thanks very much. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? general public comment? >> sue hester, i couldn't be here for your earlier session so i'm going talk briefly about the [inaudible] university, 10, 15, 20 years of being out of compliance with the planning code and i stress the planning code, the crepts -- planning code is way too long, i have no idea what you did in your executive session but the planning code has to move on the academy of art, it is overdue, you have had this issue before you repeatedly and we are getting frustrated, gi<

getting frustrated, i will speak for myself, i am getting frustrate -- frustrate hated the eir has been dragged on and on, it has been put off two years, you haven't enforced the basic violations of the conditional use process, and of the encroachment in what used to be a viable residential area in the lower knob hill upper tenderloin, there used to be an area at the planning commission regularly because knob hill neighbors and the planning coalition, the area down from california street where [inaudible] has camped out, so i plead with you, please bring this to a head soon because if

any institution, a for profit institution figures out that the way to gain the system is doing what academy of art is doing which is acquiring buildings and never having a hearing, never coming into compliance with the law and gutting the residential nature of the city is very wrong and i hope that you have an information item that you're going court at some point. thank you. >> thank you, any additional general public comment? seeing none, next item, please. >> thank you, commissioner, you are now on public comment on ie agenda items where the public comment has been closed. at this time, members of the

public who wish to address the commission on agenda item that is have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed must do so at this tile, each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. >> is there any public comment on item number 11? there appears to be done. >> thank you, commissioners, we now move on to consideration of findings and final actions, the public hearing for this category is closed. the item is item 11, it's case number 2012 .0033u, 218-220 buchanan street also known as 55 laguna street in-kind

agreement. >> the item before you is an intent to approve an agreement for three community improvements related to the 55 laguna development. on august 16 of this year, the commission [inaudible] passed this agreement, these are delivered and operated by high quality amenities. one amenity of walker park which is a [inaudible] while that park will be required for both residents and pass as residential uses, plazas will be located at the top of the park where east buchanan street and the bottom where it meets la naoun gaoun -- laguna street.

it will provide gardening opportunities for both resident and is the public, the garden will be located between wood hall annex, access will be provided by a gate fronting [inaudible] they will be afforded equal rights and privileges as a development resident, the final amenity will be retrofitted to accommodate a community center, wood partners will incur all costs. [inaudible] is here to answer specific questions about the specific project if you have them, thank you, and we're both available for any questions you might have. >> commissioners, before we go forward, the note says that commissioners moore and borden were absent and commissioner borden is in the room, you would need to state for the record that you reviewed the material and are prepared to

participate? >> i have reviewed the material. >> thank you. >> commissioners, any comments? >> the public hearing is closed. the matter is before you for your consideration. >> commissioner ant naoen -- antonini. >> yes, this was well done and my understanding is there is an amount that's being paid in regards to a fee that is obliged but they're satisfying that with some of the contribution, i think it's 4.2 million, it's a blended situation. >> sorry, i just want to correct you, the value of improvements are estimated to be 4.9 and they owe about 4.2, we calculated in fees so there's a slight overage and we'll be looking at that with we look at the construction. >> they gave the two different

figures, it is the satisfaction by inclined. >> they will complete their requirements. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner wu? >> move to approve. >> second. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval on ta motion, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioner, that motion passed unanimous. >> commissioners, you are on your regular calendar, item number 13, case number 2011.0705l, market street say son ri discontiguous district, market and franklin streets

between fell street, van ness avenue and valencia. >> my presentation is based on a powerpoint presentation, we ask to provide the recommendation on the landmark district consisting of 8 properties known as the market street masonry discontiguous district. the commission is requested to provide its review and comment on three items specifically. i'd like to address the consistency of the proposed designation with the policies imbedded in the general plan, the priority policies section of 101.1, particularly the provision of housing to meet the city's regional housing needs allocation and the provision of housing near transit corridors, two, to identify any amendments to the general plan necessary to facilitate adoption of the proposed designation and 3, to evaluate whether the district would conflict with the

sustainable community strategy for the bay area. further consideration by the board of supervisors will occur at a future and public hearing. immediately -- some history of the district, immediately after the earthquake and fire after 2006, thousands of temporary buildings were built throughout the burned areas, it took a few years but eventually permanent buildings made of durable materials were built, the historic preservation commission selected these 8 buildings in the proposed landmark district because of their exceptional architecture -- architectural character, they were built from 1911 to [inaudible] all are three to five storeys tall and built out

to their lot lines, most are mixed use with commercial ground floor uses and residential above. every one of the 8 buildings was designed by a master architect, several of whom were including george apple ga*rt, kenneth mcdonald received their degrees in ecole des artes. all their material features define their architectural material and with their bronze plate glass window frames, the following slides illustrate each of the 8 buildings in the proposed landmark district, 150 franklin street is an apartment

building in the c-3 g district, it was designed in 1912, on the right, 20 franklin street, is used for supportive apartments and has retail on the ground floor, also zoned c-3 g, was designed in 1911, 1649 to 51 market street is an apartment building with retail and along with the rest of the buildings is in the nct3 zoning district. it was designed by george apple ga*rt in 1912, on the right is 1667 market street which contains sro units and a vacant store front and developed in 1911, on the left, 1666 to 1668 market vaoet is a ground story retail, it was known as the

edward yan hotel until recent times, it was designed in 1913. 1670 to 80 market street is an apartment building with retail on the ground floor, designed by walter falsh in 1923. 1687 market street is the only commercial building in the proposed district, from 1925, and on the right, 1693 to 95 market street is an sro building designed in 1914. the planning department conducted outreach to the property owners, businesses and occupants of the buildings, we have a website dedicated to this project which is listed there, we did direct mail and flyers to the occupants of buildings and dropped off flyers to the businesses, we

had two public outreach meetings, we attended a presentation at the neighborhood association, we had two drop-in sessions at two of the local cafes, for owners, we had one on one meetings, to date, the planning department has received two e-mails in support and has not received any objections to it. the one property owner at 1693 market street, the hotel alan which was the last building we looked at has not responded to repeated requests including by one by certified mail to meet with the planning department. one reminder is that the proposed designation is limited to the exteriors of the buildings to protect the significant architectural features and does not have any effect on the interior or the

uses for the commercial store fronts. given that this is a proposed landmark district, the planning department tailored its designation ordinance to spell out what can be approved with an administrative certificate and section 8 on page 13 specifically lays those out and if you would like, i can go into greater detail on that. in terms of general plan consistency, historic preservation commission has recommended to the board of supervisors approval of this district, the planning department has said it appears to be consistent with the general plan and will not necessitate any general plan amendments nor conflict with regional housing or environmental sustainability policies, policy number 8, by

reck needing these buildings that served as a model in octavia, design principles for building, massing and articulation which is the illustration on the left is taken from that plan. these buildings are exactly that, so the ground floor activities contribute to life on the street and the high density residential use above the ground floor is a valuable means of activating the street and having a 24 hour presence. in the designation process, we are currently at the green box and the recommendation and the comments from the planning commission should be conveyed together with the historic preservation to the board of supervisors, a draft is available in the packet, i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you, is there any public comment on this item?

>> sue, i've been familiar with these buildings for as long as i've live ined the city and my first reaction when i saw this was hooray, these are really important buildings and they're in a very small area. with the exception of the ground floor of the edward yan and m cc roski, was at the ground level does not relate to what's above it which is housing, but these are really important buildings and i'm so glad you're taking this ship, my two concerns are, one, i want housing to remain in this area no matter what and the more affordable it is, the

better. if the ground floor supports the housing and it is interesting to look at, so much the better but how do we, and this is the second comment from myself as well as anyone else, how do we look up because the ground floors are -- shall we say uninteresting with the exception of course of the m cc ssky which is interesting on the ground floor, the ground floors are an important part of the character and i hope they are supporting the housing above. it is an important issue for

this mixed use neighborhood. if i had my ideal -- if i had all the money in the world, i'd buy these buildings up and make them permanently affordable but i don't have all the money, so i just have my wish, but when you go to other cities, particularly when you go to europe and you see buildings of this beauty and they are beautiful, above the ground floor, they generally have plaque in them and your attention is drawn to them and that's my big problem is how do you make people appreciate these buildings and they are wonderful buildings. and i'm hoping that the owners of the ground floor will figure out a way or maybe you can figure out a way. thank you very much. >> any additional public comment? >> commissioner antonini.

>> i agree with the comments and i agree that these are very consistent with the three criteria. in fact, they are the essence of the criteria of the first one is providing housing to meet the city's regional housing needs, transit corridors and my understanding is most of these buildings contain housing in the upper units almost exclusively, it's pretty much all retail, i think the rest have housing and you already said that they're consistent with the general plan for the reasons stated and then the final one was the sustainable communities and what's more sustainable than keeping what we've already got and not having to tear it down and build something new, so it seems that this is extremely well thought of and these are beautiful buildings and i agree also with ms. esther the ground floors need a little work because often we assess the

character of a building and we don't -- or maybe are distracted by its beauty by what may be going on in the first floor, perhaps not the use but works well with the building itself or is appealing in and of *it for people to be drawn to the thing but that's an ongoing process and as things hopefully begin to become more economically viable along market particularly, this part of market, these buildings will be the centerpiece and i hope they're the template of what's built to fill in the vast spaces that exist around these and we have con tech churl architecture that fits in nicely with these buildings as a model. >> commissioner borden? >> yeah, i walk by these buildings almost every day, i live a couple of blocks from here and i'm wondering if this will impact -- will it require new requirement for these

building owners typically at the ground floor level? does this provide any sort of way to -- does it provide new guidance for how they treat the ground floor and have there been tax credits or other things that can help them create better ground floors? >> becoming landmarks will allow building owners to take advantage of various tax credits through facade easement programs and the availability of the mills act. there are no other sort of direct financial incentives that the city has at this time, but the planning department staff is always available to help with design and we do frequently do story placements and having done this research, we have the original plans for a restoration program if that's available to them.

okay, we have devised a mechanism whereby store fronts are the review of alterations of store fronts are handled at a staff level through an administrator's certificate of appropriateness to minimize the importance of public hearings. >> i imagine you notified the property owners that we're doing this, will they get notification about the tax credit program because i think it miekt incentivize some of the property owners to do this, they have obscured store front levels which i know is in violation of the planning code and whether or not we can look at an enforcement around those sorts of issues.

>> the planning department did look at a few other properties, first of all, we are going to be notifying the owners of the actions taken at the various commissions. we have sent by mail a lot of information about preservation incentives and have met one on one with just about all of the owners to go over each one of those and answer any questions they had, and in terms of other buildings that could contribute to this district or could benefit from some of the things we're learning from this district, the discontiguous district, there's possible that additional buildings be add today it so long as they immediate the criteria. >> just to better understand because i have another building that i'm thinking of on the block, there's a different

style of this building and probably a different architect, but because they're in that district, do they get some of the benefits that some of the other properties are because they're in a historic district or do they have -- >> at a discontiguous district, only the building that are designated, adjacent buildings are not designated. >> great, thank you. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes, as far as the ground floor activities, maybe you can enlist former supervisor daily because he is the proprior -- proprietor of the tax tavern, so i think this is good. i think this is the first one we've done under the new ordinance, or is this a recommendation between hbc and the planning commission, i'm

particularly glad it's non-controversial and i think credit goes the planning staff on that. i had one observation when i was looking on google street view and i'm sort of familiar with the area anyway but had to refresh myself because there are a number of smaller one storey or two storey buildings in here that don't meet the criteria under this particular district, but i hope don't get lost in the process here, and i'm sure if there are activities that come along, it will be caught through the environmental review process sxr the planning staff, so i just want to have people recognize that these aren't the only buildings that i think could possibly have historic significance in this same area and i'll go ahead -- what's the proper motion, move to recommend to the board of supervisors the approval of

discontiguous marketplace. >> second. >> commissioner wu? >> i'm also supportive of the district, but being newer, i wanted to ask whether historic designation increases a property owner's cost to upkeep the building and whether or not that could be passed on to tenants? >> the cost to maintain a building should not be any different than they are currently and the rules and regulations through the rent control ordinance are not affected by designation. >> commissioner moore? >> i'd like to say that this is not only non-controversial, but i think it is looking ahead at the right time as it anticipates or precedes the envisions the process of market street. the more we really establish what's important on market street, it's not just the

paving surface and the event notes but the building that speaks to the history of market street, the form of it, something which will have a long legacy, so thank you. >> could you call the question, please. >> okay, commissioners, the motion on the floor is for approval of recommending the landmark designation for the market street masonry discontiguous district. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, the vote is unanimous for approval. commissioners, you are now on item number 14. case number 2011.0148e, minnie

and lovie ward hayfields ren novation, 650 capitol avenue, >> good afternoon, president fong, i'm [inaudible] joining me today is [inaudible] from record parks, the item before you is for the preliminary mitigated negative deck lar attesting, the project proposed by rec and park includes the replacement of a 6 acre grass turf playfield with synthetic turf, an installation of 6.1 acre public sports facility, the planning department published a pmnd, the department received an appeal letter from kelly watt ts, it includes about human health risks from the use of synthetic

turf products, exhibit a in your packet addresses each packet, similar comments as those described in this appeal for the final eir for the beech l.a. project, an appeal to the board of supervisors was filed on june 12, 2012. on july 10, 2012, the board of supervisors denied the appeal and affirmed the certification by the planning commission from a vote of 10-1, the pmnd relies on a number of studies to determine potential health risks. many of these studies were commissioned by municipalities in an effort to determine the assessed risk, n