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 we did not walk away because the neighbor rescinded their offer and the board members requested that they rescind their offer to purchase the property.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 reasonable to them. i think a lot of ways, it would 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. a way to buy the property. i still see the possibility.