heritage element. we do have a final draft that's ready for internal review with the planning department and we'll be developing our public outreach program this year. we're also ready to start working on the environmental review for that document. we also have the citywide survey, which we'll be working on a methodology to survey intangible cultural heritage. we have the context statements, which i would be assisting with, developing a framework for intangible resources and area plans that our citywide division proposes. we would help to navigate cultural heritage issues in the comments. we're working on the film in that capacity and last the legacy business cases, as i presented today. so these are some the questions

we have for the commission, simply, the report format. if you have any recommendations for how we present the information. the level of information for different sections, if you would like to see more or less. the performance measures, if you have any recommendations for performance measures. and there are programs and projects. the landmarks designation also has a process section that outlines the process for designations. if you would like to see something similar, we can attempt that. right now, there's not a clear process for cultural heritage district nomination, but we can take a stab at it. and look at what has been done in the past and maybe give a best practices guideline there. and then last, had some recommendations for other report sections you might be interested

in including potential future projects, any public outreach work that we're doing or planning on completing, and then any nondepartmental cultural heritage work if we have a current events section things that we hear about that we're not directly working on. i would welcome your comments and that's the -- completes my presentation. >> commissioners, first, i wanted to thank shelley and desiree for a great presentation, but also to point out to you that with shelley's presentation, there is a lot of detail that we're showing you related to how we're dividing that fte. we think it's helpful and necessary because it's a new position. as this is a growing area of concern and interest by the city family and the public.

if there are future budgetary implications to expand the number of cultural heritage specialists we have, we hope that tracking it in this detail could make the case. it's not meant to inundate you with details, but if that information is helpful, we can include it maybe in the appendix or give it to you on an as-needed basis, but be aware that we're tracking it closely for those reasons. >> commissioner matsuda? >> commissioner matsuda: that's a really good idea to help desiree and shelley out in the future. i was going to mention the methodology for intangible

resources, that would be such a hot topic for the national trust and so when and -- when that's available to make those suggestive classes or discussions, i would like to see that as well as legacy businesses. and, actually -- well, the commission gets excited about hearing from legacy businesses, so if they could be a part of a discussion at the trust, i think that would encourage other communities, where there are a lot of small and medium businesses to think of similar legislation, so we can spread the word. thank you very much. >> commissioner pearlman? >> commissioner pearlman: thank you. i think the idea of the tracking is really significant, one, to see if there's growth. the other is just to see how it plays out. i mean, you've got these as place holders now and you are going to find that one area will

be much more -- need much more time and then what do you do? and ho do you balance those needs? the other thing i was going to say, i was excited in desiree's presentation, as i'm preparing for a talk i am giving in a couple of weeks, i was looking at the history of landmarks and i was looking by decade and how many. and it started dropping way decade starting in the 1970s to the 2000s. it was 20 some-odd landmarks and i know we talked about this when i was first on the commission about how few we have and we've been trying to build and build, so i was very excited to hear that there were five or six just in this quarter. and then all the context reports. there was so much activity. so it's very exciting that we're

really picking up the pace and the broadening of the scope of what we look at and what we care about is just very encouraging and exciting. so thank you for the work you guys do and congratulations, shelley, on moving into this new world, essentially, is a new way of looking at what we all do. >> thank you. commissioner johnck? >> commissioner johnck: i'm excited about natural resources in the program. now we need another person, right? [laughter] andrew, you've -- i was spurred to more thinking about this because of your recommendation for the tree as a landmark. and so the cultural -- we have cultural landscape designation and we can recommend natural resources. as a cultural resource, there are several. we have parks. and we started a discussion with park and recreation department

regarding the overlap of our interest and golden gate park. so there's a lot of relationship with social, cultural and natural resources. so how we do that, i don't know. whether it's tangible or intangible, it's both. so i would like to figure that out. and identify the sources or whatever. i realize that's more work, but to me it's important. >> commissioner hyland: a few, quick things. can we sync this -- this report is a quarterly report and then richard rick does by monthly or is he quarterly? and then i can't remember if he's presenting to the commissioner -- >> he doesn't present to the commission.

it's the cha, i think. he's presenting to the small business commission for updates. >> we have requested that report from rick, but we could probably modify our request to keep it on the quarterly schedule, if that's more appropriate. >> commissioner hyland: i believe that we've asked him to present that report, but often the report is published, i believe it was every two months, but the last time he was here, i thought he said he was shifting to quarterly. if there's a way to sync it up -- >> i will check. >> the commission doesn't get his reports. they go to the cha. >> right. >> before are we at -- i forget now -- with the cultural heritage district legislation? was it continued? >> it hasn't been scheduled yet,

but the supervisor's office asked for a little more time given the comments they had received. so i believe it's scheduled for your next hearing, first week of february. >> is there a draft? >> not a new draft. we haven't seen a revised draft since the original one introduced the end of october. >> okay. >> and, lastly -- second to lastly, are we going to calendar or agendaize our piece of the legacy business legislation so we can talk about lessons learned, how to do the -- capture the stories better? there's a whole series -- >> maybe this commission or cha. >> commissioner johns, i think, was interested in hearing and getting a dialogue. >> we could get a report from

the cha, because we haven't gotten a report on how the committee is functioning. >> we can do both. >> yes. >> maybe sometime in a few months or something. maybe mid january? >> we'll check with rick and see when he's available because i believe he presented to the cha in mid november, correct? >> right. shelley caltagirone. and i wanted to report that i met with rick yesterday to go over future programs and projects outside of processing and cautions. so now would probably be a good time to hold such a hearing and he can come and share the other work that is being done and we'll try to get that calendared in the next couple of months. >> if we wait until march, i think we'll have a good idea

about the logo. >> that's true. >> commissioners, i will caution now that we're offtopic and this is not an agendaized item. >> it's cultural heritage work item. [laughter] >> all right. >> it's about whether we want the report and how we want it presented. >> all right. last thing. back on topic. the last thing is, i want to thank you and no good deed goes unpunished. when you created this beautiful thing, we asked you to add more information to it. we'll continue to do that with this one. thank you. >> any member of the public wish to speak to this matter? seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. any other comments?

thank you for the reports. hearing adjourned. good afternoo to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, january 18, 2018. i'd like to remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. please silence your mobil devices that may sound off during these proceedings and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record.

i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> commissioners first on your agenda is consideration for items proposed for continuance. item one, at 1439 to 1431 south van ness avenue. discretionary review is proposed to continue wants to february 1, 2018. item two, at 3314 cesar chavez street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continue wants to february 8, 2018. item three, at 1713 yosemite avenue, conditional use authorization is proposed for continue wants to march 1.

item four, at 479 28th street. conditional use authorization is proposed to continue -- continuance to march 1, 2018. and case number five at 1815 mission street. large project authorization has been withdrawn. i have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. >> great. thank you, jonas. any public comment on the items being proposed for continuance? >> on sfgov tv overhead, please? hello. frank gladstone. this is regarding four, 28th street. i represent the property owner. we're requesting continuance until march 1. i'm pleased to tell you that the adjacent neighbour who's most opposed to this by the

name of anne-marie zabala was kind enough to write this e-mail to the staff. and it's here on the overhead, indicating her agreement to a march 1 continuance. the plans were shown to her. the plans aren't totally final. she would like to see them in final. we haven't seen them to the planning staff. i think there is a possibility with a months's continuance that there is some settlement on the design with the next door neighbour and know that the commission hopes to have these things taken off their calendar. and we're hoping we can do so. my client, who is the homeowner who lives there and is the architect and she got this e-mail from planner nancy tran which indicates, quote, that the march 1 hearing date is confirmed. she took that to mean that it doesn't need to go to commission as it is today.

there was funeral back in tennessee. she went to it this week. she is not available today. we -- we finally have some design changes we're talking to staff about and we look forward to getting the plans back to them to see if staff and we can come to an agreement. there is no staff report out. we haven't seen one. it is not on your agenda. and so we would appreciate if that date works, we could have that continuance to march 1. thank you very much. >> thank you. any additional public comment on the items being proposed for continuance? seeing none, commissioner? >> move to continue items one through four to the dates specified. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to continue, item as proposed -- [roll call]

so moved, commission kerrs. that motion passes unanimous 4ri6-0. commissioners, that will place us under commission matters, item six. commission comments and questions. >> seeing none, jonas -- can we have the election of officers? i know commissioner johnson is on her way. can we hold off on that until she arrives and take the next item out of order. >> very good. that will place us under department matters. item eight, director's noumentzes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i wanted to make a few comments related to the condo conversion rules in light of the hearing last week. and kind of talk to you a little bit about what we do and don't do with aren't to condo conversion analysis, if you will. in general, when we do the analysis with public works and know of an eviction or buy-out, that can, in itself, cause the project not to move forward before it even gets to you.

as a reminder, you review only a five and six-unit condominium conversions. so, and it depends on the type of tenant evicted when the tenant was evicted and so on and so forth. we just, as a reminder, we're what's called the referral agency. d.p.w. is the lead. the d.p.w. accepts the application and we receive that referral from the department of public works when they determine that they -- that the application is -- the project is eligible for conversion. now under current procedures, the referral does not include the eviction history per se. but it does include an affidavit from the owner stating that there have been no evictions. this is similar to any application where the applicant signs that everything is correct and true and all that good stuff. so, as you know, for the subdivision code, the commission, quote, shall deny the application if there is elderly or permanent disabled tenants displaced or discriminated against in

leasing the units or evictions have occurred for preparation to preparing the building. the challenge is the it doesn't define what an eviction is. it's clear it goes beyond what the rent board sees. as you learned last week, the definition of when an eviction actually occurs, can be a little bit of an undefined. so, we are working with public works to try to see if what we can do to correct this, to prevent the kind of situation we had last week from even geting to you to begin with. and what we're going to do is, first of all, work with public works to see if we can dig -- dig deeper into the actual eviction history rather than only relying on the affidavit. and number two, we will include a copy of the actual application affidavit in your report so that you can see the actual information that's submitted. because that was the crux of the issue last week where there was a concern that the -- that there was a discrepancy in the application from actually had happened. so, i'll continue to report to

this -- on this issue as we move forward. the good news is this hasn't come up very often with the condo conversion process. but i don't think any of us want a repeat of what happened last week. so, we'll do our best to prevents that from happening. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner richards? >> at some point, director haram, if you can let us know why we approve -- if it's some holdover from some prior law. i'm not understanding why it's just that very specific five and six-unit building. >> i can get you that information. it had to do with the condo conversion ordinance that was passed i think about three years ago. and it specified that number. i can't remember the rationale behind it, butly get that for you. >> thank you. >> if there is nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to item nine. review of past venezuelas at the historic preservation commission. there is no board of appeals report today. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim frye, department staff, here to share with you a couple

of items from yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. notably the commission proud review and comment on three national register nominations. one was to amount the coit tower national register nomination to clarify its national significance, primarily under criterion c for art as the largest -- or the single largest public works art project in the country. also pekt -- aspects of life in california from 1934. the commission also provided a positive recommendation for the national register nomination of the women's building. that is listed to the national register specifically as for its association of second wave femininism in one of the late 20th century's most consequencial social movements and as a location for where the struggle for women's rights was

linked to additional community struggles including those of marginalized, racial and ethnic communities, lgbtq people, imgrands and others. and then finally the commission provided a positive recommendation for the national register nomination of 220 golden gate avenue, also known as the historic ymca. this is in completion of a 2012 tax credit project. where the national register listing is a final requirement of that project. the ymca is significant as the area of education for its association with the golden gate university. one of the few universities to grow out of the educational programmes offered by the ymca. and as a fine example of renaissance revival-style architecture. other than that, the commission decided to continue its election of officers to its february 7 hearing. that concludes my comments. unless you have any questions.

>> i think commissioner richards has a question. >> one quick question, mr. frye. national register nomination, or actually on the register versus local landmark, if you can very briefly, what is the difference in terms of level of protection that the resource has. >> great question. the national register doesn't provide any sort of local binding protection other than through the ceqa process. however, as a certified local government, our historic preservation commission provides review and comment to changes to those buildings. or to list those buildings on the national register. we send our comments to the state commission for review and comment. >> so, is one of these buildings, the women's building, eligible for the state register now because it is on the national register? >> that is correct. well, once a building is listed on the national register, it is automatically listed on the california register. >> ok. and those are protected -- >> well, through ceqa and

through the federal and state regulatory processes. a local entitlement would not be required such as a certificate of appropriateness until they're designated at the local level. >> ok. and that was like housing accountability, density, all of those kind of laws exempt california register properties. >> correct. yep. >> and if i could, just to follow up, there are controls that would come into play if there were federal or state dollars used for the project, right? not that often. for example, if it is a public building, we might have federal or state dollars attached and there is a level of review that would kick in. >> correct. >> commissioner? >> i was going to just -- correct me if i'm wrong, doesn't this -- being on the federal register also make them eligible for certain types of funding? >> absolutely. >> all right. commissioners, that places us on general public comment. at this time, members of the

public can address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the squli, of the commission, except with agenda items. with respect to the agenda items, your opportunity will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> [inaudible]. >> go ahe.ds you are certainly welcomed to speak. >> i have a schedule i'd like handed out, please. >> good afternoon. my name is jerry dradler. i handed out a schedule that cites code violations by rodrigo santos and two significant demolitions by a single developer, tim brown. the small box at the top of the first page shows the three rodrigo santo projects forwarded to the city attorney. 214 state street is one of those projects.

the purpose of the schedule is to illustrate that there are serious code violators who commit serious violations and the planning commission needs to address the problem. the planning department's weak code enforcement emboldens developers. developer tim brown removed a three-story bay without a per nit in 2016. -- permit in 2016. and in 2017, he demolished 49 hopkins avenue, a house designed by prominent architect richard nutra. what will mr. brown demolish in 2018 unless code enforcement is changed? they submitted false architectural plans to the city.

they are not disciplined or fined. why does the planning department not assess financial penalties for submitting false architectural plans? the statement frequently made by d.b.i. and planning department employees that the time delay a developer experience says in getting their project approved because of their illegal actions is penalty enough is nonsense. this is like saying a drunk driver who crashes their car should not be ticketed and fined because the loss of their car is penalty enough. it is my hope the planning commission in 2018 can develop a work plan to improve code enforcement that has specific objectives and due dates. a good first step is to ask the director to identify municipal

best practices for code enforcement and compare them to the planning department's current code enforcement process. i presented this schedule at yesterday's building inspection commission meeting and many members expressed interest in a joint meeting with the planning commission on this topic. thank you. >> thank you very much. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. >> very good, commissioners. >> move back to item seven, jonas. >> very good, commissioners. then we'll go back to commission matters. item seven, election of officers. i would like to read into the record a correction to this. inadvertently cites the rules and regulations commissions but clearly you are not electing the officers of the historic preservation commission, but rather the planning commission. and president and vice president shall be members of the commission and should be elected at the first regular

meeting of the commission held on or after the 15th day of january of each year. or at subsequent meeting the date of which should be fixed by the commission of the first regular meeting on or after the 15th day of january each year. >> there any public comment on item seven? commissioner richards? >> i know the rules call for a separate nomination and vote for both president and v.p., but i would like to nominate both and if there is no objection, we can do a vote on those as a slate. i served last year under commissioner hillis and i'm incredibly impressed with his abilities, his experience, deep level of knowledge. we don't always agree, but his sense of humour seems to get us all through that. i absolutely would love to have this commission have rich as our president again next year so i formally nominate him. >> second. >> second. >> great. and i personally have served two years on this commission

and i think i mentioned this to somebody who i'm going to be nominating in a minute a couple of months ago. i don't like to hog everything. for lack of a better term. and it is good to get diversity of opinions and diversity of backgrounds and diversity of experience and diversity of outlooks. to have this commission be more effective. and to that end, i'm going to step aside and i formally nominate commissioner malgar for v.p.. >> second. >> thank you, commissioner richards. >> thank you. >> are there any other nominations? hearing none, i'll call that question again on the motion to elect commissioner hillis as president and commissioner melgar as v.p.. [roll call]

so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. >> thank you. [applause] >> commissioner fong. >> congratulations to all three of you for your past service and for your coming up service. >> i just want to formally say congratulations. and rich, well done and look forward to another year of your great leadership. commissioner richards, also well done. and i know that those monday meetings are important and intense and thank you for doing that. and good luck to you. 100% behind. >> great. >> commissioner melgar? >> i just wanted to say thank you, commissioner richards, for spending the time talking me through this and i have really enjoyed my year on the commission so far . i like all of you so much. even when we disagree and i want to strangle you, i so love what effect on this commission brings to the table which is so valuable in the diversity of opinions and also ways of looking at things.

and so i want to thank you. for your vote of confidence as the product of a shithole country officially. i am really, you know, grateful to be here and be part of this process. you know, when then-supervisor now mayor breed asked me to be on this commission, she was very clear that she wanted to have the perspective of someone who was, you know, in deeply immerse in the neighbourhood that is undergoing gentrification and displacement and the pressure that that brings, you know, to working families in the city. and so i've tried to do that in this commission and i hope to do that more and articulate at that point of view. you know, in sort of a larger context of defending the space that we have for immigrants in this country. i am grateful to her and all of you to be part of this process.

so, thank you. >> thank you. commissioner moore? >> congratulations, v.p.. thank you commissioner richards. and president hillis, please keep your humour. [laughter] >> and thank you all. it's been, i think we face complex and thorny and sometimes contentious issues. we don't get any additional vote because we're chair or vice chair or president or vice president so i think we've worked well together and disagreed but representfully and often times got better projects which is most important. thank you all for the confidence and congratulations commissioner melgar. looking to toward to the next year. >> very good, commissioners. seeing no other comments, we can move on to your regular calendar item 10. for case number 2017-o13096map,

burnette avenue and burnette avenue north, the zoning map amendment. on december 21, 2017 after hearing and closing public comment, the commission continued this matter to january 18, 2018 by a vote of 4-3. commissioners fong, johnson and koeppel, you were against. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department. the ordinance would amends a zoning map to amends a portion of a paper street proposed for vacation to our m1. as jonas said, the planning commission first heard this item on december 21 and discussed the potential impacts of the sale of the two city-owned parcels to the owner of the land-locked parcel who is also the appellant of the lawsuit. commissioners hillis, johnson, mooser and richards expressed concern about the size of development that may be possible with the purchase of the two city-owned lots by the appellant of the lawsuit. some planning commissions also expressed concerns about votings on the proposed rezoning without knowing what could be built on the proposed par else is. the commission voted to continue the item with the

request that more information be provided regarding the various development scenarios if the two parcels were to be rezoned to rm1 or rh2. going into some of these potential development snare yoes on the subject lot, there is exhibit d in your packets goes into specific details. but to go over the broad scope of development snare joes. if the settlement is approved, the apellant will purchase the vacated portion of burnette avenue north as well as the sfpuc partial which fronts burnette avenue. the zoning that immediately surrounds these parcels is rm-1 which includes the apel lanltz's land locked parcel and rh-2. when comparing the two land locked districts in relation to potential development of the parcel, the main difference will depend on how many dwellings are in the subject properties. other developments such as front yard setbacks, height

limits are all the same or slight differences between the two most logical zoning districts for these parcels. so, to go over one of the exhibits that's in your packet, if i could have the overhead, so again these are only three development scenarios. just three of the most logical. it's by no means meant to be an exhaustive list. but right now scenario a has development of just the land locked parcel. the appellant of the lawsuit before this became a lawsuit had actually submitted an encroachment permit and development application to build a two-unit condo building on this property that would be four stories that would have just been the land locked parcel. so, going with that presumption if he were to still continue pursuing that original development ideas, there would be a driveway that would be constructed, that would cross

over the vacated street and over the sfpuc parcel which would leave a fairly small, buildable area and we consulted with the zoning administrator on this. there is the potential that this could play out differently. but when we consulted with the zoning administrator t most logical explanation would be to take the height limit from the alley and the height limit would be 40 feet for either rh-2 or rm-1, 35 feet at the front setback for rh-2. so, again, just not very much of a difference in the height. and the rear yard setback for both of those zoning districts that would be proposed is always going to be 45%. and the front would be considered the burnette avenue. so, the rear yard set back would be considered this part of the property in this likely scenario. for the second scenario, merging all three parcels to create one large lot.

again, the most likely scenario for where you're measuring the height would be from copper alley. and then the burnette avenue would be the front and so, therefore, the rear yard setback requirement would be along the back of the parcel. again, the major difference with these is going to be how many units you can build. so there would be approximately -- creates a parcel that is approximately 14,000 square feet which means you would have 7700 square feet of buildable area. and then with the third scenario, it would be merging these par else is and then getting a lot line adjustment to either combine them to -- or to separate them to create either two par else is or three parcels. for this scenario, we developed into the presumed smallest, logical parcels that he could create.

that would leave three parcels between 4,000 and 5,000 square feet each. and under the rh-2 zoning, each parcel can contain two dwelling units. anything over that they have to obtain a cu. with the r.m. zoning, each parcel contains between five and six dwelling units on each parcel so that means there could be a total of between 15 and 18 units. again, the number of units between these different scenarios doesn't necessarily change all that heavily between scenario b and scenario c when look at the same zoning district. what you see is the difference between the number of units, between the rh-2 and rm, in terms of what is allowed opportunitieder code without getting further approval. so the department recommends the commission approve the proposed ordinance. the rezoning of two city

parcels is consistent with the surrounding of rm-1. as we discussed in the first hearing, other potential options for resolving this land dispute, or establishing an easement through the sfpuc property are not feasible. the sale of the sfpuc parcel and burnette avenue north provide an economically feasible and appropriate solution to the filed lawsuit. that concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any additional questions. >> all right. we may have some. first is the project sponsor here? there is no project sponsor on this, right, jonas? >> well -- >> it's a rezoning -- >> who initiated the legislation? >> supervisor sheehy's office because this is taking place in his district has technically been the sponsor on this legislation. but he is not here today. >> and they were here last time.

>> they were not here last time. >> oh, they were not. ok. we'll open this up for public comment since we heard this once before. we'll limit public comment to one minute. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment and open it up for commissioner comments and questions. commissioner moore. >> i assume that's a question that we have asked, and reasonably answered. this is not an approval of any particular project. but the city attorney's recommendations stand to what we're supposed to do. i had questions answered to the extent that i needed to know to support what's in front of us. what i can recommend for approval. >> and thank you. i think that information here clarifies some of the confusion we had last time we heard it. i appreciate that. >> commissioners, there is a motion that has been sected to

approve the map amendment on that motion. [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. in places of item 11 for case number 2015-00127emv. this is a environmental impact report. written comments will be accepted at the planning department until 5:00 p.m. on january 23, 2018. just put them right there. >> good afternoon, president hillis, members of the commissioner. i'm planning department staff and e.i.r. coordinator for the project. for the proposed project. i'm joined today by my colleagues, senior environmental planner and the

preservation technical specialist. members of the consultant team and the project sponsor team are also present. the item before you is review and comments on the 150 eureka street project draft environmental impact report or draft e.i.r. the purpose of today's hearing is to take public comment on the adequacy, accuracy and xlao*entsz of the draft d.i.r. pursuant to the california environmental quality act, or ceqa. and san francisco's local procedures for implementing ceqa. no approval action on this document is requested at this time. the public review period for the proposed project d.i.r. began on december 26, 2017 and will continue until 5:00 p.m. on january 23, 2018. i will now provide a brief overview of the proposed project. the project site is currently developed with a two-story building which will most recently house the community church of san francisco and is now vacant.

the proposed project would demolish the exposed church building, split the lot into two lots and construct two four-story buildings. each will contain two residential units and vehicle parking spaces for a total of four residential units and eight vehicle parking spaces on the site and a total viewing area of 14441 gross square feet. the draft d.i.r. concluded that the proposed project would result in a substancial adverse change in the historic resores at 150 eureka street. this was determined to be a project level significant and unavoidable impact on historic architectural resources. other impacts on historic architectural resources were found to be less than significant. the draft d.i.r. found that impacts to archeological and tribal culture resouthbound human remains and noise could be mitigated to a less than significant level. all other impacts were found to be less than significant.

a hearing to receive the historic preservation commission's comment on the draft d.i.r. was held on december 20, 2017. i provided you with a copy of the h.p.c.'s letter. at the hearing, the h.p.c. concurred with the conclusion in the draft d.i.r. that the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on the historic resource at the site. further, the h.p.c. found that the alternatives analyzed were adequate and they were honest with their presentation of preservation alternatives. the h.p.c. was concerned about the practical implementation of mitt investigation measure mcr1b interpretive praom. the commission felt the development of a full walking tour as outlined in the mitt investigation measure was generally not a reasonable or practical measure for the size of the project. and requested that a plaque or other interpretive display be used to note existing property's history. in addition t commission discussed working with existing tours in the neighbourhood to add the site.

today, the planning department is seeking comments on the adequacy and accuracy of the information contained in the dra. d.i.r. for members of the public who wish to speak, please state your name for the record, please speak slowly and clearly so the court reporter can make an accurate transcript of today's proceedings. staff is not here to answer comments today. comment will be transcribed and responded to you in writing and the comments and responses document. which will respond to all relevant purple and written comment received during the public comment period and will make revisions to the draft d.i.r. as appropriate. for those who are interested in commenting on the draft d.i.r. in writing by mail or e-mail, please submit your comments to jenny duhamel at 1650 mission street, suite 400, san francisco. by 5:00 p.m. on january 23rd, 2018. we anticipate publication of

the comments and responses document in late spring of this year, followed by the e.i.r.er isst certification hearing in the summer of 2018. unless the commissioners have questions, i respectfully suggest that the public hearing on this item be opened. >> great. thank you. we'll do that. i have a number of speaker cards. lynn jordan, christine pajoli, barbara buckley, mark menardi and dennis adel >> suhana:. d -- adelman. and you can line up on the screen side of the room and speak in any order. so you're welcome to speak, sir. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is lynn jordan. i'm here of one of several people to speak on behalf of the m.c.c. and alternative mitt investigations that were recommended in the e.i.r. for background, i am a founding member of metropolitan

community church since 1970. and church historian. i'm also a member of the lgbtq cultural heritage strategy working group. i've spent half of my 70-plus years sheltered and challenged by this pink and purple church at 150 europe ri ka. our church was the first organization to purchase its own building with our worship service held at 150 eureka on princess diana sunday june 1979. it was for such a time as this, a moment in time where we could have where we held sacred, a place for our sanctuary and holy ground. i'm not ask to moralize a building which then to quote our senior pastor was worn out through love. instead, let us focus on recognizing and honouring the history that was given life and fulfillment within the walls of 150 eureka. for 35 years, we who are the church for the many names and

inclusion of transformation, a faith community embracing the rainbow of lives that mattered. all this becoming what we call being the church alive and a church without walls. i'm honouring, and want to honour, 150 yaourl ri ka -- eureka for being a safe space and all of our diversity, transitions and many coalitions so that we continue to become our change, our social justice, our rising and our truth. most unfortunately of our lgbt history now resides only in the confinement of archival repositories, documentaries, books and ever decline number of lgbt elders -- hello -- who have lived that history and are that history. little structural evidence of an lgbtq presence remains in san francisco. and even in the castro. we are continuely being asked how to landmark what was once and now is no more. what we do have at 150 eureka street is the brick and mortar

miracle on the eureka street sidewalk, embedded in the firm base of our nscc stories to spill down to a few words or phrase, words that have cig dmans our lives, deeply rooted memories of time, place, being a justice seeking church, being the church with aids, the church with lives. and all this we had to the memory of our family, friends, creation of stories of life-changing event and our celebrations. the bricks in this sidewalk are living stories of our lgbtq heritage at 150 eureka and we want to continue to hold close to us. mitt investigation within the e.i.r. should include having our narrative and journey stories continue to renate and have a visible presence that should be recreated and relocated at a site we will deem later on. thank you. >> thank you, mrs. jordan. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm christine and i'm a member of the church also and founder of friend of the yellow brick road of 150 eureka.

we are gay so we have a yellow brick road in front of our church. in 1979, we invited the community to right there literally indescribe in stone their lgbt memories, dreams and celebrations. and they responded. we had over 500 funeral services of people who died of aids during those years. many of them are memorialized. there is bricks celebrating weddings. there's the sisters of the perpetual indulgence with their first meeting there. this building was the community centre and it's full of history and where that history resides in this yellow brick road outside. i cannot be dug up, which is tragic. however, it can be easily reproduced from the original manufacturer and replaced somewhere else and we have two other lgbt sites willing to put that on their property. we're asking the developer to help us do that.

to recreate that in a spot and then when senator mark leno dedicated it, he said harvey milk would be so proud of our stories. sorry. i made myself cry. the other thing we're asking for again, a plaque. and we're just thrilled that the e.i.r. recognizes the historic significance of this place. and so a plaque, and we will help the developer write a check. we'll take care of everything. make this as easy as possible. also, the john goldsmith, who runs the pink triangle park is not here. but he's asked that when the rubble of the bricks has dug up, that that be donated to the park and he will come pick it up. all he needs a schedule and he will use that rubble to build the concrete berms that protect -- it is a little triangle park on 17th street. and any of the bricks that aren't broken up, he will make pavers. so, the three things we're asking are a plaque, basic to move the yellow brick road and then house a place for that

history to be. and then the actual bricks themselves will remain in the castro. those are the three things we're asking. i don't know if you got our packet, but i can hand out some black and white pictures and you can see some of the bricks and some of the inscriptions. if there is a question on any of that. >> well, thank you for your testimony. >> ok. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is mark menardi. i live on sutherland heights in san francisco. my partner and i have two bricks within the rainbow walk. one of the first ones was that we celebrated our domestic partnership at mccsf and we were among the first people so honoured to be able to do that.

and we recorded that in one of bricks and then the second thing was that probably two years prior, we had written a request or written a memorial for our 50th wedding anniversary. and we have that as one of the bricks in the walk. since there aren't many, lesbian couples together for 50 years, we think that was a remarkable experience and we are on our 53rd year right now. and we think this should be memorialized in some way. and i don't think a plaque is enough in terms of doing service to this construction. and i do think that the requests that we're making to relocate the bricks in a man weather a place we've already identified and dealing with the rubble are reasonable requests and we ask for your

consideration in that regard. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is barbara buckley. i've been a part of mccsf for about 17 years. i was on the board of directors for a number of years. and -- and dealt with some of the transitions. it's a difficult, physical transition that we've had to make. i do want to say that reverend annie steinberg bergman had hoped to be here today. but she is ill. so, she sends her regrets. but is in support of the things that we are asking. as everyone else has said already, this is so much more than a building and the things -- the queer history that lives in the memory of people who have been through there and now

lives in the memory concretely of the bricks justs so important for us to keep. my wife and i were married at msccf 15 years ago and we have a brick that honours the memory of my wife's mother who came often to the church and loved it. but there is so many story there is we don't even know. i remember in the opening of the dedication of the walk, i met a person who had arranged for a brick to remember a transgender jewish person that they loved. and had no way to remember. so, the stories that are there are immeasurable. thank you. >> thank you, ms. buckley. next speaker, please. >> my name is dennis adelman and i'm the other half of mark

menardsi. we've been together as husbands for 53 years now. and we've been a member of metropolitan community church for 35 years now, ever since 1983. much of our history is entwined with the history of the lgbt community here in san francisco during those years and i would like to affirm what everyone before me has stated. and also to support the request that they each have made and hope that our histories here in san francisco, which were so important to the city and to the nation and to the world in terms of our community's development over these decades would be preserved in this most important way. so, i would respectfully request that the items be approved. thank you.

>> thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment on the draft d.i.r. commissioner richards? >> so as the only member of the lgbtq community up here that i know of -- >> excuse me. >> on the commission. on the commission. sorry. [laughter] you know, i get a lot of comment on this one. i look at the objectives of the developer and i can understand where he, she, or they are coming from. you know, redevelop a large underutilized site with high quality, sustainable family-sized housing with off street parking, etc., etc. two, high-quality urban design and sustainability standards, three build residential units

to contribute to the city's general planned housing element, motherhood and apple pie. four. provide new lock open space that will enhance the quality of life for the project's residents and neighbours. i lived in that neighbourhood 27 years and i don't -- i'm not aware of any one of the neighbours clambering for open space and demolition of the church, to be honest with you. it is an admiral goal. but at the expense of demolishing historical resource, i don't buy it at all. five. construct a high-quality project will produce a reasonable return on investment for the project sponsor and its investors and we'll be able to track construction financing. where's the numbers? fastest appearing community resources, of which i'm a member of that community. you are going to come in and demolish a historic resource that has so much meaning for a reasonable return and you are not even going to document it. the smoking gun that i have here, and i'll be really honest

with you, is the item -- footnote number seven on the reasonable return was based on a soundness report by none other than santos and uriccia who we've been talk about not trusting anything that they give us because we have experience with 214 state, 1228 fundston and the list goes on and on. you heard from public comment. we have a serial person who's basically lying. so, i'm sorry. i don't buy it. i think you have your partial preservation alternative that preserves some of what we have left in our community. and actually from a problematic point of view, it gives you more. so let's take a look here. residential units on your project, 10119 square feet. partial preservation alternative where you keep part of the building, 11035. doesn't seem like you are not going to be able to get those units in there