require a landscape in the rear of the building as has been installed at the rear of the institute on aging building where it is backed up on residential neighborhoods and you will require the sought improvements to make the architectural quality of the building compatible with the neighborhood. the height limit should be no more than 45 feet proposed by supervisor farrell, who spent substantial time looking at the data and propose this height. [tone] but none is being proposed and a child-care center is not intended to serve the residents, but a profit-making use it should be eliminated so the building's extension can be reduced in the rear yard. the current proposal is acceptable in size and bulk. supervisor mirkarimi: next speaker please. that exhausts all our speaker cards. if anyone would like to speak, please step up. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i'm a native san franciscan and my husband is fourth generation. we have two children and live within 300 seek from the booker t. washington. i am an early childhood special educator and i have been working with underprivileged youths for 25 years. i am in full support of booker t. washington and all that the project comes with. however, i do not support the size or magnitude of this particular project in our neighborhood. i know it keeps coming up, all of these buildings that are surrounding the neighborhood that would be -- the position it would just a blur in. but this is a very boutique area. yet never been in the

neighborhood, take a walk around. it is mainly victorians. our house will be impacted. the building will be a vision from our yard and house and it will be in the shade. we are in the shaded area. i urge you to consider the compromise supervisor farrell has come up with. as some other speakers have said, that's not exactly what i would want, but i am willing to meet in the middle because it is important for everybody to get their needs met, the neighbors and the booker t., and what that is going to bring. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i'm the chair at the land-use subcommittee.

the neighborhood supported the project which was within the zones and this project is far beyond what the zoning allows. on a personal basis, i played at booker t. washington what i was a young man and my brothers played there. i support the programs booker t. has been providing. in regards to the gymnasium, it will be fine, but the primary user is not daugherty. -- is not a booker t.. that is an important issue because the gm is a physical part of the community center and this whole project is based on a private motive.

the city had some planning, perhaps the community land trust to get some funding. perhaps the gymnasium could have been more primarily used for the use to attend booker t. washington rather than a private high school. that's another point of contention -- the school is going to have primary use of the gymnasium. that is something that should be considered. perhaps with the mayor's office of housing, they could provide more funds to get more housing for transitional use. [tone] supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker please. >> i'm here today on behalf of

the john burton foundation for children without homes to express our support for the booker t. washington community service center project that has been spoken about today. the john burton foundation is dedicated to the alleviation of homelessness among children in california with a particular interest in youth who are part of the state child welfare system. we are particularly enthusiastic about this project. it will create 24 much-needed units of affordable housing for transitional ag is in san francisco. it has been a bit disheartening today, listening and sitting back and hearing people bahut almost implied -- hearing people imply that the character of our neighborhood is a more important priority than the lives of use.

one in five youths who is emancipate from the system experience homelessness within six months of exiting the charge of welfare system. without support in their transition to adulthood, there are tons of other challenges they face -- low rates of educational attainment, hullo rates of employment, higher rates involved with the criminal justice system. the program located across the state -- they have made measurable impact on the lives of former foster youth who reported increase in work and increase in enrolment in community college and, most importantly, an increase in a permanent connection with an adult. these are proven prerequisites to adjust to independent life as an adult. last year, 162 used in

emancipated out of the san francisco foster care system. [tone] the challenges i mentioned make it critical to provide support. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker, please. >> members, supervisors, i'm an attorney for booker t. washington. i would like to focus my comments on the legislature itself. -- the legislation itself. the legislation before you has only two deviations. what is an increase in height and increase in the number of units. however, these are tied specifically to affordable housing and the number of housing units so if is within the planning commission before you and by this board of how many units it is a proving. you have heard the background

information, both pro and con, about the height of the unit. irises board that with respect to this legislation before you that you do recommend, and do pass to the board because without the 55 foot legislation before the board, they cannot evaluate the higher building or the lower building. you heard plenty of substantive testimony, the reason why this legislation and the project coming before you later should be higher and also the people who oppose it. i have just a couple of other projects -- you saw a graphic and they talked about the to story and three story building. when he is showing you that graphic, he focuses on the

bottom of the box and what you saw in terms of the graphic soft was on procedure itself, there is a lot of large building and there is no particular height of building in this area. [tone] >> a number of concerns were raised about the backyard, amid yard open space and how the proposal cuts into that area. how i would like to ask about what mitigation have been made to address that. s or who lives next door in that beautiful peach-colored home -- any other concerns that were

addressed, if you could dress that that would help very much. >> in terms of the building right next to it on sutter st., -- this building comes all the way out and is basically a five story box. what was done is to create a three-story volume right on the face of sutter st. so that this

becomes a three story volume and drops back down into this single-family home. this single-family home is not a predominant pattern. it just so happens it's right at that. as you go further down the street, -- supervisor mar: i think the argument is it is not as the planning has described -- >> i would say that is true as you go to lyon street. from the top of the hill going down, you can see it as a single-family home.

that is really three stories. then it drops back down and gone this corner, you have another building. you don't have a very uniform height and the same for across the street. again, -- supervisor mar: if you could summarize the concerns of the neighbors immediately surrounding the project. >> what we did in terms of the architecture is to make sure that the five story drop down basically to 3 because the four story set back about over 13 feet and then the height as it

marched down the hill reflects the slope going down. as far as the backyard is concerned, the architect -- this is the backyard. this is the gymnasium. the backyard is here. this building has been pulled 10 feet away from here so that -- this particular building does

not come all the way up to this line. supervisor mar: there is a strawberry patch and other things in the garden -- how much further does it extend from where it is now? that is 10 feet right there. >> from here to here. [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> on this side, it is over 56 feet and on this side, it is probably 60, something like that. >> this is the 11 ft. 6 from sutter street and on top of the fourth floor, we pushed back another 59. if you see the graphics from sutter st. looking up, this leading edge here would be basically what they would call a code-compliant massing right here. this is what is predominant on this form and this is what you see from the residence below.

it is not the massing on top. >> which is the height to the opponent has informed you they accepted at. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next public comment please. >> i residents of district 5. booker t. has been incredibly important to our community. this project provides both a low income and transitional use -- it's only a little bit toward the need. i would like to talk specifically about some of my friends in my neighborhood, one who emancipated last year and is now in the bayview area because there is no housing in my neighborhood for her. another who emancipated around the corner from me now lives in daly city because that is worth

the transitional housing is. i urge you to support the project as it is. nine units is a significant number of units considering individuals who will be impacted by not having housing. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. >> chairman, members of the committee, my name is brown, president of the naacp and pastor at the church. i'm appalled, as langston hughes said, i swear to the lord, i still cannot see why democracy means everybody but me. what's the point?

when we built the fillmore center, there is a question of height and density. but it was built. it is thriving there. when the jewish community built the committee center at the corner of california, there was no great brouhaha. the heights went up. this institution that was named for one great american, booker t. washington, the epitome of self-help and education, a place where young people, particularly in the african-american community in the '50s and '60s had a place to go as a safe haven for recreational activities, cultural and record programs, academic programs, it

thrives. and i just can't understand why is there all the fuss about some height limitations, about density, when you have a masonic building over there on nob hill, a fluent high-rise apartments, it went up, and i've would just hope you would find in your heart, your mind and your spirit to be consistent [tone] and make democracy work for people who have to be marginalized, left out, look over, and the oppressed, and make san francisco the city of st. francis where everybody is a firm that everybody is welcome at not just somebody. it's time for us to get on with this development and stop this nonsense. the world is not going to fall to pieces if it is built. it will be led by people of

conscience and dignity and mind. it will be to the glory and the betterment of this city when we do it and make san francisco a city for all. [applause] supervisor mirkarimi: any other public comment? for those who have not speaken -- spoken -- sorry, it has been a long day. >> i'm the director of the booker t. washington community center. i have heard all these people talk about a compromise. we are the project sponsor. we have never taken part in any discussion about any compromise. any compromise on the table has been a compromise developed without any of booker t.'s and put. thank you.

-- booker t.'s input. supervisor mirkarimi: as the director, maybe you could help answer these questions. there was a comment that drew is school would be a majority user of the gymnasium. >> that is not true. they use it mostly during the day when our youth are not there. in the summer, when we have summer camp, and actually started today. drew is not using this gymnasium. the youth from a summer camp are using that jim as they were this morning. any deals i have with druse school is limited by any usage booker t. has. sometimes we of scheduling conflicts and we work out. >> it has -- supervisor mirkarimi: it has been asserted this is a for-

profit center. >> it can be. we're working on contracts with potential people to come in to run the child-care center. but the way i'm looking at it is, if it is a for-profit child care center, what we would do is make sure we have scholarships for all of our children who needed them. >> -- supervisor mirkarimi: what about in the neighborhood -- we have heard from people that there is a dearth of child care. >> it can only hold 24 people the way it is now, so we are limited with what we can actually do. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. >> thank you for hearing all left out. supervisor mirkarimi: any other public comment? seeing none, i would like to close public comment and bring up the city attorney.

supervisor mar: public comment disclosed. i should also know we have a stack of letters in support of the projects, including the assemblywoman on the committee of foster care and the state senator, the council of community health organization signed by a number of organizations given to us earlier. supervisor mirkarimi: in an earlier part of this hearing, it was all little clumsy the way this was instigated because i think there had been a lack of instruction, but i want to make sure it is scaled down. supervisor weaner tried to scale down that particular discussion. what at this juncture before us can we articulate support or

not articulate support for so that lines are not crossed? if you could be just a little more clear about this. >> the limitation that you have in regard to the fact that an appeal has been filed is that the committee acting as a committee cannot make a decision that would forward the legislation with a recommendation that would constitute an action. individual board members can express opinions but the committee as a whole cannot take that action with the pending appeal. supervisor mirkarimi: those opinions, as any of us express, either in favor or opposed to the project itself, aside from the fact that i don't dig any action is going to be taken, that does not jeopardize our ability to be participants in the hearing of the appeal, does that?

>> that is correct. the question before the board considers the adequacy of the eir and not the actions related to the project. supervisor wiener: how about a conditional use appeal? by the way, have no agenda here. i cannot stand the rules that we are not allowed to take a position on projects that impact are district or the city. i think the california law is really screwed up. the rules are what they are and i want to make sure we have clarity. i know the rules are all looser with them eir appeal. i understand the appeal of conditional use was filed, so is that different from what we are permitted to do as individual supervisors?

>> the conditional use appeal pertains to the act of a specific project itself, whereas what is before the land use committee today is a special used district that would allow or be able to facilitate the project but does not go to the actual details of the project the way conditional use does. supervisor wiener: individual members may give opinions without -- >> yes. supervisor mar: after the 20% of the homeowners are residents are verified, that comes to the full board on june 28th, as the process? >> i'm not sure about the date. the clerk may be familiar with what the date might be. >> i believe the conditional use is on the 28 and the eir is on

the 14th. supervisor mirkarimi: i think the president of the board is trying to line up right now. the technical amendments have been circulated, colleagues. , if you like these are coming from the city attorney. on page one, lines 2321, the language has been changed from will not have a negative impact on the environments provided under sequa , to say that the ordinance does comply with it. page two, lines 1 through 2, ab. it provides a space for that motion and 3, the city attorney corrected some section numbers which were out of sequence. those amendments are for your consideration. supervisor wiener: thank you mr.

chairman and thank you to everyone who came up to testify on all sides. it is always taking a big part out of people's day to sit through what can often be a long hearing. thank you. i just want to comment -- putting aside the merits, which will dispose of -- our want to comment on the unfortunate, and i think unnecessarily toxic dynamic that has formed around this project. everyone i have spoken to universally agrees that we are in desperate need of housing for transition-aged youths and i know from my inexperience over years and years in my district and my neighborhood with the lgbt community, we see

transition ag is to do not have access to services, housing and we see the problems that result from those used and our community as a whole. i spend a lot of time in the budget process trying to make sure our services are fully funded. there is also good support for this location as a location opprobrium for housing transition-age use for the reasons we have heard and we have also heard that the opponents of the project are willing to accept a pretty significant increase in density. there seems to be not be a consensus that a consensus is apprat