seems like a substantive change but not if at all called policy and we can have a conviction about whether or not in term of notifications or the things that are brought up here and how we should be acting and we're trying to get better in those areas. and we should focus on that. and for the purpose of the code cleanup, i don't think this is the place to have that conviction. i think it is to have a more substantive conversation later about some of the practices and priorities that we care about in the context of what makes sense to put a policy in place that we would actually be useful and not clutter the code with things that are not really specific to bigger planning issues. when i see you must mail something to this by this date of expiration, it seems overly specific damage in a planning code anyway. >> but that is exactly what the

neighborhood groups are complaining about is notification and how that works. so it isn't the code and to say that present practice because it's being ignored should be codfied. seems to be backwards to me without having first discussed it. i give you another example on page 44 and one of the item on line 17 through 21, the notification process for medical cannabis now eliminates individuals or group that have made a written request or notify indicating regarding specific medical cannabis dispenseries. can you tell me where there' been included then? the language under notice just says 300-foot radius. >> tara sullivan, department staff, and this is going to be in attachment c.

once the department has determined that the abi willcation is complete and for owners and of courccupants for s than 30 days. and an earthquake mail to interested groups and was a simple omission. >> this is my point. how do we know people said they have read this and didn't strike anybody as being an issue that we should be addressing? that is why i can't vote for this. president miguel: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: with the physical design on page 86 the issue of establishing that and the line 18 through 20 and that has been stricken. and when you move on to page 88 on the bulk restrictions, it

seems as if the restriction section has been eliminated with the reveference to the project applicant only filling out a form. unless i don't properly understand the language and the change relative to what is of concern to the commission. it might be in the luage, lost in translation here. but myself reading it as a nonlawyer, as a layman, i feel there is something not quite clear. >> commissioner, i would like to point out that that line that you are citing in section 309, we relocated because basically that is saying you have to file an application for section 309 or an exception to bulk per 270 and 272. if you go on to page 89, part d, it says applicant -- we retitled it because it was never clear what the application process

was. review subject to this section is triggered by submittal of a 309 application or a building or cite permit. it is the same thing but relocated. >> ms. sullivan, all i am saying is that you are skilled to read this and write it and immediately deed me to where i need to go. and in my position, i read it and say, oops, a major change and you have to go two pages beyond it to find it again and by that time my thread is lost. and there are changes if nothing else and i think it was expressed in this room. that it would have been good to have a blackboard and this is what it is, this is the way we're simplifying it, do you agree, is it clear? most of us are on the laymen end of things as well. i don't have the comfort to see this -- >> commissioner moore, that is why this is here. >> it is not in there.

>> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval with a one-word change related to section as the notice in 311. with access. >> that motion passes 5-2 with commissioners moore and sugaya voting against. thank you, commissioners. presid

>> we will take the housing element following that. >> the planning commission is back in session. commissioners, we are as the president has announced taking item 10 out of order it is a public hearing on the draft environmental impact report. >> good afternoon.

this is the booker t. washington community services center project at 800 presidio avenue. the purpose is to public comment on the draft e.i.r. the subject property is the 22,360 square foot l-shaped lot on the southeast corner of presidio avenue. and the project entails demolition of the existing community center and construction of a replacement center with updated an expanded facilities including a gymnasium and other program areas. in addition to a five-story building volume to the north that would include 47 units of affordable housiintended to serve emancipated foster youth and residents with income up to the 60% of the average area median income level. the project would provide 22 off-street parking places the the planning department preparnd e.i.r. for this project because

it would have a significant impact on the environment. the e.i.r. found that the existing community senter is considered an historic resource because it is associated with events, specifically the founding of an african-american institution which has made important contributions to the cultural history of san francisco. demolition of this historic resource is therefore, considered, a significant environmental impact. the draft e.i.r. was reviewed by the hisser toic preservation -- by the historic preservation commission and wassed a quantity pursuant to ceqa and recommended mitigation measure that documents the history of the community center as a cultural institution and to include more information in the e.i.r. about the building architect lloyd gardener and to contain more information related to the e.i.r.'s preservation alternative. at the conclusion of my presentation, i will pass out a summary of these comments to the commission secretary.

as described in the e.i.r., there would be a special use district and a reclassification of the site height limit. the e.i.r. includes an analysis of a co-compliant alternative to provide the comparison of potential effects associated with the proposed project and alternative that would not require zoning amendments. commissioners, staff published this draft e.i.r. on june 23 and had a 48-day public review period which closes august 10. for those who are interested in commenting on the draft e.i.r. in writing, they may submit comments to the environmental review officer at 1650 mission suite, suite 400 by august 10. for members at the public today,

state your name for the record and the comments will be tran skriend responded to. those who have comment willed receive a copy of the document prior e.i.r. certification or approval or action taken by the board. commissioners, this concludes my presentation, and i am available for questions. president miguel: thank you. i have a number of speaker cards and if i can remind the speakers and those who wish to speak that this is a comment period on the accuracy and completeness of the e.i.r. which was publish ed available to the public obviously. however, the entitlements for the actual project will come before this commission at a later date. and all of those details will then be in play for comment to us.

>> good afternoon. i'm gail shecklie. and commissioner, thank you for the chance to address this and i just this morning sent a letter and copied those of you that i did have emails for and i did bring some copies of the letter and i have them here. with my comments. i don't know that all the comments in the letter will pertain particularly to the e.i.r., but i'm for this center. the center needs to be renovated. and i have lived n the neighborhood for many years and our family has lived there since 1974. i have a 15-year-old and he attends basketball games at the center. the length of my house is along the yard of the booker t. and i

was very happy to see a play yard put in right outside my kitchen window and really don't even mind the chickens running around. i think that is kind of nice. and i love the sound of the kids and i know some of the kids. what concerns me is the changing of the code to the height of the bulk of the project and the density. as i understand there's also going to be construction down the street at westside. and why all these units need to be built there is beyond my comprehension. i did see that if i was reading it correctly that there was no impact on traffic and transportation which is beyond comprehension. we are so impacted in our neighborhood from muni and right now and many of the people have two cars at least. per unit. it seems to me parking is utmost concern and there should be at

least one space per unit. and i'm not even as concerned that aesthetically it doesn't fit in the neighborhood and i'm more concerned that we're going to lose an historic building. the booker t. has been there forever and it's been a great facility. but i'm glad that it will be redone and i would like to see it done within the zoning of our neighborhoods and not be enormous 500% increase space that it' going to be taking. other concerns were addressed in my letter and i'll leave that at that. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> hello. my name is joyce lively and i do have something that i want to leave with you. i'm a c.p.a. and i have been intimately involved in

affordable housing for most of my 23 years in san francisco. i was the controller of bridge housing and mid peninsula housing for nearly 13 year. i have personally been involved with the tenderloin neighborhood development corporation, community housing partnership and the late citizen's housing and been in both of them on a regular basis. i have been an officer on the board of directors with the treasure island homeless development initiative and i have been there for over three years. first i want to make sure that people understand my presentation is not about the community center. and it's clearly not abouten issue of having affordable housing in my neighborhood.

and i have no issue with the resident population of emancipated youth. we need that in our neighborhood, all of that. my issue is specifically about the housing element and the community is behind supporting the community. and our community is behind supporting the community center. the san francisco city policy set aside a portion of all affordable housing and it is the city policy to set aside affordable housing for either the homeless or those at risk of homelessness which the emancipated youth are. it's very common to have set aside for special needs population and the planning commission knows that these set asides are status quo for affordable housing and therefore not relevant to this issue about the housing. the size and design of the residential building has no impact on the set aside housing requirements and the emancipated minor housing would be included regardless. f÷-for the whole time i've been 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