>> working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the

art and social change we've been on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and

energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco >> i'm calling this hearing to order. >> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco preservation hearing for wednesday october 17 th, 2018. i will remind members of the public to silence her mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings and when speaking before the commission, state your name for the record. i would like to take roll at this time. womack -- [roll call]. >> first on your agenda his general public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> does any member of the public wish to speak on a nonagenda item? please come forward. you will have three minutes.

>> i have slides if i could get a theft of -- s.f. government television -- there they are. good afternoon. my name is mark dwight and i am a homeowner and business owner and a board member of friends of the dogpatch hub. a group of neighbours developed to help in dogpatch. once a sleepy industrial neighborhood and one of the fastest growing residential neighbourhoods in san francisco. we believe the long abandoned police station is an ideal location for this community centre and i'm here with my colleagues to solicit your support. the police station is located at 2,303rd street at the intersection of 20th street just a few blocks from sfpd new mission bay headquarters. at the border of dogpatch historic district and pier 70 which is now being redeveloped with a combination of commercial and residential buildings. there are two structures on the lot. the two-story police station

building and the adjacent single-story infirmary. they were constructed in 1912 and 1913 and the site was used by the sfpd until 1998 when it was vacated. twenty years ago. during the first decade of vacancies, they remain in a relatively good condition. the second decade has bay that has been an entirely different story. as abandoned buildings, they were broken into constantly and occupied by homeless people and invested by pigeons and stripped by vandals and subjected to vandalism including more than five building fires. the worst of which was a two alarm place in 2012 that left a gaping hole in the police station roof. as a result, the building has been ravaged by weather and the basement is currently filled with water. it is a blighted property inching ever closer to be irreparable, in 2001, records show a transfer to their recreation and park department was attempted but not completed. the ownership of the building faded from memory. according to records, everyone

from sfpd, to planning tech, to real estate, of the building belong to someone else. in march 2012 they issued a resolution to release the property for leasing. january 2013, real estate development department director, john updike, attended a meeting to solicit ideas from neighborhood residents about the best use of the property in preparation for a formal r.f.p. the community supported public serving or commercial use in hopes of saving and restoring and activating the site. that effort weathered and the proposed r.f.p. was forgotten. this presentation will be continued by two of my colleagues. thank you. >> next week or, please. >> good afternoon. i am speaking to you as a member of the friends of the dogpatch hub board. what's that? we. >> i was just asking if s.f. government could pick up. >> by the winter of 2016, we

decided the best way to save the building and serve our neighborhood was to work with the city to convert the site into a community centre. at the board of supervisors land use and transportation committee surplus property report hearing of may 2016, with the support of our supervisor, we submitted layers requesting that the city reuse the buildings are much-needed community purposes rather than selling them off. we organized friends of the dogpatch hub and we were funded by the dogpatch neighborhood association to incorporate as a nonprofit public charity. in april of 2017, we convened the meeting to call attention to the site and brainstorm on how we can stem the neglect and bring the building back to a public serving use. the director of city planning and supervisor cohen, and other directors and staff, including members of the dogpatch neighborhood association, small business commissioner, neighborhood architects and key developers working in the neighborhood were in attendance.

the consensus was that due to extremely poor conditions, the historic status and small lot size, the buildings were too heavily encumbered to be sold or leased easily. after a walk-through with architectural and building professionals, it was determined an amendment and amendment was required. with this information, we traded a formal proposal for the hub in may of 2017 and security leadership grant of $4.2 million from ucsf. wheat further secure an additional commitment of $2.5 million from pier 70 and the port of san francisco. as the site was still wide open and vulnerable, we requested funds from supervisor cohen that resulted in $250,000 for protecting the building. the department of public works and san francisco place for department real estate use the funds to secure paint and fenced the property.

we will prepare a historical resource evaluation for the site , being led for december of this year. i will now turn it over to bruce to wrap up our plans. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is bruce and i am president of the dogpatch neighborhood association and on the board of the friends of the dogpatch hub. i am here to speak about our latest efforts to transform the police station and infirmary buildings into a community center. i will read the following into the public record. in the summer of 2017, the oewd recognize the site was still stuck in limbo stuck in limbo and invested funds to conduct neighborhood asset activation. this is a method oewd uses to successfully rehabilitate the public and private sights such as the avenue theater on petrella and the geneva and balboa park. in this case, the process was to

survey all the community and city stakeholders on the sites best used for adaptive reuse. the outcome of the public buildings is an r.f.p. issued or the site. to prepare for the anticipated r.f.p. by the city, for the police station and hospital, we hired a design an architect partner and we raise $54,000 in free development funds and began initial designs and feasibility schematics. together we conducted an online community survey i'm logged over 250,000 responses and community outreach programs for the site to best serve a growing population and neighborhood undergoing massive change. the drive for community center is not just to save the building but it is to equally feel the dogpatch and it has not one public serving facility with nonstop development going on in the community. the population is on track to triple by 2020 and the triple to

over 18,000 people by 2030. about a year ago, the population was 1800. as part of oewd's process, stakeholders sfpd were contacted about the building in march of 2018. to our surprise, based on the history of the site, we received a copy of the letter from chief scott to the police, to the city that the police would like to consider rehabilitating these issues. this was a conclusion of the nea process. we requested a meeting with chief scott to find out more about the police department's plans to fill it in. on may 1st of this year, the friends of the dogpatch hub board met with chief scott at the new sfpd headquarters down the street on third street from the hub. we were joined by john updike and others and melia cohen of the board. chief scott said the third street site was needed for

additional office space in the community pete -- policing division. we discussed to build a community center on behalf of the neighborhood as well as a pop or its -- possibility of working together. sfpd did not have a feasibility study of the site. chief scott promised a final decision plan that could roll out not by the end of the year. >> will you be wrapping up now? >> i just want to thank you. >> are there any other speakers who wish to speak in general public comment. we will close the general public comment. >> very good commissioners. the director's announcement. >> good afternoon. no formal report from the director tonight. >> item two is review of past events, staff report at announcement and announcement. >> good afternoon. a few things to share with you. in your packet was a memo from a planner regarding your request for more information on the

number of housing units affected by this commission's review and approval. as you see, there is only one development, which is currently under construction. i'm happy to go into more detail about the memo if you would like but we are hoping this will address your questions. second, i wanted to make you aware that to henry adams, was -- which this commission initiated and recommended landmark designation for a number of years ago, four years ago, was picked up again by president cohen and introduced by resolution because the former ordinance had been tabled so long. though it is coming back to this commission to review and comment shortly. we are anticipating before the end of the year. it looks like that landmark designation will finally be lysed. i'm happy to report on that introduction.

also i want to let you know the contracts have been forwarded to the clerk of the board and we are briefing the supervisors currently and we will be scheduling a hearing before the g.a.o. and the full board shortly. and then finally, i wanted to make you aware that the last item on your calendar for today, we are asking for a request for a continuance to december 5th. we had a great meeting with san francisco heritage and their policy committee. we have a much better idea of how to construct a guideline document that will address the comments of this commission, but also the preservation community. we will pull everything together in one document, rather than trying to bounce back and forth between two separate documents. we will share that on the fifth if you do welcome that

continuance. that concludes my comments unless you have any questions. >> thank you. >> very good. along those lines, if anyone is here for that item, there is a strong likelihood the commission will be continuing that matter to december 5th. commissioners, this will place us under commission matters. president reports and matters. >> the firm i work for has been working for the friends of the dogpatch hub. i would have to recuse myself from any discussion of that. i have not received a comment before so as not quite sure what to do their. there is a request for further discussion of that matter that would have to come from others, not to me. the second is i want to report on the outcomes of landmark tree nominations. the path for trees to become landmark is a long and arduous

one. they have to be approved and recommended by this commission and subsequently it goes to the landmark tree committee of the urban forestry council for recommendation. and then they get through that hurdle and it goes to the urban forestry council who then makes a recommendation to the board of supervisors who within landmark the trees. it is a multistep process. i ended the hearing of the landmark tree committee on monday. we put forward to trees. one in front of 1776 vallejo street, which is -- and one in front of 2694 mcallister street. >> the first tree, there were two committee members who are very enthusiastic about the tree and all the committee members felt it was a significant tree

that it was important to the landmark house that was there. they mentioned it deserved to be recognized. but three of the five committee members had deep concerns about the structural integrity of the tree. apparently it is considered a v. shaped and there is some rotten other conditions where the two trunks meet and that means the tree could have stretched -- a failure. it is a rare tree in san francisco. that tree did not get forwarded to the urban forestry council to be landmarked. the second tree was endorsed by the committee and forwarded to the urban forestry council. and mike williams who wrote the book on san francisco tree said if there is one tree that he could describe as a landmark tree in san francisco, it would be that tree. that was a great support.

that is my report for today. >> very good, commissioners. item for his consideration of a draft minutes of october third, 2018. >> does any member of the public wish to comment on the draft meeting units for october 3rd, 2018? i close public comment. any comments or do i have a motion to approve? >> i am move we approve the minutes. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to adopt the minutes. [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. item five, commission comments and questions. very briefly, i spoke with the commission president about the potential of you taking up your future hearing date of november 21st which false the day before thanksgiving. there are currently no items on your advanced advance calendar

for that hearing date. you may want to consider cancelling. >> anybody -- >> i would entertain the motion that we consider -- that we do cancel this. >> is that a motion? >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to cancel the november 21st hearing. [roll call] so moved. november 21st has been cancelled. any other further items on this? >> very good commissioners. that will place us under the regular calendar for item six. this is a draft environmental impact report for your review and comment.

>> good afternoon. commissioners, i am from the planning department and environmental review coordinator joining me today are my colleagues chris, the principal planner, allison, the preservation planner, john, from citywide and john from the mayor 's office of economic and workforce development. and other members of the project sponsor team are also present. i would like to note we have a stenographer present to create a transcript of today's proceeding i would like to encourage commissioners and members of the public to speak slowly and clearly to assist this process. i will do my best as well. the public review.

of the policy projects draft e.i.r. began on october 4th, 2018 and will continue until november 19th. you received to comment letters yesterday. we have not received any additional comments related to the historic resources thus far. the commission members were sent electronic -- electronic copies of the e.i.r. two weeks ago. commission secretary has also distributed a summary handout which i will refer you to later appear copies of the handout 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 receive public testimony, discussed historic resources 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. a little bit about the project, the project sponsor proposes to redevelop approximately a 29- acre site along the central bayside waterfront with a variety of land uses. the proposed project would

include 5.4 million gross square feet of development. given the size and complexity of this proposal, we have asked a project sponsor team to give a brief overview to arrange the commission members of the public to the proposed project and we will do that in a few minutes. i would like to provide you with a brief summary of the findings of the draft e.i.r. with regard to historical resources. a large portion of the site is located within the third street industrial district, the historic district initially identified in the 2001 central waterfront summary report and fully documented and found eligible for listing in the california register in 2008. because it is eligible for the california register, the gestural district is considered a historical resource. the first page in the packet includes a map of the boundary is the third street. may i have the overhead? >> can we go to the overhead? thank you.

>> that is the best i can do there peerk the boundary of the third street industrial district extends west on the project site along 23rd and runs north along third and illinois street between 18th and 24th street the project site occupies 29 acres and accounts for approximately half the land within the boundary of the thirt beyond the buildings on the project site, there are four other district contributors that stand out for their scale and their relative importance and visually anchoring this historic district. primary among these are the two former american company buildings. the other two large buildings of the district are two former western refinery warehouses across 23rd street from the project site. per the 2008 district record for the potrero point historic district, the district encompasses the highest concentration of light industrial and processing properties remaining in the larger central waterfront area. historically the blocks between

third and illinois street have been occupied by the manufacturing operations and warehouses. most notable of which is the vast american canned co. plant. the third street industrial historic district lakes pier 70 in the dogpatch and provides a sense of historical and geographical continuity between the areas. according to the h.r. e.r., character defining features of this district include industrial facilities along the waterfront including the western sugar refinery warehouses, a high concentration of manufacturing repair and processing plants and warehouses, dependent on road and railroad distribution systems and many buildings that are good examples of late 19th and early 20th century american industrial design. i will put up a few photos here just to give you some sense of the buildings on the site. there are six buildings on the project site. >> can you rotate that?

is that possible? >> these are photos of station a there are six buildings on the site that contribute to -- thank you. to the third street industrial district. this is station a. thank you. these are six photos of station a. in addition to which there is the metre house, the combustor house, the gatehouse, the boiler stack and the units three power block. the first three station a, to meet your house on the compressor house are also individually eligible for listing in the california register. the gatehouse, the boiler stock on the unit three power block are not individually eligible, however, they are contributors to the district because of their association with industrial history of the central

waterfront. the original. a significance for the third street industrial district was 1872 to 1958 with the end stage being 50 years prior to the district designation in 2008 they identified an extension of a period of significance for the district to an end date of 1965 which the h.r. e.r. notes was quote, the decline of the manufacturing in the area it marks a potential date mac or -- date of significance. the power block in the boiler stack were constructed in 1965. so their inclusion in the district resulted from this change in the end date for the period of significance. the proposed project would include demolition of station a, constructed around 19 '01 with an addition in 1930. the meter house which was constructed in 19 '02, the compressor house constructed in 1924 and the gatehouse which was

constructed in 1914. the boiler stack would be repurposed and retrofit. the power block would be demolished or repurposed and used as a hotel. this will be discussed further as part of the project sponsor's presentation. a little bit about the identified impacts, the draft e.i.r. concluded the proposed project would result in three project level and one cumulative significant to historic resources. the first historic resource impact is related to the demolition of the three existing buildings that are individually eligible for listing in the california register. these are station a, to meet her house and the compressor house. the demolition of the three individually eligible buildings coupled with the demolition substantial alteration and rehabilitation of the three contributing buildings which have a substantial adverse effect on the significance of the third street industrial district. impacts to the district would be

project level and cumulative impacts. mitigation measures have been identified to address these impacts. difference requires a project sponsor. to undertake historic and merkel -- american building surveys or documentation of station a, the compressor house, the meter house, the gatehouse and the unit three power block including measured drawings, photography and historical reports. to create video documentation of all historical buildings prior to demolition or substantial alteration of these resources. the savage materials of historical interest, provide a permanent display of interpretive materials including salvage materials concerning the history and architectural features of the individual historical resources and the third street industrial district , to consult with preservation staff including any exterior modification to the boiler stack and to prepare a preservation plan establishing protective measures for preservation and protection of the boiler stack during construction. the second measure includes vibration control measures. these measures would reduce the

severity of projects and he much of impacts on the third street industrial district but not to a lesser or significant level. the proposed demolition impact would remain significant and unavoidable. similarly the project's individual resources would be reduced and remain significant. all impacts to the boiler stack would be reduced to less than significant level of mitigation. the proposed infill prints construction would have a substantial adverse effect on the significance of the third street industrial district because you construction would not be compatible with the rest of the district in terms of size , scale and architectural features. however, mitigation has been identified in the form of design controls for new construction. these controls would ensure that new construction would be compatible with the defining features of these areas and this impact would be less than significant. these design controls would be included in the document for the proposed project. the project sponsor would

provide more detail. i would like to introduce kristin who is the urban designer for the project sponsor >> good afternoon, commissioners thank you for this opportunity to share our updates to the plan based on your feedback that you gave us on the august 1st meeting that we had with you. if we could go to the presentation whenever. >> there it is. >> great. thank you. so we came here and presented on august 1st. our updates and our plan as it is developed over the last year and a half and we are back to share how the plan has developed with your feedback. in the meantime, we have been working on design controls and getting our e.i.r. published and it was important to us to publish the draft design controls with the e.i.r. his of the project can understand the details of what we are proposing to do here. we have been working with the

mayor process office on the package of community benefits that will come along with this project and today we will be sharing some of the pages from the draft so you can see the specifics of how the project relates to the historical context and how we have baked that into the design approach. the power station, as you are familiar is south of pier 70 on san francisco central waterfront is a mixed-use project. a 60% residential. the rest is office or r. and d., hotel, retail and p.d.r. uses that complement the p.d.r. that exists today. the power station is located in the third street industrial district as rachel outlined and above the historic district of which pier 70 and crane cove park are a part. the third street district is primarily linear and l-shaped that runs down third street and turns eastward towards the site

and there is a few buildings to the south of the site as well which are the western sugary refinery warehouses on the south side of 23rd street. this is to zoom in to show you the 24 structures on the site remained that is associated with the former power station including six historic structures that are associated with that district. in the six structures are the union three power blocs, the boiler stock, station, hey, meter house, gatehouse and compressor house. if you like, i can point those out on the plan if you're not familiar with the location. >> i think we understand. >> ok great. they are primarily constructed every enforced brick in the american commercial style similar to what you heard about the hubcap the structures are in very poor condition and for example, station a, more than

half of the building was demolished in 1983 and the roof was removed. there is a significant amount of water damage and the structures are vulnerable to even a small earthquake. as you asked in the august 1st meeting, we are continuing to explore creative ways to incorporate these buildings into the site. we are really inspired by the european style of mixing old buildings and new and bringing that history and to create a better character in the site and something really worthy of the opportunity here that these buildings present. the power three power block in the concrete stack of the waterfront are one of the district contributors and we think these are an opportunity to tell the history of the site as a power generating site on the waterfront. this site, along with pier 70 is an opportunity to open up the central waterfront to residents.

thinking about the waterfront experience and what these buildings mean to helping the interpretation of the history of the site we think is an amazing opportunity. we plan to rehabilitate the 300- foot tall stack to conform to the secretary of interior his standards and we are looking at ways it can be occupied with public oriented uses. it is 750 square feet. it is a small area but we heard interesting ideas like a lighthouse or a community fireplace and we're looking for ways to really make that a public use that will be open and exciting and inviting and worthy of the iconic nature that the spec occupies in dogpatch right now. we are also studying the potential to retain the unit three power blocs. we have been hard at work on this for the last year. no one has done this before so we're trying to see if this can be done. this could be an amazing opportunity. this location on the waterfront,

having more public facing use could be really activating that waterfront. it is an important part of the project identity. on the same day that the e.i.r. was published, we made available our d. for d. and i will share with you some pages for you to see what some of the approaches have been. as rachel mentioned, these are some of the mitigation measures. they are broken into two parts. there is those that apply site wide to open spaces, streetscapes and buildings and then there are site specific controls that ensure the buildings are facing existing contributors to the third stage restricts and are responsive to those specific buildings that they face. we have developed these carefully with planning staff including historic preservation planners and they have been thoughtfully considered in the context of adjacent development, existing historical buildings and of course, the larger

central waterfront and dogpatch neighborhood in mind. because the controls are interwoven through the entire design for development document, we have used a clock icon to indicate where specific historic related controls are so that people can easily have a wayfinding experience through the document to understand which controls relate to this reinforcing those historic characters. >> you can use that microphone. [laughter] then you don't have to move back and forth. it is a little short there. >> just an example, in our paving and materials materials, we highlight the use of paving that reveals industrial elements and utilitarian material so the streetscape really has a sense of an industrial path -- passed. in our open space design and planning -- planting, we highlight the importance of the stock and make sure there's nothing in the stack -- in the landscape that competes with that and even highlights it

juxtaposes the planting and the scape against industrial character of the building. looking at the streets with character, the theme it has really been about greening and that has been something you see throughout dogpatch. greening these industrial spaces and trying to be responsive to that with added green elements on the streetscape. through methodic articulation, making sure we have a depth of a façade that is consistent with materials being used. is something we really see in these historic structures. the sense of quality and durability and permanence. the colour and materials, we want to make sure those are consistent with the quality and scale of existing materials in the district and we are more specific about the materials you can use on buildings facing district contributors. and then of course, here is an example of some of the material palette. and then there is minimum the ground floor heights and industrial awnings and some of the other pedestrian oriented design aspects that framed the

pedestrian experience and making sure we are using consistent atoms throughout the district and referencing those items. these are the controls that are more specific to new buildings fronting illinois and 23rd street and facing district contributors that are not included in the project such as industrial center along illinois street and the warehouses to the south of the site. the frontage, i don't know if you can see in the plan, it is in blue and is required to have the specific frontages applied. we have some graphics that really indicate the quality desired at the ground floor, especially where people are walking by these buildings to get that sense of history and scale that is consistent. we talk about materials in terms of their quality at the pedestrian -- pedestrian level but also for the whole base of the building and making sure building setbacks reference the

set by the existing buildings in the area which are all a consistent space of 40 or 60 feet in height. and thinking about the awnings and the scale of the openings, as well as providing specific guidance around the industrial -- the existing buildings within the district such as the stack and unit three. there are specific guidelines here that outline what to do specifically with retention of those buildings. this is an example of 23rd street and what it might look like, including some of these elements. you can see here the material, the setback, the fenestration, the awnings and the ground-floor p.d.r. uses that reinforce the character that exists in that neighborhood. and in addition to these design controls that we have we have a plan that is part of the documents that talks about the various experiences that will be

defined as you move through the space. we used a team that did pier 70 and a park. building on that same set of elements where we have a hub of main interpretation at the stock that is obviously a really important place to tell the history of the site. and then the series of breadcrumbs throughout the site that linking back to that hub of storytelling experience and thinking about the gateways. one of the opportunities here is central waterfront. this whole area has an industrial past but they are very specific stories to be told about the shipbuilding at pier 70 versus the power generating at this site. we want to make sure that is clearly interpreted and revealed throughout the whole experience of the waterfront. we are obviously thinking about how that can come down into smaller elements of the streetscape such as benches and paving and signage and even scale models of what the site may have looked like in the past we have been doing a lot of community work and community workshops through this process. we just had a street festival at

the site a couple of weekends ago. this weekend is burning man decompression. can i hop back over here? >> sure. >> if any of you are so inclined to come. we have been having quarterly workshops with community members and we have been having monthly meetings with neighborhood groups and we have been having weekly office hours for anyone can come and chat with the developers about what is happening and ask questions. we would continue -- we will obviously continue to have those engagement opportunities and we would invite anybody who has any questions to meet us at office hours and we welcome your feedback. thank you. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you. i will now continue the discussion of the draft e.i.r. alternative. the draft e.i.r. analyse seven alternatives to the proposed project including a no project

or code compliant alternative. the two full preservation alternatives and force partial preservation alternatives. they were developed in consultation with the architectural resources committee of the historic preservation commission. staff submitted an alternative memo on march 14th, 2018 in advance of the hearing on march 21st 2018. at the hearing, community members provided detailed feedback on the preliminary alternatives that were presented at that time. feedback was incorporated into a revised set of alternatives which were then analysed in the draft e.i.r. referring you back to your hand out, there are three sets of materials included from the draft e.i.r. the first is a table that provides a summary comparison of the development program for the proposed project and each of the alternatives. the second set shows the height and mapping for the proposed project in the alternative on the third is a table that compares the impacts of the proposed project and the alternatives. the impacts relate to the historic resources on the first page.

i will introduce my colleague and she will go over each of these alternatives with you. >> good afternoon. i want to give you a brief overview on the six preservation alternatives that were developed for the e.i.r. up on the screen is a full preservation alternative. this is also the reduce project alternative. this would rehabilitate all of the resources and reducing significant impacts to individual resources and to the third street industrial district it would reduce the total building area 266% of the proposed project. this is a full preservation alternative. it would also rehabilitate all resources and reduce significant impacts individual resources and to the third street industrial district. it would have a similar total building area but it would add additional height including a

second 300-foot tower. this is partial preservation alternatives. it would rehabilitate station a and the stock and would retain unit three. this would reduce impacts of one of three individual resources and reduce significant impacts to the third street industrial district. it would reducing total building area to 94%. it would keep the same height and open space. this is preservation alternative e. which would retain a portion of station a and retain unit three. it would reduce impacts. it would reduce the total building area to 90 per seven% of the proposed project. this is partial preservation alternative e. , f. it would rehabilitate the compressor house and the meter house and the stack and would

retain unit three. this would reduce impacts to the three individual resources and reduce impacts to the third his -- and reduce the total building area to 95% of the proposed project. finally, this is partial preservation alternative g. which would retain the façade of station a, the compressor house and the meter house which are the individual resources that would rehave the stock and retain unit three. this would reduce significant impacts to the third street historical district and reduce the total building area to 96% of the proposed project. >> can you give us a summary? which one of these alternatives meets the sponsored objectives? >> they all meet the objectives and there is another table that is included in the e.i.r. that goes through each of the objectives in relationship to all of the project alternatives. >> even alternative b. meets their objectives?

the full preservation reduce program? >> all of the alternatives meet most or to partially meet -- >> that is from the e.i.r. >> i see. alternative b. says partial at 66% an alternative c., d. and e. -- >> sorry, and f. and g.. >> the reduce program alternative was designed to do -- to be reduced. it does not meet that many. >> ok. thank you. >> thank you for the clarification. >> it is taking a technical

break here. all right. thank you. >> commissioners, ok. i will carry on with the impact of the project alternatives. under the no project alternative , all of the existing resources would be demolished and the impact from demolition would remain significant and unavoidable. those are the full preservation alternatives that would include all significant impacts. the partial preservation alternatives that have significant unavoidable demolition related impacts to individual resources although the impacts would be somewhat reduced compared to the proposed project. under the partial preservation alternative, the project level and commutative impacts of thirt would be less than significant. under all of the alternatives, the impact related to the new construction would be the same as under the proposed project, less than significant with mitigation. so before i conclude, i would

like to remind members of the public that a public hearing on the draft e.i.r. before the planning commission is scheduled for november 8th. in order to be responded to in the final e.i.r., comments on the draft e.i.r. must be submitted orally at the planning commission hearing or in writing to the planning department by 5:00 pm on november 19th. at that commission hearing we will -- after the planning commission hearing, the planning department will publish a response to comments document which will contain responses to relevant comments on all e.i.r. his. it will be followed by certification of the final e.i.r. at a hearing before the planning commission. this ends my presentation. as i mentioned, city staff and members of the project sponsor team are available to answer questions you may have. otherwise i respectfully suggest that the site and be open for public testimony and commission comments on the draft e.i.r. thank you. >> thank you. to members of the commission have questions for the sponsor for staff before we go to public comment? >> no. any members of the public wish

to comment on this item? please come forward to. you will have three minutes and they will be a warning buzzer 30 seconds before your time is up. >> good afternoon, commissioners i have a copy of a letter that was not prepared in time to make into your pockets but i hope you will receive it and i will read the contents to you now. my name is edgar and i'm standing here in my capacity of the neighborhood association. we have no working with the project sponsors for the power station project on achieving creative ways to adequately acknowledge the history present -- present at the station site. we are concerned the alternatives presented in the e.i.r. adequately failed to achieve our goals. the power station site comprises half the area of the district includes six structures that are identified as contributors to the central waterfront mixed use industrial past. that history runs deep from the days of a sugar refinery in its earliest use of the power generation facility.

the full loss of these would remove all tangible association with that history. in exchange for the complete loss of these historical contributors in their preferred project alternative, the plan is to save the boiler step staffing unit. while these are interesting and appreciated ideas, the significance, especially in unit three should not be conflated with the historic significance of the elements slated for removal. this is exacerbated by the uncertainty around whether unit three may be repurposed for a hotel in a way that maintains an historic relevance. the draft e.i.r. poses a question. is it adequate to preserve only those historic features that are most marketable, whether it is as a revenue generator or as an iconic place maker? or share the goal of preservation be to reach back to tell a richer and more complete story of the site? we believe it is the latter and look forward to working with you and continuing our work with the associate capital to creatively and tangibly incorporate the site history into the overall

project. thank you for your consideration >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners. my name is peter and i have been part of the potrero hill archive project for about 30 years. building our future does not have to mean throwing away our past. the historic brick buildings on the potrero power station site have extraordinary national significance. offering a connection to the explosion of industry on potrero pointe starting in the 18 sixties. and until 1913, the most important powerplant on the west coast. also the 99 years on this site. irish hill to the north and the rebuilding of san francisco following 19 -- 1906. these buildings are part of the only historic district in san francisco which combines industrial and residential communities and they give

context to the remaining sugar warehouses across the street. the proposed project would demolish or brick buildings, extending the historic period to include unit 3 and the stock. i really challenge anyone to make the case that the 19 sixties were anywhere as significant as the earlier. on this site. saving the 60 structures is fine , but only if priority is given to the cluster of more significant brick buildings. most people have no idea at all what is on this site. the historic buildings are largely hidden from view and inaccessible, even on power station tours. my article in the september potrero view was an attempt to raise awareness. we will be circulating a save historic district petition.

the developer wants the development to reflect the site history, but to tear down the very few buildings which are actually part of that history. it makes no sense. if associate capital and intends the development to merge with pier 17 to the north, why is the power station development preserving fewer historic buildings? why is it denser than pier 70? why does it offer a smaller percentage of open space? some of the mitigations offered are insulting. can anyone imagine that books printed on demand, videos or salvaged fragments have a brick would compensate for the loss of historic structures? the e.i.r. does not offer a reasonable range of alternatives saving the brick buildings and maintaining their visually cohesive cluster should be a priority. space inside could be public spaces, perhaps tennis,

basketball courts or walled gardens. additions are possible but should not overwhelm the old buildings which need to breathing space. these buildings are irreplaceable and i hope will become incredible assets. the history held by these buildings belongs to everyone and should not be taken away. thank you. i have many letters here. >> thank you. you can leave them at the podium next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm with san francisco heritage. heritage toured the project site multiple times and we are

currently reviewing the e.i.r. would continue to meet and discuss with the project sponsor and the preservation options and creative approaches to retaining the authenticity of the site. simply put, we have been awestruck by the size, scale, construction and cultural significance of the resources on the potrero station site. as a threshold matter, we are troubled by the draft e.i.r. baseline assumption that none of the site historic resources will be retained as part of the overall development plan except for the iconic stock. we understand that the sponsor is actively and sincerely exploring options for adaptively reusing unit three and preserving other historic elements. we strongly encourage the investigation to continue. and for the findings to be shared to the public and decision-makers as soon as possible so they can meaningfully inform the environmental review process. to be sure, converting unit

three into a hotel would be a major feat. we hope that the sponsor his vision for unit three will translate into a firm commitment for now, we must base our comments on what is presented in the e.i.r. and based on the e.i.r., the preferred project would erase all traces of the site and the highly significant early industrial development." seems to be a disconnect between the timing and pace at the e.i.r. process and the availability of essential information needed for heritage to assess the feasibility of various preservation options. it is difficult for the heritage or others to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the sponsor to determine what is actually possible in terms of historic preservation, both in terms of financial feasibility and technical feasibility. with those caveats in mind, we offer the following initial comments. to the extent of the project will require up zoning to achieve desired density, project objectives and right of return, we believe that it is warranted

to expect corresponding public benefits in terms of historic resource, preservation. heritage feels that preservation of brick structures in the historic core would not only helped link the site to the pier 70 development and the third street industrial district , that would retain the authenticity of the industrial character and materiality that the project sponsor has stated is a priority. we recognize that retaining many or all of the historic contributors may not be possible nor view the awesome size and scale of station including the machine office tells the story of the site history to the greatest degree and provides a strong visual link to the third street industrial district there is more information that will become available and we welcome opportunities to work with the project sponsors and neighborhood representatives to explore greater retention of historic resources. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon, commissioners my name is phil. i am an architect. i have lived in potrero hill for 34 years. the single most important issue that has been dealt with is not the development itself, but what it proposes for a group of extremely historically important structures on the site. these buildings represent a critical phase in the early industrial history of the city of san francisco. these buildings are the old station turbine machine shop offices and switching centres. the meter house, the compressor house and the small gate house. [please stand by]

mitigation by filming the building's demolition, saving fragments and creating a sad post-demolition nicer tiff. -- narrative. i can only support it within the enthusiasm and i'll be the first to admit that it may require some adjustment and possible trimming of size and scope.

a truly sensitive, adaptive re-use strategy may be appropriate in some cases. we must save these early 20th century industrial buildings. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please? >> commissioners, i'm bruce huey, president of the dog patch neighborhood association. i live three blocks from this location. i know it well and others on the commission know it well because they have resided in the neighborhood. the important, iconic images that we treasure are the stack and unit three. the blls that are under discussion for the four let's say historic preservation buildings, i've been in a few of them. they're not such good shape. so, what we'd like to do is work with the project sponsor on all the structures but from our perspective, the most iconic and the most interesting from a design perspective is and a business perspective is

unit three and the stack itself. these are icons in our neighborhood. it guides us home at night because the stack is visible. and the iconic image along the bay for unit three should stay and be reused in some capacity. so, i would just advocate that, as we work with the project sponsor and we have in the past and continue to do so, we'll resolve some of these issues. our opinion is that the unit and stack are probably the most important structures on the site. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm a member of the dog patch neighborhood association and i've lived in dog patch many years and also helped to form the dog patch historic district. i must say that it is not unanimous that the dog patch neighborhood association feels that unit three is in any way important and i would agree that the iconic stack is important and we have talked about that since the git-go. i