preservation commission regular hearing for wednesday february 18, 2015. [inaudible] if you care to do state your name for had record >> i would like to take role for the commission at the time >> [inaudible] commissioner johns, >> here. >> [inaudible] here >> commissioner first on the agenda is general public comment at the time. members of the public can address the

members of [inaudible] respect to agenda items [inaudible] will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. i vespeaker cards >> any member of the public wish to speak on an item not on the ajunda, please come up to the mic >> my name is lulisa pedren chely and i'm here today regarding the historical status of 235 vulinsia sfreet. i along with my partner kelly hill documented newnition regarding the life and work of [inaudible] the previous owner of the building. for those without knowledge of hap joans, he was a pioneer of motorcycle

racing and culture in san francisco and the sport orphmotorcycle racing at a national level. a national racing champren, he wint on to foirnd hap joans motorcycles at 235 vulensia and [inaudible] clinton park. after the career as a racer ended in 193 save, hap created and sponsored events at the local, straight and national level jz sponsored many teams and famous riders including dick man. in 1986 hap joans was awarding the american motorcycle association, dud perkens award for the life time of contribution tooz motorcycleling and in 1998 was inducted into the american motorcycle hall of fame. hap was also a life long member and 2 time president of the san francisco motorcycle club, which is the oldest club in-second oldest club in the nation. based on this new information about the life work

and legacy of hap joans, we believe the buildings means 1 and 2 for historical designation under the california register. we hope you direct this nrfgds to historical planning stiff for review as it effects the status code of the buildings as individual resource and wasn't included inl the original dpr survey done as part othf nrtd mission survey. we would also request that the building be considered for land mark status. i have copies of the information and this has been compiles as best we understand it. >> thank you. any other members of the public wish to speak on an item not on the ajunda. none, so we close public comments >> item one directors announcements >> commissioner and

department staff the report was included ipthe pact, happy to answer any questions >> commissioner jones. wrun of the things that was part of that was an analysis or at least a statement of residential units in the pipeline. just within the last couple days i read in the paper that there is legislation being proposed that would prohibit the coninstruction of certain kinds of housing in the mission district. i wondered if it is too early, but if the director has or is planning on analyzing the effect of that legislation on the amount of housing that is in the pipeline? >> department staff, when the

legislation is introduced it will be referred to the planning department for analysis and we are happy to share that analysis once we prepared it >> thank you. >> commissioners if there is nothing futher item 2 [inaudible] staff report and announcements >> couple announcements to share with you, one is president [inaudible] were you going to talk about planning commission? i have nuth toog report on the planning commission from last week because prizdant hawse will fill you in, but i wanted to mention a couple things, one, an ordinance past recently at the board of supervisors. it is amending the planning code to make reasonable accommodation frz persons with disability. the reason it didn't come before this body is because we don't believe there is any effect to historic

resources outlined in the past legislation and i'll pass aroind a copy to look at. i highlighted 2 areas for historic resources are called out. basically the ordinance allows for an administrative process to expedite any projects that allow for reasonable accommodation of a dwelling unit under the fair housing act. in particular are the details of the mauments are to allow parking with no physical structure is proposed, access ramp provided it is designed and constructed to meet provision and 3 is inhabitable space or elevator ovrides that don't [inaudible] the california historic building code is outlined in the ord nnss and in the

amendments and also compliance with the variety of the interior standards is also required for any buildings either formally listed or determined eligible for historic status. that was passed i believe last week and will go into effect in 30 days and i'll pass around the legislative digest and ordinance for your information. the last thing i wanted to do was introduce shana ferguson as a new member of the planning department survey staff. shannon started with us several weeks ago and was the cofounder of channel san francisco office where she worked as a senior preservation associate and worked on a variety of work including [inaudible]

supplemental information, architectural surveys and impact analysis. we are excited to have her and she is solly devoteed to research and documentation of property listed on the land mark deg iginate work program. this is in response to last years budget discussions about allocating more staff to writing those reports and doing re-search. we are happy to have shannon and welcome. that conclude my comments unless you have any questions. >> see none. item 3 presidents report and announcement >> thank you. last week i went to the planning commission and spoke about why we have this eir preservation alternatives statement coming out. they were very receptive and in fact were kind of-not

cibed of, they were very concerned about the projects i brought up and had other projjects in mind as well. what i learned is we on write a few of these letters every year related to planning commission and i think it would be incredbly beneficial if we went and presented them to give a understanding-they just get something that says we disagree or agree, they are not here for the discussions and it is easy it make it it. it is at the begin ogthf meeting and just a couple minute discussion is a benefit so they understand whether we are. there are commissioners there that i bump into and talk to and some i have nev met before so they don't know where we are coming from and what our ideas or agenda is: i would love to make that just a regular thing jrktss this would be open time for public comments.

>> [inaudible] it is just right at the beginning. >> i think that is great idea. >> i just think it would-we are suppose today be 2 separate bodies, but i think a understanding of what we are doing and if they have questions then and there we can get to it. there is that and then maybe this goes under comments and questions, but i want to thank the individuals who brought in the-- >> they are gone. >> i know this building very very well. phenomenal building. i never knew the history but the window line they created along the north side just speaks to the alley way and it is such a intgle part of the corner and alley. i have always loved the building let alone there is fantastic hitry behind it. is there a project queued up for this? >> not that i'm aware of, but

i will look into it. the building is for sale >> commissioner jones. >> do you think this planning commission this report from the commission, do you think mr. fry would present that? >> normally mr. fry does present it, but i think it would be great from our side of our discussions that we had here. that is just my feeling. there was really nice back and forth. i think it also speaks more about planning department as a whole rather than these big separate entities. exactly. nothing else than we'll move on >> item 4 consideration of adoption minutes for the cultural heritage assets

committee for february 4, 20 15 and the regular hearing [inaudible] >> i vote they be adopted. >> second. >> thank you. be we go to vote, any member oof the public wish to speak on the item. none. we have a motion of 2nd othen floor with no corrections or alterations >> on the motion to adault the mints, commissioner hiland [inaudible] motion passesuenanimous 7 to zero and places you on item 5, commission comments and question. >> commissioner [inaudible] >> this is related to a item on the agenda, but want to get a clarification. it is related to what you just sfoke about on the issue of us commenting to

the planning commission on preservation alternatives in a environmental impact report that would be before the planning commission. what i wanted to comment on is i met with a property owner in potraro hill who is active in a organization called, save the hill association. i looked at-there is a proposal which we thank you for sending that is information which this mr. minot gave me as well. there is the eir for the development project in that area and hasn't come before us yet for consideration of comments. but i was interested to-for us to be ready to comment on at the

moment there is no preservation alternative that is presented in the document that is being developed for this particular piece of property. i hope that there is at some point and i guess i just want to clarify that at the time at which we comment on a preservation alternative is at the time you bring the eir to us for comment when it is ready. we wouldn't ask for a separate hearing now >> that is correct commissioner. during the review and comment phase we'll bring the eir to the body to weigh in othen accuracy and thoroughness of the documentation and while-not to get into a lot of detail about the alternative, but it is something that the organization

shared with the department so it will be included in the analysis of the eir so you will see it as part of the document >> by the way, the department is pacific rolling mills. you are familiar with it. fascinating area of town. quite a great neighborhood. thank you >> commissioner [inaudible] >> i also met with mr. miinate about that project and my understanding was and correct me if i am wrong, there is going to be a public scoping for the eir. there was a public scoping coming up in march and that would be a place where the various alternatives as we talk about later today could come forward >> absolutely. the public scoping meeting is due to the size of the overall project and multitude of analysis that has

to occur, but we did encourage the organization to share that at the public scoping meeting as well >> [inaudible] i also met mr. minot regarding the preservation alternative, but i wanted to share with the commissioners this insert that was part of the san francisco conical about the 1915 expo and the series of performances they will have this weekend. i would like to pass that around. >> xhirgzings see nothing else, we'll move on >> place you under the regular calendar for item 6, case [inaudible] crv. preservation alternative policy. this is a policy

statement. >> good afternoon commissioners. [inaudible] i am joined by lisa jibson, senior environmental planner with the department as well and we're here to present to you this draft resolution and i'm sure have a discussion about some of the wording. i did want to point out, we have passed around a revised version of the document. there are 2 copies for each of you, one is a changes version and the other is clean copy, but we want #250d share that with you so you understand the chairchgs we made, which we think are good because they gave us-over the past week we had more time to

flush out the document and provide a clear explanation of the role of the planning commission and the department in reviewing eir's. we think it would be helpful for the public and staff as a stand alone resolution rather than sunching other places for process and policy direction. the main reason we bring this before you is at the request of president hawse and vice president wolfram. we had several discussions at the staff level, but also at the commission about the content and the level of detail in draft eir's. in particular the preservation alternatives presentations before this body on preservation alturn trfbs and proposed projects. president and vp felt it was

important taput something down in writing that established the policy of this commission on what your expectations are when you see one of these documents come before you. so, what we have attempted to do is incorporate everything that we heard over the last couple years into some direction that you can give project sponsors and planning staff support this because it helps us during our discussions with project sponsors so we can give them a early understanding of what is expected of them, not only during the eir process and once they go brf public bodies to consider the document. with that, i would like to turn it over to lisa gibson and shell rr walk us through a poregz of the document. we are both available for questions. we did receive a couple comments

from the public, one i believe was already forwarded to you and i can't remember the mans name, but it was in [inaudible] goodman. the second comment we received this morning and i have a copy to pass out to you. it is from ggppa, which is golden gate park preservation-anyway, i'm not sure what the acronym stands for. she would like us to consider adding the word landscape in several areas of the policy, which we don't see any problem providing that clarification and think it is a good change so i have copies

for you. that conclude my remark jz i'll let lisa take over and walk you through the revisions. thank you >> good afternoon president hawse, members of the commission. i'm lisa gibson, senior virementdal planner in the planning environment. i'm in the environmental plan division and a liaison between the planning and preservation staff. the environmental planning division of the planning department is responsible for administering the california environmental quality act process in san francisco. we recognize the important role that the hpc plays in this process and your role and reviewing draft eir's for projects that result in a sig cent impact on a historical resource. [inaudible] clarify

expectations regarding preserveivation alternatives. before i walk you through the resolution, i thought it may be helpful to review the requirements that [inaudible] established for the environmental revoy sknrauss talk about the process that pertains to our discussion. the environmental review process begins with the project sponsor filing the application and we conduct a repreliminary review at the time to stee if the project may result in a environmental effect. if it will, or might, we consider if there are ways to reduce or lessen those impacts to a less than significant level and if we can do that we prepare a mitigation and if we can't we go to a eir. once we know the eir is required we issue a nouts of prepation of the eir and spell out what may be some

of the environmental effects of the project and also state in the notice of preparation what alternatives may be evaluated in the eir. if we know the project results in demolition or adverse change through aleration to a historical resource, we know hat the time there will be more than one preservation alternatives included in the eir. the details of that alternative are to be flushed out. after the nop is issued we continue with the projects environmental effects and the review is formed by the comment we receive and notice of the preparation and the comments and impact the project itself, mitigation measure squz alternatives to the project. comments on alternatives are helpful at this mile stone because we haven't yet set in stone what are the alternatives

that are evaluated in the eir. prepare background studies as needed for historical resource analysis. those include the hesource evaluation prepared by consultant and planning staff. in addition we may have the preservation consultant assist in formialating preservation alternatives and may have them prepare a memo that lays out the analysis of the impacts of those alternatives. formialating the alternatives our goal is to satisfy the requirements. hoor is what [inaudible] says about some of the considerations for what an eir needs to discuss regarding alternatives. must describe a reasonable range of alturns to the project or location of the

project that feasibly obtain most of the sponsors objectives and substantially avoid or lessen the significant impact of the project. eir have to evaluate the comparativeimators. the eir need not consider every conceivable alternative, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives. that would foster and inform decision making by the public and decision macers. not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. the lead agency is possible for disclosing to the public the reason for selecting alternatives. the discussion of alturns has to focus on alternatives going to be capable of avoiding or lessening those impacts. this

is true even if those alternatives would impede to some degree the project spawner objectives are ermore may costly. [inaudible] should include those that can plx the objective [inaudible] the range of alternative is governed by the rule of reason and that requires to set forth only those alternatives that are necessary to permit a reasoned choice. describe the rational for the alternative and identify the alternatives identified and rejected and explain the reasons for that. factors used to eliminate alternatives and consideration include, failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, infeasibility and

inability to avoid significant environmental effects. the eir has to include sufficient information about alternatives to allow for meaningful evaluation in comparison with the project. that's some of the highlights of the requirements. procedurely once we prepare the draft eir we distribute for public weview for 45 days and have a hearing before the planning commission to allow for public to make oral comment and then if there is a significant impact that the project would cause we also calendar a hearing observe the hpc to allow for this commission to consider whether to make comments on the eir. after that we set to work in preparing responses to comments and dumes and the written responses we revved during the public review process. it is auch the case we'll reserve

callants requesting review or consideration of alternatives we looked at and when woo consider those comment and respond we are guided by what [inaudible] is required, the requirements that i just described to you. many timeathize comment will express preference for or opposition to the project or alternatives and as we know the consideration of the projectimator is outside the scope of [inaudible] but the comment can be considered by the decision makers whether it is #234r planning commission or board of supervisors in their decision whether to approve or disapprove the project. wunss we have published the draft eir it is more challenging to go back to the drawing board and reformialate alternatives that is why we get the comment recallier the better. which is why getting back to the reason

we are here today. we are grateful to have the draft resolution that established what the hpc would like to see in the eir regarding preservation alternatives mptd let me walk you through the key point in the resolution and the policy statement. ginerally the policy statement includes point that reflect the seek wurequirements that i have spoken about. in some cases it highlights the procedural rifermt said that we standerly dine san francisco and in some cases there are request for information that the commission asked for from our staff. so, generally the wraez is in the category of explaining the seek ws process and requirements in san francisco. if we get to the numbered items, the first

item and second item per tain to the preservation alternatives. this first one reflects that the seek wurequirement that if we have a significant impact of the project that we have alternatives that would address that significant impact and if one is historic resource impact it is a preservation alternative. there is a difference between a preservation alternative or full or partial preservation alturn trfb. a full preservation alternative would avoid or lessen the impact of the historic resource so that the impact wouldn't occur and may be the golden standard of preservation for a project. the partial preservation alternative recognizes that sometimes there are site consideration or constraint that make