retained to be in conversation with 3. these lowered heights come with matching the height of the others. i should mention that this diagram shows station a rising to 145 feet. we're still working with the department how to scope the building on top of what could be station a. after evaluating the potential retention of station a through urban forum, we wanted to evaluate architecturally. it was shut down in 1965 as a power plant and then partially demolished in 1983. the image is a view of the facade where a train door exists. in this image, the structure before it was half demolished. you can see a lot of it has gone away, along with the structural integrity. this shows interior of what the space looks like and what could happen after building is without -- for 17 years. but this wall, this history left standing after the counterpoint, left us with a beautiful ruin. and it's very intelligent architect said this isn't a wall, it's a painting. so it now has inspired us to call this the found art wall. it possesses so much character with a pa tina, its irregularly sites and i had made preservation worth exploring. with the hard work of multiple talented local and national, international architects, we began cultivating ideas. we surveyed examples of what this could look like, with world class rehabilitation power stations and other buildings. i wanted to end by saying this isn't really a done deal. some of the examples we've seen, we're still exploring possibilities. the retention of station a does come with a tradeoff and we're still exploring what that could mean with the community. >> president melgar: thank you. we will take public comment on this item. i don't think we have any speaker cards, but anyone who -- >> there is one. >> president melgar: okay, there is one public speaker card. but if anybody else wants to provide public comment on the item, please come up an line up on the left side. ms. gomez? are you still here? anyone who wants to provide public comment on this item? come on up. >> hi, hello commissioners. cory smith on the housing action coalition. we do have our letter of support right there. this project is obviously going to keep coming back here, it sounds like two more times. on the project itself, we actually just got the chance to review it a couple of days ago, but one of the things i was impressed by enrique and his team, they went -- i don't want to say out of their way to make sure everybody is informed, but i'm on both my personal e-mail and work e-mail to updates about this project and i feel like every 10 days i was getting blasted with an e-mail, hey, we're bringing folks out, hey, we're having a tour. and just that general attitude is positive and helpful and makes people feel like they can, because they should, trust the team to do what is best for the community and they want to be in the community for a long time. that kind of, in terms of how the team went about doing their business, i was impressed by. the project itself, i know there is probably going to be conversations over the next few months before this comes back to you all four approval. i want to encourage anything you can do to add more housing at all levels, going taller, denser, in order to make sure we can provide homes for as many people as possible is really key. and on the completely independent topic, i apologize for breaking protocol and the rules. but there is nice graphics for the what the sb 50 did yesterday. i wanted to float this to you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. mike buehler on behalf of san francisco heritage. heritage submitted lengthy comments on the draft with a focus on station a and creative adaptive reuse strategies to retain that structure and incorporate it into the development. we have been engaged in a regular meaningful dialogue with the developer over the last several months, exploring creative options for retaining what remains of station a. because of its current condition, we feel there is greater flexibility in terms of what can be done and we're encouraged by the progress we've seen to date. in our letter, we emphasize the importance of vetting some of the more creative design ideas with the community through a design shred. and we're in dialogue with how that might be presented. we think it's important to retain the site's 19th century industrial heritage. and we're hopeful that can be accomplished and we're committed to maintaining that dialogue going forward. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. president of the neighborhood association. we're here today at an awkward point in time for the project as the project is beginning to move and adapt to the concerns they heard. i think the presentation i saw, some of the changes are very good, very positive. and we look forward to having a strong conversation with developer to see that if the next time we have one of these hearings we can get the project entitled. the other part of the negotiation is with the city. as much as this project brings, it will bring a lot of impact. and making sure that the transit dollars stay in the neighborhood to ameliorate the impact of the people coming to work in this area is important. we look forward to continuing that conversation with the office of economic and workforce development as well. thank you very much. >> president melgar: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm alison, i'm chair of the boosters development committee speaking on behalf of the boosters. the power station development has the potential to bring much needed community services and shoreline parks to our waterfront. the boosters are committed to ensuring the power station becomes an asset to our rapidly growing neighborhoods. among the things we've been advocating for are affordable housing across all income levels, to all sizes of households and not just missing middle. there is no question that we've experienced unprecedented levels of development in our neighborhoods in the past several years. despite the policy that there be a fair share of growth across the whole of the bay area. 2008 eastern neighborhoods plan more complete neighborhoods with investment and public transit, open space and community facilities, maxed out on its 25-year growth projections by 2017. and it's funding for community services has failed to materialize. as a result, we must now negotiate strenuously for desperately needed benefits for a rapidly growing community still lacking adequate transit, libraries, schools, recreational facilities, community centers and grocery stores. we look to ensure that we get a development agreement that benefits our neighborhoods as well as the project sponsor. city collaborate with the community on the pier 70 development, the power station process does seem to be moving too quickly for full neighborhood engagement. while we welcome the recent attention, many of our concerns about design have gone unaddressed. last time i was here i expressed our frustration at the lack of a reasonable range of alternatives in the draft eir. the power station should better compliment the scale of the adjacent pier 70 development, breaking up the long mission bay blocks and winding narrow streets and lessen deep shadowing of public space and encourage pedestrian access to the waterfront. additional open space, robust recreational opportunities and a more generous waterfront must be garnd guaranteed. we see today's hearing as a positive first step toward a better development and looking forward to ongoing and robust dialogue with you, the planning department, project sponsor and oewd. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. >> excuse me, for those members of the public standing in front of the doorway, you're causing a fire hazard and cannot remain there. if you can't find a seat, you shouldn't be in the room. so i'm going to ask those persons standing near the doorway to find a seat or move to the other side of the room. we're currently looking for an overflow room. >> hello. i'm peter. i direct the potrero hill project. i spoke to you before when i was concerned about the future of the historic brick building on the power station site, particularly because i think they're not generally well known. they've been fenced off for many years. i was pleased to see that associate capital is entertaining ideas for preserving station a. but there is a number of historic buildings on this site. station a is huge, the gatehouse, the gas meter shop, and the beautiful neo classical facade of the machine shop, are relatively small and i think they deserve consideration as well. perhaps they could be moved near the bay shore. we've been circulating a petition saying, which asks the developer to save the historic brick buildings at the potrero power station. as of an hour ago, we have 880 signatures on that petition. i'd like to leave a copy with you today. it's clear that the developer is going to capitalize on the historic significance of the site, and i think they should do historic preservation commensurate with the preservation done at pier 70. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm keith goldstein, the chair of the eastern neighborhood citizens advisory commission, president of potrero association and vice president of the booster association. these changes are new to me. and i'm really, really pleased to see them. i am actually a retired masonry contractor. i have restored numerous historic masonry buildings. and i, frankly, was never particularly impressed with the architectural design of building a, but i did appreciate the historic significance. i thought it would cost an absolute fortune to restore that building. so i'm pleased to see that they're looking to keep that link back to history. i'd also like to say i'm pleased with the level of engagement from the developer here. and i actually hope i don't have a 7-year process reviewed by the neighbors before this project comes to fruition. >> president melgar: thank you, sir. next n. -- next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm an 18-plus year resident of dog patch and live three blocks from the project site. my -- the current project faces the continuing -- a place where the history of residential and industrial buildings co-exist. there are more neighbors today than we had two-and-a-half years ago with the neighborhood population doubling. our neighborhood demographic is changing. younger and many more young families and a higher expectation for neighborhood services in an area that has a lot of gaps. we continue to review the design iterations with the developer regularly and insist on open space, residential housing mix, community services, transportation options and preservation of historic assets. we continue to enjoy a constructive dialogue with the developer to ensure positive outcomes based on the priorities and look forward to continuing the dialogue. i, like keith, want to get it done before i get a wheelchair. we're co-hosting with sf planning, a 20th street underpass pop-up event. we're trying to figure out how to get more light in the neighborhood where there is more darkness. i'll leave this with you. come out tonight, 7:30 to 9:30. 20th and minnesota. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is emily pearl. i'm an architect at lund berg design which is 18-person architecture. we've been in dog patch about 20 years. i'm here to speak on behalf of our support for the project. and we're discouraged to hear about the proposal to potentially bring the tower down. we think that having the variety of heights creates a much more interesting and diverse urban form that also provides a lot more opportunities for housing. it also helps ensure that all of the open spaces will be occupied by diverse group of project users throughout the day. a boost in neighborhood amenities would be amazing, for someone who comes to that neighborhood. i spend more time in dog patch where i work than my san francisco neighborhood where i live. i would love to see a gym, grocery store, pharmacy, that would make my existence there during the week a lot easier. i'm in big support of the creative adaptive use of the team and would love to find a way to preserve this historic fabric while understanding it needs to be economically feasible. i also want to say that i'm very impressed with the extreme amount of community outreach support. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm a resident in dog patch, i also work there. i have seen the neighborhood change in the last 10, 12 years since i've been there and things take a long time in san francisco. and we are lacking so many things in the neighborhood that hopefully all these developments will help spur the new stadium, those issues with traffic, but hopefully, also, we'll get some basic neighborhood commercial businesses coming in. because we need to have critical mass. otherwise, it stays undeveloped. there are so many commercial ground floor properties that are vacant. so i've been supporting this project since the very beginning. we want to have a dynamic neighborhood that goes all the way to the waterfront. we want to have different massing, different heights. i just came back from hong kong. very vertical city. i think we can accommodate both tall slender buildings and more open spaces as opposed to everything being the same height like mission bay. and so i hope again, it doesn't take 10, 15, 20 years. if it takes that long, the economy changes, things get postponed. projects just stall and peter out, so the ongoing dialogue with the community has been great. and i think we should be able to support them and kind of get this thing going, not lose momentum. so i'm hoping the dialogue will continue, but not for too, too long and things get moving forward, thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. okay. looks like we're done. so public comment is -- oh. okay. >> sorry. i'm used to hearings where they go on and on. everyone was pleasant, so it doesn't sound like you need me. this project has a lot of fans. i think we all know enrique goes above and beyond. he's always inviting me to do another tour of an epic space. i hope all of you have gotten a chance. we goes on about the history. we all know i don't feel passionately about it, but he does. so we though that the history in this project will be well preserved, more than i might like, but as much as you would like. i think it's going to be a really exciting project and i haven't seen anybody really coming out full-throatedly opposing it and that's a rare occurrence as planning. i hope you all have fun seeing how this grows. >> president melgar: thank you. i think with that, public comment is now closed. commissioner hillis? >> commissioner hillis: a question for the developer. on some of the changes you've proposed or contemplating lowering heights in preserving station a, or i guess the facade of that, and incorporating that into a new structure, how does that change the overall kind of -- the project, number of units, square foot of office versus housing. if you could summarize. >> so the original project before you was about 2600 units of housing. when the heights came down, as an idea, when you do that, you loss 100 units of housing and preserving station a, it's impossible to put housing in it. it needs to be single-use building. so that is another loss of 200 units. however, we were able to move heights around the site. so it's a net loss of 200 units total. >> commissioner hillis: additional losses? >> it is increasing the offices on the site about 200 feet, lowering a net loss of 200 utilities. we consider this as a dialogue and tradeoff. we heard loud and clear that the community wanted to discuss this and this was our response. it does come with further tradeoffs. this is by no means a conclusion. this is what we hope to be ongoing dialogue with the community and listening to all stakeholders. >> commissioner hillis: how much office space did you have to the original? >> about 650,000 and this would bring it to 800 -- >> commissioner hillis: so third of an increase. and housing? >> 2600 originally and now it's 2405. >> commissioner hillis: but i think that is important to note. as i saw the presentation, i was like, great, preserve the -- i kind of may have issues with how -- i think we have to go deeper on how that building could be preserved. you showed examples, but i think what is important about that building is kind of the mapping of it and the space on the floor. which obviously isn't -- it's really a facade. i don't know if it's kept. >> i don't know if it is the space on the first floor. what it was originally was a loud noisy room full of equipment. it's empty shell. usually it sits about 6.5 feet of water in the basement, so you have a ruin you can rebuild a building out of. the community feels passionate about this and we want to discuss the real tradeoffs. that building is big, expensive and complicated. but we're given the opportunity to think creatively. we've responded to that and we'll continue to work with the community to discuss the tradeoffs with all stakeholders that represent what will make for a better project. >> commissioner hillis: okay. just maybe a question for the mayor's office or economic development. on those -- obviously housing is a big component of this. >> yeah, thank you. so i just thought maybe i'd take a second and give you a little color on the negotiations that we've been undergoing. i pointed this out to the commission before, but it gets more important to point it out each time. the change in the construction cost environment between now and when you saw the last projects of this scale, mission rock and 5-m is significantly up. and rents are about flat. so does that mean we're throwing up our hands and saying no more community benefits? no. but what it does mean, we're going to have to recognize all of us, the tradeoffs are going to get a lot more painful. i just want to say that again. the tradeoffs are going to get a lot more painful. the mayor has given me one direction when negotiating the development agreements, which is housing, housing, housing. so that doesn't mean we'll never ask for anything else. you saw a bunch of things in the presentation, but we'll look at the community benefits, be it preservation, be it other things, with a lens on housing. and that is what i need to do. i need to be a bad cop in the conversation. and sort of deliver the message that while it's possible lowering heights and preserving station a can be sort of worked out so we don't lose housing and we don't lose affordable housing, that is not something that we know will work yet. it may work. i want to make sure -- i think the presentation was very pretty-picture, but i again have to be the realist here and say that may work, that may not work. there is a tradeoff that the commission and the board of supervisors have to make. i think in order to get it to work, we know at a minimum we need to lose 100 units and we need a bit more office, about 2000 more feet of office. there is tradeoffs there. our job is to run the economics of this and be absolutely sure we're not giving up affordable housing, or if we are, it's for a very good reason. that's where we are. stay tuned. i think the jury is still out on a lot of this stuff. >> commissioner hillis: yeah, thanks. i feel we didn't get kind of complete picture of this not hearing from the d.a. side and public benefit side of this. we got the nice picture which is great. i'm supportive of redeveloping this site. [please stand by] >> we need to lose about 200 units of housing or gain over 200,000 feet of office. that is what i think the trade-off is. what i still don't know is where does that put affordability? that is what we are continuing to look at. these are the kinds of things we have to balance again, it is much more painful than it was a few years ago, you just can't have everything the way we used to. >> what is the timeline, when is this -- >> back to you create. >> or when will be here more about it? >> there is another informational in july, june 21 st, and then a proposal for action on certification and improve all in late august. >> okay. , thank you. i don't see any reason. i like the height in the project is originally proposed, if we are reducing heights and that results in a loss of housing, you know, i prefer the initial plan, and i think we have to be more creative on the provision on station eight. could we incorporate open space and preserve the elements of the building? we are not preserving the building, we are building a building over what is the existing portion of the façade. again, if that is resulting in a loss of housing, i would air on keeping on the housing, but we'll hear more on that as we go along. >> thank you, commissioner. >> thank you, president. we don't see 28-acre sights here on a weekly basis. this is a tremendous opportunity site. we can't really grow very much as a city horizontally. we need to take advantage of the opportunities when we can. building height is how we pay for community benefits and affordable housing. even just small additions go a long way when it comes to community benefits. i do not want to cs lewis any residential units, i'm impressed to see the telus buildings are rest -- the tallest buildings are residential. i like the way the buildings stepped down, but i do want to see 200 or 300-foot buildings. i think they go together well. i think -- when they built the first tower, the second one didn't happen because a financing. for a while we had 160 story buildings sticking up by the bridge. and then it looked a lot more pleasing. i am definitely in favor of the proposed original plan and again , i just want to see those heights give back to the community and create more affordable housing. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner moore? >> i'm very excited to see alternatives to the original plan. for me, this resonates just as well as it does for the community. height can be modulated. we do not know anything about unit sizes, but you have particular unit sizes which are being used here. so getting a better unit count also depends on schematic design and design development where we really see the actual yields, and i fully support and fully stand for having that is our highest pipework -- priority to see the maximum number of units. i do like that the signature of the site is becoming an incredible residential project. i do like the five alternatives to be further considered, i would like to see actually a workshop or something which resembles a design where people can really speak in detail more about specifics of those alternatives. unfortunately, and my public -- provocation, there only for alternatives. this is obviously jumping into a discussion on something for which we have hardly any background, so i would like for us to stay in the conversation, perhaps even be able to go to community workshops where this is being discussed in further detail. i do like the stepping of height to the waterfront because that is a signature of san francisco and i do not see this to be the side that would break the rule. it replicates to the hills, it allows people from the top to look over the dissenting height and participate in the waterfront rather then tall buildings two to close at the water charger edge blocking the view and taking away what is to the right of those people who have lived there before. i think this can be a very sensitive projects. i think it has made major steps forward. i'm interested in the mix of office, biomedical, hotel, as well as residential, with residential being the signature of the site. it seems to be two more embracing the basic ideas of what we like about the peer, and the more we can do that as it was prepped -- represented in the introduction, this becomes not just another site, but it becomes weaving the entire fabric of the waterfront into one piece and i think that will be a strong signature, and if we indeed can preserve some of the historic buildings, that will only continue the legacy of what this is doing, and what we have done along the waterfront all the way to south beach up all along. i think we're on the right track in a very, very happy to see this project taking a new iteration and opening up more to creative design. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner richards? >> i also do not have an option five online, one of the things i would like to see when you have these proposed plans is what do we have, and if you go to the options, what are we gaining and losing so you can see what those trade-offs are and you can make some decisions. i guess, we are hearing that 30d precedent. what are the other tallest buildings on your neighboring projects, the shipyard, and further up? >> we look to the projects across the central bayfront from the? to mission? and we had taken the idea from a 300-foot tower came matching the other tall structure on our site which was the stack, and mirroring that site. the context of height was a book ending of what was that mission rock which is at 240 feet, mission bay is at a hundred 60 feet so it is a midrise location, so we sort of wanted to have a general framework that matched that. we were told early on to explore the form, inform you saw in the original proposed project was that exploration of that. we hear mix things on height and we are trying to strike a balance as a project team of a series of trade-offs. obviously not wanting to lose units, were wanting to be sensitive to community members to feel strongly about this issue. our goal being -- what we would hate is to have a project that was all the same height or tabletop. so i just want to have that variety inform and that is our goal. >> and station a, i'm looking at all of these different things here. i've visited station a and i was in there. i thought wow, what can you do with this building? i'm also looking at three and four and i'm going down here. what is the attachment to the wall? the ends of station a look really great, and we have talked about putting something in the middle, demolishing it maybe created -- creating the same massing, but not taking millions and millions of dollars to keep it up, because it is part -- or it was a historic building. it is not rated a is it? >> it is a contributor. >> i would argue that building, half of the building is gong, and i think it is demolished. i love historic buildings and i love resources. this is just a trick. it is a series of walls. >> can you achieve something similar without going through the gyrations of all of that cost in order to not trade off some of the other things that we think are important? >> no. that's the problem. the building is big. it is reinforced masonry, it does not have a structural masonry. using it as an open space, if it doesn't have a corresponding revenue line, is only a sink on community benefits. so if it became a $75 million empty park, it wouldn't have -- i mean the building does not have windows, is very challenging, however, it does bring an awful lot of soul to the site. if you're looking for balance, the reason that we look at our site, our study showed this 200,000 feet that we contemplate our project site, i think neighborhoods spent vision housing at the site. and various persons have been pushing to the housing site. i think the trade-off, over 2400 units of housing. there's a conversation to be had i think the challenge that we have is there is no station a becomes housing. i couldn't imagine the disclosure housing. the use would be office, and that is a conversation to be have -- to be had. the building itself is big so it is for -- incredibly difficult. this is a conversation we would love to have. >> with the proposed plan lower height options, and the only thing i significant -- different is the block at 2400 feet. is there any other difference? >> we thought this was a good form to say we were listening to the community chapter response, we and being responsible to the community and having a different dialogue. >> to hit the profit line on that 60 feet were 200 units would be significant, wouldn't it? >> yeah. this project, and this is something that i think merits some saying, different from pure 70 and mission rock, this is not a public-private project. mission rock received a quarter billion dollars of tax. pierce 70 will receive $350 million of taxpayer money. this project receives zero. we are trying to achieve the same level of community benefits , and so the way we do that is with density and height. >> thanks. i guess questions for the director or maybe the staff, is this 300-foot tower seems to be giving a lot of heartburn to people from the urban design guidelines and point of view. does it break any rules? >> depends on what rules you were talking about. i don't -- i don't think necessarily we'll be writing news only controls with this site with the d.a. and we looked at the range of heights along this part of the waterfront, and we were comfortable with the building about this height as a single tower, as a original proposal. i don't think -- i think we would not be comfortable with multiple buildings at that height, and one of them felt okay on the site when we first started looking at the form. what's interesting is a stack of 300 is different from a building in 300 because a stack is only so big, but really interested, and as a commissioner said, what do we give up? if we are giving up affordable housing, i don't understand the impact to the folks that live on the hill, and i am sensitive to that. a vantage point -- we had this happen with other projects where a vantage point looking from up on different points on the hill to really see what this looks like. we're looking at it from the water corner looking in. but if i'm standing up there on potrero hill and looking down, does this tower look like a middle finger to the neighborhood? i don't know. >> i think a former powerplant looks like a pretty bad mingle -- middle finger. i think if you want to look down at 29 weigert -- acres of industrial wasteland, you are better off. but we will have a conversation with neighbors and dialogue and we have committed to doing that. we will be walking the streets of community members to be able to do that. >> i agree with commissioner koppel and commissioner hillis. if you're taking a hit to the line which would be fit for affordable housing, that is a pretty big trade-off. >> and i think mirroring what other people have said, the next few months on this project would be balancing out community -- with the community, with all the other stakeholders the trade-off that exists. we believe in affordable housing our goal has been to match with other projects along the waterfront have done and to be able to do that without public subsidy. we are working hard to be able to do that, and we look forward in the next informational to be able to discuss those trade-offs so we can have it in a broader context. >> thanks. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner johnson? >> thank you. i think my fellow commissioners have said so much of what i want to say. so i just want to say thank you to the community members who have come to the table to really participate in what you want this space to be in both bringing housing and services to the community and to knit the rest of the community along the waterfront together. thank you to the developer who seems to have really good faith, continue to engage the community , including putting out all of the options before ask so we can make an informed decision , and i'm looking for it to see how the project evolves. and i would echo everything that fellow commissioners have said about really understanding what the trade-offs are, and wanting to make sure that we get as much housing as possible. i think we are all kind of called, as we look as -- of these projects piece by piece, to ask ourselves, when we think about what we want to preserve as a legacy, not only thinking about the history that we want to preserve, what is the legacy we are currently creating in the projects that we are building, and making sure that this projects represent the past, but also represent the present and the future of a more integrated and vibrant community. thanks. >> thank you. commissioner richards? >> one thing i forgot to say, would give me heartburn was 200,000 square feet of more office an additional 800 jobs. not only -- that is 200 less housing units and 800 more jobs. you have 1-1 housing balance project, jobs to housing, which i like, but we are throwing it off and making the situation worse. when you look at the benefits and the trade-offs, what number of employees or jobs it will be in each one of these options based on the 250,000 square feet per employee. >> thank you. commissioner hillis? >> i'm good. >> great. >> very good, commissioners. if there's nothing further, we can move onto items 11 a, b., and c. c.u.a. at 53rd street. this is for the first building, planning code amendment and downtime authorization and conditional use authorization. if those members of the public exiting the chambers could do so quietly, we would certainly appreciate that. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm from the planning department the items before you are a planning code text amendment and downtime project authorization and conditional use authorization, also known as the hearse building. the site is comprised of three buildings and contains frontage along third, your knee, market and stevenson street. the project would rehabilitate the existing 13 story building, and would convert to approximately approximately 119,000 square feet of office into a tourist hotel use on the second through 12th floors. the project includes a demolition of an existing penthouse structure on the roof, and the addition of a roof deck and event space fully screened by an existing parapet. finally the project would maintain approximately 11,000 square feet of retail use at the basement and ground floors. commissioners, we would like to amend the plans included in your packet with the plans distributed and approved by the historic preservation commission on march 20th, 2019. these plans have added elevation sheets showing the façade in more detail per the h.b.c. request, and the removal of the lobby openings per request as well as the greater deck setback the entitlements requested include a planning code text amendment to section 188 g. that would allow a new floor area on an existing noncompliant structure at the specific location. a downtown project authorization with an exception for offstreet loading and a conditional use authorization for hotel use. on march 20th, 2019, the historic preservation commission approved a major permit to alter for the project. at the hearing, the h.b.c. also recommended approval of the tenth amendment. since publication of the report, the department has received two letters of opposition from the public outlining concerns related to the demolition of the morgan house located at the rooftop. after analysis of all aspects of the project, the department recommends approval for the following reasons. the project would facilitate the adaptive reuse of the historic building, the project would provide greater public access to the historic building through his expansion of retail use at the ground floor and rooftop, the project further activates stevenson street by providing retail use at the frontage, the project provides for much-needed seismic improvements to the historic building, the project includes enhanced pedestrian safety and sidewalk usability improvements, in the project is consistent with the planning code and with the objectives and policies of the general plan and downtown area plan. the project sponsor will now be making a presentation and i will be available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon commissioners. excuse me. my name is todd chapman, i'm the president of jama ventures, the project applicant, and is good to be here with you today on this very important project. since we were last before you on ferry 14th, a number of important steps have occurred to validate our plan for the project. we have received national park service approval of our part to preservation plan, thus confirming the project as proposed meets the most stringent preservation standards and is eligible for tax credits. we have received unanimous approval of the proposed project from historic preservation commission, which included a detailed discussion of the significant contributing factors such as the julia morgan lobby, building façade, and internal corridors. we have continued our efforts in working with tenants in the building that have leases that run beyond our projected start date to ensure there is a reasonable plan to accommodate their concerns over the project and believe we are close to completing those discussions to the satisfaction of both sides. as you have heard in our previous hearings, this project is widespread -- has widespread support. we have toured numerous interest parties -- interested parties to the building so they can understand our plan from the first person his perspective and engaged with and supported several important community groups within the district. while we have not won everybody over to our plans, i believe there is widespread agreement that the proposed project is a good one, and that the hearst building is an architectural treasure that is worthy of the investment and time and resources for historic rehabilitation of this scale. to refresh the commission on some of the key elements of the proposed project, the hearse building is not -- has not seen a major upgrade to nearly 100 years. this means there are number of areas including seismic, life safety, and accessibility that are significantly below our current standards in san francisco. the seismic upgrade work as proposed is materially consistent with the hearse building whether the building remains as an office building, or is adaptively reused as a hotel as we are proposing. the project will enhance public viewing and enjoyment of the historic features of the building, and as part of our agreement to end include an interpretive element highlighting the history of the building and the contributions of both julia morgan and the hearst family to the property and the broader san francisco community. the project adds no new net square footage and reduces the amount of nonconforming sar for the building. the project will comply with the high standards of preservation as previously discussed. it contributes significantly to improved pedestrian safety and street front experience in the district, including the challenge of the eastern segment and stevenson street. we as a sponsor continue to be committed to working with existing tenants in the building and will honor the terms of their leases in the building, unless we can come to some mutually agreeable solution. the adaptive reuse of the hearse building into a boutique lifestyle hotel with ground-floor food, beverage and retail will help activate the frontage along the important third and market corner, and provide much-needed new hotel room inventory and the undersupplied area of the city. we thank you for your consideration and we ask for your support of this special project given the importance of ensuring that san francisco's architectural treasures and unique history will not be compromised for future generations. historic renovations of this scale and complexity are not easy. we have been through them before , and we are thankful for all the hard work that planning staff is done to date to get us to this point. with the data, i will turn it over to our council to walk you through some of the technical aspects of the approvals we are seeking today. thank you. >> is that it? okay. is there an architect? [laughter]. >> we may want to stop the? right now. okay, maybe we should take a little break. >> they only have one minute left. >> they have one minute left. >> you only have one more minute left on your presentation. [laughter]. >> my apologies. i'll be really quick. my name is harry o'brien, i'm with the law firm. i was going to give you a short presentation on the purpose of the text amendment, i'm happy to give that to you if you have any questions. i did, on that front, want to briefly point out that the text amendment provides four references of a parapet of 17 feet in height, just to be clear, we have had this conversation was staff and i want to make it for the record, that measures to the top of those ornamental features on that corner, and staff assures us that we are fine with that, and then finally, the tenant in the basement space, the plans in front of you on exhibit b, reference the basement space as being tenant space, the tenant asked if we would clarify that the -- that that is a retail space that is operated as a bar. that is fine with us, so i have a sheet indicating that change, but it is just a change in the way that the spaces labelled. that is all. thank you very much. >> thank you. okay, we will now take public comment on this item. i have two speaker cards. cynthia gomez and georgia, but anyone else who wishes to provide a comment, please come on up. >> good afternoon, commissioners i will be brief. this project, first you came across -- first came across my desk in 2016, at that time, the project sponsor made a commitment to us that there would be no interference and there would be neutral process for the workers at the hotel to move in. you will hear me speak every time i come up here, that is what ensures is workers the right to living wage jobs and to health benefits, into everything else that allows people to stay in the city and live and work with dignity. we support this project. the project sponsor has worked very closely with us at every stage, and we hope to see it get all of its approvals today. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. i usually don't comment on things outside of my valley, but i felt compelled to because it is julia morgan, and i was at the h.p.c. back in march, and reading into the packet, you know, everyone talked about the penthouse conference room, but when you read in there, it was the lunch room for the examiner employees, and i think that puts a different spin on it because it was all part of the julia morgan remodel of the entire building in 1938. there was a reason. why did they want a lunch room there? i have to be honest, i kind of snuck up there and went and visited the place, and the building itself is very interesting given where the side is because it must have had a view of the bay, it must have gotten a lot of sun. i assumed that the hearst and julie morgan had a very specific reason for wanting a lunch room for the employees, and it was the lunchroom until the examiner left that building, so i think it is great that they are preserving the lobby, and the niche and all of that. it is a beautiful building. i really think since it seems to me it was part of a package, it was everything that julia morgan did in 1938, and i think it deserves consideration to be preserved and somehow incorporated into the swanky roof deck. i will say one more thing parenthetically. is interesting yesterday at the s.b. 50 hearing, i watched it online, and the gentleman from pasadena was there and he mentioned something about how they have a law, a code where it can take the hotel and turn it into housing. when i look at the layout of these offices, the traditional offices, i see an s.r.o., so that is not going to happen. i know that ship has sailed. with thinking about buildings down the road and reuse, given the location and the history of the building, it seemed interesting just to pass that thought off to you. but i begin you will consider maintaining the entire julia morgan 1938 package of the project. thank you very much. >> thank you -- >> there's a picture of people in the lunchroom. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am president of the four seasons residences owners association. we have 120 residents in the building and on behalf of the board, we're supportive of this project. let me tell you why. first of all, i think taking a historic building and doing it with an adaptive reuse that isn't offices is amazing. we managed the presidio and there's nothing more amazing than seeing a historic building conserved and put back to use in a fun way, and i think they've done a great job with that. the sponsor came to the homeowners meeting and presented and worked with us on what he is presenting and planning, and we feel that it enhances the pedestrian walkways. we think that it is a very dangerous intersection between stevenson and third and we are working with them on reimaging all of stevenson to a much more consistent and modernized look, and i think that having where they are putting their lobby entrance to the hotel really will help us with the traffic and making it a safer intersection to work in. [please stand by] >> we've been here before about other hotels. we wrote some of you a letter a couple of days ago because we had not finished our negotiations. our negotiations are to ensure that not only the good jobs that local 2 provides for its members, we're very happy that the developer has agreed to that, but to make sure that the good jobs, the entry level jobs, go the community and the underserved neighborhood that it is surrounding. the hotel needs to take benefit of that, too. we came to a moment where we weren't sure how the agreement was going to go with the developer, but they want a deal with us, so we are withdrawing our request for a continuance on this. we support the project at this moment and want it to go forward and look forward to working with the developer to finish our negotiations. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm brian sheehy, c.e.o. and operator of three businesses in the hearst building. it's been there since 2012. the lock bar and store which is right up on the 10-year anniversary in a couple of months. we do have long-term leases in place. at the harris building we have 58 fully employed employees directly at these three businesses. the majority of them are here today. we've been in discussions with the developer and hearst, as a landlord, has been a wonderful landlord. they've been a joy to work with. outstanding people to be in partnership with. we would regret leaving the building and that is what is being proposed with our arrangements. there is a possibility for the store and the lock to move into another historic building on the prime street of market. we've had great discussions and negotiations with the team from brookfield, so we're encouraged to move over to that building. so we're very encouraged and pretty much there. when it comes to local addition, which is our most important business in our little company, it generates the most income for our company and it is so successful, it allows us to take risks in other less prime locations such as the tenderloin. it's important to our business. we've been in fairly intense negotiations with jamie over the past few months in particular. we were hoping to come here today and tell you we're 100% in support of this. we're almost there. just this morning i heard from the project sponsor, mr. chapman, and he confirmed that they are willing to cover any displaced income for up to five years if the project takes that long. so we're really pleased to hear that. so what it's down to is us formalizing that agreement for local edition and for the relocation of the lark and cass into the building. we're pleased to be at this point. and the project sponsor has agreed within the next two weeks that we will get all of those deals done. so we'd like to preserve our opportunity and right to file an appeal if the project is approved to make sure that these agreements are achieved and fair. thank you for your

Related Keywords

Minnesota , United States , Georgia , Hong Kong , Harris Building , California , San Francisco , South Beach , Brian Sheehy , Julia Morgan , Cynthia Gomez , Cory Smith , Todd Chapman , Mike Buehler , Pa Tina , Keith Goldstein ,