building, the department will usually ask them to set of the floor tanner 15 feet. we have a 70-foot building next to a small victorian structure. little or no attempt. inappropriate from the street, and the setbacks are in perceivable. they can't be seen a cut from a great distance. in contrast with the surrounding change's and impairs the secured character of the entire neighborhood. surrounded by these wooden structures, where going to have these where foot building planted in the middle of that. do nothing to respect the character of the older developments nearby. the building will disrupt the visual harmony of the entire area. over and over again, we're given the same views.

it will be visible. we are shown these funny ankles , in order to hide just how far out of harmony and care this is. the height, baltic, and design of the building. we're so far out of touch with in the area, make no attempt to relate to the prevailing pattern of the neighborhood. the building has an overwhelming in dominating appearance. it will have a detrimental impact on the character of the neighborhood and on the surrounding buildings and on some of the affordable housing, the rent-controlled housing that will set permanently in the shadow of this building. the small buildings are there. the conclusions reached by the department, by the development team that this would not alter

the visual character and would not offend the character of the neighborhood, and not supported by any facts or supported by common sense. i urge you to grant the appeal of the conditional use authorization and send this back to be rethought and the justice of that it complies with the general plan provisions that above all supported the preservation of neighborhood character. and in fact, the placement of this type of affordable housing project is usually premised on preserving neighborhood character and working with the neighborhood supervisor, working with residents to make a seamless transition of this type of housing into our existing neighborhoods. that has not happened in this

case. the opposite has happened. the neighborhood of supervisors has done that shot. it has been minimalized, pushed to the ground, not contacted or consulted until it was a done deal. that is the antithesis of what the general plan says and novel way to promote the development for future policy matters. i urge you to rethink this whole project. we will now proceed to members of the public that support either or both of the appeals. anyone who wishes to speak, you can speak for up to 3 minutes and we ask each speaker, if you identify the appeal and you want to address.

this will be the time to do that. >> i support the effort on behalf of these people that were here, the children of the project. i also know that it will be a very difficult thing. they are asking persons that are servants and they are not always serving the people. the term refers to lawyers in the district attorney's office. it is amusing how language has been used to deny and ignore the public. they are on strike. we advise everyone to not join

us at 6:30 at the unitarian church john franklin to listen to the person that should have been president. cynthia mckinney. the most powerful, articulate, and truthful sincere public servants that we have had in a long time. as i speak to the hearts and likes of you, we're not here to serve [unintelligible] the one that we don't want and we don't need. it is time for the american public, the california public of san francisco to unite with the strike of the workers. president chiu: excuse me, sir. we had general public comment about an hour and a half ago. this is, and with the booker t.

washington project. >> that is what i am discussing. president chiu: if you want to speak about the project, go ahead. >> i imagine i get my 60 seconds back. the animal rights, people don't understand the spiritual connection between the two. when we are adults, we get lost and we end up being politicians instead of statesman. i submit to you that all governments should be run by little girls at the age of seven for their hearts and their minds are much closer to heaven. i am peter. i have said it. you are invited to the general strike and a garden party. and all veterans in support of the number one prisoner of war,

dr. jeffrey macdonald that blew the whistle on the bush drug dealers, the same people that terminated the life of pat until then, for blowing the whistle on the heroin cartel. the same people that terminated the life of dr. jeffrey macdonald's pregnant wife and children 35 years ago. [chime] president chiu: thank you very much, sir. again, this is public comment that wish to support the appeals related to the hundred presidio avenue project. >> i live at 2735. i have owned and lived at the property since 2003. i would like to reiterate that my neighbors and the support of the rebuilding and even beat the

building of additional housing. but we feel it should fit the neighborhood and here to the current zoning limits which i understand to be four stories at 28 units. one of the biggest ironies of this project, which point out that african-american families are leaving the city in record numbers. these are the very folks that booker t. has been selected to serve. it will continue to be little more than a basketball court for other private school neighborhoods. we support the idea of maximizing space, but not indefinitely. the city has a goal for any housing that can be added to this project. it doesn't mean we get as many studios into it is possible. families do not live in studios.

it is the only way the project can pencil out. that is what we are told. perhaps an entirely new approach is called for. city planning cannot be driven by cost alone. they can and must be balanced. the compromise is far from ideal. it is also the only credible solution that has been offered. we support a compromise, delay the project until a better solution can be reached. >> i live at 850 presidio avenue. it will be 25 feet away from the property line. our community does support the rebuilding. anatomy presented a plan that they're trying to shove down our

throats. the problem is not only parking, i did a unit to put more and the units that i own. i've played by the rules. it doesn't sound like they have to play by the rules. with the money that is already been spent, before everything was done correctly and legally, it doesn't seem fair. it really is a safety issue on the street. i see cars double part, buses trying to go round them and people almost getting killed because of the bus is going around. i have called the enforcement division.

they drive by and keep going. somebody is going to get killed. i know that at least 10 parking spots are being taken up. i see them double parked in front of the driveway. if they think the guys can get by with 21 working units, which is not realistic. we do not object to the complex being rebuilt. the is too big, it is not fair, they did not follow the rules. and i have a conversation in the parking lot a couple of days ago. i am a landlord in the city, a property owner. i had wanted in my building for 50 years and you can imagine what they were paying for rent.

i currently have a tenant that has been there for 30 years into others that of been there for 15 years. i have to make do with what i have in front of me. the city and other private donors pay for their mortgage. i have to pay every month. if it doesn't work, do it again. i have to make work with what i have. and again, if i had to give one unit, i know it won't really work for their situation, but they should not be allowed to just have 21 units of parking. >> i reside within 300 feet of the proposed new building.

i am appealing the conditional use. both as a renter and as a homeowner, i support the new project. the proposal has brought to the board of by the supervisor, it is a very good fit for all sides. the compromise solution will bring everybody satisfaction as far as the wonderful services project. the compromise makes the best of both worlds. i support the compromise. i of the financial liability project is a concern, but it should not be the only concern. i like to see this resolved as quickly as possible. an overrun of costs down the road, i do urge you to consider

the appeals to bring a compromise solution and bring the height of the building down to 45 feet and to the new solution. >> i live at 2755 sutter st.. directly to the east behind booker t.. this was a little house one story tall that was intentionally omitted from the draft. it was included in the eir, but it said that this building was going to be a similar high and would have no impact. i challenge that. the agree that this project has a definite impact.

putting 65 ft tall walls, how can it not have serious impact? these were also sold call that they blocked the property. of the building is built, who only see the sky if we look straight up. this is less than significant. the land use committee indicated that concessions need to be made by the project's sponsors. he did not address these. the effects are less than significant. one of the few community meetings, they raised the issue that the side of the building would have an impact along our house and around the neighborhood. the support the committee center and responded by telling her that sometimes sacrifices must be made for the greater good.

did anyone ask us if we want to make this sacrifice? how much are we expected to sacrifice. we are sincere and our hope that the residents will receive the services of the community center and receive the support and services they need to make their lives better to achieve the american dream. and however each individual to find it. they hope for their children and their children's children. to the contrary, what you have heard from any source, it is nonsense. we did not come from privileged backgrounds. my wife's grandparents were peasants in eastern europe. she's the only one her family to get a college degree. my grandparents were in the middle of a civil war, taking only what they could carry. the hope that their children to achieve the american dream.

buying a home was a major part of the american dream. it took years to attend that goal. the community center was next to us. we chose to live next to it and appreciate the work we do. [chime] >> i will continue the statement only large-scale building can contain the goals.

the concessions that have been previously discussed in various testimony to everyone that has been involved in this. we to ask you to listen to voices and the committee regarding the processes that again, everyone talked about and no one has done. they were out of character with normal construction. it will be required had enteral to the construction. we want, specifically, for them to be removed by 265. it is light and air circulation. and to make the life tolerable during construction of the

massive project. during the process, this relationship between the neighborhood and booker t. washington has been acrimonious to say the least. we want assurances that these issues are properly addressed. the only neighborhood that he cared about was the booker t. washington property. this attitude has prevailed. you are aware of it. our concession request therefore need to be included in the legislation that you approved regarding this project. these concessions cannot be left to booker t. washington to grant or not be granted. this would make life living hell like it has been the last several years. the list of concessions, we

believe it may come to the process. we wish for you to include the that these issues that come up need to be dealt with. we cannot go through what we have been through. we understand this is our home and this is our nest egg. this is the retirement money that we're going to have. thank you. >> i am the vice-president of the ice improvement association. which is across from this project. his support the appeal. i like to address both if there is time.

it is inaccurate and inadequate. at that time this was certified, there is no support in the general plan for the parking spaces provided for residential units in this project. the reduced or eliminated parking policy was proposed in the 2004 housing element of those policies were joined in the rift issued in the liveable neighborhoods verses the city and county of san francisco. it was in effect when this was certified. it should have rated as a significant effect. the conflict with the housing element policy and the project conflict with the priority policy in proposition m that neighborhood character be concerts. and also, the zoning should have been found not consistent with the general plan policies.

the conclusion that there would be no-visual impact is also based on the incorrect information that there were 25 residential buildings that were three stories in height and that the proposed five-story building would only be slightly taller. when you base conclusions on false or inaccurate information, your er is inadequate. the actual height of the building would exceed 65 feet as a slowdown, and it should of been rated as a significant visual impact on nearby residences that will be presented with a huge wall just a few feet from defense line. to mitigate this effect, this will should have been significantly setback in the

middle, like the institute of aging building. as it backs up. there is a huge rectangular cut out in the middle of the structure, and there is also a lot of landscaping to buffer the effect on the nearby residences. here you have a top story that is moved back and tie the knot in the corner. you have an adequate setbacks and you can, in rejecting, require adequate setbacks and also landscaping in the back to mitigate some of these facts. in any event, it prohibits the city from moving this project. >> good evening, supervisors.

i of and have lived in the property located at 27 31 cents 1988. it is the property that alliance up immediately to the east of the backyard. i like to emphasize that as a collective group, the neighborhood has been overwhelmingly in support of this project heavily expressed concern about the size in density. the main goal of this project often seems lost. the goal is expressed in 2006. building a new community center and a gymnasium. that was at the heart of this project. the only way they can raise the necessary funds is to sell the airwaves, which is a good idea, but they don't have as much air as they need to sell. in either private or nonprofit developers can come up with that. the hike, density, and air

requirements for the residents of the building itself. to get some context, it contains hundred and 10 units on the entire city block. it isn't even a quarter of a city block in the original plan also called for 110 units, only 10 of which were dedicated. it was down to 50 studios. 25 of which now will house the kids. all of this is sharing with a large gymnasium and a community center. affordable housing is needed. there is room for both, but not for 50 units. it used to be reduced in scale and billable amount of units built. the compromise is the only thing that has been proposed in a credible manner that comes close to matching this goal.

to those that argue that any units lost, i would ask how many lives can be saved and reduced in size. were they reduced or eliminated? they were simply rebuilt to their current size to be a thousand more square feet of housing. to simply rebuild was already there will dramatically impact the neighborhood. we have always been willing to compromise. we urge you to continue to find something that meets every buddy's needs. >> i have a native san franciscan, a resident, and property owner in this neighborhood. i have also done business selling real estate. i come from a family that has

participated in san francisco politics and business for a time spanning many decades. i am in favor of the opportunities with those of adults. i applaud those that have worked hard to accomplish this goal. and now it is time to hear those the other residents in this neighborhood. they cannot be ignored. they reside here. they have concerns that must be addressed. i have a problem that has plagued other neighborhoods, and that problem is parking. hospital staff and patients, who must compete with the attendees of sporting events and potentially 50 documents that will most likely buy a car. and further pressure to deliver

already suffering, whose neighbors of must have a voice. they must be heard. holly listen to them? >> hello, supervisors. i am the executive director of the foundation and the neighborhood. and homeowner with my husband david pirie there is a long tradition in san francisco allowing neighbors and the supervisors to come together to decide what size and shape of the neighborhood will take. we have not said no to future development. have a modest neighborhood. we only want something a little more reasonable and compatible.

the compromise that supervisor -- it is not ideal. it will be bigger than any building in the area. it will bring the building down to a more reasonable and compatible height. it will come down the effect that the building will have on us. we have been told many times by supervisors, project sponsors, planning commissioners, it is a done deal. that it must be financially feasible. we object because we believe it should comply with the cut and be compatible with the neighborhood. and the decisions will be on the basis of that. and not the ledger sheet of developers. we want a healthy modernization.