to the project as it's been presented. it's a very exciting project. it's a five-story project that will serve many families and many youth going forward for a long time in this city. it will enable booker t. to expand its role as a community center and provide affordable housing which is desperately needed in this city. this project already represents itself as a respectful compromise and i'm thrilled to back it. for san francisco and for our district, this plan under pot scott's leadership will provide desperately needed housing units for transition-aged youth with a recognized and commended service provider. additionally, with this project, as it's presented to you, booker t. will be able to expand its range of services to its multigenerational, multiracial, and multiethnic communities by providing more education, more childcare, more health and wellness services,

career training, and especially with computers, job opportunities for many people currently underserved. i visited the current facility about three to four dozen times a year in my role as a neighbor and my role as an educator. the current facility grossly compromises any educational programs, any outreach through the community that might go on and serve them if it were better. this is an organic, respectful community organization under pat and phil's leadership and the new board of trustees, it's got new life providing new opportunities for a wide range of constituents, all of which will contribute to our city. >> thank you. >> good evening. my name is ms. menendez, a

current student at san francisco state university with the guardian scholars program. i was placed in foster care at the age of 16. not a lot of people had a lot of hope in me. people thought i was going to drop out of school, have i don't know how many children, marry someone for money and all these things. and prostitute myself. honestly, these are the situations i was facing at the age of 16. but instead of, you know, following those stereotypes i got a job by my senior year i had four jobs, i was a secretary, i was a youth outreach worker, a tutor and cleaning houses on the weekend. and what i really want to say is there is -- i know a lot of the conversations and opposing side is the architectural design and there's a fifth floor but i do honestly believe there is -- partially there is a fear of bringing young people

who maybe have been through certain backgrounds, harsh backgrounds and might bring trouble or more crime and different things, and i would like you to see that there are foster youth, there are young people that really want to do what they got to do to get themselves out there and be able to succeed and just be able to help their community and i'm one of them. and since i do feel sad, i'm one of the 5% that actually went -- is going to college and probably will be graduating in two years and will be attending law school to become a dependency lawyer and would like to be an advocate for young people who are former foster youth and who did not get a better opportunityy. and it would be really sad for me and i don't know, i would maybe not understand why san francisco wouldn't support a project like this when we know that only five of us actually make it. that's not fair. and i would like to see that

apartment complex -- this project to be there for young people. that's all i wanted to really say. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for the applause, everyone. good evening, planning commission, my name is dan winton and represent the 12,000-plus member san francisco bicycle coalition and wanted to speak in reference to an official letter you received from the bicycle coalition in support of this project. we believe the project has been vetted, well thought out, well-planned and from our perspective in terms of bicycle infrastructure and facilities this is in addition to our community and that neighborhood so on behalf of the bicycle coalition we urge you to support this project. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, if i may, mr.

cabreros, department staff. i wanted to make an amendment to my presentation earlier, staff presentation. we are actually recommending -- there are two actions before you this evening. if you are to go forward with the adoption of the resolution to create the special use district, we would like for the commission to include the ceqa findings along with that action and that would set forth attachment a of the ceqa findings in the packet and also attachment b which is for the mitigation and monitoring and reporting program so that would be wrapped up in your first action. with regard to your conditional use planned development motion, if you are to go forward with that, we also would reference the adoption of those findings and attachment a and b for the ceqa and monitoring program. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank

you for the testimony and i want to express my total support for this project and i think everyone in this room has total support for the project. i think some of us feel, or what is really before us is what is the most appropriate height, density and other things and that's really what we're discussing tonight. everyone is very supportive. i'll give you one reason why. i don't know how many read the report from larkin street but it was very alarming and it shows what a need there is. apparently, there were an average of 1,313 young people who went into foster care per year in san francisco between 2008-2010. and according to that figure, that represented 10.8% of the children in san francisco. i'm not sure if that's correct. i think it's a number equivalent to. because apparently about 58% of the young people came from outside san francisco and 42% came from within san francisco. but regardless of how the

statistics are, the need is a great one? and of course as these young people reach age 18, they have needs and want of the primary needs is housing. however, i did want to point out that we are in receipt of a letter from supervisor mark farrell that supports a compromised position which i think is a good alternative. it is one that would be supported by the neighbors, from with a i understand, and these -- the site of booker t.'s present facility, there were victorians there before 1953. doesn't make any difference, they were demolished, the present building was built. if you look at the context of the neighborhood, and i know almost all of you are very familiar with it, most of the heights of the buildings are quite a bit smaller than what is proposed. even the larger apartment buildings are not in excess of 40 feet. so the impact is greatest on those who would be to the east

side of the building. that is those between sutter and post that will be impacted greatly and considerably more by a building that would be 55 feet as opposed by 45 feet. and i think that's what we're really talking about. the other issue is the parking. and we're only providing 21 offstreet parking places. now, we have a lot of uses here. we're going to have the gym which will be much bigger, more heavily utilized, and that's going to be an impact. also, although we will have, as designed, 24 units for emancipated youth, there also will be 24 units for people making up to the 60th percentile median income, there will be studios. among these young people, i think you'll find a higher incidence of car ownership than you expect. when you're first out of school, one of the first things you'll be able to buy is you're

going to buy a car because a lot of times your job depends on you being there on time and employers are not very happy when employees are late and often times public transportation is not reliable, or jobs call for you to go outside of san francisco or other places. we have to look at this realistically and the impact might be greater and we want to keep the impact one that is not making the situation worse than it is. the other factor that was brought up is parking for municipal railway drivers and many live outside of san francisco and have to park in the neighborhood often for the whole day or for their shift and that's also an impact. so while certainly it would be up to project sponsor to decide the question of should we have the same number of units and less parking or should we have an equal amount of parking and fewer units, i think that probably that could be something that would be worked

out. but i am supportive of the compromise proposed by supervisor farrell. also, we have word in his letter from the mayor's office of housing that they will make up any shortfall that may occur. it's been expressed that without the full complement of units at the present rent price points that they need -- they will have a shortfall of 11,000 per year. the mayor's office and doug shoemaker assured us they'll make sure however many units there are and whatever the height is, it will be fully funded. and i think that's really important. and as far as design, i think the design is good. i think there are a few things that were brought up, i think tom radulovic brought up the gym and think the glazing is a little intense and would like to see -- i know they want to get as much light as possible into there but perhaps could increase the thickness of the cornice or make the glaze

section on the me video -- presidio side lower than diagrammed in there. as far as the rest of it, it can be articulated in expect the -- exactly the same manner whether it's 45 feet or 55 feet to make it attractive and blend in. the punched windows are great. i'd like to see a little more molding around them. and, you know, those would be things that would make it fit in well with the neighborhood and sometimes it will be a higher building than anything else in the neighborhood, but if it's context chural, the height won't be so imposing. i have letters we've received from the jordan park improvement association, laurel heights improvement association, presidio heights association of neighbors and the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods, all of whom have 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