johns. >> commissioner johns: i'm in agreement with what my fellow commissioners have said. i want to just focus a moment on the garage doors but that's been the subject of some controversy. i went out and looked around the neighborhood and the garage doors there now are of course not historic, they look like most of the other, the costco or home depot, ten panel doors that are found throughout san francisco. there is a building on the northwest corner of scott and golden gate that does appear to have original garage doors. and were those, or similar doors present at this building i would, i think the point would be much better taken. but what we have are garage doors that look to me as though they were installed in maybe the 1980s or the 1970s. they are not historic, so i don't find that replacing the, those garage doors with what is proposed is incompatible with the neighborhood at all. >> president wolfram: commissioner hyland. >> vice president hyland: i have several things. i want to thank the members of the public that came out today. i know you have a busy day and appreciate you taking the time to tell us your thoughts. 20, 25 years ago the conversation was adding garage doors to these historic buildings, and how to do that. and i have a slightly different take than commissioner pearlman, and that is that my concern is that we are erasing the garage doors and attempting to make them look like they had never been there. and in my practice, that's not what i had done and it is a design exercise, and we have had at least one, maybe two other similar projects come before us and i voiced the same concern that the current openings of the garages could be incorporated into the design to tell the story and evolution of what's happened to the building. i don't have a specific recommendation as commissioner pearlman does, unless some other commissioner would want to take what i'm saying and try to turn it into some other condition. but i have complete faith that we can match the brick and with the appropriate conservation treatment match the mortar. my concern is that that would then tell evolution of the project that's not consistent with what's happened, it would erase the fact that the doors were actually there. so, i would propose a design solution that worked within the openings and showed the evolution. >> president wolfram: thank you, commissioner. mr. frye. >> if you would entertain additional condition of approval, may sound something like if brick cannot be matched, can't read my own writing. if brick cannot be matched, a revised design will be submitted to staff for review and approval. revised design shall reflect a more intentional and uniform design for the base of the building. >> president wolfram: if somebody makes a motion we'll decide whether to include it or not. commissioner black. >> commissioner black: no matter how this project evolves, i did not see a window schedule and i would like to make sure that the recesses, the reveals are matching because this could look really flat very quickly if those elements are not included. all i saw on the plans was just wood materials. so, i would like to offer that as a concern. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner matsuda. >> commissioner matsuda: i have one question for staff. i think i heard in reverend brown's public comment that the alamo square neighborhood association was opposed to this, and i was wondering if, number one, if there is someone here from that association, and number two, whether that was based on anything dealing with the historic character or whether you have any information on that. >> i have heard nothing from them. gus, her name is from alamo square, has been in contact to get updates on when the hearing may be occurring throughout the last few months. also cc'ed on emails, but he has not personally stated opposition to me. i have not received a telephone call or any emails stating support or opposition. >> i would like to move approval with the additional condition as mentioned by mr. frye. >> second. >> president wolfram: i was wondering if i could make a friendly amendment, we add a finding, clarifying the garages are not character defining features of the district and they are not historically significant part of the building, the garage fronts. >> i'll second that. isn't that already on the -- it's in the report. >> it's not in the report but -- it's not explicit in the findings of the motion. >> oh, ok. >> then i think it should be in the findings, yeah. >> vice president hyland: i was going to add on to what commissioner black says, the depths of the windows should match the windows above. >> and doors. >> and doors, yeah, so they are not right on the face of the brick. >> i agree with that. a motion and a second. >> is the maker of the motion willing to accept the finding and additional condition? thank you. then, and as is the seconder. very good, a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions, to include a finding for the garage door. excuse me, garage openings are not character defining features, the condition as read into the record by staff as well as additional condition to require the depths of windows and doors match the existing. on that motion, commissioner black -- >> because of the district, not the -- >> the district. the district, very good. on that motion, commissioner black. [roll call vote taken] >> so moved, commissioners, the motion passes unanimously 7-0. place us on item 9. 30 otis street, draft environmental impact report for your review and comment. >> we need a motion to recuse commissioner pearlman. >> i move. >> i'll second. >> very good commissioners. on that motion. [roll call vote taken] >> so moved, commissioners. commissioner pearlman, you are hereby recused. >> good afternoon, president wolfram, members of the commission. i'm julie moore, planning department staff and senior environmental planner for the 30 otis street project, proposed project. joining me are my colleagues, members of the project sponsor team are here as well. the item before you is review and comment on the 30 otis street project draft environmental report, pursuant to the california environmental quality act. and san francisco's local procedures for implementing cqua. requires the planning department to schedule a notice public meeting and obtain comments the historic perservation commission may have prepared for projects that contain a resource that the environmental review officer determines based on substantial evidence to be a historical resource. public review period for the proposed project began on june 13th and will continue until 5:00 p.m. on july 27th. commission members were sent electronic copies of the draft e.i.r. and backgrounds, historic resource evaluation and the preservation team review form. the commission's secretary has just distributed a handout, i'll refer to later. copies are available for members of the public on the table to my left. today we are here to provide an opportunity for the commission to hear public testimony, to discuss historic resource issues pertaining to this project, and to formulate any comments you may wish to submit to the planning department on the draft e.i.r. i would like to provide with you a brief summary of the findings of the draft e.i.r. five buildings from 1 to 3 stories in height. the proposed project, demolish the five building, merge it to one lot, and a building with ground floor retail and arts activity use. ten story podium structure across the entire site and 27-story single tower in the southeast corner of the building, at otis and 12th street. the proposed building would range from 85 to 250 feet in height, and would be approximately 485,000 square feet. the building would include 423 residential units, three ground floor retail spaces, new studio and performance space for the city ballet school which currently operates on the site. 1418 otis street building constructed circa 1925 is individually eligible for inclusion on the california register of historical, number three. for architecture. 1418 is a light industrial loft building as expressed in san francisco during the 1920s. the project site was originally part of the west soma neighborhood where similar light industrial buildings are prevalent. with the southern extension of van ness avenue in the 1930s, the gap created in the original street grid severed the area away from the rest of the neighborhood. the building at 14 to 18 otis street, characters of a type period and method of construction, in that case, three stories, demonstration with multi-light, steel industrial sash windows and a lot of other little things. >> thank you for the abbreviation. >> it's a tongue twister. recessed panels and cornices, and gar lands, reinforced concrete construction with concrete columns and floors and piers. 14 to 18 otis street building is historical building. the draft e.i.r. concluded the demolition would be a substantial adverse change to the historical resource and therefore result in project level significant and unavoidable impact. three mitigation measures identified for the significant and unavoidable impact to historical architectural resources. the first measure requires a project sponsor to undertake survey or documentation of the subject structure. the second measure requires a sponsor to develop a permanent display of interpretive materials concerning the history and architectural features of the original 14 to 18 otis street building. the project sponsor must undertake video documentation of the historic resource and setting. and finally, vibration monitoring of the historic resource is required throughout construction. while these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to the historic resource at 14 to 18 otis street, the proposed demolition would remain significant and unavoidable. analyzes three alternatives to the proposed project. no project alternative, the full preservation alternative and the partial preservation alternative. the full and partial preservation alternatives were developed in consultation with preservation staff and the architectural review committee of the historic preservation commission or a.r.c. at the november 1, 2017,a.r.c. hearing, committee members provided feedback on the preliminary preservation alternatives at that time. a.r.c. commented overall, the full preservation and partial preservation alternatives were adequate for incorporated into the draft e.i.r. and felt the proposed project suitable. the team was asked whether the shifting of the ballet theater was explored, and somewhat needed a column free specific height. relocation was to be studied and the team responded that it was considered and rejected due to structural engineering due to the fragility of the 1920s construction. the no project and the full preservation alternative would avoid significant impacts to historic architectural resources. partial preservation alternative would not avoid the significant impact related to the demolition of the 14 to 18 otis street building. but would reduce the significant impact compared to the proposed project. earlier i mentioned the handout that you have. it includes material from, provided in the draft e.i.r. the first page compares the characteristics of the project and the alternative. second and third pages compare the historical architectural impacts under the proposed project and each alternative. the conceptual massing for the alternatives are provided at the tops of the pages. before i conclude, i would like to remind everyone that a public hearing on the draft eir is scheduled for july 19, 2018. and order to be responded to in the final e.i.r., comments must be submitted orally at the planning commission hearing or in writing to me by 5:00 on july 27th. comments heard by the public commenters today will not be responded to in the e.i.r. process unless they choose to follow up in writing to the department by the appointed deadline. after the planning commission hearing, the planning department will publish a comments and responses document, which will contain our responses to all relevant comments on the draft e.i.r. we anticipate publication of the comments and responses document in fall of this year, followed by e.i.r. certification. that ends my presentation. staff and members of the project team are available to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> president wolfram: we'll close public comment. commissioners. matsuda. >> commissioner matsuda: i just have a comment. i love this. i love the summary. your visuals plus the very quick and easy to understand way of knowing the various alternatives is extremely helpful. actually, that was the only part that i printed out on my own. i thought it was great. so, i hope that everyone in the planning department staff will follow this. >> president wolfram: we have had other ones like this, they are helpful. >> i like the visual. the only other comment is i read that there is going to be historical report and i saw that the h.p.c. was not listed as getting a copy, and i was wondering if we can make sure that we have a copy of that as well. thank you. >> commissioner johnck: in terms of our evaluation of the adequacy of the alternatives, can we recommend an additional mitigation measure as part of that? >> president wolfram: we can evaluate the alternative, and whether the e.i.r. addressed the issues related to the property. so, we can recommend modifications to the mitigation measures, recommend additional mitigation measures, we can recommend whatever we want. >> commissioner matsuda: ok. one of the things that julie, you mentioned, in discussing the 1418 otis was, and the evaluation of the building and the setting. this is where i get interested. because as a cultural landscapist, i'm very interested in how, when we evaluate these proposals for new construction, how we are conveying the historic character of the area, the site, and the setting. and i think it's really interesting. there's a reason that building is there at that place, and it's eligibility under criterion three is architecture, it reflects a certain type of, you know, business function and business operation. and i think that's all relative to that area, where that -- the hub, there is the other planning area is called the market octavia hub, and so i think what i'm looking at is that in addition to as far as mitigating for the significant impact, and i think basically both the full and the par shall are adequate. we discussed, except for, not adequate discussion for the setting and the -- what's missing to me, we need more of the conveyance of the historic character and i would recommend that in addition to -- that we ask that historic american landscape survey. there is documentation of the area and, but hals has significant criteria and it's not so new. habs and historic engineering record, they are very old, and habs was added in the 1980s, it's not that new. but i find that it's not over recognized as important documentation. so, i would -- >> president wolfram: how extensive -- >> commissioner johnck: hals is descriptive. >> how far beyond the actual -- >> that's a part of the structure, but if you are looking at the setting, how far does the setting extend? >> well, that's what the cultural report would do. it would be part of the definition of that. i see what you are getting at. so, maybe the staff have any comment about how we go about doing that, because the report does define the setting, and area of potential effects. >> good afternoon. one of my clarifying questions for the commission would be on the bigger picture, what are some of the elements or features of this setting that are hoped to be documented as part of the hals so if there is something that could be incorporated perhaps as a more detailed site survey within the habs documentation, wondering if there is overlap or what the boundaries are, or the nature of the setting features, you would hope to be captured. >> well, i guess my immediate thought on this is the grid, is the -- the confluence of the grid there and how the evolution of the city came about at that hub, that intersection. >> specifically the southern extension, ok. there are references in the historic resource evaluation that discuss that prior connection. some of which includes references to the historic sandboard maps that show the unified grid before the street was widened to kind of break that historic pattern. there may be a possibility of in incorporating historic sandborn map with the habs drawing set, as long as it's transferred on to the appropriate archival material. >> commissioner johnck: that sounds good. i know i was able to read a good amount of the historic resource material and i think an expansion of that as you describe an iteration of that would be defining framework. >> i would add that one of the documentation requirements is video and also photographic documentation. we do have some historic photographs of otis street that show that intersection throughout time and combination of the historic photographs and historic maps. we can work with the team to maybe make sure that that grid is established. >> in fact, the criteria for the photographs is very specific in the hals, silver gellatin. >> commissioner johnck, if i could interject here, looking at the hals guidelines right now. it looks like there's a short format history template, drawing guidelines, photography guidelines and history guidelines. i'm hoping through your comments, commissioner johnck, what it sounds like you are looking for is a hals' like documentation. i think if you were to use the like while it may seem minor, it will not put the project in requirements of the strictly the hals' guidelines but allow us to address some of what you and miss tuffy just mentioned. some photos, some history, some mapping, and that would be consistent with a project that's coming to mind that you looked at, interpretive display, or interpretation for the first admission project, they looked at the industry south of market industrial history, and they put the markers and the artifacts in the walkway. again, it was looking at beyond the scope of that site. if you are looking for the broader history of the hub and the industrial history of the hub. ok. >> that's fine, and hals -- other cultural landscape reports, c.l.r.s and then hal specific, and sometimes it can be a hefty document. so, so -- in this genre. >> would it be fair to say the commission, or the commissioner johnck, you would recommend a hals' like form of documentation that includes maps, photos, and a short history on the context of the neighborhood? >> commissioner johnck: that would be great. >> could i also suggest that we, that your comments as they are formulated have specified that the project sponsor can work with, planning staff to sort of define the limits of that study, and i suggest that so that we can be pretty specific about remaining sort of on that block and close to that property, and i would like to remind you that staff is, as i'm sure you are aware, commissioner johnck, working on the hub area plan and the associated e.i.r. and historic resource evaluation that will accompany that. and i think that there will obviously be a part of that analysis and historic resource analysis that will get at sort of the broader picture of the hub and that sort of cultural landscape and the individual properties. >> commissioner johnck: i'm aware of that. it can be confined to a very specific area as you describe. >> commissioner johns. >> commissioner johns: i think that the report and the documentation is absolutely vital. commissioner johnck mentioned the importance of the setting, and i had -- what had been bothering me is the setting. for what it's worth, i don't think that either the full preservation alternative or the partial preservation alternative are adequate at all. i don't think anything can be done to save this little gem. i think it has served its time in battle. it served it well. but it is now time for the end, and what i kept thinking about was this reminded me of what happened to the hoffman grill on market street. just east of new montgomery. and if you think about that, there was an attempt to preserve the building and wrap another building all the way around it. and for many reasons it didn't work, and just sits there looking, i think a bit peculiar. now, neither the full preservation or the partial preservation will wrap the new building around the old, well, not competely, not on top anyway.