tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 23, 2019 2:00am-3:01am PDT
i go to city build. i go to the united players. i talk to those kids. i tell them to get interested in the trade. i tell them to apply. i tell them to study and honestly a lot of times they call me back and they say i didn't make it. i say try again. it took me three years to get into my apprenticeship program. when i did, the rest of it is taken care of. projects like this aren't just paying a wage. they're paying a living wage. a lot of items came up about cost of living, expensive housing and displacement and it's jobs like these that are anti displacement tools for the middle, like myself, that are seeing displacement as real as any other class. if you look closely at the letter, there's 26 trades in the council so it's not one or two or three, there's 26 trades at this developer is committing to
using so that is 26 times the apprenticeships. the livable wages and another big thing that people don't talk about is retention. some people may a oh, we're trying to get residents on this one job but we're trying to create careers for these people so when they get into our program, they don't just go to one job they go from job to job to job for their career not having to worry about getting their own jobs when one construction is finished. and again, i mentioned this before, sometimes up here, we aren't sure if someone is going to build a project or not. it leaves our hand and it may get appealed or may not and it may get built or not. they o do not fill their projects and they get approval and they build them. >> thank you. commissioner fung. >> a couple of questions were staffed and a couple of specific
questions. in your summary, you used the term outstanding over all design. how is that designed specifically in the code if it is? >> i don't know that it is described in the code. we do have both residential and urban design guidelines. all of the projects are vetted through our design review process. we have a staff of architects that review these and they compare them to the design guidelines established by the city and it's based on their review as experts in the field and in applying the design guidelines that were established. >> keep in mind, commissioners, we write the motions as expressions with what the
commission is agreeing with. the commission is more than -- >> my point is, is it a specific definition within the code that talks about what is outstanding over you wilover all design. that was my question? >> in the design guidelines, yes. i can't think and i might have to defer to rich because i don't know the code as well as he does. >> let's pass on it. the second general question is within the central coma plan, are there any directions or geeti guidelines that deals with the transition between the very large-scale facility anticipated within that plan?
>> we see this downtown and other areas of the city as well. a lot of these sites being redeveloped, their zoning has been changed over the years to allow much higher density and much taller buildings there before. so, with every project, while it does seem very severe when you live in a smaller building and a large building is being built next to you. however, it's not uncommon for what we see in san francisco. this site where they small buildings exist, also have been
stepping back at upper levels to address these concerns and these are part of the central coma plan. these were written in specifically in the special used district. there were certain items that could be granted exceptions through the authorization process. this isn't specific just to central soma this is for all eastern neighborhoods, large project authorizations. the code is very specific. on this so i hope i answered your questions. >> let's proceed onto the more specific questions. within the motion itself, i don't know if the revised motion because we just received it, i haven't had a chance to look at it. page 6, item d, the depart mental answer is that the correct square footage site >>
this is for the residential useable open space? >> yeah. >> this is somewhere around 71,000. >> the lot area, let's see -- >> the second line of the department's response. so it says the project is 960 unit tower development in soma the project enclouds a total and 432 square foot of privately open accessible space. >> no, no. under item d, lot coverage. it says 48,248 square feet of
the 27,290 square foot site. >> yeah, we probably mixed up the two numbers. >> correct that, please. >> correct. >> page 17, top of the page, item c. it talks about the design of lower floors. the third line uses the term district. is that what you mean? or is the term distinct? >> you are correct. it's probably distinct rather than district podium. the last thing on the motion is what would it have taken for them to have 100 compliance with a win? >> >> probably a pretty major redesign of the building itself and i know -- i haven't been involved in this project since the beginning but i know that the developer has been working closely with staff for city
years on this design in conjunction with the development of the central soma plan. so the answer is it's a major redesign of the buildings. it is not uncommon for highrises in this part of town to request some exception for the wind ordinance but we're finding the only way to deal with it is through objects in the right-of-way so we're kind of working with public works on how to make that work so that whatever we need to do is not an obstruction of the right-of-way but solves the wind problem. it's within the code parameters and there's code parameters when you cannot exceed those but it still requires somewhat of an exception. >> ok. in terms of where i stand on the
project, the issue of whether this is outstanding over all design is debatable. the real question in my mind is does it confirm and is it acceptable within the parameters of staff by the central coma soa plant which is really the guidance. as the department knows, they've been given media a quick review of the tenants of that plan and at this point in time, i find this project to be acceptable within the premise of the plan. >> thank you. commissioner hillis. >> thank you. i like this project and i've liked the design and it works on the skyline but more importantly, the architect talked about kind of the typical design we see it as a podium with towers above and i think this gives kind of much more
life on the ground floor and the accessibility to the open space within it is great. you are doing a lot on a small site. i like the design. we can quibble whether it's outstanding. i believe it is. but just some questions on your interaction. obviously the neighbor will be impacted the fact when we have these developments. this is not just for a large project but additions
>> at 601 fourth street. in particular we worked closely with 601 fourth street providing a 32-foot permanent no building setback between the two projects and i would like to bring up some projects and some slides here. >> can you clarify that? where the property line ends? i mean there's that alley that is there? >> so our property line ends on the 655 fourth street or creamery property line ends on our sight of the site. there's a 30-foot no build easement which buildings to the next door property owner. it was not a no-build easement
at the time we went there as we worked on the design of this project, we worked with them -- we knew this was an exception we were facing. it was something we worked with staff to create the design supported by staff including the irvin design group. one of the ways we provided the setback to have frankly a greater setback than you would get if we were following planning's guidelines was to negotiate and record a no-build easement over these 32 feet separating the two properties. we also, and i think why this is a little surprising to us is in negotiating that easement we actually had to show them the design, work through this design, we're totally 'em pathetic to the concerns of people with rows next door to them. you can see here in response to those concerns is part of this negotiation of this easement.
the light and air continues to fall on that southern facade. it's not perfect. i don't think there's a way to be perfect with a 40-storey building and 960 units next door. it was a significant part of the conversation with the h.o.a. here and ultimately they did agree, a large majority of the residents agreed to support design that is before you today. >> ok. thank you. into planning staff, in order to build this, we heard from some of the neighbors there's an exception to some of the set backs, can you just walk through that? >> linda is going to come up and walk us through some of the bulk control exceptions. in short it's exception towards the podium and the central soma define the podium based that is
require throughout the site as well as an exception for the floor plate of the towers above and so they're asking for exceptions from both the set backs as well as the tower bulk. i'll have linda walk through it in detail. >> if you -- i don't know if you have the plans in front of you but in the plans that the developer has did not a really good job graphically showing what these exceptions are. >> maybe you can put it up on the overhead. >> i don't know if the page will fit. >> it starts on page 57.
>> typically with stannard towers that are generally pretty symmetrical, it's not as much of an issue to be able to meet this. because of the unique design of this building, because it widens as it goes lower, there are areas between the buildings where they do not meet the letter of the law on the tower separation. this was anticipated in the development of the central soma plan which is why this is one of the exceptions that can be asked for. i'm trying to refresh my memory on this one. for the flor plate size, i might
have to -- i can't remember the exact language. >> in short, we basically require exception to allow exceedance in the standard for plate size that the central soma plan calls for so the project requires an exception to the length and signal dimension as well as the flor plate limit so normally when you hit a tower height above a certain height, we construction the flor plate to help shape the building. in this case, because the floor plate or the way the building is designed, that tower height signal is exceeding. so it looks like four towers, it's really only two towers that are shaped to be to look like four towers. and so, it technically needs an exception from those bulk requirements from the tower.
>> a typical -- a project that met the code requirements and asked for no exceptions, would that be an 85-foot or an 80-foot podium height and the towers would start setting back from there? so to the neighbors adjacent, there would be -- >> you would have more bulk basically. >> you have that 85-foot podium adjacent. presumely, to the no building. >> correct. if it was code complying, the developer could technically build out fully the podium height minus the lot coverage requirements which is about 80% of the lot area depending on how they shape it. set the building in subsequently from that. >> it's slightly smaller. >> right. >> thank you. >> but i think again, there's a difference to the neighborhood that it could be that you do
have that plaza in this setback on the first eight or nine stories, whatever it is until you get to the podium level. to me it's a good trade off. again, i appreciate the design and i think, especially on the ground floor and what this does, this project works and works well. >> i believe it's an interesting project. i think the playful -- it's a good project. i believe it's a playful forming of these towers de-emphasizing the actual size of the project. this is a huge project. there's hardly any project in san francisco other than a tall highrise tower when they don't have highrise towers which kind of has a lot of units we de-emphasizes that by it's playfulness. i think it has a good residential expression. it does not look like an office tower but it looks like a residential building which i appreciate very much.
i only have one question and that is the unit exposure on level six and seven if the architect would have put that drawing up there's one area where i believe the distance between units across from each other is so incredibly narrow that i think there are issues of privacy on the lower part of the tower? i think it's tower one. level six and seven on drawings 44. you were very close when you put up -- the drawing number is from the binding side. >> early shannon. there are some places as we play this game of trying to make two towers look like four.
where just before the towers come together, the units within the project facing other units within the project get very close to each other. we've designed the floor plans of those units to minimize the impact to make sure that we give the units all views to the exterior, not just into that key hole if you will. again, this is done in part to create this plaza on fourth street to pull the building back to give better light and air to our neighbors to the north. >> there's a reason why it's looking at the plans. i understand what are doing. it's a question of quality of units at that particular juncture and when you have the private living space that close to each other, one wonders why other functions of the building, more notable functions would not have in those two units. i have the drawing if you want to put it up. i would like at least the commission to take a look at it.
it's what we are supposed to do. >> commissioner, we can have linda put mine up. it's page 44. >> jeremy. the a jaysen sees of these units in areas that will face one another will include privacy considerations concluding privacy glass. one of the reasons why we can't have non residential uses on this floor is we need to segregate uses by floor. you wouldn't want to have non residential uses sharing the same floor with a residential floor. we don't want to eliminate a floor of housing on these floors just because of that end area and so these units still have access both to the interior court yard as well as facing the fourth street front age in
regards to right and air light r exposure. they have other areas where they can access light and air. >> i appreciate it. i take issue with it. if i lived in this unit with my living space being five feet away from another persons bedroom i don't think we would want to live there. it's too close for tom fort. i don't know how to resolve the issue. this is unit count most likely. i just comment that in this particular part of the project, to see this light deficiency in terms of quality of units. the units look great and the buildings are beautiful. this particular part of the project is from my perspective not properly resolved. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i wanted to thank commissioner hillis for his line of questioning. and thank the neighbors for coming out and voicing some of
your concerns. i know regardless of when the plans were made available or not, i always think it's really important that folks are voicing that they are concerned about a live ability issue that we take the time to discuss it up here so you can really understand. i hope you got to hear we debated everything from what is in our motion to really trying to understand what could be done with the building and what considerations have been made from the project sponsor side and from the staff side to really think about your quality of life. unfortunately in cities, we have to make these trade offs as we expand and grow but we're really deliberating that. with that, i think that this is a beautiful design and i support
the project and i move to approve with conditions. >> second. >> just to clarify it's the revised motion that is introduced today. >> yes. >> as has been corrected. >> and corrected. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on the revised motion that had corrected. commissioner fung. >> aye. >> hillis. >> aye. >> johnson aye. >> moore. >> koppel. >> aye. >> melgar. >> aye. >> that passes 6-0 unanimously. that will place us on item 8. 5400 gary boulevard. conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon commissioners. mary wood of the commons staff. the applicant is seeking a
conditional use authorization to modify the conditional use authorization that was approved on the commission motion number 18853 that was approved in april of 25th, 2013. we -- >> i'm sorry. those people leaving the room, if you can do so quietly. we have additional business to attend to here. relating to the renovation of the existing alexandra theater building. second, change the previous approved use in 2013 from retail sales and a movie theater to a retail sales and services use for a recreation alpha sil tee oal facility onthe third floor l professional services used on the third flor.
thirdly, to allow a noon residential use exceeding 5,999 square feet for each of the proposed uses. the swing center at 13,300 square feet, the learning center at 9800 square feet, and the business center at 9100 square feet. the c.u. will be required to locate a non retail professionals services used on a newly created third flor level and lastly, infield a existing west alley space, 1,000 square feet that was previously used as an ex terrier exit for the theater as the new swing center visitors gallery on the first floor. on the first floor, upon completion ocompletion ofcomplen 40,000 square feet. all off street parking spaces
provided in the adjacent residential mixed use building as previously approved in 2013. the 2013 commission approval included a residential mix use building in the adjacent surpass parking lot. that residential building has been completed in 2018 and therefore is not included in the current scope of work. the department prepare an addendum to the 2011 negative declaration which is recommended for adoption part as pared of the current project. staff prepare monitoring and reporting program which is included as part of the project's approval as conditions of approval. since the packet was distributed, staff has seen one additional received from a long-time richmond neighborhood resident, ms. brown, in support
>> i'm excited about this project. >> sf gov, can you go to the computer, please. >> i hope there are more of you there. we're at the edge. thank you all very much. my name is johnathan pearlman. i know you've had a long day. not as long as i've been on this project. i started on this project in 2005. working on a historical report and have since worked through the various four different
owners and then we went through in 2013 and got approvals. we have the residential building that's been constructed so we're here today, hopefully being able to move forward with the renovation of the alexandria theater. so most of you know where this is. it's on geary boulevard and 18 avenue. you can see the building dead-center and the residential building under construction just beyond. the building was built in 1923. it was renovated in 1942. so it went from an egyption-style building and went to being art decoized in 1942 and there are some of the pictures there of the interior from 1942. it almost looks lick this except
the trees are 10 years down line from where it is today. our project is the revitalization of the theater building which has been closed since 2004 for 15 years. the project will retain all of the historical fabric of the building while providing new community uses. the project is a new direction from the approved program in 2013. the new program includes a swim center with two swimming pools. which will include a 1,100 square foot addition in the west alley from the theater. it can't be seen from the street. for a visitor's gallery from the swimming center. expand the second floor has been done in the 2013 plan and for a learning center and utilizing the old upper portion which is all poured concrete of the seeding and it will create the forum for a lecture-hall space.
a new third floor center for business center which is space for non retail professional services with shared conference space. so going into the building, the swim center and the learning center will come in from under the old marque in the front door of the building through the lobby. the existing lobby and all of the historical fabric is retained including the water fountain that looks like it's made of emeralds but it's just glass beads. the only change we'll make there is the candy counter used to be located along the curved wall. we'll open up windows there so from the lobby you can see into the swim center. the grand stair, unfortunately it's been painted pink which we will change. the grand stair, the old bronze railing. all the features of the lobby that are there now will be retained.
the swim center will use the in 1976. the movie theater was cut in half with the addition of the it were new leaders in the upper tiers of the theater. the swim center is in that front trunkated part and it has two pools. one for adults and one for children and on the left, the lower side is the visitor's gallery and the space will be separated environmentally from the spaces above and you can see their sky lights over this visitor's gallery which lined the two sides of the building where there are murals above on the long side walls of the old auditorium. so this is the plan you can see the two pools. the long curving side have the murals on them and the event trance and the lower left corner with the lobby. the curving kind of curving lobby is still retained. retail space on the street.
it's been there since the building was built in '23. we'll still have restale space on the street. we will be excavating to create pool equipment area and large locker rooms on a basement level and it's interesting because under the theater floor, there's a four to five foot high cavity where they used to heat the theater. already has been excavated in that particular area. this is the business center, i mean the learning center and you can see we're building a building inside a building so that we can retain all the murals that line the sides of the building so they're setback seven feet away and with windows wrapping all the way around, all these classrooms, you will be able to still experience from many vantage points the sense of the space as well as being in a
place where you've never been before right up close to see the murals there. this is the form space that i mentioned. there's kind of seal thing that goes up. that is one of the old theaters and you can see on the side, again, we'll have kind of a glass wall where you can look down the length and see the murals as well as the historic 1923 ceiling there but then have projection capabilities and lecture-type space there. so you can see the layout of that floor. the pulled in space. if you are standing on that second floor you would look down and see these sky lights separating to the pool area and this forum space on the lower left. and the business center is the roof of the learning center and up on a new third floor under this beautiful 1923 classical ceiling. it has a big dome in the center
and asian tahrir from 1923 that is still in good shape hanging there. so this is that space and it will have access to a conference space and this is this forum space so people who office here might use that space. so this is a section through the existing building. in the center of the dome it was cut in 1976. the area on the right is the big theater and the two theaters are located to the left. this is a section that shows where the murals are. you can see they're pulled off to the upper right but where the pool is where the front theater is and we have the two floors located in the space with the upper space under that this is where you can see the building
in the building. the central building with the set backs of seven feet and then where you see the big space in a unique way that is never been able to it be seen like that before. in 2013, it included the residential building on the right and commercial space on the ground floor and i restaurant on the second floor and one small 220-seat theater. that's what we're modifying here. and, you know, in terms of conditional use, we have to show it's necessary and desirable and compatible. well, a building that's been there 96 years is compatible with its neighborhood. the building has been vacant for 15 years so we're revitalizing that and bringing life back into this area. we'll retain this historic tur of the building. these are new community-serving
uses because all these uses will be open to the public. and it will, the business center will offer unique office space to professionals to expand the opportunities for local neighborhood employment and then in terms of the other things that we need to show is that the nature of the site of course is revitalize and existing building. the parking is in the lower levels, the basement levels of the residential building that is next door. the traffic study that we did indicated that there's, this is a less intensive use than the one approved in 2013 and the bicycle parking for the project exceeds code requirements. safe guards on offensive emissions. one of the things that is interesting about this is most of the construction is inside the building so it will minimize the issues that come up around construction and then things about landscape and signage and the signage, the most important
signage is the big marque and that 50-foot high blade sign you can see from a mile away. those will be restored and hopefully the permits have been issued and hopefully we'll be ready by the end of this year. one of the concerns was losing a movie theater but the project sponsor has talked to lows theaters which is now amc and even four star around the corner and each one of them indicated this is not an economically viable option. so i think what we're doing is something that will be incredibly desirable for the neighborhood to bring all these community uses in and i hope you will approve the conditional uses. thank you. >> i do have the owners here. if there are specific questions as well. >> if there are specific questions. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you so much.
we will open this up for open comment. i have catherine petrin and ron miguel. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i have a letter from the san francisco neighborhood theater. i'll leave them to distribute. i'm representing san francisco neighborhood theater foundation. we are disappointed with regard to the proposed project for two primary reasons. one having to do with access and community benefits. i did hear some things in this presentation that i didn't understand before so this may be a up for debate. in accordance with the final mitigate deck of may 2011 and as part of the larger multi-use
p.u.d. project, the project sponsor committed to adaptively reuse the theater incorporating new commercial spaces a sin a ma and restaurant. these would have provided broad community benefit and public access to appreciate the alexandria interior defining features. with elimination of the si cinea it's curtailed. the design could be achieved in a way that more meaningful reveals the character-defining features. we just saw in the presentation the construction of a building within a building. i wonder about some aspects of what that will feel like and how you experienced the space. it doesn't appear there's natural light and i wonder about the viability of the uses.
we suggest that more treatment of the interior that appreciates the volume of that original auditorium could be highlighted as part of a modified project so we request the commission hold off on approving the pending c.u. a. until anna approved design is submitted. we think it would better highlight the public's access to the interior charter-defining features. after many years of construction, neglect at the alexandria, the community deserves a better project and we're lucky it's intact and be sure to maximize the potential of this neighborhood landmark. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> long day. [ please stand by ]
the housing on the parking lot is already being done which is fantastic. it was a pleasure to be able to work with your committee. we are totally absent from any neighborhood involvement. what i really want to talk to you about is the problem that you have heard interface with a y was continuing until recently they have shown absolutely no interest and have turned it down. that was a no go. the housing on the parking lot is artie being leased which is fantastic. it was a pleasure to be able to work with your ugly
and other present owners because previous owners were totally absent from any neighborhood involvement. what i really want to talk to you about is the problem that you have heard constantly, and believe it or not started about 15 years ago. that is the problem of neighborhood commercial districts. theaters such as this where linchpins of neighborhood commercial districts. they brought people, they brought shoppers, they brought kids, they were essential to them. that is why you found them in neighborhood commercial districts. 15 years ago was the start of the demise of neighborhood commercial districts including gary. to revitalize this space is absolutely essential. several of the large theaters have been made into gems, not unlike the use that is going to happen
here. believe it or not, if you've gone into some of those, and i have, just for curiosity sake the, if i can use the term history city, of the building, of those is nowhere near what is going to happen here. i have to congratulate mr. perlman on being insistent on keeping everything we can. the previous speaker i understand, i work with her in the beginning trying to get a theater operator. no one wants to touch it. that was a no go, nearly from the beginning although we had hopes. this is the only practical way of doing it. i think this theater building coming into a totally different use but viable to the neighborhood. will allow the general public of today, my
grandkids to understand what these theaters really were in their glory days. i urge you to approve this. >> thank you mr. miguel. next speaker, please. >> thank you commissioners, i am jeff gordon, the board chair for the richmond district ymca. i want to make a quick clarification with regard to the statements made by mr. miguel. the ymca did approach the various owners of this property. in fact we had also come at one point i think sent them a letter of intent regarding what use we would make of the space and in fact i think the response we got was we didn't get a response. the interest was not that there was no interest on our part, the interest was actually coming back the other way. obviously the ymca is concerned about this project. we want to make sure that it's a good project for the
neighborhood and doubted impact benefits the neighborhood. i think right now, we are not certain. i think it is obviously a project that we will follow with interest and we want to make sure that there is good community use. we are happy to work with the owners we had indicated that with regard to how the y might be involved in whatever's going on over at that project. i wanted to clarify that statement made by mr. mcgough and the executive director for the richmond district ymca is here with me as well today. thank you for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i am patrick connolly. i may richmond resident i live on sixth avenue, i am a dad of two young kids. one of which is currently in swim lessons and
currently take him outside of the neighborhood to have the swim lessons. i think a use like this would be useful for the neighborhood. there's a lot of families out there. maybe my kids and my younger kid when he's old enough to take swim lessons can go and take swim lessons there. i'd also just generally say as a resident of richmond that thank goodness somebody finally wants to do something with this theater. it's been like this since i moved to san francisco 10-11 years ago. thank god somebody wants to do something with it. i'll leave you without. >> thank you. any other public comments on this item? public comment is now closed. commissioner johnson. >> i, too, am a resident of the richmond. yes, thank goodness. somebody wants to do something
with alexandria. when i originally saw the plans in 2013, i was really excited. i think i am a huge fan of civic infrastructure and making sure we are using these crown jewels of our city to find ways for people to come together and interact with each other. i was really excited by the idea of theater space or something coming on that could provide traffic, vibrancy to the community. i was interested, if i am honest, slightly confused by the new use. i recognize that our neighborhood could use more pools. the nearest one is the rossi which is right around the corner from my house which is under construction right now. we will get upgrades. but, i would love for you to just add a little bit more color to the understanding of the community uses that you arrive to, and help us understand how will be
operated and run and how it will be truly accessible to the neighborhood. >> and neighborhood survey. >> sure. after working with four different owners, the current owner did try to work with the ymca, i did get responses. the thought was that the y could move into this building on housing to be built on the side of the current why. they did have demands for taking over the building that were just unattainable. what is interesting is, this particular owner, i can introduce him to you, it is mr. lee over here, he has two programs like this in the south bay called star aquatics. they have swim programs that are for kids, and then also club membership open
to the public. as well as the learning centers. he has been operating these for many years and has found that they are profitable. that is when it didn't make sense with hawaii, the idea of having the pools is great because it is a complement it is not in competition to the why. they do not have that service. the afterschool programs and things are things that maybe he could speak more to them specifically. he operates these 2 other facilities down in the south bay. since he was the owner of the building, it seemed like it made sense for these 2 particular uses. to be frank that having another use that could be income generating. the idea of some kind of a business work center will people could be coming and going and local people could have some space was a way to actually provide some method of having a little bit more income to make this a viable, economically viable,
project. >> a small theater attached to it? >> that is like a classroom space. the classroom spaces for afterschool programs from just after noon until about 6 pm. in the morning hours on the evening hours, this space will be available for community use. neighborhood organizations can schedule time there. i think it becomes a really fantastic facility for nonprofit groups and other groups, the planning association of richmond, for instance, could meet there. that space is part of something that could be offered to the community for showing some evening events, something like that. i mean, it was seat maybe about 75-100 people. as well as for the professionals that might
be doing presentations for their clients, things like that. it would be an option for them to use. the building is interesting. it is a poured concrete structure. that whole upper tier area is all poured concrete and it kind of locks the building across. we didn't want to take it out, because it is a very important feature of the structure of the building. then it was like what do we do with this space. it kind of has a meaning relative to the uses. >> last question. i know there were several theaters, i get it with movie theaters that did not want to touch this project. i am curious what work was done to explore this as a small music venue like the independent or the paramount? >> we did not talk about music venues. we didn't. that would still be, we would be in the same place relative to demolition of a movie theater if
it became something like that. also, that would only really be an evening use. the beauty of this project is starting about 6 am for people to come swim come all the way until 10-11 pm the building can be an active use for most of the day. i think that is a great benefit to the community of the neighborhood. >> i think this is a very probative adaptive reuse of a building. i have no objections. i am prepared to support the modifications. >> the business model is obviously described to us in words that i would have liked to see some form of formalized understanding of what private membership means. i would like to see a balance between an
income generating facility, but also public component which at this moment is described in words but not yet formally realized. did you have a conversation with the supervisor or any other neighborhood organizations about the nature of these programs you are mentioning? >> yak, we have included the supervisor both sandra and eric moore, because we have been working on for a long time. supervisor at her office have been very supportive of this. of course they see this as an important piece of the richmond that it doesn't disappear and it doesn't just sit vacant. we have reached out to the planning association of richmond. we reach out to the golden gate church which is directly across on 18th ave. the ymca they have obviously expressed some concern. i know that the owner, and the members of the staff of
the ymca, the owner is very willing to sit down and talk about cross programming and things that will benefit both. no, we do not have a formal business plan. again, this is a model that mr. lee has been successful at in two different locations. that could be developed along the line here, so that it will be more palatable for you. >> can i ask you another question please? when it comes to preservation, we are not experts in that subject matter. does this particular project with the insertion of an independent structure have to be reviewed by anybody else, other than what you see as historic preservation architect? >> it went through staff, through the preservation staff. it has been reviewed. there was a historical study done that supported it and said it met the
sec. of interior's standards. the only element that we are removing. the only significant element that we are removing from the building is the slightly bowed floor of the original theater. the rest of the spaces in the building, are essentially in tact. certainly on the exterior, all of the exterior, we are not really changing the exterior at all other than some windows along 18th ave. which is right now a blank façade. that was approved in the 2013 approval. >> there is a description in the addendum to the mitigating declaration on page 15. this structure is individually eligibility for listing on the cal register and is considered part of the district. the
addendum took a look at the changes, after the 2013 and overall they found that the smodified project would not cauamodified project would not cause severe cultural resources nfranimpact. that was identified in the original mitigated declaration. there is one item that the construction of the interior floor levels of the volume of the theater does not comply with the secretary standards. over all it does retain sufficient integrity to remain eligible for listing. >> okay. i will just say that i am very excited about this project. not quite as long as you, but i did work for supervisor eric mark, this took
up a lot of my time this particular building. all of the issues around the building, the effect on the commercial corridor. the issue of vagrants outside, everything. i am excited that we have an adaptive reuse. i think this is beautiful. to your point, commissioner moore, i quickly googled the star aquatic and fitness facilities in saratoga and was pleasantly surprised at how affordable membership is. in fact a little more affordable than the ymca. i live - and you know, as you guys have heard, numerous times i got a bunch of kids at my house, it is such an important part of our lives to be able to go to the pool, to have birthday parties, too, you know, have a place. i cielo my neighbors there. it is great. and then we go out to