have this open dialogue. the amendments that are propos ed are a movement in the right direction and we appreciate that as well acknowledging the burden that operators are under right now in giving us time to move into this is something that we all want to consider, and we feel like we are getting closer and closer to something that is really palatable for the industry. all of that said, i am excited to hear about the potential that's being talked about. we bounced around the idea of a tariff on product for other places coming into this city and it sounds like what just recently happened -- i am blanking on the name what happened a at the federal level? >> the wayfair,. >> san francisco is a retail hub and a lot of cannabis businesses

want to be part of a retail hub and if there is a way to bring needed revenue in through a tax that is coming in from outside of the city it would give relieve to san francisco operators that we feel we need in order to operate in this expensive economy that is here and give a competitive-based advantage and solving the issue of where revenue is coming from, so i encourage a more in depth look and i can tell you, we will go and look at that as well. my name is up. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: any speakers left that want to speak come on down. >> bruce livingston, executive director of alcohol justice and

we support this being put on the ballot, excited by it. there is harms and cost to government from the cannabis industry in san francisco includes cost of planning and zoning and public safety and rare instances of health care costs. we call it a charge for harm. we supported that in the alcohol mitigation fee proposal that was supported by the board of supervisors and ultimately vetoed by the mayor and then prop 24 that said to do a mitigation fee is a two-thirds vote. this time, big alcohol, big tobacco and the sugary beverage industry -- it was kind of sad

that it had to happen, but your own sugary beverage tax was exempted in the freeze on grocery taxes, and it's now or never in passing a charge for harm tax on marijuana in san francisco. it's time to do it and thank you for putting it on the ballot we hope. >> jim lazarus san francisco chamber of congress. thank you for your wor working on this. we have the broader issue of the payroll tax reform that is not completed targeting any becomes problematic when we go back to the ballot in 2020 -- remember these businesses are startup businesses and businesses less

than $1 million gross should not b paying tax. this industry like all that have $250,000 in payroll will be paying payroll tax. the police departmentses on the bat lot need to reflect the desire to have equity participation and small business growth and to get rid of an underground economy. if we overtax this, and we already are at the state level, so i urge you to take a look at the rate schedule and adjust it and give yourself ability to change it in the future. >> my name is dominic. i would like to congratulation

coi would like to respectfully request that you do not recommend your proposal. i believe that the tax rate is too high, and i believe it's going to encourage consolidation, which is not going to be good for equity. i believe it's going to discourage the middle class job growth that the non-retail side provides to this community. i also believe that every historical movement in terms of commercial cannabis in every state, and as mentioned at local jurisdictions have back peddled on their tax policy groups they initially put forward and that is because the current tax

policy group encourage the black market and there is no reason to move forward with this kind of policy group. i think a fair alternative and compromise would be a flat 1% tax throughout the chain of supply. i think that would help with consolidation issues and promoting the equity program. a mandate like the equity program that's unfunded i could ask myself how are these equity participants going to pay for their license fees and employees without funds for this program, and i would expect this tax increases that burden on the equity program and future participants. i would strongly ask you to not recommend this item. >> johnny delaplane.

we all know cannabis is an industry that craves normalization and we want to be treated like every other industry, and we are facing a tax policy group that will tax us at 6x to 50x. raising final retail prices 20 to 30 percent. higher prices for patients and forcing people back into the unregulated market for their medication. this skills innovation and invites consolidation and will ensure only the largest, most-funded players have a seat at this label. there is sentiment in city hall that we gave away this town to tech and now we have a way to

get it right. much in the way the lower taxes allowed the tech industry to come in and overthrive -- this industry is comprised of san francisco and we are raising kids just like everybody else -- when was san francisco ever a follower? we are leaders. help us set an example by normalizing cannabis. unfair tax burden will lead to the flight of businesses from san francisco taking with it blue collar jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities we are helping to create. >> howdy.

jim freeburn. i am a cultivator in the 10th district and we have a temporary micro business right now and a member of the california growers association, san francisco chapter and i want to thank you supervisor cohen and fewer for coming to our meeting. we appreciate the amendments and working with uses to get our feet on the ground. i have one specific request, and that is to simply take a nurturing approach for us in the industry. i hope to build a thriving business in the next few years, but i hope to just simply survive this year and next year and probably the year after that. we have a lot of expenses in front of us. our business is getting into a c. u. process right now. we have a long catalog of new

fees we will be paying and right now the whole market is uncertain and the supply chain is shaking itself out and it will take years for the retail to get built where our products will land, but in the meantime we need to survive and then there is downward pressure on prices. i have lived here all that time and my daughter is going to san francisco state and we have lived a comfortable life, but we and my partner have not gotten rich here and we don't own a home. we are example of typical business. >> typical cannabis business. >> i would say a typical business. if you help us get on our feet

we can build industry here together that will prosite employment opportunities and please nurture us while we are getting going. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> i am a policy group student at berkeley, and also have been interested in working with a number of cannabis startupst. i just wanted to first of all taking the due diligence to reach out to the community and get their feedback before proposing those amendments, that has been really helpful, but i want to make a specific concern regarding one of the propositions within the new law, and that is the fact that the proceeds of the cannabis business tax would be deposited in the general fund and could be used for any purpose in the city. i feel this proposition would better be useful for bringing

the black market into compliance. because we are putting a lower cannabis tax rate, i feel that the shorter amount of money that we would get would be better used for a more specific case and best catered towards bringing the black market towards compliance. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> my name is rob king and i would like to add my voice today as a local grower with sense. we are trying to set an example for creating batches of small --

cannabis. we run our facility on renewable energy via the city's clean power program and proud to align with the city's climate change goals. we had the sfpd over the other day and we invite you to join and check out our facility. we don't do these things because we have to, but we are trying to set a positive street for the city to have san francisco. we are good neighbors and i think we are the kind of neighbors that the city of san francisco wants. it is a huge risk to move our business here we are not a tech industry. . we are dealing with incredibly high rent and limited space. when it comes to taxation, we just want to be taxed like any

similar small business brave enough to give it a go here in san francisco. to propose a tax rate many times the rate of noncannabis-based businesses wil. we want to be taxed in line with any other business. >> i'm here today to advocate for a tax policy group that's fair for the industry. i degree notes are goini agree that it is going in the right direction. the industry is very hard to

enter. anytime you have industry that require as huge amount of overhead and then you add taxation on that, they are not even getting any sort of relief at the federal level also, it can be very high and san francisco has equity program and this equity program is very well intentioned by taxing at this high rate is i guess unintended consequence that will kill the equity program because these applicants already have a hard time getting capital and on top of that a very high tax burden, it will probably force some of them into the black market or have the black market continue. the goal of the city should be to get the black market licensed and permitted so that way the industry can grow rather than to

force businesses back into the black market. i would like the city to propose a zero or one percent tax overall. >> thank you for your engagement on this issue and for your brilliant and energetic staff we appreciate your engagement in past week and beyond, and i also thank you for the amendments today. it is headed in the right direction, so i just want to advocate for an amendment that we have proposed which would rather than impose a tax as a percentage in article 30 that you have proposed, it would

define the tax as relating back to the gross receipts tax that already exists in san francisco and adding a multiplier for cannabis. i think this accomplishes three of the immediate goals right now. one is normalizing the cannabis industry. treating cannabis is different just because is part of the policy group problem of sales regulation right now. it would address that and address the need of a higher tax right now, but it also allows the city to tier it to the gross receipts tax going forward in 2020 when that is readdressed, it's possible that the multiplier could be reduced or eliminated all together because it might not be necessary in 2020. if we continue to create

cannabis as a separate tax, that gets baked in for longer and less ability to be nimble in the structure for cannabis going forward. i hope we can only to engage on this over the next week. thank you very much for the engagement on this issue. >> bridget may. i run a small manufacturing company in san francisco. i am still waiting to get licensure, and like many other small manufactures that's been a hurdle to even get back into business. i live here and i have called this great city my home since 1989, and i would absolutely prefer to have my business stay here, however, i have to admit that the other cities and jurisdictions are looking for attractive.

i support normalizing cannabis taxes to bring them on par with other businesses and make san francisco for attractive to other businesses like myself. >> thank you for the amendments. my gave is dave hula and we build software for the industry. i am also a husband to my wife stephanie who is a cannabis marshmallow maker here in the city. these are some of the handicaps she has experienced trying to build this up for the last three years. with guiding text principles, the first is around equity and fairness. taxing similarly taxed payers

and tax rates. she is a marshmallow maker an and she can't get a bank, whereas another person that doesn't have noninfusion can do that. the second principle is the ability to pay taxes. taxes should be noncausing undue financial distress, and with her, she hasn't had the ability to deduct business expenses. she is looking at 20 to 30 percent of expenses not to be able to deduct, which is really difficult. the third economic growth and deficiency. we should not have tax policy group that punishes the growth of her business and just having four months to get a building permit to put an ada bathroom in

the city has slowed down her ability to work through this. the last point is minimizing noncompliance. the state already sees a big thriving black market because of the overregulation and taxation we have an opportunity to go another direction. >> good afternoon. i actually know both of you from when i worked downstairs in this building. in addition to the principles of tax policy group i have other considerations i would like to be present and central in this debate at all times. what place does the board of supervisors see for cannabis in the city's ecosystem. is the intent to nurture or encourage this industry? what is the extra tax revenue

for, these businesses already pay one gross receipt to tax. if a second is collected will it be leveraged for other campaigned throughout the commune. what about brings those currently under taxes and industries up to fairity instead of adding to an already ave overtaxed industry. although our idea is to tax cannabis in the same way other businesses are taxed, if the board is set on treating the business differently maybe that would bring us closer to what david just spoke of. there are many cities that look

at cannabis and see a source of tax revenue, but we don't have to do that. we are small businesses and have families and i hop let's be inclusive and fair and welcome this community instead of siloing it and feeding misconceptions. >> if there are any other speakers that would like to comment, please get in line. >> my name is loss gor dens and i work with california grower's association. i work around the state and at the state level. i think the idea that medical cannabis should not be taxed and there is a recognition that there is regulation with the

market are important issues of tax policy group. i think that the problems with competition with the unregulated market is hard to emphasize just how serious those are, and you may be a ware that first quarter tax numbers have come in and they are about 40% of what was estimated. it was 38 million and that was supposed to be closer to 80 million or so. even that underestimates the problem. so about 10% less than that of the cannabis being purchased is being purchased on a legal market. the average tax rate hoar in

california on cannabis businesses is quite a bit higher not just than other businesses but even cannabis businesses in other states. the average tax in california is 40% higher than the tax in colorado and about double that which is in oregon. this idea that there needs to be greater parity and how can we regulate without additional burdens on it, that kind of paradigm shift. >> i ran a business from 2015 to 2017 until i was a pre-existing

non-conforming operator. san francisco you guys have proposed one of the allowest tax rates in the state, so i can't really be mad at you, but i think you can do better. >> you're welcome. [laughter] >> san francisco has always been a leader and item 20 important to be a leader in progreesessive values in the city and you have the opportunity to lessen the burden on cannabis businesses here. it's already really expensive to do business in san francisco. we have talked about this before of the committee pound effect and i know that you have been looking at it so thank you again for that, but if you have one percent that you moved it too,

it is still compounding on each cultivation, manufacture, distribution, retail, plus sales tax, so all we ask is to be treated like every other business in san francisco. if we are going to tax more to help our equity partners and to help with education, sure, but just to tax simply because it's cannabis is not the way to be a leader in the state of california. thanks. thanks. >> good afternoon, supervisor cohen and supervisor fewer. i want to echo support from any of my colleagues because i am not an export.

i came in as an artist, but as i started to transition the business into a legalized structure, i started realizing the amount of money i was going to bring was in less too because i was going to are to pay employees and the amount that we pay on our properties is even taxed more properties were like $1.75 now they are like $4 for us. coming in here i was like 2% and then hearing the 1%, thank you for lowering it, but learning that is still more than other businesses are paying in fra san francisco as business owners, i felt like we are still considered to be a sin and not n normalized at all, so i

encourage you to work with us to figure out something that is workable and normalizes the industry. >> i don't see anyone else in line but i would like to give a last call. seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] supervisor fewer, any comments? at that point i want to pivot to ted eagen who wrote a knowledge memo. could you present to us your memo? >> thank you, ted eagen, controller's office appreciate

the recommendation. we initially felt this was too small to require and economic impact report but your office asked us for this memo to subject what would be the overall impact and as you suggest, we have a couple of facts to add to the discussion. like any stacks would have adverse effect on the industry and consumers, whether it would lead to contraction of the industry depends on two things, first, what is the overall growth, and secondly what is the ability of the industry to pass the tax on to consumers. if consumers pay the tax that doesn't harm the economy. one of the things we know is that from the first quarter of

last year when it was not legal to the first quarter of this year when it was. -- they had revenues grow by 25%. some of that is consumption by some that were not consuming cannabis a year ago and now are. if just a quarter of that is an increase in prices, then the industry as a whole could absorb a two to five increase in taxes. secondly, reviewing the existing research on cannabis demand, it does seem that consumers are price insensitive to price increase in cannabis -- at the

retail level in particular is feasible. based on our number crunches we think conservative estimate we think about half the tax could be passed on to consumers which means it would feel like a 1% to 2% tax. this makes us feel like it is fairly unlikely that would result in a contraction of the industry to the pre 2017 levels. >> supervisor cohen: ted is an economist, he doesn't work for the mayor's office, he is an independent entity so his reports are based on empirical

research and the point i'm trying to make is that it's not favored or skewed towards any one entity and we asking him for a data analysis and it is based on that we will drive it forward, so thank you. i recognize there is not much information out there to some of the speaker's points there is data coming in that will shape the legislation, which is why i really wanted to build in some mechanism to allow for adjustment for the tax rate. what i would like to do supervisor fewer is to make a motion to accept the amendments and then i'm going to ask that we continue this item until july 19. all right. i will make a motion to accept the amendments and we will do this without objection. please note that the house has changed. supervisor fewer and i are here

and we will take this without objection and continue this to july 19,. [gavel] thank you for continuing this conversation. is there any further business. >> there is none. >> supervisor cohen: thank you ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned.

>> 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