Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20171231

Implementing ceqa. Chapter 31 requires a Planning Department to schedule public hearing that the Historic Preservation commission may have on a draft e. I. R. , and prepared for projects that contain a resource determined on sub stfrjal evidence to be a resource the public review project began on december 6, 2017, and will continue until 5 00 p. M. , january 23, 2018. The Commission Members had electronic members of draft e. I. R. And background reports, including Historic Resource evaluation and response. The Commission Secretary has also distributed a handout, which i will refer you to later. Copies of this handout are available to members of the public on the table to my left. Today were here to provide the commission to provide public testimony, to discuss and formulate any comments that you wish to submit on the draft e. I. R. I would like to provide with you a brief summary of the draft e. I. R. With Historical Resources the project site is a 2story building that housed the Metropolitan Community Church of San Francisco and is now vacant. The proposed project would demolish the building, split the lot into two and construct two fourstory, 40foottall residential buildings. Each would have two residential units and two vehicle parking space. A total building area of 14,441 gross square feet. The 150 eureka Street Building is eligible for inclusion on the california register of Historical Places under criterion one for its association with lgbtq history. One, building lgbt communities 1960s to 1990s. San francisco and the aids epidem epidemic. Development of lgbtq enclaves in the 1960ment issor 1960s to 1980s. In 1979, the Metropolitan Community Church purchased and occupied the building. Based on this, the 150 eureka Street Building is historical for the purposes of ceqa. The demolition of the building would add to the significance of the resource and would have unavoidable impact. Few mitigation measures have been identified to this historical architectural resources. The first, require document ation of the structure. And there would be a Walking Tour Program highlighting the significance of the building and themes in the citywide lgbtq context statement. While these mitigation members would reduce, the demolition would be significant, unavoidable. Draft e. I. R. Analyzed three alternatives. No project, full preservation, and partial preservation. At the august 16, 2017, arc hearing, Committee Members provided detailed feedback on the preliminary preservation alternatives proposed at that time. The full and partial presentations were suitable. The no project and full would avoid significant impacts to Historical Resources. Partial would not avoid this impact related to the demolition at 150 eureka street, but would reduce the impact compared to the proposed project. Earlier i mentioned the handout before you. It includes material in the draft e. I. R. It compares the characteristics of the project and the alternative. The third and fourth pages the Historical Impact under each alternative. The preservation alternatives at the top. I would like to remind everybody, that a hearing on the e. I. R. Is scheduled for january 18, 2018. In order to be responded to in the final e. I. R. , comments on the draft e. I. R. Must be presented orally at the Planning Commission meeting to the planner by 5 00 p. M. On january 23, 2018. Comments heard by Public Commenters today would not be responded to in the e. I. R. Process. After that, a comments and responses document will be published. We anticipate publication in late spring of next year and e. I. R. Certification hearing in summer, 2018. That ends my presentation. Staff is available to answer if i questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you for that clear presentation. Commissioner pearlman . Commissioner pearlman on the full preservation alternative, it says number of stories, and says four, but the diagram looks like two stories for the full preservation alternative. Is that correct . On the full preservation alternative we keep the double mass on the first floor. And then theres additional massing at the rear of the building. Commissioner pearlman i see that, but the other diagrams, there are four slices that indicate four floors, but on the full preservation alternative, there are two slices. So just as a correction, it appears to be only two floors, not four. Okay. We can improve that diagram. Commissioner wolfram any further questions for staff . So at this time, well take Public Comment on this item. If members of the public wish to come forward, they will have 3 minutes. Seeing and hearing no speakers, well close Public Comment. Commissioner hyland . Commissioner hyland this came before the arc and commissioner pearlman and i heard it. The events that are important and significant in this building are close to home for me and i participated in some of them and went to services here and all kinds of lovely stuff, but the building really has no integrity left. And the project sponsor has done a phenomenal job at being very honest in evaluating this project in trying to figure out how best to make it work. I cant say that ive seen a case this honest before us, to try to make a case for why the proposed project is so much better. Theyve always tried to show why the preservation alternative is so horrible. [laughter] so i comment you for that, and i appreciate that. Question about your statement for no integrity. Do you disagree with it being an Historic Resource . Commissioner hyland thats a good question. I dont know if thats up for debate. Is it up for debate . Were commenting on the e. I. R. , so if we believe it would be unfortunate to have done an e. I. R. And have that be the outcome, but commissioner hyland i have not done an evaluation of integrity like the consultants have. But my cursory view of the front of the building, it would require a lot of work to bring it back to the characterdefining features that have been lost. So diminished integrity, but would apply as Historic Resource. Commissioner hyland probably. That would be better given all these resources. [laughter] dont want to diminish a huge volume of work. Commissioner hyland good nuance and i accept that. I want to commend the project sponsor. Were writing letter stating whether we agree with the findings and if the preservation alternatives were donald yachtly. Commissioner pearlman i think the term i would have used, the building has little significance. It has integrity. Commissioner hyland no architectural commissioner pearlman thats where i was going, rather than no integrity because it meets the level for it to be an Historic Resource. Commissioner hyland fair enough. Commissioner pearlman i wanted to agree with commissioner hyland. I thought it was a very thoughtful examination of the process. Im sorry that the process is so treacherous. The mitigations of a walking tour and and it seems like if there was a sign or a plaque. Commissioner pearlman not necessarily a plaque, but a sign post with a sign that has information about its significance, cultural significance, i think would be a very valid mitigation measure, because no one that walks through the castro will ever know about the document asian, but on a walking tour that could be noted. There is an app called detour and theres a walking tour of the castro, led by cleve jones. And he has a stop in front of this building and talks about the cultural history that happened here. So it is already in the ether that the significance of the building is there. I agree that the e. I. R. Is adequate. It talks about the issues. I think that architecturally there is little significance and that the proposed project is an excellent infill project for that neighborhood. Where we fall down as a city is the way we dont put signs up. This is my high horse, for everyone that doesnt know me. Would you like it to state that you would like the interpretive measures to be i think it said a plaque. Commissioner pearlman it talked about the walking tour. I only got two. I believe there was a plaque as well. Commissioner pearlman would you come up for a second . Just a walking tour. If i could clarify. In the interpretive program, there is, develop a plaque or identifying system as part of the Walking Tour Program. So there would be an identifying system that we would require as part of the walking tour. There is nothing in our city that does that at this time. So the question is, is that something that you stick in the sidewalk . Is it on a pole . I mean, there is no system to do that in our city, so we have a document asking for that. But theres no way to do that because we have no program to create a plaque. Out cannot stick it on someones home that has nothing to do with the building. Its a mitigation system of something that doesnt exist. Its part of a mitigation measure. The walking tour is part of it, but as ms. Boudreau pointed out, theres an additional requirement to meet this mitigation measure. Is this a plaque pasted on someones new home . Could we be more specific and suggest it be handled similarly to the history walk, so the plaque would be on the sidewalk, it would be similar layout, similar design, with the history. To me, its introducing something that doesnt exist. We dont have a program for that. History walk is specific to castro street and its not i would love that. I think thats great, but all of a sudden, were introducing a new kind of way to identify Historic Buildings when we take the physical presence away, which required a hell of a lot more there are plenty of e. I. R. S that include interpretive displays those are Office Buildings or residential building that has a lobby and some are on the outside. Its not unusual. All right. I think it required a lot more conversation to figure out what that is. Commissioners, to provide some background on what this mitigation may fulfill, as part of the e. I. R. , there will be a mitigation monitoring plan that identifies who is responsible for what part of the scope. So one of your comments may be to flesh out that plaque or history walk or whatever to make sure there is somebody who will administer that program over time either on a website or part of a publication or on the exterior of the building. It could be helpful to provide that clarification that somebody will be responsible for it over time and that may get to commissioner perlmans concern. All right. Thank you. Commissioner johnck i was thinking, along the lines of some detailed plan about how that will happen. All around the neighborhood i live in, Telegraph Hill and theres a system for how the landmarks are connected and things in the sidewalk and signs and so there are things that i think can happen. The other thing i agree with the comments to date, as laid out the alternatives that are fine, adequate. In fact, i like the proposed project. I dont know if we weigh in i dont think we necessarily i think we would like to write a letter to the Planning Commission saying that we agree with the findings of the e. I. R. And alternatives were addressed and we could add something related to the mitigation about interpretation that states that the commission i dont know if you want to say that the commission has concerns about mitigation measures and the interpretation that there is someone responsible for the implementation for the e. I. R. Mitigation measure about signifying the Historical Resource that was here. Right. Is that adequate . Could that interpretation come back to us . In the downtown and soma projects, it came back to us. It could come back to us or preservation staff at planning. Weve had e. I. R. S that have had both. This is a small project. And i know its an important issue, butday wonder about bringing the interpretation for that project back to the commission. It seems like a burden for a fourunit development. I think i would trust that preservation staff can handle that adequately. Would you like to say a few words . Yes, thank you, commissioners. I would be interested in hearing from the commission about how you could interpret the scope of a walking tour of a fourunit building. Its not about the fourunit building. Its the history and legacy of what the building was before it was torn down. But is it part of a larger context walking tour . It sounds like they are one stop, but are they responsible for the other stops . Wasnt that your point . Its fine to say, on this site this is what happened, except no one would hear it, because there is no radio transmission. [laughter] is this something that there are plenty of tours of the castro neighborhood. Is this something that as part of this development of how to meet this mitigation measure that someone would have to then hook up with one of those particular tours or all of those tours and say, can you include this as part of the tour . Would that satisfy the mitigation matter . It may. Its open up to interpretive plans. Usually those plans are more broad. We provided a little more detail because we had more information due to the lgbtq historic statements. So we thought a walking tour working within the existing groups in the castro, trying to identify what the important themes would be, because the site has so much importance to four different themes, allowing the community to figure out where they thought this building might be most important and fit into through the identified sites. So it already provides a lot of background information, so we didnt feel there was a lot of research required. So if they connect with existing tours that exist with Community Organizations and nonprofits, it could be feasible, if they lay out the framework for this plaque system. That could be feasible as well. Speaking on mitigation measures, our monitoring and reporting program, it specifically and clearly outlines who is responsible at what stage for specific things. So it will be clearly outlined. We have a general outline. We dont normally get that specific at this stage. So thats my response back to you right now and our thinking can i comment on that . Ive worked on projects with mitigation measures and we could not move forward to Building Permits until those mitigation measures were satisfied. So they will get to the point of finishing the site permit and they will not be able to submit for Building Permits until they satisfy these mitigation efforts. There is a lot of ways to do this but no clarity how to do that. We can add clarity. We do outline two specific steps in the mitigation matter in the deir. We need an overall plan. And before we sign off on the temporary certificate of occupancy, we would want to know what the final details are. We can add clarity in there, as im hearing its a concern of the commission. I think we can add in our letter that the commission has concerned about the prak tu practical implementation. Yes. The concern of the sponsor is exactly as commissioner pearlman stated, wondering how well be able to pull the permit. The comments that we heard from the staff provided absolutely no comfort. Im not happy with, maybe well put in something with response to comments. Were not sure what it is. I would be appreciative if the commission could provide direction in its letter about exactly what the sponsor is supposed to do in order to get his permit. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner hyland i was going to propose maybe we i guess be more explicit. Sidewalk plaque or wall plaque on the property is essential. And if the walking tour could be maybe we could identify the lgbt Historical Society, which is in the castro, as the keeper of the information of the tour, then would that be able to satisfy the this is just a comment letter that will be included in the deir and there are many aspects of this project that have to be fleshed out. If you provide general direction for staff, wed be happy to work on the details and report back to you at a future hearing. Yes. Were concerned about the practical implementation of this measure and we would be ameanable to Something Like a sidewalk plaque or wall plaque. I think our concern is specific to the walking tour and yes. And i think that there is the letter should state that there is specific recommendations to the project sponsor on how to satisfy this mitigation measure. That something is probably the most important to date. Okay. So i think is that clear in terms of our letter . Clear as mud. So i can be clear, i think your direction in the letter is that we have concerns about the practical limitation. There is a requirement that a plaque or a wall plaque at the site should be implemented and we should identify the is it the lgbtq Historical Society in the castro is the keeper of the we should not get that specific. I think what were saying that were concerned about the walking tour concept generally as being implementable by this sponsor. Maybe well leave it at that i think clear direction should be given to the project sponsor on how to implement this mitigation measure. Okay. Thanks. We love the idea of a walking tour, but were not sure that a mitigation measure is the way to make that happen. Commissioner wolfram item 7, 2017011910des, Diamond Heights safety wall. What happened to Eureka Valley its last. Oh, its switched on the later agenda. All right. I think this one will be easier for everybody. [laughter] good afternoon, commissioner. Desiree smith, Planning Department staff. The item before you is consideration to recommend to the board of supervisors landmark designation of the Diamond Heights safety wall, Public Sculpture on the south side of Diamond Heights boulevard at clipper street and portola. It was nominated by public, may 1, 2017. It was initiated by the commission on november 1, 2017. Diamond heights safety wall is significant under criterion a. The planning effort led by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency from 1961 to 1978, which resulted in a dramatic reshaping of the area from undeveloped hills to a neighborhood characterized by modernist design, mixed housing and expansive views of the downtown area and the bay. The sitespecific public artwork is significant under criterion c. Its a visual landmark that captures the identity of the neighborhood by bay area idioms of modernist design. The department has shared the nomination with the citys real estate department. The San Francisco Arts Commission. Jeff sheehy. And relative Neighborhood Community groups. This morning, andrew wolfram, staff, and representative of the Diamond Heights Neighborhood Association and the applicant or nominator, bob pelham, visited the site. The Arts Commission staff mentioned that a Structural Engineering assessment should be conducted as well as conditions assessment was prepared for a sculptural specialist and not necessarily an engineer. Best practice would be to address structural issues before addressing aesthetic ones. Planning Department Staff will reach out to department of public works to initiate discussion with them about next steps. The department received 18 letters in support of designation. The letters were included in your packet. Staff has heard from supervisor sheehys office, which is in support of this designation. It meets two of the hpc priorities including the designation of buildings of modern design and buildings located in geographic areas that are underrepresented among our designated landmarks in the districts. The department believes the site meets the eligibility requirements and that status is warranted. Staff recommends the approval Diamond Heights safety wall. I am here for questions. Thankfully there is no plaza. Commissioner wolfram does any member of the public wish to speak . Seeing and hearing none. Back to the commissioners. I move to approve this. Second. [laughter] commissioner johnck yes. Commissioner johns yes. Commissioner matsuda yes. Commissioner pearlman yes. Commissioner hyland yes. Commissioner wolfram yes. So moved. Motion passes unanimously, 60. Weve considered 8. Therefore, were on number 9. 2015015453srv, Eureka Valley Historic Context statement, to adopt, modify or approve. Good afternoon, shannon ferguson, Department Staff. The item before you today is consideration to adopt the Eureka Valley Historic Context statement. It was written by elaine styles for the oEureka Valley Neighborhood Association. The Eureka Valley study area encompasses all or a portion of 29 city blocks bounded by 16th, market and 17th, sanchez and church, and douglas. The study period states just before permanent european settlement in the region to 1976. The end date extends the study period 10 years beyond the 50year cutoff date. It calls out influential themes, geographic patterns and time periods. The statement identifies key associated property types, forms and architectural styles and offers a detailed discussion of areas of significance, criteria, considerations, and integrity thresholds. Outreach activities associated with the development included efforts to enlist assistance from Castro Valley residents and developing the material. Also a project email address was established for Community Members to contact the project team and a project page was created on the Planning Departments website. Regular communication was provided through the newsletter and Neighborhood Association meetings and staff presented at two Neighborhood Association meetings. The Eureka Valley Historic Context statement was reviewed by the Neighborhood Association and Department Staff. Based on concurrence, the department believes that it is consistent with the standards set forth by the california Historic Context commission. We recommend that it be adopted. I believe some representatives from the Neighborhood Association may be here and i would like to give them a chance to speak and i am here to answer questions if you have any. Commissioner wolfram thank you. I have a speaker card from mark riser. Whoever wants to speak first can speak first. You can both speak. [laughter] hi. Im susan detweiler, Eureka Valley Neighborhood Association representative and i live in the neighborhood. Theres a letter from our newly elected board president mark mchale in your packet. 5 didnt want to just stand here and read it, because im sure you can read it by yourselves. I was going to outline the outreach we did, but shannon beat me to that. The community has been very enthusiastic about this project. Ive never seen people so excited. Everyone is coming up to ask me how can they do more . How can they see more of the pictures . Its been a great project for us and were really excited with the work that elaine did, the product, and just want to urge you to adopt it. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Mark riser. Im here briefly to commend on behalf of the Fund Committee to commend the latest of the statements weve funded. Its an area which is contiguous to the heights statement adopted in the summer and there are others in the pipeline. Insufficient condition to make these things happen are our grants. We need a commission and they need a consultant and staff needs to be available and all of these things come together and were very grateful for that. Thank you for the opportunity. And i can say, this was a very welldone, efficiently carried out study. It was a model grantee for us. Thank you. Thank you. Any other member of the public wish to speak on this item . Seeing and hearing none, well close Public Comment. Commissioner johns . Commissioner johns i was really very, very seriously impressed with the study. I mean, it was very well done. Very, very well done. And i think it will be very, very useful. Commissioner wolfram commissioner johnck . Commissioner johnck i echo the same. Shannon, did do you this . Well, elaine styles elaine styles wrote the report and staff reviewed it and provided fooeedback, so, yes. Commissioner johnck something i thought was interesting was the dockation documentation of old presidio road. It connects with other parts of the city and area and wondered just for future relationship between this context statement and, for instance, the parks department, whether there is opportunity through our context statement to engage more interest, identification, you know, with park and rec on the road, as walking trail or whatever. Walking trial. Thats right. [laughter] commissioner johnck so thats off the wall comment, but i loved the report. It was great. Commissioner wolfram commissioner hyland . Commissioner hyland a comment and a question. First of all, im some thrilled to see this. I was part of friends of 1800 at some point when we were pushing to get Something Like this launched and its a long time coming. This will definitely be on the top of my bookshelf. The question i have so congratulations and thank you for this. The question i have is on the eastern boundary. And that is, does that key up with the delores commission delores context statement . Is that how that boundary was defined . I believe so, yes. Commissioner hyland thank you. I also think this is a very impressive report. And there are so many parts that were interesting, like the quarries in corona heights. I always wondered why the land forms were so strange. I have one request, if possible, theres a fine oyster house if that could be mentioned in 197 or there are some other examples there. Theres an example of two flats on collingwood, but that may be a better example there. It may be 4015 21st street. Its at the peak of the hill. Is that property one to add to our landmarks Designation Program . We can discuss that or research it, yeah. Commissioner hyland otherwise, its really well done. Motion is to adopt, correct . Second. Very good, commissioners. On that moeths to adopt commissioner johnck yes. Commissioner johns yes. Commissioner matsuda yes. Commissioner pearlman yes. Commissioner hyland yes. Commissioner wolfram yes. So proved. That is approved 60. That was our last item for the year. Well close in honor of former mayor ed lee. Were all here on this commission because of mayor lee. We honor and remember his service and years of public service. So closing in his honor today. S extravaganza, celebration. Sf gov, we are ready to start the meeting. This is the regular meeting of the Small Business Commission Held december 11th, 2017. This meeting is being called to order at 5 32 p. M. The Small Business commission thanks Media Services and sfgovtv staff. Members of the public please take this opportunity to silence your phones and other electronic devicesment Public Comment during the meeting is limit today three minutes per speaker, unless otherwise established by the precider of the meeting