everything around us >> when speaking before the commission, if you care to do, state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> we expect commissioner pearllan to be absent today. i have no speaker cards for general comment. >> any member of the public wish to address the commission on a non-agenda

item. close public comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners, department staff, no director's report. >> item two. >> good afternoon, commissioners, a few items to share with you. yesterday the board of supervisors unanimously denied the sequa appeal for the eight unit project at 3620 buchanan street, and you issued a certificate of appropriateness associated with this. the main appeal issues were related to the potential for public exposure to hazardous materials, and inconsistency with the zoning regulations, including rear yard modification. the staff explained why the project was appropriately exempt from environmental review under sequa, and they addressed questions from supervisors

peskin and stefani, with relation to the garden and the garden structure. the commission -- or the board unanimously denied that sequa appeal, however, there are still other appeal opportunities once the building permit is filed and issued. two other short announcements. last week palar valley gave an informational presentation at the planning commission regarding the city wide survey. over all it went very well. the commission is supportive of this commission's desire to move quickly in completing the city-wide survey, and certainly supports a budget increase for the department to achieve that goal. and then we will also be providing an informational presentation to the board of supervisors this monday, which i believe

president hyde will also been in attendance. that concludes my report. >> was there one with a potting shed? >> it was with a garden structure on the site. yep. >> if there is nothinged further, commissioners, we can move on to item three, president's report and announcements. >> i just add on to what mr. frye was speaking to. we're going to rules on monday with regard to getting support for our city-wide survey. i think the message that is important is while we do want to understand what resources, historic resources we have in the city, more importantly, if we want to speed up housing, identifying those properties that are not resources, and therefore able to get those entitlements done quicker is really the message we're going to convey. >> very good, commissioners. item four, consideration

of adoption draft minutes for the a.r.c. meeting of march 6th, and the regular hearing of april 3, 2019. i have no speaker cards. >> any member of the public wish to comments on the minutes for the a.r.c.? close public comment. bring it back to the commission. >> i make a motion to adopt the minutes. >> chairman: the motion to adopt the minutes... [roll call] >> chairwoman>> chairman: the mn passes unanimously, 6-0. item five, commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioner matsuta? >> i just have [indiscernable]. i just have a comment, thank you, mr. onen, for

forwarding the e-mail from director ram this monday about the racial and social equity training. i'm glad there was 100% participation from staff. i just want to encourage this commission to support a joint one-day hearing that they're proposing for june 27th, off-site. and let's see, what else. i don't know if you're schedules allow it, but it is a thursday. i think that is the day, right, jonas, that the planning commission usually meets? >> it is a special planning commission hearing date. we still haven't heard back from everyone. >> thank you. >> chairman: thank you. any other commissioners? >> i responded yes on that joint hearing. whatever can be most efficient for the staff, we can all meet on the same day. >> and i think it would be good to have that with the planning commission. >> great.

>> i also responded yes, for the one day. >> great. thank you. >> chairman: seeing nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to the regular calendar. item six, case 2017, 00457, for the farrell street project. this is for your review and comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. the planning department and project sponsor are requesting review and comment before the h.b.c. regarding the draft preservation alternative. as you may know, this is the first time we're taking alternative to the full h.p.c., rather than just the a.r.c., to get input from all of the commissioners prior to publishing the draft e.i. r. this change in procedure is as a result of the joint hearing between the h.p.c. and the planning commissioner. when commissioners

expressed input early on. the subject property is located on the north side of farrell street, in the tenderloin neighborhood,and contains a two-story parking lot that was completed in 1924. the building is designed in the gothic style by william crem, jr. the rectangular building is a reinforced concrete construction with a roof that is masted entirely. the primary facade faces farrell street, and resembles ashland masonry. on the first floor, the western most bay includes an aluminum starfront. two roll-up garage doors, and the remaining contain aluminum windows. decorative panels are located between the first and second floors. the second floor features

shallow arched opening -- >> s.f. gov, can you go to the computer, please. >> oh, there is a picture of it. the second floor features shallow arched openings with lum aluminum slider windows. and there is concrete walls and columns, and exposed wood tresses on the top level. the subject property is individually eligible for listing under criteria three. designed by william crem, jr., who is generally regarded as a master in the field of architecture. the subject property is also a contributor to the uptown tenderloin national register historic district, listed under a.n.c., for its association with the

development of hotel and apartment life in san francisco. the historic district is also listed own criteria "c" for distinctive lists of building sites. the period of significance for this district is 1906 to 1932. 550 farrell has seen little construction since 1924, the most notable is window replacement and the front of the commercial front. there is a low-scale, two-story massing, and five bays separated by. >piers. and there is wood trusts with roof system, and it looks like ashland masonry. large openings on the first floor. and arched windows on the second floor. it also includes

decorative panels, a balcony with o.g. arches, and a row of attached gargoyles with panels. the subject property is also a contributor to the district. which has the following features: 37 story building height, as well as at building types that support residential life. they're usually constructed of brick or reinforced concrete, and they feature bay windows, with double hung windows in earlier windows and en okay windows in the later buildings. other decorative features, buildings that occupy the entire width of the lot. and two to three vertical compositions. planning staff find that because the proposed

project would demolish the subject property, it would cause a diverse impact. and alternatives would need to be repaired as part of the e.i.r. here are just a few more images of the general register of the national historic direct. and this presentation will be followed by a more detailed description of the proposed project, along with the draft preservation alternative. so i'm going to turn it over to brick and page and turnbull. >> good afternoon. steve adel on behalf of the project sponsor. before matt convin does a presentation, i wanted to let you know what the objective of the project's sponsor are when we embarked on this endeavor. the objective is to maximum housing development on this site. the maximum we can do is

113 units, and there are 113 units proposed. it's the highest inclusionary requirement of any zoning district in san francisco. so a very high, which is 28 affordable units at no cost to the city. the other objective that the project sponsor cast the architect with was to design a project that was compatible with the uptown tenderloin districts. i'll turn it over to mr. convin to describe the design and the intents of the design. thank you. >> good afternoon, i'm matt convin for brick. i'm happy to be here. i want to briefly describe the cause because it fits in the preservation alternatives that we're studying as part of this project. what you see on the korean, i don't know if

you can the result of work in comment that we already received from the p.p.a. that we submitted previously. and the goal with this project is to create a building that fits within the character of the tenderloin district. so the use of heavy punch windows and heavy corner slides and an arch is present in the design. the materials are of a pre-cast concrete, metal panel and glass wall. the tower is pushed to the street as a result of our design work and comment from the p.p.a. to get the bulk of the tower to the street away from the rear yard setback, and the sculpting of the tower is allowed to align with the light wells adjacent

buildings to keep daylight and fresh air to the adjacent buildings. this is a typical plan of the tower, where you can see the light wells on the east and west side of the building have been honored with center core, which allows that to be kept. the project is 113 units, as steve has said. it is 130 feet tall. there is a small amount of retail on the ground floor. there are 23 parking spaces,and there is no further excavation than what is already with the existing basement of the existing building. >> and i'll just set up some of the challenges in the process of the pressiopreservation alternative. the existing building was designed as a parking garage, and it has got six levels. they step up in the rear of the site. the middle of the building is where that stepping happens. so this building also has ramps on both sides of the

building, and so it is very difficult, actually, to alter the use of this residential uses. it makes it a very difficult proposition. we can build above it, certainly. but reusing the inside of the building for housing is a very difficult proposition, given also just the exiting requirements of housing, with the ramps, keeping this as a parking garage use will be very difficult. reutilizing the floor plates for housing would also be difficult. you'll see and we'll further describe that page and turnbull talks about the alternative that we were able to incorporate is the exhibit here, where we keep half of the building, the front half, and we demolish the back half so we can meet the floor plates of the front half. and that does allow us to get units on one level of the existing building, and

then two above, which is, you know, difficult to do, for sure, but it would definitely be the intent to not only keep the facade, but some amount of the interior as well. and then the two parcel preservation alternatives is keeping the historic facade on the building that you'll see described in a moment, has two alternatives, and that's largely just the location of the tower. and i just wanted to have this slide that briefly describes, if the tower is pushed up to o'farrell street, it does allow for a compliant rear-yard setback of 34 feet. if we set the tower back from the street, which i know is sometimes seen as a nice way of kind of drawing a clear line between the historic facade and the new building -- if we go 20 feet, it creates a

14-foot rear-yard setback, and as a code, we can get openings for it' the units in the back, but it does start to push the building back towards our rear neighbor, which is not ideal. and with that, i will let kathryn come up. >> hello. my name is kit kathryn wallace, and i'm at page and turnbull, and i'll be talking about the alternatives that were discussed with the project sponsor and brick. this provides a comparison between the proposed project, the full preservation alternative, and two partial preservation alternatives. there are several aspects that are consistent amongst all three alternatives. all propose ground level commercial and upper-level residential uses, and all retain the historic primary facade. all include new

construction, designed with modern materials, including pre-cast concrete, metal paneling, and stone cladding. i will now walk through the main distinctive two preservation alternatives. the full preservation alternative would involve retaining the front half, approximately 16,100 square feet of the existing parking garage. new commercial and residential uses in the front half of the building would require the removal of the existing vehicular circulation ramps. and a new two-story structure would be constructed and set back 30 feet. the rear half of the existing building would be demolished to accommodate the revision. it would include 30 residential units, six studios, 12 one-day units, and six three bedroom

units. the reinforced create construction and arched wood construction would be partially retained, and all other characterizing features would be fully retained. partial preservation alternative one would involved the construction of the 13-story building with the setback from the primary facade. it would significantly alter the building's especially relationships. the character defining masting would not be retained, but all other character-defining features would be retained. the partial preservation alternative two would involve the construction of a new 13-story

building, flush with the historic primary facade. the building's character defining massing would not be retained, but all other remaining characters would be retained. and like alternative one, it would specifically alter the relationships with the building's environment. so both would accommodate considerable more affordable residential units, compared to the full preservation alternative. the mix for the partial preservation alternatives would mirror that of the proposed project. 83 one-bedroom units, six two-brookbedroom units. please refer to your package for the units. thank you.

>> just as a final note at the end of the memo that we drafted, we do have some more specific considerations for you to look at and comment on. >> and under the requested actions. on page six. [inaudible] >> i can just reiterate some of the questions that we had. so on page six, you'll see under the requested actions, we have some questions with the massing of the addition in the full preservation alternative, be increased and still be in conformance with the secretary of the interior standards. should the partial and preservation alternatives

one and two retain a portion of the interior space, and lastly any other suggestions you have for alternatives that the department and the project sponsors should consider. >> chairman: great. why don't we -- >> i have a question and then we'll go to public comment. my question is -- well, i have two questions, actually. one is: do the partial prepreservations i imagine do not reduce the -- >> i would say that the partial preservation alternatives would not reduce the impacts. >> do we need to have partial preservation alternatives, or just the full preservation alternatives? is there any -- >> i would say under sequa, it is not a. >> richard: requirements, but to

describe a partial and full preservation alternative. >> okay. thank you. >> chairman: why don't we open up public comment. any member of the public wish to speak to this item? okay. let's close public comment and bring it back to the commission. i just wanted to get a little frame here. this is the first project that we're seeing ahead of the a.r.c., and in attempting to be more communicative with the planning commission, they're looking to us to really articulate what our concerns are, both with the proposed project as well as the alternatives. we're not here to redesign it, so to speak, but if there is a concern -- and we can even -- if we have a preferred project, one of the two preservation alternatives -- this project is not article 10 or 11, and that's why it is coming before us in

this capacity. had it fallen under article 10 or 11, then we would be able to actually influence some of the design, but we can communicate some of those concerns if we have them. >> i have a few things to say. first of all, i would say the value of the historic building, i think, is mostly because of its being a contributor to the tenderloin historic district, kind of as a background building. it is a good example of gothic revival architecture. it is okay. if you look at it and analyze it -- like they did this building and stuck a bunch of gar gargoyles on it. i wouldn't say it was extremely thought-provoking or very impactfully example of gothic revival architecture. i think it is unlikely for the architecture, that anyone is going to be tying themselves to the barricades here. i think as a contributor to the district, it does

provide some sorts of general character to the district. so it is kind of a background building. i think that context is important because when we're conveying information to the planning department, i think as a commission i think it is important to have some sense of more relative value because you could say, well, it is an historic resource, and all of the historic resources are the same, but i don't think that is necessarily the case. my second point of view is: i don't think we need the third -- or the second preservation alternative two. i don't really see the point of that one. so i don't think it provides any benefit. benefit as a study. i would ditch the one that puts the building on top of the facade. if we want to have the second one, there it is. i think the material they provided is more detailed than we usually get, so i really appreciate the

amount of study that went into these. they seem like they're realistic alternatives. so i appreciate that. but i would be fine with not having preservation alternative two -- partial preservation alternative two. >> the alternative two -- >> i would only have the full, the partial one, and then not do the two, which is basically just the facade. i don't think it has any preservation attributes, and it would not be, i think, a very successful example of what we want to promote for preservation of the city. the partial one, at least because of the setback, you can say, it is not great, but... >> i would be interested to know how the retention policy -- the historic material retention policy would be applied to this project. let's continue on. commissioner johns. >> i potentially agree

with what commissioner wol wolfrin. i thought there was a second alternative because we always have two alternatives. that's what i thought. i thought it was probably not worth the time and money it is took to create it. but now as to alternative one, i thought that that has some merit. of course, that is consistent with the fact that i tend to like preserve facades more than, perhaps, others on this commission do. i might as well just be honest about it. i thought in all respects, the thing was adequately identified, the issues. but i did like alternative one. >> chairman: commissioner black. >> yes. i agree that it is not a

superb example of its type, but i do think that it's a reasonable and nice example of a parking garage of this era. and it gives a sense of the street scape at the time. the whole street scape gives a sense of the street scape at the time. i'm inclined to support alternative one for the same reasons that have been expressed. it allows the street scape to still hold the neighborhood, but allows the 113 units -- i realize that the configuration is different. i think in important that we retain good examples of what they are, and this is, i believe, one of those good examples of parking garage of that era. i don't have any concerns

about losing the ramps and the tress structure, other than they're nice features, but they're not seen by very many people, and certainly the need for housing outweighs the trusses. i want to commend the team for doing a high number of inclusionary housing. even though that is not exactly under our purview. >> i had one other comment. in response to the questioning, could the massing of the full preservation still be increased and still be in conformance wi with the standards. i believi think because the lots so deep, you could set another two stories on top because it would be back 75 feet from the front. you've got in the section,

on page 32, you could have probably until column line maybe -- i think you could have at least one, maybe two stories, that came up to column line four that were sort of back here, and still be sort of in conformance with the standards. you really would not see that at all from the street. i think you could get more in the full preservation alternative by have another two stories that were really set back further again. maybe they're set back where you've got the first setback and the second setback, and it would be another setback. so it would be about 60 feet back from the front or something. >> chairman: commissioner? >> i must say, i am taken with the whole package, without any alternatives. i know what you're saying, commissioner wolfrin, about this is not

necessarily a steller example of this particular style of architecture. however, one of the things i've been impressed with is how much restoration and focus has been gone on throughout san francisco, particularly the buildings on the waterfront, the ferry building, down pier 70 -- i've spent a lot of time in those buildings, featuring the interior, the trusses, the interior construction. and it's fascinating to see how all of that has been going on. so i am in favor with keeping as much of the character-defining features in that regard, the wood truss wood system. i can see that the full preservation does not retain that, and i can see why, but i just wanted to comment that i think that

is a particularly strong feature that we're talking about here. so, i mean, i'm going along with what you're -- what the comments have been thus far, as far as emphasis of the full preservation alternative, and maybe all we need is one. i would be interested in knowing -- i see there is no preservation alternative that does not have retail at the bottom. and it would be interesting to me to see the project without retail on the bottom and dedicate a lobby or whatever -- i can't remember how much space was allocated for that -- i know it's in our packet -- to an interpretive scale model, some kind of an interpretive model of what

the building looked like before it is gone, the interior. i would be interested in that. do you have any comments on that, about no retail on the bottom, what impact that would be? with dedicating the space to interpretive... >> i'm seeing retail. >> chairman: she is suggesting no retail. >> no retail. >> no retail at all? i'm sorry, i misunderstood. >> no retail. >> it could be a community-serving function. >> that was my thought, that the space would be dedicated to public interpretation. there would be enough glass access -- public access to the sidewalk into the interior to see what the building might have looked like in its time. >> chairman: commissioner johns. >> thank you.

commissioner black made some comments which reminded me that i had forgotten to say one or two things. so i'll say them now. the reason that i like alternative one is because it's important to me that insofar as we can, we preserve enough of the building to give someone a legitimate feel for what might have been seen in 1926 or 1930, during the time when this garage was built. now, it is true -- i do agree with commissioner wolfrin, that if you're going to pick great examples of design, this probably wouldn't be chosen. on the other hand, it does

reflect what the street looked like and what people did choose to build at that time. because i'm interested in, insofar as possible, preserving the look and feel of the street, i'm interested -- i think that preservation alternative one is good. >> chairman: great. >> i don't have any particular feeling about whether the trusses are so important that they out to be preserved because they were never really seen by the public. >> chairman: okay. >> may i make a few comments? >> chairman: sure. >> okay. so specific to some of the questions, it's a curious question, can that thing be increased and still meet the standards? and my understanding is how we interpret standard

nine, as far as massing and scale, is something we can actually decide locally. i think having justin on this project is really appropriate because we're exploring this vertical addition idea around buildings that that could potentially actually accommodate a vertical addition. there is a desire to maintain the facades. we have at least two, i think, projects: one close to the hub, where we kept the facade, and we had them bring the front face closest to market, instead of setting it back, because in that location the street facade along market was really important. i personally think that both alternative -- preservation alternative one and preservation alternative two do provide a good contrast and allows

us to understand what the impact would be. >> you mean partial -- >> partial, yes. the two partial preservation alternatives. so i think it wasn't time wasted. i think it is a good study. i think this building can accommodate an addition that is flush with the front of the building, better than than other projects that we've seen. on the projects that have the auto row -- the auto shops, the actual space of that ground floor is a little more usable than in a parking garage. so whether we maintain or keep some of the portion of the interior space, if we can, and we can turn it into community room or retail space, then, yeah, that would be a great way to address some of it. but i don't feel that we need to. and last, i would just say

that the reason the -- we keep the urban feel of the block -- it's why we're studying the existing building. unfortunately, i don't think that the new design actually speaks to any of the urban fabric. it is a nice design. i'm not criticizing, and i'm certainly not opposed to a more modern, contemporary design, but i think on the corner lines, which is really tall or the original corner line, i think that could have anchored the building a little more in the district. >> i didn't know if the preservation alternative could be a little taller, and you would get 38 units

instead of 30 -- >> i think if you set it back that far, you could go even taller. >> okay. that would need view-line studies. and there was also a question about should the partial preservation alternatives contain a portion of the interior space, and i was curious, going to commissioner hyland's question about the potential guidelines -- what did we say in those guidelines? >> chairman: is there a specific question? >> in the draft, the facade refebruary retention guidelines, isn't there a portion of the interior -- >> it talks about retaining some sense of the volume so there is a meaningful transition to the new construction. >> i think you would do that in the first partial one -- the second one is really a stick-on facade. it is really not relevant. >> i think that's the point, if the interior

space behind the retained facade was there, it would give the meaning behind the facade -- what made it important to begin with. >> and that's why i was thinking about having that somewhat available to the public. >> how would that work with this building? because you go into it, and what would you see? presumably, that's the first floor of the garage. you wouldn't see the trusses or anything -- >> that's right. >> and that's not too inspiring. >> and the apartments are double-height apartments anyway, so they're being kind of kept somewhat intact. in the full one -- in the full, they're kept as double height. >> so that's more successful, as far as from a design perspective. commissioner black? >> i thought it would be worth for the commissioners to look at page six, in the 11 by 17 packet, on the top right, there is a really nice

parking garage around the corner -- it is actually a little more articulated. not gothic, but more renaissance survival. right around the corner to this parking garage. >> okay. >> it looks like the windows are actually intact in that one, so it has more integrity. >> oh, yes. >> chairman: commissioner black. >> i like your idea on the full preservation alternative. go up as high as they can. >> as long as you set back -- >> so i'm definitely in support of that alternative. but i really am also in support of alternative two. i know it is complicated to figure out what to do in that first 20 feet. but it allows them to get thertheir unite count. unit cou.

i wouldn't want to restrict the use of that first 20 feet to just community space only because i want the project to be as viable as possible. you know, the cost of doing a development like this, especially when you've got such a high percentage of inclusionary units -- i didn't find the hyphenated -- i didn't share some of the members' feelings that the alternative -- sorry -- i prefer alternative one, not alternative two. >> the partial. >> yes. the partial -- the full and the partial -- i'm sorry -- and alternative two, the hyphenated version, i don't think it works as well visually. >> yeah. >> and since they both attain -- one and two both attain the same number of units essentially -- i

recognize the value of the rear-yard setback, but in terms of a loss to the street scape -- >> i'd like to address the question of why we included partial preservation two. this shows the adjacent buildings, which have significant light wells. and the massing of the building as proposed, and as in partial alternative two, has this configuration where there are large light wells joining the light wells of the adjacent buildings, plus you have a code compliant rear yard which allows full windows on the back facade, and full light on the back facade. if nou push the whole building back 20 feet, you lose those characteristics. the light wells get all mashed together and don't match, and the rear yard goes down to 16 feet.

and we'd have to get a variance from the zoning district. partial preservation alternative two, which ceeches thikeeps this massing, s better. >> all three, the full preservation, maybe expanding it to include some units -- partial preservation alternatives one and two are in line. i'm not in love with this facade to say this is something that should be kept, but i do think it is possible. i think the current, new, proposed design needs to speak a little more to the buildings adjacent to it. >> i had a comments. i wonder if in partial alternative one you have to lose some units, but i think it is important to

address the light and air unit. so i think you tight have to sculpt out the one -- there are two one-beds, and maybe it becomes a two-bed, and it loses a corner or some things, but i think it would be better if it was a realistic -- to address that issue. >> chairman: right. all right. commissioner john? >> i wanted to say that the explanation about two -- partial alternative two -- was helpful, and getting a better understanding of why that was included. i stillin still think the setbas are important, but i see why we need to compare, so that's fine. i also agree with going up as high as possible. increasing the massing would be okay with me. >> chairman: commissioner black. >> i wanted to second the vote on making whatever

modifications to address the light wells, which is important. i would also suggest increasing the height of the hyphen. and i know that is complicated, but in order to retain alternative two, i think there needs to be a more pronounced fiv hyphen between the two structures, if that gets pursued. in terms of all of that, i think the e.i. rr. is adequate. >> this is coming back to us again, right? >> no, no -- this will come back to the full h.p.c., after publishing the draft. >> there are the alter alternatives right now, and when they finish that, you'll get a 700 page -- >> and when does the planning commission see this? >> after the draft -- >> we're all learning what this new process is, too.

>> no need to go into my next version -- >> this is for guidance for the project team. >> okay. good job. >> if i could kind of summarize the general comments, it is the opinion this isn't the greatest resource in the world, there are better sources of gothic design, and unionl generally the h.p.c. would push for to see the full alternatives, the increase in height. and the partial preservation alternative one would probably need to see some sculpting to address the sort of conflicting light wells, and the partial preservation alternative two, it seems like there is kind of a mixed reaction to it, whether or not it is actually successful as a preservation alternative and might need some tweaking, if not being

removed entirely. >> chairman: i think that's fair. that's accurate. >> if i may, i want to go down as saying i think this is actually a nice example of the garage. you know, some really charming elements, like the little balcony and that. so i don't think -- i don't want the message to be that this isn't a valuable architectural resource. >> chairman: understood. >> it is a contributor to the district. you can say that. we can all agree with that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> chairman: commissioners, if there is nothing further, we can move on to number seven. 610 gary boulevard. this is an informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners, michelle taylor, planning department staff. the item before you today

is a proposal by partner city agencies, recreation and parks department, and public works, to rehabilitator tatrehabilitate te plaza. the subject project is on the landmark designation work program. following initiation of the designation in june 2017, the h.p.c. indictmented h.p.c.adopted a reo recommend designation to the board of supervisors. at the request of the japan town taskforce, the designation is currently on hold at the clerk of the board to give the japan town time to consider rehabilitation and redesign of the peace plaza. it is not an article 10 resource. however, the subject scientist its characteristics are considered an eligible historic resource for the

purposes of the california environmental quality act. therefore staff is currently reviewing the rehabilitation design to ensure it conforms to the secretary of the interior standards. although your review is not required for completion for the ca the cat catigorical view. any comments from this commission will be taken into consideration by the design teams. if designation of the property moves forward in the future, then lan landmark designation report and ord noons will bordinance will be ud as necessary. it was designed by yoshiro gamagoochi in 1968. it has served as vocal points for an array of events, including the

cherry blossom festival. considerable alterations to the plaza over the years have resulted in diminished integrity of the site. even so, staff has determined that the peace plaza retain several general features that allow it to be understood as an open space and setting for the peace pagota. the proposed rehabilitation of the receivesly altered plaza is in conformance of the secretary of the historic resources. the design of the proposed project would be of its own time, but would utilize materials from the surrounding development. it retains the general designing features of the site, including cherry blossom trees, and the retention of flag poalsz flag pn the garr gary street.

these features includes an interpretive representation of the internal flame at the lower plaza, a new water feature, and larger stones in the landscape. furthermore, the proposed project will not alter the peace pag negotiato get pagota. in conclusion, staff finds the proposed project bears a harmonious relationship to the surrounding setting. this concludes my presentation. our partners will now present an overview of the project, and i'll be available to answer any questions. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is mike degregoio, and i'm a project manager at the san

francisco recreation and parks department. i would like to walk you through the design, and talk a little about the community outreach we have done for this project. and i would like to ask if two community members can come up as part of my presentation afterwards and say a few words. to start out, i'd like to say that although this is rec park property, we really worked hand-in-hand with japan town task forces to the greater community on this project. the project came about because it has been leaking to the garage below for the better part of its 50 years. and when it was renovated in about the year 2000, that issue was exacerbated. so that coupled with the sentiment from the community that the plaza could use a general update to better serve their needs is really how this project came about through a strong community voice. and so the design team

with san francisco public works, and in keeping with japan town's traditions, we also brought on a cultural design consultant from r.r.j.a., and they helped consult with the community and back to us. we started out with this mission statement, which is -- i should say we started out in june 2018 on this project. and this mission statement is actually shared through many various documents being created for japan town over the years. it is similar to the bear neighborhood's plan, in that there are these commonalities and that was intentional, and we are building on those plans. just to briefly touch on some of the engagement, this is really critical to what we're calling the vision plan. so it was the concept design development, but also a robust community outreach. and what that resulted in is dozens of focus groups

and community meetings. over 700 responses to either intercept surveys or digital surveys, and two design shurets, where we brought design consultants in and a design team to work through some different design issues, and three community meetings which were kind of the milestones as we went through the design. so in the first community meeting, we really focused on doing our homework and presenting that back to the community. what that meant was inventory and analysis, and understanding the historic nature of the site, it's position in the city, and the community, and even internationally. and then these are excerpts, but you can see we also looked at what are these cultural and historic features on this site, and starting to inventory them and talk to people about them. we took a lot of that feedback that we've heard from the first meeting in the outreach and developed

three initial design concepts, all pretty much maintaining similar attributes to one another, but they do take on, as you see, a very different look and feel. the wave, if we had to pick -- people picked the wave as their favorite. but we also had a number of questions asking what elements of each was most successful. so it wasn't a wholesale chose. we used that idea of the wave as a base to move forward. but we also recognize these other positive attributes that we would like to integrate as the design moved forward. in the creation of the single design concept, five of these goals was set out. and they -- this elaborates on them a bit more. generally it is to connect at the post-through entrance, through to the cannon street mall. [please stand by]

>> and so here's the concept plan which kind of gives you the overall layout of the site. we see the site in these three main areas, the post street terrace, which connected that to third street man, the 3 agoda terrace, which is the upper terrace where the pagoda is today, and the geary street

edge. at the post street edge, as you come in through the central entry, you're flanked on either side with much more planting which we heard was a really big desire from the community, which spaces where you can have moveable tables and chairs on one side, and an area for the cultural monument for the other, which has been relocated to where it is today on the sidewalk. you can see the entry today, it's very exposed. and also, there's a series of entry. we'd like to see one entry that didn't overpower the piece pagoda. so through looking at many o options, we found that this was a successful way to do that, to create a guiding entry. you can see the two separate sides as you go through the area of the moveable tables and

chairs. this is just illustrating the different components of that upper and lower plaza and also to show the general level of the plaza as they are today have been maintained, so we're keeping with that. and looking underneath the grove of cherry trees, illustrating the idea of flexibility on the day-to-day, this could be cafe bistro tables, and perhaps on the weekend, these could be moved out for areas for informal