Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 21, 2011 5:00pm-5:30pm PDT

5:00 pm
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.
5:01 pm
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
5:02 pm
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.
5:03 pm
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
5:04 pm
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.
5:05 pm
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.
5:06 pm
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
5:07 pm
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
5:08 pm
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
5:09 pm
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.
5:10 pm
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
5:11 pm
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
5:12 pm
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.
5:13 pm
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. there has got to be some form of sculpting this project here in >> i have been here before.
5:14 pm
there is a comment of like to address made by someone, the only way this can pencil out whole ignores price. it isn't the price for the developer, is the prize that the neighborhood would pay. that can't be measured in dollars. this needs to be put aside, it will prove something. the special use district is a farce. and it has been created for this particular project. it isn't fair to the neighborhood. it is an outrage.
5:15 pm
thank you. >> my partner and i of a unit. it backs up to the rear yard of this project and it won't be completely overshadowed by the project. we are on the genocide. that is rotative currently. facing the rear yard that extends past the zoning it is an outrage. as with the story being off of the building. the bulk of the building is really my concern, but i will take anything at this point because a think this is a
5:16 pm
complete outrage. i am not sure if you can see this, but this is the bar that is across the street. it will be the driving force and will be on the next block. the open space, where the buses are part, the zoning is 50 feet. it is not even 50 feet. i will show you other pictures. this right here is public housing, an entire block of public housing. you want to put 50 here, the entire block surrounding it is only residential.
5:17 pm
i think people run businesses and out of residential homes, but there are no businesses. this is booker t. washington as it appears now. it is probably less than 20 feet. it will be 65 feet out. this is the little house that is right next to it, one story. this is outrageous. here is our house. his backup to the rear yard. these are one and two-story buildings here.
5:18 pm
[audio issues] [chime] president chiu: thank you. why don't we move to the next speaker? >> hi, i also live at that street. i just want to say that the issues, the scope of the project for parking, it certainly is back up to what will be the new gm. and it is huge.
5:19 pm
it will be [unintelligible] the neighbors are not opposed to the project, we are opposed to the size of the project. please consider our point. we're not there yet. i also lived next door. -- >> i also live next door. i want to reiterate what my neighbors said. we are not opposed to the project, we are opposed to the concept.
5:20 pm
just how it will totally completely overshadow us. think you very much. -- thank you very much. >> i'm the last of the neighborhood association. our issue is really with scope. i have taken pictures, and it is 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
5:21 pm
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.
5:22 pm
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.
5:23 pm
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.
5:24 pm
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
5:25 pm
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.
5:26 pm
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.
5:27 pm
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
5:28 pm
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
5:29 pm
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. provisional action makers. when the facts support that the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on