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 the four-story building next to a three-story 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.