and to call it just a mill for r immigration purposes or just a r aau to just be a real estate reh fakes classes on the side, it'sn the art. i'm also like marie a homeownerh the process and pay my permits g legally. and as i said last time this cat them get away if it, it's a sigi should be able to get off scot-. it's a bad message. and it's fine they are going tod be the decades of illegal rentsn and use that as a mathematical o figure out how much they actualy in homelessness that they've ca. there's aau students all over to taking up housing, because they. everywhere you go, bike riding,n

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 they've 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 don't think we need to settle. >> thank you, next speaker, ple.

>> good evening, commissioners. i'm 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 university's 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 it's not going to. so either keep in mind what hasd i've just ask you if you can res situation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. she gets 15 minutes. almost one for every year she'ss issue.

[laughter] >> i need to get my stuff organ. i have handouts. i've been working on this for 1. and what you've heard today is t hasn't been a good neighbor to l buildings that people have talk. and that's 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. it's 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 didn't 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. it's 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. they've gone through nine attore been dealing with them -- pardoe attorney groups. the current one -- the attorneyr

nine. and that's 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 we've had a bunch of -- miln joined us. there's been two lees, a fung ao johnsons since we've been deali.

so as you go through this list,f planning commissioners that havg with this project, it's kind ofe over 20. and sanchez was thanked for all. i'm 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 weren't needed, we, because it was a big thing. the only time the academy took s they tried to take over the fary couldn't, 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. he's a real architect. and he's a real planner. and he's the head of cal poly, l planning school. his analysis when he started goe housing plans. and he said they're not a meetie requirements. and he knows because he's 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 can't ge psei which is postsecondary edul institution, they have buildinge institutional buildings. they have steps. they don't 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 don't know that the planning y got -- i know you don't have pee really involved with dealing wi, because it's 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 don't havt i've seen someone really, reallg with accessibility issues. and it's 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 can'o 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 old-fn

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. i'm glad they are doing rehab o. i don't 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, there's so much housing being b, built already right now becaused this as a city as a housing are. and it's a huge site right nextt housing that's being built by ty of music, which is an art insti. so i would ask you to, one, fige disability issues are dealt wit. don't 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 don't comply with y should be changed.

two, don't 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 didn't 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 don't think -- maybe you haveh the 5,000 pages and read them a.

the addendum to the eir, all tht are majorly important, i've 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 it's 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 i'm 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 they've come a long. i couldn't tell you how many hon billed to lawyers for this one. and i think we've come a long w. and to all the staff and all ths that put in the time and the efo say thank you. i'm 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 that's prove city as part of the settlement . there's 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 city's 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, i'm 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 it's 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. it's 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 doesn't become effece lion's 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 don't 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. >> we've 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 one-third of the total cost to replace the land or s.r.o. units to current standards.

using the actual figures from the mayor's office of housing and urban development, the figure is $205,000 per one-room single occupancy unit and $250,000 for one single apartment family suite. >> you all have this in your packet. i don't 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 she's had to try to deal with about 500 pages.

i've 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' -- >> it's 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. >> i'm 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 wasn't 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 we're 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, it's my understanding that it's to be used, the $235,000 cost or the gap that mohcd has for developing housing, times that by the 150 -- and that's 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 it's not housing, it's commercial. and so academy put students in the housing -- pardon me -- in the buildings and considered it

to be student housing, but they didn't comply with the law oliv on live-work 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 live-work units, but at the time, live-work was still live-work. 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 they're retaining. in regards to the live-work issue, for -- this has been going on for a while, so for about a decade, it's been the position of the department that since they're in compliance with the notice of restrictions of live-work units, which does not prohibit artists from living in live-work units, even if they're students, that

wouldn't 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 live-work buildings. >> president melgar: okay. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner richards: i was going to ask that. >> president melgar: oh, i'm sorry. >> commissioner richards: yeah, how they complied. >> nick rosen. so there are two -- in the existing 40-site campus, there were two live-work sites. 575 harrison and roosevelt. the sites aren't identical across the board, and in the case of 168 bluxon, the academy is vacating that site, so it's being put back onto the market as live-work housing. at 575 harrison, there's no requirement -- the common feature of n.s.r. is a common requirement that residents have

business licenses. that's not a common requirement for the n.s.r., so i think we established that the academy's 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 i've 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 don't 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 we've been thinking about that, just to let the public now how we've 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 don't see that as kind of kicking it down the road, it's having the proper agencies do the proper review that they do on a normal basis.

you know, we don't have that expertise to have that work done. that's 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 sponsor's 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 there's nothing in this agreement that removes the requirement to be accessible, right? >> yeah, correct. there's nothing that a bridge removes, reduces in any way their accessibility requirements under the law. that's just not done. they have to meet all the requirements.

>> president melgar: they haven't been exactly compliant, so what i would like to do is inspect the mechanism that we can use to go after them if they don't 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 don't meet accessibility requirements that are outlined in the approved plans, that's a mechanism for us to review that with the judge, and the academy's 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 attorney's 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 don't have to file a lawsuit, we don't 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 that's how we would address any violations of the kind we're 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 don't remediate right away. >> president melgar: okay. okay. so i had -- i'll 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 seven-by-seven miles. it's 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 that's worth approving. that being said, you know, it's

also, for me, an issue of timing, and that to me is strategic and important because i think we're in a housing crisis. i think these folks caused some of what we have now, which is why it's 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 that's coming into the affordable housing fund. we are not seeing as robust, you know, a pipeline of fees as we would like. and it's a counter cyclical things that we're seeing in

sfressan francisco, when people want to build, that's when the economy is robust, and that's when it's expensive. so we've set up this system to get affordable housing precisely when it's the worst time to build affordable housing. so seeing as we're 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 they're looking at the same numbers that we're looking at. so i think we're 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? what's 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 they're willing to negotiate about the lighting with neighbors, so i'm wondering, you know, what that's 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? i'm sorry. it's getting late. i'm tired -- about there being a two-year 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 academy-relat academy-related entities on bluxom and wisconsin. in the case of bluxom, they'll 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. i'm 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 it's being used for or not being used for or its intent. i don't know if staff can respond to that. >> sure. so the cannery is located at 2801 leavenworth, within the c-2 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 there's nothing further, commissioners, there's 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, 5-0. 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 we're going to hear the next item, but then, you're next. is that okay? >> clerk: right. so we'll take up -- item 17 has been continued to december 19,

placing us on item 18 for case number 2016-003994 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 off-site 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 project's initially proposed 24-dwelling 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 staff's 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 i'm 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 it's 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 wouldn't max out the density on this site. we're merging three lots, we're going up to 25 units. we've maximized the density beyond the 18 units that would

otherwise be allowed here, and we do it with the existing character that's on belcher street. we've 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, we've had two design meetings with them since then. commissioner richards attended one of them and helped facilitate it at the request of the supervisor. we've made significant progress there. i think we're going to have one of the neighbors speak to part of that issue tonight, and we're really -- we're trying to make it work for everyone so we're 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. we've been working with them.

in fact, as of just a couple hours before this hearing, we came up with final conditions that we're going to voluntarily request that the condition -- that the commission place on the approval of the project and this is something i've worked out with david troop, who's the president of dt&a. miss president, i'm happy to hand this over, but i'm 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, six-month 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 i'm a neighbor. i live across the street from the proposed project. i'm also a member of the duboce triangle association, but i'm here representing myself and my neighbors.

55 belcher street is a midblock. it's a four-story building. there are some four-story buildings on the street, but this one is much larger and much more dense. so we had concerns around the density and the height. we've actually chosen not to really fight those because we recognize and acknowledge there's a housing crisis in our city and those units are important. but given that kind of spirit of collaboration, we're hoping and we've 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 there's a parapet which goes almost 4 feet above

that. we'd like to see the height of that parapet reduced down closer to the roof line so it's closer to 40 feet, maybe 41 feet. additionally, aif there's anything that can be done to reduce the 16-foot elevator on penthouse which goes 16 feet above the 40-foot roof line, so 56 feet, which is pretty high. and i don't know if john has this, but ideally, we would condition the streetscape plan to maintain the plumbing equipment. i can't say i'm truly happy with the building, but i'm reasonably happy, and i appreciate sia and john's 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 we're able, through conversations, to add additional below market rate subsidized affordable homes. we think that's also really fantastic. and just for everybody, i know you know this, this is a block away from church and market, where there's muni and buses going by all the time. so we're 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 you've come together, and you always produce something for the neighborhood. i hope to see you together over and over. i'm 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 don't 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 we're getting back to housing. i just have two questions. first, i see on page 8-4.1, i see the parapet. however, as i look on 8-3.1 and

8-0.1, the plans call for a base, a middle, and a top. that doesn't 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 don't 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 yes, the 2'