Provide it. We are looking for some input in terms of the impact. You can see some of the maps that have been shown to you, as to the massive notice of the projects, the building, the homeowners live is a four story condominium building. You can imagine the massive notice of this project coming up in the 40 story building. As mentioned, what we are looking for is some input we have been trying to follow the project. Sometimes we have gone online to see what has been done, we noticed that there have been things that have been changed in the plans. I know maybe there is some argument that there has been some community input. I can tell you there is a large number of people here that have not had the impotent that is what we are looking for. What were asking from you is a postponement in this Decision Just so we can meet and talk with the developer so that we can have some say in terms of the small impacts whether it be setbacks, that is kind of what we are looking for. At this point, you can look at the plans and notice again, for some instants, some of the members here architects and they mentioned there is a possibility of a setback. Small things that could possibly be incorporated into the projects. That is what we are asking for. In ending, the staff, in terms of objectives, indicated that i think its on page 32 of the report, section 8. 4, ensuring that the streets and alleyways maintain their intimacy and openness to this guy. I submit to you with this building, it doesnt really follow that objective. All we are asking for is again some input so that we could come up with some plants, at least to give us a little bit more air, and light to make again our lives a little bit easier living in this condominium. Understanding it is good for the city of San Francisco. Also understanding we are going to have to live through the construction, Everything Else that will go on as part of this project. I would just ask the commission to postpone their decision. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. My name is michael cruz. I have been a resident and owner of a unit at 6014th st. For over 30 years. The people who live at 601, we have been residents there, we are business owners. We support, as everyone has said, this building. However, there are things that we cant support simply because we have not had adequate input into a conversation as far as making some decisions that have been approved or have been in the final plan. My goal is here to share some reasons why we would ask for a delay of this decision. First off, can we have there, thank you. This is 6014th st. Right here. That is where the southeast facing lofts are that are effective. The first reason why we want to have this delay, is because the plans that were posted last night, or the plans that have been posted are incorrect. It drove the public to the wrong information. It was only updated last night. The link provided on the Planning Commission website directed the public to outdated package implants. They updated the evening of june 19, that was last night and it was updated for the final plans. Residents and neighbors have not been properly notified of the final plans. Weve only had one day to really look at this 401 page package. Our second reason is that the project does not meet the planning code. It does not meet the requirements of the planning code section 1324. Code section outline set bakes, and tower separation controls in the central somo as you d. For example, this area right here, there is no real setback on this area for here. Yes there is a plaza here that brings in light, and there is these towers that are tapered. As you know, the tower right here that juts up right against this building on the east lofts are directly against it. They are only 30 feet away from the area. What i am looking for the last reason is air. Air and light. Specifically the light. This is what it looks like today, on unit 210. That is with the light coming through. This is on the second floor. This is what would happen if the tower went up, that would be it. That would be the light coming in. It is very different than what it is. Thank you, sir. Your time is up. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, members of the public and the commission. I am also a owner, with my partner, two of the units facing the site. When we moved here, from our offices in union square. We are a design firm. We were very excited and we have been in this building for more than 25 years now. We have seen the area evolve. We have been well aware of this project, generally very supportive of this project for all of the reasons i will not elaborate. Here is the problem. As somebody who is very supportive of the project, i spent 1012 hours per day at my office here, in this building. I think i must have noticed the notices, they were amazingly large, by the way, ive never seen notices that large, six of them pasted all across. I could stand 10 feet away and see the link that was provided. I have a picture of it. I went there right away. We spent 10 days evaluating. Only to be told last night, at my home, that that was incorrect information. I see no reason, very unfortunate how this project can legally be even approved. The notice was so erroneous. When i say erroneous, it sent us two sketches that we were told later, were done in 2018 on the project. That aside, postponement seems to me to be the obvious solution, otherwise there would be legal jeopardy, this whole thing. In the sketches i do support some of the earlier speakers. It just seems a little unfortunate that for such an interesting, articulated project, the one side that did not articulate, at all, is the side that faces our building. It is the only site that has no setback. Its the only side the building is not articulated. It doesnt even step back after 85 feet which is what the zoning requires. It gives a bad taste, because it feels like we have been treated like a municipal yard. We are school buses parked at night, that is it. I really think the designers are certainly capable of designing all sides in away the building, our side as well as the other sites have been treated. I conclude. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for hearing us this late in the afternoon. My name is noel, i have owned a unit for the last 30 years at 6014th st. I agree with what a lot of the previous homeowners have said, as well. I think a postponement would be ideal of what is happening with the situation and the fact we did not get this information until last night. I am here to read a letter from a fellow homeowner, eric bultman who was unable to be here because of how late this meeting ended up going. Im just going to read what his statements were. Eric is a registered architect. I wanted to add that weight to his written words. Dear commissioners, i emailed you all yesterday after conversation with the planner. The web link for the documents you are being asked to vote on today was not added to the Planning Department notice website, until last night. Therefore, proper notification was not given and neighbors have not had time to review the updated documents. We are asking for a delay in the proceedings to review the package, and properly be prepared to review these documents before they are voted on. Also, of the greatest concern is that the project does not meet the setback requirements of the planning code. There is no justification for such gross exception. In particular, the Northwest Side of the proposed vertical 400 foot articulated wall is in my opinion, is better informed. The outward facing size of this project should all be treated similarly. We are asking you to please instruct the developer to meet all of the setback requirements, per the planning code. The planning code that outline setbacks and street documentation is a well studied document. 655, Fourth Street is a very large parcel project and gross exceptions to the setback requirements are not warranted here. Without the proper setbacks, the project will have a detrimental effect on our neighbors and property. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. He owned a unit in this building, since 1990. We are renting it out since 2003. That is almost 20 years. We have had Great Success with renting it out. The last four years, it was a little more problematic because of the light Rail Construction going on. Potential renters said, this does not look so pretty, we might have traffic issues here. We had to rent it out for the last four years with lower than market rent. The light rail project has not been done yet. There is still dust and noise. Now were going to add, next door, huge three years construction site without any real proper notice as my former speakers said. We had the information only last year, last night, 400 pages, you just cannot leave through them. I think we teed need to look properly at everything before we can something. Our loft is on the ground floor in the yard, we do not have any direct sunlight already. With 40 stories next to ours it is going to be a dark cave which will be very the set backs for neighbors on all sides and creating an ecosystem and this sort of new way of living and being communal. I desire the same. Ive committed to this building and ive loved to have it as my neighbor. In some ways im asking for the same. To also consider that the importance of light, the importance of having the same essence is what i desire. Again, im not opposed to this but im quite excited. Currently, in the space i live in, i will have obstructed, ill look directly into peoples faces and ill lose light and air. Thank you. Thank you. Members of the Planning Commission, for allowing me to speak today. My name is victor har get and i am a member of the carpenters of local 22. I live in San Francisco here and i am in favor of the 655 Fourth Street project. The project will allow a carpenter like me to continue living here in San Francisco. The project will help me continue my career as a carpenter working towards retirement. The project will provide me with the necessary benefits and income to provide for myself and my family. The project i am in full support of 655 Fourth Street project. And ask that you would pass this project and allow them the opportunity to have a responsible general contractor build this project. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, president melgar. Fellow commissioner members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is timothy and im a field carpenter where i represent 4,000 Union Carpenters. Im also a re dent of san recein francisco. Im here to speak in favor of the project that will create hundreds of Union Carpenter jobs that will provide apprenticeship opportunities to members of our local communities. These opportunities will provide Health Benefits and retirement for these individuals. This project will provide over 960 units of desperately needed housing for San Francisco. They have been a great partner and has done a great job putting this development together. We are in complete support of this development and ask you move forward with this project and thank you for your time. Good evening, commissioners. My name is ryan hung. Im with h. D. Butter cup and were actually a tenant of tishman and we have a positive working relationship with them and with the past few years and they have been very easy to work with and transparent and very capable. We are in full support of this development. Its absolutely very exciting. Its definitely going to add more housing to help offset some of the growing demand inhousing and as well as adding official special space for mid sized businesses and ultimately it will be a positive impact for the central coma area. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. I want to express my strong support of the Housing Project at 655 Fourth Street. I am the owner and the manager of two establishments at the project site. The iron cactus and the creamery. Weve been a part of this neighborhood for a decade and weve seen the community we serve grow and expand from commuters and giants fans to start up and tech employees and lots of residents. S has the community has expanded, so have my businesses and other merchants in the area. Projects which brings more day and nighttime residents to the area have businesses like the iron cactus thrive. As a business owner, i believe strongly that we have a responsibility as a member of the community. We volunteer, we Welcome Community groups to use our back patio at no charge and we try to be good partners to our neighbors. Im confident this will be a good partner to its neighbors. The project itself provides new plazas and open spaces that we would all be able to use. It provides new retail that will meet neighborhood needs and activate the street cape and the interior of the site. As the operator of this site. They have management and aroundtheclock security that will ensure the spaces safe, especially in the evening hours. I worked with them and they have lands for this project and we have established a Strong Partnership that will allow the creamery to continue to live on in this vibrant neighborhood. We have both signed a letter of intent to allow the cream reto lease space on the ground floor of the new project and i believe it will be better than ever in its new home. This project will have address our dire need of a rental housing at a neighborhood level, it will support existing businesses like the creamery. I urge you to approve this project today. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, todd david on behalf of the Housing Action coalition. Very excited to support this project. Its not often that we get to come here and talk about 960 new units of housing in San Francisco. As weve discussed the central coma plan the last number of years, we were certainly, there were a lot of concerns about so much commercial property gowing into central soma and where is the housing so here is the housing so i think that as we look at commercial properties we can point to this project and its exciting that the mayor office of housing will receive 65 million from this project and we were recently at an announcement for a 100 affordable Housing Project thatt purchased by the city and funds like this are used to purchase those 100 Affordable Housing sites so its great to see that come along with 960 units of rental housing on top of that. Its my understanding the design of this project has not changed in many years so that it sounds like maybe there was a little flip in something around the noticing but the design has not changed so i dont see it as a reason to not approve this project today. So, thank you very much. Bye. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Sue hester. This project has had two week advance staff report requirement posting plans last night on the site doesnt meet the requirement that you expect or of the code. There is some concern about the changes being made as well as plans being available. That is a valid concern. One of the issues you have on this project is the building to the north is technically commercial, not the residential. And so, the Planning Department doesnt look at this as though there are people there. Thats one of the issues around the work. Im very well aware of the work. Theyre all approved as commercial developments and if the Planning Department is treating them like quasi residential, but not really looking at them as quasi residential when a building next door cuts off their light, this issue has come up before and this is not the first time. I think its a reasonable request for the people that live next door to have some time to meet because cutting off their light is a big thing to people who live in live and work and are very often used as places that people dont work. Youve heard a lot of people here talking about how they live and work in their studios. Architects and artists specifically need Southern Light or need northern light. They really need light. I think its a reasonable request that theyre making to have a little bit more time for in put, especially if the plans just came through last night that shouldnt have been available two weeks ago. My other point is two other points. This is really going to be high in rental housing because its convenient to Silicon Valley trains and if we have a price point for income of 200,000, which is kind of usual, were going to have that level of housing. My last point is this morning i read an article on in the Business Times and this is one of them. And the article on popeos in the Business Time was all about how you need access, credential you need to access. That is a continuing issue around theyre not real accessible spaces for low income people at all. And so, the fact it takes a Business Times article, they didnt even intentionally call it out. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hell oh my name is roman. Im a resident at 601 Fourth Street. Being a more recent resident, i was aware of the project when we moved in and excited about the project and the prospect for all the retail and park space it adds. However, being a resident and not just someone there that is there during business hours, i have concerns around the proximity of the building that will go up on the Property Line and would like those to be considered and by the Planning Commission. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Public comment is now closed. I just wanted to address a lot of the concerns regarding the notice and the access to the plans. We did affirm and checking to the issues and our standard notice includes a link to a external website that brings you to adopt plans that basically you can pull up the plans specifically. That document did have the incorrect noticing however, the agenda posted with the hearing as well as the other items that were required to post according to the code, were all posted appropriately so, there was a kind of mix up between the commission, the notice, the length, the westbound lin web ll notice and what it was linking to. A lot of our information is posted and disclosed to the public. We have all of our information if you go to our Property Information map shows all the times that are publicly accessible and so, it was linking to one of the old plans but you go to another part of the website, it basically posts the correct plan. I just want to affirm we did check with the Zoning Administrator and the project was noticed appropriately. The correct information was posted on time and as accurate as required by the planning code. Thank you. Im not necessarily in favor of a postponement or continuance. I remember having an informational hearing on this very item a couple weeks or a month ago. So there was time. This maybe a little out of the box looking at these buildings but im starting to look them more and more. I like the way 160 folsom is coming together and it looks a lot nicer than i thought it would. Im really appreciative of the designs were seeing in our downtown skyline. At first i even looked at this and wondered what the curves were for but upon looking a little closer, theyre a lot more functional than i thought they would be. Theyre creating walkways and open space and balconies in a way i havent seen before. Props to the design of this building. Its got office, its got hotels and residential and retales and popo is and a high amount of car share and bicycles while still being right next to cal trans and muni. This is what this area needs. This is what Fourth Street subway is for. This is going to just kind of solidify that thorough fair. There were letters in the packet that hit home for me. One is from the building and Construction Trades Council and the other one from united players. What im trying to do is bridge the gap between these two parties. I go to city build. I go to the united players. I talk to those kids. I tell them to get interested in the trade. I tell them to apply. I tell them to study and honestly a lot of times they call me back and they say i didnt make it. I say try again. It took me three years to get into my apprenticeship program. When i did, the rest of it is taken care of. Projects like this arent just paying a wage. Theyre paying a living wage. A lot of items came up about cost of living, expensive housing and displacement and its jobs like these that are anti displacement tools for the middle, like myself, that are seeing displacement as real as any other class. If you look closely at the letter, theres 26 trades in the council so its not one or two or three, theres 26 trades at this developer is committing to using so that is 26 times the apprenticeships. The livable wages and another big thing that people dont talk about is retention. Some people may a oh, were trying to get residents on this one job but were trying to create careers for these people so when they get into our program, they dont just go to one job they go from job to job to job for their career not having to worry about getting their own jobs when one construction is finished. And again, i mentioned this before, sometimes up here, we arent sure if someone is going to build a project or not. It leaves our hand and it may get appealed or may not and it may get built or not. They o do not fill their projects and they get approval and they build them. Thank you. Commissioner fung. A couple of questions were staffed and a couple of specific questions. In your summary, you used the term outstanding over all design. How is that designed specifically in the code if it is . I dont know that it is described in the code. We do have both residential and urban Design Guidelines. All of the projects are vetted through our Design Review process. We have a staff of architects that review these and they compare them to the Design Guidelines established by the city and its based on their review as experts in the field and in applying the Design Guidelines that were established. Keep in mind, commissioners, we write the motions as expressions with what the commission is agreeing with. The commission is more than my point is, is it a specific definition within the code that talks about what is outstanding over you wilover all design. That was my question . In the Design Guidelines, yes. I cant think and i might have to defer to rich because i dont know the code as well as he does. Lets pass on it. The second general question is within the central coma plan, are there any directions or geeti guidelines that deals with the transition between the very largescale facility anticipated within that plan . We see this downtown and other areas of the city as well. A lot of these sites being redeveloped, their zoning has been changed over the years to allow much higher density and much taller buildings there before. So, with every project, while it does seem very severe when you live in a smaller building and a large building is being built next to you. However, its not uncommon for what we see in San Francisco. This site where they small buildings exist, also have been stepping back at upper levels to address these concerns and these are part of the central coma plan. These were written in specifically in the special used district. There were certain items that could be granted exceptions through the authorization process. This isnt specific just to central soma this is for all eastern neighborhoods, large project authorizations. The code is very specific. On this so i hope i answered your questions. Lets proceed onto the more specific questions. Within the motion itself, i dont know if the revised motion because we just received it, i havent had a chance to look at it. Page 6, item d, the depart mental answer is that the correct Square Footage site this is for the residential useable open space . Yeah. This is somewhere around 71,000. The lot area, lets see the second line of the departments response. So it says the project is 960 unit Tower Development in soma the project enclouds a total and 432 square foot of privately open accessible space. No, no. Under item d, lot coverage. It says 48,248 square feet of the 27,290 square foot site. Yeah, we probably mixed up the two numbers. Correct that, please. Correct. Page 17, top of the page, item c. It talks about the design of lower floors. The third line uses the term district. Is that what you mean . Or is the term distinct . You are correct. Its probably distinct rather than district podium. The last thing on the motion is what would it have taken for them to have 100 compliance with a win . Probably a pretty major redesign of the building itself and i know i havent been involved in this project since the beginning but i know that the developer has been working closely with staff for city years on this design in conjunction with the development of the central soma plan. So the answer is its a major redesign of the buildings. It is not uncommon for highrises in this part of town to request some exception for the wind ordinance but were finding the only way to deal with it is through objects in the rightofway so were kind of working with public works on how to make that work so that whatever we need to do is not an obstruction of the rightofway but solves the wind problem. Its within the code parameters and theres code parameters when you cannot exceed those but it still requires somewhat of an exception. Ok. In terms of where i stand on the project, the issue of whether this is outstanding over all design is debatable. The real question in my mind is does it confirm and is it acceptable within the parameters of staff by the central coma soa plant which is really the guidance. As the department knows, theyve been given media a quick review of the tenants of that plan and at this point in time, i find this project to be acceptable within the premise of the plan. Thank you. Commissioner hillis. Thank you. I like this project and ive liked the design and it works on the skyline but more importantly, the architect talked about kind of the typical design we see it as a podium with towers above and i think this gives kind of much more life on the ground floor and the accessibility to the open space within it is great. You are doing a lot on a small site. I like the design. We can quibble whether its outstanding. I believe it is. But just some questions on your interaction. Obviously the neighbor will be impacted the fact when we have these developments. This is not just for a large project but additions at 601 Fourth Street. In particular we worked closely with 601 Fourth Street providing a 32foot permanent no building setback between the two projects and i would like to bring up some projects and some slides here. Can you clarify that . Where the Property Line ends . I mean theres that alley that is there . So our Property Line ends on the 655 Fourth Street or creamery Property Line ends on our sight of the site. Theres a 30foot no build easement which buildings to the next door property owner. It was not a nobuild easement at the time we went there as we worked on the design of this project, we worked with them we knew this was an exception we were facing. It was something we worked with staff to create the design supported by staff including the irvin design group. One of the ways we provided the setback to have frankly a greater setback than you would get if we were following plannings guidelines was to negotiate and record a nobuild easement over these 32 feet separating the two properties. We also, and i think why this is a little surprising to us is in negotiating that easement we actually had to show them the design, work through this design, were totally em pathetic to the concerns of people with rows next door to them. You can see here in response to those concerns is part of this negotiation of this easement. The light and air continues to fall on that southern facade. Its not perfect. I dont think theres a way to be perfect with a 40storey building and 960 units next door. It was a significant part of the conversation with the h. O. A. Here and ultimately they did agree, a large majority of the residents agreed to support design that is before you today. Ok. Thank you. Into planning staff, in order to build this, we heard from some of the neighbors theres an exception to some of the set backs, can you just walk through that . Linda is going to come up and walk us through some of the bulk control exceptions. In short its exception towards the podium and the central soma define the podium based that is require throughout the site as well as an exception for the floor plate of the towers above and so theyre asking for exceptions from both the set backs as well as the tower bulk. Ill have linda walk through it in detail. If you i dont know if you have the plans in front of you but in the plans that the developer has did not a really good job graphically showing what these exceptions are. Maybe you can put it up on the overhead. I dont know if the page will fit. It starts on page 57. Typically with stannard towers that are generally pretty symmetrical, its not as much of an issue to be able to meet this. Because of the unique design of this building, because it widens as it goes lower, there are areas between the buildings where they do not meet the letter of the law on the tower separation. This was anticipated in the development of the central soma plan which is why this is one of the exceptions that can be asked for. Im trying to refresh my memory on this one. For the flor plate size, i might have to i cant remember the exact language. In short, we basically require exception to allow exceedance in the standard for plate size that the central soma plan calls for so the project requires an exception to the length and signal dimension as well as the flor plate limit so normally when you hit a tower height above a certain height, we construction the flor plate to help shape the building. In this case, because the floor plate or the way the building is designed, that tower height signal is exceeding. So it looks like four towers, its really only two towers that are shaped to be to look like four towers. And so, it technically needs an exception from those bulk requirements from the tower. A typical a project that met the code requirements and asked for no exceptions, would that be an 85foot or an 80foot podium height and the towers would start setting back from there . So to the neighbors adjacent, there would be you would have more bulk basically. You have that 85foot podium adjacent. Presumely, to the no building. Correct. If it was code complying, the developer could technically build out fully the podium height minus the lot coverage requirements which is about 80 of the lot area depending on how they shape it. Set the building in subsequently from that. Its slightly smaller. Right. Thank you. But i think again, theres a difference to the neighborhood that it could be that you do have that plaza in this setback on the first eight or nine stories, whatever it is until you get to the podium level. To me its a good trade off. Again, i appreciate the design and i think, especially on the ground floor and what this does, this project works and works well. I believe its an interesting project. I think the playful its a good project. I believe its a playful forming of these towers deemphasizing the actual size of the project. This is a huge project. Theres hardly any project in San Francisco other than a tall highrise tower when they dont have highrise towers which kind of has a lot of units we deemphasizes that by its playfulness. I think it has a good residential expression. It does not look like an office tower but it looks like a residential building which i appreciate very much. I only have one question and that is the unit exposure on level six and seven if the architect would have put that drawing up theres one area where i believe the distance between units across from each other is so incredibly narrow that i think there are issues of privacy on the lower part of the tower . I think its tower one. Level six and seven on drawings 44. You were very close when you put up the drawing number is from the binding side. Early shannon. There are some places as we play this game of trying to make two towers look like four. Where just before the towers come together, the units within the project facing other units within the project get very close to each other. Weve designed the floor plans of those units to minimize the impact to make sure that we give the units all views to the exterior, not just into that key hole if you will. Again, this is done in part to create this plaza on Fourth Street to pull the Building Back to give better light and air to our neighbors to the north. Theres a reason why its looking at the plans. I understand what are doing. Its a question of quality of units at that particular juncture and when you have the private living space that close to each other, one wonders why other functions of the building, more notable functions would not have in those two units. I have the drawing if you want to put it up. I would like at least the commission to take a look at it. Its what we are supposed to do. Commissioner, we can have linda put mine up. Its page 44. Jeremy. The a jaysen sees of these units in areas that will face one another will include privacy considerations concluding privacy glass. One of the reasons why we cant have non residential uses on this floor is we need to segregate uses by floor. You wouldnt want to have non residential uses sharing the same floor with a residential floor. We dont want to eliminate a floor of housing on these floors just because of that end area and so these units still have access both to the interior court yard as well as facing the Fourth Street front age in regards to right and air light r exposure. They have other areas where they can access light and air. I appreciate it. I take issue with it. If i lived in this unit with my living space being five feet away from another persons bedroom i dont think we would want to live there. Its too close for tom fort. I dont know how to resolve the issue. This is unit count most likely. I just comment that in this particular part of the project, to see this light deficiency in terms of quality of units. The units look great and the buildings are beautiful. This particular part of the project is from my perspective not properly resolved. Commissioner johnson. Thank you. I wanted to thank commissioner hillis for his line of questioning. And thank the neighbors for coming out and voicing some of your concerns. I know regardless of when the plans were made available or not, i always think its really important that folks are voicing that they are concerned about a live ability issue that we take the time to discuss it up here so you can really understand. I hope you got to hear we debated everything from what is in our motion to really trying to understand what could be done with the building and what considerations have been made from the project sponsor side and from the staff side to really think about your quality of life. Unfortunately in cities, we have to make these trade offs as we expand and grow but were really deliberating that. With that, i think that this is a beautiful design and i support the project and i move to approve with conditions. Second. Just to clarify its the revised motion that is introduced today. Yes. As has been corrected. And corrected. There is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on the revised motion that had corrected. Commissioner fung. Aye. Hillis. Aye. Johnson aye. Moore. Koppel. Aye. Melgar. Aye. That passes 60 unanimously. That will place us on item 8. 5400 gary boulevard. Conditional use authorization. Good afternoon commissioners. Mary wood of the commons staff. The applicant is seeking a conditional use authorization to modify the conditional use authorization that was approved on the Commission Motion number 18853 that was approved in april of 25th, 2013. We im sorry. Those people leaving the room, if you can do so quietly. We have additional business to attend to here. Relating to the renovation of the existing alexandra theater building. Second, change the previous approved use in 2013 from retail sales and a Movie Theater to a retail sales and services use for a recreation alpha sil tee oal facility onthe third floor L Professional Services used on the third flor. Thirdly, to allow a noon residential use exceeding 5,999 square feet for each of the proposed uses. The swing center at 13,300 square feet, the Learning Center at 9800 square feet, and the Business Center at 9100 square feet. The c. U. Will be required to locate a non retail Professionals Services used on a newly created third flor level and lastly, infield a existing west alley space, 1,000 square feet that was previously used as an ex terrier exit for the theater as the new swing Center Visitors gallery on the first floor. On the first floor, upon completion ocompletion ofcomplen 40,000 square feet. All off Street Parking spaces provided in the adjacent residential mixed use building as previously approved in 2013. The 2013 Commission Approval included a residential mix use building in the adjacent surpass parking lot. That residential building has been completed in 2018 and therefore is not included in the current scope of work. The department prepare an addendum to the 2011 negative declaration which is recommended for adoption part as pared of the current project. Staff prepare monitoring and reporting program which is included as part of the projects approval as conditions of approval. Since the packet was distributed, staff has seen one additional received from a longtime richmond neighborhood resident, ms. Brown, in support of the proposed project. The recommendation is to approve with conditions. This concludes my summary of the project and im available for any questions. Thank you. Sorry about this. I know its been a long day. Im excited about this project. Sf gov, can you go to the computer, please. I hope there are more of you there. Were at the edge. Thank you all very much. My name is johnathan pearlman. I know youve had a long day. Not as long as ive been on this project. I started on this project in 2005. Working on a historical report and have since worked through the various four different owners and then we went through in 2013 and got approvals. We have the residential building thats been constructed so were here today, hopefully being able to move forward with the renovation of the alexandria theater. So most of you know where this is. Its on geary boulevard and 18 avenue. You c