>> good afternoon. i'm the preservation planner for environmental review of the 447 battery street project. joining me is the senior environmental planner for the project. members of the sponsored team are present, as well. today we're here to give the commission an opportunity to provide its comments on the adequacy of the alternatives for inclusion in the draft environmental impact report which is scheduled to be published in spring of 2020. the building is on the southeast corner of battery and merchant

streets. constructed in 1907 to the designs of act tex architect frk vantrese, this was a coffee center. this was adopted by the board of supervisors in 1970 as an official inven inventory. this determined that the subject building is individually eligible for the california register of historical resources under criterion 1 for the associations with post 1906 reconstruction and the historic san francisco coffee industry and under criterion 3, as an example of 20th warehouse and type which has become

increasingly rare. the period of significance is 1907 to 1967. the building is not located in a noted district. character to defining features are the rectangular footprint, the configuration of storefront entries on the ground story, the rhythm and upper story window openings and brick hornace. the new building will be alter with new awnings. the planning department proposed this does not meet secretary of

the interior standard for rehabilitation 2, 9 and 10. the project would negate the historic property status as a building through the demolition of the facade and entire roof and structure. furthermore, the new 18-story building that would rise out this would be incompatible in size and scale. therefore, the proposed project would cause a exhibit and unavoidable impact to the historic resource. purpose to the california environmental quality act or sequa, any project that results in an unavoi avoidable resourcet identify impacts, analyzes feasible alternatives and describes measures. this is to solicit comments from the preservation commission on the adequacy on the alternatives for inclusion in the draft environmental impact report. in audition to the required no-project alternative, the team

developed a full preservation alternative with a two-story rooftop addition and alterations in interiorinterventions. you will now hand the preservation over to the project team describing the project and alternatives in graduato greate. >> any idea of how much time do you need? >> up to ten but if you can do it in five. >> in five, absolutely. jodie knight, here on behalf of the project team. thanks for your time today. thanks very much to staff for their hard work on the presentation. justhis is the proposed project which you saw a small picture of. wear excited about this project. it's been a long time in the

making with a lot of discussions over the course of the years it's been underway with staff and have victi come to the currt design of the existing facade and harmonizing that with a proposed addition through the proposed materials.

if we want to do it in five, we should jump into stacie's presentation. thank you again for your time. >> we don't need to rush through it but i wanted a sense -- >> you don't need to hear from me any more. >> thank you. >> i'm with paige and turn turn. it's a no-project alternative including no modifications to the historic resource, no hotel unit added. all of the defining features would be retaunted wit retained.

this would have office and retail space on the first and third floors. the preservation would be the defining features of the resource and a portion of the interior structure would be retained and spacial relationships would be somewhat altered. the full preservation alternative would be a two-story addition, a mechanical penthouse for a total of 31,419 square feet. this would include a ground-floor restaurant and kitchen as well as hotel use, including guest and service lobbies at the guest floor with 42 hotel rooms. the full preservation would not require excavation but retain the full historic building including all facades. the existing rectangular openings would be maintained but extended to the ground to create two entries and a window system which you can see a little bit on the sketch underneath the

closed captioning. the glazed entries would be protected by flat glass awnings and all other openings on the primary and south facades would be preserved with glazing. a portion of the structure including the posts would be retained in this alternative. materials would be removed from the northwest circulation core and there would need to be interventions to support the rooftop. the two-story addition compromising the fourth and fifth floors are set back from the east and south facades of the historic portion of the building. the addition would be designed in a contemporary architectural style. the penthouse would be in the northwest corner, further setback from the fifth floor.

the final alternative is the partial preservation which would be the character defining features, mostly located at east and south street facades. the north and west facades would not be retained. this partial reservation would be stories beneath the existing building, thre three stories win the facades and five additional story and a mechanical penthouse. this would require excavation in order to construct the four base levels. due to this, none of the structure would be retained. the partial preservation alternative would retain the east-facing and south facing facades. the ground floor openings on the

east facade would be maintained and extended to create two entries and a centered full height window system and these entries would be protected by flat glass awnings. the south facade facing merchant street would be replaced with a glazed roll-up garage door, a single glazed door and two recollecrectangular flat awning. the third stories would be retaunted antauntretained and rh glazed awnings. the upper fleit would be designn architectural style with glazing and a mechanical penthouse set back from the roof of the eighth floor. those are the three alternatives

and i will hand it back to jodie. >> if eric would have a couple of minutes, that would be great. >> explain the proposed project. >> we originally designed a stand-off lope buildinstand-alos was before we started to understand the existing building and so we started working closely with the planners to come up with a scheme and a design to retain the facades of the existing buildings. our problem is because of anything you get over 75 feet with this type of building, you become a life safety building and even with the historical codes, you have to gut the interior out because it's a hood and that's typical anywhere in the city. so we were trying to make the project work with the existing

facade, be able to keep it up and we have done this before and we were the architects where we preserved the mining exchange building and th architects for y hall, too. we chose materials above the height to match with the brick building below. we have stone panels and glass panes.

thank you. >> thank you. whyda we take public comment. any members wish to comment. >> i'm woody labounty and we have not fully reviewed this project but i just want to make a point that we are consistently on record against facadism, which the partial, quote, preservation option that's been presented on the screa screen so be a part of, the hig hyphen dos not mitigate the imposition above and the scale is out of proportion with the resource. so we would like to know more about this project and be involved going forward, but i just want to put us on record as being un-equivcally opposed to

the facadism. >> any other members of the public? closing public comment. before we open it up to commissioners, i just wanted to point out two things and maybe have staff talk about the second one. the first item, i wanted to remind everyone of is over the years, we have been reviewing the draft eirs an alternatives and have made improvements to the process and most recently, we've been asking the project to come before us during the scoping phase, which i believe this is close to, or at least before publishing of the draft eir to give better guidance to the public sponsor before they spend money evaluating projects we come back and ask them to reevaluate. so that's where we're at. that's some of the comments we want to be giving fea feedback . i don't know if director ram or

rich, if you can talk about how the retained element's policy that we're developing either could be applied to this, if it was applied or if there was any further interaction around what we've learned and where we're at with retained element's policy. >> the department is working on a a policy for elements. there's a lead for urban design in the department and looking at applying toward projects and i think there's, obviously, a lot of confusion about whether or not that's considered preservation or not. in a lot of instances, wear not

using the retained elements as a matter of preservation but more for urban design purposes or designer view in certain cases. we have a lot of texture within the city and a pretty wide variety of neighborhoods and in certain cases, the kind of old elements of the neighborhood can kind of fit in nicely with new design and certainly it's certainly something to consider. but today we haven't adopted a retained policy. >> so this project hasn't benefited from any our work in regards to the retained element's policy? >> in the preservation staff, this project was developed with the urban design team. so you can sea that reflected in certain specific aspects of the zane, includindesign, includingr

above and in the cladding materials selected for the new construction, masonry materials meant to be compatible with the brick and in the way that stone cladding is applied to the tower is actually in some ways resembles brick mason relative y construction. it did benefit from the draft retained element's policy but that has not yet been approve. thank you. >> that policy is scheduled before the planning commission in november. >> great. >> will it come before us? >> if you would like it to. >> i would. >> i don't think this meets the

requirement of working. i believe the preservational lacklooks the same but in termsa preservational alternative, it is not. it's pretty much a full demolition. so i don't think that we have a partial preservation alternative for this. so i don't think it works at this point. >> commissioner john's? >> well, actually, it's funny that you say that, because i agree with you and i thought that the partial preservation alternative and the project were not only pretty much the same but i preferred the project to the preservation alternative and

the reason i did was because at least the project soars and it has an interesting step-back group. whereas the preservation alternative which guts the building is like a giant hand squishing down on what is left of the brick. i have to say, i am not automatically offended by what some people call facadism. for me, there's a continuum and it starts with the facade preserved and as you go along the way, you get into retaken rd elements. you have to look at the individual project and see, well, what is the best that you can do under the circumstances? it does seem to me that we're in this position here, there's a

building of a structure and size that is just not going to work for most purposes. and some i'm not sure. that was the first thing i thought of, well want could be done to preserve this building? it seems like there isn't a lot. so i do agree with commissioner perlman that the preservation alternative aren't really preservation alternatives. so i think that, maybe, the thing to do is be honest and straightforward about it, saying this is where we are and you keep the building or you tear it down. >> if i can interject, commissioner perlman. my understanding is that we can get further feedback and this isn't necessarily a preservation alternative.

i one in which it would not meet the standards but would go somewhere between a small alternative and mitigating some of the impacts. so in that context, i agree thar comment on that?

i do think there are aping applications that could be added no a contemporary way. if i wasn't explained to me, i wouldn't have understood it. there's a base, a cornice. there's a cornices at the top and the existing could be the existing base and there could be arctic kaarticulation.

weda have enough context in the urban context to understand how this stepping of the upper floors relate to the other buildings and won't be needed. the top floor which has the highest floor, whatever floor that has the full african-american, there could be arctic coarticulation. the whole goal is to understand

if there's a superior project to the proposed project. and while i understand the goals and the modern, you know, bend of the design, i do think with the retaunted element of the facade, speaking to it is important. otherwise it becomes a, lack, another project where the preservation made you keep these facades and it's a riddle bandaid to the building. so the alternative could have a similar programme to it. articulate a cornice and i don't know the context here but i know at 706 mission, we talked about a hotel mid-block and i forget which one it is, on third

between mission and market, a '60s hotel that really responded to the cornice lines of the block and this one does it. idi don't know if there's any context to respond to. i think it could be grounded but that could be my comments. >> i disagree with that analysis. first of all, we're designing the building, which i don't think we're supposed to be done. i think we're analyzing whether these particular alternatives are appropriate for the project and i disagree. i think the partial alternative -- the partial project alternative is exactly the same as the project. i mean, i get it there's not a

big tower on top of it, but there needs to be a partial preservation alternative dust dt different from the project. whether it has a cornice, it's still the project proposed. i don't think this meets what we are to review. we have the full preservation alternative, the no project alternative but we don't have any partial alternative that meets the requirements of what it is supposed to do as being different from the project.

we started chewing away at it and the whole deal blew up and now we have nothing and i saw the rendering of the project that's going at 450 and the building is gone. so either we accept that the building is gone or we honor the notion of having these alternatives to try to evaluate whether a project makes sense or not. youda thinyouwe shouldn't be det here but evaluating the process. >> commissioner black? >> i find both arguments compelling. i think part of the problem wit partial preservation alternative is that it does look just like the project. the swear footage, of course, is a bit less because it doesn't

soar as much as the project. i think a partial preservation alternative that is physically different from the project would solve the problem. in terms of being adequate in terms of the premise of the eir. so i would recommend that be the project -- or that be the alternative that is workin workn the most because i think it's similar to the project. >> i have a question for staff, does the partial preservation have to be that dust? different? >> the difference is to design an alternative that reduces impacts to the historic resource.

not as much as the full preservation alternative but reduces impacts. another clarifying comment to make is that the resolution that this commission adopted to specify the process of developing alternatives, that a full preservation alternative is required, but that a partial preservation alternative may be required, so it could be that the commission's direction to omit a partial preservation alternative if that's decided to be the direction. but yes. >> i was going to add, i many, one of the things i heard you say and i think i appreciate you on clarifying the purpose. that termimplies, you're preserving by some standards, part of the building. i heard you say the issue isn't necessarily the size of the addition for the partial preservation alternative.

it's how much you're changing the existing been. so building.it had to do with ws happening to the existing structure that would constitute, perhaps, a partial preservation alternative. so maybe less changes to the existing been that would meat that. meet that. >> absolutely. although -- unless i'm unaware of some really extraordinary character-defining feature on the interior, i'm a little less concerned about losing some of that. i get it that structurally it doesn't make sense. i think it's the effect of the design on the structure of the existing resource that i think the most troubling. that's where i'm having the biggest trouble and that's the project and preservation alternative.

>> we'll be up against a lot of projects on south market. we have the opportunity to figure out how to design vertical additions over historic buildings and how our city thinks these should be -- what the glanc guidance provided to o that. i don't think the guideline guis design but conceptual framework. that's what our policy on retained elements is trying to address and these are ones we can learn from and test different approaches. commissioner so? >> i actually agree with all of my fellow commissioners have put forward, their point. commissioner perlman mentioned the partial preservation part and wear looking at what is

required for this commission. but then commission high listen had a good point about -- i do agree when we're looking at character-defining feature, it the embodiment of the contextual responsiveness to the neighborhood and culture and community. so with the gentrification, it is important to understand the design. i'm looking at the project versus the project preservation, how we interpret the character-defining feature that presented to us for the base of the building and how do you translate it to the totally different language on the top? versus we're presenting today

with this partial preservation, the approach is more of a conventional take on adding anything to a three-story brick warehouse. so i don't have suggestions here today. but i found that we don't have a good solution to today's project that is presented to us. about bubut i would say that thl preservation proposed call of the massing is looking very -- it's truncated. it's not really there.

the facade we're looking at today is so drastic versus the two alternatives that wer we goo

live with. i think we have to go back to some more analysis. >> let's open public comment back up. >> i'm the applicant for the project. i just wanted to clear up a few things. originally, we went to planning director directly, said, hey, we're going to develop this property. we know of several folks here before us, that for whatever reason bought the building and sold it. so we had heard lowe's wanted to do a four-star hotel. so we went back to planning and said, hey, we think a hotel, four-star, high-end, a brand that's not san francisco and it will work with folks who have been wanting to get in here for 25 years or more would really represent the city well, be a beautiful spot in all of the tourist areas. so everyone in planning said

that's fine. so we designed a building, gorgeous building. it was modern and it was to take the whole building down. and then we found out there were historic issues. so we said, ok, we hire paige and turnbaugh. we found out when the sisters did an analysis document in 1968, in '72ish, bedford properties h who had the buildig weren't in for plumbing or kitchen remodel permit and stripped the whole facade. so what you see today is not how the building was built. the brick was for the insulator. the whole thing was cladded in plaster, had cornises on top. they found pictures of it. i think i got mine on the internet and from the building that used to be next to us and

it showed that we put it in a report that we originally submitted to planning. i don't know if you have seen that. so the three consultants we paid for who work for the city, too, said in reality, it's not historic but over 50 years and has the brick and all of that. so recently, we found out that the resources could be a big issue. so we said, had we known this now or known this then, we would have met you two and a half, three areas agthree years ago ae talking. the act text architects designed there were finishes that coincide with the neighborhood. so just to let you know, we have been a great neighbor. wear from the city. weawe're not a bunch of east gu.

i'm a fifth generation of north beach -- actually third, they took my great grandfather to to angel's camp. we go way back. and, you know, hear we are trying to be politically correct. do you think for the neighborhood. we went to the golden gate tenant's association and no one opposes the neighborhood. so that's how we've gotten to this point. i wasn't sure if you were aware of a lot of the facts that lead up to the meeting. >> great. >> commissioner john's? >> commissioner had an interesting phrase, a context at large which i just would like to change around to the larger context. you know, if we could go back.

i remember when that was the produce district. all those buildings and they were torn down and there was an off-ramp and on-ramp to 280. and that neighborhood, that was, what, 50, 60 years ago? and that neighborhood, the context changed dramatically. it changed from horses and wagons and produce carts to cars getting off and on and moving into. if you look at the street pattern down there, you see that there was supposed to be no contact between the pedestrians and those streets. the whole thing is a floor above.

and a lot of the buildings on the north said is a rather whimsical thing that it has more in common in the context of the 1960s. although, that, i think was i in '70s or early '80s building. so we have this ree relic. i had been coated with plaster and i would mention that, that. that we are really talking -- maybe we're misleading ourselves here about this historic resource. and the facade of the historic resource because it's not all that historic. it was coated in plaster. but reel getting back to my initial point here, in the

contexcontext of this neighborhd the way it has developed and with this particular building, i don't see that there's anything that can be done of a preservation tape. type. i appreciate the elucidation which means you keep something. it's a continuum of the retained element's thing. my thought is that the preservation alternative isn't much as i have understood the term. as i have come through today's hearing to understand the tell, it does preserve something.

it preserves some of the bricks. but if that's all we're doing, then i say the project seems to me to have a lot more benefits than the alternative. >> you think what we're trying to maintain and we're had conversations around this and that is the urban context and so, once we get into this project, it's not a preservation project any more but understanding how can we retain the context of the street scape and pedestrian experience. >> so when there is an element

that's retained, i see this as a pattern and a struggle when wear lookinwe're looking at alternat. realistically, i might ask miss shunt to comment. but searc they're mitigating im. so demo of a historic resource is an impact and it's supposed to mitigate that. so the one alternative that always occurs is no project because by building no project, you mitigate that automatically and the full presence preservath is how much can you build or modify, alter a project and still meet the secretary of standards and have a historic resource at the end of the day. the partial, in my history of

work on this, has been there because when you only do the full and when you do the no, there's this ask for what's in between. the full preservation very rarely hits all tenants. so the partial is the in between. so i realize what the struggle that you guys tend to have is when the project itself starts pulling from elements of what a partial would normally have lent itself to do. so when they keep pieces of the building or elements that are historic and then how do we crest that and analyze that. >> so mann? >> i think rich did a great job of explaining that. i do think just to clarify, what

you're being asked to comment on today is the range of alternatives, not on the design per say. i realize that there's a fine line there. but it's important for them to hear. one option i heard is because of what rich just said, that the project yoursel yourself is it , perhaps you don't do a partial. but it's something with less of an impact on the records resour. >> yes, that's exactly right. trial t.we need a range of any alternatives. as rich has stated, the no-project, we have a full preservation because that avoids the impact. we can also have alternatives that seek to reduce but don't avoid the impact and that's

where the partial comes in. as rich has stated, to reit rate, it'reiterate, the partialt avoid the preservation impact but will reduce it significantly. and i think my observation would be and others have observed this, as well, the proposed project is probably pretty close to what we would have come up with had the complete demo project been proposed. and so i think we sort of got to that through our urban design review and this retained element's policy. so we've got, basically, a partial preservation as the proposed project. >> before we get to are perlman, i want to go back six years and remind everyone of the planning commission not really understanding the dialogue that our commission had around the

draft eirs. that's what started about asking for more diagrams, more images. this is all we got six years ago, one page, and it didn't articulate. it was be the massing. this is evolving. i think that they're looking to us for advice and that's what we're getting better at doing. >> i just wanted to reel look at this in a dus different way, ths the only building in that area that according to the owner and commissioner john's didn't actually even look like this. all of the buildings around it, the one next to it is a 1980s building. the one to left of it, as you're

facing it is a 1980s or 1990s building. across the street is a parking garage, as i understand. so what are w pray pra preservi. have a building that isn't there at all, like the 450 ofarrell. if it's not really much of a historic resource, propose a project that doesn't have it there. because that would be a full dem lugs. demolition. >> even though a building has been changed from what it was originally, alterations after the fact become significant. >> that is exactly my point.

>> this gets into retained developments. this is about showing an early 20th century what the street escape was. i'm appreciative of commenting early. that's the point of the change we've made. so i'm grateful for that.

i think the problem we're having is that we all think that as designers do and we're concerned about the visual effect on the resource. and that's really the essence of this discussion. but i 'd do think if our job iso assess whether these are reasonable range, they are. i think the range of alternatives is reasonable here. >> i'll just close, i guess, by saying, i'm not -- i support heritage's position on facadism and i always have when commissioner haas was on the commission. so i would support retaining the significant elements of the building, but the new design needs to speak to it. and so i'm just offering that i

think this design, even the proposed project or the partial presencer vacation can speapresn a better way and still be contemporary. >> i think the project sponsor gets clear direction and i'm not sure where they are. so i heard two different proposals. i heard one proposal that says this range of alternatives is appropriate and i heard another proposal that said don't do the current partial, but actually do a scheme in the other direction with no retained elements. and i wonder, is that something that the commission wants do? i think you have to decide? >> we stepped into this, you think, because we had that joint meeting with the planning commission when we asked them, are we doing a good job and when it came to things like this, they said no. wear not satisfied with you saying this is a range of

alternatives and an analysis that raises the appropriate issues. that doesn't help us. what we really would like you folks to do is to make some suggestions for how it could be done better. and now we find ourselves on the one hand saying, well, wear being asked to decide whether this range of alternatives is reasonable didn't on the other hand, what a lot of people are struggling with, i sense is, we want do what the planning commission said it wanted us to do and that is make some suggestions for the betterment of mankind and perhaps we can't do both of those things. >> i mean, maybe that's in response to my comment earlier. so maybe i can clarify. i do think there's two different things that you have been asked to do and one is to look at the range and separately and perhaps

more in an advisory capacity to the commission, look at the designers. design issues. your comments on the design issues could be incorporated as the project moves forward, but i think more specifically, with respect to the eir so to develop this to move forward with the eir. so i think both things are legitimate. i'm not suggesting you shouldn't do the advisory role. >> it's more of a challenge on this project because we're talking about a very difficult design problem. when we have a larger project site where there's some historic resources and we have a lot of dusdustdifferent options, we cae them for direction. if you move this tower over here, it might work better. so we can give more direction. what i would propose, my recommendation is that the partial preservation be further developed, closer to the

proposed project and articulate some more design elements that the tie poling responds to the historic building. we would have one they would like us to build and one that responds to the context. >> that answers one question lurking in my mind. you said the preservation alternative should retain significant elements. my question was, well, do those significant elements have to include anything in the interior, any of the wooden beams? >> no. >> we get back, i don't want to offense heritage but it's some

versus of the facade is what we're talking about. after we cross that bridge, what do we put on top of them or under them? >> my response, it's a design exercise and need knee needs toe responsresponsive. mr.asif you keep it, the new den needs to respond to it. whether there's an opportunity on the interior, like the auto row buildings that were a problem or a challenge back then becoming the entry lobby to the new hotel, right? here we don't have that opportunity. the interior doesn't have any suggestiosuggestionsignificance.

so i wish i could see something that design-wise was coherent as opposed to a new building plopped on top. >> you're saying no matter what alternative, that's what you would like to see? >> indeed. >> i wish the proposed project would do that. >> so if that's the situation, then, perhaps, if i could interpret what you're all saying, this range of alternatives is just fine for an overall bulk standpoint but more relationship with the design and new part. >> right on the for example. >> quantitative assessment and qualitative. we think this is reasonable quantitatively. i think we have concerns about how it affects -- >> ok. >> i agree with commissioner

highlands, with what he just said. >> do we eliminate the partial alternative and talk about design because it's not alternative, because it's odd, no matter what and so much the same as the project and then let's just focus on the design of it. will this come to the arc? >> no, we're bringing it to the full commission. >> i'm saying the design will not come back. >> it's not a lan landmark.

>> could it be satisfactory if there were an alternative masked the same as the proposed project but had a different design on the facade? >> they can respond more -- they're architects and they know what i'm talking about. [ laughter ] >> so it sounds like you would be ok with not having a partial preservation but changing the design in more of the direction you designed. >> it can still be contemporary. jusjust the massing and articulation can respond. >> how about if we leave the option with the project sponsor to continue. here is what i'm worried about, is what if it gets to the planning commission and they have better drawings and a better understanding of all of the agen adjacencies and someboy

complains about a cast shadow. if you want to pursue a partial as a way of communicating different impacts, then i would say we leave that up to you. >> or just leave it in the way it is and follows the project. >> yeah. >> that's clear. >> that would be clear. >> i wouldn't want -- >> do we have concurrence? just concurrence that the range of alternatives are good and from a qualitative perspective, we want to advise the project sponsor and planning commission that the current design of the proposed project can be better designed in context. how is that? >> find. fine. >> so sorry we put you through this. this is very good conversation for us and as a city, we're struggling with this retained element. and we'll have a lot of projects

coming before us. so this is going to help us to get better at it. thank you. are we all set? are we done? we're adjourned. the salute of . >>