>> good afternoon, commissioners. i own 49 julian with john ward. i am working builder, 40 years in the city. we purchased this with a great deal of personal savings. we made our application to the city. we were told about the eastern neighborhoods and their plan, we waited long and expensive years for this to be resolved. i have been working with him for all that time, i am happy to finally be here at the commission this afternoon. the charity work of arriba juntos is commendable and by no means would be affected them in continuing the work. we will disclose the new owners

the existing activities and there will be fully disclosed when the owners are aware. we have abided by the rules, and agreed to compromise to accommodate neighbors' concerns and we ask at this time -- we are not developers. we are two working families who build homes that work in the neighborhoods and we will do our best to make this happen. i ask that you allow us to continue our project. thank you for your time. >> we have no more speaker cards. mr. kim, you spoke. we have no more speaker cards. is there anyone else would like to speak to the commission at this time?

seeing no additional public comment, public comment is closed. commissioner antininionini: mr., you spoke about your outreach. did you try to have reached all the different groups that were named, or at least as many of them as you could identify? there were many with the neighborhood. >> i represent the project sponsor. what is addressed by myself -- and the representative, i spoke to everybody in the neighborhood. i had to personally back to get a meeting with him. i asked him to please invite any other members of the board, the letters that he receives, no one else but him attended that meeting. i think we should expand on that

and we should hear what he has to say. >> i would like to hear about your outreach. >> andrew gregg. a lot has been said about the lack of dialogue. at the one meeting we were allowed to have, we were told that they were going to fight us. i was not satisfied with that and i called the executive director twice and those calls were never answered. i've been called a representative of tracie brown, twice, and we set up meetings and a couple of hours before both meetings, she canceled. we were wanting to have this hour -- and have been shot down by arriba juntos, and we learned a lot more about the other umbrella positions that they work with. we tried to mirror the shutdown.

one other portion of this conversation that we should not double chair -- he said, quite definitively, that they have interest in purchasing this property. and that would bring the price down. he said this to us, flatly. >> thank you and i appreciate your comments and would assume that if this is approved, you would be willing to work with them and the neighborhood to see if we could reach an accord. this is troubling. there was a woman who said that this would be like a football game. if this is approved, this will be good for everybody. this is a very small project. this has been around since 2005 and is only 50 feet.

there are 360 units approved in the general vicinity with 230 under construction, many of which are condominiums. these are not all rental units or low-income units, most are market-rate. 1880 mission, we approved the ownership and they could beat printing those for the time being. their intention is to be middle- income, home-ownership units which we are trying to get in san francisco. there are many ownership units in the area. this tiny project is surrounded by two very high structures, one of them is the armory. 1880 mission is 65 feet, maybe less in some areas.

we have the exhibition that was sent to the project sponsor and it was asked that they would give this to the prospective condo owners, and they have agreed to do this. this is a list of all of the activities that go on, so they know at a time what goes on and they have to approve or be informed of this. obviously, this is important and is just like the situation where someone moves into the area with a lot of entertainment and complain about the noise. when somebody spends the money to buy one of these units, they would have to understand the neighborhood that they are in and the situation. the idea of a changing your activities is much overstated. there will not be that much of

an impact. the other thing they did is a lot of modifications to lessen the impact on the armory parade grounds, and i would certainly be willing to approve of this with the idea that they continue to work if there is a request for another setback -- if this is necessary, to satisfy the armory, we will do this but this does not have to be done. i am not sure what is going on here. there was hpc approval, and this project has nothing to do with the programs of arriba juntos. there will be no negative impact and if anything, there will be a positive impact. a lot of the funding -- funding

comes from the city, and we do not get money without taxes. if we don't get this built without revenue, we cannot give to these organizations and then you don't have the funding to continue. and the owners in the area want to be good neighbors. there may be things that happen in the neighborhood that you do not like either, that they may spot as being eyes on the street and let you know that there is activity that you do not approve of. we are about violence prevention and we can be partners in the whole thing. we don't want violence in the neighborhood or anywhere else. if you talk about disruptions, the construction of 880 -- the construction on 1880 mission, if there is the interest to purchase the property or if there is an interest in someone who needs to be paid off.

i just do not know what is going on. i think this is a fine project and i will move to approve. commissioner sugaya: just to clarify, the project is under a conditional use because the project filed during the time the eastern neighborhood plan was undergoing their approval process. the conditional use is required because this is coming in under the old zoning. thank you. if this developer were to if they were to abandon this particular project, and either he or another owner then would be subject to the new zoning,

-- and if this person or persons came in to submit a residential project, this is not subject to any hearings. >> this is a principle it permitted project, and the hearing is not automatic but this could be filed in which case this will be brought forward for review. >> do you know about, the height limit drops from 50-45 feet, and this means potentially there would be a loss of units. it could possibly be as much as six units. do you know the consequences? >> can you repeat the question? >> if this was to be at 45 feet, would you lose one floor?

>> 45 feet would take off of floor. the architect -- >> thank you. i am asking those questions to let the audience know that the potential for another project does not go away. and in fact, the process for the developer would be much smoother than this particular one. in any case, i understand these concerns, that have been expressed. this is light -- like living next to an airport. we have had a lot of discussion in the western selma about entertainment, and how the entertainment should be accommodated, but we have neighbors and neighbors began to complain about the noise that is created. i think this is a matter of the use of -- the empty lot. the part of the property that is

not currently built on. i was there on a thursday afternoon. that is when the food distribution activities were going on. i understand that at other times, regularly on friday, there are activities outside. in new stand these concerns, and the potential for the new owners of the units to begin to lodge complaints and that kind of thing. i am kind of torn about what exactly we should do. my only suggestion, if this was to move ahead in any fashion, it is to have the floor plan change. this is affecting the armory, and there plans to use the drug

court, or other things. to make certain that there are gathering places and other things. the bedrooms face the armory, rather than the arriba juntos property. this may lessen the amount of noise coming from the activities and assuming that the drug court activities would not be as numerous and in fact would be contained within the building, this may do something to lessen the potential impact of the project on the activities sponsored by them. this is something that i throw out there that something to consider. commissioner miguel: i appreciate commissioner sugaya's analysis of the zoning and the

actual architecture. this is something worth considering, without question. i appreciate everything that the organization and the satellite organizations do, arriba juntos does some great work. but there were a couple of comments that exception to. they only purchased the property to make money. of course. why else would you purchase property? and what is wrong with trying to make an income? come on. immigrants to the united states and at some point other than perhaps, if you don't go as back for as american indians, all families were -- i was not going

to include our medium but i will know. russian and irish -- irish and latino and asian, we have those recent, first-generation immigrants coming to our developers. they purchase property to make money. there is nothing wrong with that. this is a very small project. there were inferences that these are condominiums. as if there is something wrong 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