what is the extent -- what is the square footage extent of what is enlarged here? that's the question i think the department should always have as part of a submittal and this particular submittal does not give us that. >> thank you. >> commissioner koppel: i'll move to not take d.r. and approve the project. >> second. you can have a seat. thank you. >> jonas: if there is no other commissioner deliberation, there is a motion seconded to not make d.r. approval for the project as proposed. >> commissioner ruiz: no. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner koppel: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> president tanner: aye. so moved, commissioners that motion passes 6-1 with commissioner ruiz voting

against. that concludes today's hearing. >> thank you, everyone. >> we will adjourn in honor of the victims of the buffalo and the uvalde massacre. thank you.

>> good afternoon and welcome stot san francisco historic preservation commission hearing for june 1, 2022. in person and remote hybrid hearings require everyone's attention and most of all our patience. if you are joining remote low and not speaking mute your microphone. broadcasting and strolling this live and we'll receive comment for each item today. comments are opportunity to speak during the public comment period available by calling 415-sick 55-0001. we will take comment from persons in the chamber first and open up remote line.

speak clearly approximate slowly. state your name for the record. each will be allowed up to 3 minutes and when you are 30 seconds you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. il announce your time is up and take the next person. for those call nothing to submit testimony when we reach the item you are interested in press star 3 to be added to the queue. >> when you hear your line is unmuted, begin speak. call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and mute your television or computer. for those persons in person, line up on the screen side of the room. and we will take you in the order that you lined up. and for those persons in the chamber silence mobile devices that may sound off. why like to take role. commissioner matsuda. >> here.

>> commissioner nageswaran. >> here yoochl commissioner black. >> here >> commissioner black. >> present. >> commissioner johns >> commissioner sew and wright. >> here >> members may address the commission on items of interest in the jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with agenda items tell be arc afforded when the item is reach in the the meeting. each member may address the commission for up to 3 minutes. says 2. do i get 3 or 2. >> 3. >> good afternoon. ooem georgia i sent you an e mail the other day about a b 916. i will read it to you in a minute. i want to give you the history it was introduced in the assembly in february of 2021.

amended in april of 2021 and it was passed out in january 2022. and at the housing committee but was not it has a conflict with another bill. part that concerns mow is not the ad u. i think that anybody like you don't have to be a lawyer to read it. it says not with standing a law with respect to land zone the legislative body shall not adopt or enforce an oranges requiring a public hearing as a condition of adding space for additional bedrooms or reconfiguring existing space to increase the bedroom count. it was one bedroom that's what they changed. i don't know how this would affect you with the historic properties no longer qualify

under sb9 what about 950 lombard or 49 hob kins. what about 2417 green next door to the cox house. this is -- i mean unbelievable to me. i'm sorry vment unbelievable this was sitting around for over a year and nobody knew about temperature i knew because i read the d iv supporting documents for may and there it was. in a sum row that was from the california building officials. that's the history. i have a minute left i don't think i need to say anything the planning department is aware. dbi is. i contacted the bic and the board of appeals. but i think it is clear, if you i have a copy but you got a copy. you can find it ab916.

i don't know what will happen with the ab897 got the conflict. but it is from senator who is the king of ad u's and he is trying to get it worked out. could be heard in time in the next month. something to think about. thank you very much. last call for general public comment. the persons come forward or if you are call nothing remote press star 3. seeing no requests to speak, general public comment is closed. we can move on to department matters. and announcements. >> my apologies. [laughter] good afternoon commissioners rich department staff. [inaudible] update on your

landmark nominations moving forward through the board of supervisors. the clubhouse is pending signature with the mayor. at the full board. passing the first read was the mission cultural center for well tino arts and at the land use committee a landmark designation for the castro theatre was introduce anded landmark initiation. turk and taylor. the transgenderer site. that's all i have for our report. >> thank you. there are no questions move on to commission matters. item 2 president's report and announcements. we are a few items that need to be reviewed by the architectural review committee. we have not had. >> we have a separate line item after this. >> okay.

>> i don't have anything. >> very good. >> item 3 consideration of draft mantles may fourth of twoochl open up public comment. members of public you may address the commission on the minutes if you care to. for those persons in chamber come forward and calling press star 3. moved they be approved. thank you. on that motion to approve or adopt the minutes commissioner wright. >> yes. >> commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner foley >> aye. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> commissioner nageswaran. >> yes. >> and committee matsuda. >> yes. >> that passes unanimously and place this under item 4 commission comment and questions.

no requests to speak. commissioners we can move on hen to item 5. the architectural review committee appointments. i like to make the appointments to the architectural rerue committee. i asked vice president the service and chair of the committee and sit with commissioner nageswaran we are important items that will come up i knowledge within the next am couple weeks. we appreciate your support. a head's up to the new ash pointes we will have an item on june 15th. typically we held the review

committee before the regular agenda and so unless you hear different low we will need to do so. typically, if there is one item we start at noon. if are there are a couple we may start at 11:30. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> item 6. case 2021-009966 remote hearings. again commissioners none of you can attends in person weeds be forced continue the city's business remotely. you remember the public wish to speak. >> public comment is closed. which this is before you. motion ash proved. >> second. >> thank you, on that motion to

adopt a resolution to allow remote hearings commissioner wright. >> yes. >> black wrochl yes yoochl commissioner foley. >> aye. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> commissioner sew. >> yes. >> commissioner nageswaran. >> aye. >> commissioner matsuda. >> yes. >> that passings unanimously. krrgsz of items for conditionance at the time of issuance and there are none. we can move to the regular calendar. item 7. case 2019-00620emv housing element update. this is for your rerue and comment. note that public comment for this draft environmental impact upon report is from april 20, 22 until 5 p.m. on june 20, 22. eir rerue and comment for the public at planning commission on june ninth 2022.

>> lisa here with remote has a few introductions remarks she would like to make. >> can you hear me? we can. president matsuda and members. i'm lisa gibson environmental review officer for san francisco. i would like to introduce this item the draft environmental impact report for the housing element 2022 update. today allow the commission to consider comments on the eri. a hearing for public comment is scheduled at the planning commission on june 9, 2022, as jonas noted. the planning department published april 20 of 22. the purpose of the document is to inform government decision makers and the public about the

potential environmental impact of the housing element update. identify mitigation measures and alternatives prevent arc voidable environmental damage. document is culmination of 2 years of analysis conducted by staff at the assistance of other san francisco agencies including the city attorney's office and team of environmental consultants. the information we bring you today the outstanding work of the planning department's team includes elena and liz wait, chris kaern and justin. maggie smith. sally morgan and the city survey teamch also the community equity team with mia mall and shelly. and then the environmental consultant team. planning department distributed

copies including electronic copies to this commission and hard copy to the preservation officer. [inaudible] public review period begone on april 20. i like to correct the record that they will continue until 5 p.m. on june 21, 22. that is because june 20th is juneteenth and comment period am close on the following business day. the final is that this document is an eir used in the future to stream line environmental reviews for implementation measures such as revocabularying actions and establishment of housing sustainability districts and consistent with the housing element. with that i will turn it over to allison principal planner with plany for the presentation for

the historic analysis. thank you. >> good afternoon. allison, planning department staff. environmental review officer lisa noted the item is review and comment on the draft environmental impact report for the housing element 22 update. pursuant to san francisco local procedures for implementing the california environmental quality act. we are bring the ei rushgs the action would have a can iing cant impact on historical resources. commissioner members sent electronic copies includes a cultural research section. a preservation alternative and alternative section in volume 2 and cultural backgrounds materialless. today the department is requesting comments on the adequacy regarding historical resource.

the identification of historic resources the analysis of am impacts on historic resource. mitigation measure and preservation alternative considered. comments will not be responded to today but will be in the response to comments documents. i would like to reminds the commission the preservation alternative with an over view summary of the historic resource oonls was presented on october 20, 2021, for your rerue and comment. the hp c found it to be adequate. i'm joined by environmental planning team that including chris kaern, e lanea and housing team shelly and mia mall who are on remote and john from icf who drafted the cultural section remote. in the following presentationil briefly summarize the housing update to framing the ei r analysis. shelly presented the policies on

april 20. il give you an over view and the approach. i will discuss the historic resource a recollection and impact analysis followed by an over view of the mitigation measures. il present the resources and human remains impact analysis. not covered here travel cultural resources are analyze in the volume one of the draft. i will present preservation alternative and i will provide an over view of comments from this commission during the hearing last october and how they have been addressed. i will conclude with the schedule and next steps. moving on to the summary of the housing element in 22 update. the housing element is an update to the 2014 housing element for the general plan. housing element modify the

policies of the current housing elements. the housing element update. san front's first housing plan centers on racial and social equity. policies and programs that express the city's vision and values for the future of housing in san francisco. this plan identifies priorities for decision maker, guides resource allocations for housing programs and service. and defiance how and where the city should create now homes for san francisco. the housing element update is required by law to promote the development of housing units to meet the targets assigned every 8 years. >> in coordination with regional and local projections the election update would add 150,000 units by 2050. this is estimated higher than the existing upon 2014 element policies is anticipated to

accommodate in the same time frame. under the existing 2014 element, approximately 100 homes added by 2050 the update alone does not include planning code amendments. zoning changes or other implementing measures. the housing update would not authorize changes to zoning or other land use regulations or improve development projects. i will presently a general over view on the eir. as a housing element update will not authorize to zoning, land use or improve development project the update would not resulin director changes to the environment. the housing element would as a result in foreseeable changes. the department of adoption of the housing leadership would lead to future actions such as planning code amendments to

identify height limits on the corridors and modify density controls. designation of sustain ability districts and approval of development projects consistent with the goals, anthropologists and actions of the update. the eir analyzed the foreseeable environmental impacts of the actions that implement the goal and policies of the housing element update. the analysis in the eir uses a future condition as the environmental baseline against which impacts would be affected. why? because the action would be implemented over years special would be additive to the existing policies implemented under the 2014 element this uses future baseline rather than current condition. the 2050 base line is used it was determined an analysis on existing continues less

informative and misleading to the public. it analyzes an environmental baseline assumes a continuation of housing lamb policies and plans. the result the analysis of the environmental impacts is base on a comparison of growth under the housing element in 2050. 2 growth under the element 2022 update in 2050. i will discuss this in more detail shortly. the draft pop3s of 2022 housing element update seek to change the distribution of where housing growth would occur in the city under existing policies in alignment with state requirements. based on community out reach san francisco planning community team modeling of the city to reimagine the future of housing over the next 30 years to meet the goals.

the housing element update shifts an increase share of the city's future housing growth to transit corridors and residential districts in areas primaryly in the west and north parts of san francisco. as shown the action recommends promoting mall and mid rise multifamily development through height increases in corridors and modifying limits and low density area in yellow. the planning department conducted modeling to understand how updating it would change in san francisco. . this map shoes the growth and housing units between 2020 and 2050 under the housing element or the 2050 environmental baseline described in the eir. under the environmental baseline the majority of units are

projected to occur in the eastern half of the city. many of the units are part of pipeline projects or housing projects under construction. have entitlements or under going review at planning. examples of large are pipeline projects potrero, mission rock and balboa reservoir. under the housing element 2022 update. which is the 2050 proposed action. ment element 22 update assumes 50,000 more housing units in 2050 than the baseline. you will see there is growth in the eastern part of the city but more project the in the northern and western parts of the city. under the 2050 baseline 100,000 are projected occur in than san

francisco under the action 150,000 housing units projected occur inform this diagram the community between the 2 is the pipeline projects. this map shoes the anticipated change with the 2050 proposed action the house being element is updated and the baseline. in general in orange future actions with the housing element update which shift a share of the future housing growth to corridors approximate residential districts within resources areas in the west and north parts of the city. now they have given you an over view approach and action i will move to a discussion of the built environment historic analysis presented in the draft eir. for the built environment took

in consideration known built environment resources for the review. parcels in green. this is article 10 and 11 and districts national and california registered properties and districts. national andical cal register eligible properties and districts and other properties that qualify historical resources for review. after the identified built environment historic resources, the eir provides a built environment historic resource forecast aims to anticipate how historic resources will e involve over the element update policies through 2050. the forecast is present in the terms little percentage of parcels likely to contain resources by neighborhood smoen on the map in the slide. forecast is based on known

historic resource. of the prgsage of evaluated parcel in a neighborhood. cultural districts and enclaves in historic contact statements. a support the historic analysis and the draft provides an over view of the large benefitted work the department uses to identify historic resource. also explains the identification process including a summary of the sf survey and project review under ceqa. represents the likelihood under the housing element update takes in accounts individual environmental historic resources identified as of twenty 21. this map shoes the location of previously identified historic resources in districts shown in purple. and the projects difference in

housing unit growth with the 2050 environmental baseline and the action in orange. you seet majority of historic resources outside of the area where the housing element update shift new development in contrast to the baseline. the housing leadership etch have balance with recognition of san francisco's cultural heritage. the housing element update includes promotes and celebrates cultural heritage. goal 5 and draft policy 37 call for supporting cultural uses and architect that susstains dynamic cultural heritage. the element update policies provide general parameter for future development. individual resource could be demoed to accommodate new

housing. other ins stances existing buildings could be altered through rehab or additions. other future housing projects propose infill with historic districts. . could degrade a district's contnewt or individual resource setting. it is possible that future development aim to produce additional housing preserving or restoring the features of built environment and historic resource. >> the housing element update does not mandate that you will all future housing construction preserve historic resources that would arc void significant can impacts it is reason to assume that future projects demolish historic resources for denser forms of housing consistent with the housing u goalless of action. >> demolition alteration result in impairment of historic resources may occur in neighborhoods the housing

element update shift new development in contract to the baseline, eir determined the action would result in a significant adverse affect to built environment historic resources. eir unarc voidzable impact to historic resource. s based on the time historic resource and impact to that resource. the midgation measures geared to making modifications to projects to reduce historic resource through a process similar to developing alternatives or relocation and salvage programs.

mitigation measures include the traditional prep of [inaudible] drawings and photographs with video documentation and other digital documentation types. interpretation measures from the preparation of permanent on site displace community art work and may be informed by oral history to the development of events like walking tours or memorials. the measures include coordination with the citied with survey vment the mitigation measures reduce impacts to historic resources but not a less than significant can level. found that impacts to historic resources significant upon with mitigation. i will move on to archaeological resources and human remains considered historic resource pursuant to ceqa. >> soil disturbance with future development with the housing

element update has the potential to disturb human remains the potential for impacts higher in areas of elevated sensitivity for archaeological resources and vary with the location and density and the volume of soil excavation at project cites out leans sensitivity by planning district. analysis compares the distribution and density of future development with the proposed action to the 2050 baseline in relationship to archaeological sensitivity. the draft eir significant impacts to resources and human remains. mitigation measures in the draft include protection plans, investigation to recover data lost through future development.

public interpretation programs. cure alzheimer of cultural material and native american represents and other groups. the draft eir finds impacts to human remains less than significant with mitigation. move to discussing the alternatives. eir requires a range of aisles that meet most project objectives and impacts. studies including the no project alternative, housing development continue to occur under the goal policy and implementing measures of the housing leaderships. the east side automaticive. policies that would continue the development patterns in the city focus development on the east side. preservation alternative. and the disbursed groerth policies that direct growth to well resources neighborhood in

low density neighborhood everneighborhoods [speaking fast] in addition includes plan area 2050 the long range transportation and land use housing transgender for the bay area vment i will move on to the preservation alternative. >> the aim of the preservation alternative is to reduce impactos built environment historic resources meeting most of the housing element update goalless. the alternative away with historic resources compared to the mro posed action.

the draft policies revised under the preservation alternative aim to preserve built historic resources by protecting parcels with individual resources from demolition. promoting the use of secretary standards for rehab and development of parcels with historic resources and promoting development in historic districts to be compatible with the districts. >> the housing element eir tomorrows while the preservation would reduce to built historic resource [speaking fast]. to arc line with the objectives of the action and reduce impactos built environment historic resources the alternative redistributes units in the resourced areas to planning districts potential to accommodate future development without impactos historic resources. this analysis relied upon the

2050 forecast and a neighborhood historic [inaudible] analysis. the magnitude of the built environment historic resources guided refinement of the housing element update in the preservation alternative. this map shows the projected difference in the housing unit brogue and direct your attention under the alternative compapered to the 2050 baseline. the marina and western edition have higher concentrations of built environment historic resources compared to others in the well resources scombrars less housing growth projected under the preservation alternative than the proposed action. i want to end by summarizing the previous comments we heard from the commission about housing element eir and respond. as stated, the draft

preservation alternative brought to the commission last paul and the commission found the alternative is well thought out and accurate. preservation alternative analyzed in the eir is based on the alternative presented to this commission. cultural districts are included in the department's process for historic resource identification and the project of cultural districts factor in the resource forecast. the draft includes a range of historic mitt willgation measures many focus public interpretation. . the department has included the completion of the city suri have as an action in the housing element it is not includedsa a separate mitigation measure. the eir explain how ceqa review will cord nayed with sf survey and the measures provide sf [inaudible]. i will summarize next steps.

this slide shoes the mile stones for the plan and eir the plan returns early next year. the completed steps and next steps are shown here. review and comment on the draft will be the planning commission next week. the comment period on the draft eir closes june 21st. the certification hearing early next year. before i conclude i would like to reminds you in order to be responded to in the eir comments on the draft must be submitted at planning on june ninth or submitted in writing at the address or e mail shown here. comments submitted by 5 p.m. on june 21. 22. commentses made by members during this hearing will not be responded to. the item before you did not

require action but an opportunity to provide comments regarding the analysis of historic resources. in addition we will forward any comments to the planning commission prior to the draft hearing on june 9. we are available for questions you may have. questions and comments will be responded to in the response to comments document. thank you for your time. >> thank you. that concludes presentation open up public comment. members of the public that are in the chambers come forward. lineup on the screened side of the room. if you are calling remotely press star 3. i don't have a lot to say but i stumbles if i could have the overful head.

n is an, rated house on south vanys i see a plan that is proposed and that -- the proposal. i don't know if that will happen or could upon happen. i will not comment on it. i thought people should look at it -- the review is starting the other thing i say i'm a fan of section 3 but not applied properly. i think that is one way when that was put in the commissioner said that would preserve housing and preserve resources of the

house. and i am also a fan of the -- mediterranean revival house its is a u neefk style to san francisco. the over all affect of grouping. they were a huge part of infill in eastern neighborhoods and you see them in bernal heights and st. mary's park i hope that people will consider these and i wanted to raise that issue and that's it. thanks for the information. last call for public comment on this press star 3.

>> public comment is closed and the merit is before you. why thank you. why thank you very much allison for providing detailed and very extensive analysis about what we should be focussing on today in terms of comments and to be submitted to the planning commission for their next hearing is that correct. so i open it to the commissioners to make their comments and suggestions so we can incorporate in a document that the staff will be busy to work on for the -- remainder of this week special early next week. i see 2 who would like to comment. would you like to add other information before we share our comments with you. >> that's correct. comments will be recorded in the

staff letter. we will sends that to planning prior to hearing next week that will infurthermore comments. this was a lot of work. this incorporates more than what we consider.

scenariose of the baseline and the proposed. mission -- went down 1300 units.

and park site went up 16, 300 units. and it was fascinating to seat graphics of that. and then have that in the table and really show you know where our historic resources are and where the focus are going to be. and so that was helpful. and in the analysis of impacts, we do see a significant and avoidable impact. and -- on table 4.2-7 there are a number of pointses made for -- various types of projects. so the 1s that came to mind in terms of impact were -- new and compatible construction in the historic district.

alteration of individual resources inconsistent with the standardses. new infill construction. -- and for those 3 i think it said significant or less significant. but would they not be significant? and unavoidable? >> the less significant and significant is the example. yes. that makes sense. and similarly with the new construction with heavy equipment and building relocation, it talks about -- significant or less than significant and i thought, well, isn't it mitigatable may be you are not talking about mitigation

at that point yoochlt that table is to also prior to mitigation. got it. >> okay. >> that makes sense. >> okay. and as far as the mitigation measures. they were quite extensive and devoted to the historic resource. you had construction plan in monitoring and documentation of individual. building. public interpretation. oral history. context statements and community out reach. with such air comprehensive plan where we are developing along transit corridors, although these are contained within the areas they ascii the glares cumulative. and so i think one other thing came to mind which it may be in there somewhere that is burr ed

in there guidelines for new development so that we are creating new contexts that are considerate of history and i can also in the future we are novelty looking back at them. i think that would be helpful. and in terms of the alternatives, no project developing the east side preservation the growth and plan bay area. it was interesting to note that the no project and preservation had the least impact and preservation ashllowed for as many units as the proposed project. and yea. i was gravitating to those. at the same time the you know

only developing the east side did not seem right t. seemed like we would get congestion we need to have more breathing room in that but over all i'm impressed with all of the descriptions and the correlations and the depth of the analysis that was fantastic. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner black. once again. commissioner nageswaran got in ahead of me. i couldn't agree more that the comparison this comparison table was fascinating. it comparing the alternatives -- the preservation alternative which is intended within our scope of discussion to reduce impacts on built environments and historic resources is the only alternative that has similar.

alternative. quite a distinction in that respect can i request more detail on the timing of this approval and the city survey. you know we got the information on the eir. i'm not clear exactly when -- board of supervisors will take action or may be the board of supervisors don't take action. >> the eir is planed go for certification at planning early in 2023. dp you know the city wide survey is multiyear project. so -- to be clear is that as project review continues we will be in the field during of the

survey employs as that information come in that the inform project review. so we have historic resources that are identified in this document that the snapshot of 2021 -- but does in the mean as project reviews move forward we are tied not re source. as the survey updateses the historic resource information that will inform the review we do and once we are identified historic resource through the survey or the ceqa review process. wield determine project impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. >> that was what i assumed i wanted to be clear this is a problematic eir. many don't understand how massive this is. it is a massive project and massive document and has long range impacts on the city and i wanted to make sure that it was

clear how the city survey, which is not going to be done prior to this, would be affected, thank you very much. >> sure. >> thank you. commissioner wright? yes. my mic is on. >> so i had a similar question as commissioner black and just to confirm hathat the if the preservation alternative is selected that this would be prescriptive or a problem and properties or that are found to be historic in the future would -- be addressed in the same way. and that might change the

housing numbers in upon the ends? is that correct? but the mitigations and reviews would be -- driven in the same way? is that correct? or clear? let me rephrase the question are you asking about the preservation alternative if that was impelemented rather than the proposed action or in general about the proposed action? or both? >> good question. i was thinking about the preservation alternative but i think i guess any selected alternative or proposed action i'm curious how properties that are found through the city survey or otherwise would be addressd and may be this is your answer -- previously. would be the same process that

is laid out. that would be correct for the action or for the preservation alternative the difference with the progression projection alternative that would altder the policies to preserve historic resources along with projecting new housing growth >> so that is a bit of the change and then there is you know the modeling done for the action and the preservation aisle shifts the future housing growth to different areas of the city. and just a minor shift, really. compared to the action. butt same process would be followed. we would condition top do environmental reviews of projects, come in and determine if we had a historic resource identification. if not we would do that. as long as the project rose to a

level of needing that evaluation to be complete federal we have a historic recourse we review if it resulted an impact and if it did we have that whole range of mitigation measures available to us and as i explained we would not use all of the mitigation measures but a nexus with the type of historic resource it was if significant for architect or for cultural or both the mitigations would be differents and rely on what the proposed impact of the project was causing to that historic resource. does that make sense? >> it does. is there to be any future review by the commission on the eir? >> no. >> thank you.

commissioner johns. >> thank you. at this point, the comments that i was going to make were made. so i have one more. which is i think this is really a thoughtful and nuanced analysis and presentation of an extraordinarily large and complex situation. i think that everybody who worked on this should be commended i think that it is fair low and adequately hopes goos the per nan issues and problems and makes really well reason exclude thought out comments and approaches to them. >> i agree. and i really, realliment to thank the planning staff and all of you for being involved and putting very serious -- and considerate thought approximate this. i don't know if this -- is just

a totally different are document with historic resources and the analysis. it is a subject matter in the city and county of san francisco. >> i thank you for doing that. i don't believe we have further comments from the commission. >> very good. we can move on. item 8. case 2019-2212-04.

tea garden drive this san informational presentation. good afternoon, commissioners. monica with department staff. this is an informational presentation on the sky star observation wheel in golden gate park. i will provide an over view of the site before describing the discussion. the concourse in golden gate park is landmark 249 under article 10 of planning. it established part of the mid winter fair of 1894 is significant as an out door performance space important in san francisco history under crip tearian 1 for events and 3 for architecture as an urban pharmerica landscape for public performance and setting for art.

music concourse contributes to the golden gate historic district significant under 1 and low in areas of landscape, architecture and social history. >> concourse is classic with a series of paths issue tunnels and streets. the bowl is depressed oval land scape temple of music, 6 bench in rows, grid of trees, fountains and every monuments. on january 15 issue 2020 the commission reviewd and approved with conscience a certificate of appropriateness under motion 0407 the 1 year installation of observation wheel in the music consource to commemorate the anniversary of golden gate park. on march third approved an extension of motion 0407. to allow the installation of the

wheel to condition for no more than an additionaling 4 years. with the project experience extending until march 21st of 23 to off set financial hardship by ventz and extending until 2025 to support economic recovery related to the pandemic. as part of the approval of this extension the commission included condition requiring that staff from the department of rec and parks return to the commission within a year to make an informational presently agsz out lining their adherence to approval and providing an update on the wheel's operation. for everyones in addition to the condition requiring today's presentation. the following conscience of prove were adopted under the 20 ton certificate of appropriateness which extended the wheel's operation period. first the wheel is temporary and site will be restoreed

preproject condition using in kient material in 2025. in 8 weeks of march issue 2021. material samples for new screening and security fencing for the wheel will be forwarded for review by plans department preservation staff conformance with interior standards. and finally that within 8 weeks of march, 21. solutions to address complaintings regarding noise and odor and enhance the experience will be forwarded in approval by planning staff for review for conformance with the standardses and compat ability with the site. staff and the department of rec and parkers here to present. specifically we have george who will lead the presentation and jordan harrison is present and we have danea, stacie on web ex

to answer questions. i'm available if you have questions for staff and this concludes my presentation. . >> thank you. i'm george richly the manager of with rec and park to give you the informational update today. why monica mentioned. we will address the conscience of approval. as well as other matters of interest to the commission. and those will include an update on the generator for the wheel. screening and fencing. permanent power, the light show at the observation wheel and music on the loadings deck. . numbers and ticket sales as well

as community feedback. regarding the generate on april 20, 2 zsh 01 solutions to address the noise were provided to sf planning. and on may 11, 2021 a new 500 kilowatt generator was installed. it was -- the same sizeace the previous unit it is smaller by 2-1/2 feet and the decibel level is 68 at 23 foot distance. that level is 4 decibels quieter to be the than the original that is a noticeable reduction in noise. regarding the reports of plumes and smoke -- and odor it is natural for were a mroum of motor vehicle to be emitted upon start up.

and -- the report was captured at the time of start up and to our knowledge no smoke while it is running. throughout the day. and not observed odor. possible had it is active low refuelled that an odor could be generate friday that refueling process. the generators started one hour before opening. and it is powered down within 30 minutes of closing the wheel each day. the operator is no longer rung a generator over night to power any lighting or equipment. so once that generator is powered upon down after the day there is nothing running over night. on march first of this year,

there was a malfunction with the generator and a part that needed to be replaced. it was a turbo that elf failed. due to supply chain issues this part was delayed. and the rental company provided a temporary generator to put in place. this was a 450 kilowatt generator that has a decibel level of 74. it is being run 75% capacity. which does lower the over all decibel level. and in addition to that and to mitigate that, the operator installed acoustic barrier and they provide a noise reduction of the 40 decibels to reduce noise. i tell you since prepare thanksgiving report and my remarks to talk to you we got

news yesterday that the part had come in and replaced. and i lit irrelevant got a call an hour before seeing you that they are puffing in the original part. a solution is being solved today with the original generator going back and the acoustic bearers will remain we'll see a further reduction in noise. regarding the screening and fencing, on april 27, 21, screening options were provided sf planning. once we received approval of those they were installed and completed in late summer of 2021. the screening consists of faux green upon panels zip tied to the fence.

and there is also a vinyl wrap on the generator itself that has a faux green design to it. that will easily blend in to the atmosphere at the concourse. the operator does conduct regular review and maintenance of the panels to repair weather or impact damage. vandalism and normal wear and tear they committed to making them in a week or less. our staff has explored what would be required provide permanent power to support the operation of the wheel. additional power would require long range planning with the puc and pg & e. and installation of a primary service would be required and that primary service would require 770 square foot of and

as a clearance. and given the amount time it would telltation to complete and spatial requirements and install this primary power e illuminated light upon plan. the operator included in the light show for the last hour of every day. in the fall of 2021 that started to white lights through that last hour were once identified it was corrected quickly and confirmed there are no long are including white light in any of

the show including the last hour of the day. we have received a complaint that the music at the observation wheel was too loud. per the permit we issued they are allowed play ambient music on loading deck and the pa system to make announcements when needed. we brought the complaint to the attention of the prirt and they immediately implemented measures including reenforcing with staff what the levels are and what the levels should not exceed and in addition they put a do not exceed level on the amplify are itself for staff to adhere to. regarding attendance, as i believe you know the wheel was intended open in april of 2020. as a celebration of 150th

anniversary of golden gate park. due to covid-19 we did not open until october and it closed again for several months between november 29 and march 4. even with the delayed opening and the closures, since opening 396, 107 tickets have been sold. and we did provide a break down of the monthly sales for you to see. in addition to those ticket sales the operator also provides us with 500 complimentary tickets per among for under served communities in san francisco. and since march of 2020, more than 7, 300 tickets distributed to youths, families and seniors using those tickets. our department collaborated with various other city agencies as

well as near low 60 -- community benefit organizations. and we are growing the community benefit organizations every year. every week yes. in addition to the ticket this is we have distributed, we plan to distribute another 2500 from the community tickets this summer. for summer camp, field trip in the park and to our community benefit organizations. we had a quote from one of the parents hos received the tickets and include today in the presentation that parent said upon receiving the tickets and being able to take kids that it was wonderful, thank you so many

parts of the city don't foal like they belong to our children especially our native children. this was a great way to provide fun and sense of ownership. which brings me to feedback and i will say that overwhelmingly public reaction to the observation wheel has been positive and there are posts on social media with images in addition to those social media call outs, our department received 13 comments via e mail since you extended the extension. twoft 13 were positive. with one of them looking for a way to acquire the community tickets we were giving out and 11 of those e mails received in the same time period were negative general low about

noise, odor or plumes of smoke and 9 of those 11 were received just in advance of the hearings in 2021, related to the road closures in golden gate park and the great highway. that concludes the presentation and i thank you for your time today. that concludes the presentation open up public comment. members please come forward. if you are calling in press star 3. >> all right. good upon afternoon. commissioners. if my glasses fog up i will take off my mask >> katherine howard, urban nature. we appreciate the minor improve ams made to light and sounds and hope that the modifications will

lower the generator's decibel levels. we have broader occurrence. rec and park report highlights a public comment asking the wheel be a permanent fixture in the park. i will add that the characteristicization of the other comment system in the just about jfk people don't like the wheel a lot don't like it. read the comments. rec and park ignorse the current opposition and the past comments from historic preservation as to negative impact of the wheel on the historic character of the concourse. as 2025 prospects we are concerned that rec and park will organize advocacy for the wheel to be a permanent trushth in the concourse. rec and park given nonpreservation reasons for the time extensions one was giving the tupt terror people to ride.

over 400,000 have ridden it we. arbitrate meet a goal like that before 20 twitch. and supporting economic recovery. with the closing of jfk drive, there have been almost upon 7 million trips. 36% more than before the closure vment rather than a ferris wheel the ability to enjoy the p as a historic landscape park attracted new visitors to the area. the observation wheel has no historic base in the music concourse. the wheel not only detracts from the historic character but is environmentally dealt rimal to bird and wildlife. we ask this you the historic preservation commission not chamber not the youth commission or entertainment commission. you other history irk

preservation commission and from the last item i say you are fulfilling that very well. please review the reasons for the extension. and consider removing the wheel from golden gate park before 2025. have you that i have a hard copy, thank you. good afternoon i'm a member of urban nature and like to support the previous katherine howard's remarks and the city is receiving a dollar for every 18 dollar ticket sold. it is a travesty. should be receiving half at least 9 dollars for every ticket will sold. i like to ask to you

negotiate the contract until 500 thousand tickets have been and let the wheel be sent down to embark dirto or the waterfront where it it is more promote. they are commercial entertainment districts. up hold the historic nature of golden gate p. also the wheel should be closed at 7 p.m. when the garage closes and no need to be available at night when people can't see the city as they can during the day. up hold the historic value of the park and stop commercialization of our beloved

park. thank you. >> hi. i'm judy and a resident [inaudible]. i think that the ferris wheel is inappropriate for golden gate park and i agree with the previous speakers and i was at a meeting of the [inaudible] [cannot understand speaker] the park alliance was [inaudible] talking about the ferris wheel the room started laughing. at least we are not activists and people that would [inaudible]. but -- i thought it was stung.

it is ridiculous that that ferris wheel. [inaudible] men they should put the faux greenery on the ferris wheel, too. thank you i [inaudible]. thank you. last call on this item. if you are in the chambers come forward if you are call nothing remote press star 3. no requests to speak. public comment is close and theed matter is before you. >> thank you. i wanted reminds members of the public this is an informational presentation. it is not an agenda item where we will take any action i wish to thank the members of the public who have spoken during public comment and the e mails we have received we have read them and will take them very seriously. but today it is again an informational presentation. we have heard from planning

department upon staff and rec and park staff about the status of what we asked for in terms of the conditions we asked them to meet. with that, if there are any comments from the commission? commissioner johns. >> thank you. i would like to thank rec and p for what is a responsive and comprehensive report. it seeps to me all of the issues as the commission was concerned about have been addressed in an appropriate manner >> thank you for that. >> thank you. >> other comments or questions from the commission? okay. i don't see any further comments or questions. i like to thank planning department staff and the rec and park department starch for your presentation today. very good.

that concludes your hearing. thank you.

>> chinatown battleground is something i have always wanted to do because we have never had the chinese americans in the military. our history goes back all the way to 1861 to afghanistan. the exhibition is two-parts. one is a visual history which is told through the banners. then basically what i wanted to do was make sure that people understood that every one of these objects tell a story. for example, my uncle was one of two chinese american pilots during world war ii. they come planed they were giving baggy men's coveralls to wear. we have a veteran of the war. now what is notable is that he

is the first and only chinese american prisoner of war. we have the met kit. that was the only thing he has for water, rice and soup. he carried for over four and a half years in captivity as prisoner of war. this exhibition is a first base undertaking. also important and i want to take away the big picture that the chinese americans have been involved in united states military since the civil war, over 150 years. we have given service to the country, blood, sweat, tears and sacrifice for a long time. our story of chinese americans are part of the mainstream.

chinese american history is american history that is the take away i want to come off with, especially the younger generation. . >> neighborhood in san francisco are also diverse and fascist as the people that inhabitable them we're in north beach about supervisor peskin will give us a tour and introduce is to what think of i i his favorite district 5 e 3 is in the northwest surrounded by the san francisco bay the district is the boosting chinatown oar embarcadero financial district fisherman's wharf exhibit no. north beach telegraph hill and

part of union square. >> all of san francisco districts are remarkable i'm honored and delighted to represent really whereas with an the most intact district got chinatown, north beach fisherman's wharf russian hill and knob hill and the northwest waterfront some of the most wealthier and inning e impoverished people in san francisco obgyn siding it is ethically exists a bunch of tight-knit neighborhoods people know he each other by name a wonderful placed physically and socially to be all of the neighborhoods north beach and chinatown the i try to be out in the community as much as and i think, being a the cafe eating

at the neighborhood lunch place people come up and talk to you, you never have time alone but really it is fun hi, i'm one the owners and is ceo of cafe trespassing in north beach many people refer to cafe trees as a the living room of north beach most of the clients are local and living up the hill come and meet with each other just the way the united states been since 1956 opposed by the grandfather a big people person people had people coming since the day we opened. >> it is of is first place on the west that that exposito 6 years ago but anyone was doing that starbuck's exists and it created a really welcoming pot. it is truly a legacy business

but more importantly it really at the take care of their community my father from it was formally italy a fisherman and that town very rich in culture and music was a big part of it guitars and sank and combart in the evening that tradition they brought this to the cafe so many characters around here everything has incredible stories by famous folks last week the cafe that paul carr tennessee take care from the jefferson starship hung out the cafe are the famous poet lawrence william getty and jack herb man go hung out. >> they work worked at a play with the god fathers and photos he had his typewriter i wish i

were here back there it there's a lot of moving parts the meeting spot rich in culture and artists and musicians epic people would talk with you and you'd getetetetetetetetete.t

>> hello everyone, i'm san francisco mayor london breed and i am so excited to be here today announced the budget for the city and county ofsan francisco . [applause] i see all the department heads clapping. they're really excited about thesenew budget numbers . when i think about the challenges that have existed in the city i can't help think about all the things that we have tried to do for the past couple of years especially during this pandemic. and when people have made a number of requests for additional services or additional support or additional assistance, it's not just about the dollars and the policy. it