about to move into an era where there will not be as much need for parking as individual auto ownership. i was in mission bay. if go to the new building with one to one parking or more, they're empty. those buildings have maybe 10, 15 cars in a three-story excavated parking garage and people are not owning cars as much as. we're in an area where a lot of people are driving but i think we'll be there faster than we think we'll be in a place where that's going to be different than it is today. so i think hopefully we'll be in that transition period by the time the building is actually built. one other thing i want to make

point of is because we're talking about affordability for the project in regards to parking, parking makes housing more expensive. because of the shape of the lot you'd have to excavate floors to have more than 16 spots even when we're talking about moving electrical and mechanical equipment here or there but that may get you one or two more spots in the floor they have already in the plans for parking to get to approach .3, .5 parking spaces for 95 units, you'd have to excavate two and three stories down and that would add a lot cost and potentially make the project not even pencilled. it's not only a design but feasibility issue. i think people need to be aware of that. i think sometimes it gets lost and a matter of us saying more parking design but it's a feasibility issue and adding a

lot of parking for this site means we probably wouldn't have a project. i want to move quickly to talk about the other ways cars and automobiles are used for the project which is deliveries and shared ride services like uber and lyft. i appreciate the project sponsor has suggested some of the indoor space that is partly for parking will also be for drop-off/loading. i want to ask quick, can you get into a little bit more -- how do you foresee that happening. most buildings have one garage off gare and people going down half a story. how do you foresee that would happen with services where people may not be like a one regular driver. how will people know that and get in? usually the parking facilities

are secured? >> if i can ask to have the screen put up. it shows -- we're not excavating below grade. there's a slope change. we're excavating to the grade level at geary at the point of entry. but we have a dual-entry -- well, dual lane. it will be manned security point reception and man and intercom and the gate wouldn't be at the facade of the building. it will allow for essential lay vehicle to pull into the drive and -- >> back to geary? >> back in the structure and turn around. >> so they would drive in and at

that point hit an intercom, be let in if they're meant to be there and turnaround, perform their deliveries and exit the same way they came in. >> okay. thank you. >> i would add accommodating to the future where deliveries are going and how buildings are going to be used we have an extensive package and storage room available so we don't have to park in front and cheat on masonic to run in and throw at the reception which is what one would think. >> cool. so i appreciate those efforts. that's more of an effort than we usually get for people to think about those issues. i will say your run of the mill post person won't know that, isn't going to know that. they want to drop of your package as fast as possible. given that reality.

i think your system will work. hopefully fedex and everyone will get the picture. they more generally use that but for gig economy stuff it becomes more challenging. we need to continue to coordinate with mta on the use of the streets and how we use the streets in the 21st century. there's already planning efforts underway within the mta and cta to talk about how do we rationalize our streets for much more delivery services and more shared mobility and more biking and pedestrians and robots and whatever else. that's where the discussion needs to happen. i appreciate the efforts the developers tried for their building but as far as the concerns some go beyond the planning department and what we're able to do in terms of rationalizing the street but i hope the work happens. there are conflicts and it is

problematic. again, this corner is highly, highly trafficked at most times of the night. it's not the kind of corner where people can stop and jump out and get back in. it's really challenging. that's going to be -- it doesn't mean don't do the project, it just means there's a challenge. the last thing i'll comment on in terms of affordability, i concur with the staff just to go further the project has a gray area with affordability. it gets the density decontrol it would have had with home sf which requires 30% but yet not there. it's also not at the inclusionary level that was passed this past summer or even the inclusionary level passed that was mandated temporarily

through the last version of prop c. so i do think that there's some benefits being conferred here that are positive. we want to see more units but at the same time, it's not giving the affordability we would have seen through home sf or if the project were subject to the affordability in the recently passed legislation so i'm supportive of the staff and whatever can be negotiated there. and finally, one small thing, i have a toddler, i see the stroller storage. i love the idea but no one will take their toddler out of a stroller and bring it somewhere else to where the toddler is. just a thought. maybe that one studio with the stroller storage can be bigger. thank you. >> thank you. coppel. >> i wanted to thank you you for

working with the developer. i know the project's gone through some iteration. i think the project we're looking at today could have had a version and the ten version doesn't appease the neighbors so this falls in the sweet spot. it needs high-density housing and due to the fact it's on geary and masonic that we can get away with the smaller amount of parking. if anyone knows that line of cars on masonic trying to get into trader joe's i don't think i've ever seen it less than 50 cars and you've got the shopping center just across the street and the neighborhood does have a lot of services with laurell village within walking distance. i really like what was done

overall with the project due to the small lot on the corner with the grade change as well. again, i want to compliment the developer with the finished product we're looking at today. again, that brt potentially to go down van ness and this say large intersection. it's not your typical intersection. it's almost like a double-intersection at some point you're crossing twice to get across one street. so again, i'm really in favor of what we're looking at today and thanking the supervisor for being creative along with the developer hit a home run. >> thanks. commissioner melgar. >> thank you. i also will be supporting the project. like commissioner johnson i wish it had higher affordability

consistent with home sf. but you know, on the whole, i think it's a pretty good compromise. i want to thank supervisor farrell for being hands-on and coming up with solutions and commend the project sponsor for work the community. i think it showed you listen to focus and were willing to make good-faith efforts to address the community's issues. and i agree with fellow commissioners that this is our so i think it's fine. so i will be supporting the project and make a motion to approve. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to thank supervisor

farrell for putting forward good ideas. it's a difficult site. we described in detail what is coming together or was more an intersection somewhere but not in san francisco and this requires creativity and i'd lake to acknowledge the architect. it's a well-designed project. the units are well proportioned and laid out. the variants are not a problem because i think they're meeting the ideas by which i think the variants are justified because we see them in almost every project. the concerns expressed in access to the garage are still a little bit dicey. we have a ten-foot drive so thinking uber's and lift would go down a ten-foot drive and it requires careful monitoring and given we're at the corner of

geary and masonic it will require additional thought i would say. this is one of the most difficult corners for ground-floor retail. i hope you find color, animation -- positive animation whatever that is and not neon to make retail attractive. it's not necessarily a corner where people walk unless they have to get across the way and that's its own challenge. whatever addition animation to retail would be interesting because we do not want retail to stay empty and have basically wallpaper to have nothing happening. i should ask the applicant if you've looked at types of retail or venue where you can anticipate renting or leasing

the space? >> the project has gone through so many evolutions it was difficult for us to convey to the market what would be there but we've had a lot of dialogue with the top reputable retail brokers who have spoken in front of the commission many times. but to ask about the optimal configuration of the space and suite to make it as attractive as possible is a difficult corner and a lot of the projects not just at this intersection but truly across the city is struggling. we believe it will be neighborhood serving as an amenity and taking the necessary infrastructure work into consideration to accommodate food and beverage which is typically what isn't done and leads to a lot of the retail stores being left vacant because those are the only tenants in the market. >> do you have an ideal vision? what would you see as the ideal answer to my question?

>> ideally something like a phil's coffee and perhaps another maybe 24-hour eatery would be fantastic. we're looking to give an ode to the lucky penny. a similar use would be fantastic and teaming with the owners of the lucky penny so is it may come into play. >> thank you for sharing. i think we need some animation on that. i hear have you ideas so i appreciate you share that with us. i'm in support of the project. i do share the questions about affordability but i also see the incredible balance act that had to be bridged with staying within 80 feet and having a lot of other concerns which deal with the complicated, somewhat uneven side. there's all kinds of consideration. i'm in principle in support but i want to see what we want to try to do with the motion. >> great, thank you.

and i too -- generally agree with the comments made by my fellow commissioners and agree with staff's recommendation on the affordability percentage. i think it would be good to have a discussion on home sf and why it's not being utilized. we hear it didn't quite pencil for this project. i know that block well too waiting in line often to go to trader joe's. i think it's more congestion than parking for the folks concerned about traffic there and i think adding more cars adds more to the congestion. i think commissioner fong has a great idea in trying to partner with the major retail space across the street which is often empty especially on the upper floors as an odd parking lot. i'm support of gary and masonic

on where the parking is. i think people will be surprised how little of an impact this has when it actually gets hit on the street. the design is vastly improved. i don't know if you did the earlier design but if you did you vastly i am -- improved it. it remembers of van ness. originally it was a good design but didn't not turn out as as well as originally planned and part was materialiality. i think your balconies add texture to it which they don't have and it looked like an office complex. i like this one but i hope we don't cheapen the design. i thank supervisor farrell in working on this and getting it to where it is. hopefully the retail will be active. it is a tough corner but you're wine shop is doing well and

making it there so hopefully that retail will add to the vibrancy of what's there. so very supportive. commissioner richards. >> i didn't make the motion but i'd like to add the condition we have car-share spaces. the planning code only requires one and i think what we would say is the project sponsor is looking at offering more than the one required -- >> can we require? >> one is required under the code. >> he's asking for four. >> we asked for and did get more than what was required. if the code only requires one there's an s.u.d. legislative change and can ask to impose a higher ride-share requirement. >> i think we approved in the past and added conditions with

additional car-share spots. >> maybe the city attorney will weigh in. >> do you want it weigh in ? >> the attorney's office. i think we discuss why the site is different and why the site requires -- i think the ratio of permanent parking is low compared to what's around the neighborhood. that's what commissioner richards that would offset that and provide more for residents than one car and one spot. >> and as the project applicant we'd be okay allocating for the spaces. i'd just qualify it's not up to us those are filled. if we make those available and can demonstrate to planning if the providers choose not to fill those they revert back to traditional parking. we'd be happy to try.

>> i think there's now five certified on-street v.s.o.s. if you do look at them -- >> i don't believe they won't be filled i just want to make the statement if we're going to reserve three additional ones and they're vacant -- >> it may be appropriate for the motion to reflect that. there's no sense in it makes also sense the s.u.d. reflect and the project is consistent with the s.u.d. though if it doesn't ultimately, we can require it. we should recommend the s.u.d. be modified to increase the ride share spaces to three. >> four. three above code. >> the new code if the s.u.d. changes. >> for that block. >> sorry, commissioner fong. >> thank you. i want it make one point and a couple questions and i know we have a motion and second record.

i'm also in support of the project. as we start to build out the west side of the city, i'd like everyone to keep in mind san francisco has hills. while the cycling community, which i include myself in and uber rider and transit rider and car owner and try to do a little bit of everything, if you had to ride your bike from city hall to this site right now, there's a hill you have to go over. there's no wiggle. there are many cyclists who are new to san francisco and in the mission which is flat for the most part by comparison. as we plan right now if we had to get on a bike and race to the sight we'd take turk street over the hill and get to geary and have to go over cathedral hill

and it's just not flat. keep that in mind. not everybody traverse the city but they're our hills and i want you to keep that in mind as we start to plan out and allocate and the second piece -- and i don't mean to beat a dead horse. the uber area and while you're asking people to go inside the building and come back out, is there opportunity for a loading zone, white zone on geary so if they make a turn and aren't coming in the building there's a parking meter and it may be a white zone opportunity. second, is in the design, why didn't you take advantage of the two curb cuts one on masonic and have a drive-thru carport. i know you lose some units but just wondering if you explore

that because they're hard to come by and surprised you didn't take advantage. >> the original design had an ingres on masonic and on geary. the complaint we received from a neighborhood group and part of the traffic study is we would then add to the congestion that already exists to trader joe's -- and that's what led to this. as it relates to the loading zone, in discussions with the neighborhood we suggested an offer-up single or double-car white zone that was recessed in but the sidewalk didn't allow that and planning staff didn't support that. >> what about a white zone? >> that's what we explored >> i want to bring it up because it's so uber dependent you don't

want somebody double-parked on masonic you want to encourage them to pull into the white zone. >> the scenario the project sponsor was mentioning is one not shown here where the sidewalk came in and there is what would be a parking space and the mta staff didn't support that because of pedestrian flow and it could confuse people and add to the confusion getting on and off masonic. that's one of the reasons i was in support. >> i'm not beating up the project. i'm in support but ask the comment for future project. i know people are watching this particular project to see the comments and see the reaction of the public. i only ask those questions to be considered in the future projects. >> thank you. just a question, do we include in the motion the language about the parapet?

commissioner johnson? >> what was agreed to? >> i didn't hear that as part of the motion. >> that was the intent of commissioner richards -- >> commissioner melgar made the motion. >> is that okay? >> yeah. thanks. i agree and some of the ideas about off-street loading and shared parking at the commercial facilities are on all the other three corners along that block, those are all i think going to be part of the collaboration frankly we have to do with the mta. our lovely planning staff number just said it. the mta thought of using the curb zone and said don't do it so here we are. there just needs to be more

collaboration and recognition of reality which is that people use the services. they are real. people are also walking and we need to rationalize the streets and make it work. we can't have one agency saying they want one thing and another agency saying they want another. >> i wish somebody would ask for a joint hearing. >> another joint hearing that will take two years to happen. sure, i'd love to see it on rationalizing the streets and see how long it takes to make that happen. i was going to ask was there fig specifically added to the motion other than the car share? the parapet? okay. thank you. >> commissioners if there's nothing further i'd like to clarify with the maker of the motion we're adding the four dedicated car shares along with the increased number of car share spaces to four. >> yes.

>> okay. and the parapet language and if the seconder can agree. >> second. >> thank you. commissioners there's a motion then seconded to -- commissioner richards. >> you were before me? it's fine. >> duals second. >> commissioner johnson do you want to be a seconder? >> could you? it's a bona fide attempt with documentation. >> that's fine. >> and seconded? >> the recommendation on the portability. >> yes. absolutely. >> can we clarify on that?

i don't understand. if the s.u.d. changes, right -- i think we're in agreement with you on the staff recommend but if the s.u.d. changes and makes the number lower, what you're saying is the project has to come back here? >> that's right, yes. that's the conditions are worded now. >> but then we'd have an ordinan ordinance with an s.u.d. with a lower percentage. >> you'd have to reconsider it. >> but couldn't put it back up to 23% because the law now would be the lower percentage. >> yeah. the board of supervisors approved a lower rate. >> i think it's a circular-process orient. i get we're trying to get to the leverage but it doesn't do a lot. >> it can be revised. >> it sounds like it's in there. thank you. >> seconded. >> commissioners, i believe there's a motion that has been

seconded to approve a planning code amendment and zoning map amendment conditional use recommends to reflect affordable, four car-share spaces to be verified by a bona fide vendor and increase the number of car-share spaces to four and finally to include the agreed upon parapet language for condition use. on that motion, commissioner fong. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. aye. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner richards. aye. >> the motion passes unanimously

7-0. commissioners we'll take item out for the next case. if i can ask the members of the public exiting the room if you can do so quietly place. for 2019 mission street a conditional-use authorization. >> we'll hear from staff first. >> good afternoon, president hills and members of the commission. i'm part of the plan department staff. on september 14, 2017 the

planning commission continued continual use application for the proj at 2918 mission street directing the sponsor to reduce or shift the massing of the building on the upper floors to be more in scale with the existing neighborhood and/or break it into three or three buildings. since that time the project sponsor's been working with staff to develop an updated design to incorporate -- >> could we ask people be -- go ahead, sorry. it's died down. >> the sponsor's been working with staff to develop an updated project design to incorporate the project of the commission to be presented to the commission following the staff presentation. several revisions include the shift the massing away from market street to focus on the lower volume of massing and simplifying the design of the upper massing on the seventh and

eighth floors. stepping back the massing above the sixth level to provide a better sight line and up incorporating materials to break up the facade increasing the height of the massing to maintain the same building area. no changes were made to the total building area and residential gross floor squire footage. a total number remains at 75 and the drawing unit mix and ground floor commercial configuration remains the same. furthermore, no additional waivers have been requested. revised plans and revived motion have been distributed to the planning question more the proposed revisions. this concludes staff's

presentation. i'm available to answer any questions. the project sponsor is also present and has a presentation to go over the revisions with you. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm bob tillman the project sponsor. we would like to vote our time to showing you the new design. i want to thank john in the planning department for all their help over the holidays in helping get to the new design. if you have questions non-design related i'd be happy it take them later. >> thank you. >> commissioners, i'm the lead architect for the project. i'm going to describe the new massing and how it differs. so this massing here is where we were when we were here before

you last time and what this demonstrates is the additional set backs on mission street. we're set back eight feet and as much as 28 feet on the southern end. and then in the back, sorry, in the back this was the massing previously and we've now modified this and actually this was the first shot at how to modify this and since met with staff and changed it to more and we have setbacks of 18 feet at the second floor from ossiage and 15th feet additional at the 17th floor. aerial view from the southeast demonstrating how we in terms of the materials emphasizing the lower levels on mission street and differentiating them from

each other to create essentially not really two buildings. we want to maintain a harmonious composition and break it down vertically as well as horizontally and taking a look on the other side along the actual property line we maintained the one-story, single story on the alley now and worked with the staff. i think the space on the second level helps with the scale from the schoolyard across the street and also is frankly a nice spot because it gets western and some turn light. [please stand by] .

. >> from the main portion of the building to the northern side and varying the bay windows from angled bays and some rectangular bays, and i think, you know, that the window scales are down at what i think are, you know, scales that work well with the neighborhood. and i think that the -- you know, we're basically showing a six and a five-story scale there on mission. and if you look further to the left in the drawing, you even see the next building over is

four stories, so we're setting up a scale that sets kind of a nice feeling in mission street in that location. so if you have any questions, happy to answer them. >> president hillis: great. we may. we'll open this up first for public comment. do you have any speaker comments on this? >> two. >> president hillis: all right. so i've got two speaker cards. dr. thor buchser, and david -- i'm sorry, i can't read this other card. >> yes, thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. we were at the september meeting, and there was a suggestion made by the commission that perhaps we should see what the people think, and the school thinks about what -- about this project pertaining to the

alley, and also, to the fences on bartlett street that face the alley where the handicap buses come, where parents drop off kids, and across the street on mission, where we have another educational project, where psychiatric services are provided by the latino group, which has been an organization for 45 years. so we did that, and we talked to a number of people. the artists have all painted this alley to reflect the culture of not just the latino cultural center, which is a half-block down, but the latino educational areas, which these two schools represent. and more importantly, we have a new director in charge of these schools, and i would, at this point, i'll relinquish my time because he has prepared a

statement after talking to the parents. he knows the area, he knows the importance. i just want to mention again, this bulkhead here, this wall, would represent where this new building would be, and we are -- the school, this is a playground, etcetera. whi right across the street there at the alley where only one car can go in at one time is where the school is, the gardens, etcetera. you have fig trees, activities going on, not for four or five years, for 75 years, and providing services to immigrants and their families in san francisco. i'd like to introduce dr. thor, who is our new director

of the frisan francisco unifie district. >> good afternoon. my name is dr. thor boucher. as i mentioned, and what dr. david had said was this proposed planning project is immediately adjacent to and immediately in front of both of our campuses. our campus is split by osage alley and one part is on one half of the alley and the other is on the other half. rodriguez serves students ranging from two months to kidden garten age, and for two years, rodriguez, formerly known as mission child care center, has provided child care to some of our most vulnerable children and families.

for more than seven decades, 70-plus years, our city's youngest learners have overcome tremendous obstacles by finding refuge and safety in a warm and caring school free from environmental disruptions and built around a school of true and caring and inclusive neighbors. over the years, we have watched the mission district explode with new housing developments, pushing out generations of families that once walked through our halls. our staff, which is currently there going back as far as 1979, as watched as the gentrification. both campuses are just single story schools. if this project is approved, the children will be exposed to

construction for countless years. we don't know what the environmental impact will be on their health and development, but we can anticipate that there is going to be some medical impact to these young children's lives as their lungs are still developing. we also serve -- >> president hillis: thank you, sir. your time is up. >> thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. first, i would like to point out that we had requested organized opposition for today's project, but none theless, i'm going to continue -- one thing that we do have a problem with is the community have been dealing with mr. tillman for over a year now, and here, on the eve of this hearing, he releases a project the day before the community. we are not experts at reviewing materials. we depend upon pro bono architects and people who have that experience on what the

project would mean and changes for the community. we didn't have a chance to do that. noticing this hearing and moving it up without prior notice has made it hard for community members who to reschedule their work schedules to be here. aside from that, we'd just like to say that our concerns still remain the same. there have been changes made, apparently to the size of the building, but none theless, this, last time i checked was a 3:1 merger. this is still going to be one large mass that is going to loom over the rest of the mission. it's right in the mission corridor, and at the corner of callente cuatro, and i think it's going to set a bad precedent for the sort of buildings that will be put in around it. aside from that, we would like

to ask for reduction of the massing. we had some comments regarding the materials. we notice in the presentation that those materials have been changed, but once again, without having a chance to go back and speak with experts as to what those materials would mean, we'd like to know that these materials -- if mr. tillman would sell to a nonprofit, that they wouldn't have to come back seeking additional funding for the material, but just for the source. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> we have not heard from mr. tillman since the last hearing. we've had no communication with him. we have not seen any new plans, we have not been able to given put to any of the plans, so there's been no community input. there's no mitigation efforts to this plan. it's on the mission street

family corridor, and we have some plans that are coming out for mission street, so it's not even relevant to what's happening there. we're not even sure if it's 100% union labor. we need to check on that. like carlos mentioned, we usually have folks look over the plans, look over the details to help give us professional recommendations. we are going to be losing a community serving business. we don't even have he been put as to what kind of business is going to be along the family corridor in the future. he's basically left us out of that. we don't have input what's going to be -- the mural that's going to be on the building, which needs to reflect the latino community that is just across the street, so it will definitely have impacts for us. so we have been shut out. the last we heard, he was going to sue all of us and anyone that spoke out against him. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. arguello.

next speaker, please. good afternoon, commission. my name is arsheen hahn, and i live close to the projects on cesar chavez street, and i live close to the -- [ inaudible ] >> president hillis: you're fine. >> okay. so i've been tracking this project for a couple of years. i attended the first public outreach that mr. tillman presented, and i have to say i've been very impressed by the unprecedented outreach that mr. tillman has undertaken for this project. i've never seen such transparency. this project is on a back line. we need to be building transit oriented housing in san francisco, and this is the ideal location. as a father of a young family, he urge the council -- or the commission to build more housing in san francisco or

else there will be no families to attend schools in the city. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is susan sitad. i am a member of the project 16 coalition, and i am a parent of a school -- a child in the public schools in the mission, and i want to say that i'm opposed to this project in its current form. i think this is a huge step in the wrong direction. the mission is dying. we need to be building more affordable housing. we need the 24th street cultural district to be more vibrant. the mission is a cultural gem in this city. we already have neighborhoods full of high end restaurants and overpriced she-she clothing stores in hayes streets and noe

valley, and mission is going really, really fast, and you need to take this seriously and not put another nail in the coffin. this developer can do a lot more than they have, and i hope that you will encourage them to do so. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is gloria lariva, and i am a 36 year resident of the mission. on that very block across the street is the community organization and office that i work in as a volunteer, and i wish to say that there was no community outreach to anybody on that block that i know, because i certainly didn't hear anything, and i'm there every day, and suddenly, we see the laundry stripped out and the notice in september in the daytime, when people were working, and i wish to say, the commissioner, the third from the -- commissioner johnson --

i couldn't see your name farther back, but you spoke about the geary project and said well, it would be terrible to have the price of those housings go up because of more parking, you know, dig down into the ground. but in fact, those are units that people with money who can afford those units would be buying, and it's not for people like us. right there on mission, throughout mission, parking is being eliminated, little parklets are being put up for the bars, and more and more bars are being put up, that's the trend i see going up with these condominiums. more people want to hangout in bars, and that street, which is relatively quiet, will do what everything else on valencia is. it's part of a larger pattern and pictures of the burned outbuildings at 27th and mission -- between 29th and 30th on mission where i live where that building was burned down, and condos are going up.

and my question is, how long will the planning commission keep on rubber stamping high cost development that is driving people out, the working class, whether we have to move to vallejo or somewhere else, barging in to spend money on low income jobs because we still have to spend money here, and the children, the sunshine is going to go away with that monster. and the other is -- >> president hillis: thank you ma'am, your time is up. >> you know, really, this is not going to stop with this minor kind of space for comment. >> president hillis: ma'am, your time is up. thank you. >> hi. my name is richard becker. i'm the director of the answer coalition, act now to stop the war on racism. our address is at 2969 mission street, right across the street from where that's going up, and

i can tell you nobody on that street wants it. nobody. so you have a choice. you can either represent the people of the community or you can go on representing the big developers, the ones who are getting rich off this. they are going to benefit, the developer. the people that can afford to move in, it'll be nice, i'm sure, but are you just going to ignore the wishes of the neighborhood. what about the school? i've been thinking about this. will they have anymore sunshine? what about the institute across the street? what happens to them? what happens to the people? already it's impossible most of the time, except very early in the morning to park on mission street. you're putting, okay, a building, that as i understand, has little or no parking attached to it. this is a very bad plan, and it's one that's detrimental. i think that the planning commission really has to decide at a time when trump and the

congress are about to intensify the war on working people and poor people in the form of the tax reform and everything else. where do you stand? because if you vote this in, you're part of the war on the poor people and working people in this country, and they're going to suffer from this, while the rich get even richer. that's the tendency. are you going to continue to be part of it? >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is andy gillis. i'm a resident of the mission. i've lived there wifor 21 year and i'm very upset of the gentrification that i've seen in this area of san francisco, and i think this project is a continuation and acceleration

of this process. i think if you continue to approve more and more luxury condos with a low percentage of low income housing, what you're doing is you're creating a city -- you're considering the welfare of affluent people who want to move to the city, rather than representing the interests of the people, generally lower income people who already live here, and i think you really need to search your souls and ask who you're representing because more luxury condos are not going to benefit the people who already live in the mission. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. we are in support of the project here today. i think there is he aa couple of things that i would like to ask and honestly get your opinions on that i think we're

going to hear during the comments. number one, there's no definition for luxury housing anywhere in the planning. the reason it is he aa luxury is we haven't built enough of it in san francisco in the last 40 years. we can continue to build housing at all income levels, and we need to increase the housing and building, and increase the subsidy for low income housing. we will get a ton more subsidized affordable housing because we're going to get the process out of that. but we're not going to achieve an affordable city without building more housing. that's just a fact. the other side i'm curious to hear your input on, there's obviously a lot of different concerns with this project, and

all of these concerns are absolutely justified. one of the things that was mentioned briefly by one of the previous comments, this project is a block away from the b.a.r.t. station. that is coming head to head with a plethora of other very, very important issues on -- in this conversation, and everything is right. i don't think anybody is coming into the conversation with a negative attitude or trying to discount anybody, but when we think about environmental issues, and we think about the need to be able to add more transit oriented housing, there's no parking on this site, it is good for the environment, and it is good for the health of the long-term people, as well. so i do get those are in conflict on this, and i look forward to the support. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is alicia sandoval.

i'm a volunteer counselor, and i see people coming into our office telling us about they're getting displaced. one of them is living next door to a luxury development. i am opposing this. we're talking about 89% luxury and 11% afford believable. how can we even consider that? in the mission, we need 100% affordable. we're tired of hearing about fires. there was just a fire in the mission district yesterday, and we know about the tactics that happens in terms of fires, in terms when there's rent increases, and fighting against costa hawkins. we really want to make sure that we're educating folks.

i'm invested in my community. my community should be able to fight for affordablity, 100% affordablity, so i ask all of you not to support this proposal. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, miss sandoval. if we can just refrain from clapping, it helps the comment process. >> hello. my name is scott weaver. i'm here to oppose the project. yeah, we need for housing, but there's also the question of where you put it and who you how's, and if you put luxury housing next to b.a.r.t., you're going to have -- rich people aren't going to be using b.a.r.t., they're going to be using uber. we've been showing that over and over again. this is a conditional use application, which means that by right, the developer doesn't have the right to combine these lots. he has to demonstrate that it is necessary and desirable to

do so, and if you look at any objective standards for discerning necessary and desirable, well, first of all, this is a gigantic project right on mission street, a block from the mission cultural district, and a block from -- or within the mission family corridor. that it is in a community that is already suffering from advanced gentrification, and it will further that trend. a highly gentrified community does not need a 90% unaffordable housing project. there's a first-floor retail that will cater to the highest bidder, who will cater to the highest purchaser, and so what are you doing to the other --

what are you doing to the color of the mission? what are you doing to the viability of the continues mom a -- continued mom and pop businesses in the mission? so for those reasons, i think you have plenty to deny conditional use. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, tim colon in support of this project. the benefits of this project are so self-evident, they're not worth discussing here. what i would say is to me, a successful housing policy for the city would have dozens or hundreds of projects like this on transit corridors on neighborhoods around the city, and it doesn't make sense that something that would enhance a transit corridor and another neighborhood is somehow inappropriate on mission street when it's car-free. the second thing is this appears to be an interesting early test for the commission.

you're going to see more and more projects coming in asking for state density bonus, and my understanding is unless you can make findings that somehow this contra venes planning rules, and there's specific language that says it's in violation of the state density bonus law, you don't have the authority to turn this down. you don't have the discretion. and there was an interesting discussion earlier about home sf, and i'm pessimistic that home sf is going to be used the way it was deployed, because there is a short-term housing here. paragra and i'd encourage you to discuss home sf at a later date. the third thing is this city is crying out for leadership, folks who will grasp what's happening in san francisco. the new draft of legislation is coming out there, and more