tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 29, 2019 2:00am-3:00am PDT
would be 80 units. i object to the secrecy around the negotiations and the internal workings of the university there. again, mcdonald's makes money from actually land leasing. they buy the land and then they get a tenant to be a franchisee. it looks like the aau is in the same boat as the people who own the university on the one hand through various llcs own the sites that in the future they can choose to sell off in different ways. they are not owned by the university. there has to be more scrutiny there. it is not a compact campus. i agree it moves in the right direction, but as long as they are allowed to remain spread all over the map the way they are
now and the way things have been going, we are just going to get more of the same so please give a lot more scrutiny. this was not a very good chance for the public to weigh in before your review in october, but the fact about student debt, too, i want to re-enforce that. the feds are starting to say if a school is producing a lot of debt and a lot of students who don't get jobs in their field when they graduate maybe they shouldn't guarantee the student loans. maybe that should also play into our consideration. >> president melgar: thank you. any other public comment on this item? public comment is closed.
commissioner fung. >> in the development of the student housing metering as indicated by the project sponsor approximately 30% of their enrollment, were statistics provided to staff on the other enrollees in terms, as an example percentage of commuters versus noncommuters? >> thank you. that is a question of comparative analysis of the academy to other institutions? >> no in terms of balance of students. >> that was part of the
discussion was looking at the student body. how many are on site versus how many are online students? they have the percentage of the student body that is full-time but may take one class online. we have that breakdown. are you also speaking where they reside? >> yes. >> that was a thorough analysis done as part of the e.i.r. and estm in 2016. a lot of that was part of that document. >> give us an idea. how many as a generality, how many are commuters? >> i would refer to the academy for the current figures on that. >> while he is looking at it, ms. sanchez, since they have a shuttle system that is fairly
extensive, any discussions on electric buses? >> excellent question. i do not know if we have had that discussion. that would be with transportation folks with the academy. i think there have been changes if they are biodiesel. i do not know what extent they have considered electrification of the fleet. >> i can ask the project spons sponsor. >> jim abrams, council for the academy of art. in the imp, what we have done is reported all of the enrollment for students who are full-time and part-time. then we have broken them out for full-time one, two and three and more classes online. we have not indicated where the
students live with their commuting or not. we have said that the students that are full-time students who take up to one class online thanks is the universe of students we have to house regardless where they live currently. when i was speaking about the 30% number, i should have clarified that number goes up over time. what the current agreement requires is that at the time of the signing of the development agreement we have to house 32% of the full-time. by 2026, 36%. then we have to get 45% and above. as i indicated that is greater than any other private university in the city. now we house 36% of the full-time. it is above the 32% requirement in the da. there is a provision that
requires we have to exceed 90% occupancy rate on the beds for the triggers to occur. in order for the rate at 36% we have to show we are exceeding 90% occupancy on the beds. >> the other question. did you folks ever consider going electric on your shuttle system? >> the shuttle's, currently, i believe, they are clean energy vehicles. >> your report indicates they are going from diesel to gasoline. >> correct the diesel engines are being phased out. i am not sure about electric vehicles whether or not we would do that. i want to say the shuttle's are not being provided for the sake of providing the shuttle's. the school is adjusting the shuttle's on the basis of demand
for the students. the t dm program gives points for the program. notwithstanding the fact there is a muni system. thank you. >> president melgar: commissione r koppel. >> vice president joel koppel: g was talking about. i was asking about sustainability within the buildings and transportation. this is a small city you don't need a gas tank of 300 miles to shuttle students from believes to buildings that are very close together. you know, it is simple to install solar panels on one of the many buildings and feed into batteries charges up small
shuttles and eliminate the noise to the neighbors. as i mentioned last week mayor breed is intending to take the ground transportation to 100% full electric vehicles. that is the way we are going as the city and we should follow suit as the university, too. >> president melgar: can i share more? >> the gold standard for master plans in the city is very high. this is the first time the aau is submitting an imp. we have golden gate university, california college of art, hastings, university of san francisco. many of the commissioners have been in these things and the document twice to emulate the form mat of those imps, the critical comment. it stea -- still reads as a doct
responding to the specific legal challenges the aau has recently gone to. that is probably editorial more than anything else. i have a substantive question in what form you are quantifying the student body. i heard you quote minimum of one class taken on campus. i think that is what this document says. that standing in contrast to the typical metrics where the student body is quantified in full-time equivalent for both on campus and off-campus student. how are you accounting for the students you actually have? it is harder to understand when it comes to speaking about your buildings in other typical institutional master plans, square footage is counted by an
accurate utilization of space for the actual count of how many students are in each class with an actual number of teaching hours. somewhere along the line while you believe your metrics are accurate, i would like to see an equivalency accounting of how you have both do the same thing as other institutional master plans to. mathematics simplifies the tabulations but i think we need to have some apples and apples here in order to bring this imp just into the same level of documenting the operation of this institution. that is i think perhaps a matter of clarification on your part. i have heard frequent mention of clustering the campus, and while i am very interested in seeing
that you are consolidating operations in more specific concentrated locations of the real estate holdings of the academy, i am still wondering when i look at page 55 of your document as to whether or not the way your curriculum lays itself over your real estate that is really fully an expression of clustering. i see, for example, the discipline of photography spread over three buildings which are quite far away from each other. i see the teaching of fashion doing the same thing. one would expect for all of us having gone to universities that related curriculum in proximity to each other architecture, interior and landscape in divergent places.
i would like to perhaps have that explained better. one does not want to think you would be duplicating resources, including making it difficult for students and teachers who operate in similar environments to move back and forth which reflects on the shuttle service. when you cereal lecluster the purpose -- really cluster. the purpose is to make the turnover a short minimum walking distance. the university of california davis modeled in the 1970s is the most desirable model of campus operations. in an urban environment that would be equally desirable including public transportation. also the use of public bicycles which cities are offering in abundance with the use of e
scooters. speaking about clustering, it is classroom utilization and the overlay of transportation strategy which really speak to a campus model that you are expressing as a goal but not fully realized. i have a question that is more suggestion. i had a difficult time for you to start utilizing 1946 vanness as an auto exhibit andy sign center -- and the design center behind on 1849 washington you seem to have a similar program
that could perhaps be a little bit more detail how the auto museum manifests itself into vanness corridor because it spreads out and it seems to be using a rather large amount of square footage. it is not quite clear what that program is. i think a little extra detail on other programs would be desirable, where they are located, how the existing square footage interact how the teaching and resources in those particular centers come together. i couldn't quite understand the utilization of the concordia club. there seems to be an indication it is being used an expansion of the fashion program. i could see it being a historic
rated building, not resource but rated building that was originally, i think, a social club. it has a swimming pool in the bottom and probably has presentation and meeting rooms. how a building like that adapts to school is not fully clear. i see the same question with the bakery how that would adapt. i would like to see a little more detail on that building as well. those are my comments. >> president melgar: any other comments? okay. i just i want to first of all, thank our legal team, and particularly ms. watty for your
hard work over the years, and director ram and the mayor's office of housing for all of the work they put into this issue, and also members of the public, particularly, ms. hester, who have stayed on the problem to help us make progress towards a resolution. i want to thank the academy of art. to commissioner moore's comments, this is not the first submittal of the institutional master plan. there have been others that we have turned down. i think this is the first real institutional master plan that has been submitted and not something that reads like a pr document so i am grateful for that because, you know, it is being taken seriously. i think, you know, it is important to plan for the future
and for how you use land in the city. i will say that i am glad that we are working towards the resolution. is it perfect? no, there are a lot of things we would all like to see in it, but i think on the whole, i am appreciative that we are making progress towards resolving a whole host of issues that have to do with land use and compliance,anticly the loss of land controlled housing which is important. director ram, did you want to say something? >> well to reiterate thanks to everyone, the attorney's office and scott and liz and andrew perry was very much involved in this. the question before you today, before the commission is whether
to close the public hearing is the point where you accent the master plan to start the 90 day clock for approvals. in the past you have not taken action on that but through informal agreement by the commissioners they agreed to close it or you can vote to continue it and not close the public hearing if you feel additional notice is needed. >> it is not notice of an action item but we can vote to close it? >> i would recommend as the chair you ask if there is objection from the commissioners to close the public hearing or if there is additional information they would like to have included in the imp then you could continue the matter. >> president melgar: i think what we should do is see if there are objections. if there is a majority of
commissioners who object we continue. commissioner richards. >> if you could go 304.5 how you feel this imp meets that section of the planning code i could be swayed to close this hearing. >> the main points in 304.5 as i stated in the initial presentation would be that it addresses the nature of the institution, it is history and growth. i think this document as well as the numerous documents we prepared over the years, the previous imp, i think we have a better understanding of that. physical changes that have occur understand the neighborhoods as a result of the growth. i think we have documented that through this as well. services provided and service populations. we have analysis there with the changes that have happened over the years. employment characteristics are covered, the fiscal plant in san
francisco. we have a clear concise appendix there. the parking means we have a discussion on the transportation development plans of the institution for the next decade. we outlined that. in addition the background information provided by the term sheet as well. maybe to the transportation issues raised at public comment. i note the original term sheets including requirement the academy provide muni passes to students and faculty. that was in the original settlement in 2016. we worked to ensure the they an compliance with bike requirements of the planning code. they have a large number of bike parking to add to address the transit issues. through the environmental review there is a dramatic change in
the shoalings system and rationalization of the shuttle system. they didn't have a program before. they have a more systematic approach to the transit system now. not to say things chant change in the future -- can't change in the future. we have made a lot of improvements. the transit passes and bike parking we have made strong progress on there in addition to physical changes to consolidate the facilities. >> president melgar: commission. >> commissioner moore: i would ask to ask the shuttle system the public clearly said was the introduction of rapid transit and all lines basically connecting to the other campus locations. let me look one more time at the concentration of the university
on vanness and perhaps not needing as intense of a shuttle service as the document still indicates. i believe i would like, i could support letting the imp go out today. i still would like to see it to account for the student body by full-time equivalent. that makes it compare annual to other institution master plans that can be done without us stopping the clock. i would like to see a couple other adjustments which came through my previous comments. look at shuttle regarding vanness, look at full-time student equivalent, look at teaching centers clustered on vanness rather than the scattered pattern which the university actually originally indicated to us was their
preferred mode of operation. that goes way back when but hasn't changed to the way we know the university to organize itself. >> president melgar: commission. >> vice president joel koppel: i want to clarify my comments earlier. we are not objecting to moving forward today. i am pleased with the progress we made with all parties inclusive. i didn't think we would get this far. i am impressed where we have got today in support of closing. >> president melgar: commission. >> commissioner richards: full-a semester? everybody equal to that level? >> commissioner moore: that is the way you do master plans. you quantify what else you have the basic understanding of the full student body. >> commissioner richards: if i am flee credits on -- three
credits online that is one f.t.e. >> commissioner moore: the mathematics are a mathematical model by which that is done. >> i get it. >> it brings it into account and understanding which by the way described in the plan at the moment. >> that is reasonable. i do think f.t.e. doesn't really talk to impact on the physical environment because you have six students at three credits at three classes versus one student going to one class. there is a whole different impact the apples to apples is a good idea. i don't see a reason not to close the hearing. i agree with commissioner moore on the vanness transportation program. i suggest you folks look at that and concentratorring the teaching curriculum or whatever
on vanness as well and the f.t.e. i support closing the hearing. we have made eons of strides. i move to close the hearing. >> i think there is no objection to closing the hearing. >> president melgar: we will do that now. we are closed. >> very good item 10? the mission rock phase one lot 337 and pier 48. this is an informational presentation. >> good afternoon, i am with the department staff. i am joined by michael christian son who will act as the manager and the planning staff going forward and phil williamson the project manager on behalf of thepert. before you is an forcal
presentation on the phase one submit of the mission rock mixed-use project. you approved this project in october of 2017. the overall project comprises of roughly 20-acres of seawall lot 337 and pier 48. generally in the mission bay neighborhood. it is a port property. the planning department has joint jurisdiction of guiding the build out of this project. we will jointly review the design of the buildings, however, per the master approves the port is the review. they are referred to as the horizontal. pursuant to the agreement the port is required to approve a phase submittal application for each phase prior to commencing approval of buildings or
commencing construction. the purpose is to lay out the phase's land use and related infrastructure and also enable the port to confirm compliance with the dba related to financing, park programming and management and retail strategy among other topics. while the review and approval is the port's jurisdiction the special use district does require an informational presentation to this planning commission prior to their final approval. with that i will turn it over to the project sponsor team you will hear from the san francisco giants and from maggie cook and karl shannon. this concludes my presentation. i am happy to answer any questions. >> president melgar: thank you. hello, mr. bear. >> good afternoon, commissioners. it has been over a year since we were before the planning
commission in the process to get entitlement and approval for the mission rock project. i am pleased we made it through that process, through the port, city agencies and the state lands commission. it has been a long a long journey. we started it 12 years ago. the port sent out an r.f.p., we responded, we were selected for negotiation rights. there was an economic slowdown, an election, and then we went through the entitlement process. that brings us to today. we are in the implementation phase. one of the first decisions we needed to make what was going to be phase one? that is what we are going to speak to you about today. the first thing that we do is that we recruited our team to implement the project. i want to introduce karl shannon
and heather and maggie cook who will speak in more detail about the first phase. we have been very busy for the last year on multiple fronts. we have been planning the infrastructure, the streets, parks, sewers, telecom, sea level rise, sustainability systems. we have been working on the building designs, park designs and so many other aspects, the mapping, the street vacations. this is a complicated project. we are trying to tie all the loose ends together to break ground by the end of the year on the project. a little context, this is a brief timeline i just went through. this project in it's entirety is
28-acre, 11 buildings, parking structure, three parks and rehabilitating on one pier. this is a land use map going through the different land uses in the project. in yellow are the housing parcels, brown are the office parcels, there are three parcels that are flex parcels that can be housing or office. there are three parks. china basin park, north edge of the development, mission rock square in the heart of the project, channel wharf overlooking the water between the two piers and open space surrounding pier 48 itself. the main change we made over the last year is to what buildings we would build in phase one. we are going to go into a little
more detail later. these side by side maps show the original phasing plan haddings a, g, k and b lining the china basin park. we swapped outbuilding f for building k. building f is 240 feet tall involving more housing units to accelerate delivery of housing more to the first phase. it is a more complete first phase-in terms o every tail. what you see today is the plan for proposed phase one which is different than we originally proposed when we started the project. i will turn the microphone over to heather gonzalez. >> good afternoon i would like to share the key goals of the first phase. first deliver a substantial
amount of housing market rate and affordable. this is more through swapping k through f. this allows a strong sense of place on the grounds and creating a complete intersection to lead directly to a world class waterfront park. now to sharing more detail about the specific components of the project first phase. the first component of work to be under taken at the site is critical infrastructure to develop the buildings to accommodate 66 inches in sea level wise, district wide energy and site work streets and sidewalks and stormwater treatment. as part of the first phase we will deliver a marquis 5.5-acre
waterfront public park a draw for the entire community engaging visitors to experience vibrant and safe recreation. it features th the civic plaza, extension of the bay trail and areas of play. it will engage the public throughout the park. active programs towards families, cyclists and pedestrians ballpark fans and those looking to get closer to the bay. china basin park is the largest. this network of public open space goes hand in hand with the neighborhood. first phase will provide roughly 70,000 square feet of ground floor retail space across four buildings, much of which is park and pedestrian. creating unique environment for shops and restaurants.
a variety of sizes provides an opportunity for small and local businesses and options for workers and visitors. next will create stores and restaurants to thrive given the steady population. i will hand it to maggie cook to tell you about the first stays. >> good afternoon. phase one of mission rock will include two residential buildings at 240 feet, two of the tallest buildings adjacent to future parks. in total the phase intends to deliver 550 rental units, 200 inclusionary. parcel a northwest corner 400,000 gross square foot including 290 residential units. parceling f more central will
include approximately 260 residential units over 315,000 gross square feet. inclusionary units will be spread across those. the residential units will be studios serving individuals and families. the office component of the project is commentary to the residential use. it brings daytime population to the site supporting retailers as well as keeping the area vibrant throughout the daytime hours. phase one includes two office buildings totaling approximately 550,000 square feet. the building will be 13 stories, the building on the east side on third street will be eight stories. mission rock will tie into and
leverage existing transit options in bay including third street t line, 22 bus route, caltrain and existing walking and bicycle networks in mission bay. it will support additional bicycle use by building a new section of the may trail through china basin park as well as a pass-through the boulevard. each building will include secure bicycle parking. in partnership with city agencies the mission rock team will use a range of traffic management tools to manage the event transportation to and from the site. turning to karl. >> good afternoon, commissioners. it is great to be here. just want to first say thank you to the san francisco giants for having the faith in us to execute on the project that they worked on for decades.
thank you to the port. this is a complex public private partnership. i can't stress enough without the cooperation of the city and the port we would not be in a position to be able to build housing today with 40% affordable. the economics of making that work only work because of the mixed use nature of this project. i will show you the schedule back to the screen. we submitted the phase one to the port several months ago. we have been working with them through the fair market valuation process. we are near the conclusion of that. i hope to be at the port commission on august 13th. hope shortly there after to execute the vertical development agreements and to get the leases executed to begin construction shortly after the baseball
season is over and be under vertical construction in the spring. we are all here to answer any questions. thank you for taking the time. >> president melgar: thank you very much. we will now take public comment on this item. >> good afternoon, commissioners san francisco housing coalition. i am exciting for the update here. one thing in the conversation about the percentage 40% on the site which is absolutely significant. the mixed use nature plus the public subsidies as well. as these construction costs rise after this originally came to the voters in 2015 it is significantly more expensive. everybody is excited. with all due respects for the
giants i am a diehard oakland a's fan. as i watched it on the water we were having a beer talking about what would be coming and what the waterfront would look like. it will be beautiful and i am excited. thank you for everybody involved. let's keep this moving forward as fast as we can. thank you. >> president melgar: any other public comment? public comment is now closed. commissioner koppel. >> vice president joel koppel: i think the initial rendering says it's all. we used to look from the ballpark into a massive street level parking lot that went on for days. what we saw today was the stuff we want to see. 40% affordable housing is just unreal, and we are going to welcome it.
mr. bear, what are you feeding the giants lately? nine out of the last 10 and 15 and three in july? whatever you are doing, keep doing it. >> president melgar: divisionner richards. >> commissioner richards: i want to stress for folks if they build housing like pouring a cup of coffee. you heard what they had to go through sea level rise and vacations. it goes on and on. there is infrastructure you have to put in place. they are doing the right things. i can't wait to see it get moving. thank you very much. >> president melgar: commission. >> there are a couple items related to sustain ability? is that the extent of what is required?
>> there were several sustainability components. the standouts was the district energy and black water. the sea wall. the general approach to sea level rise, how they were adapting the site and thinking straiteningicly the -- strategically how it related to third street which remains amount its elevation. thinking about that as well. >> i ask the same question of the project sponsor then. >> mr. fung we worked in close coordination with the port of san francisco and the agencies. one of the goals of the port
would be to raise the bar on sustainability issues. this site surpasses what is done on most sites in the city. with the sea level rise we are raising the site for five feet around the site. we are also treating blackwater, we are doing district energy. we are pushing the envelope on all of the sustainability measures for the project and we are working in good coordination with the city. >> when you use the term all, other sustainability, what do you mean by that? >> the transportation mitigation program and aspects to sustainability. this is classic transit development it is near caltrain with muni right at the development site, access to ferry service down the line. it is a place where you could work and live in the same location or live and work with easy transit ride downtown or
back to the peninsula. it is the site where housing and mixed use development should be located. we are also dealing with other energy systems with district incomenergy on site that are not standard. >> president melgar: commission. >> commissioner moore: what is the timeframe for build out of phase one? how many years will it take? >> we anticipate starting horizontal construction on the infrastructure before the end of this year. we anticipate starting vertical construction around april and may of 2020, next year. we have approximately a two year construction cycle. phase one would be open in the spring of 2022. >>na sounds very exciting.
>> i am excited about that and excited that you have expanded phase one. i am excited to have this be a place in san francisco and the fact that you are building out that phase one. we will make it a place that people identify and want to be at. in anticipation of everything else, thank you so much for shepherding it through and for the whole time. it is really exciting. >> nothing further we can move to item 11 for case 2014.0948enk at 344 14th street. you continued this matter to june 6. then you continued to june 27. on june 27th after closing public comment in the motion to
approve conditions fail 3-2 with commissioners moore and richards against and johnson and melgar absent you continued to july 11 by a vote of 4-1. on july 11 you continued to jul. commissioners melgar was absent. you need to state into the public record that you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> i have, yes. >> thank you as this is like the fourth hearing on this matter, we will limit public testimony to one minute and the presentation to three minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. the item before the planning department is large project authorization pursuant to 32 the. 329. i am seeking waivers to permit
construction of the residential knowledge approximately 84,630 square foot. and the 58-x district. the project including construction of the residential building with ground floor commercial. with 60 dwelling units. approximately 5890 square foot retail sales and class one bicycle spaces and the project including the mix of four junior studios, 17 one bedroom students and 39 two bedroom units. no changes have been prepared since we last heard the project to june 27, 2019. a reminder that from the previously scheduled hearing in april 4, 2019, a project sponsor updated the project as follows.
the pdr knowledge was remove -- building was removed. the additional height permitted under 262.21 was removed and the parapet was lowered. the dark grey color was revised to blue. per comments and feedback the catwalk unit access was revised to include two communal siding and planting on each area and privacy screens were added. sample unit plans are included from the june 27th packets. the large three bedroom units were replaced with smaller units your one bedroom and two bedroom units. the project eliminated parking on the basement. the residential lobby was removed. retail space is now five
separate spaces. streetscape spaces are discussed with the neighbors. the size of the windows were reduced to be more compatible. the ground floor entries unchanged. the mesthe project is consistenh the planning code. it is on balance consistent with the plan and the objectives and policies of the general plan. it results in new rental housing including below market rate units for rent at 334 14th street. they are more appropriate uses than the parking lot. we find it to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and adaddadjacent neighborhoods.
this concludes staff's presentation and i am happy to answer questions. >> i am here on behalf of the project sponsor. thank you for time in the last two weeks. i has given us the opportunity to fully explore the potential for an agreement with the neighborhood. i will back up. we have a density bonus project. eight bmr units. it is a good residential project. it has been in the process for so long that despite the grandfathering it is subject to the current bmr rules which it was grandfathered from and subject to the state density bonus fee. this is a solid residential project complying with all current laws in the city of san francisco. despite th the legal protectiond the unfortunate precedent for density bonus this project sponsor worked with the
>> we will open the side of public comment. anyone who wants to provide any public comment. please come up. >> good afternoon commissioners. when we were last here we were sent away to work with project sponsor to reach an agreement, which we took very seriously. i reach out to mr. n-uppercase-letter that following day, and left a voicemail, did not hear back. i reach out again the following monday and left another voicemail, and no reply. when i did not receive a reply to either of my voicemails acknowledging my calls, i reached out by e-mail, that following tuesday with no response ever received. this is the first time that i am hearing that this is going to bn
behalf of 16 community groups and the commission knows this. the development team is also fully aware of this. making a last offer here without talking to united to save the mission does not show respect for the community. i don't think it shows respect for the commission that sent us back to work together and talk. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi there. i am john jensen. a citizen of san francisco and i support projects like this. i just want to be on the record that i support this project. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? public comment is now closed. >> mr. kaplan, question.
how long have you been out this -- at this entitlement? >> i believe this project has been on file since 2015. >> how long has active entitlement process been? >> for years now. thank you. >> any other comments, commissioners? >> i'll bring up the same thing about a plus time to vote for approval of the project. >> commissioner richards. >> i opened this hearing and commission comment saying i don't want to see us under any illusion that we are approving a housing project to have a good portion of this project appear to be corporate rental like we talked at 2200 market street.
if we move ahead to do anything with this project i would require that we condition it to have my affirmative vote, that we limit the amount of corporate housing rental that could be on the project to some reasonable level. >> what is a reasonable level? >> 10%. >> why not zero? >> zero. >> okay. would that maker of the motion except that -- -- accept that? >> before i second it's, another question i have of the project sponsor. he put an offer on the table, i don't want to get into private agreements, they can't accept it due to their process. if we approve it does the offer just to stay there? can you just let them have it? >> let me say this. the offer through yesterday was
still on the table, which was the same offer the group had accepted previously. should the commission approve this project today, there is a 30 day appeal time frame, i want to give anyway tricks of the trades. there's another appeals in which we would be happy to not have to go through. there is more opportunities for this deal to still come to fruition. >> you are supportive of, so your headshake of a condition, or voluntary set of conditions that there would be no corporate housing rental on this property, this project? >> correct, yes. i mean, -- >> let me take a step back. i mentioned the san bruno project this morning. here we had a jurisdiction that disapproved, 475 housing units. we are trying to create real housing for real san franciscans
i want to put a condition on this that we don't have another project like we just saw on charge on market street where we have a hotel. i do not want a hotel here. i want housing here for san franciscans for long term. if someone wants to do corporate rentals, they should declare that and we should talk about that as a project. i understand from the project sponsor that is not the condition here. i would condition the approval on this on that. i would second on that. >> i would like to raise a question, one more time, the private agreements are something we support. i hear two statements which do not link up at all. one person says they have not heard, they weren't even contacted, didn't know anything about the small building. while the other person says this was part of an offer that has been on the table for a long time. we continue this project a number of times to encourage communication, to encourage some
sort of settlement. i know we cannot further continue with the project. i would still like to better understand who said what, or who didn't hear home? >> can you shed some light on this? obviously you have an mou with neighbors. who at united save the mission did you communicate with? >> larissa has been the key contact. >> she says she hasn't heard from you. >> we have been in touch with larissa, kelly and others up until the last hearing. at the last hearing we ask for a two week continuance to help the facilitation of this agreement. my understanding, through various channels, as of last night there was still not an agreement -- acceptance on the deal on the table that had been devoted to an agreed to previously.
that is why we are here today say we have no deal. we are ready, we were ready last night, we were ready two weeks ago. that is the latest i have heard directly from them. >> i'm sorry, to, you are saying that the deal that you presented today has been available since the last hearing? that is what you are saying? and that is something that you e-mailed to them, or how did that get communicated to united to save the mission? >> we've got a lot of different folks operating the mission. it's a challenging environment. challenging project sponsors. challenging neighborhood groups. it is a very sensitive neighborhood. up and until two weeks ago, there was lots of communication back and forth between larissa, her folks on the project sponsor. that communication was not going anywhere. it did not result in the