Please silence your mobile devices that may sound off, when you are speaking before the commission, if you care to state your name no the record. I would like to take roll. Wolfin. Here. Highland. Here. John. Here. Johns. Yes. Matusta. Nhere. Pearlman. Hawis absent today. First on the agenda, is the general public xhept, at this time the members of the public may address the commission, on items that are within the subject matters, except the items respect to the agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the itting is reached in the meeting each member of the public may address the commission for up to 3 minutes. I have no speaker cards. Does any member of the public wish to come and speak at general Public Comment . You have three minutes, and there will be a warning bell, 30 seconds before your time. Where do we place the card . You can put it on side there. You can come and speak now. Okay. All right. Right. So does any other member have general Public Comment . Seeing and hearing none we will close, general Public Comment. Very good, it will place you under department matters, directors announcement. Good afternoon, commissioners i just wanted to give you a brief report on the Planning Commissions item with respect to the housing Bonus Program. As you know it has been in the kind of the Development Stage for a long time and it has been controversial and the Planning Commission, did take an action last week, what they did, a little out of their normal routine is actually to take the separate votes on several, topics within the proposed ordinance. And then they took an over all action to send it to the board of supervisors with an out of recommendation, either proor con. But what i can do without taking too much time is briefly summarize the position on various topics. One is that they asked us to go father in terms of the sites that we would not consider for the program and asked that we remove all parcels that have any residential units whether they are rent controlled or not. If the site has any of it under the proposal it will not be eligible for using this program. And they ask that we secondly adopt a phased approach, implementing it, starting with the sites that are vacant, or have gas stations on them. The third would be to evaluate the remaining sites, with an emphasis on retaining Small Businesses, and Historic Properties. The fourth was to evaluate further evaluate the Financial Analysis of these project and of this program to look at the area immediate and income limits and there was a lot of discussion about the middle income, portion of this program, and whether it was too high and so they have asked us to take a new look at that. And fifth they asked us to conduct the further out reach and planning with respect to the program, and they also, asked us to look at how projects would conform to the Design Guidelines, that we have put forward, and you may recall that we have proposed specific, Design Guidelines for this program and they have asked us to make sure that when we do the case report we will do an analysis of how the project meet s those guidelines or not. They asked that until those guidelines are finally adopted we will prohibit the merger of lots to accommodate this program. So that we could not merge lots to accommodate a project site. Until new guidelines are finally adopted. And they asked us to look at refining the guidelines with respect to the adjacent properties. With respect to the review process, they asked us to change the review process to require a conditional use for all projects that use this program. With respect to the Small Business, there is a certain about the impacts on the Small Business in our neighborhood, districts and they asked us to give the Planning Commission the authority to reduce the size of commercial storefronts within a new projects, so that you could maintain a small storefront character in the buildings. And they asked that we would with with respect to affordable and looked at to establish the rates that are particular to a neighborhood. And because some neighborhoods clearly are more affordable than others and look at rates that are lower to the median incomes in those neighborhoods. And with all of that, and the discussion which, i think went on for about six hours, they did take a vote, to pass it on to the board of supervisors, with no recommendation. I am happy to answer any questions, thank you. Commissioner pearlman . Just in your opinion at this moment in time it sounds like so Many Properties have been eliminated from consideration. Are there muf properties to actually make it work through all of this effort . Our analysis, we, you know, it applies to, and i am not going to get the numbers, exactly right, but i think that it will apply to about 30,000 parcels across the city. What we did was look at parcels where it is most likely to occur and that is a list of 240, those 240 dont have housing on them any way. So those 240 parcels we think will still work. Based on the recommendations that they have made. And they dont have, they dont have housing they dont have the Historic Resources on them. So that was our first cut any way about where it will most likely apply. And so, they did recommend going ahead with that portion and with that first 240 sites, but then asked us to look more carefully at the remaining parcels. Thank you. If the board does not approve this proposaproposal, since thi state requirement, what will happen at that point . Well, the way this is a very good question, you know, the state Bonus Program has been on the books for a long time, but because of a recent, napa city, and i think that it is an napa city court case and it will apply to the projects that are prohe vieding any level of affordable, such as San Francisco, even if it is just the base requirement of affordability. So the way that it will work is that the projects could evoke on their own, the program on their own and asked for additional density and height by providing Affordable Housing units even if it is the 12 percent that is required in the code. That will be entitled to the state law under the additional density. You are not confirmed of that yet. Actually we have, there are five or six projects in the office that are provoking the state density. Commissioner . Yes, could you just clarify again, i think point number three, related to Historic Properties did you say to exempt them . No, what they said was, what they said was, you know, they would support a phased approach, where the 240 parcels that are largely vacant, could move forward but asked us to take a second look at properties that do have resources on them to see how we might shape the program better. They were not just exempt, that is correct. To make sure that there was an evaluation. Correct. Any other questions . Thank you. There is nothing further, commissioners, item two, and the review and the Planning Commission and announcements. Tim frye the department staff, no formal report, other than director rams report on the program, and i did want to follow up with a couple of items related to that, and one is that in mid june, on your advanced calendar, you will see the neighborhood commercial district survey, will be coming to you for adoption along with the neighborhood commercial, Historic Context. This is also intended to clarify which properties in these areas that generally accept greater densities. Are historic and which ones are not, under the local, program, what is being proposed at this time, is buildings determine eligible as an individual resource will not be eligible for the, or to the program. Meaning that you could not redevelop one of those sites if you had an individual, resource, however, there was a district and you had a district contributor, that property may be eligible, if removing that property, from the district would not cause a significant adverse impact to the district. As you know, in a district, we look at the district as a whole, as the resource, rather than the individual, buildings. And so that is something that we hope to have more information on by the summer, where we have just begun our neighborhood out reach, effort related to the survey work and it will be back to you, in mid june, with the findings. If there is nothing, further commissioners we can move on to the commission matters and through the chair, seeing that the president has stepped away, if we could potentially take item four out of order . Skipping over the president s report. Okay. Here he is. So item 3. President s report and announcements. The only announcement that i have is that i wanted to announce that the california, preservation evaluation is having the annual conference, in San Francisco and so i encourage all members, and commissioners and members to attend. Commissioners item four . Consideration of Adoption Draft minutes for the arc february third, 2016, hearing and draft minutes for the cha february, 17th and regular hearing for february 17th, 2016. Comments . Commissioner highland . Yeah, i have two comments, on the cha minutes. Since it occurred, and the minutes from that. The paragraph is essentially the same language as the agenda, and that does not change. And that is yeah. And then on the hpc minutes, and on the public speak, and the general Public Comment, there were three speakers on the first speaker we listed the presentation and on the last two, we didnt give any further information. The reason for that, commissioner is georgia has begun to invoke a section of the sunshine ordinance which allows a member of the public to actually submit their comments in writing to be included in the minutes and they are limited to 150 words. Perfect, thank you. Any other comments . Does any member of the public wish to comment on the draft minutes of february, 17, the arc, for february, 3 ird . And the Cultural Heritage committee for february, 17th . Seeing and hearing none we will bring it back to the commission, do i have a motion to adopt . I move to adopt the minutes of both. Second. Thank you. Thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes for february third, arc, february, 17th, cha and hpc hearings, commissioner johns . Yes. Matuta. Yes. Pearlman. Yes. Highland. Yes. And so moved that passes unanimously six to zero and places you on five, comments and questions. We can move on. Excellent, commissioners that will place you under your regular calendar for item six, the mothers Building Condition assessment informational presentation. We need a motion to recuse commissioner highland. I move to recuse commissioner highland. Second. Thank you on that motion, johns . Yes. Thank you, john. Yes. Matsuta. Yes. Pearlman. Yes. Highland. Yes. And president. Yes. Highland you are so recused thank you very much for hearing this item my presentati is on the assessments that the arg undertook and it was funded by an hpfc grant on the mothers building at the zoo and joined by don from rec and ma park and david and richard and the friends of the mothers building and also allison comings with the Arts Commission will be joining us as well. Quick reminder, where the mothers building is. On the left you can see the arial view from 1925 when it was constructed. It was part of the and it provided a space for mothers and Young Children to relax while enjoying the pool activities. Today, it is located in the zoo. It is a yellow circle shows you where the mothers building is in 1925 and today. I am sorry. Here, if you know the zoo well, you can see it here in the upper left. It is right by the new elenor friends playground and the gardens are close to the mothers building. Quick, review of some Historical Context of the building. So mentioned it was built in 1925, the murales were painted as part of the wpa program. That is the most historically relevant, piece of the building, and so we will be going into that in a little bit more detail. They are mostly painted in the 30s. And touched up in the 60s and the 70s. The building was used throughout most of its life as the mothers building until the pool was removed, the youth of the building changed in 1960, and the 70s and the early, 2000s it was used as the zoo gift shop, and some of the other activities in the zoo and it was decommissioned in the early, 2000s. Here are some of the images of the mural, the top image, richard actually took these photos, the top image shows a large view of the mural and then the bottom one shows some detail images. They were all painted with egg temp ora and so on top of the building, within the west plaster is this typical of these murales during this time period. This is another one. Here is some close up views of other aspects of the murals. And the conditions assessment that arg undertook, did both a survey and the photographic evidence and they had a number of consultants to pull together all of the information that we needed. The conditions assessment, ended up with immediate, short term and long term goals for building reconstruction, and the immediate is really the building, and the protect what is there right now. And the and we estimated it to be about 200,000 dollars and the zoo has already helped with some inkind aspects of this which is, you know, sort of removing some of the trash in the area, the cleaning the gutters and cleaning some of the vegetation in the area. Short term is a little bit more intensive. It is estimated to happen within a couple of years. As soon as we can find the funding. And this is really destabilized the building. The long term project which is almost, five Million Dollars, this is all in 2015, dollars. The 5 Million Dollar project would work to seismically retrofit the building and reserve and protect the murals one of the biggest issues of the seismic retrofitting is how to, how to retrofit the damage without damaging the murals which are along the interior wall that ajoins the exterior of the building and so one of the ideas as you can see in the bottom lefthand image is to do some unusual illustrating on the outside and butressing with perhaps some animals, and something that look like the zoo and brings in the new youth of the area. So this is the next couple of slides just sort of detail some of the issues for the immediate needs, on the upper righthand side, is the plywood and the protection that was placed outside of the building to help protect the inside mural that you can see here from the further degredation it is the on the western side and it gets hit by the storms and rain and it has not faired as well as the rest of the building. So this was a temperatu tempora. So some of the work and this is also what the zoo has done to mix this area that has been sort of taken apart in this picture. Short term needs again as i mentioned is to really stabilize the building and long term needs will do the seismic retrofitting and the ada access. Okay, that is all for my presentation. We are very excited about this. The murales, and the mosiac from the outside of the building are spectacular and we are glad to have this Structural Assessment so that we have a better p understanding of what is needed to preserve and restore this great asset. Thank you, commissioners . Questions . Commissioner, john . Yeah. Commissioner johns . Thank you. The wrong line. Well, that was a great report. I dont know whether it was you or mr. Wesle but i was interested in a couple of things, actually historically on page 3 of the report, it talked about a 1988 Grant Application for it, and archaeological Grant Program for the california wild life and park land and con certify Administration Act to resoefsh the mothers building, was that just an application or did it grant, successful, did you, did the Parks Department receive the grant or was it just an application. I dont know that information, i imagine that it was just a Grant Application. Do you know, david . It was not awarded. It was not awarded. Yeah. And i guess that over all, what i am interested in, is knowing where funding can come from to take care of the both the immediate needs as well as the long term and so, i am interested in how Something Like that could be pursued again. Right. Offer what other information you might have. Yeah, i think that grant opportunities would, or potential source of funding for this. Do you want to . Sure. And along with that too, would you need i would like the commission to be as proactive as we can, under the procedures. Including the potential landmarking as well. That is my whole thread of interest here. Yes, thank you, thank you, commissioners, and aven and i am the director of planning and management at the recreation and Parks Department. In terms of the question about funding it is a good one and the 5 billion question for us on this project. In terms of the long terms. The first step for us, was really completing the assessment so that we could have the sense of the magnitude of the ask and also the time frame in which we might need the different investments. And so we have divided into the short term and the longer term needs, in terms of my First Priority is to try and support, mr. Ross man in getting funding for the building to take care of the immediate and the short term needs and so we have met with the zoo, and who while not having much in the way of Financial Resources to commit, nonetheless, did unde