post dissolution of the redevelopment agency, they have sole authority over amendments and modifications to the dda and ddr. defendants have not asked them to amend. mocd has a portfolio of over 350 operational projects containing over 20,000 affordable units. overseen by mocd's asset management team. the defendant's project is unique within the portfolio. only three other projects in the mocd portfolio provide residential senior units with assisted-living or higher levels of care. they're eager to see the defendants meet the obligations so resources can be made available to the growing, aging senior population in san francisco. >> president hillis: thank you, we may have questions, but first we're going to hear from the project sponsor.

>> i'm the project sponsor and one of the two general partners. we request for continuance for one reason, the original hearing date was may 10. one week ago. at that time, we realized that our architect, project architect, cannot be available today. so we further have for our administrator to be present to explain to the commission what needs to be done. but she, two days ago, is sick. as of yet today i request continuance. this is my request for continuance at least 2-3 weeks.

we've reached out to the cathedral hill association, met, explained what was done. we admit we made a mistake on the violation. what we have done is to combine small units, roughly into a one bedroom. there was a major need for this area. one door makes it two rooms for couples to stay there. because the other area, we made modification for common area, better serve the residents. those are the areas that we've combined. thirdly, as was reported earlier, comment made by your city planning staff is not true. in 2016, the state assembly bill, 2044, mandate us to have

our administrator, assistant administrator or the manager 24-7, by that we have no choice but to combine the unit for the administrator to stay 24-7. i request several weeks of continuance. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. lee. any public comment on this item? good afternoon, senior disability action, this is -- i was surprised when i learned of this in doing this, i couldn't believe, especially at a time like today when aging in place has been out there in doing everything we can to help people age in place. and if they can't age in their

homes, then there is an assisted-living place and this was in having the low-income housing there also, for these people to have done that is really shameful. and yeah, i just needed to say that and i hope that in working this out, that it will be returning those units as well as not rewarding and they could add a few more, would be just fine. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is lee. i'm here to say, the city says it's aging and elderly friendly, but at the same time, it's promoting gentrification, at the same time, you know, happening like this, in this case. to me it's like one excludes the other one.

so you cannot be aging and disability friendly when you allow seniors and people with disabilities to be, you know, evicted from their home. because that's their home. if you don't know, you probably know already this, that there is a charge on this type of facilities in the city. so allowing this to happen, is to force these people into the streets. because they don't have any choices. these are low-income people that cannot pay for a high-quality, you know, residence like other people in the city. so please consider this and throw this out, because there is no way that aging and disability friendly can be combined with this. thank you.

>> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, tony, senior and disability action, i want to concur with what some of my colleagues have said. assisted-living facilities are dwindling and we're a city that provides itself on aging in place. and we can -- we can't afford to have any more seniors in need be without a home or be forced out of their homes. the fact that we're entertaining this, it's very disheartening and alarming to be frank. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comments? seeing none, we close public comment. open it up to commissioner comments. just to be clear, we're entertaining because the staff brought us this dr and was troubled by it as well as ocd.

is there comment on this? commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i want to respond to the request for continuance. i personally do not believe that was in front of us as a case in its packaging and the department's analysis, makes me consider it to be necessary for continuance. i think the staff has done a thorough, fair job to highlight the issues. we do not need the architect because the drawings are clearly indicating what has happened. there is description and feedback from dbi because there were violations and inaccuracies, together, which i think is a colossal disclosure on the applicant not having been proper to reporting and annual paperwork that needs to be done when you enter into an agreement like that.

and the fact that redevelopment disappeared is no reason for that not to occur partially because the transfer from redevelopment to city authority was very clear, affected many people and this seems to be isolated case where the agreements were not properly followed before and after the transfer to the city. so i personally do not see any reason for continuance on this. the commission feels differently. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar. >> commissioner melgar: thank you, i think this is egregious a case of noncompliance as i've ever seen since being on the commission. this project sponsor got a benefit from the public and then just plowed it there. so i think it's a clear-cut issue. i make a motion that we take dr and deny this. >> if there is nothing further,

there is a motion that has been seconded to take dr and deny the building permit application, on that motion, commissioner johnsjoh johnson. so moved, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. items 9 a and b for case number 2009.1011 drp and var, mission street, this is discretionary review and consideration of rear yard modification. >> good afternoon, commissioners, planning department staff. the project before you is a discretionary review of the building permit application to construct a 4-8 story mixed use building on a vacant lot in the mission street transit district.

the project includes 37 residential dwelling units, 1425 square feet of ground approximate floor retail, 37 class one and bicycle parking spaces and usable open space through combination of private and common open space. the discretionary review request states that the high end commercial space will create upward pressure in the neighborhood and will not be available to smaller locally serving businesses. the project is in direct conflict with preserving the cultural diversity of the busine business. and that it does not provide enough below market rate housing. the dr requester recommends that the project make a significant contribution to the affordable housing in the neighborhood.

that it has have commercial facade with either two smaller spaces at affordable leases or single space to a community-serving business with a long-term affordable lease. in response to the discretionary review, the project sponsor states that the project meets the planning code and is consistent with the general plan in that the design is appropriate for the location, the project provides the required 12% onsite affordable units. the project does not displace any pdr or local business and the ground floor commercial space is limited to 1425 square feet. the sponsor has offered to subdivide the commercial space and lease half to a nonprofit at one half the market rate for ten years, but that offer had not been accepted. additionally, the project will add 37 units in the city housing stock, including family-sized units with a high quality mixed

use income development. the urban design advisory team reviewed the response to the request and determined that the project's intended use to be compatible with the neighborhood and the general plan to date, the department has received 90 signatures and comments in support of the project and six in opposition. with those in support saying the project will provide housing on a vacant lot on a site that is currently a source of blight in the neighborhood. with those in opposition stating concerns about gentrification and the need for more affordable housing. staff are convinced that the planning commission not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. as noted in the executive summary, the project complies with the applicable planning

code. the project is located in a zoning district where residential and ground floor retail uses are principally committed. the project is consistent with and respects the neighborhood character and provides massing and scale for the adjacent context. the project complies with the first source hiring program. it will provide a mixed use development with ground floor retail and significant site updates, including landscaping and open space on a lot that is currently vacant. it provides appropriate massing and scale for a mid block site. the project will add 37 new dwelling units to the housing stock, including 16 studio, on a site that is currently vacant. it adds affordable housing units and will designate 12% of the

base dwelling units as part of the inclusionary housing program. it will utilize the plan controls and pay the appropriate development and impact fees. this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available to answer any questions. >> president hillis: thank you very much, project -- dr request. welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is kelly hill i'm a resident adjacent to the project. i have lived and owned a business within 700 feet of this proposed project for nearly 17 years. in that time, i've witness firsthand the pressures on commercial rent and the mass displacement of neighbors and fellow business owners. we're concerned about the net impact this project will have on the corridor and the affects of

the development going forward. we followed this review because talks with the developer regarding the following issues have not come to successful agreement. according to general plan policy two, existing housing and neighborhood character should be served and protected. the facade proposed does not meet this policy. we have presented a drawing of the actual proportions and context of the adjacent building so you can see the relationship. as we studied the architect in mission, we realized it was not drawn at the correct scale, it was larger. on the street level, the commercial store front with the two floor sleek aluminum glass are out of context for the corridor. the 8.5 wide and 7 foot high windows are out of context. these luxury elements signal an

exclusiveness. working class feel they no longer belong in their neighborhood and this housing is not for them. projects such as 1900 mission and 1924 mission, became better projects. according to general plan, existing neighborhood serving retail businesses should be preserved and enhanced and future opportunities for resident employment in and ownership of such businesses enhanced. this store front is clearly designed for an upscale business that will put pressure on existing small businesses in the corridor. it's in conflict with policy two th dictates the cultural diversity of our neighborhood be preserved. without mitigation, this long-term lease, pressures will increase on the existing businesses.

the commission has offered more time and clear instruction on a number of occasions so developers can work with the community to make suitable arrangement for their commercial spaces, like 1726 and 2567. my partner will express additional concerns. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm with our mission, no eviction and save the mission. i own the same business, it's been in the same neighborhood and lived in the neighborhood for 17 years. according to the plan objective 2.1, project should prioritize the development of affordable family housing both rental and ownership, particularly along transit corridors and adjacent to community amenities. and this project includes only 10.8 vmr units, 4 units, which represents along with the tillman project, at 2918 mission, the lowest amount of inclusionary housing in the

mission during this entire build cycle. he and his investors are developed several projects in the mission and contentious single-family home that is currently on the market for $10 million. yet, he claims that adding a small amount of community benefit to this project is an unachievable hardship. most egregiously, he and his investors are using 18% of the units at 1875 mission street and 3420 18th street with asking rates up to $7400 per month and leases as short as 30 days. and this speculative building model with its constant turnover of high earning temporary tenants has immeasurable harmful impacts on the mission corridor

and its vulnerable families and small businesses. his investors have made their profits building -- [bell ringing] -- luxury housing without any significant community benefit to this point. and so, to summarize, we're respectfully asking that commissioners require design changes to the building's facade, most notably, a significant reduction in the size and quantity of glass in the residential and had commercial areas and we're asking that the developer work with the mission community to place a local nonprofit into the -- [bell ringing] -- and we would ask -- >> thank you. we'll open this item up for public comment in support of the d.r. >> hello, i'm born and raised in the neighborhood, 1863 mission

street is let's be frank, a terrible project. we live in a city where the city is in the midst of huge housing crisis, where we preach we need affordable housing, yet this project gets developed where the developer has a known track record to reduce affordability. 10.8% is 4 units out of 37. i'm no ph.d. math, but it seems like market rate more than affordable. what point is it building units if no one can afford to live in them? with we need more affordable and affordability on the project. this developer has developed the following projects in the mission in the past five years, this being the third on this one block. let's go into his track record. 200 delores street, 13 units. 1875 mission, 39 units, 6

affordable. mind you they shacked up in the commercial space and are calling it their office. 16 units, one market rate retail space. 1801 mission street, on the block, 17 market rate units, 2% affordable, 11.8% affordable. map 2020 states that the mission area plan is 27% affordable, yet it seems like he's gone around this every single time. it shouldn't matter, because the application was put in 2006, we're now in a full swing housing crisis. we need to adapt to the present day crisis we're facing. i would call that a bad faith actor. he has the intent to cheat the community with a known track record of doing so. i'm born and raised on the block, two and a half blocks from this project. i've seen the changes, businesses close down, and

people leave. i don't want to see people leave because rent goes up in the surrounding area because the landlord gets greedy like this developer. we ask to build a project that benefits the community. increase the inclusionary affordable housing by adding bmr units or units through a partnership and provide a long-term lease for the commercial space at $2 a square foot to a business -- [bell ringing] -- preferably a nonprofit that is longer than a 10-year lease. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm a three-year resident at 14th, half a block from the 1863 mission street site. many of my neighbors have lived on the street for 20 or more years and have welcomed me into the neighborhood as a new residents.

and they've shared with me about their displacement of their family members and friends. i'm also a soccer coach at marshall elementary school. half a block away from the building site. sadly, the vast majority of my players, the teachers, and the after-school staff at marshall are not my neighbors. instead, they live far away in areas including daily city, the excelsior and even the richmond. my soccer player families live below 50% annual income, many 30% below ami. we need a fair share of housing for people like my third and fifth graders and the teachers places near where they're working. this incentivizes developers to sit on land until they make the most profit possible. they should meet the affordable housing standards of today and

not the standards of 12 years ago. please move to ensure that 1863 mission street meets the affordable housing standards of today with 27% affordable units, or at least gets closer to the standard. and please also ensure that my players at marshall and staff, may have benefit from public space at this unit. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, next speaker, please. >> hello again, commissioners. as a native and resident of the district whose family has been living here over 60 years, i've personally seen, felt and experienced the effects that developments bring to the community. for over two decades, my hometown that catered to those

luxury developers and in the process, san francisco has hurt the residents that make the city beautiful. if the city is serious about protecting its culture, we must open our eyes and prevent the luxury development from killing what soul and culture san francisco has left. the proposed development is a continuation of the same old destructive planning and gentryification that benefits only the rich and will damage the district community. a few points brought up by other speakers is the fact that, again, 10.8% affordable housing. from a developer who has continued to pay the inlieu fees to avoid poor people, to avoid poor people from being on their property, from scaring off rich investors, rich people. when does this end? like, just because, again, too

many of these items are, oh, he sat on it so long, old rules apply. times have changed. things change in two, three years. we need to adapt to the changing needs and evolving community that we have here. it's imperative that we for large developments like this, and this developer is not short on means. he's been doing this for a long time. we need to have inclusionary housing for those low-income residents and especially to be able to protect those businesses. again, a few of his developments have only skirted the bare minimum as need be. commercial space he uses as his own business. with everything going on, it's imperative that not only this new development includes affordable housing, more than discussing 10.8%. also that he makes sure to keep

the commercial space open to nonprofits or any kind of business that serves communities needs, because we know, don't dance around the obvious. what is going to go in there? we know it's high end, high profit that does not benefit the current community. please. please full support of the d.r., this completely needs to change, we need more affordable housing and more businesses that cater to the community. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners, and to the public, again, i am a semi-retired senior living at 760 kapp street. and i have folded my hands and

made nice with regard to the crisis in which i and many of the attended are living in today. it's a form of living in fear. at what -- at a certain point these solemn public congregations start to seem to me to be political theater. because the trend is with continuances, with endless continuances for movement during work days that we have to take off and attend these meetings and basically, it costs us more. basically to defend our position than the rich and powerful which continually seem to get sided with in this. again, this is grossly out of character, out of proportion development that has nothing to

do with us. i can no longer go for coffee in my neighborhood, not because i can't occasionally afford an overpriced cup of coffee, but because there is no one left to talk to. they've all left. the people that this is for have nothing to do with my or my neighbor's interests. they are not interested in art, film, culture. working class politics. they are interested in their jobs, in their colleagues, and in making the most money possible. at what point are you going to stop catering to these 100% for the rich developments? this has to change. and it has to change now. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, sir, next speaker, please.

>> hello. my name is andy gillis, i'm a long time resident of the mission district. i've been in that area for 22 years, so i've seen the rapid gentrification of my neighborhood and the displacement of many friends and cultural institutions and valued family-owned businesses. and a big part of the problem is that the city keeps approving luxury housing and this housing is for people who want to move here. for the most part, it's not for people who live here. and i think the priorities of the city need to focus on the residents who live in san francisco and especially those

on low-income, teachers, middle class, seniors. i think our priorities have been very misplaced. and i also question the belief that just building more and more housing will reduce the cost of housing. i think there is plenty of evidence to show that the demand is so great in san francisco, that we could not possibly build enough housing to actually cause a drop in the cost of housing or in rents because so many people are buying it as investments and these people are flowing into the city from elsewhere. so i think we really need to, when housing is built, we really need to push developers to build significantly greater percentages of low-income housing and affordable housing, than this project and most other

projects. and i also think that when tech firms, for example, are bringing thousands of employees, creating new jobs in the city, which might be great for the tax base, but it also puts incredible burden on our infrastructure, so i think they also, because they're going to make incredible profits by bringing these employees here, they need to make much more significant contributions to the burden they've placed on infrastructure, and especially on housing. and i think they should be the ones building the housing for their employees. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. every thursday the most frequently flown words in this chamber is what?

housing crisis. ok. but nobody talks about how to address the affordability issue, that portion of the housing crisis. here's a project before you. people are asking for a fair share of the -- what the developer is going to be gaining. what is the fair share? is it fair for the developer to just fee-out from giving into the low-income housing? not really. not when week after week, every thursday, they stand up here before you, invariably, every single one of them that is dr'ed or cu'ed, we have a housing crisis. it's not only the houses crisis, it's the affordability crisis. we have a huge project by all standards and they're not giving

in to the community. they are not paying the fair share. if we do not address the affordability aspect of the housing crisis we're not going to get anywhere. here's a basic example of what we're talking about. it is within your hands to force their hand. they should put their money where their mouth is. if they're talking about housing crisis, well, affordability aspects of the housing crisis, it's one of the most important things we need to address. we don't have any crisis of $4 million condos here. we don't. they keep on building it. you know, we're at 200, i believe, 205 or 215%. what is that? for market rate, for market rate. i believe that they have to pay their fair share. i wish there was a way that we could get rid of the feeing out business, so if they're building, they would have to give low-income -- they would have to give out housing for the

low-income, low and middle incomeme income segment of the population if they're building in the city. the same rule for density bonus, we should have the exact same thing. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, mission economic development agency, we think that this is a very important project, it's right in the middle of an area that is undergoing tremendous amount of building, both commercial and residential and we're here to support the dr request and the requesters. we think their asks are reasonable, i think especially starting with the design, like a number of projects that you've seen dr'ed recently, the windows are out of scale, they have this huge glass plate, speaks to new

money coming into the money, the residents don't think the units, the store fronts are for them. we hear that said in the neighborhood and you've been responsive to that. and frankly, the developers and the dr at 1900 mission street said after their re-design they thought their project was much improved and sought me out to thank me and said this is a better project now. i think those things here could go a long way to making the project meaningful in the neighborhood context. the ground floor use, again is critical. what is happening on the ground floor, especially on mission street where we're seeing huge amount of displacement of mom-and-pop shops and losing nonprofits, we would love to see the ground there to be put into community use, would change the whole context of this space on

the street. if the community was coming for their own services, the affordability on this project is only 2918 mission street has come here with 10.8% affordable, that's 92% out of reach of our community members. that's not doing what it can to help the neighborhood. and we hope that the developer will look to add more affordabilitied to this project. i want to talk about the context of what is happening here, too. these are the recent pipeline projects or what is proposed right now. you can see the impact is pretty significant. the yellow dot is the 1863, 1801 is also this developer's project to the north. [bell ringing] 1875 they

developed to the south already. the context in the larger state, you can see what is happening here with the amount of investment and speculation coming in here. we're concerned that the developer has been using these for corporate rentals, some of the units on the street, at $7,000 a month. that's not the kind of thing we want to see on a working class corridor for families. we hope those practices also can be part of a shift of direction that he takes. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. in support of the dr. this is not about being anti-housing, this is about equity and mitigation. mission street is important to the neighborhood and whatever benefits the folks in the area, whether it's commercial or residential, whether it's

design, we've got to make sure that it benefits everyone. as you see, there is so much development coming into the area that it's just really flooding the mission. you know, it has been for years and continues. we have to be really careful making sure these developments really meet the needs of the community. and not those of the investors and people that can possibly come in from the outside to afford the units. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. >> i actually just came up to say yes to everything else that you just heard, but i guess one thing that comes up for me. and you know, our friends with the mission, they're doing a good job and actually negotiations under way. and whatever comes of those negotiations, if they are resolved to our mission

evictions willingness to agree, i clearly will support that agreement. but i'm not really happy with anything that could be agreed, given the situation. but i'm realistic. and the reason i'm not happy is the record of this developer and, you know, what he's taken, what he's reaped from the mission on all these projects you've heard about. he owes the mission one hell of a lot more than will ever come out of a negotiation. i'll support it, but you know, it can't be enough given the situation. you know, why the mission? why us? you know, because it's the hot property that is getting destroyed by market rate housing

and such. you know, it doesn't need to be here. well, but it will be. and i really should say, you guys need some legislation that gives you some authority over the percentage of bmr, over some of the pipelined projects that come into an area that should no less than 25% and deliver 10. i know you don't have authority over that, but you should. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. was my kid on time today? >> very on time. thank you, commissioners, my name is andy blue, i live five blocks from the site. i've been active member with the plaza 16 coalition from the inception. as you know, we're fighting the monster at the mission and demanding 100% affordable marvel in the mission, a community planned project, a community

serving project. since we were founded five years ago, four plus years ago, we said no more market rate housing in the mission district until affordable needs are met. we stand by that. this discretionary review is incredibly reasonable and you should grant -- pass the discretionary review. that area is witnessing a profound transformation. and it's going to be no longer a working class area if we don't demand higher percentages of affordable housing. 25% would be great. it's not enough. we want 100% affordable in the mission district and then you can start building market rate again. this is about the third anniversary of when 1200 folks

from the mission marched these halls friday, may 8, 2015, to express their pain and their anguish at the loss of a community and a culture. and three years later, i don't have those 1200 folks with me, but their voices are still ringing in these hal ways. the pain and anguish and loss has only grown. it grows every day. you need to listen to those voices that are seeing the loss of their culture, the logs of their community -- the loss of their community, the loss of one of the most extraordinary and unique and precious neighborhoods in the world, not just our city. we need much higher percentages of affordable housing. this building is an insult to working class communities. it's designed to look like it's designed to are rich people. it's a message to folks in that neighborhood, hey, the rich

people are coming, that's where this neighborhood is headed, you're no longer welcome here, and sponsors of this project -- [bell ringing] -- clearly aren't concerned about what the community wants, they're just in it for profit. we've had enough of that in the city. folks coming in to extract all the profit they can from the city. we have to serve the community, we have to serve the mission. please grant this discretionary review, thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional comments in support of the dr? if not, we'll move to project sponsor. >> good afternoon, steve on

behalf of the project sponsor. this project is code compliant. 37 units over a small commercial space. 25% of the rear yard. over 40% of the units are two bedroom. and the project meets the inclusionary housing that is set by the board of supervisors on site. the market rate units are not luxury condos. the sponsor plans holding them as a rental building. it has amenities and parking ratio of .43 to 1. it does not displace any housing or businesses. this has been vetted by staff and includes a restrained on mission street with small double hung residential windows and residential design. cpu was issued in 2015 determining that the project has no peculiar ceqa impacts. the zoning administrator is

considering only a rear yard modification to allow it to be configured in a manner permitted by the planning code and favored by planning department staff. there is no reduction in the size of the rear yard, we're not seeking conditional use, or any exceptions from the commission. the project is too small to be acquired by the city for 100% affordable development. 50% or larger units. this will accommodate only 37. this is too small for a land dedication. the ground floor is 1400 square feet, too small for a restaurant. the store front is required to have a tall ceiling height and be 60% transparent. the proposed store front design meets those standards and is compatible with the area and incorporates bulkheads, and a broad sign band.

pursuant to the housing accountability act, this development is entitled to your approval, unless you find that doing so would cause a significant health impact. it was enacted several years ago if legislature and strengthened last year to apply to precisely this kind of project. it does not allow the political objections raised by the dr requesters to prevent the addition of badly needed housing when the housing meets objective planning code standards. the dr requesters have not articulated any exceptional circumstances. the only exceptional circumstance is the tremendous delay this project has faced. a project with the 2009 case number and the cpa issued over three years ago. they nearly imposed a lpa requirement and the matter was not scheduled for planning commission hearing until this january.

the department pulled the item from the calendar over our objections and required a new notice period resulting in another four-month delay. he has owned the property since early 2000s and has incurred tremendous cost during the process and the attempt to hold onto it. we met with the united save the mission in december and then made a written proposal. we got no response. we met again in april after the dr was filed. at that meeting further concessions beyond what was discussed were demanded. they went well beyond the ability to provide. at this time, we're not sure our -- there is a realistic ability to reach a consensus. this project enjoys significant community support. particularly from those who live on the block. the vacant site is a blight that has attracted problems for years.

neighbors want it developed. i have circulated a petition initiated by one of the neighbors, not by us, signed by 80 individuals, it includes other supportive e-mails and you'll hear from some of them. we share the dr requesters' concern for displacement of low-income residents and business community in the mission. but this project displaces no residents, no businesses and it's not the cause of displacement. rather it provides 37 new homes, likely to remain as rentals that will help relieve pressure on the existing housing stock. it includes units and one or two commercial suitable for the community. consistent with the staff recommendation, we request that they deny the dr request and approve the project as proposed. the architect is available as well. >> president hillis: thank you. any public comment in support of the project and opposed to the dr?

>> president hillis: it would be helpful to line up on the screen side of the room, but come up in any order. >> hi, i'm here with the residential builders association in support of the project. we've heard a lot of interesting conversation points today. and i just want to draw everybody's attention to, i think it was the 90 signatures and letters of support from neighbors in this neighborhood that want to see this vacant lot developed into something. and we'd all like to see store fronts that benefit the community that the store fronts are in, of course we want to see the businesses there be successful and hopefully that will happen to this project, too. what doesn't serve the community or the city's goals of providing more housing is a vacant lot.

and this is the perfect place to get a project built. they've had it in the works for 12 years, respecting the design guidelines of the planning department and trying to do as much as possible for the needs of the community, which are specifically more housing as soon as possible. so i encourage you to move in project forward. i think it's a good one. and i'd like to see it go past this today. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi, good afternoon. jim. i'd like to voice my support for the project and encourage you to move it forward. as you've heard multiple times, the project is proposed to be built on a longtime vacant lot and it's not serving anything,

it's not a good looking site. if approved, it would definitely meet the needs and goals of the city for adding more housing. and adding to the city's housing stock. the building's design as it stands is a result of many review and requests and dealing with the planning department. again, mentioned in the staff report, there has been a lot of local support, over 90 letters. on top of this, the builders are local. these guys have worked in town for decades. they use local labor, you know, they use local businesses and it's not a dash and run. and all in all, we would hope that the project would make for a better looking block and you know, in addition to the district. thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is thomas, i live

at 1875 mission, next door to the proposed project. here representing a group of our neighbors that support the project. i heard a lot said about the -- about the people moving into this neighborhood. like i live in 625 square foot apartment with my wife and my daughter. and we -- sorry. >> they have a hard time going outside on weekends when there is a bazaar, that neighbors think it looks like, when it's stolen items, our rights have been stolen so many times and it's getting to the point where it's ridiculous. i would like to point out that our neighbors, they bought a bmr unit, because we bought a full market rate unit. you can't have the rich without the poor. if you're not having rich buying

the expensive condos, there will be no bmr. it's a double edged sword. you can't fight it, it's going to happen and that's the reality of it. i'm all for support. i myself, i'm a designer, i took time off of my work to come here. and you have to really get on board to see the change, because otherwise it's going to be empty lot and never developed. and it's not fair for thomas and his wife and their young daughter and other kids in the building to be scared to go outside of the unit because there are so many bad things happening. they're not wealthy rich people, but they save their money and bought their unit. and it's fair for other people to do the same. >> as you can see, i was not the first choice as a speaker for here. my wife, her family lives, we

try to stay in the neighborhood. her family lives less than a mile away. my grandparents are from san francisco. the only grandparent who isn't is from el salvador. we're just trying to have a nice neighborhood to raise our daughter in. we welcome more people moving in our neighborhood. obviously, there are a lot of tech jobs coming into the neighborhood and some people can't afford a market rate home. and this doesn't include a -- [bell ringing] -- the bmr units as well, and we welcome that also. we need to welcome a variety of people into our neighborhood. this project meets what we like to see in our neighborhood. we would like to see the empty lot gone and more people living in our neighborhood. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i know you've heard a lot today.

my name is janine, i've rented 18 years, been here 21 years, i know both sides of the story. it took me a long time to get a house and i know what renting in san francisco is like, but the site that is there, i walk a lot, i'm also an artist, designer in san francisco. and i also lived in the mission for ten years, so i know the area, i walk there a lot. and i just -- having a vacant lot is not doing any good for the neighborhood. it's not doing any good for san francisco. and i just think that having a new building there would increase the safety, increase the hygiene of the area, because it is -- i try to avoid that lot because it's just turning into a big blight. it's been a big blight for a long time.

i do support this project going forward. and then i know you guys are doing the best you can to help everybody and do -- but they seem to be complying and doing the best they can with meeting regulations. and i really do support this project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm here in support of the project. i'd like to read a letter from the neighbor who could not be here today. i am a resident of 1875 mission street who supports the proposed development next door. i spoke earlier this year at the board of appeals meeting for the development at 1801 mission street and helped to gather over 100 signatures for neighbors who felt the same. as you know, we need more

housing in san francisco, especially close to transit, and these empty lots are not serving anyone by staying empty. many neighbors feel the same, and are supportive of the development. i am including two copies of petitions and this e-mail. we have 60 signatures in support. i do not think i will be able to attend upcoming hearing on may 17, but i really wanted to make sure that my voice and the voices of our neighbors are heard. so many of these decisions happen when most people are at work, so it's hard to show up and present to support, but please know there are many people who support this development. and who live in this block, and are directly affected by the project. i have so much more to share why we want this lot to be filled, but for now, i want you to know we're excited for the project to move forward.

thank you so much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is gary. i'm commercial real estate broker here in the city. have been since 1991. i was originally involved with the sale of the property to the sponsor in early 2004. and i'm here in support of the project. and i commend them for their perseverance in sticking with the project. in my time as a broker, i've seen so many developers come and go in the city. and flip properties, add value to a property, and move it on. and these guys have gone through severe down turn in the economy, hung onto the property, built

out several projects in the neighborhood and added to both the housing stock affordable and market rate, and to the street scene, and the makeup of the local neighborhood. i'm here in support of it. i think it's a good project. i think it adds more housing in the city and a neighborhood where there is a shortage of housing. and you know, if these projects don't get built, the million dollar condos that have been spoken about today, will become two million dollar condos and it's a city that has got to have more housing. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, good afternoon, john o'connor, the