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 can see the building deadcenter and the residential building under construction just beyond. The building was built in 1923. It was renovated in 1942. So it went from an egyptionstyle building and went to being art decoized in 1942 and there are some of the pictures there of the interior from 19