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. we want livable, attractive, vibrant urban spaces has said of the incoherence that promotes ill-conceived and blocks for affordable housing. >> next speaker, please. >> i have been there for about 20 years. my concern, i support the appeal, this project. first of all, the parking is a huge issue. we have just a couple of new units a billion, about five years ago. and when they came in, they cut

out some of the driveways to go in there. and just one unit, one building. it made a huge difference parking on the street that i have to do, our home doesn't have a grudge. i immediately saw the impact of the window going in. is not supplying the drugs for these. one of the things that has to be considered, everyone that there has friends and family that will also be visiting. the impact is unbelievable. i would like to say this. i was standing on the back >> overlooking where booker t. is now, and my neighbor pointed out that you see where it is now, is coming way into the

neighborhood. really? i had no idea it was going to come up here and sit where it is. there has been the story polls ever put up so no one really knows what is going to come into the middle of our neighborhood. and we have them up on another project, right behind the house a couple of years ago. and that changed every buddy's opinion on what is going on. the people could really see what is going on. when booker t. has a huge event going on, it can be heard all over the neighborhood. if that is to come down into the middle of our neighborhood, i can imagine that what i have been told, there is a glass wall at the end?

it will be unbelievable as far as noise in the neighborhood. granted, we are not oppose that all to helping the community. and helping kids. this is seemingly way over-the- top for what this neighborhood is. >> next speaker. i am working with the neighbors. this project is way out of scale with the neighborhood, as you have heard. it does not adequately address the problem. each with your facing today is between going from the unit's to either 41 or 50. either way, the project cancelled out. of are equally financially

sound. the agreed at half a million dollars to be equally financially viable. it is important when you make your decisions today to recognize that financial viability is not an issue. what is an issue is that the 41-unit project will recognize the concerns of the neighbors, the people you've been listening to this afternoon. there are many concerns that they have, this is a compromise that the supervisor has offered and it does not address all of their concerns. the 50-foot unit flies in the face of the projects and the neighbors. here is a list of 100 or more households in the immediate neighborhood have agreed that this project is too big and have agreed to accept the compromise.

it compares to the nine units lost from this compromise. do the math. 50, 100 units of voters that will be lost, nine units that are needed but could be built elsewhere. nine units compared with 50, 100 neighbors. do the math. make your decision, but please keep the neighbors, the homeowners, the renters. they are committed to our city. the dead and dying. >> i have not spoken to you

and sondheim. we're here to let you know that we support the booker t. washington complex to help you protect children because my background as a private investigator, including people in your jurisdiction here, it is an important issue. what i was in high school, i read two books. they were of importance to me. booker t. washington's history and his biography. and also george washington carver. a joint to investigate private crimes there. also in denver, the columbine

cover-ups with that case. because of my activities with in this area as a return to my roots here, the bottom line is that these residents, as my background [unintelligible] yahoo i come with a lot of experience and i appreciate the concerns of the local resident. he deserved to be heard and to be addressed. there is a need for more housing. we support that. our organization has over 60 co- founders around the country and over 20 states. you'll be hearing from us in the near future. he website is still under construction. unite for justice dot com.

and why went into this full time, the local residents here was involved in torturing a little girl. she was only 6 years old. they called it praise the nigger day. that's evil. we have to protect children as if they are our own. we need your help because we can't get the police to help us solve these crimes of people torturing that were involved. 707, 396.

>> my name is marcel conrad, i have resided in this neighborhood for 28 years since 1983. i have a san francisco resident and the voter. ellis to express my deep dissatisfaction and any full build out of the junta to washington community center. when the so egregiously violates the plans. with virtually no auto parking, this neighborhood has already seen its share of undue disregard for citywide planning and zoning requirements. we are approached by a continued expansion of the medical observed. most notably the huge building that was 15 years ago. the west side court housing

project is just half a block from my front door. and it is just a block west from my house. any share the pain argument is trumped by the severe impact already in place. a compromise to this project, the supervisor was a compromise is supported by the surrounding neighborhood associations. the reality is opposed in its entirety by the numerous neighborhood associations, including members of the pacific heights residents' association. in the jordan park improvement association. we have moved to support the compromise that the supervisor has proposed. we think it is the best solution for all. as you consider approving this project, however you approve

it, yet heard a lot about the parking in packs. i urge you to consider adding to the deed and approval of this project has covenant running with the land, prohibition on the issuance of any residential parking permits. not for units at 800 presidio, but for units in this partial. if the sponsors proclaimed that their residents won't be driving in cars, they should not be allowed to get a residential parking permit. >> my name is rose hills and and i am a member of the improvement association. of like to address the inadequacy of the appeal. first of all, there were not alternatives for the project

site. i have a bad headache, not because of this. the situation is, the alternatives that were not considered, i don't know in this process, i found out that there were many meetings held between the project sponsor and the neighborhood organizations. this is what i kept bringing up. everybody has to set at one table. i learned from this past history of creative financing and commitment. as far as transparency and government, i think this is going on a slippery slope. this kind of thinking is going on in the city, there will be other neighborhoods impacted in similar ways and will be wasting a lot of time doing something like this.

i wanted to thank supervisor farrell for his hard work. when the nine units that are on top of this project, i understand they're not even for the at risk youth housing. the kids are not going to be cut out of this. the size needs to be set back some and the 41 units is a lose- lose situation. but that is what happens with compromises. even though the planning commission past of this thing, there have been other structures in the area. someone wanted to build a structure and the planning commission denied that. these are some of the interesting things i've learned along the way.