>> i am glenn rogers, i am a registered landscape architect. i would like to provide a pro official opinion of the property at 216 head street. numerous cars parked at the street with only four houses that are located there. this is because living those living at 208 and 212 head street have so many people living there. originally planned to be a single family resident after the residences were completed, they quickly became apartments with five to foreignters living

there. it is not uncommon to have as many as 20 cars parking along head street. it is my concern the construction of 216 head street would be similar to 208 and 212 head street, therefore, the neighborhood would like to stop the over development of the property here. in this picture, the view of the side of the building at 212 head street is on display. one coat of paint was applied to the side of the house. today mold and mildew can be seen all alongal main neboulevard and for blocks away. when new construction occurs 216 there would be two coats of paint and anti-mold additive to

the paint to provide a more attractive appearance. in this picture, you can see a mound that was added when construction occurred at 208 and 212 head street. normally when it rains on sandy soil the water goes straight down. with the slope so steep and with the addition of weeds to make the soil less pour us. water flows to the adjacent property. with photos of the water at 216 head street she is against this activity. the city code requests water not to go from one neighbor to the other. unwilling to listen to the neighbors, instead the owners of the property would pay paltry

fines and continue unneighbor-like behavior year after year. we ask you to correct the unsuitable behavior at 216 head street. thank you. >> commissioner: next speaker, please. >> i am steve heidi, i am a member of the board of the extension triangle neighborhood association at 306 st. charles avenue near 216 head street. there are serious questions related to the actual ownership of 216 head street. the adjacent properties at 208 and 212 were all built by al fred lee over the past 15 years. the 16 head street lists u bill

company and anna head. and the adjacent property at 212 which is listed as single family home was ill legally converted to four units shortly after being built by al fred lee as was 208. he is listed on the architectural plans for the owner and builder for 216 head. redirectedded removal of the original structure last may, very be latedly. we fought to have that torn down for years. through all of his not showing up, not paying fines, all of the things he puts the city through and the neighborhood through. it is shameful. i will say that right now. also, three homes built by al fred lead all listed as single family homes were converted to multi-unit dwellings and sold as

such. he advertised one for 8 bedrooms. there were only three or four bedrooms serviceable. he is wasting neighborhood resources year after year. he should not be allowed to do this continually. there ought to be a stop put to this. i don't know who can do it. he should not be allowed. then there is the property at 10. he built the single family home. he has converted it to multiple units again. you know, this is a continual pattern, and much to my dismay today, i found out today by phone from donald duffy at d.b.i. that there is an ordinance passed by the board of supervisors that allows dwelling

units installed without a permit and allows for the legal to become legal. this is shameful, as far as i am concerned. this is very short sighted. at what cost to neighborhood integrity, parking, resident investment and involvement in the neighborhoods, overcrowding. rule of law. >> commissioner: your time is up. >> it is my understanding the owner. >> commissioner: your time is up. >> it is my understanding the owner is applying for a permit to add additional dwelling units. this is a dirty shame. >> commissioner: next speaker, please. >> good evening. i am emily adam son.

i just want to piggyback off a couple things that has been said. my church sits right in this area, and right here with all of the cars, that is the south gate, it is hard to get parking in that gate. when our pastor comes on sunday mornings, he always, 98% of the time has to go over and try to find who lives in the building, whose car is blocking there. we got signs up, we got say it will be towed away. the pastor has not decided. he is trying to give him a chance not to have anybody towed. i am hoping something can be done about this. there is usually 16, 15 cars.

when we have something special, sometimes we have to have that gate open so people can go in the parking. otherwise, they can't find a parking space on head street so they just turnaround and go back home. thank you. >> commissioner: next speaker, please. >> hello. i am a member of the extension triangle neighborhood association. just reiterating, the discretionary review to help h s to reduce -- well, basically the shadows they cast and the drainage of the damage done to the foundations and the

basements of the two adjacent properties. it is a serious problem. the height of the building affecting the ad adjacent property with the light well there causing her problems with air circulation in the bathroom, that sort of thing. we have met with the representative from the property owners and asked that they remove the mound of dirt on the property and so far it has not. she said it would be removes and so far it hasn't. we are waiting for other things to be taken care of on that property also. we are asking hopefully that there be to this plan there be mitigation to affect the drainage, something to affect the drainage and help with the shadows that have been cast on the property.

thank you. >> commissioner: commission thank you very much. >> any other public comment? we will now hear from the project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am patrice sanbrini for the proposed new single family dwelling at 216 head street. we thank the department for the support for the code compliant project. it was reviewed under 311 and approved by staff. an exception was issued finding the three story structure would not result in environmental impact. it was in full compliance with year yard and open space. also meeting a city wide goal to add a new family-sized residential building. this proposed project will be

constructed and engineered in full compliance with the city building and safety code requirements. we also met with the dr applicants to review items of concern and provided responses. a land survey was provided confirming the existing lot boundary 25 by 100. there was no record of side set back easement two 218 and 216 head street. regarding drainage, we appreciate their concerns and want to make sure they understand with the construction of a new building, the drainage issues will we addressed and the vacant lot will be in fill construction with meeting all building engineering requirements regarding drainage. the lot currently vacant has no violations which was confirmed by d.b.i. in july of 2018.

the proposed building is going to be in full compliance with all engineering requirements. the alternative dr recommendation for the replacement of a prior small single story building would be a significant under utilization of the property based on development costs and also result in a failure to meet the goal for family-sized housing. regarding issues of sunlight and shadows. we concur that the proposed project would have no significant impact on the surrounding development. regarding the solar panels, you have this in your packet. it ask behind 212 head street and not behind the subject vacant parcel. in addition, this is the

complaint tracking that shows no violations on the existing vacant parcel. after review of the issuesationed by the neighbor we did go back with the building designer who is here to answer any question, and the design was revised to include a one foot set back because the roof of the eve of the 18 head street extends over the property line. the one foot set back was a compromise solution to alleviate having to take off ms. lopez's eve. a light well was added on the north side of the property to provide light and air. the project designer is available to answer questions. based on the code compliance and support by the design team we respectfully request your support to not take dr and approve the project. if you have any questions we

will be glad to answer. >> commissioner: that concludes public comment. public comment in support of the project if there is any. okay. not seeing dr rebuttal. >> i want to point out two things. number one. if i may, these buildings were around since the early 1 1900s. there is a four to fight foot set back. you can see light up there. we are requesting the same footprint as the previous building. to have it abbut against the other building is unfair to

ms. lopez. depth is another issue. also, and this is senior important. this is -- this is very important. this head street. that is an unaccepted street. as you see there is a sidewalk for 212 and 208. there is no walk, which they will have to put in. the water is going to run right to ms. lopez's property. we are suggesting as mitigation a sewer such be placed at the owner's expense here to catch the drain water coming down the street. we believe that is fair because of the slope of the property. right now, it doesn't look like it. that is a down slope there. that is one of the things we are suggesting. as far as the shadows, i want to make one quick comment. you saw the picture where they were seated. in the summertime, the sun sets

far to the north. it will come across that property. if that building is allowed to be as deep as it is, it will cut off his solar panels daylight from about 4:30 p.m. to maybe 7:30 p.m. before the sun begins to set. those are issues that really need addressed. i hope you take that into consideration. discretionary review we will work on. we want the building built but we want it in scale. thank you. >> was that rebuttal? okay. project sponsor. you have two minutes. >> . >> theresa sanbreen ne.

we provided a modified plan with a one foot side set back which is not required by the code and added a light well at property line windows which is not required by the code. we had hoped to discuss it further with the group, and we haven't heard that this proposal was not acceptable. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i would ask mr. winslow to take us to some of the concerns expressed by people in support of the dr. one dealing with add joining properties being used different from what they were entitled to, rental housing at higher

occupancies than intended. storing construction soil on the side for an extended period of time, drainage on the sidewalk and unimproved part of the sidewalk which hasn't been completed. could you comment on that? they seem to be dominating the discussion. the dr seems clear the project description is clear. i need background to the other issues. >> that's are not issues addressed by planning. they are out of our jurisdiction. if you start with drainage of the curb line how do you extend the drainage pattern on the public right-of-way is typically handled by public works not under our purview. debris, mound of dirt on that site at what point i am not should be and what effect it has

with respect to drainage. it is a building code. drainage is a building code issue. there is a provision in the building code that said you have to contain and channel your drainage to the downspout and storm sewer. you cannot apallow it to run across a neighboring property. that is the law. the rule is traditionally followed on vacant laws. how does that get enforced from one lot to another especially backyards? water follows the course and sometimes goes across property lines. the impact of this new construction on that condition is not clear at all. in fact, if anything i would expect through the dew course of d.b.i. review of the geotech any cal study and foundation design that will be fixed at least with respect to the construction of the building.

i can't speak to the site condition of having a dirt mound in the rear yard, that is beyond the purview of the planning discussion. >> commissioner: can you speak to the modifications on monday adding a foot to the north side of the property. the roof over hang goes over the property line. this one foot is supposed to accommodate that roof over hang which basically shouldn't be there in the first place. >> i will conjecture that is the case. in other words it is a neighborly concession in the case of a situation noncomplying. if that is the situation. i am not speaking to the factual basis. your neighbor has an eve over

the property line you are accommodating that to occur. that is not a requirement by any code of ours or the building department as far as i know. >> commissioner: just to take your explanation as a base condition. the other issues are there, but we cannot really use them as a barometer to what we need to look at. the project as proposed is a reasonable project. i do not find it extraordinary in any form or shape. a single family home with four bedrooms kind of laid out like a flat. it does not overshoot the property in the rear. it makes accommodations in terms of the angled bay. i would agree with plannings assessment this is code compliant and a approvable project. curious what other commissioners are to say. >> commissioner richards.

>> commissioner richards: i was stunned by the picture that said thithis is a single family house this project sponsor built before. it is an apartment building. we have the judy woo case and the city college and 15 bedroom house with dorm rooms. these other properties need under enforcement or looked at. you are jamming all of these people in there. i don't think that is permitted. i suggest to open an enforcement case on all of those properties. clearly, the planning code requires certain parking which obviously it is not the case if that is true and correct that there is 20 cars that this building is generating. we need an enforcement case. something needs to happen there. that is a code compliant

project. i am a bit worried it will be a dorm like the other projects. we need to call it that. what is the rules around houses that become group housing? is this group housing? if we have unrelated individuals all renting a bedroom or two per bedroom, do we have a group housing project? >> group housing is basically ill defined. you know it when you see it. >> that sure looks like group housing. >> common sense approach to looking at a plan to say that looks like group housing or you could say multigenerational housing where there is many people in the extended family that want to live under one roof. that is the hard part to discern how you are living versus how we are complying with the building

code in place. this does not look like any of those. in other words it has three bedrooms one kitchen and no apparent means of separating to a flat. anything could be done in retrospect. with a permit it is easier to catch things to see what is going on. when it is done without a permit that is the case for enforcement item. this doesn't look like group housing. >> my advice but you are within your righting to do some type of public records request on the other properties to see whether the individuals are related or not. if you have 20 people unrelated to each other you have a situation that needs remedied. this building is code compliant. i think it will improve the drainage situation. you will have landscaping that is appropriate. i think we should recommend that the project sponsor work with

dpw on the drainage on the unincorporated piece of the street. there is no sewer there, right? that is the issue. there is no storm drain. >> i just have a question to the neighbor. at 218. you showed a picture ms. lopez of your over hang there that you have. can you put that back up? if i could ask you a question. you are the most -- i mean you are down slope and the most impacted by this. have you seen their modifications where they set back a foot and add a light well?

>> yes, i was discussing this with my neighbor. he was explaining to me how that will not really help me at all with my window because as i was thinking last night, which i was asleep thinking about this whole meeting. i have my two bedrooms. one of the bedrooms if i have a fire and i only have a 12-inch much set back, how will i be able to exit from there? that is my main concern. i might have to hire a lawyer and hire someone to draw my line where my property line is. that is not clear yet. the properties we had before where properties were encroached by mr.al fled lee, i think i

need to hire a legal expert. >> you may need a survey. who knows where the actual property line is there? the project sponsor is saying, that is not going to translate to this necessarily. i think they have asked for . >> any new construction has to have a survey. that is the basis for the layout of the building proposed including where the light well is with the assanation this neighbor sits on the property line because nobody was there a small portion of her roof hanging over the property line. that is the issue where they are setting the foot back to accommodate that, and they propose to set back a foot to accommodate back to that over hang that comes to their

property so you don't have to remove that over hang? >> that is one thing not in the original plans we received as a change. the other was the addition of a light well where i believe you say you have two windows on that side of the building? >> yes two windows, one in a master bedroom. the other one is where the bathroom is. >> are there other windows in the master bedroom? >> no, that is the only window. >> the only window in the master bedroom? >> yes. >> i think we have faced this before where we don't quite know what the impact is to the neighbor. we don't have the layout of the neighbor's property at 218. i don't know if you know, mr. winslow. that is your window?

that is the small one is the bathroom window? >> thithis is the the master bem and this is the bathroom window. >> that would be my concern. if the layout of th the home ony has that bedroom as the master window what you proposed as a light well is enough. >> i have a question from mr. winslow. it is no longer a bedroom for her. it cannot be considered a bedroom by fire code. >> today it is not considered a legally conformitying bedroom. it has an operable window on a property line. that is not complying with today's code. >> it is exceptional and extraordinary. i would think at that window you have to come back three feet and continue on to the entire length of the building toward the back,

not just the light well if that is the only window. if you could bring up the plans, if you can show us the plans. thank you, ms. lopez. >> thank you. >> commissioner: these are revised plans? i think where you. that is ms. lopez's window where you do that light well? >> correct. >> how deep is that light well? >> that light well currently stands in roughly about two and-a-half feet. >> commissioner: that includes the foot? >> no. >> commissioner: three and-a-half feet to her window? >> roughly around three. currently with that foot. >> commissioner: i mean, i think

that light well then has to continue to the entire length of that building starting there. given that that's her window to her bedroom. you captured then the bathroom window also, which i am not as concerned about, but i think that rises to exceptional and extraordinary. we have had this before where we are enclosing people's bedrooms. i get it that it is not a currently code complying bedroom window. i would like to see that light well extend three feet, which it does. that continue for the length length of the building as you go back from the street. >> her building or our property? >> the whole width. >> may i ask for clarification of the reason for the three foot

can amount to an easement. >> commissioner: it is not an earringment. it is a three foot -- easement. it is a setback. whether it is compliance or not, part of that has to be that. i think i would be comfortable doing that. you can't block that in. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: the first thing to do is look out the bedroom, what type of bedroom, is it fully used, master bedroom. in most cases the maxter bedroom would be in the front taking full advantage of the width of the house where it is. this could be a secondary window. what typically would be done is that both parties accommodate each other and basically in the existing home you would notch in the bedroom to put in two

windows for the proper light and air, you would not force the other property owner to sit back three feet. that does not create definition of fully ventilated window for interior bedroom. i don't think so. >> another option if we had access to the plan of your house. what is the relationship of the master bedroom and bathroom as it relates to the rear yard? is there an opportunity for a window that might not be in the bedroom proper but to serve as the light and air ventilation as required for bedrooms as well as emergency egress required by building. as it stands now that window is noncomplying. it is not supposed to be there. it wouldn't be serving as an emergency fire access. >> it is not that. where we have had this before

that is a living space. the only light in the living space we accommodated that. >> we need to dig in to see if there the other means of achieving compliance of that bedroom. we don't know what is on the back end of the building. is that a master bedroom suite with another building facing the year yard? >> we need to continue this to wait to see the layout of the bedroom to determine what is the appropriate way to go after this. i would rather not make a decision without that today. i move to continue. >> second. >> to director what day would you recommend? >> your calendar is full to march 7th. >> very good commissioners. >> yes, commissioner hill

hislis. >> i think drainage is an issue. i want to make sure if we are continuing it we are focusing on 218 in kind of the layout of that space in accommodating that. >> very good. on that motion to continue this matter to march 7 to determine the layout of the adjacent property. commissioner hillis, johnson, moore, richards and melgar. so moved that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> that will place us on item 15. for case 2017 at 1979 funston

avenue, discretionary review. >> good afternoon. merry christmas season. we have a letter from the d.r. requester fo for this item to be withdrawn. >> okay. is that all we have today. >> there was nothing really. there was no question about this. >> with that we will end the meeting.

as a society we've basically failed big portion of our population if you think about the basics of food, shelter safety a lot of people don't have any of those i'm mr. cookie can't speak for all the things but i know say, i have ideas how we can address the food issue. >> open the door and walk through that don't just stand

looking out. >> as they grew up in in a how would that had access to good food and our parent cooked this is how you feed yours this is not happening in our country this is a huge pleasure i'm david one of the co-founder so about four year ago we worked with the serviced and got to know the kid one of the things we figured out was that they didn't know how to cook. >> i heard about the cooking school through the larkin academy a. >> their noting no way to feed themselves so they're eating a lot of fast food and i usually eat whatever safeway is near my home a lot of hot food i was excited that i was eating lunch

enough instead of what and eat. >> as i was inviting them over teaching them basic ways to fix good food they were so existed. >> particle learning the skills and the food they were really go it it turned into the is charity foundation i ran into my friend we were talking about this this do you want to run this charity foundations and she said, yes. >> i'm a co-found and executive director for the cooking project our best classes participation for 10 students are monday they're really fun their chief driven classes we have a different guest around the city they're our stand alone cola's

we had a series or series still city of attorney's office style of classes our final are night life diners. >> santa barbara shall comes in and helps us show us things and this is one the owners they help us to socialize and i've been here about a year. >> we want to be sure to serve as many as we can. >> the san francisco cooking school is an amazing amazing partner. >> it is doing that in that space really elevates the space for the kids special for the chief that make it easy for them to come and it really makes the experience pretty special. >> i'm sutro sue set i'm a chief 2, 3, 4 san francisco. >> that's what those classes

afford me the opportunity it breakdown the barriers and is this is not scary this is our choice about you many times this is a feel good what it is that you give them is an opportunity you have to make it seem like it's there for them for the taking show them it is their and they can do that. >> hi, i'm antonio the chief in san francisco. >> the majority of kids at that age in order to get them into food they need to see something simple and the evidence will show and easy to produce i want to make sure that people can do it with a bowl and spoon and burner and one pan. >> i like is the receipts that are simple and not feel like

it's a burden to make foods the cohesives show something eased. >> i go for vera toilet so someone can't do it or its way out of their range we only use 6 ingredients i can afford 6 ingredient what good is showing you them something they can't use but the sovereignties what are you going to do more me you're not successful. >> we made a vegetable stir-fry indicators he'd ginger and onion that is really affordable how to balance it was easy to make the food we present i loved it if i having had access to a kitchen i'd cook more.

>> some of us have never had a kitchen not taught how to cookie wasn't taught how to cook. >> i have a great appreciation for programs that teach kids food and cooking it is one of the healthiest positive things you can communicate to people that are very young. >> the more programs like the cooking project in general that can have a positive impact how our kids eat is really, really important i believe that everybody should venting to utilize the kitchen and meet other kids their age to identify they're not alone and their ways in which to pick yours up and move forward that.

>> it is really important to me the opportunity exists and so i do everything in my power to keep it that. >> we'll have our new headquarters in the heart of the tenderloin at taylor and kushlg at the end of this summer 2014 we're really excited. >> a lot of the of the conditions in san francisco they have in the rest of the country so our goal to 257bd or expand out of the san francisco in los angeles and then after that who know. >> we'd never want to tell people want to do or eat only provide the skills and the tools in case that's something people are 2rrd in doing. >> you can't buy a box of psyche you have to put them in the right vein and direction with the right kids with a right place address time those kids

don't have this you have to instill they can do it they're good enough now to finding out figure out and find the future for erlman and commissioner wolfram. planning commissioner fong. hillis. johnson. moore. and we do expect commissioners melgar and richards to arrive shortly. commissioner koppel may be absent today. you have two items on your calendar. item one, the communication between commissions. >> good afternoon, commissioners, department staff. welcome to this first joint hearing of 2019. and i wanted to make a few comments to you before you dive into your calendar. first of all the calendar was structured based on comments that we received by your commission officers and we've done our best to draft those as

best as possible to allow for an engaging dialogue over this morning. but it takes no small effort to pull all of this together. so i wanted to make sure that you were all familiar with the planners that are joining us for your technical questions and any comments that you may have this morning. we have lisa gibson and a allis, and anne marie rogers and in the back row pilar ralilali, and justin greving and desiree smith. and monica jacamoche. and they were integral in putting together your packet and is here to answer any technical questions around the historic preservation program of the department. so with that i'll hand it over to you and we'll have two short presentations today related to your items. naturally, we're here to answer

any comments or questions that you may have throughout the morning. thanks. >> clerk: i think we have a staff presentation on item one. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm department staff. this is just a short presentation that has been put together to provide a general overview of the historical review process, and with the following discussion that your commissioners want to have between the historic preservation commission and the planning commission. to point out that the department would be happy to provide additional information on the process generally and historic review process more specifically to either commission in the future. so the historic review process by the planning department preservation staff typically involves one or more of the following steps. the first is a proposed project meets the scopes of work in the

checklist. is the property an historic resource? is the proposed project going to impact the historic resource? what is the level of the impact? can mitigation reduce the impacts? is it unavoidable? and then it requires e.i.r. and planning will be developed. and to include the categorical checklist, there's a variety of scopes of work. this is included in your packet under steps 4 and steps 5. these works -- if the project can fall under the scopes of work in these steps then no additional historical review is needed. these scopes of work that the department has determined is not to cause an impact on the historic resource. and if the projects don't meet the scope of work then the review that i'm about to discuss will be required.

for information purposes, there's the san francisco properties into one of three categories, categories, a, b and c. and a particular category is not a definitive assessment of its status and the properties can change categories during historic review process. and note that these are not sequenced categories. category a properties are historic resources under ceqa and include the properties either listed and/or formally determined to be eligible for the california register of historic resources or the national register of historic places. and they are listed in like article 10 or 11. or determined to appear eligible for the california register either through survey evaluations or through staff review through the environmental review process. more detailed information about these categories can be found in preservation bulletin 16.

and as the, voliation of the property is needed, then e.p. preservation staff reviews and determines if the property is a historic resource. properties not previously evaluated and are determined to meet the definition will be evaluated using the california research criteria. the e.p. staff will determine if the property is an individual resource and if it's within a district, if it contributes to that district. and if a property is determined to be significant, then e.p. preservation staff will determine if the property retaining its historical integrity and will identify the features. a property can be determined significant but not have historic integrity and not considered a historical resource. and a property can be in good condition but lack significance. >> thank you. can you speak a little slower. we're not familiar with the in betweens. i appreciate that.

>> the variety of documents that are produced to help staff to determine whether or not a property is historic resource, technical studies can be submitted by the project sponsor which is the historic resource determination supplemental application. this does not require a qualified consultant to prepare. and there's evaluation report which is -- does require qualified consultant to prepare and has an evaluation of the resource. and the supplemental just gives background information and both are used by the planning department staff to help to inform their determination. and then the planning department staff records their determination and the historic resource response part one, or a preservation team review form. e.p. preservation staff then determine whether the proposed project would impact a historic resource of the subject property. if it would impact the historic

resource status of the historic district in which the property is located or any adjacent properties. >> remember, you were going to slow down. [laughter] if i could interject. >> it's going to be a very quick fast presentation to focus on your discussion. but, okay. >> maybe not to distract you from your presentation, but we thought that it was important to get basic context on what goes into the process and the evaluation and i'm wondering is there any slide, if we could just pause and see if there's any questions from -- we're very -- most of us are quite familiar with it. but if you are not, maybe just take a pause at each slide. >> all right, you want to start over? not from the beginning but -- >> any questions up to now? >> the one thing that i thought might be helpful to clarify is that up to now what we're

talking about with historic resources, then there's a further refinement of that and that's what is under article 10 and article 11. >> right. and so just to clarify this presentation is very much focused on the ceqa review process and not sort of the entitlement or the other roles of the h.p.c. or the planning commission. so this was very much to be focused on the historic preservation process under ceqa and it's to be a very brief presentation and then staff assumes that we will be giving additional presentations to either commissions based on the outcomes of the conversations today. >> so maybe -- i would like to just offer some guidance. maybe go back to the determinations slide after the three categories. that might be the -- a good place to pick up. the first slide under "determination of historic resource." following the categories, a, b and c.

and i think that this is some of the areas that the planning commission may benefit from our knowledge and that is integrity, significance, and condition. and the character defining features, yes. >> are there any additional questions or clarifications on that? and one of the points that i was trying to make in the slide is that you can have a building that is in good condition but it might not have significance. and you can have a building that appears to be not in good condition but does have significance and still can retain a historical integrity. any questions on preservation documents? all right. so for preservation documents

for project impacts, consultant will repair the evaluation report when requested by the department. this should include either a secretary of interior analysis of the property or a compa compatibility analysis and we're doing this more in-house with staff. and a response part two would determine whether or not the project would cause a significant and unavoidable impact on an individual resource. if it is compatible with the district. if there is a district present. and often this can require multiple rounds of design revisions with project sponsors if we're trying to get a project to meet the secretary of interior standards. we also work with design staff to see whether or not we can get the project to meet the standards and the design guidelines of the department. and then finally since there's questions about this, there's the preservation review team

form. which is a document that allows for streamlining of the review by the historic staff but it has the same function as h.p.c. part one or part two. and it's used when we're relying on the h.r.a. for most of that documentation but it serves the same role as those other documents. and if there's a determination by staff there's no impact to the historical resource and no other ceqa impacts they can issue a p.t.r. form or the hrer attached and then these are distributed to the public who requested them and also posted on the department's website. and if there is an impact to the historic resource identified, then we attempt to see if we can mitigate those impacts to a less than significant level if possible. so mitigation measures reduce the significant impacts and then if they are feasible they'll be

adopted. common preservation mitigation measures are documentation, interpretation, oral history, salvage programs and vibration monitoring protection plans. there's various documents that can be prepared if there's a significant impact on a historic resource or other topics under ceqa. and a negative impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level. and environmental impact reports are where a significant impact is not reduced to less than a significant level. we have community plan evaluations but i was going to only get into that if there's specific questions about it. >> maybe i can interject. i think that at this point in the evaluation process is where

the project -- if it's article 10 or 11, it may come before us for a c.o.a. and if not it's only before us if the impacts are not mitigated. i think that is one of the areas in the draft e e.r. that our two commissions were thinking is why we had one of the reasons that we had the meeting today is to look at ways that we can improve the communication in the draft e.i.r. when the impacts that resources are not mitigated. that's the only time that non-level 10 and 11 project comes before our commission. does that make sense? >> and preservation alternative. >> excuse me. we have a commissioner richards. >> so one of the issues -- we have two richards. >> oh. i'm sorry. >> one of the questions that i have is the -- some of the

e.i.r.s and the alternatives that have been done raise questions in my mind. we have one that is like 150, eureka street that looked like an honest assessment, the project program could actually fit in a preservation alternative. and then you have these other ones that i'd say they're less than -- fully baked. and the reason that i say it is, what they do is there's one that i'm -- i can't say now because it's still in the pipeline, but it looks like when you look at the alternatives they have alternative a through h, and it looks like some of the historic targets are not feesible because they have a certain height limit. but in the other more feasible ones they have height limits at different levels. so it's not apples to apples. that's what really concerns me,

is that projects have the demoing as their primary thing and they're cooking the books to actually to make it look like they can't do their program in anything but a demolition. now that concerns me. i am not sure that all the e.r.s are true. and the only ones that i really trust are the peer review ones. >> okay. >> lisa gibson environmental review officer. i'd like to respond to that, please. i want to assure you that it is, indeed, a very robust analysis that we conduct and it is -- it is not at all directed by the project sponsor and at the same time i want to know -- i share that i do hear your concern about this. but the process is that the planning department does direct the development of preservation alternatives and all alternatives and the process is collaborative. we work with the project sponsor and we start with thei