Skip to main content

tv   LIVE BOS Government Audits and Oversight Committee  SFGTV  January 19, 2017 3:30pm-5:31pm PST

3:30 pm
stated by peter in the testimony, the board of supervisors resolution urged mta to consider both preservation options and replication options. we as a member oaf the coalition recognize that the existing historic poles can not meet the programmatic or technical requirements of the project, but we are appreciative. we all several meetings with mta staff over the last few months to discuss this project and we are appreciative of their willingness to present new design options to the hpc for feedback. we do-i'm pleased that you are going to weigh in at least in part on design options. we do think we were supportive of option three
3:31 pm
presented, but do think there is room for improvement and your input would be a benefit. we are also encouraged by the results of the arg stud y evaluating there cost of preserving or replicating the historic lamp poles in the civic senlter district and will comment on that when the next agenda item. thank you very much. >> i have speaker cards so will call the names. mar lean moy. >> my name is stephen siz man, on the board of the institute of classical architecture and art and a former board member of friend of the urban forest and we have in san francisco a unique grouping of buildings
3:32 pm
that doesn't exist xair else in the country and think it will be a grave mistake to put contemporary looking light poles to replace the existing light poles and i completely understand that they are not up to code but it should be very easy to make suitable copies of the originals that would fulfill all the technical requirements of the codes. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. darsy brawn, executive director san francisco beautiful and native san franciscan. one of the things that happened at the beginning after the war was that the municipal transportation group here in san francisco thought it would be a good idea in 1947 to rip out all the cable cars because
3:33 pm
who needs them and thankfully [inaudible] and her friends put a measure on the ballot that stopped that and now we have the iconic cable cars not only as a symbol of san francisco but also a transportation option. these kinds of things like the lamps on van ness are geographic markers that indicate where you are. they separate san francisco from other cities and the lamps that we have are historically significant and tied to the golden gate bridge opening 6789 if we start sanitizing all of the history that we have, all the beautiful history that we have here with industrial suburden ducor, what separates us from aevd aenchd
3:34 pm
everybody's else and what makes san francisco geographically and historically significant? one of the big reasons people want to come mere and commercials and movies are shot here is because of the historic geographic markers that create the ducor of our city. so, please please please let's hang on to it, okay. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. >> who ever is mobile device is sounding off if you can silence that. >> hello, mar lean morgan. i live in cathedral hill which one of the 8 neighborhoods that have van ness corridor in the jurisdiction and officer for the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods. i want to speak in favor of option three for the replica of the historic street lights on van ness avenue. van ness most
3:35 pm
don't realize what a beautiful street it is. it has much classic arts and architecture and a lot of burfl new architecture. with the implementation of the brt, the improvement of the sidewalk and streetscape, italist a much more heavily travels corridor for pedestrians and transit. with the opening of the cpmc hment, all of the hub jz development of the hub, van ness will be a major destination for san francisco and it could become a beautiful onefelt i think this is why the historic street lights lamps pine in the history with the new and old and making it such a much more pleasant pedestrian experience and traveling experience. it really important for the future of the corridor making it a viable corridor and desirable place to go. plus the fact
3:36 pm
with the new street light design we are talking about, the current ones, the tear drop only hangs on the street not the sidewalk so in this case it is arching and the is sidewalk giving lights on the sidewalk and lights over the street. really all the van ness neighborhoods and coalition for san francisco neighbors urge you to adopt option 3 for new street lamps. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm lynne new house siegel and president of pacific heights resident association and a former member the board of directors of the golden gate bridge highway and transportation district so feel proud to testify today to thank mta and the supervisor peskin and the board of supervisors
3:37 pm
for recognizing the historic significance of van ness avenue as the main transporter to the north and these lights as being put up to signify and commemorate the opening of the golden gate bridge. it was called at that time, the ribbon of light and by keeping these replicas of this historic events and this historic neighborhood, it will differentiate van ness avenue and van fless corridor from other areas in san francisco. we need the rt. we support brt, but this is exactly what van ness has always done, it connects the north and the south and different modes of transportation. via trolley in 1914 when the poles were first pull up or motor vehicles in 1936 when the bridge was put up and the ribbon of light was
3:38 pm
established. and now brt. by preserving this historic connection through these option three, or even option two, you will be doing that and be differentiateing van ness from other newer parts the city. thank you so much for respecting our historic neighborhood character. >> thank you. >> commissioners, my name is jim moore shall president of san francisco victorian alliance and also speaking for hayes valley neighborhood association, one of the neighborhoods fully in support of relooking at a better option for the van ness corridor. um, most of my colleagues have spoken to you already and said pretty much what i was going to say about how important this
3:39 pm
is. there is one just remaining piece of it that i like to present. you know with you look at either prominent boulevards like octave ye, deviz dareio and emback dareo, deloris or historic lighting in the tenderloin, i was on dewy boulevard and saw old arch lamps replaced. this is something san franciscan's cherish. i have been impressed of all the different interpretations. how well they have been done. they have poles that have historic character to them. they are fluted. they have beautiful bases and finials and it is not pure historic preservation of taking the exact one that was there, which weal will discuss on the next item and replicating or preserving it
3:40 pm
for the remnant ones or marking ones, but this ability that i thipg you have to supplement the good intent that sfmta has shown in response to supervisor peskin's challenge and the full board to come up with a good historic option, i think you unique talent in this is not only support it but enhance and improve it. i know you evaluating all these others that have gone in. they are quite wonderful and when you look in more detail at the ones being presented and they were the only options prenlted to us as well, the pole is a round plain tube. there is no base.
3:41 pm
we can do a lot better. we have done a lot better. they are in our arsenal of things to do and your sense of history and your appreciation of how important the historic beauty of san francisco is, will not only get these back as historic fixtures, but i think thats you have the unique ability to even improve upon them and make them fit better. thank you so much. >> thank you. i have two additional speaker cards here for catherine tran. >> good afternoon. kathleen tran. as a van ness home owner and resident and as a van ness brt/cac member, i urge the commission to support the project as it is already
3:42 pm
approved. i'm very concerned bethat expense and time required to design consider and approve any changes to the already approved praumgect plan. i fully support the transit pedestrian safety and utility improvements that the van ness brt will bring. as a resident, i am willing to live under the construction for the 2 and a half years as outlined in the approved project design. i know that the mobility in the corridor will benefit. in considering any potential changes to the project, that are outside the normal approval process, i sincerely hope you willologist consider the serious impact on van ness residents who like me and anyone traveling using the van
3:43 pm
ness corridor. now that the project has already broken ground, any delay in the project will pralong construction noise, reduce travel in the corridor for years. you have already deliberated on or pined on and approved this issue and project. i urge the commission to insure that the van ness brt project is completed on time and on budget. thank you. >> thank you. i also have speaker card for don savoy. >> hello, don savoyologist on the van ness brt/cac and bbw committee. as catherine was
3:44 pm
saying we have been on this particular committee for going on three years i believe and know [inaudible] i am concerned about the delays and if you have to go through the whole approval process again, just look the next agenda item which is in front och mcallister which has been before you at least 3 times so concerned about these changes that could prolong it more. that is my only negative response enterm thofz idea of the street poles is how long they would delay the project more and add costs where there is tight in termoffs trying to find the money to cover the costs. thank you. >> any oep or other member wish to speak on the item? >> hello. steve pepal. i live
3:45 pm
along the van ness corridor andf is transit rider and part the van ness citizen committee and wanted to echo the comments of keeping the project moving. it will be a long project. residents along the corridor will feel the pain of construction and so it is really up to this committee, the sfmta and the board of supervisors to work together swiftly to make a decision. i appreciate your efforts to work on the quality of life along the street making sure the lamps have a nice set quality but please work quickly so that a project that is already broken ground will not be delayed take longer and potentially cost millions of dollars more. >> thank you. >> any other membering wish to speak? seeing and hearing none we will close general public comment and bring it back to the the commission.
3:46 pm
commissioner pearlman. >> these are the type of things that make me very weary and sure those people who live along van ness and worked on this for many many years. i'm torn about this because everything thatd is proposed is a completely new things. they are not replicas because they are different design. they are different height and proportion and have different elements on them. we should call a spade a spade, these are new light poles with a historic character so we are not doing any preservation here and in essence not sure why it is coming to us because there is nothing-we are not talking about preservation. there is nothing to preserve. >> it is coming to us because it goes through the district.
3:47 pm
>> i understand the process just saying rhetorically that our opinion one way or another--mr. cumacho has been here many times and often has said there is no money for this, what are we supposed to do? the old poles don't work and here we are with something that is the diz nefiication of san francisco where we just create something hat is historic and looks historic and we feel good because we say you see the light poles they sort of like what was there in 1936 opposed to something that is part of the brt that is built in 2017. so, i'm just-i meanime don't object to the idea of having a historic looking pole. i don't object to that at all and think it is nice thing but don't know how to-the justification for the change seems like something
3:48 pm
that's kind of a knee jerk reaction to histortism opposed to a real preservation effort. >> commissioner hasz. >> thank you. i completely concur and there is a new installation, it should be modern, new and go away. the poles i think that were already designed go. we are not messing with it but it old buildings behind the poles stand out as true historic features of van ness rather than triing to re-create something. >> i would add to that i was in amsterdam and before that in scandinavia and several historic cities and all the cities have historic buildings and the lighterize all modern and they no way diminish, they are very simple but no way diminish the cairfckt of the
3:49 pm
settings. >> vaninosis avenue in 2017 is radically different than van ness avenue in 1914 or 1936. there are so many new buildingsism avenue single block has a building less than 30 years old. there are beautiful biltdings there, but when we talk about the new hospital, the new hospital is a extremely modern building and has nothing to do with golden gate bridge or the world fair, the pan pacific so the street itself isn't relate today the historic street lights anymore. >> i do want to clarify for the public that is here and working oen this and also for-this is a topic that can drum up some heated discussion. we follow secretary of standards which talk about not creating false historicism and when
3:50 pm
commissioners pearlman talked about the disney fiication that is what we are trying to avoid. we don't re-create parts of buildings to make it look historic. that is false. so, what you try to do is create something that attaches that ismore new and modern and stands out as different and to me the light poles run along the idea of secretary standards and so as commissioner wolfram was saying they have done this in amsterdam, i think it it the way to go. simple and clean and let it go away. >> we are not voting-commissioner johnck. >> i was-my first thought is this is faulsh historicism looking at the third option or second or third option, which would not meet our secretary of standards. i need clarification on the process here, so there is clearly
3:51 pm
momentum and a project that is going on to have some new street poles and have variation here and if we can give our opinions does it mean it has to come back too? >> i guess- >> i heard the comments about slowing down the project and that kind of thing. >> the project is approved so i don't-aside from the board of sfr visors i don't understand that part of it but as approved now there doesn't-the project-the light fixtures wont come back to us as they have been approved. >> shelly [inaudible] preservation staff. it was our understanding that because this would be design change that effects the civic center landmark district that the alternative design would have to come back to you for another
3:52 pm
certificate of appropriateness. >> if they stick with the current design that doesn't need oorths approval? >> correct. you have approved the contemporary design and so if that is maintained as part the project then they are done. >> it doesn't come bark to us. okay. >> sorry, i just wanted to add that you would have authority to recommend changes to the design for the light stanards within the landmark district if you are opposed to the alternative design. >> what i sense at least 4 members of the commissioners there is no support for modifying the current modern design. that is what i'm hearing here. commissioner hyland may express a different opinion. >> i think it might be worth stating what our preferred option was to begin with and that is restore the historic
3:53 pm
ones but since it was undeer our purview and were not able to influence that and the current legislation to influence that decision that waents wasn't in our puvure. i know we have an assessment on the l the poles and it is probably-it is unlikely they will be restored but that is my preference as a first higher option. >> just to clarify you have purview over the poles within the district and your consideration of what historic poles to retain or not to retain within the district is the item coming up next. this is purely in the supervisors resolution for all the poles along the stretch of van nessarve avenue. any information or comments youploid at this time regarding the resolution we will forbird
3:54 pm
forward tothe spriz supervisors office but if you dont make any recommendation or recommendation they pick a certain option we can consider that and if they do make a design change we would have to bring that back to you. at least for the area within the district. >> i would say for myself given where we are with the project i'm in support of the modern poles. >> i would agree. >> ocs pole approved. exactly. i agree. >> i think the notion that replicating a brand new pole in the spirit of the old one is false historicism and probably not in keeping with the sceert screert of interior standards. >> okay, i think that's enough
3:55 pm
adequate information. this is informational presentation so we are not writing a letter, but i don't know if that will help to it inform your work probably just makes it more complicated than anything. >> probably. >> thank you for your presentation. >> that places on item 13 for case 2016-006104 coa for van ness brt project. this is a action item for certificate of appropriateness. >> hello commission, shelly [inaudible] again. so this is for the certificate of appropriateness to consider the construction of the shelters at the mcallister street brt station and consider the treatment of four of the historic trolley poles 2 in front of city hall and two in
3:56 pm
front of [inaudible] in the motion of approval for the comprehensive project november 2015, these two items were pulled from the approval to allow the project team more time to work on design the shelter and the rehabilitation plan. before i jump into the rest of my presentation you are being handed a updated copy of the case report. i was made aware there was a mistake and the citation where the eir, eis mitigation measure, specifically mitigation measure mae 2. item 2 and 3. the corrected text is in the case report. i'll read it into the record. item 2, should read, assures a uniform style, character and color throughout the corridor compatible with the existing setting and item 3, retains the architectural style of the ocs support pole
3:57 pm
street light network. this language wasn't sited verbatim in the draft motion so you don't need to make corrections if you make a motion today but wanted you to have the correct language in fronts of you. with that i want to talk about the project and staffs recommendations. the shelters will be installed at the mcallister street intersection to the norpth and south side the intersection. this design was reviewed by the architectural review committee in may of 2016 and given a favorable recommendation from the committee. specifically the preferred design opposed to the alternate design. the preferred design has fewer panels and more transparent. concern thg trolley poles for the commissions direction they are studied by a ark tegtural
3:58 pm
resource group prepared a study looking at the four trolley pole squz their condition and making recommendations for their future treatment. there are recommendations for three separate streements. one would be cosmetic repair and restoration. the second would be replacement of the poles, which require replacement and institute cosmetic repair and third option would be fabrication of new concrete poles that salvage the cast iron elements and reinstalling them. staff is recommending approval of the work. we found the revised design of the shelters is elegant and maximum visual transparency but reducing the clutter the platform. the design is similar enough to the shelters proposed outside the historic district to maintain visual
3:59 pm
consistency while allow thg station at civic center to have a distinth quality. staff is also recommending the trolley poles be retained as art ifacts. and 32 e options out 37 lined staff is recommending aupgds 3, fabrication of new poles. this option sacrificing the original concrete poles result in a long term treatment solution with lower maintenance needs. it will not require substantially higher financial investment and less inspection and maintenance schedule over time. the option also eliminates concerns over the structural stability of the existing poles since the historic concrete poles would be replaced. this option as i mentioned earlier retains the cast iron finiums, brackets, lume nars and bases while
4:00 pm
replacing the moreue utilitarian reinforced con crete poles. the pole would be replaced in kine to insure proper attachment of the calvaged component. we recommend approval of the shelters and the rehabilitation of the trolley poles with the following conditions: the project sponsor shall insure compliance with maintenance recommendation provided by architectural resource group. the project sponsor shall work with the conservative fraremoval of documentation, restoration and reinstallation of cast iron trolley pole elements kwr the planning department staff review treatment mock ups and drawings and specifications prior to full scale restoration the trolley poles. with that i will turn ovto peter, the project lead. i also want to note david rustle from arg is here if you have questions about their memo and that is it. if you have any questions
4:01 pm
about process or how this relates to the previous item i can also answer that. >> thank you. thank you mr. gubauncho, welcome back. >> thank you. been gin then with my presentation. there we go. on november 18, 2015 issued a project of appropriateness within the civic center with conditions to seek separate condition of appropriateness for appropriate design for bus sheltd shelters ativan ness and mcallister station and long term treatment plan for trolly poles two in frunlts of city hall and two in front of war memorial court. the commissioners requested a less bulk industrial design. presented 2 alternative designs on may 18, 2016. the two
4:02 pm
options considered proportions and visual transparency in the design and include a flat roof, unified separate shelter structure. you see how the mcallister station structure is simplified. flat roof verses seismic wave roof, [inaudible] to match other plat forms. the framing is simplified and [inaudible] indicated in the iceo metric sketches. thal shelter design places information panels at either end the shelter leaving the intervening space clear. there is oorkt rendering of the preferred design. this has advantage of more visual transparency and increased
4:03 pm
space for wheelchairs. alturn tchb design placed nrfgz panels perpendicular to the rear shelter walls at intivals. the end panels for muni information. the two center panels are proposed for possible civic senlter historic district use, graphic and maintenance by sieving center historic dist rblth if desired. here is another rendering of the alturn tchb design. this has the advantage providing protection from wind and rain and more panel spaces that could be utilized for historical displays. this third rendering of the alternative design. here is
4:04 pm
our plan view and side view oof the boarding island with the proposed shelter design installed. i like to speak to the matter of the 4 poles. there are 2 plan frz the foyer 4 poles. cosmetic repair and restoration and fabrication of new concrete poles. cosmetic repair and restoration includes spot repairs for each of the 4 existing concrete poles. stripping of the concrete and cast iron codings and patching all sprawls holes with concrete that matches the color and textture of the existing
4:05 pm
concrete. this would not address the issue of the rust or corrosion of the rebar within the existing concrete pole. the sealiant will be applied it is impossible to stop the rusting process that has begun. long term viability of the treatment is both temporary and speculative and certain level of public hazard will continue to remain. continued inspection is necessary to mitigate the hazard of concrete sprawl. the fab rication of new poles will replace the trolley light poles with replicas and fabicated to match the original design and include internal wiring pathways to provide power for the lights. currently the
4:06 pm
poles are shared ownership between sfmta and pu c with adoption of either treatment plan, new owner arrangement will need to be worked out between the city agencies. or a new owner identified. at city hall preservation advisory commission hearing commissioners reaffirmed there position there is no long term treatment of the existing light poles as stated in the letter to the hpc dated november 13, 2015. the commission favors achieve thg greatest visibility of the original arthur brown designed lights in front of city hall. again, thank you for your time and happy to try to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. commissioners,
4:07 pm
any questions? at this time we will take public comment. any member wish to speak on the matter? if so please come forward. seeing and hearing none we will close public comment. back to the commission. so, this is a certificate of appropriateness. commissioner hyland. >> i have one question, was the potential reuse of the 6 good poles exploreed? is there something limiting the- >> so, early on in the project we exploreed reusing all the poles along the corridor. there are a number of difficulties. the largest one of which is the poles are not crired structurally sound any longer for continuing to support the overhead lines so since we were going continue running zero emission vehicles along van ness it means installing maintaining the
4:08 pm
existing poles and installing new trolley poles which will add to the the street clutter. there are a number of other issues primarily focused around the fact the poles do not provide adequate street lighting, they are not tall enough >> i'm referring to the 4 that were going to be keeping or trying to keep. >> the 4 we are keeping can't be used as trolly poles, >> understand but in arg's report there are 6 poles shown in good condition. is anything exploreed uses those 6 oppose today providing 4 new ones? >> yes, sorry i misunderstand your question. currently the poles are direct in concrete foundation. there is no easy way to remove the concrete poles. we would have to cut them off and put on a new base or try to dig them out of the
4:09 pm
concrete foundation they are in so it was considered to be basically much more cost effective and for long term maintenance much more effective to cast new concrete poles. >> thank you. >> commissioner pearlman. >> you don't have to get up, i just want to say thank you for all you have been through. it has been quite challenging this entire process and i think that the solution is really a very elegant one. i'm torn obthe preferred and alternate. i like the preferred having the intermediate panels. architectural i like the preferred version because it does disappear the renderings are effective showing how
4:10 pm
minimalist it is qu chi think are appropriate. on the pole, this is the difference between the poles we just talked about, the ones that are new and in this case we are replicating something that we know exactly what it is and we would be replicating exactly what is there. so in this case i thij that makes a lot of sense because we replace the concrete material but we are retaining all the other elements, putting them in the exact location they are now, so this to me is a preservation solution that in a sense is just decorative, but it does kind of tell people a story about the van ness poles that were there and if there is a way and i know this was referred to there would be a way to have information there, i don't know if is a free standing plaque that could be between them that would describe this and show photos
4:11 pm
of this, i think that is a very effective way to tell that story without enormous expense and enormous change to plans that are underway for many years. so, i congratulate you for getting this far. i know there is still more to go, but i think the ultimately the preferred design i think is the best design and the alternate for re-creating the-replacing the concrete on the poles is the correct solution. >> any other comments or a motion? >> i want to mention on the poles, i do think [inaudible] and is this the big-can this be done locally? i the fabrication of new poles. curious about the process of
4:12 pm
doing that. is this like hugely expensive? it is a great idea, but-- >> fillmore california. >> i believe the report has cost estimates in there. >> okay. alright. good. the other question i had was on the shelter, i like the idea about the interpretive panels. i didants see a big difference between how many. >> the alternate i think had 4. >> the preferred that we are looking at is the one with the- >> just end panel s. they are at the end. the other design has them-yes. >> okay. great. i'll move staff recommendation. >> commissioner hyland >> i think architect charl i
4:13 pm
agree with commissioner pearlman the one with the two end panels. i do actually prefer to have the interim ones for wind as well as a opportunity to display some more historic information about the civic sentser so my preference is the alternate. i think the poles i agree with replacement of the concrete option portion the poles. i would like to state i find this ridiculous where we vawhole street full of poles and here we are having to decide how to keep 4. i'm glad we are keep thg remnant but that is what it is, a remanent so would have preferred something more of van ness outside our district. lastly, i know we already apluved it but i still have concern about the horizontal twisting of these rails. i think visually it is a little
4:14 pm
noisy, but--that's already approved. >> a motion or- >> there is a motion, i haven't heard a second. >> i moved approval of the staff recommendation. don't we have a difference of opinion? >> did staff recommend- >> staff recommended the preferred design without the dividers. >> i'll second the motion then. >> okay. very good there is a motion that is seconded to approve the thater with conditions commissioner hasz yes, johnck, yes. hyland, yes . passes 6 to 0. places on item 14.
4:15 pm
1076 howard street. this is for review and comment. >> good fron commissioners. rich [inaudible] department staff. project before you have proposed project at 1076 howards street. the project seeks changed use of 14, 600 square feet from pdr to office use. 1076 howards was determined eligible for listing in the california register as part the south of market historic resource survey adopted by the commission in february 2011. the planning department seeks advise of the historic preservation commission to inform the planning commission in their determination sthof project stability to enhance the feasibility of preserving the subject building. as part of the project the projeblth spaunlser expands the existing mezzanine and construct new roof deck with rooftop stair and elevator penthouse. to support the project sponsor
4:16 pm
submitted a maintenance plan for regular maintenance and repair the concrete exterior [inaudible] tile and roof. staff received no public comment on the proposed project. the proposed project qualifys for use of planning coat code [inaudible] is a biltding determined to be individually eligible for the california register. department finds the projeblth in compliance with the secretary of interior standsards. the department find the project enhances the feasibility prurfbing the building providing use restoring exterior elements as well as undertaking a maintenance program. the hpc recommendation will be forfrwarded to the planning commission who will consider conditional use required for the property. typically within the red zoning district office
4:17 pm
use isn't permitted nlsh in a qualified property. the property happens tabe in two phroneing districts, office use is limited and not authriseed on the grounds floor. the office use will be permitted. in addition regarding the passed prop x, the building is exempt from the requirements because of the application submittal date and under 15,000 square feet. the project sponsor is present and prepare idto answer question squz i'm available for question squz this concludes my presentation. >> do we have questions? do the commissioners have questions for the sponsor? if not we will take public comment. any member wish to speak? the sponsor is here but only--they don't have a prezen
4:18 pm
sentation. any member wish to speak on the item? seeing and hearing none we close pub luck comment. this is not a motion, just review and comment. >> in the past the hpc directing a resolution that is forwarded to the planning commission and the meeting is scheduled tomorrow so the comments the hpc makes i'll forward. >> was there a resolution? >> i usually include a direct resolution. >> there is one. >> i do have a question. >> mr. pearlman. we have cases where buildings have modified accord toog the report there were no permits to create that big cut out door that is on the sfrunt of the building and we happen to have the original drawing that shows the third
4:19 pm
arch that was there and given the expense of renovating the building my question is, why wasn't it considered to just put that back since we have the orig inal drawing and we know it was there. it is objs it was there and the building as it is is completely odd because someone just cut a door open without a permit essentially. is there-i don't- >> you have full discretion to require that or suggest that to the planning commission as part of the rehabilitation and maintenance plan. >> we are talking about historic buildings and in this case a buildic that was a very nice elgent symmetrical simple building has this big gash in it by the cut out for the ovhead door. again, i know we don't want to re-create history but here we have the orig 2348 drawings and you have to look at the buildic and know this was a symmetrical building so i
4:20 pm
would like to recommend that as a option. >> permission to speak. >> commissioners thank you. peter burke hold. project architects. you are correct the two facades of the building, the primary facade on howard street was altered and dopet know when i have the original drawings. it is always a question of what is the appropriate solution. we are not by the secretary interior standards obligated to restore this. the feeling was we have the original piece on one side and doing a more contemporary infill on the west or left side of the facade it would be balancing the arinlinal historic element with something that is new and more
4:21 pm
contemporary showing the building was changed over time. it was a decision that we made and i think it actually functionally for the proposed use of the new office, increasing the light and really create agprimarily entrance. if we re-created what was there we have these two smaller entries that are up a step and the entry is recessed so it wouldn't meet ada. if we re-created the small door to the left and use that as a primary entrance, it doesn't meet the clearance and provide accessibility. this alus us to- it is a preservation balance i guess. >> thank you for that. i completely disagree with you but thank you for your explanation. just because it is step up does want mean you have to build it with a step up now because there are new ada
4:22 pm
stanards. that as a explanation doesn't hold water for me. the other thing is you could use any one of these three openings certainly the one on the left. a new opening could still be used as the entrance to the building. i mean, i would just like to recommend that-i mean i hear what you are saying. i don't think-we are the historic previvation commission and have a building that could be quite elegant. a very elegant small building and--you are asking to be granted permission to do something unique so feel like we could ask that in exchange for that we get this elgent beautiful classical building. >> given that the initants of the language in the code is for building individually eligible i may consider whether the
4:23 pm
buildings integrity is compromised by this and this is a exception that wouldn't be allowed-if it wasn't a historic building it wouldn't be allowed to have these uses. if you come for wrd with a renovation project and the building lfs the way it was we wouldn't probably request this because it's a different condition. >> i might suggest it. we have less leverage to ask for that. >> other commissioners thoughts about this as we review comments-there will be a resolution so will vote on it but don't- >> wondering is there a column capital on the right hand side that has fallen off? >> if you look at the original drawing there was a floating capital on the right arch. >> that would be the only added
4:24 pm
expense over what is here but it falling. >> there is a expense in that they will do a big store front. >> what you are suggesting wouldn't cost more than what this is doing with the exception of the capital. >> right. >> i don't think it is a huge expense relative to the amount of money they will put into the building relative to the store fronts rebuilding and new elevator and new stairs and electrical. to actually build a arch like that and infill with store front, the difference is the cost of the arch. >> right. >> because they still have to put a store front in one way or another. >> it also tells a better story but this. moved from pdr to office. >> it is a elgent historic building. >> i don't find the proposed design all that bad. >> i think the proposed design is fine.
4:25 pm
>> it would be in this case better. >> [inaudible] >> it will look like the-you take this line and-roilth right here. >> there is a original drawing and you see that it is symmetrical. >> you have the door as well or recommend the door- >> i think you put the door there. you don't have to use it as a front door. >> it provides light. >> it provides light and it doesn't have to be a accessible door, it can be just a window. >> mr. sucrane. >> i may recommend the commission add a commission to their resolution that basically states that the project sponsor would restore the elevation back to the basically in reference to the drawings but maybe not limit the ground floor store fronts to give
4:26 pm
flexibility towards basically adjusting the entryway if they need to. >> certainly, it could be any of those locations. >> want the thrird divided light window in the third arch but what happens at the store fronts-- >> put doors there or set it in slightly so if the door swings out-it doesn't have to be exactly in that plain, but i think it will be obvious to the public there is a transformation of the building from something that was bastardized to spng that looks historic and that is part of our charge here. >> so do we have a motion? we need-- >> how do we do this? >> there is no motion. there is a resolution.
4:27 pm
>> add a condition to the resolution. >> i move to approve the resolution with a additional condition that we and the project sponsor to re-create the facade to 21est century standard shown in the original drawing including the third arch and mirrored door, the symmetrical door on the wrest end of that facade. >> is there a second? >> second. >> the commissioners there is motion that is seconded to adopt resolution for findings regarding the visible of preserving the historic building with staff recommendations inclouding a condition to re-create the
4:28 pm
facade to 21 century standeruds with mirrored door on the west end of the fusought. >> re-create the historic elevation. the only reason i included that if there are ada requirements or door swing requirements those should be allowed to happen. >> commissioner hasz, yes. johnck, yes. matsuda, yes. pearlman, yes. hyland, yes. wolfram, yes. the motion passes unanimously 6-0. we will be taking iletm 16 out of order for the case number 2011. the central soma plan informational presentation. >> we are taking the informational presentation brf before the draft eir. >> good afternoon. [inaudible]
4:29 pm
planning department staff. project manager for central soma plan. thanks for having me. we have been here several times to talk about items related to central soma and adoption of the context statement and survey findings and soma philippineas but if it is a number of years to talk about the central soma plan. egive you a overview to give time to comment on the eir. let's start with the central soma plan. there is a a demand for space for housing and jobs in san francisco. this is no surprise. people want to come here for environmental reasons but more so because of the climate change oaf people who live and walk in [inaudible] people want to come for social reasons butd more so now
4:30 pm
because people demand walking qu exciting nairbld neighborhood said 6789 san francisco offers vau few of the unique neighborhoods and people come from economic reasons. the world is based ochb economy of things to knowledge. knowledge is based on people living close together and sharing ideas and the bay area is the worlds number 1 knowledge region and so all these demands people want to live in a urban part are driving our demands through the roof. we don't have sufficient space for all the people who want to be here and the prices are going up and up that are unsustainable. soma is a excellent place for that demd for the reason there is outstanding transit, very walkable, very bikeable, especially if we imbruv the aminities in the neighborhood
4:31 pm
and abundance of land. much of the land is industrial zoned so there is a lot of parking lot and sichckal story industrial building. we can maintain the uses and have a lot of other developments. second street to the east, 6 to the west, town snd to the south and to the north around folsom howard that represents everything north of c 3 down town rezoned. central soma represents eastern neighborhoods. it staddle said the central subway which will change north/south transit and collect the neighborhood not just to cal tran in the south and bart to the north but chinatown to the bayview. the plan vision is straight forward. a
4:32 pm
sustainable neighborhood and nolt compromise the future generations to meet the needs. social environmental eand economic and in a fashion where this neighborhood doesn't put off its issues on other neighborhoods. grounding that into more concrete principles. what is the plan philosophy? keep what is great, address what is not. there a lot of great things, diversity of residents and jobs, the central location between downtown and mission bay. diversity and architecture is unique as the culture and night life . address what is not, the rents are too high. the condition for people walking and biking are abominable. the sidewalks are [inaudible] feels unpleasant to walk or bike through the neighborhood. there is a lack of parks and open space. there is south park and that's it. very few
4:33 pm
trees and aminities for people who need to be in nature or any greenness what so ever. there is a inefficient use from land and city wide perspective. the plan has three strategies. accommodate demand, provide public benefit and enhance neighborhood character. accommodate dem and change that show zoning and height limits and much of the plan area to remove zoning and aloging new development to occur while increasing height limits while maintaining the nairbld neighborhood. the new people need public transit and parks and the those there need that too. this is a neighborhood where can provide up to 2 billion in public benefit to the the neighborhood including
4:34 pm
33 percent affordable housing. industrial loss of pdr space. $500 million for transit and widening the streets, adding bike lane jz park squz open space, a birch of money for historic preservation and cultural preservation as we'll talk about and other aminities. there is a lot of demand in the neighborhood and can provide a lot of public benefit said. respect fl hansed neighborhood character. in the town there is enough demand to zone to the moon as it were and have public benefits but the neighborhood would be unrecognizable and it is a world renowned and beloved neighborhood and love to maintain and fix what is not working while keeping what is working. the plan has 8 goals and are the chapters of the plan. increase cupeacety for jobs and housing. maintain deversyty of residents.
4:35 pm
diversifyed and lively center. provide transportation for walking and biking to transit. offer abund ens of parks. create environmental sustainability and resilient neighborhood. preserve and celebrate and insure new buildings enhance the neighborhood. i will turn itsoever >> student tim fry who will walk through the aspects of goal 7 that we think are relevant to the conversation. >> good afternoon, tim fry department staff. i am going to giv a quick overview of goal 7 and then i thought it may be helpful to hear from shelly about our efforts related to social and cultural heritage mainly through the filipino and the lgbtq community. as you will see from goal 7, which is to preserve and celebrate the neighbors cultural heritage, when you look at the plans three part strategy, this goal
4:36 pm
recognizes the historic social and economic value to respect and enhance the neighborhood character. um, so, when talking about cultural heritage i think the plan is unique in it is the first time in a area plan we've referenced historic preservation in the traditional sense in a much broader fashion and the term evolved locally and nationally over the last couple years andvise discussions progressed there is a greater desire to not only look at the brick jz mortar which define a neighborhood and community but also those intangible practices and traditions that reflect the community and pased from generation to generation so you will see a number of policies and ideas in implementing the policies that hopefully recognize the intaskable
4:37 pm
cultural heritage. of course with every good area plan the first step is see what we have and like many that we have seen before, our first charge is to document and see what part of central somas built history remains in tact and we have everything from it's early labor and immigrant history all the way through redevelopment as mentioned the filipino and lgbtq commune tee to inflex of tech workers. this commission approved and reviewed and approved the historic context statement and survey march of last year so already achieved this portion of the plan, and here are some of those survey
4:38 pm
findings. red and orange there are properties identified. this map is in the area plan and can down load off the website if you like a more detail said version. red and orange those are properties identified as historic resource squz could have identified through the soma eastern neighborhoods plan or previous surveys. the green properties you see were found to be eligible for listing in the local landmark registry which are article 10 and 11 of the planning code and those are affording the strongest protection and most incentive for preservation. we identified 6 properties proposed for article 10 land mark designation and 11 bimdsings that criblt to the south oned extension land mark district. totem there is 27 proposed article 11 properties either determined significant
4:39 pm
or cribtory and those article 10 and 11 proposed designation izwill be before this compligz at the time of the plan is being considered for adaumgz. there are three california register histordistricts. the [inaudible] san francisco flower mart district and south park dist rict. here objective 7.2 wellbeing of the neighborhood culture heritage resource. aside from yoiching more traditional approaching to preserving historic fabrics through articles 10 and 11, we have other programs such as legacy business program and our efforts in developing cultural heritage strategies much like what is done for soma
4:40 pm
philippineas. cia venta quatro along 24th street in the mission and japan neighborhood. many of the policies will look familiar to you because we are suggesting using the same approach again the soma philippinea strategy has been moving along for over the last 6 mupths or so and the lgbtq culgtural heritage strategy work commenced shelly will give more information about both but we have the support of supervisors kim and new supervisor she he in furthering those efforts over the next several months but also the next year. insure ure tangible
4:41 pm
and intaskable. that goes to the pdr diswugz we had but it is broader issue in just the whole south of market eastern neighborhoods area and the desire to acknowledge and link the heritage actirfbties like arts practices to the areas where they take place. there is still a important blue caller presence in central soma and reflected in the repair shops, the builder maingers and artist studios and there are proposals in the plan to help support their success in the remaining in the area. and then finally, as with any program preventing insensitive alteration or demolition is done through a variety of means and variety of different policies whether code
4:42 pm
amendments planning code incentives or the programs i mentioned before. maybe spend more time talking about some of the mechanisms for rehabilitation and maintenance within the area. the old mint is in the area and the central soma plan will likely generate up to $20 million in funds to rehabilitation the city owned structure. we entered into a community partnership with the california historical society as you know and on november of last year the state also criblted $1 million grant to the society to help manage and develop maintenance plan and rehabilitation plan for the site. one other thing proposed to help facilitate rehabilitation within the plan area is the expansion the tdr plan. generally you are more familiar seeing tdr occur within the commercial zoning districts of downtown. we see
4:43 pm
benefit for central soma that is a tdr plan locized can help incent vise the preservation of smaller scale buildings and we will be developing code language you will review again prior to adaumgz of the plan to consider how we more effectively address incent vising tdr in the unique area. and something new to the plan that hasn't been exploreed in the past is looking at the social and cultural fabric as it relates to some of those moreue utilitarian or background buildings we see within districts. these are properties that were identified as 6 l under the survey adopted by the commission meaning that they warrant special consideration and locplanning.
4:44 pm
the city whide team led by steve worthhime has done a great job identifying areas where the small scale social and cultural fabric of the built environment really contribute to a sense of place and we are providing mechanisms to help preserve those buildings through code amendments or other incentives that don't necessarily lie within the traditional framework of articles 10 or 11 so you will see a sear oafs maps that show where we are trying to promote the retention of those properties while encouraging development and the continued mix use in those-air areas. with that i will hand it over to steve and shelly squiwill talk more about our efforts to date regarding cultural heritage. >> switch to the mark row phone. shelly again. i just wanted to give you a brief
4:45 pm
update on the work we have been doing on cultural heritage districts. one of the exciting directives of the plan is to form and support cultural heritage districts and the first time it is officially addressed in a city plan. we startsed working with soma philippineas back in april 2016 and we were able to public a progress report in october and a fairly short amount of time we were able to gather feedback -there is a wide variety of concerns from
4:46 pm
housing to workers resources, health education, as well as highlighting the history and culture of their community. so, it will take the development of some new relationships among the different city departments and a lot of communication to start to if igier the tools we need that already exist or need to develop to address those concerns. that is the work we will do over the next year with soma philippineas. similarly, we just kicked off a effort to develop a city wide lgbtq cultural heritage district or should say strategy. district implies the geography and undecided and will likely result in multiple geographies.
4:47 pm
at this point we are very early in the development of a worker group. hopefully to be representative of the broad and diverse community and we will be working on developing a progress report to publish april this year on the efforts to develop a strategy and within the year we hope to have a more fully articulated strategy to approach the safeguarding of lgbtq culture within the city. if you have any questions let me know. >> thank you. >> woun more slide to wrap it up. we began the plan twnts laechb. released the first draft 2013 and started virenltal impact report. revised plan and implementation strategy august 2016. we hope to start in spring the plan adaumgz process going through
4:48 pm
this commission and planning commission and board and mayor. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, any questions? commissioner hyland. >> just one question probably for shelly. probably should know some of this but have there been-has any legacy businesses be identified within this boundary that-- >> that's good question and i don't think that we have. actually-there is one, i can't think of it now. [inaudible] >> identified and encouraged to apply for. >> commissioners the eagle was already passed as a legacy business. also wanted to mention there are a number of legacy bars and restaurants identified through san francisco heritages program such as the hotel utah. that
4:49 pm
is also proposed for landmark designation as part the plan. but it certainly is a area where we think there is a benefit to promoting the program in more wide spread fashion and that is something we can talk about in february mpt >> thank you. >> commissioner johnck. >> cultural heritage i'm also thinking about cultural landscape. are there aspects of the plan and maybe they are there that discuss the geography and evolution of the lanscape? there is a reason for certain things that are built that are there already and a lot has to do with geography and evolution of history and events but in terms of landscape is there discussion? >> in the historic context statement there is some discussion of the lan scape. there are two districts i can recall. one is the rail spurs
4:50 pm
around the south end area are identified within the public realm as part of the working water pup front use and south park, the eligible south park district, its plan and shape of that park there is part the original development prior to the earthquake and fire that is considered character to findsing and those are eligible resources under the plan and ceqa. >> do you know low how the flower mart praumgect will impact the cr eligible district? >> the district that was identified i believe will be removed or no longer be eligible but there is a separate eir process that will be fallowed that you will see in the future. >> any other questions?
4:51 pm
>> on the flower mart, that site-jessica [inaudible] planning staff. it may qualify as a community plan exemp tion if the eir is passed and the rezoning is in place and the projects is consistent with the zone. there is possibly there wouldn't be a separate eir process for that project. >> thank you. at this time we will take public comment. any member wish to comment? seeing and hearing none we will close public comment and this was a nrfgzal presentation so x k move the the next item. >> item 15, for 2011.1356. central soma plan draft eir. >> thank you. good afternoon president wul prm.
4:52 pm
supervisoring the environmental review for the central soma plan environmental impact report or eir. the item fwrf you is review and comment on the draft eir in accordance with san francisco local procedure for implementing ceqa. the members were e-mailed a link to the the eir at start of public comment period beginning december 14, 2016 and will continue until february 13, 2017. today we are here to provide a opportunity to discuss historing resource issues and comments you may wish to submit. you heard from steve [inaudible] tim try and shelly who provided you with a overview sthof plan and its policies related to historic preservation. i will not duplicate that presentation here. i would like to briefly summarize the draft eir key
4:53 pm
finding to historic resources. the central soma plan could result in significant and unavoidable impact to individual historic resources and historic districts and significant and cumulative to historic resources. mitigation measureess that reduce impacts are included in the eir but such impacts are significant and unavoidable even with mitigationism before i conclude i like to remine avenue wn the public hearing on the draft eir before the planning commission is scheduled for thursday january 26. in order for any comments on the draft eir to be respauntded to comments on the draft eir must be submitted orally to the planning commission or in wrileting to the planning department environmental review officer by 5 p.m. friday february 13th.
4:54 pm
so, in other words, if anyone wishes to comment on the eir at todays hearing they will not be responded to in the eir process other than the comments we received from you. after the planning commission hearing the planning department will publish a document containing responses to rel vents coms on the eir. that conclude my presentation and hear if you have questions. >> thank you, commissioners any questions? seeing no questions we will go to pub luck comment. any member wish to comment on the item? seeing and hearing none we will close public comment and bring back to commission. commission, do we have comments to make to the planning commission about the adequacy of the draft eir for the stral soma plan? >> adequate, inadequate. >> i do have a question. sorry
4:55 pm
i didn't get your name. >> jessica range. >> thank you. you talked about sig consistent impacts. is that things like the flower mart where things would get completely demolished and predeveloped? could you address what parts-what elements of the district i mean the central plan area would be effected? >> well, in short, what we looked at was where the plan is changing zoning and also changing use so height and when height change and use change and the potential for those sites to-for each site to result in different types of development and overlay that on top of the maps that you saw earlier of the known or potential historic resources and you know, andologist the
4:56 pm
potential for any new project to come in under the central soma plan would have the potential to result in demolition possibly. so, it is encompasses all of the types of projects that could be developed under the plan ovlaid on top of known resources. >> sort of. i am looking at this page, which talks about that and then there is this page, with the frontages and all the fine grain buildings. was this laid over this? it seems like-it feels confusing to try to under-you want to preserve all these fine grain areas but at the same time there will be eir's asking to demolish the buildings so how do you sort of overlap those two?
4:57 pm
>> commissioner pearlman just as a point of clarification the fine grained areas are not considered resources for the purposes of ceqa. that is quhie they were given the status code. we found them ineligible for the california register. >> not all the fine grained areas. i'm read ing the map a lot are resources. >> the red lines are going around a lot of the pink and blue and green too. >> so, commissioners since sthis is a eir basically the way the impact statement is under taken is as a blanket that basically is applied to any of these historic areas. the only thing that the eir does not accommodate for are demolition of the buildings designated or redesignated in article 10 or article 11, but you basically have to assume that because of the zoning changes, and the height that the presumption is is a project
4:58 pm
will result into impacts on any historic resources without having more detailed information that you would normally see from a project, so from a program or plan level perspective the eir approaches the analysis as a blanket which is why in subsequent and additional review as jessica mentioned before, when the department undertakes community plan exemptions we use this program level environmental report to then basically layer on the mitigation that are adopted in the eir and insure consistency with that program and that plan level document. >> two clarification question s. the central soma plan assume that the proposed like the souths end extension and the -is that the only one where we
4:59 pm
are adding to a article 10 district? >> correct. >> so it does not assume demolition. >> it assumes that will happen? >> no it does not accom daitd for demolition in those two areas. if a building came in for redesination as article 11 seperal environmental review has to occur since the eir doesn't accommodate for demolition of those priority resources. >> the central soma plan recommends the article 10 district be expanded, correct? >> correct. >> and then separate question, maybe can you explain in the plan thrfs a impact and explain what the mitigation measures were related to the demolition. >> in most cases for dimnition of historic resource thederment pahas a series of standard
5:00 pm
mitigation that we can apply to help offset the historic resources. the central soma eir accommodated for lack of a better word rkts noremally in a preservation alternative mitigation measure, it basically requires that the sponsors look at the feasibility of preserving a piece so normally in a typical eir we explore a preservation alternative. the eir we vamitigation measure that asks the sponsors to examine lessoning the impact to a historic resource in this instance. in addition we have the other standard mitigation measures which include documentation, interpretation, exhibits. salvage. the good thing that we have with the program level document is that we have a series of mitigation measures that the department is able to kind of pluck from as they see appropriate when
5:01 pm
exappening projects. it isn't to say all the mitigations apply brut the department staff and ero can choose which mitigations are apply today a project and that is how it workwise the eastern area plan and western soma eir and community plan exempttions. >> one other question, the tdr program mr. fry described is that part the plan or something that haps subsquents to the planfelt >> it is part of the plan. >> so it will adopt the d tdr program and that program would be approved by the borebd of supervisors mpt . >> those are part the package. >> which part of the plan? >> exactly. >> great. >> from a program attic view
5:02 pm
point looking at the resources you identified here and that this is more than adequate. it is excellent. any project coming in under this plan is going to have to go through a rigorous review based on what you identified here as resources to be evaluated so i would say you have done a great job. >> i read this on cultural resources and mitigation measure jz thought the plan was well done and issues well addressed. department did a good job with it. >> that is my comment. >> just to clarify, since we will direct a response the hpc find that the eir is adequate and accurate- >> yeah. i think yeah.
5:03 pm
>> if there is nothing further we can move on to item 17. we got through your agenda. this is item 7, the land pm mark designation work program quaurltly report. this is your opportunity to prioritize and hear status of pipeline projects. >> good afternoon, susan parks department staff. ilet item is a quarterly update on landmark designation october 1, to december 31 last year. during the last quaurlt three contracts were apruchbed at the board of supervisors and recorded with the office of the recorder. two des naginations finalized and signed by the mayor. those are land mark 273 inglesides church and the amendment to the morris gift shop. also during the past quarter you initiated designation for sacred heart
5:04 pm
and [inaudible] hall. and as you know the initiation for the peace bugoata is on hold but working to bring that in the coming munchths. we have a number of active dessingination jz intend to bring before congration eman well [inaudible] in the coming mupths. staff also continues to work with the historic preservation fund committee on a number of contact statements and surveys including the african american historic context statement. we have new outletreach strategy we deviceed and plan to start that in the next few months. also, the [inaudible] historic context statements and then we also have a resident park context statement that will probably come before you for adoption in the coming months as well. and then lastly, to better track the status of
5:05 pm
article 10 and 11 designation we established the following performance measures. one is to prepare the designation report within 150 hours. for ingleside staff present 105 hours on that report and i do want to point out we added one more tracking measure to your report this quarter that was for the admin time we dedicate to the program. during the past quarter we spent 140 hours of staff time on administrative tasks, phone calls, mailings not directly related to a designation. we typically allot 320 hours a year on that for that work, so going forward we plan to keep track of that and see where we fall within that allotted budget. also the next performance measure that we track is provide comments to landmark designation applicants and bring those forward to you
5:06 pm
upon their completion within 30 days for the elrey theater staff brought that at 21 days and then your next quarterly report is at your april 19th hearing. so, that is it for our active cases and work and this concludes my presentation and happy to answer questions. >> commissioner johnck is that a question? >> no. >> commissioner matsuda. >> i have a quick question about the plaques. >> yes. i think right now that [inaudible] manufactured but shaning is work wg dbi how to get those installed at the moment and think she submitted 5 or 8 to be manufactured. >> it says 25 to receive. >> 25 total is is the start and initial debay is it 25 plaques and they are manufactured in phases so have 5 completed and
5:07 pm
ready to be installed they just need a permit. >> does that require that to be in the same spot on each- >> i think so. i dont know how it landed. >> we approved the plaque there was criteria. >> there is a instruction handout and we are working with project or home owners to figure exactly where a reasonable location would be. the snag right now is finding a quiz quick and easy way for them to obtain a building permit without a substantial cost but that is what we are working on for the first 5: we do have 8 additional ones currently in production, so hopefully soon we'll have at least 13 ready >> student go. >> thank you. >> any other comments or questions? >> doing a great job. >> thank you.
5:08 pm
>> commissioner hyland. are >> on the list now are there any that may need to be brought up to higher in the priority list due to some impending dume doom that may occur. >> [inaudible] we prioritized three but there are 12 that are very active right now that are taking a lot of our time so i think once a couple of those move forward we'll do those three. galvanized steel and [inaudible] >> the next quarterly report you will see a substantial amount of our time will go to those landmark designations as part of the central soma area plan because it is accepted that those code amendments will come to you late spring so need to do a designation report for each one of those so a very quick turn around. >> do we have on the list that
5:09 pm
are community driven? >> the elrey theater is probably the most along in the pipeline and then maybe we could say roosevelt and george washington or community driven as well. supervisor mars sponsorship. those are far along as well rfx >> we have work would two community groups on two local districts mpt there is a community group in the russian hill area interested turning the national register listed districts into local districts and then the crooked part of lombard street is having meetings to talk about designation. they already hired a consultant to prepare the designation report. >> great. we need to take public comment. and then may have more questions. at this time we will take public
5:10 pm
comment. a member wish to speak? seeing and hearing none we will close public comment. any follow up questions for mr. parks? thank you so much for the report. it is well done as always. and being very timely and we are ready to adjourn our hearing. the hearing is closed. [meeting adjourned] thank you.
5:11 pm
>> for km my name is ed reiskin i'm the director of transportation in to san francisco and absolutely delighted to be joined by u.s. secretary of transportation andrew's and mayor ed lee and some other smart and committed people to announce and celebrate the grant award of $11 million from the u.s. department of transportation to san francisco to help us do some of the things most important things we do in the city first make sure that people can get around more safely and move people inefficiently and fewer vehicles and really try to groundbreaking hinges in a new development in treasure island on the corner of that map really bringing that kind of innovation through 24 grant with really groundbreaking
5:12 pm
stuff and fit well with the three is where the get over the finish line was we have a mayor that has been a strong leader and currently innovation and collaboration and that's really what that arrogant problem about call about we're honored and humbled to be a recipient of this grant i think that rehabilitates a lot about the current administration and u.s. department of transportation when president obama announced andrew fox as his nominee to be secretary of transportation we knew immediately that that would bowed well, for cities and for the whole crisis andrew fox was the mayor of charlotte and they knew each and everyone of each other there the conference the mayors and a progressive great work in that he is city in
5:13 pm
charlotte for transportation and more general that he will serve us well in d.c. he understand what happens on the ground in the city he also brought to the job a great passion for equity and creating opportunity for people in recognizing that transportation is really a big part of that and extremely important here in san francisco more so than it's ever been and a strong focus on safety and also a it up priority here in san francisco with vision zero now almost 3 years ago in the city to eliminate traffic fatalities by 2024 but i would like to see most revolutionsy a approach that may sound shocking the federal government didn't have all the answers and this grant program and the smart city challenge we're seeing he really took the federal grant process
5:14 pm
and flipped it on its head and a attribute to the secretaries leadership to say hey, we don't dr. all the answers and a lot going on the ground rather than telling you what to do we need you to tell us what the goals and equity and safety and collaborate across the city to improve the outcomes for people if you're city and region through the smart city challenge and there this grant program that is changed. >> the way we partnered between local and federal government and we have a long history of the partnership and great infrastructure project with the subway and the van ness brt and the geary brt also some innovation and technology partnership that is sf park this one really is different approach and really a testament to our
5:15 pm
secretary of transportation i think history will reflect that he will be one of the best to serve in that capacity we were incredibly howard to have him in san francisco please help me welcome director of transportation andrew fox >> anthony and he had thank you for the wonderful introduction it is also great to be back in the bay area with the great friends friend of mine mayor ed lee who has demonstrated so much leadership on so many issues in particular transportation and we'll talk about some of that today also has been in the bay area for about 48 percent hours and suffice to say ii see the evidence of the tremendous congestion ♪ region and if you were in the jelly
5:16 pm
making business i'll have a big jar of traffic jam (laughter) and let me say this is part of the 21st century challenge of transportation in america >> you're in one of the faster growing regions in the country if not the faster and a dime economy and problems of transportation are not just related to you know a lack of attention to trying to move things along it is actually, the fact that growth is outpacing our ability to build the infrastructure to solve our problems and if i might just depart what i was intending to say parts of that is the fact at the federal level so much of our transportation policy and fund
5:17 pm
has been built around building these testimonies systems and the challenge of 21st century is integrating those systems and making the systems work better together and really if that context that the u.s. department of transportation for at least the last 8 years has been focused on trying to help our nation through our communities understand that we need a more demand driven transportation system by that i mean rather than dictating to the country how transportation is to be practiced from place to place giving communities more flexibility giving them more resources. >> allowing them to shape the vision themselves because frankly the challenges here in the bay area are different than in the midwest and different in other place we need the flexibility we're a big country
5:18 pm
and need to practice transportation definitely than place to place understanding we're proud of the fact we launched the smart city challenge, a challenge that really did turn on its head the typical grant making process what folks will say about that the secretary walked into a conference room and said we want to do this they want to frng what they were looking for we'll know it when we see 2 we saw great things in san francisco and we preceded to go through 24 process and in the process with the advances litigation congestion granted san francisco was hugely competitive that's why we're awarded the money inform this project here so let me get back to what i was
5:19 pm
supposed to say the as a matter of fact of the matter is we need to leverage the kelly whitcraft had help us reduce the congestion and during or doctoring my time we've been focused on innovation we've been inclusively ways to empower san francisco to repeat technologies frankly you were doing this on our own anyway we were here in the convenient last year federal government to help and to address transportation issues you see everyday in the same vein flo the field for initiative approaches to advance transportation technology for example in december a vehicle to vehicle mauvent all light rail to be equipped with technology to communicate directly with each other on the roads and
5:20 pm
released the most advanced set of safety rules advance in the world i'm sorry this is unmanned aircraft systems or drones what i was going to say to top it off we've proutsd the first of its kind for ammonias vehicles 2, 3, 4 is the most comprehensive policy that the world produced and precedence setting in the sense we're setting out the ground work for the he will technology systemthorax in october we announced $65 million in advanced technology transportation grant to help the cities across the country fight the congestion and encourage the market those grants will build on the smart city challenge the challenge asked the cities across the country what they need to improve their systems
5:21 pm
and few limitation in giving us that feedback in response we received applications for more than 78 cities and our goal with this round the application grant we want to make that easier for local areas to test new ytdz and reach beyond about what was deny to meet the challenges we know we'll face in the future and so we provided almost $12 million to san francisco to support a number of projects to encourage ride sharing and carpooling and making that better by having pickup curve for the riders and helping to deploy smart connecting traffic to make intersections safer for people riding bikes now separate and apart what did you do by nearly $360 million
5:22 pm
for the demand on - that will connect public and private transportation options all of those are p.o. box san francisco to be one of the most connected cities at a time when the infrastructure continues to be stressed that's why it is too important we need to test in the 21st century solutions to those issues i should also is that maybe to conclude that mayor ed lee knows when cities come up with good solutions to problems overtime they get replicated elsewhere so we are trying very o vertically to user laboratories to helpful see some of the greatest efforts represent indicated in other
5:23 pm
parts of country so mayor ed lee i want to thank you and the entire region for your leadership, and thank you for continuing to push the vision vision for transportation to its growing edge shall we say. >> thank you for continuing to help us help you by giving us great things to work on together and looking forward as partners to help with that collaboration well into the future thank you. >> (clapping.) >> thank you, mr. secretary that needs to give a flavor of the new and better way of the federal government looking to partner with us with regards to taking things that are employed in the city with the replication sf park and a opportunity pilot a pricing for that concludes my remarks that led to a
5:24 pm
significant reduction in congestion and their green house gas emissions made it easier for people to find a way for parking that is now becoming a standard across the country and that kind of innovation happening can be invested and replicated across the country within the spirit of that grant the secretary mentions that the congestion in the city i was hoping he wouldn't that is something that the mayor talks about i'm trying to tell him congestion is a good thing it is healthy but he remind me too much can have adverse safety impacts and start to make that harder for people to get around for work and education can help start to restrict the ability for the growth it has so some of the tools ♪
5:25 pm
grant will help us address that or challenge we're having to make the streets safer at the same time, we have great leadership from the mayor among his tasks to nominate the directors for the municipal transportation agency and we're happy to be joined by our charm of the board of directors tom and their leadership inform our agency that positions you guess and the rest of the city to be competitive for this grant first place i wanted to acknowledge they're great leadership by the mayor has done a lot for transportation and the task force brought in half a million dollars to invest in that infrastructure as the secretary talked about and most of all helps to us partner outside of government and that leadership
5:26 pm
is also positions to us to be a contender please join me in welcoming mayor ed lee >> (clapping.) >> thank you. good morning everyone and welcome to super public another indication of the way we're doing things in san francisco but we're part of a whole region let me take the opportunity to thank our friend secretary fox thank you to you, your leadership and you know as i was listening to the secretary talk not just about the grant but looking at him and thinking years ago when president obama suggested more than suggested he said we had to be covered from the economic disasters when he first started started to make critical investments transportation has been the center whether borrowing that
5:27 pm
clicks on the president was there along with leader pelosi working closely with our city and making sure we utilities those federal funds appropriately to get jobs done and start talking about the center of our city and how we might be prepared for economic recovery even better and look was has happened 2, 3, 4 did 8 years and it is not just because we want economic activities i think there is a dramatic movement of people who want jobs and better life to move into the city and they're coming regardless of whether you want to put the welcome mat or not people are looking for that better life but happening in all the cities in the bay area and across the country and secretary has observed and visited chinatown and part so i say that
5:28 pm
in the sense he really want to say thank you to a former mayor to a friend to secretary who literally is here from the first welcome back to the last week of his tenure to be in the city i know he's appreciated for a variety of reasons and die is no exception we're here super public because we heard is not just the support from the secretary the administration we literally known that his folks at the fta are writing the transportation systems personally experiencing what day to day people are talking to us about so they can say oh, this is what you are experiencing and this is work you need those funds and not just a complaint about suggestions but a
5:29 pm
direction of finding solutions as reflective we don't need those things on the singular city and fda grant it is bribl everyone together so that's why super public has been a model with academia and leadership where the county is involved and technology leaders are involved and their data is confirmed own mta and county transit experts can all congregate to make sure not only we're using does the federal funds the way it is directed bull bringing in the extra juice of folks that are going to be thinking in the future and shouldn't surprises you, we were getting a smart is city grant but shouldn't
5:30 pm
surprise you we're not independent on a single grant but commitment committed to make sure our city and region continues to be answering the challenge the congestion but i also think two this is what the added value of that we have - when we were by the obama effects to come up with better solutions i'm specifically happy about something that was done a couple of years ago back the mta said in response to not just technology not just the transit who are we serving as well but tailor have been documented disparities who the transit system serves and so in that muni equity strategy i've provide the mta adopted

16 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on