test. >> welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission regular meeting for wednesday, june 4, 2014. like to remind members of the audience to please ireland at this point >> president hasz. commissioner hyland. councilmember marcason. commissioner johns. commissioner matsuda and commissioner pearlman. commissioners first on our agenda is public comment time, members of the public may address the commission of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. there are no speaker cards >> my member of the public want to speak on any items of the

agenda. >> commissioners, first on your calendar directors announcements. >> testimony fry the docks report was included in our packets i'm happy to answer questions that concludes my comments. >> at the questions or comments seeing none, move on. >> the past events the staff report and announcements. >> commissioners again, the planning commission didn't meet the last week in may i don't have a report on their activities and no announcements at this point unless you have questions that that concludes my comments. >> thank you, commissioners. >> commissioner that's under

commissioners, that places you under president reports and announcements moving along item 4 for the draft minutes for may 21st, 2014. >> commissioners my questions or comments seeing none. >> wait those are for what. >> may 21st. >> i got two copies. is there any public comment on the draft comments seeing none, >> i move to approve the draft minutes and second. >> on that motion to adapt the draft minutes. >> commissioner hyland. councilmember marcason. commissioner johns. commissioner matsuda. commissioner pearlman. commissioner wolfram and president hasz so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 5 commissions comments and questions >> commissioner pearlman.

>> thank you. i sent out an article that was on an online news organization vehicle called 48 hills on line and why sf city can't protect us from office encroachment about the why to convert pdr if the office meets certain requirements and what struck me about the article it felt like we had been significantly lied to 0 by the project sponsor about whether or not the particular building as 660, third street it was going to be converted into office it had

been office for 20 years and there was no recommendation of that in the staff report that the building was empty at the time and within a couple of weeks there had been many tenants in the building that had been there a lot longer than that that actually brings up a big concern because it also meant that the staff hadn't verified and done their due diligence to let us know that we should be paying attention to the fact that there were violations on this building because office was not permitted in that building it had been used that way since 1994. that was a concern of mine and let me see. i mean it's the bottom line

about that there isn't, you know, we get certain amount of information the prospective is that, you know, we're all corrupt and obviously that's a generalizetion and prop b passing the public has some thitherto the progress in general that was the second time after voting on something that was inadequate and a blatant lie it was not true this was a blatant kind of thing in 3 moves between 665 third street and adams over 5 hundred thousand feet was converted to office space and part of the requirement is there is economic

proof by converting the the building will be taken care of and they were in their current use we actually pit financial requirements to do a demolition and merger there are economic thresholds by on this one we had no information at all on the economic condition of the building i mean, that's something that should be required if we're asked to converted hundreds of square feet that's not lawed that's something that should be debated at the different time you know the rules require an economic analysis and their zero economic analysis we're not doing our due diligence and the staff not

doing due diligence those renters are getting 14th to 20 to up to 60 or $70 a square feet but the incentive is not our purview it should be better maintained as a historic building and if they can do it at the kernt rate so it was a very eye-opening are article i encourage you to read it we need to pay attention relative to the information both to the staff and the staff to us and the project sponsor when they come before us we need to pay attention because i tacked to catherine republican moore she was upset but she relies on us

and our approval is based on information not true she can't go back and find out it puts us in an important position we're really, really on top of something like that this is my concern about the design industry that to herself adams it's boric acid out and converted to office we don't know if economically that makes sense or not one way or the other without the information. please take into account that and give me feedback i don't know how to address it as a long-term issue but manage that struck me as we don't - we want to be transparent and aboveboard we're in a corrupt system but want to make sure it's not

preserved that way it didn't get out of hand >> commissioner hyland. >> i have a different topic are we allowed to discuss this. >> this is questions or comments a non-agenda item i'll recommend not to engage in the matter. >> i have a different topic so. >> commissioners testimony fry department staff a quick comment two things one we should probably bring that language from the code to this commission to have a second set of ice easy to show that the applicant

needs to change the use in order to further the preservation of the building second thing i want to mention commissioner matsuda reminded me on june 12th we will, presenting an overview to the planning commission and i'll check with him to see if he can fine-tune this to our commission at that time, future date then talk about the commissions really not change of the plantation. >> fy it came up and the planning commission if september 660 third street there was so much misuse of information to get us to approve it. >> so we'll schedule something in a future hearing

commissioner hyland. >> on the advanced calendar i want to ask about july 2nd i know we've talked about this keeping that date but there appears only one agenda item i want to know if that's a good use of our time some of us are not going to be here i'm able to be here if you want to meet. >> commissioners it's entirely up to you. >> maybe we can take a poll off-line and handle it that way. >> if you want to let me know individually their availability on july 2nd for the 4th of july week. >> thank you. commissioner johns >> thank you. i wonder mr. president, whether you could ask

the staff or more particularly the city and county city attorney to advise us on the what is the effect of the commission taking action based on untrue statements by a project sponsor? does the commission then have the power to revoke that's prior determination because it was in the most extreme case by fraud? >> yes. so city attorney wyoming you like to answer that. >> or take some time to answer that that's an important matter for consideration but i'm quite interested. >> i don't know if my

microphone is on but this is not being an agendized item i'll do research and provide more information at a future date. >> thank you. commissioners any other questions or comments in this session. commissioner matsuda >> just to follow up on commissioner johns question should the information we relied on about incorrect we need to make respirators and let the planning commission know we're interested if rereviewing this based on new information that has come before us and it would effective i think the planning commissions determination how to go forward. >> thank you. seeing nor o no more comments

>> and places you under your consent calendar for our 14 pine street this is a public hearing on the draft and environmental report please know this is to assist the commissioners and comments made by the members the public will not be considered and not responded to in the final eir and the commissions will receive the comings comments on june 19th and written comments will be accepted till june 30th, 2014. >> good afternoon president hasz and members of the constrictions i'm rick supervisor coordinate michael wouldn't be here today on the

1537 to pine street use. joining me is my colleague staff historic specialist the project is comprised of 5 parcels between polk and van ness after the size currently is developed that range in height from 20 to 25 feet. the proposed projects has the instructs on the construction of the one hundred and 38 mixed use building that will accumulate commercial and art gallery spaces and one hundred and 7 residential units on the upper levels having varied height and masking to the height district up to one hundred and 20 feet on the western portion near van ness stepping down in limits to polk street.

upper sent electronic copies that began on may 20th and will continue till june 20th and upper provided electronic copies of the historic preservation response that was finalized on may 13th and the forms 523 a and b completed in january 10th we're here to talk about the opportunity to formerly examine on the draft eir. before shelly begins her that presentation i want to say that the 34ubz are here to assist you in formulating our comments and not to freud us with comments on the draft that was responded to

in a document. if the members of the public wish to comment on the draft eir do so ordinarily on june 19th or provide written comments before 5:00 p.m. after the comment period the pluralization will be made and that will contain all comments on the draft eir we apartment e anticipate publication of the document and an eir later in the fall of 2014. after shelly's presentation we'll be available to answer any questions you have thank you. >> hello commissioners shelly i want to go over the draft finding out of the 5 properties impacted by the project only one is eligible for the california

register that is individually eligible for a rare property type a temporary structure constructed immediately after the 1906 san francisco earthquake and the demolition is significant and un1r5ub8 impact the impact of this property there's also found to be a cumulative impact to the property there appears to be few buildings from the reconstruction period immediately following the 1906 san francisco earthquake and fire and this will impact the property type. so there are two significant adverse impacts we identified two mitigation procedures in the draft eir one is a half documentation and one you an

interpretative measure neither will reduce the impact to the structural portion and the draft was analyzed 4 one being a no project alternative and one a full preservation that involves in restoration and all construction on the adjacent property we also looked at a partial preservation he alternative that it is 2 story construction at the adjacent 4 properties this alternative is found to meet the secretary of the interiors plan. and then the fourth alternative we looked at would with about a facade that literallyly only

preserves the facade there it's a de facto restoration. so with that, that concludes my presentation. i have a copy of the alternative alex section with the masking alternative if you find that hoping hopefully to look at thank you >> commissioners, comments or questions for the staff or sponsor. shelly i'm sorry one frustrating thing on the eir i didn't have time to go by the building we have masking from each end but i don't have a building by building so which building i remember but which building is significant >> i have a photo in the dr form and can put it on the screen. >> i want to confirm hooits

that's one of the building we had o1 up the street retained s - yeah, so the other one in auto row. yeah. okay >> this building was the only one found to be a historic resource and the buildings were all 5 properties evaluated in 2006 and there was a ate corridor that was reaffirmed this is the only historic resource. >> thank you, commissioners questions or comments seeing none, i'm to open this up for public comment public comment on this item that is we have no

speaker cards no public comment okay. back to commission. anybody commissioner pearlman >> i'll talk. you know, to me this brings up the constant dilemma of san francisco and any place you, you know, i'm wondering about the fate of the van ness auto row as any kind of district on the other side of van ness to the west we had a recent project that is going to save a couple of facades now another one it seems like an odds one to have the tail wagging the dog, you know, whether as a partial alternative or the facade it feels like an odd thing we need

more housing and buildings that, you know, we need to grow so i wonder about the fate and it's really my question is if this goes through and i don't know if this is a comment pathetic about an eir because the eir didn't evaluate it but for the commission and the department relative to this van ness utility row it feels like on a diminishing district that's a popular corridor to have a lot of development so we're going to be slowly but surely in the same place and we've lost a couple of significant ones a like the old cars this was in our purview >> commissioner wolfram. >> i think we could maybe make a comment that we want to and i

can't remember if there was in the eir or not studied the accumulate active impact do you want to - >> shelly. actually in the survey work that was completed no 2010 i believe we found there was not a van ness auto row district we only found the 6 - 1600 pine street that's proposed for demolition he identified several historic preservation sites along the row as a collection but not identify an actual be district and therefrom cumulative to the van ness row was not analyzed >> makes sense.

>> well, my comment the way the building is set up it's sit down up to save that facade and have the lower level set back i don't know, you won't save the building at least the facade that's my comment. i don't know why we don't have a rendering so there's an distinguishcy in the rendering in the preservation alternative >> the one in the 16 hundred block had extensive rendering so it's easy to make it this one was significantly harder to do. >> yes. any other comments? >> i have a comment unrecommend to the iritis to the staff it

talks about here this project has to grant an exception and to off-street parking and going on in an exposure why do we have rules if there's a strike pedestrian level structure why is this one not that critical if it meets the criteria of needing to do something about wind comfortable obviously some are hard to analyze the transportation was different but certain ones you, you know, active street frontages that is one that is part of the zoning of a district to have that so, so law one developer in one project to say we can't meet it

why can't you meet it we can redesign a building so it's a question this wind comfort why would anyone get a exemption. >> i don't know the specification of this project those are the exceptions why a they hear the item at a future hearing we can keep you updated to modify those exceptions or if this commission is interested in providing a letter to the planning commission on the merits of those exceptions we can forward our comments if you wish. >> this is my comment i don't know if the entire commission

it's more of a question if i can go to a planning commission hearing he know do that. >> that might be the way to go with that technically because - if no other questions or comments we're down with this item. >> were we drafting a letter or making those comments are we drafting a letter. >> shelly has a comment and will kwok with a letter. >> yes. i'll draft a letter. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further item 7 for case 2013 a and e the alleyway most park scare renovation for the certificate of appropriateness. >> hi shelly again, i'm here to introduce the alamo square

project the project includes construction of on a 88 restroom near the existing playground and the east side of the park as well as landscape improvements replying the irrigation system it was reviewed by the committee in 2013 and the current project largely talks about the commission they found the restroom structure was appropriate and those have been maintained. the commissioners recommended alternating the face wall on the banning that's been done and agreed that the building should have a hierarchy of end cap. this direction has been followed