joining us today. i believe there's refreshments >> start historic preservation commission regular hearing. i would like to remind members of public that the commission does not tolerate disruption or outburst. please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. if you care to do, state your name for the record. i like to take roll at this ti time. [roll call] >> president wolfram: commission ers first is general public comment. at this time members of the public may address committee that are within the subject matter except the agenda items with respect to agenda items will be afforded when the item is reached. i do have a couple of speakers.

>> thank you. >> greetings. i ask this get put up there. good evening. i'm in the board chair for group of neighbors working to develop a community centres in dogpatch. three members of the board presented at the meeting where they discussed why they believe that the old station is an ideal

location. he described the neglect of these buil buildings. bruce hughie spoke about the latest effort to transform the police station site into a community centre. about our rapidly growing community and the work we have done in the past two years to build awareness with the city, and the port. he outlined success at raising over $6.7 million plus $454,000 that we used last year to start a predevelop planning for the site. in addition, last saturday, at 19th annual history night, the historian who will follow, gave a standing room only crowd of

over 200 people a 45 minute presentation on the history the station and the hospital and the context of the 19th century san francisco history along with that pier 70 dogpatch hill. we like to propose a community initiated individual landmark deads natio -- designation basen the model used for the emergency hospital. we would be happy to return to hpc is an agenda item to speak about the project in more detail. >> president wolfram: thank you. >> it's nice to see you all again. so wonderful to be standing in this room. as catherine mentioned, i spoke for history night, which is great crowd. best they ever had. 200 people. in the event, this is a great

building. actually it's two great buildings. everybody thinks of it as a police station, there's two separate buildings there both tied to the professional development. the police station is the two story building. next to it is a sem semitwin, wh is the emergency hospital. they have separate identities overtime. the police station was the third one. obviously by the 1880s, the city realized that the nature of having so many working men in one place it will be good idea to place one in their first district police stations. early on, they were also functioned as the de facto ambulance service for injuries in that area and there was a call to have an emergency hospital as well early on and the first emergency hospital was

in 1903. which is just one year after park emergency which is 1902. they formalized a first building it was rented and in 1914, two years after the police station, they did the emergency hospital. it only functioned there until 1933. they were close enough to the mission hospital general hospital at that point. police station was designed by alfred coffee the city architect. he did the richmond police station, bayview police station, southern pacific hospital, it's really accomplished. the emergency hospital was george, he was a partner with

miller right after the earthquake. this firm hired a young draftsman in 1907. buildings are really interesting examplings of their time and really good candidate for individual landmark designation. thank you so much. i'm really happy to see you all. >> president wolfram: thank you. any other member wish to comment on nonagenda item? we'll close general public compensate. director's announcements. >> commissioners tim frye, the director is out of town. aisle be happy to forward any

>> they have concerns over the findings of the v.i.r. and disagreeing with the finding that there was no impact to the national registered district to the demolition of one contributor. there are other construction related impacts that they feel should be further examined. we will give you a full report on that on both appeals after next week. i've also asked the commission secretary to forward you links to both of the appeal documents so you can see the contents of the appeal and our response. certainly happy to follow up with you. that concludes my comments unless you have any questions. >> commissioner pearlman: our role -- it's not a landmark and it's not an article 10 district

or article 11 district. we only did commented on the e.i.r. >> that is correct. >> commissioner pearlman: my understanding was that heritage had come to an agreement with developer or department that some money was going to be given to heritage to be used for others. they came to that agreement and then now it's heritage's appealing it. >> my understanding , the documents i think will explain that further. apparently that deal has not been finalized or issues with that agreement. which maybe one of the reasons for the appeal. >> vice president hyland: i want to follow up with the national trust conference next week and shotout to commissions. there's an evening reception dinner that is joint national trust on thursday night.

if it is not on your calendar, i think they need some attendance. think about it if you're not already already filled. >> commissioner johnck. >> if someone is available just to put the location of where everyone is speaking. if they're all in the hotel, i know there's stuff out there. >> we'd be happy to forward it to you. we left that off knowing conferences locations tend to shift. >> president wolfram: item three is president's report and announcements. >> i have no report or announcements.

>> president wolfram: touch four consideration of draft minutes for october 17, 2018. >> do we have any comments. commissioner pearlman. >> commissioner pearlman: bruce hughie spoke in general comment. >> president wolfram: that's on page -- >> commissioner pearlman: it's under the general comment. i don't have it in front of me. >> president wolfram: any other comments? any member of the public wish to comment on draft minutes. seeing inhearing none, we'll close public comment. do i have a motion to adopt the minutes? [roll call]

>> motion passes unanimously. >> president wolfram: commissio. >> commissioner johns: meeting going so nicely and such a happy tone to it. i'm almost reluctant to point out that really a colossal figure in the preservation movement died recently. in 1988, he wrote a very fine famous and important book, keeping time, the history and theory of preservation in america. which if you haven't read, you want to. if you have a book club sembling for -- searching for something to read, i suggest that. >> commissioner matsuda: i wonder if you can have staff

follow up on the police station? >> no further comments. >> president wolfram: a will place us under consent calendar. item six, i have no speaker cards. >> any member of the public wish -- we can have a staff presentation under this? this is under consent? >> president wolfram: it's not on. it's still on consent. unless one of the commissioners like to take it off. >> any member wish to remove this from the consent calendar? i do have a motion. >> i move that we adopt the consent calendar. >> president wolfram: on that motion to approve with conditions item six under your consent calendar. [roll call]

so moved. a motion passes. 7-0. >> regular calendar, item seven, this is for your review and comment on the draft environmental impact report. >> good afternoon president wolfram and members of the commission. i'm rachel schuette. i do want to point that we have a court reporter present to take a transcript of the proceedings. i encourage all of us to speak slowly and clearly to allow for a complete and accurate

transcript. commission secretary just -- the public review period for the project draft e.i.r. began on october 18 and will continue until december 11th. we have not received written comments related to historic resources. the commission secretary just distributed a summary handout which i will refer you to later. there are couple of copies available for members of the public on the table to my left. today we're here to provide an opportunity for the commission to receive public testimony to discuss historic resource issues pertaining to the e.i.r. and formulate any comments you may wish to submit on the draft. little bit about the project, the proposed project would redevelop the site located at the southwest corner of south van ness avenue. the proposed project will include up to 984 residential

units over two levels of parking. the building would be comprised of either two 41 story, towers over podiums which is what we called proposed project or a single 55-story, tower over single podium. which we've called the variant in the draft e.i.r. i like to provide you with a brief summary of the findings with regard to historical resources. the project will include demolition of existing buildings constructed around 1926 to 19 e27. which most currently operated as the san francisco honda auto dealership. it called for two story concrete building for stories. the building has housed over 80 retail uses used primarily for auto related businesses such as repair shops and automobile

dealerships. a large open plan occupies the second story. the dance hall was occupied by the ballroom. it was the america's finest ballroom and better known clubs in san francisco and the only ballroom operating in the city during world war ii. by 1963, el patio can welcome the carousel ballroom which continued music and dancing by 1968. by march, the ballroom days ended when the consortium of san francisco musicians took over the lease and began staging rock concerts. within six months, new operators

accumulated significant debt and went out of business. in 1968 bill ranch took over management of the carousel ballroom. during its tenure, it became much a community center. by the time it closed the venue hosted more than 1200 shows and the los angeles times called the venue rock's most famous concert hall. in the 2016 historic resources evaluation prepared for the proposed project we concluded that the subject building appears eligible for the california register historic resources under criterion one for association with the internationally celebrated west. the property also appears

eligible under california registered criterion two person for direct association with the music promoter. for the period of significance of 1968 to 1971. it should be noted that the significance of the existing building is not premised on possessing visual or functional relationship with nearby properties or by the importance of the building architectural future. the building at south van ness convey a significance under of under california registered criteria one and two. i'll move on to summarize the impacts under the draft related to historic resources. the proposed project in the variety will include demolition of the existing building. the building is eligible, the

demolition will impair the significance of the historical resource. it will cause adverse impact. the draft included this can be a significant project impact under ceqa. one measure has been identified to address this exact which priors the project sponsor to take a survey and have documentation of the property including measure drawings and a report to create documentation of the building, to make available print on demand book. this mitigation measure would reduce the severity of the project level impact to the existing individual resource but not to a significant level. it would remain significant. impacts to off site resources are considered to be less than

significant. briefly, i'll go over the alternatives that we developed. they analyzed five arrivals including no project alternative to full preservation alternative. there are two versions project. there's the proposed project and there's the variant and that has single tower envelope. we created a preservation alternative that are commensurate with each of these envelopes. they were developed in consultation with the resource committee of historic preservation committee. at that hearing, committee members provided feedback on the alternatives proposed at that time. they requested that the department consider alternative that concentrated more of the

new construction over the historic northern section of the building. however, this alternative was ultimately determined to be infeasible due to the bart tunnel which extends through the northern portion of the site. as a result, additional alternative was included in the draft e.i.r. but were rejected. commission secretary passed out a handout. it includes three pieces from the environmental impact report, the first table 5.1, compares the characteristics and impacts of the project alternatives with the proposed project. the second table, 5.2 summarizes rehabilitation standards. i've just handed those out for your reference as you formulate

your comments. briefly the impacts of the project alternative, the no project alternative and the pull preservational alternative would have weighed all the impacts. the partial preservation alternative would continue significant demolition related impacts to the existing building. although the impact will be somewhat reduced to the variant. before i conclude, i like remind members of the public address -- comments seen by the public will not responded to directly in the response to comments document. the public hearing before the planning commission is scheduled on december 6th. comments on the draft must be drifted orally or in writing to the planning department by 5:00 p.m. on december 11th. after the planning commission hearing the planning department

will publish a document which contain response to all the documents on the e.i.r. this ends my presentation. city staff and members of the project sponsors team are available to answer questions you might have. i would suggest that the item be open for public testimony and commission draft o on the e.i.r. >> any members of the public wish to speak please come forward. you'll have three minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm speaking today as an individual member of the public. i have no direct connection with the project. indirectly, i do, probably looking at me, you can tell my age, inwent to many concerts at

the fillmore west. i also grew up in san francisco. we're losing too much of this city. this is very important. there's no san diego sound. i don't know if there's a new york sound. there's a san francisco sound. i had the good fortune of growing up in san francisco during those days. it was a great time to be a teenager during that time. it was difficult to find places for the musicians to play and the musicians, we just heard,

they didn't have the business savvy to run the fillmore west. bill graham stepped in and he was able to run it for a number of years. then the music industry changed and so on. i want to talk about the bands that played there. these are san francisco bands. jerry garcia, born in san francisco. balboa high school. carlos santana, mission high school, we just lost marty ballen founding member of the jefferson airplane. he's ten years ahead of me. i went to washington high school. so did he. i'm trying to stress the importance as a historical significant building the carousel ballroom is. before i came over here, i looked on the internet, it's not a perfect source. it was a ranking of the best

live music albums, number seven, live dead. you can guess who was the band. it was the grateful dead. number seven all time, live dead. also on that list we just lost her. aretha franklin at the fillmore west. my message today, i don't know all the details, please do whatever you can do to preserve the carousel bal ballroom. >> president wolfram: thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm with san francisco heritage. our projects and policy committee has yet to review this project. i did want to highlight earlier comment we made for the e.i.r. this project as alluded to by the previous speaker, highlights

the need for a citywide assessment of the city's era and influence on that era internationally. the recommendation that we made in our comment earlier is that we hope as part of any mitigation program that there be a citywide context study funded in part through this project to help not only inform any interpretive effort on this site, preservation efforts but also to help identify significant historic resources related to this particular era in the city's history. thank you very much. >> any other member wish to speak on this item. we'll close public comment. commissioners, our role here is to review and comment on the draft e.i.r. on the findings in the e.i.r. regarding historic resources and on the advocacy of the alternative that have been presented. do we have any comments?

members of the a.r.c. who saw that project before, do you want to weigh in on what you saw then and what you see now? commissioner pearlman. >> commissioner pearlman: thank you. these kind of comments are always very challenging for me because we're not talking about any project. we're talking about many possible. we're talking about possible projects been we're not looking at a specific project that we can review specifically. i do want to comment on the last gentleman who spoke. one of the things that i find so challenging about this is that, no one goes to the current space that was fillmore west. it's in the upstairs of the honda dealer. most people won't know one thing about it, this gentleman may know about it, some people from san francisco may know.

when a project like this comes along and mitigation measures one of the measures talks about a visual and an oral presentation about bill graham and fillmore. that can be available to the public on a mid-block on market street. somewhere where thousands and thousands of people can learn about this. i'm challenged. i'm saying we -- i'm not advocating we should tear down the building. no one knows about fillmore west now compared to the possibility of tens of thousands of people going through that intersection learning about bill graham and the grateful dead. i grew up with that music as well. i'm not quite as old. i had an older brother who went to fillmore east. it's just a challenge that i put out that we come to all the time on these kind of projects with

you want to tear down a building and is the mitigation sufficient enough to convey the history. that's a challenge that i think we face here. i think that it was -- mitigation measure was written well. it elaborates on all the elements that have been to be included. that was handled quite well in the e.i.r. i think that -- i understood -- i was on the a.r.c. at the time this came through. i know there was a big issue about the bart tunnel and dealing with anything on the north side of the site was particularly challenging. i think that it's appropriate, the response is appropriate to not include that particular alternative. i think these alternatives are fine. i think that trying to do the partial alternative in either

case, building on top of the building, again it sort of dilutes some of the power of it. i know that in the variant partial alternative, it would mean having columns and things and that would come through the ballroom space. if you have columns coming through a ballroom space, it's not a ballroom space anymore. that isn't really -- ultimately, in reality, that's not really appropriate as an alternative. it wouldn't really be a partial alternative. you might keep the skin. that one is a little challenging. >> that's the intent. you look at the chart, it looks at how they meet the standard. >> commissioner pearlman: if we can keep it, i think the problem with the full preservation

alternatives is that it dimini diminishes the project quite substantially in terms of amount of housing. it almost cuts it in half for a number of units. we're always at the same place where we have to juggle between some memories and providing 980 units of housing versus 434. less than half for the full preservation alternative. this is a challenging place, ultimately, we don't get to decide this. >> thank you. >> president wolfram: commissioe r johns. >> commissioner johns: thank you. i agree with your comments. is there is to be as a mitigation measure, the history of the property, then i would

suggest that his comments be included. if it is to be this sort of history that is not just written but is in a visual form like a cd or something, interpretive panel, i would love to have the tape of his comments included. not just because i known him for many years and find himto him te perceptive. that shows the importance and the passion excited by this property within thing about of a baby boomer. which was really what drove the whole thing. that's why it would be such a wonderful thing. >> commissioner johnck. >> i think the public comments have been carved very wel

compelling. the idea about an assessment of the counterculture here in san francisco, i think it's important and i see the mitigation not as an alternative, i see it as a necessity which will go along with the full preservation. i do think the scope of the alternative, i think they're adequate. i would be worried -- only thing about the full preservation, i haven't seen a design

are we still going to be able to convey the integrity that we're talking about? i'd be concerned about that. i still would be in favor of coming up with full preservation with the mitigation. i think our comments will be very important to have the mitigation no matter what with the full preservation. that will be my comment. >> commissioner hyland. >> vice president hyland: i see some of the numbers are still what they were presented to us. this is a challenging project because landmarking projects are buildings that have intangible cultural identifies of events

and people. people is what keeps those memoriememories from being eras. yet another demolition of a significant resource, even though the building itself maybe remarkable. i think we should do more, as much as possible. mr. bueller suggested additional mitigation. the numbers don't make sense to me. i made this comment at the a.r.c. the variant project identifies 30,000 square feet of retail but the preservation alternative for the full variant doubles that to 64,000. i don't know where these numbers are coming from or why those are different. if we didn't double the amount of retail that additional 30,000

square feet that's identified as retail could be residential. >> the ballroom is kept in the full preservation. >> they're turning it all in residential is my guess. >> president wolfram: can you follow up on that ms. schuette? clarifying the alternatives? >> vice president hyland: i didn't understand why the single tower couldn't be shifted off the area above the ballroom or the bart. look like it is. >> not far off though. >> good afternoon commissioners. it's correct. we looked into this earlier. it did have to do with the

amount of retail space being higher. preservation alternative has to do with converting the ballroom into residential space. as for the other question about the tower over the hick ballroom, we do have -- there's a partial preservation alternative a concentrates more of that over there. we did not call full preservation because construction there would require demolishing the ballroom. >> did that answer your question? commissioner matsuda. >> commissioner matsuda: i wasn't part of the a.r.c. i will not comment on that. i like to reinforce what commissioner johns said and commissioner hyland said. we should for purposes of public comments to the planning commission, talk about a very

full and inclusive interpretive panel within the new building as well as the suggestions that mr, particularly the citywide context study about the well counterculture. if i can make that request to be part of the record. >> commissioner black. >> commissioner black: this project is sort of the discovery for me. i wasn't living for san francisco during fillmore west. what's interesting to me is that i had always suspected there was something behind the screen. i never had a honda. i was stunned by those amazing arches and the screens above. the exterior is completely of

its period and it sounds like lot of that is retained. what's really stunning to me is what's on the inside. having said that, i can't divorce myself from my planner's hat. if there was a site that needs tall buildings and lot of housing. this is it. two huge streets, adjacent to it. it seems to me -- i'm very much in line with the city's plans for the area. it's a really difficult question. like everyone else, i have strong interest in seeing a more detailed understanding of these preservation alternatives from a design standpoint. what would these look like.

how much will be preserved under each of these preservation alternatives. i think that's inherent. i think e.i.r. does good enough job of finding the quantitative elements. this is going to be a very difficult final decision for us and anybody else. >> would this come back to us? >> no. >> this it. we're just commenting on the e.i.r. >> clarifying comment. mitigation measure, interpretation, does require the sponsor to hire consultant to create a historical study in san francisco during the 1960s. is it your request that they produce something in addition to that or expand the scope of

that? >> yes. >> commissioner black: and a panel. >> it's visual and it's oral. it included sound and video. i thought it was well written. it was very inclusive of the impact of what a rock and roll interpretation would be. >> the question more does scope of the study consultants hired for, is it extensive enough. it's not necessarily a context statement on counterculture of san francisco. >> it's not. it does give the respons sponsoe option to expand the scope.

>> commissioner black. >> commissioner black: thank you. in light what was just said, a phase one of a counterculture study could occur. this project will be the genesis of that. do i think that's an interesting concept. i do think this is an appropriate site for that to begin. that it be done with it in mind that something bigger would grow out of it. >> commissioner pearlman: rock and roll museum west. i think from what mr. bueller said, he was requesting that we ask that there will be funds as part of a mitigation measure to do the study about counterculture. not that it necessarily had to

be part of the interpretive part of the mitigation measure, that there be funds provided for a study be done about san francisco counterculture. we're sort of on the same page. i think we're all on the same page that that will be our request in addition to that particular mitigation measure that we also request that mitigation measure be expanded to include funds to do a counterculture study. does a make sense. >> do we want to request staff to write a letter? mr. frye? >> we're requesting a letter to the planning commission stating that we reviewed the e.i.r., we agree with the findings relative to historic resources that the alternative adequately addresses

preservation alternatives preserving the project or the building. >> add to the mitigation measure about including funds to fund citywide counterculture context statement. >> any additional commenteds. >> right on? >> on the mitigation, that should happen. i expressed this. mitigation should be done. >> that is part of it. >> no matter what. >> it's part of any project. >> i want to clarify that.

>> president wolfram: thank you very much. case number 16. certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon commissioners. the inflatio application befores request for certificate of protonesofappropriateness to deh one story garden house located

at 3620 buchanan street and construct a new four story eight unit residential building. the one story garden house and poot yeo are located on the same parcel designated as city landmark number 58 also known as the merryvale san francisco gas light company building. the property was designated in 1973 for association with the san francisco gas light company and north beach station. the garden house and garden patio are noncontributing features to the overall significance of the landmark site as they represent changes to the property that took place after the period of significance of the site which is identified as 1893 to 1958. additionally the garden house and garden patio are not associated with events or persons that have made

significant contributions to local state or national history and are not considered examples of work by a master architects. they will be considered significant in their own right. the proposed project was heard by the review committee of the historic preservation commission on august 15, 2018. a.r.c. provided comments on the project with regard to material and entryway. staff finds that the proposed work conditioned as recommended, will be in conform with the planning code. the proposed design appeared to be compatible with the character of the landmark site with specific regard to scale, materials. the proposed project will not destroy our alter or remove character features of the

atlanta mark site and the special form of the landmark. additionally the project will maintain set back of the buchanan street to allow for greater visibility of on the site at the pedestrian level. staff recommendation. s for the project can be found on page 8 of the case report. the first condition is that a part of the site permit submittal, the project sponsor shaz submit final material for the proposed brick clodding and metal railing to be approved by preservation staff. the second is also part of the site. the project sponsor shall submit final details for the proposed windows and entryway to be reviewed and approved by preservation staff.

for the third condition, i would like to make a correction. which is included in your packet. the third condition should state, the project sponsor shall complete a site visit with department preservation staff not preservation enforcement staff to verify compliance with the proofed project description. sense the commission packet were distributed the department received two letters in opposition to the project which i have a copy of for the record. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions and we do have the preservation consultant as well as the project architectur architect. >> thank you. project sponsor want to come forward and do a presentation? >> good afternoon, my name is maggie smith i'm a planner.

we have been providing preservation on this project. i will provide an overview of the site which includes a nonhistoric garden and nonhistoric building. located at 3620 buchanan street. i will review the capability with the landmark building.

>> with a new paving and plantings to become the courtyard as it is today. the garden house workshop and the adjacent altered courtyard garden are not associated with the development of the san francisco gaslight company. the northbeat station where the landmarks endorse or the -- although the designation notes of the garden house workshop as being equally impressive, the

one-story building is an altered vernacular building with a mixture of architectural styles. the garden house workshop and courtyard garden are not individualist resources and are not contributing or character defining features of the landmark number 58. this was determined in our resource development from 2016 which was confirmed by the planning department and our preservation team. the 1973 landmark designation did not provide a list of character defining features that we did provide a detailed building description. we have identified the character defining features which include red brick construction, massing, roof structures, fenestration, decorative terra-cotta lentils, arched entrance and open space surrounding the building. the proposed project has gone through several iterations to improve its compatibility with landmark 58. we have determined that the project complies with the

standards for rehabilitation, especially standards two, nine and ten. the proposed project will demolish the nonhistoric garden house workshop and a portion of the nonhistoric courtyard garden to construct a four-story multifamily residential building the proposed project has been located at the southern portion of the site so as not to remove historic fabric. most of the courtyard garden will be retained so that qualities of the site are only minimally changed. the building will still dominate the corner and will be spatially separated from the new building. it will be smaller than that of the historic building. the primary façade of the building has a stepped back amassing some more sightlines of the historic building are retained. if the project is removed in the future, the essential -- essential form of the historic property would not be impaired. the proposed height of the new building will not exceed the overall height of the historic building. the new building will also have

a rectangular massing and street frontage similar to the -- historic building as well as the surrounding context. the new building will be of its time and distinct from the historic building. it will also incorporate materials at a color palette that are compatible. the first three stories will have brick cladding of a similar tone and texture to those of the historic building to address comments from the a.r.c. meeting and accent band of dark brick has been incorporated. the change in material and color palette of the fourth story visually reduces the conveyed massing and relates to the dark tone of the roof. the windows of the building will be picture frame windows. we have found the proposed project to be compatible with and differentiated with -- from landmark 58. come lies with the stan mark -- the standards.