the special sign district with the following modifications, that the masonic sign not be taller than 20 feet. i don't want to set a high. do we have to have the ordinance? >> [inaudible] president olague: no taller than 15 or no taller than -- i don't know if you can use that language or not. commissioner sugaya: i think the commissioners understand that we like to have more work and going

on between the project sponsor and staff. and a preference is for something that can come out on the sidewalk if it is possible. it is much slimmer, like a column. the projecting signs, and isn't that right? the copy is by staff. i'm going to include

[unintelligible] the large lettering on the screen itself. president olague: i think everyone was good until the last piece. do we have a second? >> without a second, the motion dies. president olague: i will make my comments brief. i like where sugaya was going, but i am not ready to accept the last part of it. i think a lot of the comments that we may hear, -- we made here regarding the fsaesthetics,

i like the way that there is a more subdued approach to the size image -- signange. -- signage. i used to live by terra vista, that neighborhood. the issues around the parking lot can be very confusing. another thing that is confusing, it is a 1-way street. i am not sure what can be done to inform people or alert people to the fact that it is a one-way street. that is just a thought. maybe at some point, someone would think of a creative way for making sure it is a more prominent piece of information that people who drive get.

there are people that end of the runway or go the wrong direction all the time. it may attract more shoppers, and we see an intensification of traffic. just in terms of safety. i know the neighbors are concerned with people going through the neighborhood. i think it is needed because of this kind of a confusing place. i think i generally agree with what people said. i am not so married to the height because there has to be some way of alerting drivers there.

commissioner antonini: i am going to make a motion that is very similar to that of commissioner sugaya, to repeat the sign entry sign at masonic be limited to 20 feet. that the four-blade signs along gary b of a size shown smaller, and that copy be vertical. that the decorative screens have muted colors. if the directional sign does not exceed 15 feet with a movement towards narrowing of the lakes with better placement. perhaps it may allow of low or high.

that would be my motion. president olague: that does include working with staff. commissioner miguel: i do not think the screen should have any color. what a single land tone is nearly invisible? >> maybe we can clarify what we are dealing here today. >> the screens are not considered a sign. the correction of a conditional use is to continue to work with staff.

does the wall side applied to the screen? -- sign apply to the screen? president olague: commissioner miguoore? commissioner moore: i would like to be particular attention being given to screens like floating elements. a frames are attachments be invisible to the front elevation of the building, it can be easily done. they are quite capable of doing that. i would agree with the commissioners that he tonality of those letters be very much blend wited with the building. it is an exact contradiction of

what we are trying to do. commissioner sugaya: i will support the motion. i just did not want to compromise -- anyway, never mind. >> you have a motion on the floor to approve this recommendation. you have some modifications, a slimmer basis. i'm not sure of this. i think it's muted screen colors. president olague: that's what i'm hearing. >> you wanted the placement and

visibility of the science, you watched the staff to continue working. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. president olague: aye. >> that motion passes unanimously. president olague: we will take a president olague: we will take a 15 minute recess. >> the planning commission is back in session. you are on item number six. the san francisco museum of modern art expansion, a fire station and location housing project. i will just remind everyone to turn off yourself loans, pagers, and electronic devices.

the front row is generally reserved for staff, so we will ask you to find a seat behind you. thank you. >> the purpose of today's hearing is to take public comment on the adequacy, accuracy, and completeness of the draft environmental impact report for the sentence as the museum of modern art expansion. no approval action is requested at this time. as described the, the project entails the following. the building of a 200 ft tall 230,000 square foot expansion to

the existing museum of modern art. demolition of the vacant building, relocation of fire station number one to that site, and construction on the front 2/3 of the law. -- of the lot. the planning department prepared an environmental impact report because it would have a significant impact on the environment. the draft eir found that the existing fire station are both eligible for the california register of historic places. fire station no. 1 was determined to contribute to a historic district comprised of midcentury fire stations. the demolition would not be significant because the same era would not preclude this district from conveying historic significance.

the draft and determined that the industrial building is eligible for listing on the california register with potential historic resources with the events, in this case, the rebuilding of south of market. they found demolition of the folsom street building would be significant and unavoidable as an environmental impact. the department held a hearing at the preservation commission to discuss this. they elected not to prepare written comments, so i will summarize points for the record. they found it at a quick and the approach to project alternatives was correctly sufficient. they questioned the findings relative to the historic status and felt that it retained enough integrity to be considered a historic resources.

staff published in this draft on july 11, 2011, and it has a 45- day public review. . -- review period. they submit their comments to the planning department. by 5:00 p.m. on august 25. members of the public that are here today, please state your names for the record and the state about the adequacy or completeness of this report. when is complete, the department will provide copies for those that made comments. this concludes my presentation. president olague: i will open it

up for public comment. we have three speaker cards. >> good afternoon, we are a neighborhood association from third street to sixth street. and basically in taking a look at this as best we can, our neighborhood concerns with the new fire department going yen are really about traffic, noise, and whatever can be done to mitigate those issues. given that the fire department will be there and doing the best we can. it looks like that there will

not be a traffic signal put in which we had thought was on the work to be done. we feel that this is a significant tool that can be used for the fire department and the neighborhood to control traffic when fire alarms are going off. also with regard to noise, who were first told by the folks that we met with that they would potentially be putting in a special rooms of the bacon to the testing of equipment in the morning is that they will be doing seven days a week at 8:30. we are told it is not feasible and we think there should be another stab at looking at that. in order to cut down on noise and neighbors in the immediate area. many people that live right across the alley.

people that are right next to the new fire department on a daily basis. finally, we thought there should be a bit more detail as far as the effects of sirens and the noise on the people that live there that are going to be woken up in the morning for all tellers of the day. and maybe there should be something done by the health department to look into that. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here on behalf of the owners of the the real hotel. they support expansion. recognize the benefits to the city, providing greater access to the incredible collection and

the economic benefits. we value our relationship with the museum and to want to see if thrive. because they are such close neighbors, and guests of the hotel will experience the impact of the project more than most. we want to ensure that all impact are mitigated to the extent feasible. good city planning demands this. we will be submitting written comments, but i want to highlight some of our concerns now. the draft is inefficient in a couple of areas. like traffic during the two- year period, the height and design of the expansion. first, traffic. a substantial amount of loading occurs in the museum and the existing fire station. there is no discussion, but what

happens when that area is closed off? and all of that traffic is forced through third street? as you know, these are vital corridors for traffic moving across the city. they are already very congested, particularly during the commute hours. it will literally stop traffic at key intersections of the city. this should be fully exposed -- disclosed. it dismisses impact of tel in non-public areas. 40,000 or 50,000 visitors will use the hotel rooms that directly face the project. at least 112 of the rooms will be blocked. we hear the fire department will create renderings.

we were expecting for results, -- poor results, but even we were surprised. this is a draft view. not even a sliver of sky is visible. we have no idea what the wall will look like. it is incomplete. we would like to ensure that the wall that faces vw is aesthetically pleasing -- the w is aesthetically please. ing. [chime] we ask that you take a closer look at these issues. thank you. >> my name is nancy connel- henson, we are directly behind

the site of the proposed new fire station. we are in favor of the project and the relocation. we welcome the upside in the fourth to a productive and neighborly relationship with them. we do have some lingering concerns that have not been addressed. we continue to request investigation of the from a testing room that would lessen the noise elements that are known to occur on a daily basis. recently, we asked the testing area be feasible and to meet requirements. we don't believe this has been fully investigated as an option. there needs to be much more aggressive traffic control in the vicinity. and an editor like operating at the discretion of the fire

station as needed, the upcoming construction was not taken into account were addressed. addressing these issues led not only increase public safety, but lessening air horn noise in the neighborhood. there also needs to be more outside lighting on the building itself and the surrounding lough -- lot. the neighborhood has two major concerns regarding the shipley side of the project. as the ultimate nature of the residence to be built, the proposal has been market rate residences, but this is still a large unknown. it is ironic that a project led by a major arts institution in

foods no element of public art. the expectation of the neighborhood is that there would decidedly be elements of public art included in the plan. elements were promised to the neighborhood from the onset and have since been excluded from the plan. president olague: any additional public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: thank you for your comments. i think there are some good points raised, particularly the concerns about traffic. certainly, i am supportive of further study on that. fire station no. 1 was at one time he business station in the united states with mostly medical calls that are generally problems with substance abuse.

that is something to really look at closely as the analyze this to make sure that we are properly evaluating the impact. the other issue was mitigation of some other impacts by the null right turns certainly studying, it is a great deterrent for crime. these are all things i think can be included if they are not presently addressed completely and we should look at those and make sure that they are there. >> i think it looks relatively adequate and complete. the comments regarding the relocation of the fire station are well taken and the thing

should be investigated further. normally, people that reside near fire stations after they are already in place. fire stations rarely move their locations. we are doing the opposite here. we are moving a fire station into an area with residents and it provides a different questions. originally, i am not going to by the noise issue. you're creating a totally different situation here. as for the expansion, and those that knew me, i fought it very heavily for years to key bit out of the presidio. -- to keep it out of the presidio. it is a wrongly concepted situation. having been on the board there,

fisher being on the board of moma would have been the logical place for a highly resisted by the family and those involved with how a collection for a long time. i am pleased that it is landing where it belongs. i may have additional written comments later. commissioner moore: there is a fine grain of traffic conflict. it is partially because of traffic impacting how how you crossed the third street intersection on markets. there are like cumulative impacts in all of these blocks. there were great solutions for parking their cars -- the

success of high-tech is being looked at fairly and squarely, the elements closer and further away. if we choose a corridor in the er -- yerba buena, i'm on page 139. i would ask they are moved closer right behind the marquee theater. i think they created a composition by which the layering of historic and new architecture works very well when you saw the museum of

modern art composed well with historic buildings. and we won't see that anymore. i ask that we take a slightly closer look at how the most important views. it has a lot of commercial and cultural offerings. i think it would have the addition of the expansion, there has to be a give-and-take. you can't just be the new kid on the block. -- on the block that takes it all. i am also concerned about the massive expansion on mission street. i believe we have to have a clear visualizations of what that will look like and as it

indicates, look more at the environment and clearly explain why that might be a more environmentally preferred alternative. i think the draft eir is quite well prepared. commissioner antonini: thank you. a few things to add on to the fore. -- to before. i think it is really hard to envision, you only show massing, not the design. wherever possible, we hope as this moves forward that it can be somewhat mitigated by the design, particularly on howard street where in visual context, it can address the context of height, even if it is taller, there will be a way to make that portion appear to be not as high

as it really is. i think that would be a good thing to do. i was very happy with the historical evaluation in the area. it was originally happy valley, one of the habitable areas south of market before the earthquake. there was a history there later on. 670 howard, apparently is not a historical resource. that is important to note as far as that is concerned. it is pointed out, there were 17 fire stations added in the international style in the 50's. there are plenty of them that still exist if you like that style. there are plenty you can see. we won't be losing anything as