Transcripts For SFGTV Historic Preservation Commission 121615 20160102

May address the commission up to 3 minutes. I have one speaker card ilean bokeen. Ilean bokeen, a resident of the sunset park side district. At the last meeting in Public Comment a member addressed the issue of the palace of fine arts. I would thrike add to the comments. There are 3 finalist considered by rec and park to lease the space. It is my understanding that the proposals from several [inaudible] contain a lodging component. I was at the rec and Park Commission meeting when members the public expressed concern or opposition to a hotel at this site. Im also voicing my opposition and understand the commission is interested in having a informational hearing on this issue. Thank you. Any other member of the public wish to speak on a nonajndized item . If so please come forward. I love in the dogpatch district. Im also on the agenda. I would like to comment on pier 70 entertainment related activities. It is disturbing that the residents that live in that particular corner of 22 and third and part the dogpatch Historical Neighborhood Association as welli go to their meetings all the time and express our concerns. I would like to get on the record that the president is about 4 or 5 build ings 25 people is adversely effected [inaudible] more than 5 to 10 thousand people. People urinate and do other stuff. At night beyond the 12 oclock time limit, there is still noise till morning so just wanted to get on the record with that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other member of the public wish to speak on a non agendized item . Hearing and seeing none we will close Public Comment this plaizs under kapartment matters, item 1, director announcement you have a copy of the directors report in front of you. Happy to answer question about that report. I did also want to acknowledge at this time the loss of a member of our planning and preservation family, mary brown, who was with the Department Since 2008 and remarkable prolific contributor to our efforts. Thank you. Commissioner, item 2 review of past events. Good afternoon. We are from the member the commission, [inaudible] Planning Department. I do have a couple announcements, the first is brief update on the past events on the board of supervisors. Last tuesday the board heard a number of contracts including 722 steiner, 7 [inaudible] post and [inaudible] montgomery. The post approved for steiner and post they didnt for 807 montgomery. They continued that item for yesterday and at that hearing the board approved it. The only other item i have it is further remarks about mary brown. On behalf of tim frye and sth Planning Department we are beyond sad about the passing of our dear friend and colleaguemery brown. Mary joined in the department in 2008 and before that worked for the San Francisco bike coalition. It was her return to graduate School Following a earlier ba in journalism with a minor in art from hom bolt state that led to preservation and planning. She received a ma in geography from San Francisco state university. Marys plashments with the Planning Department were enormous. She worked orn the land mark designation and work program. She was the lead planner on a number of city land marks, included [inaudible] land mark 263. [inaudible] in the innrer sun set. Market books [inaudible] in the fillmore. Landmark 266. Park Historic District, landmark 12 and [inaudible] in forest hill. Mary was a excellent writer. She was revered for work on a number of different Historic Context statements including [inaudible] sunset [inaudible] Historic Resource survey. The store front historic statement and survey. Mery also received a number of awards including the governors award for Historic Preservation and the california preservation award for work on the modern contact statement. It is not every day that you get meet and work along side with someone as dedicated and gifted as mary brown. It was my honor to do so for the last 7 years. We are grateful for marys calm beautiful demeanor and work at the Planning Department will live on. She will be sincerely remembered and deeply missed. Thank you. Thank you. Do any other commissioners have anycommissioner johnck i want to thank you for those wonderful words and i think many saw my email. I was blessed working with mary when i leaving and still do a course in emphasizeing Cultural Landscape with the uc Berkeley Commission Architecture Program andmery was a sterling member the class. She could have taught it and could have worked in front of her, so to speak. A great achievement of the class is acknowledgment of the sunset demonstration of gardens in Golden Gate Park and made a number of wonderful recommendations and would like to investigate how some of those recommendations could be implemented to impruchb improve and call the public attention to that landscape within Golden Gate Park. When you think what she accomplished in the last 8 years amazing. Im welcome any news about a Memorial Service or a tribute the Planning Department is planning to have. I knewmery for many years starting on the board with [inaudible] and involvement in modern actecture and she was passionate about her work and research and it was somebody that was interested and cared about buildings that others didnt think about. Interested in the buildings and architecture z sites and the people that created them and think about the great work she did for the cal house and how she brought the cal family to life. The way she could bring the past to life was a extraordinary gift. I would like a brief moment of silence in honor of mary. We will also adjourn the hearing in her honor. Thank you. Commissioners, commission matters, president record and announcement the only announcement is we are having a Holiday Gathering today at 5 oclock at 225, 11th street. Item 4, consideration of Adoption Draft minutes for Historic Preservation commission, december 2 hearing and Cultural Assets meeting december 2, 2015. Any comments on the minutes before i take Public Comment . Does any member of the public wish to comment on the draft minutes on december 2, Cultural Assets and hearing meeting . Seeing none Public Comment is closed. On that motion to adopt the minutes for december 2, regular and Cultural Heritage Assets Committee meeting, commissioner jaunkic yes. Johns, yes,. Matsuda, yes. Matsuda, yes. That passes 60. Places under item 5 questions and comments . We have no items proposed for continuance will place under consent calendar. All matters [inaudible] be row teen by the commission and acted upon by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion the items unless the member of the commission, public or staff requests. The matter shall be removed and considered sep erately. [inaudible] certificate of appropriateness. Wish to remove this from consent does any member the public wish to remove this from the consent calendar so it is heard on our regular calendar . You will hear it as a regular item, otherwise well just vote on it. If you wish to speak to this item, we will remove it from consent and bring it to the regular calendar. A member of the public wishes to remove. Do you want that is the beginning or the end . Beginning. [inaudible] third street. This was pulled off consent. Is there a staff report on this . A member the public wish to speak you can come forward and speak now. My name is [inaudible] i own the building on 710, 712, 714, twentytwo street. I purposed the property may 2014. I unfortunately did not get previous communication about this development, i only owned the property for less than 2 years, so based on what i have seen i dont have the drawings, the historic nature of the lots in that particular corner if you like, they go all the way back to the ends the lot. So it is mtc 2 zoning rchlt this is a special area where the first floor can be commercial. Usually there is basement and commercial and on top can add 2 or 3 residents units. My particular lot is all most done. I currently have a structure that doesnt go all the way to the end of the lot and the particular project you discussed today has Property Line windows at the end of my lot. Im just trying to understand what it would mean for my particular property because based on the historical pattern, there are lots that go all the way to the end of the lot, so if i dont speak i pretty much wave that right going forward. This is my understanding and i just want to raise concern about it. This is my first concern. The second thing is, the roof decks are im in support of that, i have no issues with that. My problem is the next lot, there is a illegal structure that also has washing machine on top the roof deck and this isnt in line with the historic fabrics. I dont think in the early 1900s the washing on top the roof deck. The gentlemen who owns this particular property we are discussing today seems to be a very decent person and 100 percent sure wont engage in anything like that. In the future as we get older and move out, tenants move in and i would like to make sure i protect myself and also the fabric of the corner im in so these things dont happen. Those are my concerns and im willing to work with the Property Owner as i am not against the development. [inaudible] i want to make sure that there should be a meeting where these concerns are addressed because i dont see them in line with the historic fabric of that corner. That is my personal opinion. Thank you any other member wish to comment on this item . Seeing and hearing none we will close Public Comment and bring back to the commission. Commissioner pearlman. Every week on someone now new. Could come back. Im trying to understand your concern. It appears there are Property Line wimd r winnow replaced with new windows, is that correct . [inaudible] can you speak in the microphone, please . The windows that are facing his Property Line are being replaced and the process started a while ago. All of these plans were approved initially and the city realized when they submitted another permit for adjustment to the plans that were submitted they never ran a Historical Review and everything triggered and this is about 7 years now i have been trying to get this closed out. The windows facing his property have been there since 1900 or when ever the building was built that is what i was trying to understand. If the owner is just replacing windows in existing opening there is no real change to the building that wouldthat you could have anything to do with because he isnt changing the building. My concern was actually i tried to tie the Historical Review to it. The roof deck isnt historically there. The historically relevant fact here is i as the Property Owner seem to have a right to this zoning to build all the way up against my Property Line and that historically had t has been done, so by reconfirming those windows you are taking my right away from me and historically there is president s so you are making a judgment call for future taking my rights away. [inaudible] Planning Department. It is my understanding the windows a long the side of the property are on the Property Line, so therefore they are not technically protected. Should the neighbor wish to [inaudible] i can build . Yes. My understanding if there is a existing condition that there is a requirement the neighbor would have to pull back a minimum of 3 or 5 feet dependent on the district because it is a existing condition that isnt being changed by the Property Owner, is that correct . Im looking on the elevation plans and either the left or right elevations it appears that the windows are being modified. Please correct me if im wrong. They are being adjusted in terms of location . There is some that have been moved a couple inches and some of the windows have been downsized and the back of the building is different, but the property that faces him, those windows are smaller andif they are moved it is like 4 inches or so. I kindly request the commission here give me a opportunity to work with the Property Owner to find mutual agreeable solution. Just to be clear sthra change to the window configuration along the side that is adjoining the neighbor, however, the department of building inspection do have a clause when you provide new windows or changes to the window along the Property Line the Property Owner has to acknowledge they are not protected. [inaudible] there is a clear [inaudible] those windows are not protected. Is that if they are moved . If that is the windows are moved it isnt corrected . It is any window under any permit. Okay. So, the buildingso we triggered because the building was built in 1900 and the district is historical district, so that doesnt take president over my understanding is if it is just a window replacement those are existing windows and i think we are reviewing this for the impact to the Historic District and think we are get into the weeds of the Building Department and planning code issues, so this is the first step in the permit process for this project so if we can limit it to our purview. Thank you very much. Bring it back to commission and like to limit the scope to the pervy we have in your comment, in our conditions if we choose taapprove it you can add commissions that they need to work the Planning Department or dbi for permit issues i move to approve as presented. Okay. Do i hear a second . I will give a second but encourage the Property Owner and other owner to talk about that. Sir, at this point you are out of order and until the commissioners ask you up [inaudible] i dont think it is condition they center to talk to one another. I would encourage them to talk to one another but would plike to move to approve it as it is presented to us because i think it meets the requirements and it is appropriate for the district and so anyway well, yeah. On the second. Can we somehow have a ecpectation . We can add a condition saying we anticipate they will resolve Property Line issues with Planning Department staff or dbi. I would recommend that if you do that that you add that as a find ing that you encourage yeah, it could be a finding. Opposed to a condition. I dont think it is something we can enforce. Ochi. Okay. Accept it as a finding. What would that finding be . The finding is we expect the 2 owners we encourage the owners of the neighboring property to reviewwe encourage the project sponsor to review the project with the neighboring Property Owner with the support of Planning Department staff. Okay. Thank you. If you could address this with the Planning Department planner that would be the best way, but Brittany Bendix to the the neighboring Property Owner. Very good commissioners. There is a motion that is seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended to add a finding that the project sponsor work with the neighbor to review the Property Line window issues along with department staff. Commissioner jaungic, yes, commissioner johns, yes. Commissioner matsuda, yes. Commissioner [inaudible] item 7. 201400071503 pca. This is a interpresentation on the Affordable Housing Bonus Program. Good afternoon president well frm and fellow commissioners. [inaudible] we are here tapraent informational item on Affordable Housing Bonus Program. The ahbp has 4 poles goals we have been able to meet through our work to date. One, incent vises on sight affordable units. Improves feasibility of sites. Establishes a middle Income Program and [inaudible] 100 percent affordable projects. Before we dive into the legislation, i would like to provide a little background. The state of california had a density bonus lawn on the books since 1979. In short, the law requires mu nis papties to offer developer to include Affordable Housing units in the paujects. More units that currently allowed under existing. In [inaudible] court case in nappy county affordable unit providing a inclusionary ordinance qualify frd density bonus. At the same time a number of other Housing Initiatives were happening, including the mayors housing working group, work on the Housing Element and prop k which stated 33 percent of now housing is affordable. This pushed staff to push the housing Bonus Program to deliver more affordable units in San Francisco without subsidies. The state law is quite broad in the scope chblt it allows a gerp maximum of 35 percent increase in density as well as up to 3 incentives from the zoning code to make a project financially feasible. The program complywise the requirements the state law while tayloring it to the Housing Program and context of San Francisco. Realize the state law would yield a max [inaudible] provide up to 30 percent on site affordability which alinels with prop k goals. As i stated before, the state law provides developers up to 3 incentives which are necessary to increase the affordsability. Staff created a menu of incentives for a couple yeezens mptd we noted mu nis palties provide clarty to the public and developer. The incentives were developed [inaudible] Planning Division and key stakeholders. Creating the menu staff wanted to understand what type of incentives are necessary to incraes affordability. Commonly [inaudible] administrative review and will not impose a sthret to the health and safety of San Francisco. The proposed legislation hoz 2 component, what we call the state analyzed and locing program. The state analyzed prm is designed to locally implement the state density law and limit the type of incentives and height the project may request. This was developed using San Francisco sitess. Projects cannot exceed 35 percent increase in residential density and density increase is based on percentage of affordable units on site. In San Francisco that means the total of affordsability of a project is 13 percent or 20 percent dependent if it is a rental or ownership product. The number of intentives is based on the number of affordable unit provided. Dilths height for the state analyzed program is only available when it is necessary to accommodate increased density. It is based on [inaudible] under existing zoning and the total number of unit permitted with the density bonus. The formula is in the code so project sponsors and Community Members know ahead of time if the project is eligible for 1 or 2 stories of height. Project are never eligible for more than 2 stories. The local ahbp is much simpler. The local Program Offers incentives that provide 30 percent or more Affordable Housing on site. Other the 30 percent, 12 percent must be affordable to low and moderate and 18 percent affordable to middle income. Projects that include 30 percent or more of affordable units are allowed additional 2 stories of height and up to 3 incentives from the menu. The number of unit is govern bide the height, bulk and 40 percent 2 bedroom requirement. The local Program Includes projects that are 100 percent affordable by offering a few more inent sentives. Ill now turn it over to [inaudible] who will describe the project and legislation. Good afternoon, palo with the Planning Department. I will tell you where this program applies in the city and what the outcomes could be. Where does the prm apply . It aploys to parcels in Zoning District but control density by ratiof olot area. It doesnt apply to the areas of the sit a that is rezoned of the area plan which control density by height, bulk and minimum 2 bedroom requirement. The program area contains 30, 500 parcels and [inaudible] covering 22 percent of the cities parcels. Generally the program area is composed of the cities neighborhood xhrlshz district sknr older multifamily housing. With the entire program area is a quarter mile of the muni rabid network which the sfmta identified for frequency and reliability in the future. This insures now housing will be within a easy walk of goods and services while affording residence to all day frequent transit service. The program doesnt reduce existing rigorous control ons demolishing residential units nor change the Design Review and historical process. The vast aam jort of parcels in the blue area contain mixed use housing ofhunt, schools churches. Staff smailts only very underdeveloped commercial sites, vacant lots and Service Parking lots the most likely to develop over the program under the develop cycles. Under current zoning controls, staff estimates sites like that could development into 7400 new units of which 900 is affordable if all the projects chose to meet the inclusionary housing requirements by providing affordable units on site in the building. If the same sites all sought the maximum 35 percent bonus offered under state law the city gains 10 thousand new units including approximately 1500 affordable homes. If the sites developed under the [inaudible] the total number of units could be 16 thousand . Ncluding 2 thousand home frz low and moderate Income Housing and 3 to 4 thousand for middle income. [inaudible] compared to the current and zoning and adds 3 thousand additional middle income units p. We have worked with david baker architects to understand what Affordable Housing program buildings might look like. There studies helped determine the appropriate modifications that the deapartment would offer project squz also develop Design Guidelines which ill talk about that is applied to the all New Buildings built under the new program. To start, here is a image of what could be built under current zoning in a parking lot on tearival street. If the developer developmented to the existing height limet the site would yield 15 very large homes, about 2400 square feet each. If developed under our local program, the same site could fit up to 46 homes of a still pretty generous size over 1300 square feet per unit on average. The difference you see here, the red line is our current height limits, so indifference you see is the 2 additional stories would look like on the building. [inaudible] 14 of the units in that building would be affordable to low, moderate and middle income house holds and the project sponsor is required to pride the units on site in the building in order to receive those 2 stories. So, our Affordable Housing Bonus Program Design Guidelines which is in your case packet, we have a few copies as well. They pull from our existing guideline documents the department has and they pulled guidelines relating to bimding mass and ground floor details from our existing documents. Because our program anticipates taller buildings, the Affordable Housing Bonus Program design guideline added guidelines relate today the top of the buildings. Those guidelines, to sculp the top the building. Two, enliven side walls, and 3, express exceptional and complimentary architecture. Now ill talk how we expect the program towhere this program and Historic Preservation would intersect. The state density law includes protection for individual resources listed on the california register. Developers are barred from utilizing the density bonus law where it results in the demolition of a identified resource. Our proposed local Program Includes furkter protections and includes resources not listed on the california register. We do not anticipate that the Affordable Housing Bonus Program generally will result in the de demolition of historric esources. There is likely to be more of a intersection is within infill projects in existing historic and conservation district. The article 11 project are in c 3 which doesnt have density control and not part the program. It is projict we see projects in 10 in the California National register districts. In those cases, we developed 9 guidelines listed here that apply to Affordable Housing programs listed in districts as Historic Resources eligible for local, state or national registers. Infill construction shall preserve historic features, character and spatial relationships. Recognizing Affordable Housing Bonus Program may be taller than existing buildings rkts the design should be defrenchiated but compatible. Design difference benew and historic may be subtle but also must lee legible. In districts with uniform character the design may require subtle dif rinchiation from the character. In districts with mixed character the design my refine the character. The rest the Design Review and approval process remains the same. Affordable Housing Project go through the same step squz provide it city and public with multiple points of view and input before coming to the planning or Historic Preservation commission for final entitlements. We have got there word out and gathered public input through a variety of avenues ofern the past several month squz our website, which is www. Sf planning. Org is good for information on the planning. We are scheduled for adaumgz hearing on january 28 and in the mean time we will continue to conduct outreach at Community Groups and we will be continuing that outreach through the board of supervisors adoption process later in 2016. Thank you for your time and we are available for question or comments. Thank you. Why dobet dont we take Public Comment before we come back to the commission for comments . At this time we will take Public Comment. I have one speaker card, ilean bokeen ilean bokeen resident of sunset park district. Over 30,000 sites are identified as potentially being part the [inaudible] program. These programerize for demolition only. Therefore, over 30,000 sites have been identified for potential demolition. One the concessions of the program is additional height that can translate to a massive city wide up monopoly zoning all accept rh 1 and 2 districts or area plans. Thank you. Anyoneential have Public Comment . Seeing and hearing none i will close Public Comment and bring it back to the commission. Commission, questions or comments . Commissioner pearlman thank you. I think it is paulo, i have a couple questions. I wonder what type of feedback you have gotten from the public about the height bonuses. I thought the comment that the last speaker just made seemed like it was not understood because my understanding is this does not apply to partials that would have demolition. It is open to parcels that are either be redeveloped or vacant lots the rule of the Program Apply in any Zoning District within the program area. It isnt that it wouldnt apply to demolition p. When we try to anticipate how many units we thought the whole program would result in, we look ded at past trends and noticed generally our new housing built isnt built as a result of demolition of other residential units so see that the same going forward. It isnt an assumption 30 thousand parcels will be demolished . I want to get that cleared for the public because i heard that misconception. My question is about the feedback about the program relate ed to the height bonus. Can [inaudible] project manager joining the team to help answer question. We have done a little outreach and committed to work wg Neighborhood Group jz been out to the sunset and the coalition for San Francisco neighborhood and district 5 and richmond. I think at the first mention of height in a Community Meeting in city of San Francisco you have a reaction you are smiling about but people understand the Design Guidelines we crafted make the building subsessful in the neighborhoods and some things we didnt go over is anal with david baker teams and found a number of existing buildings above the height limit now. A lot built in the 1920s, beautiful buildings. We know these buildings can we integrated into had neighborhoods without the visual or personal experience and i think people are starting to hear that. There is a lot of conversation around demolition, both around neighborhood character issues which you may focus on and displacement. Yesterday at the board of supervisors, supervisor breed offered a amendment that says rather than allowing buildings with rent control unit to be demolished through this program without firthy studies she is asking the department to spend a year looking at that. Until we do that i believe the program will move forward not allowing demolition of buildsings with rent controlled yubts which is about 54 percent of the Housing Stock so that should curb the enthusiasm or fear of demolition. Finally, i think palo was kind of helping to point this out, but we did a lot of Financial Analysis to make the value recapture in Affordable Housing work for vacant sites, but when you add a existing building of anything more than 5 percent the Development Potential it becomes a uchb Attractive Program so dont anticipate demolition be a part of the program. I have one other program, at the begin ogf moncus presentation she talked about facilitating 100 percent affordable and what i heard from the Planning Commission last week is the Planning Commissioners didnt approve supervisor wienersthis is clearly a Planning Commission issue. I just summarize that because it is a sticky web. So, the density bonus law has in San Francisco been use frd 100 percent affordable projects and asked them to first seek a special use and later come back for entitlements. We included a program for 100 percent affordable projects that remove that requirement for the special use district. They projects would be reviewed by the planning staff and environmental staff and historic staff as relevant as code consistent because we have written those provision into the the code. Last week the commission was deliberated on the proposal to remove the required conditional use or any conditional use, which would automate projects going to the commission. I believe they voted 33, so it did move to the board, but that would be in consert with the process improvements we are offering when chare more in house and we are being silent on whether it should be publicwe are keeping the public hearing as exists. Thank you. Other commissioners comments . Commissioner junkic im interesting having staff clarify for us the projects that would come before us would be the typical conventional method, any change in Historic Resource would come to us. This is a Large Program which sounds like it has worthy goals, no question about that. My interest is clarifying how project will come before us, tracking our relationship to it. Just more comment on that. There is no difference in how they would come before you. Essentially does the same, the only difference is there additional applicable guidelines. As presented the guidelines are primarily addressing dif rincheration and compatible i read the guidelines, staff have comment on them compared towe have to adhere to the [inaudible] they were intended to spinge to balance on the fact these will be of atypical height projects that came through in respective district. Thank you. I have one comment on in the Historic District guidelines there is a image of a project which i dont think is representative of what the guideline states. It is a addition to the historic build squgz this program isnt about Historic Buildings and it is about creating compatible buildings in Historic Districts. Are you taking about page 18 . Yes. Great. [inaudible] i was scripting myself to images of Historic Districts. The images are a work in progress and if you have recommendation i welcome them i know the consultant prepared the report but you may have more variety because there is a lot of their work. May be better to have other architects work in there or not just in San Francisco. Any other comments . That places on item aithd fwr 2014 00 [inaudible] and 2012. 0033 acef, 55 laguna street mixed use project. This is for your review and comment. Shelly [inaudible] preservation staff. I will turn over the presentation soon to alesa [inaudible] their Company Prepared the interpretive display for the 55 laguna project. The display was created in compliance with the mitigation measures set forth in the final Environmental Impact report for the project. Eir was initially adopted in 2004 i believe and then an amendment was adopted in 2008. The mitigation measures did not change from the first eir to the second eir. You may remember in february 2013 the commission reviewed 3 other mitigation measures relate dood had project including the [inaudible] the preservation Architect Design related feature thofz project and the murm identification test{preservation procedures. You commented on those and they have now complied with all the mitigation measures. This sh the last remaining mitigation measure under the eir and the materials in front of you are draft so your comment will be incorporated into the final project. Staff reviewed them and given initial feedback. We encouraged the plauject sponsor to include a website as part of ininterpretive program even though it wasnt specifically called out in the mitigation monitoring schedule. We have also will be working with them on the final design for the plaque since the city is developing its own Plaque Program and want to be consistent with the plaques that would be installed at other sites. With that ill turn it over to [inaudible] and if you have questions for staff im available. Thank you. We also have a larger images. I think your packet did not include full size images of the boards but we can pass these around. You might find them helpful. My name is alisa scags with page and [inaudible] we researched the content and also designed the interpretive display. The display addresses mitigation measure hr 2, which had requirements for the interpretive display including it have a history of early california normal school, information about the wpa associations that the murals be accessible to the public, retain the historic names of the Historic Buildings, we consider naming the new streets for aspects of the site [inaudible] and the display would be located along waller park. This slide shows a location of the interpretive display. It is 6 boards along wallow park and there will be installed in pairs. There will also be 4 additional boards that include information about the john [inaudible]garity mural. The [inaudible] the jack [inaudible] and ruben cadeish murals. This board will be located at waller park in buchanan and have a overview the listry of the campus and will also have information about the Teacher Education movement and also about burke who was a president of the San Francisco school. All the boards also have a qr code that lead to the website being developed and the website will be more comprehensive. It will be a accompanied by this board which will have a graphic of the campus through maps. In the middle of waller park there will be 2 boards, the first is architecture of education and provide Historical Information about the buildings on the campus. It is acamanied by this board dedicated to george mac dugal who was the state architect and designer of several buildings on campus. This board includes historical drawings of middle hall, the Administration Wing and [inaudible] hall. And at waller park and laguna street there will be a couple boards that focus on the wpa artists. It will note all the artist and have brief information about them. Again, it will have a qr code that provides a lead to the website that will have Additional Information and it will be accomieded by this board, which will provide information how you can access the different mural locations. There will be a informational board specifically dedicated to [inaudible] and the mural she painted. These were discovered in 2013. The board will provide a brief description of the mural and also hoohooby dawn. The murals were discovered and uncovered in 2013 and a report was completed by [inaudible] who is a art history professor at uc berkeley. The boards will documented and they will be reproduced full size in the Richardson Building in the manner shown in this slide. We selected the portions of the murals that were in the best condition. We will also have a informational board that is dedicate d to the jax moxen murals including the angle mural thrmpt are also murals covered by pains that we discovered through the investigation process. His is a image of the angle mural. Well is a board for the mural by rubeage cadeish located at the top the thof stair landing at the annex hall. And well also have a board for the john emtgarity mural which is also discovered under the paint in the main lobby of the woods hall. And well have there plaques shelly mentioned. There is a plaque for woods hall, woods hall annex and Richardson Hall and have the name the building, the name the architect and other information about there landmark. We think we have done a excellent job on the content and design the boards and look forward to questions and comment you have. Thank you. Thank you. Before we take Public Comment any specific questions . Commissioner pearlman . No. I have one question. On the 3 plaques for the halls woods hall woods hall annex and Richardson Hall, is this the copy . This is the information we have and will work with planning as to the exact design requirements they are looking at. The design will follow or landmark signage . That is the landmark number and things like that. Does a pleb of the public wish to comment on this item . If so come forward. Seeing and hearing none well close public comsqunt bring it back to the commission. This is for review and comment. Commissioner pearlman. I have one comment. I thought they were very good and like every other project that comes along we know nothing about i learned a lot. I know the site well and used to live in [inaudible] valley a long time ago, so i did learn a lot. The only comment is you is it qr codes and wonder if the address should also be listed there because some people dont have the scanning thing. It would be to add information of the website. That is all. Other comments . Commissioner johnck. And thought that were wonderful. Curious, any hope for the restoration of any of the murals . Good afternoon, sharon [inaudible] mercy housing. We are the developers of Richardson Hall. There are the murals in that building. As part the report lisa referenced there were 3 or 4 locations where it was deemed the murals were in pretty Good Condition and be able to be restored. We have money budgeted for that process to occur at the end of the rehabilitation so we plan to restore certain murals where the report indicated they are potentially in Good Condition. Thank you. Thank you. I have just a few comments. I thought it was handsome program, a nice very informative and well designed. My one comment to potentially engage a copy editor to review the text because i have picked up a number of typos and other grammatical mistakes. If you want to go through thosefor example demolished is specimened incorrectly on board 1 b and [inaudible] is spelled incorrectly on 2 a. There is a very tricky grammatical sentence about being trained by their father on 2 b and there is a sentence on the Richardson Hall mural where high says jack [inaudible] cure co proposed in 1934 for with the wpa. It is unclear what it means, propose frd the wpa. I think that should be clarified. Those are just a few comments, but i think a copy editor would pick all those up. Anything else . I think we are ready to move to our next item. That you thank you very much. Thank you. That will place on item 9 for 2015008484 p ta on Market Street. Planning staff, the project architect hasnt arrived yet. There is a member of the project team here so if you have questions, but you may not get a fancy presentation. That is probably okay. You can give your staff report, right . Yes. [inaudible] good afternoon. Pilar with planning staff. Before is a request for major permit to alter to make exterior alteration tooz 856 market sfret street located on the north side of Market Street between ellis street and halied pleasea. Category 5 unerated building with the suter [inaudible] the scope of work for the project would include construction of a new facade clad in smooth and textureed cement board panels with aluminum frame. The store front will be deeply recess squd the center entry is highlighted with a red metal frame. Behind the glazing and Center Window is a peru perforated window that plans the height the window opening. Blade and wall signs will be added. Inproject was reviewed by the Architectual Review Committee december 2, 2015. The comment of the arc are included in the packet and w unexception which i can explain, the praiject is revised to address. Including setting back the wenld windows at least 6 inches and adding a frame to create a more solid corner where the cement panel and aluminum frame will come together. The one recommendation that they felt they couldnt achieve was thehave a bevel or projecting element at the base or footing of the piers. I believe it had do with the Property Line and a djacent property. Staff find the prooposed work condition as recommended is in conformance of article 11 and secretary standard for rehabilitation. The design appears to be compatible with the character the district cht staff recommend said 3 conditions of approval. For review by preservation staff of a mock up of the clading system. Review of shop drawing or material sample of perforated metal screen to make sure it meantimes transparency requirement and the method of illumination. No comment has been received so staffs preliminary recommendation suproval with conditions. This concludes my prezen taishz unless you have questions. There is a member the project team here if you have questions but he wasnt the one coming to make the presentation. We will see if we have question or not. Anybody have questions . Why dont we take Public Comment. Any member the public wish to common . Seeing and hearing nonezee a member the public, please come forward, you have 3 minutes. Speaking for the 3 conditions that were presented. Rustle [inaudible] from new balance. All acceptable to us and we are looking forward to improving a very unsightly building in that district. Thank you. Any other member of the public wish to make Public Comment . Seeing and hearing none close Public Comment and bing back to the commission. Comment by commissioner johnck. Ime im interested to hear more about the bevel. On the base. I think it wasi think it was a attempt to provide more of a base to the building. The cement board is panels and the i thought that was interesting. It is on the Property Line. Right. They couldnt do it. We have a motion. I was going say that i was look at the detail for setting the window win the aluminum closure piece and thought that is what we talked about and think that would be handsome. It doesnt reflect in the perspective drawing. Also it didnt seem the cull thorf base had turned the kerner at the very bottom but assume you probably do that. And then i appreciate at the top i think the scale is much better with the 2 panels rather than 3 panels across the top. So, i like how it is resolved from our arc motion to second the motion ato prove we have a motion and second. Commissioners on the motion to approve this matter with conditions, commissioner johnck, yes. Johns, yes. Matsuda, yes. Pearlman, yes, highland, yes. Wolfram, yes. The motion passes unanimously 60. I believe we have no further items. I would like to adjourn the hearing in honor and memory of mary brown. [meet ing adjourned] good morning ando the of the San Francisco Transportation Authority im scott wiener the chair of the authority and we want to thank sfgovtv leo a