hey, good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission hearing for wednesday, december 20th, 2023. to enable public participation as of govtv broadcast and the streaming, this hearing live and we will receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. the each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes, and when you have 30s remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce

that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. we will take public comment from persons in city hall first and then open the remote access lines for those persons participating via webex. the password is hpc 2023 and you can use the login information on found on the agenda or the planning commission website. please raise your hand when public comment is called for the item you are interested in speaking to. for those persons calling in to submit their testimony, you need to call area . code (415) 655-0001 and enter access. code 26600808998 and press pound twice to comment. you must enter star three to raise your hand once you've raised your hand, you will hear a prompt indicating that you have raised your hand to ask a question. please wait to speak until the host calls on you. when you hear that you are unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. best practices are to call from a

quiet location and please mute the volume on your television or computer. for those persons attending in city hall, please line up on the screen side of the room. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record, fine. i'll ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings, and at this time i will take roll commission. president matsuda here. commission vice president warren, present. commissioner baldauf present. commissioner campbell here. commissioner foley, i commissioner vergara, here. we do expect commissioner wright to be absent today. first, on your agenda, commissioners, is general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three

minutes. again, if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no request to speak, commissioner general, public comment is closed and we can move on to department matters. item one department announcements. good afternoon, commissioners richard gray, department staff, just wanted to provide you an update on your landmark designation work program. um, on their last hearing at the land use committee, the board introduced two new landmark or initiated landmarking designation on two new properties the grand theater , which is in along mission street, as well as the gregangelo museum. so our staff will be working through those landmark designations and processing them accordingly. um, other than that, i have no other additional announcements. thank you, thank you. if there are no questions, commissioners commission matters. item two consideration of adoption draft minutes for december 6th, 2023. members of the public. this is

your opportunity to address the commission on they're minutes. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no request to speak. public comment is closed and your minutes are now before you commission motion to approve. is there a second? second? thank you commissioner, on that motion to adopt your minutes. commissioner baldauf. hi. commissioner campbell. yes, commissioner vergara. yes commissioner. foley i. commissioner nagasawa. yes. and commission president. matsuda yes. so move. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 6 to 0, placing us on item three. commission comments and questions. commissioner warren. um, so i had talked to a member of the public, um, who has a background in preservation and, um, was interested in, um, you know, recent landmark resolution that talked about, uh, replication of historic features

or spaces versus rehabilitation. um, i believe there's some language regarding that, um, saying that replication is acceptable alternative to rehabilitation and repair. um, so that was my first question on sure. happy to address that. um, commissioner nageswaran, um, so you are likely referring to the landmark designation that the hpc looked at for the sacred heart church. it is fairly i will say that is not common language that we use within the landmark designation reports. um, on many of our landmark designations, we do work closely either with the city attorney and or the sponsor to craft a designation that you know might be able to accommodate their kind of needs, both at the time and in the future, especially if it's within the boundaries and the parameters. i think in the case of sacred hearts, the hpc

did review the resolution and the nomination and then moved it on to the full board right now, the or excuse me, the land use hearing right now, the board of supervisors has not calendared that designation. um, for the land use hearing. so any members of the public that might be interested in in commenting further on the designating ordinance or the actions of the hpc can basically, um, forward their comments onto the board of supervisors and specifically the land use committee for when the item gets calendared. but right now it has not been calendared. um, that's good to know. um, and kind of working off of that, um, you know, the interest that, uh, you know, that i, i've been seeing is, uh, there are very few interior, uh, spaces in the city that are landmarked. um, and, um, it would be of interest to, to, you know, make sure that if there's an opportunity and there's integrit within the interiors that they be

considered for landmark status of obviously we're doing that. we want to kind of, you know, make sure that that is a priority. and then, um, you know , with smaller elements, um, you know, which are as you know, pertinent to the, uh, retaining historic integrity. um one of the things that always comes up is whether to replace windows as, um, and we're seeing a lot more push back that people are you know, seeing the deterioration in historic, um, buildings, um, including landmarks and deciding to replace them in kind, but replacing them instead with aluminum clad windows or vinyl windows. and we want to encourage using wood windows as as they were originally constructed and um, and in terms of energy efficient ac, i would refer back to the california

historical building code, which, um, exempts historic structures that are qualified historic structures from the energy code. um, and if the owner has a need for more, uh, energy efficiency, they could consider an interior storm window or some other measure for, um, that does not, um, you know, uh, uh, you know, affect the integrity of the historic resource. um, so, and i appreciate your response to those, um, questions. um, i also wanted to ask about the status of, of the shippo in terms of the state housing density bonus. um, and also so the zoning changes to, um, corridors where, um, there are, uh, planned, um, areas of increased housing. sure happy to address some of those

comments. um uh, in terms of my correspondence with our state historic preservation officer, i did reach out upon the hpc's recommendation to talk with the shippo to seek guidance on how we would either nominate our local landmarks towards either the california register or the national register. i think, given the recent state housing laws that have been passed, um, there is a lot of interest in historic designation overall by many communities. the shippo has basically said that they're kind of gathering all the information , and then they'll reach back to us out, back out, back to us in january of next year. so i think given the changes in her staff and a lot of the interest in this topic, um, obviously they want to put together a very cogent response towards the many communities in california that are looking and seeking interest in this topic on the, um, related to this, um, you know, when we're dealing with, you

know, historic resources in eventually those listings will help. but i also am, um, interested in understanding within areas that are, um, either designated historic districts, um, or have a collection of historic resources . his um, how how we can better mitigate the effects of height limitations. um, with the housing, um, you know, the density bonus program, um, so that, you know, in some cases, um, buildings that have are the areas that are limited to 40ft. and now can have like 60 foot buildings. so how how can we discuss with the shippo or other groups how to do, um, you know, either designate those districts on the california register or understand how collections of

buildings or areas can be better protected. yeah i think that's part of what i'm hoping to get out of our conversation with the state historic preservation officer and get, you know, more consistent guidance that way, then we can kind of advise our other staff who are working on the rezoning efforts. um, relative to your second inquiry, it might be helpful if the hpc receives a presentation on where the rezoning efforts have been in, um, and in that way, then we can provide for an informational hearing. i know the planning commission recently we heard from them, um, in the last couple of weeks, basically right before they went on break. um, and so we can work with their staff to calendar something for the hpc as well. that would be great. thank you, mr. speaker. commissioner vergara, i just had a housekeeping question. i know at our last meeting, we approved our meeting schedule for next year and then subsequently i noticed that one of them is scheduled for juneteenth. so i don't know if we're going to

meet on that day or if that should be canceled. i believe it's now a federal holiday and i believe last year the city recognized it as well. and so as a holiday, we would certainly not meet on that date. um, but but, um, when the time comes, we'll just send out a cancellation notice. great thank you. i just had a quick question, mr. sukhoi, to follow up on commissioner warren's comment about the interior structure of a historic property . um, has it just been a policy or a matter of practice or custom to not really undertake that aspect of a landmark designation or a lot of our older landmarks are primarily focused on the exterior. so if you look at like our landmarks list from probably like landmark number one through about probably like landmark number like 180, we mainly focus on the exterior. and we had, i think

two, two um, interior designations. i think, you know, one of the things we're mindful of is that it's not just the exterior of a property that, you know, shows its historical significance. and so for those property that exhibit, you know, high value or that might be deserving of interior recognition, you know, we are looking at the exterior and interior for kind of future ones. so i will say we don't have a formal policy of adopting it. but given that many of our landmarks benefit the public, we do tend to focus on, on, um, public accessible areas or public rights of way or, um, things that, you know, any member of the public could enjoy when we're looking at landmark status. yeah and traditionally it was mainly to focus on the exterior or, or architect of merit. but i think now, particularly with our emphasis on racial and social equity, we're looking at an individual and the impact of an individual that has had in that community

or in that space that we might begin to see more. yeah. and i think i think we will. so i think it's something that i've had a lot of discussion with mr. lavalley on as we look at a lot of the properties that we're looking at, designations for future. great. thank you. any other questions or comments from the commission? seeing none, i think we're ready to move on to the next agenda item. very good. commissioners um, at the time of issuance, i should call the item consideration of items proposed for continuance at the time of issuance, there were no items proposed to be continued, and there still are no items proposed to be continued. so we can move on to your regular calendar for item for case number 2022. hyphen 00112 env. for the icu's creek bridge project. this is a draft environmental impact report for your review and comment. so um, if i could just say one thing before you start your presentation for the new commissioners, i think this is

the first time that we are going to be reviewing and making comments on an eir. so it's the within the right or the historic preservation commission. um, usually provides certain amount of commentary to the planning commission on particular items regarding historic resources. and so if, uh, please feel free to offer any and all advice or comments that we can forward on. i'm sorry. please proceed. thank you. um, could i get the overhead, please? great. thanks um. good afternoon, hpc commissioners. my name is liz white. planning department staff, and i'm making this presentation on behalf of justin griffin, senior preservation planner, who's out sick today. uh, the item before you is review and comment on the draft environmental impact report for the latest creek bridge project located in the bayview neighborhood pursuant to san francisco's local procedures for implementing sequa, we are

bringing this draft eir to you because the project would have a significant impact on a historical resource, the commission members were sent electronic copies of the draft eir at the end of november for the public review period for the proposed project's draft eir began on november 30th and will continue until 5 p.m. on january 22nd, 2024, the department is requesting your comments on the adequacy of the draft eir regarding historical resources, specifically, the identification of historical resources, the analysis of project impacts on historical resources, the mitigation measures and the range of preservation alternatives considered. i would like to remind the commission that preservation alternatives were brought to the hpc on may 17th for your review and comment . the hpc found the alternate lives to be adequate, but provided comments on the project scope and mitigation measures. please note that public comment at this hearing may inform the hpc's comments on the draft eir, but will not be responded to in

the responses to comments document. the hearing for that purpose will be at the planning commission on january 11th, 2024. we will provide hpc comments to the planning commission prior to the draft eir hearing on january 11th. i'm joined today by chelsea fordham, principal environmental planner, and is leah's creek bridge er case supervisor, and thomas roitman, the project manager with public works. the project site is located on third street and spans leah's creek in the bayview neighborhood. here is a more detailed map showing the location of the bridge, spanning over the ysleta's creek channel. the area is adjacent to the project are. production distribution and repair, and heavy industrial zoning districts. the lost creek bridge is a built up steel double bascule bridge constructed in 1950. a bascule is a type of drawbridge that incorporates a counterweight that makes the

drawbridge easy to raise and lower. the current bridge has two light rail transit tracks and four vehicle lanes in addition to two cantilevered sidewalks. the tower, as you see in the upper left photo on this slide, is where the operation of the drawbridge function takes place. the bridge's official name is lavon mission bridge. in 2013, the bridge received. a 20 out of 100 rating by the national bridge inventory rating, which is considered poor and the structure received a score of zero. and now, to talk about his history and significance, uh, the bridge is. next slide. sorry, i was going to say, uh, i was just going to say your presentation is not forwarding. yeah. uh, chelsea, do you mind giving her a hand? oh, it's not. oh. all right. sorry. okay. here we go. okay

thank you. all right. thanks um, the bridge is individually listed in the california register under criterion three for its distinctive design qualities as an art moderne style bridge. the period of significance is 1950. the bridge's date of completion. the bridge retains sufficient integrity to communicate significance as an art moderne style bridge, and then next slide, please. the bridge's character defining features include its bridge type, which is bascule type, drawbridge, which, uh, drawbridge with two spans and concrete abutments. next slide please. the character defining features also include the above deck detailing elements on top associated with each bascule leaf. next slide. uh, some other character defining features are located along the bridge abutments and next slide and lastly the bridge tower and its associated features are also character defining features of the bridge.

and now moving on to talk about the proposed project. and then next slide, the project objectives include raising the bridge to address the effects of sea level rise, correcting the bridge's existing seismic deficiencies, minimizing construction times for the bridge to reduce impact to bayview-hunters point, residents , and increasing the serviceability of the bridge to improve muni light rail operations, among others. next slide. uh, the proposed project will demolish the existing bridge and replace it with a new bridge. the new concrete bridge will be single span. the bottom of the bridge will be approximately 5.2ft higher than the existing bridge, and will accommodate future sea level rise within the city's existing right of way constraints. as shown in the bottom drawing, the new bridge will have four girders that will act as dividers to separate light rail trains, vehicles and pedestrian traffic. the control tower will be demolished down to the concrete abutment to create a public observation platform. and next slide, please. and then

here is another view of the proposed project. next slide. because the proposed project would demolish most components of the bridge, the impact to the historic bridge will be significant and unavoidable. mitigation measures to reduce impacts to this historic resource have been identified and include documentation, preparation of a salvage plan and an interpretive plan and development of a community memorial event. while these mitigation measures will reduce the impacts, the impact after mitigation will still be significant and unavoidable because the proposed project will have a significant and unavoidable impact on the historic resource, the draft er explored two alternatives a no project alternative and a preservation alternative of as required by sequa, a no project alternative needs to be explored in the eir under this no project alternative, the bridge would remain in its current condition, and while all the character defining features would remain,

it would not meet any of the project objectives that relate to seismic upgrades. addressing sea level rise and improved muni operations. this alternative would have would not have an impact on the bridge and would have no physical, environmental impacts, no mitigation measures would be required. the preservation alternative would either salvage and reinstall or replicate in kind. most of the character defining features. the drawbridge functionality would not be maintained, as the alternative proposes a fixed span similar to the proposed project. however all the above deck elements associated with the bascule leaves would be salvaged and reinstalled or replicated, mostly in kind, and guardrails would be replaced mostly in kind with some safety upgrades. the control tower and its associated features would be retained. this alternative would meet, uh, would meet most of the project objectives. however it is projected that the construction timeline would be increased due to the need to salvage and evaluate the feasibility of reinstalling some

of the character defining features. despite the retention and or replication of many of the character defining features of the bridge, the alternatives still requires removal of the existing operable bascule bridge and the construction of a new fixed span bridge. like the proposed project, the preservation alternative would still cause material impairment to the bridge and the impact would be significant and unavoidable. while a similar suite of mitigation measures as those proposed for the project would be required under this alternative at the may hpc hearing, the hpc found the alternatives to be adequate and had some questions about the proposed mitigation measures. incorporation of the project. within the larger approach to address sea level rise in the elias creek neighborhood and the outreach process of the project based on input from the hpc, no modifications were made to the alternatives, but additional information was added to the draft eir to discuss the larger approach to sea level rise in

the neighborhood, along with the general outreach for the project . next environmental review occurs in the early stage and early stages of a project's development process, and includes outreach to the community on the project's environmental impacts. we want to briefly highlight the outreach that has been conducted as part of the environmental review process under the section 106 consultation notification was sent to the san francisco heritage society, the san francisco historic society, the armenian engineer and scientists of america, bayview-hunters point citizens advisory committee, and the california preservation foundation as part of the sequa public outreach, a notice of availability of an nop was prepared and distributed in may of 2023 to all property owners and occupants within 300ft of either bridge approach, as well as being sent to other interested parties and neighborhood organizations. additionally, a notice was posted on muni busses and light rail vehicles for the duration

of the nop comment period. tribal notification took place in february and then on november 29th of this year, the notice of availability of an eir was issued and sent to property owners and occupants within 300ft of either bridge approach. interested parties and neighborhood organizations and individuals who commented on the nop or expressed interest in receiving project updates like the nop notification process, notices have been placed on muni busses and light rail vehicles. additional public outreach outside of the environmental review process will be conducted by public works in the coming months. regarding construction and detour logistics. birx. um, before i conclude, i would like to remind everyone that there will be a public hearing before the planning commission on the draft eir on january 11th, 2024. uh, to receive a response. comments on the draft eir must be submitted verbally in person, at the planning commission or submitted in writing to me. uh at cpc dot icu's creek bridge

project at sf gov. org um comments must be submitted by 5 p.m. on january 22nd, 2024. uh comments made by members of the public during this hearing will not be responded to in the responses to comments document, which will contain our responses to all relevant comments on the draft eir and then, as a reminder, this is an, uh, this is an opportunity for the hpc to comment on the adequacy of the draft eir, including the description. and historical status of the site, the proposed mitigation measures and range of alternatives presented. uh, should you wish to submit a comment letter to the planning department on the draft eir, we will address your comments in the responses to comments document. thank you. thank you. okay with that, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the draft environmental impact report. good afternoon. commission uh, commissioners. my name is woody

labounty from san francisco. heritage uh, we are going to send written comments on this. um, there's only two points i'd like to make to draw to your attention. uh, one is the tower has always served as a gateway to the bay view. um, and whenever there's any sort of project that touches on preservation in that area, i think we need to pay heightened attention to that. generally under-recognized and underserved neighborhood in regards to preservation. and i do think that we didn't talk about what the delay would be. but i do think a tower would be a, um, an appropriate mitigation for the preservation alternative. and the other thing is, i just want to bring up that i don't recommend this, but, uh, many san franciscans, including myself, used to fish off this bridge. um, and so when you're doing public outreach and talking about interpretation and cultural, uh, um, sort of outreach and, uh, about the history of the bridge, i think,

to have some sort of, uh, outreach to the fishing community and the local, uh, people who used to fish off that bridge and even crabs sometimes, um, would be appropriate. and that's it. thank you. thank you. okay last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak. commissioners, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you. thank you. commissioners. commissioner foley, um, i think you know, from the time we last talked and you and you presented this to us and we actually made a lot of comments. i think you did a great job pulling all this together. and i really appreciate your work. thank you. thank you. commissioner warren, um, i also appreciate, um, reflection on the sea level rise

and providing a little bit more information that this bridge would be inundated by 2075. so so raising it up, um, is, is helpful and it will increase its longevity to 2100 year, 2100. um so that's very helpful to know. um, and, and i'll also listen to the other commissioners comments . commissioner baldauf. yes, thank you. i had a couple of further questions, and i have to say thank you in advance to staff who i talked to yesterday at length about this project. and i am trying to bring myself up to speed on all of the eir portion of this. um, so i apologize if i overstepped my bounds, but i was hoping that you could summarize the neighborhood comment that you got feedback through all of the outreaches that you described.

uh liz white, planning department staff. so outreach through the nlp process and then outreach, what we've heard so far, i just want to make sure i understand the question. you had all the different processes that you outlined suggested there was a lot of outreach and i'm trying to understand what feedback you got from all of that different outreach. yes. so um, as part of the notice of preparation, um, we received several comments from organization and individuals, and we do have that summarized in the draft eir. i can find you the page, uh, one second page. thank you. it's page one three. page 13. sorry, a one dash 13 a1-3. apologies.

um, and so we did receive, um, comments from members of the public about the construction related transport impacts that will occur here. uh, as a result of the project, we did receive comments from several agencies, including the native american heritage commission, um, who commented about the effects to tribal cultural resources, uh, the california geologic survey about um, addressing, uh, geological considerations, concerns. uh, and there was also a consideration or a comment from sf puc about nearby infrastructure and, um, and those those are summary of the comments received on the notice of preparation in. so i guess the reason i'm asking that is that, um, like mr. labounty said, i, i look at this bridge, which is the cover on the cover of the draft eir as a gateway in

to, uh, one of the neighborhoods that we're supposed to be paying very, very special attention to. and it is, in my experience, it's a signature element. and i look that i believe that the lefty o'doul bridge is actually a city landmark. and so if the lefty o'doul bridge is a landmark, i think that this qualifies lies in the same way as being worthy of being thought about in those terms. and it was why i was very concerned that there was apparently and this is where i'm working at a disadvantage because i wasn't here when this first came to the commission. but one of the commissioners was asked about an alternative, um, that in your it just rejects it. it doesn't. you don't explain why you didn't, uh, why it was not possible to do to create a separate bridge and i find that sort of cavalier

rejection and it feels cavalier to me. not appropriate in the, um, creation of a of an eir. um, i, i recognize the challenges and, uh, and it seems like there's an economic analysis that underlays, um, a lot of the decision making here, but i don't see where the budget, the, the project sponsor is working against is detailed here. is that present here? and i just have missed it. um, commissioner chelsea farnum, planning department staff, uh, economic analysis is sometimes done as part of the statement of overriding considerations when the eir is adopted. so we will take your comment and if you choose to present it as one of

the hpc comments, we would respond in the response to comments i feel like that's not very respectful of our role as historic preservation commissioners that you're asking us to say that this is or passes muster from a historic preservation guidelines. but as i understand it, the project sponsors goals are what you are. um, as staff working with to get to an acceptable project project description. and if you won't tell us and the sponsor won't tell us what the goals are, i the budget, then how do i know that it's not an acceptable alternative to build a new bridge next to the old bridge, which, by the way, it said it's difficult to acquire land, but

the project boundaries have illinois street and another street right next to it that are part of the project effect. so i don't understand. and the criteria under which you are making your decisions. so commissioner baldauf, respectfully, a lot of your comments are dealing with the project description itself and what's before you is not a argument over the project and the crafting of the project. um, what's before you is basically commentary on the entire document. so in this case, it sounds like you'd like the staff to continue providing additional information for public review. um, in reference to guidelines that um were we have to follow basically by sequa and by the board, as they relate to the preservation alternatives. yes i think that the preservation alternatives does need to be fleshed out. i don't think the

preservation alternatives mean that muster in my mind as a preservation alternative. commissioner baldauf again, i mean, just to read, mind you, this hearing today is to provide to is to give you the opportunity to provide that input to staff and to the document itself with your recommendations. so again, it's not really about the project. it's about the secret document. and the preservation alternatives. and and i guess the other question i would have and so that that's the extent of my comment then is that i would like to see, um, a more robust preservation alternate and explanations for the rejection that have been made of alternatives and the other question i have, and i don't know whether this is appropriate again. so i apologize if it's not, is um, what there's a lot of discussion about, um,

technical matters and the zero grade that it got an on on stuff, but how much? which is the cultural significance of this bridge, something that gets examined in the eir. so keep in mind, commissioner, the, um, eir lays out facts. so in this case the eir identify side the building to be a historic resource. and then the staff undertook an analysis based on the fact that it is a historic resource. so but but the analysis was in my mind a technical and um, artistic in a way analysis and not a cultural analysis. and i thought that part of our purview is cultural. and i'm trying to ask, where is the cultural analysis? so, for example, in terms of helping to frame out an argument, you might you might be asking the staff to

further elaborate on whether or not the significance of the buildings cultural history has been explored in the eir would be something you'd want to say. and so i would like to ask if the cultural significance of this project is being explored in the eir and in specific reference to the bayview neighborhood for which i think it provides a gateway. yeah, we can take down that comment and respond to it. thank you, commissioner warren. uh, so the alternate of, you know, the comment about having the bridge on a different location, um, i was one of the people if the, you know, the one that said that and i think some of the response was, you know, managing the road

elevations towards the bridge. um, and i don't know if that got included into, into the analysis service in the eir, um, to, you know, show that that alternative was considered and, and that, that there are certain grade issues towards the bridge. yes we explored many alternatives in the eir, and there is um, it's in the alternatives considered but rejected section, which explored building a new bridge. in addition to keeping this bridge. and we did, uh, investigate that as part of the eir. and it's discussed on page 626 of the alternatives chapter. and we discussed why, um, that was considered, but ultimately reject it from further consideration. and so, um, on the portion of uh, commissioner baldauf comment regarding

economics of it, um, was there you said that there would be that, um, that would be addressed when the eir is certified or, or and is there an opportunity to understand that aspect of rejection in the eir? so when the if the planning commission chooses to adopt the eir, they need to take two actions. one is to adopt the overriding considerations which is required under sequa, which says we understand this project has significant environmental impacts. however, we are, you know, stating that the benefits of this project outweigh the negative environmental impact costs and that is prepared with the project sponsor. it's not, you know, it's a separate document. and if one of the considerations of why we're not choosing to adopt the alternative is economics, we

have to prepare a economic study to back up that fact. and that's done as part of the statement of overriding consideration and is separate from the ceqa document. the secret document represents just the facts. um and then so when, when, when the eir is completed, what what is what is it that decides which alternative is used when the when the draft eir is prepared? um, it's outlined in the ceqa considerations. they need to be, you know, feasible they need to meet most of the project objectives, but not all. and they need to achieve, um, most of the project sponsors objectives. so we looked extensively at many, many alternatives with the sponsor. and as you see in the analysis, there were some alternatives that were rejected because they

don't meet the sea level rise objectives. and some a lot of the site constraints. and that's where, you know, the alternatives considered but rejected. looked at all those options. and um, who makes that final decision. is it the planning commission. it's the planning commission. when they choose to adopt the eir as adequate and complete and that they feel like that the facts are, are are complete and correct, i see. okay. thank you. thank you, commissioner foley. yeah. uh, commissioner baldauf, i just i just want to put some color on this from when we when we had this hearing, i think whatever. six months ago. um, but but we beat this up pretty bad, uh, because of the constraints of the site and the fact that the bridge is basically a zero. so it's kind of dead. uh, what i do find very interesting fema comment, though , is the fact that lefty o'doul bridge did get renovated and this is the gateway and it's not being and i respect that. but i think in this particular situation, in trying to fix this bridge with all the constraints,

was almost impossible. i think that's kind of what we came to the conclusion of last, last time. but i do appreciate your comments, and i think they make i just appreciate them and i wish we could do something different. uh, commissioner baldauf, well, thank you. and again, as i say, i'm catching up to speed and i apologize to make people go over old ground. but i , i the rejection on 626. um i don't know if i had been asking all of these things. there are a lot of just assertions that are made with not very much explanation. so are you asking? i'm asking for. great. i think that's my basic, um, request. rest of staff. is that that um, instead of just. i'm what strikes me is very interesting in learning the history of this, uh, project was done to 75%

construction documents to renovate this bridge a number of years ago. there should be a tremendous amount of information that is available to the project sponsor. and that, um, in the preservation alternative, there's all this hedging language about if this is discovered, if that's discovered and all of that. and yet a whole project was done to 75% cds. i find it incredible that that there is not more, more clear information and clear analysis and clear analysis. so i think that should be part of is that part of your that's part of my request. yeah. and my comment. right. but but i think that those are very good points to, to make sure that there is further analysis about the way in which preservation alternative moves are discussed,

analyzed and concluded. and i think that should be it. if that could be a part of the comments from the hpc. i also, um, just, uh, we appreciate your comments. commissioner baldauf. i think that, um, having a new commissioner look at look at ers, particularly this project with fresh eyes is very good for us. but but i think for those who have been on this commission have really seen a true evolution of what an irr used to look like when it came before the hpc to what it is today. and in my opinion, i see 1,000% improvement when preservation an alternatives used to come before us. it was just one or the other. there was no alternative at all. um, and so i, i do think that this eir really took the time to do that. i do appreciate that the particular part about archeology, and i thought that was really well, um, discussed

and, and very well presented. i do want, i think mr. labounty um, mentioned and, and recommended that we include other communities, and i do agree with that. the fishing community is a very important part of the san francisco community, and it should be included as well as the native american community, because you did include a lot of history about the fact of who lived in this community before. but it was only for archeology. it was not a part of any other analysis. and that definitely should be a community that should be included. when we talk about, um, who may be affected by this particular project. and i think one other thing is, um, about the resource is, i mean, i, i really, really appreciate this is i don't know, mr. sucrée could probably agree to this. i um, this is one of the very first years that i saw that had

very clear bullet points about about what would be done. the drawing things, the photos, the historical report. i really appreciate that. but what i didn't see is the involvement of the hpc included in any kind of interpretive panel, which i think is important, and also, uh, the salvage plan. um, if we're going to be talking about a salvage plan, i want to see how we can really utilize and reuse salvage to make it a part of either the interpretive panel or at least allowing members of the public to have some type of visual about the historic significance. and integrity of the project. i think those were my comments. uh, commissioner baldauf, did you have other comments? no. okay anybody any other commissioners? commissioners just as a reminder, in terms of the next

steps on this staff will basically input their comments. and then, as is typical in other projects, we will usually send those comments forward to the hpc president for review. um, and then included into the record. so thank you. okay. any other questions or comments about process for the for the commission when we comment on eirs as okay, if there's nothing further commissioners, we can move on to item five five. but i believe staff will be reaching out to both of the new commissioners for ceqa 101 opportunity. item five, case number 2023. hyphen 009941 ds for the san francisco fire station number 44 at 1298 gerrard street. this is for your consideration to recommend to the board of supervisors. landmark designation. good afternoon. commissioners. peeler valley department staff, this is a board initiated a landmark so

we usually give an opportunity to the um supervisor staff to comment before, uh, i make a statement, but at, um, i believe , um, supervisor walton, who introduced this is represented by his aide, natalie g. if she's available. miss g, you've been promoted to panelists. so you should be able to unmute yourself. good afternoon, commissioners. this is natalie g. with uh, supervisor walton's office. thank you so much for hearing this item today. um, i'm on behalf on behalf of supervisor walton, uh, to talk about our support for fire station number 44, located in the visitacion valley neighborhood at 1298 gerrard street. it was built in 1913 by renowned architect john reid. although the building was constructed in 1913, sf fire department didn't move in until 1915 as they waited for a delivery of a modern engine, um driven apparatus and phased out

horses for fire rescue. so station 44 is the oldest firehouse that is still active in service. um, in partnership with the visitacion valley history project, the community worked on identifying preservation projects to address the neighborhood's underrepresentation in the city's official inventory of historical buildings. um valley only has one designated city landmark that we passed last year, um, and it was identified through a month long campaign, um, as the neighborhood's first city landmark. uh residents and community members also identified station 44 as one of the buildings that they want to see designated as a city landmark. um, thank you so much. i do look forward, and i hope you all consider this as a positive recommendation. thank you. good afternoon again, commissioners. peeler valley department staff, um, as you've heard, uh, i have the slides, please. thank you. uh, the item before you is consideration of

recommendation of landmark designation of, but was initiated by the board of supervisors of san francisco fire station number 44, in the visitacion valley neighborhood. fire station 44, designed by john reid junior. during his tenure as city architect, was constructed. in 1913. uh, the constructed during a period of growth for san francisco fire department in the 19 tens, along with the elaborate auxiliary water supply system and at least 25 other fire stations, fire station number 44 is historically significant for its association with the city's expanded system of fire protection. in the early 20th century. fire station 44 is also architecturally significant, as it embodies the distinctive characteristics of an early early 20th century classical revival style brick fire station, and it is also represent give of the work of

architect of merit john reid, junior. as a member of the board of consulting architects from 1912 to 1918, and then as city architect from 1918 to 1930. reid designed and oversaw construction of some of san francisco's most important civic buildings, including a number that are have been recognized previously as city landmarks. apparently, my slides have gone away. uh, so the department believes that the fire station 44 meets eligibility requirements and that landmark status is warranted. character defining features representative of the significance have been included in the draft ordinance in your packet. the department recommends that the commission approve the recommendation for landmark designation, which will be forwarded to the board of supervisors. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. also representative from the san francisco fire department is

here as well for comment. thank you. thank you. assistant deputy chief mike mullen, uh, support services. so in charge of facilities, uh, the station is a beautiful striking. i don't think the pictures even do it justice, but it's an important city landmark and a very important to the department's history as well. so we fully support this historic designation. thank you, thank you, thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to address the commission on this item? i'm. good afternoon, commissioners. woody labounty from san francisco heritage in 2021. san francisco heritage as part of its heritage in the neighborhoods program, um teamed up with the visitacion valley history project to identify high

potential landmark candidates. and visitacion valley, a neighborhood which up until that point had no city designated landmarks. uh station 44 was one of three candidates we put forward in a public vote to get input and hear the voices of residents and community members. uh, ultimately, saint james presbyterian church won that public vote and was initiated and eventually endorsed by this body and the city to become city landmark number 308. but then i want to offer great thanks to supervisor walton and his staff. natalie g. in particular, for not stopping with saint james, but bringing forward this great building on gerrard and wild. um, the fire department staff there was very excited about the possibility of being a city landmark and offered to have a celebratory barbecue if that happened, which i think you're all invited to. we'll be there. so this is the sort of awareness building and action that we

envisioned for our heritage in the neighborhoods project, and we couldn't be happier with the fire department. with supervisor walton and planning staff to bring it forward. thank you. thank you, thank you. last call for public comment on this matter. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no requests to speak, commissioner, public comment is closed in. this matter is now before you. great thank you, commissioner foley. i like barbecue. me too. no this is great. actually, i drove out. i think it's i think it's a really great building, and i know a lot of the fire team and you all are awesome. so this is just a really great thing to do today. so thank you very much. thank you. um, any other commissioner, commissioner nageswaran, um, i was curious, um, if the interior doors were considered historical , um, i the limited photos that i saw, they were very planar walls and things like that. but

one thing i caught my eye was the herringbone brick pattern at the first floor. department staff, uh, pr department staff? yes. um, for the most part, the interiors were not con um, they were examined, but they were not considered historic. um, there's been several substantial renovations made to the building , um, including the addition that was added in the early to mid 90s, um, in which time a lot of the interiors were, um, uh, remodel extensively, including, like moving spaces around, um, so, uh, rear alley the only i would agree that the, the primary feature would be that herringbone pattern floor in the single apparatus bay. um, and we didn't include it as a character defining feature, principally because it, um, although this is

a public building, whether or not that's considered really a historically accessed, publicly accessible space, which is one of the requirements of the planning code. when we think about interior spaces, is whether it's historic, been a publicly accessible space. yes. um, but if that is something that you would like to recommend, we can certainly, um, amend the ordinance accordingly. i would like to recommend that, um, because as it is unique, um, and um, part of the character of that building and it correlate to the exterior brickwork. thank you, commissioner baldauf. yeah i, i also am very excited about this. and i had a quick question because because, um, i love that this is actually a functioning fire station. and i'm curious if

the department's long terme plan is to keep it as such, because i know we're always modernizing facilities and, um, i, i and i'm going to go knit the food comments and the brick comment together. um in that one of the amazing cultural things about fire departments is food. and, um, um, the kitchens in these firehouses and i don't know where the kitchen in this firehouse is, but i was in some of the old ones before they were sold off. and it was down stairs in a basement, and it but but as a cultural expression of the fire department and its outreach to its community, these kitchens are actually an important part of the history of these buildings. and so i guess i'd be interested in the department's long terme plan. and if the kitchen is still the original, which i don't know, but if it

was, i certainly would think that we would want that to be a landmark. pillar of the valley department staff. um, i agree with your comments that the kitchen and a lot of the gathering spaces in these, um, in these fire station buildings are certainly important, um, spaces. the kitchen in this building in particular is actually within the 1990s addition in, um, to the building, which would be outside of the period of significance for this designate ation. so we would not have we would not we did not include it as a character defining feature because and also, just to be more specific, the addition along the north is not included as character defining within this designation or proposed designation. thank you. can i ask a follow up on that? so if

the fire department needed to modernize this facility again in what we're doing here today would allow them to tear that 1990 building down and build a larger i mean, a more modern facility. department of the valley, the planning department staff. yes, it would um, but it would require a certificate of appropriateness, um, and environmental review pursuant to sequa because the designated um the designation does cover the entirety of the parcel, um, but it doesn't identify why it specifically excludes as character defining those features from the 1990s addition. thank you. any other questions or comments from the commission? is there a motion to, uh, commissioner campbell? i just wanted to quickly comment

that i, in learning about the station, i couldn't help but feel really inspired because i know it was a time after the earthquake and the city was rebuilding and expanding, and i couldn't help but draw parallels to sort of where it feels a little like we are right now in san francisco. so it it filled me with hope and i think it's a it's a wonderful recommendation, an especially in an underrepresented district. so great to see motion to recommend is there a second? i'll second. there's nothing further. commissioner sorry. excuse sorry to interrupt. um valley department staff. uh just to clarify in your motion, are you also moving to amend the ordinance? yes. um, as proposed to include the herringbone pattern flooring in, um, as a character defining feature. yes is there a second on that? or.

i'll second that second or amenable? very good. uh, with that, then there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a resolution recommending landmark designation, um, as drafted and amended to include the herringbone pattern flooring on that motion. commissioner baldauf, i, uh, commissioner campbell. yes commissioner. vergara. yes, commissioner. foley i commissioner warren. yes. commissioner. president matsuda. yes. so moved. commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. placing us on item six for case number 2023. hyphen 018130. excuse me. 8130 for the enforcement penalty guidelines, this is for your consideration to adopt. all right. good afternoon, commissioners. corey teague zoning administrator with planning departments. good to see you this afternoon. joined again today by kelly wong, our code enforcement manager. uh, we were here two weeks ago with

this proposal. originally, um, it was continued today just for further consideration, i think for more commissioners to be here. um, the commission didn't request any additional kind of information or documentation from staff, but we are here and available and just, um, as an fyi, we did pass out, um, a hard copy of the presentation on, like, the code enforcement process in general from early this year when we were here before you, um, as well as, um, it was pointed out at the last hearing that the specific recommendations on the 12 factors for the wsa to consider when assessing penalty, we only had 11. we'd left one out. so i wanted to just give all 12 of those in front of you. so those are the two handouts that are there. um, just one quick reminder is that, you know, the this ordinance required action from the hpc and the manner that's before you and also similar action from the planning commission when planning commission took that action on november 30th. they've adopted their resolution and their factors for consideration. and now this is again before you, um, as the hpc. again, there was

no request for additional kind of information or presentation. so i'm not going to go over everything we went over last time, but we are definitely here and available to clarify anything or answer any questions that you may have. commissioners, as this is the second time you're hearing this, uh, should we limit public comment to one minute? sure very good. then, commissioner. very good. commissioners. uh or not? commissioners, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. uh as just stated, this is the second time this is being heard. and the second time we're receiving public comment through the chair. i'll each receive one minute. so one minute. so i that's why i sent you all those emails. so i apologize for that. but i don't

apologize for that. so my point is this i think that it can't hurt to make the these definitions more stringent. i don't know if you had a chance to see the email that i sent this morning around 10:00, i'll put it on the overhead. you're getting copies of it front and back. um i annotated it because it's a little unclear, but those values on there pass muster and i just think that when you look at the back of this, this photo of this handout, that does not seem reasonable. so i'm asking that you consider different values, as i suggested in one of my earlier emails, 32, 42, 32, 32. across the board. i think that's reasonable. i think it's an incentive of i think it better does what you what the legislation is intended to do, which is to stop people from doing something that they shouldn't. and i think that the alteration on the facades is

fine, but it's not necessarily enough to do what you want to do . and i'll stop now. thank you for the minute and merry christmas. thank you. last call for public comment on this item. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no request to speak. public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners, mr. teague, i just had a question about any comments from the planning commission. uh, or new comments or additions that maybe could inform our commission. sure um, nothing specific from the planning commission on since they've they haven't taken any additional had any additional conversations or actions since november 30th. um, i would say one point to, uh, to address miss childish's point, um, is that the ordinance creates two separate thresholds for a preservation violation to be

into eligibility for this higher penalty. one is demolition, which is a higher bar. you have to do more work, theoretically to do more removal to cross that definitional threshold. but the other is significant alteration or damage, which kind of by definition is a lower threshold. and if you meet either one, you're in, you're in the penalty box, so to speak. so um, that's why we talked at the last hearing a little bit about that for non article 1011 resources that are qualified for this penalty. um we proposed for demolition using the proposed definition or the existing definition of de facto demolition in section 317. because we don't have anything else. and you know, it was unclear what kind of analysis would be needed to really come up with a whole new set of criteria for that definition, but also under the definition that was proposed for significant alteration or damage

, most resources in that category. three if you remove the entire front facade, you're going to qualify for, um, significant alteration or damage. so those that type of work, at least a big chunk of it is going to be captured through that bucket as well. so i don't want to i completely understand the comment that and we discussed like in the future when there's more time pass and we see how this works, there may be an appetite to go in and be a little more purposeful with those numbers. and that definition. but for now, kind of this dual threshold situation should capture, um, a lot of those scopes of work that are, you know, we think are very problematic. so i just wanted to kind of make that make that point. i think we still feel comfortable with that recommendation that we provided at the last hearing. the intent of the ordinance. correct thank you. any other questions or comments from the commission? commissioner warren? um, i don't recall. i think it's in the demolition definition. there's a

. second on, um, on i1b um, it says as all external walls two times all all in. and then the second time should all be eliminated. it's just a small wording. um function. yes. i think you're. so you're saying in one b basically all is used twice. the second all should probably is a is a typo. yeah. oh i see that's taken directly from the code. i think there may be a typo in the code. i don't know if the all is needed in that second space. it made it a little confusing, i didn't understand. yeah fair enough. sure. yeah. and we got clarification and oh sorry. go ahead. no, i just want to clarify. kelly wong, uh, code enforcement manager, this is actually in the code, and it distinguished itself from b and c because b is in internal like functions as an, an external wall and c is it functions as

either an external or internal wall. and that means if you create an enclosure around the external wall, that wall now becomes an internal wall. so there's a differentiation between the two. thank you. thank you. did you have other questions. thank you. uh, commissioner baldauf. yeah. um, i really appreciate commissioner baldauf. could you i appreciate this handout. and, um, i'm struck by the small percentage of the complaints that are historic. if i'm understanding that pie chart correctly and i'm interested in the distribution map that you have at and whether you could comment on the district portion of the historic complaints. yes i think we don't

have that information. the kind of readily available we don't have, just the preservation violations mapped out at this point in terms of the distribution. um, other than the pie chart, but you're asking like, take the pie chart and extrapolate that by geography and where the complaints actually happen across the city. yes and i it's not going to stop me from voting on this today, but it would be actually, i would love to get that information if that's something that you can generate. and it leads me to my one comment. um, and, and i think in my conversations with someone on on this because i was concerned about fines of people and the ability of people in certain neighborhoods to be able to pay fines as a cost of doing

business and fines being being, um, crippling to people who are less able and in other and it was said to me, and i just don't know if it needs to be codified in these this criteria for that, the presence of the or the location in, in certain neighborhoods like the ones that are priority neighborhoods, um, could automatically be thought of as being in a different there could be a kind of economic leniency that would be allowed, allowed in those neighborhoods. and by recognizing that as a fact, it might give you cover for doing having that leniency. i mean, and i'm just i'm, i'm just concerned that we have such economic disparity in this city that that you may need. and i fully support that. you need this baseball bat for parts of

san francisco, but i'm not sure it's the right tool in other parts of san francisco. sure. and we thought about things along those lines as well. i think the to the challenges we have with that are, um, one is like, no neighborhood is a monolith, right? it's there's a lot of diversity and a lot of times these projects are the result of people newly purchasing property, um, and then proposing to expand the building. so just because it, the property exists in a neighborhood that maybe is not, well resourced doesn't mean the owner isn't very well resourced. um, and so that's why we didn't feel like specific kind of geography district solution. um, and taking that automatically into account was something we wanted to recommend. but the flip side of that is, is the factors that are proposed are explicit that they are not intended to be the only factors. right. this the zoning administrator is still empowered to consider all other contextual

and related factors when making this decision. it's just that these specific ones are the ones the hpc are saying. this is how you should consider putting your thumb on the scale and in these scenarios. so we definitely will have the opportunity to take in every factor for a case into consideration. if a property owner you know makes the case that you know that they are, you know, not in a financial situation to really be able to address this and that this was, you know, not intentional and all these other things. we can take that into account. that's one reason, another reason why one of the recommendations is to consider whether or not to break this up into annual payments over time instead of one lump sum. and so that could be an outcome where we think it's appropriate to assess a fairly high penalty. but we also understand that the ability to pay may be challenging and counterproductive to actually fixing the violation. and so we'd have the opportunity to break that up into smaller payments annually over time.

thank you. uh, commissioner campbell, um, just a quick comment and a quick question. i, i also found the percentages under demolition a little bit concerning, but what i think i hear you saying is, um, the significant alterations or damage percentage, which is much more conservative at 10, would in a way get triggered if, if a property were to be modified in a irresponsible way. correct. they're kind of two separate definitions and thresholds. and you may have a project that the only work they've done is on the facade, and it's not going to trigger the definition of demo, but it might trigger the definition of significant alteration or damage. and again, you trigger either one. you're in the same boat. um, and so that's that was the point we were making earlier, is that the demo definition and threshold isn't kind of the all or nothing, because we also have this other threshold as well.

and my question is for folks that do modify. significantly up to 10% the repercussion is, are you mean if you if you do cross this threshold? no, if you don't. but you modify 9. right. so then you're just kind of in our standard enforcement process. okay um, and from a penalties perspective, give our penalties there aren't designed to be punitive. they're designed to be used as leverage to get you to abate the violation just to make it right. um, so theoretically, if someone did a 9% situation, then we go through the enforcement process as long as they were engaging with us and working diligently to fix it, they would likely never be assessed penalties. they would be charged time and materials to cover staff time, but they wouldn't be assessed penalties. they would be assessed penalties if they weren't engaging with us and they weren't taking the appropriate actions. and for every day there, we could charge up to $1,000 a day per violation . okay. thank you. sure thank

you. commissioner warren. um, so for that, 75% of existing internal structure or floor, um, removal, um, it says unless that's the only way it's feasible to, to do seismic work. so if, if someone were to come in and take out the floor plates and the internal structure, um. they've already violated it. whether or not it was for the seismic or not. right. um, so, so ideally they would have had that at the beginning and analyzed it and figured out. yes and then get approvals. but once they've done it and not gotten approvals for it ahead of time, does this say that that's like still not a caveat. i'm sorry, not a penalty. right. it's just the internal. so i understand

what you're saying is that because we take this language basically from article and article, article 1011, it's in the existing language that's in the code is kind of designed for if you're coming in and getting authorizations for it. um, and theoretically this determination, if that removal is structural work is necessary, would be done before you got your permits. but in the situation we're talking about, you may have done this work prior to any such determination. so it sounds like your question is could this determination be made kind of after the fact? um, in a way that that, um, doesn't give them a penalty, right. would say, well, even though you did it ahead of time, we determined it would have been necessary. and therefore you're not subject to these penalties. i mean, it'd still be a violation for doing work without permit, right? you still should be in the regular enforcement, um, protocol. um, and i think that's i think that's a good question to point out. and for us to, to work through for the, for the commission to work through because i think the language as it's proposed and as

is in the code would leave open this kind of retroactive concept that you're speaking of. if you don't think that's appropriate, then obviously that could be a change that you make. um, to your proposed definition of demolition for article ten and 11 buildings to kind of take that consideration out. because if you're doing it before you even go through that review process. yeah, i mean, i would recommend not having that second portion for, you know, if it is feasible or if it's necessary for, for seismic work to be done because we don't know why they did it in the get go. they've just violated that, that um, um, limitation on thank you. motion to adopt commissioner campbell, did you have other. okay. sorry commissioner, for motion to adopt. i'll second that. thank you. commissioners if there's nothing further, can can i get

clarification? is that including the proposal that was just made correct with to strike that language? correct okay. thank you. striking what language? i'm sorry to strike the language from, um, one d and the recommendation for demolition. um starting with unless until the end of that sentence. and then the second, all. okay. and we'll get rid of the second all in one b as well. thank you. isn't that didn't you say that was the in the code? well, the language is we took it from code which not the hpc recommendation would not be amending code. got it, got it. yes. right very good. commission is it because it's it is functional okay. it's not an error in the way it's written. it's probably written very, um, maybe unclear, but one b is when a wall. is left

functioning as like all the walls are left as functioning exterior walls. and then one c is if it is removed and it functions as either an exterior or interior wall. so it's kind of they're almost like three different calculations that you would have to go through. i guess, for including d. so one, you first do the calculation for a, which is 25% of the surface of any sort of siding on the front facade. b is all walls. so 50% of all walls, its function as exterior. so if they exceed the threshold then they're like a demolition. so c if they are 25% of all walls that are either . exterior or external or internally functioning, then that's another threshold. so it's almost like you have to go through every single threshold to say, do you exceed that one

threshold to be defined as a demolition under section 1005? commissioner warren? so you're saying the second all is a necessary it is necessary, yes. okay thank you. if i may, um, this deputy city attorney, just for clarifying or it sounds like we're interpreting all external walls in this case to mean entirely external or completely external. is that the correct way to read that language entirely external? yes. internal right. okay. thank you. so okay, so there is a motion that has been seconded. and if i understand correctly, do we need to revisit that motion? well, if i'll read it into the record as fast as i understand it and you correct me if i'm wrong. okay. thank you. that that would be lovely, because i think the one b has been resolved and is no

longer part of the motion. right so the motion that was made, made and seconded was to strike um, in one d um staff from unless to the end of the sentence, otherwise adopting the resolution as is. yes. correct with that commissioners commissioner baldauf i commissioner campbell. yes. commissioner vergara. yes. commissioner. foley i. commissioner. warren. yes. and commissioner. president. matsuda. yes. so move. commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. and we'll place this on the final item on your final hearing of 2023. number seven, case number 2016. hyphen 013156 cv. hyphen. zero for the sf survey update and draft findings. this is for your consideration to adopt. modify or disapprove .

okay. good afternoon, commissioners maggie smith planning department staff here to present on the san francisco citywide cultural resources survey sf survey for short. so i'll first provide a brief overview for those watching who may be new to sf survey and provide project updates based on the 2023 progress report included in your packets. i'll then pass it off to my project co-lead, melanie bishop, to share our first batch of draft findings, which are for the inner sunset neighborhood commercial district. an overview

sf survey is a multi year effort supported by the san francisco planning department to identify and document places and resources of cultural, historic and architectural importance to san francisco's diverse communities. this includes both tangible and intangible aspects of our cultural heritage. though we are presently focused on the tangible built environment today . the purpose of ss survey is to one support community led cultural empowerment efforts through partnerships, programing and historic preservation protections and incentives. and two standardize the historic resource review process for the california environmental quality act. building permit applications. development projects, and area plans sf survey takes a collaborative approach to preservation planning, where we see community as the cultural heritage guides that steer our process and

findings, and us at the city as regulatory process experts and guides to support community. our methodology consists of various interconnected components. the citywide historic context statement, which informs our field work, research and evaluations and result in our findings and are all publicly shared in sf cultural heritage. our online platform for powered by arches. we also have the intangible cultural heritage methodology under development and all encompassing community engagement that is part of every aspect of sf survey. for each phase we follow an iterative workflow. our first step is to gather existing information, such as reviewing historic context statements, past documentation and unadopted surveys. we then conduct fieldwork back in the office. we complete research and evaluation

by providing a baseline level of information for all properties, and we review for various associations with people, organizations, community stories, and context statements. each property is evaluated under a minimum of two historic context statements, one architectural and one thematic. additional information is filled out for properties identified as historic resources. staff assign a california historical resource status code and all work is reviewed internally. then shared for public review, including here at hpc. upon adoption, our last step is to update the property information map with the draft findings. ultimately, changing properties from a category b unknown age eligible to category a historic resource present or category c no historic resource present. as you all know, we've been hard at work since 2020 with the

development of the citywide historic context statement and community engagement. our pilot began last year and we officially began field work at the start of this year. we're excited to be bringing our first round of draft findings to you. a huge milestone for sf survey. with over 120,000 properties to evaluate. we anticipate the project extending into 2027 and beyond. we are a small team of full and part time staff, supported by a large internal and external network, including our community partners, consultants and you all. and now onto some updates. we have been utilizing and iterating on the community engagement framework. initial we developed in 2022. the framework serves as a roadmap for the engagement and collaboration strategies related to our project components and partnerships that guide and inform sf survey. it's an adaptive process continually refined based on new information

and evolving community needs. we've developed and worked to maintain a range of tools and materials to share sf survey information and seek input through a variety of methods. one of our latest tools is community stories, an online form connected to sf cultural heritage that offers a place for the public to collaborate and contribute to sf survey by sharing stories, memories, oral histories and documents like photographs that are important to the culture and history of their community. paper versions of the form are also available in english, spanish, chinese, tagalog, japanese, and russian. we've brought copies to pass out today and as well as prepaid envelopes for people to send back to us. just over on the table. so throughout the year.

sf survey has maintained formed or begun to form invaluable partnerships with these listed organizations. the team and consultant in common have begun using memorandums of collaboration, mocks to formally support with the collaborative efforts of community partners, contributors and staff. excuse me, we've attended, presented and coordinated a number of community engagement events over the past year as a result, we've begun utilizing a community input dashboard to identify global themes that help staff and communities track and advance areas of community concern and interest. we want to highlight the african american historic context statement open forum at the george w davis senior center this past september, which was a significant milestone in this years long effort with several months of community collaboration and multi

partnership, it exemplified our ideal of what we hope to see for future engagement events, provide guiding helpful information and creating a real celebratory, uplifting atmosphere. we've adopted several thematic, geographic and architectural historic context statements over the past few years. most recently, architect architecture and planning and preservation professionals, a collection of biographies in october. to. we're actively working with community on several cultural historic context statements. for the african american historic context statement. we're partnering to develop another open forum early next year. our in progress thematic and architectural historic context statements are split up between staff and consultant s, as shown here. with the adoption of the

neighborhood commercial buildings historic context statement in 2022, existing unadorned neighborhood commercial building survey information and considering the emphasis of future rezoning along commercial corridors on the west side of the city, our current focus for phase one is on neighborhood commercial districts. future phase locations will be determined based on community readiness, historic context, statement status, and staff capacity. as shown here, we first completed fieldwork in japantown and fillmore neighborhood commercial district s, then the inner sunset and cds and we've most recently completed field work in the richmond ncds. upcoming in 2024. staff alongside community partners and consultants will continue to develop and finalize

additions, context, sub context and theme documents as a part of the citywide historic context statement. we will continue to implement and refine our strategy with an emphasis on supporting community led outcomes and continuing to cultivate those invaluable community partnerships. we aim to complete fieldwork and evaluations in the neighborhood commercial districts by the end of 2024. neighborhood. commercial districts for fieldwork include. upcoming include west portal, outer sunset, parkside, bayview, and the excelsior. staff will complete engagement and draft findings for a richmond ncd and continue community engagement with the japantown and fillmore communities to inform evaluations. i'll now pass it off to melanie. thank you. thanks maggie, and good afternoon, commissioners melanie

bishop, department staff. um, as maggie mentioned today, we're excited to bring before you the first round of sf survey findings for the inner sunset neighborhood commercial district . and before i begin my presentation, i'd like to note that we've made some refinements to the content in your packet. uh, to communicate information more accurately regarding property specific findings. a memo with these clarifications was sent to you yesterday, and we've also provided a hard copy for today's hearing. and it's important to note, uh, no changes were made to final determinations of california historical resource status codes since the publication of the packet on november 29th. rather several properties that were ready to be adopted as draft finding and assigned a status code were wrongly categorized. so the survey area for these draft sf survey findings is the

inner sunset neighborhood commercial district, which is defined by the planning code and zoning map of the city and county of san francisco. it is located primarily along irving street between fifth avenue and 19th avenue, with sections along ninth avenue and judah street. documentation was collected from july to october of 2023 using sf cultural heritage or arches, and involve gathering baseline property information for all buildings located within the survey area that had not been previously surveyed, and those that had not been previously assigned a california historic resource status code. and as maggie mentioned, after further research, evaluation and community engagement, each property was assigned a status code and we now have a finding. so in total, we surveyed 211

properties within the neighborhood commercial district . of those, we found 51 individually eligible properties and one historic district, which will be changed to category a historic resource present in our property information map. we also found 179 properties that were not eligible for listing individually or within a historic district, and these properties will be changed to category c no historic resource in our property information map. and just to highlight again, each property was evaluated using relevant citywide historic context statement evaluative frameworks. and the evaluations incorporate information from these documents as the context statements that you see here on this slide were consulted throughout the process of drafting findings for the inner sunset neighborhood commercial district. so in the interest of

time, i don't have time to go through all 200. but i'm going to walk you through some of our evaluated ones just so that you can get a sense of our survey methodology and as i mentioned previously, the department determined that 15 buildings appear eligible for listing on the california register as individual historic resources. so two examples of properties found to be individually eligible are 815 to 827 irving street and 807 lincoln way, which you can see on the slide. 815 to 827 irving street was found eligible under criterion one. events and three architecture for its associate with the modernization of neighborhood storefronts in the inner sunset. while the property has been altered since its original construction date of 1912, likely in the 1930s, according to assessor photos, the storefront alterations have gained significance in their own

right. the property utilizes art deco detailing and the incorporation of modern materials and finishes, and it is also the last location of the iconic chain of rexall drug stores in san francisco, and still displays the classic orange and blue signage. finally the building's original owner was prominent irish businessman patrick furlong. therefore, this property may be evaluated for significance under the irish american historic context statement. after its completion at a later date, the little shamrock, located at 807 lincoln way, was found eligible under criterion one. events and three architecture. establish. in the 1890s by anton and julia herzog to serve crowds arriving at golden gate park's midwinter fair. the little shamrock is the sunset district's oldest business and one of the oldest bars in san francisco. the property appears to have been altered at least three times. in

1908, 1912, and 1924, respectively. however, while the building does not retain its original appearance, these changes do do not impact the building's appearance or significance, and its ability to convey its significance. as one of the oldest commercial buildings and businesses in the sunset district, it. so two additional examples of properties that staff found eligible for listing are 1609 to 1611 irving street and 800 irving street, 1609 to 1611 irving street was found eligible under criterion three for architecture as an intact example of a small scale, mixed use art deco building which is a relatively rare property type in san francisco. the subject property retains a great deal of integrity and expresses its style through bold geometry and vertical emphasis, with notable

elements including its upper story, stepped arched bays, capped fluted columns with vertical speed lines, and intact residential and commercial entry . the bank of america, located at 800 irving street, was also found eligible for listing on the california register under criterion three as an intact example of a bank built as part of the bank of america's expansion in of neighborhood bank branches in the 1960s. built in 1963, this branch was designed by architecture firm of merritt, wurster, bernardi and emmons and utilizes elements of the mid-century modern style, which was a radical break from earlier designs of the time. the building retains integrity and is an example excellent example of a mid-century bank building. and as i also mentioned previously, department staff also found one historic district within the inner sunset ncaa,

located at the intersection of irving street and 15th avenue. the irving and 15th avenue neighborhood commercial district historic district contains three properties, all of which contribute to the district constructed in 1926, the district represents the early development of irving street as a commercial corridor and its unified by the use of brick as a primary facade material and classical or renaissance revival architectural detailing. in including flat roof, cornice and modillion, and decorative cast plaster moldings as. and as i mentioned, there's an error on this slide, but it should be. we found 179 properties do not appear to qualify as eligible individual properties or contributors to districts, and we determined that these properties were ineligible for a variety of reasons, including level of alterations, as well as

not meeting the period of significance or eligibility requirements as outlined in relevant historic context statements. and you can see some examples on this slide here. and finally, there is a grouping of properties that we did not evaluate or are pending evaluation. and this is due to age eligibility requirement, its or completion of relevant historic context statements. there are 36 of these properties that may be associated with the below historic context. statements on the slide that are not yet complete, and staff has flagged these properties for future evaluation. once the relevant historic context statement is completed and adopted by this commission, the completion of these cultural historic context statements will help tell a more full story. story of properties across san francisco. so. okay, so what

does this all mean through the lens of existing policy properties found to be category a historic resource present, it will require more regulatory protection and may be eligible for local land marking category a properties may also be eligible for historic incentives and use of the california historical building code and category c properties, though while not considered historic resources under sequa, may still be eligible for the legacy business registry and other cultural heritage programs. and we are able to bring these findings before you today. after conducting community engagement. as maggie touched on previously informational postcards were mailed to all property owners and occupants within the inner sunset and cdd. ahead of conducting field work and evaluations, we held a variety of events and meetings seen on this slide and spoke with neighbors while out in the field

and finally 20 day mailed and emailed notification was sent to all property owners and occupants ahead of today's hearing. even after adoption. we'll continue to take comment on these findings from community members as and if new information is provided regarding a specific property, we may revise that finding. just to highlight the feedback that we received during community engagement. the feedback that we heard covered a wide variety of themes and we are tracking this feedback and will continue to address these items as staff capacity allows. through the life of the project. i also want to note, importantly, that we're working to develop a partnership with sf heritage to review our draft findings on an ongoing basis, and we've received comment from sf heritage on several properties included in today's findings, and their comments have been incorporated.

so in conclusion, we are really excited to be before you today as this is a huge milestone for the project that we're presenting. today's findings summarized here with a recommendation for adoption. and this concludes our presentation, and we're happy to answer any additional questions. so thank you. thank you all. good work. very good with that, we should take public comment. members of the public, if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. good afternoon, woody labounty from san francisco heritage. jonas, i just got a couple of texts that people were having trouble with. the phone system. i don't know if it's their trouble or the city's trouble, but i just wanted to call your attention to that. okay um, i want to offer my thanks to melanie, maggie, and the whole survey team for taking the time to work closely

with san francisco heritage on this first set of findings for adoption in. we had a lot of questions on evaluation and the methodology, and i think we had fruitful and productive conversations over the last few weeks. we asked that a couple of the properties be held back from this batch for further review and evaluation, pending the approval of some of those context statements. and they very kindly complied to do that. um, we all know this is a very important project, long conceived and developed and we want it to be a success. and appreciate being heard and being part of this process. i think an even more difficult job is ahead, which is namely explaining to the public and the property owners what determination of a historic resource means for them, especially in the current environment with the housing element and the housing production legislation coming forward? so i look forward to that and heritage will try to

help with that process. um, and identifying, for example, a small historic district is one thing, but, um, you know, getting to designate of that district and getting some real protections for it is another process that is, uh, that needs to be planned for. and that's all i guess i would say about that. but really, i want to thank planning and the whole survey team for being open and accessible and working with us closely on this. thank you. thank you. okay if there are no other members of the public in the chambers coming forward, let's take our remote callers. so good afternoon. can you hear me? okay. yes we can. great, great. it's bridget maley. um, i had my hand up for the last thing, but i think i might have done something wrong. so anyway, i'm glad you got me this time. um, thanks for all of this great

information. this is a great milestone in in working towards surveying the city. um, i'm calling in to just echo the comments of mr. labounty and heritage to say that, um, uh, i have walked this area, uh, and i and i'm glad to hear that there's some, uh, rethinking that might occur with several of the property, um, in the survey area. um, with regard to methodology and the community outreach, i would be curious to know, um, with regard to the community stories, were there specific community stories that were submitted that related to irving street? um, was there a specific meeting? um i think the slide went by a little fast. i think it said there was a specific meeting with the merchants along irving street, but i'd be curious for clarification on that. um, and then just kind of how all of this relates to, um, uh, the upzoning that's about to happen in a lot of these neighborhood commercial corridors. i mean, irving street is going to be up

zoned to 85ft. that's eight stories. how does this information get folded into planning? um, for the upzoning of these historic commercial corridors? um, uh, you know, there's other commercial corridors that we need to survey. clement balboa, union pulp, chestnut, all of these commercial corridors are zoned for 6 to 8 stories. um so i just hope that the commission will, um, will ask some pointed questions about how this information is going to get folded into decision making about upzoning. um, these historic neighborhood commercial corridors are a deep part of our city's fabric, and they're home to many of our small, unique businesses. and i'll just remind you that we limit formula retail in neighborhood commercial zones. so what small business is going to be able to afford rent in the base of an eight story marketrillionate building? um, so in summary, please look more carefully at this. irving street corridor as heritage has pointed out. and please prioritize the

survey of additional neighborhood corridors, uh, including consideration of more extensive historic districts that would protect these resources, as i'll also just remind you that shane watson and i have fully documented ocean avenue, um, and that, you know, if there's a rush to get these in, you said you've got all the ocean avenue information that you need. thank you. so much. okay. last call for public comment. again, if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners public comment is closed and this matter is now before you. thank you. commissioner vergara. i just wanted to say to miss smith and miss bishop, uh, the field work and research that you do on projects like this is just amazing. you and your colleagues , uh, the city is really fortunate to have caring and committed public servants like

you. and i hope that despite the budget constraints that the city is dealing with, that you'll be able to continue that that excellent work you do. and i only wish the fire station, the gas station at 16th and irving had held on a little longer, so it could have been part of this survey. thank you. thank you, commissioner foley. i just want to second commissioner vergara's marks. thank you very much for those. thank you. commissioner baldauf. yes, i agree, it's amazing, commissioner baldauf, you need to hear it. it's amazing amount of work and i, i concur with all of those comments. and i particularly want to commend you for including the bank of america branch. i think that too often, um, modern buildings aren't given their due. and i think the texture of the street having its mix of buildings is, is particularly powerful. and the

character of the street. and it brings me to my question about the historic district. uh, for me, the historic district is the least compelling thing that you've presented. and i'm nervous about it because. because i want all of san francisco to buy into this. and i'm nervous that our first historic district in a commercial zone is not compelling in my mind. i i would not personally have thought to nominate it as a historic district. so maybe you can give a little more of your thinking because it's strange. oh that two of the buildings were associated with a movie theater that's gone. i mean, i don't why why this is so compelling. i'd like you to elaborate on. sure. um thank you for that question. melanie bishop, department staff. um so a couple things, i think, i think when we were out

in the field, we were struck by those three buildings in particular because because of their brick construction, um, and how relatively rare that is on the west side. but maybe in most neighborhoods of san francisco, not all, but most. um, and i think when we saw that grouping together, while it has been pretty altered, i think we would consider those buildings types relatively rare within the neighborhood. commercial districts. um, if they are x tant, i think they are very altered. so that's something we have to think about. um, and i think our method towards creating historic districts has changed over the last several years. um, and consultants can probably speak to this too, but, um, i think we're trying to create smaller historic districts that are more focused around and, um, a very be kind of direct period of significance

where all the buildings relate very clearly to each other. uh, i think in the, in the past and currently, a lot of our existing , um, california register eligible districts are relatively large, and the properties within those districts have not been assigned contributing or noncontributing status. um, so i think with the survey we're trying to create smaller for more defensible historic districts. um, and acknowledging that the buildings in this one have been pretty altered. we do feel like it's a significant example of early 20th century commercial construction on on the west side, where there we don't have a lot of representation for historic resources. thank you. i commissioner campbell, i had a

similar question about the district, and i, i wondered, um, is it just more than one building? would we would we consider looking at the three buildings as, as resource versus looking at it as a district act? and what would get triggered, like if i owned the building next to these, am i out of that district or am i considered part of it? yes thank you for that question. um, that actually brings up a point that i forgot to mention. so i think, um, another point for making this a historic district is often the threshold of integrity for individual buildings, nominating or listing something. individually on the california register is pretty high. um, and we felt that looking at these individually with blinders on, just solely at each single property, because of the level of alteration, we felt like it'd be really hard to argue to list each one individually. early when we're creating a small

historic district. i think there's, um, a bit more wiggle room when it comes to integrity. and so that's kind of another reason why we took that approach is maybe we don't feel like listing each of these individually is defensible. but if we can list them together, there's clearly a relation. they were developed around the same time by the same person. that argument's a little bit stronger. i think. and um, to your point about kind of what happens with properties next to the district, another kind of pro that these are all in one line, conveniently, conveniently. next to each other, is that, um, only properties within that district will be kind of required to follow historic preservation standards when it comes to renovating or maintaining their building. um, if there was a property within that boundary that maybe didn't contribute to the historic district, they

would be required to follow those same set of standards relatively, um, but because this is a small district and we're not including any surrounding properties, that makes it a bit cleaner and better for other property owners. um they're not having to adhere to this historic district. it's really just the three properties that are, like most contributing thing, if that makes sense. yeah, yeah, just to add on that, commissioner. so as we look at other either noncontributing properties that are within the district boundaries, um, we would look for relationships between the new and the old. but since we don't have any kind of strict adopted standards currently guiding our districts, we would only look at it in the sake of a sequel context currently. so as we that's one of our work plan goals for next year, is to start looking at more, um, adopted standards basically for design in and looking at our, um, new and existing properties. so thank

you, commissioner nageswaran. um, you know, going off of what commissioner campbell was also talking about and the public comment, um, i'm interested in knowing that you you've identified, um, category c buildings, which are not contributing or not individually significant. um, so and then you have these other buildings that are eligible, eligible to the california register and, you know, in preservation, we often evaluate and determine something is eligible loyal to the california register. but now it's become more critical to understand, um, listing is becoming more important point um listing on the california register because of the housing element. um, and how that affects, um, the buildings in that area and the, the

explanation for, um, commissioner campbell's question was interesting in that the, you know, the buildings that are within a district, um, would adhere to a certain standard and the adjacent buildings may not adhere to that standard. so it means that, you know, it opens a door to, you know, the 80 foot tall, um, you know, housing, you know, element or the housing, um, project. thank you. um, and. i think it would be interesting to know how we approach each, um, listing on the california register if we pursue that. but also those zoning issue of if this is a commercial corridor, what how are we going to zone this in terms of housing? um, is

it going to be zoned to be allowed allowing housing to go on these on these corridors, or is the housing happening behind these corridors? um, so i think we need to start to understand what what is happening in these areas and how to, um, categorize them as listed or eligible and, and how, how they're zoned. um, i don't know if you have any input on how that could happen in. yeah, i think i'll happily address this since it's probably related to for a future hearing that you'll probably have on the rezoning effort. um, you know, right now what the survey is doing is presenting information out to the public, out to our decision makers with regard to what exists in our built landscape. you know, we are pretty specific that the survey is about information and making sure we understand our historic

resources, things like designation and things like the rezoning, um, ultimate. we need to be made by by others, right? like i think specifically for designation, you know, and pursuing landmarking and other forms of protections. we do want to make sure that the community is well heard in that voice. right. and especially when we're looking at, for example, state and federal listing owner consent is typically required in those instances, as in a lot of cases. so that becomes a big factor in terms of the level of outreach you do with the property owners. um you know, as we do look at the rezoning efforts, the a lot of these corridors have been identified. the housing element clearly did show that, you know, the city plans to meet our housing goals this way. and so it's one of these many competing goods that the city has that we want to make sure that people are very. aware of what is out there. and then make informed decisions

and, you know, provide for protections accordingly, but also provide for growth. so, um, and one follow up question to, um, one of the public comments, uh, was, you know, how are we dealing with the other corridors that may not be in this survey group? um can you give some background on the priorities? sure. so i think one of the slides that maggie had kind of noted where we're going to next for neighborhood commercial districts, uh, and i do want to note that one of the planned areas is ocean avenue. we know that bridget maley has prepared documentation, shane watson so that would be a priority for us to move forward, because we do have that, um, existing documentation that we just need to flesh out a bit more. but if i could get the slide again.

okay so on this slide here under field work, that is kind of the order of our next priorities. so, um, understanding that the west side is going to be where most of the burden is carried for upzoning, that's where we're prioritizing. and then we'll kind of continue to south and to the east. um, incorporating in our priority equity geographies. would you say some of the other areas that miss maley mentioned, like union street? um fillmore street, are they? well documented? um, in terms of categories of buildings? yeah. fillmore so, um, i know. that there have been a fair amount of, uh, historic resource evaluation responses there. so that would definitely guide our work. but we also what we're

using for the basis of our work is a draft survey that was conducted by department staff, i think, in 2016. so we do have a basis of documentation for all these districts already. um, given the time that has passed, though, we are just going back and documenting any alterations that have occurred. but a lot of the research and kind of neighborhood context is already there for us, which is nice. um, and the one other thing i wanted to mention was the, you know, the properties within in the areas that you're surveying are, uh, going to be documented as category a and c, and you know, some intermittent be, um, buildings that haven't been evaluated, um, at and other, um, areas of the city would still continue to do the historic resources review to, um, to determine whether they are a or

c category buildings. um, so yes, that's correct. and the idea is once we finish with surveying the neighborhood, commercial districts, uh, we'll then look at phasing for the residential areas of the city. but until then, that process will continue kind of concurrently. um, thank you, commissioner baldauf. yeah so i want to go back or just continue on this conversation around the neighborhood. commercial district, because the whole conversation about what are we going to do with the housing element and everything, i find it very interesting that one of these three buildings actually does have two stories of housing on it. it's one of the interruptions in scale, and i wouldn't personally mind seeing housing above the other two brick buildings and creating a cohesive massing on both sides of the street there, and i'm nervous that we're making these two other brick buildings, um,

at the highest level of, um, well, within the neighborhood we are we're saying that this is a district, right? i mean, they can't i mean, could could you put multiple levels of housing on these buildings? yes yes you could. there's the short answer. yeah. so keep in mind like what we're doing is providing for whether or not a historic resource exists on a site. any future owner or property owner can develop their property accordingly. understanding that that is the existing context. and then work through our existing processes accordingly with with those facts. so, um, you know, the survey doesn't specifically say you can't demolish anything. it doesn't say that, you know, anything is specifically protected. we give, you know, kind of opportunity in terms of the story that has been told here and kind of uncovering and recognizing the histories that have occurred on the site.

thank you. um, i would also like to echo everybody's support and appreciate all of your hard work and your personal efforts to really encourage community. um, and as you probably noticed or probably heard from the voices, uh, of the owners and of the residents in the sunset, it's changing. it's gone from a community that has had residents there for many generations, years and decades to a new constituency. and i'm just hoping that as that transition happens, that you're able to collect those stories because those are really important stories and those were very challenging times for a lot of people who were the first maybe of their family or generation to move into those neighborhoods. so i encourage people all as they're leaving their homes or

selling their homes, and selling it off to a new family or a new business to not dump all their their wonderful memorabilia. and because that's that's part of the census history, it's the sunset and the richmond in particular, that i've seen probably a lot more change than other places in terms of just generations. is generation who've been there, and now we're we're just seeing a new a new community coming around. so thank you very much. any other comments or questions from the commission motion to adopt. second commissioner beauregard, did you have a question or comment? i was going to make the motion to adopt. thank you. there's nothing further, commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to adopt the survey on that motion. commissioner baldauf i commissioner campbell. yes. commissioner vergara. yes.

commissioner. foley i commissioner warren. yes. and commission president. matsuda. yes. so move. commissioners that motion passes unanimously. six. and i'd like to conclude our historic preservation commission meeting today in memory and of great, great appreciation, um, to gigi platt, who was a strong and fearless advocate of historic and cultural preservation in the city and county of san francisco. thank you, everyone. happy holidays. .

>> (music). >> the ferry building one of san francisco most famous that

as many of 15 thousand commuters pass through that each gay. >> one of the things that one has to keep in mind regarding san francisco is how young the city we are. and nothing is really happening here before the gold rush. there was a small spanish in the presiding and were couriers and fisherman that will come in to rest and repair their ships but at any given time three hundred people in san francisco. and then the gold rush happened. by 182948 individuals we are here to start a new life.

>> by 1850 roughly 16 thousand ships in the bay and left town in search of gold leaving their ships behind so they scraped and had the ships in the bay and corinne woods. with sand the way that san francisco was and when you look at a map of san francisco have a unique street grid and one of the thing is those streets started off in extremely long piers. but by 1875 they know they needed more so the ferry building was built and it was a long affair and the first cars turned around at the ferry building and picking up people and goods and then last night the street light cars the

trams came to that area also. but by the late 1880s we needed something better than the ferry building. a bond issue was passed for $600,000. to build a new ferry building i would say 800 thousand for a studio apartment in san francisco they thought that was a grand ferry building had a competition to hire an architecture and choose a young aspiring architect and in the long paris and san francisco had grand plans for this transit station. so he proposed the beautiful new building i wanted it wider, there is none tonight. than that actually is but the price of concrete quitclaim two how and was not completed and

killed. but it opened a greater claim and became fully operational before 1898 and first carriages and horses for the primary mode of transportation but market street was built up for serve tram lines and streetcars could go up to the door to embarcadero to hospitals and mission street up to nob hill and the fisherman's area. and then the earthquake hit in 190 six the ferry building collapsed the only thing had to be corrected once the facade of the tower. and 80 percent of the city would not

survive the buildings collapsed the streets budges and the trams were running and buildings had to highland during the fire after the actuate tried to stop the mask fire in the city so think of a dennis herrera devastation of a cable car they were a mess the streets were torn up and really, really wanted to have a popular sense they were on top of that but two weeks after the earthquake kind of rigged a way getting a streetcar to run not on the cable track ran electrical wires to get the streetcars to run and 2 was pretty controversial tram system wanted electrical cars but the earthquake gave them to

chance to show how electrical cars and we're going to get on top this. >> take 10 years for the city to rebuild. side ferry use was increasing for a international exhibition in 1950 and people didn't realize how much of a community center the ferry building was. it was the center for celebration. the upper level of ferry building was a gathering place. also whenever there was a war like the filipino war or world war two had a parade on market street and the ferry building would have banners and to give you an idea how central to the citywide that is what page brown wanted

to to be a gathering place in that ferry building hay day the busiest translation place in the world how people got around transit and the city is dependent on that in 1915 of an important year that was the year of our international exposition 18 million living in san francisco and that was supposedly to celebrate the open of panama differential but back in business after the earthquake and 22 different ferry boats to alamed and one had the and 80 trips a day a way of life and in 1918 san francisco was hit hard by the flu pandemic and city had mask mandates and anyone caught

without a doubt a mask had a risk ever being arrested and san francisco was hit hard by the pandemic like other places and rules about masks wearing and what we're supposed to be more than two people without our masks on i read was that on the ferry those guys wanted to smoke their pipes and taking off their masks and getting from trouble so two would be hauled away. >> the way the ferry building was originally built the lower level with the natural light was used for take it off lunge storage. the second floor was where passengers offloaded and all those people would spill out and central stairway of the building that is interesting

point to talk about because such a large building one major stairway and we're talking about over 40 thousand people one of the cost measures was not building a pedestrian bridge with the ferry building and the embarcadero on market street was actually added in and in 1918 but within 20 years to have san francisco bay the later shipbuilding port in the world and the pacific we need the iron that. as the ferry system was at the peak two bridges to reach san francisco. and automobiles were a popular item that people wanted to drive themselves around instead of the ferry as a result marin and other roots

varnished. the dramatic draw in ferry usage was staggering who was using the ferry that was a novelty rather than a transportation but the ferry line stopped one by one because everyone was getting cars and wanted to drive and cars were a big deal. take the care ferry and to san francisco and spend the day or for a saturday drive but really, really changed having the car ferry. >> when the bay bridge was built had a train that went along the lower level so that was a major stay and end up where our sales force transit center is now another way of getting into the city little by little the ferry stopped having

a purpose. >> what happened in the 40 and 50's because of this downturn we were trying to find a purpose a number of proposals for a world trade center and wanted to build it own the philly in a terrible idea objective never gotten down including one that had too tall towers a trade center in new york but a tower in between that was a part of ferry building and completely impractical. after the cars the tower administration wanted to keep americans deployed and have the infrastructure for the united states. so they had an

intrastate free plan the plan for major freeway systems to go throughout san francisco. and so the developers came up with the bay bridge and worked their way along embarcadero. the plans were to be very, very efficient for that through town he once the san francisco saw had human services agency happening 200 though people figure out city hall offender that the embarcadero free was dropped and we had the great free to no where. which cut us off from the ferry building and our store line and created in 1989 and gave us the opportunity to tear down the free. and that was the

renaissance of ferry building. >> that land was developed for a new ferry building and whom new embarcadero how to handle travel and needed a concept for the building didn't want- that was when a plan was developed for the liquor store. >> the san francisco ferry building has many that ups and downs and had a huge hay day dribbled adopt to almost nothing and after the earthquake had a shove of adrenaline to revise the waterfront and it moved around the bay and plans for more so think investment in the

future and feel that by making a reliable ferry system once the ferry building will be there to surface. >> offer.

>> congratulations on thirty years sfgovtv. your that excellence award-winning programming be shines the light would people need to know about the city thank you for your all you do to show the heritage and bright future more importantly and thank you for your thirty years >> our market street program started in 1992. the goal was to bring arts to an audience who may not be normally be exposed to

contemporary art. for 2023, we chose comics as the median to highlight san francisco. it could be fix al, science fiction. history. >> i'm fan, i'm illustrator and writer, i grew up all over the bay area. and is post history no history no south. i've been drawing since i was probably four or five. it's just a cool memory, i just remember painting my apron in kindergarten and i would suddenly start painting myself. it was cartoon, it got me excited. in my home life, it was not consistent but what was on tv is always consistent. there is always xy z- channel,

cartoon, i would wait for the cartoons to freeze and chase really fast. i remember getting into anemai as a kid, as a young person because it was one of the avenues of asian-american expression that i can relate to. my project is i'm highlighting 6 trailblazers who's family was tied to san francisco. they all have different forms of art expression. but i noticed through the research that there is a common that connects them all, which is this desire to live life authentically, organickly, speak of the love that they believe in. i made it art students and learning about art history and the place in art with the context of learning about their predecessors. >> sinsawa is synonymous of san

francisco. there is a school named after her. >> wasn't she also in stamp? her art was in 2020. >> do you think she would become a artist? >> hmm, i think she was like 100s of other in the city that love the art. when there is no audience or income, why do we still make art? >> well because we seek to know ourselves and one has to believe like alela, we make art for a lifetime not just a career. i think for some, artist like breathing, it's how we know we're alive. >> it's so incredible to do this project and do the experience that connects generation, the full experience of being artist. >> comics have a rich history in san francisco even from early 20th century.

we also wanted to open up public art opportunities for artist that don't normally apply to public art. >> i hope it stays with them and lingers and they chew on it and think about it. and it may not make a big impact but it's something that opens up the door or starts the conversation or the beginning of something. i would like for it to be a start, whether it's a start of research or start of pondering, yeah, what does it mean to be an artist? and how do i decolonize my mind?