>> this is the hearing for wednesday, december 16, 2020. the mayor declared a state of emergency in relation to covid-19. on may 29th all commissions must reconvene remotely which is our 13th remote hearing. this requires everyones attention and your patients. if you are not speaking mute your microphone abdomen turn off your camera. we are broadcasting this hearing live and with we will stream public comments. for a chance to speak through the public comment period call 1-415-655-0001 and access code

146-927-9104. when the time is reached i'll give the next persons chance to speak. i'll take role at this time. commissioner highland. >> the first is general public

comment. the public can talk about different things. with respect to agenda item each member the commission up to three minutes. we have a hand open but i don't have a mic to unmute you. you might have to call back in with another device somehow. >> there is bridget can you hear me? >> we can. >> i submitted a landmark designation report for this

property in july. i wanted to get an update on where the nomination is and alert you that i'm still waiting to hear regarding a hearing agenda. >> okay, thank you, last call for general public. this is a last call to speak to members. i see your hand open but i don't have an -- oh, there is your mic. >> your 3 minutes are ticking. if you would like to make your comment now is your time. you have an echo so mute your

devices. >> i'll be calling in through the telephone line so my architect and attorney can participate. i'd rather do it that way. that's just my comment. i'll be turning off the webexand ex and going through the telephone line. >> thank you for that public comment and that was good stuff. >> general public comment is closed and we can move to public matters. >> good afternoon commissioners. he was prepping to talk about the next item. one item from me you will hear more about this in the coming

two months this morning the city is facing a $50 million shortfall and asked us to reduce general fund spending by 7 powerpoint 5 % next year and also an additional 2.5 %. we just received those and we will get to work on it we'll be coming to talk to you in january. that's all i have. >> thank you, the staff report and announcements. do we have any? if there are no reports from staff we can move onto commission matters. the presidents report and announcements. >> in the initial report we

had our holiday virtual party after this. this is our last hearing for the year. i'd like to wish everyone a great holiday and happy new year. >> great. >> commissioner president i have full consideration of the minutes for decade decision 2020. do i hear a motion. >> shall we take public comment first if there is any. >> i'm notorious forgetting that. members of the public. this is your time to speak. i have no members wishing to speak. public comment is closed. >> motion approved. >> second. >> thank you for the motion to

move the motions. [roll call] the motion passed 7-0. >> i'm not sure if this is the appropriate time about the landmark agenda items ahead of the others. we'll do that at the beginning of the next item. we should take that up under the regular calendar. >> i'm sorry, it's been a long time since i made a disclosure.

is this the time i make a disclosure? >> sure. i'd like to make one after the conversation with eric on l 37. >> okay, great, thank you commissioner. the request to speak we can move onto item six your proposed 2021 hearing schedule. generally speaking simply adopt the first and third wednesday of every month this year you happen to have a march 17th hearing that falls on st. patrick's day. i'm not sure if that's worthy of you canceling the hearing but that might be something to consider. otherwise, this is the first

and third wednesday and we just traditionally canceled hearings as needed. >> i don't think we have an irish to celebrate. >> you don't have to be irish to celebrate. >> this partially irish girl is just fine if we have our hearing. >> maybe we could have a short meeting on that day >> yeah. >> yeah. so, we have all spoken on this. july 7th might be the only date we might want to think about looking at as it gets closer. july 4th, ahead of that.

our calendars will be out before the weekend anyway. we can evaluate the july meeting at that point. the march seventh meeting will be one year since we shutdown. so, maybe it's a green and black attire day for that hearing. do we have a motion? >> motion approved. >> thank you for the motion to adapt the 2021 hearing schedule. [roll call] >> we can move onto it regular calendar and staff is doing congress continuances.

0096 and four and property. twenty-fourth street 2868 mission street. respectively these are lapped mark designations and being put-on continuance through january 20th 20th. we should take public comment on both matter but matter of continue answer. ance. public, this is your opportunity members of the public wishing to speak at this time public comment is closed and continue answers are before you.

>> move the continue continuance. [roll call] >> so moved. the matter passes 7-0. this shortens our agenda slightly. commissioners back to item 7. 0120. this is for your review and comment. staff prepare to make your

presentations. >> i somewhere a disclosure to make on this item. i previously had a conflict. it's no longer a conflict. it's longer than a year. within two years i need to acknowledge i had that previous relationship. >> the floor is yours. >> i don't think i can hear

you. >> oh, is this a new office. is it a new space. >> barely >> i have to keep my mask on because i'm in the new office. we are with the department staff. the senior advisory and planner. this is the alternatives that will be explored. i'll turn the presentation over to eric who will give you a quick update on the status of the project.

>> so, over to eric. >> you're unmuted. >> hi, can you hear me. >> yes. >> oh, thank you. great. i'll calling you through the phone. chair, vice chair. historic preservation. i'd like to update or project and we have our contact also on the line.

will you advance the slide for me. this is the original project plan. >> a lot of people pronounce it differently we do 36 units of housing. virtually the neighborhood with two to three story housing units. next slide. after discussions with the neighborhood and main concerns there is discussion about creating some type of community open space that would have historical elements of the site this was presented

to the commission as a landmark hearing. this is our attempt to reference the historic elements. it was a landscape community area sundays then after that hearing and through the good work of supervisors of the agreement together with many of the friends and preservation we have worked hard to try to incorporate actual elements of the current site. next slide please. now, we are committed to rebuilding the existing houses. in the actual location we have two or three houses shown by

two large rectangular blocks. they also. they have approved of the process and we'll have the drills on our site. next slide please. this is for the replica. we will rebuilding and to the extent reusing materials from the existing greenhouses to

rebuild the two greenhouses and create this corner public space that we'll be working with the friends to ensure we can do historical and educational programming to preserve and educate the history in this location. also i wanted to show architecture which mirrors most of the topography of the existing neighborhood. there will be a single family home. two per lot. you can see along hamilton street. we'll do duplexes along the other two streets. next slide please. and, again, to give you idea of the elevation. we would like to create, you know, reference the existing architecture. also, bringing a modern

element to it. next slide please. a little bit more about what we'll be doing on this internal part of the site between the housing. we will definitely have a lot of landscape open areas for the residents. the spine that runs down the middle is one of the historical elements we try to replicate here as well. this is a great overview of where the project started and where we are today working with the community groups. working with the elements of here historical site people thought was most important and getting it developed.

thank you. >> thank you, eric. >> as mentioned the project before you is taking place on 770 woosie. this is founded by woosie street to the south. whalen to the north. and hamilton to the east. this is a former university nursery. the greenhouses are arranged length weiss east to west with the short gable end phrasing hamilton street. the greenhouses are numbers one through ten moving north along hamilton street. 11-18 on boden street. most are 30 to 34 feet wide and 110 to feet long.

there is a number of agricultural structures. facing woosie there is a garage, water storage and pressure tank. farther to the east is a boiler house, best side mexicoing tank, and secondhand dug well. the north side is vacant. this is a view of the site from the corner of whalen street. grease house 18 is in the foreground. there is another shot with the gable ends of the gene houses across from hamilton. it consists mostly of greenhouses but there are

farming equipment and structures on the site. this is a view of some of the other building structures including the garage to the left, water storage tank in the center, and boiler to the right. this is a graphic showing the existing structure. greenhouses that line hamilton street and 11-18 that face louden street. the university nursery was founded by the two brothers. in 1921 five brothers purchased two city blocks andes tablished the university mound nursery. they first grew flowers on the eastern block that's not part of the subject property they constructed greenhouses on the

property. they constructed two rows of 14 greenhouses along with a walkway and boiler house. in 1921 two more greenhouses were build. ten years later the last ten went up. andrew and antonio purchased the property and continued the farming operation up until 1990. after that point the site has remained vacant but still largely intact. this is individually eligible for the california register as a significant cultural landscape with the agricultural settlement of the neighborhood in the early 20th century. subject protect is eligible of

three of the cultural landscapes of san francisco. a small-scale family operated nursery. . .

the following of the project objectives, including developing a mixed income development, replacing abandoned commercial cut flower lot with residential uses, providing public open space that replicate some site conditions and developing a project that's financially feasible. the proposed project would demolish the existing structure to construct 62 residential units of housing comprised of 32 duplexes. 12 units affordable housing, and public park/community garden, two repurposed greenhouses along

with the boiler house. and just to show you another site plan of the proposed project showing the 62 housing units, the concept of the proposed project will demolish most of the existing side, an impact that's unavoidable. under guidelines, a range of alternatives need to be explored to feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project, and avoid one or more significant effect. this item before you does not require approval action but an opportunity for the commissioners to provide their comment and recommendations regarding alternatives presented. the department identified three alternative, and full and partialitytive. and a unit with the full

project. under the proposed project, 62 housing units, under the full preservation alternative, the number 24, and under the partial preservation alternative, 40 housing units. so under the full preservation alternative, a portion of the site would be demolished to allow for the construction of 24 units and 12 duplexes along bowdoin street, similar manner to those in the proposed project. and here is an oblique aerial showing the full preservation alternative, 15 of the 11 greenhouses would be retained, and the other features related to agricultural activity to be retained. the full reservation alternative would retain the majority of the site features, including most of

the greenhouses and other ancillary structures. this alternative would still meet or partially meet most of the basic objectives of the project. in comparison with the proposed project, 62 units of housing, this would construct 24 units of housing. under the partial preservation alternative, half the site would be cleared for 40 units and 20 duplexes. constructed on the northern part of the site to allow for the southern portion of the site to remain intact. and as you can see in this oblique aerial, six out of the 15 greenhouses retained, along with the open space to the south that contains other ancillary features and structures related to the site's agricultural activity. under the partial preservation alternative, which would retain

some of the character-defining features of the site, including some of the greenhouse, six out of the 15, along with the portion of the walkway, and other ancillary features to the south. this alternative meets most of the basic objectives of the project, only 40 units of housing in comparison to the 62 units in the proposed project. in developing the preservation alternative, department and project sponsor explored several different approaches based on the location of character-defining features on the site, as well as taking in the fact the project objective. some alternatives considered, including alternatives that incorporated the same units of housing by concentrating housing and increasing the height of the housing in one area of the site. other alternatives, refocussed the development to a less linear fashion, retaken the number of

greenhouses in an effort to retain elements of the historic resources across the entirety of the site. some alternatives were rejected based on the character of the surrounding neighborhood, others rejected because they left the retained buildings across the site rather than grouped together. in conclusion, a reasonable range that meets most of the basic objectives of the project, still taking into account the location and types of historic elements on the site as well as considering input from neighborhood groups. so this concludes the end of my presentation. i am here along with alena to answer questions the commissioners may have. >> thank you. we should take public comment at this time. members of the public, your opportunity to speak to this matter. by pressing star three. i see no members of the public wishing to speak so public

comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> jonas, i see vineheart to like to speak, that staff or public comment? >> i'm sorry -- >> in the chat, jonas. >> amy could like to speak. i think she's with hillarie roman's office. >> she's -- she was invited as a panelist and can unmute herself. >> i might just do that, i realized that, sorry. i did not realize i had the power. thank you so much. president, commissioner matsuda, black, foley, johns, pearlman, and so, i'm amy vineheart, aid to hillary ronan, district nine. she asked me to share a few words for context to the project. by unanimous resolution in 2016,

board of supervisors officially declared the garden district and called out the university mound greenhouses as one of the very few physical markers of the flora culture, and operating businesses that produced flowers to supply retail florists throughout california. neighborhood fall 2017 newsletter. effort to celebrate historic significance of this site is led by a grassroots neighborhood organization, friends of 770 woolsey. after years of contentious outreach meetings, where very it rations were presented, l37 partners entered into discussions with the friends of woolsey. our office has hosted those conversations and so impressed with the good faith and progress with which they have moved toward an agreement on several

options for the future of this parcel. i don't know if those options match the alternatives that were presented today. my understanding is that the underlying terms of this agreement have now been accepted by those parties and the project attorneys are wrapping up the details. we are looking forward with great optimism to see the m.o.u. executed by the end of this year. it's really been remarkable to witness turn around from a point where there were meetings where people were pointing and accusing and yelling at each other to a time where there is compromise and common ground. i do thank you for giving me the time to speak and we are looking forward to the future of this project with a partnership between l37 and friends of 770. i also want to mention that supervisor ronan is very supportive of items 10 and 11, which you continued today, so i will see you again on january 20th, and thanks so much

for my time. >> thank you, my apologies, i lost your text in the chat. so commissioners, wanted to -- i know mr. justin mentioned this already, we are r returning the alternatives and the draft will come back before us at a future date. so, let's go ahead and commissioner pearlman. >> i'm happy to kick this off. most of you probably remember my feelings about the historical status of the site being so severely deteriorated and the encouragement of housing on here i'm thrilled to hear from miss

vineheart the project has come from what was pretty contentious community voice from our hearing whenever that was about this project. so, i think that the proposed project is an excellent project. it seems to -- it seems to really meet the requirements of the developer as well as satisfy the community for what they were looking for. i think the alternatives are quite good. they are, you know, they are well thought through. they don't make much sense economically, i would think, but that's not our, you know, our purview to really say anything

about. in general i think it's been well, you know, well done as a study to get through the environmental review process and i hope that in the outcome of the project once it's passed the eir stage that the proposed project does come to fruition. i think it's pretty, you know, this is a place where the mitigation of having the information about the university mound nursery, lots of old photographs, family members around that can offer some actual personal history about the project, that having this park with these greenhouses at the corner will actually be a case where the history of this site will be very visible, well appreciated, not only visited by

locals but from people all over san francisco coming through, going to mclaren park, and i think it would create a substantial historic marker in the middle of the district. so, overall i'm very excited about this. and again, i think from the standpoint of the alternatives they are very well done and conceived. thanks. >> ok. thank you. we do have a public comment. why don't we take commissioner matsuda, and jonas, if you could line up the public comment we'll do that after commissioner matsuda. >> i think this is in line with the public comment because i was going to ask justin if it was not confidential memorandum of understanding between l37 and woolsey to get some indication about what their key concerns and their key points were so

that we can definitely hear that as part of our discussion, and i agree with commissioner in that the alternatives proposed were viable. they are well thought-out and i could get a clear understanding of what was going to happen. and as all of you know and advocate, i'm interested in story and to make sure we find some way to preserve the preservation of these stories and from mr. tau's comments, seems like we will still have the participation of the first owners of these greenhouses a part of this new project, and that to me is very exciting that we continue that succession of the story have he important. cut flower in san francisco, the

story should be told and continue to be told. i'm very, very pleased with the alternatives that were presented and just the fact that we are going to be able to continue to promote and preserve that history. thank you. >> sorry, i was muted. thank you, commissioner matsuda. members of the public, through the chair, we are reopening public comment. >> hi there, this is david, a member of friends of 770 and the greenhouse project, also a resident of the portila. public comment. first just echo a couple things that have already been said, but there is an ongoing process supported by the supervisor's office. we hope the agreement between the community and developers will be reached soon. and expecting it to be before the end of the year. the community's participation

and support of the project presented today was based on these conversations and outcome we hope to arrive at before year's end. lastly, we have talked with planning as well as the supervisors office and surprised to not receive any notification of this item being discussed at h.p.s. and will follow up to make sure it does not happen again. thank you for your time. >> thank you. justin, did you want to respond to commissioner matsuda's question? >> yes. we have not seen a copy of the development agreement. i would refer to rich, i don't know if he has seen a copy. >> i personally haven't. >> yeah, commissioners, rich decray, department staff. apologize. yeah, typically the private agreements, department staff don't get involved with.

we don't have a formal development agreement with the city but anything that the developer and the private party kind of agree upon is something that they need to basically do on their own outside of our regulatory role and our work on the project. so -- >> ok. thank you. i don't see any other commissioners. i do have a couple comments. i think that -- ok, commissioner black. you want to go ahead. >> put it in chat, may not have done it properly. last july i actually went back and watched portions of the hearing and you know, commission really stressed our desire for the neighbors and the development team to try and work together and i have to say that i really want to thank them all

for a clear effort on everybody's part to do that, and thanks to supervisor ronan's office for whatever facilitation might have occurred there. obviously this is how projects can work well and i think i concur with commissioner -- the comments where already we feel that the alternatives have been looked at very, very comprehensively. they have been evaluated, commissioner pearlman stressed that he believes the proposed project is very viable, and i concur. i like very much the corner that shows the history of the site, following up on commissioner matsuda's comment, it's -- it clearly shows the structures that were there and how the site

had previously been used, and so i'm in support of the development proposal but i also, even though i know we are not voting it, i also believe that the other alternatives were looked at carefully, including those that were rejected because they did not meet proper objectives. >> thank you, commissioner black. yeah, i completely agree, ditto all of what you have said. i think the alternatives evaluation report that they did was very well presented and well thought out. i love, well, i love -- i do like a lot the proposed project, these are the kind of projects that we usually see in the partial preservation, and it's really exciting to see that as the proposed project. it will be a very exciting project. so, let's see -- commissioner so. you want to speak?

>> yes, hi. this is a really community effort and i really appreciate that the planning staff spearheading this and also eric tau, l37, the developer have put in so much care with the interaction with the community and i personally like the mix of the partial preservation alternative with the residential units of 40 and then like 12 or 16 of them -- i don't know if this number how many of them are going to be affordable housing, and i like -- i like after the preserving part of the elements that are influenced for the continuance of the storytelling and the significance of the

nursery, and also education, and a question i would like to know, how many of the preservation alternative is for affordable housing, and are they -- what is the percentage of affordable housing, and the other component i would like to ask is that in the area where we would preserve, what are the activities that are intended to put in there. and it's not a question, but compliment on the architectural representations to bring in the traditional historical architype of the greenhouses and transforming into a housing and habitable residential space. that actually i think t really skillfully done, so, kudos for the architect.

so, i just wanted to say that. this is really nice, even though the style of the houses are not really similar -- not really the same as the rest of the district, but it does reminiscent to the historical greenhouses, like the past. thank you. >> justin, did you have any information on the affordable housing units? to answer commissioner so's question? >> planning department staff. we have not yet clarified how many units of affordable housing are incorporated in the preservation alternatives, but something we can definitely include in the draft e.a.r. as we move forward. the other question answered was about the, sort of the use of

the retained portions of the site. that's another thing that we could clarify in the draft e.a.r. >> ok. thank you. >> commissioner foley. >> hi, commissioner foley. i thought i saw in the alternative in the 62-unit alternative that you did list either l37 listed or planning department listed 12 affordable units, equate to 20%. or was i reading that incorrectly? >> that's correct. i think. for the project. >> for the project. so i believe they are doing 20%. is that true? >> i can answer these questions. hello. >> yes, that's correct.

the number of units of affordable housing for the proposed project, that has been clarified, which is 20. the project author might be able to add additional information if you wanted to open the question to him. >> yeah, happy to -- both those questions. number one, we are doing 20% affordable housing, 12 units. and with the second question, as far as -- i know, i agree and appreciate the point it's a private agreement but i can share with you that because of our discussions through supervisor ronan's office, the project has changed and added two greenhouses and boiler house, and as far as programming, that will be part of our agreement as well, where our goal is to hand over and collaborate with the friends of woolsey to program educational and historic programs and activities on the site that will

be dedicated. >> thank you for that clarification. i did have one other question, this is for justin if you have an answer to this. so, is it zoning limitations to 62? i've been cautious to ask this question because i really do think that the design of the complex fits the neighborhood very well. but i would, prior to seeing that design would have hoped for a higher density if we could go higher than 62 units. is there a zoning limitation at 62? >> i would defer to rick, who is helping the current planner in the design. it's my understanding the existing residential use might be capped at 63 units, but that's something that i'm not

100% sure about. >> commissioners, happy to chime in. yes, because of the underlying zoning on the site, which does have a density control, we do have a limit on the number of units they can basically provide as part of the project. >> commissioner, i have an additional member of the public requesting to speak. shall we allow them to submit their comment? >> of course, of course. reopen public comment. >> go ahead, caller. >> yes, my name is theresa ferrari botroba i'm in my mid 70s and i was a youngster growing up in that neighborhood in our set of nurseries, which was at one point adjacent to the garibaldis, and i have lots of stories and pictures and many

things that i would like to contribute to the project if the project sponsor or any historical group is interested. additionally, i would like to commend you on the recommendation that it be two greenhouses at the corner there so that the public can also be more involved. thank you. >> great, thank you. yeah, i think that's -- that covers it. ok, commissioners. if there is no further deliberation from the commission, we can certainly move on to your next item. item number 8, 2019-021869coa, 1216 fulton street. this is a certificate, you

prepared for your presentation? >> yes. i would like to share my screen, please. good afternoon, commissioners, shannon ferguson, department staff. item before you today is a request for certificate of appropriateness at 1216 fulton street. property is located on the north side of the street, between divisadero and scott street. not mentioned in the summary is there is a bicycle lane running along the north side of fulton street in front of the property. it is located in an rh3 zoning district and contributor to

alamo square. designed in 1883, set back from the public right-of-way, shallow front row, rock wall, and fence. a gable roof behind, clad, prominent front porch and angled bay window, basement to the second story. terminates in an overhanging, and some remnants of historic wood detailing are intact, however alterations include removal of historic bay window, and brackets of the cornice. subject property is 1 of 4 similarly designed buildings in a row on fulton street. the neighboring properties have been stripped of their original wood details and reclad

insiding, or stucco. all neighboring properties have received an insensitive garage insertion. this is the only property to retain the original configuration of the angled bay window spanning the basement to the second floor. some historic wood siding and -- proposed project consists of an addition and vertical addition, plus -- [inaudible] the way the existing wrought iron fencing would be salvaged and a new wall, existing wood siding repaired. columns and front porch and double doors retained. all existing segmentally double

hung windows retained. new window with awning windows added to the basement level of the angled bay window. vertical addition have an angled roof and set back from the front facade, time existing high parapet. clad in horizontal wood siding and door and accessing a new -- [inaudible] in front of the building. at the east elevation, new parapet and double hung windows added to the basement, first and second stories. rear or north elevation will be clad in wood siding and wood doors and double hung windows, transom windows, and a wall clad in horizontal wood siding. conforms with the secretary of

the interior standards. the proposed project would change it as a multi-family residents and a third dwelling unit in the basement, require minimal change to the front facade. original indoor bay window, spanning the basement to the second story. and retains the features and example still craftsmanship on the front facade. studies show the vertical addition will be minimal when viewed from the street. differentiate the old from the new and size and scale. rear addition is con temporary, compatible with the subject property and all new materials compatible with historic material in design. three letters in opposition, citing concerns with excavation, lack of parking, construction of

the third story and the rear facade. one letter in support of the project, noted the drawings were very easy for a layperson to understand. and the sponsor worked extensively with staff, to have the front facade, spanning the basement to the second floor and additional dwelling unit. originally proposed, two units and added a garage at the basement level. staff is supportive of the project and recommends approval. concludes my presentation and happy to answer any questions. the architect is also here and is available for questions and would also like to say a few words. thank you. >> hi. can you hear me? i'm on the phone or on the computer here, can i hang up the

phone? >> well -- >> i'll go through the phone. hi. this is tobey morris. and we are the architect also working on von gusto, you heard recently and working on franklin projects where we'll have a victorian rolling through in january. this project was subject to a fire in 2015. and my client purchased it in 2018 and as shannon explained, original proposal was for a garage. [inaudible] client is now embracing putting in a third dwelling unit, maintaining the front yard, historic condition, and iron work thereof.

shannon mentioned it will not be visible from the street and the rear yard no larger than any other property in the vicinity. i'm happy to take any questions, thanks. >> thank you. if that concludes the project sponsor presentation, we should open up public comment, members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star then three to be entered into the queue. commissioners i see no members of the public wishing to public, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> commissioner pearlman. >> thank you. i want to say i think this is a really fine project. the concerns of the neighbors i

think are fairly straightforward to refute in terms of digging a hole in san francisco will not destabilize other homes if structurally designed properly and meeting california building code requirements. the addition on the third floor is virtually invisible from the street, and the effort to preserve the only one of the four that even remotely, you know, resembles what was built there originally i think is very commendable. so, and the contemporary back yard, back yards of victorian homes are not typically victorian in style. they are usually just irregular with porches and additions done over 100 or more years so a

simple stepping rear yard as designed here is absolutely acceptable and appropriate for this kind of project. so i would definitely move to approve this, and certainly wait if there is any other comment. thanks. >> thank you. any other commissioners? how about a motion? commissioner black, did you want to speak? there you go. >> i just wanted to say i completely concur with everything that commissioner pearlman said. passersby will at least have an understanding of what all of these houses once looked like when this project is done, and i think the addition is minimal. the issues about digging and foundations, that's standard issue stuff that gets dealt with routinely.

i'm confident it will be handled appropriately. >> motion to approve the project. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. no further deliberation, a motion that has been seconded to approve this project. on that motion, commissioner black. [roll call] [roll call vote taken] so moved, commissioners. passes unanimously, 7-0. commissioners, place us on items 9a and b, 2019-01374coa and var, 812 scott street. you will consider the certificate of appropriateness. and assistant zoning administrator will consider the request for variance. >> good afternoon, commissioners.

michelle taylor, department staff. can i share my screen? >> sure, michelle. let me just -- thank you. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. item before you today is a request for certificate of appropriateness for the property at 812 scott street located in the alamo square historic district, under article 10. it's a modest two story two family residence built in 1888. a wood building has prominently centered bay window at the upper floor, moderately decorated and capped with a steep front facing gable. the building features horizontal wood siding and modest detailing. ground floor is largely obscured from the street by a tall secure

wall with a roll-up garage door at the front property line. the project, remodelling of both residential units and converting unoccupied space into habitable space, along with seismic strength ening. additionally a door, the front of the property will be removed and replaced with a pair of double hung wood windows. also includes raising the building 15 inches to improve unfinished spaces and entry on the south elevation. to accommodate more habitable space on the ground floor unit. also replace noncharacter defining brick stairs with wood, and replacing to the double hung wood frame windows. and adding low profile skylights and modifying the heavily alter for elevation.

rear elevation work will include a new addition and will match the existing of the current building and deck. proposal overall is appropriate for and consistent with the purposes of article 10 and complies with the secretary of rehabilitation. and defining features of the subject building. rear addition and deck will not be visible from the public right-of-way. although the project will result in the removal of the modest historic fabric, it still retains and preserves the historic character of the building. therefore staff has determined the proposed work as outlined in the case report is in conformance with the requirements outlined in article 10. staff would also like to note that the architect has worked with staff extensively to develop a sensitive project that

created the additional livable space and the ground floor unit while retaining historic property, character of the property. >> will five minutes be enough for the presentation? >> yes, five minutes should be fine. michelle, can you bring up our slides? >> yes. you see that? >> thank you. >> ok. so, this property is a rare example of a small stick style victorian as michelle mentioned. in the alamo square historic district. the house sits on a deep lot, 137 feet five inches, and set back from the street

approximately 22 feet. note that the primary facade is obscured from the street by a large garage door and gate installed approximately 1978. next slide. the context is much larger, substantial victorians, such as the william westerfield house directly to the south, upper right on your slide and directly due south of the subject property. next slide. floor plans of the lower unit. note at the front of the house we are converting a storage room into a bedroom. we'll be rebuilding the stairs along the south side and replacing them with bull nose wood stairs consistent with historical detailing from 1888.

and note the hatched addition in the rear of approximately 95 square feet that falls within the building footprint currently. next slide. the upper unit note, let's see -- upper unit, addition on the rear of approximately 30 square feet. reconfiguration of the interior. there is no change to the most historic facing the street. it changes from a library to a bedroom. next slide. these building sections give you an idea of the ceiling height in the lower level which are, do not conform to building codes. they range in height from six and a half feet to seven and a

half feet. next slide. the proposed section is to raise the building approximately 15 inches which will provide code compliant ceiling heights in the lower level as well as a foundation replacement from a brick foundation to a concrete foundation to seismically strengthen the property. the raising of the building still keeps it well below the heights of the adjacent properties. next slide. this is an example of some of the existing conditions on the front. you can see the upper portion of the front bay with the stick style detailing, that will be retained. these are clad double hung windows that will be replaced with wood double hung windows. on the right you see what was probably a stable originally in

1888, which was converted to a storage room and a garage and now has a single light door. that will be replaced. next slide. on your left you'll see a brick stair, this will be replaced with a bull nose wood stair consistent with 1888 detailing. on the right you see the existing entry to the lower unit which requires you to go down the side of the house, under the house, into the back and back into the unit. next slide. the proposed changes to the front on the left you can see a pair of double hung wood windows with historic detailing that will be similar in size to the windows above. you see the replacement of a window in the old door into the

lower unit. and you see the new wood stair detailing up to the upper unit. next slide. this view shows that the historic fish scale siding will be retained, horizontal siding will be retained, and the stick detailing will be retained, and from the street you will get a little more view of the house as it's raised 15 inches. next slide. the rear of the house is a bit of a hodge podge. it has a hip roof over the majority of it, it has an odd parapet structure that includes a washer-dryer and then on the right behind this purple bush is a lean-to that was probably an enclosed porch and noncompliant

wood stair along the north property line. next slide. i've only got two more left. these are drawings of the rear house, you can see that we have removed the hip roof, we have removed the porch and lowered the parapet structure on the washer-dryer. we negotiated with the neighbors at 1180 fulton and reduced the height of this parapet, given their concerns for light and air. we have moved the stick to the middle of the site so it's conforming with building codes. next slide. these just, if you look really carefully you can see dimensions we have actually lowered the height of the parapet in the rear, almost six inches to accommodate light and air to 1180 fulton. that's the conclusion of the presentation. here is a 3d view of the

existing and proposed. this work is not visible from the public right-of-way. it stays in the original footprint of the house. we have lowered the parapet height overall, and we have cleaned up the facade and massing and created a more stable structure and removed the stair to the center of the site. in conclusion, this project is in conformance with article 10, secretary standards, thank you for your time and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you for that. commissioners. that concludes sponsor presentation. open to public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to enter the queue by pressing star then three to submit your public comment. commissioners, i see no members of the public requesting to speak at this time. i will advise if anyone enters

late, the public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> thank you. commissioner black, start us off. >> i would be happy to. to begin with, i think especially compared to a lot of the projects of this, the expansion of this is quite modest. and raising the building and adding on, and i appreciate that they have negotiated with their neighbors to reduce impact. but the reality is this structure is much smaller than the adjacent, including one of my favorite houses in all of san francisco, the westerfield house. and the rear, the changes in the rear actually in my opinion clean up what had evolved over time to be sort of a chaotic series of changes that were not terribly compatible with the original architectural part of the house, so i am in support of

this project. >> commissioner pearlman. >> agreed with what commissioner black just said. my only disappointment on this project is that the front garage door structure is not being removed. it is completely ruined the ability to see this house, which is really quite lovely. you know, in its scale, and the fact that the detailing is the original detailing is still mostly present. so -- that's just a disappointment. but i think the project is quite well conceived and executed. thank you. >> any other comments from other commissioners? >> michelle. >> yes.

>> i did have a question for you, in regards to commissioner pearlman's comment about the front garage door. is that a parking space, or what's the current purpose of it? and we are -- i don't know how substantial of a renovation this is, but i believe we also have a zoning variance on this? so is there -- is there an ability to improvement that front? >> it does block the view of an existing parking space, so there is a curb cut at that location. it's an existing condition. so although we may like to see it removed, i'm not sure if we have the ability to remove it.

>> okay. i don't think there are any other comments. we have a motion then, i guess? >> motion to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve, commissioner black. [roll call vote taken] so moved, commissioners. motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> thank you, close public hearing, grant the request of rear yard variance noting caroline with what commissioner black stated, it's a relatively modest addition, the existing building is smaller than the adjacent buildings, and set back more than what is required under the code which reduces the buildable area of the lot and

focusses development towards the rear, also noting the revised plans and appreciating the quick work of the project architect and the project sponsor to revise the project to address those concerns and the impacts on the adjacent property. with that, again, granting the variance. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, that will take us to item 12, as items 10 and 11 have been continued to january 20th. item 12. golden gate observation wheel. this is an informational presentation. are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. thank you. hello, again, commissioners. michelle taylor, department staff. item before you is an informational presentation by the city of san francisco recreation and parks department on the sky star observation

wheel in the concourse area of golden gate park. before the recreation and parks before begins, i would like to provide a brief background on the subject site and observation wheel project. observation wheel is located in the golden gate park music concourse, which is landmark number 249 under article 10 of the planning code. the concourse originally established as part of the california mid winter fair of 1894. and is individually significant as an outdoor performance space, important in san francisco cultural history under criterion one, events of the national register and criterion three, architecture as an urban park landscape devoted to public performances and setting for public art. the music concourse also contributes to the national register in the golden gate

historic district. by 1 and 3, and area of landscape architecture and social history. concourse is a classically designed landscape and a series of tunnels and streets that circle and cross the music concourse bowl. the bowl is a depressed landscape that features music, benches in rows, trees, fountains, paths and several monuments. earlier this year on january 15, 2020, this commission reviewed and approved with conditions if appropriate the application for the one-year installation of the observation wheel at the northeast end of the music concourse. as part of the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of golden gate park. in response to concerns raised by members of the public, comments and correspondence, this commission added a condition as follows.

that the city of san francisco recreation and parks department will conduct community outreach regarding the effects of lighting and implement measures to mitigate the impacts in cocor cord coordination with the staff. tracy bradley is here to provide an update how the commission is met. additionally, recreation and parks department will take this opportunity to brief the commission on the status of the wheel and possible future plans. this concludes my introduction. my colleagues and i are also available to answer questions. thank you. i already sharing the screen.

>> are you able to hear me? >> we are, but you have a terrible echo. >> is it possible to use -- to use my cell phone instead of the webex? on the cell phone. >> what's your phone number? >> 415-823 -- >> that's all i need. >> thank you. >> ok. >> is this now working? >> it's working but you still have an echo, probably because -- your microphone is, your telephone is too close to your computer.

use one of them. >> yes, i fixed it, is that correct? >> this is better, yes. >> ok, great. thank you, sorry, technical difficulties of this is -- challenging. thank you very much for asking us to come for this informational update on the observation wheel. my name is stacy bradley, i manage our planning team at recreation and parks department and joined by our director of permits and property manageent and lisa, our director of partnership. michelle, go to the next slide. thank you. as michelle noted, we are going to talk about a summary of the community input and the measures implemented regarding lighting as you requested as well as providing, start first with the timeline and then some covid-19 safety protocols in place for

the wheel as the general update. and after the summary of the community input and measures, providing a general update on the wheel operations and our expected timeline. next slide. so here is a timeline on michelle providing some of this information already, the wheel was approved by the h.p.c. january 15th. originally scheduled to open on april 4th, which was our 150th birthday celebration. of course we hit shelter in place in the middle of march, so we delayed the opening and instead for the celebration we had a virtual 150th celebration. i hope you were all able to participate. it was pretty special. once the shelter in place started, we stabilized the wheel

but then halted construction and opening was delayed. the wheel then opened for the first time to the public on wednesday, october 21st, with safety protocols and a limited 25% capacity. the wheel then closed on november 29th due to the recent covid surge when the city instituted the regional stay-at-home order. if you can, or just the san francisco stay-at-home order. this is a highlight of our wheel covid safety plan. we are following the general guidance that everybody is, staying six feet apart, wearing your mask, we are also completely wiped down the interior of the gondola before, between visits, provide hand sanitizer, do temperature checks getting on, and air flow in the gondola throughout the ride. next delve into more details about the lighting, so here we

have our community outreach. since the approval, we met with community logistics meeting in february and met with our parks recreation open space advisory committee, commonly termed prosac, and preopening meeting to hear feedback on the wheel. october 27th, a post opening where we had a targeted outreach on lighting, targeted meeting towards lighting. we provided notifications through outreach to park partners, neighborhood groups and announcing through social media platforms as well as targeted stakeholder email notification. in general, we have received overwhelmingly positive reception on this wheel.

people really like it, especially during these times to have something fun that you can do and we have also heard from nearby businesses they are benefitting from the extra foot traffic in the neighborhood. we have heard concerns along the lighting, as well as increased traffic, parking considerations, and a.d.a. issues. you can go to the next slide. next i'm going to focus on the feedback on the illumination of the wheel. we generally continue to receive similar comments to those that you heard at the hearing in january and that you received letters about. we have not heard any new comments about the lighting, and however, questions have been raised if there has been any evidence of wildlife injury during operation of the wheel and there have been none, we confirm that.

the excitement, memorable, beautiful lights and brought much needed joy during these times. lighting is consistent with the historic use of the music concourse, where public is encouraged to gather and play in golden gate, and also provides vibrancy and new visitors to enjoy the music concourse and all the historic components. and then we have heard concerns raised on light may be distracting to wildlife and insects, confuse migrating birds, not the appropriate location for an illuminated wheel, and it can be disturbing as residents and white lights are seen as the brightest lights. we also received some suggestions on what weshg do for the illumination. some offered, some requested we keep it as it is, some requested that we turn off the lights after the wheel programming

ends, others have nighttime security, nighttime security lighting minimal, similar to what the museum provides, turn off the lights at dusk and dim the lights. we took all this information, and the suggestion, feedback, we met with the sponsor. next slide, please. and heard what the operational options and limitations are and consideration of this feedback and suggests. they informed us that the spectrum of colors on the wheel can be modified. safety gondola lights are only white and must be on while the wheel is moving. most lights can be turned off after programming hours and lights cannot be dimmed, they are either on or off. so we worked with them and with your colleagues at the planning department to implement some measures. first, reduce overnight security lighting and the second to remove white lights, perceived

as the brightest lights for the last hour of programming. those measures next. thank you. so this is the reduced overnight security lighting. this was implemented in late october. before we had the white lights on so people could see the wheel and the security was well lit, and then after we heard complaints we shifted it to minimum required which is what you see on the bottom image where the lights on some of the gondolas are lit so it provides lighting at the base of the wheel for the security personnel who make sure that everything is fine here overnight. next slide, please. then we turned off the white lights which were perceived as the brightest lights for the last hour of programming. implemented in mid november. the white lights are turned off

between 9 and 10:00 p.m., and so there are no white lights after that time. next transition to our wheel operations. so as i mentioned earlier, it was originally scheduled to open on april 4th. we did finally open on october 21st, limited capacity. the wheel was closed, i'm sorry, a typo here, it was november 29th due to the health, and ridership, projected 500,000 riders for the length of the installation. ridership so far, 39 days it's been open, almost 66,000 riders. we also have an access for all program in the vendor, provides community benefits. they provide 500 tickets per month to benefit underserved

communities in san francisco. we were able to distribute the tickets to november for nonprofits running community hubs at rec and park sites. distance learning for the most at risk youth. only a few of them could be used before the shut down occurred. go to the next slide please. this calendar just provides a visual format the information that we have been discussing, the wheel had been closed for 200 days before operation began from when it was expected to open on april 4th. 39 days in october and november, closed again with a minimum of 37 days closure due to the purple tier and the bay area regional stay-at-home order. do not know how many operational days we have remaining in the permitted days in 2021, since the health order is still -- our next steps are to develop an

extension proposal to accomplish the following goals, to allow the anticipated number of san franciscans and visitors to enjoy the observation wheel, and ensuring the thousands in san francisco from underserved community who would receive free tickets each month do have the opportunities to get out here and experience this exciting installation, and also want to make sure that we can allow the wheel operator who has invested significantly in the wheel of the city to reconsider investment. so anticipated approvals are to be back to you in the beginning of february with a proposal and then to follow your meeting with some rec and park commission. next, please. i would like to end on this, the first wheel from 1894 and today's observation wheel, we do hope to continue. we are excited that we heard

from residents, we know there are some challenges as well, some concerns about the wheel, and many people are really thankful that we have installed it, we have heard a lot of enthusiasm and actually been a highlight, i think, of our -- of this time during covid to hear people seeing this wheel and dealing that it's providing some hope, fun, and much needed levity during this time period that we are in. so, thank you, commissioners, and we are available for questions. >> great. thank you. commissioners. >> i was going to say. before we opened up public comment, that's what the next step is, right, jonas? >> yes. >> i would like to say a couple things. first i want to thank rec and park for bringing this to us

well in advance of the date that they are going to be asking us to actually take action. this item is an informational presentations for today and i think it's encouraging and helpful to allow as much community engagement and dialogue. there is a lot of people in support of this, and there's a lot of people opposed to it. so it's just really good that rec and park is doing this well in advance to we can have maximum engagement. that being said, i think our commission understands all of the issues that have been raised so i would like to limit public comment to one minute, so the public can -- to do that, i would appreciate that. thank you. >> great. thank you, commission president hyland.

so opening up public comment. first caller and through the chair, callers will have one minute. >> hi, anne mcpherson. a resident, i live on ninth avenue and i go to the park every day in the morning and train tai chi and go to the music concourse and i get up at 5:30 in the morning, there in the park, one of the first people in the concourse and i can't do that anymore because there's so much noise from the diesel generator that powers the wheel, and even though there's no passengers on the wheel right now, even though only doing the light show from like 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., the diesel generator which is 85 decibels is running 100% of the time and it's a great noise pollution, gives me a headache and i'm really against the wheel extended for further time unless they can make a new condition that the diesel generator is off at nighttime and they restore the quiet back to the golden

gate park and the music concourse. thank you. >> go ahead, caller. caller, are you prepared to submit your public comment? ok. we'll take the next person queued to speak. >> hello, the wheel generator is unnecessarily loud, 85 decibels, 24 hours a day, according to the c.d.c. it's too loud and can cause hearing loss after two hours. generator operate between 0 and 20 kilohertz and some of of the nine or so bat species use it to

find food. they could not have missed food opportunities, collisions and death. i submit a sound barrier around the generator, and ideally the wheel should be removed by bat breeding season in mid february. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is nelly, a san francisco resident and executive director at the james tau community center. it's proud to speak in -- good afternoon, commissioners. proud to speak in support of the observation wheel in

commemoration of golden gate park 150th anniversary. james tau community center -- >> go ahead, 30 seconds. >> the community center is the san francisco mission district non-profit and provide free impact programs and activities, youth soccer, academic, supports, and latino arts for the underserved most vulnerable youth and families in san francisco, 95% of participants are low income youth of color. due to the health restrictions, physical and economically support. we were really fortunate to receive free tickets for our families. >> your time has -- >> that is your time. thank you. >> hi, thank you for letting me speak. nick bolani.

i am in support of the wheel. i have talked to, i live in the richmond district, been here a long time. talked to residents and businesses. overwhelming support that i have heard about the wheel has been great. businesses are sitting here going we need to bring people to our area so that we can have our business working at this time, covid where there is not a lot of stuff going on. so it's a draw, something that's wonderful, the lights have been -- the light show i can see from my house, it's been amazing to see, it's a beautiful light show, it's something that really does show a really nice thing for the residents that can see it to see it at night. and i know that there have been a lot of residents i have talked to that have gone down to the concourse to just sit and watch that light show. so it is good for the community,

it's good for the people and the businesses. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. katherine howard sierra club. the sierra club opposes the observation wheel remaining in the concourse anylonger than the original time period agreed to by the preservation commission. in fact, we would like early removal of the structure. wheel was installed without an adequate environmental review. now in place with the intensely bright flashing and unshielded lighting as testified to by the prior speaker, we are concerned about the environmental damage this can cause as well as infringement on the park as a landscape park. sierra club is committed to environmental justice and equity. support education and access to nature close to home for

communities. historically golden gate has provided this opportunity but if we destroy the habitat, families and children can lose the opportunity to experience nature locally. we ask the wheel be removed from the park. thank you. >> hello. >> go ahead, caller. >> this is drew becker, c.e.o. of the parks alliance, here to speak in support of the observation wheel. we have been partner with rec and park for many years ance we partnered with rec and park to bring an amazing celebration of golden gate park 150th anniversary to san francisco and the bay area to celebrate this amazing masterpiece and the whoa el is a signature component of the celebration. we think it is a big draw for

residents and tourists alike and the neighborhoods experiencing a huge issue with business and when our museums open up again this will help resuscitate the tickets sales that have been lost and i support and my organization and the thousands of people who represent support the observation wheel and moving it forward. thank you very much. >> thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment. you can enter the queue by star then three. go ahead, caller.

caller, your phone has been unmuted. ok. last chance, caller. all right. commissioners, that will conclude public comment. and the matter is now before you. and again, this is simply an informational item. there is no action to be taken. >> great, thank you, commissioner foley, you want to start us off. >> no, i would. i, i actually have the ultimate respect for the sierra club and san francisco heritage, and i say in general i actually, i'm incredibly in line with their mission and devotion. in this particular instance, though, i personally feel, i've been out to the site, toured it with my 13-year-old daughter, with other kids.

it's a wonderful addition, and i will tell you right now it's all -- i'm incredibly support i have -- serve 300 plus kids and families in the south market area, and they use golden gate park a lot, and i think it was shut down almost a year, no one got activity out of it and the little businesses on 9th street and irving, they actually need people to come there, and my hope is that we get some vaccine, we actually could see our way to keep that up and running for another 6 or 12 months, and then we can generate some business for the businesses that need some help. thank you for your time. >> thank you. commissioner so. >> hello. first i would like to thank you

park and rec, stacy, for giving us such a good time for a head's up that this is coming to us in about a month or two. no more last-minute surprises, i really appreciate park and rec effort to do that. and as i recall last time when this project presented to us, it was a very different time, right? no one was sick, it was precovid. and we did talk about the excavation, the report and then i think we had comments, a lot of the implications of the safety measurements and everything to allow this project to move forward, and my recollection is that we had given park and rec and this

ferris wheel a period of time to be operational and not meant to be a permanent installation. i have to say, though, after covid, although schools are forced to close, including my child's school, and a lot of children have no place to go, it's not just school closed, it's the public playgrounds and disneyland or anything, right, children can go, basically just vaporized for them and i recall bringing my child out there to see the ferris wheel and practiced soccer there with her soccer team and the golden gate park and it's just another way to feel that you have hope for the children, and the eyes of children, that this is a place, there is something going on here and in fact, this actually allows the children to ask questions, why there's a ferris wheel, why, what are we doing,

and that is actually a good storytelling of learning to -- this is the 150th anniversary of the golden gate park. with that being all said, and i respect as a parent and the sierra club and other organizations that have sent a lot of well-intended letters and other people also in support for this. but during a time like this, where i wanted to take a lens focussing on the human beings, our mental health and especially our younger children who are the next generation and to carry on the history and the story to tell forward, and i applaud the park and rec measurements to do everything they can to address the lighting and minimize the disruption of the nature of the wildlife, and the one thing i would say that maybe perhaps to that line address the complaint

about the high decibel, from the generator, i would like to see if they can investigate some implementation to create a sound attenuation, abatement procedure. i know there are a lot of technical constraints, you can't get too close to the sound generator, but if we can do something to minimize the vibrations and the acoustic, i think that will help a lot. but in general, i just love to see the ferris wheel bring out more hope and lighten up the spirit for all of our young children in san francisco. i just wanted to share that to my fellow commissioners and the public. mental health is a very important piece, especially for young kids.

>> great, thank you. commissioner pearlman. >> i guess in the spirit of the season i'm the one to play scrooge in this case. the thing that is curious to me is that in 150 years there has not been this sky wheel there, and golden gate park has been a huge draw for all of san francisco and visitors to san francisco and for the businesses on 9th street and irving, and so i don't understand why having this sky wheel all of a sudden is a benefit that wasn't already present by this amazing park we have. some friends of mine took me and my partner to the wheel so we were able to ride it. i did notice the noise, which is particularly disturbing, i think, you know, if you want peace and quiet in the park.

but afterwards we bent to the japanese garden, which i had not been to in about 25 years, and wep spent a bunch of time there, and that was amazing. i mean, that was restorative, inspirational, the colors of the season in the trees, i mean, incredibly beautiful. after this the deyoung museum and of course on the top of the -- there's an observation tower to go to the top, all the amazing views you can see from the sky wheel and take your time. the sky wheel, you go around about three times and it's moving, you get to stop for a minute or so, so that to me was not nearly as engaging as the observation tower of the deyoung. the thing that also always surprises me to the notion this

is consistent with the historic use of the music concourse. the first wheel in 1894 for the mid winter fair was there for six months so basically half a year out of 150 years, means for 1/300th of the time there has been a wheel there. that does not seem to be, you know, that's a blip on the historic use of golden gate park. so i was particular -- i'm particularly struck by the noise. that, you know, from neighbors there, the people who are there all the time, i mean, we are there, go, enjoy the park and leave, but for people there all the time, that noise element i think is really an upsetting element, and especially, you know, early morning hours when you want the peace of doing tai chi, having that noise there, completely ruins that

experience. so, like i said, i'm happy to be the scrooge but i think that -- i agree with the nay-sayers about this and i have not even -- i'm not even talking about the wildlife there, other than the human life there, but i certainly understand that this is an enjoyable thing, certainly for kids, and my question is, why isn't it at pier 39, where it would be totally appropriate to the kind of uses and the kind of people, i mean, that is an amusement park. why not put an amusement park ride where it would be appropriate. with that, i've obviously said enough to make my point, but i would not be, i would not be happy to vote for an extension of what was already allowed. so -- i will close with that. thank you.

>> thank you commissioner. >> thank you. number 1, 1 of our conditions was that there be public outreach and i think that rec and park seems to have done a very thorough job in fulfilling that requirement. one of the things that i notice in their report of the outreach was that lighting doesn't seem to be a concern of a whole lot of people. certainly we did get some letters objecting to it, but apparently nobody, or maybe only one person in all the public outreach complained about lighting. so i thought that was kind of an interesting thing. maybe it's easier or more convenient or something to raise that issue in this forum rather than the public.

but again, i thought that was interesting. so i took my grandsons there for a ride during the brief time that it was open. i must tell you, maybe i am a minority here, but i didn't hear any objectionable noise from the thing. i thought the whole experience was really quite pleasant. so, if an extension, request for extension is brought forth by rec and park, i would be very interested in knowing the length of an extension. i have no desire to see the wheel become a permanent exhibition, but i do think that it would be appropriate, given what happened, to have some kind of an extension so that so many of the people, and not just little kids, older kids, too,

like me, that didn't have an opportunity to take a spin on it can do that and maybe we could arrange things so that some of those that want to go on the wheel could do so and those that object to it could go to the observation tower on the deyoung and wave at one another. so -- that's my comment. >> great. thank you, commissioner black. >> yeah, you know, it's always difficult on matters like this where there are competing objective, you know, obviously environmental, lighting and sound concerns and then on the flip side, the desire to celebrate the park and to encourage businesses, especially during covid. i want to say i do appreciate that a rec and park seems to have tried hard to do public

outreach, that they addressed some of the concerns mechanically and physically. i haven't been there, but i've heard from so many friends, including native san franciscans, who loved it and they did not know it would even come before the preservation commission, they just loved it. they had such a good time. they managed to get in during the one window. i think it's fair given just what an absolutely awful year it's been for a lot of people to allow it to continue like some of my fellow commissioners. i don't have any desire for this to become permanent but i do think on balance as a means of celebrating the park and giving kids and people something new to do during a really crummy time and hopefully spending some money at local businesses that it should indeed, when it comes

back to us, it should indeed be, we should consider extending the time frame. >> ok. thanks, commissioner black. i agree with most of my commissioners, and i think that, you know, we are in a very unusual time. we are going to be coming up on the year now that we have all been locked down, and 150 years celebration in golden gate park is just that, a celebration. and while, you know, i'm not a big fan of the observation wheel as far as amusement ride for myself, i know and i've heard and we have heard from so many people in support of it that i would find it very difficult to not support a continuance. i have no interest of having this permanent as the rest of,

as all the commissioners have said. and we will see in february when rec and park comes for us with their actual proposal. i do ride my bike around there, and 85 decibels is a very loud sound, and i haven't experienced that myself. so i would ask rec and park to confirm that, and also to confirm whether or not the generator needs to run 24/7, if in fact does run 24/7, and if it does need to. why can't it be shut down during the night or reduced so that it's not, you know, it's only loud when it's actually operating. that's i think all i have. any other comments, commissioners? then i think we are actually done for today. so have a wonderful holiday season, everyone.

and stay well, and we will see everyone in the new year. we are adjourned. >> very good. yeah, that's a wrap for the year. >> we'll see you all on the other side. >> thanks, take care. community

investment and infrastructure for tuesday, december 15, 2020. i would like to welcome the members of the public listening live and the staff presenting today. following the guidelines set forth by local and state firms during this health emergency, the members of the commission are meeting remotely to ensure the safety of everyone, including members of the public. thank you all for joining us, please call the first item. >> thank you. the first order of business is item one roll call. commission members plea respond. commissioner brackett. >> here. >> commissioner scott. >> here. >> commissioner rosales. >> here. >> chair bustos. >> here. >> all members are present. ne