bidder. it is below the contractor's bid, but we want to do outreach. this is more of inspection and cleaning, and it's to assist the waste water enterprise. >> and you have no issues with this contract? >> no. >> does pipe and plant do all of our inspecting? >> they do a lot of our inspection, but our own waste water enterprise also does inspection, as well. >> move the item. >> it's been moved. >> second. >> and seconded. commissioners, any further discussion? hearing none, is there any public comment on the item? public comment is now closed i'll call for a vote. all those in favor signify by saying aye. all those opposed? the ayes have it. madam clerk, the next item, please. [agenda item read]

>> could you bring up the powerpoint, please. donna, may i give you these for the commissioners? commissioners, i'm rosanna russell. i'm the head of real estate, and i am bringing to you a proposed framework for a real estate exchange of two properties. the first property is owned by the p.u.c. we own it at 639 bryant.

it -- this property serves the power enterprise. it's a utility yard. the property's 1.37 acres. it has a warehouse and parking lot, and the p.u.c. operates a hydrogen peroxide tank for sewer odor control on the property. this will be significant later. the appraised value of the property is $63,875,000. the reason this is so expensive is the property will soon be in what's called the central soma plan after the city approves that plan. that plan will upzone 639 bryant and all the surrounding properties, there by contributing to its appraised value. we seek to exchange this property for 2000 marin, but before i describe 2000 marin, i need to describe our leased

property next door, which is 651 bryant. again, we lease this to the power enterprise. our lease expires in 2019, and we have one option to extend the lease for ten years. we pay $293,724 a year in rent, and the owner of 2000 marin has an option to purchase this property. so before we discuss the mechanics of the exchange, i wanted to explain that the p.u.c. needs additional property space. 639 is small and will not meet our anticipated future utility yard needs, so we need to expand or secure a facility placement in the future. what is key is that frisk has a well documented very low vacancy rate for industrial space. it's less than 2%. it's very challenging and it's very expensive to locate a

replacement valve facility for 639 bryant -- or an expanded replacement facility. the owner of 2000 marin came to us and proposed an exchange. an afillate owned 2000 marin. this is the property. you may know it as the former san francisco chronicle printing press. it's a very large property. it's 7.4 acres, and it has a 74,000 square foot building. this property is almost five times as large as 639 bryant. its appraised value is 63,600,000, $275,000 less. the owner of 2000 marin seeks to exchange this property for 639 bryant because the owner wishes to develop the property

that consists of 639 bryant, 651 bryant, and some other adjacent parcels. that's 2000 marin. what i need to bring to your attention is that 2000 marin's former uses caused soils contamination. there's a deed that subjects this property to the over sight of the california department of toxicic substances control. this means that any disturbance of the existing asphalt cap requires d.p.i.s consent and could require modification. the developer has agreed to pay up to $100,000 for phase two testing which will reveal the extent of the contamination, and that $100,000 should also cover the p.u.c.s over sight cost. the p.u.c. will hire consultant

to vet the needed testing and to cover any remediation costs. the estimated costs do not include remediation costs. we will come to you to ask you to review the testing, the environmental condition of 2000 marin, and you have a choice there. you either approve the environmental condition, you authorize us to negotiate an acceptable strategy for remediation, or you can elect to terminate the agreement. so again, this is why we're asking you to approve a conditional agreement because you have conditions to approve in the future. other key terms of the agreement are the developer will pay our transactional costs, like appraisal costs, attorney fees, closing costs. the developer will pay to move the power enterprise to 2000 marin. the developer will move the

hydrogen peroxide tank to our site. the developer will construct a temporary facility on 2000 marin for the power enterprise subject to our reimbursement. how will we reimburse the developer? the developer plans to lease a portion of 2000 marin for a short-term, maybe four years, to the flower mart. the flower mart is temporarily being displaced and needs a place to go during construction of its new facility. that income stream or an alternative funding source will help the p.u.c. reimburse the developer for the cost of the replacement facilities. we're hoping it will cover it. because this is a -- again, an important decision point, we will ask the commission to approve any short-term lease or

the alternative funding source. eventually, the short-term lease will be assigned to the p.u.c. when we close escrow, so the dollar magnitude is such that we need your approval. we cannot close escrow on the exchange, and we will not ask you to declare 639 bryant until several closing conditions occur. the developer needs to receive all of its approvals for its project on bryant and brannan. again, the developer must pay the environmental testing cost, our oversight costs up to $100,000 and the p.u.c.'s transactional cost. again, you, the commissioners, we ask you to review the phase two testing, the costs, and either ask you to issue approval of the environmental condition of 2000 marin or you have the option to terminate or negotiate at that point.

again, we will ask you to, as a closing condition to approve the short-term lease of 2000 marin or the funding source to fund the construction of the temporary facility. both the developer and the p.u.c. must approve the plans and budget for the new temporary facility, built to our specs, and the plans for the tank relocation. the board of supervisors must waive or reduce certain fees for the development exchange for the dedication of a public park to the city as part of the development project. finally, the board of supervisors and the mayor's must authorize the closing. i realize this is a lot of information. i'm open for questions, and we also have others in the audience who can respond to very specific questions about the central soma plan. >> thank you. if i may. want to go? >> i'm familiar with the area, and maybe you can answer this. if we're successful at

navigating these transactions, do we foresee that -- 'cause we got a lot of stuff out there. are we thinking that we're going to position staff into a more modernized work environment? 'cause that's what interests me. i've been to their -- we represent a lot of people. i've been there. is that -- is that what we're doing here? >> yes. well, it's a two-stage process. because remember, we also have to comply with ceqa. >> right. >> so we will move the power enterprise from bryant street to a temporary facility with temporary buildings, and more importantly, a yard that can accommodate our equipment, our poles, our trucks, our whatever they call those tall things that move the poles. i'm not a technical person, i'm sorry. and then, during the term of the short-term lease, we anticipate that the p.u.c. as a whole will look at 2000 marin, the entirety of 2000 marin and program it for permanent

facilities. remember that requires compliance with ceqa, development of a program, obtaining capital funding, and also dtsc oversight, so it will take several years. so as staff, we recommend the short-term lease so the p.u.c. has an income stream to fund the temporary facilities and give it the time it needs to plan for long-term -- for permanent facilities. >> thank you for answering my questions. commissioner viator. >> so i have a couple of questions. the $100,000, what happens if it goes over that and additional testing is needed? >> i don't expect it to go over that. the p.u.c. gets reports -- well, let me back up. i'm not a technical person.

during real estate collaboration, we collaborated with water resources who routinely hires experts for the p.u.c. and reviews reports. he's confident that this amount is generous to cover our costs, and also the cost of a second consultant, remember, to vet the phase two report. we're not just accepting it at face value, we're seeking outside confirmation. >> and then, is there a certain point -- a certain price that would then make the project not worth moving forward if a certain amount of remediation is need index. >> -- needed? >> i think we need facts. i think we need to know what the extent of the remediation is in relation to our use. remember, we're an organization that is planning -- typically uses just the surface for our heavy equipment, our pipes, our materials storage, so the

extent of the remediation really depends upon what our plan is. so we can estimate is as to -- under various scenarios, but until we have that phase two report and know exactly where the remediation is requires, and -- required, and the amount, then we will come to you, and the commission will make that decision as to whether -- you know, what is -- what will happen next. >> yeah. i just -- you know, through the chair, i'm going to be watching this pretty closely. i think we're all tracking what's happened at the shipyard, with the sampling of the soil and what a mess that's become, so i would urge you to watch this process carefully, and i look forward to seeing the results. >> we will. one thing i want to remind all of the commissioners is that industrial space in san francisco is by nature has soils contamination.

so we will watch this carefully, but we can't go anywhere without encountering this issue because we've looked -- prior to bringing this to the commission, we looked at several appraisals, we looked at other properties, we really drilled down. so -- and again, we will -- i won't look at this, our geoologists will look at this. >> that's the very nature of my concern is we do not want to put our workers at any risk, health risk, so i think it's going to be very important for us to make sure it's remediated at a level that maintains and ensures workers' safety. >> and again, this will be a decision point for the commission. >> commissioner marin. >> thank you. the appraiser's report, as i read it, makes it clear that their appraisal does not factor in any cost of remediation. am i correct on that? >> that is correct, but my understanding of the uniform standards of appraisers is that

they do not estimate the impact of remediation on value unless a third party who is expert in that area presents information to the appraiser. >> right. >> and i did not just rely upon our appraiser's representation. we had a written memo to that effect. i went and looked at every appraiser -- appraisal that the city has gotten in the past two years for industrial land because we are -- the real estate folks at the port were very generous. they gave us the reports -- the appraisals for pier 70, and we looked at other appraisals. >> but we are -- excuse me. but we are also going to be getting through this agreement, as i understand it, an additional third-party assessment of that site. >> yes. >> and at the conclusion of that, we should have the basis for making a pretty decent estimate as to what the remediation cost would be. >> we understand your

instructions and commissioner viator's instructions. >> okay. so when it comes back to us, the way you laid it out, it sounds as though this commission will have an opportunity to make sure that the price that we ultimately agreed to is still a viable project in light of whatever the remediation costs are. >> i agree. >> so that if -- if they were significant, but, on the other hand, the developer paid them, then, it stays the same. if there are some uncompensated portion, then we have to take a look at that and say is this still a viable project and does it meet the charter requirements for making sure that we both buy and sell property at fair market value. >> understood. >> that will -- information of

that decision point comes back to us about when? >> i actually don't have an estimate. i imagine it will be in the next several months. because we have not done the testing, we have -- yet, we expect the developer will do so expeditiously, but again, we need to hire our own consultant -- two consultants. one to vet the phase two report, and the second to estimate the cost of remediation. so we hope to come back to you in 2018, but i would not be surprised if it's early 2019. >> okay. and the other big contingency that's out there is that we can't declare bryant street surplus until we have a place to move those functions. >> absolutely. that's the remainder of my presentation. we will -- until the closing conditions are met that i just

mentioned, the proposed escrow closes, and the p.u.c. acquires 2000 marin, 639 bryant will not be deemed surplus because we still need it for utility use. >> and what's the timeline on that set of conditions being met? is that similar to the environmental timeline or is that -- >> yes. >> so both parts of this, and really, the ultimate decision on going forward on this exchange should come to the commission sometime late this year or early next year. >> yes. >> and that's when all of our sharp eyes will have something to look at and consider. >> correct. may i also give the commissioners one piece of information i forgot to give you? >> please. >> if this transaction does go through, the p.u.c. will save almost $7 million in rent from 651 bryant over the course of the next 11 years. and again, the reason is the

central soma plan has caused an escalation in real estate values. so the same appraiser that appraised the fair market value of both lands helped us do an informal appraisal of 651 bryant. so if you as commissioners decide you want this transaction to go forward, there will be some savings that you should consider. >> in addition to savings, do we have any assurances from the developer in regards to open housing commitments, prevailing wage construction, union construction. >> well, the developer is here. this is not part of our inquiry because we're p.u.c., but may i introduce henry sears to come to the podium to answer those questions? >> before you do that. i just wanted to make sure that you kind of understand how this deal happened. so you know, we were, you know,

at 639 bryant, minding our own business, and, you know, operating the yard, although it was cramped. but we were approached with this deal, 2000 marin, and we looked at the space, and we thought wow, that would be nice because not only the power enterprise needed extra space, but the c.d.d. needed extra space. so we started talking about wow, this could be a great opportunity. but we were operating at-is, we didn't know if it was going to come to fruition. it was a proposition m, we didn't know if it would get the necessary office space allocations. but now, i think the motivation is with the developer so we're pretty much waiting on them and of course, you know, that we

want to save our rate payers as much as possible so we're going to look for the best deal possible. so i do appreciate making sure we have safeguards as part of the mitigation that needs to happen on-site. and so -- but with that, if you have a question -- >> well, maybe we won't get into it. maybe we'll have what we need. the reason i inquired is because i think it's there. there's more to the story. maybe it's a little early to talk about affordable housing, prevailing wage, and union contracts. that'll eventually be a part of it for the benefit of the city. >> there's a huge back story, but there are people here that are far more competent to discuss it. >> okay. so if he wants to get up -- >> henry, do you want to come up? >> okay. >> okay.

sorry about that. >> i kind of gave you the motivation behind them wanting our space. >> henry sears. i oversee our development at 5 # 0 bran -- 590 brannan street. this is a project that we've been working on since 2012, and we first approached the p.u.c. in 2014 when we first saw the opportunity to buy 2000 marin and do the swap. the overall project that we're planning is a total of 4.5 acres. it'll include three office buildings totaling 922,000 square feet of office, a 13,000 square foot affordable housing site, plus we'll take 639 bryant, and we'll combine it with two other private parcels to create a new 40,000 acre public park, which will be a public benefit as part of the

project, as well. and tishman-aspire properties, we own a number of properties in san francisco san francisco. all of our construction sites are also union, and i think an important thing, part of this transaction that we worked out in the last couple month is that as a condition of closing, we will turn key the temporary utility yard at 2000 marin, so when this transaction, we hope, eventually closes, before it happened, all the work -- before it happens, all the workers will be moved to an approved facility at 2000 marin. >> sorry. what percentage of the housing's affordable? >> all -- so at this specific site, there are going to be 72 units. they're all 100% affordable. we have three different sites within the central soma plan, so we're looking to build a total of 1200 units of housing. 30% of that would be

affordable. >> sorry about that. thanks for -- >> thank you. >> do you have any other questions? >> i have some questions. >> commissioner caen? >> actually, my colleagues asked many of my questions, but the lease at 651 bryant is over in october? >> october of 2019, and then, we have an option to renew for ten years. >> okay. so how does that option work? because obviously, this process is going to take a much longer time than i think we're talking about. >> we definitely intend to exercise the option. >> okay. so -- so can we -- what happens if we only need it for -- >> there's a mechanism in the exchange agreement that is before you where we can get out of the lease without additional payments, correct, richard? >> that's correct.

>> okay. so getting back to the developer, tishman, it sounds like what is in this is that all of your approvals have to be met before this can happen, is that correct? so that's going to be a long process. are you -- can you give any indication about where you are in that timeline? >> yeah. so the central soma plan itself is -- the city's good night working on that for eight -- been working on that for eight years now. i think the first board of supervisors meeting was yesterday. i think the current timeline is they're trying to have it approved in advance of the august recess? then after that central soma plan is approved, our project would go up for project specific approvals? we don't have exact timing on that but we've been working on all of our environmental work and entitlement work over the last two years to be ready to apply for it this year. >> good. well, you're -- you're ahead of

it, sort of, from my point of view. good. that's good news because when i was reviewing it, i just felt this would be such a long process that we would never -- it would never happen. >> i agree. so we -- staff struggled in writing the staff report because there's so many external factors. we wanted to give the commissioners and commission ample information to get a decision, but we didn't want to bury you so that your eyes glazed over, and you thought what is this, with a phone book of information. so i'm really glad that henry's here to provide further detail. >> has this been moved? >> not yet. [inaudible] >> i would like to move the item. >> it's been moved. >> second. >> and seconded. is there any further discussions, colleagues? hearing none, is there any

public comment on the item? hearing no public comment, public comment is now closed. i'll now call for a vote. all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. all opposed? the ayes have it. madam clerk, call the next item, please. thank you for your report. [agenda item read] >> i do have a speaker card. mr. drickmeyer. >> peter dreckmeyer, tuolomne river trust. i was pleased to here commissioner viator's questions regarding the water plan, and you mentioned you were going to cover the topic under closed session. i think it would be really beneficial for us to have a public meeting, as well. i think we've had some glitches after the substitute environmental document. the draft came out in september

of 2016. there was the sfpuc bawsca editorial. we followed that, got off to a rocky start, and there was no discussion at the commission level for four months, not until january of 2017. and there really wasn't much input from the commission, which i think would be valuable this time around. the -- your staff put together a brief, and we had a -- kind of a scathing critique of it, and chair courtney then encouraged staff to meet with us, which we appreciated. we started getting more information, and over the course of a year, i think we've put together a package that would work for both the economy and the environment, and we'd like to discuss that with you. the staff responded to our critique, and i thought it was a fairly weak response, but nothing really happened from that. so i do hope that we can get this scheduled. the comment deadline on the

final s.e.d. is july 27, so if you were to have this discussion at your next meeting on the 24th, that would be in advance of that. the decision is expected on august 21 or 22, so it's a much shorter time frame than last time around. also, i note that item 20 on this agenda today is motion regarding whether to disclose the items discussed during closed session pursuant to san francisco administrative code. i hope you will consider sharing what the closed session item is. obviously, i'm very curious, and i don't want to be unnecessarily concerned that something's happening that we would need to know about. so perhaps you'll be willing to share the outcome of that. thank you. >> is there anymore public comment? hearing none, public comment is now closed. is there a motion? >> i move to assert.

>> second? >> second. >> it's been moved and seconded to assert the attorney-client privilege on matters listed below. madam secretary? >> clerk: item 18 is anticipated litigation as plaintiffs, and item 19 is existing litigation, restore hetch hetchy versus city and county of san francisco. >> and there's no public comment. >> okay. we're returning from closed session. is there a motion regarding whether or not to disclose the conversation that took place during closed session? >> move not to disclose. >> it's been moved. >> second. >> and it's been seconded. any public comment? hearing none, public comment is closed. you'll call for the vote. all in favor signify by saying aye.

all opposed? the ayes have it. there is no announcement following closed session. any new business, commissioners, colleagues. hearing none, mr. richey, is there anything to add? >> nothing to add. >> okay. welcome, mr. richey. so hearing none, this meeting's now 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 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