Skip to main content

tv   Historic Preservation Commission 11817  SFGTV  January 22, 2017 7:00am-10:41am PST

7:00 am
preservation commission occurring on january 18, 2017 will begin shortly. >> wednesday january 18, 2017. our first meeting back from the break, so happy new year. the commission does not tolerate disruption our outbursts. please silence the mobile device squz when speaking
7:01 am
before the commission if you do state your name for the record. like to take roll. wolfram, herement hi lnt, here. hasz, here. matsuda, here. pearlman, here. we do expect commissioner johnck to arrive shortly and commissioner johns to be absent today. first is general public comment. at this time members may address the commission on items of interest within the stubjection matter jurisdiction accept for agenda items. agenda items you can address in the meeting. may address up to three minute. i may have one speaker card. >> at this time we'll take general public comment on a non
7:02 am
agenda item. are you jennifer fisher? >> i am. good afternoon commissioner, jennifer fisher of duane morris and represent js sullivan development. the owner at 1523, 1525 franklin street. as you may recall i spoke brf the commission early december regarding the historic status of this property. yesterday, our office received a memo from the planning department staff where the staff recommended the franklin street property be considered a historic resource for the purposes of ceqa review. we disagrewed with the finding and encourage the commission to firth recall consider the matter and place it on thujnda for a future meeting. as a initial matter the finding the property is a historic resource for the purposes of ceqa review would require a eir in plans for demolition. the process is expensive and time consuming
7:03 am
and simply not warpted for a building like the oneprintly located at 1523 franklin street. in order to be eligible for lifting in the california register in dur criteria 1, the biltding cannot be historic events or trends, it must have a important association with historic event which this building doesn't have rchlt it was listed in the lgbtq his toeric context statement because it housing the institute for study of human sex waement which is for profit institution that offer s courses in humor sexuality and issues graduate school certifies. the institute was not the first nor only educational institution in offering courses on human sex walety and doesn't have a specific association with historic events important to the lgbtq community. the
7:04 am
institute is very briefly mentioned in the historic context statement and only for the association with other organizations. there is no significant tie between the institute and the lgbtq movementism while the institute provided courses in human sexuality it did not like unlike other buildings in san francisco recognized in the lgbtq context statement beprovide a meeting place for gay activists, house leaders in the move 789 or serve as a community center. the fact 1523 franklin housed the institute for human sexuality which it didn't have any significant association with the lgbtq movement doesn't warrant a historic resource. i ask the commission kej public hearing for elimination of 1523
7:05 am
franklin that may be eligible for historic consideration. thank you. >> thank you, any other member wish to speak on a non ajndized item? seeing and hearing none we will close public comment. >> that will place under department hat matters. >> tim fry department staff i don't believe there was a directors report in your packets but happy to answer questions should you have them. >> seeing none we can move to item 2, review of past events of the planning commission staff report and announcements. >> just a few item tooz share. happy new year. firs firsh first of all, the staff along with the may rer office and nrtd tainment commission hosted the lgbtq cultural heritage status meeting and had about 20 participants with the support
7:06 am
of supervisors peskin, new supervisor sheshe and kim. we had representatives from all the historic lgbtq on claves within san francisco and it was a great discussion to help move the project forward and increase visibility of the working group but also participation to make sure all voices are considered and heard as we prepare recommendations for how to implement a strategy in the future t. is anticipated the strategy will be in draft form or a progress report on how to development the strategy will be in draft form by april this year and before this commission once we have something ready. we are still looking to maximize participation and sent invitations out to several of you but if you like to participate or attend the meetings we will keep you
7:07 am
updated. the next meeting is in february and will be scheduling that shortly. and then second, i did want to mention in regard also to member of the public that spoke during public comment. the december 7 hearing the hpc asked for a staff report on 1523 franklin street. we provided a cover memo and our associated historic resource evaluation response in your packets that outlines and i would like to clarify, it is not a recommendation, it is a staff determination, therefore we are not recommending to anybody to consider this. this is under ceqa case law and our final decision pending any new information that the building is a historic resource and if a focused eir is required due to scope of the project you will see that during the review and comment period as is standard
7:08 am
practice. happy to answer any questions now or at a future hearing. >> did this come through today? >> no, it was in the packet. >> okay, i didn't get that in my packet. >> that concludes my comments unless you have questions, thank you. >> any questions for- >> no, thank you for providing this. it is very helpful. >> we can move onfelt >> place under commission matters, item 3, president report and announcements chblt >> the only report i have at the last hearing i put forward nominations for land mark trees. it turns out there is a error in the nomination form and those require a resolution so looking into that with staff and contacting property owners so that will come back before the full commission. >> very good. places on item 4. consideration of adoption draft minute for december 7, 2016. >> any member of the mublic
7:09 am
wish to comment on the draft minutes of the december 7, 2016? seeing and hearing none close public comment. commissioners comments or revisions to the minutes? motion to adopt? >> thank you commissioners. on that the motion to adopt the minutes for december 7, 2016. hasz,f johnck, yes. matsuda, yes. pearlman, yes. hyland, yes. wolfram, yes. the motion passes 6 to 0. commissioners that place said onitism 5 for commission comments and questions. >> commissioner johnck. >> i wanted to comment on my enthuse iasm and excitement in the art in united nation plaza. we approved this or endorsed it a few months ago at the end of 2016 and i was really
7:10 am
thrilled to see the great collaboration between the exploratorium and department of public works. i talked to the staff who great staff of folks who are paid by department of public works but paying attention to keeping the area safe and the art installation is helping that and it lends a lot of very nice ombeyauns and security and with the staff there-the whole combination was a great enhancement to the area for the city. i know it is there for a short period of time but that type of thing is wonderful. >> i agree with that. commissioner matsuda. >> thauj thank you. it is about time we have a cultural heritage asset committee meeting and i think-i don't remember how we left it last
7:11 am
month but great if key we can schedule it for the first-feb. only the agenda to do general overview and review of the legacy business. i know we were thinking of ways in which we can maybe help further support nominations that come forward. >> commissioner matsuda, on the advanced calendar we scheduled the legacy business discussion at the february 15 hearing. if that is okay we can combine the 2. >> okay. >> commissioner hyland. >> did we decide to do a committee meeting or the full commission for that agenda item? >> i remember the discussion last time but don't remember- >> if the other commissioners had interest. we were trying to decide how to responds and evaluate the process as far as-commissioner johns had
7:12 am
comments about the content. >> and streamlining. >> capturing the oral histories and nuances of why these businesses are important. just a question if we want for the full commission. >> we are fine having a committee hearing and have the legacy business discussion at the full hearing. >> that is great. >> so, then we will have the cultural heritage asset committee meeting on february 15? >> right. >> very good. >> any other comments or questions? i think we are ready to move on. >> that will place on item 6. election of officers in accordance with rules and regulations of san francisco historic preservation commissionism the president and vice president shall be elected at the first meeting held after the first day of january each year or a subsequent meeting the date of which is fixed by
7:13 am
the historic preservation commission the first day of january each year or surbs quent meeting. >> we are having new xhickzers nominated and have any heard from the mayors office whether you are renominated? >> i got a call from the mayors office but caept get in touch can francis. we are trading voice mails. not sure that is a reason you have to continue the matter but if you so choose. >> i just received comment that the mayor was looking at it and will get back to us. i don't know--does that mean we elect officers? >> we can continue it, right sph >> you can continue it but the terms expired at the epd of the year but you have 60 days to remain seated so puts at the end of february you can potentially continue to the first hearing in march.
7:14 am
>> it has just been a tradition that we waited for new members to be seated if new members get seated. we don't have to, but i think that will be better. >> do i need a motion to continue? >> yes. >> and then do we need a motion to elect temporary officers? >> no. >> okay. >> mouv to continue the item. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to continue the election och officers to march 1? >> yes. >> hasz, yes. johnck, yes. matsuda, yes. pearlman, yes. hyland, yes. wolfram, yes. the motion passes 6 to 0. that placed under regular calendar. exemping certain historic
7:15 am
landmarks from the nchb 2016 ballot measure requiring conditional use authorization for arts activities. >> i have a disclosure to make. i spoke with the city attorney about this. one of my firms clients is sth mission armory which is effected by this so asked i disclose that before the item is heard. >> good afternoon commissioners. diego sanchez with planning department staff. i will present a ordinance proposing to amend the planning code to exempt lands mark building from conditional use and replacement requirements under proposition x converting or demolish disboougz and repair or pdr space, arts activity space squz institutional spaces. proposition x as you may recall was passed november 20s 16 requires projects within zoning districts in eastern
7:16 am
neighborhood plan areas to secure conditional use authorization when proposing to demolish ic spacess. it requires the spaces be placed at ratio from 1 to 1 to 1 to 0.5 dependent on there zoning district. prop x also affords 8 different project types exemption and replacement requirements. the ordinance before you proposes to exempt land marks from conditional use and replacement if they convert or demolish no more than 50 percent of the existing pdr or ic spaces and afford additional conversion or demolition if remaining spaceerize sold or leased at below market rates. commissioners the department is in support of the ordinance as it strikes a balance between two needs. the first the need to allow older buildings to be reused and the second being the
7:17 am
need to preserve existing pdr arts activities and ic spaces. staffs recommendation to the limit conversion to just under 50 thousand square feet or 5 0 percent of space and limit to land mark status as of july 1, 2016 seeks to accomplish two purposes. the first is limit the tot lt area converted from any project while allowing a adequate converted space and the second is constrain the number of buildings that may avail of this exempttion. i like to show you a map if i can get the overhead. can you zoom out a little bit? >> you have to zoom out manually on top.
7:18 am
>> these three buildings in yellow are the 3 buildings with landmark status as of july 1, 2016. this is the extent of all the buildings anal to avail themselves of the proposed exempt son so these are the armory [inaudible] and another building there in the south of market. when the planning commission heard the item in december the deliberation focused only two themes. first is recognition of difficulty and renovating buildings and need to provide flexibility and allowed use. the second is level of review over these type of projects. certain commissioners spoke in favor of maintaining the cu requirement. the planning decided to hold their decision until after this commission, you have commented. the next meeting is tomorrow january 19. i like to note a small
7:19 am
typo in the draft resolution submitted. the hearing date reads december 8, it should read today obviously, january 18, 2017 and i can submit to the commission secretary for the record. this concludes my presentation and available for questions. thank you. >> commissioners any questions before i take public comment? commissioner matsuda. >> i have one clarification question. so, on page 7 the report under recommendations of it what the department is recommending, you are just summarizing it to be-it says 50 percent and additional 25 and you recommend to say 75? >> so, you are looking at recommendations number 1? >> right. >> what is underlined is what
7:20 am
is in the proposed ordinance right now. recommendation 3 speak tooz your point is we are- >> sorry, yes >> we are proposing to convert the lesser of 49, 999. >> that is what i wanted to clarify. thank you. >> commissioners any other questions? at this time we will take public comment. any member wish to speak? if so please come forward. you have three sknlnts minutes and there will be a warning buzzer. >> my name is peter [inaudible] owner of the san francisco armory at 14th and mission. the armory has been out [inaudible] of pdr space. without the legislation it is very difficult to convert that to any other use and that will make it difficult to maintain or upgrade the building over time. operating a building like this is a very expensive
7:21 am
undertaking rks costs $2 million a year just to own it. like security, ongoing maintenance and issues. it is also very expensive than a non historic building to upgrade. to this date the building has no heating, no wheelchair accessible entrance, no sprinkler system or elevator or exists, we need someone to build three shafts from the roof to the basement horrifically expensive so people get in and outlet safely in the events of a fire. it requires seismic underpinning and i can go on and on. it is quite urgent lee needs repair tooz the [inaudible] and for new roof to be put on. what i feel [inaudible] it was my dream to rehabilitation it and bring up to modern standards
7:22 am
and love it to be up to the same standards of city hall. to make it usable for pdr and non pdr significant work needs to be done. by having flexibility and use we will be able to update and maintain this historic resource for san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please come forward. >> good afternoon. [inaudible] today i speak on behalf the mission economic development agency as well as united state of the mission community development committee. we have cig couldn't concerns about the legislation on a number of fronts and specifically how it pertains to projects like the armory. as you saw there are currently expected to be three projects this will pertain to, the armory being the largest. so, that means there tr three
7:23 am
projects currently already only that prop x even effects in the entire mission pipeline of roughly 70 projects and now we are looking to add a list of projects to excuse-it only applies to what is that some tiny percentage. we think that these kind of exemptions will have jnd fiication and displacement impacts bringing 500 office workers to the comtural corridor will have enormous impapacts and why we believe the voters spoke on prop x. there are ways to resolve the problem and understand there are issues related to historic buildings and are hpy to work with the owner so we think that is the best way out of the scenario. when ulook at a building like the armory it already has been
7:24 am
granted 40,000 square feet of performance space so it is already the madison square garden of the west. there is already significant upscaling of the building in a way that impacts the cultural corridor. to put it in context, there are now 11 proposed projects like this for that tiny area of mission street so that is what we look at for impacts and think this one falls under prop x and don't see a reason to exkoos it. we are happy to work something out with city officials and owner that is to everyones [inaudible] it is favorable outcome and think it is doable and doesn't need to be done through this legislation. this legislation i think my reading is correct and it isn't just the 50/50 split. every 10 years you get to split it again and on top of that get accessory office use. by 20 years out you are down to
7:25 am
18 percent pdr. this is essentially a pdr elimination prescription as it is written and don't think that is in the spirit of proper x so encourage you to encourage the city as well as the armory ownership to work with the mission community to find a better outcome for this. >> thank you, any other speaker wish to speak, please come forward? >> andrew [inaudible] we do represent the armory and just following up on comments peter made. it is pretty obvious historic buildings need help and incentives and ways to move forward and use provisions allowing better use and different uses is a great way for the planning code to help building like the armory. so, that is a given mpt i think everybody understand that. prop x went in the wrong direction and had a saving clause and why we are here today. prop x has good policy
7:26 am
provisions, it will really badly impact the armory if the amendment doesn't change the rules. the armory is stuck without this change. very much in support of the original proposal by the supervisors. i do have to say i'm not very supportive and will reject the recommendation from staff. the 50 percent in the ordinance will give about 80 thousand square feet of flexibility for the armory. what the planning department is proposing is reduce to 50 thousand square feet. seems arbitrary. we think the 5 opercent goal allow 50 percent converted and 50 percent to stay is where it needs to be and can live with that and hope you will support the original proposal by the superizvooers. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. mike bouleer with sf heritage. heritage is already submitted a letter in support of the proposed legislation. not sure why it
7:27 am
didn't make it to your packet. heritage believeathize proposed legislation established a balance between the need to retain pdr space and provide incentives for stewardship of the most significant historic resorss. we were consulted by the supervisors office as sth legislation was drafted and we also support and applaud staffs efforts to furthering parse the legislation and recommend further clarification and modification and we support those by in large those modifications. in essence we feel this is issue the city is struggling with for many years now dating back to the design center project and we feel that the proposed legislation is a responsible and narrowly
7:28 am
construed exemption to prop x. >> thank you, any other speaker wish to speak on the e item? seeing and hearing none we will close public comment. commissioners. commissioner pearlman. >> thank you. this was one of the most confusing things that in the four years on the commission i have seen to try to understand its benefits and its demerits and things. i guess one question and maybe mr. sanchez this is for you is, under the current legislation can the armory seek a conditional use to do exactly what is being proposed here or not? >> they would need to seek conditional use under the new proposition x section code 202.8 to convert or demolish pdr space >> if they want to convert 50 thousand square feet to some
7:29 am
other use that would have to come before the planning commission. >> yes. >> would they have to replace the space? >> yes. right now as i understand the legislation talks about the board being able to enact a subsequent ordinance that allows offsite or in lieu replacement but now what i understand is that it must be replaced on site somewhere so whatever spaces they are going to replace would have to be found somewhere. >> my understanding of the conditional use process and please help me if i'm completely off base here, is that it essentially puts it in the hands of the planning commission to make a decision that it is necessary and desirable to eliminate this junk of chunk of pdr space and nolt replace it in the same building to allow because it is historic building and needs some other means. i am asking the question relative to the
7:30 am
fact, can this be achieved without change thg legislation? you are saying no, that isn't possible? >> they have to replace it somewhere on site. what i understand is the replacement is a requirement, not-what is under advise from the planning commission is whether the conversion or demolition is necessary and desirable so the replacement is a requirement. >> there is a and in the legislation. conditioning yule and replacement so not or. >> this will come up in 1070 howard street because isn't that the exact case? >> that is using a separate code provision. maybe that is important to point out commissioners. as you know the flexibility in the zoning code is a very common benefit that we worked with the public and supervisors in providing historic buildings and as you see here, this is only for
7:31 am
individually listed buildings on the national register or article 10 buildings so talking a very small universe of buildings that are eligible to take advantage of this provision noted that most are no where near the size the mission armory. >> none of them is-there are two others, right? we are not talking dozens. >> i am having- >> commissioner johnck. >> thank you. i am having difficulty with my unit here. i was kind of thinking why doesn't the armory going the planning commission and ask for a exemption. cart blaunch. >> i dont think they have the ability to do that. >> you say they can't do that. it was a ordinance. >> that rfs my first thought, the owner of the armory has a really good story or rational for the problems with the
7:32 am
legislation as it effects the property so i do think there needs to be flexibility here. first i was thinking that. then my next thought was, what was the process for looking at alternatives to the other kinds of amendments to proposition x? was there just one-maybe you can answer that. for something like this it usually goes through a iteration of 50 percent, 25 percent, 35 percent. >> those would have conversations with the supervisors office. unfortunately they could not make it at this time. what we see the planning department was the final product. of whatever-i assume there was some sort of discussion. >> i guess it seems unbalanced. there needs to be flexibility
7:33 am
and it dozen seem to be horrible trastic so i would support this. >> commissioner hasz. >> thank you. i just want to clarify, mr. bouleer sf heritage you rin support of the original legislation? sf heritage is? >> could you come forward mr. boule squr speak at the mic? >> to answer commissioner hasz question, heritage submitted a letter in support of the legislation that went before the planning commission in early december, december 8, which i believe did include proposed staff modifications at that time. >> okay. >> you are in support of it as modified in our resolution? >> yes. >> with these recommendations mptd >> is that correct, mr.
7:34 am
bouleer? >> mr. [inaudible] same question. >> if the question is what do we support, we support the original supervisor propose lt of 50 percent. we are not in support of the-some of the clean up that staff is suggesting here on prop x is fine but the part that says 49, 599 or 50 percent whatever is less, that puts the armory in a box. they will be a lot less flexibility for the armory. >> thank you. >> i got my answer but you may have something else. >> no, i believe i'm-- >> mr. sanchez, maybe you answered this with commissioner johncks question. how did the 49, 999 number come up instead of 50 percent? why was that considered after the fact? >> the 50,000 is the line
7:35 am
between a large office allocation and a small office allocation under the planning code section 321. yeah, that is where we drew the line. >> can i ask mr. juneious the same? >> that is very true, that is what i think that is focused but we have to keep in mind there may be other non-pdr uses out there that can make use of additional space. for example a retailer that would be-could fine a home in the armory isn't going find a home in the armory because if that scenario happens where we are just at 50,000 for office and the rest is pdr there are other non office uses the neighborhood may benefit from and having the extra 20 or 30 thousand square feet of flexibility to bring a non pdr office housing user to the armory i think is good thing. it lows flexibility and
7:36 am
the historbuilding to do as much as it can with use inside the building at the same time balancing the pdr issues. there is significant amount of pdr in the building. 80,000 square feet even woult the staff's recommendation will be pdr. it is a question will it be 50, 60, 70, 80. i think 80 thousand square feet of flexibility space-the owner may want. >> how would you define the difference between the 49, 999 and whatever 50 percent happens to be? do you define that as that cant be used as office but could be used as something other than pdr? that is unclear what will happen in this case.
7:37 am
>> commissioners, it also may just be a circumstance of the armory in this case where it may not be a issue with other properties. i think just with the nuances and the technical nature othf planning code we are looking for some sort of consistency with how planners review office allocations across the city which is why the number was selected. the flip side is, these are unique projects and because we will be looking at these on a case by case basis in frontf of the planning commission through a cu that may be okay to look at the 50 percent on a case by case basis but at least the 49, 999 provides expectation we feel comfortable. >> in this legislation passed the cu is not required to convert the space? prop m amication requires a planning commission hearing but a cu is not required, is that correct? >> that is correct. they are still before the planning commission for office
7:38 am
allocation or whatever conditional use, they would be triggered and not make findings pursuant to 202.8. >> just wanted to comment mr. fry. then what you are saying you are trying to get consistency in one realm but in the other realm you are isolating the armory as the only building that this would apply to rather than the three buildings that it would apply to if it were 50 percent? if this were just at 50 percent and not the 50,000 square foot you have a consistency orphthree buildings it applies to. you say if we accept what is in this as 49, 999 is the cut off it is only going to apply to the armory? >> the other buildings are- >> i don't believe so. maybe mr. sanchez-do we know the square footage the other buildings eligible for?
7:39 am
>> i know [inaudible] isn't that big. >> it is a little smaller but from what i saw from the site visit it is used in a pdr type function. >> probably not under the 100 square feet. there is a combination of live and work and can't see all the different work activities hap ing in the units. >> commissioner hyland. >> follow up to commissioner pearlmans comment. i guess what they are saying instead of converting 80,000 the edit will limit to 50, therefore maintaining hire levels. what would have happened prior to prop x? what would have been the approval process? >> prop m allocation? >> it would have gone under prop m amication for whatever office they were seeking to convert to. >> is there a small cap under
7:40 am
50? >> plus conditional use. >> the proper m allocation go tooz the planning commission. >> to change without x, to change it- >> not necessarily, it is dependent on the use. some are conditional and some wouldn't. >> that is correct. >> pdr before x it was less stringent. >> made it more stringent. the changes make it more lenient prior to us. >> no. >> x made it much stricter, these changes, the trailing ordinance before you is trying to leucine up x but not to the extent it was before x. the modification tries to get it closer to x than what the proposed ordinance before you has with the limitation of the
7:41 am
landmark date and 49, 999 or 50 percent. >> commissioner hasz. >> so, this building came before the preservation board a long time ago, so have seen a lot of history on this one. i had a office down the street from there on woodword for a long time so know the neighborhood well. this came in front of us before peter bought the building for housing. i thought it was a well developed plan that was shot down and beat up and peter tried to make a run of it with his business and now turning to functions. i have been to a couple functions. tell you the truth, if i was a neighbor there i wouldn't it because there is chaos with ubers coming through and picking up because there are thousands going through there. i think it is a very difficult building
7:42 am
to do anything with and get any common approval and just would luv love to see more potential uses that less because that building sat vacant for a long time and was a perfect spot for homeless encampments and graffita before peter bought it and took it over and i just think that more options are better than less in that one building in particular. i don't know enough about the other buildings to give comment on that but i just say more lenient the better in this one particular case. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i wanted to concur with commissioner hasz on this because it is always the challenge and the reason we are here today with this particular topic is because historic buildings always languish because they are big white elephants is and what do you do with them and how to convert them. this particular limitation of the 50 thousand
7:43 am
does effect this and i agree that if there were more possibilities for uses that were less intensive than having major events there, but that could still support the building so it could be maintained and improved, would be a good thing because i have also been down there when an event is going on and it is horrible thing. have that many people at that moment in time in a place that isn't designed for it at all. it isn't like it has a big parking lot around it and lots of ways to get out. you are on the street immediately as you walk out the building. i don't necessarily agree with the 50,000 limit. i do agree we should make this as lenient as possible to allow any historic building that falls under this type of legislation to be rehabilitated and reused in ways that are
7:44 am
positive for the community. inmission economic group is up set about this but they have the opportunity to come before the planning commission to express their concerns about whatever particular use is chosen-is proposed for that site, so it is not this legislation is the be all end all and wouldn't be able to comment on what happens to mission street and that neighborhood in that area. so, i think yes, this is good thing and should be exemption but think the exemption should be the fib0 percent not a limited amount. >> commissioner hasz. >> i did want to say for peter's sake, the events he is doing whatever he can to keep going as a business so dont mean it down your thing and have the neighbors upset for something else. just to recomment on one thing, i still love that old housing proposal and thought that was a great use for the building. the
7:45 am
preservation board at that time didvent the make up and appetite to take that project on but still think that was a very viable project today. thank you. >> any other comments? do i have a motion to-we are not making-are we making a motion or reviewing and commenting? we are adopting a resolution, right? >> i move approval of the resolution. >> with any-- >> i would agree with-i would second that if we take out the part about the limitation of square footage. the 49, 999. recommendation number 3. >> is there a motion? >> i will support that. >> commissioners if i may interrupt. it may benefit because this will go back to the planning commission, it may benefit the planning commission having a better understanding of why you would like to modify that recommendation so
7:46 am
providing some fiendings or at least basis that we can report back would be helpful. i think commissioner pearlman put it well but just something that-- >> the comments i heard were that the landmark buildings are challenging to adapt and providing flexibility in terms of use and square footage as much flexibility as possible gives them more economic viability. does that sound good? >> [inaudible] greater viability. >> we don't-public comment was- >> excuse me. we already had public comment. >> i second the motion. >> commissioner, there is a motion seconded to adopt recommendation to adopt had
7:47 am
proposed ordinance without the proposed modification number 3 recommended by staff. on that motion hasz- >> mr. sanchez did you have a comment? >> did you want to keep the date constrained of july 1, 2016 or not? the consequences with that is there could be subsequent that avail of this exemption? that is why there is only three. >> designated another building in the district it would not be eligible. is there a reason why that was put in? >> we put the july 1 constraint in because of the concern of fwlansing the previvation of pdr and arts activities in institutional community spaces. that is why we wanted to limit to thoest 3 buildings
7:48 am
landmarked today and why there is july 1. >> it is backwards saying. that is saying here is something that will effect something already whether then there is a potential we will find particular buildings worthy of landmarking 2 years or 5 years from now that would be eligible for this but then wouldn't be because we adopted this today. i don't think there should be any particular cut off. that doesn't make sense to me. can others comment on that? >> whault i get nervous on that and thank you for pointing that out because i didn't see it or think of this way. you can have landlords fighting any landmarking if they don't have the flexibility for later. because we don't fall under the flexible ordinance. >> commissioners if it helps the deliberation 803.9 adopted
7:49 am
by you for the eastern neighborhoods plan that provides flexibility is successful getting landmarks designated and having a commitment from the owner to do preservation or rehabilitation plan on those properties. so that is very effective in this area. >> how does it effect what we are talking about today? >> those are separate zoning districts so have different controls. those are-it is a totally separate program and set of benefits than what we are talking about today but just as a comparison i want-if you were to open this up to future landmarks there is precedent for similar programs in the area that is successful. >> that would make sense. >> one is on your calendar today. >> commissioner hyland. >> i'm just trying to get my head around whether the 50,000 limit is worthwhile or not and
7:50 am
i am confused because when the design center came up as a issue there was a big concern losing that much pdr space so at that time the interest was maintaining pdr space. here, we have a lanchlg amount of pdr space that could be maintained if they found a appropriate use. i agree with commissioner hasz the housing project would have been a great adaptive reuse the building at least the one version i remember that i liked. there were probably 6 of them or something like that. i am having a hard time understanding if that housing project came up again, what would be the process or the limititation of actually being able to accomplish that? it would go under prauch m and go before the planning commission? >> prop m is a land office allocation. we were about to take a vote and the only matter we are considering is there date change. >> i was trying to decide whether or not to say yes or no
7:51 am
to this based othen 50,000 because i think the interest is tritoog protect pdr space as a whole in the city, so that's-- >> my thinking is that a planning commission issue and what we are trying to do is allow historic buildings to be used and reuzyooed and maintained to the best of their ability. that is what came up in the other about the henry adams building. that is 30,000 square feet but the issue came down-i was shot down because i talked about a planning issue rather historic issue. >> if it comes to prop m allocation they have the ability to deal with that. if there is housing proposal we would see it because these buildings are landmarked buildings. >> the maker the motion-i do
7:52 am
want to from our purpose want to provide flexibility to try to maintain the historic buildings. i agree with the date. i propose to eliminate the date. >> so, item 3 as the original motion was made eliminating recommendation number 3. >> and the date- >> they are combined. >> eliminating motion 3 in its entirety. >> that is the original motion which includes the date. >> okay. you were correct in the beginning. we will stick with commissioner johncks motion. >> there is a motion that isn't seconded to adopt recommendation for approval with staffs modification excluding modification number 3. commissioner hasz, yes. johnck, yes. matsuda, yes. pearlman, yes. hyland, yes.
7:53 am
wolfram, yes. so moved commissioners, the motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. places on item 8 for case number 2016-011052 des at 1970 ocean avenue. this is a land mark designation initiation. >> good afternoon commissioners. shaning ferguson, planning department staff. i'm here to pronet r present department recommendation regarding landmark initiation of the elrea theater at 1970 ocean avenue in the ingleicide nairbld. the building was added tolandmark program august
7:54 am
17. prepared by consulting at request of the art deco society and final draft report received by department october 2016. 1970 ocean avenue is significant as one of the only remaining movie theaters designed in the ark deco style by timothy fliger. maintains design features present during 1931. a list of character defineic features can be found on page 65 of the report. character defining features include the lobby and auditorium. these spaces are eligible for designation because they were publicly accessible. designation of the theater appears to meet two of the historic preservation commission priorities. it meets the first designation which is under represented landmark property types
7:55 am
including landscape. there are 5 other movie theairtds already designated three remodeled the elrey is one the only remaining in the art deco style. it meets the third designation priority which is buildings located in underrupted areas. there are only two other landmark buildings nearby. the first is 213. -coninstructed by [inaudible] occupied by sisal pool. the vecd landmark is the landmarked ingleicide church. 1970 ocean avenue is a very different property type from the other two landmark. the department received 8 letters of support. the letters were admitted from your packet so
7:56 am
have a copy here for the record. there is no known public or neighborhood opposition to designation of 1970 ocean avenue as a article 10 landmark and the department will provide additional public correspondence in the historic prenchivation correspondsance folder. staff has met with the property owner rev sl times and shared the report with them and we are continue toog work with them on a potential project. the department bleechbs the building meets the established eligibility requirements and landmark status is warranted. the department recommends initiate the designation. if initiated today the department will return with a resolution recommending article 10 landmark designation to the board of supervises. this concludes my presentation and happy to answer questions. if there are no questions i like to give the project sponsor a chance to speak and followed by the property owner. >> thank you. project sponsor want to come forward?
7:57 am
>> dpood afternoon president wolfram and commissioners mpt my name is terri, the preservation director of the art deco in california. the membership organization seek tooz educate and increase public awareness through preservation and promotion of the art architectural music and design. when our organization found out about the unusual sale we realized it was time to make the nairbld landmark official. together with help from dan squeerfb ocean avenue association applied for grants, the ellis ross carry grant and national trust for historic preservation. with that funding plus a grant from ingleside [inaudible] art deco san francisco theater the designation it deserves. you
7:58 am
know me as a author of book on timothy fluger and his work [inaudible] designed in northern california and the 20 and 30. the [inaudible] san francisco landmarks since 77 and 95 [inaudible] all his original theaters only with tularry and downtown tularry are demolished. [inaudible] large show stopping mewy theaters can act as important anchors for and bring neighbors and communities toorpth. former elrey was in the category of a show stopper [inaudible] during the period
7:59 am
included chinese references and represented exotism between ww 1 and 2 and embrace of modernism. the original massing the building and floor plan of the original theater and interior details remain in tact despite poorly executed renovation that can be reversed. the [inaudible] several years ago i went to a 80 celebration of the theater and the fundraiser organized by dan weaver and [inaudible] the packed house had plans for generating the [inaudible] and watched the original movie shown in 1931. it was a major community event bringing together people from many surrounding neighborhoods in the district as well as others in the bay area. we believe a landmark designation will help foster the return of the striving theater to the
8:00 am
community. i will pass it on to chris who is doing the landmark designation for us. >> thank you. >> thank you. my name is christopher plank and want to wrap thes up because i know someone from omi would like to speak. i'm proud to prepare the nomination and available to answer any questions afterward. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, alex mu lainy and i am the publisher of the neighborhood newspaper and a community activist. i am a neighborhood resident. at the time with city hall to figure a way to activate the build{help the 10 want with restorationism in january when i began a save el rey compain we held a community meeting and
8:01 am
#35cked the community room and there are a lot of people that cherished the building in the neighborhood. i just can't emphasize how important it is to so many people and especially to the community. i think it's the linchpin for revisalizing ocean avenue. that two block area is the only part where it is slow now. i urge you to support this propersition. thank you. >> thank you. at this pime we will take public comment on this item. any other members of the sponsor team? please come forward. >> good afternoon. my name is dan weaver. excuse my voice today. dan weaver and the executive direct orphthe ocean
8:02 am
avenue association and a long time ingleside neighbor activist. this is great news that a church stopped owning the el rey. the church started owning the el rey 38 years ago and stopped being a movie theater and started being a church it is down hill. not that churches are bad, but the problem here was that the church didn't have any idea how important the building they inherented was and as a consequences many mistakes were made, in fact every time something was done to the front facade it was wrong and it needs to be taken down. similarly, the-not similarly, the utility systems in the building were allowed to deteriorate to the point where the building wasn't operational because the roof leaked. it
8:03 am
hadn't been fixed in 38 years. all the utility systems were down. i'm wondering if the city even though this isn't a landmark could have in perhaps in other cases it do things to treat the building properly or require the owner to treat it properly. for example, make sure that the building inspection department checks to make sure it is cared for properly and when somebody who is owner of a building wants to put in the wrong windows and wrong doors and wrong deckations to tell them no that doesn't work. it is interesting because on ocean avenue we have at 1400 ocean a plebeian produce market that closed and now is rehabilitated and in that case the planning
8:04 am
department step in and said okay, this building is more than 40 years old, we are going to work with you to make sure you rehabilitation and take care of it correctly. it is not a landmark, it will never be a landmark but the city took care of the building because it i guess they wanted to or the planning department. this should have been done with the el rey, it would have been helpful around. but where we are with the church not there so we are able to landmark, that is a great thing for the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. at this time we will take pub luck comment on the item. i have two speaker cards. john goldman. >> flaub [inaudible] representing the owners. [inaudible] as soon as we got
8:05 am
the building we started doing repairs and that building [inaudible] it was completely-mold was growing and took permit and removed the mold and we are in the process working with planning to see what [inaudible] we have no objection with it. >> thank you. mr. goldman did you want to speak as well? >> john goldman of goldman architects. work wg the owners to figure the best way to restore this building. i'm a huge timothy fluger fan and collecting industrial design for 30 years and been a member the art deco society on and off. i have ever book about fluger and had this for years. i have been a huge fan of fluger. modarrin is my favorite style so if anyone is worried about my respect for
8:06 am
the building, don't be. my goal along with the owners is figure the best way to restore the building back to what fluger had. his original drawings exist. a lot of the details facade exists. is covered up over the years by bad renovation and the store fronts are not the way they should be. the marquee is gone and the tower. all the details have been either hidden or removed, but my idea is try to get it back to the way it was in 1931 to the extent possible. i love the building and owners love the building and will do right by the building and very much in favor the proposed landmark status. we are looking at state and federal landmark status. we like the idea the tax credit and using the historic building code so
8:07 am
see major advantage for the project. just to emphasize, very excited about this. i want to put the building back the way it was. if you have any questions i'm available. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak, if so please come forward. seeing and hearing none we will close public comment and bring back to the commission. commissioners. comments, questions, a motion? >> i move to initiate the landmark status based on the staff recommendation. this is very exciting and wonderful to hear the testimony sof the owner and architect and the art deco society. it is very thrilling. >> i second. >> great. >> just a question. could the owners-maybe do gap museum there in the corner? that would be nice. i'm very encouraged the owner and architect are here and because it really takes a good owner
8:08 am
who wants to be a steward to bring a building back and in the last number of years a number of owners who have been very excited and done really amazing jobs restoring and reusing their building, so thank you and look forward to seeing what comes of it. >> we have a motion and second. >> there is motion and second to initiate landmark designation. hasz, yes, johnck, yes. mat sutda, yes. hyland, yes. >> item 9. 246, 1 st street. >> tim fry, i would like to introduce you to john zimer the
8:09 am
newest member of the preservation staff. john recently moved to the bay area after working for the minnesota department of transportation where he reviewed transit projects in the twin cities region to make sure they complied with section 106. he also served as a project review manager prior to that for the ohio shipo. in that capacity he handled section 106 compliance and reviewed historic rehabilitation tax credit projectsism a graduate of university of pennsylvania historic preservation program and join me welcoming him to the deparchlt. >> you have to have people named jonathan. >> jonathan zimer, department staff. the application before you is request for major permit to alter for building upgrades. located at the intersection of 1 sf and tehama the property is
8:10 am
adjacent to the ramp from freemont street to to thbay bridge. designed in 1929 by heny #3450iers in the art modan style, a division was used and detailed facade facing first street. the reinforced con crete building and stucco and con traet industrial windows and arches by fluted piaster and decorated freeze with motifs along the parapit. it is active use of office space serving as a office and printing shop for phillips and van orden printing company. the scope of the project consists of interior and exterior alterations outlined the project plan and case report. staff determined with the recommended conditions the proposed work will be in conformance with article 11 and secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation.
8:11 am
specifically, exterior work and seismic reinforcement are proposed compatible with the defining features. the mez zeen preserves the character defining entry and double height space at the north oop east corner, recessed 20 feet and 6 feet from tehama. the floor slab will be minimized or glass railings [inaudible] materials at the interior. the new roof deck and elevator penthouse are reversible in nature and minimally if visible the deck will be located along secondary elevation. in kine steel windows will replace the north loading dock and [inaudible] with matching finishes to provide compatibility. the new expanded mez zeen will increase the building floor to area ratio. while minor les than 10
8:12 am
percent the floor area and located in the building envelope, the increase is typically not allowable for the planning code as it is article 11 building. however, section 128 c-2 of the code states transferrable development rights may be transferred to a building provided the historic preservation commissionfides the expanded space through the use of tdr can make seismic enforcement of the building economically feasible. the upgrades achieve conformance of the california building code without deminshs character defining featureoffs the building while the structural stability will better protect the resource during the next seismic event thmpt voluntary upgrades are made financially possible through increased value of the building. commitment to the previvation of the phillips and van orden
8:13 am
building is exempifyed by project sponsors agreement to hire a consultant. our recommendation based on this analysis the project approve with the following conditions of approval. one, a full mock up or partial cut of windows at the south facade for review and approval prior to ish united states of site permit. two, a full mock up or partial cut of new windows proposed of the panel above the north loading dock provided to preservation staff for review or removal. three, a material sample for the exterior of the new elevator penthouse be provided to preservation staff for review and apruchbl prior to issuance of the site permit. four, landmark designation
8:14 am
report and associated documentation for the phillip squz van orden building be completed for laering and action by historic preservation commission within 6 mupths of planning department approval of site permit or architectural addendum. since the commission packets were distributes rchbed no letters of support. one from the project sponsor pry to the packets and no known opposition. [inaudible] studio team t and other members the sponsors team are here to provide background on the evolution of the proposal. this conclude my presentation and available for questions. >> i have a quick question about the condition of approval. just curious, this condition of approval requires action by the planning department. it seems smaum unusual. the owner has no control over this condition. >> sorry, which condition? >> the condition about the
8:15 am
designation is completed within 6 months. >> just they submit the report. >> the owners are submitting the report? >> that is correct. >> we want the report submitted within 6 months of approval. >> okay , thank you. >> as soon as you start speaking sfgtv will go to the kreen. screen. >> my name is [inaudible] studio c team and the architects for the project and like to get cim to introduce the team to you.
8:16 am
>> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your time and consideration today. john burin vice presidents development for cim group. we are a real estate investor and developer located in los angeles. we invest in projects in urban locations across the united states including southern california, northern california, chicago, new york, austin, denver. multiple locations. we invest in older buildings, we invest in new buildings and also develop ground up. we have multiple-we have been in northern california, the san francisco bay area for over 10 years with multiple investments and multiple projects. we are currently owners of multiple projects, number 30 on third street, 7 on market street.
8:17 am
330, townsend, 340 townsend. we are a investor in the bay area in san francisco in particular and happy to be here and be working on these very significant historical buildings and hopefully soon to be historical dedicated as well. so, with that being said, i don't want to spend too much time and pass to the team of consultant and architects and let them run through the project in more detail. we have historical architect can arg sera haun. our structural engineer [inaudible] and land use council john cevlen with [inaudible] so, we spent the last few years work wg planning staff working on our plan for this biltding. we really view if as a exciting opportunity. it is a gorgeous building. it
8:18 am
is in a wonderful location. it is our hope that we have come up with the right motivation and plan to upgrade that protects all the beautiful features of the building but also brings it up to the requirements for modern tenants and uses. we are encouraged that we have the recommendation of staff and worked hard to try to find the right mix to earn that recommendation and we are here to answer any questions you have. with that, i'll pass it on to chris. thank you. >> i just want to take you through the slide show a little further. so, this is the front facade on 1 s street. the lots is 75 feet wide by 182 feet #2c50e7. right now it consists of 5 stories and a basement.
8:19 am
the roof night accommodated the penthouse and some mechanical equipment. the basement in the building right now has pg & e volts and existing office use. the ground floor has a mezzanine of 2600 square feet in it. from a historic resource evaluation this is the [inaudible] designed by henry h myers. arg was retained by a gup to analyze and evaluate the project and confirmed it is within the secretary of standards. they established it is eligible for designation as a san francisco landmark. from a redevelopment standpoint, what we are proposing to do here is we want to add a new floor within the existing two story ground floor space. it
8:20 am
is approximately 21 feet so asking for additional square footage there. we are planning to retain-there are existing mezzanine in the building originally from 1921. on 1 st street we will integrate in the new floor. new windows replacing the loading dock on the north side and there are vents we like to replace which were added at a later point. on the south side the building facing the offramp we want to improve the facade and add windows mpt it makes the facade look inviting. secondly, it also provides a good opportunity to allow the building to become seismically much more friendly. by that i mean we have a structural engineer so will let him explain what that will do for the building. the building
8:21 am
lobby and stair will be retained. the only area we are attaching is the snon hois toric freight and passenger elevators. they will be replaced and out of date and in the wrong spots. the new tenet roof deck we are proposing for hopefully a fairly nice tenant. there will be elevator access, the penthouse and new sky lights allow light to the top floor. we consulted with the planning department and the project is with the planning department about a year or so. they asked us to consider recommendations for the original proposal. this goes back to the set back. on the north side the set back for the new windows of the arinlinal loading dock door location, the original loading dock if we look at photographs was recessed further into the building so that is what we
8:22 am
have done. they also determined that it would be better if we have clear glass on the new windows to match the existing and that is what we are proposing here. this slide you will kind of see what-it difficult but you see there are two floor plans. the one on the right is the shows the new extend of the second floor within that two story space. and this is a artistic rendering. on the right side that illustration is tuhamea street have and we are standing at the front door on 1 st street. the idea is you can't tell that there is a second story within the space from the exterior. this is a diagram really showing the old loading dock which is on the north side
8:23 am
sthof building. the loading balk we think was added sometime around the 80's and there is existingventilation louvers installed for make up air for the space at that time and want to restore that back to what it originally would have had. this illustration shows what we want to do on the south side. right now that is a blank facade. there was a building there at one point. this was a party hall and now that that adjacent building is gone and the ramp is in place we want to add windows. this is quickly looking on the inside. this is the area which are historical which is the existing lobby. we are not changing anything here and we are also maintaining the determined that the handrails are historical so maintaining
8:24 am
those. this shows the extent the roof deck which is fairly substantial but we think it is a great area for tenants. the building originally interesting enough was designed to have 4 stories added to it so this was a easy thing for us to do. this will show a artistic rend ering of the tenant roof deck. there is a wall on the right hand side acting as a screen to hide the dpisting mechanical equipment on the roof. and that brings us to the end of thiz presentation. we have structural engineer if you have questions regarding structural issue. >> we have any structural questions, commissioners? thank you. so, at this time seeing no further questions from the commissioners we will take public comment. any member wish to comment? if so please come forward. seeing and laering none we will close
8:25 am
public comment. commissioners comments questions, motions? >> i move we approve with conditions. >> okay. >> second. >> i think it is well done. very well done. >> excellent. >> if there is nothing further there is a motion and sec. commissioner hasz, yes, johnx, yes, matsuda, yes, hyland, yes. hyland. the motion passes 6 to 0. >> thank you. >> that places on item 10 for case 2016-007911 ocoa carm carmelita street. >> shelly [inaudible] preserveization staff. located in the land park district
8:26 am
between recaller and the park. the home was biment in 1898. the building was altered at a unknown date to the current classical revival style. the proposed project is install a garage at the ground floor level. this will involve removing several non character defining windows at the basement level and installing a curb cut in the driveway. it also involves modifying the existing concrete wall at the front property line. staff find the praumgect complies and cause minimal change tooz the form of the building. garage installation are common altderations in the landmark district. they do not detract from the character of the streetscape or setting of the district. the majority of properties on the subject street are altered with similar
8:27 am
garage installations and the quality of the door and minimal width of the garage door and driveway make it compatible with the character of the building. staff recommends approval without modification and the project sponsor is here to walk through the project plan and answer any questions you have about the design. >> when you speak sfgov- >> you may want to turn it sideways. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is aaron [inaudible] the project engineer for this proposed
8:28 am
garage addition. just to further on sherys input to you guys, [inaudible] hired to help install a garage and be respective of the character in the historic nature of the building in this historic district. i like to thank mrs. [inaudible] for her assistance and she is very helpful to us in making this process happen. we understand the symmetry involved here and trying to make sure we are matching the symmetry to have a functional garage at the same time and sensitive to had nature the materials that are being proposed. i'm here to answer any questions you may have regarding any of the materials or any the technical
8:29 am
information, so--let me knee. know. >> thank you, commissioners any questions? no. thank you very much for your presentation. at this time we will take public comment. any member wish to speak on this matter? seeing and hearing none we will close public comment. commissioners comments, questions, motion. >> motion to approve. >> looks great to me. acceptable. very acceptable. >> i this can we have a motion from commissioner hyland-- >> on the motion to approve this matter hasz, yes. johnck, yes. matsuda, yes. pearlman, yes. hyland, yes. wolfram, yes. the motion passes 6-0. places on item 11 ab and c for case number 217-000093 lbr at
8:30 am
fort mesen center legacy business. 2017-0000147 lbr 1301 howard street. 2017-0000144 lbr, 2140 polk street >> des rea smith planning department staff. before you are three legacy business nominations and applications submitted to the planning department december 19 and ready for your recommendation. all applications are reviewed by the office of small business prior to transmit tal. packets contain a draft resolution for each business outlines features and traditions associated with the success of each business. the first application is for flax art and design, third generation family owned art
8:31 am
supply store that served san francisco since 1938. offering the largest section of arts and crafts supply flax is referred to as a candy store for the creative. the business reloteed a number of times throughout the history and the store reechbtly moved to oakland after the lease market street location ended. however, the business retains a present in san francisco at its 5,000 square foot space to serve san francisco students artist, diw and hobbyist. staff find flax art and design met the criteria for listing on the registry. the next is for rollo san francisco inc. selling high end mens year in unisex fashion since 1986. stores in the castro and south of market the business attracts locals and visitors with locally designed and
8:32 am
international fashion. mens fashion magazine named rollo one of the top 50 inflenseal mens stores. rougher toog the store as ground zero for fresh mens fashion. it has a history support thg local lgbt community. staff find rolo san francisco inc. met the criteria for qualifying for the registry. the last application is real food company, a independent business selling organic foods in the russian hill naerbd. the business prides serving as a ink bater for up squ and coming company squz operates in the 1930 med tainian style commercial building. staff finds the business qualifys in general for listing on the legacy business registry because it meets minimum eligibility criteria, but there are outstanding questions how the
8:33 am
business meets criteria 2 relating to continued significance to the community and 3, relate thoog the ability to carry on the traditions that define the legacy. this concludes my presentation and happy to answer questions you may have. >> commissioner pearlman? >> the last thing you just said about real foods, could you explain what those issues are? >> sure. so, i believe it is on page 7 of your packet. we discussed-page 8 under criteria 2 relating to the business contribution the the community. the application didn't provide
8:34 am
any news articles or any additional evidence other than the application to or letters of support to qualify or substantiate the claims to the significance to the community. it has been there for a number of years, it meets all the basic eligibility criteria, and as part of the application we do list their website and different social media websites so based on our research our review of that information it does appear there is questions negative comments and reviews about the business that have questioned its current ability to maintain the traditions that made it successful historically, so that is one of the issues that we are raising. >> thank you. further
8:35 am
questions? >> so you are not recommending it for legacy? >> we believe it meets the basic minimum eligibility criteria and one of the inthofent legacy business program is to assist businesses in continuing to offer high level of service so we think the legacy business program could provide that assistance in help thg business improve upon its currents level of service. >> you have spoken to the real foods people to ask them to submit additional information? >> we have been work wg the legacy business program manager who asked-assisted the business owner in putting together the application, so they are aware of our concerns and feel
8:36 am
similarly about the legacy business program could assist the business in- >> you mean the legacy business staff has similar concerns as you? i'm not understanding. >> the legacy business program manager expressed that they have a similar belief that the program can assist-provide needed support to the business. >> can assist them? >> right. >> so they are supporting this? >> yes. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> at this time we will take public comment. any member of the public wish to speak on this? if so please come forward. >> good afternoon. my name is howard flax with flax art and design, my grantdfather started the business in 1938. i
8:37 am
completed the application before you so want today give you the opportunity to ask any questions. there is one item not in the application because it happened receiptly and that was last week i was standing on the stepoffs the city hall are w the executive director of sf beautiful and we were presenting awards to 5 different artist selected to participate in the muni arts program so they will have the art work displayed on 100 muni buses going on display this week through april. i wanted to bring that to your attention as a example of the type of involvement and commitment to the arts community flax has taken with our new location in fort mason center we continue to be intergle in the arts community in san francisco. we will be lawnered to be registered as a legacy business in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. any other member
8:38 am
of the public or sponsor of the legacy business wish to come forward and speak? come forward now. >> good afternoon, commissioners. richard curillo with the legacy business program. i just wanted to say i feel strongly in support of all three of the applications eke whael including real foods company. a lot of time and effort goes into putting the applications together. i held this one back for a few weeks to make sure we understood the entire real foods company, the entire history och the company since there are multiple store squz got split up into different companies so we did spend a lot of time putting this one together and feel strongly that it meets the criteria for the legacy business program and will fit in with the other businesses that have been approved through
8:39 am
the process. so, that is it if dwrou you have question i ask answer them but appreciate your support on all three application. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak? seeing and hearing none close public comment and bring back to the had commissioner. commissioner pearlman. >> one thing that we may want to focus on when this comes before the cultural heritage committee and then in front of all of us, is flax to me presents a funny issue in this program about the location relative to the business. which to me are completely separated y. have been a fan of flax's for as long as i lived here, which is about-i realize it is about half my life. and i think it is absolutely 100 percent a legacy business for san francisco, but they only been at 40 mason for a year and
8:40 am
a half and clearly the space itself is not a attribution of their success or it doesn't relate to them specifically because any particular business could fill that particular space. so, i want to vote 100 percent behind a business like flax, but wondering if we review when the space that it is in matters or doesn't matter thmpt toy boat caf e, the space matters because all the things in the space make up the character of that business and makes it charming and gives it a lot of power in its history in that location with that stuff. but recollect in many cases the space they are in is meaningless relative to the character and cultural asset they are. the businesses to san francisco. it is just
8:41 am
something i-in terms of refining this because in the application it talks about the space that it is in and of course fort mason is historic space and that is great and well and good and wouldn't deny it but there is no real nexus between fort mason and flax in termoffs the history of san francisco and history of flax as a business here. >> other businesses that have moved- >> isn't it part of the legislation- >> yes, it is part of the legislation and we did attempt to make that clear in the list of features that are associated with each business. asia see sometimes they are physical features and other times it is more about the traditions or practices of that establishment and maybe that is something we could be more clear about in our case reports because it is certainly not the program is not to hinge upon just physical
8:42 am
fabric of the business. >> commissioner johnck. >> you know, on the real food company, there is more than one location, is there not? isn't there multiple locations of real food? >> currently there is polk street location and in the past there were a number of other locations but those were sold off or closed. >> stanyan street- >> i thought in the marina too. >> the union street one. >> this is polk street. >> the polk street location is what we are looking at. there were other stanyan street-not sure-there were a number that were sold to a different company and the name changed. >> you know if there is relationship to the real food on 24th street closed for 15 years?
8:43 am
>> yes, i think that was one of the ones that was closed. >> what a waste of space. >> i just want to say i endorse the social mission of these businesses too. >> commissioner matsuda. >> i just wanted to clarify that the legislation says and/or about the location and i think that is a important theme because flax is really important member of our community in san francisco so to me i don't care where it is, i will go. >> commissioner hyland. >> i support it as well and glad to see they still exist. i did christmas shopping and noticed you were not there. on market street and valencia.
8:44 am
[inaudible] is not in the original location. >> do we all feel we have enough information about real food to- >> i feel- >> i feel uncertain. >> can the person-can you come up and provide us a little more information about real foods? the place i go to often, but i want to know your thoughts about this. >> the history? it has a very rich history. that was included thip application of the owner so was a big part the application. they did have multiple stores in san francisco and then also in the bay area and those got sold off so the ones you mentioned on stanyan and 24th street those are sold to a pharmaceutical and we had to
8:45 am
trace where the business went so it ended up with the current applicant and polk street and also in the marina and the marina closeed a few months ago. we feel it adds to the neighborhood and it is a important business in the neighborhood and has a rich history. >> mrs. smith expressed reservations and shared those with you and you then went back to the owner to talk about the reservations? >> the reservations were expressed a few days ago but felt strongly about the application being on par with the ones we provided in the past. some applications have articles. we try to get those when we can. i scoured through the internet and tried to find those. this is similar to valencia whole foods which came through very recently. they didn't have letters of support or articles in that application either and it was a similar store just in a different neighborhood so think it was
8:46 am
very much the equivalent to that but more so because of the rich history the business. i feel comfortable having this one go forward today and don't feel any differently with this application then i do with any of the others. >> mrs. smiths, just to clarify, you okay with this? sorry, because you expressed these reservations. >> i #234ds it could be confusing but we are recommending approval. we wanted to nolet the concerns based on our research. we are able to find online it has seem customers have with the recent change in ownership and quality of service so as the application moves forward to the office of small business and small business commission that are aware of the concerns and maybe it is something that through technical assistance of
8:47 am
the business side of the program that this particular business can benefit from that. >> maybe mr. fry when we have that discussion we can also include a situation like this in that and talk it through. >> commissioner hyland. >> quickly, it reminds me with the debate on prop j and the notion that the legacy business would be enacted to support viable businesses and those that might be threatened so this is potentially on the boarder. >> so, do we have a motion? >> i make the motion tosupport them all. >> okay. >> there is motion that is seconded to adopt remations of approval for all three proposed
8:48 am
legacy business applications. commissioner hasz, yes. johnck, yes. matsuda, yes. pearlman, yes. hyland, yes. wolfram, yes. the motion passes 6 to 0. >> i think we will take a break before the next item. >> very good, commissioners. >> we can reconvene at 2:30, >> we are ready to start again. >> good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco historic preservation for wednesday january 18, 2017. remine members to please silence your mobile devices that may sound during the proceedings. commissioners, we left off under the regular calendar on item 12 for twechbt 14-0001204 cwp. street light alternative design for van ness avenue. informational presentation. >> preservation staff. you probably noticed there are two
8:49 am
items on your agenda for the van ness brt project. the first is a nrfckzal item. the project team will give information for alternative for street lights long the van ness avenue corridor. the alternative came out discussion with the public and board of supervisors to explore the original design you approved november 2015. i will turn it over to peter [inaudible] the projethleet lead for the brt project. >> good afternoon commissioners. peter [inaudible] the sfmta projethmanager on van ness improvement project and will take you through a short presentation. what we looking at with the new street lights.
8:50 am
so, as i'm sure everyone who works in the building is aware, the van ness avenue is backgonebone of civic center life in san francisco and one the most important thorough fairs cecktding the reej nch. the project will make the street more acsisable for everyone through the first rapid transit. utility maintenance and improvements including repaving of the street, replacing waterline jz sewer lines that are over 100 years old and insure thg future reliability and public improvements like more sufficient street lighting and new sidewalk squz landscaping. the existing trolley poles and don't meet codes and must be replaced. the poles date to 1914 to support the street car that connected the civicsenter
8:51 am
to pan pacific. the cast iron, the spiral bracket jz deckative bases date to 1936 when van ness was widened for the golden gate bridge. over the years menee poles and parts are replaced and all the light fixtureed were replaced in the 80 and 90's. the restoration orph4 existing trolley poles is being-will be discussed on the colander item. the modern design approved by caltrans san francisco arts commission and historic preservation commission 0268. a resolution unanimously passed by the board of supervisors september 20,
8:52 am
2016 asked the sfmta to make all efforts to preserve the street lamps through reuse of replication. the project staff is developing the detailed design scope of work and budget and timeline the work. new street light require new approval from the sf arts commission and historic preservation commission thmpt project staff developed 3 options. option one is the ocs pole approve bide the modern street and pedestrian lights and not a-it does want replicate historemment saidism option 2 is a hybrid historic design can straight design. the ocs poles have a tear drop street light and pedestrian
8:53 am
lights and future historic scroll bracket and decorative finials as well as clam shell base. option three is a hybrid historic design with a curved arm like option 2 the pole has a tear dropped street light and features a historic scroll bracket and deckative finials and clam shell base. i will show renders to give you a idea of what the street might look like with each of these designs in place. this first view shows the modern lights enfront of the upper plaza build{residential unit. this is little further down-south from the street in front of the
8:54 am
state building. the next view shows the same view but with the street trees included, which would continue to be along the sidewalks and length the corridor. one more view and a final view. this final view shows with all the new plantings and median and street trees. i will show the same street views and vendersion vendorings of the historic street arm. and down by the
8:55 am
state building andthone with the street trees in place to give you a idea of what the final product will look like. and finally, a view with all the planted median and plantings in place. finally, the new-the third option with hybrid historic design with a curved lamp arm. and finally, again with all the plantings in
8:56 am
place. the next steps for this alternative trolley light poles the project team finalized design details in the budget and present the option to the various stakeholders and seek approval the preferred option as needed. thank you for your time and i happy to try to answer any questions you might have about this. >> quick question. so, what is the approval process. is in who is make ing the-does the board of supervisors have vote on this? >> the approval process isn't entirely clear. this is outside the normal process so the first step would be to go back to the member thofz board of supervisors who expressed
8:57 am
interest and various community groups and make sure we have their support with whatever option we move flward with and then try in a expedited fashion replicate the approval process we wept through originally which is coming to you and the arts commission for review and approval of the design. there isologist the minor matter ohaving to plug the budget hole since the two options are somewhat more expensive than the original design. >> thank you. commissioner pearlman rsh did you have a question? >> yeah, are these in addition to-i can't remember the light fixtures you had originally in the design, the modern ones, are the trolley wires attached to those? >> yes. >> so do these replace those? there is a attachment at the top of the finial of a historic looking one as well?
8:58 am
>> yes, it is probably below the lamp arm because thee are taller. the trolley lines will attach to the new poles. >> i remember one of our conversations we taurked talked about the duplication and clutter so this won't create a additional street impediment. >> i have a question for the commission as well as for you. these are the two schemes that you are exploring and you are geing to go through the process and come back with the recommendation of one of these two, is that what i snds understand, >> there are 3. >> that is a earlier rendition where we had a rep licka historic and the modern one. we got a second historic with a straight arm instead of a curved arm. the designs-- >> so the question for the commission is would it be appropriate for us to apine on this now as opposed to them
8:59 am
going through the process and bringing back their selection for us to apine. >> i think we should apine it right now. >> i can wait until after public comment. >> okay. any other questions? thank you, we'll take public comment at this time. at this time does any member of the public wish to comment? if so please come forward. >> jonas is there cards? >> good afternoon members the commission, mike bouleer with sf heritage. i just like to express our appreciation for mta staff's willingness to engage in this dialogue with not only heritage but other members the coalition who you will hear from today. um, as stated by peter in the testimony, the board of supervisors resolution urged
9:00 am
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 presented, but do think there is room for improvement and your input would be a benefit.
9:01 am
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 that doesn't exist xair else in the country and think it will be a grave mistake to put
9:02 am
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 who needs them and thankfully [inaudible] and her friends put a measure on the ballot that
9:03 am
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 everybody's else and what makes san francisco geographically and historically significant? one of the big reasons people
9:04 am
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 don't realize what a beautiful street it is. it has much
9:05 am
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 with the new street light design we are talking about, the current ones, the tear
9:06 am
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 for recognizing the historic significance of van ness avenue as the main transporter to the
9:07 am
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 established. and now brt. by preserving this historic
9:08 am
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 is. there is one just remaining piece of it that i like to present. you know with you look at either prominent
9:09 am
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 for the remnant ones or marking ones, but this ability that i
9:10 am
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. we can do a lot better. we have done a lot better. they
9:11 am
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 approved. i'm very concerned bethat expense and time
9:12 am
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 ness corridor. now that the project has already broken ground, any delay in the
9:13 am
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 saying we have been on this particular committee for going on three years i believe and
9:14 am
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 along the van ness corridor andf is transit rider and part the van ness citizen committee
9:15 am
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. commissioner pearlman. >> these are the type of things that make me very weary and
9:16 am
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. >> i understand the process just saying rhetorically that our opinion one way or
9:17 am
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 that's kind of a knee jerk reaction to histortism opposed
9:18 am
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 settings. >> vaninosis avenue in 2017 is radically different than van ness avenue in 1914 or 1936.
9:19 am
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 commissioners pearlman talked about the disney fiication that is what we are trying to avoid.
9:20 am
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 momentum and a project that is going on to have some new
9:21 am
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 certificate of appropriateness. >> if they stick with the current design that doesn't need oorths approval? >> correct. you have approved
9:22 am
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 ones but since it was undeer our purview and were not able to influence that and the
9:23 am
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 forward tothe spriz supervisors office but if you dont make any recommendation or
9:24 am
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 adequate information. this is informational presentation so we are not writing a letter,
9:25 am
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 front of [inaudible] in the motion of approval for the comprehensive project november
9:26 am
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 street light network. this language wasn't sited verbatim in the draft motion so you
9:27 am
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 resource group prepared a study looking at the four trolley
9:28 am
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 consistency while allow thg station at civic center to have a distinth quality. staff is
9:29 am
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 replacing the moreue utilitarian reinforced con crete poles. the pole would be
9:30 am
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 about process or how this relates to the previous item i can also answer that. >> thank you. thank you mr.
9:31 am
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 options considered proportions and visual transparency in the
9:32 am
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 space for wheelchairs. alturn tchb design placed nrfgz panels
9:33 am
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 our plan view and side view oof the boarding island with the
9:34 am
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 concrete. this would not address the issue of the rust or corrosion of the rebar within the existing concrete
9:35 am
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 poles are shared ownership between sfmta and pu c with
9:36 am
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, any questions? at this time we will take public comment. any member wish to speak on the
9:37 am
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 existing poles and installing new trolley poles which will add to the the street clutter.
9:38 am
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 concrete foundation they are in so it was considered to be basically much more cost
9:39 am
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 minimalist it is qu chi think are appropriate. on the pole, this is the difference between
9:40 am
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 of this, i think that is a very effective way to tell that story without enormous expense
9:41 am
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 doing that. is this like hugely expensive? it is a
9:42 am
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 agree with commissioner pearlman the one with the two end panels. i do actually
9:43 am
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 noisy, but--that's already
9:44 am
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. 1076 howard street. this is for review and comment. >> good fron commissioners.
9:45 am
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 submitted a maintenance plan for regular maintenance and repair the concrete exterior
9:46 am
[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 use isn't permitted nlsh in a qualified property. the
9:47 am
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 sentation. any member wish to speak on the item? seeing and hearing none we close pub luck
9:48 am
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 arch that was there and given the expense of renovating the building my question is, why wasn't it considered to just
9:49 am
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 would like to recommend that as a option. >> permission to speak.
9:50 am
>> 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 contemporary showing the building was changed over time. it was a decision that we made and i think it actually
9:51 am
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 stanards. that as a explanation doesn't hold water for me. the other thing is you
9:52 am
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 buildings integrity is compromised by this and this is a exception that wouldn't be
9:53 am
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 expense over what is here but it falling. >> there is a expense in that they will do a big store front.
9:54 am
>> 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. >> it would be in this case
9:55 am
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 flexibility towards basically adjusting the entryway if they need to.
9:56 am
>> 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. >> add a condition to the resolution.
9:57 am
>> 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 facade to 21 century standeruds with mirrored door on the west end of the fusought.
9:58 am
>> 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] planning department staff. project manager for central soma plan. thanks for having
9:59 am
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 because people demand walking qu exciting nairbld neighborhood said 6789 san
10:00 am
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 and abundance of land. much of the land is industrial zoned so there is a lot of parking lot
10:01 am
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 sustainable neighborhood and nolt compromise the future generations to meet the needs. social environmental eand
10:02 am
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 trees and aminities for people who need to be in nature or any greenness what so ever. there
10:03 am
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 33 percent affordable housing. industrial loss of pdr space.
10:04 am
$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. diversifyed and lively center. provide transportation for walking and biking to transit.
10:05 am
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 recognizes the historic social and economic value to respect
10:06 am
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 cultural heritage. of course with every good area plan the first step is see what we have
10:07 am
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 findings. red and orange there are properties identified.
10:08 am
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 or cribtory and those article 10 and 11 proposed designation
10:09 am
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 philippineas. cia venta quatro along 24th street in the
10:10 am
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 and intaskable. that goes to
10:11 am
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 amendments planning code incentives or the programs i mentioned before. maybe spend
10:12 am
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 benefit for central soma that
10:13 am
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. the city whide team led by steve worthhime has done a great job identifying areas
10:14 am
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 update on the work we have been doing on cultural heritage districts. one of the exciting directives of the plan is to
10:15 am
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 housing to workers resources, health education, as well as
10:16 am
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. at this point we are very early in the development of a worker group. hopefully to be
10:17 am
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 this commission and planning commission and board and mayor. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners,
10:18 am
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 is also proposed for landmark designation as part the plan. but it certainly is a area
10:19 am
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 around the south end area are identified within the public realm as part of the working
10:20 am
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? >> on the flower mart, that site-jessica [inaudible] planning staff. it may qualify
10:21 am
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. supervisoring the environmental review for the central soma plan environmental impact report or eir. the item fwrf
10:22 am
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 finding to historic resources. the central soma plan could
10:23 am
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. so, in other words, if anyone wishes to comment on the eir at todays hearing they will not be
10:24 am
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 i didn't get your name. >> jessica range. >> thank you. you talked about
10:25 am
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 potential for any new project to come in under the central
10:26 am
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? >> commissioner pearlman just as a point of clarification the fine grained areas are not considered resources for the
10:27 am
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 will result into impacts on any historic resources without having more detailed
10:28 am
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 are adding to a article 10 district? >> correct. >> so it does not assume
10:29 am
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 mitigation that we can apply to help offset the historic resources. the central soma
10:30 am
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 exappening projects. it isn't to say all the mitigations
10:31 am
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 point looking at the resources
10:32 am
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. >> if there is nothing further we can move on to item 17. we
10:33 am
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 and [inaudible] hall. and as you know the initiation for the
10:34 am
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 article 10 and 11 designation we established the following performance measures. one is to prepare the designation
10:35 am
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 upon their completion within 30 days for the elrey theater
10:36 am
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 ready to be installed they just need a permit. >> does that require that to be in the same spot on each-
10:37 am
>> 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. >> commissioner hyland. are >> on the list now are there
10:38 am
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 are community driven? >> the elrey theater is probably the most along in the
10:39 am
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 comment. a member wish to speak? seeing and hearing none we will close public comment. any follow up questions for mr.
10:40 am
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] good aftern 2:40 p.m. this is is special meeting of the time special meeting and special meeting time felt investment and infrastructure the successor


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on