pretty clear. it is the character of the neighborhood, and as you can see, you know, we have an interesting fabrics in the neighborhood. even if you are completely out of scale, into this neighborhood, this is the way that booker t. is able to communicate and live in neighborhoods as it currently stands, it will be a difficult proposition. you have had this shoved down our throats. thanks. >> i am a property manager.

i came here to ask you to consider the compromises. the structure for the community center, we're asking for the renewal of more. and despite sentiments expressed to the contrary. we're not asking for outrageous concessions, only that the size of the structure be kept within the boundaries of existing height limits. we realize and accept the need for affordable housing for disenfranchised youth and families. it is unfair to sell this at the expense of the community. the compromise is minimal.

it will become permanent changes to the neighborhood. will say yes to 80% of this project and we ask that you do the same. thank you for your time. >> are there any members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? why don't we move to the presentations? >> good afternoon. planning department staff. senior planner of the environmental planning division is here with me as well as emily rogers, the department of legislative affairs that will speak to the issues raised on the conditional use authorization after my presentation. the issues raised by the appellant in the may 17 appeal letter and subsequent on june 15 the middle to the board are related to an alleged three

approval of the required completion of the environmental review process. the analysis of the orders and as a summarized today, they have been adequately addressed in the final eir. the appellant claims that the project has been preapproved by the completion of the environmental review. the appellant sites females between the mayor's office of housing and exhibits in six of the most recent board is so little. staff has reviewed these e-mail and will characterize the discussions that revolve around the project program. they had no influence on the preparation. as discussed, the office of housing and is neither the project sponsor nor the lead

agency had provided strictly redevelopment funding for the proposed project. it made clear, the partial funding. it was not an approval of the project. with regard to land use, it ignores the existing community center not to one specific property owner or individual. it does not ignore adjacent properties, particularly with those respect to the rear yard. page 14, the property clearly

states that the adjacent building is a one story building and it considers it throughout. the draft, seeing the documents. the draft page states that while the product area contains primarily residential uses, it is not the sole land use tie. we have the bus yard and additionally in the greater neighborhood, the jewish community center and other public services such as the fire station. the scale of the area varies. across the street from the site, the multifamily housing at

the height of 45 feet. the description is adequate for purposes of the environmental review. it discloses that the building, not 70 feet as stated by the appellant, would exceed the height limit. it finds that a 55 foot building will not adversely impact the character of the vicinity. our documents include a number of images from public view points including a long-range view. showing the project in the neighborhood from the avenue. regarding evaluation of historic resources, they found that the existing community center is a potential historic resources not for its architecture, but its broad patterns of local history.

if labor the survey should have been done. the eir acknowledges the project setting. centered on baker streets northeast of the site. it will not impair or impact the district. as far as preservation and planning commissions, it indicates adverse impacts for historic resources and is required to reduce, and a, or avoid these. it rejected as unfeasible because preserving the existing structures seem that it will be required. half as much housing could be produced. be available building areas are within the adjacent parking area and the rear yard behind

the lot. there is a compliant alternative. the eir found that the physical effects of would be similar to those of the modified projects. associate of the demolition of the existing community center. regarding alternative locations, if the project sponsor does not control or have under shut of other sites, supervisors, the planning department's position is that it adequately and thoroughly analyze this whole issues -- analyzes all issues. we have not heard anything that alters the conclusion of the findings. the staff recommends that the board uphold the certification and deny the appeal.

we would pass the presentation. and i'm >> ann marie rogers. i'm joined by the person with the project planner for the provisional action makers. when the facts support that the project is necessary or 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