>> the first item is a special order item, accommodation that our colleague from district 9 will offer. >> thank you very much, mr. president. thank you to you and my colleagues for the indulgence. i would like to ask two colonel heights residents and it is my honor to do an accommodation -- i would like to ask it two bernal heights residents and it

is my honor to do a commendation . this creates incentives to shop locally and support local businesses. these two gentlemen along with other folks have created an innovative program that gives back to the community through the debit card which is being launched today. this is report points to individuals that shop in the neighborhood. they can be redeemed at local businesses or it can actually be given as charitable contributions to local non- profit organizations. it is for that reason that today i am proud to honor the work they have done. the work fosters' pride in the

community and deepens the relationship between residences and their local businesses. this is a certificate of honor for launching a cutting edge project that supports local businesses and community-based organizations and builds meaningful partnerships. we're educating residents about the importance of shopping locally and by foster in a deep sense of pride in our neighborhood and for leading change by example. congratulations on launching bernal bucks. this can serve as a model for other neighborhoods on how to create these kinds of incentives locally. >> thank you, supervisor, and think the board. we're really honored that our effort is recognized so early on and we are here on behalf of the bernal heights neighborhood.

as you know, you never know what to expect. we launched a debit card for the neighborhood today and that was an act of self empowerment. we are flexing our economic muscle that we have in the neighborhood and we have an incentive program to keep the money within the neighborhood. >> i want to add quickly that that is very fortunate, people with strong accents like me can become locals in committees in san francisco and get themselves involved in the neighborhoods. we hope that this program will expand in other neighborhoods and communities for other cities

and beyond and so we have to come back sometime but tonight is a launch party and this is all about bernal tonight. we extend an invitation to attend a party tonight at 9:00 p.m.. thank you. >> why don't we go to our special order. please call item 39 through 46. >> item 39 is a public hearing for people interested in the --, certification of a final impact

report for the proposed booker t. washington makes use project. item 40, a motion of from in the certification of the final environmental impact report for the presidio avenue project. item 41 is a motion reversing the certification. item 42 direct the preparation of findings. public hearing or those interested in april 28th, 2009 decision for the property located at 800 presidio ave. item 44 approves the decision and a conditional use authorization. item 45 is the motion is approved in the planning commission's approval of a conditional use authorization. item 46 is a motion directing the appropriations findings. item five --

>> on today's calendar, there are two hearings as well as a legislative item associated with the project a 800 presidio ave. this would allow for a new construction of facilities and up to 50 units of affordable housing. the appeals will be as follows. first there is an appeal of the final report and secondly there is an appeal of the planning commission's approval of a conditional use authorization. both appeals were brought by the same appellant. the issues are different. our consideration of the final eir appeal involves our analysis of the adequacy and accuracy, sufficiency and completeness which is a legislative hearing into either overturn or a firm planning, six votes are required.

there is analysis on whether to determine this was appropriate. to overturn north conditional use and conditions, 8 votes are required. i suggest we consolidate both hearings to a single hearing. in >> to ensure the public, the planning department, and the project is sponsored receive a full opportunity to address the appeals, i suggested is as follows. the appellants will have up to 10 minutes to present their case. the palin will have up to 10

minutes to present the case for the appeal coffers of the authorization. members of the public means that you will want the board to request the final eir may speak up to three minutes on either or both issues. we ask that the speaker is identified the appeal they want to address in their comments. after members that support of the pills have a chance to make their comments, the planning department will have up to 10 minutes to present their analysis. next, the real party in interest, the project sponsor, will have up to 10 minutes for final certification. the members of the public that support the certification of the

final eir for the conditional use authorization may speak of the three minutes on either or both of these issues. finally, the appellate will have three minutes for rebuttal and support of the final eir and then three minutes in support of the appeal of the authorization. at the conclusion of the hearing, we are required by law first to consider the certification of the final eir and we will vote on this. a hearing related to the authorization is clause i judicial in nature and their combined in the hearings, they must provide due process. they must be predisposed towards a the to the outcome.

each member of the board must consider the same facts, records, and testimony. are there any objections or changes to proceedings? let me ask if the dish to supervisor has any opening comments. with that, why don't we proceed to the hearing? with that, i would like to ask the appellant to step up to the microphone. you have up to 10 minutes to address the final eir. >> thank you. i am representing a group of neighbors of this project, people who actually live within the 300 foot radius of the impacted area. homeowners, property owners, and residents. they have called themselves neighbors for fear planning and

have called themselves the 800 presidio neighbors. our appeal is based on evidence that we have discovered as we have participate in the process for a number of years. in this instance, ceqa was never given an opportunity to work. the review of the impacts has been tainted from the beginning and they never have enough paternity to work properly for a review of the potential alternatives. not only alternative tadzhiks of different scope and size but alternatives as well. this defies the approval of the project as when the decision by the action of an agency to miss that to a definite course of action in regard to project.

as with so much, this question has been debated back and forth, when does approval occur. when is the advocacy for the assistance to favoring of a certain projects, when does that ripen into the commitment of a definite course of action? we have trouble with that concept and i think that the municipality has struggled with that concept. the supreme court has weighed in on this and they said in order to function correctly and provide decision makers with an unbiased environmental analysis to review which must be done as early to avoid allowing a project to gain what the court calls a bureaucratic and financial momentum. once that bureaucratic and

financial momentum is created, there is an incentive in the city and the city agencies to ignore and from and to concerns. this renders the process meaningless. the facts of each case of our unique. that is what you have to look like -- looked at and determine if it was given a proper objects to the function. this demonstrates the city made a firm commitment to this particular project long before environmental review. the fact and evidence have been submitted to you bear this out. first, there was a series of agreements and funding and an intricate web which i tried to lay out for you in my latest briefing and i apologize for its short said middle but we lost at least a week of time with the celebration of the hearing dates. if you look at exhibit four, you will see that the project was

approved for pre development loans by the mayor's office of housing on july 20th, 2010 which is before planning heard this and before the eir was certified. they granted a pre development loan of nearly $800,000 at that time and they gave a grant of $150,000 earlier on july 1st. you'll note that the notes are also attached in the exhibit to secure the debt and you will note that the property is now secure for these loans. booker t. agreed to build affordable housing and agreed to pay the money back over 55 years. it is our contention that the

institution that was in trouble for the time is really helped by this type of loans. the response from the department says that these loans are not binding and they can always pay that back into the city is well aware of the financial situation. as a practical matter, none of those debts can be repaid. the critique could not get of the contracts if they wanted to. after receiving that money, they began to pay off debts going back for many years. they are paying invoices going back to 2007. many of those went to the for- profit developer. the supreme court says that we need to look at what has occurred as a practical matter. in addition to this financial

commitment, committing to this project, the representatives have been promoting and institutionally cheerleading for a very long time. if you look at exit 7, you will see that the district supervisor sent out 8 fund raising mailer urging approval of the project almost two years ago. she said she approved the project. it was mailed to everyone in the area. all the neighbors ever going to have input on this project and received that in the mail. if you look at the facts of the situation, you will see that the mayor's office has been acting as the project sponsor for some time. they are last in the draft eir hundreds of times.

it is no accident that the consultant got it wrong and he was taking his direction from the mayor's office of housing. this was an outside agency and this was acting as the project sponsor and control in the design. if you look at the exchange, they were controlling the design and there were contacted neighborhood planner directly. there are e-mails directly. they're controlling the public meeting and when it would be held. also the timing and content of the eir. those state from 2010. please take a look at those and read those carefully.

booker t. held its grand opening six months before the eir was certified. that was exhibit four. they advocated for this project before it is certified. that is an e-mail sent out from a city agency urgent letters be sent to the planning commission and to the district supervisor are urging him to support a larger project or urging certification. this was using city resources and city e-mail was used to send those letters. the others involved devised a plan to circumvent neighborhood input. look at exhibit four. the actual impact it masers will be the last -- the actual people

who are impacted will be the last. taken as a whole, these show that the city was absolutely committed to this project long before sequel review and approval. this project was not contingent at all on what might be found in the burma of the process. the information is not overwhelming. it is directly on point. given those factors, i urge you to consider sending this back for proper review not tainted by this process and the information we have found. there will be some other speakers on this issue but there is crucial factual information, the baseline information that was incorrect. you don't make a printing error

by leaving out an entire category. believe it or not, the baseline information was incorrect after the eir was certified. this was slightly taller and similar in height than others in the residential neighborhood. those are simply untrue to the observers. the conclusions were a foregone conclusion long before any part of this process began. >> if you would like to proceed to your appeal.

>> the appeal before you was qualified with an astounding 42 cents on of the property owners within the area. we have yet to see a single supporter of this project at this size within the 300 ft impacted area. there is a good reason for that. this building does not belong here. everyone out here supports booker t. in one form or another. something this massive next to a building that is barely 18 feet tall and this so monumentally out of place which is hard to fathom that action was approved.

the building is a stark modern design located in a neighborhood that dates mostly from the 1800's. it is steel and glass. they have reduced the size of the windows a little bit. this will literally stand out as some monolithic edifice at the top of this hill given its size and the fact that it as at the top of the hill. the fact that there was this huge push in cheerleading and city agencies long before it was certified and it led to a changing of the information about the neighborhood. the neighborhood has been terribly amiss characterize as a three and four story which is not.

this is the corrected illustration of building heights to show that 25 buildings on the block were incorrectly identified. this block has been identified as some sort of transitional area, some sort of area in flocks which is completely untrue. one of the newest buildings on the block is booker t. and it was built in 1952. there are very few new buildings on this block. almost all of them date from the 1800's and some of them date from the 1920's. so, hand in glove with the bureaucratic and financial momentum behind this project has been a fudging of facts and mischaracterization of the neighborhoods and conclusions which is still makes sense --

which just don't make sense. this action measures more than six stories which is taken from the east and would only be slightly taller or similar in height to other residential and nonresidential buildings in the project area. that is an insert statement -- an absurd statement. they've reached so far that they started talking about the hospital. they started talking about of buildings in different the surrounding areas blocks and blocks away. those are not fair comparisons and the information is not correct. the project makes little or no attempt to fit in. after going away for six or eight months, and these are the kind of setbacks that we see on small, residential projects. as someone puts