were built. it was mentioned this one was going to be 130 feet. there are 20 story buildings around it. there's clearly potential to go higher if air rights are being used. once you lose historic assets, they don't come back, so we would ask you to really rethink this one. if there's a way to retain the historic asset, use the air rights to get all of the good of new housing community benefits and an amicable solution and we can do this without the facadism and demolishing the majority of a prominent historic asset. thank you so much. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is john mitchell. i'm rising in support of this project and thank you for seeing this process. i've never really been a part

of this very much. just as an aside, i have lived 20 years in ingleside and am grateful for the action that you took on monticello. that's happening a lot in our area, so grateful for your listening and your action on that. i am a christian scientist. i am a member and supportive of this project for -- from ninth church of christ scientists. we are in balboa terrace, and their dedication -- i know many members of fifth church and their dedication to the health and vibrancy of the city as well as the tenderloin is without question. they followed this very thoughtful process, it's beautifully evolved, and they've listened to the community, and i think i've heard comments on facadism, but i think we can -- we need to adapt to the needs of the people rather than the --

keeping the facade, and the scale i think that they've worked on is beautifully outlined. and to improve the quality of life of the tenderloin is essential in our wonderful city. i've seen the success of church transformations just like this in washington, d.c., and in london and in new york city. we support this progressive step wholeheartedly. i love the fact that there are 176 new high quality units, and it's been so carefully thought through and designed. no project perhaps is perfect, but i can't imagine a better project than this one for your positive consideration, and i appreciate your time this evening. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is brian sheehy. i'm the owner of three bar businesses adjacent to the

subject site. those businesses have been there for 15 years starting with swig bar on geary street at the rear of the site, bourbon and branch. i'm here to speak in support of this project. prior to opening swig nearly 15 years ago, i spent years working at what is now known as the marker hotel, formerly known as the hotel monaco. that hotel monaco allowed people to move one more block into the tenderloin when it became safer. if you check in as a guest of the hilton hotel, tonight, with 2,000 rooms, and you ask how to get to bourbon and branch, this well renouned bar all over the

world, you'll be handed a map, and that map will direct you to go up to geary street, follow along geary street, make a left onnons to completely avoid the subject site because it's a treacherous block. this site has been a blighted area, and it's just simply not safe. it is a beautiful building, this church, but at some point, we have to stop looking at what's there and do something with it. it's never going to be viable without adding housing, and we need housing, and more than anything else, we need public safety for the people that need to get from the lower end the o'farrell street to the northern end of o'farrell street. so i would, again thank you for taking into consideration all the points that have been made. thank you for your service as commissioners. i would urge you to support

this project, and i think at this stage also go into the

institutions -- and i just want to let you know that the christian science movement in san francisco is strong, and i am a member of first church san francisco, which is at the corner of franklin and california. we have another church, second church which was actually displaced when they -- when second church of christ scientists on delores street was -- when they were not allowed to develop that and -- that building. and that building now houses i think only three or four -- maybe four units, and one of the units is a $1.5 million

condominium, and they're only housing -- that building, it only houses a few people. i think this project is an amazing testament to the dedication and commitment that these people have to improving a neighborhood, and they're taking the responsibility for doing that. i want to say that we work with probably -- there are a group of about ten of us who are members of the religious services group that goes into all of the five facilities -- the county jail facilities and christian science chaplains are working with families as well as almost 200 inmates a week, and these are people who may have come from the tenderloin and who may be returning to the

tenderloin, and we are all working hard to support you all in making this a more beautiful area of the city. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> cool. my name is amos gregory, and i'm the founder of the mural project that resides on shannon street. the real project is titled veterans alley, and i've been working on that street with those that are both housed and unhoused for the last seven years. so i've seen the church and church members on an intimate level and how they operate in the community. when we first got there, we saw that there was, you know, a great division between the church and those that are housed and unhoused, as a matter of fact. and one thing that we attempted to do with the church was to actually rehab them because no one trusts them, no one likes them in that community there, and we've proposed several

times to do community based art projects, and we proposed twice to them. the first time we did a proposal for an abandoned building that's on o'farrell street, we said we would do it free. they took the proposal, and they promptly went out and paid thousands of dollars for another group to come in and do those murals. those murals don't look like anybody in that community that live there today. the second one, the recent proposal, we offered to do poetry on the sides of their buildings so they could get to know people in the community. that proposal, we haven't heard back on that proposal, and we expect it not to come through. the second thing is the bars on their windows. every single window that's accessible on that church is barred up. every door is barred up with gates and strong steel bars, and this is to keep unhoused people from accessing their

facilities. third there had been a needle problem in the community and in the alley. we approached the department of health, we got the sign off from the department of health. we went to the church, we requested permission to put the box on the church's gate next to their building. that was denied. so all these things we've looked at and we've worked with in the community that are, like, common sense things, that you want to get an atta boy for, we found that we've never been able to make any headway with them. next is you've got so many people coming here, talking about community benefits. we don't receive any money from the church. as a matter of fact, they've been pounding us for the last few years. we'd just rather keep them away from us because we don't trust them. i must tell you, because come monday, when i'm down there at

10:00 in the morning, and i'm working with the community, none of these people, including these church members that i see here will be down there talking to those folks that everyone is complaining about or trying to come up with solutions in front of this podium right here. so we don't support this project. we've never supported this project. we've had two years to listen to these people. we've had plenty of time to negotiate with them. we haven't received anything that would be viable. >> clerk: your time is up, sir. >> thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is michael nolt e, andi have a handful of afilliations in the tenderloin. i'm a native san franciscan, and my great grandfather had a business and owned property on

what was called williams street, which is shannon alley. i have a long history of knowledge of this neighborhood and have worked -- have been -- listened to a lot of presentations which i do acknowledge the project sponsor doing a lot of community outreach, and i really applaud that because i think that's really needed when you're making changes to a community, and community needs to know what's going on. but i -- this is the first time i actually hear anything about community benefits. i have been told that some might be, but i understand, when i talk to the planning staff in general, they say the community benefit agreements are between the two parties. they're not necessarily made public, and we're to get written copies -- where do you get written copies so people in the community can have an understanding of what the benefits are, and who they actually benefit. when somebody says in open hearing that certain people in the community will have access

to the roof and the other parts of this possible new project, that's just a small portion of the community, not everybody else. and, you know, i think the -- you know, we're going to try to stay neutral, but we're really more towards not liking this project because, you know, one, it's removing rental -- rental units off the market. below market rate is not the same thing as market rental -- well, whatever the right word is, yeah. i mean, it's not the same thing. who's going to be affording that? so -- and you know, having a housing voucher, well, again, you have to apply for a housing voucher, and you have to meet the requirement. not everybody can get a housing voucher. so, you know, i'm -- i'm really concerned. if certain people can come to the plate and say, i can get an agreement, i can get some financial reward, but that's not everybody else in the community, and you know, i've

heard the complaints for years now, years, from people trying to engage this -- the church and the things that the church has and hasn't done for the community, and it's a blighted spot. it's been blighted for years and years and years. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. nolte. any additional public comment on this item? nobody? all right. we'll close public comment and open it to commissioner comments and questions or motions. commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: okay. i'll start with a question. so it's just more a technical question first off. so can you explain to me how it is that in the e.i.r. what we

saw were the demolition of the building options, but what is in front of us is a building that preserves the facade. can you just explain to me the technical -- sorry, so i can understand what i'm doing. >> yeah. so the draft e.i.r. had one project, their proposed project which is what we analyzed in the draft e.i.r. and initial study. then when there's a significant impact you have to study the alternatives that would reduce the impact or significantly reduce the impact. now, the r.t.c. has a slightly revised project from the project description that was in the draft e.i.r. this is a kman thing that happen happened -- happens between the draft e.i.r. and r.t.c.

i think you have chapter b that incorporates what you have before you. >> vice president melgar: okay. >> if i could just add a little more context to that. the proposed project, still, the department considers it a demolition project. the retention of the 450 o'farrell building exterior at the o'farrell has been determined to be a significant urban design feature on that block and has been incorporated into the final design, so the project itself is still considered a demolition project. >> vice president melgar: okay. thank you. that's important. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i just wanted to recall all of us the critical question surrounding the draft e.i.r., the shock one this building is being taken apart to the extent that it is made all of us pause and carefully listen to concerns of

sf preservation and also the community at large. there are quite a few people speaking to the importance of the building, and out of that indeed there grew a kind of a question about preservation or part of preservation of the existing building. so other stories by background which did not paint the condition of the building and the ownership in the most favorable light given that the building had definitely been standing in the community as a somewhat difficult structure -- i want to express myself carefully here -- for many, many years. many people questioned that there was active church youth in the building. you probably recall that conversation. we went through a lengthy discussion of that. what i do recall this commission asking for, and i think it is something that gives us at least a better leverage, is a financial feasibility study which dealt with full or partial preservation of the building in order for us to better

understand the notion that something has to pencil out an abstract metric, to which there's no guidance in any code or in anything except a subjective interpretation of what a developer wants to get out of it. and while it can understand that, for us, it is difficult when indeed there is a lot of push back on the destruction of a potential landmark building. what is further difficult today for me is that we, many times, have discussed the dark side of facadism. we have been basically had that be pushed in our face a number of times. unfortunately, the guidance of the historic preservation of -- [inaudible] >> -- and i am greatly concerned given the brief summary both from mr. bueller,

mr. nolte, and people who live in the community that there is still something seriously amiss. particularly what i am missing because i felt that that was promised to us, and we made it very clear that we needed it, is a financial feasibility, the analysis between the two alternatives of full or partial preservation, which i do not have. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so mr. bueller, could you come up a second. so this building's eligible or listed on the national register? >> it's a contributor to the national register district already, so it's listed as part of that designation. it is also on the california register of historical resources based on its inclusion, and it has been identifies as an individually

eligible historic building. richards riches and how many individual buildings are included in the collection? >> i think 402 is what was stated in the original e.i.r. out of an original 409 richard richarrichard -- >> commissioner richards: >> so if you were to liken it to any other building on the historic register ry, what wou you liken it to? >> it's a very high level of significance, and we tried to underscore that in our comments. >> commissioner richards: you mentioned that you had benefit of the financial feasibility study two days and it didn't

consider certain other options available. can you -- >> yeah. we've been -- in our previous comments on the draft e.i.r., for example, we had specifically asked that the financial analysis take into account the potential for t.d.r. on this site. it is immediately adjacent to the c-3, and there's precedent in san francisco for extending t.d.r. to sites like that. t.d.r. was not included in the alternatives in that financial analysis nor was the historic tax credit nor was the new market tax credit which was available to this site because of its low-income census tract. >> commissioner richards: thank you. so my question -- i got the financial feasibility, and i was the one beating the drum on it. about 11:00, i saw mr. veddel on the way in. he didn't realize we didn't have it in the packet. before i vote to demolish the building or whatever, i really want to make sure that the items that mr. bueller mentioned are considered, and that we have a real clear idea

as to whether it is financially feasible, with the tax credits and t.d.r.s and all that or not. and i don't feel comfortable today making a decision on this until i am actually able to understand that. >> if i could just make a finer point on something i said during my testimony. >> commissioner richards: sure. >> that financial analysis states that the return for the proposed project is less than what the market typically considers a financially feasible and financeable project. and from a policy standpoint, we're very concerned that this commission is being asked to approve demolition of a national historic register eligible building to enable construction -- theoretical construction of a marginally feasible project. >> commissioner richards: okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner richards: so that's where i'm at on this. >> president hillis: could i ask a couple questions on the -- to some of the issues that came up, miss boudreaux, about the demolition of rent

control. so how many -- how many units are being demolished? >> there are five existing units on-site that the -- we would presume to be subject to rent control at the 532 jones site. >> president hillis: those are on the jones site. and you know, in the past, we've asked for units to be added back to the building that are rent controlled. >> sure. and the proposal is to replace those units on-site? that is now part of 34r57bing code section 415, that these units would be replaced as affordable units on the project? >> president hillis: so it increases the affordable, but we've done in the past where we've kept them at rent control units. there's benefits to both. i don't think one is necessarily to me, preferred over the other. i'd probably prefer affordable over rent control, but i think we've done in the past -- [inaudible] >> president hillis: because affordable are permanently affordable, and rent control

have the probability to go up when they're vacated to market rate. >> planning code section 415(a) 9 does allow for replacement on-site, and it does talk about affordable units, and so they are being replaced on-site as affordable units pursuant to the inclusionary program, to my knowledge. >> and they're added at the rental a.m. i. levels. >> right, and i believe the project consists of 55% a.m. i. >> president hillis: and the lot line windows on the adjacent building, can you clarify. >> sure. can i ask the staff architect to also join me in that discussion, david winslow, if you wouldn't mind. so there are two adjacent buildings -- just one second while i pull up the plans. >> president hillis: yeah. i mean, the one on jones -- the

500 jones -- >> and maybe the actual project architect would be helpful, as well, here? if we could have the laptop, please? the -- oh, sorry, i'm not going to be able to see that. i'm going to have to go back to the projector -- projector, sorry. the closed captioning is right on top of that area. 500-520 jones property, unfortunately, on this site plan, you can't see, but the windows are just about here

with our background knowledge, these are hallway windows that were being closed up -- existing buildings. [inaudible] >> apologies, i do not use the projector at all? so adjacent building, 500 jones, new project, i believe the property line window's here. the rest of the project, you can see is proposing a set back adjacent to the light wells, which is where the rest of the windows are? there are not property line windows at these two areas. >> president hillis: okay. so the property line windows in

question that are being covered, and this is fourth floor. so below this, it goes -- it's closer to the light well. maybe the project -- >> the architect will be able to figure out fire code and dimensions of 1 foot. at planning, we are not as versed on that topic? but we were only aware of the property windows towards the front, towards o'farrell? which were hallway windows as far as we were aware. >> president hillis: okay. can you add to that? are you familiar with the windows and -- >> so i think like miss boudreaux mentioned, if there's a hallway windows, you know, based on their proximity to the property line, our structure that we are proposing would cover those. >> president hillis: right. >> with respect to compliance with fire code to the adjacent building, i don't believe our

construction is necessarily, you know, affect their structure. we are not proposing any modifications over there. it's, you know, somewhat out of our area of control. >> president hillis: all right. so the only -- the only lot line windows you'll be covering and not offering a set back are those ones on the first portion of that building that are into a hallway. >> those ones that are on the front portion of the building. >> president hillis: okay. great. thank you. and i mean, i'm always -- you know, take serious that demolition. i think this is a demolition of the historic building. obviously, it's something that's done, it's done permanently, so it's always one that makes me nervous to -- to look at and consider. you know, this building is hard to reuse. it's -- one, i think architecturally, it's nice, and

it's a handsome buildings, but i don't know that it rises to the level that mr. bueller and others presented to us. i think a lot of these buildings are tough to reuse. i think the front facade is problematic on the front of the street because it's got a lot of blank walls and colonnades that kind of set back the entry which we wouldn't design today or ask to be designed today, so it's not something you would necessarily look for in a modern building. but other things that are interesting are the interior of the building. mr. bueller sent some pictures in his submittal, which i think are interesting. but in any respect, i think if this building is being reused for housing or some other uses that we see for going into auditorium uses, they're not

kind of reused in their former state that they're in -- or currently, although this building is seemingly intact on the inside. so i kind of -- i think i'm okay with the demolition of this building and it being replaced with what it's being replaced with, with which i think is a significant amount of housing. granted, you could put a building adjacent to it and keep the church, but you would have a lot less housing -- whether that's feasible or not, you'd have a lot let housing in a building that i think ultimately would be difficult to reuse. we've seen buildings like this try to be reutilized, and it's tough. so i'm okay. i think this is -- i mean, somebody said it's probably one of the most under utilized sites. it's probably an exaggeration. we can probably find others, but given the fact of where it is, downtown, adjacent to

transit in a very dense neighborhood, i'm comfortable with kind of demolishing this building and putting housing in here. then, the question becomes about the facade, and clearly, this is facadism, and i'm not a fan of buildings and in kind of keeping their facades, but i went out to a project this morning we approved not too long ago which was at pine and franklin by the whole foods and is housing. it had three facades that we were going to keep or might be two and one is similar. we actually lopped off one that was pasted onto the building on the east side of that building. but the western ones that are kind of midblock that are pretty similar -- not in scale but how they're being treated here i think actually work and lend a dimension to that building that i think is interesting and worth keeping. i mean, it kind of rubs me the wrong way that it's facadism, but i think ultimately in kind

of an urban design standpoint, they work, and it's facadism. they kept the facade of that building and reused portions of it -- it's primarily the lobby. one portion is open about the same length back as this one, and there's the cord yard that you can see beyond it. but it clearly is revisibility. that was kind of kept as the facade, and this will, too. i think this set back helps tremendously in kind of making this read more like a building on the street, so i -- although i could probably go either way on the -- kind of the facade aspect of this building, either keeping it or tearing it down in its entirety, i think the design is interesting. i like how the building is massed both with the new building next to it and the building beyond. so i'm generally supportive and think this project is good in a good location. i hope that it's actually in a good location to be built.

you mentioned, mr. bueller, that this is on the kusp of feasibility. -- cusp of feasibility. i think it probably is, given the fact that we've approved buildings around here and have not seen them get built as quickly as others. so that coupled with the support that it has in the neighborhood -- clearly, there's folks that are opposed to it, but i think on the whole, those organizations and residents that we've heard from and folks that are supportive -- certainly, we've heard from the tenderloin, this one is not actually more supported than opposed, i'm okay with this project and would approve it today. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i guess the question to the director, have we been asked -- let's say in the last four years that i've been on the commission, have we been asked to demolish a building of this significance that you can recall. >> i'm trying to think.

one that comes to mind, it's not been the last four years, but chinese hospital building in chinatown. i honestly can't remember. i'm sorry. richa >> president hillis: the one on pine street were contributors. >> commissioner richards: they were very nondescript four story buildings. i guess the other question i have for the director, the feasibility study, we hear all the time, and we argued about this back and forth with other project sponsors, the feasibility study. this is the first feasibility study i believe i'm seeing -- is this a common thing to ask? is it only when you have an alternative in an e.i.r.? >> i think staff could help me out on this. i think it's when we have alternatives to the e.i.r., and that's where the requirement kicks in. >> yes. if you're going to do want the

overriding considerations for ceqa purposes, you have to demonstrate why the alternatives are not feasible, and usually, some of those points of demonstration is they have to prepare financial feasibility, the study to compare the draft -- or their project to the alternative. >> commissioner richards: sure. i mean, what worries me is if there were things that weren't considered in the feasibility study, the feasibility study just isn't complete. that's what worries me. >> the financial feasibility study doesn't usually consider all of the potential range of financing. they consider their project and how much it's going to cost to construct it, and then, the alternatives, and how much it would cost to construct it. that's what usually the financial feasibility studies are. >> commissioner richards: sure. but on a historic building, what you would assume it includes, the tax credits, the t.d.r., the things that would make the project feasible given that you're knocking down a

historic resource? >> we have not done that in the past, and right now, i don't believe that he can take advantage of t.d.c. 'cause they're not in a c 3. >> yeah. i just wanted to clarify. the t.d.r. requires a c-3 district, and they're not in a c 3 district. >> commissioner richards: and the other tax credits that were mentioned? >> president hillis: well, there's historic tax credits, but you'd have to -- well, it's on the building itself, so it would be the money that you've spent on the rehabilitation of the building. the building itself is in decent condition. the amount of money you would spend on the building to rehab it, again, if you were going to use it for the use that's there is fairly minimal. normally, his totoric tax credi credits -- you would do it on this building to rehab it for use. i mean, you could do it to

rehab it for housing and put housing in that building, but you've got the secretary of interior weighing in. >> commissioner richards: before we make the decision, we're retrofitting what could go in the church if were rehabbed and basing on our decision on oh, it's a big, empty building. but we're not looking at what could be built, it's feasible -- we could check them off the list one at a time if it involves a rezoning, if it involves things that don't matter. i just want to make sure that we have a complete feasibility study, and we're not i saying it's going to be a gym or it's going to be three additional units. >> i can try to clarify some of this. >> commissioner richards: sure. >> thank you for correcting that t.d.r.s don't apply to this building. it would be great if they did, but they don't. second, tax credits are only eligible if you are preserving

the entire building for its use and it's not going to be that. i would also point out mr. bueller pointed out that the project is marginally feasible as it's proposed, but the other two alternatives that were studied are even less feasible. so they don't make any sense. i mean, i want to point out that you -- the staff -- i'm really sorry that you did not receive these early, the financial feasibility reports. but your staff -- planning department staff person did review it, did find that all the methodology and approaches in it were appropriate and consistent, that all the, you know, professional standards that we use and assumptions and sources were all well documented and reasonable, and that the conclusions of the two studies -- there were two studies. there was an original one and a

peer review study. both of them were reviewed by your staff, and they found that they were reasonable. it would be nice to try and save, you know, but the other thing i noted, the projects that mr. bueller included in his letter, they're remarkable projects, but each project is different in and of its face. the building that he showed us in brooklyn were landmark buildings. this building is a contributory building to a landmark district. there were other buildings that have been demolished. as you pointed out, there were over 460 buildings in this district, and the e.i.r. said the loss of these buildings is not considered a detriment to the district. >> commissioner richards: so the t.d.r. space, i glanced down at the advanced calendar and i see that there was a rezoning of i believe one property in late august to c 3.

i believe it was 175 golden gate that's on the calendar. if there were rezoned t.d.r. what would we be looking at? something -- >> oh, there's a number of different things. years ago, we used to do a lot of transactions in t.d.r.s. they're not as available now. i did lots of them when they -- when the first downtown plan was done. there has to be a market for them, first of all, and the market has fluctuated, and the way t.d.r.s are determined are by taking what the potential development would be on that site and then selling off what the potential development is there to go somewhere else. >> commissioner richards: right. >> and that's the only way to do it. so for 130-foot height limit, and we're probably at 50 or 60 feet and whatever that square footage is, and usually,

the t.d.r.s are sold as square footages, but the question is, is there demand for it? do people want it? because there's been a surplus of it. we have to create the rezoning and manufacture a market. >> commissioner richards: i mean, i was at the building. it's a building built a long time ago for a purpose that is no longer needed, and the building's in very bad shape. i'm asking all these questions just to make sure when i go to sleep at night, i've done at everything and looked at everything and turned over every rock to maybe sure we just didn't willy nilly knock something down that we could have saved in one shape or another. >> president hillis: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i had the opportunity to walk-through the project site and sit down with members of

the tenderloin housing clinic to hear how the process has gone in bringing the community together to weigh in and have input on this project. we actually heard a case a few weeks ago of a church that was looking to adaptively reuse some of the space that they had, and several of us -- we actually continued that, but we said we would have like today have seen housing on that site. and then, we have a project before us that lets a church shift and create a building that actually better serves their needs while at the same time providing much needed housing for the city. it's hard for me to imagine what a reuse of that building would look like that preserves the space. and i have to say i think just the need for more housing in this city makes me lean towards wanting to of course dot every

i and cross every t in understanding and making sure that we're not demolishing a building willy nilly while at the same time recognizing that -- i would hate to see this building developed with 30 units when we could have had housing for folks to transition out of step up housing into market housing which we have all said needs to happen. we need those spaces as well. so i'm generally supportive of the project but would love to hear other people's thoughts. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i still want to hold off from supporting the building. while i believe that housing is necessary on the site, i believe the project sponsor itself has not explored enough of building variation that i can support. on many floors you still have

four nested bedrooms, which i find rather troublesome because a unit layout in those particular areas is nothing i'm totally enamored by. overall, the site is a housing site, however, it's still relatively relentless massing. i believe that the building does not do much in bringing the hotel district, hilton, etcetera, which are rather kind of dated, boring building into that. i think it's an exciting site, something could happen. interesting that president hillis mentioned the building on pine and -- pine and franklin, which we spent quite a bit of time on shaping. and while i'm not looking at the issue of facadism, that building's actually a well participant in its setting. this building is not quite there yet.

this building is still to bulky, to dark, to unvaried, and i think the dimension of the facade is too flat, too just pasted on. i think if there would be more work, i would be happy to look at this again, but one, another financial feasibility, which i would like to see myself -- i did not receive a copy, for me, this is not something i feel comfortable making on a decision on tonight just for the other reasons that other commissioners have expressed. there's no pressure for us to push this through if we would regret having had additional information to be thoughtful and challenging a little bit more, so that's where i am. >> president hillis: any other comment on this? motions? commissioner koppel?

>> commissioner koppel: let's see if we're where we need to be? motion to approve the project. >> clerk: we need to certify the e.i.r. first. >> commissioner koppel: motion to certify the e.i.r. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. on that motion, motion to certify the environmental impact report, on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: that motion fails, 3-3, with commissioners moore, richards, and melgar voting against. >> president hillis: commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: motion to continue. >> clerk: very good. for items 14 and 15, to what date? and again, your calendars are impacted through september 6 but you can choose whatever date you like. >> commissioner koppel: september 13. >> clerk: is there a second?

>> commissioner moore: second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion, then, to continue this matter to september 13 -- >> president hillis: would it be good if we can -- you know, i think commissioner moore brought up interesting -- on the zpidesign, you're asking t look at the building that's set back. i kind of like the building that's on the ground floor adjacent to the historic facade, but i think you're asking to look at the building beyond, the kind of black and white articulation of that building in some more depth in sensitivity to the facade on that? i don't want to speak for you. >> commissioner moore: i don't want to take particular elements. this is not an architectural review, this is just context and how it fits into the environment. it's so singularly bulky. it's not really responding to some of the conditions which i believe are important, so i don't want to nitpick it.

i think anybody who takes a challenge could step back a little bit and look at it differently. which includes how you engage the facade really in a manner that, for example, on the pie street building, a portion of that facade is kept as a solarium. whether that meets mr. bueller's definition, i'm not sure. it's an attempt to give more than just pasted on facadism. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so on the 13th of september if staff who certified the financial feasibility and peer review could walk us through it and make sure that there's nothing that mr. bueller said that we haven't considered, that would help a lot, that i can certify it. this is the first time i've seen these. thanks.

>> clerk: very good, commissioners. there's a motion, and just to be clear, this is to continue items 14, 15 a and b to september 13. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. we have no other items on your agenda. >> president hillis: all right. the meeting's adjourned.

♪ >> about two years ago now i had my first child. and i thought when i come back, you know, i'm going to get back in the swing of things and i'll find a spot.

and it wasn't really that way when i got back to work. that's what really got me to think about the challenges that new mothers face when they come back to work. ♪ >> when it comes to innovative ideas and policies, san francisco is known to pave the way, fighting for social justice or advocating for the environment, our city serves as the example and leader many times over. and this year, it leads the nation again, but for a new reason. being the most supportive city of nursing mothers in the work place. >> i was inspired to work on legislation to help moms return to work, one of my legislative aids had a baby while working in the office and when she returned we had luckily just converted a bathroom at city hall into a lactation room. she was pumping a couple times a day and had it not been for the

room around the hallway, i don't know if she could have continued to provide breast milk for her baby. not all returning mothers have the same access, even though there's existing state laws on the issues. >> these moms usually work in low paying jobs and returning to work sooner and they don't feel well-supported at work. >> we started out by having legislation to mandate that all city offices and departments have accommodations for mothers to return to work and lactate. but this year we passed legislation for private companies to have lactation policies for all new moms returning to work. >> with the newcome -- accommodations, moms should have those to return back to work. >> what are legislation? >> we wanted to make it

applicable to all, we created a set of standards that can be achievable by everyone. >> do you have a few minutes today to give us a quick tour. >> i would love to. let's go. >> this is such an inviting space. what makes this a lactation room? >> as legislation requires it has the minimum standards, a seat, a surface to place your breast on, a clean space that doesn't have toxic chemicals or storage or anything like that. and we have electricity, we have plenty of outlets for pumps, for fridge. the things that make it a little extra, the fridge is in the room. and the sink is in the room. our legislation does require a fridge and sink nearby but it's all right in here. you can wash your pump and put your milk away and you don't have to put it in a fridge that you share with co-workers. >> the new standards will be

applied to all businesses and places of employment in san francisco. but are they achievable for the smaller employers in the city? >> i think small businesses rightfully have some concerns about providing lactation accommodations for employees, however we left a lot of leeway in the legislation to account for small businesses that may have small footprints. for example, we don't mandate that you have a lactation room, but rather lactation space. in city hall we have a lactation pod here open to the public. ♪ ♪ >> so the more we can change, especially in government offices, the more we can support women. >> i think for the work place to really offer support and encouragement for pumping and breast feeding mothers is necessary. >> what is most important about

the legislation is that number one, we require that an employer have a lactation policy in place and then have a conversation with a new hire as well as an employee who requests parental leave. otherwise a lot of times moms don't feel comfortable asking their boss for lactation accommodations. really it's hard to go back to the office after you have become a mom, you're leaving your heart outside of your body. when you can provide your child food from your body and know you're connecting with them in that way, i know it means a lot to a mommy motionlely and physically to be able to do that. and businesses and employers can just provide a space. if they don't have a room, they can provide a small space that is private and free from intrusion to help moms pump and that will attract moms to working in san francisco. >> if you want more information

visit sfdph.org/breastfeedingatwork. ♪ ♪ >> we have a wonderful adult ceramic class. we offer over 10 adult classes in morning and evening. it accommodates people who work in the day, people who work in the evening, people who are day people and night people. we try to cater to the whole group. it's beyond just a clay lesson. it's really a lifeless on. when you meet people you

never know what's underneath. sometimes they show you what they want to. and you kind of expect that it's just going to be that. but it's never really what's on the surface. it's really what's underneath the surface . that's what i try to get at when i do my clay. the camaraderie that we have here. we have students that have been for for many many years. we have students here for the first time. we share our skills, our formulas. this is how we learn. how did you do that? let me show you. that's the attitude that the students and the teachers have here. it's a really wonderful nurturing place.

. >> we'll start with the pledge. [pledge of allegiance] >> thank you. >> this is a reminder to silence all electronic devices. fire commission regular meeting wednesday, june 27, and the time is 5:02. item 1, roll call. [roll