coalition's support it? why have we not heard from them? it's also interesting that if the neighbors are proposing this center, they have omitted mentioning whether it would pay a nickel and rent to the city. it should be clear that the public and be donated by the city to remain a surface parking lot because some local labor's will not tolerate a single change to a private swimming and tennis club. in our experience, this is a bold and unusual position to take because these folks are saying that not only do we want the surface parking lot, but we reject the payment and fees to the port. we reject the 25 million to be split between the port, city and infrastructure financing. and we assuredly not reject the payment to the mayor's housing department to support the housing affordability. this last one is astonishing and painful.

our cities need for housing subsidies have not diminished. in fact, it only ever grows. worse, it looks like it will be expected to absorb many of the people, projects, and commitments resulting from the demise of redevelopment. [tone] my question to you is does it seem like a good bargain for the city to reject the benefits offered by the project in order to preserve a surface parking lot? president miguel: is there any additional general public comment? if not, the general public comment is closed. >> commissioners, you're now going to hear the public on the agenda items. if the agenda item has been reviewed and a public hearing has been closed, the opportunity to do so would be at this time. each member of the project may

address the commission up to three minutes in this category. the only item on the calendar this would pertain to would be item number nine, case -- for a 49 julienne ave. we do not have speaker cards for this -- yes, i do. >> [reading names] >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your time. i wanted to -- by extreme frustration -- on the program director of the northwest community response network.

this is a regional outrage intervention in crisis response service. we operate in that mission, south of the market, the tenderloin and other associated neighborhoods. the central hub of service is 1850 mission street. it's a fiscal agent and a central hub of service. i am concerned and frustrated about this project because the potential for the lack of combat ability that may come down the pipe is the project does continue. the parking lot to some might seem a lot for parking spaces. it serves as a safe haven to run community programs, special events, groups, it is a safe place for are used to gather and receive services during peak crime hours. often in that parking lot and in the bacteria are building space, we are able to post parking lots for the mission

district community. it is a neutral site and a great spot for us. given the lack of space and light san francisco, it gives us the ability to post events and have gatherings there for under served and have a shield around the high risk use -- high risk use we have in san francisco. what concerns us is the compatibility of having condo's built right next door. as it is, we are dealing with a construction project on the other side of us already that has impacted our ability to deliver services. but we want to work with that a little bit. be it the zoning out there that will benefit the community in some way, in essence, we want to deal with that. a project being considered on the 49 julian avenue would impact our ability to not only have services and have a safe place there but just the space in general -- we cannot imagine

a construction site kicking off right there in our backyard where we actually provide the actual services. i know it's hard to understand. i wish you would come look at our services and see what we do and how i construction site right on top of our services would directly impact us. it is a very real and concerning the issue for us and for the use we serve. -- for the youth we serve. we already have had the police called on us because of the use that the neighbors see in the parking lot. these are the challenges we deal with on a day-to-day basis. having condos that oversees our activities and looks at the kids we're serving, we're majorly concern this will be harming our kids left and right. [tone] that is a serious issue we've

had to deal with on a regular basis. i would like to strongly urge you to consider that. "y >> good afternoon. i'm here to reiterate this project -- these two projects are not compatible. the services we provide are for you through -- for youth you might judge by the way they look. they have a safe place at this site. my concern is when it comes to condos and a development like that, people who buy condos have certain expectations of what they want when they come home. they certainly would not want to have noise, they would not want

to have 20 kids barbecuing at night. but that is the service we provide and it is the service we have been providing for many, many years. té look at that, at how compatible is and how fair is that to outweigh the needs of the hundreds of kids and clients we serve over the financial gain of one development group and well- being of a well-to-do family in the mission. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is tracy brown and i'm here to request this item be postponed until a committee can be -- until a community meeting can take place. there is a lot of anxiety for the partners we currently work with and we are not sure how

this development is going to impact our services. i know that victor was asked to facilitate a community meeting and we were not able to schedule it because there were other negotiations going on between us and the project managers. i would urge you guys to postpone to these conversations can continue and we can have the opportunity to meet with the owners. we need to discuss how this project will impact the ability of us and oyou heard about are n and we also offer a food bank which over 1000 people are served weekly. we have flea markets on the weekends, it is not a good use of space and how that will work out is going to be very challenging and is something we need to actually sit down and figure out. i know you have received several letters urging you to allow that

discretion to take place and try to work it out. it is my understanding this project has no affordable housing and there's no question of who will come there. this has happened before in the city during carnival when they're selling condos on harrison. there was a disclosure letter and when people bought the condos and people knew there was a carnival event and yet they complain that organized and tried to shut down the event. we're fearful this is a possibility that these new condo owners, even with the disclosures, would try to shut down some of these services. the thank you for your time and consideration and i respectfully request this item be postponed pending a community meeting with the owners. thank you.

>> a good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the director of mission beacon community center and i'm here to speak against 49 julienne the checks we postponed the hearing. i believe this is not a good it makes use purpose to have condos there and i say that because they are in partnership with others organizations and i feel personally that san francisco, we practice and an inclusive democracy. i'm speaking for my program and numerous partnerships. we're not feeling the input from the community is being valued year. i especially request you require a community meeting, that the owners have a community meeting. there are several surrounding neighborhood programs that serve

disenfranchised communities. where will they go once the condo owners come in? they will want to change the culture of the neighborhood. where are you going to send the native american house when they want to have their sweat lodge? where are you going to move the food bank? where are you going to send this seniors? where are you going to send the community members to gather and partner with us as our community hub in the community? there are many, many organizations that utilize that space and we partner with them and we support asking for a community -- for a community meeting silicon make sure this is the best use of your time and our time. thank you very much. president miguel: thank you.

>> mr. president, members of the commission, i'm here representing the board of directors. subsequent to the prior meeting we had on this subject, a committee the committee of the d on december 15 met with the owners of 49 julian avenue and their representatives to discuss programs on site. appraisal of the property by a san francisco appraisal firm. on january 5, offered to purchase the property for an amount significantly of the appraised valueitt:÷7y and it ws subsequently rejected with no reason whatsoever.

we believe that an acquisition of the property in the utilization for community service is the proper and compatible use of this site. the planning code to speak directly to the reasons that must be established. facts must establish that the use of this property, the size and intensity contemplated is mesentery and compatible with the neighborhood and the community. -- and necessary and compatible with the neighborhood and the community. what you're being asked to do by granting these people a conditional use permit is to write them a check. they won't have to pay impact

fees and they won't have to provide affordable housing. since it is doesn't have the need for high and condominiums. -- have a need for high end condominiums. it will take about $2,000 a year to live in one of the condominiums proposed. it serves 45,007 francisco residents a year. not one single person could even remotely begin to contemplate living in one of those condominiums. and yet, the services that this organization provides are jeopardized by the development of this project. we ask you very strongly to deny

the application for a conditional use permit. president miguel: [reading names] >> the purpose of me speaking today is to provide a clarification. we held an informational community meeting. that meeting was held on saturday, august 20, 2010. i don't believe it was the construction of this commission to hold a community meeting. nevertheless, we met with the board member. there was a significant offer made by a neighbor to purchase our property. we did not walk away because the neighbor rescinded their offer and the board members requested that they rescind their offer to purchase the property. there are two images of like to

share with you on the overhead. on this map here, the blue lodge is a lot -- the blue lot is the lot owned. this is where they had their outdoor activities. they share a property line of 285 feet with the project and along the 285 ft property line,y it is under construction as we speak, six levels of occupancy. every room along the facades as a bedroom. how are all these units and these veterans different in proximity to our lot that is here?

i believe these projects are very similar and compatible. think you very much. -- thank you very much. >> i'm an owner of 49 julian. i spoke last time and i want to the project being contemplated is the right project for the neighborhood. it has been proven to be necessary and compatible to the neighborhood used. if you look at the bloc, the current number of households is 194. with that project, it will be bumped up to 202. the last time we were here, there was sentiment similar to what we heard this morning, that

the project would prevent the activities of our neighbors. this is not the case. we have made it clear and we will continue to do so today that neighborhood will continue their operations. they have our support, and the new neighbors that will live there will know who their neighbors are and we will be supportive or will will choose to live elsewhere. i want to make sure the commission knows that the project is strong, bringing additional needed housing. bringing tax dollars to the city. those opposing the project are citing reasons that ironically the project will not have, such as impacting their activities. they have escalated their concerns beyond expressing planning concerns. i feel like it has become a

political issue and it has taken on a life of its own. we assure you that this is the right project. we are eager to begin working at for the long and expensive process. president miguel: is there any additional comment on this item? you have already spoken. >> good afternoon, i am the executive director of [unintelligible] i was not planning to speak, but i just heard him the same that we got something for our neighbor next door.

i'm sorry, i am a little the said. it is not true. no board of directors met. the only meeting we had, it was them and the owners to speak about presenting an offer to them. it is absolutely not true. they haven't approached me, asking for a community meeting, nothing. i wanted to make sure that you know. i am sorry, but i am nervous and i am upset. president miguel: is there additional public comment? >> andrew greg with the project sponsor. this is an email transition.

we have settled on a price of $2 million. it is a cash offer without the need for appraisal. i will move it up a little bit. no need for an appraisal, inspections, or anything. this is written by peter, not anyone on the project team. i don't know if you can focus, shortly after leaving the voice mail for you, tony, i got a call from a board member. they were very interested in direct acquisition and have a genuine community centered view that passes by ellen. rather than rush into an offer, it makes sense to me for coordinating further. this is not our doing, we

received these e-mail's from the initial interested party. they have subsequently made an offer for less than half of that. i want to be clear about that one point. president miguel: is there additional public comment? public comment is closed. >> thank you . you are now at considerations of final action where the public hearing is closed, item nine. it should be known that on november 17, this commission closed the public hearing to allow adams and commissioners -- absent commissioners to participate with final actions.

commissioners borden and moore were absent and the need to participate in the final action. commissioner moore: i have reviewed and i am prepared to comment. commissioner borden: those same people are present today. >> the matter is before you, commissioners. commissioner antonini: i will confine my remarks to the merits of the project which i think are obvious. the one thing and that is a little disturbing, we see situations where in a very wealthy area or high income area where someone wants to have affordable housing, they have that right. if there is an area with a multitude of income levels and uses, everyone should be welcome there. i think this one is appropriate, and i don't feel

that certain things should be this good from the neighborhood assembly because of the people that may live there. i think first of all, this particular project is relative to the eight adjacent buildings and it is modified not to shout of the parade ground. this project sponsor has been at this since march 9, 2005. they spend considerable amounts of money to pursue this project and was granted the prior zoning which was grandfathered provisions, part of eastern neighborhoods. specifically, a lot of the approval process was grounded in the fact that projects in progress should not be held to standards that are imposed later. this is why the project is as it is. their only eight units, they are

two-bedroom units. some call that family size, but they are good size humans and that could accommodate a small family. the most glaring thing is the huge project adjacent, a very good project, but 194 units with 181 parking places and 40 valet parking spaces as opposed to a small eight-unit building. and how the impact is far and away greater on any of joining activities. and their impact pales in comparison. i would hope that they will continue to work on design. i don't think the project is at

odds with a good services of any of the other organizations. they own certain land, they have a right for their activities, and there is no reason to believe that in any way, those will be impacted. i think the owners have a list of about 10 different activities that owners have to sign and knowledge. you can't stop someone from commenting, but we live in the city close to each other and people have to get along. certainly those that were there first have the activities that we have to protect most. when the housing goes next to the entertainment news, people say it is too noisy, but you knew it when you moved in there. i would not have sympathy for anyone who bought a condo and complained about the activities.

there is no reason why those activities should not continue, and i would favor the project. commissioner borden: i am familiar with the site, and i know you do amazing work for the community. i understand the very reasonable concerns about the project next door. we have seen it on various occasions. i don't believe it has to be incompatible. there is a lot of discourse between the two parties in doesn't concern me because of their our neighbors, i would want them to be able to work together. we know very well that there can be conflict, i encourage looking at the list of things proposed. it means the police department would be noted, ariba juntas

next door, to see them first. it is really important that we make sure that not only we are working well together, but we make sure those agencies are involved, because it is not appropriate for people to call the police on young people gathering together. it is racial profiling and it is wrong. there is a way to deal with the issue, and if the project were to move forward, i hope the neighbors would be able to volunteer and get involved. watching the last hearing, it was really concerning that there was such -- it is really interesting because we live in densely populated city. very often, we are living adjacent to each other. it shouldn't be that we can't figure out a way to coexist, had

a really concerns me that some many people felt that they would be negatively impacted. i don't think it is the kind of city that we are and we are aspiring to be. there is no other choice but to have buildings above each other. this land was owned in a way to encourage residential housing. i would hope that we can find a way to make sure that the sites are able to work very successfully together. it would be unfortunate to have this land is vacant. at the same time, i would hope that there is a chance, a potential conversation about purchasing the property and that is not really our business. if that is a serious desire, i would hope that the project sponsored would give them an offer that is