regular meeting for wednesday august 20th #shgs 2014 >> please silence all cell phones. >> [calling roll]: commissioner highland, commissioner john, commissioner matsuda and pearlman. commissioners first on your agenda is general public comment. at this time the general public may address subject matter jurisdiction. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission already -- already afforded

when the item is discussed in the meeting. i have no speaker cards. >> any member of the public wish to speak on items not on the agenda? yes. please come up to the podium. >> good afternoon. my name is bradley courthouse. -- krourz, disabled veteran, soccer player. i'm here today bringing up for the benefit of the city and good are the order at this time to request a new historical review assessment of candlestick park. the reason is we are seeking a nomination for candlestick park as a national landmark. candlestick park at this moment qualifies for registry

into the national landmark historical registry and historical registry and national historical landmark. on that note and because of this reason, i'm before you for today in the benefit of the public seek to maintain candlestick park for future redevelopment and reuse. this last week, many medium believed the final event to be held at candlestick park would be from a man that is of legendary status of grit british kingdom. we seek to

promote and develop candlestick park for the future. it's still home to the oldest football association. the san francisco football league. many people also aren't aware that our parks capacity is shrinking and not growing for the current usage of facilities that we have within the city of san francisco. because of this, we seek a positive resolution for the redevelopment of the candlestick point hunters shipyard where we can seek new active development of the parks that are proposed to be put at the candlestick park area. with it we also seek to integrate our designs with linear corporation as linear being the agency to take on the current task at the shipyard and

candlestick point. as we see it as a vital asset moving forward at candlestick, we do see it as an punctuate -- opportunity for the community to be act interview this development for the future plan moving forward. because of that i request new opportunity to bring before the commission at a future date to -- >> thank you. that's our time. we know where you are going with that. so thank you very much. >> okay. thank you. >> any other member of the public wish to speak on items not on our agenda? we'll close public comment. commissioners, that places you on department matters, item one, review events at the staff commission reports and announcements. >> planning commission is currently on break, so i don't have a report from recent hearings, but i did

want to bring to your attention a memo prepared by tom desanto and martini in your correspondence folder at your chair. at your previous hearing you asked for clarification on the approved budget for the next two fiscal 2 fiscal years. i'm sorry i wasn't able to get this to you in advance. if you have any questions, i'm happy to entertain those questions at a future hearing. if you e-mail me, i'm happy to follow up with you. in summary i wanted to bring a couple things to your attention. on page 3 under new position, you will see item no. 1 that is related to reducing the backlog. we were granted one additional preservation position that would be a quadrant base preservation planner. the preservation planner that you had requested to work on landmark

designations did not make it out of the mayor's office. so it did not end up in the budget. but they did grant us a position to deal with the backlog of permit ceqa related review and other preservation entitlement but at a quadrant level. on page four, beginning at the bottom of page four you will see the beginning of the year work program summary item no. 2 reflects that one additional staff member for quadrant base work and the summary on page 5 will give you a little bit more information about any additional items that were included on the budget that were granted. two things in particular that i think are important is one is we were granted the $100,000 to begin the citywide is survey scoping and planning process. so that's good news. and will be coming back to

you hopefully before the end of the year with some more concrete details on our plan of attack for tackling the citywide is survey. as part of that we were also granted additional money related to a cog grant. we have a cog grant for this year for about $25,000 and also have a krog grant for next year for about $40,000. this grant money is used to prepare a neighborhood commercial district historic context statement and is survey of neighborhood commercial buildings. in particular mixed use corner buildings. the reason we picked this prototype is these are the buildings that are in that first tier of the size retro if it program. we are like ly to see a large

volume of permits to upgrade these buildings in the near future and we wanted to make sure we have historic preservation in the future so when we are reviewing we don't delay those projects unnecessarily. with this funding we are able to expand this is survey and keep that is survey moving rather than waiting for the next fiscal year grant to come in. as part of the $100,000 citywide is survey, we are also under sway for this commercial is survey. we'll keep you updated on this is survey which we hope to bring to you for the upcoming adoption in the upcoming year. there is one error in the narrative that i wanted to point out to you in the last paragraph on page 5, in the middle of the paragraph there is a sentence referencing the preserve america grant.

if you recall that grant expired a couple years ago. this is meant to refer to the cog grant that i just explained to you. so that krog grant will be available. so if you have any questions, or you would like to discuss this further at a future hearing, i would be happy to do that. i wanted to make sure you had this information at this hearing. that concludes my comments unless you have any questions. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners any questions for staff on this? >> seeing none, mr. frye, i do have questions but with landmarks, we'll take it up there. it's about conversations about how to move stuff forward by guaranteeing hours. we'll take it up under that item. seeing no other comments we'll move on. >> that places you on

commissioner matters, item 2, announcements. >> i have no announcements. >> item 3. corrections on adoption to the minutes of the meeting . >> any correction? any member of the public wish to comment? seeing none. >> i move we adopt them. >> second. >> thank you. >> commissioners there is a motion and second to adopt the minutes for august 6, 2014. on that motion, commissioner highland, commissioner jong, john, matsuda, wilson, commissioner president haas. that motion passes 7-0. which places you on item 4. commission comments and questions. >> commissioner pearlman?

>> i want to disclose the mayor's office called me about the 50 fell street project and i didn't talk to anybody. i did call nicole wheaton back and let her know that i knew they were interested in a project. also, this is actually a question for the city attorney. on the landmark's designation program, 199 carl street was nominated and i am the architect for that project. i understand this is an informational hearing on. i don't know if i have to recuse myself from that. >> andrea deputy city district. i think given that you have such a close relationship with the project it would be better if you recuse yourself from that particular discussion. >> okay. so there is two other items on that, so, i don't know if they are

going to be taken sequentially then i can leave at that moment. okay. thank you. >> commissioner highland. >> i also did hear from the mayor's office. i did speak with nicole wheaton. second disclosure the preservation element is on the agenda again for the third time and the resources group prepared the draft. the contract is over. so i'm able to participate. >> commissioner wilson? >> i got a call from michael about indiana street. i didn't speak with him. >> commissioner jiang? >> they also called me. >> commissioner matsuda? >> i had a conversation about item no. 10. >> any other questions, comments? commissioner pearlman? >> i wanted to let people

know that the high better than hiebernia graffiti was caught. there was an article on tuesday and i spoke with the assistant district attorney who was prosecuting and she is very adamant about the damage that was done and i did find out about the penalty since this guy has a record of previous graffiti that he is eligible for state prison and a fine. unfortunately it was not continued on thursday. it was supposed to ben on thursday. but it was continued until october. but they got the guy and we are happy to see he's being prosecuted. >> thank you, looking forward

at future meetings even though meetings full september 3rd is very light. mr. fry confirmed we don't have anything on the agenda. we are proposing to cancel the september 3rd meeting by consensus. there is nothing on it. we'll go ahead and cancel september 3rdrd. seeing no other comments or questions or disclosures we'll move on. >> we can move on for continuation item, consideration of proposed amendments. it proposed for continuance to september 17, 2014. i have no speaker cards. >> thank you, it's my understanding that we have all the revisions. it just has to be implemented. so it will come back for sure at that time. any questions? >> i move we continue the item. >> yeah. let me do public comment real

quick. any member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close this public comment. do we have a second? >> second. >> thank you. city clerk: there is a motion and second to continue item 5. on that motion, commissioner highland, yes, commissioner jiang, yes, john, matsuda, yes, commissioner pearlman, yes, commissioner wilson, yes. other -- that passes 7-0. that places you on the regular calendar item 6. item 6: 2010.0515 r. schuett; 4155 575-90300 potrero hope sf - informational presentation on the status of the potrero hope sf project and summary of the findings of the historical review. item 6: 2010.0515 r. schuett; 4155 575-90300 potrero hope sf - informational presentation on the status of the potrero hope sf project and summary of the findings of the historical review. item 6: 2010.0515

r. schuett; 4155 575-90300 potrero hope sf - informational presentation on the status of the potrero hope sf project and summary of the findings of the historical review. >> good afternoon, i'm rachel of the san francisco planning department environmental planning staff and the coordinator for the potrero environmental review process. joining me today are my colleagues which staff historical preservation technical specialist senior environmental planner and supervisor for the environmental review process. emily wine stein of the housing corporation, the project sponsor. the item for before you now is the portrero project review. i will discuss the process and turn it over to emily winestein who will take you through the historical review process. the process for potrero was initiated in 2010 when an environmental impact report was issued. given it requires funding is subject to review on the national environment policy act. the notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact state was issued

in july of 2011. we are working with the housing of community development to prepare an environmental report and environmental impact statement which is expected to release on public review in september. as part of today's packet. commission members were provided a copy of the planning department historical resource evaluation response in july 2011. attached to that were several historic resource evaluations prepared to the project site, it's buildings and landscaping. the purpose of today's pregnancy -- presentation is to give the commissioners information about the process to decide whether or not to comment on the eirs. after emily and rich present, they will be available for questions you may have.

we are not discussing eir, but will bring it back to commission during the public review period to hear your comment if the commission desires. thank you. >> hi. my name is emily wine stein and today's presentation i'm giving you an overview of the project. a little bit of the background and what the proposed development program is. i'm with bridge housing and it's a non-profit build housing developer. we've been in san francisco over 30 years and developed 14,000 affordable housing unit and we are in the pacific northwest now.

rebuild potrero is hope sf to revitalize some of the most distressed homes in san francisco. there are hope sf now, rebuild potrero. the goal of sf is multiple. they really are not just about the physical redevelopment, but also about improving outcomes for existing families and creating thriving sustainable mixed income and the public housing itself but making sure we can leverage those changes in the surrounding neighborhood. hope sf began in 2007 under mayor newsom and all of the task force that was convened in 2007-08 that laid all the of the sites and the

guiding principles. i listed here all eight. the most important once are the ones that stand out to ensure there is housing replacing of all the public housing and integrated economic communities income housing. maximizing new affordable housing and making sure the residents are involved in every step of the change process. >> so this photo here shows you an aerial view of the public housing site, both the terrace and the annex. this is facing north that it's on the southeast side of the city. you can also tell from this aerial that is very much detached from the natural street grid of san francisco. it made up of a bunch of diagonal streets and cul-de-sacs on the annex side. here are some examples of the

existing buildings. most of them are 3 story barracks style in the 1940s and the annex built in 1955. the demographics now there are 606 residential units. 85 percent of them are occupied. what we know now is there are about 1300 residents on lease. what we suspect there is a third more about off lease closer to around 2,000 residents on-site. the ethnic breakdown is 60 percent african american, 20 percent latino, 10 percent asian pacific islander and mixed ethnic and white. it is also very young population. so close to 60 percent are under the age of 25. and 15 percent are between the age of

0-5 years old. the median income is $14,000. about 85 percent of adults are not working. the poverty rate in the terce annex is close to 65 percent. the neighborhood is very disconnected from any major supermarket. and sort of a startling statistic is 53 percent of the elementary school kids that are on-site are chronically absent which means they are missing more than 10 percent of the school hours in the year. it's been hard to get clear data but we imagine that it's about 60 percent graduation rate varies between 55 percent and that is compared to 86 percent in san francisco. also as noted from the aerial, it's geographically and socially isolated from the rest of potrero hill particularly from the north side of

the hill but the rest of the city in the region and the crime rate is five times the city average and every chronic illness. you'll -- so we were selected in 2008 as the developer for potrero and became a two 2-year master plan and process where we had tours and focus groups that created the overriding design principles for the master plan. it also helped establish clear goals for the master plan. an and all of been incorporated in the master plan that you see here which is completed in 2010. another image. i don't know if it's more visible on your screen. but this is the master plan it shows the parcels and the development capacity for each of those parcels.

and what is significant about the master plan is there is a real focus on creating a neighborhood center for the neighborhood where there will be concentrated community building retail large park and it really creates an opportunity to bring not only the north and south side together but as we creating this mixed community it creates a location where you can bring household of varying incomes. the proposed program is to replace all units of public housing. at this point the proposed project is up to 1600 units. 606 of those are public hougs. we'll be adding additional 4ses houses and market rate. 60 percent mixed income and market rate. this could be a real

opportunity for public housing, transformation around the country to do market rate housing in a mixed income environment. in terms of the additional components and master plan, there is about 15,000 square feet of retail, 25,000 square feet of the community center which includes day care, spaces will increase the number of day care slots both day care and preschool slots and close to four 4 acres of public open space. so as i mentioned the housing that we are proposing developing is really a mixed income model. it has a lot of housing affordability that allows people making nothing all the way up to real housing market rate housing. it's broken down the development into what are really three large grading phases.

and that's due to the topography of the neighborhood we are sort of limited by the existing topography. but by dividing up the site into these phases we'll be able to relocate residents on site through the construction process. there will be a variety of housing types throughout the site to be able to distinguish from each other. in terms of the neighborhood improvement, as you can see from the master plan one of the key goals of the master plan is to reorientate the rest of the structure to connect tot to san francisco. the rest has been so disconnected socioeconomically and physically that it's important that we knit together to the rest of the city and to the region. we'll be creating this new neighborhood center on 24th street. as i mentioned the retail and community center and open space. which is really important is

there are existing assets in the community that residents are connected to and can't get by just by walking through the site. we'll be increasing access through daniel webster and the neighborhood house. this doesn't necessarily touch on what you are considering, but part of rebuilt potrero includes the comprehensive program delivery strategy. we have been on-site now since 2008 implementing community building activities and developed a model called transcommunity building and recognize the stress that families have been under and engaged residents on trying to reduce some of that toxic stress and build resiliency and lay the foundation in this change. we are working with community based organization with hope sf services team and working with a series of foundations with hopes of fundraising

and working with san francisco health institute and looking for the implementation of this project. this is an example of some of the activities we have going on everyday. that's it. >> hi. rich -- department staff. it's a mid-20th century public housing complex that includes about 61 buildings and 606 units. the housing complex was completed this two phases with the potrero terrace built in 1941 and the other one in 1954. the department took number of consultation with resource consultants to analyze the buildings with

church landscape. we found the project was significant in architecture as one of the super block public housing complexes built before world war ii. however, in general, over across the entire site, integrity was lacking in a lot of major areas due to number of alterations over the lifetime of the project which basically determines that thus be concluded that there is no historic resource present on the project site. this review coinciding with both the sea kwa review as well as section review that is from the document. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> commissioners, questions from staff?

anybody? commissioner jack ? >> yes, this is very admirable what you are accomplishing here on rebuild potrero, my question is so much of this whole idea about reorienting the neighborhood to the city. as you say there is not loose of integrity there because of at the -- deterioration and i'm wondering what more we can do with that and what we can do about reorienting the neighborhood. >> do you want to speak to that?