Transcripts For SFGTV Historic Preservation Commission 102115 20151026

Cent today. First is members to address the commission with Public Comment and with respect to agenda items the opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the public up to three minutes. I have no speaker cards. Does anybody member of the public wish to speak on a non agendaized item. Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. Very good commissioners. Department matters. Item 1 directors announcements. Good afternoon commissioners. Tim Frye Department staff. The president s report was included in the packet and happy to answer questions or forward questions to the director should you have them. Seeing none item two review of Commission Planning department and announcements. Good afternoon. Tim frye planning staff. No report from the commission. They had a very short hearing last week and the only other item i wanted to bring to your attention was university mount ladies home is at the Land Use Committee next week and the department will be presenting on your behalf. That concludes my announcements. Moving on commissioners that places us under commissioners matters. President s reports or announcements. No report or announcements. Very good. Item 4 consideration of draft minutes for the october 7, 2015 minutes and the october 7, october 7 arc minutes and i have one correction. Its noted that commissioner pearlman was present for the meeting and he was absent and commissioner hasz was here in his stead. Any other comments or corrections . Does anybody in the public wish to comment on the draft minutes on october 7 minutes of the Historic Preservation commission and the Architecture Review Committee. Seeing none i will close that. I do have a motion . For the minutes . Move to approve. Thank you commissioners. On that it commissioner hasz. Yes. Commissioner johns. Yes. Commissioner matsuda. Yes. Commissioner pearlman. Yes and Committee President wolf bofl. Yes. That passes 60 unanimously and places you on item 5 comments and questions. Any questions, comments, disclosures seeing none we will move on . Commissioners that places under for considerations proposed for continuance. Item 6 for 2014. 1315coa at 135 townsend street certificate of appropriateness is proposed for continuance to november 18, 2015. If there is anybody any of the commissioners wish to pull this from the continuance calendar . Okay. We need a motion to continue. Does anybody in the public wish to comment on this proposal for continuance . Seeing and hearing none we will close Public Comment. I do have a motion to continue . I motion to continue. Second. Thank you commissioners. On that motion. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner yes. Commissioner yes. Commissioner president wolfram. Yes. So moved. That passes 60 unanimously and next is number 7 at 2015007714coa at 900 north point street also known as Ghirardelli Square. Certificate of appropriateness. Before i hear this item i am working for a client on this item for Ghirardelli Square and i need a motion to recuse myself. Move to have commissioner wolfram recuse himself. Second. Thank you commissioners. On that motion to recuse. Commissioner wolfram. Commissioner hasz. Yes. Commissioner johns. Yes. Commissioner matsuda. Yes. Commissioner pearlman. Yes. Commissioner hyland. Yes. So moved that passes 60. Gfn commissioners. I am from the Department Staff. Before is a certificate of appropriateness for Ghirardelli Square which is designated as city landmark number 30 and is listed on the national and california registers. The proposed scope of works ifs on alterations to the Apartment Building and the plaza near the larkin street entrance and the proposal includes replacing stairs at the south and west facades adding ada lift at the south facade, adding tenant signs and mechanical equipment including mechanical louvers and other equipment at the roof. For the planters the planter adjacent which are the existing planters are from the halprinera planter redesign of the 60s. Adjacent to the planter on larkin street gate the stairs currently [inaudible] planter will be removed and with a new stair and ada lift with a concrete wall. A new concrete bunch is added to the planter and original planter is retained to the extent possible with the focus of retention at the eastern portion of the planter and another planter near the chocolate shop building and altered over the years those walls will be removed and replaced with a concrete bench and planters will have new plantings. Staff finds that the proposed Work Commission as recommended is conformation with article 10 and the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. Staff finds that the project replace none historic features with new features and new benches and plant i guess and ada lift in the plaza in a matter that is compatible with the property. Staff recommends approval of conditions of conditions and ceiling and new signs and for removal of the proposed awning at the south facade entrance. Since packets were submitted to the commission we have gained a better understanding of the existing and proposed treatment for the terrace ceiling and would like to amend the condition related to this feature by removing the requirement this is a finished solid ceiling and adding language regarding the treatment of new fixtures and associated conduit when installed on this ceiling. We recommend that Condition One from your draft motion be revised to read as follows that new light fixtures are fully recessed in the ceiling and the conduit is minimized as possible and painted to match the ceiling. Plans for the terrace ceiling will be provided for review and approval as part of the permit application. The two conditions in the draft in the motion are recommended without any revisions. No Public Comments have been received since packets were submitted. Staffs preliminary recommendation for this project is for approval with conditions. This concludes my presentation unless there are any questions and i believe the project sponser also has a brief presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the commission . I do have a question. Thank you. On the fake brick and make sure i understand all the locations. It says filling in a door. On the west facade theres the west wall of the original building ground floor was previously removed in the 1960s and reconstructed we think in the 80s, 90s. Were not 100 sure so within that reconstructed wawm there are four openings. Two are full height and two are more window size openings, so one of those full height openings would be partially in filled and with veneer brick to match the surrounding and in that partially opening a window would be installed. Is there any veneer brick already there . Yes. For the rest of the wall its veneer brick. Got it. Thank you. The project sponser would like to make the presentation. He has ten minutes. Good afternoon commissioners. My name is a lis scats and the architect for the project. We have with us brian and ben who are the Landscape Architect james hardy is also here and the owner of Ghirardelli Square and we have patrick o costo the restaurateur for the proposed work for the restaurant. We were here last february when we presented alterations to the building and the adjacent terrace. That project is well under way and working closely with planning. Lavalley have worked with the mock ups of the site work. Were here to present improvements to the Apartment Building and the location of the building over to the left of the site. The Apartment Building was constructed in 1916 for a apartment for the day manager and night watch man for the buildings. The building was in the 1960 shown on the right hand side when converted to a restaurant. This work included using the larkin street facade as the entrance to an under ground garage and facing the plaza audio not clear protruding wings. The building was altered in the 80s through an installation of the store front when converted to retail and entry at the west facade and glass enclosure on the bottom left was placed above the garage. The steps at the west facade were constructed at that time. The project will reintroduce a student use for the building. The store front will be removed and the steps. The main entry is located on the facade and accessed through the stairs and brian will talk about that in a minute. It will have concrete that matches the halprinera planter paving. I want to emphasize with the store front it is masonry openings while not originally theyre like the original facade openings will be seen for the first time in decades. Mineral changes are proposed for the south facade and provide the ada entrance for the restaurant. Primary changes are the stairs and awning that brian will talk about. Signage for the restaurant will be minimal. Signage proposed for the [inaudible] and existing roof over the store front and at [inaudible] level. And signage at that location and there is currently scarring where the sign was removed. We will replace that and minimize the sign so cover only the area that has been scarred. We are proposing an awning at the ada side and reduced to a minimum to provide shelter over the door and the configuration will be very simple and minimal. The name of the restaurant will be at the squirt of the awning. The sign has been reviewed and installed in a way so brick is not damaged and at mortar joints and asking for approval of this awning. Two banner signs will be installed at the larkin street facade on the none historic enclosure above the garage. We believe this is a sensitive alteration that i think brs back an important building into use. The building has been vacant for several years and excited for this rehabilitation and excited for the vitality it will bring the square and brian will now come up. Good afternoon commissioners. I am from hok. We serve the project as the Master Planner and Landscape Architect, so i wanted spend a couple of moments walking you through the exterior improvements proposed for the project. These are the existing photos of the site. You can see the upper left, the stair exists that faces on the Central Square that was a later addition. On the right side there is a problem and the haphazard stair added along the way and sliced through the halprinera planter and plantings and disrupted circulation flow and one of the first things that you see on Ghirardelli Square off of larkin street so we need to do something more than an exit stair. Below lower left you can see a condition when you walk in from larkin this is what you look at and we figure there is a better way to do this and this is a 3d model up in the air birds eye of the facility and the space and the lateral stair and the planter off of larkin. What we propose i will start with kind of the area upper left in the drawing that faces the fountain. This is the patio using concrete and help the esthetic. The verticals will have formed concrete and in keeping with the halprin esthetic and when you blur your eyes and zoom out youre seeing a rationale plan which we think is very much was halprin was about. Everything has a purpose and no stairs that cut through and interesting and this would enliven the plaza edges and lower right. This is where the stair will be reconfigured and the ada lift for the building and currently needs that and were restoring utilizing the existing halprin planter, what remains and extending what has been lost and demolished along the way with the same details and bench and everything at the upper plaza which you approved previously and this builds on the sets and guidelines froms previous. Planting its hard to see huwere proposing a olive tree and theyre one of the best parts of the square from a landscape perspective and we think adding a fifth would be a good thing and salty and tolerant. They make good sense here. This is the reconfigured 3d and see the stair exists to the space and laterally so you can stand out there and see this and we need more seatings and not about chairs and halprin was about these furnishing [inaudible] audio not clear and on the right side of the image near larkin you can seat stair, the elevator the lift i should say and planter and all rationale and purposeful and going back to what halprin established. He got it right so thats where i will close early. We look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners have any questions . Any member of the public wish to public on this agenda item . I will bring it back to the commission then. Close the Public Comment. I think its a very appropriate design and fits in well and i am ready to make a motion to approve as designed with the neanded condition amended Condition One. Second the motion. Thank you commissioners. On that motion then to approve with conditions as amended. Just for clarification so the recommendations are that are the awning design be brought through to the planning staff for further development. Okay very good. Commissioners on that motion to approve with conditions with amendments. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner hasz. Yes. Commissioner pearlman. Yes. Commissioner hyland. Yes. Commissioners so moved and passes 50. Commissioners that placings you for item 8 for case three, the van ness brt Station Design for Civic Center Landmark District review and comment. Good afternoon commissioners. Shelly from the preference staff. I am here to present the van ness avenue bus Rapid Transit project. Its before you for review and comment and coming back a month from now for the certificate of appropriateness hearing, so the brt project as we will refer to it calls for two centered dedicated bus lanes separated from traffic on van ness avenue on lombard street and Mission Streets and passes through the district and the improvements proposed along the alignment require approval for the certificate of appropriateness. Some of the improvements include a bus station at mccallister street, lighting and planting and traffic medians. The Architecture Review Committee reviewed this project 2014. Its been a year and recommended design improvements to achieve better compatibility with the landmark district and i have attached the comment summary to your packet. Its attachment a. Due to the budget and management constraints not all of the arcs recommendations could be accommodated and the department requested review by the full commission to review the options that sfmta is exploring and comment on the appropriateness for the changes of the landmark district. The city as you remember recently prepared a landscape inventory for the district which has been incredibly useful for analyzing the appropriateness of the project and some pages from the inventory are exerted in the packages and attachment b where you find maps and photos and contributing features of the district along van ness and staff has reviewed the project and do the guidelines of the secretary of the interior and landscape and hierarchy of projects within land scaips. The first four deal with existing historic features so i wanted to note along the van ness corridor within the Historic District and include 34 trolley poles and light standards and modified in 1934. Another contributing feature are the median trees trees located in the median. Theres also a portion of brick paving in front of high school of commerce which is a contributing feature. There are four fire hydrants installed in 1909 and associated with the 1906 fire and earthquake. There are many granite curves lining the sidewalk of van ness avenue although many portions have been replaced and theres one fire box dating from 1899. The project does propose to remove all the trolley poles along the corridor along the district. They can no longer serve to hold the wire system that serves the bus Rapid Transit system. Theyre also in Poor Condition and dont meet standards for lighting so sfmta will go into more why they not in the scope and the removal appears to be justified. The project would remove the flowering and gum tree in the median and replace with a similar species which has a very similar form and height. The project would salvage or replace in kind the brick paving and any granite curves damaged this time and keep the fire box within the guidelines. That brings us to treatment six which deals with new or modified features. In the case report i listed all of the you 92 or modified Landscape Elements followed by planning staffs evaluation of compatibility and i want to point awe few in the presentation. Youre welcome to ask about the others but i wanted to point out the features were recommending a change in design approach so first would be the station platform, the actual bus station located in the median. Staff is recommend being that the recommending its designed with granite curves and match the ones in the district did we otherwise find that the design itself is compatible with the district. The station shelters the bus shelters located on the platform. Staff has recommended using a shelter with a lighter and finely detailed framing system and with a simple flat or pitched roof as compared to what were referring as the Clear Channel design and has the seismic wave roof and industrial structural system industrial looking. Sfmta has proposed two alternatives for consideration but staff didnt believe theyre of quality that we would recommend for approval. Regarding the sidewalks staff is recommending that new g gran curbs are brought into project and new alignment in the sidewalk and where the historic curb is missing and replaced with a concrete curb and would like to see that within the district and that brings me to the Street Lighting system. Staff is recommending removal of most of the trolley poles in the district and we believe the constraints and we believe it will reduce clutter in the public rulm and a better design and we are recommending some are preserved in situe or other locations to be artifacts of the pin ball exhibition and the history they contract to the Civic Center District so in the there is a currently a proposal to be explored to retain just two trolley pulls in front of city hall and flank the primary steps and were supportive of that but we also recommend that an Interpretive Program be included so there is some sort of signage that makes the public aware of the history of the trolley pulls and why they were removed so today were seeking general feedback on the design and feedback on staffs initial analysis in the packet and comment on the issues that i outlined but i will be summarizing all comments regarding the project. The project team is now going into more detail about the elements of the project and i will record the comments and take your advice under consideration when we come back for the certificate of appropriateness in november. Okay. If you dont have any questions i will turn it over to peter who is the project team leader. I have one question. I notice on the rendering says Clear Channel or is it within our purview and should we be thinking about it or is it about the design and the elements you talked about . Its a good question and maybe better to pose to the full commission. Im not sure as staff i could answer that. The project team is presenting what it believes it can feasibility build and the alternatives theyre proposing they believe there are problems with the feasibility of construction, so as far as how much purview the commission has and requiring things that do not seem to be feasible to the project team im not going to speak to that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you mr. Frey did you have a commend . I want to respond to commissioner pearlmans comment. The specific are to look at the design in compliance with the standards. There maybe opportunities for other parties like the civic center bid to be involved in maintenance but again the project team will talk about the pros and cons of each of the scenarios during their presentation. All right. Were ready for the project team. Good afternoon. Good afternoon commissioners. I im the sfmta project manager for this project for the van ness brt project. The van ness brt project is building a bus Rapid Transit system which is secially a collection of transit lanes down van ness on either side of the median from south van ness and Mission Street to just shy of van ness and lombard and the buses transition into traffic. Its a complete streets project. Its comprehensive. Were repaving the road and building the transit bus ways but were building nine transit stations next to the medians and in the center of the street and traffic lights and signals and lighting and rebuilding the sewer lines and water lines and rebuilding everything from sidewalk to sidewalk along van ness avenue. The critical portion for this commission is the Historic District we have one station at mccallister and van ness and one of the reasons i wanted to mention that specifically is because youre responsible for reviewing and giving us feedback on the appropriateness of the design of that station. At the same time i would like you to consider that the sfmta is trying to tie all nine stations along the corridor together with some common design themes so theyre readily identifiable as brt stops to the public, and to identifiable as muni stops to the public, and i am here with our project architect and Landscape Architect and i will turn this over to them. Good afternoon. My name is martha and the architect with public works. And so in front of you right now is a plan view rendering of the Historic District that stretches from fell to golden gate and as peter mentioned the roadway generally stays as is. What that means theres a median in the center with a bus way on either side. That median being about eight to 9 feet wide that will be planted. However, when that median hits a boarding island or comes upon it it has to change to accommodate the dimensionality of the boarding island itself so in front of the city hall you can see that the median split splits and the space is part and utilize for the boarding island so at mccallister you have two opposing or kittycorner boarding islands straddling the intersection, so again it comes along straight and then when a boarding island is encountered it splits. Some of the other features that we have mentioned was we have the change of the street or the median trees to the other trees which is the lemon scented gum, and some other fe whiatures i would like to show you on the next sheet. So heres a close up view of the city hall block, and more specifically directly on the sidewalk in front of city heal the two bus stops, both south and north will obviously be removed because now the bus is moved to the center. This becomes the opportunity for three storm water planters both south and north to be installed by the puc because thats one of the programs to highlight storm water infiltration in the civic center area. Also in front of directly in front of city hall there is a fairly new code requirement by ada that is requiring bold ins. What that allows is a 5foot cut into the sidewalk that allows a car to pull in and then opening onto the outside or drivers side for exiting and loading by those in a wheelchair. The granite does occur granite curbing does occur in this particular zone so we would salvage and replace and or have new ones constructed to meet the radius of the new bulb bin. In the median area in front of city hall we have two existing trees. We have one of the red flowering gum that would remain as well as one of the oak and then we would fill that out with a balance of the lemon scented gum. One thing that if you think about that median as it exists today there is a fence that goes the full length of the median. It is there for a reason and keep people from running across the street. It is also there and has a ceremonial gate crossing so when there is a large event they close the block down. That gating system can be opened up and allow people to move back and forth. We will maintain that but in a new design railing that will meet match that on the boarding island and that alignment of it will be based on the west or the memorial side of the median. The memorial side of the sidewalk alignment will remain as is in terms of the sidewalk and the curb alignments so nothing much is happening there. On the next drawing is a typical Cross Section which illustrates the new median that separates the bus way which is the typical section of a single median and bus way either side. This is showing the 5foot railing that would be installed on the veterans side of the median to prevent the crossing and also illustrates the new modern Street Lighting system which is 30 feet tall with street lights over the roadway itself, and for the first time we will be adding pedestrian lighting over the sidewalks. In the next image you will see the configuration at the Border Island and has medians that divide the bus way. You will have in this block the railway again on the veterans side of the median and the boarding island is just beyond where this section is cut. In the next image this is a newly created image just for this presentation is a direct view straight on of city hall on the west side looking back at city hall. What is important to note about this is that the existing gate system does not align with the center line of city hall. We will take this opportunity to now make it align as it should be because thats the way it should be. Also is showing this relationship of the two existing what would be trolley pulls, the older ones, the contributing feature trolley pulls that will not function in the future as such, and the new modern ones that would be adjacent to them because of course we have to have the ones that are functioning as they would today be in very similar proximity and now that relationship of keeping two older ones and having two modern adjacent would be. In the next image is a perspective rendering as if you were standing actually at the top of the opera house steps looking back towards city hall. This shows the bus way. It shows the railings that again is more on the veterans opera house side of the median, and though it will have planting obviously at the basis to soften it but we wanted to show this view just to show you that alignment and it also shows you the existing oak tree and the one red flower gum that is shown in the darker color hughes with the new trees, the new lemon scented gums faded back. In the next image this is the work that would be happening on the sidewalks. The sidewalk site furnishing zone is something were going to develop because so many of the elements along van ness specifically the trees and other features sort of waiver theyre not in any particularly Straight Line so we choose to come up with a site furnishing zone with one edge that is consistent so we could have that randomness but its contained within a zone that will organize it in a very strong visible fashion. This allows to plant new street trees which we propose to do, new bike racks where new ones are coming out and replacing those, and this also highlights the new configuration of the new street light, ped light as well as this new lighting scheme will also carry the overhead wires to support the electrification for the trolley. Thank you. Are you almost wrapped up . Yeah, i am trying to go through this as fast as i can and lastly to your right is the two Light Pictures of the lighting, the existing trolley pulls and their existing conditions. Theyre not in the greatest condition. We dont know who would be responsible for those. Thats for you to have a discussion about and to give some guidance. Next image quickly these are the new modern like fixtures. Its the poppa and the momma smaller and site furnishing zones and going with the gray pallet and the pavers and im going to turn it over to the architect who will take you through the boarding island. Good afternoon commissioners. My name is will quan and an architect with public works. As mentioned the van ness brt will result in nine stops and consolidation of existing stops so that means for the his district that the stops at mccall terand van ness and grove and van ness will be combined into one and single stop at mccallister and located to coordinate with the fulton line east west and facilitates transfer. One of the reason it took a while to come back to you after going to review we needed caltrans approval and what is on the screen is the railing that will occur at every station platform. Originally we had a vertical design for the railings and that was determined by caltrans to be a possibility of obstructing views of drivers as driving north, south on van ness and parallel to the railing so this design is one that we came up with and eventually approved by caltrans and it provides horizontal once so the drivers can see through it as they approach the intersection and the light and Dark Movement for the design of the railing. It is a very simple railing. The intent was to do something that is simple and elegant and this is a detail close up elevation and now we just have a pull back elevation of a typical platform so you see the panels as we go along the platform. A birds eye view indicates that currently the design is intending on using concrete pavers, Precast Concrete pavers that are 4 feet by 6 inches high and stacked on, and on each platform we also have a Cast Aluminum plaque that would indicate the intersecting street so this would be a prospective view for the proposed stop at this area. This is a sectional view of the platform and because of the width of ness fleses van ness and existing street were only allowed this size and with the different requirements as you see on the right side there is a curb there to separate the traffic from the passengers waiting and then also the ada path would be a 4foot path that has to be continuous lane the lane. We end up with a footprint of three and a half feet available to support the shelters. This is a view of the van ness stop and part of our design was again mentioned earlier that we wanted to do a simple elegant design and have a consistent design to run the length of the brt. This would be the station that bush and sutter. And finally this is the station at mccallister, the northbound station directly in front of city hall. This would be a view of the station at night so these views show the Clear Channel shelters that were discussed by staff earlier. Part of mtas contract with the Clear Channel is that the vendor is a responsible for installing and maintaining their bus shelters. There are four options available for the contract, and with the those four options there are only four that will fit on this platform. One was the one that we originally presented to architecture review. That one included ad panels and seating but no canopy so canopy was a requirement for the federal Transportation Authority so that was illuminated and actually a good change because now there are no more ad panels on the platforms. A second shelter or the ones that are currently on Market Street for the f line those dont have seating and that was determined not to be desirable for this location so we ended up with the current proposal which is a narrow canopy or shelter with no panels with just a muni Information Panel on one end and the wavey canopy but the current contract allows for three colors, so red and yellow is currently being used and so what were proposing here is that we take advantage of the opportunity to have a third color and the third color were proposing is a frosted clear canopy which visually will be the same as the glass panels that are currently acting as wind screens so this is the prospective view of how the canopies will look like at night. This is a pull back view that was requested and show the nobody and southbound northbound and southbound stops on mccall terand we were asked to look at options so this is an option of replacing the seismic wave canopy with a flat panel. In my opinion it doesnt make that such of a difference between the wavey canopy and the flat canopy. I think the major improvement we were able to achieve was change the color to the frosted white. One consequence of changing this is were no longer i guess in compliance with the contract so mta would need to install and maintain these canopies. Another option we were asked to look at would be something thats all together different thats a prefabricated and because of the limitations i mentioned earlier where we have 3foot 6 inches for the footprint there are limited number of canopies that will fit on the platform so this is one example of a prefabricated canopy. It is not something that we would prefer. It is also would not be consistent with all the other canopies along the brt line. That would be the end of our presentation. Were available to answer any questions. All right thank you. Are there any questions before we go to Public Comment . Does any member of the public wish to comment on this item . If so please come forward. Commissioners i am jim hess and here today as a member of the city hall preservation advisory commission. We were charged by the board of supervisors to look after and recommend matters relating to the city hall, both the inside and the outside. We have requested a presentation of the final plans at our november 7 meeting fifth meeting and we will be sending you our comments regarding anything that relates to the area of city hall or the area around it and we hope you will help this. Let me make a comment about history when the pp ii board of directors and colleagues requested james roth to ran as mayor and ran on several things. One was the building of the city hall and civic center for which he got the ball rolling by march of 2012 with John Gallen Howard in charge. The second item was to improve transportation in the city. He charged he gave that to staff to do and they proposed a very extensive Municipal Railway extension. By then you had the geary extension but that was all running and they served that as well as other areas of the city. He ran into opposition from the private Streetcar Company and they had a big battle over a bond issue to pay for these improvements which was on the ballot at the end of august in 2013. But he won. But that gave them 17 months to build the Market Street and other streetcar lines to serve the fair. Within that time which from our point of view today is actually miraculous and succeeded at doing that but it was done in a hurry and on the cheap and you have to view the poles within that context and the Civic Center Plan which was detailed and i am sure you sought rendering does not cover those poles. Those are a separate project and i dont think you need to make a big deal of them being part of civic center. Perhaps if you want to save some of them put them down at the north end of the line where the streetcars went to service the exhibition but we will comment on that particular issue in our letter but bear in mind the Historical Context how these things came about and theyre two separate projects. Thank you. Thank you. Any other member of the public wish to comment on this item . Seeing none. Public comment is now closed and bring it back to the commission. Any comment that we would like to commissioner pearlman. Youre not going to call me ms. Johnson. No. Thank you very much. This is an incredibly comprehensive design relative to what we saw a year or so ago and i am very much appreciate how difficult it must be to coordinate federal and local and different agencies et cetera, so i first wanted to say that the parameterral covers are awful and hopefully it never sees the light of day and one you should be able to discount quickly. I wanted to comment on what was talked about and the poles. I noticed on the plan sheet for this stop theres at the south end theres something that says public art and i am wondering if the poles could be public art and then at that end you could see them if you walk to the end of the platform and there could be a plaque or something that describes what they were, so it kind of clears up the clutter of having the new poles and the old poles right next to each other but then it keeps the rem mant of remnant of them so the historical artifact is in this location so thats just a suggestion. Im not a big fan of the seismic wave canopies. They dont do a good job when the wind blows and drip down so im not a fan but i understand the problem of making this station different from all the others which i think is a significant problem because the whole idea is that youre creating this one line and if you go to any city and look at any subways or streetcars theres always something that is the same in each station, but that said in a city like boston where every station has a unique tiles or unique something there are things that are the same, the lettering style, how theyre put up, where they are, the lighting, things like that are consistent, but there are unique elements in every single station. New york city has some that are older have unique character compared to newer ones so i dont know if its okay to say this is the city hall one and it should be different in which case i would recommend a flat glass cover, but im not sure there is enough of an argument to make this one different, and then eight of them are exactly the same, so i think thats sort of a challenge. I do like the fence rail that you came up. It has a dynamic quality they think it will feel like its moving which is one of the comments we had. The vertical one with the mod laited verticals that had that sense of movement so i think you have achieved this with the horizontals and i think overall its a clean design. I appreciate having the granite curbs in this location because they lend a level of quality that relates to the whole Civic Center District. Are there granite curbs in this location . Isnt that what you said . Not on the platform. I think shelly said i can clarify that for you. Currently the proposal doesnt include them for the bus platform. Neither does it propose to put granite curb where there are currently concrete curbs at altsidewalk. They will only replace it where it currently exists with the exception of the bulb in directly in front of city hall. Sorry its a little complicated. Thank you. Commissioner johns. Thank you. Well first of all commissioner pearlman said everything i was going to say and he did it probably better than i would have except for one thing and when mr. Hasz was speaking frequently he referred to things that happened in 2012, 2013. I think it was clear he had in mind 1912 and 1913 so i wanted to mention that. Other comments . We have a whole list of questions too that we should address from planning staff that they have asked for specific comments. Commissioner hyland go ahead. I would say that the bus shelter and the wavey roof is [inaudible] and we should question what we can do to improve on that. I think the industrial strength of this frame of this bus stop just isnt really appropriate for the his district in my opinion. I do like the railings. Its much better improvement over the ones we saw last time and i guess i dont know what the solution is but i dont think the seismic wave is appropriate either. Commissioner hasz. Thank you. A quick comment actually nothing to do with preservation but taking van ness down to two lanes and the epidemic of double parking by delivery trucks now would be a disaster on van ness so i hope we make it illegal for ten wheel trucks to deliver and only do six wheel or some other configuration and mta and nothing to do with preservation but that has to stop. Thank you. Anybody want to take upon themselves to discuss the comments or questions from staff . Sure. The first question was about the lets seat platform, the question of granite curbs and the platform edge. Thats what i was thinking. Staff recommends use of granite curbs for the edge and match those in the district. Yeah, i thought in this particular station that would be a very nice relationship between the big granite buildings on either side and the curbs there and has a historic quality. I would recommend if they can do that that i agree with that. Okay. Otherwise the platform not the shelter but the ground plain; right . Is that correct . I apologize. I had to go back to my case report to remember which questions i had asked. So under requested action we were looking at the compatiblity of proposed paving treatment with the granite and new concrete curbs. Is that the comment youre referring to . I guess i am going through the staff recommendations. Oh i see. In the review lets see its in the case report. Under the analysis. Under the analysis. Under each feature we have made a comment about whether or not we believe the new feature is compatible. Right. If you would like to go through each one and say if you agree or disagree with staffs comments that would be great. Yes, thats what were planning to do. So back to your question im sorry now that i know where you are. Are you looking at station platforms and the ground plain of and page seven. Yes, we are referring simply to the platform underneath the bus station itself. Were not referring to anything at the sidewalks on the sides. Okay. I have a question actually for mta so there is no signage intended for the bus riders to know which station theyre at . I understand there is signage on the ground but if youre in a bus you cant see that. [inaudible] currently where it would be announced on the bus for riders waiting there will be signage on the canopies. Okay. That would indicate the lines arriving and what stop youre at. Right now what i have the screen is a metric of the platforms. I wanted to clarify i guess the staffs comments and then also what the recommendations will be, so along the back of the platform that is a 14inch high by 13 everyone curb required by caltrans and reinforced concrete and also where the railings are supported, so that portion we would not be able to construct out of granite, and so in terms of the possibility for granite it would be the front edge only and since the front is the or the very front is the ramp i just wanted to clarify that if the recommendation is for granite where it would stop . Like would it stop at the corner or would you make like it to turn around so it goes back toward the back of the platform . I am just asking for clarification with the recommendation. The stop beyond the m and mccallister on the image. And this stop could the granite come across the face of the ramp and be the ban that is the back and enframes the pavers. Yeah. So the ramp itself is concrete. You can seat mouse now and that line is that what youre talking about . Yes and there and go back. Yeah, the frame around the pavers and the ramp itself is concrete and the curb on the backside. Thats great. Okay. Lets go back to our the next one is about the station fencing. Staff finds its compatible. I am hearing that the commission agrees. Station shelters. Staff recommends using a shelter with lighter detailed framing and a simple pitched roofch. Of the two options neither reflect the character. That was my point so i concur with that. Other comments . Does it need to reflect the mozart character . It seems simplistic. It needs to be compatible and thats what were judging. [inaudible] peppy. [inaudible] not that mo sart is muscular and the contrast between the refinement of classical proportion and detail and this which is very industrial so i think thats the conflict less the weight of the material because certainly you look at city hall its a pretty muscular heavy building but i agree with commissioner hyland about but again this is the problem. Do we have an unique station here versus the other eight . Because its not really compatible ultimately in my opinion its not compatible with the wave and the industrial character of the assembly of parts to support it. But there are other options supported that we dont believe are compatible either so there is no option right now; right . [inaudible] a different design. [inaudible] its just like this because you have the wave situation in front of city hall and moving to the middle and whats the difference . To me youre moving it away from the building and goes better and into a transit zone that is definitely not a part of city hall. Yes. [inaudible] we have looked at other possible designs as will mentioned before we have a limited footprint to work with and that limits our options. One of the things i discovered when i got on to this project and started looking into redesigning the shelters themselves was that part reason that they look as beefy as they do because they need to support 1200 to 1400pound on the roof and in the events like the giants victory there are people standing and jumping on top of the shelters so they have to have a certain level of strength to the design. Now, we can continue looking for something more elegant but the project doesnt have essentially the funding to custom design a shelter and put it through the necessary testing to make sure it can survive all the conditions that it will face out there which is why were looking at something thats off the shelf. In addition to that the expectation is that in 18 years when our contract with Clear Channel expires and a new transit shelter is selected that we then are able to come in and drop in a standard mta shelter on all of the platforms. Thats the hope anyway. All right. Thank you. Mr. Frye. Commissioners this is merely just a suggestion to give clarity to staff and the mta project team but it does seem like there is a benefit to having a very simple design for this shelter if these options are limited. The existing shelter has a lot of sort of industrial elements and maybe its a matter of working with the manufacturer to see if some of the elements can be refined, the exposed bulbs could be finished or cut off or small gestures that could be explored to bring to you at the next hearing. I am just wondering instead of looking at a complete redesign maybe there are ways to fine tune the existing ones that would be worth exploring if youre open to that and we can work with mta on getting renderings and details for. Yeah, i would endorse that. I think that if the if these are just welded together instead of being exposed and alled had thes and things were gone it would appear simpler and more refined and if mta is open to that i think thats a good direction. And then the other questions were there any other comments or questions . Yes, lets go to the historic trolley pulls and what in this theres a proposal to potentially have two of them located in front of city hall that would be not maintained i guess by mta or by muni, but would be historic trolley pulls but that could be done or they could be removed or relocated so anybody have a feel going that . I like the image with the two trolley pulls there. I like what the commissioner said in a way it reminds me of the doggy diner sign and have the two things that are apparently slapped together 100 years ago and were tinkered with in the 30s and were going to have them sitting with no relation to anything and i think it makes more sense or treat it for those that didnt like the doggy diner thing as clear pat ras needle in london. This is a piece of art that were preserving to suggest what was there and call it a day. I would like it to be fixed up so they dont fall over and they look as nice as they probably did in 1915 and if its a piece of art then isnt there a mechanism already in place to maintain pieces of public art . Through the Art Commission. So they could presumably step up to the plate on that one. Commissioners, tim Frye Department staff. I do want to point out that the doggy diner is a city landmark and well loved by many and routinely maintained by dpw but i wanted to point out on page four of the packet the project team is showing two trolley pulls across the street so it creates this framed gate way in between the opera and the Veterans Building to city hall, but i think commissioner pearlman and johns comment about potentially incorporating them as public art is interesting and talk to the Art Commission about. I just wanted to point out that the project has been approved by the Arts Commission and there is a public arts project under way for this site. Its not for the mccall stir street site but the gate way site at the southern ernd of the alignment. Is that correct . [inaudible] Market Street, union [inaudible] and sutter are the three sites chosen for public art. Perhaps the team could talk about the public art selection and how that part of the project is developing. No, there are three sites with public art. This is not one this is not proposed to have public art. Got it. There are no public art sites within the district at this point. Personally my recommendation would be to keep the existing trolley pulls around city hall and not move them and fix them up. Nobody else concurs with that. [inaudible] yeah, its like in the image. Theyre two existing ones and just leave them there. [inaudible] i dont know that i care so much about the ones across the street. Just keep two. Was it also proposed to put two on the opposite side that yes. The flank. Its proposed in the drawings so my sense is that mta is not not recommending this necessarily but its shown in here. The project team at this point doesnt recommend keeping any of the trolley pulls in place. Right. Working with Planning Commission staff we have left them on the drawings for the time being because were asked to look what it would be lice to leave them in place. Our big concern theyre over a hundred years old and not in good shape and essentially orphaned infrastructure in the city once the project is completed. Its easy to work around them and do patchwork on them but the sfmta doesnt have any practical use for them as trolley pulls and puc has no use as light poles and were not sure who would maintain them in the future or provide power if theyre lit or provide the lamps when they burn out. Theres a list of questions we could work on resolving but there is no clear path forward now and our fear we would leave them and put fresh coat of paint on them and in five years its derelict poles falling apart. The other concern they mentioned theyre 100 years old. The ones in city hall they dont look in bad shape but others have water and corrode the rebar inside and theyre known to occasionally and spontaneous pop chunks of concrete off and to the parking lane below so its one of the reasons as far as this project goes the agency doesnt consider them in anyway useful or salvageable. Thank you. I hate to say this being a member of the Historic Preservation commission brui am wondering if we should accept the fact were in 2015 and maybe let them go. Again i think i know i had a project once where old granite curbs from San Francisco were sold and a landscape person got them and we did the driveway of this particular house with all granite curbs. I dont know if we could do the same thing and the old trolley pulls are salvaged and art pieces made from them. I do think it would be nice to have some kind of interpretive display somewhere that shows pictures from 1915. Its a pretty significant part of San Francisco history, this whole trolley line, the pp ie, the building of city hall. There is nothing more historic architecturally in San Francisco, so it seems like we should somehow to figure out a way to use them somewhere but maybe theyre art pieces so they dont have to function and theyre under someone elses purview as far as maintenance. I wanted to make a comment that i read a article that copenhagen is taking the similar approach and auctioning off the lights for private use and using the funds for another project so there is a model out there if we want to follow a Salvage Program for them. Thank you. Commissioner hyland. I suggest in this stage of the process we dont let them go just yet and suggest the ones being removed auctioned off or disposed off in a appropriate way or transit transitioned to another life. And maybe there are funds for that. And do the four. I agree. Commissioner johns. That would be fine if we can find funds until these become theres an endowment to take care of them. Otherwise its become fairly clear to me were not only preserving the poles but preserving a problem which have to be confronted sooner or later like maybe when they fall down but if dont have a clear way to maintain these things then i think maybe we should bury them and go on to the next century. Mr. Frye. Commissioners another option that we will explore is the civic center bid has expressed interest or the possibility of providing maintenance on other components of the site, and so we can ask them about the trolley poles and if they have interest in helping out. Good idea. Commissioner hyland. I would add at this stage the process isnt done and we can do more exploration. Okay. I think theres one other. Yes mr. Hyland. On page ten i wanted to reiterate for the staff recommendation its a separate one under the sidewalks and that is for the granite curbs to be provided where theyre currently missing. If i could elaborate on that a bit. The recommendation is both to create consistent granite curb within the district but also to create consistent concrete paving with the sidewalks. Right now the idea is salvageable poured concrete paving will be kept in place and patched with new concrete paving where necessary so we will end up with a sort of patchwork concrete paving as well as patchwork granite curb and concrete curb and we would like to see a uniform approach for both elements of the sidewalk. There is a cost concern but costs are relative and we believe it would be a relatively low cost to do all new concrete paving. Yeah, i would agree with that given the amount of reconstruction happening its kind of like renovating your house and deciding youre not going to paint the living room or something. This is a major Infrastructure Project and then to have a patchwork of sidewalk and granite curb seems like that is kind of shocking. So i think we have provided our comments. I think that the biggest unresolved question is where we go with the station platform and if there are other options or not. I would just like to address the concerns with the granite curbs and the sidewalk work. The granite curbs are problematic because significant part of the funding for this project is fta and the federal Transportation Administration has made it very clear if we cant tie the work directly towards transit improvements we cant pay for it out of this projects funding, so i can make the case that if we damage an existing curb or have to change an existing curb line and why the federal government should be paying for any part of it since it doesnt contribute directly to a transit improvement. On the sidewalks i will take it back to my management. The mtas position is that Property Owners are responsible for the sidewalks that their properties face if dpw finds the funding from the Property Owners or from another source to do the work were happy to do it. Currently its an optional bid item in the contract package, but again its not transit related expense and unless you can find a separate pot of money to pay for it and make it a parallel project we dont have any funds to allocate. I will take your concerns back to my management but thats the current position. All right thank you. Commissioner hyland. Yeah, i have a question. I dont want to belabor this too much so indulge me and because San Francisco is [inaudible] taking place of the 106 review or is this [inaudible] i will let the project team speak to that. I wasnt directly involved in the Environmental Review for this. Hi. Commissioners. We are the lead in the project and this went through the process and we have that from the shipo office. Can i make those materials available to you at any time. Thank you. Does shipo have comments on the details . I think it would need that the project needs to comply with the standards [inaudible] and in our opinion these things are not in compliance so therefore the project ought to be able to fund. Okay. The shipo complied with the project in its design and the environmental phase since that time of the actual design work has happened and the certificate of appropriateness is a part of five of our mitigation items which is why were here before you today looking at those topics. All right thank you. So i would like to know how long the process is taking relative to the fact that the entire line was built in 17 months back in 1917 and i am wondering how long the process is not including the construction is probably significantly longer than that but part of our times. Is that a rhetorical question . Completely. I think were very good to move on. Very good commissioners that places you on item 9 for 2015007419coa at 2239 webster street. This is a certificate of appropriateness. Hello commissioners. So this is the project for 2239 webster street. Its an italian Victorian Era home built in 1878 1879 and a contributing resource within the webster street landmark district and has modification of the garage opening and stair hand rail on the facade and modifying the rear none visible portion of the building. The Historic Brick garage framing would be removed so its aligned with the plane of the facade and the bay above the new garage opening modified garage openings would be done with wood siding and trim and match those in the landmark district. Luckily many of the buildings have that so we can use and new plant scpition paving would be added to supplement the landscaping there. At the rear portion a part will be demolished for open space and light and air for the rear wall windows. A new stair penthouse is proposed for the building to improve roof deck at the rear of the building, a breezeway would be infilled and the existing metal hand rail of the stairs would be replaced with a iron hand rail and profile to match the neighboring property to the south. Staff has determined that the work is compatible with the character defining features of the subject site and with the webster street landmark district. It would remain the existing two Family Residential use on the site while improving the integration of the garage with the facade features and changing the non distinctive form of the building. The historic character of the property would be enhanced by the district and by modification of the garage and replacement of the hand rail and plantings and setback. The proposed siding and trim details are designed to match similar buildings within the district also built by hinkle. The hand rail is a eldisbant feature and matches the character of the victorian buildings in the district. This approach seems appropriate and missing the original front stair and hand rail which would typically be constructed of wood couldnt be epiindicated without demolishing the existing steps. Alterations to the roof and breezeway and facade wouldnt be visible by the street or alter this and wouldnt alter the volume of the building and breezeway and would remove a stair and wall with no character defining features. The construction of the new penthouse at the roof would remove a portion of the roof and not visible in the front or adjacent buildings from the street below and provide access to improve deck to the rear of the building and therefore were recommending approval with no conditions and im going to turn it over to the architect to walk you through the plans. Thank you. Thank you good afternoon. Im the architect on the project. I dont have the powerpoint presentations that the other people had but along the way i have this [inaudible] i think its side ways. Its up on the screen. Fantastic. I dont know when but somewhere along the way on this particular house somebody put this garage door in i guess and tried to support it in this manner with the brick arch way. Its very unusual solution to the whole problem. This is one of house of series of six buildings to the north of this that were built in 1878 or nine by the same builders and were fortunate because the other buildings have the same detail that is currently in place and theyre all identical in the form and trim around the bay and what were looking at doing is putting that exact same detail. Its not close to but exactly the same and we have the model. The difference between the buildings are the wind on the front windows and some have a arched top or corners otherwise the detailing is identical and were preserving it and so you can get in and out of the driveway and the eye sore and part is safety. There is some plumbing pieces for a hand rail that are put in place currently and theyre also not only unusual materials to have in place but also theyre at a height that dont meet code. Theyre not a natural hand rail height. We will have something that works physically right and has life safety issues. And interior wise as shelly has pointed out were cutting out some portion of the building to get Natural Light and operable windows. Right now you cant have an operable window there and have light and air provided to the bedrooms but its not to code so were trying to bring the building up to code. Its a building that neb neglected for years and wires and things and put everything back in order the way it should be and going to be a contributor to this whole neighborhood as right now it is not acting as such. I think shelly really outlined most everything going on and i will answer any questions that anybody has. Thank you very much. Commissioners any questions . Does any member of the public wish to comment on this item . Seeing and hearing none we will close Public Comment and bring it back to the commission. Are there comments or a motion . Motion approve as designed and suggested from the plan. Second. I think its a good project. Yeah. Commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this as proposed. Commissioner hasz. Yes. Commissioner johns. Yes. Commissioner matsuda. Yes. Commissioner pearlman. Yes. Commissioner hyland. Yes. And commissioner president wolfram. Yes. So moved. That passes unanimously 60. That places you on case ten for 2015011315fed at 800 Chestnut Street San Francisco Art Institute. This is for your review and comment. Good afternoon commissioners. Shannon Ferguson Department staff. The item before you is a National Register for the San Francisco Art Institute and its capacity as a certified local government of the city is given the opportunity to comment to the nominations to the register. The San Francisco Art Institute is located on Chestnut Street and jones street and two buildings and the original was in the spanish colleenial style in 1926 and paused valid architectures styles and playful human and proportion. According to the summary the San Francisco Art Institute is nationally significant under criterion a events for the roll in development of american art and for contributions to Art Education in the united states. The identified period of significance is 1927 through 1980. This period begins with the construction date of the original buildings and ends with the significant contributions of faculty and students in the fields of photography, video and installation and body art. Because its less than 50 years old its under criterion g and significance in the last 50 years. The San Francisco Art Institute is not nominated under c Design Construction. The nomination notes that the building and addition were designed by prominent architects and examples of the styles. Staff agrees its significant however staff feels that the property should be nominated under criteria c and has high artistic value and the characteristics of this style. The additions considered one of the striking examples of the architecture in california. Both buildings were designed by master architects as well. Staff also suggests additional minor edits to the description and also including examples of art from the different art movements and the documentation section. Staff requests the Commission Review the nomination and provide comments on whether the San Francisco Art Institute meets the criteria of significance. The commission may recommend the nomination, want recommend the nomination or recommend the nomination to be revised to include significance under criterion c, Design Construction and minor clarifications mentioned previously. Comments maybe added to the resolution in the packet. The res will be forwarded to the office of Historic Preservation. This concludes my presentation. I am happy to answer any questions and the project sponser consultant is also available for questions. Thank you. Any questions . I do. Commissioner johns. You were showing photographs and the one to the next to the last page which you didnt show is a photo by stack pull. Its number 32. I would like to point out when talking about minor edits stack pull died in 1973, not 1873, and incidentally for those who are interested one of his sculptures out in the hallway of judge seawall that died and if you can attend to that i would appreciate it. I have a question, so i dont know whether you can answer this or the consultant. Why wasnt criterion c considered . I am hoping that the consultant can answer that. Good afternoon. I am with paige and turnbell. Were the consultant and awetorof the nomination of the project and happy to answer the question. We actually agree with the planning departments recommendation about it being nominated for criterion c. A little background on the project. We actually started this process with the client looking at landmark nomination and worked closely with Elaine Jackson with the National Park service to start that and they stressed that we focus only on criterion a for landmark nomination. Later the client choose to just focus on listing the buildings on the National Register and we spoke with them about how we would go through that process and updating the form for National Register nomination and we chose to stay the course and nominate under criterion a. Not to say that we dont agree we do agree it could be listed under c as well. Its just the approach that we took for this nomination. Thank you. Commissioner hyland. Did you have another question . [inaudible] so is the thought that if we push for criterion c it may compromise the actual eligibility or the success of it being listed . No. My understanding is that your comments will go back to the state Historic Preservation office and theyre hearing is next week i believe so they will take all of your comments into consideration and perhaps shannon can answer this better and its up to them which comments they take action on. If they agree on your criterion c suggestions then they would send it back to us to update the nomination and get pulled from the agenda. All right thank you. Does any member of the public wish to comment on this item . Seeing hearing none well bring it back to the commission and comments. I have a few minor comments but commissioner pearlman. Yeah, i would agree. I think everybody else on this commission that we should be looking at criterion c. The first time i came to San Francisco was after a summer that i spent at harvard walking by the Carpenter Center many times and i happened to stumble by the Art Institute that year and was astonished that there was this building there and then when i found out it was design and built in the late 60s which is only a few years after the Carpenter Center i just find it to be pretty remarkable and certainly one of the best buildings not just in california but the country and the existing the original building is also just a fantastic building and the way that the buildings are woven together to have this spanish classical building and the briewtdallist modern building is incredibly unique. I dont think of anything in the country that would have this kind of two pieces that are so desperate but worked together well and under design and architecture i think this is pretty fantastic so i highly encourage us to endorse thats its under criterion c. Commissioner hyland. I would agree with that as well and both buildings they still have a high level of integrity. Yeah absolutely. I would concur very strongly with the sentiment of my colleagues, and i think if its an extraordinary complex of buildings and i would like to i think on page seven im sorry, page 101 thing that might be added though under the integrity section which is a significant change and not mentioned and under the auditorium there has been anin fall and Significant Impact on that piece that was in filled later so i think its worth mentioning in that section because thats an alteration to undo at some point in the future. So do we have a motion . [inaudible] a resolution. I need a motion to adopt this resolution. Right. [inaudible] and that would be under criterion c with the minor edits. Second. Thank you commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the recommendation recommending to the state Historic Preservation officer that 800 Chestnut Street be modified with the other edits. [inaudible] yes. Thank you. As amended. On that motion commissioner hasz. Yes. Commissioner johns. Yes. Commissioner matsuda, commissioner pearlman. Yes. Commissioner hyland. Yes. Commissioner president wolfram. Yes. That passes unanimously 60. Commissioners that places you on item 11, the landmark designation work program. Good afternoon commissioners susan Park Department staff. This item is a quarterly update on the status of the landmark designation work program from july 1 to september 30 of this year. As usual i will go through the work program items that recently come before you in the coming months and update on the survey teams and projects and the Performance Measures that were fracking. In the first page two designations were initiated during the past quarter. Theyre for the [inaudible] building and cal house and one distribution sfrt University Mound ladies home was approved by the hpc and introduced at the board of supervisors. As for the other active designations these remain on hold and staff and community and agencies can reach an agreement on the Water Remediation at the plaza and [inaudible] and in place the project sponser plan to proceed with the landmark designation. The [inaudible] building is scheduled to come forward for a second read and staff expects to bring one more ingleside prosper tearian church and the mural by the end of the year and staff review at submitted applications. We received an application for 815825 tennessee street which was at the last hearing and work with the applicant for the woodward landmark district to finalize their report and during the past quarter we received one inquiry regarding a landmark designation for 1805 visadaro street but yet to receive a finalized application and during the last reporting quarter you reviewed an application for 2215 leavenworth street and not added to the work program. In addition to the landmark designation work Program Staff is Technical Support for the Historic Preservation committee and working with the hpc on the africanamerican context statement and finalized by Department Staff and needs to be posted to our website for public review and undergo some Community Outreach before it comes to you before adopt dop. The lgbt Historic Context statement was posted to the website last week for a two week public review period and scheduled to come before you on november 18 for adoption and staff is currently reviewing the korbin heights statement and landmark designation for the fump and one additional staff project has been the 201415clg grant for the store front survey draft of our finding was submitted to the ohp on september 30 and that should come before you for adoption in the spring and to track article 10 and 11 designations the following Performance Measures were established. First to prepare the report in 150 staff hours for this reporting quarter the only one that is over that threshold is [inaudible] hall and over it for the past three reporting quarters and article 10 and 11 designation application which was posted to the website in april 2015. Third to provide landmark designation applicants with comments regarding completeness or schedule of hearings for hpc with the last 30 days and has been met and staff reviewed the application for tennessee street and returned comments within two weeks and that was brought to you on october 7 and finally to maintain a quarterly report. The next update is expected to come before you january 20. Commissioners we discussed the active cases and projects. Once they move through the pipeline we can reprioritize the active cases. I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions . No. Thank you very much. Does any member of the public wish to comment on this item . Seeing and hearing none we will come back to the commission. We will close Public Comment bring it back to the commission. Any comments on the work program . Very good thank you. Yeah, its very good. Thank you very much. Mr. Frye. Commissioners i just wanted to follow up with one comment and a bit of information that is not included in the report is just to remind you that we have that add back from supervisor mar for the Washington High School landmark designation and were anything to working with the committee to prepare that designation in the next few weeks we will have a kick off meeting and there is discussion about broadening that to include the Sunshine School which has been on the work program for some time and Roosevelt Middle School because its a [inaudible] building so let you know were trying to tackle other things as part of that. Great. Commissioner hyland. I want to say this is great work. We have been inquisitive and critical and definitely asked a lot of questions in the past and pleased with the progress. Great. Thank you very much. I think that was t final item. Is that correct . It was. Several of you have the opportunity [inaudible] hearing is adjourned. [gavel] hello. Shauna with the league of women voters of San Francisco. Along with the league and has difficulty meter to discuss proposition k about melt measure the legal for the voter on tuesday, november 3. San francisco has a policy of using properties the city does not need. Surplus property to build Affordable Housing. Every year city departments are required to identify Surplus Property. The city transfers the power Surplus Property to the mayors office, which then determines if the property is suitable for Affordable Housing. Proposition k expand the allowable uses the Surplus Property to include building Affordable Housing for a range of households and those with very low income to those with incomes up to 120 of the area median income. In Surplus Property developers with 200 or more units, it would allow mixed income projects that include Affordable Housing for households earning up to 120 of the area median income, housing for households up to 150 of the area median income, and housing with no income limitation. It would maintain exemptions for City Property controlled by the recreation and parks commission. The port, the airport, the Public Utilities commission, and the municipal transportation agency. A yes vote means you want the city to expand the allowable uses of Surplus Property to include building Affordable Housing for a range of households. A no vote means you do not want to make these changes. Im here with peter, and the codirector of the council of Community Housing organizations in a proponent of proposition k. We also joined by marcy berry. Vice chairman of Libertarian Party of San Francisco and opponents of the measure. Thank you both for being here. Thank you, shauna i like to open with opening remarks that was with you much. Thank you first, thank you very much for having us present our views. The libertarian of seven cisco appreciates. Regarding proposition k indeed, the city absolutely does need to do something about unused or underused property. The city has an immense amount of these properties out there. Something needs to be done. However, it seems to us, from our point of view of small government and very strict constitutional ideas, that perhaps this is not the way to go. Here is what we think. I think that this proposal significantly expands the description of what it it means to be homeless. It significantly expands what it means to need Affordable Housing. Well obviously, in a city like San Francisco we can argue about subsidies but when the government is subsidizing somebody that makes 122,000 a year, maybe thats going too far. Thank you. Peter . Thank you, shauna. Proposition k in surplus public lands measure they simply ask the voters to make clear to City Government at this time in Affordable Housing crisis like weve never seen before, that the most important use for public lands when they become surplus is for Affordable Housing. Unlike my opponent, is very clear to us that what this does is expand the potential use of surplus lands from being from homeless to gamely to seniors to middle income residents to teachers. But we fortunately have a very wide and increasing range of san franciscans were shut out of our Housing Market and we need to provide Affordable Housing for them and all the various income levels in this measure updates and strengthens existing policies makes clear Affordable Housing should be a priority use. Were asking you to vote for proposition k thank you,. Was i with questions and the first question to start with peter. As weve heard from both of you, theres clearly a demand for more Affordable Housing here in San Francisco. Do you think proposition k is enough to address this problem where does it go too far . Would you change about the proposition if you could its really does not go too far. The demand for Affordable Housing is tremendous. It makes a big dent. In a city with 47 mi. 2, its one most land constrain cities in the country in the bay area. When the most precious things we have is land and its difficult to great Affordable Housing when you dont have sites. So, being able to use cityowned surplus sites is really an excellent recent. It could make a big difference. Marcy, how do you respond to that . Obviously, we are totally in agreement that this is a very expensive city. However, where we differ is for example, calling this affordable while we cant subsidize. Subsidized means that somebody pays for this. Is it enough . Well, the numbers that are quoted are not static numbers. As you offer these benefits, and all these things happen, in that people from other places will come in, and so they will never be enough. So, you can say well, its a dent. A dent in what . Because your people coming in as these people are being taken care of. So, is it enough . Is it something that we would like to change . I would like to change it to how it was 20 years ago. Just take care of the people who truly need it. I will add that the free market take care of everything else. Thank you. Question number two, but talking about expanding who will be part of the Affordable Housing under this measure, is there a danger that we want people to provide a enough housing to homeless or very low income people . Or do we think now spinning will be able to provide more housing to everyone and this is a great solution . Paid by what . What we mean by that is the city is going to provide this amount of money its going to come from tax. Mine yours and yours. Its going to provide the housing, the subsidize housing for all these people. So, its not a question that well, once we provide the housing than prosperity ensues, but because this is doing nothing for productivity. As a its a closed system the economy at this level, where the federal economy, the local economy as a closed system. So, that means unless there is an increase in productivity there is nothing thats happening except that one person gets any other person loses. Theres no such thing as an increase of wellbeing over all. So, no, the straight answer to the question is, no, i dont think there will be an increase in productivity or benefit overall. It peter, i do you address the question . Well, the unfortunate reality is that our Housing Market, our socalled free market, as marcy refers to it, has left more and more san franciscans behind. If the proposal is to actually somehow change the market so can actually produce the housing thats needed, id be interested to hear the proposal. The reality is, we have a Housing Market that is now so expensive, well over 1 million for a condo, well over 3000 simply for one bedroom apartment. It means the city, Public Policy and the broad citizens of San Francisco again have to take care of each other in this one of a city thats only for the superrich and the poorest of the poor. So, given that reality being able to use land is one way, not the Silver Bullet but one way to actually address our Affordable Housing prices for, again, folks from homeless ugly to middle income families, but its a very smart way to go about it. Its not the panacea but we have to do something in this a very significant measure. Thanks. But then it go into final remarks. Well start with you, peter. Well, proposition k is supported by the entire elected leadership of San Francisco. Was put on about by the board of supervisors and the mayor of San Francisco. It supported by both our Assembly Members king and chu as well sen. Markits very clear to all of them that we need to do everything we can do, not just a couple things but everything we can do to address affordability crisis in San Francisco. We have an existing surplus land policy in San Francisco, but hasnt been very effective. It needs to be strengthened. Needs to be more transparency to the process needs to be a broader range of beneficiaries and needs to be more accountability to the city that were going to use our land for our greatest public need which is housing. So we ask you to support proposition k as one strong effort to try to address our housing issues. By remarks, marcy thank you. Let me explain our concern and that would be my final remark. First, is the fact that we seem to be saying actually as a group not only peter here, that we need to do something. My question is, is that so . Does in the market take care of it . Who produce the with a very rich and the very poor policies that were in place to begin with. For instance, tax breaks for all these companies. Who produce that . Wasnt the market. With the legislation. So, the legislation produces problems and problems need more legislation. Not good. Another part of the concern is of course, that the brotherhood is developing between developers and the city. Dont forget that this process is not to be sold at market rate. It can be sold at less than market rate. So, taxpayers paid market rate would you guys honest seller for [inaudible] thank you much and thank you both for your comments and for your time. We hope that this discussion has been informative. For more information on this and other ballot measures in this years election, please visit the San Francisco elections website sfelections. Org. Remember, early voting is available at city hall monday through friday from 8 am to 5 pm. You can also vote at city hall on the two weekends before election day if you dont vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 3. Thank you for watching. [music]