one of the most difficult times we have had since the great depression. and crescent has taken an aggressive stance on this building. they are targeting a size and unit mix which they believe will be affordable to a wide spectrum of san francisco homeowners. they need to do that in order to make the project financeable to large scale lenders. they are trying to schedule it for opening in 2014. that is how far out you have to project with the time for construction. this is an extremely bold move in this market to decide to build a building for 2014 that shows a great deal of optimism and hopefully wisdom in bringing these projects online at that time.

we are also providing flexibility ottoset of the marketing. there are studio units and there is a possibility if a demand arises to actually combine a studio in the two bedroom to create three bedroom unit potential. so what we are doing is keeping a maximum option available to be able to respond to the market. it is loved by the lender it is and buying community and it protects the developer as well. the units are smaller than units that have been up there and that is by conscious design on the part of the developer. that is what people have done to get in trouble on a lot of these units, they were buying gross square footage.

what this developer has done and is attempting to do here is moving what would have been expensive individual unit area into common area amenities so you can have what you need but don't need to pay for it inside your unit things like business center where you can leave your unit without having to buy a bedroom that is never utilized. it reduces the unit size, reduces the unit cost and then you can get what you need from the building. this responds to the parking exception to see the ratio. in balancing the parking interest we have clearly acknowledged the city's policy on providing less parking.

even though the unit count is going up to 320 and the parking count is for 265. at the same time we are trying to satisfy the customers and the lenders. i must say unfortunately the lenders have as much to say about parking as the consumers do. one of the things that happens when you will not have independent access to your car where it will be by means of the intermede rear it is more like car storage than parking. for the most part you are not going to make short-term trips out of a building like this but you do have to provide the car storage in order to give people a notion that they can go away

on a weekend and live a life that has the great lust for our individual ownership of cars built in to make it markable and financialable. we are assuming that some of these units, particularly studios, will be sold to buyers without parking and will make full use of available public transit. our anticipation is that people that buy two bedroom units will want a car. so that was the way we struck that balance. we are also involved in creating amenities, exception number three deals with the open space. the open space is met with an agreement that you will see after we work out the details with staff for lansing street improvements. there will be improvements built as a part of this project

. you have in your booklet this image which shows the materials and the finish on lansing street. the actual required amount of space to create to satisfy the open space requirement would be the dark box. but since it seemed ridiculous to cut it off we are extending it to first street because it is the right thing to do. now, this goes further and reflects the conversations we have had with the community. in our working with homeowners in the vicinity, one of the greatest frustrations has been expressed by the public infrastructure that was part of the plan. when we described what we were doing from lansing we heard

from people why don't you do the whole thing. so, this is part of the program that was initiated. we knew that was the office that could help us and we met for the first time to answer the question, who is the we. the we was the neighborhood, the planning department and the mayor's office are the people we met with to bring together a proposal that would allow us to use additional dollars that would be contributed to complete both guy and lansing street to the standard we are proposing for lansing street in terms of finishes. as michael spoke we had the ability to leverage another

$3.9 million in bond financing for other projects. those would include street improvements, harrison street. and we can bring the total improvements between our funds that are the fee funds plus the bond funds. i think north of almost $8 million in public infrastructure, improvements that would happen at once with the construction of the building. and our support is not lost. it is very much a function of our willingness to explore these new dynamics and vehicles for creating public infrastructure in connection with the building. we have a developer who is doing more by -- and trying to bring to the market that will actually be sold to san francisco homeowners, providing the jobs we all want to see getting back into the market,

you thoroughly reviewed this design in the past. it is consistent with your unanimous prior actions. we are giving you opportunities to do neighborhood improvements. i think more than anything else it is an important signal by this development moving ahead at this time. it is a very high end big building that is going to come out of the ground and provide confidence and a signal of not only to the neighborhoods and the city as a whole but the development community that it is time to come back into play and into the market. now i am going to add a footnote. i have now seen that some people are here to talk about their experiences with this developer. it is actually not this developer.

metropolitan is 342 units, there are 14 plaintiff it is who have an action against the number of parties on the metropolitan. on april 5th we received a multimillion dollar demand for settlement. don't believe it would be in your best interest to have disgruntled homeowners. you don't need to know what is going on here. it is outside the range. if you want to know, i am not happy to tell you because i think it is far afield. if you just look at the numbers, 14 out of 342, you know every major high rise construction that is residential ends up in multiple lawsuits. that is why we insure. that is why we have our contractors bond. and the legal process actually

hardens people in their positions. i wish i could come up with a brilliant alternative to litigation. it is not the best anybody ever shows of themselves. i just want to see this system used to review planning and building policy. i appreciate your time. thank you.

>> i am a homeowner, business owner in the city of san francisco. it is not so much whether or not this project should go forward, because it is going forward. it is part of planning. it has been approved. it is a determination of the number of units inside the project. i am for anything within reason that allows construction to occur in the city and county of san francisco. i am a construction business owner in the city. we have been kepressed in this city for, i would say two or two and a half years as far as construction work goes. we feel it does all of that.

we would like to see the commission approve this project and approve the additional units in a timely basis. it is important for us to continue growing with construction in the city, in the areas that are most impacted now, not two or three or four years from now. if the project is ready i do believe that it is in the best interest of everyone, including the people in the area, as long as it, again, meets what the e.i.r. states. moving in a timely manner. so, i am for the project. >> thank you. >> thank you commission for

having me speak. i am a native san franciscoian. i am in favor of 45 lansing and also in favor of the i.s.d. are think the construction of this project will add value and workers for people who currently do not have work. so, i want to make sure that you understand i am in favor of the project. i think that it is important they think we move forward with the project. the commission sees the project as a positive for the city and that it will open up other opportunities for the locals and for the fellow san franciscoians with respect to work. we are experiencing escalation

in cost, a lot of materials are going up. a lot of materials it could conventionally possibly shelf the project because of the cost of construction rising. i want you to keep that in mind in making your decision. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon president and commissioners. first, i would like to thank you for your dedication for the city. my name is john wang. i am an electrical worker in local 6. here in front of you speaking in favor of this project.

as you know, the construction is taking the hardest hit in this country. currently we have about over 30% of employment this job can put our skill, highly qualified members to work. and i am urging you guys to move this project forward. and we are looking at this as we need to build 10 more towers like this to put everybody to work at our union hall. thank you. >> thank you. you can stand up from where you are sitting. >> thank you. good afternoon president and commissioners. i am a field representative

with local 22. local 2, i have to say is definitely for this project. what i am hearing today, affordable housing. i am looking behind me. we have carpenters, retired carpenters, out of work carpenters, we do have working carpenters here. this is something that we can possibly with these studios maybe afford to move in. we all want to live in san francisco. we all want to be close by. we are all members of the san francisco local. i think this is a good project. i would hope that you would too. we ask that you pass this. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is dan byer.

contract's license number 92. i have been in the city since 1900. this project creates jobs, approximately 1 00 per week for the next 28-32 months. that is a boom to the economy. it creates a better living condition for people. it supports the b.m.r. of the city ask county of san francisco and supports a growing and viable area. i thank you for the time to talk to you. i urge you to approve it. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners and madam chairman. i too am in favor of this project on behalf of our members. we ask you to move forward on this. it is a good project. it was previously approved by the planning department. what is to not like? you have affordable housing, a

chance to put local contractors to work and local residents to work. and maybe give our members that live and work here an opportunity to buy affordable housing. please consider moving this forward. thanks very much. >> thank you. i am owner at the metropolitan. on my card i actually am not opposed to the development. i have some serious issues with the developer. full disclosure, i am one of the owners that mr. atkinson talked about. there are 23 units at the metropolitan that are under litigation with the developer at crescent heights, to manage

the metropolitan project they created to limit their exposure as is the norm. there are significant outstanding issues in our respect and our view. mr. atkinson started out by talking about how the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose. he went on to say most developments have some sort of litigation. that is absolutely true in the case. they have developments all over the country that are currently in litigation.

there is more down here. it is definitely their experience to find themselves in litigation. you know unfortunately i have to dive into one or two of the issues so that you can get an understanding. mr. atkinson used the term aggressive for this developer. that is a perfect adjective. in all respects they have seriously aggressive and marketing strategies. basically they oversold these units. their glossy brochures, their word of mouth, their written -- i can site many things as to how my unit was sold to me as an 874 square foot unit. eight months to the day after i killed escrow they recorded with the city assessor as 795

square foot. that is 10% less than i bought. i think that is irrefuteable. so that is an issue of their integrity and aggressive selling tactics. so, construction defects. i don't know if you remember there was a scaffolding around the metropolitan for almost a year because the tile started to fall off. safety issues, possibly. but in my particular unit, let me talk to that. when i bought the unit i couldn't get into see it because it was perfect timing on their behalf. things were selling brilliantly. they cited fire code as to why i couldn't get in. when i did get in eventually there was a carpet on the unit. what i didn't realize is that the carpet underlied an unfinished floor which did not meet the specification of greater than one inch of grade

over 10 feet. when two years ago the carpet came out, this was revealed. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> i didn't realize i had a time limitation. probably good. but there is another side to the story. >> everyone has three minutes. thank you, sir. >> good afternoon. i am jamie whitaker. i am president of the neighborhood association. hopefully you received the letter supporting 45 lansing street project. this is one step forward for the neighborhood to potentially get some of the infrastructure improvements that are badly needed by existing residents. and get a little closer to becoming the most densely populated portion of the city of san francisco which would restore bus service and everything else needed.

please approve this project. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners i will be very brief. this project we have been waiting for for a long time. we have had folks out of work for a long time. it could start as early as the end of this year and the beginning of next. good god, let this work. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is javier flores. i am here to support the project. as you know, you probably hear many opinions. but we are really suffering. i am not talking about our members. i am talking about people that will be involved in this project. please, support this project. it is one of the good things

that you guy consist do. today is a good day. tomorrow will be another better day. >> i don't know if you want to ask if any of your other members are here if they want to stand up at this time. stand up to show their support. >> thank you. >> uh-huh. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. local 377 here in san francisco. i am speaking on behalf of my members. we really need this work. we thank the commission for their diligence on this and we are very much supportive. thank you. i am a member of local 22.

and also a resident and property owner in san francisco. i want to speak in support of this project. the san francisco government, the state government and the federal government, we hear about the deficits and shortages. part of what is driving that is unemployment at high wage jobs like our construction jobs. and that means nothing is getting paid in to the tax coffers. i think we need to move forward on this project. you know, inspect it as carefully as you want. i think i can speak for all of us in the building trades we really need to move forward on this. thank you. >> i want to make this brief. i'm a journeyman carpenter. been out of work for a long time, two months. almost a year or two.

staying in public housing. i don't know too much about this project, but i know it gives me something to look forward to. it's something to strive for. by me staying in public housing, it's something to strive for. maybe one day qualify to stay in one of these units. president olague: thank you. additional public comment? >> i'm from local 34 carpenter's, local 22. we are supporting this project. we want to be there forever for you guys. president olague: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. andrew brooks from the rincon neighborhood jorks. in the past we supported this project. it was to our chagrin earlier this month. we originally supported this project based upon a three-unit

matrix of the plan. as you can see before you, it has been changed. i've talked to you at great lengths many times before about the issue of family housing, the ability to expand a growing family or a family need within rincon hill, which has not been available. i have talked to the project sponsor about this need. he has talked at great length about his concerns, meeting our concerns in the community, and feels that his re-incorporation, his re-matrixing of the unit will in fact support family housing. and you heard from his representative, his attorney today, that they are going to go out in front of this project at the sell point and promote family housing, promote people buying one unit, two units, combining units before the building is even occupied. they have blueprints and plans

that i have seen that we hope will allow for easy incorporation of the units. where you can easily combine a unit and create a family unit. it's very important to us. what we don't need in rincon hill is more 500, 300-square-foot studio apartments. studio apartments create absentee landlords and a dearth of livable housing in the area. this project sponsor for the first time that we've been working on this plan came before you today and said they are going to work to encourage family and workforce housing, and this is critical in rincon hill. it's critical all over san francisco. now, family and workforce housing in rincon hill is not necessarily the affordability index they may want to see in the mission, but it certainly is family and workforce housing nonetheless. it's needed. we are going to hold the project sponsor's feet to the

coal on this one and make sure the sponsor follows through. we're glad to see that the project sponsor is -- president olague: thank you, thank you. any additional public comment? >> i'm a business rep for ironworkers local 377. we appreciate if you move this project forward. all the building trades, as mike theriot said, need this project to move forward. president olague: can you state your name for the record? >> ed reyes. president olague: thank you. >> sue hefter. when the staff reports shifted, some clarity got lost. anit