supported the compromised position and whom supported the compromise position and have agreed that they will not oppose the project through the appeals or legal action or anything that will be the next action if the compromise position is taken. i think that is important because we want this thing to happen and wanted to happen quickly. we don't want to go to a lot of years of appeals. will support it and wanted to happen. those are my main points. i am very supportive of the project. if it turns out that the project comes forward in the form that i think is inappropriate, it doesn't mean i am in support of this. i think this is where we should go.

commissioner miguel: there are two parts to this. i will start with the project itself, not the architecture. a year ago, we had a number of are trying to do my homework. i remember trying to do five years ago, six years ago. we have had conversations with the judge read. both served on the commission. very extensive conversations and dinners. i talked with chris, the executive director of the commission. there was a great dinner and evening with the center for families.

and amy that was one of the founders of first place for youth and is now of the john burton foundation. i tried to do my background on this one. the need for a transitional housing was well expressed today. it received far less attention than it should have. it takes action to do anything in this field. it is very difficult to get refinancing together, the developer is together, to put everything in place an order for it to happen. this is a miniscule attempt, but it is the only thing we have got going in front of us at the moment. it is not going to take care of the problem, but it will be one shot and hopefully in addition

to everything else, it will raise public consciousness in that regard. i will not support the compromise. the loss of nine units is untenable to me. i know that the mayor's office of housing did say that they will try to make up the funds. makeup of the funds is my problem. that means of those funds will not go to of the support of housing. that is exactly what it means. those funds don't come out of thin air. i can't do it. this is a supportive and affordable type of unit. as far as the parking is concerned, i don't understand the argument whatsoever.

also, this is a situation. i have never heard so many great organizations from use radio. and right down the line. but never had that many come before us on anything. beverly gotten their act together on this one. so let's get to the building itself. the stretch is not standard residential by any manner of means. if you look at the institutional uses, if you look at the size of the building along that stretch, just turn around and take a look. that is not a regular residential -- a closest thing i can call it is a transitional section. it is different than the

standard residential section. this being san francisco, it backs right up to traditional residents. we have had arguments -- excuse me, discussions in recent years about the fact that you have a neighbor in the commercial district in the have residential and back of that. they are complaining about the noise. that is what happens. you have a situation with a lot of traffic. you're going to have traffic. there is no question about it. the compromise was made. we rarely saw this building. i have seen some of the building materials and the attempt to lessen the lead emissions in the gym. i think we can certainly trust the department to work with the

architect if colors or any of that is of concern. this is standard for us to do. there was comment about going back to a parking, this is a transit rich area. in this case, i definitely agree with the commissioners. i wish it was real rather than bus. but there was no funding for it. i would move the items including the findings in the attachments and hope this will go through as it is.

commissioner borden: i have spoken to supervisor farrell several times. i respect his approach. considering the bigger building that was originally proposed for this site, and the additional sculpting and change that has happened, it is really hard for me to support a lesser project. levered the need that we have are for this type of housing. and the fact that we want to build 400 units by 2015, we can't even get -- the need is great. i have to have a federal commission plans and the housing elements. specially affordable housing that identifies needs and take into account affordable housing. also have production increasing

availability and capacity. i can go into the community facilities elements to ensure the neighborhood and residents have access to services and focus on neighborhood activities. we even talked about specific communities. not only for the people of this area of the city, but also for recently emancipated foster use. that is exactly what is brought up in the community facilities of the general plan. when i look at all of the elements of the general plan and even if you want to talk about the neighborhood, have been there for 58 years. that is the neighborhood character. it is not enhancing the neighborhood. i say it would actually be an improvement. i look at the fact that we are all sitting here talking about

nine units. that is still people's lives. we're talking about the magnitude of the number of kids that and the homeless. they all would agree that homelessness is a bigger problem than neighborhood character issues. [applause] is hard to weigh that against a greater social issues, especially when you're not talking about placing a victorian for the building. we're talking about replacing an outdated and outmoded building with a better building. it does get an enhancement. hull have this issue all the time, people who get upset with story high. it happens all the time. i really don't understand the session, necessarily. when i look at the impact of the shadow or the like, there is an incremental difference that

happens between those things, especially when you have done necessary setbacks. there is a greater good, and incremental benefit the people are getting that really was going to revolutionize the lives of the people around the building and i would feel differently about this. i would take care of the gentleman who talked about the lighter colors on the wall. all those things obviously need to be dealt with. they need to not have their houses be livable. the things that you seem to enumerate are things that we can definitely take care of. beyond that, i have a hard time understanding what is really gained when you look at the multiplier effect of the lives of the nine people that don't live in this building because it doesn't have those units. i can't see the greater benefit in that regard.

i also agree that it is a really strange streak in the sense that the of bush's where people are traveling quickly. heavy museum that there. you have 65 feet, just down the block. that is a modern building. we have seen that area that you've got. you have got a lot of larger buildings and uses when you get to that kind of transitional triangle area. it seems to me that it makes a lot of sense. the biggest impact is the bus yard. we agree it is probably more advantageous. it makes my heart hurts when i hear that our foster youth is being placed in the county and we are not able to take care of the use and that we have in county. if i can help participate in the

small part of adding 24 units, 48 overall, as a planning commissioner, the various elements that make up the plan, that is the priority that i have to vote for and that is the way that i have to go. that is the duty in which i am in this role. i am not here for compromises. i am here for the general plan and what the principal said. they say this housing is tantamount. it is a fundamental need of what we have in the city. you will be fighting these battles every year, project by project and i wish we could say that even if you want to build 100 units, it is very difficult to do that. the same arguments over and over again. we are not going to move forward by moving backwards. when we do the multiplier of fact of the lives we

transformed, to me, i enthusiastically support this project and then throws that we're moving forward with a five story recommendation. commissioner moore: what is in front of us is a project that came to this commission, we spent a lot of thoughtful time looking at buildings that was really something. we all agree, we heard the neighbors at length. the comments were thoughtfully considered, and we made the recommendation to shape the building. start eroding the corners as a stepson the interior facing east. maintain the height because that is a height that you don't see from the houses.

you will hardly ever notice that because we don't walk around looking up like that. the second thing, we would ask for more modulation of the building on the presidio side because we did not want a solid body building. but we wanted something that was more expressive. we got all of that. i do believe that we got a good design. i think we have compromise. we have supported the compromise in front of us for approval today. the other that has been suggested that was relatively new to me. as a building in front of me, i really doing what i am asked to do today. stick with what we have supported and stick with what we have been in communication with

with the neighbors that talked to us first. how do i doubt that if i will it down further today, it will not be something else tomorrow? i want to be a little personal here that mr. williams is in front of this commission frequently and making the case that the addition of these stories, even on small lots, the building he is representing should be color isn't really impacting. we live in a city where these things happen. his arguments are very well pointed and many times we support them, sometimes i don't. i don't believe that what has been presented rarely rises to the level of wanting to accept a compromise. i believe that staff has done an exceptional job in preparing for us to view this project. they have stated in the dialogue and have delivered the changes.

i believe that the entire combination of public use is the way it addresses the presidio and is very much in balance of the project. i appreciate the public and making comments that were so sensitive that they all must exceed what normally enters into a planning commission discussion. this is not about making a decision about bleeding hearts. the decision that as commissioners, we can all make based on what we are challenged to do. and that a safer building, i support what is in front of it. >> it was a motion in the second. >> of the first time i became familiar with this project i believe was 85 feet.

i took a tour of the site with deborah the was no longer with us. she took me to that site and i took a to work. that was associated with another project. the other iteration of the project. i understood that the compromise and was from 85 feet. there were negotiations and it was reduced to where it is now. a wave of arrived at an actual compromise. maybe i am misinterpreting the word, but my understanding is an agreement that is reached by mutual concessions. i don't think that we have a compromise here. i think we have an understanding among certain groups that have certain goals in mind. but i have not heard yet from

the project sponsor that they are in agreement with what is on the table. i don't think we have a compromise before us today. i think 55 feet, i remember having that discussion during the draft eir. a couple of commissioners met with the architect, more discussions were had wi. i do agree that what the neighbors said, there could be something done to brighten up the look. i don't know of that would be our. there is always something that can be done in there, i think. i don't think it is acceptable.

for all of the reasons we heard today. they're competing priorities in the general plan. i want to thank you for that. they had the courage to speak and talking about the experience, it was really courageous. i always thought that by my age,

a lot of those expectations that people have, people are still stuck in certain expectations. i want to admire you for having the courage to step out of these that people have for us. and for you. i think we have come to a pretty decent project. a think it is unfortunate that we could not be reaching this with a supervisor -- with supervisor farrell. we will continue to dialogue with him when, and we have not reached an agreement. we're always open to these continued the dialogues. -- continued dialogues. commissioner antonini: it seems

to me that that is what we were looking at. should it be higher than that? i wanted to reiterate my support for the projects, but i am thinking that the height is excessive for the reasons given before. i would like to ask a question about the motions. if i am reading these correctly, obviously, we will have amendments to create a special use district. there will be amendments the allow for a bonus for affordable housing to be on what is allowed by the planning code. the third thing is the zoning map amending from 40 to 55. you're amending it to allow a height above 40 feet as high as 55. is that what you're saying?

>> there is x the 55 ft. height limits. that will only be afforded to projects that have an affordable housing component. >> does it mean that the building could end up being 45 or 50 feet in height? >> anything under that height limit would be within the permissible building heights. commissioner antonini: but it would be possible for a building to be built. the supervisors could prove something that is of low or high. i am thinking of supporting 13a but not be.

it allows flexibility and height. >> a lower building could be built in that height limit. >> i am supportive of the project, is the quickest way for it to go through is with the compromise, having been on the commission for nine years. i have seen these things drag out. commissioner sugaya: i would like to lend my support to fellow commissioners for supporting the project as proposed. some of us income -- in addition to commissioner borden have met with the supervisor. i understand his compromise position. there are times i think that when district alexian's get in the way of larger city needs. i would urge the supervisor to

take a look at the urgent need for this kind of project within his district. i don't have much to add to what the other commissioners have said in terms of their supporting comments. there is one thing that i can tell you. let me tell you a little story that adds to my support of the project. sometime last year, i was in utah. i had a meeting with a colleague of mine that lives in los angeles. 92 years old. i had the pleasure of driving him for a couple of hours back to the salt lake city airport. we talked along the way about the fact that he grown up in san francisco.

recovered various topics along the way. he asked where i live. one second later, he said 741 taylor. it dawned on me, i live at bush and taylor. it is the block to the south. it took me 20 seconds to figure that out, it took him one second because he had delivered fish to some establishment there that is currently the academy of art university facility. we got onto booker. i dunno if i was talking about it. i think he raised it because he had something to do with it. we never got to his exact relationship. the subject came up. the environmental impact report has been before us because they're proposing a new building.

he said, they are still there? and i said, not only that, they're proposing a new development. he looked at me and his eyes got really big and he says, that is all he needed to say for me to support this project. commissioner moore: could you please put to their record one quick clarification. and the height limit is measured midpoint on presidio avenue. >> that is correct. i think it is important to put to record because sometimes when buildings have been on the sloping side, people cannot understand what it really pertains to. it means one block on presidio is where the elevation will be measured. >> the address has nothing to do

with where you take the height limit. >> it will be customary help with what ever. except for the fact that we want him behind there, correct? >> i think it is unfortunate that there have been threats of things. if we did not respond to every threat of what ever appear, the project would be passed. this have to go by the merits of the project. >> are the separated? >> of the motion was on both. >> who made the motion? >> i did. >> approval of both with the findings. and monitoring program. including working with staff on

any final details regarding the structure. >> and the building. >> in dealing with some of those issues, that is what the neighbor mentioned. commissioner antonini: i was supportive of the first part but not the second. i don't need to go to the parliamentary maneuver. i will just vote for the package one where the other. >> on the motion for approval of both including the findings and the continued working with staff on the details.

[roll call vote] it passes 5-1, commissioner antonini voting against. [applause] commissioners, you are at general public comment. president olague: and the general public comment on an item that was not on today's calendar? the meeting is adjourned.