frenzy around this whole notion of misrepresentation. it begs the question, why would someone say there is an existing garage if there's a tree and no curb cut in front of it? what we're trying to describe at the time, which was a big mistake, and we take full responsibility, was to describe that door that was there, that aperture that was there that was garage like. the tree you can see in the street view photos was before any demolition was done, and we reflected that in the plans. we take responsibility, but none theless, i think common sense has to play a part here. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i have a question that was much, much simpler. i was very rattled by commissioner richards' description that the applicant has undertaken a number of

projects, that you personally have met him a number of years ago, and creating as-built drawings is almost the most important part of starting of look of how to build an addition, a renovation, whatever you're going to do. so i'm going to be asking of mr. o'reardon, i'm living in a building, a 1950's building, wherefore seismic retrofit, we're researching the existing drawings, and we had to do as-built drawings, and for that, you hire a licensed professional and have drawings which ultimately, you work with in order to create a building. if you wouldn't do that, you would be knowing you would be running into problems, just creating havoc. so i'm just like -- i'm kind of mum about the fact that a person who has a large

portfolio of buildings would not know how to hire the right professional to get as-built drawings and move forward from there and basically abdigate from there, saying oh, this is not my problem, so to speak. it is true. >> for projects such as this, i would say yes, that is correct. >> commissioner moore: okay. so when the applicant speaks about a company, are you referring to an architect, an engineer, or what is the applicant referring to? are those drawings which were stamped, from your recollection, as you saw them? >> the drawings were generated by an architect, and i believe that a structural engineer was involved in the structural payables or associated structural work that was involved with the project. >> commissioner moore: i would ask any of us if we would have anything done to our house, i

assume we would all be hiring somebody whom we could trust, who has a reputation to do the correct work, but this is basically setup in a manner where there is no trust even producing as-built drawings, and even going from there, it stretches years and years where mistake is being piled on mistake. and i personally have never seen anything like this. i want to thank you, mr. o'reardon for explaining that. we're overwhelmed by something which we have never done, and we're overwhelmed for judging something on which i personally do not have background or experience. i feel in order to have a clean slate, i would agree with commissioner richards to basically simply go back to the as-built building as it was built and not approve or

entertain any kind of approval of what's in front of us here. >> president hillis: commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: yeah. as the weeks go on, we're seeing these items where people exceed their scope of work. i think i just figured out why this happens, how it happens, and why it frustrates us so: i know from my work in the field, from my work as a project contractor and estimator, if you're contracted to build a job, you never go outside of your scope because you won't get paid to do that work. i cannot imagine once in my life if i've ever done extra work than i was supposed to do on a job because either my boss will get mad at me or i would have gotten mad at my crew because i would have told them hey, we're not getting paid to do that. why are you working for free? so it baffles me to see contractors doing extra work that they within the permit --

weren't permitted to do in the first place, and it must have been they were told to exceed the scope or what was on the drawings because otherwise, they wouldn't have done the work. they're not going to do extra work for free. if you're supposed to dig 5 feet of earth, you're not going to dig 30 feet of earth because you're not going to get paid for it. so i've been, you know, racking my brain, why do i have so much trouble hearing these, like, exceedings of scope and exceedings of what's been on the drawings? and i mean, i think it's -- it's because people are telling other people to do it. and so i'm not buying when people come here and say oh, we made a mistake. sk >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: and i guess just to kind of elaborate, when i have work done on my house, and i had work done extensively, i hired a professional. we did the as-builts, he did the plans.

we laid them out on my kitchen table. we talked about them, what are we going to do, x, y, z, i was involved every step of the way, at least understanding what was there. and if i saw a room that wasn't there, or a garage that wasn't there, i would have said hey, i think that's a mistake. i find it incredibly hard to believe with the extensive experience that this development team has that they never drove by the site to see more earth was excavated than 3 feet, it was 10 feet. i saw mr. o'reardon's presentation where he said this was what 3 feet is. i was walking up states street, and i think i was meeting with mr. parks the day that the next-door neighbor came running out and saying my house is cracking, they're digging next door to me this big hole, and i walked right by the house, and i said, building inspections department.

call them. if there's something wrong, they'll come out and red tag. that was december 2014. i don't know if it was her that called or not, but she may have went in and called. we've approved demolitions after the fact of honest to goodness mistakes. we've had a couple of them where a woman out in the avenues, she exceeded the scope of work, they knocked the house down, we truly believed that it was a one-off. we did one in cole valley where the contractor pulled the wrong beams out, and the thing collapsed, and we believed them. this, to me, is not one of those kinds of examples where, you know, okay we'll hold our breath and we'll do this and we'll legalize it. so i move to disapprove the conditional use and have the single-family house restored to its exact previous condition. [please stand by]

not correct. i do feel that when part of the length of time there was a -- this plan it on my death for two and a half years. it was me reviewing them. a lot of it was doing research on what the true rear of the building was. that was parked is something that had been misrepresented in the previous iterations of the plan that never made it to planning. i feel confident. i did a lot of aerial research on the neighbor provided some photography. i do think the existing conditions that are shown in the plans within the report do accurately represent the existing conditions. part of that i want to comment is it does show a ground-floor where the vault currently is. and also a feature to acknowledge the raise entrance of the house. >> i'm looking here at the listing. they listed it in 2013.

you might want to relay with the real estate or advertisement on what the four plan is. you always provide that when they do sale. hill and company. of 2013. >> that's interesting. we will do that. >> if there is nothing further kept there is a motion to second this matter with amendments to require the building be restored to its original configuration and record and nsr on the property if there were to be a second unit that the entry be off of the state street side. on that motion -- [roll call] that motion passes unanimously. 5-0. commissioners, that will place us on item 19. case number 2017-001283.

this is a conditional use authorization. please note that on october 12th, 2017 capped after heat --dash, after hearing public comments, the commission continued this matter to december 21st, 2017 by a vote of 4-2. commissioner moore you were absent at that hearing. commissioner johnson was not yet seated kick in order to participate clock you have to acknowledge you review the original hearing and material. >> yes i did. >> thank you. after a motion to continue failed 3-4 talk at a motion to approve with conditions failed 3-4. to disprove and contain the matter to march 22nd by a vote of 4-3. subsequent continuances to this date without hearing. >> good evening members of the commission. i am here with the department

staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization for the demolition of an existing single-family home located at 7092 cab street and construction of a new four unit four story residential building. the item was heard at the october 12th 2017 commission meeting and that the december 21st plan and commissioning meeting. after december 21st 2017 capped the commission adopted a motion with intent to disprove the project and directed staff to return with a motion for disapproval. since that here and, the sponsor has conducted additional outreach to the surrounding neighborhood. department staff attended two outreach staff in particular. and they voiced their concerns and staff noted the following concerns from the community. number 1, the project would demolish housing not found to be a historic resource as part of the fabric of the neighborhood and the heritage and mission district. two wrote that the project was

for additional demolition throughout the neighborhood. three, concerned the demolition may have health impacts to adjacent residents. four concerned that market rate housing is not necessary or desirable and that only affordable housing should be approved at the subject property. five k are concerned that in adequate parking is provided by the project, and six cat concern that the design of the building is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and adjacent historic district. realizing these concerns, the department prepared a motion for denial of the project as requested by the commission. finding the additional housing unit can be accommodated without requiring demolition of the building. additionally capped the department has prepared an alternative motion for approval with the condition of approval of the first 10 feet of the structure that must be maintained in its current location and the demolition and reconstruction permitted beyond that 10 feet. during the last hearing on december 21st crack they expressed a preference for attention of some or all of the structure. particularly -- estimate --

shown in the exhibits, such a scheme would yield gross floor area at approximately 33% reduction of size in the project but more than sufficient to accommodate a four unit housing product including common areas. this is recommended to accommodate the proposed housing product -- project while addressing the community concern over the loss of neighborhood character. staff prepared an additional exhibit noting other sites which could potentially meet to the findings for demolition. as noted in a staff report, the findings of the planning code include findings to protect designated historic resources and properties containing rent-controlled units. as shown in the exhibit, the only other parcel on the block which contains any residential unit and is not a designated historic resource and is unlikely to be subject to rent control is the immediately adjacent single-family residence. all other properties in the block contain a designated

resource and are likely subject to rent control or do not contain any residential units. the project proposed demolish -- demolishing of a single-family resident valued at $1.6 million and replaces it with units. three of which are family -sized. the existing structure was determined not to be historic resource and a fully complies with the planning code. with regard to the health impacts of the project cat construction is regulated by the department of building inspection and the bay area air quality management district. the planning department does not review such potential impacts but does review such potential impacts for project subject to a higher level of review. but based on the scale of the project, it is exempt from review with regard to parking, ththe project cited from one blk of the -- and two blocks from

the b.r.t. station. no parking is required under the city planning code and staff work with the applicants to reduce the amount of auto parking with respect to the city's transit first policy. with regard to their project status, section or 15 of the planning code does not require the provision of affordable housing in a four unit housing project. in an attempt to address this concern, the sponsor proposed to facilitate participation in the down payment assistance loan program for the two bedroom unit and providing cash assistance for people participating in a program to facilitate the purchase of the unit at fair market value. this option is proposed through a private agreement. the project sponsor will discuss their plans for the program during the presentation. in summary, as a project provides similar housing, it is

fully compliant with the planning code with no request of balances. this concludes my presentation. >> president hillis: thank you. project sponsor? >> good evening commissioners, you know, this is my first project in the mission and my first project of this size and scale and i will be the first to admit, i came into it a bit naïvely about the community impact the development was having. and, you know, i am a local guy raising kids in the cities and offices in the mission. and i do think i have not loved all of it. but over the last eight months i think we've got to a much better project then i started with. in terms of a statics, things working out for the community, and my own education about the

things that are happening and the things i can do as a responsible developer. for that, i am appreciative and, you know, i do think that the agreement that we made with fish and housing really has some strong community benefit and and i will let brett to talk about that a little bit. thank you. >> thank you. i see it is only five minutes but i will be really brief. i do think it's a better project. i want to thank the planner for eight months of hard work talk as well as the many neighbors aninsupport and opposition who t time on this. i think we have shown you, from exhibit b in my last brief how the project that was proposed by staff previously or suggested, be designed by several commissioners wasn't really workable. a reduced 2,000 square feet and it reduced four bedrooms. the units, you know, were not

that valuable and the construction cost would go way up and that simply did not make economic sense. we are very pleased that we have been able to show that. i would like to say that i must thank the mission housing the most. we have reached an agreement. it is private. i cannot show it. but i have this letter from mission housing that was delivered to staff which goes over the terms of the agreement. there were various alternatives expressed by lucas suggested to the community. one involve some additional space in the community centre at a parks and recreation centre and subsidizing community space. the only one that addressed helping somebody who would live here was the daughter program. and while components of this did not like any of the three, i must say, they dislike that one the least. i think we have come to a duke -- good suggestion here. many of your commissioners know

about how a project sponsor wants to do something more, then he -- then he is required to do, yet you commissioners cannot require conditions of approval that go beyond your authority and we have a situation where what do we do? if someone offers up a developer or some additional community benefit, the attorney cannot enforce it. how do we make it happen? here, we have talked about this in the past, we found a nonprofit who is willing to facilitate this ad is ready to enter into it and enforceable contract that they can force against the developer. and what he or she can get as financing. also, we have come up with an idea of having recorded restriction against the condo owners. they provide that tense up -- ten% of their future homeowners

use each unit, for 40 years with two mission housing and will be held by them for them to use it for affordable housing services in the mission. i understand they want to hire somebody extra to their staff and they told me this will help make this happen pork also, in the agreement, if, for some reason, this project does not take place by 2021, it is not finished, that money will not come back to the developer. it will be used by mission housing for housing purposes as well. in addition to that, other community benefits include the eastern neighborhood infrastructure, the residential childcare fee, and my client has met with them and talk to them about how they can help with some of their -- he can help them with the renovation of

their headquarters at his cost with the assistance of their brother organization, the san francisco day labourers. he has talked to friendship house and he has been involved in helping with them in the past as a native american helping an native american nonprofit. he will continue to look for people from those programs to work in the project. he has also contacted the city's program and although this project is to be too small to be required to use it, he will in fact be outsourcing people from that program as well. >> president hillis: all right. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your time. >> president hillis: thank you. we will open this up for public comment. you will have to watch a minutes. i have a couple of speaker cards. if others would like to speak, please line up on the screen side of the room. you can approach anywhere.

go ahead, third. >> hello. i do live in the 700 block of cab street and i have been in the immediate neighborhood for over 25 years. i support the project and the overriding reasons that there is a housing shortage. we need more housing. i think if people disapprove of the project, they are probably disapproving it because they would like to have their cake and eat it too. they would like to keep it as it is. we need to be more generous and put the precedent of a more housing to be the first priori priority. i would like to add to the record, a sheet with some people who have signed on in support.

also, i did speak to a few neighbors and at least one of them was reluctant to sign on to the support list, even though she did support it. also, as a homeowner, i would like to say, there could be great things with a new housing. it could be -- living there could be extremely comfortable. you've got your three wire electrical. you can have modern wiring. your doors and windows can be standard size. repairs can be easy. you've got insulation. those are advantages over old housing. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> can i have the time i restarted? thank you. hello again. after meeting with you several times here in this room as well as several conversations with many of you, we as a community have made every attempt to work with lucas eastwood. gave him every opportunity to be able to listen to our concerns at the request of each of you as well. work with him and try as much. we have been bending over backwards and none of our concerns have been met. in regards to the doubt program, we have not seen any paperwork. we've given it months. every opportunity of continuance. we have been representing a large group of people who could not be here today back again, elderly, set, students who have worked conflicts. we have done everything in our power to make this as fair as possible but nothing he seems to

be not willing to do any kind of budging at all. i have spoken about the threats that this poses in the future, and one of the things too that we are concerned about is the precedent that sits that while lucas eat -- eastwood did not evict a tenant when it was first sold by the person who repurchased from in 2012, 12 days after, they themselves admitted eviction paperwork. this is continuing this trend of speculation. and lucas eastwood up and i will submit this to you is also on the board. he has also been known to force rent hikes to evict people on property on fulton street. this is what we are really afraid of. watching people out because of profits and hiding underneath any kind of small attempts to make it seem like they are being equitable and reasonable. we have said everything we can

say. we need you to do the right thing. thank you. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> hello. i am a long-term resident. thirty-eight years. my family has been on this street for over 54 years. this jeopardizes so many of us renters. being pushed out. we have met only because of your suggestion to reach out to the community. we decided to have a community meeting at the san francisco police department on a friday night. that was his first attempt. we all seated with him. over 25 residents are against this. this pushes and jeopardizes so many other tenants. our way of living, our culture. it is not compromising to what we are like a you can say that we are adding housing, but not

to ask. not to those who are newcomers, those who are multimillionaires. i have even said that, you know, eastward, if you want to come and be part of the community, why don't you move inquiry it is an awesome place to come. unless you don't want to move out of your multimillion dollar complex and be part of our residents and see what we have to offer. but this place is more than just a street. he is correct when he is naïve. he chose the wrong street to b buy. there should be other ways. if someone wants to demolish a perfectly awesome house to gain profit up because that is the number 1 thing. i do say he has been honest in saying that he is here for profit. then it goes beyond what we are doing here in san francisco. we are pushing out people. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello.

i am also -- i live across the street. i have lived there my whole life. born and raised. it is hard to see something like this where something that has already been voted and nobody has come to an agreement and seeing it come back and we are having the same repeated discussions. i don't think there are any cases anyone needs to make that is opposing this. it has already been opposed to work it is obvious. he has been obvious about it, mr eastwood, about how this is all a monopoly, you know what i mean? it is the same thing we were saying earlier. in other case about a house in the valley. it is repetitive at this point. i am very much against the idea of having another duplex. there is one that was built further down the street and it has done nothing but cause more

noise pollution and has done nothing but cause less parking in the neighborhood. it is getting old. i would like to ask you guys to decline. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello. i live a mere two doors down from where this is proposing to take place and i see that this is going to impact us in such a highly negative way. it already has. it is causing worry about the parking impact and the noise and the stop. i realize this will all be regulated. it will still impact us on -- in a negative way. it is creating more housing, but not for the people who truly need it. these are for people who are coming new to san francisco and have options of where to live.

so i have someone in my own household who works the graveyard because he is a single parent and, you know, all this noise will cause them to not be able to sleep during the day. so he can go to a job at night and take care of his child during that time as well. as you can see cactuses very, very, very important and crucial that you declined this request. he has other options. other properties. he can definitely make income somewhere else. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i prepared for three minutes so i may have to talk really fast. i don't know where the signatures came from but here are five from my six units building in opposition. and i first want to start off by

saying this building is not just found. it is in top condition. i sent you a message by e-mail that shows it being reroofed and had a new foundation. this also means that i have lived through all the buzz of sawing and drooling and pounding and dust and disruption from those two big projects. just in the last five years. and in my building, there are six units with, you know, multiple tenants. we have four seniors and at least two disabled people. all we are saying is if our stamina is going to be attacked again, we would like it to be for something that is needed and that is not luxury housing. now mr eastwood has plenty of other projects going. he has a lot of projects that he

will do. so given that this building is in perfect condition and it is -- th the community is unanimoun opposing it, i would like to propose that mr eastwood sell the building to a nonprofit that is committed to affordability. uke if you can't do this at a profit or do it by breaking even, i propose we do it at a loss. that is part of what speculation is. if it is not, sa san francisco s committing itself to a precedence that we will regret with our affordable housing crisis. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm charlene. i live in the building across the street from this house.

i am a native born san franciscan. but i've only lived in that building for 35 plus years. i do not want to go over all the reasons you have heard before. i sort of want to look at the bigger picture, which started early in the morning when we heard the presentation about the articles in the newspaper that were looking at the effects of the overcrowding and overpopulation. the mandate has come down from the city to build those bills. but what about our future? we are building, building, building. what is happening to our safety?

it is changing it's character. the reason people want to live here is because it is a wonderful place. that is changing. we saw that statistics on the new stats that they brought out today at the meeting. it shows the negative impacts of those bills. i am not saying we shouldn't build, but at what price? what is our future? when you have brats that live in a cage with a certain number of rats, they will live compatibly. but, when you over populate that cage, they will start to fight and they will kill each other and eat each other. the mission is already dense. >> president hillis: thank you, ma'am. your time is up.

>> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> i am a longtime resident of the mission district and i support this project because it is zoned for a transit oriented development. it will add four units one block from barth. and it is being developed by someone that is part of the mission community. his office is in the mission. some of his kids grew up in the mission and i found him to be a generant -- genuine and sincere guy. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i am a resident of the mission. i've been there for a number of years. i have known mr eastwood for a number of years as well. i know him to be a genuine and honest individual. he is also a member of the

mission. and i support his project. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, a couple of concerns here. one is that we are rewarding speculation on a site where an omi eviction occurred in 2012. and that this property was purchased i was on file with the rent board and the property was purchased knowing that that eviction oak urge there. and allowing a perfectly habitable building to come down. and then the second concern really is that the offering of the doubt fund. the price of the unit itself may actually be a situation where

even if the funds were offered, no one can actually qualify for those funds. a lot of funds go to 120% a.m.i. with some exceptions for first responders for teachers. with even with the price point of $900,000 for that unit, a lot of those people aren't going to qualify for a loan. what happens to that unit? is it something that would go out there and the likelihood is that they will qualify and actually doesn't and that unit does not get filled with a first responder or teacher or someone who can qualify for both themselves and a loan? thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> hello again, commissioners. i am a long time mission resident.

i live a few steps away from the intersection. i want to talk about the need to preserve the neighborhood character. i have lived there a long time. we always go up the street. just went up to the heart of the residential district. we have amazing architecture here. i don't know if you have ever walked there on your week -- on the weekend. they are playing games and there is an amazing sense of community there. when you start allowing the demolition on the development of the luxury building you will start eroding the neighborhood character. i live in a highly gentrified building on the other side of the mission. i have seen how new owners don't integrate in the neighborhood. they do not let their kids play with the neighborhood kids. this will set a horrible precedent. it rips any essential peer after the foundation and fabric of this street. the eviction history is a little bit questionable.

i did attend the first police meeting. you would have been surprised at the amazing diversity. over 25 people from almost four generations where there and they had so many good things to say. i appreciate michael christiansen for taking those notes. we are not seeing any of those concerns really addressed. the second meeting was when it was proposed. nothing came of that. i feel like there is too little concessions. we want to see this project be denied. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> president hillis: hello. -- i avoid speaking on projects in the mission, especially market rate ones. they are miserable as we all know. this project is really hitting a new high water mark.

for a four unit project to achieve 25% subsidize affordable back this is quite unique. i am concerned about hitting a new high water mark that other developers actually might not be able to make. if we are going to be doing these kinds and asking quite a lot of our developers, we need to figure out how to implement this program so that it can be applied in other neighborhoods. so we are seeing the subsidize affordable and sing subsidize progress -- projects across the city. this is a zoning compliance project that has, you know, -- may be i have some complaints, him out the other side to 25% affordable with a partner who is a mission nonprofit that has done work for decades in the mission. i think that we are seeing a really amazing thing happened here and i hope that maybe this

is a way forward for other projects like this, although we could just down zoned the mission and up zoned glen park and the westside. that would also be fine. we could just decide we don't want to do this anymore and down zoned the mission. may be only allow affordable housing to be built in the mission. that is within the power of this body to do. but so long as we will stay on paper, we allow market rate housing in the mission. this is a pretty incredible project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is ben shapiro. i'm here to support the project. it is appalling to see the amount of pushback here. i think that this project is within the zoning requirements and is the highest best use for the property and is the exact solution we need for the housing affordability crisis.

it is quite simple. more supply is going to help the solution. so with this project being within the guidelines, i don't see how it can be denied. i encourage you to push her through and allow more housing to be built and alleviate pressure on the province of -- on the problem. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners. i'm here on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition. i support the project here today. i know i continued speaking on it a number of times. it is critical that we build housing that builds transit in our region. we will not meet our planning goals as a state or as a country or as a people unless we do that. we have a home right now where they don't have internet. as everyone can agree, it is a wonderful community.

for additional families and additional groups of people who get to call this home. we know that new housing in san francisco, 84% is in san francisco and they're previously living in san francisco. these are people already in our community. it is not the outsider. it is not the others. perhaps they are moving out of a rent controlled space with their significant other or may be a kid or two. the challenges are real. nothing that anybody is saying against this project is false by any means. but at the end of the day, we need to build homes for people. it is critical in this city. and one thing just regarding -- i know there has been a conversation to protect the façade and work around on that dense area, i do think that building next door is a larger building and we would like to see an opportunity to build homes next to transit. and create dwellings for people

to live in. we support the project today. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening again, commissioners. i know it is getting late. i will keep this brief. i want to highlight a couple things that are key here. i do want to mention that it is true that the majority of people moving into housing, the majority already live in san francisco. quite a number of them come from outside of san francisco. we also know based on the city's owned data is one fifth of the people coming into the city are moving into the mission. that is usually disproportionate to the size of the mission. that is what people's concerns are. it is justified from what we are seeing on that front. i want to clarify this is not an affordable housing project offer. there is a community benefit type of scenario offered which makes sense. it is not, per se, affordable housing. i guess i want to mirror that question which i had to.

which is what happens. are we sure that this scenario works out and what happens if it doesn't agree with other equity benefit is coming along in this wake -- in its wake to make sure value is recaptured here? just like the clifford project. we would like to see the neighbors be heard and hear their concerns and be integrated into a more healthy outcome. i think the other concern over the writing is from what i am hearing, i have not been familiar with this case of catching up to it. but seeing information and hearing from folks that this is, you know, that there is this displacement that would have been on the record when this project was purchased. there was another, apparently a case where there is a displacement related to one of the projects. i think we want to be careful about its. i have seen you exercise that kind of caution with what is happening in patterns. we are not encouraging displacement as we go forward. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. if there's anybody else who would like to speak, line up on the screen side of the room. >> hello. i think there is a dangerous message that you send when you demolish a home that was previously moved in twice before. it is part of the reason that it was written for tenant protection. regardless of state law, there is an ethical obligation to push back on state law when the local law was broken twice. you are sending the wrong message that comes into play with that. that being said, there needs to be -- of this building has been there since before the 1920s. there should be a historical resource examination when it comes to the report. we don't know how this building previously fits into the neighborhood, regardless of it being worked on in that time and being retrofitted. it has an importance. we know that when you are moving into a project you are moving a project that is in fitting with

the character design of the neighborhood that it will change the face of the neighborhood. regardless of the being 25% affordable, it doesn't matter if the program doesn't work. because they do not qualify for it. they will bill it for market rate. i really like the idea of making market rate units getting built in the mission. but these are pushing for it. they have never pushed for it. when we push for all of these protections, excluding the mission time and time i can. it is critical that they come up here and say that. they have never been on our side. we would be open to the discussion. so that being said, thank you for your time. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment? seeing then, we will close public comment. commissioners?

>> vice-president melgar: ok. we have been talking about this project for quite some time. i spent a lot of time on this project trying to figure out a way that we could meet the neighbors' concerns and also do our responsibility, as commissioners in terms of the legality of what we can and cannot do. and so, you know, this agreement that is being presented by mr eastwood does meet some, though not all of the neighborhood's concerns. i must say i wish i had seen it. i don't know what is in it. i had several conversations with

the executive director of mission housing and, you know, i know he is a good guy. i did ask him about the price of the unit. because someone, during the comments portion brought up, you know, what if it is not affordable? he did assure me that in the agreement, the owner had agreed to comply with the guidelines. just so, you know, everyone knows. so the mayor's office of housing stock to the maximum price that a unit can be in order to still be eligible. so the agreement was set at that price point and it will be set within those guidelines. in addition to this, they are putting in a bunch of money to make it even more affordable to a family. i am actually ready happy with

that portion of it. i think that structure is a sound structure. is a really charming little house. i love walking by their. it is in no way affordable now, you know. so that is the problem, you know, and i think if we can preserve one family who is able to live in that community and build equity and raise a family on the street, as wonderful as it is, i think it is a pretty good community benefit that we are getting. but i am supportive of the project. >> president hillis: thanks. as planners, we have to sometimes take a step back and look at the bigger picture. this is one of the only

neighborhoods in the city that has two b.r.t. stations. i think i made comments on one of the first couple of times that we heard this in general. you are getting four times the unit. the house was not originally affordable. we are a block and a half from not just transit, but from a barge stop. i have always been a big supporter and everything that is part of town has been standing for. i applaud all your efforts and all your time showing up to these hearings. but i think i am in support of this movement tonight. commissioner richards? >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> the fact that some of the members of the public say the agreement is not finalized, can you fill us in on where you are

at with that? you can fill us in on where you are at with the agreement of the down payment assistance and the homeowners associations and the whole thing? is it finalized? >> yes. the agreement has been signed and i believe the commissioner may have asked them about that. he has written a letter which i put on your overhead in which i sent to you, commissioners and to the planner, which says it has been signed. in this letter which i put on the overhead says that in it, there are provisions for the homeowners dues to be sent to mission housing and used by them for affordable projects in the mission. and it mentioned that there is the obligation to do this program. it also mentioned that they have the right to sue us. they have the right to collect the attorneys fees if they sue us. there is an indemnity for us to pay their transactional cost.

it says that if, for some reason, this project does not go forward, there could be an economic crisis, you know, there could be a building permit delays that go to 2023. if it doesn't happen in 2021, and that is in the agreement, the money goes, it stays with mission housing. >> it is finalized. >> it is indeed. the mission housing is not comfortable with some of the investors. were we to show it, it is easy to pick apart and lawyers to look at and say it does not say this an and this could have been written better. let's not make the perfect be the enemy of the good. it is very, as having written it, it is very strong. >> i think it is a creative solution. and all of this, i appreciate the work that all of you have done. i think the neighborhood comes up a bit ahead.

she has roots in the neighborhood. and if she feels it is a good project for the neighborhood, i support it as well. >> president hillis: i don't think we have come out in a place where people clearly agree and support the project. there are still obvious dixit -- disagreements about whether there should be something built here or the building kept there. i too believe the building, as it is, whether it is renovated or capped is not affordable and we are ending up with additional housing in one that could be at a middle income level using the first time home assistance program. i think the design has improved and is more contextual and works around that site. it doesn't have the kind of overarching modern vocabulary. i think it works.

i get the tensions about housing, but i still feel we need to build housing in the mission. i would not be a fan of saying we will not build in the mission. you know, i invite people to other neighborhoods where not much is being built bu but there are still homes being sold for five and $6 million. so not building is not the answer. if we just pickle things, they will not remain affordable just because we don't. i appreciate the effort that has gone and. i appreciate the commissioners looking at this program and recommending it. i think, as we have shown in other projects in the mission, we kind of -- we make projects better without the help of the community and to the neighborhood groups and other experts. while we not do as we may not always get to the resolution everybody likes, this is a better project than when we

started. so i am supportive. >> i will just make one more point. aside from having roots in the mission, i also ran the assistant loan program for the city for many years, which is why i am so familiar with the ins and outs. it is very seldom used in the mission anymore. get used to be. it used to be people used it and bought places in the mission 25, 20 years ago. but not anymore. because it is very expensive to buy in the mission. so usually units are priced above where it can be used. but also, there are so many people putting down offerors of all cash that people using it cannot compete. so over and over, i have heard folks saying, i want to use it and i want to be in the mission and be close to my kids schools or close to the cultural centre of gravity for my community cat

but i can't. i get outbid for everything. i think that, you know, having the opportunity for a family, may be one of the clients who have gone through homeownership counselling who can use the program for this unit and it would be a really good thing. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner richards: -- >> commissioner moore: i am supportive of the project having worked on it since october 2017. everybody has worked as hard as they could and i do hand it to the commissioners having suggested this idea. is it everything we wanted? no, it will never be any way but it is a hell of a lot more than what we had in the beginning. and it wouldn't matter if it continued. we have done what we could and supported the extent of the work

the department did. it is equally as hard. i think it is time to move. >> president hillis: ok. do we have a motion? >> we have a motion to approve. >> to those conditions recognize -- >> the approval motion in your pockets has a condition of approval for the first 10 feet. there is the approval motion from the october 122017 which is approval for the project as proposed by the sponsor and we would recommend approving based on plan stated april 13th, 2018. >> and we can recognize that and not enforce the agreement that the developer has with mission housing for the program? >> yeah. we can add some findings. >> commissioner moore: so we are approving the conditions read into the record by mr chris

just mr christianson and augmented by what he just said? >> yes. >> second. >> clerk: there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. recognizing the plan stated april 13th posted here. 2018. and adding findings acknowledging the private agreement. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners cat that will place us under a discretionary review calendar. item 20 has been continued to july 19th. placing us on item 29 fricke -- 21 for case number 16. at 521 loss almost drive. discretionary review.