the h.p.c. has directed the planning staff to schedule a hearing to discuss how the program can better align with the committee's intent for the program. we anticipate that hearing will be scheduled early for 2018 and to allow for improvements to the program to be incorporated into the 2018 application cycle. we will notify the committee when the hearing is scheduled and we'll follow-up with the committee regarding the h.p.c.'s recommendations. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions and the property owner for 973 market is also here today. >> supervisor kim: jason chek is here and i see that bill barnes from the supervisor sheheey's office is here and wants to speak on this item. >> thank you,. >> marthank you madam chair and. i wanted to put in context the mill street contract. as many people know there was a project at 55 laguna which is commonly known as open house and that's the lgbt senior housing but in addition to that there's a number of other components that

the h.p.c. found that the alternatives analyzed were adequate and they were honest with their presentation of preservation alternatives. the h.p.c. was concerned about the practical implementation of mitt investigation measure mcr1b interpretive praom. the commission felt the development of a full walking tour as outlined in the mitt investigation measure was generally not a reasonable or practical measure for the size of the project. and requested that a plaque or other interpretive display be used to note existing property's history. in addition t commission discussed working with existing tours in the neighbourhood to add the site. today, the planning department is seeking comments on the adequacy and accuracy of the information contained in the dra. d.i.r. for members of the public who wish to speak, please state your name for the record, please speak slowly and clearly so the court reporter can make an accurate transcript of today's proceedings. staff is not here to answer comments today. co

i've provided you with the copy of the h.p.c.'s leter. they found the alternatives analyzed. today the department is seeking accuracy and adequacy of the information. for members of the public who wish to speak, state your name and speak slower and clearly so the court reporter can make an accurate transcript of today's proceedings. staff is not here to respond to comments today. all verbal comments received today and during the public comment will be transcribed and responded to in a document. revisions to the draft e.i.r. will be made as appropriate. those interested in submitted written comments may do so by e-mail or hard copy to the e.i.r. coordinator, san francisco planning department 1615 mission street, san francisco. all comments must be received by the end of the comment period 5:00 p.m., january 16, 2018. unless have you questions i suggest we open the public hearing on the item. >> commissioner: thank you. we will now open it up to public comment on 500 turk street project draft environmental report. mr. smith. >> i know there'll be a ballot measure hopefully in j

the purpose of the hearing was to take the h.p.c.'s comment on the draft d.i.r. most of the discussion that the hearing focused on a mitigation measure that i believe was taken from another project and did not belong in that e.i.r. it had to do with a walking tour and i addressed the commission on that point and raised the issue that a walking tour for a four-unit project was, perhaps, not appropriate. and my takeaway from that hearing was that a better mitigation measure would be assigned in front of the church. and i believe that was the commission's sentiment. after the hearing, i communicated with the staff and their response was, of course there's going to be a walking tour. so, i would like the -- to ask the commission to ask the staff to report back at a future meeting on that particular mitigation measure or to place this on the future agenda for further hearing. thank you. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to comment on a nonagendaized item? if so, please come forward. seeing and hearing none, we'll close general public comment. >> commis

the department recommends the h.p.c. send a resolution of findings recommending shipa approve the nomination of the property to the national register. that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. any questions for ms. ferguson? no? that -- at this time, we'll take public comment. >> i believe the authors are also here today. >> ok. i see one of them right there. >> good afternoon. i'm an architectural historian and preservation planner. just to give you a little bit of background about the project, this was initiated by protect coit tower, an independent, autonomous advocacy group. the nomination was prepared by me with rigorous review by john goldinger and professor bob churnny who's also going to speak. i thought we'd explain a little bit why there was a need for the project. as ms. ferguson stated, coit tower was listed on the national register in 2008 but it was listed at the state level of significance which was a slightly inexplicable decision and, unfortunately, the nomination al

any time, 10 years in advance, so you would be approving the agreement and then any supervisor of the h.p.c. can initiate termination by introducing a separate resolution as we're working on for supervisor peskin with the waller item. >> supervisor kim: consistent with what we're doing for 637 waller. >> that's right, so you don't need to include changes to the agreement itself and you're expressing your intent that soon you'll be introducing a resolution to terminate the agreement 10 years from now. >> supervisor kim: okay, great. so can we add that just to the same motion? >> you don't need to make any motion on that because the termination is just a separate item but we will take that direction from you to initiate that process. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: so just way of background i'll introduce the 637 waller termination in january and i can add these two to that. >> supervisor kim: great. >> supervisor peskin: if you two would like to be -- i don't care who is the sponsors and co-sponsors and all three members of committee can affix