assessment the steps that david outlined we're assembling all the data both the updated sea level rise data and the data on all our assets i hope to have that completed by early next year then we'll be able to look at all the assets that are potentially in trouble and screen out the ones that are not and determine the incredible issue then we'll be able to determine what kinds of adaptation measures may or may not be needed we'll be working closely with our partnerships partners like bart and other transportation folks to help us plan those measures again to have the vulnerability assessment around the middle of

next year to prioritize the dangerous and identify funding sources for those as well that's all we have for i today and we'll happy to answer questions. >> thank you really interesting and important stuff are we working with other jurisdictions you mentioned everybody around the bay what other kinds of impacts do we have on a impact. >> you know that is secretly part of what we're doing we start by getting our own house in order sfusd has the biggest link to another issues but we share communications with bart pea what what we are doing to circulating accident guidance of the presentation the one i gave to the charge group coastal

hazards and resilience something (laughter) i can't remember the acronym by one hundred and 25 staff across the bay area focused an flooding and sea level rise and we've gotten a number of inquires about that you know my hope is that if this is indeed a first in the nation guidance a recent article called it then potentially others might want to emulate our approach and that will help in planning other than when we get a bar curve here we're less likely to be regulated and i actually as the regulations take shape those are a healthy thing. >> members of the board. >> thank you. this is a map for the terrifying information it's scary we're taking steps to

take care of this and what happens to transportation like in new york just reading about the measures they had to go to keep their system no specific questions this is just an important work to do i'm glad we're doing it and addressing this so thank you very much. >> one particular question on the 20 one hundred most likely what's the great land what does that say. >> the green light. >> what. >> the green session are areas below the indication level but no pathway for them to get this the historic bathtub water

that's not real. >> this slide is intended to show as little as possible (laughter) but the big guys. >> have the giants seen our map. >> i haven't talked to pablo directly but the mission creek project is a pilot look at expanded actively the kinds of adaptation for the most kind of vulnerable areas which is mission creek so the giants have been part of that and a lot of priority folks when we see the results from that study it p will be interesting they won't be recommending adaptation options specifically but generally taking on that question. >> so the more serious

obviously the ball park is an important thing and the giants own it but if i look at that map it seems like this is the area around the ball park is the most vulnerable and i couldn't tell from the map is the area that will be the entrance is to the new tunnel for the central subway in the danger zone the notion of water coming out a subway tubule not being simplistic but the asset that came to my mind was that subway line. >> yeah. i think both of our east side portland's as well as the subway portal if you look at the deepest scenario would be very will impacted the other key areas along the embarcadero but

as well as metro the metro east facility and this is a facility you see on the map the other effected areas and the facilities are near or on and in terms of the portland's that i think those speak to along with the city assets what global solutions there might be in terms of addressing the seawall the seawall was built in saucers stages by one hundred years ago it was maintained by the port and it's not invested in the upkeep of the seawall even absent sea level rise it's accommodated under a seismic event so some of the deep discussions with a renewed focus on what we as a city are going

to be doing with the seawall we're not independently protecting a seawall by our trains have to get through the solution of some of those will solve the problem for many of the city's assets and private assets will have to be done at the citywide level with regards to the seawall we'll look at seated specific solutions for example, metro east we'll contemplate expanding eastward with the new process in place as we start developing that new project what kinds of measures to protect the expanded facility and maybe by expanding the sea level rise destine it from the

start the portals when i saw those two years ago my to thought was the ferry portal with the new portal will be significant points. >> i mean it makes i glad our electricity supply is up top and not below like bart that is primarily the system shut down with the water and electrical route but if i can indulge for one other question what happens to treasure island in this somewhere. >> the ti is actually. >> we have a bus route out there so it's a quasi legitimate question. >> we have i call a robust attempt to deal with sea level rise they used the previous

guidance that included findings like 16 inches in the years 2050 and sea level rise with the dpamgsz approach to that allowed for the resilience through the years 20060 i believe with levies on the outside and a lot of soil complicated on the inside for the stormwater movement and then substantially a funding stream to deal with the management approach what will happen between 2050 and 20060 when we know more and i'm not up on the deals exactly what's happening today but 81 ti and the shipyard have a attack

on what was understood before. >> director ramos. >> i'm grateful you guys have started this work is it critically important we're prepared for the worst my own experience looking at the transit system and talking to people that have gone through the stuff that things that stands out in my murder in the first degree the katrina that had the surges they didn't have a protocol in place a lot of their stock it was underwater because they didn't have a plan to move the vehicles out of the way and i'm wondering i suspect near

fisherman's wharf this will take into account that kind of analysis and figure out a plan that responses to it or creates an action plan they'll be able to follow up on did that sound right. >> yes. >> this is good stuff i'm encourage you to be thinking about the importance that bicycles played in the storm sunday morning up in hurricane sandy and how important it was when the whole city shut down everybody was getting around on bicycles i want to include bicycles in some sort of a plan to help people to get around where it's folks in our own corridor i want to make sure we're thinking about that as a

potential response to help fill the gap once we're or when or if we become be disabled. >> it the association of bay area government involved in this process. >> they've been one of the 4 regional agencies that directed the joint policy committee to work on adaptation bay area wise the j p d did a broad survey of what's happening they have a resilience institute it addresses the adaptation mr. larkin we'll see where that comes out and water a transportation is an issue and other issues are focus areas of the joint policy committee so, yes. >> i'm concerned about water situations in the cross multiple jurisdiction lines like palo

alto and they don't have a great history of cooperating and hopefully that'll they'll do something the problem solving. >> we're getting more and more attention from folks like fema and the army core they're all will trying to work together because some of the issues are not local. >> any other questions. >> i appreciate the presentation. >> mr. chair no one has indicated an interest and nobody coming down with the solicitation of the closed session that includes the information today. >> thank you for letting me adjourn the meeting in memory of mr. dailycall

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