Transcripts For SFGTV Historic Preservation Commission 12161

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