november 19th historic preservation commission on that motion commissioner president lazarus commissioner johnck commissioner johns commissioner matsuda commissioner wolfram president hasz smeemdz that motion passes unanimously. >> commissioner hyland a report back we had our first committee meeting prior to this one on the cultural heritage assets that was well attend we had 8 comments and a presentation from supervisor campos office as well as from the san francisco heritage our next meeting will be february 3rd the first meeting in february the mayor's office will be doing a presentation from the invest in

the neighborhoods program. >> thank you commissioners comments or questions or disclosures. >> commissioner johnck and invest in the neighborhoods tells you can you tell us a little bit more about that tim do you know? tim frye department staff at the first hearing in february they'll give an overview of the program and their work particularly that the 24th street corridor and mission >> you've made a report on that, yes i remember okay thanks. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further we can move on to our regular calendar item 62010 with e the hope san francisco project a draft ian e i f this is to assist the

commission in its preparation on the draft environmental impact report and comments made by the public this will not be may not be responded to the planning commission will hold a public hearing on the december 11, 2014, written comments on the draft will be accepted at a planning department until january 7, 2015. >> thank you, commissioner secretary good afternoon president hasz. >> members and the environmental environmental impact report and environmental review statement we're preparing a document by the planning department and the mayor's office of housing and community development joining me as my colleague with the specialist and the senior

environmental planner members of the project sponsor team are present this is on the draft eir with the defendant project this is the same project brought to you in august of this year as an informational item the project is located on the soviet part of potrero hill between u.s. 101 and the site is bounded by 26th and 23rd street and 25th street within the defendant part of the city the site is currently developed with 6 hundred and 20 housing units proposed project clusz includes the demolition of the one hundred plus housing unit and includes up to seven hundred residential housing to replace market you housing some of the

historic evaluations were evaluated the potrero hill terrace development and the potrero hill landscaping in the context of other public housing projects that were in designed in the presequa block style the annex have not eligible for listing on the historical landmarked but it is not win the district the dir includes the limitation of the proposed project will not result in the accommodate active environmental review for the historical projects the copies of the draft for the review period which began on december 7th until january 2015 your provided electronic copies and the historic response for the historic evaluation documents

i'm going to reiterate with the commission secretary said and remind everyone there will be a public hearing to her public hearing own this draft on the planning commission only december 11th today's hearing is intended to formulate and assist the commission 2, 3, 4 it's preparation on the dir and members of the public may comment on this hearing they'll not be respondent to they'll need to be articulated and differed by a hearing officer on december 11th the planning department will publish my comments that contain the comments on the dir e i s we intended for the eir e i s a few weeks later probably the summer of 2015 this that concludes my presentation. and we're available for your

comments and answer my clarifying questions you might have thank you. >> i have no speaker cards commissioners. >> thank you commissioner johnck. >> yeah. i'm not sure which or kelly? rachel thank you can you a couple of things i was very interested in the work we did this summer with the preservation element of the general plan i'm trying to remember i know we didn't complete and we completed a public hearing had a lot of public comments and i'm interested to maybe have you refresher us and me on the status of that and the relationship of that of how we're looking at - while that is pending i guess final vote or final completion when when we

look at the projects like this how - is there someway to tap into the work we did already this us kind of sitting over there on the shelf i'm not sure >> i think correct me if i am wrong so you want to see if there's a lens for the commission to comment on those types of projects. >> right yes anything. >> the card general plan has preservation objectives and policies which might help guide any kind of comments towards types of projects in the city so there are historic preservation kind of goals and urban controlgles they might use in referencing some of the types of projects did that help. >> i mean right now that is up

to us. >> correct. >> we're not doing this - >> correct. >> will you be doing that? >> not to my knowledge but i'm not the most appropriate person - >> to wouldn't be part of the sequa documentation but future approvals. >> yeah. i guess i'mism my way through the progress that people are not before us i was interested in having a presentation for that it looks like there's a lot of historic implementations so at this time so i'm kind of feeling my way through where we can have leverage yeah. - >> typically the portion or the stage of the project where we are at to examine the accuracy

they're looking at the historic components of the draft eir and make a come traffic. >> commissioner johnck also in the chart itself under the duties for the historic preservation commission it states the proposed projects that have an impact on the preempt the commission will have the opportunity to comment under sequa this could be that opportunity. >> right. right >> commissioner hyland. >> so the historic resources that have existed on this property have been determined not to be historic because of the lack of integrity and there's no mitigation measures as far as articulating this

project forward so that whatever historic cultural memories that may or may not existed in this project because it's been determined lacking in integrity we can't ask for mitigation of an interpreted there a unfortunately, this project is one project that doesn't have a positive lens on our society and so quite often there's a challenge between forgetting those types of things and celebrating the importance of why it was envisioned to be such a great idea to begin with and so we don't - i'd like to

offer or ask for some documentation of what this site represents at least the original site not the annex but being the first housing development site in san francisco now with a full demolition how is - what that tried to represent carrying forward that's one of the challenges on the cultural assets. >> the last time it was commissioner matsuda brought it up beyond a display but keeping it as part of the clubhouse to see what it was before we remember the past so not making the mistakes again. >> that's right. >> so, yeah agreed on that.

>> mr. frye and commissioners i want to echo our comments and remember you why it is in mitigation an impact has not been found you've requested interpretati interpretative displays so we're happy to include that in the letter. >> i think keep the small section of the clubhouse in the commissioners agree with with that it so you would we have consensus on that. >> commissioners questions. >> commissioner johnck. >> yes. i want to respond to the tenure of our remarks here i think what you said commissioner hyland about the idea that wow. i mean this is the wholesale

demolition there's a reason it was under and certainly a cultural significance to this is is important not only to wipeout or wash off the face of san francisco so i think that your comments that would be reflected in the or there's a recorded those would be good comments to provide in the letter that will go to the planning commission. >> the resources that exist are not recognized because the threshold of the integrity has not been met that's unfortunate because you know, i worked for 10 years in july and that project almost got wiped out it was luckily abandoned for so long and saved because of the butchy of the walls and it is a

horrible site for many, many immigrants but it is a memory that many immigrants don't want to have informational how does that fit into the - i'm not the e i'm sure there are important people that grew up there. >> in the annex. >> right so. >> and under the sort of guiding breath of the overall project it is a great thing to replace so i want to mention that in the letter we're happy to see. >> we're going to look for ways to keep the memories of history. >> yeah. right. >> so commissioner just to recap some thought so the commission is impressing support for the project overall but

encourage the project sponsor to explore interpretive positions like the clubbing clubhouse. >> no on a incorporating a section of the building into the clubhouse so we get a concrete bunker it has no personality and now it's a whole different environment so you know this is where people grew up in so let's take some. any public comment on this item? we have no speaker cards seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners any at comments before we close this item seeing none, thank you we'll draft a letter and get it out thank you very much >> commissioners item 7 case at - >> i'm going to have to request

a recuseal. >> for item 7592515 the new mission theater a certificate of appropriateness i believe commissioner hyland needs to be recused. >> to make a motion to recuse commissioner hyland. >> on that motion to recuse commissioner hyland commissioner hyland commissioner johnck commissioner johns commissioner matsuda commissioner wolfram and president hasz that passes unanimously 6 to zero and now proceed. >> good afternoon rich planning staff this is a certificate of appropriateness at mission theater that is designated as landmark the proposed project includes the previously approved

rehabilitation project previously approved rehabilitation project included the interior and exterior alternatives from a 5203 screen threat for a cinema the historic preservation commission approved the project in the motion the proposed revisions include the extension of the par fit walls the rear facade you walls including patch paint and repair of the walls and new concrete screen walls and installation of new exterior of a new metal stairs from fire escape as well as new roof assess lards and new mechanical including patchwork

to date the public has received no public inquires the department staff recommends approval to insure that the certificate of appropriateness the staff recommends prior to approval the permit the project sponsor will minimum minnesota misses all minimal equipment you determined by the staff my ductwork with to be encaused and any painting will match the exterior and the preservation staff will demonstrate the color and capability of the exterior and the project sponsor will look at the plumbing work and for the exterior and interior and two prior to approval the project sponsor shall provide

detailed specification for the paint repair and patching of the exterior and the proposed paint shall be agreeable and in compliance with the national guidelines the project sponsor is here and has prepared a short presentation i'm available for questions that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> good afternoon i'm lacey i work for the resources group here in san francisco on behalf of the project sponsor which is now alamo draft cinemas i'm going to give a recap of what's changed primarily we're dealing with the bartlett facade quickly to refresh this is the

approved elevation in our drawings as well that will include a large stair and wall across bart let street this design doesn't address developmenttion issues they'll have to come back to include those portions of the project a quick review this is the original 1916 design for the building you e as you can see the nature it has minimal concrete ornaments there were access he letters this is the rear of the building existing commission surrender here at the site of the project that was intact at the design

the last image was a 1917 edition 34re89 immediately after the original structure but not received the 1916 design that the original received it brings us to the proposed design the features are the same as the design including the staircase and exit the wall that previously ran along the wall was minute missed that's a trash enclosure and the original allow structure and far bottom right is exposed behind a wall the substantial change is a stack place on the flat facade the height relates to the request of the immediately

adjacent neighbor they have had reached an agreement with the project sponsor the vent lation will be beyond the roof of the building primarily looking at those unadorned facade to prevent creating a distraction on the 1916 part of the building finally with the roof as you can see in the plan you'll see a lot of additional equipment going it on the revolver this is on scale with 9 current equipment not visible from the public right-of-way and where the par fit is raised a few feet up in the left hand corner and the stairs in the plan and the additional mechanic equipment

i'm happy to answer any questions. >> commissioner wolfram. >> it was hard to tell from the roof plan how far the ducts off the wall the west wall from the roof plan that looks like they're coming away from the wall and turn at the roof level to the left and the conducts don't show on the lower level plan. >> that's correct so the dimensions are accurate on the roof plan and to be attached to the structure as closely as possible i've been told by the mechanic engineer federal and state this is the minimal size serving a kitchen but indeed the roof plan is in scale they'll be attached to the flat and so their coming out flat and turn and go up is this it. >> correct. >> that's the square where it

the angling up. >> and where's the architecture stroud. >> this is the commissioner approved it is i assume that is directly around the ventilation stacks i'll be open to comments one wide shroud you mean the shaft. >> this is the only one visible from the right-of-way. >> right. >> bow nothing it on the flat roof right it's just mechanical. >> the par fit existing at the roof you could see the shroud hiding the vent shut up stack is my understanding

commissioners any other questions we can do public comment and bring that back if you like any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner wolfram. >> my only comment about the mechanical ducts i think a shroud is a good idea or the whole thing built out of stucco the benefit it is in back it seem like you could have a bump out a stucco bump out and conceal it you'll see a bump in the building i definitely agree it seems like they should be concealed it's not very nice to the neighborhood with the kitchen captive ducts you running outside of the building. >> this is some folks front

entry. >> to be honest we'll not allow this in my street so honestly, i agree with commissioner wolfram i'll take it to the point of the metal screening it is the same thing i'd rather see that become a part of the building so a shaft going up. >> that is the way of a columns. >> maybe metal concrete but the concrete you know screwed on any kind of screening doesn't do it. >> i think it should be integral with the building. >> yeah. that's a lot of duct. >> and those ducts have some kind of under age pieces not

pretty. >> and back for the sponsors sack this is some people's front entry we wouldn't allow a duct facade to be covered it is a good solution. >> commissioners. >> yeah. i was interested in studying the edition this is on page 3 of the motion as part of the site permit the project sponsor shall provide and reveal on the east wall to denote the location of the historic doors what does that look like? was that in the site plan can you thrumming tell me. >> within the interior that are a couple exterior doors that are no longer in operation. >> okay. >> so commemorate where that door was in the interior or have

the project sponsor show they're a door. >> this is an architecture term i'm not familiar with is it a recessed part. >> it is an actual recess within the wall it basically shows where the frame is for the door. >> okay. >> quick question commissioners did you have a preference on whether it's a one shroud or two shrouds over the ducts since they're separated from one another and i think i'll be inclined to do one. >> the building is putting dublths closer it together get on the roof and spread them. >> i think this would be simpler. >> right. >> i mean it is recessed back you'll have the - >> otherwise you're going to

have on this one - >> one is weirder than the other one and two dimensions and the space left. >> it is uneven and won't look right of. >> right. >> okay. >> will you craft that one. >> i think that i would make a motion to approve with the condition that the commission would prefer one architecture rather than calling it a shroud but an architecture enclosure and it can be similar to the building elevation as possible. >> i second it. >> commissioners then on that

motion to approve with conditions to have an architecture shroud commissioner hyland or excuse me. commissioner johnck arrest commissioner johns commissioner matsuda commissioner wolfram president hasz so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 57 to zero and places you on item 8 the civic center landscaper to approve the finding of the inventory. >> good afternoon tim frye department staff at this point, we're going to ask you to continue this item the good news is the civil serves firmer has forwarded to be completely as asked by the commission i have to connect with the consultant and fourth