in the lady shaw apartments in the autumn glow alzheimer's care home, and also in providing ongoing outreach and referral to the clients. i welcome this opportunity to introduce annie chung, the agency president and c.e.o., and together we respectfully request your approval of this. >> thank you, patrice. commissioners i am he ggs to share my name. i'm here today with 40 of our seat belt i don seniors and staff, and i'd like all of them to standup today.

we thought we were coming to a consent calendar, and last night i cancelled a lot of the seniors wanting to come because patrice told me it would only take a short time to get our item approved. and then last night, when i got home, patrice called me and said there was a letter to protest our proposal. so within the night, we signed up 40 more seniors to come, and each one of them very willing and happy to come because they have been waiting for this chance to add some more senior space for the outer sunset for probably over 20 years. so today, we come to ask you for the approval of our conditional use authorization. two years ago, a very generous family in our community donated this property to self-help for the elderly. almost immediately, we applied for a feasibility study grant for the city and ready did our due diligence to find out what

is the best use of the site. it's a very small site, 25 by 100, in a residential mixed zone, and what is economically feasible for us to do. so we are a nonprofit, and we've been around for 52 years. our mission is really to provide a better quality of life for the seniors and encourage them and support them to live independently for as long as they can in their own homes in their own communities with a lot of activities to make it a very happy and active life. the need to expand our senior center in the sunset has been probably expressed to every elected official in district four. help us expand our center, give us more space.

we've moved into the sunset with the sunset center in a very small clubhouse. we started to serve meals at lunch times, nutritious meals and activities for the seniors. it quickly grew from 50 seniors to now almost 80 and now the site could not afford us to expand the site anymore. we feel bad we don't have any space for the seniors to do tai chi or line dancing or any of the activities they want to do. so when the family donated the property and we were provided a block grant, we were over joyed. i think expanding the senior center is really the right thing for us to do. it's a small site. we did pursue housing, but it's just not big enough for us to pursue a senior housing project. i know how difficult it is if

we were to expand the site and put up more than four stories and expand the density, or the neighbors might not like that, so we thought by quietly adding about 1500 square feet on our two stories would allow seniors to be provided nutritious meals every day. so supervisor tang, when she became supervisor in 2013 did a sunset blueprint for the sunset resident. i'm a resident with my husband in the sunset for many, many years. and we thought that it would be a good project to get involved, not only because i work for self-help but in the sunset for such a large senior population. there's around 12,000 seniors in the sunset, and over 26% live alone. so supervisor tang's blueprint called for increasing the

infrastructure where seniors could get access to meals, activities and social service. i think for self-help for our 52 years, if our seniors are happy, the staff are happy. and i think that what could be better to bring smiles to hundreds of our seniors faces every day, you know, when they come to an active senior center, enjoy are activity -- their activities, enjoy their friends, they can come to our -- our senior center and get their needs full fid. we had extensive outreach. we had a meeting with the neighbors. almost every one of them was in support, but they've never reached us and asked us to explain their project in

detail. so i ask that you still rule in favor and let the seniors go home today happy that they're going to get an expanded site very soon, so thank you very much, commissioners. >> president hillis: thank you very much. >> and please, say a few words. >> president hillis: sure. we'll start public comment now, and she can say a few words, but thank you. >> good afternoon. >> president hillis: good afternoon. >> i'm a senior citizen going there to enjoy a hot meal monday through friday. we have limited space but big demand for senior citizens. we are not the -- the senior center is not only a place for

hot meal, but also a place for social events. the seniors come in at 9:00 in the morning, for tai chi, we have sing along karaoke, a captain from the police department came in to talk to us to tell us how to protect ourselves, not to take those scam phone calls. so not only a place for the hot meals every day, it's a social event where people can share their happiness and sadness. they feel a family there, as well, especially those living by themselves. it's lonely, but they show up, they're so happy. people come in here, enjoying their life there. and every time, heartbreaking for me when i have to turn down the senior citizens because we

have limited space so it's a big demand for us to get more space to provide more services for senior citizens. i hope you approve the project. thank you. >> president hillis: great. thank you. is there any further public comment on this item? >> commissioner, i would just like to submit all of the communications and all of the sm support letters that we have received. >> president hillis: great. thank you. >> hi. good afternoon. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is annie mah, and i am the legislative aide to supervisor katey tang. i'm here to share supervisor tang's support of self-help for the elderly. the project includes a conversion and modest expansion of a vacant single-family home which was generously donated to

self-help for continuance services to the outer sunset community. supervisor tang has visited the seniors at the current location for many years now, and the clubhouse is filled with over 50 seniors each day who come and congregate with each other and spend a lot of time with each other over a hot meal. the social workers only have two workers to one desk at the end of the room, and this area is important because it allows seniors to get help with different things. the expansion will help the seniors get more services and the assistance that they need. it will allow them to benefit from the comprehensive social services provided by self-help, including the meals, education and wellness services and supportive services. i hope that you will join supervisor tang in supporting this project at 3133 taraval

street. in supporting her support for this project, supervisor tang understands if there is a lawsuit from this project, she will need to recuse herself from the vote on the board of supervisors. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, miss mah. next speaker, please. >> i'm here on behalf of jimmy lau, and i want to make it very clear that we are not opposing a senior community center at this location. we think it's an excellent location for that, we just think it shouldn't be at the expense of housing. once this is made clear, you as a planning commission, planning for us is -- shouldn't be on the project by project approval and disapproval, but you should be looking at the big picture. you should be identifying trends, you should be planning for the future, and the big picture here is that you have

organizations both for profits and nonprofits that are acquiring housing that can lay vacant for a few years, and then it's allowed for a nonresidential use. so it's happening all over the sunset. another example that i have on the top of my head is at the corner of 25th and noriega where you have a residential office on the second floor. the home next to that is also left vacant for whatever reason. we think the dwelling unit removal should be removal, and it shouldn't be put on the consent agenda. there's not enough housing in the sunset, so every unit removal is significant. one vacant and removed later is one family beat out by a wealthier one and displaced from the sunset and most likely from the city.

i went to sacramento to oppose the costa hawkins repeal. every time it's almost always displaced from single-family home because there's no recent control. and you cannot incentivize that behavior. there's 40 plus vacancies on taraval alone and 150 plus vacancies on the entire sunset, so it wasn't that there was no other option here. the project sponsor could have used housing -- use their site to leverage it and pus that to purchase another nonresidential site. or another option, demolish that site, build taller, and you could have that senior community center and senior housing, as well, we would have supported that. so yeah, once again, we do not

the senior community center. we just think we shouldn't have to choose between community services and housing in the sunset. so you need to start making plans to build more housing in the sunset so that we don't have to make that choice again. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> laura clark, yimby action. they seem like really great people, really great use for the space, but only in shortage conditions do we fight over one little unit of housing. we need to upzone the sunset so seniors and everybody else can find housing opportunities out there. i would also say this is not substantively different than what's happening in noe valley where you refurbish a

single-family home so you can get a nicer single-family home. i think that obviously this one's going to go through, but i think it's something to think about that we should be upzoning so we get ten units of housing on top of whatever other uses we have. i've heard as the yimby's start to have babies, there's a big shortage in child care as well. we don't want to see homes converted into child care facilities, we want to see child care facilities with ten, 20 units of housing built on top. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. any other additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public cox. commissioner coppell? >> commissioner koppel: again, i wanted to thank the participation of supervisor

tang and assessor chiu. being a resident of the sunset, very well said on your comments. i really appreciate your ability to, at the last minute, gather this much support, but then also consolidate your speaking just to save time and be more efficient, so i'm in full support of the project today. >> president hillis: thanks. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. so i was on the west side, and, you know, i think we talk about the west side of the city fairly often. we talk about the potential there for building more housing, for making the city more affordable, but i think as actually one of the speakers brought up, it's really important that we look at the big picture. on the west side, it's not -- the west side is not just about potential, actually, the west side has some of the largest populations of seniors, and we have to be providing services for seniors in that district. when you look at the history of

this property. we know that housing was donated for the express purpose of helping expand senior services. they own that housing. has not been lived in, will not be lived in, and yet this has the potential to provide great services to the community. s just as we're talking about the westd si the west side to look at the larger context. with that, i make a motion to approve with conditions. >> second. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: i was going to make a motion. i support this project. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i like the point you can have a senior center and housing if you sell the building and go to another space. having been the treasurer of a nonprofit, i understand how honor designated funds, i.e.,

this house was supposed to be for this center. that all being said, i think your hands are tied that you can't dispose of it without probably giving up the asset. i'd like to acknowledge the letter that west side is the best side was sent in. it was balanced, it was nuanced, it was informative. keep up the issues, west side is the best side. but that being said, i will approve this project. >> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. [applause] >> clerk: commissioners, that'll place us on item nine for case 2016-009262 dop at 504 grandview avenue, discretionary review. and if those persons leaving the room could do so quietly,

we would appreciate it. we have some additional business to attend to. >> good afternoon, commissioners, nancy tran, planning department staff. [inaudible] >> since the november 2, 2017 hearing, the project was modified to reduce massing perthe commission's discretionary review action wh

been baabandoned and withdrawn. we've worked very closely with san francisco's tenants union to try to address all of their concerns of which they had many, rightfully so, and -- jennifer pheifer still is here if you have any questions for here. i think we've addressed all the questions. we have an agreement between the owner developer, and the tenants union, and i hope you'll support the project. >> president hillis: okay. thank you. and this is a d.r., so miss seaver, you are the d.r. requester. >> i'm curious as to why it was pulled from the consent calendar. we've had a great relationship with the owner, but we agree with those terms. >> president hillis: great. is there any public comment on

this item? seeing none, i'll close public comment. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i asked it to be on consent until late yesterday evening. i got requests from the public to clarify that the judgment that came from the planning commission on november of 2017 had not been properly processed as d.b.i. and only miss tran just a few seconds ago told me that as of this morning, that issue was resolved. so my taking it off consent is basically being answered by that particular statement. i am obviously supportive of the project because it did address all of the issues that we had originally objected to, however that was a very important issue given the fact that we still have a disconnect between planning and what this commission puts to record and when it comes to be acknowledged, this is almost nine months later, and that is where the concern is. i consider it to be correct concern, and i hope that we

will all continue to work closely with d.b.i. and with the commission, their commission, to stay on track of not letting things slip between the cracks. thank you. i'll support this project. >> president hillis: thank you. is that a motion to approve, commissioner moore? >> commissioner richards: second. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i wanted to add, i think this is great by adding a.d.u.s, but hats off to everybody for coming up for an agreement. >> president hillis: all right. >> clerk: commissioners, there's a motion that's been seconded. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved,

commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. >> president hillis: and that was a d.r., so we're not taking d.r. and approve as proposed, as that was kind of revised. >> clerk: yes. commissioners, on -- that will place us under your calendar for case number 2015-435 e.n.v. this is for a certification of the final environmental impact report. items 15 a and b for case numbers 2013-1535 anv and cua for ceqa findings and conditional use authorization. please note that the public hearing on the draft eir is closed. public comment may be accepted at this time but may not be included in the final eir. also, this matter was continued to today by a vote of 6-0. commissioner fong.

in order to participate, you need to acknowledge you've viewed the previous hearing and materials. >> president fong: thank you. and prepared to take action. >> clerk: thank you, and through the chair, as this is being heard for the second time, generally, rereduce project presentation and public comment. >> president hillis: all right. let's do fife minutes for the presentation and one for public comment. >> clerk: very good. >> jonas, can you hand this up to the commissioners? >> clerk: i certainly can. >> good afternoon, president hillis and members of the environment. i am chelsea fordham. i am joined today by lisa gibson, environmental review officer. the item before you is certification of the final viermsal impact report for e.i.r. the item was continued from your june 28 commission meeting to provide additional analysis and funding sources. on the financial feasibility of

preservation alternatives. a copy of the draft e.i.r. motion is before you. the draft e.i.r. was published on october 25, 2017. the public hearing on the draft was held on november 30, 2017, and the public comment period closed on december 11. the comments and responses document was published and distributes to you on june 13, 2018. since publication of the draft e.i.r., a number of project updates and revisions have been made and are now being pursued as the preferred project which was presented in the r.t.c. additionally, the project sponsor is now also considering a revised prerchd project, which would include the full demolition of the 450 o'farrell street building. the environmental impact of this proposed project are provided in a revised section

of the r.t.c. that has been handed out to you. the preferred project and the preferred r.t.c. would be substantially similar, andit would jgenerally result in the same impacts in your e.i.r. the e.i.r. has provided adequate analysis for the prejudice, revised project, and the revised preferred project. it will not avoid the one significant historical resource impact. therefore, the commission would need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to ceqa. should the commission choose to approve the project sponsor's revised preferred projector revised project. since publication of the r.t.c., one letter was sent to you on the vibration monitoring and mitigation plan and the requested changes to that measure. that letter is included in your

packet. the department concludes, however, the mitigation measure adequately protects the adjacent historic resources. it does not require additional modifications. staff recommends that the commission adopt the motion before you that certifies the contents of the report are adequate and accurate and through the -- the procedures through which the final e.i.r. was prepared comply with the provisions of ceqa, the ceqa guidelines and chapter 31 of the administrative code. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. >> president hillis: thank you, miss fordham. >> marselle boudreaux, department staff. as chelsea noted, this item was continued from june 28 for potential analysis from additional funding sources. in your packets that you have, there is a revised motion to adopt the ceqa findings. that does include the

recognition of this additional analysis. the -- the note is located within the discussion of the commission's reasons for the discussion of the partial preservation alternate tiff and the full preservation alternate tiff. as was presented on june 28 and again at this time, the economic feasibility is one of five reasons for rejecting these alternate tiffs as outlined in the draft motion to adopt the ceqa finding and adopt the statement of overriding consideration for this project. in addition, the commission requested that jacob bintles attend this hearing, and he's here today. in addition to the certification of the e.i.r., the commission must also take two additional actions today. the first is the adoption of the ceqa findings, which is in your packet. the commission must also grand conditional use authorization for planned unit development

with multiple modifications as well as also granting conditional use authorization for the motion of five existing dwelling units, a height taller of 50 street frontage greater than 50 feet, bulk competence and for -- exceedance and for establishment of a new religious institution on the site. the project sponsor has proposed an additional use, which reads as follows, related to the facade and colannade of the existing proposed project, which would be a revised proposed project. prior to the issuance of the site permit architectural addendum, the project sponsor shall work with the planning department to resign the lower

levels of the southeast corner of the project to eliminate the 460 o'farrell street facade and colonnade and replace it with a design that maintains the project's referenced to the features of the surrounding district including the ground floor storefront height, organization of the building into the vertical masses, punch windows and interior uses, ensuring the building with the district in terms of size and scale, composition, and materials. the department finds that the project is on balance and although the project resulted in the demolition of a historic resource, the project is locate index a high density residential development area, providing 17 dwelling units in a mixed use development that is comparable with the surrounding development. the project has a required 13.5% on-site affordable

housing requirement. [inaudible] >> -- support an additional two units of affordable housing within that s.u.d. lastly, a new church facility is proposed within the project for the fifth church of christ scientists. i'm available for questions. this is the end of my presentation. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you, miss boudreaux. our project sponsor.

i apologize, commissioners, i actually received some additional public comments after your memo packet was published, which i have copies for you. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. all right. are you ready? [inaudible] >> president hillis: okay. go ahead. >> i'll take the -- >> president hillis: screen, sfgov tv. >> i can get started. so good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here on behalf of the

project sponsors. as staff mentioned to you, this is our second time in front of you after being continued from the june 28 hearing. thank you for having us back. we have a couple of things to update you on in response to comments received in that hearing. we're at the corner of o'farrell and jones street, three parcels, about a half acre total. three buildings, most notable which is the actual church structure at had 50 o'farrell street. everything is blocked out here in white. the church structure is quite old, 1923 era building, quite old, quite dark. current congregation is really not pleased having to stay there. it makes them very difficult for them to carry out there mission. there are a number of interests features within the building that they will be taking out, not least of which is the stained glass windows, oculus,

pipe organ. what we're proposing is to tear down everything and then rebuild new mixed use project instead of a 27,000 square foot church, we will have a 9600 square foot church. there will be mixed use above that, single level of auto parking and lots of bike parking on one side. so at the hearing on june 28, we heard a number of things from all involved. one was the financial feasibility report mentioned by staff. another one a number of alternate tiff financing programs that were put forth by public commenters, not least of which was to rezone the site. we also talked about property line windows, and then the

colonn colonnade facade. the department reviewed the original report, requested a peer review of it, which was conducted. the planning staff was intimately involved with the scoping of those studies and approved the scope and also reviewed both documents for its concludings. planning sexual projects and development team review it had. in addition, if any of the commissioners have questions about the report, michael diamond from e.p.s. is here this afternoon. if you have any questions about that, we can make him available to you. after our hearing on june 28, we went back to u.p.s. with some of the ideas that were proposed. during that hearing, mills act, historic preservation credits, tax credits, we took these ideas, and we crafted a scope together with the planning department, and we had the

original study preparer study these options for applicability to the project. the key findings from this report was that all of these programs that were suggested are really not the best fit for this project. they're all designed for kind of different circumstances. they all have kind of a range of goals and objectives. they don't have a ton of overlap in terms of the application requirements and the -- the types of funding that would be able to secure for them. furthermore, using a -- one off a combination of these programs would not be able to increase the feasibility of the existing church fully. i won't get into too much detail on rezoning and converting the project into kind of a t.d.r. project. this can get complicated really quickly, but the two options on

t.d.r.'s is to rezone everything and figure out a way to create t.d.r.'s that would be sellable and generate revenue for the project. the other option is to just rezone the church project. you would not build anything on top of that. we've studied these options, and without getting into too much detail, you would either not produce enough t.d.r.s or we would have to increase the t.d.r.s or increase the height. none of these were faesible. we have a couple buildings next to us. we made every effort with staff to sensitively design the project to reduce the impact on property line windows. what you can see here in red is 540 jones. we originally had a much larger u shaped buildings that reduced

all of those windows. rereduced the side of the building. [inaudible] >> lastly, we heard loud and clear a lot of concerns about retention of the colannaded facade, and we wanted to respond to that. i'll note that when we began this project four years ago, we never had any intention of retaining any piece of the building. as we worked through the entitlement process, we had to redesign once or twice. we made the decision, and that decision was questioned on june 28, and since.

between the 28 and now we've held multiple meetings with the most vocal group on that, san francisco heritage, in order to respond to a number of these concerns. this is the current design, and the preference is to remove the facade off of this design and leave much of the rest unaltered. and after some deliberation, we -- we are okay with doing this. we would definitely support a motion by the commission today that would approve the project, conditioned upon removing the facade at a later date, working with planning staff. we have not had a tremd amount of time to studied why the. but we have a couple of ideas here which i'll show you in a second. this project is grandfathered under the -- [inaudible] >> less than three months away, so we definitely urge you,

commissioners, to take action. we look forward to work ing wih planning staff designers. we hope we can find a mutually agreeable sign for that building soon. thank you very much. >> president hillis: we'll open this up for public comment. because we've heard this once before, we're going to keep public comment to one minute. >> my name is del seymour. i have two nonprofits that are less than 1.5 blocks from this project. i have one nonprofit called tenderloin walking tours, and i

take tours down o'farrell, and we never have nothing to talk about on that block. i really have a dog in the race. i love the tenderloin. if you google the mayor of the tenderloin, you'll see my smiling face. if you go out and see my car, you'll see my car has license plate, tenderloin. that rendition there, that drawing, who could oppose that? we'll bring peace back to a block that has not always been normal. we'll bring some normalcy back to the tenderloin. we really invite the middle class, to invite once thing we don't have -- one thing we don't have, which is dignity. so give us some dignity in the tenderloin. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. seymour. >> my name is joseph brown.

i live across the street from the church. we really need this project approved. it's something we need approved very badly. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, mr. brown. mr. lewis. >> hi. david elliott lewis. for the last 12 years, i lived four blocks from the project site. i'm also a part of the s.r.o. collaborative land use committee. i must say when i first heard about this project, i had questions, and i had questions about whether i can support it because of the size, the bulk, and the nature of the neighborhood. after reviewing the project, after touring the site and looking at the current sanctuary inside and out and what it looks like, and see what would be preserved, what wouldn't be preserved, i do support it.

i do support it without reservation. i do think it will support this 400 block of o'farrell, which admittedly, it is a block that is somewhat blighted. dispressed. i think it'll be supporting of the surrounding properties, and the agreement of the project sponsor to provide some -- at least three units set aside for what was then called the moving on initiative -- >> clerk: thank you sir, your time is up. >> i wasn't counting down here. >> clerk: sorry. you had a minute. >> one minute? >> clerk: yeah. this has been heard before. >> thank you, sir. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon. cory smith on behalf of san francisco housing action coalition housing support. two main things we want to touch on. number one, we often hear from our friends about how the

historical preservation process is a pain in the butt. any way we can continue to respect history and make sure it is being repaired is really, really valuable. it's not just based on old concrete. i remember a number of situations where people point out we've got blocks and blacks, and we can put in museums so the -- we've -- [inaudible] >> -- the risk that this thing doesn't get built goes way, way, way up. thank you. >> president hillis: okay. next speaker, please. mervyn green, mr. jamal, justice taylor. >> i'm here today. how you doing.

yeah, just take sometime to consider what they said. if you know that it truly helps the people of the neighborhood, go with it. that was it. >> president hillis: all right. thank you very much. next speaker. >> i'm mervyn green. i'm a member of the land use committee for the central city s.r.o. collaborative, and we've been meeting with tyler and also with the church several times to discuss this. you've mentioned some of the benefits to this community. they're also donating money for the park, and they're adding three units for the m.o.i. we have a real organization, a community of faith and the community here working together to improve the neighborhood, so i strongly wish that i will approve this measure. thank you very much. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. any additional public comment on this item?

mr. bueller? >> good afternoon, commissioners, mike bueller on behalf of san francisco heritage. i'd just like to reiterate, given the findings of the e.p.s. report our focus more recently has turned to changing the design to eliminate the colonnade and avoid what we consider to be an especially troubling design of facadism that is incompatible with the historic district. we feel that the mitigation in the e.i.r. is inad equal for the demolition of a historically compatible resource. we're working in good faith to resolve the issues and ask for more time to do so-so we can move forward and reach an

agreement and realize the cost savings can be reinvested in the tenderloin historic district. >> my name is michael nolte, and i'm here on behalf of the various community groups and how they have a position on this. central city democrats is neutral. manner advocates has no recommendation. theater district neighbors supports the project in principle, and their goals. the north of market business association supports the project and the principles and their goals. the tenants association coalition were nut weutral, an

it's in writing, so you can refer to it later, and that's the kind of stuff i do. i do coalition building, so thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i'm brenda with cotenderloin. i work in the tenderloin pretty much all day every day. it's a lot of everything down there, and whatever positive we can bring to the community would definitely be appreciated. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is john nolte. speaking on behalf of 450-4 # 5 o'farrell, this current project, kbron i don't know

which one -- i don't know which you're going to agree on. the current site was squatted on in 1906, before the church. my great grandfather had a house across the street and he lost it in the fire. with the 176 condos, i think there could be more affordability there for the community, and i mean by affordable, very, very low-income residents, 'cause they're going to be condos. so we have been dealing with that site for over 20 years to build something on it, so i hope you will approve one of the options today. thank you very much. >> president hillis: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> jim marshall, san francisco victorian alliance. we obviously mourn the loss of

a major historic asset, and whichever option you decide to approve decide, either the one characterized as facadism or the complete demolition of the historic building, including the facade, if you do opt for the latter, we would urge you to really look to have significant remedies spelled out that will, as mr. fewer said, supervise funding as a very -- provide funding as a very significant level commensurate with the savings that the developer will have in not pursuing the facadist alterna alternative so that the tenderloin has those opportunities to pursue other options. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? nope? seeing none, we will close public comment and open it up to commissioner comments and questions.

mr. bueller, can i ask you a question. i mean, you obviously -- you've been talking to the project sponsor over the last couple of weeks and i release ad -- realize advocating for the preservation of the building. but talk to us a little more about the alternate tiff you consider facade -- alternative you consider facadism versus the full demolition of the building and where you're aware -- i they we -- i think we talked last meeting about some projects, downtown and the one on pine street, which work okay. and this is facadism or kind of an urban design component and why you don't like this, the facadism component. >> well, many facadism projects

have been approved in san francisco. as you and i discussed, there are some especially troubling aspects of this proposed design that in our view make it an egregious example of facadism and a mockery to the protections in this city. for one, not even the entire facade is being retained here, just the colonnade and the columns, the set back, the bblg behind the columns -- building behind the columns, the doors, and any historic elementing behind the colonnade would be removed and you'd have glazing rising behind the columns. unli other examples make more of an effort, the examples that you

site to give the appearance of maintaining the historic building's original volume. we've learned that $5 million is budgeted to retain and preserve the colannade as part of the project. we recognize that not all of

that amount would result in savings to the developer and the project if the colonnade is removed. clearly new ex-presences related to redesigning this portion of the ma faud, potentially materials, changing the volume, etc., will incur added expense. we have proposed a number that is a fraction of the budget amount for saving the colonnade to be contributed to city administered programs that benef benefit historic preservation and other projects in the upper tenderloin historic district.

>> president hillis: i'm generally -- sorry. did you want to? >> clerk: well, i just hate to interrupt, but commission president hillis, i just went outside, and the sheriff's have been holding a large crowd for this item, so if we could go outside and give them an opportunity to speak.

>> president hillis: so there's nobody who needs to speak, and there's no additional public comment on this item? so thank you, mr. bueller, for answers my questions. i think i'm in agreement with kind of the approach where there isn't the preservation of the facade. i agree with you, and i think it's worked well in other projects. i would be supportive of the option that remove the facade, and i certainly encourage you and the developer to continue discussions.

i think that's -- that's heading in the right direction. i don't think we have the authority to kind of impose kind of dollar contributions to the project, but i think that approach has worked in the past. i think we've seen it done on affordable housing where there's separate agreements that will allow for contributions for additional affordable housing. i think this project has come a long way, and i would support it as proposed without the -- without keeping the facade. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i would agree with you, president hillis, that the preservation of the colonnade is too much acce accessory like the tree ornament, and it doesn't contribute anything to the b

building. what is missing for me is a l full rendition of what the building would look like missing the facade. the other thing i would like to see is the -- there were three points outlined by mr. bueller, which struck me as being somewhat the right three divisions of how mooney would be allocated. city administration projects, sf shine and tenderloin s.r.o. preservation focused ideas. i would like to see a little bit more meat on that description because i believe in principle, myself as commissioner would strongly support something more concrete in how this money could be used, rather than just saying well there is an amount and it will be done something other. i assume between having the package and today, the

discussion of no facade -- of no colonnade had not been forward enough that we could look at two physically rendered alternate tiffs including negotiation of terms that we only hear outlined for the first time today, and that is a little bit of concern to me. i like -- as you always know, i'm pretty consistent in that. i like to see a hard copy of what we are approving, so i am in support of the noncolonade idea, but the vagueness of what i'm approving or would be approving is a little bit too vague for me. i think the project has gotten a little bit better for me. i still have certain questions about the o'farrell facade, but i leave that because the bigger question is what we're going to do with the project today. >> president hillis: commissioner richards?

>> commissioner richards: i agree with commissioner moore. i look at this -- two things first. there's no agreement on the amount of savings or what the mitigation would be from a historic preservation point of review. i think, as well, i want to see a rendering of what the building is going to look like. i don't like the building as it is already, so if you're going to add more of a nasty front on top of it, i want to see what that looks like. this building is relentless. the design -- it has no design at all. it's just kind of a box with punch holes