Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  November 9, 2018 6:00pm-7:01pm PST

6:00 pm
>> i will ask my question. because i am either an engineer who isn't sport expert nor am i an engineer of any kind whatsoever. so if there is a difference in the two plans, were suddenly a foundation grew 2 feet, what is the impact on the world? >> i'm not an engineer. that is a good question for the engineers. if i was -- if d.b.i. were informed of that that this wasn't right, as i said, that is why i stated that. if the attention is drawn to us that there is a discrepancy, we have the right to rescind what we signed off on go back and say , hey, are you sure about this? is this right? if it is not right, then we would refer that another revision be submitted so our
6:01 pm
engineers would have the ability to review that. i didn't bring an engineer with me tonight. a kind of is all engineering but i did not bring a d.b.i. engineer with me. the question is an engineering question and i would not be qualified to answer that question. >> the thing that is riding is that there is a claim that there was, a long time ago, and far far away, a set of plans that people relied upon for these two buildings and then, as the appellant states, there suddenly is a new set of plans which differs from the original set of plans that was submitted. so this is the only thing that is concerning. and it would be, seemingly, again speaking from a very naïve point of view, a very simple reconciliation between a set of plans that was there before and a set of plans that suddenly appeared in the last 12 months.
6:02 pm
, that is a very naïve, commonsense point of view. >> it is a very good question. what in as built provision should give you is the difference. that is what they did. he is saying it is still not right. but we definitely know there was a change from what was originally approved versus what was built. and that should be covered on the as built revision. they are very common. that is what you would do if you change something. and some people get it before they built it which probably should have been done but we are dealing with it so many years later, it will probably come out in this whole process that they went through with the litigation you guys did not give us an as built revision. the question would be for them at the time when it got constructed, how did it end up deeper than what it was approved
6:03 pm
as an why did you make it deeper that probably should have been caught at that time, as i imagine. that happens every day of the week now. something changes and the inspectors will say, hey, this is deeper. you need to stop and go back and get a revision. this case they are calling it an as built revision which tells me it was built and they were doing the revision after the fact. assuming then that is accurate. he is saying it is not accurate. i hope that clears it up for you >> not really. >> this is where. >> exactly. >> this is where i am thankful that commissioner fung sits on this body because he actually knows what he's talking about in areas like this. he may have some questions later okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners?
6:04 pm
>> i will let you start there. >> let's look at what is really before us. the question is not what we believe or who we believe. the question is, is whether the information that has been provided establishes that the department erred in issuing the permit. we get lots of things go to us. the truthfulness of many things is up to the beholder. the question here, based upon the one page brief, an oral presentation of a photo of the exterior does not prove anything to me and does not represent the
6:05 pm
department erred in issuing a permit. >> i concur. as in the previous case, when inspectors went up, we have to have faith in our departments and their ability to have done their work, given the amount and considering that the property went through litigation for five years, i would imagine that there was quite a bit of process involved here. on a side note. i used to get my mirroring done for my stuff 35 years ago. i had good memories. [laughter] >> is it within our purview, is it appropriate for us to ask for the department for any proof
6:06 pm
supporting documentation based on -- as inspector duffy says. we can do that. we can just go out and measure the depth of the foundation. is it appropriate for us to ask his time to do that just to be on -- just beyond reasonable doubt or just that. and yet upon the appellant and should that have been done as part of his brief? >> it is both. one, i don't think the department is going to be able to ascertain exactly how deep the foundation is. and portions of it. secondly, is that what should have been done is that this could have been handled by the
6:07 pm
department and not an appeal. obviously, the right to the appeal is there for every citizen of our city, but this should have been a complaint made to senior management in terms of whether it was an appropriately reviewed permit or not. and that the department responds accordingly to the engineering side of the question. >> just to carry the discussion a little further, he is no longer a party in either of these buildings? he is an interested citizen. if he had gone to the department his and done what you have suggested, does the department -- should the department to be
6:08 pm
responsive to him? is the department have any responsibility to a party that is not associated with the project. >> it depends on relationships. >> that is why in the brief he was pretty heavily hammered that he should have kept his nose out of it where it didn't belong. but i support the fact that he is an interested citizen and a responsible citizen and has the right to ask. if he wants to pay his feet to a pale -- appeal something, god bless them. >> absolutely. but if you want to make your case you have to present information that we can act upon no such information was provided here. >> that is the crux of the
6:09 pm
matter. thank you. >> i moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. >> okay. we have a motion from president fung to deny the appeal and uphold department on the basis that it was properly issued. [roll call] >> the motion still carries 3-0. the appeal is denied. excuse me, 3-1. >> she is not counting him. >> do you need a break? >> no. i'm ready to move on. would you like a five minute break? >> let's take a short break. >> it looks like we have a big crowd. >> yes. >> we are concluded.
6:10 pm
queen good evening and welcome back to the nova some of, 2018 meeting of board of appeals. we are moving on to item number 8. our mission no eviction versus the planning commission. the subject property is 275,019 th street protesting the issuance of august 23rd, 2182 a planning code of section 329 large project authorization to allow construction of a new six-story 68-foot tall residential building with split 68 dwelling units. 10,000 square feet of ground floor production distribution and prepare space and 24 offstreet parking spaces. it requires exceptions to the planning code for rear yard size requirements set forth in section 134 and dwelling unit exposures on section 140.
6:11 pm
this is case 2014. as a reminder, the standard of review -- 329, only a simple majority of three votes is required to overturn it. commissioner honda, disclosure. >> my second disclosure of this evening. i'm a partner and a they have hired us this evening and will not have any influence on my decision. >> thank you. we will now hear from the appellants.
6:12 pm
>> good evening. we are with our mission, no eviction. we would like to see this decision overturned and scent back to the planning department so they may consider this case with eight -- with the full facts at hand. we would like the decision amended by the board so it includes the additional conditions that the terms be extended to the mission community in the event that fitzgerald does not fulfil the full term of their lease as well as the a.m.i. on the additional b.m.r. unit. the planning commission approved this project despite the fact it fell short of the super inclusionary housing requirements of the mission area plan objective 2.1 and fell short of the mission area plan 1.7 to preserve and enhance production, distribution, and repair, p.d.r. and businesses in the mission.
6:13 pm
there's intimate -- debate among the commissioners whether this project met the conditions. it is the belief of our mission, no eviction -- eviction that they should continue the decision until all the facts are at hand and make a fully informed decision. while it is true the project sponsor has approved the project , the initial proposal on november 20th, 2017 was so far for meeting objectives that they continued it several times at the january 25th commission hearing. commissioner hella stated in many ways a commission looks to the community to negotiate with the developers and come with projects that we think will work and will have higher levels of authority ability and have ground-floor space that are not a gentrifying factor. stating that the project is improved from being one completely rejected by the planning commissioners should not be taken it until the project has met the city's objectives in the area plan, which has sent -- which it has not. the area objective states that those who develop want just want to develop market rate housing could do so under the
6:14 pm
requirements that it provide provided a high percentage of affordable units to very low, low or moderate income households on site through super inclusionary requirements. the inspired intent is to facilitate the housing production percentage targets identified in the housing element and enable the production of the housing san francisco needs. this project requires 17.5% affordability in the project sponsor offered at a single b.m.r. unit of unspecified size at 150% a.m.i. units above 120 are considered above moderate and income housing. san francisco has built 218.9% above moderate income housing greater than 120% a.m.i. the additional units should not
6:15 pm
exceed 220 a.m.i. in order to meet the requirement of low to moderate income housing that is the type of san francisco needs. the area objective states it is important for the health and diversity of the city's economy and population that p.d.r. activities find adequate and competitive space in san francisco to promote the attraction, retention and expansion of p.d.r. businesses to employed --dash provide employment opportunities and semiskilled workers. the continuity of working-class p.d.r. jobs is critical to the sustainability of the mission. our mission, no eviction do not take issue with the actual fitzgerald furniture memorandum and welcome the retention of this mission-based family owned manufacturing business in its current workforce. the project sponsor has not agreed to extend the same terms to a community serving p.d.r. business in the event the circumstance beyond fitzgerald's control can cause them not to control or forfeit the remainder of their lease. as commissioners argued the merits of the project on august 23rd, gave way to the issue of
6:16 pm
market rate versus affordable housing and p.d.r. in san francisco. it determines whether a business will be gentrifying or meet the objectives to retain working-class manufacturing space. commissioner richard stated he would like to see a report of average rates for affordable p.d.r. spaces. this discussion was a sticking point for him. the founding director and planning staff were present would not have the data readily -- is readily available. they stated that three dollars a square foot was below market rate and they had another mission that paid more than five dollars a square foot. that tenant is an international medical research group. the exact type of gentrifying business from whose harm submission area plan was developed to provide protection. according to a memo dated january 8th, which we have here, the p.r. development
6:17 pm
manager says six dollars a square foot is triple the average rent. this means that in her professional opinion as a person in charge of blue-collar space development in the city, roughly two dollars a square foot is the market value for p.d.r. space. we provided this memorandum and a list of current p.d.r. spaces. the list is here. the lease right is 71%. >> can you put that list on the overhead, please. thank you. >> overhead, please. >> the first page of three. per their website, the project sponsor, all four of their san francisco projects shown are industrial to creative office-based conversions. this is the exact kind of predatory behaviour they were guarding against. because the project sponsor has been reticent to provide the space and provided incorrect
6:18 pm
information regarding average p.d.r. lease pricing to the commissioners at the hearing, the communities gravely concerned as to the intent of fitzgerald to return. we fear that fitzgerald m.o.u. was created out of convenience to facilitate the sale of the property and allow the partners to prey on the community and their trajectory of a converging industrial space. leading to further gentrification and displacement. the planning commission suggestion should not have been made without verification average market p.d.r. lease rates and confirmation that the space would retain working-class manufacturing business at an affordable p.d.r. rate. echoing this concern, commissioner morris stated how important it was that the mission base p.d.r. remain in that space. she said i personally believe we have not finished his conversation on the rental rate and stated she would like to have a little bit more background on that number. she felt this was a fair reason
6:19 pm
for her to ask for that clarification. so just the mission community. if the sponsor is sincere in their office are -- their offer, they nothing to lose by extending the same terms at the memorandum of understanding to the mission community. thank you. >> you have 42 seconds. >> one thing we want to say is that it's really sad that the fitzgerald family would not encourage the project sponsor to actually make these conditions part of our m.o.u. because this is a neighborhood that has supported them all these years. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we have the attorney for the project sponsor. >> good evening. i'm here on behalf of the project sponsor.
6:20 pm
the project before you today provides two crucial land-use benefits that san francisco is in dire need of. sixty units of housing and replacement p.d.r. these elements alone meet -- meet a whole range of goals. they address the city's acute housing shortage by also creating 10,000 square feet of new light manufacturing space. with the project goes above and beyond just providing new housing and p.d.r. space. to volunteer to 20 housing on site above and beyond the planning code requirements. the sponsor is subsidizing relocation cost and rent so that the current tenants can relocate from the existing space and back to the nearly completed building to continue its furniture and upholstery business on site. the planning commission did not misinterpret the code, nor did it abused its discretion when they proved this project. we ask you deny this appeal.
6:21 pm
the appellant has appealed this project's --dash postnet large -- the task is less relatively straightforward to. to the planning commission misinterpret any provision of the planning code? or did the commission abused its discretion? and abuse of discretion happens at the planning commission's decision is not supported by findings and if there is no substantial evidence in support of the decision or if the findings don't make logical sense. the planning commission approved the lpa in late august. granted code modifications for rear yard and dwelling unit exposure. it made a number of findings, explaining why those exceptions are justified. did not impose any unique conditions of approval. importantly, it found the project to be consistent with 65 objectives and policies of both the san francisco general plan and the mission area plan.
6:22 pm
the appellant claims that this planning commission abused its discretion when it approved the project and found that the project's 20% on site affordability and 10,000 square feet of replacement p.d.r. further to the overarching policies of the general plan and the mission area plan. recording -- regarding affordable housing the appellant identifies a policy 2.1. the policy called for additional on site affordability above then existing requirements in the northeast mission industrial zone. the eastern neighbourhoods rezoning of 2,080 did exactly. it created a zoning district which also included patent on site affordability requirements, codifying policy through planning code for 19.3. the project meets this policy. the 20% affordability comfortably exceeds the 16%
6:23 pm
zoning requirement for the property. at it also exceeds 17.5%. in total, this project furthers a significant number of policies and goals relating to housing production including general plan policies 1.1, 1.10, 4.1 and 4.4. and mapp 2020 categories for, objective three and solution one h. this project is not required by code to provide any p.d.r. yet it provides p.d.r. replacement instead of ground floor retail and retains the existing mission base p.d.r. business in a brand-new space and pays for temporary relocation while the building is being constructed. this makes -- this means a project is zero displacement p.d.r. meaning and overarching goal in the city wide policy of
6:24 pm
industrial protection and industrial job protection. the project will be named to the fitzgerald in honor of the company. this retention furthers missionary plan objectives 1.1, 1.7 and 6.1 and policies 1.1.2, 1.2.2 and 6.1.3. as well as map 2020, objective 1.7 and solution 60, 11 e. and 12 v. taking a step back, those are two elements of a wide-ranging community benefits package that has grown significantly since the project was first proposed in 2014. in direct response to feedback from members of the community. the project included 45 car parking spaces, stair on site affordability and market rate retail space. it did not have a local hire program or incorporate local artwork. the fitzgerald was going to voluntarily relocate to a more modern facility elsewhere. a sponsor increased
6:25 pm
affordability twice. first committing to on site and then voluntary exceeding the minimum requirement. retail was eliminated and replaced with p.d.r. with the existing tenant set to reoccupy the space. the project to reduce parking by nearly half, to 24 spaces and added a signature mural opportunity to be designed by local artists and committed to a binding local higher program with 50% l.b.e. and worked with local schools to provide resources for an existing work-study program. all of these general plan goals were identified. finally, the project p.d.r. programming and on site affordable housing compare favourably with past mission projects approved by the planning commission. with relatively high on site affordability and significantly more p.d.r. space. in particular when compared with similarly sized projects. if you like, i can provide more
6:26 pm
detail. in conclusion, although the project cannot meet all of the current demands, its voluntary community benefits program is comprehensive. while still allowing a project to be financed and constructed. actually delivering housing units and ground-floor p.d.r. there is ample evidence in front of you that the planning commission's decision to approve the project is currently proposed and well within its discretion. we ask you to confirm that the commission did not air or abuse its discretion and respectfully deny this appeal. thank you. >> thank you. mr sanchez? >> thank you. the project initially started in june of 2014 with the submittal
6:27 pm
of the preliminary project assessment or ppa. subsequently the environmental application was filed as well as the development application. through the course of the design review process, it did change in scope. initially when the large project authorization was submitted, they were seeking five exceptions. the project is finally reviewed by the planning commission sought two for that rearview yard and one for exposure. during the process, there were multiple hearings of the planning commission and there were about seven continuances from the planning commission hearings over the course of the time and in about eight months. it was pending before the planning commission but the project as meet and exceed the affordable housing requirements. in regards to the concerns raised by the appellants and the project not complying with the mission area plan, it is important to note, under state
6:28 pm
law, each city is required to maintain a general plan. under state law,, the general plan is to be seen as a document of the goals to be implemented for development in a municipality. the general plan is to be vertically consistent. from that flow, the regulations must be in compliance with the general plan. you can't have a consistency where the codes are different from what the general plan calls for. the general plan is the governing document. in this case, the general plan element here, did call for heightened affordability as the appellant's attorney noted, that was implemented through planning code section 419. they are in compliance with the policies of the missionary plan because they are in compliance and art exceeding the requirements of section 419. generally we had affordability requirements of 12% back in the day.
6:29 pm
it has increased but under 419, it was a 16% based. it was a higher level. there are three different tears. tier a is properties that had little or no change in their development potential in terms of height. b. is more moderate increase that was allowed by the rezoning and see is even more. this was tier b. and it's rate his for 19. we have had props proxy and increases in improvements to affordability requirements. under the grand father learning -- under the grandfather rules, it stepped up to 17 and a half%. that would be the base code requirement in compliance with the general plan for the property as noted by the project sponsor's attorney. they have increased it voluntarily to 20%. it is an additional unit they are providing through this process in excess of what is required under the code to be in
6:30 pm
compliance with the general plan there is no requirement for p.d.r. replacement for the subject property. they are doing so at nearly a 1- 1 rate. it does require replacement. but this does not meet the threshold that would trigger that requirement for replacement they are complying and going beyond what would be required under the code. those were the points i wanted to raise. i am happy to be available for questions. in addition to this appeal, there is also subject to an appeal of the environmental review to the board of supervisors. they denied that appeal. with that, i am available for any questions. >> it seems that the key focus here is on the p.d.r. if the fitzgerald company does not move back in, then rather
6:31 pm
then setting it off into the big wild world, that it be available at a good rate to a local community concern. is there a precedent for that direction, or is it past practice that it is up to the discretion of the owner to do what the owner feels is just for them? >> there is nothing in the planning code. there is nothing in the planning code that requires this to be p.d.r. there will be nothing in the code that will require the property owner to rent to the p.d.r. space at a below market rate to other tenants. that is something that they would have to voluntarily be willing to do. it is not something we could
6:32 pm
impose through the planning code >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. how many people are here for public comment? do we want to go two? if you could line up against the wall, please and be prepared to fill out a speaker cartridge. we are onto public comments. if you can come forward and line up against the wall. given the relatively large number of public commenters, public comment will be limited to two minutes. >> first person, don't be shy. come on up. >> you can start speaking and give the card after. >> first speaker, please. >> you can move forward. it is okay. thank you.
6:33 pm
>> good evening. i need to take off my glasses to reach. i am with fitzgerald furniture company and i am a family owned business that has been in san francisco for over 60 years but we have been at our existing residence, building since 1984. we initially planned to move but the project sponsor made some changes to switch the ground floor to p.d.r. so that we can stay. we have reviewed a couple of times with them for our specifications and they have made changes upon what we want to. there is zero evictions in this. it is only me. and there is no tenant -- they are helping us with the tenant relocation. they have been really helpful. we have every intention staying in business for however long we can all last and be alive and
6:34 pm
hopefully our family incomes and follows in the process. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> it is cool they are naming the building the fitzgerald. >> the business was founded by my dad and uncle. it is all cool because it is all the same blood. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. thank you for your time. i am a member of the family who owns the fitzgerald company. in 1953, my father and his uncle jack bought the defunct upholstery and the drapery division at wj sloan. the location of the shop moved a few times, ending at 2,820th street.
6:35 pm
our family is excited that the business is to be relocated back to the new development once the building is done and they backed our family business. i think it is great that the brick façade will be retained to honor the history of the site. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners , commissioners. good evening. i want to speak on low income housing below the mission district of district nine in district ten. we would like to see the discretion overturned because this project does not meet the mission area plan required by a super inclusionary affordable units above and beyond the city 's inclusionary plan. i am one of the founders of our mission and omission. >> into the microphone, sir, please. >> i'm one of the founders and we have been at it for five
6:36 pm
years. and there are 10,000 families that have been wronged in this neighborhood. >> are you part -- >> due to the evictions, wrongful eviction. >> are you an officer? or just a member? >> just a member. i have been at this -- i have been in this neighborhood for 25 years now and been at it ever since. this 8,000 latino families. we are above market rate. we are way above, but the low income is not there. how will we ever get there we this has been on the books already for two and a half years if you can't afford it, he should move on to let someone else come build it. he should uphold his appeal. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
6:37 pm
>> good evening. as john mentioned, we are in an advanced stage of gentrification , particularly in the mission district. there are a lot of reasons why that is happening right now in one of those reasons is a lot of these residents are finding it very difficult to find jobs that will support them and the increased housing burden that they are finding every day. part of that is having good blue-collar working jobs to enable them to pay the rent despite the increases they are facing in the rent burdens they are confronted with. for that reason alone, it is imperative that the current space continues to house a community-based working class business that is p.d.r. that is something educational that will enable them to continue to work and thrive and live within, not only san francisco, but the mission community. the sponsor refuses to extend the same terms to p.d.r. business and events that they are not complete the term of the
6:38 pm
20 year lease. the communities asking for nothing more than for these same terms to be extended to the community to ensure this critical site remains a business with working-class jobs in the event that this business may close a lot sooner than expected during the hearings, a big sticking point was whether or not three dollars was a below market rate price to offer. the commissioners ask for the date on the market right in order to make an informed decision. there wasn't one that was readily available. but yet, the appellants have shown that a memorandum dated the 8th of january of this year with san francisco office of oewd said that two dollars a square foot is the average b.m.r. right for p.d.r. what we are asking for is that an error was made and this be sent back to as the commissioners so they can have the data they need and make the
6:39 pm
decision that they wouldn't be able to make had they been in -- had they been informed. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. i'm the secretary of the redstone labor temple association. the tenants association of the red stone building in the mission. it is a historic building that has been there since -- was at the centre of the general strike we have been organizing to stop displacement in the mission and it strikes me that the developer has offered to add only one below market rate unit at 150% of average median income. as it was alluded to earlier, 150% of average median income is
6:40 pm
above moderate income housing. it does not meet the requirements of mission area plan objective 2.1. and 150% average median income is unavoidable. in the housing crisis is hitting poor and moderate residents hardest and offering one unit that would be affordable to poor working people. i find it not very inspiring and i think we need more units for poor and working people and not high end luxury condos. this is market rate in essence. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello my name is marie.
6:41 pm
i am with our mission, no eviction. and the project sponsor has really refused to work with the community and trying to come up with this plan. it's pretty much they tell us what they're going to do. it sounds like m.t.a. and we try to work with people when they are going to build these huge monstrosities and we have a lot of success in going back and forth and coming to agreements in order to help the community and not make such a big negative impact because you are bringing in -- they say market rate, they are essentially market units. so it was just sad -- it is said that the project sponsor has
6:42 pm
really blown the community off. i think it's ridiculous that this plan is going through the mission -- the mission need so much more than this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, commissioners. this facility, at the moment is in need of upgrade and we appreciate that the project sponsors are going to upgrade this facility and we can move back into this space with updated facilities. plus this building has everything that everybody wants. it has street parking and it has low income housing and it has p.d.r. thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> is there any other public comment? is there anyone else besides this gentleman? can you come up here, cirque we
6:43 pm
go ahead. >> good evening. i am with the mission economic development agency. i want to talk specifically to a few points and most of all, that in the context of the extreme crisis that you are hearing more about and i know you're all very familiar with, and frankly we have been working on very -- many levels very hard. when we see a project come along that is not doing its part in the same kind of way that we feel that they can, we are going to stay on these details. to clarify something, no one said anything but there was an error. that is the main point of why this is here before you today. this is not -- these agreements are common in the mission. so common that as you heard the quote from the from president telus from the planning commission say they rely on these mo used to make non gentrifying outcomes. that is why that commission
6:44 pm
scent to this project back two times and said go make a fair community agreement with community organizations. when it was passed, there was information provided by this project sponsor that p.d.r. space, a critical part of this. we are losing our blue-collar jobs and a blue-collar space in a way that is not acceptable. it is driving out our families. that is not correct information. three dollars a square foot. they are clear it is not the right price and the market comparables provided by the mission no eviction show this is not a subsidized price. so please view this in the context of this error. this is something you can fix. it seems very fixable overall. how do we get to a place where there is some affordable housing added on. how did we get to a place where we are fixing the p.d.r. to make
6:45 pm
sure we have a blue-collar space that can offer unskilled and semiskilled jobs. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i am a native of san francisco's mission district. 10,000 people have been evicted from the mission. we are at ground zero in san francisco. we have a crisis in our neighborhood. what the fitzgerald family didn't tell you is they own the property and they were going to develop this project. but i went to the first community meeting and they met them all and i talk to them about building future housing and a lot of affordable housing. they landed up selling the property to a developer. we know in the mission, what developers do. they make all these promises and at the end of the day they do whatever they want. i could sit here and give you an
6:46 pm
example after example. as a native of san francisco, i have seen kilpatrick's bakery,, hostess bakery, peter factories, lumber factories, all these different companies in the mission district disappear. what have we gotten? luxury and luxury. we are the number 1 neighborhood that has had more luxury developed in our neighborhood than any other neighborhood. my father worked for a heater factory on 20th and florida. that is no a luxury -- eight luxury units. the p.d.r. space will disappear if the fitzgerald his don't come back. i don't trust them. because they saw -- they sold the property. i think what is most important is the planning department just came out with a report. i will just read the end of the report. it says that building more
6:47 pm
luxury units is not the answer. we have failed. just building more housing. in the mission, there has been a loss of 606 affordable units. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, commissioners. i am a current resident in san francisco. i work for a community program that is a nonprofit community program in the fillmore and i think, personally this project is offering ample community benefits that go above and beyond what is required of them. all of the benefits that this project is doing relate to the mission action plan and our city is in need of housing in this project should be delayed any longer than it already has. thank you. >> thank you.
6:48 pm
>> good evening. my name is jury johnson. i grew up in san francisco. i went through a program similar to the one the project sponsor is providing and mission high school as part of their community benefit for this project. during my time at the university of california, i had a part-time professor that worked for forbes magazine. they prevented the top factors for college graduates. those two factors were a relevant mentorship and mentorship in a career path. that is what they provided for me and that is what the project sponsor will provide for mission high school students. i will be personally participating in it and speaking through the program, i gained exposure to a wide range of career path that helped me understand where my interests lie. the program provided me access to a large group of presenters that expanded my network and helped my job search after a completed college. i am helping the city with
6:49 pm
affordable housing and without these programs, i would not have known about the industry or the wide range of job opportunities within it. our previous and current mayor grew up in public housing and utilized similar programs to escape the reality. similar to what happened with me with low income housing on treasure island. more youth head should have access to these programs. it will help me and/or and our future chill -- future leaders learn about the professional world of caring individuals. >> thank you. any other speakers? we will now move on to rebuttal. we will hear from the appellants you have three minutes. >> if there isn't affordable housing, there won't be any students to take advantage of this program. i wanted to read a quote from commissioner hillis. at the january 25th hearing, he said that people need to come to the community and they rely on the community to negotiate with developers and come with
6:50 pm
projects that they think work, have higher levels of affordability and have ground-floor space that is not a gentrifying factor. we make these kinds of agreements all the time and we work with a lot of great developers that work with us to make better projects. and i would have to say that we know that the history of rubicon point partners is to convert industrial space into creative office space to gentrify spaces. that is one of the reasons that we are asking that if something happens to the fitzgerald family , they don't come back and they can't meet the terms of their lease, that we have a community agreement as a backup to make sure that that space does not get gentrified. we are not asking anymore. we are asking just to meet the terms of that agreement. as for the affordable unit, just
6:51 pm
to bring it to an affordable rate of 120% a.m.i. you have the discretion to actually add these things if you don't want to send it back to the commission. but there definitely was an error and what was stated by the project sponsor as affordability for p.d.r. and the commissioners did not have all the information we know from working with other developers and from being at the commission all the time that they would have asked the project sponsor to do better. and the reason this came back and was continued several times, the commissioners scent it back twice because a project sponsor was not working with the community and the project was terrible and they were not happy with it. it was continued several times. the rest of the times by the project sponsor. and the community did not ask to have a continued and we tried repeatedly to meet with them and to work out an agreement.
6:52 pm
we often get very long term leases of 50 years. we've gotten p.d.r. space for one dollar and we are not asking a a lot of this developer. thank you. >> excuse me. i have a question. you said there is past examples of rubicon doing similar. >> they have four properties in san francisco that they have taken that were industrial and now they are creative office space. they are at 1125 mission street, 1263 mission street, 450 shotwell and 1,499th street. on their website, that is their language that we took from the website. they specialize in industrial to creative office conversions. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr loper?
6:53 pm
>> if i could get the overhead, please. talking about negotiations, this is a demand letter that we received from a lawyer affiliated with the appellant. right before our first hearing, laying out exactly what they wanted from the project sponsor. they wanted on site affordable housing. we not only switched to this, but we voluntarily increased our affordable housing by 2.5%. they didn't want the fitzgerald to leave in the project sponsor in the fitzgerald family spent a long time working out programming to make sure the ground-floor space would work and a system to make sure they could he voluntarily relocated at the expense of the project sponsor twice. away from the site if the project gets approved and gets constructed and then back. we are meeting those two goals.
6:54 pm
parking. we are asked to reduce parking. we reduced it by nearly 50%. we were told that having more parking was a gentrifying impact of the project. and then there was no commitment to local hire union labor. the project is doing a 50% l.b.e. and doing local hiring that is only usually required a public private partnerships. we are not aware of any private project that is doing that. moving on to p.d.r. and what is affordable p.d.r. these are market rate comps. this is for nude construction and substantial rehabilitation. so i think there has been a little bit of miscommunication
6:55 pm
from some of the folks in the neighborhood who are talking about existing p.d.r. space that can be old. this is creating 10,000 square feet of brand-new p.d.r. space. this top figure, $4.87, that is an area wide range of average monthly per square foot rent for p.d.r. spaces from 2016-2018. the bottom figure, these are the projects in the mission. it is $4.88 per square foot. three dollars a square foot is about 40% less than that. in a 10,000 square-foot space, that equates to $224,000. basically a quarter of a million dollars every year at discount.
6:56 pm
thank you for your time. >> i have a question. i know you guys voluntarily weren't mandated to make the downstairs p.d.r. is that memorialized? >> yeah, it is in the project approval. it is in the project plans. there is no way to switch that anything other than p.d.r. without going through a very, very public process that involves the right to go to the planning commission where anybody who is opposed to the potential future tenant could go in there and start complaining. this project cannot be turned into retail or creative office. >> okay. on the other question was segmenting that. isn't required to keep it in one large space to accommodate a factory or do you have the ability to subdivide and do multiple spaces? >> it is entitled as one large
6:57 pm
space and it was designed for the existing tenants. specifically so the existing tenant could run its furniture and upholstery business in theory. it could be subdivided but that would be a significant cost and a wooden cup involve involving who would do next tenant would be and when they would come in. there is an added cost. it is not like you can just throw up a couple while. >> might last question is, i know it is tough on the neighborhood and the fact that you did volunteer and extra unit , everyone will say it is not enough. not many people do volunteer but you had that last unit at 150% a.m.i. that is just one unit. are you willing to drop the a.m.i. on that one particular unit? >> i cannot answer that question right now. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> let me ask you a follow-up question. is that p.d.r. issue in perpetuity? does it have a term to it?
6:58 pm
is it required that one fitzgerald leaves that it must continue as p.d.r.? i'm not wishing that fitzgerald leaves, but 30 years from now, 40 years from now, will it still be p.d.r.? >> it is 10,000 square feet of p.d.r. which is exceptional for a project of this size. >> is your client here? >> yes. >> who is your client? >> back there. in the back. >> i'm sorry there is no talking thank you. >> okay. mr sanchez? >> thank you. it has been suggested that the board could remount this back to
6:59 pm
the planning commission. it is not something that is available at this point. the board is a final decision need to approve can't deny or modify the project as it is proposed. other items, i was happy to hear the project sponsor state that the p.d.r. is a requirement of the condition of approval but i did not see that in the motion. some may be they can put that forward. my understanding is the p.d.r. is part of the project description but there is nothing in the motion that would prevent that use from being changed to another code compliant use in the future. notification is required but i did not see that as a commission i'm happy to hear that they believe it is a condition. may be they can address that more thoroughly. >> we can take care of that tonight. >> with that, i think that is all. >> thank you.
7:00 pm
>> understanding that developers are having to do a lot of give in the city, everyone says they are getting what they are getting but evidently, this project has been going on since 2014. it did not happen overnight. i do have a question. we will probably,, if it is not memorialized that the p.d.r. stay in perpetuity, have you heard of keeping it in one large space rather than -- what would your input be on that? >> it was not necessarily an issue with subdividing it and smaller spaces being contractors contrary to the code. there is no use sized issues that i would see at hand here but i can take a second look at it. to that point too, what i meant to add as well, we have a public process for a reason. this project, while ay