desirable for and compatible with either the neighborhood or the community. the appellant argues that the sole consideration for whether the project is necessary and desirable is far neighbors within 300 feet, but section 303 c-1 of the planning code allows the commission to base its findings on community as well as neighborhood considerations. the commission considered both the neighborhood and the community. this violates the urban design element of the general plan. the appellant is contradicted by the planning commission's motion. the project reached the conclusion that it is on balance, including the urban design development. it's important to understand that consistency with the general plan requires an overview of the whole plan. the general plan provide a

number of public policy goals and at any one time they maicon conflict with each other. decision makers should review all the pertinent policies and then decide whether the plan is on balance in whole consistent with the general plan. the planning commission also considered the transportation, the housing, and the community facilities element. it is important to explore the project in relation to immediate neighbors and in relation to urban design, but let's ensure we're using more than a myopic lens. let's review it relative to the larger community and other policy goals. i'd like to draw your attention to some of those neglected by the appellant. transportation objectsive two. the city should use the transportation system to guide development. in this case the project is supported by gary lyon and

seven other lines within three blocks. bike parking and new development. in addition to the 21 parking spaces, the project provides two car share spaces and 21 bicycle spaces. housing policy 1.6. in reviewing this project, consider the goal to create insent activities for housing, especially affordable housing and new commercial development. 437b9 -- .3. the city should encourage the construction of affordable housing. 4.4. the city should consider granting density bonuses and park exemptions for the construction of affordable housing as happened with this project. 10.1. the city should focus on providing permanent affordable housing and service enriched housing to reduce the need for homeless shelters. in addition to our policies, state law calls for cities to offer density bonuses for

affordable housing. the city provides the opportunity for density bonuses through special districts such as is before you today. the city provides on-site counseling and services. community services. assure that the residents have access to need services. booker t. has been operating since 195 2. here the continuing use to have community snort will not disrupt nor distract in the neighborhood. here are some additional penguinses -- policies that are also from the urban design element and are relevant but not discussed by the am lanlt. policy one. emphasize the characteristic pattern of the city and reinforce that pattern, especially as it relates to topography. building slightly higher on the

hills helps emphasize the city's dramatic form. promote harmony and relationships with and shall -- and transition between older and newer buildings. this is key. on the overhead we're going to show an illustration. this building is new and modern but shares architectural elements with neighboring buildings. the massing is broken into several units. glenn, if you could just point to those. let's turn our attention to the urban design policies raised by the appellant. on this other drawing, continuity and representing the character of olding development. some have suggested for a new building it should be victorian or perhaps have a victorian facade. but that's not the practice recommended by

preservationists. instead, as this project does, the project's scale, detailed proportions, texture and materials have been carefully studied against the surroundings so they are compatible. looking at the sutter street facade -- pushing the top floors back minimizing the building against the finer grain residential buildings. at the other street, presidio, the gym provides for a shorter form that steps down to the adjacent two-story building. in fact, and importantly, nearly 60% of this building is at 45 feet or less. continuity with the past is also provided by the continuation of the uses, enabling booker t. to serve future generations. major news, development, and visual harmony. this project is harm moan yuss

as it repeats existing lines and materials and uses light materials. large areas and open spaces. the commission requires siding of this building so that the project's rear yard is ajuvent to the common mid lock open spaces. on the architectural renders, you can see that the rear yard will preserve the feeling of openness. this is important because many of the buildings on this street prow -- protude -- protrude into the open space. this project replaces a large paved area with a vegetable garden and recreational landscaped areas, an imapproval. let's look at the new shadow plan. much has been made of the improved shadow on the interior space. as you can see, the yellow line there is showing the existing

building's shade. the shadow fan of the existing building. the entire mid block space is shaded. consider the neighborhood environment. as the appellant noted, the subject block is residential but the nearby context includes a variety of uses. it's a major facility, three block, built in 1912 -- >> president chiu, can i ask ms. rogers a question? can you talk a little bit more about the shadows and specifically about mr. carden and miss lively's peach-colored house that's right next door. there are a couple of neighbors that were the ajuvent backyard neighbors but how does the shadow fan change from the current structure to the proposed one? >> of course. through the chair, a shadow fan shows the maximum shadow throughout every day of the

year so when you see in the outline is the maximum amount of shadow that's going to be cast. in the picture we had on the diagram, that's showing a shadow fan for a 20-foot building and the building that's there is seven feet. actually the existing shadow is a little bit bigger than what's shown on that shadow fan. does that answer the question or -- >> excuse me. we can't have comments from the gallery during this portion of the hearing. supervisor? >> i was just asking what would be the change with the new building versus what's going on now? >> the shadow fan of the proposed building is chargeo -- larger. it continues the mid block open space and beyond. >> just to quickly reiterate, this yellow line here is a new

study that was just done for this hearing to demonstrate if a 20-foot building was built, that was the be the shadow fan that is encompassing the interior of the block. the shadow fan produced for the project sits actually this red line here that was part to have commission's pact as well as included with your submittal. so it actually goes beyond the subject block and also creates shadow into the next block beyond lyon street. lyon street would be right here. the net new shadow of the project versus the existing building would have similar impact. sort of the same impact. >> so as i was saying, the muni facility that's existing there is quite big, three blocks, according to muni's long-term plans is antiquated and a

rebuild of this area is coming up. beyond the muni bus yard and within a quarter mile of the project are large multiunit residential buildings, a trader joe's, public storage building. fire station, jewish community center. ucsf campus and the kaiser building is on gary, a block away. to the east, the uses are predominantly residential but also retail and mount zion medical campus. the commission found this location desirable for the project as it is a transitional area. as mixed setting the project proposes uses that nicely fit in with the variety. the commission spoke about how the project not only fits in with the residential character but how it fits in with the other uses to the residential. in summary, the commission

found the project to be necessary for the continuance of existing community facilities and also to create much-needed affordable housing. the commission found the design to be desirable in that it responds to the surrounding development patterns as viewed from the public streets, the mid block open space and adjacent residential buildings. the commission found the physical attributes and the uses of the project to be compatible with the neighborhood, topography and surrounding structures. their conclusion, the project is necessary, desirable, and compatible. president chiu: colleagues, any questions? supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, president chiu. ms. rogers, would you go over again the population of the multi, single story, double, triple, etc.? you mentioned the population before. >> i don't think i mentioned the population. i talked about the variety of

areas that were in the area. oh, michael just sent -- michael, sorry. >> yes, supervisor mirkarimi. i have this here in my presentation. bear with me one moment, please. just on the project block, by my review -- i see here that the e.i.r. reports the scale of the area varies. the project blokhin includes three one-story structures, two -- supervisor mirkarimi: slow down, please. three one-story? >> uh-huh, nine two-story structures. 10 three-story structures and three four-story structures. supervisor mirkarimi: and three four-story. >> those are not necessarily all residential floors but there are -- they are residential floors over a ground floor so visually they

appear as three stories, for example. supervisor mirkarimi: and then i do believe that ms. rogers made the statement that 60% of the project is 45 feet or less, correct? >> that is correct. supervisor mirkarimi: speaking to the question of neighborhood coherence and urban coherence or any coherence as it's been asserted, moving eastward, since you heard you say that is predominantly residential. part of that also includes west-side public housing, isn't that correct? >> yes, that's correct. supervisor mirkarimi: how far is that from the project area? is it with -- >> it's not on the block immediately adjacent but it's two blocks down. supervisor mirkarimi: ok, good. i just needed to make sure.

and then across the street, the building that is directly across the street from the project on the corner of presidio is how big? >> supervisor mirkarimi. that building on the corner of presidio and sutter is at 750 sutter and based on our mapping it's 45 feet tall. supervisor mirkarimi: and how many units are in that build something >> there are three multifamily buildings next to each other. that building has 22 -- one moment, please. the three buildings next to each other total 48 units and there are 22 units in one, 15 in another, and 12 units in the other. so those three multifamily buildings directly across have about 48 units in a combined area of about 15,000 or so

square feet. supervisor mirkarimi: and what is the size of the muni barn? it's how many blocks? across the street? >> the whole facility takes up three blocks but the building itself is about -- yeah, it's a little over 1/3. supervisor mirkarimi: it's a third? right. but the expansion or extension of the muni car barn is three blocks, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> supervisor mirkarimi: and did i hear you say that a rebuild is kg being considered? >> they recognize that the building built in 1912 is extremely antiquated and has culled called for a rebuild. if that property were to be declared surplus or if they had the capacity to build on top of it we would like to see additional housing and

affordable housing at that location. supervisor mirkarimi: ok. thank you. thank you. president chiu: colleagues, nip additional questions? why don't we go to the project sponsor, who shall have up to 10 minutes to present the case for the certification of the final e.i.r. and an additional 10 minutes to present the case for affirming the c.e.o. ms. barkley? >> president chiu, mexico of the board. i'm the attorney -- members of the board. i'm the attorney for booker t. washington. ly keep my notes short. i would also like to point out that i have submitted into the record extensive letters on both the e.i.r. as well as the c.u. let me just say to begin with very briefly on the preapproval process, this project went before the planning commission and the e.i.r., the

environmental review applications was submitted first in 2006. the department published a notice of determination that an e.i.r. would be required in 2008. then they began the draft e.i.r. process and that was accomplished on june 23 -- published on june 23, 2010. so the appellant can hardly say that somehow this project was preapproved because the mayor's office of housing decided to make some grand money to do predevelopment activity. up cannot do an environmental impact report without any money. you cannot do an environmental impact report without an

architectural plan or elevation for the department to analyze and that is the money that was loaned to booker t. by the mayors over housing so that they can make sure that the process can move forward. as i pointed out in my letter, the mayors of the housing has no responsibility or ant or legal authority to conduct an e.i.r. or to approve a project. those are within the power and responsibility of the planning commission, the planning department, and on appeal on a conditional use in an e.i.r. to this board. so i think that the approval -- preapproval argument is really a sham. stars?

the -- as far as the environmental study is concerned, the linchpin of that argument is one colored map that had a problem when they printed the final e.i.r. that has been corrected and that particular new figure is before you. this board is acting and conducting a hearing so that you can look at all the information before you, including the new one before you to make a judgment as to whether or not the e.i.r. is adequate. and as far as the environmental setting argument, that is also a sham. because he ignored the fact that there are pages and pages of written description of what is around the site. they also ignore the fact that

they are photographs of the block, photo montage that tells this board, as well as the planning commission, exactly what is next to it. no one was fooled by the context. all they have to do is to read the documents. we ask this board to take also administrative notice of all the photographs and photo montage that is submitted by the planning department that is in your file. we subject that the -- submit nat final e.i.r. is legally sufficient and adequate and that the appellant's agreement with the conclusion does not render it first quarter. they do not agree with the conclusions of the commission, the department, and of this

board, which i believe that, after you consider it, will affirm the e.i.r., and your decision, but that's not the basis for overturning an e.i.r. the e.i.r. is adequate. and i'd like to turn the rest of the time over to steve perry, who's the project architect, to go through a little bit more about the -- president chiu: tucked use the mike to your right. >> i'm going to use the computer, if possible. president chiu: you're on now. actually, that mike is working. >> good evening.my name is stev and i'd like to address some of the base data for the e.i.r. and talk about the neighborhood and some of the buildings around the neighborhood and then some of the acoustic issues that have been brought

up. so these are photographs of the neighborhood, and you see we have booker t. washington here on the left and these are photographs of presidio av. to the north we have a larger building with larger units. a four-story building here and then a four-story building down at the other end of the block. then on our block, next to the project, we have smaller two-story buildings and then at the end of the second block you'll see here -- we have another four-story building. so these are looking down sutter. and directly across from our project, right here. if you can see this building here. this is a four-story building. another four-story building and another four-story building coming down the sidewalk and then we have a mix of other

houses. one and two-story buildings and also three-story buildings. and you can see on the other side of the block, this is booker t. washington to the right. coming down we have three-story buildings on top of half-garage expressions. and then look down post street, this is where we have three-story buildings and smaller two-story buildings over garages with a three-story expression, and other one-and two-story buildings. once again, on lyon. and you can see the small map over here. hopefully it's clear enough. you see that we have smaller buildings with three stories and a garage, and two-story buildings with larger units and larger flora fluoride. so as we look down presidio

ave, we have a smaller treat coming into a larger ave that's really as big as mission street and mayor son street. so it's a much larger street with residential blocks, larger, more horizontal expressions on one side of the street and then a transition to the uni yard on the other side, with more institutional uses. that's kind of supporting the baseline of some of the information that's been talked about today. i would like to talk about some of the acoustic issues that were brought up today. we'll be very detailed with those. we'll have to address those from a residential side as far as a code issue. the current ventilation strategy for booker t. washington are open windows that look out over the rear

yard. this allows sound to broadcast over the rear yard. we will not have open windows on the jim nays yum. it will be closed off. then we start to look at the code sections. we'll have to address them for the california building code. 207 for sound transmission, which basically orders protecting residents from outside noise coming in. so that really doesn't apply to the gymnasium. then if you hook at the other codes, we have the 2909 san francisco police code, which addresses fixed noises and a fixed noise is basically a mechanical or eelectrical crypt that -- equipment that creates noise. this doesn't apply to our situation, but to be practical we're going to look at 209 d of

the police code which states that no fixed source can cause noises inside a sleeping or dwelling room to extend beyond 25 b.a. with windows or 55 with the buddies closed. the 55 is actually very restrictive, because we can't use a window. president chiu: colleagues, any questions to counsel? ok. thank you very much for your presentation. >> the planning department have extensively addressed the conditional use and all the arguments that were advanced by the appellant and they really have little or no merit, so i won't go into that except that we already also committed --

submitted another extensive brie. i will now turn it back to the architect to finish his presentation. >> excuse me? president chiu: your mike wasn't work. now it is. >> so looking at the design for the massing of the project, we started with this baseline information, looking at these large horizontal elements coming down the street and picking this up with our residential maps and then starting to take the massing down and reduce the massing towards post street. this diagram here shows the city pattern for the streets in san francisco where there's a one-on-one relationship for street width to street heights. this came from the market octavia plan and it's recommended rule of thumb for height to street with ratios.

so as we start to look at the presidio ave elevation, we have a 55-foot high building that comes up and is pushed towards presidio ave, which allows more of a height to widths ratio. then it drops down towards the bid block. and as we turn the corner, he break the building into two pieces and reduce it more than the buildings across the street. so give it ahill more vertical and slimmer profile. then at the back we break it down again with a 13-foot setback from sutter street and then a 15-foot setback from the rear yard. so you can see as we set back the fifth floor, this height at

45 feet is basically very close to what the compromise building has been talked about. so if we were to have a 45-foot building that came all the away across. if you follow the cursor, this would actually fill in this corner with. this 45 foot, we're setting back 10 feet and this actually lets more light into the rear yar. and as urs up the street, the fifth floor expression is set back 15.9. so actually this expression doesn't come out and the leading edge of the building because the 45-foot. so looking at a bird's-eye view. we have started to lighten up the colors through some of the neighbors' comments. this is just a just -- gestu