million alternatives. >> if all tern tif c as the full preservation alternative had more build out to it, it would achieve more of the project goals and therefore would then become a clearly superior project. currently, that's not being evaluated in the e.i.r. i think the other part of this is schedule. this is one of those projects where going a little slower and getting this right is going to get the community on board and get the project approved faster. even though our responsibility as a historic preservation community is to protect what the community thinks is important and the planning commission is looking to us for advice. i don't think it's too out rageous to ask them or

outrageous to ask them to do another alternative that combines some of these things and maybe gets a better project for the project sponsor. if we ended up with a two-story edition over the building, if this was before us as a 10 or 11, they'd be asking for a c of a to say that's acceptable and we'd probably accept that. >> i think we could ask for refinement in the alternative but i'm not sure i'd say based on looking at the v.r. it doesn't adequately provide alternatives. >> the question is is this a design exercise or are we count on the e.i.r.? i'm not sure this is meant to be a design exercise right now. we have mr. fine. >> if i may interject to be

helpful for clarity for staff. in the past this commission has spoke how to improve a preservation alternative to make it legally defensive to explore all the potential options at the site. as he mentioned, we could do 100 preservation alternatives but it's not really the scope of the e.i.r. because we haven't had an opportunity to really look at the neighborhood alternative because it's something the community developed on themselves, for instance, because we're in the review and comment period, if this commission would like some variation of that neighborhood alternative to be incorporated specifically into the alternatives, that's the type of guidance i think we'd be able to respond to in a meaningful way. it's also to help give the prime

minister team a little more clarity on once they achieve that, are we done or will there be a whole new range of preservation alternatives to look at? i think some clarity like in the past and saying alternative b with two more floors is what we'd like to see. that gives an appropriate, clear direction on how what to explore and then go to the planning commission and we're happy to share your letter specifically with the planning commission during the review and comment if you think it's vital to continue the dialogue with the two commissions. >> we've come a long way, baby, in encouraging project sponsors and the planning department to bring preservation alternatives to us first before they go ahead and do the draft e.i.r. i just got to say, we're doing a

great job. we want to make sure the preservation is officially recognized and up corp rated into the project. -- incorporated into the project. how do we best do that? commissioner hyland your idea of still looking at other objectives is fine as far as vision but i'm looking at it from preservation and the full preservation c or b are had c -- adequate. i'm interested in the preservation plan. i'd like to recommend we ask for that plan to be brought into the discussion of the e.i.r. and submitted to the planning commission. i think you've probably already done that or have been trying to do that. i'd definitely recommend that.

as far as what we got, these are adequate but i want to see what the community has with looking at c. i just want to say in terms of what we're trying to achieve here, you know, i looked at the project objectives, where's 11? there's 10 project objectives and nothing says anything about the historic resource and the cultural landscape, why not? why not say that? it would get us closer to what we're trying to do here. there's open space but of course the landscape, that's the point is the building. i think in the future as we ask

for project sponsors as we ask for corporation and objectives. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i have a question of it could be our e.i.r. staff, would consideration of the neighborhood plan assuming the square footage and scope doesn't exceed what's already been studied, would that require additional work on the e.i.r.? >> we have no idea what it looks like. >> deborah dwyer a principle and environmental planner. we'll consider all the comments we've received. we just receive the general description that came in last week. we'd need to see the plans and

additional information and evaluate whether supplemental analysis is needed but we routinely do that regardless. all the comments are evaluated and we have to understand whether we need to supplement the e.i.r. before it cannon finalized. >> fair enough, thank you. >> so my other comment about all this is we have another bite of the apple. it's not fabulous if the -- from the timing side and the project sponsors have asked for a longer vesting agreement and

some other comments could be part of the city's negotiation with the project developer. it's just another -- it's another opportunity we have. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i think the reason there's not a number 11 project objective which goes to historic preservation is because in many cases a developer doesn't see historic preservation as an object to his object, in fact many see it as an impediment. whether the rules should be changed, that's another issue but that's still what i kind of

feel as far as the request that we review and comment, my feeling is this is an adequate e.i.r. but it can be improved and i appreciate mr. frye's comment that we're here to suggest how it might be improved so the planning commission has the benefit of our thinking. i don't think we ever want to get in the business of rewriting e.i.r.s. it strikes me like redesigning other people's projects. but since we have been asked to

comment and since, as you point out, commissioner, what the neighborhood proposal seems to be could be derived from what's in the e.i.r. is a comment. >> do you want to spook before i do? >> i don't know, do i? i agree on the notion of what mr. frye said if we could say in a letter we're focussed on this particular alternative but think there's a listing of a few things. that would be very appropriate and a way to avoid having to go back and come up with many other alternatives. that's one thing. i wanted to get one more thing

on the record, there was a comment about the landscaping being equal in square feet -- square footage. it would be helpful to have the numbers in there. >> they are. i found it in table 2.1. >> the landscape areas being developed are radically different than the areas of the historic landscape in the in the proposed project and project variant, they're ostensibly narrow spaces relative to open lawns and the notion of historically this being used by

the public as a park is also being diminished by the project and the project variant. i think that's another significant impact on the historic resource. i don't know if that -- i didn't get the sense in reading about the cultural and historic -- the impact of the historic resource that the landscape was treated in the same way as the building was treated in the past. >> i think it was. >> okay. >> it didn't come back to the proposed project variant. i know they said this is being demolished. >> i think it's being addressed. it's the whole point of why it's the historic resource. it's not the most amazing three-story modern building. it wasn't particularly innovative. it was a corporate campus.

>> without the landscape probably wouldn't rise to a level of being a resource. >> i want to just make sure that there's on the difference between private landscape and community use landscape is significant in this particular one on the record. just going to the full preservation alternative as having preserved a community asset. >> at least the courtyard there is private right now. can anybody go into that? >> they don't have armed guards, i've wandered. >> and many people talked about walking their dogs there. >> i don't know you can -- i don't know for sure. the idea of this is to make it knitted into the community and here's an asset and way to do that. >> commissioner hyland. >> i have specifics i'd like to include in the letter.

they're simple. the full alternative c can be improved. the plaza a building instead of 45 feet could be 65. plaza building b could be 65 instead of 45 and i believe that there are laurell duplexes without negative impact to the site. and the 44,000 square feet of retail if that would be allocated as retail. it could be in the e.i.r. that i would expect could actually exceed the proposed project goals. if that's acceptable, that's what i would like our let tore say. -- letter to say. >> did you include another floor? >> that's the question.

if we wasn't to two story addition building that historically has not been acceptable. >> i don't think they should do that in the full alternative. i think in the project it ought to be acceptable. >> because others haven't i wouldn't put that in. >> i was going to suggest that could be an alternate and we're looking at this issue and this is one of maybe three or four projects that have come before us that can actually take a vertical addition more than one story. if you look at the images they've developed around the particular alternative with two stories it's barely noticeable and would not diminish from the impact. >> but from a case law

perspective, i don't know how that would fly. it's been pretty understood it needs to meet the addition. >> of whether the single or -- >> yeah. >> i agree it's something we're struggling with so we'd look to the commission to see if there's a reasonable alternative to explore. we'd like for you to describe what the appropriate setbacks would be. >> i'd leave it as a one story. >> for the purpose of the e.i.r. and based on the way it's viewed, maybe we just keep it to the one story. >> could i suggest that you go ahead and keep it to the one story but say that in this particular project given the way

the layout is, it could be considered. the project goal of having this -- i forget which one it was, the circulation through the building, i think it's a bad idea, personal flip commissioner, pearlman you made the same comment. >> my comment is there's already a path through the building and if you opened it up and maybe took out one floor above you could still retain the architecture of the building and retain the objective of connecting through the site. >> the objective is to break down the scale of the site so it's more like the neighborhood. i didn't know that would be achieved. >> the emphasized the walks away i to weave it back and it's walkable. not drivable. >> what ohs occurs to me struck me humorous because the scale of

the building is the neighborhood and has been for half a century. >> did my comments get captured sufficiently? >> we've had different comments and view points, does anyone else want to summarize? i'd like to state for the record i believe the e.i.r. adequately addresses alternatives and i think it's adequate. >> it's not evaluated the full opportunity. it cant be adequate. >> it doesn't have to meet all the objectives just reasonable and lessen the impact and this does that.

>> i'd like to offer boosting the alternative. i heard it provides environmental benefits and one of the things that happens in development projects is as the project is built the budget has diminished significantly and the landscape gets value engineered down to less than something fabulous. this is an opportunity to

require as a public benefit in exchange the public benefit that is quite doable and would have a visual effect that would be beneficial to the community. and an environmental effect. added as a comment to our letter i guess is my request. >> i would support that. the development agreement which is under development we should include the landscape planning as a community benefit. >> but that's not before us today. >> no. >> i think we can make a comment

about, we conquer -- concur it's important for the landscape features the landscape should be considered in the alternatives. the landscape is part of the significance. >> we could say that and add commissioner black's comment. >> essentially under the agreement the corporate campus the relationship of the building to the landscaping is diminished significantly pretty much under all alternatives except the no-project alternative. >> does that seem adequate? >> yes, commissioners, i want to mention we're now receiving a

transcript of the hearings and we'll prepare a letter for your signature to send on to the planning commission so thank you. >> and city attorney, would you like to make a comment? >> victoria wang, city deputy attorney i want to make a comment on ceqa does not require every possible alternative be presented but reasonable alternatives are presented. i wanted to clarify that for the commission. >> the question is whether alternative c could be adequate. we could make that statement. >> it would be improved to meet more objectives by providing additional housing. >> one other offer to the planning commission and we've been in conversation with how we are two commissions can

communicate better on projects specifically on this one because they're not in articles 10 and 11. and one way we can put it into their hands is to offer the next phase of the final e.i.r. or whatever point in that process the new proposed process can come back to the i.r.c. that's something they could ask and we can offer as something to be done. we could have more involvement in the development of this. >> a return? >> the suggestion is we say if

asked we'd welcome the participation and the ability to give guidance. >> if there's no further comments i think we can move upon >> thank you, everybody for coming today. very good, commissioner. that places us on item 12. >> a request for your review and comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the department staff. the project before you is a review at the proposal of 1170 harrison street changing the use

to office and eligible for article 10 and included in the landmark designation ward program. under section 803.9 of the planning coast -- code they seek the advice to inform the planning administrator in the abl ability of preserving the building. and there's approximately 10,000 square feet and a one-story vertical addition and inversion of a mezzanine floor and alterations to the harrison street and other interior alteration. resulting in 21, 500 square feet of office use. as part of the project, the sponsor would restore important

exterior elements an replace the historic doors with aluminum fronts and installed security gates facing harrison street. the project would replace single-pane glazing, prepare exterior concrete and paint exterior wall. the a.r.c. suggest further sculpting of the vertical addition and further refine next relationship between the mess nene -- mezzanine floor. a copy of the meeting notes and staff analysis has been include in your process. the project sponsor has outlined a plan for maintenance and repair of the subject property.

the property qualifies as a determine to be individually eligible for the california register in article 10. typically office use is not permitted unless it's within a qualified historic property. the department finds the project to be consistent with the standards and enhance the feasibility of preserving the building and removing the non-complying sides. the project sponsor is present and has prepared a short presentation and i'm available for any questions and this concludes my presentation. >> thank you. project sponsor, please come forward. will five minutes being adequate? >> i was told i had more but i

can roll through and we'll see how it goes. feel free to cut me off. >> you have good material here. >> great. i'm will malard with workshop one on behalf of the property owner. i'm going to walk you through quickly a proposal of the rehabilitation of the san francisco galvanizing work at 1170 harrison street. our plan seeks to change it to three stories of office space. the subject property is 920 square feet of industrial one construction constructioned -- constructed in 1912. the proposed project involves the following, substantial rehabilitation including restoration of the original design and detailing.

repair and replacement of elements in no longer code compliant especially the structural and seismic element. alterations including the addition of a second floor. removal of the portion of the roof and the third-floor addition roughly 3,260 square feet and all done within compliance of the secretary of standards as outlined in the historic planning maintenance plans and the change of view from industrial to office. in rendering an extensive high-quality renovation respectful of the historic character of the building and neighborhood and generates enough net new floor area to justify its cost.

when completed the proposed project will have approximately 21,900 square feet of office. we anticipate high renovation costs. the condition of the building is extremely poor. it's always had an active industrial use since the original construction in 1929. you can see most of the windows need to be restored, glazing replaced and the areas will ned to be repaired in order to maintain the existing structural integrity of the structure. on the building interior, steel columns have been rusted and there's been moisture and

additionally roof trusts are showing significant rusting and our engineer recommends the compromised structure need to be replaced. the plan maintains the character-defining features of the historic building except for a portion of the secondary roof and monitor designed originally as a vent monitor for galvanizing activities and had no windows. as you can see here -- the lost hand side had no windows. it was the vent monitor and our proposed addition set back on the street and the addition on the left would preserved 26 feet of roof on the left side of the

building including 15 feet of the roof monitor. we'll plan to add windows back to that section that's preserved next to the addition. quickly, this shows the preserved second floor addition. we pushed back the second floor 10 feet from the harrison facade in order to better feature the roof monitors from the building entries and we've set back the second floor by one foot and aligned to the existing column grid to enhance the visibility from the street. i could add more information if you'd like. i can elaborate or move quickly

forward to a couple specific recommendations. there wore two things the architectural view committee asked to us look at. in light of our removal of the portion of the secondary roof monitor they asked us to incorporate into our design some features or elements that would memorialize this removed section of roof. there's two things we tried to do. the first is we've added a linear-raised pitched skylight in the line of the existing roof monitor and in the location of the removed roof monitor. again, bringing this light into the third-floor addition.

the second piece is we're planning on putting in an inlaid brass san francisco galvanizing works in the floor in the location of the removed monitor there's an example of the right of the inlay. it would be in the same mode as the san francisco galvanizing font on the front of the building. our hope was as the users go about enjoying the third floor addition they would be able to remember the original purpose of the building and its history historically. so in summary, we feel like our proposal for 1170 harrison will result in an extensive

renovation and we hope it will flourish with more activity with deca decades to come. >> thank you for your presentation. does any member of the public wish to comment on this item? if so please come forward. seeing and hearing none we'll close public comment. we're reviewing and commenting for the zoning -- >> we're adopting a resolution, i believe? >> no, just commenting. >> commissioners, we do have a resolution. two things are useful is whether they responded to the comments

regarding the design and concurrent with the recommendation the project sponsor continue to work with us on the entry systems and making sure that molium that was introduced meets recommendation. >> is that in there? >> the review is not but the materials were included in the packet and natalia mentioned some. >> overall, you've din -- done an excellent job at the project. i seem to recall my comment was that it was a venting thing opposed to a light thing you've

now replaced it with a light monitor which is fine. >> i think it will cause there to be a problem with how to use the space. i can't put a piece of furniture on top because it will then not be what i think it will be.

>> i know the code around the opening may be more challenging but it would allow the light. i know it was a venting not light monitor but that would further celebrate what was being removed. and your detail 3 and 81, i like how the attachment or closure of

the steel stash that's a good detail. as drawn i don't think it's going to work. i would suggest some web or flange bed added to stiffen the connection. >> and closing the gap between the floor above. >> the storefront i'm good with what staff is suggesting. >> and pilkington is making a quarter inch and we could get

some solar gain protection. >> commissioner black. >> it's my understanding one of the things we're being asked to do is to comment on the proposed project and it's ability to enhance the feasibility of the preservation of the building. and i just want to talk a little broadly initially because it affect the project and the next project as well. cities are evolutionary and the tricks from a historic preservation perspective is to adapt to economically driven changes without substantial physical alterations to the structures which is not always easily done.

the provision in the city code connecting the changes in use to preservation and ongoing maintenance is, i think, somewhat unique in historic preservation codes and it's a very smart example of a tool that the city's using to creatively solve a problem. the absence of a tool like this can lead to blight especially in neighborhood where's the economics aren't as strong as other neighborhoods. what i like about this is the changes proposed to the building, even though there are floor levels being added inside and on top doesn't permanently mean the building can't be readapted back to a more industrial use in the future if

30 years from now that's required and 30 years from now the building should still be standing because they had an ongoing preservation plan. i wanted to do a shout out to the city code for having this tool which i've never seen before and i don't know if it exists anywhere else but i think it's a great tool. i think it's a very striking building. i think the storefront changes, i have confident staff maybe even using new materials that that will actually improve the street aesthetics by removing the rollout doors and the changes to the rooftop pretty minimal. you can see it from your car, i suspect, but not a lot.

i'll support the adoption. >> thank you. i think it's a fantastic project. >> we cab -- can see the conditions aren't poor. >> the changes won't threaten -- >> it's so warranted it leaves love from the photos and images we see. i'm excited to see the project happen. >> somebody could have had it as a residential building. it's a great project. >> does anybody want to make a

motion? >> i'll move the resolution. >> thank you. >> i'm so happy what's be done won't affect anybody's future plans to galvanize. >> we have a motion to second. >> there's a motion that's been seconded to adopt a resolution adopting findings pursuant to planning code section 803.9b. on that motion, commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner pearlman. >> yes. >> commissioner hyland. >> it passes. 7-0. that places us on item number

13. >> the project before you is a proposal at 149 9th street from mixed to retail to non-professional services. this is pur suit -- pursuant to the planning code. planning department seeks the advice of the historic preservation commission on the ability on the feasibility of preserving the building and uses 25,000 mixed use to non-professional services used and addition of a roof deck and penthouse and other interior alterations. the project sponsor will remove non-historic features and

restore elements and there's brick work and replace the entry doors facing 9th street and replace windows and sheet metal cord nates. the there's a maintenance plan which outlines the proposed work and regular maintenance and repair of the subject property. it qualifies for use of planning code section 703.9 for the subject building at 149 9th street rated at a category 3 con tributary building. typically within the commercial district, non-retail professional services use is not permitted unless it is within a qualified historic property. the department finds the proposed project to be consistent with the secretary of interior standards. further, the department finds the proposed project would

enhance the feasibility of preserving the building by removing non-historic exterior alterations. the recommendation will be forward head to zoning administrator and the zoning sponsor is present and repaired a short presentation. i'm available for any questions and this concludes my presentation. >> i have a question question before you go, you mention the roof deck but i didn't see drawings. i saw in the elevation it looked like there may abe roof deck popping up but wasn't in the drawing package i received. >> same as me.

>> and there's use on the floor -- >> that i don't know off the top of my head. i don't believe so but we can certainly look into it. >> i think it was in r.c.d. >> it's not the same thing. this could then become office?

>> does the sponsor wasn't to make a presentation. >> i'm here on behalf of the building owners, rubicon partner. we were here in 2015 to designate the building as an article 11 build. don't know how it got missed. it wasn't in doubt it was eligible. we went through the process of getting it designate and emphasizing another great example of the code section where have you the incentive for the flexible zoning and we'll have a vigorous maintenance and preservation plan going forward with a deed restriction. in a building like this it's more than that. the building does require facade and restoration and brick work and that sort of thing. in particular

>> closed session. >> this has been the frontage. this is not the historic condition of the frontage >> as part of this we worked with staff to restore it much to its original condition continuing the window work here and removing that not functioning loading dock and clearly not very nice looking and we actually have the original plans too so it's always cool to see. we'll be bringing it back closer to that and so again showing the benefits of this program. we'll be converting the interior

to building four floors to non-retail professional service use. no other changes. just a change of use on paper on the interior. apologies. we don't have the roof deck in our packet either but that's also part of the proposal with an elevator penthouse that cant be seen from -- can't be seen from the street. i was here weeks ago. the legislation supervisor cohen passed would not apply here because it only applies in p.d.r. districts for landmark buildings. this is the more broad program that hasn't changed. thank you and we're here for any questions. >> thank you very much. at this time we'll take public comment. seeing and hearing none we'll close public comment. motion to adopt the resolution?

>> it's a recommendation for zoning from the administrator seag -- saying the project meets the standards and enhance the feasibility of historic resource. >> i looked at the preservation program set forth and there's phasing and the bricks are falling and the other stuff that needs to get looked at in the future.

i support this kind of change that protect the historical buildings and adopts to the economic needs of the city without compromising the bate -- the ability to change back later. >> do we have a motion? >> i support the feasibility of protecting the historic building >> adopt findings. [taking roll] >> that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> think that was our last item.

we're done. hearing is now adjourned.