>> okay. we'll call this meeting of historic preservation meeting to order. >> welcome to the historic preservation commission meeting for wednesday october 16th. the commission does not allow any disruptions and please

silence any days. first on your calendar commissioners is the public comment the general public may talk about agenda items with respect to the items not on the agenda. each member of the public may address the committee up to 3 minutes >> any member of the public wish to speak to any scombraund on our calendar. >> moving to directors announcements. >> gm good afternoon i'm with the department staff. the director will be joining us shortly and at the moment i

don't have any comments but i'll be happy to answer any questions >> commissioners no questions. we'll move on >> the staff report and announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners tim fry the department staff. here to a share with you a couple of items and announcements. to begin with i don't have any reports from the recent planning commissioner hearings. they've had a busy schedule but not really pertinent for the review but i'll keep my eye open for any missing third degree that maybe of are interest >> last week, we had the

african-american history project. the meeting was hosting by african-american artists and culture complex funded through the fund committee by the mayor's office. about 50 people were in attendance and the consultant provided on overview the story view history project was on hand to solicit be participants for the history component. the kickoff meeting identified members of the community that maybe front yard in the largest stakeholders document as is it precedes. through the process and as the consultant prepares more material related to the project. there was a good amount of support for the prestigious project in general, however, there was a large you number of people in the audience that were

concerned about how the project was structured and that related to staffing, the level of community involvement and community are participation. we certainly heard their concerns we we have a couple of ideas to address the concerns so we'll be working with the public and restrategizing there's certainly plenty of time to do it right. i'll keep i posted on others ways to get involved i'm happy to answer any questions i may have about that event. i also wanted to let you know the lashgd designate twin peaks in the castro neighborhood will

receive an award looter this month in indianapolis for honoring san francisco to protect and identifying important parts of our lgbt history. the designation will be twlurtd a governor's award presented by governor jerry brown later this year and it's also one we were 2345i789d by san francisco heritage so thank you to heritage for putting our name in the hat by second of all thank you to the statute of limitations for recognizing our efforts in protecting lgbt history. i want to introduce you to our latest member of the department she's been hired as the new specialist for the yaunt.

she's got own 10 years experience as program director in illinois she managed the endangered list and the chapter of the apa helped to coordinate the citizen technology convention. she's got recent experience with landmark designation. from her years as city staff and two local preservation commissions i'm happy to work with her again. alicia is coming to us from cambridge, massachusetts to please join me in welcoming alicia to san francisco. commissioners that conclusions any presentation >> i just want to mention and thank tim and the staff for the

excellent job they did do at the african-american community forum. i tenant and also convincing if the planning commission. we said hell hello and we'd be listening and very much involved. there was a group that kind of basically challenged the way things were happening and it was good basically, they were saying are you the planning department tlut our history and, of course not that. and i think as we go forward particularly in looking at some of the recommendations out of the historic recommendation report the historic surveys are done and the historic contact statement we pay attention to insuring that and understanding it's done to make sure it's inclusive, you know, as possible. i think the planning department

is going to come up with the recommendations of the issues. were brought up. it's very illuminating and overall there was good support >> i'm sorry, i missed the meeting but i commencement with staff about future meetings. you might want to connect with the issue committees of the j h s committee they that wanted to create a japanese-american survey so i think some of the same issues about inclusion and who's going to tell the story might help you. you mentioned the endangered reserve list do we have one for the city and county of san francisco >> fire department staff we do not. that's part of alicia background

>> maybe it's something we could consider. >> perfect commissioners any other questions for mr. fry? seeing none, we'll move on >> commissioners that will place you on item 3 the landmark quarterly report. >> good afternoon, tim from the staff. the quarterly report was included in our packet. i wanted to point out out in terms of the last quarter marcus book store is going to come back on november 6th hearing and the information is located on page 1. most of the other landmark designations are moving forward. i'd like to say hall is on page 5 at the top is probably the

next closest for the consideration and a but in terms of owner initiated conditions on page 8 we added the section baugsz there's a again deal in the pipeline that's diverting us from focusing solely on your program but we have 3wug9d resources to work an owner designations. there's a few on here you'll be seeing in the next few months one is st. mary's building as you know the h pic identified buildings as modern resources in a priority on your program we think article 11 is a great

document. there's henry adams we're working on the historic square and this building is eligible it's another way our survey efforts helped provide that initial information to move a designation forward. 149 market street we're consulting with the owners on final liz the report. a great cloud of witnesses is still in progress and we have another location for the construction and once we have finalized their nomination report and their at a point they're ready to come forward we'll bring that to you in early

2014 >> finally, the last page is what we've landmark do date since your designation program. if you have any questions, i'll be happy to a answer them >> commissioner highland. >> when we approved the motion the j h s we had 3 items to be added and they've not been added. >> that's correct this the the report and it will be in the next quarterly report. >> thank you mr. fry on sunshine school any kind of timeline. tim fry staff. as of now we don't have a timeline but we can follow-up and get a followup, if you will, >> commissioners any other

questions regarding the work program? yeah. >> that's great interest thank you to all the staffs efforts on this. really appreciate it as well as the community they put time on each project >> we'll move on. i'm sorry we do need to take public comment >> any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners if there's nothing future item 4 commissioners reports and announcements. >> half disclosure this is not a new item but mr. fry and i met with the marcus book store building owners and that continues on. we'll be hearing it anyway on the sixth. so that's it >> item 5 consideration of

adoption draft minutes for october 2nd, 2013. >> commissioners any comments regarding the draft minutes move for approval. >> item of the 340, 50 fremont the approval was with the amendments; right? i don't remember what the amendments were. >> the signage. they were approved with conditions. so noted commissioners. and i actually have a picture of the pylon so it can be forwarded on. and we're going to do public comment is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? >> seeing none, that's closed and we'll bring it back for

motion. >> move approval with approval of conditions on 5030 fremont street. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes as he corrected (calling names) so moved, commissioners, that passed unanimously and placed you under item 6 commission comments and questions. >> commissioner pearlman and yeah. i wanted to bring to the publics attention on the bank building. many of you have gone by a and seen graffiti on it. it's shocking to how i found out mr. that fry called me i didn't go down to see it until a day

later the the graffiti after the put up a graffiti video of him graffitiing it along with other historic buildings in the downtown area. ? a building has has security, there's about an 18 foot high barrier on the streets faces. it's shocking how break in it was and you know the mayor's office knows about this and the police have been notified. on the video i can see the guys face. we're hoping he gets caught but the reason i bring this up she showed the street and there were 10 to 15 people there all the people were taking pictures and no one called the police. i think it's sad that's it's an

event and, you know, rather than you know the vandalism that it is. so i wanted to point out that. so if you see that call the police >> commissioner any disclosures or comments? >> i will for myself i did meet with the pine street sponsors to taking a look at their projects. >> i met with the project sponsor this week. >> perfect. commissioners that will place you under item 7 case 1307 at 1603 pine street review and comments on the draft environmental impact report and a good afternoon, members of the commission i'm lisa gibson i'm the supervisor for the eir pine

street. my colleague who's the case planner was not able to be here today but i have a colleague here. the item before you is the campaigning comment and the draft eir site. it includes van ness avenue and frank street. the west side of the parking lot and the 5 lots contain one and two story buildings and the project will be that demolition project and result in the instruction construction of one-story building with ground floor and the second story commercial use. the commissioner members were sent copies electronically at the start of the project which began on october 3rd, initiating

and will continue on. by the also sent i electronic copies of the 4 background copies of the historic research evaluation the staff response and then 2 analyze for the partial alternatives. today, we're here to provide an opportunity to discuss the issues and formality any comments you may wish to make. before presenting the finding related to historic resources i want to remind everyone that a meeting is on december 7th and comments busing must be submitted to the review over on november 18th. after the hearing at the

planning commission the planning department will perp our irons to all the subject comments and we're going to accomplish that document sometime in connection next year. the 5 buildings located on the project site are the historic district which was identified in a historic survey of the support structures in addition to 2 of the buildings that are individually eligible as historic resources. the project was to have demolition resulted in demolition and the buildings would result in the significance of the architecture resources and the eir found that would be a significant and invaluable impact that can't be mitigated because of the van ness support

structures. there were identified mitigation measures in the eir 4 of them but implementation of those measures would notorious the impact to significant levels. the eir looked at 3 alternatives to the proposed project wyoming's one would not have any change to the existing structures and the other were to avoid the significant impact it was a full alternative as well as a partial preservation the partial preservation would have partial demolition and would have a single story residential tower and with ground floor and second story commercial. overall it would preserve 15 to

22 percent of the buildings on the site by nevertheless, you're going to have a sixth invaluable impact. the full preservation alternative would demolish portions of the 5 existing buildings on the site and only involve construction of a single store tower. again there would be preservation of existing buildings and in this case all of the existing building facades and all the buildings would be incorporated into the alternative. and with that this alternative was found to be generally but still a significant impact. but the mitigation measures that were identified would railways this impact to less than significant level. that's the summary of the eirs finding.

that concludes my presentation and we're here to a answer your questions >> commissioners, i have no speaker cards. >> commissioners, do we have any comments? >> first i do. >> commissioner pearlman. i had a question looking at the partial and the full preservation alternatives highway they were arrived at because as an architect i know there's an infinite number of ways to do that. so i'm wondering how the department determined what those would be? >> shelly preservation staff we worked with the consultant to try to craft a project to meet the standards as close as

possible. some of the perimeters wore to get below the threshold defining the demolition. we use article 10 for demolition in our sequa analysis just for some parallel review between our sequa review and other reviews in our department. essentially, we neat to do preserve about 50 percent of the building materials in order to stable the threshold. in order to create a feasible alternative as required under sequa the project sponsor was marked out while staying within the rehabilitation standards. so that's how we arrived at the amount of material that should be retained on the site. we looked at the height and massing there were proposed and

tried to imagine some setbacks which would respect the character of the district which would allow the historic sites to read individual of the sites i behind them not necessarily connected to the historic buildings. we used the visual models to kind of play around with the different massing studies which might achieve that. meanwhile the project sponsor is trying to resolve the - they used the information as well, to create perimeters for the alternatives. so it's a partial trend of more demolition was allotted a large

navy envelope was studied which resulted in the reattention of all the historic facades but really significantly less than integrity among the historic buildings. did that answer our question and a yes >> commissioner highland. >> so the justification for mitigating the impacts are less than significant is that the demolition technically not a de facto definition under the threshold. >> yeah. by - while we found the full preservation alternative still does not meet the intent of the rehabilitation standards it's still two massive and it still has a prominent impact to the site.

there's mitigates measures that included we did not find it would be a significant impact as defined by sequa. and, yes the fact that the don't guess criteria and a section 1005 of the code did become sort of a threshold that defines how we approach the project >> is it t is miss no more to call that a full preservation and that's something we might want to discuss i was discussing that issue with lisa the fact that the full preservation alternative still requires the mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project. but we really struggled to come up with the preservation alternative that was feasible to building and there needs to be some reasonable feasibility in the alternatives to study them in the eir.

if you were tow prop for example, a one to two-story addition on the site and not achieve the goals an alternative does need to meet some portion of the goals >> maybe a full preservation alternative and drop the partial to the full as a suggestion. >> i'm going to deter to lisa gibson on that question and a lisa gibson. planning staff. point taken. it's the title >> and the integrity of the district is susceptiblely impacted. >> misunderstand. >> commissioners if no other questions we'll go to the public any public comment? we have no speaker cards

>> good afternoon, commissioners mike with san francisco heritage. i wasn't expecting this item to come up so quickly but heritage is the the process of reviewing the eir. our initial observations are the proposal is not a preservation treatment given there are zero lot lines set back for the retention of the facades. we agree with the comments by commissioner providing the alternatives i expect we'll champion distribution of now construction across the sites next to the historic project. we're concerned this is the only eligible historic project

identified in the survey that was collected a few years ago. including two eligible structures and that survey identified other support structures so thank you very much >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak. seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it back to commission >> commissioner pearlman. >> i did have a preservation by the project sponsor open monday. i had a number of questions and objections and the reason i asked the question about the partial and full alternatives was prepared was from the project sponsor showing me performance that the project couldn't work, you know, unless they got the full project