creating a curriculum and it's the basic curriculum. teachers have liberty to make adjustments, correct? >> right. it's the building blocks that teachers take and adapt into the classroom. >> and the question i would -- or maybe direct staff, at what point do we have flexibility to add in more up-to-date topics? not only commissioner courtney may have an issue, but given this administration, we may want to highlight another component which is a lower level. i want to see what type of flexibility we have, because this is sort of the building block, but there may be an opportunity to take a deeper dive in certain areas. so maybe what we can do is come back as part of this and get

some commitment in areas where we want to take a deeper dive and we have that flexibility. >> certainly. i think that's still possible and wouldn't hold up moving forward today. i think we can come back and be specific where the touch points should go deeper and for review and lay it out in a timeline going forward, four years on this agreement. >> commissioner vietor: i concur with what's been said and i appreciate your efforts, because i think it's a very exciting project with a lot of potential. let me add on to whatever it looks like, but i know we've had some conversations around the watershed center and at some point, i would like to have a better understanding of the opportunity that this might present to really develop and update that curriculum, that water center, in alignment with the basic building blocks.

and understanding that they might, again, have different add-on criteria or requests because of the unique nature of that facility. as we're talking curriculum and salmon integration, and may be able to pull that out and look at what is going on with sunol as well. >> absolutely. one of our main goals with the big ideas was it have a framework that applied beyond city and county and applied regionally and we would love to partner on the waterside with the watershed. >> i want to make sure. as you know, part of the program is that we're trying to have field trips to different locations. and so one is the cottage hill learning. and so that's one of the things

that we're supporting, because it represents what we're doing. it could be -- sunol is pretty far, but as you are working on the curriculum at sunol as well, definitely would like to get some thoughts of how we can incorporate that. trying to travel to the school district, buses -- >> getting kids out to college hill, some of our sites, to see our watershed as part of the curriculum and learning experience, is part of the experience. it feels like there could be an opportunity. but it's the opportunity to talk about the other projects and move it more regionally. it's incumbent on staff and that

planning that there's a lot of interest to build out the programming. >> the next opportunity we can update or present, we can be clear and lay out how we see those opportunities, whether it be field trips, tours, with all of our assets, regionally, not just here in the city. we're certainly thinking about it. >> i will appeal to my colleagues. it's not the kind of thing where we had a development project on the waterfront and it was signed, sealed and delivered and then people said, we have to build housing there. this is something that i take seriously when you talk about the citizens, children and the public school system. 56,000, that ain't a small number. and i think what i have heard and i will stand corrected, nobody here -- and we're policy makers -- thought they were part of that process. what causes me a little bit of

frustration is that we did take it upon ourselves to get involved in this conversation specifically with respect to big ideas. this is over a year ago. this was over a year ago that we had that first conovversation a we got really nothing but fram staff except for the same thing we started to talk about it. and yet i'm supposed to believe that i'm a policymaker or at least i should know what the policy is. i cannot emphasize enough how much i truly believe that animal agriculture is probably the biggest threat to the environment and our water system as we know it. when you are talking about 56,000 little minds and impressions, i'm really disappointed -- that's not a little thing. it's a really, really big thing, but we'll talk offline about how to collect some of that data. but it's $370,000.

it's four years. at some point, we're supposed to feel like we're a part of that conversation. that's my appeal to my colleagues. >> commissioner vietor: i can't imagine that it wouldn't automatically be part of the curriculum. if you want to put it in specifically, fine, but i would imagine, having a background in science myself, my undergraduate is biology, that that would be part of the overall eight years of education. >> if i may, commissioner courtney, you are speaking to an issue that's near and dear to my heart. prior to joining the p.u.c., my work was food and ag. i understand your plea.

>> commissioner courtney: then just do it. >> we will work on it. and commissioner, there are ways that are touch points. we mentioned our college hill learning garden. there is curriculum there where based around animal husbandry, that gets at the principles of how the environment is affected by the food choices we make. how we raise our animals, etc. that curriculum is based kindergarten through 5th grade. so it's pretty simplistic terms. up to 12th grade. that's where it comes into the s.t.e.m. and science background that blair was describing when we talk about pollution in our waterways. it's there. and it may not be packaged the way we would like to see it, so we'll continue to work on that, but it's very much a part already. >> commissioner courtney: it's important enough to belabor the point. corporate interests are infiltrating our school system

and minds of our future leaders. that's a fact. now that i know that you know, a lot of this stuff is wickedly politically charged. so the organizations that we usually think are guarding against wrongdoers, evildoers, they're not in the game, whether it's sierra club or whatever it is. government still has a role to play with the children. this is government. that's why i'm raising it. again, i'm deferring to commissioner vietor, but the point that we have real dialogue about how we're going to influence young minds with legitimate impressions -- and not just hope that the teachers put it in front of them, but know it's part of our big ideas. that's when i will feel like we've accomplished something that's legitimate in terms of a policy objective. >> understood. >> commissioner moran: and you actually touched on something that i was going to bring up, but i will reinforce it.

k-12 is a huge range of information, interest, and ability to delve into significant issues in a meaningful way. and i guess my hope would be that the curriculum that applies to the upper grades have the kind of substance attached to them that can get into those, those kind of issues that commissioner courtney is talking about. >> president kwon: i will add a closing comment here. as a parent of two sfusd kids, it's awesome. harlan and i were talking over lunch about how in chicago kids didn't know where milk came from. for a kid that lives in the city that doesn't know that, there's a big opportunity to know that. >> commissioner moran: it comes from almonds. >> president kwon: it's all about more important. concepts like land use, water,

it's esoteric, but in san francisco, there's terrific hands-on application. so i think this work is important. to vice president courtney's comment, things like where the water comes in the tap and where it goes when you flush the toilet, that's 101. now 201, there's a website called planet vision, put together by folks at my day job that talk about the solutions. the whole idea is starting with basic building blocks of information. i'm not a scientist, obviously, but once you build on that, you can say, eat less meat. don't waste food. in the public schools at this age early, early on, instills in them, not just a value system, but a working understanding of

where they're at. the idea of field trips is terrific. if they can go see these things, it's hand-on. it's bold to do. it's a rare opportunity to do this. i'm glad that the team has been prepared to get in there while the curriculum is being rewritten. the next generation of science standards are something that we want to differentstill down to youth. and i read the news booklet. thank you. that's our discussion here. >> i want to make sure we're clear. so when is the next touch point where we talk to the school and get a better idea of what their planning for the curriculum? i want to make sure that i give the commission an opportunity to really think about what else we

need to -- it would be nice to incorporate it and then we need to work with them to find out age-appropriateness, maybe some basic concepts early on and then more detail later on. so when do you think that next touch point will be? >> certainly. if this item were to pass, i will defer a little bit to blair on specifics, but it would be in this upcoming year, where the ramp-up period would begin. do you have anything to add? >> yes. we've been speaking with sfusd for many, many months in the development of this proposal and potential partnership. and they've been thoughtful as to how to role this out, as you mentioned, commissioner moran, it's a wide range of ages. so how do you integrate this into the young ages and the older ages? and to understand how complex it is to roll it out to 56,000

students and so they have a thoughtful process in which they will draft the curriculum. it will be reviewed by sfpuc staff. it will be piloted at a few schools. and then they will gather feedback and then it will be rolled out to the rest of the cohort the p.u.c. will be able to give a good idea of direction and working with our sfpuc experts when they're integrating these concepts. >> if i were to maybe ask the commission, you know, through the president, that we have an animal waste -- animal agriculture, we have that. commissioner caen would like to -- maybe we can identify her as the person, if you want to kind of see -- or do you want them to

come up and -- i don't know how many curriculums that they will send to us. i'm trying to get a process where we involve the commission more on what we're presenting to folks. >> i appreciate that clarity. i think what will be easiest is if this item were to pass, we can come back to you with a timeline over the next year of implementation and ramp-up where we pinpoint the moments that blair was mentioning that the school district is giving their starting point to us. we're making sure we're integrating key components and go from there. we can lay out a timeline over the next year once we have the authority to move forward with this. we would need to work hand in hand with the school district to make sure that timeline will work for them. >> what if we try maybe for the -- when do you think we can provide that? maybe we can put it on the commission agenda in the next couple of agendas or meetings?

>> provided this passes and when have the authority to move forward on this, yes, i think a couple of weeks to a month would be reasonable for us to come back. >> so if this passed, then in a month, you would come up with a timeline and have communicated with the school district and maybe bring someone from the school district to hear from the commission? >> if that's what -- if that would be happyful, we can do that. or we can have meetings offline. we can work with what works best for the commission, but we would want the authority to move forward. >> commissioner moller caen: i know it's summer. i'm working on a big project with oakland unified. and it's pretty dark over there right now because the teachers and administrators are out. so want to put that out there. i don't know if it makes more sense to wait a couple of months or if you feel like you would

have enough to present. >> i believe we can present that in short order. we've got in the body of the grant what will happen over each of the next four years and that's in the body of the grant, but we can come back with a condensed version in the next commission or two. >> so this coming fall, will certain schools in sf unified be using this curriculum? >> if this were to pass, we would work with them right away it develop that curriculum and they would begin piloting probably in the spring. >> so i will make one last comment on this. i would urge my fellow commissioners of being in a role of informed rather than consulted. i want to let the educators put together the curriculum and we have to put a wick on it so they

can move on this. with our backgrounds we can inform the process, but i don't want to cause too much of a vetting process where curriculum is delayed. nature bridge field trips have changed. early on, they talked about watershed, bio diversity, etc., but they've changed to food waste under the auspices of water conservation. they try to get the kids to get the food waste down to under 1 pound, then under 1/2 pound. and they talk exactly about how they use it. they did stick something in there about meat. i am from chicago. i like my steak. i'm sorry, but we learned, too, that when you consume things like red meat, it has an impact on the environment. they use more water, more resources, than normal. those are complex topics to get

through to a third grader, second grader. but not to take too much mac and cheese and throw it in the garbage, that's a simple way to do it. that's a parental note. but i would urge the commission that we try to pave the way and remove barriers and understand that you take our comments into the account. so we appreciate your understanding in taking our comments here. with that, before we take our vote -- we need a motion. >> i'd like to move the item. >> second. >> president kwon: any public comment before we take a vote? all in favor? opposed? it's approved. >> commissioner moran: i was looking at our website. i could not find a link to the framework document. so if -- >> sfwater.org/bigideas. >> commissioner moran: okay.

>> president kwon: next item. >> clerk: item 13. approve amendment number 3 to agreement cs-242a with baseline environmental consulting agreement cs-242b and esa orion joint venture and agreement cs-242c with urs corporation americas to continue to provide agreements and cs-242a-c to increase each by $4 million to not to exceed $9.6 million per and cs-242c only to execute a name from from urs corporation americas to urs corporation. >> irena tory. i think the item is pretty clear. so unless you want a

presentation, i'm here to just answer any -- >> i will move the item. >> second. >> president kwon: public comment? all in favor. opposed? approved. thank you. next item. >> clerk: item 14 approve and authorize the general manager to execute an assignment and assumption agreement for cs-242d from rmc water and environment to woodard & curran and approve $4 million to not to exceed $9.6 million. >> i move this one as well. >> second. >> president kwon: any public comment? all in favor? opposed? approved. next item, please. item 15. approve amend manned no 5 to cs-716 authorize g.m. to excuse increasing by $2,415,000 for an

agreement of $30,915,000 and extending the term by 13 months for agreement duration of 16 years, 10 months. >> i move approval. >> second. >> president kwon: before we vote, any public comment on item 15? with that, all in favor? opposed? approved. item 16, other commission new business. anything, commissioners? okay. with that, this meeting is adjourned. thank you, all, for your time. .

>> working for the city and county of san francisco will

immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change we've been on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries

but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco

>> 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 garages on the fulton street, i have no intention of leashing -- leaving. i have -- >> thank you, your time is up. your time is up. >> it would create an incentive for the landlord to try and get people w