be a great resolution to the whole circumstance. as a planning commissioner, based on what we have done to this land and how we have looked at the spot, i can't say that it will be a compatible use. i can't make that judgment based upon the facts and evidence today. that is where i am coming from on this decision. i volunteer with some of the different community groups that are there that represent and involve the different communities. i think it shows that there is broad community support. from that standpoint, i can't stress enough that a decision is not anything against arriba juntos, i will say the of the

volunteer at our a month if i could, but i can't do that. from that standpoint, i want you to understand where we come from. commissioner sugaya: i have a question for -- excuse me, i can't even talk. a question for a representative of arriba juntos with respect to the activities that take place in a parking lot --yo parking lot. so i think one of the main concerns that has been expressed his opposition to the project has been the potential impact of the development and the people that live there complaining about activities in the parking lot. i don't think the activities

that relate to the social service aspect that may take place inside your building or take place in other areas or spaces, offices, meeting rooms, other locations that is an issue. if you can enlighten me a little bit about what kinds of activities take place in the parking lot, when they take place in terms of time. i believe that is when you have your food distribution on thursday morning, i am quite aware of that activity, but i think it was winding down. i was there in the morning, i believe. that is what activity. someone mentioned the youth

activities taking place. it may not be that everything but what i am most interested in are those activities that take place after, let's say, 6:00 or 8:00 in the evening. >> we have a lot of things that happened in the parking lot. from today, the safe haven programs are for high-risk youth and part of the city's initiative called the community response network. it is a city-led initiative. we serve kids in that parking lot from about 6:00 the 10:00 at night. we have cars going in and out when we take them on field trips and during that time. also during the day, the program has six vans to conduct street outreach. even during construction,

getting in and out of the parking lot will be an issue. there are activities on the weekend including job fair, employers coming in to review resumes, etcetera. there are exercise class is that happen. we have a christmas party light up, and the big thing that i think should be noted is that there is a flea market that happens saturday and sunday. we pay for a permit to have a free-market, so people come and they sell their products to the community. we feel that that would be directly impacted, and that is an economic boost for those families and for many of them, the only economics that they require to survive in the city.

commissioner sugaya: i am not quite sure what to do about it at this point, but one aspect is that there is already being built, a substantially larger housing project that borders the southern boundary. mr. kim said that they are largely bay area windows that look at this property. i don't understand the opposition to this particular project when there is an agreement opposition to the other project. no one has said, we don't like the other project because it will have even more impact. you are shaking your head, why do you say that?

>> there are a number of reasons. first, renters can get up and move at any time. they haven't invested significant down payment or put over $100,000 down and pay over $3,000 a month. evade of like the activities, they can get up and move. they are also going to be advised that we can build a 50- foot wall right in front of their property that they would have to close every window that front our parking lot. they know that if they accept that. they are providing a significant amount of affordable housing. five times the number of the of its proposed to be built will be rc4 income households. commissioner sugaya: that is

only because the law triggered that. >> what you're saying is that these people to develop this without any affordable housing obligation. commissioner sugaya: that is right. >> you are subsidizing it. >> correcommissioner sugaya: co. ct. >> i'm saying why. jobs with prevailing wages are being made available to members of the mission community. we had a discussion with them about the encroachment on the property, and we could have refused that encroachment. we allowed in because essentially, they agree to make a contribution. it will be impossible to develop it without encroaching

on our property. given the current building plans. where would they staged it? they can't stage is next to the armory. they can't stage in the parking lot. they will be staging it in the street. franchot house is building. can you imagine the chaos? that is why we oppose it? . anybody renting can ge tt up and leave. commissioner sugaya: most people have leases. they can't get up and leave. >> they can stay there for a year and they can get up and leave. commissioner sugaya: you don't think those people would file a living there? >> i don't dismiss the fact that these people probably will file a complaint, but if the complaint is not responded to, then they have that option.

if a condo owner files a complaint, the options are severely restricted. commissioner antonini: i am not sure what was just discussed is entirely accurate when i remember the entitlements that were ownership units at a fixed price, 80% of the median income. i don't want you back again, so that is what i remember. it is possible that they are at this particular time, rental units. it will convert depending on the economy. if they aren't, i don't know what they are doing in doesn't make that much difference. >> the project was originally approved as condos but it came back for an amendment to allow rental units. >> as many projects throughout

san francisco are constantly fluctuating between ownership and rental, you see a number of them now as the ownership market picks up. there are some that go the other way. i think the renters should have just as much protection under the laws owners. they will be just as concerned about the problems there, owners have the ability to sell their units unless we are changing that in san francisco, too. if you don't like it, you could always sell your unit. i think this is a specious argument and has a lot to do with, unfortunately, the money. that is not our place to talk about it. we are talking about an appropriate entitlement and if it happens, if the party that would like to buy this comes up with what is a proper offer and

it is sold, that is not in our control. this is inappropriate development and i don't like to see this kind of activity go on so i will move to approve. commissioner moore: the zoning administrator, would you like to give advic? e? let me take it. watching the presentation that i thought the deliberation was excellent, my heart is in two places. the reasons are as follows. this is a social justice issue more than anything else. i am very hard pressed to only take paroles that obligate me to make decisions your in this particular chamber, and the reason i am saying that, i believe that the window for

institutions like that are getting smaller and smaller. this commission has deliberated on four or five issues similar. itv provides with the project which i am sure a immediately come to mind. the project on lombard, pine, when it came for organizations like this trying to find what was in the acceptable boundaries of our approval, we had the largest neighborhood opposition we could possibly muster. just with housing, there is the disadvantaged youth, and etc.. i am asking myself whether or not.

will they make an oversight in the zoning of the eastern neighborhoods not to take -- but under the microscope, this is one of them where potential adjacencies could be -- i will let that set as a question mark here. even in large scale rezoning. given the delicate nature, i am concerned we are creating a problem. what is in this location of the particular building is indeed an old storage shed, a very much

like a dead buildings standing there and not doing anything. what happens around the perimeter is of no consequence to anybody. you can lead against wall or hammer against the wall and it doesn't make a bit of difference. it will be tighter now because the new site will be occupied and inevitably create a conflict and fraction of some sort. i will ask myself a question and i was listening to you, it was wonderful to listen to ourselves in this particular case. there was a question about what happened at mission street. there must have been a dialogue with each other. in this particular case, the dialogue did not produce anything. that is a concern to me, because if you live next to somebody, you're going to have a problem

from the get go. that is just the way it goes. i am concerned about that. out of respect that there is a motion to hang out the possibility to meet with each other one more time. looking at what is in front of us, what we need to do and what they need to work on. as an item, i still see a chance or possibility that they can work it out. a way to buy the property. i still see the possibility. i want to inject my observations. i heard everything that was said. president miguel: what i have heard our construction impacts, this is something that occurs in any construction project in a

relatively short time. it is my opinion quite well controlled by the department of building inspection and their regulations. it is standard, and intrusive in any major city like san francisco, but that is exactly why the regulations concerning construction impacts are in place. i am really not interested in offers, counter offers, offer withdrawals or anything else. it has nothing to do with this commission, for which i am very grateful. this has been around since 2005, i appreciate commissioner moore's comments. i do not believe that another meeting of any kind will work.

everyone has had more than enough time, and in particular, since the november 17 hearing. they could get together if there was a true reason to do so. i live across from the school that started off as an alternative school, it is a high school and now. the high school kids, some of them are there. that is what you do lived in the city. food banks, the distribution center. that is what you'd do. these are standard items, everything we are talking about our standard items in this city. yes, there will be complaints. i have neighbors complaining that they thought watering my

garden was getting into their basement. 7i why community boards are round, truthfully. this is a project that, correctly zone, it is relatively small, particularly compared to what is going on around it. it has been sitting far too long as far as i am concerned. i have concerns about social justice issues. it is my belief that the organizations that were in san francisco have been a stream the good in working with every neighborhood of the city. it brought of the opposition we have had to transitional use housing and other housing in

certain areas. after a while, it just works, and it will. while there may be a few bruised shoulders and the beginning, i think we should go ahead with this. commissioner sugaya: i am still struggling with a conditional use overall necessary in desirable. in some ways from what commissioner moore was insane, we will be creating a nuisance. one incident where there is a new condominium building, they started complaining about the cherry blossom festival. i want to go into the particulars of that, but it is a small fan, i suppose.

there will be complaints. until the vote gets called, i am not sure which way i will go on this. commissioner antonini: thank you. commissioner moore talked about umu zoning which doesn't apply because this was grandfathered in. i know you were talking about where to put what. i don't buy the argument that because someone is a certain income level, they should be excluded from the neighborhood. that is just as bad as the other way around. i don't like that kind of argument. i would have a lot more respect for those that want this property to think that our use

is a better use, maybe we would be able to afford to acquire it. it is argument about, is that what these people really believe? people that own condominiums are somehow less desirable people? that is really hard to believe in my mind. it is something that speaks badly for san francisco. i am very much in favor of this project and the hope that everything does work out. i think the conditions are very important. if it turns out the rental property, that is a possibility. whthey would have to understand the conditions. commissioner borden: i think we have to figure this out. if we say that these uses are

incompatible, the decisions we made in the past, we are saying now is incompatible. if we say that all uses can coexist in a community together, that argument has to hold a matter who is on the side of the argument. we have to work really hard, we will not be producing any more space. we have to find a way to coexist with each other. pretty much most of the vacant lots are not owned by the city. we will have this use compatibility issue. we have this over and over again, i'd of the solution is just to say, why don't we just not develop those properties because we have to figure this out. we don't have a choice.

i think we need to figure it out. we can't discriminate against people because they are condo owners. we have to be a city about fairness for all, and one of the the general plan is like this utopian notion of the city we want to create, how do we help make uses and people coexist to each other. you want a neighborhood where people live so you can reach the kids. i have imagined that abandoned building can attract and savory elements. i think we have to figure out, a4db to the community that we work together? on the upside, if someone wants to do community benefits, we

already determined that is incompatible. i think we run that risk and that is something that we have to think about. r0 $mjpone of the reasons why't think continuing ahead -- if there seems to be an issue where there is a desire to acquire the property, if that is at the heart of what the problem is, no number of community meetings will resolve that issue. -that i have no business in that. people buy a piece of land, they come to us to get the approvals. i don't have any jurisdiction over who owns it and how they on it. again, if there is a chance for the sides to work together, i think they cannot figure out something that might' amenable.

it doesn't help uslkr. commissioner antonini: i think this is very desirable for the neighborhood because what neighborhoods need is vertical economic integration. we don't need neighborhoods that were a certain income level. people of different income levels living together. we don't have a society anymore where people live together. in many places where we don't have this diversity of people and then come levels, i think it is important. what people learn from each other, it is important to have this kind of situation be very helpful to the activities that are going on in other areas, to

have some neighbors they are that perhaps it would be very helpful to them. commissioner sugaya: i think commissioner borden is right. on the other hand, we are supposed to be making a decision using incompatibility as a criteria. otherwise, why do we have a conditional use permit? i would just assume get rid of all the conditional uses in the city had just say that these are allowed and these are not allowed. and no d.r.'s either. we seem to think that we need these opportunities to discuss matters, and i suppose that is good. it makes it tough on

commissioners and that is why a number of us are still struggling with this. >> of the motion on the floor as for approval. on that motion. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: no. president miguel: aye. >> it passes 4-2. thank you. we are now ready to start the regular calendar with item 10, an informational presentation on the transportation sustainability program. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to provide an informational presentation on

the transportation system ability program. >> i need you to speak right into the microphone. the >> of the proposed program has been a multi-agency effort for a number of years. as well as staff from our apartment, we have been involved and from the environmental perspective. the economic work force development has beenñ1q:tu. very involved putting this together as well. if i could have the slides, thank you for that. the program itself is an innovative program in that it relates to currently distinct parts, namely the environmental review and the assessment and application of developing impact fees to ultimately better achieve the transit -- we have

ceqa methodology that i will go to in detail. but ultimately allows us to achieve multimodal priority. what the program entails, a change to the transportation impact methodology under ceqa. g8zthat would replace the existing t.i.d.s. in the transportation impact of 20 years of project development of the transportation system. just going into a little bit of history of the program, this conversation was initiated in 2003 by request of the board of supervisors by