with them, and something is right about the apartments. we need both of them in the city and we have both. that is just the way it is. some people prefer to live in one and that is a choice that we can have. there is nothing wrong with that. i appreciate those that know it the special restrictions. i think that those are complete and accurate. we know from experience as commissioners have said that people complain. people complain all the time even in strictly residential areas that someone is not handling their garbage bins right or their trees over my fence or whatever.

we get this constantly. we get this all the time. i live on an area that is on the fringe of an industrial area and i have a brewery and a block away from me and i also have a church a block away from me and i have a high school across the street from me and my side of the block is residential and that is what san francisco is. sometimes, we complain to each other. we have all gone along. that can be done if people are that way. i don't think it was done so i will second the motion. >> this organization should give yourselves a hand. this is an amazing organization.

it is too bad. this is between a rock and a hard place. i think that there will be changes in the neighborhood, there will be changes to your block. you might be nervous about the changes. there will be some. you might opt out, there are some neighbors that will want to support you and get involved. there are some good people out there. they should know what they are getting used to, whether this is an armory. at the commission, we have a chance to work with the representatives of this particular project almost every week and we believe that they

reached out. i am not sure if they wanted to play a game of chicken to see who flinched first. this is a way to not negotiate something last minute. i am supportive of the project. i would be open if a commissioner had another idea or another tool to mitigate but i am supportive of the motion unless there is another idea. >> i am opposed to the project, i am opposed to the motion. for me, this is not a question of out reach, this is a question of compatibility. i'm not sure if this is compatible with the existing use. we have been up here time and time again and we see opposition. there is disclosure but

disclosure does not mean that people will not actively oppose the uses. we have seen quite a lot of opposition to uses that have a charitable mission. we have seeing opposition to traditional use and other types of projects that do terrible work. -- charitable work. i understand that they are raising concerns but it only took one neighbor on the south of market district on 11th street to shut this down. this does not employ a lot of people. they shut. for two weeks just based on complaints. we have seen other types of concerns raised recently and i am not convinced that's it is

not somehow threaten the mission to have this type of housing. this is basically like in the backyard. this is different to me. this is at the corner. this is providing several community benefits and negotiations. the developer brought us to what i believe was 80% area median income. this is market rate and there are lots of negotiation. also adjacent to the julian street project. there is another that we approved.

this is 14th and valencia. they were subject to below market. we have a did this at the commission level so we increased some car share spaces. there definitely was some consideration to community benefits. they first went in for their approvals. they're subject to the old rules. they really have a totally different level of affordability. if they were subject to the new rules, they would be required to have some affordability on site and some retail space also. it definitely some affordability.

this is a similar situation. the new rules would require some community benefit on some rubble where we are trying to get these on the requirement. this does not allow for housing. again, a conditional use would have been that what that project would have been subject to and i am convinced that the issue of compatibility would have been raised even at that point. i don't find it to be necessary or desirable. rental housing was something that was raised earlier. this is something that the city needs. this is in rental housing.

i don't think that this is necessary or desirable. there's nothing wrong with making a buck. i can see how the community would be concerned about potential for opposition which really in the mission community has been subjected to for several years with the influx of new residents we have seen quite a bit of opposition and a result of the need for additional dialogue between residents and existing residence. i don't care what the motives were implied or they want to buy the property. i don't think that is relevant here.

>> a couple of things. one thing that was not brought up earlier but these are all two bedroom units. this could be someone with a child or two children and that is good. i think the whole reason for the eastern neighborhoods. one of the provisions was pipeline projects. this is one of the reasons why the agreements came out the way they did, they would probably not have a lot of supervisions that many of you are in favor of it and in regards to more affordability, less parking and a number of other things. to make these guys suffer because they have had to go through six years and now they have to be held to different standards is not right.

i think that we are one city and we need to have a bland. we can have affordable units and certain income levels. this is 100% affordable as we did in many many others that are and neighborhoods that are entirely market rate and entirely upper income neighborhoods. we want the same respect if someone wants to put in some units, they will probably not put in that much. this allows the diversity. but were you asking for a friendly amendment flipping that project around? >> i don't know if i am voting for it yet. >> if i were, then i think that the architect can speak to this

but if they reverse the floor plan or flipped the floor plan or the stair elevator, that side of the building then becomes, i don't know the term. >> you could go to the armory side which presents the armory issues. in this case, if we are trying to weigh noise issues and potential complaints, i would think that we would have less from people if they were facing the on marine >> it is flexible to flip the building. >> i would approve this with work with staff to reverse the plan to make the impact on this

more than minimal. also the motion includes the project sponsor is working with the interest groups that are supported during the process to try to get their support and find out what it is they can do to help them weather is some sort of services or the house to be decided. >> are just wanted to mention that the armory was a historic resourced in mind. i am not sure what impact this would have on the armory. we cannot base our decision on the potential use, we can only

base these on the current use which is why most of my comments were really directed at the current use. there is the potential of a community center. those issues regarding that kind of thing could come up in the future and this is a community center and i could be pursued at that location. i'm not sure that you are switching them or sparing them anything. there is the potential for complaints and noise and whatever and that is still there. >> i think place in the stairway and elevator on the

south side lessens the amount of shadow impact on the army itself which was a big concern. -- on the armory itself, which is a big concern. what kind of community benefit, housing requirement comes into play? >> the affordable requirement is 17% so this would probably be around one unit and it would be subject to the impact fees which could be roughly six to $8 a square foot. this is kind of like playing strategic something or other here. if we deny the project, the

developer could come back and submit a plan which would then be subject to a slightly lower density and subject to the community benefits packages and it would then come into play. at that point, anyone could appeal the that or not a pill but could take discretionary review. that discretionary review comes to the planning commission and we would have a hearing like this. the difference between the discretionary review and the conditional use is that the commission must find the project desirable and compatible. under the discretionary review, it will have the onus switching to the people who brought the

discretionary review because we have to find that the impacts are extraordinary and exceptional. this is kind of the reverse. they can appeal to the board of appeals. the board of appeals would have to vote 5-4 to uphold your appeal. my only other concern is that even though people have said that 1880 missions or whatever it is called, you will have six stories. you probably have 20 units facing even a longer stretch of your activity area since it goes from mission to the alley. there are units facing knew all

along the entire elevation. i would think the potential from complaints coming from that development are greater than coming from this development but i could be wrong. an equal or greater concern should be directed and a fortune the something is already being built. the why should we penalize this developer? >> i think that you are analyzing it a very very well. these discussions, arguments reminded me that over a number of years i mentioned earlier that i ve about a block away.

this was owned until maybe two years ago. fritz was someone who vehemently opposed residential in the neighborhood. this was a major condo project. it was going to put every at a business. this is still there. this is doing very very well. in fact, they even make scotches. the condos are there and they are doing very well. one other residential development in the interim head until it can work out, it should

work out. >> my tune has not changed. this has been the same kind of argument i don't think that they have been unfounded and history has proven me right in many instances sadly but i think true. again, maybe there would be some impact but we have affordability on site and i think that there is something that comes with negotiating with the community providing community benefits. this really provides no community benefits. there are no fees that are required to pay under the new rules. there is no affordability on site. there is nothing for the community. we were always hyper vigilant about projects that we saw in

the mission trying to make sure that they were compatible in design or in terms of benefits that the community could have. i don't see this as being a win- win situation. >> i know the answer to this. we cannot impose any community benefit fee based on eastern neighborhoods, can we? >> no. >> in some way, following what commissioner antonini said, in the community or in the eastern neighborhoods planning process, there was a decision made to include the pipeline projects and we knew going into it that those were going to provide community benefits and other things that were subsequently approved.

that is all i wanted to say. >> that is why some of us were opposed to the idea because of projects like this. >> the motion on the floor is for approval with the modification that the project be flipped and the units go on the other side closer to the drill as opposed to -- >> and they continue to work with the neighborhood. >> the budget sponsor and his team will continue to work with the community. >> can i interrupt? >> i will make a motion to continue. i will make a motion to continue because this particular motion will fail and we are missing two commissioners and i don't know how they feel about it.

i don't know, the other commissioners might agree and give the community more time to talk to this project sponsor. i don't know if that will lead to anything. anyway, i will make that motion. >> it would have to be january 19th. >> the public hearing will remain closed. >> and lester is new material introduced, we will keep this closed. >> this opens the public hearing. >> on the motion for continuance to january 26th.

>> this item is continue to january 26th. the public hearing is closed. >> sorry. >> commissioners, you are now on item -- we need a 10-minute recess. >> the commission is taking a 10-minute recess.