Their doors whenever they feel. Dangerous economically and envir the city, horrible place. So i think as the supervisor sat should be way more. It should be at least commensurt theyve been illegally been getl these years that is way whata hundred times what the settleme. So i would urge you not to agrea settlement. If i were on the jury i would be rewards to the city. So why do we need to get the bee settlement. Take it to the court, get a jurn francisco residents to make a vd issue a penalty to them that woe than this. I dont think we need to settle. Thank you, next speaker, ple. Good evening, commissioners. Im with San Francisco land use. When i talk to fellow san francs that are plugged in and know wh, one thing that keeps coming up f Arts Universitys pension for gl estate. For me and most people i talk tt as a Real Estate Holding compan. Now, all the other things that w activists brought before you an, that, of course, i absolutely s. But one other thing that i woulo keep in mind is all the vulnerat actually got displaced as a resg up these buildings. What about the sros . I mean, these people are the moe segment of the community. And they have to basically vacae academy of Arts University has e buildings. And now, so many years later, wt this situation, and we are comih penalties. And i doubt if these penalties o actually give any shelter to tht displaced and its not going to. So either keep in mind what hasd ive just ask you if you can res situation. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. She gets 15 minutes. Almost one for every year shess issue. [laughter] i need to get my stuff organ. I have handouts. Ive been working on this for 1. And what youve heard today is t hasnt been a Good Neighbor to l buildings that people have talk. And thats only the tip of the. I got involved with this in novn me, december of 2005. Can i have the overhead, please . Could you adjust that . I need help with the adjustment. Okay. Its hard to show those things. In 2005, the academy bought, ane commissioners were upset and ca. And i had a meeting in superviss office. He was the president of the boa. And up here also was in her disn her district. And out of that, there became c. I told the attorney as did aarou have to file an institutional m. An institutional master plan isn you buy up enough property thate than an acre of land. This is exhibit 2 in my thing. They acquired three buildings. They had three buildings the la. In 1991 which is when ms. Steve, inherited her property from her, she took over the academy of ar. The first building they acquire0 stockton, which was ironically e buildings that deacquisitioning. So the academy kept buying propt buying residential properties. And this is a list of their proy acquisitions that i compiled, tg department didnt compile it. I compiled it. They went through and kept acqus even while they were doing thein after they were told to stop byg department. So their major institution. And this is exhibit 2 in what ye you. Exhibit 1, you will find out ont very few of the planning commiss Planning Commission have been is project. Its mostly been other planning. Because they put the list of eve academy of art went to the plan, and all the Planning Commission. And you look down there, and kan 2007. She was the first person and thr the longest time. Theyve gone through nine attore been dealing with them pardoe attorney groups. The current one the attorneyr nine. And thats counting attorney gre being the 2005 appointment wherd they had to comply with the insr plan. We kept going, we kept going. And eventually commissioner rict here appeared on the list. When they were doing the eir in. And he was with Kathrin Moore ud after their eir was certified i. And up until then, we got koppe. And weve had a bunch of miln joined us. Theres been two lees, a fung ao johnsons since weve been deali. So as you go through this list,f Planning Commissioners that havg with this project, its kind ofe over 20. And sanchez was thanked for all. Im extending my thanks too. Because once we had a list od them to do the first rudimentare commission had a list of what py owned, the Planning Department g enforcement. And there were hearings not at g commission that were administern enforcement. And i came to them, and other po them. All these hearings listed on exe attended by the public. Some people have died in the pr. Some of us have had setbacks ph. Most of us have really gray hai. But whatever, the Community Hasn this, totally. We have been here every time wed even when we werent needed, we, because it was a big thing. The only time the academy took s they tried to take over the fary couldnt, because there was puse residents, the tenants of the m. And their attorney as well help. And they have given eviction noo everyone. They had cut a deal with the owe flower mart. But they had to withdraw them. So they are not on that corner. They are on the other side of s. What we have here is you have in your what is shown by the acd what is shown by the history ofg commission dealing with this. This is not really visible on t. But it is an analysis by tom jo. Hes a real architect. And hes a real planner. And hes the head of cal poly, l planning school. His analysis when he started goe housing plans. And he said theyre not a meetie requirements. And he knows because hes the he school, the department of archis a planner and architect who cart accessibility. And he kept saying, shoot, thist relevant housing for accessibil. So some of the documents that hu have been on accessibility. And he has a list of deficienci. This is in your packet. And the planning staff has it a. You are not supposed to have p hopes on accessibility. If you do the right thing, you r equity. And there is a list here. This is what i did before. One of the obligations for puble for dealing with students with. Academy of art has compromised t accessible. They have buildings you cant ge psei which is postsecondary edul institution, they have buildinge institutional buildings. They have steps. They dont have an accessible pn them. That is huge when you are in a u have mobility problems. And so if you are dealing with s three items back on your agendan equity issue for accessibility. I dont know that the planning y got i know you dont have pee really involved with dealing wi, because its not the planning c. That is a housing you are dealie academy of arts took away affor. They took away hotel units, whiy Affordable Housing. And additionally, you dont havt ive seen someone really, reallg with accessibility issues. And its not enough to kick it d say dbi will deal with this aftl the buildings. This is the wrong way of doing. Accessibility should be built i. We have all kinds of institutioy that have gotten the face of go, conservatory of music, san fran, every one, every real art insti, california arts and crafts, havu building houses. Why . Because they see that they cano come to San Francisco because wg crisis. And so they are building thousaf housing. Usf, chris was talking about lid by housing under construction a. Usf has got the right idea. And ironically so has the conse. And the irony, it was the consec is building houses at van ness. And what is on the other side oy line . Basically academy of arts site,e being allowed to sell. And i have filed a dr, an oldfn that project and been wiped oute settlement. They should be forced to build s and van ness. They have all these opportunitye educational sites on van ness a. 625 polk street is within walkif california hall. California hall is a nice build. Im glad they are doing rehab o. I dont object at all to califo. But having an opportunity, havit they build housing in the futurt have a site is ridiculous. If they have a site right now, e part of the california automobi. I got my car tested all the tim. So it is a site that as they de, theres so much housing being b, built already right now becaused this as a city as a housing are. And its a huge site right nextt housing thats being built by ty of music, which is an art insti. So i would ask you to, one, fige disability issues are dealt wit. Dont kick it down the road to e with it and then oh, things hav. If you are approving a cu, you e plans. If the plans dont comply with y should be changed. Two, dont let 150 hayes, put ce building that are real, that thf load a building and strike it ra building. This has gone i want the ove from three sites that didnt han institutional master plan to 43. They were illegal. A institutional master plan in y started building to beat the ba. I would ask you to not go on aut here. I dont think maybe you haveh the 5,000 pages and read them a. The addendum to the eir, all tht are majorly important, ive hadt two weeks. I was basically given a pile of. I had to pay for them. But i paid my money and i bough. And its really gross to read t. I am hoping you slow things dow. Thank you. Thank you, ms. Hester. Okay. Any other Public Comment . With that, Public Comment is cl. Thank you. Commissioner koppel. So those of you that have beg enough like ms. Sue, remember te on that side of the microphone. And at the time, we had some ise academy of art as well. And i will admit that im pretth responsible for having all of ts inspected by fire, electrical, building, fire, electrical, bui, all the inspectors had to walk f their buildings. [laughter] but i think theyve come a long. I couldnt tell you how many hon billed to lawyers for this one. And i think weve come a long w. And to all the staff and all ths that put in the time and the efo say thank you. Im satisfied with where we ared fully supportive of accepting t. Okay. Commissioner diamond. [off mic] turn on your mic. Now it is. Okay. One of the more significant beny is the financial payment. And i would like to understand e should have confidence that youn actually make good on those pay. So i think the confidence she financial guarantee thats prove city as part of the settlement. Theres also a requirement thate made, that the affordable housit be made immediately upon the exe Development Agreement. So that needs to happen this spr as the Development Agreement is. And then for the settlement paya series of payments that will hae next four years. But the guarantee that are beine academy are important. In addition, the development ags a consent right for the city, fo sell any of its properties. So the Development Agreement ist all the properties. And the city would need to consy transfer of the property so thad the academy continues to own thf it does need to sell one of they the settlement amount, which we. But that was an important compoe citys negotiation of the devel. And can you describe for allf the details of the guarantee . That i would need to defer tl who have been dealing with that that would be fine. Richardson. Good evening, im one of thes working on this case. In putting together the guarante multiple ways that the city is e guaranteed payment under the dae settlement agreement. First of all, the da is going tg against all the properties. Secondly, the guarantee was pery guaranteed by the trust entitiee llcs which own the individual pl as the individuals who are the f those trusts. So that if a default were to ocd be individuals at the end of thd have their personal assets at s. Additionally, this past december ago, the city had themselves doe financial review of all the entd here to make certain that they e financial ability to comply wits of the settlement of the da. Okay. Can i speak to the city attorned who drafted those provisions . Maybe its mr. Smith. Is there anything you want to en further that would allow us allt we are going to get this money . Yeah, thank you, commissione. There are multiple layers of sey outline as jesse smith from thes office, the assistant to the at. One important point is the acadt university itself is not respone 58 million. Its the real estate piece that. So the 37 limited liability comy and separately together and inde responsible for those payments. And then as they mentioned, thee settlement doesnt become effece lions share of those payments p front. So roughly within the first sixe Affordable Housing payment is pe that when the first installmentt payment is payable. [please stand by] he has indicated that on page two, you will see the amount ought to get calculated using current city policy requirements, and the breakdown is here. And it says, he has a, b, and c. I dont know if you need me to read it into the record. Clerk you can put it on the overhead where we can all see it. Weve been working together for some time to try and take care of all this. Is the principle there commissioner richards can you push it up . What . Commissioner richards can you push it up . You see for Residential Hotels or housing, payment equals onethird of the total cost to replace the land or s. R. O. Units to current standards. Using the actual figures from the Mayors Office of housing and urban development, the figure is 205,000 per oneroom single occupancy unit and 250,000 for one single apartment family suite. You all have this in your packet. I dont want to bore you with these numbers, but if you look at them commissioner richards they add up to 28 million more. I want to get to where the 78 million is calculated. Hang on two seconds. Sue hester has said shes had to try to deal with about 500 pages. Ive had to deal with 200. In any event, you add up these figures, and you get the 78 million. Commissioner richards okay. Great. Question for staff. Have you looked at mr. Jones its 26, 33, and 28 and change. Commissioner richards okay. I just wanted to reconcile. Thank you very much. Thank you. Maybe i can address that to some extent. Commissioner richards please. Im not a finance person, but you may want to know how we got to the figure that we did. Commissioner richards great. For the housing component, actually given that at the time when they bought and converted the dwelling units to student housing, it wasnt a change of use at the planning code at that time. Same thing for the lib work, so those are not part of legalization for the use. So what were looking at legalization for the use with regards to housing are the Group Housing rooms. So for the Group Housing rooms, there are about five properties that total 160 rooms, and actually includes 1055 pine which they have been used illegally for many years. They will be moving out, and moving forward, its my understanding that its to be used, the 235,000 cost or the gap that mohcd has for developing housing, times that by the 150 and thats how we got the number. Commissioner richards okay. I wondered. Every single live work unit that was approved in San Francisco has an n. S. R. On it and saying its not housing, its commercial. And so academy put students in the housing pardon me in the buildings and considered it to be student housing, but they didnt comply with the law oliv on livework units. There were units that were abandoned, and there were more on harrison street. So they were not housing at that time because they were not conforming housing. That w they were both substantial buildings. President melgar thank you, miss hester. Mr. Adams, did you want to explain the methodology further . Dan adams, mohcd. Scott sanchez explanation was spot on. Commissioner richards we had a case here probably three or four units where essex trust legalized livework units, but at the time, livework was still livework. It was still illegal to use it as dwelling units or student housing, so what would that do to the units if we included bloxom. It would increase it by 33 numbers, which is the number in 575 harrison that theyre retaining. In regards to the livework issue, for this has been going on for a while, so for about a decade, its been the position of the department that since theyre in compliance with the notice of restrictions of livework units, which does not prohibit artists from living in livework units, even if theyre students, that wouldnt prohibit that. The academy must maintain the status of the units that existed at that time, and maybe they can explain the status of their livework buildings. President melgar okay. Commissioner johnson . Commissioner richards i was going to ask that. President melgar oh, im sorry. Commissioner richards yeah, how they complied. Nick rosen. So there are two in the existing 40site campus, there were two livework sites. 575 harrison and roosevelt. The sites arent identical across the board, and in the case of 168 bluxon, the academy is vacating that site, so its being put back onto the market as livework housing. At 575 harrison, theres no requirement the common feature of n. S. R. Is a common requirement that residents have business licenses. Thats not a common requirement for the n. S. R. , so i think we established that the academys use was legal at that time. President melgar commissioner johnson. Commissioner johnson so it has been a long road on this project. I know many there have been folks that have been involved for decades. I have just been on the commission for maybe 1. 5 years, and ive heard stories. So i know that for advocates, for community folks, for staff, for City Attorney, we all care about making sure that this project that folks are held accountability and that the city is getting what it deserves for the violations that has happened. I think the two most important things and i kind of came to thinking about this, how do with you get resources, how how do we get resources and how do we look at things like that. So the two things that i looked at were how do we get resources and how to we get documents . Just talking with the City Attorney and walking through each piece of it and why i feel these benefits are correct, one, we just opined on the on the settlement amount, the dollars. But two, just looking at real enforcements that give us teeth to one, really bring things into compliance and two, go after the academy if they dont follow through. I would just say that i think, you know, there has been conversation about should there be units or should we acquire properties . I just certainly think that in addition to the settlement amount, having the city use those communities to stablize cities, to make sure that we are providing housing to folks who in different parts of the city as a mitigation to this is preferable to those sites. The one question that i do have that i would like to hear just a little bit more explanation on is around the accessibility issue. Can somebody from staff just speak a little bit more about how weve been thinking about that, just to let the public now how weve been thinking about that issue . Thank you. So we certainly appreciate the Public Comment that has been received, and we agree that the buildings need to meet all relevant code requirements. And that review is done by other agencies than the Planning Department. We dont see that as kind of kicking it down the road, its having the proper agencies do the proper review that they do on a normal basis. You know, we dont have that expertise to have that work done. Thats done by other agencies, so we see that this proposal here which will allow for permits to come through to legalize uses at these various properties will allow them to bring them up to code. And i know the project sponsors architect is here as well as their attorney, and they may have further comments as to the accessibility. Commissioner johnson please, director. I just have one thing. Correct me if i am wrong but theres nothing in this agreement that removes the requirement to be accessible, right . Yeah, correct. Theres nothing that a bridge removes, reduces in any way their accessibility requirements under the law. Thats just not done. They have to meet all the requirements. President melgar they havent been exactly compliant, so what i would like to do is inspect the mechanism that we can use to go after them if they dont have compliance. We have the teeth in the permit to get the compliance. They have to do the work in a timely fashion. There are various milestones set there. If they dont meet accessibility requirements that are outlined in the approved plans, thats a mechanism for us to review that with the judge, and the academys very well on notice with this. President melgar thank you. Miss jensen, do you want to talk about that . Thank you, president melga. Kristen jensen from the City Attorneys office. The injunction specifically states that if the department of the city if any department of the city issues a notice for violation of the code so that would include d. B. I. Or any other Department Issues an n. O. V. , we get to go back to court we get immediate access to court. We dont have to file a lawsuit, we dont have to file a notice, we have a stipulated judgment that allows us to fast track a litigation solution in the event of violations of city codes, so thats how we would address any violations of the kind were talking about now. So in addition to the fact that d. B. I. Would review its normal review perform its normal reviews in the reviewing process, we have the right to go to court if they dont remediate right away. President melgar okay. Okay. So i had ill say a couple things. I heard folks comments, and i totally emotionally agree with wanting an extra pound of flesh. I think that it really bugs me that people are so dismissive of our regulatory infrastructure. We live in a very tight sevenbyseven miles. Its a complicated thing, so that people just kind of skirt the law with impunity really, really bugs me. That said, i know that our city staff is excellent. Having worked with them in a coup for a couple of decades prior to this, i know we have some of the toughest laws ever. I do know this is a deal thats worth approving. That being said, you know, its also, for me, an issue of timing, and that to me is strategic and important because i think were in a housing crisis. I think these folks caused some of what we have now, which is why its appropriate to have them pay, but i also think that we are going into a bit of a downturn in development, and i say that watching our pipeline at d. B. I. And watching the amount of fees thats coming into the Affordable Housing fund. We are not seeing as robust, you know, a pipeline of fees as we would like. And its a Counter Cyclical things that were seeing in sfresSan Francisco, when people want to build, thats when the economy is robust, and thats when its expensive. So weve set up this system to get Affordable Housing precisely when its the worst time to build Affordable Housing. So seeing as were going into a bit of a downturn, it seems to me smart to have the bond that we just passed and have an extra 45 million and money into the Affordable Housing fund precisely because of the time the timing. I think that folks that the academy of art and university is willing to give up a little more in terms of their building precisely because theyre looking at the same numbers that were looking at. So i think were catching them at a good time, and that to me is worth some value. So i will be supporting this agreement. I did have a couple of questions. So one was about the vacated properties. What is the plan . Whats going to happen to those . And then two is the signage on jackson street. I heard the attorney say that it is a quarter of the size of what it could be according to code and that theyre willing to negotiate about the lighting with neighbors, so im wondering, you know, what thats going to look like and what assurance we have. But i also heard in your presentation that, you know or was it in your presentation, mr. Perry . Im sorry. Its getting late. Im tired about there being a twoyear window before there can be any new signage, so can you explain those two things to me. Maybe i can just comment president melgar okay. Thank you. So there are buildings they have vacated and buildings they will vacate. There are also two buildings they do not own, for academyrelat academyrelated entities on bluxom and wisconsin. In the case of bluxom, theyll need to go through the process to legalize those units. 121 wisconsin, they will need to have a code compliant use in there moving forward, and the same is true for other properties that have been vacated or will be vacated. They will need to obtain the planning permits as required. The academy may have Additional Details on how they intend to use those properties. Also, mr. Perry may have Additional Details on the signing requirements. So on the signing for 1900 jackson, there has been a bit of confusement on that. Signs are not regulated in this district. What they are identified in the planning code are as identifying signs. The requirement is one per frontage, which they have proposed, and the maximum size of 12 square feet, which they also have proposed. Indirect illuminating signing, which they have proposed, is also in the code. Im sorry if i may have forgotten the second part of your question. President melgar it was the first. It was the vacated properties, about what was going to happen. Okay. President melgar thank you. Commissioner diamond . Yes. There were two other points that were raised that maybe mr. Abrams or staff can respond to. Do you not have a code of conduct that people can refer to . Jim abrams. We have a code of conduct that people can call. And the second issue had to do with the comments that were raised about the cannery and what its being used for or not being used for or its intent. I dont know if staff can respond to that. Sure. So the cannery is located at 2801 leavenworth, within the c2 district. I believe that previously, the academy was using so there are there are other there are ground floor nonacademy retail tenants in the property. However, the academy was using the bulk of the cannery, including ground floor level space as part of the Development Agreement and the settlement, the academy could retain Institutional Uses above the ground floor which are permitted principally permitted in the district. And all of the ground floor must stay as retail uses, whether that be for the other nonacademy retail tenants that are there or the academy is permitted to operate retail uses, but it must be public facing retail uses. Thank you. President melgar commissioner richards . Commissioner richards i move to adopt the ceqa findings, including the statement of overriding considerations, adopt the resolution recommending approval with conditions, and the academy negotiating with the neighbors on the sign. Clerk as well as the master conditional use authorization . Commissioner richards absolutely. Clerk that was a second, commissioner koppel . If theres nothing further, commissioners, theres been a motion to approve the ceqa findings, approval the Development Agreement and approve the master conditional use authorization with conditions. On that motion [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, 50. Commissioners, i believe there is a desire through the chair to take item 22 out of order. Staff is still not here. President melgar yeah. We may take the next so i see a lot of folks here for item 22. I would like to take it out of order next, but the staff is not here, and i think the executive director is not here, either okay. So but the staff is not here yet, so were going to hear the next item, but then, youre next. Is that okay . Clerk right. So well take up item 17 has been continued to december 19, placing us on item 18 for case number 2016003994 cua at 55 belcher, conditional use excuse me, folks, if you are leaving or staying for that matter, if you could do so quietly, we would appreciate it. Excuse me, folks, we do have other business to attend to. So this is the conditional use authorization for 55 belcher and updated by the chair, we will be taking item 22 next. Good evening, president melgar and members of the commission. Linda ajello hoagland, Planning Department staff. The project before you is a conditional use authorization for the merger of lots creating one lot greater than 5,000 square feet and for the construction of a new residential Building Greater than 600,000 square feet of one area. The project consists of the demolition of one existing parking lot and the merger of three lots to create one 10,603 square foot lot to allow the construction of an approximately 27,374 square foot building with 27 class one bicycle spaces and 12 offsite parking lots which will be through the use of vehicle stackers. The project includes a dwelling unit mix of 12 two bedroom and 12 one bedroom mix and one studio which results in 48 of the units being two bedrooms. The project will provide 5, which is 18 Affordable Housing units to rent. The project will include 5,182 square feet of open space. Initial Public Comments regarding the project included concerns regarding the projects initially proposed 24dwelling unit count which would be subject to a 12 inclusionary Affordable Housing requirement. The project sponsor has subsequently revised the project to increase the number of dwelling units to 25, which is subject to the 18 inclusionary, which results in the five units as proposed. Additionally, over the past several months, the project sponsor has been working neighbors to further refine the design of the building and to address concerns expressed related to Building Height and privacy. The building will designate 18 of the units to the Inclusionary Housing Program and will replace an existing surface parking lot, therefore, no tenants will be displaced. This concludes staffs presentation. I am available to answer any questions as is the project sponsor. Thank you. President melgar thank you. Thank you, commissioners. John kevlin here on behalf of the project sponsor. I know this has been a long day, so im going to keep this as short as possible. I think kind of the core of this project and the great aspect of this project is that its actually three narrow lots, and if those narrow lots were developed separate, thly,y would have about six units each, none of which would be Affordable Housing, and it wouldnt max out the density on this site. Were merging three lots, were going up to 25 units. Weve maximized the density beyond the 18 units that would otherwise be allowed here, and we do it with the existing character thats on belcher street. Weve had vigorous engagement with the neighborhood. You may remember we continued this three times to continue working with them. And really, with two groups. First, the immediate neighbors, weve had two design meetings with them since then. Commissioner richards attended one of them and helped facilitate it at the request of the supervisor. Weve made significant progress there. I think were going to have one of the neighbors speak to part of that issue tonight, and were really were trying to make it work for everyone so were willing to accommodate whatever the commission feels with respect to the design. D. T. A. Is very involved in this, as well. The Corporate Housing issue came up this summer. Weve been working with them. In fact, as of just a couple hours before this hearing, we came up with final conditions that were going to voluntarily request that the condition that the Commission Place on the approval of the project and this is something ive worked out with david troop, whos the president of dt a. Miss president , im happy to hand this over, but im happy to read it out loud. Condition one, no more than two units can be rented furnished at any time, and that only applies as long as this building is a rental project. If it becomes condos and individual units, this does not apply. Number two, sixmonth minimum lease on all units and that continues forever. Number three, rental to real persons with no renting to corporations or providers. The last caveat is if the interim term or legislation that supervisor peskin is currently moving through the board of supervisors passes, that would supersede these conditions and that would come into play in these conditions. So thank you for listening. I can repeat as necessary. Thank you. President melgar we got it. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . Come on up, please. Anyone else who wishes to provide Public Comment, lineup on my left, and you can come up. Good afternoon. Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here and engage with the developer and the city on improving the neighborhood. My name is brian kemler, and im a neighbor. I live across the street from the proposed project. Im also a member of the Duboce Triangle association, but im here representing myself and my neighbors. 55 belcher street is a midblock. Its a fourstory building. There are some fourstory buildings on the street, but this one is much larger and much more dense. So we had concerns around the density and the height. Weve actually chosen not to really fight those because we recognize and acknowledge theres a housing crisis in our city and those units are important. But given that kind of spirit of collaboration, were hoping and weve gotten some results from working with them around the aesthetics and the height concerns. So actually, s. I. A. Was actually willing to move the elevator and utility penthouse on units on the roof further back, which which we appreciate. There are some minor changes that we would still like to see such as the height of the building goes to 40 feet, which is kind of the limit on the street, and theres a parapet which goes almost 4 feet above that. Wed like to see the height of that parapet reduced down closer to the roof line so its closer to 40 feet, maybe 41 feet. Additionally, aif theres anything that can be done to reduce the 16foot elevator on penthouse which goes 16 feet above the 40foot roof line, so 56 feet, which is pretty high. And i dont know if john has this, but ideally, we would condition the streetscape plan to maintain the plumbing equipment. I cant say im truly happy with the building, but im reasonably happy, and i appreciate sia and johns efforts to work with us, and i hope the commission will approve these minor changes before approving the c. U. Thank you. President melgar thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, commissioners. Corey smith on behalf of San Francisco Housing Action coalition. We are here in support of this project. This may come as a shock to you, but turning parking lots into homes for people is right up our alley, and things we like to see when were able, through conversations, to add additional below market rate subsidized affordable homes. We think thats also really fantastic. And just for everybody, i know you know this, this is a block away from church and market, where theres muni and buses going by all the time. So were excited about it and ask that you move it forward here today. Thank you. President melgar thank you, mr. Smith. Any other Public Comment on this item . Okay. Public comment is closed. Commissioner richards . Commissioner richards so i just have to hand it again to mr. Kevlin and mr. Sia. They make a great team. This is the second or third time youve come together, and you always produce something for the neighborhood. I hope to see you together over and over. Im proud to be a member of dt a because we support housing. We worked on the market and on octavia plan. This was one those that was a bank i dont know if it was bank of the west or whatever, but finally, this gets to be repaired back to what it should be. Housing was knocked down to make this, and now were getting back to housing. I just have two questions. First, i see on page 84. 1, i see the parapet. However, as i look on 83. 1 and 80. 1, the plans call for a base, a middle, and a top. That doesnt look like much of a base here. Yeah. Brad terell, sia consulting. We looked at that, and one of the things that came back to us was why dont we just do it simpler, so we just developed an aesthetic that was a foreground element. So the base drag this with me over here. Here, you see there, the way the box bays go up and penetrate and interrupt that background, so
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.