>> borden >> aye. >> hillis? >> aye. >> sugaya. >> aye. >> and places you under the consent calendar, all items considered to be routine by the planning commission and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission and no separate discussion of these it e78s unless the member of the commission or the public requests and the matter will be removed from considered as a separate item in this or a future hearing. and item 4, case number 2012.1400 c.

>> move to approve. >> second. >> on that motion to approve all items listed under your consent calendar. >> antonini. >> aye. >> hillis. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> sugaya. >> aye. >> wu. >> aye. >> fong. >> aye. that motion passes, 7-0. >> adoptions on the draft minutes. >> is there any comment on the draft minutes? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden? >> approve the minutes. >> second. >> on that motion, to adopt draft minutes, for july 25th, 2013, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> borden. >> aye. >> hillis. >> aye. >> moore.

>> aye. >> sugaya. >> aye. >> wu. >> aye. >> fong? >> aye. >> that motion passes, commissioners. and places you under item eight. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to make a comment regarding roof top mounted equipment and that is not in relation with anything that we approved on consent, but i have generally experienced my concern that i would like the department to start developing and under basically by experience of the criteria, which deal with the visual impacts as they all to collectively as a roof scape or how we look at roofs and buildings, and when there are additions of massive roof screen structures that alters the expression of a building and i would like to just kind

of start it as a discussion and see the department engaged in considerations which they believe will help to guide this commission to make equitable decisions of approval or denial. >> commissioner antonini? >> thank you. >> a couple of things, first of all thanks to commissioner moore who brought in an article today from the chronicle, and it announces the good news that the piper painting is going, and the maxwell and the famous painting is going back behind the bar at the pied piper bar at august 22, at 6 p.m. and so i think that a lot of the credit has to do with the public's out cry when it was initially taken down and they said that it was going to be sold and that changed to it is going to be touched up and brought back and i think that was very good news.

i have a question regarding projects on piers 30 1k 32. i think that we are supposed to be seeing the draft eir in january and that is what i have heard. there was an article discussing the timing moving forward and i never heard that anything has been declayed as far as the eir was concerned, and it seemed like it has been the date that i fully served that we were supposed to be considering it and so i am not sure what else he may be speaking to in the article. >> i am not sure. but we do have that calendared at least for now. >> commissioner antonini, sorry to interrupt you, could you lower your microphone. >> i better speak up a little bit and otherwise, the secretary search subcommittee will continue to meet and will

meet again on the 11th of september. commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i ran into former commissioner yesterday, and he reminded me that i promise that i would do something about the academy of art. and i promised his wife and so i thought about it and so could we get a status report on the future memo or something? it would be fine. >> typically on it. >> no just on the academy. >> yeah. >> commissioner borden? >> yeah, there was an article in the business times about the transbay park and now that the boston property is in the and i forget the other... i can't remember the other project sponsor there and it is not and it is refusing to pay for the park and i understood in our hearings when we asked the questions about it and the main nens of the park would be under their jurisdiction and i would like to find out what is going

on there must be continuing negotiations and i feel at that hearing it was represented that they would be taking care of that park and i am frustrated to hear that there is about it now. >> commissioner moore? >> buses. the commissioner sugaya's comment triggered an ongoing frustration particularly at this time of the year where you have rogue additional disguised as shipses or whatever they are, make it almost impossible for really using transit and i am all for tourists not driving their own cars, but there has to be a way by which it all works together. and i do not want to sing aloud the bus when commissioner sugaya mentioned but that bus continues if i will be traffic control officer i would have my book out literally every five

minutes for parking and no parking zones. and letting the motor idle more than the required or allowed three or six minutes, and then the list goes on. the latest one that i saw is in front of saint mary's cathedral in california where i did not know what that bus was supposed to do there, and no bus is supposed to be there and because it was just standing there and i don't want to get into too many details and i have one every day because i walk that area continuously and it is absolutely out of control. >> commissioners if there is nothing further, we can move on to department matters. item 9, director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners just a couple of notes to make, regarding commissioner comment about the guidelines, jeff gisman who is the director of current planning is taking a fresh look at all of the department's guidelines right now and we are

looking at the residential design guidelines for the commercial district and so i am hoping that the roof top equipment is part of that discussion of guidelines and i know and you other commissioners have raised that before. and secondly i just wanted to remind you all about and i have seen your written director's report today about the map of the sequa exempt on the website and this was a result of the recent discussion that you had here as well as with the board of supervisors on the new sequa legislation and the map is now intended to very easily map based gis based system and you were able to click on projects and get and find out the exemptions that are issued in any particular week and refers you and links you to the actual exemption and so that is available on the website. and right now. and we are glad to have them prove that service from what it was before. which was not very user friendly. and that concludes my

presentation, thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners item 10, review of past week's events at the board of supervisor and board of appeals and historic preservation commission and there were no notes for the board of appeals however, the board of historic preservation did meet yesterday. >> here to share with you a couple of items from yesterday's commission hear. the port authority provided an informational overview of the proposed development and rehabilitation of pier 70, in the park and this is just the presentation was just the bring the hpc up to speed on the status of those developments and they offered to come back periodically to give further updates on those projects as they move forward, there were two certificates of appropriateness of note that i wanted to share with you. one was the commission approved 5-2, a certificate of

appropriateness for 722 montgomery street, these buildings have been in a partial state of demolition for a quarter of a century. prior to the vote by the commission there was a good deal of discussion about a rear brick wall where the brick had been removed as part of a previous certificate of appropriateness. and the intent of the project was always to reinstall that brick but through bankruptcy proceedings, the storage facility that was holding on to the brick either lost the brick or sold the brick to another party. and so there was some or a dispute about the location of this brick and finally the commission decided just to vote on it and move on to get this building back into working order. so the commission did approve the project per the staff's recommendations 5-2. the other item was a certificate of appropriateness for 320 judith street, this is the sales office building that

was recently designated as part of the department and the hpc landmark program and the new owners, are committed to a full restoration to the building and we have already issued a few administrative letters certificates of appropriateness but during that work it is discovered that there is extensive termite and water damage and so the commission over all was pleased with the direction the work was going and property ject sponsor is committed to working with the staff to make sure that the building is restored back to the 1940 period of significance. and finally, the hpc ajournd in memory of alice carry and there were a number of folks from the public that spoke about alice's contribution to the historic preservation and expressing kind programs for alice and as

you know, alice carry was also a former member of the lamb works preservation advisory board and served as pers. >> commissioner moore? >> while you were there, was there a discussion about powell street yesterday? one of the most unusual cases that i ever heard walk by powell street a historic building on the block across from the sacks fifth avenue and someone was applying for the installation of a window washing machine which is the contemporary buildings, and so i was curious as to whether or not that was brought forward and what the discussion was. >> the major permit alter was approved for the window washing equipment, the reason that it had to go before the commission to be osha compliant the equipment involved extending the parapit of the building and so that triggered review by the full commission and it was

unanimously approved and i believe it was on the consent calendar. >> commissioner antonini? >> mr. fry, thank you. and in regards to the bali building it was the certificate of appropriateness was granted, but did it include putting the brick wall back or not? >> a good question, it did not include putting the brick wall back. the reason the commission decided that the brick was not necessary is the few pieces of photo documentation that we have along that elevation suggest that the building was glad and stucco prior to 1958, the commission felt more comfortable approving a glading material that they had substan ated evidence was there rather than the brick which it is somebody's guess when that brick was covered in the past. and so rather than creating a false sense of history and seeing the character of the

place and many of the buildings and the rear are glad and stucco they felt it was a change that was compliant with the standards. >> thank you. >> commissioners if there is nothing further we can move on to general public comment. not-to-exceed a period of 15 minutes, at this time. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except with the agenda items the chance will be afforded in the meeting, each may address up to three minutes. >> we do have one speaker card. john alberling. >> i would like to direct your attention today to the topic

very specific topic of the markets be developed in the south of market and the impacts on the neighborhood. there are a series of pipeline projects that are becoming to you between now and the end of next year about a half dozen including four on brannum street and now what is the eastern neighborhood district and will be the central corridor and the first one comes next thursday and that is why i am here, it is on for calendar for action next thursday and what do we believe we need to know is that office buildings per se are neighborhood killers. and they are dead zones, i speak from experience, on the block where i live on fulsom there are two big ones and they are soulness and personal and the occupants play no active role in the neighborhood and utterly unengaged and the amenities are crumbmy and the impacts are bad. the key issue is the rules for open space and other requirements where you can at

least mitigate those neighborhood deadening consequences and what you have now in these neighbors is almost useless. there is no requirement even for open space at street level and if you do have public open space, at street level, your requirement is cut by one-third that is all of the rules that you have today. and the central corridor plan says very little about this and in fact needs a great deal of work between now and the final full development in a year or so. what we have presented to you, our recommendations for that plan which we believe you should start applying for these projects right now, starting with 333 branum and the projects will be coming to you in the next couple of months, clearly the open space must be a great and clearly it needs repailed associated with it to bring some life to it. the retail must never be formula retail, the worse thing an office building that kills the whole district are the starbucks and the subways and all of those chain stores that

you see everywhere and it is utterly deadly and they are not for the neighborhood use and therefore, the lunchtime for the people to work in the office building. it is critical on the alley and they are a great potential and should be used. the roof of these buildings, should be dedicated to either open space for the tenants or in stal lacings or green roof but you should not waste a square space of roof and lastly parking why in the world are you allowing any parking garage for the gasoline vehicles, they all have basement garages take a few minutes to read the presentation of require to next thursday's meeting and we will be back to you then to show you how to apply it. >> thank you. >> any additional public comment? >> okay, public comment is closed. >> commissioners it will place

you under the regular calendar. item 11,recreation and parks pipeline projects - an informational presentation from recreation and parks department staff regarding pipeline projects >> just briefly i wanted to introduce sarah ballard she is here to present you the pipeline project which you asked for a couple of weeks ago to talk about the upcoming departments at the department. >> thank you. good afternoon. president and commissioners, sarah ballard and i am going to briefly take you through the projects that we have planned and the capitol projects that we have planned, and primarily under the 2012 bond xh was passed in november with 72 percent of the vote we are proud to report. as you are likely aware, the recreation and park's department is part of the ten year capitol plan, where all of the structural departments come together to slate their bond

issuances so that the burden of the taxpayer does not vary. and so we participate in that planning process and are slated somewhere about every tief years to go out and ask the voters to approve a general obligation bond which is the primary mode we used to fund all of our capitol projects. and there are the occasional state grants, and gifts, and community driven projects, but 99 percent of our projects are funded through general obligation bonds and so the majority of the 2008 bonds are complete are in construction the only 2008 project that we have not broken ground on is mission doors and i know that you have the negative declaration before you and you are familiar with that project. and i am going to focus on the 2012 projects, and i know that you have a long calendar so we do have a lot of neighborhood projects that i can speed through them or stop and let me know what level of information you would like.

>> so the 2012 bond is $195 million bond and $34 million of that is for water front open space and so that is essentially dollars that go to the port and the remainder are dollars to the spent and allocated by the recreation and parks department. >> in the creation of the bond, we spend about a year working with the particular holders and working with the community groups and park support groups from the spur to the park alliance to figure out what we are going to include in the bond. the scoping process, that we used for this bond is formulated with the creation of the 2008 bond, and we went and did, our facilities were touched and the usage of the facilities and the community interest and so we essentially took the list from 2008 and

said, okay went out to the community and said here the park side did not make the cut in 2008. they were not the top 14. >> does this list resonate and have the priorities changed or the usage changed. >> for the most part we ended up sticking with that list with a few exceptions. and again that was a rather involved process as you probably know, we have a community advisory committee, that we refer to as prosac, the park recreation and open space advisory committee and we work closely with them and they are appointed by two members from each superviser district and one member that is pointed by the mayor's office and they are really a conduit to the community for this conversation. so we get a bond on the ballot, and it is passed by the voters, and we now, have to implement our portion of this bond, and the way that it was designed and 99 million dollars of it

are dedicated for the neighborhood park projects. and there are 29 million for what we call the city wide parks that is lake merced and mcclarin and golden gate park and then the city wide program pot is $40 million and i will go into detail on what each of those are. and first, is the city wide programs, these are programs and we, this is a model similar to the 2008 bond you may recall that we had many of these programs are repeats and we had the community opportunity fund which are dollars for community driven project and they apply and they go through a pro-view process from a subcommittee of our commission and then are awarded the dollars and then we leverage those dollars to support the community driven projects and we also, in the 2008 bond, and excuse me, back to the community opportunity fund for a minute, this program

was so successful in 2008, the five million dollar pot of money, we leveraged 13.8 million in that program and so, for the 2012, bond we decided to grow that pot. and the trails money is a continuation from 2008, as well, and the these are city wide projects, and our focus is on connecting parks. and whether they be in our jurisdiction, or really through the open spaces. >> the trails is also a continuance and really a focus on hazardous trees in neighborhood parks and we have over 140,000 trees in our system and we have an inadequate budget and staff to address those issues and frankly, we laugh at the puns that really all that we can do is triage. and emergency response for

responding to 311 calls and so on and there is no proactive tree and so we fund that through this forestry portion of the bond. and water conservation, the water conservation portion of the bond is a partnership with the pec in 2008 i believe it was, we did, the pec did an audit of the parks and assessed our most water using parks. we have completed two projects with them. through a grant from the pec to fund irrigation infrastructure up grades and also the plaza and the jefferson and we are going to continue that and leverage that with some of our dollars and then the final one the larger pot and the city wide pots is 15.5 million for playground safety. and essentially upgrading the play grounds and as you may know there are play grounds in the city that are with the wood play grounds and when they put

those in there was ar sen nick in the wood and we seal them every year to be sure that nothing leaches out and our goal is to rid the system of those play grounds. since for all of the city wide pots of money, there will be varying degrees of community input and process, the community opportunity fund which i explained has a set application process for the playgrounds, the safety committee we are going to work closely with the stake holders in a process that we will partner on the parks alliance on to layout the criteria by which we are going to assess the play grounds, and then, slot them in based on based on that criteria and obviously $16.5 million is not enough to address all of the play grounds and however, our goal is to get all of the wood play grounds off of the book so to speak. i would be happy to go into more detail on any of the city

wide pots if you want. but i will jump to the city wide park. which as i said are golden gate park and mcclarin and lake merced. we are beginning this fall, an out reach process about both lake merced and golden gate park, mcclarin park is a bigger task. we are going to try to stage our resources so to speak, and to tackle the community out reach associated with that project. later on, we tend to do for our projects in the neighborhood park projects and we expand this model for the city wide programs is just conduct somewhere between three and ten community scoping meetings to figure out what are the priorities for stake holders, what are the priorities for you in terms of allegation of these dollars. so those processes will begin, as i said for the golden gate

park and lake merced in the fall and mcclarin parks later on, probably in a year and a half. >> the bonds did call out neighborhood parks that we will renovate. and i believe that it is 14 in the 2012 bond and we work closely with planning staff to do preliminary review on all of the parks and for us to name a project in the bond and outline the scope of it and we do have have the environmental abuse many thanks to the director and the staff and we had to work over time to make sure that we were covered in that aspect. and we as you are aware continue to work very closely with planning staff on, particularly in the environmental review and historic impacts and we

instituted a new model through the leadership of director ram and jones and cooper who was our lee a response of really starting from ground zero, the planning department participates in those conversations before we go out to the community and the questions about what they know about the site and any historic impacts, so as soon as we are engaging in the community in a conversation, we are aware of what the constraint and challenges are, not just from our perspective in terms of operating the site and maintaining the site but also from planning perspective particularly in regards to environmental review. >> so our neighborhood parks project as you can see here, the majority of the bonds, and 9 million dollars for neighborhood parks project the largest one of those being margaret hayward which is just across the street here near the emergency facility of a 14

million dollar project. and we do as you can also see, we have some, dollars in there for each of the programs each program has one and for 2008 all of the programs came in on budget and so we have spare dollars. >> i can briefly go into details on to each of the neighborhood project and where they are and some of them you are going to be aware of because they are phased and you have seen the portions of the environmental review and in some cases the board of appeals to seeing the permits associated with some of these and the glen canyon park was part of the 2008 bond. there was a big push from the community to add this portion of the glen canyon park to the rec center to the 2012 bond and it was not on that original list in 2008 that we went out

and scoped. and that is in the planning phase and we think that we will be in construction of march of 2015. joe demagio and i think that you are familiar and we held off on the design design awaiting the out come of the challenge and so on and so we are now in the design of that hope to be done next month with that. and begin the construction in march of 2015, balboa park has undergone the significant renovation already with the trust for public land and we have done the fields there and the playground has been redone and these are focused primarily on the pool building. and we expect to begin the planning phase for that project