be stand by this document. let me ask you on the corner of it i see a triple a, what is the triple a stand for,. >> area agency on aging. >> very good. >> commissioner, we don't have a point of order. >> we don't? i do have a point of order. i just informed it that this area of aging, i understand that now. another point of order --. >> we don't have a point of order as part of our commission process i think is what bridget is referring to. a point of order is not part of this commission process. >> it's not a part of the process. >> i have to understand what is being given to me. snap, what does it stand for? when i ask what does three a stand for, i am told and i

understand that. that's area aging. i appreciate you informing me. otherwise, you know, three a is automobile with something, you know. >> thank you. >> now my next point of order will be what is the word snap, snap budget. tell me what that stand for. >> sure. if you look at the synopsis it has the full name written on there for. it's supplemental nutrition assistance prap education. program education.

moving on, any new business? 14-14daas area plan budget one time only federal state funding increase. denise cheung could i have a motion to discuss? >> second. >> good morning president james, commissioners, my name is denise cheung today i am very happy to present to you our proposed plan of using the one time only which we call oto to help defaulting programs to increase the grant. with approval we will amend the grant accordingly. the first one is title 3b, supportive services. can you hear me? sorry. >> your mic is on.

>> this is an enhancement in the federal funding increase this program by $16,539. the funding will be directed to supporting emergency ice program which includes chore, home maker and personal care. the service is currently provided by self-help for the elderly. the second category of program is the ombudsman program under title 7 a and 3b the amount is only $1,150 and we are allocated it to the (inaudible) program currently provided by family service agency. the third category that's larger is the meals program. that is c31c2 and to explain that paragraph. congregate meals increased by $89,526,

$57,056 in the special nutrition fund and by $16,697 in the nutrition services nutrition program. (inaudible) federal oto, $33,560 in state special nutrition fund and by $31,476 in (inaudible) for children increase of $very much,437. the new funding is included in the notice of funding availability which is already out and we will, together with the other local funding will allocate to the providers and at that time we will be presenting each contract to you for approval. the next category is 503d, disease prevention. there will only be an

increase of $303,000 because they are providing the staff management program as part of the disease prevention. the next category is family care givers, they got quite a big amount, $20,827 for the oto one time only. currently family care alliance is allying with self help for elderly and open house for this family support program and they intend to use this amount of dollars to increase community outreach, community education, public education by actually coming out with dementia awareness and lgbt care giving event and also to update lgbt care giving section. title 7b, elder abuse, is only $132 which we will allocate to the

institute on aging for elder abuse prevention. that's all and hopefully you will approve the plan and we will amend the contract accordingly. any questions? >> any questions? seeing none -- hold on. we do have to take an action on this. any questions coming from any of this commission? if not i will call for the question. all in favor. opposes? ayes have it and so the motion is carried. any public comment? thank you. >> thank you very much. >> public comment? announcements? announcements, yes, commissioner. >> on monday the "new york times" had a front page article regarding fall prevention that was centered on issues

at the sequoia, a senior living facility in san francisco. and we have in the past funded programs to teach fall prevention but one of the points that the article made was that there might be an issue regarding personal responsibility for seniors taking action to exercise appropriately and voluntarily enroll in fall prevention classes before they are needed. the tendency is to enroll in those classes after someone has fallen. one of the points that the article made that was so interesting was that seniors who take a much more, a stronger personal responsibility for their own health at 85 had no greater likelihood of a fall than those who are 65 years old and so that article is online in the "new york times" and i urge the appropriate members of the department to look at it because it may be a way that we can approach teaching about fall prevention

differently from the way we have in the past. >> thank you. any other announcements? public -- yes. >> alert everyone that scams on the telephone are on the uptick and there are all sorts of variations on the theme and they tend to sound more and more official in their tone. so it's important that everyone in this line of work alert everybody that an older person is on some list and has a land line that when they get calls that sound very official and people want information about anything they should just hang up. >> thank you. any other announcements? could i have a motion to adjourn? >> so moved.

>> it has been moved and seconded. may i have a second? it is moved and seconded that we adjourn this meeting. all in favor? meeting is adjourned. thank you for your endurance. (meeting adjourned). .call

this meeting of the historic preservation commission to order. . >> welcome to the san francisco histosfoerk preservation commission meeting to order. i would like to remind members of the audience the xwhition does not tolerate any disruption of any kind. please silence any mobile dwietions that might sound during the meeting. please speak before the commission. i'd like to take roll. commission hasz, here. commission johnck, here. commissioner john, here. and commissioner matsuda. here. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except for agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to speak will be afforded when

the agenda is reached. i have no speaker cards. >> thank you, come to the podium please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, the ruth goldberg building, she is on her way but i think we might miss our opportunity so i went ahead and jumped up. we want to thank you for being placed on the nofr 19 agenda, we are moving forward, we're excited about our report and the progress in trying to preserve our building. thank you so much and we'll see you on the 19th. >> any other member of the public wish to speak on an item not on our agenda? seeing none we will close public comment. >> commissioners, that will place you under department matters. item 1, department report. >> tim fry, department staff. the director's report was included in your packets. happy to answer any questions you may have about the report.

>> seeing no questions, we will move on. >> item 2, review of past events at the planning commission, staff report and announcements. >> commissioners, again tim fry, department staff. nothing to report from previous planning commission hearings, just wanted to reiterate something from your advance calendar. we did move the goldberg building from this hearing to your next hearing given the amount of time we had in reviewing the draft designation report from the consultant we needed another week to complete our review, which is why that was bumped. just wanted to let you know. but certainly available to answer any questions should you have them. >> thank you. seeing no questions or comments, move on. >> commissioners, that will place you under commission matters, item 3, president's report. >> no official report or announcements.

>> item 4, consideration of draft minutes for october 15th, 2014. >> commissioners, any corrections, alterations? seeing none, we will open up public comment on this. any member of the public wish to comment on the draft meeting minutes? seeing none, we will bring it back to the commission. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> thank you. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes from october 14th, commissioner hyland, yes. commissioner johnck, yes. commissioner matsuda, yes. commissioner wolfram, yes. that passes unanimously 7-0 and places you on item 5, commission comments and questions. >> commissioners, any questions or comments? or disclosures? seeing none we will move on. >> moving right along, commissioners. that will place us under your consent calendar. all matters constitute the consent calendar and are considered routine by

the historic preservation commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion unless a member requests in which case it will be removed. i have 1 dr item under consent, no. 6 at 3224521st street, request for certificate of appropriateness, i have no speaker cards. >> thank you, commissioners, would any of you like to pull this off consent? seeing none, open up to the public. any member member of the public wish to pull this off consent? seeing none, bring it back to the commission. >> i move to adopt the consent klepb ker. >> commissioner hyland, yes. commissioner johnck, commissioner. commissioner matsuda, yes. commissioner wolfram, yes. and commission president hasz, yes. that

passes unanimously 7-0 and places you under your regular calendar, item 7, the 5m project draft environmental impact report. please note that this public hearing is intended to assist the commission in its preparation of comments on the draft eir comments made by members of the public at this hearing will not be considered comments on the draft eir and may not be responded to in the final eir the planning commission will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the draft eir on november 20, 2014. written comments on the draft eir will be accepted at the planning department until 5:00 pm on november 21, 2014. >> commissioner hyland is voting we recuse him. >> i make a motion to recuse commissioner hyland. >> on that motion to recuse commissioner hyland, commissioner hyland, yes. commissioner johnck, yes.

commissionment hasz. >> for the record his firm worked on this project. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is michael jacinto, project staff and coordinator for the 5m project. the item before you is preview of the draft eir project. briefly, this project is demolition and construction on a roughly 5 acre site. the project would result in retention and rehabilitation of the dempster building. the project would result in demolition of six existing buildings on the site which include 910 howard, 912 howard, 924 howard street as well as 190 fifth and once the site is cleared the project would involve implementation of one of two schemes studied in the

eir, either an office scheme (inaudible) the eir found through evaluation that the 430natoma building would be eligible for inclusion on the histostoerx register. the no project alternative code compliant cull attorney tif, unified zoning alternative and in this case the preservation alternative. commission members were transmitted draft copies at the beginning of the review period which will end on december 1st. we are here to provide an opportunity for the commission to receive public testimony and discuss historic resource issues pertaining to this project. staff is not here to answer comments or questions today. comments will be responded to in writing in the comments and spoopbses document which we will respond to all

verbal and written comments received and make revisions to the draft eir as appropriate. that concludes my presentation and i am available for questions if you have any questions. once again, as the commission secretary said, the planning commission is having a hearing on the draft eir november 20th and so for members of the public who would like to make testimony on that eir may comment in person at the planning commission on november 20th. thank you. >> commissioner wolfram. >> i had a question about in the -- it wasn't included in the preservation alternative, but there was a discussion about the is it the cannoline building, the potential of building it which would then move the impact to less than significant, but is one of the criteria for moving it, one of the criteria was that it had to be moved off the 5m site and no site was found to be suitable

off the site. why was that a criteria? did you consider moving it within the 5m site? >> this is something we can respond to in writing in the comments and responses document and i believe what you are ruefr *r referring to is the alternatives considered but rejected section. we will provide some more detail in response to your question in the cr >> anything else? >> i have a lot of comments but i can wait until later. >> okay, commissioner johns. >> has there been a presentation of this item to the commission before i arrived? there hasn't? i guess i'm surprised about that and was expecting that today, that there would be a presentation in order to, that we can look at the environmental document in context and particularly environmental documents, while absolutely critical to the understanding of the project, they can be kind of mechanical and kind of functional and what

you miss is an overall vision for what we're trying to achieve here. because this is a huge change in the city, it's very exciting but let's say i was expecting a presentation. and the other question i have, at some point i think it would be important to have one, however we can work that. the other question, i was a little confused about the establishment, the description of our jurisdiction in the environmental report. both on page s15 and then on 72 it says, well, we have to, the jurisdiction of our commission is over any demolition and a permit to alter but it was just describing maybe one or two of the buildings. frankly, i saw our jurisdiction sort of spread all over the place, maybe more advice than necessarily, you know, permits or approval, but

i'd just like some clarification on that and then there's some other ideas that i have but for now those are my general. >> thank you. commissioners, any other questions, comments? we'll open this up to public comment. any member of the public have a comment? seeing none. >> i would like to recommend we wrote a letter with our comments. i found this eir to be sort of unsatisfying, i guess, in terms of the preservation alternative. it was 740 pages and there was one drawing of the preservation alternative. of all the 740 pages i believe there's only 11 drawings of any building at all, so there was a lot of text and as commission johnck said, a lot of it seemed very mechanical. but there's 3 historic buildings on the site

and they are destroying one of them so that's one-third. it felt to me there were a lot of other alternatives that could have been explored which was a very sweet building. if this concept is all about revitalizing the alleys, it felt to me it was unfortunate they were demolishing it. in all the gymnast sticks, i'm sure many many alternatives have been studied for this site, it's been worked on for almost 10 years, tes hard to believe there isn't an alternative that has the same alternative and i found it unsatisfactory that the buildings are moving within the site. they are creating open space, it seems like the building could be a pavillion within the open space and elevations would be exposed so i felt the preservation alternatives didn't seem to be very complete. >> commissioners, any other

comments, questions? commissioner johnck. >> yeah, to continue to echo the comment about the lack of exciting vision and how we can visualize this exciting project in the context of an exciting san francisco, the eir didn't do that. i kept saying we need to have more emphasis and look on the preservation element. we've been working on that all summer, we've been working on the preservation element and the policies and i'd like to see some of those addressed in the environmental document. i experienced what was called urban renewal in several towns in the east coast during the 60's and this is of course before the national environmental policy act was written and many of our state and local environmental laws.

and it was unfortunate, new haven, connecticut, is one town, north adams, massachusetts, where really the rule was kind of slash and burn. and as a result of that attitude several historic areas were kind of wiped off the face of the earth and if you want some more history of those areas you need to go to the library and look up page 120 to find out what happened. but being a little strong on this, but i think what i would like to hear from for the city and in the document is how is this different from urban renewal of the 60's? i kind of know the answer to that and of course we have environmental documentation and we have our great preservation and our commission oversight that is a

great boone to what we're looking at now in assessing the project. i just would like to hear more about what's different in the 21st century than the 60's and in creating a new vision for the city. i noticed quite a bit of emphasis on the historic american building survey. i think the historic american landscape survey would be helpful here. there's a lot in that part of the city that -- the geology, the land forms, the landscape, basically that would be helpful to understanding the context of how we're looking at the buildings and the infrastructure that is being proposed for change and renovation. so those are my ideas at the moment. >> thank you. and i will just

repeat commissioner wolfram's comment about the alleyways. they have completely taken out the character of the alleyway. that's my comment and i will draft this into a letter. seeing no other questions or comments into the commission we will move on to the next item. >> i have one question and it's a follow-up from what commissioner johnck was talking about. what is the process for -- because, you know, i opened the document and saw the 740 pages and almost fainted. i had to dig to find out where is the information that i need to look at this. and, you know, found one or two pages like that that, you know, talked about this. i couldn't even really imagine the particular buildings in the context of the new -- of the project. so is there a forum that we will have in the future that will describe this project or is this something that will only be fully vetted out at the

planning commission? i don't know if that's a mike jacinto question. >> yes, michael jacinto planning staff. this is the only stop we have scheduled here before this commission. there is on november 20th going to be the hearing on the draft eir but we're also discussing and scheduling an informational hearing at the commission also. >> for the same day? >> yes, that's my understanding. >> so there will be a full presentation by the developer? >> no details yet but, yes, we've been discussing some sort of project discussion or presentation. >> at the planning commission. >> at the planning commission, correct. >> so not here. >> not here. this is our only stop. >> that tells you a little bit about historic buildings. >> so we will close this item. >> thank you, commissioners, moving on to item 8, case no.

2014.18, the ferry building certificate of appropriateness. >>. >> i need to recuse myself from this item, high -- my firm has been working on this project. >> i move rerecuse. >> second. >> on that motion to recuse commission wolfram, commissioner hyland, yes. commissioner pearlman, yes. and commission president hasz, yes. commission wolfram is hereby recused, thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, before you is a request for review of proposed work at the ferry building which is designate i had at city landmark no. 90 and as a contributing resource to the national resource listed embarcadero resource project.

the proposed project is for alterations to the north facade of the building which faces the embarcadero. this building was restored in the early 2000's. this includes installation of partial height painted steel modular structures to provide 5 retail kiosks, lighting and radiant heaters are also integrated into the design and construction. infill of non-historic windows in the east wall of the ferry building north arcade where the new retail kiosks will be constructed and installation of up to 5 new pedestrian door openings also in the east wall of the ferry building. staff finds that the proposed work will be in conformance with the requirements of article 10 and the secretary of interior's standards for