>> this is the san francisco historic commission hearing. there is a local state of emergency related to covid-19. on may 29, 2020 the mayor's office authorized all hearing remotely. it reekiers your attention and patience. to enable public participation sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live. we will receive public comment for each item on the agenda. comments or opportunity goes to speak during the public comment period are available by calling 415-655-0001 entering access code (146)832-9595. when we reach your item, press

star then 3 to be added to the queue. when your line is unmuted that is your indication to speak. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your time is reached i will announce your time is up and take the next person to speak. best practices call from quiet location, speak clearly and slowly. mute the volume on your television or computer. i would like to take roll. commissioner black. >> here. >> commissioner foley. >> present. >> commissioner i don't think so. >> here. >> commissioner nageswaran. >> here. >> commissioner so. >> here. >> commissioner wright. >> here. >> and commission president

matsuda. >> here. >> this takes us to general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except for agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity will be afforded when the item is reached. in the meeting each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. members of the public you can press star 3 to be added to the queue and you will have two minutes to speak. we have one speaker. caller, it is your time to speak. you have three minutes.

>> hi, it is bridgett maley regarding the golden gate valley library. the report which i submitted over a year ago and i just wanted to get an update on where it is in review at staff level or if staff has a recommendation to go forward. it is a reminder called in a couple times. i did notice recently that the one window broken at the front of the library has been fixed. happy to see that. anyway, i would appreciate an update when someone has a chance. thank you. >> last call for general public comments. we have one more.

>> hello. i am calling in support of the project in the bayview-hunters point. [ inaudible ] >> it looks like they dropped off. i believe that caller may have been confused. i am going to mute your line. you are wishing to speak on the 900 inness project, is that correct? >> yes. >> that will be called during the regular calendar item. please call back then. >> thank you. >> last call for general public comment. no additional callers, general public is closed. we can move to department matters. 1. announcements. any members of staff that wish to speak to the commission

today? >> yes director of planning. i want to give an update. we have our end of summer college internship presentations next week starting on monday, the 23rd, and continuing on the 24th and 25th. we have a bunch of interns this summer between five and six presentations each day. we encourage all commissioners to tune in and listen to our fabulous end of summer presentations. that is the only update that we have. thank you. >> thank you, liz. if there are no questions for the department we can move to commission matters. item 2. president's report announcements. >> no reports or announcements. i would like to see if staff could follow up on our general public comment call about the status of the golden gate library.

thank you. >> we are happy to follow up. i believe we may have a status update. we are working on it. if you have more specific timing updates available? >> i do. forgive me if i don't put on my video. this could be part of our next meeting as well, if you just want to give a general update of all. i don't know when we are scheduled for the official report of the status of landmark designations. you might want to wait until then if that is more convenient for you. >> i think we have general sense it will be coming in september

for initiation. i can update you further at the next meeting. my understanding that it is on board for the fall. >> great. thank you. >> if there is no further announcements, this takes us to item 3. consideration of adoption of draft minutes for the historic preservation hearing august 4, 2021. we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on the minutes by pressing star 3. seeing no members of the public wishing to speak on the minutes, this item is closed to public comments. the item is before you. >> motion to approve. >> thank you, commissioners. there is a motion and seconded to adopt the minutes. commissioner black.

>> yes. >> foley. >> yes. >> johns. >> yes. >> nageswaran. >> yes. >> so. >> yes. >> commissioner wright. >> yes. >> commission president matsuda. >> yes. >> thank you, commissioners that motion passes 7-0 unanimously. this will take us to commission comments and questions. >> an i believe commissioner nageswaran did you want to make a commission comment or did you have a question? >> one disclosure. i spoke to a member of turnbull this morning to release questions i will be bringing up so they would be able to prepare answers to those questions. >> on an agenda item. >> yes, two items on the agenda.

900 inness. >> commissioner foley, did you want to make a disclosure? >> i had a conversation with park and rec. they went through the presentation on the cattage 900 inness with me on monday. >> commissioner so. >> thank you, commissioner president. i do need to make similar announcement i had a conversation with park and recand representative regarding the cottage at 900 inness street. >> commissioner johns. >> well, i did have a conversation with rec and park on 900 as well. >> commissioner black. >> as did i. conversation with park and recon

900 innes avenue. >> i think all of us had the conversation as well as myself. >> that takes care of commission comments and questions. >> if there are no further comments or questions by commission we can move to consideration of items proposed for continuance. at this time will are no items proposed for continuance. we will move to the regular calendar. item 5. 2020-009076coa. 900 innes avenue. request for certificate of appropriateness. on april 7, after hearing and closing public comment this was continued to may 5, 2021. without a hearing continued on may 5, june 2, june 16 and july 21 was continued to today. i do understand there may be a

request for recusal on this matter. >> jason wright requesting recusal on this matter as well as following item. 900 inness and 130 townsend. i am involved in the projects. >> i move the commissioner be recused for both items. >> second. >> is the city attorney online here? andre are you here? >> yes, i am here, commissioner. >> if you could clarify. does commissioner wright, can he recuse himself on both items at one time or does he need to come back when that item is before us to recuse on that as well? can you clarify for me? >> he could do it either way.

>> okay. >> getting back there is a motion to recuse commissioner wright for both agenda items and a second. >> thank you, president matsuda. there is a motion seconded to excuse commissioner wright. >> commissioner right. >> yes. >> foley. >> yes. >> johns. >> yes. >> nageswaran. >> yes. >> so. >> yes. >> commissioner black. >> yes. >> commission president matsuda. >> yes. >> on that motion commissioner wright has been recused. please log out and monitor the hearing on sfgovtv and log back in when the items are complete.

please fileness paperwork with the ethics commission. >> thank you. >> we have a presentation. >> are you prepared to make the presentation? >> yes. >> can you hear me okay. >> yes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. alex west off department staff. the item before you is request for certificate of appropriate necessary for the property at 900 inness, the cottage is planning code article 10 landmark 250 located in public zoning district. constructed 1875 as component of the working class settlement of the ship builders and is one of the oldest structures with the association. the resident dense including

ship siding and wood windows and front façade features. bracketted window sills and upper tran some panels. the project as outlined in the case report includes rehabilitation to serve as welcome center and community classroom with the new india basin shoreline park. restoration for character features including front wood windows, doors meeting accessibility requirements added to the first floor in the area of the removed nonhistoric addition. to the basement where an existing nonhistoric door and window will be removed. new casement window will be added to the south façade. interior work includes removal of partition walls.

the first floor rehabilitated and detailed to show historic arrangement of walls and rooms as part of interpretive program. staff has determined the proposed work will be in compliance with article 10 of the planning code and the secretary of interior standards. it respects the actectural and cultural significance and repairs character features does not increase the building footprint. staff recommends approval with conditions. pursuant to the 2004 landmark report the significance of 1875-1930. it describes features of the building that should be preserved including the rustic siding, front entry and general gable roof. furthermore the 2017 india basin

historic resource evaluation part one and two were completed. besides the features identified in the landmark nomination additional features were character defining including arrangement of the interior spaces and the sloping lot. these do not contribute to landmark status. historic preservation was to comply with e.i.r. and preservation plan is requirement of the e.i.r. since the project was last brought in april, the cafe was removed from upper level. the interpretive element have been identified along with ideas and precedence what the display would look like on the subject property, specific on chimney restoration and dimensions and

alignment of window closed to closely match the historic façade window. the historic window on the side restroom will be replaced. more details on the replacement door provided. since the last hearing five public comment letters have expressed support for the incorporation of the space to honor the india basin history. they will make a presentation. first i will pass to park and recreation staff member charlene and followed by sarah. >> thank you so much, alex. i have a presentation for you.

>> can you see the screen? >> yes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your patience. i am charlene. i am the project manager with rec and park. i wanted to give background and

context for the vision for the larger india basin waterfront park project. in 2014 we acquired the cottage to transform to waterfront park to address environmental contamination, rehabilitate cottage annual close the gap in the bay trail network. 2015 along with other waterfront property owners rec and park engaged the community to understand programming priorities. in which we heard art, history, culture, recreation, resiliency and environmental justice as core areas of focus. in 2019 led by community

partners we began the equitable development planning process. through this once in a lifetime opportunity we could address community concerns heard around displacement and gentrification and this could serve as kang korfor the community. series of strategies and commitments, this will help guide investments within and around the park to uplift the physical, economic and social capital within the community and we are proud of their work. i want to pass it along to sarah to address your comments and feedback from earlier this year and to touch upon some of the historical aspects of the building and the interpretation elements. >> thank you. as alex introduced the rehabilitation for the cottage will rehabilitate the character features identified in the

landmark designation including rectangular volume, front gabled roof, horizontal siding, decorative features at the windows and doors, historic wood windows and trim, exposure of the basement at the rear of the building facing india basin. masonry chimney with corner boards. shed roof rear additions constructed prior to 1900. since we joined the project in 2015, we continued to perform additional documentary research, physical investigation to cooberate and identify to to be preserved. we identified the interior spaces as a character feature not included in the landmark designation but design will retain the physical record of

that arrangement. we identified features noncontributing because they were alterations made after the period of significance including infill at the front windows. the door on griffith street southeast. window and door on the northeast facing india basin, and the addition closest to innes avenue on the northwest elevation. other features of the north east to northwest elevations have insufficient documents and physical evidence to inform the restoration including doors of the north east façade, two windows of the first floor, roofing materials, blind door on the northwest façade that is locked by the interior stairs. no known photograph of the rear

of the knowledge with suffer details to confirm appearance of the features on the northeast façade. as alex said we located the alterations in the areas for nonhistoric alterations removed where there is insufficient evidence of the appearance during the period of significance for restoration. this approach allows us to maximize restoration of the character defining features and meeting the program requirements. all new windows and doors will be wood-framed. in response to the size alignment and desales are to the historic features and to differentiate with the performance. it is to provide natural light, welcoming environment from community, visual connection to the park and india basin.

refinement to the character defining features include replacement of the west-facing west room based on analysis of historic photographs, the left addition. stove pipe also based off the historic photographs and new front door based on remnants of the historic door replacing the upper panels for more inviting entry for the community. you will be connecting to the exterior. in response the commissioner feedback the intear your program is revised and refined. an the rear of the building we have the basement doors to provide nor inviting interior space and connection to the shipyard and park beyond.

refinements to the interior include primary program the third floor explanation of history. desk to greet visitors and limited retail of merchandise. staff office will also provide access to mechanical equipment in the attic. it will include media and artifacts during the project. many of the interior from the period of significance will be retained and restored including window, front door trim and woo. the historic construction will be shown. interpretation of the site and community history will below indicated at interpretive

displays throughout the park shown on the next slide. we thank you for your time and attention. staff and i would be happy to answer any questions you may have about this project. thank you. >> we will open the item up to public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star 3. through the chair you will have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your service to the city and county of san

francisco. i am linda richardson. i am a long-time resident of india basin and also a member of the india basin neighborhood association. i wrote a letter to you earlier. i am here today to join my neighbors and the community at-large to ask for special dedication of space inside the cottage to honor the history. why this is extremely important. as you can see the commission have invested a lot of effort over the decades to make sure the cottage before you today was not destroyed. india basin is an emerging beautiful community in san

francisco. this dedication of space, telling the history of that space for educational and tourism purposes will help us to document the history of india basin and the important role that the ship played in the history of the space. we would like to thank alex and charlene for their work on this bringing this forward today for their wonderful presentation. i will go on record to invite all of you commissioners to come to india basin. you will find it all beautiful. we are not dubyet. it is going to be a joy in san francisco. we would like to thank you in advance for your approval today. thank you so much.

we appreciate your work. >> hello. can you hear me. >> yes, you may begin your presentation. >> go ahead, caller. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am chica, bayview hunters resident and young entrepreneur. i am in full support of the project. it is important to preserve history. a lot of my peers

want to know more about the history of the cottage. thank you. >> i am michael hammond, long-term member of india base senand working to make sure this cottage was preserved. the reason we all worked so hard to get it made to a landmark and preserve it not because it is unique architectural feature of the city. there are more beautiful buildings, to be sure. it is because of what happened here. it is because of the significance of the boat building industry and the impact that had on the development of the entire bay area. it was a mac truck for

generations before the bridges were built. it carried commerce up the rivers to sanho say. most boats were built in india basin by working class individuals, small entrepreneur boat building businesses and many great vessels were constructed here. alma, smoker, etc. it is imperative this story be told. when i moved here there were a great many visual remnants of this industry still existing. water tower and sheds. they are all torn down. there is nothing left but this cottage. it is imperative that this cottage the last remaining element of the entire era be the focus of telling the story for

future generations. please make it as a condition of your approval that the main floor of the cottage be used for an interpretive center of the history of india basin from the days of the indians through the boat building industry to the present day of the neighborhood, growth of the neighborhood. this history is important to tell. it is unique. it is critical to the history of san francisco and this is the last chance to make it happen. >> thank you, caller. that is your time. >> good afternoon. i am jackie flynn, executive director of the a. philip randolph institute of san francisco. i am also the equitable

development plan manager for the india basin park development effort to lead a planning effort for the development plan that charlene mentioned earlier in the presentation. this plan has been responsive to my community, you know, although we plan for the future we leverage every opportunity to explore equitable development now. we have gone through over a year long process coordinating with community leaders and organizational representatives to develop strategies and commit comments that go beyond the park and address larger social issues my community faced for many years. i am here to ask your support to approve theser typical of approval and echo what my community members say how

important it is to retain our history and tell that story so the younger generation know how important this shoreline has been for the larger community. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am curt grimes. i am the program manager for the a phillip randolph of san francisco coming to you live and in person from the india basin shoreline park project. i am definitely someone very much in favor of the project. i am someone in favor of maintaining the ship wright cottage. it is a gem that we need to maintain to preserve so that the community can still have a tie to the past. the past is where would come from, it sheds a light where we are headed. i encourage you in yoursertive

cal of approval to approval the cottage being maintained. thank you so much and i appreciate your time. >> good afternoon. first and foremost i would like to thank the commissioners for your service to city and county of san francisco. i am a native of san francisco and bayview resident since 19 0. i am a long time community leader in housing, education and promoting health and wellness in san francisco and nationally in 37 states and puerto rico. i am a business owner.

i currently serve in my community as member of the equitable development plan collective. this project is important because my family. i have a five-year-old and 6-year-old time and 11-year-old daughter. we come here to play and have celebrations. my family congregates to see each other in outdoor space. this is important to me because this adds a culture and that is important in bayview and so is the shipyard story as the two other folks before me mentioned. everything that makes bayview-hunters point what it is important. this cottage is part of that. i would love to learn about the history of it and my family and children to access it and know the history of it. i respectfully encourage you all

to approve the certificate of of approper yetness. >> i am jill fox. i lived across the street since 1992. i have worked along with my neighbors to get it declared a landmark to save it from bad development. i am working on the equitable development leadership committee to make sure the full story is told. most importantly, i am thrilled that i will be able to see a beautifully restored landmark from san francisco rather than the blight that my family and i have been looking at for decades. please i am in support of the te

certificate and telling the story of india basin to neighbors and visitors in the future. thank you. >> hello. >> are you there? please begin your public comment. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can. my name is oscar james native resident of hunters point. i played around the building 9 0 and the area. everything that everyone said

and hoping this project becomes historical landmark for our community for the young people to learn the history of their community and to be proud of it, how it helped build this whole bay area of california. also, i would like to make sure this building, all of the artwork and historical pictures and what have you be put into the building to tell the history by our community. i urge you to pass this. i have been on this committee for many years since we started. i just want to make sure you guys support this. this community needs to have the history of the native-americans and chinese here during the ship process in the yard. it is a lot of things the community needs to know about the history of our community.

thank you very much for your participation and hearing my story. thank you. >> i thank you for giving us this platform. i am a san francisco and bayview resident and community and environmental scientist. over the years one or the other and not separate from eke logical standpoint, the cottage not only holds historical artifacts but artifacts that show evolution through time. it is a time capsule that shows how this community has changed and become what it is today. having that piece is not only a learning tool for everyone but a piece that we can hold to our

ancestors in our community. thank you for giving us this space to speak. >> last call for public comment. members of the public if you wish to make a comment on this item, press star 3. no further speakers, this concludes public comment. commissioners the item is now before you. >> thank you, laura. we have some commissioners interested in making comments. commissioner foley. >> thank you, president matsuda. i was in the navy in 1985. in 1986 our ship was dry docked in hunters point bayview and i

went by this site. i moved in san francisco in 1987. i have watched that cabin get deteriorated. it is incredible what the city is doing to bring it back to life. more importantly what i am thrilled today is the community leaders that came on and spent time in the middle of a wednesday to talk how important this is for their community and what it means for them as a community and how the department and planning staff worked to bring this back to life. i am thrilled to support this. it is incredible the outpouring of the community today. thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioner

foley. commissioner black. >> i want to mention a few things for the record. i think it is kind of important here. this is a really important and rare structure. it is a landmark not just historic resource pursuant to ceqa. there aren't that many houses that exist prior to 1880. most of the ones we have are much bigger high style mansion like residences. there aren't very much small worker bee colleges like this. it is in the original location on a site in san francisco's important india basin wooden ships building. it is an important piece of the san francisco history. something else that characterizes this building. we have seen a lot of grass

roots and neighborhood involvement. the phenomenal neighborhood participation on this building. they have researched history of the wooden ship building here and other people who lived here and activities they have been involved in the neighborhood association, historical society and a bunch of individuals who spent the last 20 years working hard to make sure this knowledge survives. some of those people include people who have livered in the house and the descendent of the original builder. all of those neighborhood participants during the past 20 years i am quite convinced had

they not been involved the structure would not have survived. it is important what they have done. it is our responsibility to take it to the next step to make sure the history is well told in the welcome center with the signage and features proposed on the site. i am pleased to see development of detailed plans. every board fighting has a plan. which can be replaced and which can be repaired. retaining the original wooden floor which will naturally show where the original interior walls were in the proposed open space is a reasonable approach. we talked about retaining the walls at the last hearing. sometimes it is hard to find the

balance between preserved every feature. in this case all of the interior walls now create small wools. it creates a flexible plan for history displays. i think this proposal meets that balance. i am happy that in addition to attorneying about the history of the site the structure becomes part of a larger open space with recreational opportunities in this part of town. i am happy to see green displacement is considered. we don't want to make it harder to stay in the neighborhood. in a broad context this site will provide an connecting piece

to to pay trail. it is an extra hord trail throughout this area for residents. i think this has been studied with significant outreach and i am strongly in support of it. >> thank you. commissioner nageswaran. >> i echo commissioners foley and black. it is a great project. it is going to be an incredible addition to the shoreline of the city, especially on that side. i spent a little bit of time in the last month or so in the dogpatch area at one of the shoreline parks walking along. i saw an interpretive display of one of the factories which is an

amazing thing that i didn't know anything about. i can see all of the interpretation that could go here would be to, you know, what i was hearing in the public comment, also reading through the e-mails with the history of boat building, india basin, hunters point, the chinese camps, african-american community. i can see just the timeline of all of these different layered pieces of history being interpreted at the site inside or outside of the building. i really appreciate the designers and architects that put together all of the drawings, especially the

renderings. it is such a great visual help for a visual person to see everything and what it would look like. i think the overall everything it looks very compatible and, you know, i appreciated the incorporation and maybe you already had that in mind. you explained more about the repair of the flooring and that made a lot of sense to have the layout appear through that. knowing that the interior walls had gone through a lot of changes. you know, i think the interpretation of that property

could come through the displays and all of that. i still was wondering and i know the architects would have gone through a lot of thought process on this. it is not to say that my comment is right or wrong. it is more of a comment of do we need the side lights on the doorways? i feel like the door proportion looks very similar to the other historic doors, but when you add the side lights they become much wider especially the lower story. i know you are trying to get more light in there. at the same time the exterior is such a small building. that was one thing i still kind of came forward in my eyes.

other than that i appreciate all of the extraordinary design elements and expression of materials and all of that. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner johns. >> everything that i was going to say has been said so i won't say anything other than i support the project. thank you. >> commissioner so. >> i am with commissioner johns everything everybody said. i want to thank you for alex our staff for this project. i know it is a lot of hours and also park and rec. stacy and charlene. a lot of work understanding the agencies and also what the professional architects and community.

thank you for the great presentation. this is a no-brainer, great project. i appreciate all of the community calling in today and a lot of good memos. i am fully supportive of the project. i can't wait to see the ribbon-cutting. motion to approve. >> thank you. i do have one question for rec and park. i want to also echo and thank all of the members of the public for not only comments today but e-mails that they have forwarded to us. i was particularly interested and impressed with the youtube video created by the india basin neighborhood association. i want to ask rec and park staff if that could somehow be included as part of the interpretive panels or story

because you have some really important comments and important reflections that were part of that youtube. i think it would further enhance how important the ship wright cottage is to this particular area. two of the people who called in today during public comment talked about the dedication of space to the ship right history. i want to confirm that is what will happen. i want to public to rest assure that will be important and main part of the piece of the ship right cottage. somebody from rec and park can confirm that and whether the youtube video created by the neighborhood could be considered as part of the interpretive

display or interpretive history. >> resoundingly yes, we will incorporate it to work with the san francisco planning department staff to develop interpretive program strategy and scope along with the schedule for community engagement. once that is more defined and tightly understood we will begin that process. we are excited to go back to the community, collect the stories and histories across multiple decades and build that through the interpretive program. yes and yes. >> thank you. where we started a couple months ago to today we see great improvement. we appreciate you listening to our concerns making sure the history, even the word history and cultural resources are part

of your priorities. i really appreciate that. there was a motion. i wonder if there is a second. >> second. >> i see commissioner black wanted to make an additional comment. >> thank you. i just want to follow up on you mentioning bringing members of the neighborhood to the history. i found that video fascinating. particularly the ship right who spoke about it. if someone hasn't done an oral history with him, they should. i think there are opportunities to do oral histories with people in the neighborhood who can provide some color to what the neighborhood has been like over a number of years. i would encourage that to be an element. i thank the chair for bringing

it up. >> we have a motion and second. >> motion and second to approve the project with conditions. on that motion commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner foley. >> yes. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> commissioner nageswaran. >> yes. >> commissioner so. >> yes. >> commission president matsuda. >> yes. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passes 6-0. that will place us on item 6. 2019-023263coa at 130 town send street. request for certificate of appropriateness. alex are you prepared to make a presentation?

>> yes. hello again. once again, alex west off department staff. the item before you is certificate of appropriate necessary for 130 town send street. a contributor within the article 10 south and landmark district and soma office district. the existing structure is a double height one story brick building which extends the full 80 feet of lot frontage on townsend feet and 125 feet along stan ford with the remainder devoted to surface parking. constructed in 1906. it was owned by the sea captain who is credited as a pioneer in napa valley wine production. it includes 55 contributing

buildings one to multi story and reinforced warehouses and industrial buildings from 1867 to 1935. it includes four story addition to the historic resource and construction of adjacent five-story building on the 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. welcome to the w challenge. we will be here to celebrate women's equality day today. so, are you ready to celebrate! awesome energy and the sun is bright today. so now i