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 don'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,on page 25,n the first paragraph that says, "while the building would substantially alter the visual character of the project site and appeared to be considerably larger than the one- and two- story buildings adjacent to it," that is a prelude to blocking scenic views.

if you take that statement, where they're talking about something different than views, i think he would have to possibly change the conclusion with respect to the visual impact. i like to have that reexamined and responsive document. lastly, this is on page 442, i would like to support the planning staff's conclusion about the historic resource, the historic significance of this building, which is in my view the correct interpretation of the materials that were submitted. i believe by the eir consultant. the conclusion reached by planning staff i think is, in my opinion, the correct one in the face of a different conclusion reached by the consultants that

prepared the historic resources. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i would agree with the historic preservation commission, the information on the preservation alternatives. i think for disclosure, it is interesting to see how these fit into our thinking and it also shows to the public in perpetuity why it is done. just matching and if it -- just mentioning it is not enough to do so. i'm interested in having more on the individuals, but the building itself does not warrant preservation. i think the history of the people had something to do with a history of the city in the last 40 years. i would like to see more details and more archival information available about that. it will not matter at the moment, but in the future it will. vice president olague: that

corresponds with the first point of those comments. i support those as well. there should be a mitigation measures included. president miguel: i agree with the hbc's comments, and with a certain extent to commissioner moore and sugaya, without going into details. parking is not a ceqa item, per se, and as far as the actual building design, the lot design, the skin of the building, all of that, that is something that would come before this commission, quite obviously, during the entitlement process, and it is not part of the eir-ceqa process. ceqa says this is accurate and

complete. i think we have made some comments here as to completeness, certainly, and references to its accuracy, but on the whole, at this point, i do not see anything drastically wrong with it. the items that have been mentioned are covered before we get the final document approval. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i remind the public that the comment time is open until august 10. if there are additional comments that you wish to submit in writing or if someone has not had the opportunity to come today, please get that in by the 10th. as you know, the process will be comments and responses that will come forth, coupled with the eir, and that will make the final environmental impact

report in the future. president miguel: that final document, the present draft eir plus the comments and responses document will be voted upon by this commission at that time. that time cannot be ascertained now because it would depend on the amount of time it takes for the staff to respond to all of the comments, oral and written, that were made today. so you'll have time to comment to us when this comes before us for final acceptance, as well as further on in the process, during the actual entitlement process for the project itself. we are not at the very beginning, we are somewhere midway in the middle process.

secretary avery: thank you. that concludes the public hearing on this draft document current -- on this track document. commissioners, we are going back to item number eight on your calendar, case number 2007.1275, san francisco 2009 housing element informational update on that document. president miguel: just so everyone understands they have read the agenda correctly on eight and nine, this is an informational update at this point. you can or cannot, as you wish at the end of this agenda item, but basically, item nine as the public hearing on the draft environmental impact report. this is the prep. >> thank you. good afternoon.

i am planning department's staff with a city-wide division. i have been working on the policy and objective piece of the housing aliment -- housing element. i am here to give you a quick status update on where we are since the last time we were before you and how we hope to go through the process after the e.i.r. hearing. we start the planning process for the 2009 housing element in the fall of 2008. we had a three-pronged approach. we had a community advisory body which included 15 committee members -- 15 community members. we had about 10 meetings with them. we had stakeholder sessions with special interest groups and a round table, followed by 30 city-wide workshops, helping different communities go through

the different parts of the project. following this extensive outreach, we released the first draft of the 2009 housing element update. we also held a hearing here on parts 1 and 2. during that time, after we released the document, or received a number of comments from community advisory body, yourself, and other members of the public. based on those comments, we made a revision and released a second draft of the 2009 housing element last june. that draft is available on our website, as well as a summary of the changes for people who want to read the memo. this is covered in the draft e.i.r. in july, we also formally submitted this draft to the department of housing and community development, which is the state agency that we are

required to submit this document to, and we informed them of our schedule, which is drafting the environmental impact report right now, then report by the end of this year on the adoption. we have continued to receive a lot of comments on the second draft, comments about the differences between the two, as well as general comments from folks who are newer to the process. we look forward to hearing more from folks. i know you have received a few as well. we are proposing to come back to you in late september, early october, to have a more substantive hearing once we have more time for comments to be looked into. are there any questions? i will be here for both sessions, but otherwise i appreciate your time. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there any public comment on this precious item? -- on this preface item?

>> good evening, commissioners. as you know, i email dui, two letter -- i emailed you a comment letter and i will be speaking to the latest draft of the housing element, not the eir. we have a number of pretty grave concerns with this latest draft of the housing element. i had the pleasure of serving on the community advisory body, along with a variety of different stakeholders representing different groups, different parts of the city. we have a lot of extremely lively and productive discussions. i don't think we all agreed, but i feel that the previous draft

of the housing element represented accurately the variety of the different positions that we held. i feel like the changes that we have seen in this draft of the housing element essentially strip out a lot of the smart growth aspects of the plan that were previously in there. there previously was language around supporting housing near transit nodes, there was a map of what was considered a major transit line, there is a lot of concern particularly from folks on the west side who did not want there to be any old bus line. there was a map in the previous draft that showed the major transit lines. that has been cut out.

we have a lot of concerns about that, and i don't want to go through each and every point, but i just want to let you know, the commission, that i -- and i believe you have received letters from jason henderson and joe curtain and a number of others on the commission -- that we felt the position we have at it, and particularly given this hellman -- this element, we should at least be looking forward to the next housing element, where we have to look at transportation and land use planning. we should be for thinking. we are san francisco. we're not going to go through each and every item, but i want you to know that the things that have been taking -- taken out of this housing element are a big concern to us and we will be looking forward to that meeting

that will be occurring in late september. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you. >> i am bob. i had not plan on speaking on this item, but i think it is important speak at this point. i have been here 40 years, chaired the board of supervisors task force on noise control in the 1970's. i was on the advisory committee on central embarcadero after the work wake -- after the earthquake. i was asked approximately two years ago by the mayor not to wear the hat at any particular body, including san francisco the beautiful, but try to see if

we could find a way to avoid in the next door around, the 2009 housing element go around, the five years of litigation that have consumed us in the last housing element. with that in regard, we have had meetings with the head of planning, also mike cohen, and a representative from the mayor's office. that his mid going on off and on the past several months. we have come to a point with the assistance of planning that the draft housing element which we agreed could be issued even though was a draft in june to avoid issues, to have redline. the difficulty is that spur, wh