existing parking lot. they are for office use. staff determined the proposed work in compliance with article 10 of the planning code and the interior standards and respects the property architectural and cultural significance and would not impact character defining features. minor clarifications. the existing nonoriginal windows are metal not wood as are the replacement windows. regarding the vertical addition glazing is proposed to be bound by sunday street not terra-cotta sunscreen. staff prefers incorporation of terra-cotta sunscreen given compatibilities with brick throughout the district including the subject property. they request the historic preservation commission opine on

this. they have been working with the sponsors on the design of the project and a great deal of progress has been made regarding the compatibilities with the historic district. it was brought to the architectural review committee in september of 2020. no public comments have been received pertinent to preservation elements of this project. the sponsor team is available to discuss the project and we will pass it to make a presentation. thank you. >> you will have five minutes. >> you can see my screen, correct? >> yes. you might want to enlarge the

pdf. >> thank you, alex. good afternoon, president matsuda, commissioners, thank you very much for the opportunity to present this project to you. i am an architect representing the team led by the developer of the project and the architect of record. we go to the next page, please. as alex explained, the project is an ad adaptive reuse of the 130 town send street on the screen right now proposing four story addition on top of the existing building and five story office building on the parking lot add jay sent to the --

adjacent to the building. this shows the location of the property within the south end landmark district. this is the placement within the district and also is located within the central soma special use district. i want to make sure that you are aware that we have been the project team have been working with the planning staff since 2019 studying the neighborhood and looking at examples of successful projects within the neighborhoods. specifically within the adjacent streets. some projects are referenced here with our property in the center of the middle row. our goal was to divide and build a compatible addition to contribute to the district in

its own right. next page we will go quickly over the character defining features, important guidelines for us. you certainly are familiar with it. we want to include images of the properties. especially the materiality looking at multiple buildings constructed out of red bricks and concrete and terra-cotta. in the next page we looked at -- if you can advance the slide. we looked at the character defining features of 130 town send itself. we are intending to preserve those and maintain including the

details of the cornices, openings will be part of the bigger project. this gives you an overall sense of the development within the neighborhood and the city. this is a view of the north highlighting the additional 130 town send. if you set it back 15 feet from the existing building then the second floor of the addition is back further at 25 feet creating a sense of floating of the most prominent design feature in terra-cotta color. next page we have the raw of the development in the opposite direction looking south that

shows 50 stanford building in the foreground and the massing of the addition at 130 townsend. on the next page i wanted to make sure that as alex indicated we had an opportunity to meet with the review committee members. i received feedback primarily focusing on additional images and renderings which we included here. perspective use of the proposed project within the context of town send street east. on the right the new proposed development from the corner of second street an and town send. the second request that we received on the next page from arc members what you explained

the color and detailing of the height. this is the closeup view on the right. the vertical recess portion of 50 stanford street that acts as separator of the two buildings in white terra-cotta and comes to the fourth floor terrace. it includes the panels. that is the material we are using to articulate the building. on the next page and i am going very faso i can address additional questions. these are images of the proposed development.

focusing on the warehouse that we have to do and showing the terra-cotta color. i would like to make a clarification and i will elaborate in the q&a section we are selecting materials that resemble ontariora cot take -- . i will be happy to address comments on that. if we want to go to the next page, i wanted to quickly go again through all of the materials and also mention the setback. 15-foot set back here for the main portion of the addition. the material terra-cotta,

painted black metal with the storefront frame, structure of the addition is concrete. there is a textural element recommended by the blade, sunscreen over glade edition. next page. you have seen this in the previous slide. there is a series of slides that we can go through them quickly that show the building close up. with the adjacent structures. this will give you a sense of the overall development. we will flip through very

quickly to show this as well. with that i would welcome any questions the commissioners might have. >> thank you. on that we will now open public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star 3. when you hear your line is unmuted that is your indication to begin speaking. you will have two minutes. there are no members of the public wishing to speak. public comment is closed and the item is now before you. >> thank you. commissioner foley. >> it is interesting. we had so many great comments on the last one and we didn't have

any on this one. i have been in soma a long time and drank at that establishment multiple times. when i look at what they are doing at 130 town send versus what happened at 72 town send 15, 16 years ago. this is a much better way to do a creative adaptive reuse. 72 was boring. what they did here was maintain historic structure and separated. they made an interesting design which we should do much more in san francisco. i am happy to see it and happy the developer is moving with approval on the project considering what the world looks like. i believe the outdoor space and creative design will get leaves about older buildings.

i am happy to see this project. thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioner nageswaran. >> i had sort every layed these comments or questions earlier. i think this project has such a great quality to it. as commissioner foley said, it has intriguing visuals to it. at first when i saw the slats, you know, i don't think i have seen anything like that in the city. it is an intriguing thing. the more i look at the renderings which really helped me to kind of see the correlation between the slatting and the industrial materials

like brick and wood siding type things, it really goes to that. i can see where they put it on this side over the historic element to blend with it. i did want to ask if there was any thought for rather than having a full repetition of the blading to intermediated or sections or solid or flat paneling or glazing, if that was considered. the colors of the selected finishes. i really like the terra-cotta color. i wondered if that could read across to the stanford addition at the rear of the knowledge. where you have white and gray

terra-cotta panels. i saw that on the drawing, metal panels. i want to understand whether some of that terra-cotta color or amber color to that building as well. the glazing color if that was going to be gray or amber or another color. seeing those in the front of the building and how the night comes through. it is a very warm coloring to that front end of the building. i think that would be intriguing to have across the building just to have that warmth. brick is a very warm sort of material. i appreciated that. i also wanted to ask if the

structural system concrete podium structure underneath the new addition to the historic building if we would see that through the openings of the historic building. in the past when they did structural intervention they would start to see these things in the windows and things like that. preservation moved away from that to allow the historic character of the building. i am curious if the concrete columns would be set back between windows so we wouldn't have to see it. those are my questions. you know, i am very impressed by the terracing of the building and how it over yacht is

compatible but differren yet from the historic. >> i am going to call on other commissioners. then ask to come back to you to answer your specific questions. commissioner black. >> i really appreciate the revised plan since the architectural review committee planning in the fall. this is one of the more successful designs dealing with vertical addition to a historic building so i think we have looked at. that is such a hard thing to do. i know we don't call it façadism but people feel that is what is happening. this design is large. they have done a nice job of

breaking the project down so it looks like a streetscape that has evolved over time. the 25-foot then 15-foot set back at the front of the property, in connection with and i think commissioner nageswaran said it makes it look like a building behind. it is compatible. it reminds us turn of the century streetscape and what the new addition looks like adjacent building. i think looking up stanford street to the architecturally different standpoint portion of the building.

the ter asking and different color just likes like another streetscape that evolved over time with different buildings. i share staff concern about the terra cotta mill i am confident we can look carefully at what is proposed and make sure that it maintains a light weight butol lid appersons. i think staff got the article right. i will support this project. >> commissioner so. >> thank you for the presentation. we have seen what commissioner black mentioned in the arc review in the fall. i wanted to appreciate the project team and continue to refine the building be sign in

material and also providing better vantage point to get a better understanding about the project. it is a very good example. we have a reman project in san francisco at-large for historic preservation project. the scale of the massing and the differentiation from the cashingter defining issues. the materiality is done tastefully and you have to comply with a lot of our regular zonings requirements onset backs. creating outdoor space.

this will be amazing for live ability and city-wide example for what we can do without our build structures. i thank you from the team. thank you to continue to be patient and give us a really, really beautiful project. i suph support that. >> alex did you want to initially address or comment on commissioner nageswaran's questions and comments or if you wanted to have page and turnbull address those. >> they are prepared to address those comments. >> very good. thank you.

>> thank you very much for your support of the project. we appreciate it. you helped us arrive where we are. to the comments, i will go from my notes. i would like to clarify the materiality of the blade. alex brought it up. terra-cotta for the blaze. we are performing an engineering analysis we realized thatterra coda enters with less wait and will change the strum turfor the building. there are limitations and the span available and would

introduce additional support as a result would increase it further. we are proposing to use limnumb blades. -- aluminum playeds. we are using terra-cotta. we are very focused on that. we will be creating samples of the materials to make sure that they are meeting the materiality standards that we established. that addresses that. i believe the question involves the structure of the building being visible. the answer is, no, the addition is offset from the show.

it is not be visible through the penetration on the ground level. it will not be visible at the addition except for maybe at night when the building is illuminated internally you would be able to see shadows of can concrete columns. the color is 50 stanford building is intentionally different. these buildings are touching each other, they are separate. no internal connection between the buildings. we wanted to make sure while this is one development we are creating two pieces distinct from each other and come pettible within the district. wide glace terra-cotta is in the

district. you see white concrete and the cement colors that are white or light gray. that was the rationale for selecting that color for 50 stanford to differentiate it from 10 town send which is heavier industrial and tara color design approach. not sure if i covered everything asked. is there anything that i missed? >> there was a question about the repetitive manner of the blades versus plat. the other is the color of the glazing. >> we actually have done a lot of studies of the blades.

we studied different paintings, we studied introducing potentially openings and none of that really was as strong an as the final design. when we look at the district the most important design is the o lidty of the architecture. we wanted a strong anchor at the corner and make it continuous and monolithic. it provides for an out. this is an old buildings. we need to be used as office

space. there is solar controlled space we performed as well. it allows us to establish the phasing between the blade. efficient solar control. the color of the glass is clear. the gray inner layer for solar control. we are in the process of developing specifications for the glazing. the last requested material would always reflect light. we thought the gray inner layer will be a good contrast to the terra-cotta color to accentuate the design of the main portion of the addition.

>> thank you so much. those explanations are helpful for me to understand where you are coming from and what was intended by that. i appreciate it. thank you. >> you are welcome. >> thank you. are there any other comments or questions from the commission? would anyone like to entertain a motion? >> i make a motion to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve with conditions. commissioner foley the conditions were included in the staff presentation from alex. >> with the aluminum and terra-cotta. >> yes. >> on that motion to approve with conditions. commissioner foley. >> yes. >> commissioner black.

>> yes. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> commissioner nageswaran. >> yes. >> commissioner so. >> yes. >> commission president matsuda. >> yes. >> thank you, commissioners that item passes 6-0. this places us on the final item. i would like to give commissioner wright some time t rejoin us and i will call the next item. >> thank you.

>> do you think he is having problems logging back on? >> i am checking now. i know sfgovtv has a little lag. that could be part of the issue as well. i think it is 30 seconds to a minute lag. i will reach out to him via e-mail as well.

commissioner wright is here. we can move on. thank you, commissioners. this takes us to the final item for today. item 7. 2018-013557env. ports mouth square improvement project for your review and comment on draft environmental impact report. staff, are you prepared for the presentation. >> can michelle taylor be given ability to present her screen? >> yes. >> good afternoon. allison, planning department staff. the item before you is opportunity to receive public comment and provide communities on the draft environmental

impact report. pursuant to the local procedures for the california environmental quality act this is a specific impact to a historical resource. commission members were sent electronic copies. five reports for the project. review project began august 5, 2021. it will continue to 5:00 p.m. september 20, 2021. department is requesting your comments on the adequacy of the e.i.r. regarding historical resources identification of resources, analysis of project impact, mitigation and range of preservation alternatives considered. i would like to remind the commission both a full and partial alternative were brought on june 16, 2021 for review and comment. they found alternatives adequate. any comments to submit to the

planning department will be addressed in the e.i.r. comments to the planning commission prior to the hearing on the draft e.i.r. joining me are my colleagues, debbie, deputy director of environmental plans, coordinator to the project and michelle taylor planner. members of rec park team are present. before i turn this over to michelle taylor, rec park staff will give a brief presentation on the proposed project. >> thanks. good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for reviewing this project. i am the project manager with rec and park for the project. i wish to give a brief introduction on the project.

there were some items in the june hearing and the community process again and objectives. next slide. sorry. back. ports mouth square is in chinatown on the parking garage. the current site and project respond to the garage's structure and the natural topography of the site. you can start to see how this works on the slide here which shows the garage entry how it sneaks below the park along kearney street on the bottom of your screen. these constraints divide the park to two terraces. upper on the west side and lower on the east side. one of the biggest changes is removal of existing pedestrian

bridge. you can see in the existing slide spanning the street and by secretarying half of the park. small community clubhouse is located under the bridge. next slide. back to the proposed plan. i will give you a kick tour around the project with the main features. in the june hearing there was a desire to understand how it connects to the chinatown, what features provide the connection. i will highlight these elements. in the next section on community outreach i will touch on how the community was co-designer for the project and parks design reflects the desires. the community set goals provided critical input on the design. the styling reflects current culture and value of the chinese community. broadly about the design, the

park overall concept was inspired by traditional chinese toolbox. these contain treasures and each space was a specific size and shape to hold a specific treasure. design uses this concept to define spaces in the park. i will zoom in to the spaces. upper terrace then lower terrace. next slide. this is the upper terrace. this is a large multi-use plaza to accommodate small gatherings and large events. it features the rest room buildings that will stay. a stage and light system above. anchored by a large structure on the east edge to provide intimate gathering before. the profile incorporates chinese

curved rooflines. east of the structure is a ramp and grand stair connecting the lower level more active zone with the children's playground and fitness area. main playground is influenced by the idea of the gold mountain. title for california given by early chinese immigrants who came during the gold russian were instrumental to build the first transcontinental railroad. as back drop it uses the ideas of the terrace to shots the children's slide which reimagines the early chinese immigrants as agricultural field. next slide. both levels have direct entries to the clubhouse into the terraces. lower is large assembly areas.

upper level has smaller meeting rooms and office space. these show how the clubhouse is flexible with space. there are different events or programs that could work inside. one element of the toolbox idea the clubhouse is a lantern for the community reminiscent of the chinese patterns of chinatown. it follows the structure to the mass. elevators exit to the court on northwest corner of the site. the planting design. it is off the main feature of the park and expresses the chinese culture with over size bonsai planters with oriental

pines. it is selected for seasonal flowers to coincide with the chinese new years celebration. next slide. i would like to show you how we got to this point in the project. this proposed project is result of very long community outreach process starting in 2013 with a feasibility analysis and stakeholder interviews. we continue planning the project and kicked oven gagement phase with listing exercise in 2016 and continuing to the participatory design process in 2017-2018. next slide, please. listening phase was sitting down for interviews. we interviewed park users and surveys on the ground conversations with users in the park. we did an online survey.

through all of this outreach we reached over 500 individuals for initial information about the park. i want to highlight a couple things we asked and what we heard. the questions included where you feel safe and unsafe in the park, use the bridge, how do you approach the park? we asked people to share specific areas of site with positive or negative associations. left heat map with positive feedback areas. we continue to hear the bridge wasn't used and the clubhouse could be bigger. these stood out over and over in the feedback we received. next slide. our next in the community outreach use data from listening to develop the design. developed over the course of

five large workshops. we began with design framework that went to alternatives and final proposed plan. through the development we continued to ask key questions to ensure the initial feedback continued to be true and each time and each question the two highest priorities larger clubhouse and moving the bridge are the top priorities. the project team took all of the feedback and developed the project objectives in the draft e.i.r. with that introduction i will pass it to michelle taylor from the planning department. thank you so much. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioner. michelle taylor, planning department staff. today i am going to provide you an overview of the e.i.r.

starting with the project spike. the project site is located 733 turn street ports mouth square and the pedestrian bridge to connect the two properties. it is at the border of chinatown neighborhood. ports mouth square is a full city block 57,000 square foot bi-level park with under and over ground parking street. kearney street is southeast corner. this is home to chinese culture center which occupies third floor of the hotel directly across the road from the ports mouth square. the kearney street bridge is stylish extension of the hotel and separates the concrete forms

and details. this is the status of the site. it is a resource for the purpose of ceqa. it was established in 1835 as part of the early settlement of san francisco. in the early days the public functioned as unofficial and later official gathering space. some of the san francisco most important early buildings public square including californias first public school in 1847 and new city hall in 1852. 1961 the city of san francisco significantly altered the traditional park setting with a newcombpletely redesigned bi-level park above the four story underground parking garage. the square has served chinatown for more than a century and

today provides public square for both residents and visitors. it is the site of many community sponsored events and performances. it is individually eligible for listing in the california register under the association of important events and local and state and national history. additionally, the scare is culturally sigany -- square is a community space to serve the chinatown community for more than a century. the period of significance extends from the ex establishment in 1835 up to the present. character features of the square are location and boundaries of the park, large open spaces for gatherings, general mix for socializing, dedicated area for

child play and six identified historic blocks. i would like to note ports mouth square is with in the boundaries of the national register of the chinatown district and previously identified as noncontributing property to that district. 750 kearney street is a historical resource for the purposes of ceqa. in 1852 san francisco re-purposed the theater building to the new city hall and converted to the hall of justice. 1960 the city relocated hall of justice and anticipated selling 750 kearney street for the construction of a hotel. chinatown civil rights group greater chinatown community association lobbied the board of supervisors to consider building a chinatown community center.

ultimately is city agreed to combine two proposals and selected investors group to construct the hotel with the cultural center. 1971 chinese american architect completed the 27 story hotel. in collaboration with the architect also completed the pedestrian bridge that same year. also he went on to design the cultural center. it opened 1973 and featured dedicated space in support and celebration of chinese and chinese american art, history and culture. for these reasons 750 kearney street is eligible for listing in the california register under one and three. it is significant for the political power of members of

the chinatown community who after more than a century successfully organized for the establishment of the cultural center. the property is eligible under three architecture is example of the style designed by the master architect. the period of significance under criteria one is 1971-73. 750 kearney street the character defining features include the draft e.i.r. generally consist of location and footprint of the building. additionally the connection from 750 kearney street to the ports mouth squire by the bridge is a character feature.

the bridge is at the kearney street entrance. in addition to the character defining feature the bridge is also an individually eligible resource for the purposes of ceqa. the organization that stanlished the chinese cultural center secured the city's department of public works and worked with the parks department to construct an elevatessed pedestrian bridge to conduct the cultural center to ports mouth square. this allows the hotel and cultural center to maintain separate entries. like the building the bridge is significant under one for association with the chinese world in chinatown. it is significant as a connection between the chinese cultural center and community. under three the bridge is significant as unique and representative example of the

style and rare construction sites of pedestrian bridge. the bridge is significant for location with master architects. the period of significance under one and three is 1971, the year of the bridge's construction. the comprehensive list of character defined features is included in the draft ei r. generally the forms and finishes associated with the stylin' concluding the reenforced construction along the structural girders. the access of the square are key features of the use of the hotel. now moving on to briefly discuss the proposed project. as karen noted, it was with all of the features with the

exception of restrooms and elevators and parking garage. it would include the kearney street pedestrian bridge. the proposed project including landscaping and children's playground and fitness. to reference the former location of the pedestrian bridge it would incorporate a park over look on the south side of the new clubhouse with differentiated paving treatment. the kearney street bridge would be demolished and removed to the extent of the bridge support columns on the east side of the street to support the terrace area and staircase. bridge demoution would result in. [ inaudible ] the draft e.i.r. concluded the design of proposed park

renovation and new clubhouse will be compatible within the setting and character of the square and with the proposed design will not materially impair the national register for chinatown district. because the project would demolish the bridge it would cause unavoidable impact. the proposed project would result in substantial change on the individual historic resource at 750 kearney street under criteria 1 and the bridge under both one and three. this is determined to be a project level significant unavoidable impact due to the proposed budget to demolish the bridge spanning kearney street and would remove the physical and symbolic connection between

hotel and chinatown. it is the chinese culture center. three mitigation measures are identified for impact to the architectural resources resulting from the proposed project. first the sponsor to undertay documentation and redio of -- video. second the span and third a public interpretive program including oral history to result in a permanent display of interpretive materials concerning history and architectural features of the resource. while there would reduce impact, this impact would remain significant unavoidable. to address this significant unavoidable impact of the

proposed project the draft e.i.r. analyzed three alternatives to the project. alternative a. no project. b, preservation. c, partial preservation alternative. preservation alternatives were developed in consultation with h.p.c. whose members provided feedback during the june 16, 2021 hearing. they found the alternatives represented a reasonable range for the analysis and would avoid or reduce significant impact of the project on historical architectural resources. they noted the full preservation alternative could be more successful if you the existing bridge better formulated with the redesigned park. the team took the suggestion under consideration and explored

potential design solutions for greater compatibility. options architectural elements for the bridge, incorporating more rock and concrete to the park design. the summary of the solutions is provided in the draft e.i.r. under the new project alternative there would be no modifications to the existing resource. project site would remain as is as would the character design features of the subject property. this no project alternative would reduce to less than significant level it would not meet objectives. moving to the full preservation alternative. under this alternative the park would be renovated to retain the bridge while setting back the 1.

similar to the proposed project the full preservation alternative would allow substantial renovation of the conveyor including the new design and children's playground. under the alternative all of the character defining features of 750 kearney and the pedestrian bridge worry tained including independent access to the chinese culture center. it would neat most of the project checks. this would the not result in significant unavoidable impact related to demolition of historical resource. lastly, the partial preservation alternative. the park renovation would be the same as the proposed project. save for the addition of new

overlook structure at the former location. the structural concrete columns and framing of the overlook would reference the materials and style of the kearney street bridge without the design of the new clubhouse of the proposed project. under this alternative the new clubhouse design and children's playground of the proposed project worry tained. partial preservation alternative would meet the basic objectives. under this alternative symbolic connection between the square and the culture center would be retained. the physical connection between the ports mouth square and center would be left. resulting in unavoidable impact. same mitigation measures would be required for this

alternative. one of the basic purposes of ceqa is to inform the public of the potential environmental effects of the project. this highlights the community outreach the environmental division conducted. in september 2020 the materials were translated into chinese and mailed with the english to the department's distribution list and the occupants near the project site and interested parties. april of 2021 under a b-52 the american indian representatives of the study. in august 2021, the draft e.i.r. distribution the department staff created two page summary

of the draft e.i.r. that was distributed and posted at the project site in english and chinese to explain the purpose of the e.i.r. and direct members of the public on the environmental planning web page. to conclude i would like to remind every public hearing on the draft e.i.r. before planning commission on september 9, 2021. to respond to the final e.i.r. comments must be submitted at the planning commission hearing or in writing to the e.i.r. for the proposed project at the e-mail on the screen. comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on september 20, 2021. in other words, comments heard by public commentators today

will not be responded to in the e.i.r. process. after the planning commission hearing the planning department will publish response which will contain responses to all comments on the draft e.i.r. we anticipate publication in late 2021 or early 2022. followed by e.i.r. certification hearing in 2022. this is the opportunity for the h.p.c. to comment on the adequacy of e.i.r. including description, proposed mitigation and alternative presented. commission comments will be responded to in response to comments document. staff is available to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you, michelle. we will now open this item up to public comment.

members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on item by pressing star 3. when your line is unmuted that is your indication to speak through the chair you will have two minutes. >> go ahead, caller. >> my phone was muted. thank you, commissioners. i am amy. a planner at the chinatown community center. i am here for open space and recreation in chinatown with a

long history of active in communities in chinatown renovation of open spaces. members include community child care providers and staff in chinatown community center and head start. we strongly support removal of the pedestrian bridge over kearney street. it has outline lived public life and must make use for new vision for the scare which was designed for residents and park users and the community including 8 years community engagement, correct projected youth studies and planning and design. removal will result in 20,000 new feet of park space and 8,000 square feet of indoor space. chinatown is most densely

populated west of manhattan. as well as one of the highest poverty rates in the city. many residents are elderly live in very cramped living conditions. expansion of outdoor space is crucial for chinatown seniors, residents, families. removal will add sunlight and expand uses of public spaces. bridge is ill conceived design. outdated architecture typical of the redevelopment period on chinatown not dedicated to the public purposes. the gates are often closed and no remuneration to the city or public for the existing private street bridge. in short, this has the support to remove the bridge to allow

new vision of ports smith square and -- ports mouth square. thank you. >> last call for public comment. members of the public if you wish to speak on this item please press star 3. seeing no further callers. public comment is closed. commissioners the item is before you. >> thank you, laura. commissioner foley. >> i have a quick comment. i want to say what the planner said. everything she said was spot on. i really look forward to the bridge being gone. thank you so much. >> commissioner black.

>> thank you. i wanted to start by talking a little bit about the architecture. i am a fan of the architecture. i have to say that this building has such a strong presence. it does not need this bridge to continue its presence. i found the comments really compelling about how important it was to provide additional outdoor space and sunlight for members of the community. this bridge is no longer used much, it can't easily be adapted to new use. based on extensive community input, it doesn't provide any functional benefits specially when there are public safety

concerns. these reasons along with the bridge's lack of functionality are with the proposed plan really for me reasons that could be included in the statement of overriding considerations. my preference is for the projector the partial preservation alternative as you all no, we the planning commission in joint meeting asked us to express our preferences via e.i.r.s. those are mine. i want to note that it is an important location in the san francisco history and especially because the chinese have been at this location since the 1850s. a very engaged community has successfully advocated for the current project but more importantly for the proposed features at ports mouth square.

i support the changes. my preference is for the projector secondarily for the partial preservation alternative. >> commissioner johns. >> thank you. the question before us is one of adequacy. does the proposed e.i.r. adequately analyze the project and the alternatives? i think that it does. i think that really that is about as far as we need to go. although the planning commission did at one point ask for the h.p.c.'s observation on various alternatives. my preference would be for the project itself. that is my comment. thank you.

>> commissioner wright. >> yes, i have a question. i noticed in the summary of the draft environmental impact report that it under alternative b for the full preservation alternative it describes the clubhouse would be smaller at about 4,000 square feet but the preservation alternative that was just presented in the slide show said it would be 6551 square feet in the preservation alternative. i would like clarity on which one is correct. >> thank you, commissioner wright. we did find that the other day.

i apologize for that. the correct number is 6651 square feet for the partial preservation alternative clubhouse. i apologize for the confusion. >> thank you. i would like to say i understand the community's comments. i think that what we are thinking about here is preservation of resources. it seems to me on the information that ms. taylor provided really the clubhouse is only smaller by 21% from the proposed project. it is still four times larger than the current size. i think that is something that should be considered.

i do know that you are losing some outdoor space, but that would be the impact on the square footage of the clubhouse itself. one other thought that i had was that there is description of the documentation as potential mitigation. i wonder if it should be or has been considered to do any kind of high resolution laser scanning that would allow for potential future virtual reality experience or other capabilities that we are not thinking about at this point? >> thank you.

did you want to comment about what commissioner wright just shared with us? >> yes, we will include that in response to comments document and will consider that as a additional aspect of that particular documentation mitigation measure. >> commissioner nageswaran. >> i support the full project alternative. similar to commissioner black, i feel that the bridge itself does not have to be there for the hotel. just as an entity. the community really needs outdoor open space. removing the bridge seems like a good idea only because i think all of us have walked under that bridge and there is all kinds of

safety reasons why you don't want to walk under that bridge. definitely in terms of just overall benefit it seems that the full project alternative is something to support. thank you. >> ms. taylor, did you want to add any comments? >> i woe like to -- i would like to clarify. do you mean to say you prefer the proposed projector the preservation alternative? >> the full preservation alternative includes the bridge with the 15-foot set back and proposed project is the project proposed without the bridge. i want to clarify. >> proposed project. sorry.

thank you. >> commissioner so. >> thank you for the presentation and also a very complete package of information. we have seen this project coming before us maybe just last month. then a lot of community input. i just looking at the history of the evolutions of ports mouth square from day one, new hotel and the same community people lobby and get together to create these infrastructures. now it is also in our current day of history it is also the same community people holistically decided what is the best for the present and future use of the environment for this

area for chinatown. it is a living history that i personally felt very strongly supportive of this that everybody get together and evolve where a solution to better serve their community to address and mitigate safety and risk issue and how they can position them serves for the future. it is tough to review and evaluate. it has significant historic impact to what was there back when it was built in the '70s -- i forgot the years. i support the proposed project with the respect on the understanding that there will be a very detailed, like

commissioner wright was saying high level digital documentation if it is available to us to have that immersionsive experience to what it is like like now and be available in the history stories that tell what it was, the evolution of it. like a more newer version of three dimensional experience that hopefully people can understand in the community center as a mitigation alternative. i support the proposed project. >> thank you. commissioner wright. >> yes, i would just like to respond to the fellow

commissioners comment about the hotel reading is a strong brutal expression and the hotel does not need the bridge to continue to read that way. i agree with that but i would point out the bridge itself is eligible individually separately from the hotel. that was one point i wanted to make. i would like to also just clarify that on the record that i feel like the report hope here is adequate in its review of various alternatives. the range and mitigation. i would like to voice my support

for the full preservation alternative followed by the partial preservation alternative. >> thank you. i just wanted to make a few comments as well. i appreciate what commissioner wright said about the bridge being individually eligible. ms. taylor, i think your report was very good in that it was clearly definitely beyond adequate. it was well thought out. i appreciate your clarity afternoon presentation today. it gives us all a very clear picture what will happen. i appreciate the report from the department of rec and park. that was very helpful. i did have some comments. i know that we shouldn't

typically comment on things outside our world of cultural and historical history. when ms. rupert made the presentation she did reference that chinatown or the state is known as gold mountain in chinese. it is my understanding that it is san francisco that is known as gold mountain in chinese. the character is gold and mountain. first to california, not california. because of the historic history of why san francisco is referred to in chinese as gold mountain. since this project objective is to be sensitive to cultural and historical settings.

there was amonged a bonsai. it is japanese term referring to greenery. it comes from the chinese culture but i would prefer the clarity on that to make sure we represent the chinese culture and history in this project. there was reference on the hier as a footnote about staff disagreeing with arg's conclusion. i also agree with staff's disagreement. the conclusion that the bridges association with the two master architects is not significant. i think it is very significant we had two very important chinese architects on this project. to this day and this was done 50 years ago.

there are very few persons of color who represent the architectural world. it was intentional and important to make sure that members who were of chinese descent were involved in the signing process for their community. i agree with what staff's disagreement of the master architect. final comment. we had one member of the public commenting today and somebody submit public comment, both voices are representative of the community. i would just like the record from the hbc to note we took those comments seriously in providing our comments to the planning commission. those are my final comments. anybody else have any additional

comments they would like to ask ms. taylor to note for the planning commission as they review this e.i.r.? commissioner so. >> thank you for acknowledging the importance of minority architects. their work anniversary fort especially we have two chinese architect designing the bridge and also the hotel. that was something that in itself is significant. i am one of them and i know how hard it is to get a license because of the color. especially in the '70s. thank you for putting that on the record and thank you, staff to disagree with the professional report. i really appreciate that and that is what i wanted to

emphasize. >> if there is no further discussion i will close is item. this now concludes your agenda today. i want to thank you all and have a nice afternoon. >> i want to make sure ms. taylor has enough information to go forward to share with the planning commission. >> i do. thank you very much. >> wonderful. thank you. we are adjourned, is that correct? yes. thank you all. thank you.

>> we worked very hard with the san francisco venue coalition, the independent venue alliance to advocate for venues. put this issue on the radar of the supervisors and obviously mayor breed. the entertainment commission and the office of small business and we went to meetings and showed up and did public comment and it was a concerted effort between 50 venues in the city and they are kind of traditional like live performance venues and we

all made a concerted effort to get out there and sound the alarm and to her credit, maybe breed really stepped up, worked with matt haney, who is a supervisor haney was a huge champion for us and they got this done and they got $3 million into the sf venue recovery fund. >> we have represented about 40 independent venues in san francisco. basically, all the venues closed on march 13th, 2020. we were the first to close and we will be the last to reopen and we've had all the of the overhead costs are rent, mortgage, payroll, utilities and insurance with zero revenue.

so many of these venues have been burning $1,000 a day just to stay closed. >> we have a huge music history here in san francisco and the part of our cultural fab lick but it's also an economic driver. we produce $7 billion annual' here in san francisco and it's formidable. >> we've been very fortunate here. we've had the department of emergency management and ems division and using part of our building since last april and aside from being proud to i can't tell you how important to have some cost recovery coming in and income to keep the doors open. >> typically we'll have, three

to 400 people working behind the teens to support the show and that is everything from the teamsters and security staff and usualers, ticket takers, the folks that do our medical and the bar tenders and the people in the kitchen preparing food for backstage and concession and the people that sell key shirts and it's a pretty staggering amount of people that are out of work as a result of this one verne you going tarkanian. it doesn't work to open at reduced capacity. when we get past june 15th, out of the into the blue print for our economy we can open it it 100% and look at the festival in full capacity in october and we're just so grateful for the leadership of the mavor and

dr. coal fax to make us the safest ♪ america and this is been hard for everybody in san francisco and the world but our leadership has kept us safe and i trust them that they will let us know when it's safe to do that. >> a lot of people know about america is military stuff, bullying stuff, corporate stuff. when people like me and my friends go to these foreign country and play music, we're giving them an american cultural experience. it's important. the same way they can bring that here. it sounds comfy buyia, you know, we're a punk band and we're nasty and we were never much for peace and love and everything but that's the fertilizer that grows the big stuff that some day goes to bill graham's place

and takes everybody's money but you have to start with us and so my hope is that allel groups and people make music and get together because without out, hanging together we'll hang separately, you know. >> other venues like this, all over the place, not just in the san francisco bay area need to exist in order for communities to thrive and i'm not just talking about the arts communities, even if you are here to see a chuckle bucket comedy show and you are still experiencing humanity and in specific ways being able to gather with people and experience something together. and especially coming out of the pandemic, the loss of that in-person human connection recovering that in good ways is going to be vital for our entire society. >> it's a family club. most our staff has been working

with us for 10 years so we feel like a family. >> what people think of when they think of bottom of the hill and i get a lot of this is first of all, the first place i met my husband or where we had our first date and i love that and we love doing weddings and i expect there to be a wedding season post 2021 of all the make up we haddings and i hope that many people do that because we have had so many rock ep role weddings. >> i told my girlfriend, make sure you stand at the front of the stage and i can give you a kiss at midnight. at this got down on one knee at the stroke of midnight. it wasn't a public thing, i got down on one knee and said will

you marry me and is he she had are you [beep] kidding me and i said no, i'm dead serious and she said yes. we were any time homicideel of the show. we just paused for new year's eve and that was where i proposed to my wife. this is more than just a professional relationship it's more than just a relationship from a love of arts, it's where my family started. we'll always have a special place in my heart. >> venues, you know, represent so much. they are cultural beckons of a city. neighbors can learn and celebrate and mourn and dance together. venues and arts and culture are characterized as second responders to crisis and they provide a mental health outlet and a community center for people to come together at and it's the shared history of our city and these spaces is where

we all come together and can celebrate. >> art often music opens up people to understanding the fellow man and i mean, taz always necessary and if anything, it's going to be even more necessary as we come out of this to reach out and connect with people. >> we can sustain with food, water and shelter is accurate and does anybody have a good time over the last year? no. >> san francisco is a great down. i've been here many years and i love it here and it's a beautiful, beautiful, place to be music and art is key to that. drama, acting, movies, everything, everything that makes life worth living and that's what we've got to mow proteasome no san francisco and that's what is important now.

[♪♪♪]