevation is missing. i would have liked to see the building from post street. and for the public, we're not approving this building, we are approving the quality aspect of the building as expressed in the e.i.r. but nothing says we are approving the building as is it. i would consider the building as it is kind of sketched out here in the view simulation as a little bit massive, i would agree with that observation but that is not what we are addressing in the e.i.r. you could question that there is an aesthetic impact if you would build the building as is as it does not normally deal with street scape on presidio

avenue but that should be perhaps addressed somewhere along the line. in in fact there is ground floor treatment as you walk the entire block and that's not at all addressed nor does the building show this. the intent of what's being tried here is very laudable and the configuration might have to be a little more adjusted to deal with the subtleys of all adjoining uses. the one that is least impacting is the bus yard but seems to respond well to the bus yard assuming there's nothing else. i challenge -- sorry to be blunt here, i would challenge that but would expect that the e.i.r. in this comment and its aesthetic evaluation is a little bit more pointed and that the building be more shaped to those concerns and i think the public gave enough testimony about scale, etc., that i don't believe that necessarily means we have to move into historic size

architecture but the simplicity of this building is a little bit overwhelming. so those would be my comments. president miguel: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i would agree with commissioner moore and remind the public of course what we're looking at today is whether the adequacy of the e.i.r. however, i think there are some areas here i don't feel it's bad enough that the thing would have to be recirculated but i certainly see that, you know, the claims that things are less than significant is subjective to some degree but probably not accurate. and also, i think some of the traffic analysis probably might be understating in my opinion just because having a lot of experience with gyms and having kids and going to basketball games, you know, a lot of car -- a lot of traffic is involved and many of them have lots or have parking around them that is in different parts of the city where it's a little easier

to find something. but in the denser areas of the city such as north beach in here or other places the impact is a lot greater. and it is a community center but it also services games against kids from all over the city, so you do end up with a lot of parents driving children there and things. i think the emphasis might have been a little bit low on the traffic analysis. however, one thing i did ask -- made a call to mr. jacinto and maybe can comment on it, and i guess i did get a call back in regards to the aesthetic concerns. and that being that we know that we have various alternatives and one of the alternatives is a code complying one and of course even the larger project as presented here. but i think that regardless of what might be eventually involved is my understanding mr. jacinto is that we, the commission will have the power

to work with staff and make modifications to the architecture. >> michael jacinto, planning staff, what the seek because document does is analyze the offensively as proposed and the proposal as has been state number of times, both in public comment and the e.i.r. is not consistent with the zoning and that kind of sets the upper limit of the building envelope, the land use and visual impacts, so forth and so on. so this commission at least through the seek because -- the ceqa scales that down to address neighbors concerns on abutting properties or urban design concerns in general. commissioner antonini: i wanted to bring that out for the benefit of the public that i pretty much understand we're not talking with design at this point but when it does come forth and that is something during the conditional use process and other things, whatever process we go through. so thank you for your comments.

and the other issues are issues that are not before us today, certainly it's a laudable project, it's a great project. everybody's in favor of it. i think the issue will come down to possibly the height and the number of units. the reason we're going to bring that up today is that sometimes if it's made clear at this point in the development that some changes may be necessary, then it saves everybody a lot of trouble if we come back with a modified project rather than going through the entire process and then having to modify it later. so i'm just kind of using that opportunity to say i think there may have to be some changes when we get to that point. president miguel: commissioner sugaya [ commissioner sugaya: to educate the commissioners on similar points. on page 22 and 23 of the whatever section, visual -- potential visual impact, there

are some statements made that don't seem to be quite consistent with each other. at some point on page 22 it says although clearly larger and taller than other buildings on the block or in the immediate vicinity, etc., it goes on and says although taller and more massive, they would be generally compassible in scale with many of the buildings in the general vicinity, i'd like to have some additional analysis to show the heights and where those other buildings, those many buildings are. also, it says that the residential character of the buildings architectural, massing and materials would help break down the building's mass and be generally compatible and aesthetic character with the adjacent smaller scale residential uses. i don't see how that's possible given the current design of the building. and then on page 25,