Is the Planning Commission on recess . Sorry, still none. [laughter] okay. Commission matters president s report and announcements. No report. Consider ration of adoption drive minutes for the july 17, 2019 regular hearing. Any member of the public wish to comment on our draft minutes from july 17 . Okay. Closed public comment. I move they be approved. Second. On that motion to adopt the minutes for july 17. [roll call] cell moved. The Motion Commission comments and questions, item number five. V. P. Matsuda after our july 17, 2019 hearing, i received a phone call from supervisor ronans office regarding the motion to include the wolsey project on our landmark designation. If there is nothing else, we can move on to your consent calendar. It is considered to be routine by the Historic Preservation commission and may be acted upon by single roll call. There will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission public, or staff so requests. Item six, 20181321, at 78 carmelita street. I have no speaker cards. Any member of the public wish to take this off the consent calendar . Closed public comment. Commissioners . I move that we approve it. I second it. Thank you. [roll call] so moved. The motion passes unanimously 50. Regular calendar for item number seven, the hub plan, 30 van ness project, and hub housing sustainability district. This is for your review and comments. May have the screen please . Good afternoon. My name is i am the senior preservation planner for the hub plan at 30 van ness, then 98 franklin Street Project on the hub housing sustainability district. Joining me today are allison, sql research is manager at the Planning Department. I would like to note that we have a stenographer present to create a transcript of todays proceedings. I would encourage commissioners, members of the public to speak will slowly and clearly to assist this process. The public review. For the hub project began on july 25, 2019 and will land at 5 00 p. M. On september 9, 2019. The Commission Members will provided with links at the notice of public hearings and notice of availability of the draft eir on july 25, 2019. Today we are here to provide an opportunity for your commission to provide its comments on the draft eir to the Planning Commission and the department. As part of the hearing today you will receive public testimony. I would like to remind everyone that comments made by the public at this hearing should be directed to assisting the commission in formulating its comments on the draft eir and want to be responded to. If a member of the public would like to make a comment on the draft eir, attend the Planning Commission hearing on thursday august 29, 2019. The San FranciscoPlanning Department proposes to rezone portions of an area of San Francisco within the boundaries of the downtown civic center, south of market Western District and mission neighborhoods. The 84acre area is referred to as the hub. It would amend the 2,008 area plan of the San Francisco general plan focusing on the eastern portions of the plan. The hub plan improves plans to streets and sidewalks. The street scape and Street Network improvements are analyzed at a project specific level and the draft eir. Two individual Development Projects 30 van ness and 98 franklin street are evaluated. The proposed project at 30 van ness includes retentions of portions of the existing 75foot tall, fiveStory Building and construction of a 45 foot Story Building with ground floor retail space. Thirtythree floors of residential space and vehicular bicycle parking. The proposed part project at 98 franklin street, demolition of the vehicular project parking lot. It would be occupied by new facilities for the International High school. The 98 franklin street site would include vehicular parking and bicycle space. This eir evaluates the designation of portions of or all of the hub plan area as the housing sustainability district. In accordance with Assembly Bill 73. Through adoption of an ordinance by the San Francisco board of supervisors would allow the city to exercise streamline approval of residential and mixed Development Projects meeting certain requirements. Qualifying projects would still be required to implement applicable mitigation measures identified in this eir, and would comply with adopted Design Review standards and all existing city laws and regulations. Projects that qualify under the provisions of the hst would not be subject to further Environmental Review. The draft eir finds the proposed project, even with the implementation of mitigation measures would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to Cultural Resources, transportation and circulation, the remainder of this presentation will focus on Historic Architectural resources. First i would like to provide a summary of Historical Resources located inside the hub area. The hub plan area contains humoa in read. Historic resources shown districts are shown in a variety of shades. Several of the individual resources and historic districts, within the plan area are designated under articles ten and 11 of the planning covariate the area also contains Historical Resources that were identified and passed the surveys that cover all or part of the area. [reading notes] several Additional Resources were identified through the ceqa review process. An Additional Survey was prepared in conjunction with the hub area plan eir. This survey, the hub plan Historical Resources survey, or simply the hub survey, was conducted between 2,018 and 2019 to have plan area. Along with california register of Historical Resources eligibility findings. A preliminary analysis of the hub plan area determined that 27 buildings within the hub area require new evaluations. This was because either the buildings had not been preselected for intensive level evaluation and past surveys. Were not age eligible at the time of the surveys. Meaning they were not 45 years old. Had designations or evaluations that were determined not to be sufficient for the purposes of the survey. Or, because no information came to light indicating new potential areas of significance. This had to do with lgbtq history or modern architectural history. Of the 27 buildings evaluated, five were identified as individually eligible Historic Resources. This includes the San FranciscoWomens Centers at 5563 brady street. The San Francisco buyers club, then gantner and mattern Company Building at 1453 Mission Street, the mirrored flat type residential building at 16181624 Howard Street and the San FranciscoHuman ServicesAgency Building at 170 otis street. The draft eir has identified significant and unavoidable impacts with regard to Historical Resources area the first impact states that the hub plan would cause could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of individual built environment, resources and or historic districts. Foz on making this determination the draft eir considered, which would be accomplished by introducing changes in existing land controls and zoning to provide a flexibility and allowed allow land uses. Of these 18 sites, three contained listed or eligible Historic Buildings. [reading notes] could you repeat those again . Sure. Of the 18 sites where zoning controls and land uses are changing, three contain Historical Resources. These are; 170 otis street. Ninetynine south van ness. And ten south van ness. Van ness has a separate eir that has been evaluated separately. In addition to these three sites, it is anticipated that implementation of the hub plan would result in increased development throughout the hub plan area. Although implementation of the hub plan would not immediately change the significance of the horse toric resource. For the purposes of the eir analysis, foreseeable result of zoning control changes proposed under the hub plan could be demolition of the Historic Resources, or their alteration in adverse manner. Regarding districts, there draft eir has evaluated potential impacts all historic districts within or adjacent to the hub plan area and determine the plan could result in Significant Impact to one. To address the impact, the hub draft eir includes mitigation measures required for projects located on the site of Historic Resources. The first such measure would require sponsors to seek feasible means for avoiding impacts to Historic Resources, by designing a project that meets the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. A special project were not feasible, the sponsor would be required to consult with the Planning Department to determine if a feasible project that minimized the to the retention of significant architectural elements would be desirable. If avoidance of impacts to Historic Resources is determined to be infeasible, number of another mitigation measures would be required. These medications were partially compensate under the hub plan. However, because demolition of both environment resources or alteration in an adverse manner could still occur, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable, after the application of a mitigation. The second significant and unavoidable impacts, with regard, cul title i. The hub plan and accumulation would result in demolition or alteration of environment one. It determine the mitigation measures listed above would not reduce the hub plans contribution to the cumulative impact to a less than considerable level, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation. Other Cultural Resource impacts were determined to be less than significant, and less than significant after mitigation. I refer you to the draft eir for the full impact discussion. Department staff, and the caps on team identified seven alternatives to the hub plan, the hub hst and 98 franklin street and 30 van ness. Because these projects result in less than Significant Impacts to Historic Resources, as proposed, a discussion of the four alternatives related to these projects is omitted from this presentation. The three alternatives to the hub plan and hub hs the are as follows. Alternative a, the hub plan and hub hsd alternatives which approves the existing zoning. It assumes no adoption of the hub plan or hub hsd. Alternative b, the hub Plan Land Use only alternative, which assumes the same policies and encode a general plan amendments with the hub plan and the hsd except that the alternative would exclude the street scape and Network Improvements and alternative see, the hub plan reduced intensity alternatives which modifies the building assumptions of the 18 sites identified for height and bulk increases and requires that all projects involving Historic Resources conformed to the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. Alternative a would involve less intensive and the involvement area. It is possible even absent the hub plan and hub hsd Historical Resources could be demolished. Policies encourage but do not require retention of Historic Resources. Therefore the impact of alternative a on individual built environment resources and historic districts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation. Similar to the hub plan although some what reduce peak because of less develop my pressure. Alternative be the same alternative sites as the hub plan but would not involve streetscape and Street Network improvements. However because streetscape and Street Network improvements are not a major contributor to the impacts associated with them limitation of the hub plan, in an unavoidable impact to Historical Resources. Alternative c, avoiding specific built environment resources and would require substance and develop my projects located at the Historic Resources to meet the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation. Therefore, handbags to less than Significant Impact to Historic Resources. Only one alternative c would result in a less than Significant Impact to the Historic Resources. The draft eir identifies alternative see as they environmentally motive. Before the presentation ends i would like to remind everyone that a public hearing on the draft eir before the Planning Commission is scheduled for thursday august 29, 2019. Comments on the draft eir must be submitted orally at the Planning Commission hearing or in writing to the Planning Department by 5 00 p. M. On monday september 9, 2019 for them to be responded to. After the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Department will publish a response to the comment documents which will contain Department Responses to all relevant comments on the draft eir. Publication will be followed by a hearing before the Planning Commission where the Planning Commission will consider certification of the final eir. This ends my presentation. City staff and members of the project team are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Any questions . I do have a question. Could you put up the slide, the third slide i think that showed, you know, i think it was the next slide, yeah, thats the one. The area, im sorry, go back one where the districts okay. I just wanted to be sure where that was. That is an intense little residential block there. Correct . Yes. Thank you. There was a Community Sponsor proposal of a district in the area, right and we were talking about expanding that. Im not familiar with our proposal. Thats okay. Thank you. Lets open this up to public comment. Any member of the public wish to address the commission on this agenda item . Closed public comment. Commissioners . What is it that we are being asked to do . That was not clear to me. Good question. This is a draft eir on the hub area plan on the two projects, and the hsd. This is review, and comment if you have any concerns or questions on the Historic Resources portion of the draft eir. We will take on those comments, and those will be submitted to the Planning Commission, praying to their hearing and also to the er oh and they will be responded to. In the past, as i recall, when things like this, draft eir come up, the question was whether or not the commission thought there had been a fair analysis of the issues from the Historic Preservation point of view. Assuming that to be the case, whether or not the alternatives presented reasonably addressed those issues. When i looked at this, i looked at it with those questions in mind. Did i do the right thing . Or, is this supposed to be some freeforall . [laughter] i see a panicked look there. I think this is different than a proposed project. This is more complicated, perhaps commissioners, then the eir you see that a project specific. But, what we are requesting a view is the same did we do an appropriate job analyzing the impacts on Historic Resources, alternatives represent a broad enough range . That is what i wanted to be confirmed. To follow up on that, whether or not the mitigation measures we looked at were adequate . I have a couple of questions that might facilitate some conversation. On the mitigations, we have cul one eight, and the way it was presented in th