Transcripts For SFGTV Historic Preservation Commission 7115 20240622

Your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item reaches the medium. You can speak up to 3 minutes. I have no speakers cards. Does any member of the public wish to speak, please come forward. You have three minutes. 3 minutes. This is general Public Comment on nonagenda items. Seeing none, we will close general Public Comment. City clerk this brings us to item no. One. Department matters. Tim frye, the directors report is included in your packet. Im available for questions. Seeing none, item 2. Review of past events and Planning Commission staff report and announcements. Tim frye again. Department staff. One item to share with you. In the audience today are members of the department of the internship summer program. I want to on your behalf and our behalf welcome them. They are part of a 12week program that began june 1st and until august 21st. 15 are in college, nine in high school. Its quite a competitive program. There were 460 applicants this year. We were able to pull the best of the best from all around the country. We are quite happy about that. Some of the projects, the interns are working on this summer cover a variety of Planning Department priorities and policies such as the Housing Stock survey, living alley innovation zones and urban forestry plan and two this summer. Sam who is working on the historic clean up and this is in preparation for us hiring a citywide survey city manager and monica working on phase two of our storefront commercial survey. The students will have in the final week of the program present their final work products and the commissioners are welcome to attend those presentations. We will send out the information about the lunchtime presentations once we get closing to those dates. So you are all encouraged to attend and again, on behalf of the department, i wanted to reiterate how appreciative we are of their work and their dedication to the department this summer. Certainly tina for managing the program. Our senior preservation planner. Thank you mr. Joplin for reminding me that concludes my comments unless you have any questions. City clerk commissioners of will place us under commission matters item 3. No announcements today. Item for consideration of draft minutes for Historic Preservation commission and historical aspects commission meetings. Commissioners, any comments or questions to the revisions . One slight typo change on the hpc minute page 3 under the coverage at the bottom of page under my comments. Just wanted to update the commission. It says and. I would capitalize commission. Very good. Is there any Public Comment on the minutes draft Meeting Minutes of july 1st for the Historic Preservation commission or Cultural Assets committee . Seeing none well close Public Comment. A motion to approve. Approval. Second. City clerk thank you, on that motion to adopt the minutes, commissioner haas, commissioner johns, commissioner johnck, pearlman, and commissioner wolfram. That places you on item 5. Commission and comments and questions. Any inquiries and announcements, questions . I have a few items. I would like to request that the van ness brt, the arc stalled that project and i would like that project to come back for an update. Sit to the commission . Its up to you. The commissioners havent seen it at all. Maybe we should bring it to the commission. That is a project for the Rapid Transit on van ness and mta is doing that project. The arc had a number of comments and we havent seen whether they have taken into account our comments or not. Its a good thing to see. The second one is at our next hearing before on the agenda for the next hearing is the university of landmark designation and before the hearing commissioner hyland and i will be attending. We go to the hearing and meet with the residents. So they could make comments and questions and talk about the landmark reserve. I will do it. Great. Commissioner johns will join us. Seeing no other comments well move on. City clerk commissioners, that will place you on item 6. The port of San Francisco water front plan update working group and or advisory team. It just your opportunity to discuss and whether or not you would like to appoint a member to the advisory teams. Commissioner johnck . Thank you for putting us on the agenda and we all agreed to do that i recommend or move whatever will be appropriate that the commission officially appoint a representative from the commission to the water front working group to buy behind the meter assigned to the Historic Preservation element working group in the category of Historic Preservation. I think just my rational for that is by the historic relationship between the port and the evolving historic San Francisco and its beautiful buildings and culture that it would be very critical to have a representative on that discussion. I think i see a representative of the port. I was hoping you would come forward and maybe explain how to appoint a member to the working group maybe a little bit about the time commitment. Good afternoon, mark pious the coordinator. I have a note here. Just to update you on where we are with the process. We have really strong interest. Weve got numerous applications for what are essentially about 30 positions on the working group and those will include a subject Matter Expert in Historic Preservation. We welcome the hpc to appoint a member to the working group. You should also know that amount early in the process to talk to mike bueller, the director of San Francisco heritage to see if he would be interested in also serving on the working group to represent that organizations preservation interest. We think thats likely to happen. But all the recommendations will be made by staff and the executive director will make the determination about who is appointed and working on the advisory teams and that will be done with the Port Commission on the fall. The question is about how to go about appointing a member . I think what we would ask is just that if you make your selection then just have that person go to the website and actually make an application. Weve been asking everybody to do that including mike bueller just so we have the documentation record. That would be most appreciated and there will be, well be going through the process of sifting through those and making some early recommendations to our director. Great thank you very much. Does any member of the public wish to comment on this agenda item about the appointment to the port of San Francisco or water front plant . Seeing and hearing none well close Public Comment. I believe we have a volunteer. Sure, i would be happy to represent the hpc if thats appropriate, if everyone agrees. I think its a topic that im interested in. I have a question for mark or mr. Pious. Whats the difference between the working group . The working group is covering the larger policy questions and the advisory teams are more technical in nature and they will be dealing with say specific questions about transportation, Historic Preservation that would then be fed to that group for comment and then their input where they go back to the working group. The working group, we couldnt accommodate all the overwhelming interest. So the idea was to try to pair it down, but then allow these other subject Matter Experts to also have a place at the table if you will. The other things is that we have so much interest that there will be a lot of people that will be turned away. If they dont get appointed to the advisory team, then they will be encouraged to participate as anyone, any matter, member of the public would participate. They are all going to be open meetings. So people are welcome to come and well allow them to make comment. So this will be for the working group then . Yes, the committee, the working group. Its a 24month commitment. Probably meeting once a month and initially there will be some tours of the water front and briefing and to get you up to speed on the issues we are dealing with. Thank you. I think its important for the commission for a representative that is highly informed on the resources. Do we need a motion . No. This is a regular duty of responsibility of the president of the commission. Thank you. Commissioners, if there is nothing further we can move on to your regular calendar item 7. 2014 005689 pta at 855 stevenson street, a request for a permit to alter. Good afternoon, commissioners. Lily, the Department Staff. The proposal before you is for a construction of a new sky bridge connecting the new two buildings at 1355 Market Street and 875 stevenson street. Both the buildings at 1355 Market Street and 875 stevenson street recently went through exterior alteration and including the story of the bridge that previously connected the two buildings was demolished. One of the two buildings is a category 1 significant building under article 11 of the planning code and subject to review and approval of a permit to alter application by fcc. As proposed it will propose an addition to the rear at the floor level removal of two windows and boars of the stucco wall immediately above the windows. The connection of the 875 stevenson building will involve the removal of the glass panels at the 9th level. Notices were mailed out. The department has received public inquiries on the project as of the date of this case report. One of the members of the public provided support for the project, while one member of the public has general inquiries about the number of the sky bridge in the city and how many have been demolished. Staff also received emails about the projects consistency with the general plan and city policy regarding sky bridges over public streets with the understanding that the sky bridge will be constructed over steven son street and currently owned by the Property Owner of the two adjacent properties. The vacant parcel is land escaped and with outdoor structures by amenities with both buildings as well as the project. The project was reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission on june 17, 2015. The arc provided comments and recommendations on the proposed project including the compatibility of the proposed project with standards and the significant building at 1355 Market Street. In response to the arc recommendation, the glass shielding has been revised to be comprised of single panels for the full bridge of the sky bridge and even panel will be comprised of single glass units without frames. The arc also committed that maintenance of the lighting on the sky bridge as well as maintenance on the glass panels be at more attention and address at the design stages and may include challenges given the sky Bridge Design does not allow for the access to the exterior. The project sponsor has admitted that the plans are in the early design stages at this time and as such staff recommends approval of requiring review of approval and maintenance and lighting plan by preservation staff prior to the approval of the site permitted. The project sponsor has incorporated the arcs recommendation. Based on the specification, the proposed project seems include the standards for the motion including the work limited to the installation as well as the rear elevation of the building. That rear elevation is considered a secondary facade utilitiary in nature and qualities of the character of the building. It is better designed to better relate to the stevenson street facade which is an elevation visible from the public rightofway. That the location of the sky bridge of 1355 Market Street building and its substantial setback from the adjacent public rightofwayen insures the sky bridge as a secondary and subordinate addition to the Historic Resource that the removal of the two nonoriginal windows of the ninth floor of the rear would not affect the pattern on the rear facade. The side of the connection points at the sky bridge would ensure the window openings on the outer floor of the rear facade of the Market Street is continued by aligning the outer edges of the sky bridge which appear in the existing windows and the sky bridge is expressed at the outer with 1355 Market Street. With that in mind, the Department Recommends approval as well as the glass panels be submitted for approval by the staff prior to approval. This condition of approval was inadvertently left out of the draft motion that you have received in your packet. A corrected motion including an approval is on your diose for review and the public. This concludes staff presentation and staff is available for any questions you may have. The project sponsor team is available. Project sponsor will you come forward. If you can do the presentation in 10 minutes. I will try to be brief. For the project of the proposed design. Can we switch to the screen here. I think you are familiar with most two buildings. Im happy to share the Design Concept with you today. In this image this is before the adjacent residential tour. This is before the historic Market Street building after it had its exterior renovated in both cases and a planned relationship showing you can see the l shaped building is the steven, there is the furniture Market Building and the stevenson Street Building where it sits behind it between the stevenson alley plaza. This is showing our location with the proposed sky bridge with the street phase, the proposed sky bridge is about 148 feet back from the corner. It setback quite a bit. A couple of context photos to show the character of the building you sort of see in the left image, the historic nature facing the portion of the Furniture Mart and to the plaza you can see the rear facade of 1355 is a bit more plain in its expression and you see the context of 875 with the glass facade and you see the nature of the plaza installed there recently with some landscaping improvements and retail at the ground level another image of that. Just a little detail of those facades that pointed out in the staff report we are proposing two of these nonhistoric punch windows of the facade of 1355 and altering the glass facade that connects on each side. This is an historic, the original bridge that had been demolished for context that it was a multistory element and was removed. It was not an accessible path between the two buildings. I believe the reason why the owner of the property decided to do that. This is a rendering of our proposed design. Its a bit smaller than what was originally constructed with those two buildings. You can see its trying to create a more distinctive character. As lily pointed out in the staff report, its meant to be a unique character to distinguish from both buildings but the Historic Building for sure an it got characteristics in its form and how it will be seen from this side and to the bridge. Its meant to be a very transparent and elegant detail. This is a rendering elevation and you can see the nature of the glazing Design Concept as large vertical sheets of monolithic laminated structural glass low iron and units. So very sleek and meant to be elegant as you can view it closer you can also see where the bridge meets either side of each part of the existing buildings there is a silver metal element that helps us accommodate large size joint on each end. The bridge has been allowed to move independently from both buildings and accommodate quite a bit of movement in the process. Those panels help to accommodate that movement with the seismic joints. The plan view, you can see that in plan, the form of that bridge tapers a bit as it relates to the 875 stevenson Street Building and 1355 Market Street building. You can sort of start to see that shingled glass effect showing the renderings. This is a roof plan and what we are working on as lily pointed out as a strategy for the glass and maintaining the light fixtures on the left side of the bridge and we are looking at a fairly discrete tie off for tie off and perform maintenance on this and the roof of the bridge from 875 stevenson building. Those are the conversations we are having with the landlord and glazing and window washing company. This is the relational building to 1355 Market Street and 875 stevenson boulevard. You can see the heavily ornamented facade and sitting in between but set way back from the corner. This is the facade as it exist on the stevenson street side 1355 and this shows where the bridge sits on that facade. You can see the two windows that have been removed and in filled with the stucco to match the adjacent wall. Same with stevenson street side and where the bridge gets added to that facade. You can see where we are accommodating water and tying to existing roof drain lines. That engineering is under way and you can sort of see the effect of the scale of these large panes of glass. Worth noting the floor lines of both buildings dont align with each other and part of the reason why this form of the bridge is ramped and tapered at the other end so it becomes a dynamic and elegant expression of a bridge. Material palette is a very simple palette. We have a very clear low iron glass, polished concrete floors which wont be visible from the outside but the bridge well see very sleek white paint for the under side and the sealing and then the metal panels we have will be silver panels with slight contrast with the more neutral gray, sort of warm gray of 1355 and we have some metal elements of stainless steel. One other item related to this bridge from what you see from the under side. The concept is to edge lights, the shingled pattern of that under side with led fixtures and able to be controlled easily. We are working with our electrical engineer and to remote the drivers so they are accessible from the building so the maintenance is simpler and what is needed to be accessed are the actual lamps. Thats basically it. Thank you very much. Are there any questions other questions . Commissioners . Okay. I will open to Public Comment. I have one speaker card. Mr. Alfred . Mr. Alfred has left the room. Seeing no one else, well close Public Comment. Back to the commission. You almost missed Public Comment but well reopen for you. I apologize for that. My name is joe alfred. I grew up in virginia. It took me 18 years to escape there. I didnt like their conservative culture and i went to stanford and then law school. Its my understanding its the purpose of this commission to preserve the historic values of our community. I have been seeing these values being degraded by these twitter folks for some time. They have kicked our neighbors, my neighbors out of the community and rub salt in the wounds and we have to listen to the construction all day long. To give an example, today is a gorgeous day. You can see the sky, the nice blue sky. When i lived in new york city you couldnt see the sky. There was much too development. All you can see is the skyscrapers. Whats beautiful with San Francisco is you have mostly 2 and 3 story flats and you can see the sky. We have a beautiful building and twitter wants to come in and degrade that beautiful Historic Building. Its an example of what they have done to our culture. They are welcome to live in San Francisco but they are not welcome to follow us around and take away the community that i have now made my own. San francisco is our home and our home is not for sale. I urge you to reject this project. Thank you. Well now close Public Comment and bring it back to the commission. I wanted to mention that we saw this at the arc and very proud of the design. Despite the Public Comment. Its appropriate. The street is abandoned and now owned by the Property Owners. So it is not a sky bridge over public property. I want to compliment mr. Mottola and staff for a very interesting unique and very challenging to figure out all the intricacies of this. I know how difficult it is. I want to see this built. I wanted to express my appreciation for the project. I know the building well and there is no architectural value on that back end at the Furniture Mart. Its not a vertical addition. Its set so far back and you will probably never notice it. Im in support of the project. Any other comments . Do i have a motion . Yes, i move to approve the project with the conditions. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve the procession with conditions as submitted and amended by staff. Commissioner haas, commissioner johnck, highland, wolfram, yes. That motion passes. Next item. Consideration for landmark designation. 20110685 l 171 san marcos. Good afternoon, Department Staff. Im here to present Department Recommendation for the cowell house located at 171 san marks avenue. It was set at the landmark designation. Its known as the cowell house with the association with henry cow an ult era modern pianist through the 1930s. Cowells association with the house which was commissioned by his step mother olive cowell is reflected in the design with a living room designed to the acoustics for the many performances there. Its a single model Single Family home constructed in San Francisco and the architect of morrow and was a pioneering female architect. Its the most influential collaboration. Excuse me. Could we have that device turned off. Is there a phone in the room. They are probably looking for it. Maybe they are calling themselves. Its in their purse. No . Thanks, tina. The cowell House Designs present that established significance were established from 19231936 and can be found in the landmark the Department Recommends initiation. This concludes my presentation. Im happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions . Commissioner johnck . I would recommend we receive this information. Its already in there. All of cowell, the woman who commissioned the house, shes an interesting person but we dont think rises to the level of prmb. The housing with was significant. She was a founder and that was more linked close to her life. Whereas mr. Cowell was with the association some of the other points are addressed in the landmark designation reports. Thank you for that clarification. Are there any other questions . Seeing none, well open Public Comment on it was surprising to me that it has no protection and that in this vicinity there i think is potential for. There is a very significant building in this little neighborhood of russian hill, there is Great Potential for a district. But, so what do we, whats the general sense in terms of directing staff or Property Owner to do next. Commissioners johns . Thank you. So, the staff has recommended that this be subject to further study. I move that the staffs recommendation, be adopted, but i think the person who ought to take the laboring or doing the further study is the Property Owner. I will second the motion. We have a motion for further study and that would be looking in the confines of the district with the commissioner agreed that this building on its own does not rise to a level of significance to be an individual landmark. Not at this point i dont think it does. Of course there is always the possibility that this information could be developed. That is my feeling at this point. I think the Property Owner, the proponent always have the opportunity to do further research either to this building or other building or kolg coming to the hpc saying this is what we found and this is proposal and we can evaluate that proposal on the information that we have at that time. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second in we do. Thank you, there is no formal motion fee to adopt. Maybe for the file we can accommodate that consense through a letter. On that motion commissioners to direct the Property Owner to conduct further study, commissioner haas, yes, commissioner i johnck, commissioner johns, commissioner wolfram. That item passes 60. That leads us to item 10. Landmark designation work program. Good afternoon again. Commissioners, susan Parks Department staff. The last item before you today is a quarterly update on the landmark work designation program. The items that have come before you and expected to come before you in the next coming months. I will give you an update on the projects and what we are tracking. As you see from the first page are the tracking. Two items by the board of supervisors and signed by the mayor this past quarter. The hall and the goldberg building. The article 11 change designation from category 4 to 3 was approved for 149, 9th street. This changed the the designation for the university mount and added another Property Building to the work program. Department staff expects to bring the second hearing for University Mound and the board out building along with four landmark negotiations in the next 6 months. The initiation to include the Presbyterian Church and the initiation for the piece and plaza will come before you as well as the Community Reveals the designation report. It will also come before you once the Property Owners have reviewed the tax credit option. During this recording corridor, Department Staff have received two Property Owners submitted for landmark designation application. The files which you just heard are 2215 leaven worth. Staff continues to work with the applicant to finalize that application. Staff continues to work on the landmark designation as the landmark district cafe floor and none of these applications have been submitted to date. In addition to the landmark, Department Staff also serve and Technical Support on the committee. Staff is currently working on the following reports. The African American historic content statement and lgbtq content statement are expected to come before you in early fall. Statements are still being reviewed by staff and also working on a landmark designation for sacred heart church. Current team is working on the grant which is phase two on the commercial corridor survey and working on the commercial district. At the november 19th hearing staff recommended your support to further status of article 106789 we are still unable to create a report but tracking the measures. The first measures to develop a landmark within 150 staff hours, staff have exceeded that number for the american hall which is 265 hours. Performance measures two was to prepare an article 10 with an application hosted pot website this year. Performance measure three was to provide comments to the applicant regarding application completeness or schedule a hearing or Community Sponsored application. As a correction to your packet, Department Staff met the requirements to submit applications during this period. This is tracking the date tr submittal to the hearing instead of submittal date to staff comments. Performance measures four presenting a work Program Status every 6 months but we are continuing with a quarterly report. The next expected august 15th. Lastly staff has spent 30 hours for the landmark work designation program. We just discussed the service team active cases and then we can prioritize our listing projects. This concludes my presentation. The team and i are available for questions. Commissioner haas . Thank you for the report. I was checking in on Sunshine Schools since that is back in our lab. Do we have an estimate of hours to complete . I think the Sunshine School has now moved to the list of pending cases. I dont think its currently being worked on. I dont think it is. Tim fry, Department Staff. That was jonathan land worth working on the data and it was going to move to sunshine once it is resolved. That is taking more time since we are coordinating with the community on a few outstanding items. It is sort of next on the list. Yes, its cued up. Thank you. Public comment . Any other questions . We will now take Public Comment. Is there any Public Comment on the landmark work program. Seeing none, well bring it back to the commission. Commissioner pearlman . Thank you very much. This is so helpful. Last year we had one landmark. The marks bookstore. Its nice to see we have two already this year and kind of a whole lineup. So we are actually making a lot of progress. And thats one of the goals that weve set out over the last year to make that happen. So i wanted to thank you and jonathan for doing that. Thank you. Thats it. Commissioner johns . I want to thank you for what i thought was a very helpful and very well done report. Other too would like to echo your comments that this shows that we have for a while longer than i think any of us wanted we would be called, but we are now moving forward with this. Thats very very gratifying. Thank you. I have a question for the other commissioners and when i think about the landmarks work program, one of the purpose of adding landmarks is for protecting buildings that could be of any threat. One building we might consider prioritizing is the mothers building at San Francisco zoo because its been vacate for a long time. We know the bathhouse burned down recently and that might be a structure that we might want to give attention to. Im concerned that parks and recreation. Some of the other buildings are not threatened. Mr. Fry . Commissioners, tim fry, Department Staff. I think thats thai great comment. The Fund Committee called to issue a report through art to evaluate the condition of the murals and what it would take to rehabilitate the building. While my understanding is they are not complete with the study, this maybe a great time to bring in recreation and parks and arg to have them give the commission a presentation on the status of their analysis. One of the main reasons weve been holding on is to wait for the results of this document and it maybe a good time to refresh everybodys memories. If you are all open to that, i can reach out to recreation and parks and see if they are available for you. Invite them by all means. [ laughter ] commissioner johnck . That is an interesting comment because i know im thinking back over the criteria that weve recently reviewed for prioritizing landmark work on bringing landmark to it and of course the modernism of what was we are seeing today as examples is great. But this idea about threatened or the criteria about threatened, im wondering what else are we missing. I remember the mothers building, we did discuss that. But to take any further action like what you are recommending right now. So, i would certainly be in favor of bumping that up and as you say we are going to have a discussion with recreation and parks and i would ask staff if there are any others or i would look at it too and say what else maybe like that. Commissioners, if i may, one other thing that isnt art articulated in this report. The center soma area plan will be coming before this commission i believe in the spring of next year. We are approaching that plan similar to the Transit Center area plan where we did bundle of some designations to bring forward to you for initiation. So early next year while its not listed here at this time because that information is still in draft form because environmental study is under way. The last count is between 30 and 35 buildings at once. Some of them are located in the 5m site and some throughout the plan area. But thats also something to keep in mind too. I want to thank staff for the high level of professionalism for the report that you have done and the landmark work that has been done and the data. Its impressive. Thank you. I think that is our last item right . The hearing is concluded. Commissioners, just to remind members of the committee that well be reconvening here momentarily. 2 00. [ meeting is adjourned ] good morning everybody. Welcome to the San Francisco board of supervisors budget and finance subcommittee meeting for wednesday july 22, 2015. My name is mark farrell. I will be chairing the committee. I am joined by supervisor katy tang and i would like to thank the clerk linda wong and sfgtv covering this meeting. Madam clerk do we have any announcements . Yes mr. Chair. Please silent all cell phones and electronic devices, complete speaker cards and documents to be part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted on today will be on the july 28 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Okay. Thank you madam clerk. Lets get rolling here. We have a number of items here and at the end we have two hearings and please call item 1. Item 1 hearing hearing to consider the release of reserved funds, Arts Commission to build out the secure basement Storage Space and related location costs for the citys civic Art Collection. Great. We have tom mckinney here. Good morning supervisors. As you know it will move to the Veterans Building in september of this year and our request is for the release of reserve funds for 50,000 to complete the move of the Art Collection to the war memorial. We are glad that the Capitol Planning Committee has allocated a historic amount for the Art Collection and afford us to the opportunity to properly store the citys civic Art Collection and by many artists. This is where the documentation for the civic Art Collection is stored as well as any works that are coming through for conservation and care so i have our senior registrar here alice coming to answer questions and we appreciate youre considering this item. Thank you. Mr. Rose can we go to the report on item 1. Yes mr. Chairman and members of the committee its shown in table one the Arts Commission budget for the relocation of the Veterans Memorial has been increased by 23 and the amount listed and from the original budget listed to the revised budget of one 1. 4 million and page four we note that the use and sources moved to the War Memorial Building are in table two. We recommend that you approve the release of the 50,000 of the reserve. Okay. Thank you. Any questions . We will move to Public Comment . Anyone to comment on item 1 . Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel] colleagues if no other comments i would like a motion to approve the release of funds. So moved. We will take that without identification. Can you call item 1 . Mr. Chair for clarification would you like to file item 1. Yes. Thank you. Item two is a resolution authorizing the recreation and Park Department to accept and expend grant in approximately 130,000 from the San Francisco Parks Alliance to support various recreation and Park Department operations for fiscal year 2013, 2014. Okay. I have rec and park to speak on this item. Yes, i am with the recreation and Park Department. This gift from the San Francisco Parks Alliance is one that we bring to the board of supervisors each year. The parks a liensz is the Nonprofit Alliance is the nonprofit partner of the parks and they ask as the fiscal sponsor managing 50 gift funds on the departments behalf and in fiscal year 1314 the Parks Alliance contributed 133,961 from these gift funds to help sustain a wide variety of activities including the commemtive Bench Program and the four annual Community Events and improvements at camp mather and in natural areas and the volunteer program. Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Colleagues any questions. No budget Analyst Report so we will move to Public Comment. Anyone to comment . Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel]. I move approval of this item. Okay. Supervisor mar has made a motion and take that without objection. Madam clerk call item 3. Item 3 is for accept and expend grant for California Department of Water Resources for a new recycled water facility at the San Francisco International Airport mel leong industrial Wastewater Treatment plant for a four year term through january, 2015 through december 31, 2018. Welcome. Thank you. I am with the San Francisco International Airport. This item seeks the authorization for the airport accept and expend grant a grant in the amount of 750,000 from the California Department of Water Resources through the association of bay area governments. In order to fund a portion of the upgrade project at the Wastewater Treatment plant last summer the California Department of Water Resources awarded a 20 million grant to abag to fund water projects throughout the region. Sfo received a portion of this grant in the amount of 750,000 to fund a project at the Wastewater Treatment plant to work on recycle water in use of landscaping and toilet flushing throughout the airport terminals this. Is just one piece of a much larger upgrade to the Wastewater Treatment plant. The larger project includes pipes, pumps, Treatment Facilities and water storage tanks as well as new linkage to upgrade airport terminal systems. The contract for the larger upgrade project will come before the board of supervisors for your consideration in the fall but this simply asks for your authorization for the airport to accept and expend grant the grant of 750,000. Thank you. Supervisor tang. Thank you. Can you talk about what the total is costing and the balance comes from . The larger project is part of the capital plan and this is a small portion of the larger project, and it comes from airport i believe its bond revenue that will pay for the entire project. Okay. Thank you. Okay. If no other questions mr. Rose can we go to your report. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee on page 6 of our report is shown in table two a total estimated cost of the upgrade is listed amount and the proposed grant of 750,000 or 12. 4 is funded from the grant funds and the balance of just over 5 million is paid by airport revenue bonds. We recommend haw approve this resolution. Thank you mr. Rose. If no questions we will open it up for Public Comment. Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel] all right. Through the chair make a motion to send this forward with a positive recommendation to the full board. Okay. We will take that without objection. Madam clerk can you call item 4. Item 4 is accept and expend grant for the Public Health and 200,000 for Public Health to participate in a program called San Francisco bay Clinical Trials unit for the period of december 1, 2014 through november 30, 2015. Okay thanks. We have dph to speak here. I am sharon and i am representing the department of Public Health. This is a supplemental grant awarded through a joint program to allow for collaborations between u. S. And brazilian investigators. This budget is funded a project in brazil to learn more about the size of the transgender population in rio deja dareo and prepare for a project in that city is now recommended globally by the Worlds Health organization. However, there is no coordinated program to deliver this to transwomen in the area and the risk of hiv is high. The grant will fund a portion of [inaudible] dr. Lou and mcgoldrick fallen for one year between the investigators in brazil. Dr. Mc fallen will be training the team to measure the size of the trans population in rio. The other doctors have extensive experience in developing protocols for prep demonstration projects and providing that expertise to the brazilian team. Thank you for considering this request to accept and expend grant. Thank you very much. Colleagues any questions. We will move on to Public Comment. Anyone to comment on item 4 . Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel] i move we approve this item and send to the full board with a positive recommendation. Okay. Motion by supervisor mar and take without objection. Madam clerk can you call item 5. Item 5 is a resolution retroactive three for the department of Public Health for a agreement with Health Care Services to get reimbursement for children enrolled inlet Healthy Kids Program and expend funds in the amount of up to 400,000 to finance the program for the period of january 1, 2015 through june 30, 2015. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you good morning chairs and supervisors. My name is stella chow, the director of managed care for the San Francisco Health Network of the department of Public Health. Im asking for the approval of this resolution to retroactively enter into an agreement with the department of Health Care Services to receive reimbursement for eligible for the kids in the Healthy Kids Program and these funds to finance the program. This is a Insurance Program overseen by the department of Public Health and offers coverage to children 18 and under and at under the Poverty Level as listed that dont qualify for other programs. It also includes vision and dental coverage. Both of which are vital in providing Preventive Health care for children. As june 2015 healthy kids enrollment was under 2,000 members. The federal funds are helpful to support healthy kids by contributing towards continued operation and management of the program and resulting in no cost to the city and county to obtain these funds. As Affordable Health coverage the health care the Healthy Kids Program promotes the health of all san franciscans and the proposed agreement require approval of the resolution by the San Francisco board of supervisors. As a new unit we think the department of Public Health. The managers are organizing and reviewing requirements as stated in multiple managed care agreements it oversees and made aware of the requirements from the department of Health Care Services of approved resolution to accompany its agreement with the city and county. Thus we are requesting your retroactive approval to satisfy the requirements of the agreement and continue with the Healthy Kids Program. I thank you for your consideration and at this point the Healthy Kids Program officer kath lean and myself are happy to address any questions that you have. Thank you very much. Colleagues any questions. Okay mr. Rose can we. To your report on item 5 . Yes mr. Chairman. As shown in table two and page 10 of our report the net reimbursement to the county would be 119,443. We recommend that you approve this resolution. Okay. Thank you mr. Rose. Seeing no other comments i will move this on to Public Comment. Anyone wish to comment on item 5 . Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel] thank you. Thank you. Colleagues do we have a motion to send it forward. So moved. Motion by supervisor tang and take without objection. Madam clerk can you call item 6. Item 6 is approval of bookstore lease books inc. And the city and for a fiveyear term with two oneyear options for 575,000 during the first year of the lease. Thank you. Thank you. Cathy wagner with the San Francisco International Airport. Item number 6 seeks the approval for a new lease with books inc. For a book store comprised of the Square Footage listed in the airport and has a term through june 2020 and two one year options to extend and minimum annual guarantee rent of 575,000 or a percentage of gross revenues whichever is greater and the result of a competitive process and books inc. Receiving the highest store and the Budget Analyst Office recommends approval and i am happy to answer questions. Okay. Thank you. Any questions colleagues . Mr. Rose report on item 6 . Yes mr. Chair on page 13 of the report we note under this lease theyre required to pay the airport the greater amount as 575,000 or percentage rent and on page 12 the subject lease will generate guaranteed guarantee revenues payable by books inc. To the airport of at least 2. 8 million over the term and that excludes cpi adjustments and we recommend that you