housing. i beg you to keep the park in the way it is, to maintain third baptist church and some day have affordable housing and teachers in the building, not when you convert the garages to units. thank you so much. >> president wolfram: any other member of the public wish to speak? please come forward. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of this illustrious committee. i am a member of third baptist church and i am here to request that you do not approve this certificate of appropriateness for this particular parcel. as our pastor has pointed out, this church serves not only as a place of worship each sunday, but for special events for

people coming from all over this country and abroad. we have events, special community events, weekly events that happen, and we believe that this structure would impair the egress, the coming and going of our members, of our seniors, many of our members are mobility-impaired. we believe this will decrease the amount of space they have to come back and forth. we believe that this will limit the amount of parking for our guests and our community. i implore upon you to please take our comments into consideration and not approve this certificate of appropriateness. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you.

>> chairperson, members of the board. my name is audrey lewis, assistant to dr. amos brown, third baptist church. i've been a member of third baptist around 40 years, and i have been blessed to work for the city and county of san francisco for some 39 years in the health department and real estate department. my concern, being a member of third baptist for many years, and i worked in that area over the years, and the area, and it is extremely compacted and difficult right now. i'm not one who is opposed to change, but if a change is made wherein there's no consideration, i don't know about the project whether they are considered low income

housing or that, but that is my concern and i'm here to support the membership, pastor, that you would be very, very, very aware of the fact that that area, that corner, especially, is very, very tight spot now, and to make a change wherein you would have some housing that would necessity a major change there would be very, very difficult for the church family and the community because the church as i see it personally, it is a light not only to visitors, but it is a light for this city and county. and if there's any place that needs a light, it is the city and county of san francisco. i've lived here since 1945, the end of 1945. came here when i was 15 years old with my mother and i would

pray that you would be very, very considerate about this decision that you are going to make. thank you very much. >> president wolfram: thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak to this matter? >> good afternoon, my name is stephanie la comebra, one of the tenants of 1100 fulton street. lived there the past ten years and i tried to submit comments via email, i think i may have sent it to the prior commissioners, so i don't know if it made the 5:00 p.m. cutoff deadline last night. i'm happy to reiterate them here if that's necessary. but i did email them to everyone. so i'll let you -- >> go ahead and make your comments now. >> i wrote to oppose the proposed changes because they are inconsistent with the architectural and the character of the alamo square district,

and what the district was create today prevent. first, proposed changes strip all wood from fronting from the street level apart from small window frames. and as noted in the original documents, establishing the district "the materials unite the district. wood is nearly universal as structure and material." at ground level, masonry typically provides foundation and front gate copings or retaining walls. applicant here proposes to rip all the wood, every wooden garage, the sole wood at street level and universal exterior material from the facade of the building. contrary to the criteria established for the district. further, the applicant has explicitly stated in the application that there would be no front copings or retaining walls. so, there will be no additional wood besides the wooden frames. so i believe the certificate should be denied on these grounds. second, this apartment type is specifically mentioned in the

original documents establishing the district. "compatible exceptions, victorian and edwardian 2 to 3 story mentions, apartment blocks, a dozen which punctuate the corners of the district. compositionally, two-part blocks with differentiated base and relatively simple upper sections topped by a visually heavy cornice. yet the applicants plans add historical features, such as the undifferentiated base. not a compatible exception. and also proposes to rip out historic wood facades with the upper floors. denied on these grounds. third, similar projects close to the buildings have left eye sores on street level. applicant has proposed to do it one garage at a time over the

period of years, and therefore threatens a mismatched structure facing the square. the detailed brick facade is difficult to match once, let alone over the course of several years. i can say that i as one of the leaseholders of the front facing garages on the fulton street, i have no intention of leashing -- leaving. i have -- >> thank you, your time is up. your time is up. >> it would create an incentive for the landlord to try and get people with rent control out of the building in order to start the next phase of construction. for these reasons and all of those that have been brought forth i would ask that you deny the application. the certification. >> president wolfram: thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak on this matter?

>> good afternoon. my name is reverend conte, the member and minister of third baptist church for the last 25 years. when i came to the city in 1993 i came by myself, leaving my family behind in india and came to third baptist church and met with reverend brown and the community. they opened their church and embraced me as one of their own and helped me to get situated in this city and county of san francisco. so, i, as a member of this church and a beneficiary of the community and help and assistance the church has provided, not only to the members, the inhabitants of the city and the world, representative a member of the international community that reverend brown has helped over the years. so, in order for the church to

be there for the community, i would like, i would urge you to please consider not approving this proposal but keep the historic church in place and provide the parking and, for the ability and thank you so much. >> president wolfram: thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak? >> good afternoon. my name is alfred robinson. i am a native san francisco, retired san francisco police officer. my concern is about the tourists portion of the alamo square. we have tourists that come from all over the world to go to alamo square every day. aside from housing, one of the

biggest problems in san francisco is parking. and as the tenant said, she doesn't plan to give up her garage. so, to say that they would convert the garages and end up with two-thirds to one, is it going to be parallel parking, diagonal parking? is it going to be easy for emergency access vehicles to come through that street? also, you have tourist busses that are there during the week. and i am opposed based on the illumination of the parking spots, the changing of the configuration of the narrowing the streets. we already had a round about put at steiner and -- and

mcallister. the area is already changing. and i request that you not approve this because it would continue to destroy the character of the neighborhood. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank. any other members of the public wish to speak on this matter? seeing none -- do we have one more? >> good afternoon. i'm a deacon at third baptist church and we are already challenged with parking there, and my take on this is if this project is going to impact the parking, i think that we should oppose it because it's going to just carry on into other areas. that particular block, if the parking is impacted by this project, it's just going to carry on to where people are

blocking other people's garages farther down on fulton and pierce and probably mcallister. recommending you oppose it. >> president wolfram: thank you. any other member of the public wish to comment on this matter? seeing and hearing none, close public comment. commissioners, i just would like to remind you that our role here is to look, to determine whether the project meets the secretary of the interior standards based on the motion. we are not really, this commission does not have a role in determining whether housing or parking or appropriate land uses, we are looking at the changes to the historic character of buildings within the district. commissioner johnck. >> commissioner johnck: yes, i would echo those sentiments. i appreciate the comment from the fellowship of the church and reminds me of the great historic occasion that we had not so long ago to -- it was a great,

wonderful honor to do that. but today i'm looking at whether the proposed design is compatible and i saw, i studied analysis and looked at the renderings and looks beautiful and kind of mystified how the project, with the parking issues. i don't quite understand all that, even though it's not in our purview, but, yeah, so i -- i support the proposed design. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner pearlman. >> commissioner pearlman: i thought we were going to come in here to talk about design. so, i was actually surprised to hear some of the commentary here today. you know, when you take away a driveway and put in a parking space, i don't know how it hurts parking. again, this is a planning commission and department issue, not ours. so, i will just talk about the

architecture. i am not as confident as the architect of the project in terms of matching brick. i think it's an incredibly difficult thing to do and then when you just draw a line down a building and you have, you don't feather the brick as the brick is done that way, you create a very strange condition which is particularly evident on the pierce side, but even on the sought elevation on fulton street, the uphillside, you fill the new brick fills right up to that brick cornice belt line. on the south side, it goes 7/8 of the way up, and could just as easily go up to the belt line. thereby, making it very clear that you almost have, you know, a very simple pattern where the new brick would be evident.

again, if you can match the brick exactly and feather it in, then i would endorse this. but otherwise i think that there has to be a study, particularly on the pierce street side where you either get rid of all the brick below the belt line and then just do new brick there that's similar, but clearly different, and for the woman who spoke about the architectural character, i'm not sure what the issue is here, either. this building already is masonry on the base of the building, and by taking a garage doorway and putting a window in, you are not really changing the character of the building at all. so i think from that standpoint, the design of this building is fine. i think it works fine and provides again i'm surprised to hear that third baptist church would not want six additional housing units. but i think it does respond to -- i understand, but mostly

my concern is i don't agree that you can match that brick and that it's going to be as the woman spoke, it's going to be a patch work. especially if as she said some of it will be done, some of it won't be done. it would be -- like if one person left, then all of a sudden one piece might get done and i think that's going to be a mess. so, i think if it went back and looked at replacing all the brick on the lower floor, you know, below the belt line, that would be one solution. the other would be to create some pattern where the brick is taken either up to the cornice line, i mean the belt line and created some kind of pattern. so, i would like to see maybe a condition to review that and review that with the staff to come up with some alternate design for the base of the building, in terms of the brick. and perhaps be something that could just be reviewed with

staff. >> commissioner pearlman. the first condition of approval is that a material conservator would be retained and that the replacement brick and mortar samples would be very viewed. what would -- it sounds very similar, what you are asking sounds very similar to this condition. so, we are happy to add more to this, but i just want to make sure that we are clear. >> if they can match the brick, excellent. go ahead and do it. then i think overall it's fine. if they cannot match the brick, not find the match, then this will end up being a very patch work looking thing, based on where they are placing the brick. the new brick, in this particular design. so, i would like there to be some way to verify if they can't match the brick what happens. >> we could -- we could put a condition in here they have to

come back for a new certificate of appropriateness. i mean, there probably are several different materials that could still meet the secretary of interior standards, just glaze the opening, they could, you know, glaze the garage opening, they could just retain the opening and insert a compatible material such as wood panelling or some other material. >> but that's a half and half. the windows don't fit -- you know, the windows fit exactly in the garage doors we would not have an issue at all. >> what i'm stating is that wood is as a compatible material with the district could be used as a panelized system on that lower floor if you felt that the brick was too challenging to match. we could ask -- >> oh, completely. >> uh-huh. >> it sounds like it's just the opposite, that -- anyway. that's getting into -- >> since there is sort of this -- it's open to design, and

discretion. this commission may want to see it again if the brick cannot be matched. >> i'm willing to say it could just go back to staff if it cannot be matched, then there has to be some alternate, and i don't know if other commissioners the -- >> i think what commissioner pearlman is suggesting, if it cannot be matched, the amount of brick removed more, more, to make it more -- >> intentional. >> intentional. so, yeah. and i don't know what that solution might be at that moment in time, but i would like a trigger such as if it doesn't match, then what happens. dot dot dot. perhaps you could help me, mr. fry. >> i'm writing something down for your review. >> commissioners johns. >> commissioner johns: i'm in agreement with what my fellow

commissioners have said. i want to just focus a moment on the garage doors but that's been the subject of some controversy. i went out and looked around the neighborhood and the garage doors there now are of course not historic, they look like most of the other, the costco or home depot, ten panel doors that are found throughout san francisco. there is a building on the northwest corner of scott and golden gate that does appear to have original garage doors. and were those, or similar doors present at this building i would, i think the point would be much better taken. but what we have are garage doors that look to me as though they were installed in maybe the 1980s or the 1970s. they are not historic, so i don't find that replacing the,

those garage doors with what is proposed is incompatible with the neighborhood at all. >> president wolfram: commissioner hyland. >> vice president hyland: i have several things. i want to thank the members of the public that came out today. i know you have a busy day and appreciate you taking the time to tell us your thoughts. 20, 25 years ago the conversation was adding garage doors to these historic buildings, and how to do that. and i have a slightly different take than commissioner pearlman, and that is that my concern is that we are erasing the garage doors and attempting to make them look like they had never been there. and in my practice, that's not what i had done and it is a design exercise, and we have had at least one, maybe two other similar projects come before us and i voiced the same concern

that the current openings of the garages could be incorporated into the design to tell the story and evolution of what's happened to the building. i don't have a specific recommendation as commissioner pearlman does, unless some other commissioner would want to take what i'm saying and try to turn it into some other condition. but i have complete faith that we can match the brick and with the appropriate conservation treatment match the mortar. my concern is that that would then tell evolution of the project that's not consistent with what's happened, it would erase the fact that the doors were actually there. so, i would propose a design solution that worked within the openings and showed the evolution. >> president wolfram: thank you,

commissioner. mr. frye. >> if you would entertain additional condition of approval, may sound something like if brick cannot be matched, can't read my own writing. if brick cannot be matched, a revised design will be submitted to staff for review and approval. revised design shall reflect a more intentional and uniform design for the base of the building. >> president wolfram: if somebody makes a motion we'll decide whether to include it or not. commissioner black. >> commissioner black: no matter how this project evolves, i did not see a window schedule and i would like to make sure that the recesses, the reveals are matching because this could look really flat very quickly if

those elements are not included. all i saw on the plans was just wood materials. so, i would like to offer that as a concern. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner matsuda. >> commissioner matsuda: i have one question for staff. i think i heard in reverend brown's public comment that the alamo square neighborhood association was opposed to this, and i was wondering if, number one, if there is someone here from that association, and number two, whether that was based on anything dealing with the historic character or whether you have any information on that. >> i have heard nothing from them. gus, her name is from alamo square, has been in contact to get updates on when the hearing may be occurring throughout the last few months. also cc'ed on emails, but he has not personally stated opposition to me. i have not received a telephone call or any emails stating

support or opposition. >> i would like to move approval with the additional condition as mentioned by mr. frye. >> second. >> president wolfram: i was wondering if i could make a friendly amendment, we add a finding, clarifying the garages are not character defining features of the district and they are not historically significant part of the building, the garage fronts. >> i'll second that. isn't that already on the -- it's in the report. >> it's not in the report but -- it's not explicit in the findings of the motion. >> oh, ok. >> then i think it should be in the findings, yeah. >> vice president hyland: i was going to add on to what commissioner black says, the depths of the windows should match the windows above. >> and doors. >> and doors, yeah, so they are not right on the face of the

brick. >> i agree with that. a motion and a second. >> is the maker of the motion willing to accept the finding and additional condition? thank you. then, and as is the seconder. very good, a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions, to include a finding for the garage door. excuse me, garage openings are not character defining features, the condition as read into the record by staff as well as additional condition to require the depths of windows and doors match the existing. on that motion, commissioner black -- >> because of the district, not the -- >> the district. the district, very good. on that motion, commissioner black. [roll call vote taken]

>> so moved, commissioners, the motion passes unanimously 7-0. place us on item 9. 30 otis street, draft environmental impact report for your review and comment. >> we need a motion to recuse commissioner pearlman. >> i move. >> i'll second. >> very good commissioners. on that motion. [roll call vote taken] >> so moved, commissioners. commissioner pearlman, you are hereby recused.

>> good afternoon, president wolfram, members of the commission. i'm julie moore, planning department staff and senior environmental planner for the 30 otis street project, proposed project. joining me are my colleagues, members of the project sponsor team are here as well. the item before you is review and comment on the 30 otis street project draft environmental report, pursuant to the california environmental quality act. and san francisco's local procedures for implementing cqua. requires the planning department to schedule a notice public meeting and obtain comments the historic perservation commission may have prepared for projects

that contain a resource that the environmental review officer determines based on substantial evidence to be a historical resource. public review period for the proposed project began on june 13th and will continue until 5:00 p.m. on july 27th. commission members were sent electronic copies of the draft e.i.r. and backgrounds, historic resource evaluation and the preservation team review form. the commission's secretary has just distributed a handout, i'll refer to later. copies are available for members of the public on the table to my left. today we are here to provide an opportunity for the commission to hear public testimony, to discuss historic resource issues pertaining to this project, and to formulate any comments you may wish to submit to the planning department on the draft e.i.r. i would like to provide with you a brief summary of the findings

of the draft e.i.r. five buildings from 1 to 3 stories in height. the proposed project, demolish the five building, merge it to one lot, and a building with ground floor retail and arts activity use. ten story podium structure across the entire site and 27-story single tower in the southeast corner of the building, at otis and 12th street. the proposed building would range from 85 to 250 feet in height, and would be approximately 485,000 square feet. the building would include 423 residential units, three ground floor retail spaces, new studio and performance space for the city ballet school which currently operates on the site.

1418 otis street building constructed circa 1925 is individually eligible for inclusion on the california register of historical, number three. for architecture. 1418 is a light industrial loft building as expressed in san francisco during the 1920s. the project site was originally part of the west soma neighborhood where similar light industrial buildings are prevalent. with the southern extension of van ness avenue in the 1930s, the gap created in the original street grid severed the area away from the rest of the neighborhood. the building at 14 to 18 otis street, characters of a type period and method of construction, in that case, three stories, demonstration with multi-light, steel industrial sash windows and a lot of other little things.

>> thank you for the abbreviation. >> it's a tongue twister. recessed panels and cornices, and gar lands, reinforced concrete construction with concrete columns and floors and piers. 14 to 18 otis street building is historical building. the draft e.i.r. concluded the demolition would be a substantial adverse change to the historical resource and therefore result in project level significant and unavoidable impact. three mitigation measures identified for the significant and unavoidable impact to historical architectural resources. the first measure requires a project sponsor to undertake survey or documentation of the subject structure. the second measure requires a sponsor to develop a permanent display of interpretive

materials concerning the history and architectural features of the original 14 to 18 otis street building. the project sponsor must undertake video documentation of the historic resource and setting. and finally, vibration monitoring of the historic resource is required throughout construction. while these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to the historic resource at 14 to 18 otis street, the proposed demolition would remain significant and unavoidable. analyzes three alternatives to the proposed project. no project alternative, the full preservation alternative and the partial preservation alternative. the full and partial preservation alternatives were developed in consultation with preservation staff and the architectural review committee of the historic preservation commission or a.r.c. at the november 1, 2017,a.r.c.

hearing, committee members provided feedback on the preliminary preservation alternatives at that time. a.r.c. commented overall, the full preservation and partial preservation alternatives were adequate for incorporated into the draft e.i.r. and felt the proposed project suitable. the team was asked whether the shifting of the ballet theater was explored, and somewhat needed a column free specific height. relocation was to be studied and the team responded that it was considered and rejected due to structural engineering due to the fragility of the 1920s construction. the no project and the full preservation alternative would avoid significant impacts to historic architectural

resources. partial preservation alternative would not avoid the significant impact related to the demolition of the 14 to 18 otis street building. but would reduce the significant impact compared to the proposed project. earlier i mentioned the handout that you have. it includes material from, provided in the draft e.i.r. the first page compares the characteristics of the project and the alternative. second and third pages compare the historical architectural impacts under the proposed project and each alternative. the conceptual massing for the alternatives are provided at the tops of the pages. before i conclude, i would like to remind everyone that a public hearing on the draft eir is scheduled for july 19, 2018. and order to be responded to in the final e.i.r., comments must be submitted orally at the planning commission hearing or in writing to me by 5:00 on

july 27th. comments heard by the public commenters today will not be responded to in the e.i.r. process unless they choose to follow up in writing to the department by the appointed deadline. after the planning commission hearing, the planning department will publish a comments and responses document, which will contain our responses to all relevant comments on the draft e.i.r. we anticipate publication of the comments and responses document in fall of this year, followed by e.i.r. certification. that ends my presentation. staff and members of the project team are available to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> president wolfram: we'll close public comment. commissioners. matsuda. >> commissioner matsuda: i just have a comment. i love this. i love the summary. your visuals plus the very quick

and easy to understand way of knowing the various alternatives is extremely helpful. actually, that was the only part that i printed out on my own. i thought it was great. so, i hope that everyone in the planning department staff will follow this. >> president wolfram: we have had other ones like this, they are helpful. >> i like the visual. the only other comment is i read that there is going to be historical report and i saw that the h.p.c. was not listed as getting a copy, and i was wondering if we can make sure that we have a copy of that as well. thank you. >> commissioner johnck: in terms of our evaluation of the adequacy of the alternatives, can we recommend an additional mitigation measure as part of that? >> president wolfram: we can evaluate the alternative, and

whether the e.i.r. addressed the issues related to the property. so, we can recommend modifications to the mitigation measures, recommend additional mitigation measures, we can recommend whatever we want. >> commissioner matsuda: ok. one of the things that julie, you mentioned, in discussing the 1418 otis was, and the evaluation of the building and the setting. this is where i get interested. because as a cultural landscapist, i'm very interested in how, when we evaluate these proposals for new construction, how we are conveying the historic character of the area, the site, and the setting. and i think it's really interesting. there's a reason that building

is there at that place, and it's eligibility under criterion three is architecture, it reflects a certain type of, you know, business function and business operation. and i think that's all relative to that area, where that -- the hub, there is the other planning area is called the market octavia hub, and so i think what i'm looking at is that in addition to as far as mitigating for the significant impact, and i think basically both the full and the par shall are adequate. we discussed, except for, not adequate discussion for the setting and the -- what's missing to me, we need more of the conveyance of the historic character and i would recommend that in addition to -- that we ask that historic american

landscape survey. there is documentation of the area and, but hals has significant criteria and it's not so new. habs and historic engineering record, they are very old, and habs was added in the 1980s, it's not that new. but i find that it's not over recognized as important documentation. so, i would -- >> president wolfram: how extensive -- >> commissioner johnck: hals is descriptive. >> how far beyond the actual -- >> that's a part of the structure, but if you are looking at the setting, how far does the setting extend? >> well, that's what the

cultural report would do. it would be part of the definition of that. i see what you are getting at. so, maybe the staff have any comment about how we go about doing that, because the report does define the setting, and area of potential effects. >> good afternoon. one of my clarifying questions for the commission would be on the bigger picture, what are some of the elements or features of this setting that are hoped to be documented as part of the hals so if there is something that could be incorporated perhaps as a more detailed site survey within the habs documentation, wondering if there is overlap or what the boundaries are, or the nature of the setting features, you would hope to be captured.

>> well, i guess my immediate thought on this is the grid, is the -- the confluence of the grid there and how the evolution of the city came about at that hub, that intersection. >> specifically the southern extension, ok. there are references in the historic resource evaluation that discuss that prior connection. some of which includes references to the historic sandboard maps that show the unified grid before the street was widened to kind of break that historic pattern. there may be a possibility of in incorporating historic sandborn map with the habs drawing set, as long as it's transferred on

to the appropriate archival material. >> commissioner johnck: that sounds good. i know i was able to read a good amount of the historic resource material and i think an expansion of that as you describe an iteration of that would be defining framework. >> i would add that one of the documentation requirements is video and also photographic documentation. we do have some historic photographs of otis street that show that intersection throughout time and combination of the historic photographs and historic maps. we can work with the team to maybe make sure that that grid is established. >> in fact, the criteria for the

photographs is very specific in the hals, silver gellatin. >> commissioner johnck, if i could interject here, looking at the hals guidelines right now. it looks like there's a short format history template, drawing guidelines, photography guidelines and history guidelines. i'm hoping through your comments, commissioner johnck, what it sounds like you are looking for is a hals' like documentation. i think if you were to use the like while it may seem minor, it will not put the project in requirements of the strictly the hals' guidelines but allow us to address some of what you and miss tuffy just mentioned. some photos, some history, some mapping, and that would be consistent with a project that's coming to mind that you looked

at, interpretive display, or interpretation for the first admission project, they looked at the industry south of market industrial history, and they put the markers and the artifacts in the walkway. again, it was looking at beyond the scope of that site. if you are looking for the broader history of the hub and the industrial history of the hub. ok. >> that's fine, and hals -- other cultural landscape reports, c.l.r.s and then hal specific, and sometimes it can be a hefty document. so, so -- in this genre. >> would it be fair to say the commission, or the commissioner johnck, you would recommend a hals' like form of documentation that includes maps, photos, and a short history on the context

of the neighborhood? >> commissioner johnck: that would be great. >> could i also suggest that we, that your comments as they are formulated have specified that the project sponsor can work with, planning staff to sort of define the limits of that study, and i suggest that so that we can be pretty specific about remaining sort of on that block and close to that property, and i would like to remind you that staff is, as i'm sure you are aware, commissioner johnck, working on the hub area plan and the associated e.i.r. and historic resource evaluation that will accompany that. and i think that there will obviously be a part of that analysis and historic resource analysis that will get at sort of the broader picture of the

hub and that sort of cultural landscape and the individual properties. >> commissioner johnck: i'm aware of that. it can be confined to a very specific area as you describe. >> commissioner johns. >> commissioner johns: i think that the report and the documentation is absolutely vital. commissioner johnck mentioned the importance of the setting, and i had -- what had been bothering me is the setting. for what it's worth, i don't think that either the full preservation alternative or the partial preservation alternative are adequate at all. i don't think anything can be done to save this little gem. i think it has served its time in battle. it served it well. but it is now time for the end,

and what i kept thinking about was this reminded me of what happened to the hoffman grill on market street. just east of new montgomery. and if you think about that, there was an attempt to preserve the building and wrap another building all the way around it. and for many reasons it didn't work, and just sits there looking, i think a bit peculiar. now, neither the full preservation or the partial preservation will wrap the new building around the old, well, not competely, not on top anyway. but this little guy is just going to sit there looking like he'd been separated from his parents at the border. [laughter] >> thank you for the comments.

commissioner black. >> commissioner black: i have some of the similar comments. one of the things that makes -- in terms of the adequacy of the e.i.r., one thing i think when the decision-making phase comes for the project is more detailed plans. it's very hard to tell how this preserving this structure either in the full preservation or the partial preservation approach, what it would look like. 60 feet of depth is actually somewhat meaningful. it's not quite -- >> and there were plans included in the e.i.r. that were -- >> commissioner black: pretty -- i did not see anything that was very detailed at all. >> i think they had some reasonably worked out plans, as a result. >> commissioner black: perhaps i -- perhaps i didn't have --

>> members of the project team are here that could elaborate in greater detail. but there were plans that talk about the retention of portions of the existing building, and essentially the ground floor would be a mix of maybe retail and then a little bit of the ballet school was studied to have some of the offices in it. and then residential. >> commissioner black: sorry, i probably was not as clear as i should have been. there were clear floor plans. what there weren't were elevations to give a sense of the massing of this more at a human scale or, so -- that's something i think will be important when it comes to the decision-making phase of the project. i don't think it affects e.i.r. that is fairly -- it's understood what all of these alternatives provide.

>> vice president hyland: i wanted to echo commissioner johns' comments. i think the project that's proposing to tear this building down and it is unfortunate, but -- if it were left, it would be very odd. and it did come before the a.r.c. and the tower, and the site needed in order to accommodate the tower overlapped this site, and so the notion of being able to accommodate the site on this building and it's difficult and complicated. i would like to say the evaluation is an honest one. i've been involved in a lot of e.i.r.s to say this is not a resource, and therefore was not needed to be evaluated, so i think this is the right path. yeah. >> commissioner black: forgive me for not knowing it came to the e.r.c., the new commissioner

in me, i just didn't know. >> so, would the commission be in agreement with writing a letter to the planning commission? i guess, more stating that we agree with the findings in the e.i.r., adequately address the project and that the preservation alternatives were add -- adequate. >> and hals' like documentation on the setting of the building, and the industrial history and the area. >> that seem reasonable? >> can we direct staff to do that? >> yeah. >> i would also like to remind the commission that hoffman grill is landmark number 144.

before we go, there was one, something that did come up in this hearing, which i have wondered about a little bit and that is, is the packet that we get part of the record of the proceeding? >> yes. >> the draft e.a.r., i believe it's part of the record. >> all the other stuff -- >> draft e.a.r. and the historic resource evaluation are all part of the project record. then it's strictly speaking, not necessary to repeat all the other stuff. because it's already in the record. couldn't one just refer to it? rather than -- sometimes save a lot of what seems to be needless effort. >> thank you. so, if staff would draft that -- i think that concludes our

hearing. hearing adjourned.

>> hi, i'm with building san francisco. and we have a special program of stay safe today where we're going to talk about what you can do to your home after an

earthquake to make it waterproof and to be more comfortable. we're here at spur in san francisco, this wonderful exhibit of safe enough to stay. and this is an example of what your home might be like after an earthquake. and we have today with us ben latimer from tvan. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> we'll talk about things you can do you don't have to be a professional contractor to make your home more livable after an earthquake. >> i want to talk about things a homeowner can do. we have comfort and we have things like a little bit of maybe safety if your front door is ajar and waterproofing if you have a leak in your roof, or if you have broken glass on the window. >> so unr, one of the most important fib use is keeping outside out and in i