more folks here, then he needs to go through the proper process just like any other law abiding citizen. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. baraca. any additional comment in support of the d.r.? go ahead. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is david sum. i live at 266 monticello since 1996. i've been a homeowner there since -- all this time that i've been living there, the neighborhood has been quiet, parking has been plentiyful and clean -- streets have been clean. however after 278 monticello had been reconstructed from the single-family dwelling into a multiroom dormitory, this

neighborhood has changed dramatically, and not in a good way. there were loud parties, there were trash everywhere. what used to be available parking was not readily available. many of my fellow neighbors had spoken to mr. chen about this issue. on two separate occasions, when there were loud parties, on the listed phone number for mr. chen, i personally tried to contact him, call him on his cell phone, and to no avail did he answer any calls. i neighbors attempted the same thing, as well, and to no avail, their calls were not answered, as well. so please, i'm asking you to reconsider and not approve a new permit for new bedrooms because this first reconstruction of 278 did not work in this neighborhood, and

it will definitely not work again. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. david elliott lewis, long time resident of san francisco and activist. and while i'm actually here to support another project, i can't help but feeling outrage by what i heard by the abuses of this owner on the way the city's permitting process works, misrepresenting the facts and really abusing the neighbors for greed. i hope you'll hold this owner to account and respect the public comment you just heard already. this really is a textbook -- almost a poster child outrageous case of abuse, clearly. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment in support of the d.r.? and if there's anybody else

who's like to speak in support of the d.r., again, just lineup on the screen side of the room. welcome. >> hi. my name is reginald caldwell. i live next door to 278 monticello. i've had a lot of damage done to my property, and the developer seems to have a total disregard for the law. i'm asking the commission not to approve this project. we've been having nothing but problems next door, and i've got a lot of damage done to my home. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you, mr. caldwell. any additional public comment? seeing none -- no, the project sponsor, if they are here. yeah, you've got five minutes. you going to pass on the five minutes? you don't have to speak.

[inaudible] >> president hillis: okay. and then is there any public comment in support of the project sponsor? seeing none, we'll close public comment. project -- d.r. requester, you've got the opportunity for a two-minute rebuttal if you'd like it. you're not really rebutting anything. it's a theoretical -- >> i don't have much else to say -- >> president hillis: yeah, yeah, i think we get it. and then, project sponsor, you have the opportunity for a two-minute rebuttal, too. it's a little awkward. all right. we'll close this portion of the hearing and open it up to commissioner comments and questions. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: this in many aspects is really a first. we hardly ever had two supervisors, supervisor safai and president cohen, come to

speak very clearly and succinctly what's wrong here. we never had an applicant declining to speak because probably everything that was said was not particularly supportive of the project, and it did immediately, without any skip, invoke a mere memory of judy wu in the bayview with her multiple residences and group housing and abuse of our permitting processes and abuse of those people who needed housing and lived there because there were no alternatives, and this seems to be the same. we all know student housing is not available, particularly in those areas where we have major institutions, there is not sufficient student housing. however, that an individual can be as predatory and playing and gaming the system is pretty much a first.

i'm going to take a simple tack. the house in this context is oversized to start with. 2800 square feet in an rh-1 is highly unusual, most recently, when we have megamansioning, i think we may have to tighten the belt a little bit on this building. and if this really is an rh-1, then my mathematical mind starts to think about what is appropriate? two units in here, 1400 square feet each, that would probably at a maximum be a three bedroom home for each of the two increments. so at a max, just doing a quick math, i think it is six bedrooms and perhaps four or 4.5 bathrooms, at max. and i think i would like to take d.r. and find reasonable metrics by reduce the capacity

of this oversized building. i don't think we can reduce the envelope. i think that is far afar of what we can do. >> that envelope was approved a while ago. >> commissioner moore: okay. so the envelope is what it is. however, we can definitely redescribe of how it should be inhabited, and that is with a maximum of six bedrooms. that what i see even remotely compatible with the neighborhood, and i think we need to have additional restrictions on the property relative to how many bedrooms it can have. all of the plumbing needs to be reduced, the proper number of hookups as we will be describing in the d.r. and i personally believe it is not six bedrooms, six bathrooms. i think it is six bedrooms and four bathrooms, and perhaps two half bathrooms, a powder room here, one on the upper floor, one on the lower floor or

whatever, but it's not six full bathrooms. and then, we also need to ask if this is a six-bedroom family home, that the plans for which this project would ultimately have to come back to us shows indeed livable space that are appropriate for a larger family living in this. it can't just be thrown together haphazardly which this particular project does at the moment. i'm not quite sure as far as enforcement. we're not designing the building, but we're reducing it just simply by the number of bedrooms, and i think the bedrooms we're asking for are reasonable size bedrooms, but they're not all of a sudden super large that you could stick more beds into it. because i'm sorry to say i do not have particular trust in an individual who has not really shown over an extended period of time the credibility and the ability to deal with the system as we have it, and i am glad

today that we have publicity -- public television to basically tell the rest of the population that we are very, very intent in seeing our permits and our permitting process obeyed, and that we are indeed not going to let this just slip by. i want to be very clear, and i am very supportive to take d.r., bring it back to a sizeable thing, particularly, we knew even from the judy wu project -- i'm sorry this was a very major faux pas on my part. on the judy wu part, that the impact on others, not just the people who are living in the buildings, but who are next door, across the street and the block behind is phenomenal.

one home can destroy life for a huge number of people. so i'll ask that we take d.r. i'd like to hear other commissioners speak to the metrics. i've laid out my approach and i'm curious about other commissioners' comments. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: okay. first, i want to thank president cohen and supervisor safai, the d.r. requester and all of the community members that came out. you clearly have a wonderful neighborhood that's truly knitted together. exami and i appreciate you all coming out and participating in the civic process. it's about how our city departments and systems will enforce laws and codes that promote safety and benefit the community. community trust i think is our best asset, and when bad actors fly under the radar and clearly flout the rules and public

safety and quality of life of the residents, that erodes the trust and undermines our system. we see sometimes people who do what they want and ask for permission later, and i'm here just to say, not today, and not on our watch. i am fully in support of taking d.r. and disapproving -- but also, this case begs a larger question, one this commission has talked about quite a few times. one is when we have bad actors who clearly are flouting our city's processes, how are we tracking them? how are we holding them accountable, and how are we making sure that going forward, that everyone knows to watch this project and anything else that the project sponsor might do in the future? i would fully support your recommendation, commissioner moore for looking at how this building should be inhabited going forward and looking at

belting the building. and also, that the plan should absolutely come before us again. so again, i think this is clearly an egregious case. it has larger implications of issues that we've discussed around how we handle bad actors, and i'd like to see us both enforce -- enforce our issues with this actor, and then also address the larger issue of what we do tracking bad actors going forward. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner melgar? [please stand by]

>> i'm really disappointed. i actually had a technical question for matt. i thought i heard you during your presentation when you were going through the chronology.

that when the third floor was added, which was the permit that enabled them to go up to six bedrooms that did not come to the planning commission as it should have. >> no, sorry. the original was in 2012. it was to bring the property to six bedrooms and six bath. following that the owner did construction and the property ended up as 13 bedrooms, 6 baths and changed the stucco. the next permit to the correction permit did not come to planning. there was a process that didn't go the way it should with d.d.i. it resulted in planning not reviewing the permit. all those changes were legalized without us doing our review. we had to suspend that. >> president hillis: that third

floor, that did come to planning? >> yes, neighborhood didn't notice us properly and there was no d.r. filed. >> president hillis: we're stuck with having to permit what's inside that envelope. i wouldn't even vote for the six bedrooms and six bathrooms. that's so inappropriate for the neighborhood. unless we had single family house with an a.d.u. you can see that. i guess it is what it is. i am fully supportive. i guess take the six bedrooms. i would support going down on the bathroom count because that would dis-- i want to thank president cohen and supervisor safai for saying on top of this.

>> commissioner koppel. >> commissioner koppel: i like to thank the passionate speeches of supervisor safai. i grew up in this south park of town and went to the same schools that president cohen did. very familiar with the neighborhood. it feels really good to have the support of our supervisors. because often when we hear these items that seem to keep coming to us and we hear the word d.d.i., i start bracing myself for what we're going to hear this time. it's just a really awkward position to be in. this is about doing the right thing. when i was working in the field, i built hospitals, i built office buildings and high-rise housing, installed fire alarms. we pulled our permit. we installed the work up to code. we got our inspections. there was no other way to do it.

i remodeled my sister's kitchen. i could have pulled the dry rot permit and knocked it out the weekend. i didn't do that. i pulled the permit. replaced a window in back of my house. i could have done it in an hour. no one would have known. i pulled the permit. i had it inspected. that's how you do things here in san francisco. never have i performed any type of work without permission. i just don't know how this is tolerated what so ever. i'm not in support of bedroom project, i'm not in support of a ten bedroom project. i'm thinking like commissioner melgar iu, we can decrease the bathrooms to a reasonable amount to where we can bring this building back to where it should be. >> commissioner richards. i been on this commission for

years. people stop me and say doesn't anybody give a [ bleep ] what's going on. they see false plan committed to d.d.i. that shows there's a garage but there's no garage. they see homes demolished with no foundation left but yet they're not calling demolition. thethey seen one that had 15 permits that came before us. we know what the permits are. they also -- i also experienced the two sets of rules. i mentioned this over the last four years. i constructed my bat bathroom wh permit. my toilet bowl was 14 inches away from the wall. he to rip my toilet out. it cost $7000 to make it right. you see this king every week you

say, why do people get away with this stuff? why do i have to move my toilet half an inch and you see buildings getting demolished and no penalty. to commissioner koppel's point, this is not first time we had to clean up the mess. i hope president cohen, this will be the last one. how did the legalization permit get pulled? that's the question. who's name is on it? who pulled it? to be honest with you, president cohen, supervisor safai, our philosophy of bringing buildings in compliance once you done the work, is a joke. the incentive to cheat is so high, people don't care. they break the laws, they come back with their hat in their hands and say, hey, let me legalize this. it goes to the philosophy of our

enforcement. we want to make sure you make that right. i don't think that's working. if i pull up to the planning department and i have choice of putting 25-cents in parking meter knowing i will get $75 ticket. i put the quarter in because i know the penalty is too great. there have been developers told me they budget for them in their pro formas. this kind of stuff that happens pushes the enforcement on to the neighbors. let's face it. we have enforcement team that has 17 to 20 people. d.d.i. has enforcement team. the neighbors of the enforcement team, it really ruins their lives when this happens. we've seen foundations crack, we've seen building buildings s. i think that we need to change our philosophy around enforcement clearly. as for the number of bedrooms, we've been over this since four

years. what's the right size house we've had, 8000 square feet, 2000 square feet. in this neighborhood, i wouldn't support ten bedrooms. that's nuts. i think the six bedrooms legalized with permits we can live with. it went through the public process. i support commissioner moore's idea that we need to reduce incentive having this happen again. that's my motion. >> second. >> just in terms of looking at the plans and the conversation, i might propose something that might be little untraditional that you might consider in terms of your deliberation. you might look at prohibiting habitable or sleeping rooms and bathrooms on the ground floor itself. it would most definitely be easily enforceable, which is something that we look for as

we're looking forward. >> this is space behind the garage? >> correct. you're looking at the set of plans. a1 specifically and a2, it is within your power to prohibit a sleeping room and bathroom on the ground floor. that would limit the living areas to the same floor and the third floor. that would lend itself to a four bedroom unit. they would have a good size kitchen, living and dining room area, one bedroom on the second floor and three bedrooms on the third floor. then the ground floor could be used for storage, which is always a great for families and for family size housing. they can look at expanding the garage little bit to get little bit more room for that storage. there's other things they can do on the ground floor without it having to be a sleeping room or bathroom on the ground floor. which would necessitate increasing the house. >> it's good. if we just limit the bedrooms,

you could put in family room which can be converted. you would recommend limit of four bedrooms and limit the habitable space -- >> to the second and third floor. -- no living space. >> no sleeping rooms which is a bedroom in both planning purposes and no bathrooms on the ground floor. they can use it like a den or office. >> i think that goes into the file. you put den or laundry room, den can be converted into a bathroom. can we say no habitable splice from the -- space from the ground floor? >> yes. >> or no finished -- how would be the best way to phrase it. >> more along the lines of prohibiting certain spaces. prohibiting a sleeping room or bedroom, prohibiting a bathroom. those are all things that would

lend itself to people living down there, building bedrooms down there. if you limit that to the upper floors only, it limits the area. it also makes it easier to enforce. if you're very specific it would help enforcement a lot. >> commissioner meye moore. >> commissioner moore: this is description before and it's a reasonable way of making the house more manageable. my question to you is, you are actually suggesting four bedrooms even bringing back. >> i look back number of bedrooms remaining when you look at the approved plan, the result will be four bedrooms. which is still a good size unit. it's supportive family housing consistent what you would see in

large parts. >> commissioner moore: limit number bedrooms to four and eliminating any bedrooms or bathrooms on the ground floor space. >> we can downsize number of bathrooms. i would say maximum of baths will be three plus one-half on the living floor and powder room. the thing actually i wanted to say is that, why we are much talking about d.b.i. and what failed, to each of these projects there's somebody here who also -- there's a number of people who are participating in this activity. i would like to start to have us make notice. who are the professionals stamping these drawings. it's their name and their integrity based on the state

license. who are responsible. beside what happened. so are the people, plumbers, electricians and dry wall people. anybody who goes and builds and knows that with their state license or their local license, they should be going to d.b.i. to get it. i like to put that in the back of our mind. enforcement is more than us going to the side and say, what is wrong, what led it to be wrong. >> commissioner fong. >> commissioner fong: i'm 100% support of these recommendations. i want to pivot for a second. unrelated to this project. there's a demand for housing in the city for student housing, senior housing. we have a chance to go higher,

bigger, whatever, not just for the city. we remember that there's a demand out there, a need for it. we need to respond in a legal and safe way. >> commissioner richards: we approved the amendments. i think we're doing everything we can legally to get to that point. >> even a.d.u. >> there was a motion and second and we talked about potentially modifying that motion. >> i'll just read them just for clarity sake. the commission will go back to the approved plan that there are no sleeping room or bedrooms on the ground floor. no bathrooms on the ground floor. number of bedrooms willn(q limited to four on between the second and third floor as well as limit the number of bathrooms

to three between the second and >> thank you all. we'll go back to 13. >> item 13a and b for case numbers 2018. for -- we do have some additional business to attend

to. if you are leaving the chambers or entering, if you can do so quietly, we would appreciate that. >> good afternoon commissioner. planning department staff. item before you is request for conditional use authorization. sections 145.5 to 10.3 to 49.67, 303 and 304 and 843. sections 134, 145.1, 152.1, 270.2 and 843 to allow the new construction of four story 58-foot tall academic building at 1147th street and to grant exceptions to the requirements for street frontage. the project construct a new five

story housing build. the project includes the group housing unit mix of 17, four bedroom units, seven three

bedroom units and 95 one bedroom units i. the projects includes public open space, 10,599 which are through the alleys and 400 square foot roof deck. at 1147th street, the project includes converting a surface parking lot to allow new construction of an institutional building with approximately 96,500 square feet of art and education space. including studios, design labs, classrooms and fabrication shops. new off street front loading space will be provided from irwin street and no vehicular parking will be provided. the project includes minor renovations including a new hvac system. on january 8, 2018, this

planning commission expected updated master plan. which included nature of institution, its history and growth and services provided as well as the employment characteristics, service population, physical characteristics, access, traffic and circulation patterns and development plan incluesive of a five year and ten year development plan. the art and design education special use district was created to facilitate the continued expansion of cca. the i.m.p. set forth the plan by which to guide that growth. it will facilitate and permit its intended expansion. once again, per planning sections 145.5, 303 and 843.45, the project requires conditional use authorization from the commission to establish a ground source ceiling height less than the required 17 feet was in the

zoning district at 1147th street and to establish retail sales and service use agreer grr than 4000 square feet. the project requires l.p.a. from the planning commission. the commission may grant exceptions from certain planning code requirements for projects that exhibit outstanding overall design and are complementary to the design. the proposed project request frontage loading and midwalk alley requirements. given the overall project and design. some important clarifications to note, there is a conditional approval within the l.a.p. motion that applies to 1147th street and therefore the showers and lockers should be within the

motion. the use phase limit is specifically for 180 hooper street and new condition approval and associated finding has been for planning commission to consider to further explain the specific design and performance standard requirements the department supports and exception for and identifies the standards and the publicly accessible mid block alleys required. to clarify what is supported, but not off the design performance standards under planning code section 272.2e. this has been printed for all. two letters of support has been submitted. one from the neighbors next door from 150 hooper street. the planning department recommends approval as project is on balance consistent with the general plan and planning code requirements.

the project provides a new mixed use student housing development with grant for retail sales and new academic building with both which provides significant site upgrades including sidewalk widening, landscaping, and construction of the remaining portion of channel street on the north side of student housing building. all which support the pedestrian environment. projecproject provides an approe scale for the adjacent context. the project adds 520 student housing beds to the city housing staff. the project will utilize the eastern neighborhood as required 180 hooper street. this concludes the staff's presentation. i'll refrain from addressing the elephant in the room regarding student housing. i'm happying to answer questions. >> thank you.

project sponsor? i'm assuming none of your students are living on monticello street? >> that's right. thank you president hillis. i'm david meckel. c.c.a. is 111-year-old fully accredited arts design. with 1950 students, 480 faculty, 250 staff, two thirds are already located at our san francisco campus. our plans call for closing our oakland campus and creating a single unified urban campus by adding below market student rate housing and a new academic building in our showplace square location. the difficulty and complexity of creating such a campus in an

environment where housing is pricey, land is scarce and construction is expensive has been addressed by our construction team. we are here to show -- by transforming c.c.a. into more residential campus, we are able to eliminate the trips, dress and congestion of commuting and providing low cost housing that's critical bringing studentstudents that unable to d san francisco rent. by designing what our architect calls an aggressively passive campus and introducing our own microgrid you're able to move forward. all thinking through making in the same location, we are harnessing the creative power of our community in a way that is not possible now with two

campuses. c.c.a. has played a role helping transform our neighborhood into thriving arts design and innovation district over the past three decades. we look forward to upcoming relocation next to our campus on hooper street, expect the concentration of cultural, educational and maker activities to continue to gather around us as this part of the city evolves in the years to come. now i like to introduce him who is a partner who will give you overview of the new campus. thank you. >> good afternoon. commissioners. we've designed architecture that will provide opportunities for c.c.a. students to discover new ways of expressing their creativity. while exposing them to sustainable ways of engaging with the environment and communities around them. building off the three goals, we

aim to combine the distinctive spirit and functionality of the oakland and san francisco facilities into a campus that reflects the heritage of c.c.a. while creating an entirely new model for interdisciplinary art and design education. our project site is between 1111 eighth street. existing c.c.a. main building and seventh street with the elevated 280 just honda. beyond. we introduced a layered landscape that we're calling the double ground to create a unified academic campus that features both a large flexible series of making and teaching spaces on the ground and elevated series of garden and gathering spaces one level above. all connected on both levels to the existing c.c.a. main

building. our concept is less about a singular new building and more. extending a unified campus. zooming in on the double ground, it contains 90,000 square feet of indoor space and 50,000 square feet of outdoor space. three pavilions out of the upper ground provide an architectural presence along hooper and irwin streets. in addition that spans the width of the block, there will be language -- large windows within the campus. the existing c.c.a. building is being reprogrammed. this is actually a plan with the existing building on the left and the new on the right. across the campus yard, the

ground floor at the new building is a large flexible grid of interdisciplinary maker paces that range -- spaces that range from the universal and shared resource hubs, digital fabrication labs. thing building connected on the roof of the maker space serves as a large landscape series of gardens, gathering and event spaces. also shown on this plan are the third and fourth floor of the two multi-story pavilions housing studios and teaching labs. this diagram, illustrates our goal, how we're implementing our goal becoming sustainably agile or aggressively passive as david

referred to. we've designed the structure and circulation to minimize energy consumption. thtimber grid expresses how the pavilions are made which we think is appropriate for college designed with thinking and making. i will conclude three renderings this one. overlooking one of the maker yards. we're striving for visual and physical connectivity. easy access to the outdoor space, natural light and ventilation into the spaces also supports vibrancy and sense of orientation to the surrounding neighborhood. in this rendering just beyond the pavilions is the elevated

280. [please stand by]

>> good afternoon, commissioners. this project is for affordable student housing and immediately adjacent to the main campus. the goal is to express c.c.a. as a campus and to expand the structure into an identifiable architectural language. 8th street is the broad campus frontage of complimentary and related buildings. the construction of the building involves the demolition of three single-story existing buildings, retains the 24,000 building. the new building is five stories and 135,000 square feet with 520 beds for c.c.a. students in single -- god bless --, double,

and quadruple occupancy units primarily for freshmen with some upper level, graduate, and graduate students. and a large sidewalk bulb out which you can see at the top of the slide rationalizes the colliding street grids at 8th and carolina, decreasing the asphalt and providing triangular parklet from the main industry and the interconnected grid and

there are 164 class rooms and back parking spaces and no vehicular parking. the project also includes improvements to channel 8 and grouper streets. 23 new street view will be along three frontages. and this is a typical floor plan showing the two bars of units along the corridors connected by bridges, both the triangular corn we are the elevators land and the two bridges which are the areas in yellow. and are shared common spaces for study and leisure of more than 3,000 square foot per level. and this is a top floor with a triangular outdoor balcony. on the rooftop are photovoltaics and hot water units. this shows the two bars of housing and the existing graduate building connected by the common area bridges.

this is the most typical two-bedroom unit which compartmentalized bathrooms. the furniture, while not finalized k be arranged in different configurations. this is one arrangement of beds, store j a, and desks. doctor of beds, storage, and desk. this is another. the corner of hooper and 8th and the gallery cafe can be seen from the street. this is a view of the gallery cafe, and another view from the core of the student housing building. this is a view of the gallery cafe into the courtyard. and staff has expressed concerns with the use of final windows that are single hung and slide upwards to open. and you can see that the look

identical and vinyl 3 and 3/8 and aluminum 3 1/4. below that, the performance of vinyl and >> and typical of corrosion with which we hope will be approved. >> the top floor balcony -- next. a view of eighth and hooper

showing the existing building architecture expanded to the new entry to the c.c.a. campus. >> is that all? we will open it up to public sxhent. >> commissioner, ron mcgill. i came here regarding to housing. i didn't expect the design necessarily. i congratulate you on knocking it down to size. just for a little history around 10 years ago the housing action coalition convened a series of meetings with several san francisco colleges to discuss

their plans for student housing. this added to dialogue regarding possible legislation which might foser the creation. -- foser the creation. the educators had never spoken before. some of them actually had never even met each other. it took a while, but the legislation finally made its way through this commission and the board of supervisors, and the result has been a number of greatly needed and very creative projects. c.c.a. before you today has had a firm objective since it first crossed the bay to san francisco, and now will be here totally. that is to establish an i a maizing campus in san francisco. as someone who has lived in their immediate area for many years, i watched it being created. the concept for student housing, graduate students integrated into the middle of the city, juniors and seniors near but not directly attached, and those in the first year or so of college

who are not necessarily familiar with our city or large cities in general actually on campus. this is most logical thinking i've come across. the campus expansion plans directly, logically fall into place. there are a few critics of the proposed architecture, and you may have had communication from them. it's my reasoning that the concept of directly reflecting the neighborhood and/or following more traditional san francisco design concepts for residential housing must be put aside in favor of establishing the visible cohesiveness that identifies an integrated college campus. gang architecture, thank you, you have done just that. and i for one greatly appreciate it. the public should look at this student housing and immediately be aware that it belongs to the

c.c.a. campus. traditional campuses such as stanford have an integrated design plan but are physically removed from the community. u.s.f. is virtually landlocked from the neighborhood. here, however, is a situation where an active street grid exists, and a neighborhood butts up against it. when someone passes by, they should be able to say, that building, the one over there, that's part of c.c.a. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is timothy rifon, a field representative with carpenters local 222. i am here to support to ask for 188 hooper california college of arts projects. this is a great opportunity to see the california college of the arts grow their campus in s.f. in particular, the on campus student housing 520 is sure to

free up some housing supply in the market for those in need of housing. they have picked a very responsible general contractor. we have enjoyed a long history. many of our members have been employed or are employed by this company in one shape or form throughout the san francisco area on a lot of the projects that they have done. we look forward to helping build on the campus of california campus housing. this is a great project. i ask your support on this project. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> messing up the queuing. kate moss, placemate who owns 150 hooper next door. i am here really to encourage you and strongly support these projects. c.c.a. is an anchor institution already. and a long-standing program partner of s.f. made. we really run in the same space

as creating design and making and creating both economic and cultural vibrancy. and it occurs to me at a time when so many folks are considering leaving san francisco to have an anchor institution re-upping at this level, re-investing, creating density while creating permability physically and spiritually among the p.d.r. users that surround this campus to me is incredible. and i think we should do anything that we can to help expedite this. it's a heavy lift for them for any nonprofit. and i can say as a nonprofit developer ourselves, these kinds of investments are daunting for any of us. and i think they need our full support, and we are beyond excited to have them growing right next door creating a vibrant design makerhood. please move this forward with expeditiousness. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please.

>> hello. thank you very much for allowing me to speak. i have been here several times before. and always in the context of academic and academic housing. i didn't realize that i was going to be speaking after having heard what was going on in moneceido. we lived totally surrounded by the university of san francisco. and when we worked with them, they have become some of the best actors possible, a fabulous neighbor, where we, our stakeholders and their institutional master plan. and i was going to come here to talk about what i really have to support having student housing. i am so glad that the california college of arts is doing this. u.s.f., as you know, just approved a 606-bed dormitory for them. and student housing, as you

know, takes away the immediate to have this compounding problem with affordable housing. they don't have to compete and the academics are better and you can see the comprehensiveness that happens. i do hear that you as planning commissioners are struggling with the concept which is the difference between -- which is what happens when you have a student who lives off campus and how does that work with the school? now, u.s.f. has fig procedure it out. -- has figured it out. they have a department of student life and housing in which every student who i a tends u.s.f. is bound by rules of conduct that are exactly the same as if you were in the dorm or not in a dorm. so that their rules of conduct -- i will just give you a few glimpses. main tan an orderly -- maintain an orderly residence that is

includes things such as drug and alcohol laws, hosting party where is there is public drunkenness, excessive noise or other behaviors with disregard to the rights of others including your neighbor. so i would like you to consider perhaps as a bridge between building student housing and having schools or someone -- you guys can figure it out -- control the off-campus behavior and conduct of students. so whether it's a u.s.f. or whoever else the student belongs so is that they are guide bid the same kinds of principles that they are. if you want further information, i will be happy to give you or u. s.f. can give you their rules of conduct from the student life and housing. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> briefly, looking at the

pictures, you say this will be affordable student housing. i didn't hear any numbers. i saw 280 units and if each double bedroom is going to cost them a total of $3,000, that is $840,000 a year. is that affordable? i don't know. i like the california college of the art, but i was very surprised really to see at least in the pictures, again, it looks like a bunch of doctor it's very airy and got the photovoltaics and interesting design, but it just looks like another box. it's not distinctive. you won't know it that's c. c.a. it looks like 10,000 other ugly buildings. >> thank you. next speaker. how are you? >> sue hester. this is the third project that i

am here for saying hurrah. u.s.f. did the right thing. conservatory of music did the right thing. and this one is doing the right thing. and you had a presentation a couple of weeks ago from san francisco state. they're trying to do the right thing. you need to approve this housing. we are really beleaguered in the city by students competing for housing when they should be accommodated by the institution, and the smart institutions are building housing to keep the student students' rents down as well as keep them a part of the campus. people like san francisco state need to be encouraged because you don't have jurisdiction over

them, so encourage them. encourage u.c.s.f.. you also don't have jurisdiction over them. and they also need to be encouraged. this is monumental. if we can leave some of the -- if we can relieve some of the pressure on the housing in the neighborhoods, including monticello street, it is not too much to really look at these projects and find out how they're accommodating housing and doing the right thing. i really appreciate c.c.a. separate and also want to thank them for hiring the company they did. they have had some great people traditionally in the city. they have a history and they should keep expanding in this area and doing it the right way. >> thank you very much. any additional public comment on this item?