for us to ponder. because i think that we see this -- and i have to say that we have the utmost respect for our city attorney and everything that you say that the city attorney's office has done, absolutely. it's just that we question sort of is this the thing that is going to stop violence and it's a question of importance and are there other things that we can do or other tools that we can use that aren't actually impacting people's lives in such a severe way where they're actually not even part of it? i think that it's one thing to be on it. what i am hearing is that it's difficult to get off. and so i think that is sort of our concern also. we understand that maybe one time in someone's life that he might have been on the list. but then it's so hard to get off of it.

even when with your own initiative to get off of it, and it's so difficult to get off of it. and i have heard this from not just mr. jones but other people too who have this hanging over them. and i think that is sort of a concern. i just, you know, we are -- again, we're not here to say today in 2007 and 2010 or 2011 or 2009 when we had the other gang injunctions was that necessary then, i think that we're saying now is have we learned other tools, have you learned other ways to really to impact gang violence? is there other ways that we can do it, and i think that is what we're trying to find out. so i think that i will speak to the director because he's waiting. >> i have one thing to say, supervisor fewer, you have made repeated reference to have to speak to people who do not feel they should be included. i encourage you to either

contact our office directly or have those individuals to contact our office. i will send you all of the motions so you can see who is going to be taken off and what are the particular names. if you have an individual that is not on those lists to be removed, i encourage you to contact our office or have that person contact our office. >> supervisor fewer: i will say that i have spoken to men who have been on this list and i think that they need to be taken off and for three years they have tried and for three years they have lived under this. and i think that for those of us who can't imagine that it might be difficult, but, actually, today with mr. jones i can imagine it. and i think that it's a heavy burden. anyway, thank you so much. i think that we all learned a lot today. and i think we're about to learn more from the inspector. so my question, inspector, whether or not in the last couple years about -- you're in the gang task force, is that correct?

>> yes. >> supervisor fewer: and how long have you been in the gang task force? >> i went to the gang task force in 2002. >> supervisor fewer: in 2002. >> right. >> supervisor fewer: so there's clearly gang activity still in san francisco, would you agree with that? >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: okay. would you agree -- so can you tell me that the people who are in gang injunction lists which we have heard today from individuals that say that if you are just merely -- you're on the list but you're with your children and that police can stop you and actually question you and detain you in front of your family even though you're not in an area of gang activity or not participating in any gang activity, can police stop you and detain you? >> it depends on the circumstances. you know, with that there's a lot of information that's not available. if you're asking me if they can stop you outside of the gang safety zone when you're not in the company of other gang members solely for the purpose

of violating the gang injunction, no. no. you cannot. the gang injunction was not intended to just be used as an arbitrary tool to just stop anyone anywhere at any time. there has to be probable cause. when we apply the gang injunction to gang members we have been given a specific set of criteria or elements that we need to meet in order for the district attorney to even consider refiling charges and so if we see a gang member in a gang safety zone, we can't say we see them in the gang zone and now we'll arrest them. the officers have to be able to articulate they observed them for a period of time and the things they were doing, that they were actually loitering in the area. because many of the gang members, even though many of them do not actually live within the safety zone -- and one of

the figures that i found very interesting is when we did an analysis, 37 names were listed on that injunction. at the time of the individuals being listed on the injunction 32 did not live within the safety zone. and they lived outside of the safety zone and many had addresses outside of the city. there were actually five people at the time they were listed on the injunction that had addresses inside of the safety zone. later on there's individuals that lived outside of the safety zone that had moved back into the safety zone or began to use addresses there. and of the five in the safety zone, two moved outside of the safety zone because they moved with a girlfriend and they started a family. so we have to look and to have a specific amount of information in order to make the stop for the violation of the gang

injunction so there has to be an observation and the individual has to be inside of the safety zone. and so i can't speak as to exactly what happened with mr. jones. but if he was outside the safety zone, it could not be the only reason for the stop. >> supervisor fewer: so do you think that sometimes police officers may stop people that they think have a gang injunction or are enjoined and violate the rules of the gang injunction? >> you know, there will be a lot of things that will happen. there will be perceptions of the officers and perceptions of the individuals that are being detained as to why they're being stopped. i'm not going to say no because i can't speak for the actions of anyone else beside myself but if

that does happen there are remedies and they can file complaints and the individuals can approach the city attorney. there's a number of things that can occur. >> supervisor fewer: and i just think that if you're in a gang and if you are enjoined in a gang injunction and police stop you outside of the zone and you are not -- i mean, i can't imagine an individual wanting to go to court and say, you know what, it was a violation and, you know, i mean my husband was a police officer for the city for five years and i think that you may know him and know a little bit about the reality of what sometimes happens on the streets. i also just want to ask, so in the last, these people that are still on the list that in the last -- have you found that people who are in this gang injunction list have committed crimes, gang related, within the last two years? >> yes. in fact -- >> supervisor fewer: would you say everyone on the list?

>> pardon? >> supervisor fewer: would you say every individual on the list? >> no, because when we recently did the review we did the five years standard that we used when individuals say they get convicted of a 186.22. when individuals are convicted of the gang charge, of the 1866 hadn't 22, they are then required to register for five years as a gang member when they move in or out of the jurisdiction and they're required to register with the chief of police just like other statutes. and i think that it's in the california penal code so that was the standard that we're using when we were doing a lot of reviews so we went back and there were some individuals that early on maybe the first year in the five-year period may have had police contacts but there weren't arrests so we didn't preclude them from submitting those names and having the

attorney review them to have their names removed. but there was that five-year period that we're using. because the state statute says five years and you have to register and if you can stay out of trouble -- even probation of parole ends after two or three years depending on the conditions. but it's set up under the state statute that it's five years for the registration so we were trying to be consistent. >> supervisor fewer: so are there gangs that have white members? >> pardon? >> supervisor fewer: are there gangs that are made up of white people in san francisco? >> yes, there are some -- we have the hells angels here, ok okay? but we super two other gangs that we have been monitoring for a year or two now that have come to our attention but we don't have enough evidence and information in order to prove

under state statutes that they're a gang at this point. >> supervisor fewer: so you don't have enough information to say that the hells angels are a gang? >> we don't have enough evidence and if we went to court and proved that this gang exists as a gang and that the individuals associated with it are gangs because we have to understand that -- and i think that perhaps maybe if you have another hearing that we could explain the process because it's a very complicated process. but i think that -- i think that what we have to -- in order to have a better understanding is the process that we use when we're articulating someone involved in a gang that we use to show that a gang is there. and we have individuals that fit some of the criteria under the state statutes but there are other elements of that that we have not been able to prove yet. so we can't file charges on this -- these two particular groups and prove that they're gangs under state law.

>> supervisor fewer: since you have been doing this for a long time now do you think that there are other things that we could be implementing instead of gang injunctions that could have a positive impact in curtailing gang activity? >> you know what, a gang injunction is one of the tools that can be used and one of the tangible things that we haven't talked about with benefit is that one of the things is keeping the gang members from loitering in the gang safety zone. there are so many times that we respond out to drive-by shootings and that involved the gang members. when rivals want to avenge something they know where to go. in april there was a shooting that occurred at third and six men were shot and one died. and i was appalled because there is actually more coverage of the woman that was shot at the google headquarters than the fact that we just had a mass shooting in the bayview and one

young man lost his life and five other young men were shot. so there's intangible benefits? but are there other things that we can do? yes, yes. >> supervisor fewer: what would be some of those things that you think in your opinion that we could do that could actually impact the gang activity. >> first of all you have to start with some of the youth as they're in middle school and high school. that is the breeding ground for gangs and that's where they start to get indoctrinated and they start to become involved. you have so many of the youth that are maybe in a one-parent family or we're talking about individuals that are in a socially economically depressed area that we sit here and we look at all of the trappings -- the jewelry, the cars, the clothes, the money, there's a lot of things that the youth become enamored with and they don't understand or they haven't been given the skillset to

realize that you have to work hard to get something. and they find other ways that the gang offers in order for them to achieve that. >> supervisor fewer: so you think that if we invested in prevention at an early age that we might see the benefits? >> yes, there are some intervention programs that are geared towards middle school and high school students that help. also job programs. up until about five years ago i used to have a contact where i could get some individuals, you know, gang members that wanted a job or something and i could go to the city and i could get them jobs. i don't have access to those programs anymore. and i think that if we had access to jobs, if we had access to training, and somebody that is working a 40-hour week doesn't really have time to hang out on the street corner late at night or become involved in something. >> supervisor fewer: or is economically stable? >> pardon? >> supervisor fewer: or someone, an individual who is economically stable also might

not join into a gang. >> exactly. >> supervisor fewer: so there are things that we can invest in to prevent gang activity and there are things that we could -- so i think that i'd like to see the data on how many of those people who are still on the list, how many of them have been arrested for recent gang activity. i think that if you have that data that would be really be helpful. >> excuse me, we can go back and we can review a lot of that data because now that we have done the review of a number of the individuals that run the injunction, they have been removed and they don't have to be a part of that because in order for them to be removed there would have been nothing in the last three years. >> supervisor fewer: the people on the list, there's about 53 that are still on the list and then, yeah, i'm wondering with the city attorney when will you do your next review to see whether or not -- so when you do your review are

you speaking also to community members who sort of know that their communities well and have their ear to the ground on who are gang members and who are not? >> in regards to when we do our review? >> supervisor fewer: yes, a review to take them off the list or you weren't -- yeah. you were around when they put some on the list? >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: so did you speak to the community members who actually know the neighborhoods very well. as you know there are sort of informal leaders in the community to know that these individuals and they know who are gang members and who are not. so did you do an evaluation and did your evaluation include an investigation with these individuals? >> when we were looking to submit our portion of the evaluation we reviewed the records that we had, that were police reports, that were statements, social media.

because one of the things as we go into the future gang members have also gone into the 21st century and there are a lot of other pieces of information that we gather. so we were coming at it from the police department's point of view. the input from the community on that would have been something that we could incorporate maybe through the city attorney's office because we were just looking at the -- >> supervisor fewer: so your job or your role in this was to really look at police activity and to look at that data and the city's attorney job was to go into the community and find out what the standing of this individual was in the community or to gather some information? i'm saying for us if you're on the gang injunction you're involved in some of the activities. the individuals listed on the injunction were the individuals

that were the most problematic and involved in some of the crimes. >> supervisor fewer: when we spoke with individuals they didn't think that they should have been on the list to begin with. they say that it's alleged and i have never been a gang member. and i lived in sunnydale and i should have never been put on the list. that's why i'm wondering -- i mean, i understand that you have your records through the police department. and there's another side of the community in which you do not live and which you do not probably have access to that information as a police officer. but there are people who have other types of information. i'm not saying that the information that you gather is false and i'm not saying that the information that you gather should not be considered. what i'm saying is that the information is in the community and in the community leaders and those running those community-based organizations, those testimonies should also

have been included as part of an overall opinion about what should happen to this one individual. >> well, i think that would be something that maybe going forward could be included. but you have to remember that it's not just the police department that was labeling these individuals as gang members. it was a review process, all right? (please stand by).

it is given to the judge. the judge makes the determination based on the evidence provided. it is not just police reports written by the police. those reports include statements by victims, witnesses, there is picture evidence, there is all kinds of evidence considered. i think what we need to do for you to have a better understanding and maybe understand the whole process is to be able to show you the whole process. >> inspector, i think i understand. what i understand what you told me is very, very clear. what you just expressed to me was that the community members were not consulted. i think i understand perfectly

actually. what is presented to the judge is evidence from the gang task force, and victims' statements and witnesses. really no one from community-based organizations actually working in those communities. i think i understand pretty clearly what you have said because that was just my question. i am wondering what kind of evidence comes when you are a judge to look at it. you only know the evidence that you are presented with. if the evidence is from eight members or 11 members of the gang task force coming together and witnesses and police reports and nothing from the community, i think i understand that really well. what is the balance here and whether or not this is a tool

that is still useful and that are there other tools that we could be loves. i think that where we made the mistake we didn't do reviews on more timely basis that didn't involve mr. jones and he had that over his life for so many years. when he could have been off-years ago. that is what we are saying. any questions for this sector? thank you so much for being here. it is a long hearing. thank you for being here listening to this testimony. any more questions? i think i would like to continue this to the call of the chair. >> thank you for everyone that has come out today. thank you, mr. jones for sharing your story. thank you to shed light on this issue. i think that is contentious from

the public testimony that i am hearing. i know i really learned a lot from the experts in the room and from the public testimony, too. >> thank you so much. this item is continued to the call of the chair. mr. clerk, any other items? >> clerk: no further business. >> the meeting is adjourned. >> have have a nice evening. thank you.

>> we take a lot of pride in what we do. the electric shop covers all of waste water, so out of this location here, we cover everything from oceanside to southeast plant and all the computations including treasure island and yerba buena. we have all the preventative responsibility, maintaining maintenance and also keeping up with work orders from

operations. i would say one of the things fortunately for me is the staff is incredibleably motivated. the staff here knows what to do, how to do the job safely, and it makes my job incredibly easy. >> they know the job, and they know the challenges, and i think it's all about personal pride. they want to do a good job. from our maintenance group to our i.n.c., dedication to the people. when they're going home, and they're crossing the bay bridge, and they get a call that there's a problem with a pump station on treasure island, they return to work. they turnaround in westbound traffic and get back to work and get this pump back in line, and i can't tell you how much that means to me as a boss and the city and county of san francisco. >> as a group, if they didn't

do what they do, the streets would be flooded with waste and gray water, and it could become a health hazard. we take a lot of pride in what we do, and we do the jobs right, and you walk away fulfilled that you've done the city a >> june 20, 2018. in case you can't tell, i'm quite stuffed up, a little sick. sounding worse than i feel, apologize in advance for the sniffling and sneezing throughout the course of this hearing. i'll take roll at this time.

commission president wolfram. hyland, commissioner black, johnck, johns, matsuda, and pearlman. first on the agenda is general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are in the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, the opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reconvened in the meeting. each member of the public may address the public up to three minutes. >> president wolfram: any member of the public wish to speak on a nonagenda item, seeing and hearing none, close general department. >> director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners, happy to forward any questions you may have for the director. no formal report today. >> item 2, staff report and

announcements. >> tim fry, a few items to share with you. at yesterday's board of supervisors hearing, the board unanimously approved 1 1ststreet, two, thank you, and that will move to the mayor for signature. in passed out copies of the resolutions and associated ordinance with the local landmark designation of 3620 buchanan street, at your last hearing you asked for additional information in regards to a member of the public speaking during general public comment about landmark number 58, and a concern over the demolition of a 1959 garden shop that is on the

landmark property but adjacent to the historic resource. the information provided is just background and just wanted to remind you that both the architectural review committee and historic preservation commission will be reviewing this item in the future. but hopefully the resolutions and the ordinance will clarify for you that the 1959 garden structure is not included in the designation. which i believe is the main concern being raised by the member of the public at the last hearing. and then finally, we received yesterday a referral from the board of supervisors for 178 golden gate avenue. this is a structure that is part of, and forgive me, we just

received this so i have not had a chance to look at it closely, but an ancillary structure part of the larger church complex on golden gate avenue and the proposal is to recategorize the building to a category 3 building under article 11 of the planning code. because this was initiated at the board, bring the ordinance, draft ordinance for review and comment and then go back to the board. we do have a designation report with that. and that will be provided to you, i believe we are scheduling it for the august 1st hearing. >> which church is it? >> that's what i was just looking at. >> st. anthony's? >> i believe so. let me confirm if you just give me a second. >> i think it is. >> golden gate. >> demarlick academy, part of st. anthony's. >> ok, thank you. >> so, anyway, that's being

initiated for article 11 designation. my understanding, they would like to leverage t.d.r. for a seismic upgrade. that concludes my comments unless you have any questions. >> i have one question. what's the status of the peace pagoda and plaza that we recommended? >> that's a great question. we had a conversation with the community a number of months ago and, and then at that time the japantown task force said they would like to postpone the designation pending any improvements to the plaza. being that we still have a pending designation, our next step was to reach out to supervisor breed's office to have a meeting between the supervisor's office and the community to talk about next steps with the election, that was naturally postponed, so hopefully by the time either somebody is we appointed to

district 5 we can reengage japantown on hopefully bringing that to the full board. >> add to that? so, on saturday, i met the new staff person from reckon park, assuming is going to be assigned to do envisioning of what they want to see for the plaza, and i strongly encouraged him to make contact with the planning department staff so that there could be information, clear and concise information that can be shared so i'll forward you that contact information. >> that would be great. ok, thanks. >> thank you. i can we can move on. >> very good, that will place us under item 3. president's report, announcements. >> no formal report or announcements today. >> item 4.

>> president wolfram: we'll take public comment on the draft meeting minutes of wednesday, june 6, 2018. any member of the public wish to comment on these? seeing and hearing none, close public comment. motion to adopt the minutes? >> i move we adopt them. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt minutes june 6, 2018. commissioner black? johns? johnck? matsuda, hyland, and wolfram, so moved, commissioners, passes unanimously, 7-0. places us on item 5. commission comments and questions. >> president wolfram: commissioner pearlman. >> commissioner pearlman: i have to disclose i'm working on a problem next to 30 otis, i'll have to recuse myself for that item. >> did you talk to the city attorney? >> commissioner pearlman: i did. i've been in touch with the owners, working on foundation work, i mean, there's a lot of

interaction with their project. she suggested i recuse myself. >> ok. commissioner hyland. >> vice president hyland: question for mr. fry. we got notice that comments, or the responses to comments for 450 o'farrell were published, i guess. two questions for you. one, what's the next step on that project? and in reviewing the comments, seems the preferred project is not the proposed project. what does that mean as far as the entitlements on it? >> i have not reviewed that document but i will have to review that before i can answer what that means for the hearing. my understanding, it is scheduled for hearing before the planning commission to determine if the draft e.i.r. is complete, and move on to any entitlements

that may be associated with that. the commission secretary may have more information on exactly what date that is scheduled for, but i can't recall off the top of my head. >> which case is this? >> 450 o'farrell. >> it's actually scheduled for next week. >> so, when the preferred project and the e.i.r. is not the proposed project, which project goes forward? >> that's, that's what the planning commission's discretion. >> i did read through a significant amount of it and it did talk about the changes made for the preferred project did not affect any of the environmental review. so, i would assume that then since there is no issue, then the commission can accept either, and i would assume they would go for what the owner would want. >> and we shouldn't have too much of a discussion on this, maybe just a question -- >> happy to follow up at the

next hearing should you have questions. >> ok. next hearing i guess it will all be decided. >> any other questions? we can move on. >> very good, commissioners. place us on item 6, 2694 mcallister, consideration for request for landmark initiation of a tree. >> this is an item i put forward a while back, it turns out that in order for even though this form says any member of the h.p.c. or the landmark board can nomination, turns out in the actual ordinance it says the full commission has to take a vote on it. on whether we recommend the tree. so, a very beautiful tree. [laughter] staff report here, near the corner of mcallister and stanion, spectacular california

buckeye, i'm recommending we make -- recommend as a city landmark tree. >> president wolfram: public comment on this item? seeing and hearing none, close public comment. commissioners, any questions? >> so this is our tree? >> our tree. >> to get the ball rolling, since you and i have been working on this, you more than me for quite some time, i move we move it forward. >> thank you, i think we have some comments. >> commissioner black: i don't think i have been on the block of mcallister, the photos do not do it justice. it's sensational looking. and it's in front of an absolutely charming little 19th century, late 19th century farmhouse. it's just charming. i fully support it. >> commissioner johnck. >> commissioner johnck: i would

like to give a speech about this tree. [laughter] but, i will not. because the buckeye in indian, native american landscapes, particularly around the bay area, is a significant tree. and it's a marker. and i've been part of a number of designations to where we were, we knew that what was happening there, because of the buckeye tree. so, i won't go into further detail, but i certainly support this, being very cultural for the region, too. >> a question on maintenance. so, the owner is fully supportive of this? and will continue to maintain and -- >> continue to water it. is that what you said? >> maintain it, yeah. >> ok. that's fine. >> i did have a motion. >> we have a motion. >> i second. >> i'll second that motion. >> thank you. >> so, there is a motion that has been seconded to initiate

landmarking of this tree, that motion commissioner black. [roll call vote taken] >> so moved, commissioners, passes unanimously, 7-0. place us under the consent calendar. this matter listed here constitutes considered to be routine. and no separate discussion unless a member of the public or staff requests, which the matter will be removed and considered a separate item at this or a future item. item 7, 2018-002987coa-02, minnesota street, no speaker cards. >> president wolfram: any member

of the public which to take it off the consent calendar? member of the commission? do i have a motion to approve the consent calendar. >> motion and second. [roll call vote taken] >> that motion passes unanimously 7-0. regular calendar, 2017-001456coa, 1100 fulton street, certificate of appropriateness. >> jonathan bimmer, department staff. the application before you appropriateness, 1100 fulton street, three-storey over basement residential structure, contains 12 dwelling units. designed by edward e young,

1924, clad with brick and stucco. on mentation along the caps of the bay windows and the cornice. the certificate of appropriateness is sought to approve the project with preservation design standards. modification of ten of the 11 garage door openings, for six units, or a.d.u. removal of nonhistoric garage doors and brick and the installation of new wood panels and entry doors in the openings. the features surrounded by new in-fill brick matching that of the existing cladding. since the packets were published, the department has received three letters in opposition to the project. two expressed concerns regarding the removal of the wooden garage doors and resulting alterations to the base of the building, and the difficulty of achieving the in-fill brick. the third letter, and one

telephone call, the effects of the parking on the neighborhood. and the baptist congregation. and the third letter, regarding the accuracy of matching brick. copies have been disseminated. the opening themselves are original, they are not character defining features. ordinance states the district's defining elements are the exterior architectural features of the building, specified in greater detail in the accompanying landmark preservation advisory report. nowhere is it discussed in the element, or garages noted as character defining or mentioned beyond reference to small garages on two of the vacant lots in the district at the time of the designation. staff would propose work with recommended conditions, in con formation with appendix e and the secretary of the interior standards. based on this analysis, staff

recommends approval with the following two conditions. one, parts of the building permit, retained by the project sponsor to review and approve replacement brick and more samples and repair methods for brick damaged during construction, and two, oversee installation of new brick during construction, including the review and approval of a mock-up of the new brick in-fill prior to full installation. this concludes my presentation. the project architect is here with a believe presentation. and also in attendance, marcell budroe, and staff. happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. serrina calhoun. i have a short presentations with images and clarify for purposes of discussion the total scope of work of the project. so, this is an a.d.u. project, so, the project endeavors to in-fill the existing garage spaces with dwelling units. a phased approach because there are many garage faces still occupied under the terms of the lease, and we will not take those over at this time. however, because of the length and duration of the c.o.a. application, what we are asking for entitlement for future in-fill on those front-facing garages so we don't have to go through the process again as the spaces are available as tenants move out. so, this building is on the

corner of pierce and fulton street as you can see. this is the existing ground floor on the left side where we have the garage, lobby garage, that is the fulton-facing side and the garage, garage, garage, garage, garage, the pierce-facing side. the one on the very end on the far right that you can see here, a long skinny piece, the garage that would be preserved. on that side, originally we did propose for that to be in another location, adjacent to the second stairs in the middle of the building. but due to preservation review, they asked us to reserve that garage space, it is a lower section of the building and seemed to be more historic location to preserve. the garage spaces and the areas the front three units, those will not be constructed in phase one, only constructed as the unit and garage spaces become available in the event of tenant move-outs. the rear three units, large 1

and 3 units, constructed in phase one. this is the fulton-facing side. again for future phase, those are the four garages. and this is our proposed design for that side, with i has been reviewed by preservation and will be wood, window installations, to match and not replicate perfectly the upstairs units, they do want something slightly different to avoid a false sense of historic duplication, and then in-fill of the brick recommended by staff on the ground floor where the garages are removed with bricks that matched the existing condition. this is the -- this is just the side elevation, the garage doors to be removed and the one on the very end will be preserved, and this is the proposed elevation

in response to staff comments. we have done a good job with lining things up with windows above, so it does not look crazy. that's my presentation. i will briefly just address that the impact to parking is always a question with these projects. we are as i've mentioned preserving the front portion so there will be no change to the parking on the front section at this time. however, we do find the removal of driveway, although it removes off street parking, the reinstatement of the curb creates three-quarters of a parking space back on the street, so more on street parking for the community at large, and we find it's about three-quarters to one ratio of what we are removing to what's replaced on the street. i'm here for any questions. >> all right. thank you very much. commissioner pearlman, or johns first, i think. >> commissioner johns: before you sit down, i do have a question. you had mentioned that you would

use brick that is similar or at least compatible. are you certain that you can get such brick? >> yeah, i'm really confident about it. brick is something made through the ages and not only from this state, many other states. it's something that is still manufactured very regularly. the brick that we have is varigated, there are different colors of brick on the facade but nothing that's not in my opinion going to be something that we can't source. >> you can get it. >> i'm confident, yeah. >> commissioner pearlman. >> commissioner pearlman: i had -- thank you. i think this is a great project relative to our needs in san francisco about having housing. but my question is, i know that in a lot of projects when you remove parking you have to replace it with bicycle spaces. is that not the case for this project? that's a question, let me ask two questions. the second is do you have any sense of time when the other units would get done or is that

just an open ended, because the leases are rent controlled? >> it's open ended. it's a function of rent control, hard to say. sometimes we have had -- i've done about 200 units this way in the city in the last two and a half years under this program. been working regular with a lot of property owners on this. creating housing relatively easily and cheaply. i can the units can be really spectacular and in this case they are spectacular. we have bike parking, it is a requirement of the project. we have located it on the site and the percentage have been worked out with planning in response to planning requirements. >> commissioner pearlman: thank you. >> president wolfram: no further questions -- commissioner johnck. >> commissioner johnck: i was going to get to motion and comment. >> president wolfram: public comment, if any member of the public wishes to speak, please come forward. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman.

members of the commission. i rise as senior pastor of the historic third baptist church san francisco. this very fine commission months ago looked at our rich, rewarding and history, and you declared that site a historical landmark. and the last official act of our late mayor lee, on november 15th, was to sign that document, consummating the historical designation we

consider to be taking one step forward and 1,000 steps backward. for anyone to come forth to change the character, the configuration of that block, you speak about housing, yes, we need housing. but for whom would the housing be? this is not affordable housing. and one of the serious problems with san francisco is that certain folks have been priced out and pushed out. i would go further and say that the alamo square association is

adamentally opposed to the changing of that consideration and putting the housing in that would impact parking. there's double parking on that block, and we have people coming from around the world, all countries, to worship at that historical site. and i'll appeal to you today is to say no to this request because you would do violence, great violence to the historical character of that whole area. alamo square park, historic third baptist church, and it will create a problem of the

egress and ingress of people on that block. so, please do the right thing and say that there are some things worth holding on to. we do have antiques that are worth millions of dollars and you have antiques on that block. and even that building, that has a certain character that should not be changed. >> president wolfram: thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak to this matter, if so, please come forward. you'll have 30 -- three minutes with the buzzer at 30 seconds before your time is up. >> thank you, good afternoon. virginia marshall. vice president of the san francisco alliance of black school educators and a friend of third baptist church. many people think i'm a member there because i'm there so often. i'm here to support reverend

brown and the third baptist membership that you do not change that this historical landmark and keeping the parking the way it is. parking is a dire need in san francisco as you well know, and also affordable housing. i don't think not one of those units will be for an educator here in san francisco unified school district, any educator in the district. we are all being priced out. we beg you to keep the parking the way it is, honor the historical landmark of third baptist church and when you do affordable housing, if you don't have one educator in the building it's not affordable housing. i beg you to keep the park in the way it is, to maintain third baptist church and some day have affordable housing and teachers in the building, not when you convert the garages to units. thank you so much. >> president wolfram: any other

member of the public wish to speak? please come forward. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of this illustrious committee. i am a member of third baptist church and i am here to request that you do not approve this certificate of appropriateness for this particular parcel. as our pastor has pointed out, this church serves not only as a place of worship each sunday, but for special events for people coming from all over this country and abroad. we have events, special community events, weekly events that happen, and we believe that this structure would impair the egress, the coming and going of

our members, of our seniors, many of our members are mobility-impaired. we believe this will decrease the amount of space they have to come back and forth. we believe that this will limit the amount of parking for our guests and our community. i implore upon you to please take our comments into consideration and not approve this certificate of appropriateness. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you. >> chairperson, members of the board. my name is audrey lewis, assistant to dr. amos brown, third baptist church. i've been a member of third baptist around 40 years, and i have been blessed to work for the city and county of san

francisco for some 39 years in the health department and real estate department. my concern, being a member of third baptist for many years, and i worked in that area over the years, and the area, and it is extremely compacted and difficult right now. i'm not one who is opposed to change, but if a change is made wherein there's no consideration, i don't know about the project whether they are considered low income housing or that, but that is my concern and i'm here to support the membership, pastor, that you would be very, very, very aware of the fact that that area, that corner, especially, is very, very tight spot now, and to make a change wherein you would have

some housing that would necessity a major change there would be very, very difficult for the church family and the community because the church as i see it personally, it is a light not only to visitors, but it is a light for this city and county. and if there's any place that needs a light, it is the city and county of san francisco. i've lived here since 1945, the end of 1945. came here when i was 15 years old with my mother and i would pray that you would be very, very considerate about this decision that you are going to make. thank you very much. >> president wolfram: thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak to this matter? >> good afternoon, my name is stephanie la comebra, one of the tenants of 1100 fulton street.

lived there the past ten years and i tried to submit comments via email, i think i may have sent it to the prior commissioners, so i don't know if it made the 5:00 p.m. cutoff deadline last night. i'm happy to reiterate them here if that's necessary. but i did email them to everyone. so i'll let you -- >> go ahead and make your comments now. >> i wrote to oppose the proposed changes because they are inconsistent with the architectural and the character of the alamo square district, and what the district was create today prevent. first, proposed changes strip all wood from fronting from the street level apart from small window frames. and as noted in the original documents, establishing the district "the materials unite the district. wood is nearly universal as

structure and material." at ground level, masonry typically provides foundation and front gate copings or retaining walls. applicant here proposes to rip all the wood, every wooden garage, the sole wood at street level and universal exterior material from the facade of the building. contrary to the criteria established for the district. further, the applicant has explicitly stated in the application that there would be no front copings or retaining walls. so, there will be no additional wood besides the wooden frames. so i believe the certificate should be denied on these grounds. second, this apartment type is specifically mentioned in the original documents establishing the district. "compatible exceptions, victorian and edwardian 2 to 3 story mentions, apartment blocks, a dozen which punctuate the corners of the district. compositionally, two-part blocks with differentiated base and

relatively simple upper sections topped by a visually heavy cornice. yet the applicants plans add historical features, such as the undifferentiated base. not a compatible exception. and also proposes to rip out historic wood facades with the upper floors. denied on these grounds. third, similar projects close to the buildings have left eye sores on street level. applicant has proposed to do it one garage at a time over the period of years, and therefore threatens a mismatched structure facing the square. the detailed brick facade is difficult to match once, let alone over the course of several years. i can say that i as one of the leaseholders of the front facing garagesn